An Often Invisible Affliction

I’m not a consistent reader of Good Housekeeping, but I recently got a link to an article on their site from a Google alert, and it immediately drew me in. The article doesn’t seem to have been written by one of their staff writers, but rather a young woman who wanted to tell her story. The subject matter is what caught my eye, as she suffers from OCD, a condition I’ve come to terms with in the last couple years.

A Paean for a Starman

According to astrophysicists, stars have life cycles that, depending on the size of the star, can end with a star becoming a black dwarf, a neutron star, or a black hole. The higher-mass stars (at one point red supergiants) can ultimately end with a massive explosion called a supernova, which can lead to them becoming a neutron star, a stage in a star’s life in which the protons inside of it have been converted into neutrons. Or the remnants of the explosion can become a black hole, a region (rather than an object) from which nothing can escape. Of course, these are theories and not a whole lot has been unmistakably proven.

What Do They Mean By “Hard” or “Soft” Science Fiction?

Sometimes you come across terms that are used to further explain genres or themes in greater detail, like “Southern Gothic” or “Film Noir.” Such categories make a lot of sense. Other times you may encounter labels that seem rather arbitrary or overly-ambitious, like “Mumblecore.” They could be seen as an attempt to classify a bunch of different things that may have a few similarities under the same umbrella, but are ultimately questionable. Then there are the terms in between. The subgenres some don’t quite know what to do with. Enter “hard science fiction” and “soft science fiction.”

(My) Top 10 Films of 2014, Part II

Welcome to the second installment of my top 10 films of 2014. If you’ve made it this far…I don’t know what to tell you.

Top 10 Films of 2014 (that I’ve seen)

5) Only Lovers Left Alive

Jim Jarmusch’s latest film is all about atmosphere. I don’t think I’ve ever watched another film that has gotten me so close to feeling the effects of opiates without actually shooting up. Upon viewing this modern-day vampire romance, the viewer feels as though they are stepping into an opium den. It’s a nice slow burn, a dreamy and euphoric experience. It’s a beautifully erotic haze. And in that sense, it’s unlike Jarmusch’s other work, though it still clearly has his subtle humor and memorable dialogue.

Tildan Swinton and Tom Hiddleston star in this uncanny, refreshingly unique vampire tale. I have to admit, when I first heard about the premise of this movie, I was a little less excited about it than I wanted to be. For one, so much of our current media culture is plagued with that watered down version of the creature known as a vampire. We no longer have the Bela Lugosi Draculas from the birth of horror cinema, nor do we have the more romanticized, sensual Anne Rice vampires. It’s all teenage vampires of the Twilight caliber with their soap opera-like narratives. Vampires just aren’t fun anymore. I figured Jarmusch was only trying to beat a dead horse with this genre film, but I was very wrong. Only Lovers Left Alive isn’t really a genre film. It has more of a drug addict narrative, relying much on mood and music.

Swinton and Hiddleston play a vampire couple who have been on opposite sides of the world for an indeterminate period of time. Adam (Hiddleston) lives in Detroit in a desolate part of town, where he makes and records trance-like rock music and collects rare instruments. His lover, Eve (Swinton), is in Tangier, Morocco, but soon returns to Adam in Detroit to be with him during his recent gloomy state. Adam is not content with modernity, and it’s apparent the story is more of a social commentary on how people like Adam and Eve fit into this modern-day society. Of course, people like Adam and Eve wouldn’t be vampires in reality, but they could be representative of other outsiders.

Jarmusch’s vampires are morally upright, well-traveled, and cultured, almost reminiscent of Anne Rice vampires. They prefer not to feed on victims, but instead buy “clean” blood supplied by a doctor who works at a blood bank. Their insistence of procuring uncontaminated blood could allude to the pervasiveness of our 21st century diseases in this globalized age. Whether it’s HIV/AIDS or a pathogen like Ebola, these plagues of humanity unnerve these cautious preternatural beings.

