From the monthly archives:

September 2005

The Last Hangman

by James McNally on September 18, 2005

in Film Festivals, TIFF

The Last Hangman

The Last Hangman (UK, dir­ector Adrian Shergold): Between 1933 and 1955, Albert Pierrepoint was Britain’s Chief Executioner, respons­ible for more than 600 hangings. Timothy Spall gives a dev­ast­ating per­form­ance as a decent man engaged in the lone­liest of pro­fes­sions. The title is some­what mis­leading. Hangings were car­ried out until 1964, but Pierrepoint was the last man to hold the offi­cial office of Chief Executioner.

As the film begins, Pierrepoint is proud to be offered a job as a hangman, fol­lowing in his father’s and uncle’s foot­steps. Since he’s only needed every few months, he main­tains his job as a grocer’s deliv­eryman and keeps his moon­lighting a secret from his friends and even his wife (Juliet Stevenson). He is very good at his new pro­fes­sion, and is determ­ined to com­plete each job as quickly and humanely as pos­sible. It’s a bit odd seeing him trying to shave seconds off the time required for each exe­cu­tion, much like a pro­fes­sional ath­lete trying for a world record. That is, until you realize that his desire is for the pris­oner to have as little time as pos­sible to be afraid. After each exe­cu­tion, it falls to Pierrepoint to cut down the body and pre­pare it for burial, and it’s touching to see the ten­der­ness he dis­plays. After the exe­cu­tion of one woman, he tells his assistant, “She’s paid the price, now she’s innocent.”

Pierrepoint’s repu­ta­tion grows and after the war, he’s flown to Germany by the British Army and placed in charge of executing scores of Nazi war crim­inals. As a result, his secret is leaked to the press, who now broad­cast his iden­tity as the finest hangman in the land. With his earn­ings from these jobs, he and his wife decide to open a pub(!), which does a booming busi­ness, thanks in part to his notoriety.

But the job begins to take a ter­rible toll. Even after he tells his wife about his second pro­fes­sion, she doesn’t want to hear about it. Nobody really wants to hear about it. When protestors start demon­strating against cap­ital pun­ish­ment, Pierrepoint finds him­self the target of their ire. Doubts begin to creep in to des­troy his pre­vi­ously unshak­able faith in what he does. By the mid-1950s, Albert Pierrepoint resigns his pos­i­tion (ostens­ibly over unpaid fees) and com­pletely reverses his own pos­i­tion on cap­ital pun­ish­ment, though he ini­tially keeps his opin­ions to him­self. In his 1974 auto­bi­o­graphy, how­ever, he finally con­fesses that the whole exper­i­ence had left a bitter after­taste for him and that he felt that cap­ital pun­ish­ment had “achieved nothing but revenge.”

Though this is a fairly standard biopic and “issue film,” the per­form­ances of Juliet Stevenson and espe­cially Timothy Spall are remark­able. Pierrepoint’s determ­in­a­tion to remain detached takes a ter­rible toll on his life and is bound to fail even­tu­ally. The obvious con­clu­sion is that killing cor­rodes our humanity, whether the killer is a mur­derer or an exe­cu­tioner on the state’s payroll.

Note: This film was retitled Pierrepoint upon its release.

More on Albert Pierrepoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Workingman's Death

Workingman’s Death (Austria/Germany, dir­ector Michael Glawogger): After you see this film, you’ll never com­plain about your job again. Subtitled some­thing like “Five Portraits of Work in the Twenty-First Century,” Glawogger’s doc­u­mentary fea­tures some of the most dan­gerous, dif­fi­cult, or just plain unpleasant work in the world.

Each seg­ment except the last one is about twenty-five minutes long, and is shot without any voi­ceover nar­ra­tion and very little edit­or­i­al­izing. We are simply presented with people working and talking about their work. The dir­ector pos­sesses a very paint­erly sense of com­pos­i­tion, and we’re often presented with shots of workers posing as if they were in front of a still camera. The cam­er­a­work is even more impressive when it is moving, and I often found myself won­dering how they were able to film in some of these conditions.

The seg­ments follow, in order, a group of miners in Ukraine who have dug their own coal shafts, a group of men in Indonesia who col­lect sulfur from an active vol­cano and haul it down the moun­tain­side, butchers at an open-air slaughter­house in Nigeria, men who break apart rusting ships for scrap metal in Pakistan, and steel­workers in China. Although all of these workers are merely sur­viving, the thing that struck me most was how con­tented, even happy, most of them were.

