The Great False Advertising of Danny Dyer

The cover for the 2010 re-release
[From http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51o0z0%2Bn0aL._SL500_AA300_.jpg]

The original Tartan Film DVD release
[From https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiBnz3B0Qh-UjBgtizRwmi8zNDKURpCHrCq82VIqZWEBww71TMJHaYjxlGTSHXDv-CJM6QJef2qkJ6YdsLefJfZB_WTDgtxNqvLaNUs1aY5cHNNmomH1iIUMFSi5wIJh1YIJHYmQUY-l6X/s400/robert+carmichael.jpg]

The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael (Thomas Clay, 2005)

[WARNING – This comment piece has both possibly significant spoilers for the film being discussed and describes scenes that may be deeply unsettling. Reader discretion is advised for either or both]

For the last two weeks when I went to my local Tescos supermarket, I was left baffled every time I looked at the shelf for the new and Top 20 DVD releases, spotting a film under ten British pounds each time I never thought would be there. Now first of all, that kind of mentality could be have negative connotations against non-mainstream films being available in grocery stores, and ignores the fact that in the stores of almost every shopping chain in Britain you could probably find some such films available at cheaper prices than specialists like HMV on the Top 20/Top 50 racks. However that still doesn’t explain how Thomas Clay’s 2005 debut got into Tescos. Looking at the cover, it looks conspicuous enough, one of many films to capitalise on the actor Danny Dyer, his face upfront and his name even above the film’s title. I remember seeing one other Dyer film called The Football Factory (2004), which was a terrible, lobotomised version of Trainspotting (1996), but even thought its positive depiction of football hooliganism can be heavily criticised, it not something that would catch me off-guard seeing it on the shelf of a supermarket. What someone who is looking at it for the first time, thinking it will be like The Football Factory, may not know is that this film belongs to that list of films that were premiered at film festivals that cause uproar of controversy for its graphic violence. I have heard nothing about the film since then until this re-release, but while it may have be forgotten, it’s on the list with Lars von Trier’s Antichrist (2009) and Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible (2002) as one of those controversal films that caused walkouts from the premiere and revulsion, and divided critics – look at the following examples of a positive and negative review to see what I mean.

This presents the first problem in with the advertising in that, bar the tiny warning tag, it looks like any other Danny Dyer film rather than the controversial film it is. Again, I can be criticised for suggesting transgressive films shouldn’t be available in supermarkets, and as of yet no one has complained about it since the re-release, but one of the worst things you can falsely advertise is a film whose strong content, including sexual violence, you should be well aware of unless one wants to be even more emotionally scarred than if you were warned. I am against film censorship and believe people have the right to see what they want and believes films can depict scenes even in the most disturbing way, but I feel people should be prepared for what they are about to see. It doesn’t affect a film’s power, as this was still deeply unsettling for me, but it was a good thing that I was prepared for what was in it even in the vaguest of ideas.

My opinion on the qualities of the film is a completely different matter. I am still interested in Thomas Clay, especially his only other feature from 2008 Soi Cowboy, which has gotten positive reviews. But to be frank, having only seen his debut ... Robert Carmichael once, I would place it on my bottom 100 list of the worst films I have seen, and it can be squarely blamed on the final quarter of the film and the ending. For the first three-quarters, it is an interesting and unsettling film following the socially awkward youth of the film’s title, a talented cello player who yet has a darker side, finding the works of the Marquis de Sade sexually arousing (a point where the director-writer is not being heavy-handed but practically signposting that Carmichael is disturbed), and along with his closest friends taking part in drug taking and objectionable acts of violence. At this point the first of two rape scenes, while disturbing, makes sense in where the film was going and, because of how Thomas Clay portrays it, doesn’t feel exploitative and makes it a scene in a very serious film that has a potent effect on the viewer. However once it gets to the final quarter where a middle age couple are terrorised on screen in an incredibly graphic scene, what merit the film has quickly deteriorates. Not only does it feel unjustified, and out of place in an already unsubtle film bar the first rape scene, but by the end the whole film becomes a pointless excuse for shock. There is suppose to be a potential political message, as throughout the film we see televisions with the then news and of the Iraq War on them, but there is no real connection. There is neither any sense that Carmichael and the others’ malicious actions are just for the sake of it either but rather a contrivance of the screenplay (the mention of Carmichael’s obsession with Sade, hammered at you in one, shows how contrived the whole thing is).

The second problem with this re-release’s advertisement is that Danny Dyer doesn’t even have that big of a role. He does have an important one definitely, as a character that is released out of prison and helps pull Carmichael further into depraved acts, but he is still a supporting character. Again I have to go back to the DVD cover, but this time I want to compare it to the original DVD release I’ve also included. On the Tartan release, the person on the cover is the actor Daniel Spencer who plays Robert Carmichael himself. The film is not advertised as a star vehicle, and one quote compares it to Michael Haneke’s Funny Games (1997), A Clockwork Orange (1971), and Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring (1960) in one single sentence, three films that deal unsettling subject matter (and at least two of them were very controversial). The 2010 release cover may have warnings of its brutal content, but not only is there no comparisons with controversial ‘arthouse’ films, it looks more like a crime thriller than what it actually is that is, promoted solely because of a recognisable face who isn’t even a main character.

Despite despising the film greatly, I am still glad it got re-released for people to access and make their own opinions on. But I am concerned by how the DVD distributors have presented the front cover. There could be a chance someone expecting another Dyer film may be profoundly affected by Thomas Clay’s film and explore other non-mainstream works, but I think in nearly every case the false advertising is going to lead to an exceptionally uncomfortable Friday night viewings. Films with difficult subject matter and content should be treated in a special way in my opinion, and promoting it as it has been done is an extremely stupid idea considering what it is.