In the film, Adam refers to humans as “zombies,” asserting himself as more or less superior. However, it is this superiority which ultimately isolates these two ethereal lovers. Their whole existence is disrupted when Eve’s younger sister, also a vampire, pays them an unexpected visit.

4) The Grand Budapest Hotel

Oh Wes Anderson, I’ve wanted to dislike you so. You’re the epitome of what a pretentious hipster filmmaker, with his vintage color palette, would be. I bet many a Google or Apple yupster watches your movies. But your mise-en-scène is just so damn spot on. And your idiosyncratic characters are wonderfully flawed and memorable. Moonrise Kingdom wasn’t that impressive, but there are gems scattered throughout your career, and The Grand Budapest Hotel is an attractive ruby within it.

As always, Anderson’s film features an amazing all-star cast, which includes the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, and even Jeff Goldblum (extra brownie points there). With his usual distinct visual style, his shots are straightforward and look like carefully composed paintings from an ambiguous era. The story jumps from one decade to another, as Mr. Moustafa (played by F. Murray Abraham), narrates the occurrences that took place at the Grand Budapest during the period between the First and Second World Wars. Although he is the narrator, the true hero, or somewhat of an anti-hero, is Gustave H., a rather charming and manipulative concierge at the hotel. The story is a bit meta actually, as Moustafa narrates the story of Gustave H., while an unnamed author, played by Tom Wilkinson, narrates the story of how he met Moustafa and found himself at the hotel where he tells him the story of the notorious concierge. Indeed, the narrative style resembles matryoshka dolls.

The story is, as many of his others, a sort 0f coming-of-age one. Moustafa, known as Zero as a teenager, experiences love, loss, and adventure. The usual deadpan humor and offbeat characters are in attendance, but there’s also a hint of melancholy not often seen in Anderson’s other films. It’s a good change, and I’d like to believe that it is a sign of this auteur’s evolution and maturity. It’s funny, I can’t always seem to put my finger on what exactly it is that I really enjoy about Anderson’s movies, but now that I’ve witnessed a minor yet significant change in his narrative style, I’m eagerly expecting his next project.

3) Interstellar

I’ve heard more people complain about this film than any other in 2014. I’ve also heard praises being sung about it, but usually with a hint of not being totally convinced. Perhaps it’s a bit different for me, as I went into the viewing experience expecting a science fiction epic, and a science fiction epic is what I got. You can deny it all you want, but the film is visually stunning. As Christopher Orr of The Atlantic said, “Interstellar may be a preposterous epic, but it is an epic nonetheless.” I guess I’m a sucker for that kind of thing.

Christopher Nolan is a filmmaker who has been criticized for his cold or detached style in the past, but I don’t think I’m convinced that it is so. Yes, he likes to create intricate, puzzling plots that many would consider “cerebral,” but it doesn’t mean that there’s no heart in his stories. Perhaps I don’t usually preoccupy myself with how emotional a film is; I prefer films that are not cheesy or emotionally-exploitative. In any event, Nolan probably heard about his supposed coolness through the grapevine and decided he was going to tweak his approach a little when filming Interstellar. This led to some rather melodramatic moments in the story, which some have picked at.

The other complaint is that some people just don’t get it. The story is too complicated, they claim. How did the tesseract form? What’s the difference between the wormhole and the black hole? What the hell were the planets the crew was trying to explore and colonize? To those people, I say read some physics or cosmology books. Or simply, pay attention. I’m not sure what it is, but if I pay close attention to a convoluted plot upon first viewing, I usually comprehend the story immediately. Some movies, however, just give some people a huge headache. It baffles me, but at the same time, I can understand why some experience it differently. The major factor for this particular movie is the running time. At almost three hours long, many just don’t have the patience (me? Some of my favorite films are that length). Viewers with short attention spans will of course be greatly perplexed.