That being said, three of the five seg­ments fea­tured Islamic soci­eties, and I found myself won­dering about the con­nec­tions between the con­di­tions these men were working in and the rise of Islamic rad­ic­alism. Among the ship­breakers in Pakistan, for instance, there was an inter­esting seg­ment which fol­lowed a pho­to­grapher who cir­cu­lated among the men char­ging them a fee to take pic­tures of them holding an assault rifle. There was no voi­ceover, but I got the impres­sion that these men wanted to be seen as revolu­tion­aries instead of just sub­sist­ence scrap workers.

The most intense seg­ment had to be among the butchers, and there was quite a lot of blood and gore evident as we watched the men work. But strangely, I found this a more honest approach to the pro­duc­tion of food than I saw in the factory farms in We Feed The World. These butchers are “hands-on,” literally.

The final seg­ment, filmed among steel­workers in China, was the shortest, and the least inter­esting, but the dir­ector was trying to end with the optimism of the Chinese workers for the steel industry, which he con­trasts with shots of a defunct steel mill in Germany that’s been turned into an art install­a­tion. His point was slightly unclear, but overall, his unflinching eye for detail, even in some har­rowing work envir­on­ments, makes this doc­u­mentary a must-see.

9/10(9/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Citizen Dog

by James McNally on September 16, 2005

in Film Festivals, TIFF

Citizen Dog

Citizen Dog (Thailand, dir­ector Wisit Sasanatieng): I’d heard some buzz around this film, that it was sort of a Thai Amelie. In fact, it’s Amelie cranked up to 11. Which is entirely too much. This film is abso­lutely over­stuffed with whimsy. A nar­rator tells us the story of country boy Pod, who comes to Bangkok to find work and falls in love with Jin. Along the way, he loses and then finds his finger, drives around a chainsmoking talking teddy-bear as well as a man who licks everything, and shares his house with a gecko that has the face of his dead grand­mother. If that’s not enough, the object of his desire is an obsessive neat freak who car­ries around a book written in Italian that she can’t read. A case of mis­taken iden­tity sends her off on an envir­on­mental cru­sade that res­ults in her accu­mu­lating a moun­tain (lit­er­ally, a moun­tain) of plastic water bottles. Will this pair find love in the end? Well, by the end, I didn’t care that much.

The problem was that the visual tricks and whimsy over­whelm the char­ac­ters, who end up being nothing more than a col­lec­tion of quirks. The con­stant voi­ceover also never really lets the char­ac­ters tell their own stories, and the romance never feels believable.

Sasanatieng is obvi­ously a dir­ector of huge talent, and there are quite a few great sight gags and some really ori­ginal visuals. But there’s just far too much of it. It’s like eating a whole chocolate cake at one sit­ting. If he could tone down the trickery a bit, and find a story with real char­ac­ters, he could one day make a really out­standing film. This isn’t it yet, but I hope he does it. I’m giving this 6.5, though my graphic below doesn’t show halves.

6.5/10(6.5/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Twelve And Holding

by James McNally on September 15, 2005

in Film Festivals, TIFF

Twelve and Holding

Twelve And Holding (USA, dir­ector Michael Cuesta): Ostensibly about a group of friends, this film tells three sep­arate tales that veer from comedy to tragedy and back again. I’ll sketch them in the order of most suc­cessful to least.

Malee lives with her mom and never sees her dad. She’s just started her period and begins to develop a very strong crush on a con­struc­tion worker who is one of her ther­apist mother’s patients. Her attempts at flirting are both painful and very funny to watch. She’s obvi­ously missing a father figure, but there’s some­thing else stir­ring as well, and she’s lonely and looking for adult atten­tion. Zoe Weizenbaum was just a joy to watch, beau­tiful and earnest and lov­able and willing to take amazing risks for the film. The dir­ector told us to watch out for her as “Young Pumpkin” in the upcoming Memories of a Geisha.

Leonard is an over­weight kid from a family where everyone is over­weight, and he’s tired of being the butt of other people’s jokes. After a ser­ious acci­dent in which (bizar­rely) he loses his senses of taste and smell, he starts eating healthy food and exer­cising, and takes rad­ical action to, as he sees it, save his mother’s life. Played soul­fully by Jesse Camacho, Leonard is never just comic relief, but a hurting little boy who wants to change not only his life, but his family’s as well.

