Dir. Antonia Bird
Czeck Republic-United Kingdom-USA
Film #30, for Tuesday 30th October, of Halloween 31 For 31
It is sad to think that to have a
film for this season directed by a woman, I have to specify a slot in the
season to do so, as it slowly closes, when I should have gotten a few in the 31
selections without any specific design to have a gender balance but
because there are enough films in
existence. I could have had a whole season of 31 works all directed by men just
by coincidence, which is startling when I consider it more and more, and while
every aspect of film making is just as importance and can be contributed to by
women, especially in the case with
Ginger
Snaps (2000) (
Review Here) and its screenwriter, the obvious disparity despite the
many women who are making films now is disorientating. Thankfully there are
many existing female directors since the beginning of cinema and they are
growing in quantity, but the vaster amount of films directed by males that dwarfs
it is still a great deal to take into consideration. The fact that, as a male
writing this, these words can be interpreted as patronising adds a further
problem, in that the apparent disparity, even if it’s a little off from
reality, is liable to make film viewers and critics pay more attention to a
director’s gender than her work and its merit. I have always viewed gender
politics through the metaphor of an unmarked minefield, the path unknown and
the ground within a step liable to detonate and harm anyone on multiple sides. Considering
the Millennium was ten years ago, the fact that we’ve yet to get a balance in
gender within a single global industry like cinema let along remove the
lingering bigots and glass ceilings is embarrassing. I can thankfully say that
Antonia Bird, in terms of a director,
created a film called
Ravenous which
deserves immense merit by the film’s own qualities. That it slipped into
obscurity is a cruel and pathetic act by fate.
Set in 1847 during the
Mexican-American War, a soldier (Guy Pierce)
is sent to an isolated fort consisting of a skeleton crew and a potential new
page in his life where nothing will happen for a long while except getting drunk
or being bored for years of his career. Bursting this potential life is a
stranger Colquhoun (Robert Carlyle)
who stumbles to the fort frost bitten by the torrential snow fall outside and
claiming to be a survivor of a party that descended into cannibalism. Warned by
one of the Native American members of the fort about the legend of the Windigo,
men who become powerful from eating other’s flesh and developing an endless
hunger for eating other people, the soldiers at the fort will find themselves dwindling
in number and suspicious food substances in the stew.
Within the first image of the
film of two quotations on a black screen, Ravenous
stands out as much as a black humoured piece as well as a horror film set in
19th century America. Set in a period of American history, off to the side of
the Western Expansion of immigrants usually depicted and before the Civil War,
which is fresh for me to see onscreen, this immediately starts as an engaging
blend of the macabre and the sickly humoured. With a small cast of various
nationalities, it has the closed sense of isolation fitting for the story,
within the yet-open expanses of the landscape around them, and adding a sense
of the dramatic of theatre without sacrificing the fullness of a cinematic work.
The story itself is also a fascinating blend of mythology and the tropes of the
western, British perspective and the American culture blending into an outsider’s
viewpoint of the country without descending into an arch pastiche. Even with
the upscaling levels of violence and humour, there is never a sense that one is
viewing an over-gritty imitation or descending into clichés of westerns. That it
is set in a period where the variety of immigrants was prominent in unchartered
land, also allowed an actor as talented as Robert
Carlyle to work with his normal accent, adds a sense of the lawless where
the country was yet to fully form as the United States of America and these
acts of cannibalism could go completely unknown by the existing populous. The acting
is solid as well, not just from Pierce
and Carlyle, but from the whole of
the cast.
Continuing the analysis of music
scores I have done multiple times in this season of reviews, the score by Michael Nyman and Damon Albarn is exceptional by itself as with the other great
soundtracks I have talked about. Albarn
may be immediately known for his music career – Blur, Gorillaz and his
many other projects – but Michael Nyman is
a very well regarded musical composer, his most famous work with Welsh director
Peter Greenaway, his eclectic and
unconventional work matched by a specific pristine sounding use of string
instruments that is Nyman’s trademark
until they fell out after the production of Prospero’s Books (1991). My musical knowledge of Albarn is very limited, but the folk and
blues rock influences sound clearly like his contributions, while Nyman’s use string compositions blends
effortlessly with it to create something that stands out. When the shift to the
scenes of growing intensity take place - director Bird using editing or lack thereof and the acting of Pierce or Carlyle to depict growing insanity as the starting pieces that work
fully - its blending of types of music prevents it from becoming invisible but
is put together so that it supports the visuals and acting fully.
It’s relegation to being a under
viewed gem is tragic considering it stands out in terms of quality and the
individuals involved in various areas of the production. That it is as much a
British made horror film too also adds to the disappointment that a great genre
from our country, partially shot in the oppressive yet beautiful Eastern
European countryside, is forgotten when disappointing and minor ones get
credit. That Bird went back to
television, her career before involving TV series and a couple of films, is
also sad as this showed a director who could have progressed to films just as
good or greater. If this review can introduce more people to this film, it
could hopefully improve its status.
Another Videotape Swapshop review, and the other threequel I covered. Sequels are always a fickle concept. Any premise could lead to a justifiable sequel unless it closed the book on its content completely in a single film. Even then, its possible for some to become a franchise if good filmmaking was involved. The problem is whether there's actual 'good filmmaking' involved because sequels are usually made only for economic purposes and not with the optimism for making something interesting. In this franchise's advantage, there was a good first sequel in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre II (1986). I reviewed that film months ago, so covering this second sequel is a nice follow-on. Would I cover The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (1994)? Yeah I definately will one day, here on Swapshop. This franchise has a better track record than others I've seen, baring the terrible Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), and while I've not seen all the films, I've seen a fascianting spectrum of differnt attitudes through all the films. From the original's raw tone, to number 2's greater emphasis on blackest of black humour, to this one's grimy nineties tone, they all have something of interesting in them from the original four of the franchise. Yes, even The Next Generation when I get around to it.