I can’t stress enough how important this film is though. It’s not just because of the amazing special effects or the fact that it’s a love story about family, as opposed to romantic attachment. It’s also the science behind it. As many are aware, Kip Thorne, the renowned astrophysicist and Stephen Hawking’s pal, helped produce it and was a scientific consultant. He provided much of the information needed to design a black hole for the movie. Although we can never truly get close enough to a black hole to fully perceive how it behaves, we can form simulations, and that is what Thorne and crew did. For more information on how Kip Thorne and the Interstellar crew did it, read this interesting article: http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/.

2) Gone Girl

I’ll be the first one to say that I haven’t been a fan of David Fincher’s work in the past…10 years? I didn’t care for Zodiac, The Social Network was good but not great, and why do a remake of a perfectly good Scandinavian film? I loved Se7en, and although a bit overrated, Fight Club is iconic. Gone Girl, however, is one of his best, if not his best.

I’ve never read the book this is based on, but if you go watch this movie, it is not necessary. Having read the book will give too much away. Gone Girl is a social criticism of marriage and commitment, yes, but it’s also a superbly crafted thriller that, frankly, grips you with its sheer insanity. The “you can’t make this stuff up” idiom surely applies. It’s a dysfunctional, yet oddly pragmatic, marriage taken to extremes never before realized on the big screen. As if you didn’t already have your doubts about commitment.

Without giving too much away, Nick and Amy, played by Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike respectively, are two sides of the same coin. After all, that is what being in a relationship inadvertently is like. Neither character is necessarily likeable (but that’s because they both exhibit sociopathic qualities), but they’re intriguingly emotionally defective. Somehow, through the whole mystifying suspense, one learns to empathize with the two anti-heroes of the story. One doesn’t sympathize with them, only empathize, but that’s the beauty of it.

1) Birdman

The complete title is Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).  The second part of the title comes off as cryptic, but I tend to believe that it references the main protagonist’s self-awareness and the ambiguous ending. Shot in one (seemingly) long captivating take, the days blend into one another becoming a dense, two-hour day. The camera follows Riggan, the hero of the story, through his ordeals as he prepares for his debut as a theater director.

Played by Michael Keaton, Riggan could be a reflection of his own real-life position in current Hollywood. Art imitates life, as they say, and it’s easy to see how Keaton would dive deep into this role with no problem. Riggan Thomson, a former super star of the Hollywood machine who played a character named Birdman in previous films, is disenchanted with making more blockbuster superhero-type movies. He’s turned his back on easy money. He wishes to be taken seriously as an actor, which leads him to take a rather huge risk: to write, direct, and star in his own adaptation of a Raymond Carver story for Broadway. Obviously, he is under a lot of pressure, and there are factors in his life that are aggravating it. His recovering addict daughter, played by Emma Stone, resents him. His ex-wife wants him to be closer to their daughter. His new girlfriend, a supporting actress in the play, may or may not be pregnant. And a newly-hired co-star, played by Edward Norton, is a difficult primadonna type.

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu has given us an astounding work of art. He couldn’t have picked a better actor to play his main protagonist, and I wonder if perhaps he wrote the part specifically for Keaton. Birdman is a stand out achievement among Iñarritu’s other works, and it’s almost hard to believe that this is the same filmmaker who brought us 21 Grams and Biutiful. One could call this film more experimental or art-house, and it’s executed impeccably, from the arresting and voyeuristic cinematography (or camera choreography, as some may call it, for it’s very much like a well-planned out dance) to the uncompromising performances of Keaton and company. With elements of magical realism and dark humor, it’s unlike other predictable fare. Birdman is to me the film of the year.

To try to convey anything about this film is almost futile, so I insist that if you haven’t seen it yet, go out and look for it. It’s still in theaters, so there are no excuses.

Films I’ve Yet to Watch (that could’ve potentially made it on to this list):

• Zero Theorem
• Inherent Vice
• The Babadook
• Whiplash
• A Most Violent Year

(My) Top 10 Films of 2014, Part I

It has been said that 2014 has been a rather dismal year for film. I’m almost inclined to agree, if only because I don’t think there has been much of a variety provided through wide release. But that also means one just has to look harder. Ignoring (most) of the major blockbusters, and being inclusive of the documentaries, there have been some gems sprinkled about. Now I’m no film critic; I only wish to make feature films in the future, so my list may differ from the common movie-goer’s. I take different factors into account, not just ones like entertainment value and believable writing. That being said, there are wholly distinct reasons for why I’ve chosen each feature in this list. Also, I must include a disclaimer: I have not watched all the movies I genuinely wanted to watch yet, and such titles will be included at the end of this list.

Here goes:

Top 10 Films of 2014 (that I’ve seen)

10) The Imitation Game

I have to admit this one barely makes it on to my list. I’m still sorting through the problematic aspects of it, having just seen it in a theater three days ago. There has been some criticism of its historical and factual (in)accuracies, but perhaps it’s not completely fair to judge a film based on real life events solely on such liberties. Just watch The Theory of Everything and you’ll understand (which, by the way, I enjoyed, but not enough to include on this list). What one can affirm is that Benedict Cumberbatch, whether you love him or hate him (I’m talking to you, strange male population), gave a terrific performance as the famed mathematician, Alan Turing. While I agree that his Sherlock sneaked his way into his depiction of the genius who helped break the Enigma machine code, that might be due in part to the writing. Cumberbatch’s Turing definitely displayed symptoms of Asperger’s, and the book on which the film is based did not explicitly make such implications, but sometimes an actor does what he can with the material handed to him.

Perhaps Turing’s role in the story has been granted more credit than some people believe he is due for shortening the length of WWII, but one can’t deny his significant role in the invention of the computer. It has been determined by some historians that his contributions were crucial in shortening the war about two to four years. Something that wasn’t portrayed in the film was the fact that Turing also helped the Americans with the bombes (machines used to help in deciphering codes, or very primitive versions of computers) that they had developed.

Overall, it was somewhat of a bleak and heartbreaking story, one which focused on a man who didn’t quite fit in. Therefore, it’s right up my alley! Although constantly surrounded by people of the military and fairly reluctant friends, Turing’s life was one of isolation and alienation, or so the viewer is inclined to ascertain. Whether some of the events within the film were exaggerated or not, one cannot doubt the tragedy that was Alan Turing’s demise. Just to clarify, however, there is still great controversy concerning the circumstances of his early death.

The film tries to focus on various phases of the math genius’s life, and perhaps that is where the story teeters on falling apart. I can empathize with wanting to do several things at once, but it can be rather overwhelming for some viewers. Nevertheless, Turing was an intriguing character, and so his personal life has become a point of interest to ordinary people.

9) The Dance of Reality

Alejandro Jodorowsky, the infamous surrealist director (among other things), makes his way on to this list more than once. His latest film, which is personal and mostly autobiographical, is included mainly because it has been too long since he has graced us with his presence in the cinematic world. Known mostly for his psychedelic-tinged fantasies in the early 1970s, he once again presents us with an eccentric, atypical work of art. Part surreal fable, part memoir, it reminded me in some ways of a Fellini film. That is not to say that there is nothing of Jodorowsky in it; his signature style is certainly imprinted all over the film. There are the sacrilegious elements, the darkly humorous attitude, and the overall playfully nonsensical atmosphere.

I have to say though, The Dance of Reality is definitely Jodorowsky’s most straightforward and least esoteric film. Of course the film is soaking in metaphors and absurd landscapes, but it’s a film that even a non-Jodorowsky fan could comprehend and enjoy. It transports you to a Chile of a different time, that could or could not have existed, when little Alejandro was growing up with an overprotective mother and a cold, despotic father. It begins as a coming-of-age tale of sorts, and then evolves into a story of his father’s arduous journey into self-realization. Interestingly enough, the father in the film is played by Jodorowsky’s real-life son, Brontis. In fact, this particular project was an interesting family affair, with other Jodorowskys portraying different characters.

8) A Most Wanted Man

Known as a spy thriller, and as Philip Seymour Hoffman’s last movie, A Most Wanted Man was mainly just a well-done film. Directed by Anton Corbijn (Control, The American), it moves slower than your typical Hollywood movie. It’s not necessarily an action-packed, cheap-thrills sort of film, but it is gripping and atmospheric. In case you’re not aware, Corbijn started off as a photographer, having photographed some of the most iconic bands of the 70s and 80s. It is not surprising, then, that his films have a photographer’s touch, with their carefully framed shots and beautiful dramatic lighting.

The film, based on a novel by John le Carré, tells a refreshingly nuanced story in which the westerners are not always the morally decent guys and the Muslims are not always the one-dimensional extremist. Hoffman’s character, the German espionage agent Gunther Bachmann, is an obsessive, unkempt man who wishes to do things his own way, but is not wholly aware of how much he’s actually working for the Americans. He becomes invested in the case of a Chechen immigrant named Issa Karpov, who has arrived in Hamburg, Germany to retrieve a large sum of money allegedly left by his father in a German bank.

Although most of the actors involved gave great performances, it is Hoffman who truly stands out and illuminates those around him. His performance is unforgettable and worthy of a final bow, a final curtain call.

7) The Double

When watching The Double, one can’t help but see certain Gilliam-esque traits in the set design, sprinkled with Lynch-esque ambiance. That is where the comparisons end though. I’m sure by now Richard Ayoade, the director, is tired of hearing about how much his latest film reminds viewers of Brazil, and I can’t blame him. The Double is an entirely different world unto itself. Ayoade, best known for his role as Moss in the The IT Crowd, decided to make his second feature film based on a Dostoevsky novella. He says that upon reading the novella, he found it absurdly funny due to the whole doppelganger idea and how it relates to those around the person being affected. When Simon, played by Jesse Eisenberg, confronts his doppelganger, he’s mystified, but also can’t comprehend why no one he works with notices the striking similarities.

The film is rife with dark humor and rapid dialogue. Some people have stated that it’s funnier than it perhaps should be, given the subject, but I don’t agree. I think the humor is inherent in the improbability of the situation. Ayoade and his fellow co-writer, Avi Korine, did a fantastic job of fleshing out the indifferent, bureaucracy-run dystopia portrayed. In this world, the people are obsessed with work and are not really reminiscent of any particular time. The technology is somewhat primitive, almost steampunk-ish, and the housing is dismal and industrially grungy.

Eisenberg does a great job at playing a socially awkward office clerk whose world is turned upside down by the arrival of his more charming double, and I’m always excited to see Mia Wasikowska in something (I seriously believe she will be the next Kate Winslet or Cate Blanchett, she’s just so damn good). For further insight into Ayoade’s riveting process and realization, read this interview done by The Dissolve: https://thedissolve.com/features/interview/552-richard-ayoade-on-the-double-and-daring-to-be-dark/. Also, watch his first feature, Submarine.

6) Jodorowsky’s Dune/Citizenfour

Yes, it’s a tie between two of the most important and profound documentaries of the year. I will say this: Jodorowsky’s Dune has me by the heart, but Citizenfour has me by the brain.

The documentary about the grand sci-fi epic that never was is fulfilling in a lot of ways. Sure, Dune as told by Jodorowsky is never realized, but the film exposes a glimmer of what could have possibly been one of the greatest movies ever made if it had in fact been completed. It goes into the pre-production obstacles encountered by Jodorowsky and his “cream of the crop” team of writers, special effects people, and artists. It doesn’t skip on the juicy details of how he got so many big names attached to the acting roles. It also ultimately breaks your heart with its bittersweet conclusion. In any event, Jodorowsky’s Dune is essential viewing for any Jodorowsky  or Frank Herbert fan. It’s certainly the kind of documentary that brings people from two different worlds together.

Providing as much humor and intriguing knowledge as a documentary can, this one does everything a documentary should do. The filmmaker, Frank Pavich, appears to have caught Jodorowsky at just the right moments in his apartment. If anyone can take anything from this film it is that Jodorowsky might be a madman of the highest order, but a truly tenacious, hard-working, and inspirational one at that. It is because of this that the viewer doesn’t leave the theater feeling disheartened or all that sad that Jodorowsky’s take on the iconic science fiction novel was never realized. Jodorowsky keeps pushing the boundaries of art despite it all. And all of that without him ever having read the book!

As for the Laura Poitras documentary, Citizenfour, it is quite an examination of current surveillance techniques and of our modern, technology-obsessed world. Poitras was fortunate enough to have made contact with Edward Snowden, the now notorious whistle-blower of the NSA, and garnered so much information as to make one reel. In short, if you don’t understand why this film is imperative to watch and for it to have been made, then there’s not much else to say.

 

And this concludes the first part of my top films of 2014. Stay tuned for the rest.

Possession: Of Marriage, the Cold War, and Tentacles

I haven’t written a film review in a long time, and one of the reasons for that is because many movies have so much exposure as it is. Some amazing movies out there in the world receive less attention than some other more watered down, hackneyed ones, which is when I feel it is my duty to spread some awareness. Possession is one of these incredible works of art which not enough people have come to know. Some know of it as a cult favorite, but many actually have never seen it.

Let me start this review by saying that Possession (not to be confused by other films with a similar title) is quite possibly in my top five of favorite horror movies. To be fair though, horror isn’t really my genre. Give me sci-fi (or sci-fi horror, like Alien or The Fly), dark comedies, dramas, etc. It’s not that I don’t want to like horror; I do, I really do. It’s not you, scary movies, it’s me. But really…it’s you. Or rather, it’s your creators. The truth is that I find so many horror movies, especially more contemporary ones, to be dull, gimmicky, and gory in a purely superficial way. Horror movies aren’t supposed to bamboozle you with shock value and scream queens and graphic violence. The only way a moviegoer can truly experience fear is through atmosphere, psychological mindfuckery, and, dare I say, correlations to the true horrors of the world. “But don’t you think you’re thinking too hard about it?” you might say. Perhaps, but it’s how I’m able to take “scary movies” seriously. I am more enthralled by the psychological and the fear of the unknown. Lewton Buses, though simple, are effective if done right. Not revealing your monster too soon, or at all, can also be effective. However, modern-day horror flicks don’t really employ these effects.

Anyway, I digress. What follows will not be a fully-researched and well fleshed out essay on the history of the horror genre and what has gone wrong with it in the past few decades; rather it’ll be an explanation as to how Possession does it right. First, here’s the trailer:

Pretty intense, huh? The film, written and directed by Polish filmmaker Andrzej Zulawski, and starring Isabelle Adjani and Sam Neill, was something of a sleeping success when it first came out in 1981. It was critically acclaimed for its acting, specifically Adjani’s (who won Best Actress at Cannes), and it featured effects done by the famed Carlo Rambaldi (Alien, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial). However, the film proved to be very controversial when it was first released and it became a member of the “Video Nasties” list developed in the UK by Mary Whitehouse and the NVALA. In fact, it was extensively edited, one might even say butchered, to allow distribution in the US. Luckily, it was restored to its former glory in 1999 when it was re-released on VHS. There are pricy copies of it on DVD, but let me tell you a secret: you can find the movie online.

Now, some background on the film and the times. The film is distinct in its mise en scène, particularly because it was filmed in Berlin and around the Berlin Wall in the early 1980s. Talk about a statement. I mean, Roger Waters went all grandiose with his analogies and political statements, but Zulawski wanted his viewers to experience the intensity and the fear Berlin’s — and the world’s — inhabitants were feeling at the time on a more subtle and personal scale. The claustrophobia, the madness, the constant paranoia are all apparent in the backdrop and in its characters.

Berlin Wall on the right

It’s also important to mention that Zulawski wrote and filmed Possession in the middle of a devastatingly messy divorce. That little known fact kinda hits you in the face throughout the film, as it seems to be the major premise of the story. Although critics and viewers alike have debated on whether this film is a horror film, suspense/thriller, or drama, one thing is clear: it depicts the crumbling of a marriage in a raw, nerve-racking way that very few films successfully have. And man does it target those nerves. The whole movie is a giant ball of hysterical, schizoid nerves. The major characters are all struck with paroxysms of rage, madness, or both at some point. From the beginning, you jump right into it. You’re thrown into a covert world where you don’t know whether to trust any of the characters or not.

It’s not you, it’s me. And it’s you.

Mark, played by the much underrated Sam Neill, is introduced to us as a spy of some sort. The details are vague, but one can decipher that he is returning to his wife in Berlin from a mission requiring pursuing a subject who “wears pink socks.” Things are thrown off balance right away with Anna, played by the beautiful and intense Isabelle Adjani, surprising her husband with bad news: she wants a divorce. Of course, Mark’s world suddenly becomes disoriented and unhinged. And so does Anna. To say that she begins acting peculiar is an understatement. Although Mark really wants to keep the marriage intact and is unhealthily obsessed with his soon-to-be ex-wife, he gives her their apartment and lets their son, Bob, stay with her. It’s apparent that he’s losing his mind being away from her, and so he visits her one day, only to find that the apartment is in shambles and their son is being neglected. Anna is the picture of madness, wearing the same dress she wears throughout almost the entire film, and looking around wild-eyed. It’s as though she is possessed. But is that what the film title is a reference to?

The title actually seems to allude to several aspects of the film. One could argue that the title refers to the idea that Mark sees Anna as his possession, one which he’s afraid of losing to someone (or something) else. At one point, Mark watches a reel of his wife back when she taught ballet to young girls, and she looks into the camera as if looking straight at him and says, “That’s why I’m with you. Because you say ‘I’ for me.” During one of their many brutal confrontations, Mark confesses to Anna: “You know, when I’m away from you, I think of you as an animal or a woman possessed.” And then there’s the bizarre hold that Anna’s mysterious lover seems to exert on her, his possession of her. If you’d like to take it even further, one could even argue that the title may have some social and political undertones. For one, it’s as if husband and wife are on opposite sides of a giant wall, and although Mark tries to call out to the other side of that wall to bring back Anna to reunite their broken family, Anna would rather hide from him behind that barrier. It’s East Berlin vs. West Berlin. The characters are physically on only one side of the barrier, but it’s possible they symbolize the very essence of the Cold War. The West wants to possess the East and become one again, but there’s a rift preventing it from happening.

Mark is aware that his wife had a lover named Heinrich, and he goes so far as to see him to confront him, but it soon becomes apparent that she’s no longer seeing him. Both the men are confused and curious as to who it is she’s seeing, but it’s a mystery to them. Mark constantly goes back to the apartment to pester and pressure Anna into either leaving her current lover or telling him who it is she’s been seeing and why she disappears every day. The confrontations burst with hysteria and terror-inducing shrieks (courtesy of Ms. Adjani, who is truly remarkable in this). The camera moves with the broken couple’s aggressive movements and it creates a sense of dread and derangement. Mark insists on being close to her, on touching her, but she wants none of it, and the confrontations escalate. In a particular scene, she tries to prepare meat for dinner, though disheveled and dirty, while he stands in her way and pesters her. She reaches peak hysteria and cuts her neck with an electric meat slicing knife, prompting Mark to later make a few cuts on his arm with it as well. The visceral scene is a perfect example of a dissolving relationship falling apart before our eyes, with the couple inflicting as much mental, emotional, and physical pain on each other and on themselves as possible. Perhaps the knife cutting is an analogy of how masochistic an unhealthy relationship can turn into. They violently shove each other around, and with every clash, they grow more irrational and frenzied.

Adjani is the epitome of frenzy in this film, with her almost Bacchanalian fits and crazed screams. In fact, I have to say that I had to split the movie-viewing into two parts, as the constant hysteria and stark raving madness were pretty brutal.

Then there’s the creature. Yes, there’s a creature. What horror movie would be complete without a monster? The film doesn’t seem to have been able to hide its notoriety concerning the monster. It’s not so much the monster itself that got the film banned in some places, it’s what the monster does. People who have never watched the film know about it well enough. And it has tentacles. Actually, one’s not really sure what it is. It could be a large octopus, it could be some sort of alien creature from some far-off planet who has tentacle-type appendages. It might just be a disgustingly ugly incarnation of the Cold War, gasp. Okay, I might just be reading too much into it….

Oh this old thing?

Mark ends up hiring a private investigator to follow Anna and find out where it is she stays at the whole night. He also meets his son’s school teacher, Helen, who turns out to be Anna’s doppelganger, though with different colored hair and eyes (she’s played by Adjani with a wig and contacts). Helen is different from Anna. She’s calm, accommodating, and pleasant. She might represent the traits that Mark adored in his wife, or the traits that he wished she had.

It’s kinda creepy, but you kinda look like my wife.

I don’t want to give much more of the film away, but I do want to say that this film is truly worth your time. If tentacle monsters, a disturbed lady committing strange indiscretions, and a troubled man who doesn’t know what to do about his crumbling marriage don’t intrigue you, I’m not sure what can. There are quite a few memorable scenes which make this movie unforgettable. One that comes to mind to many is the subway scene with Anna by herself. She walks through a passageway, where she has what could be described as a violent fit. The acting in that scene alone is astonishing and unsettling. It’s part convulsive seizure, part nervous breakdown. Or perhaps part “demonic” possession?

Not enough has been said about Sam Neill’s acting in this film by others. Adjani is certainly unbelievably gripping, but Neill’s performance is pretty spot-on. He goes through such a range of emotions and mental states throughout the story like a simple switch. Both performances are over-the-top, but it’s that melodramatic panic that terrifies and excites. The cinematography and effects almost remind me of earlier Cronenberg movies. The music might be a little dated, but I think it suits the action perfectly, and it adds more of that surreal, bizarre element.

The supernatural isn’t necessary to instill fear in people, only the unknown. And the unknown sometimes comes in the form of a decaying relationship, or capricious political tensions. Sometimes the unknown is inside the person sleeping next to you.

Anxiety Personified in the Art of the Still Image: the Photo Series of John Keedy

A recent article on NPR showcased a new photo series by Texas-based photographer John William Keedy. I wasn’t familiar with his work before coming across the article, but I’m glad it stopped me in my tracks. His images are striking and revealing. They depict the state of a person suffering from an anxiety disorder, with Keedy, who was diagnosed with one years ago, modeling for some of the pictures.

It’s Hardly Noticeable XXXII, 2013

Some of the images are riddled with psychological anguish, while others are quirky and humorous (if you have a hint of gallows humor). Everything from obsessions and compulsions to reclusion are represented. “It’s Hardly Noticeable,” as the collection is titled, is movingly personal and insightful. Upon first sight, one me might even brand the images as melodramatic. The point of the series isn’t to be subtle about anxiety and its sufferers. Keedy’s hope is to reach out with these photographs and in some small way, help those who identify with similar afflictions.

It’s Hardly Noticeable XVI, 2012

As has been reiterated a lot recently, mental illness is a topic of great controversy and is not one that is often taken seriously by many. Hopefully artists like John Keedy can bring it to the forefront of necessary conversation. We live in the 21st century; mental illness shouldn’t only be discussed in the offices of psychologists or in psychiatric institutions. For anyone who struggles with generalized anxiety, OCD, or even trich, this photo series could be a way to connect. For those who don’t, perhaps it can enlighten them and help clear up any misconceptions.

More of Keedy’s work can be found at his website: http://www.johnwilliamkeedy.com.

Harsh Urban Scrapings: Another Post-Punk Mix