Jacob (Conor Donovan) and Rudy (also played by Conor Donovan) are twin brothers who are very dif­ferent from each other. Rudy is ath­letic and fear­less, Jacob with­drawn and shy, mostly because of a large birth­mark on his face. One night, Rudy and Leonard stay overnight in their tree­house, after bul­lies threaten to des­troy it. Their plan to stay awake and defend it goes hor­ribly wrong when they doze off, and the bul­lies light it on fire, unaware that anyone is inside. Leonard escapes with rel­at­ively minor injuries (but as noted above, the odd side effect that he can no longer smell or taste). But Rudy is killed, and his family is dev­ast­ated. Jacob is racked with guilt for not being with the others on the night of the fire, but he’s also filled with a desire for revenge. After the two per­pet­rators are sent away to a juvenile facility for a year, Rudy and Jacob’s mother expresses her wish that the guilty pair die, a sen­ti­ment that Jacob stores away in his heart.

For a while, Jacob goes to the juvenile facility reg­u­larly to threaten the two, telling them that when they get out, he’s going to kill them. But after one of the boys com­mits sui­cide in cus­tody, Jacob softens and even con­tinues to visit the other boy and bring him comic books. As the boy’s release looms, they make a plan to run away together. Jacob is unhappy at home, feeling unwanted due to the arrival of a new adopted child. But his plans lead to even more tragedy.

If all this sounds melo­dra­matic, it is. And des­pite the heavy sub­ject matter, at times there was a vaguely “after-school spe­cial” feeling about the film. This last story, which in some ways ties the others together, car­ries the most weight, but is the least suc­cessful. I’m not sure why, but it may have some­thing to do with the huge dra­matic burden placed on the shoulders of a young actor with little exper­i­ence. The fact that the film careens through a wide emo­tional ter­ritory like a drunken ele­phant doesn’t help, either.

In the end, the per­form­ances of Camacho and Weizenbaum are so win­ning that I sort of wish they were in a film of their own. As a story of three kids seeking the love of their par­ents, the film is only par­tially suc­cessful. I also wish the kids had been in more scenes together, since you don’t really get to see why they’re friends in the first place. I’m giving this 7.5, though my graphic below doesn’t show halves.

7.5/10(7.5/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Thumbsucker

by James McNally on September 14, 2005

in Film Festivals, TIFF

Thumbsucker

Thumbsucker (USA, dir­ector Mike Mills): Another dir­ect­orial debut, this time for Mike Mills, who’s been making short films and music videos for a number of years. An alto­gether sun­nier film than The Squid And The Whale (see review below), the two films are actu­ally inter­esting mirror images of each other.

Justin (new­comer Lou Pucci) is 17 years old and still sucks his thumb. He tries to hide it from his par­ents, but they know, and it’s begin­ning to cause some trouble. He hides it from his new girl­friend, but she dumps him when she senses he’s not “opening up” to her. A school coun­selor sug­gests that the problem is that Justin is ADHD and that Ritalin will help. Ah, simple. But he soon dumps the pills and begins to try to stop being “weird”. Along the way, he learns a few things about his par­ents and about being him­self. It’s a fairly standard coming-of-age story with a bit of a twist.

It baffles me why this film was sav­aged by Variety and a few other critics, who derided it as a “paint-by-numbers” indie film. I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Sure, there’s a great soundtrack (Polyphonic Spree and Elliott Smith), and an andro­gynous young lead (Pucci is excel­lent and plays inno­cent like a young Johnny Depp). But there are no shoot­ings, no weird sex, and the family, though far from per­fect, are caring and decent people.

It’s actu­ally refreshing to see people in this kind of film por­trayed as any­thing other than freaks. Veterans Tilda Swinton and Vincent D’Onofrio play par­ents who really love their kids, though they don’t always under­stand them. And the film defies con­ven­tion by having D’Onofrio play the failed ath­lete dad as someone who really wants a genuine con­nec­tion with his oddball, non-athletic son.

And even though, com­pared to some­thing like The Squid And The Whale, this film is pol­ished to a high gloss, it never feels fake. Instead, Mills has cre­ated an atmo­sphere of safety, a place where a great many teen­agers actu­ally live.

There is some expos­i­tion near the end of the film involving Benjamin Bratt (as a recov­ering coke addict TV star) that feels con­trived, but it’s played for laughs. As is Keanu Reeves’ role as a whol­istic ortho­dontist. His over-the-top per­form­ance for once doesn’t seem to detract from the film. Perhaps it was because Mike Mills intro­duced the film per­son­ally, but I get a feeling of sin­cerity from the film that seems any­thing but paint-by-numbers. At every step of the pro­cess, from his casting, to his soundtrack choices, I think Mike Mills was trying to make an irony-free film. And I think he has succeeded.

Film’s Web Site: http://www.sonyclassics.com/thumbsucker/

Director’s Blog: http://www.sonyclassics.com/thumbsucker/blog

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }