By Travis Mackenzie Hoover
I just watched a couple of Japanese horror films back to back. One was the J-Horror standby Ju-On (The Grudge); the other was Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Kairo (Pulse). It would be very easy to cover the two together under one tent, but that would be to court madness. Whatever its genre trappings, Pulse is the work of a metaphysical artist working through issues of alienation and the social contract; The Grudge, meanwhile, is an extremely literal-minded scare film about some very angry blue people, and while some symptomatic resonances might be at work, its makers are blissfully unaware of anything other than mechanics and (weak) theatrics. Though they share a sort of Typhoid Mary approach to their horrors--Pulse uses the internet to collect souls, The Grudge creates a daisy-chain of victims connected to that funky house--they couldn’t be more separate in intent, sense of style, or level of consciousness. But this being the world we live in, it was inevitable that the two approaches would wind up merging. The mash-up is Retribution, an uneasy alliance between Kurosawa and super-producer Takashige Ichise, who’s had his fingers in a sizeable number of J-Horror pots (including The Grudge). Lest you think such a relationship would be strictly hands-off, Ichise didn’t merely produce, but also helped write the screenplay, despite the fact that in the past, Kurosawa has mostly done the writing himself. In Retribution, the literal-minded world of standard J-Horror and the metaphorical brilliance of Kurosawa prove to be largely incompatible; it's a fight to the finish, and the winner is the square literality of the genre itself.
The film starts in territory familiar to viewers of the director’s Cure. Police detective Yoshioka (Kurosawa axiom Koji Yakusho) arrives on the scene of a murder where a woman has been drowned in a puddle. During his investigation, he finds a button that may belong to one of his own outfits; it’s also revealed that fingerprints found at the scene are his. He's not considered a suspect, but he starts to wonder; then more victims start turning up in the same circumstances (drowned in shallow bodies of water), sometimes with the use of items that can be found in and around Yoshioka’s digs. The capture of one of the victim’s killers (a father resentful of his delinquent son) doesn’t stop the murders, or the sense that Yoshioka might have some splainin’ to do. The ominous (if slightly tired) implication is that Yoshioka could possibly be the killer--and his mission is to absolve himself, if that’s possible.
On the face of it, this might have been a decent Kurosawa premise: as his films have tended to limn the dynamic between a destructive individual and a restrictive common good (think tree vs. forest in Charisma, or harried lawman vs. serene murder enabler in Cure), it wouldn’t have been hard to take this confused cop/killer and used him to chart new territory in the director’s no-man’s-land. This is especially true considering that the murderers turn out to be multiple: again as in Cure, the potential for violence is within us all. Unfortunately, to carry that through would have required more metaphorical weight than the film permits itself. Retribution is more interested in setting a fixed identity to the objects within the story: gone are the narratively nonsensical but thematically potent images of Charisma and Pulse, to be replaced with the rather plodding mission to pardon a policeman and figure out the supernatural reason why people are offing other people.
This is all wrong. Nobody goes to Kurosawa for the safety of narrative frameworks: Pulse would have fallen apart instantly if that were so, its impenetrable ghost world being merely the medium for his message about the symbiotic relationship between alienation and social interaction. To use an overused word, it’s about archetypes--ones that Kurosawa has developed for himself, and which illustrate his metaphysical concepts. To make his film a plot-heavy whodunit is to take away everything that makes him interesting and replace it with some leftover imagery from The Grudge. (Warning: spoilers from here on out.)
It turns out that a dead woman is getting revenge on people who briefly witnessed her plight when she was alive. The simple beyond-the-grave explanation kills any hope for subtextual excitement; the revenge angle also brings up another distinction between J-Horror convention and Kurosawa practice. Standard bearers of the former (i.e., Ringu and The Grudge) have tended to be about inherited guilt--the idea of not only being punished for someone else’s crime but of passing that guilt on to large swathes of innocent bystanders. The director’s films, by contrast, don’t really deal with the idea of guilt--they reframe the notion of morality into the opposing forces of social and individual needs; the confusion that creates is where Kurosawa draws his interest and his relevance. Retribution hands him the chain of guilt concept and forces him to conform to it, despite the fact that it’s anathema to his process and way of thinking.
The director’s visual sense doesn’t fail him; in fact, it makes the script’s more risible concepts seem more palatable than they should. Scenes of our vengeful supernatural vixen are handled with a combination of silence and slow-motion that keeps it from being just a scary woman in a red dress. And at least one interrogation scene--in which a suspect sees what the police cannot and flails across the room--shows Kurosawa’s subtle genius for placing a mirror and tracking a camera with precision and variety. In fact, Kurosawa keeps the film from being the painful affair it might have been, making sure that the seams do not show. He hasn’t lost it; it’s just been hidden.
And here’s to not concealing it any longer. Retribution is a mediocre film with more style than it deserves: it’s what happens when you waste a brilliant filmmaker on something that doesn’t interest him. It’s the kind of thing that might have come to cheesy life under the aegis of a lesser horrormeister like Nakata or Shimizu, but which stalls in the gate under someone working furiously to conceal their lack of enthusiasm for what appears to be a semi-assignment. And it’s proof that artists should be left to their own devices instead of being fit into formats not of their own devising--a better title for the whole affair being, perhaps, Repetition.
____________________________________________
Travis Mackenzie Hoover is a freelance writer based in Toronto.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
J-horror Mash-Up: Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Retribution
Labels:
Travis Mackenzie Hoover
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
While I thoroughly agree that Kurosawa is a better filmmaker than Shimizu, I just want to stick up for the Ju-On series (or at least movies 1 and 3), which I believe is less of a coherent artistic text and more of a grab bag of horror movie tricks and treats - sort of an Asian horror Kill Bill, if you will. And on that level, I find the movies vastly entertaining.
the best J-horror film of recent years I have seen is 'The Booth', which is really understated and spooky.
I’d be checking out the new Kurosawa regardless, but this critique actually makes RETRIBUTION more intriguing to me. I’ve an odd fondness for the efforts of idiosyncratic talents to go mainstream: Bergman’s THE TOUCH, Ferrara’s BODY SNATCHERS, Makhmalbaf’s KANDAHAR, Antonioni’s ZABRISKIE POINT, Denis’s TROUBLE EVERY DAY. Often you get a neither-fish-nor-foul product that pleases few, but it always interests me to see the fresh hands mining heretofore overlooked cracks in a genre’s façade, or to see what passes for a genuinely crowd-pleasing bit of spectacle to someone used to engaging an audience on a more intimate level.
(As an aside, Travis’s summation of CHARISMA’s dilemma as “tree vs. forest” is an accurate but altogether too rational distillation of one of the weirdest damned things to hit movie screens ever. THE FOUNTAIN could have benefited from Aronofsky lifting some of the more impassioned man-tree love scenes from this film.)
And while Shimizu is more a thrill technician than an artist (though I agree with Jeff that he’s an entertaining one), MAREBITO is an engaging little oddity that manages to mishmash Lovecraft, J-horror, vampire erotica, and VIDEODROME to more than merely entertaining ends. Between its casual surrealism and the games it plays with sanity, delusion, and fiction becoming reality, MAREBITO reminded me at times of a pulpier Raul Ruiz, drifting along from one impossible encounter or plot twist to the next, content to get a chuckle here and a nasty frisson there since if the story makes no sense at least it keeps moving along.
I’ll check out THE BOOTH, thanks for the tip.
Comparing Shimizu and Nakata to Kurosawa is like comparing Romero and Argento to De Palma and Hitchcock, not to mention Kubrick and Polanski in horror mode. It doesn't make any sense to do so. Shimizu and Nakata are clearly genre directors in the tradition of Romero, Argento, Hooper, Carpenter, Craven, etc; and their similarities with Kurosawa is superficial at best. Of course Kurosawa is a more fruitful filmmaker. He chooses to work inside and outside of genre.
For genre filmmakers, I would say Shimizu and Nakata are very good at what they do, probably the best in J-horror. In particular, Ringu and the Ju-on movies that jeff mentions are just as great as the first Halloween and early Craven films.
No offense, but this article has that old smell of elitist condescension towards genre films. Same old story.
Cole: of course comparing Shimizu to Kurosawa is fruitless; problem is, that's exactly what Retribution does. The film takes a satellite presence in the J-Horror universe and makes him conform to regular genre orbit, meaning that everything that's special about him gets reduced or eliminated. And much as I like a good genre outing, I treasure Kurosawa's specialness more and chafe at the idea of his having to submit.
Perhaps, as most of the posts have suggested, I was a little hard on Ju-On and its bretheren; I certainly don't want to come off as some pop-hating snob. Still, I think that Kurosawa does better when he's left to roam free without worrying about genre constraints. That was the main point, which may have gotten lost in my rancor.
"...drifting along from one impossible encounter or plot twist to the next, content to get a chuckle here and a nasty frisson there since if the story makes no sense at least it keeps moving along."
I'm afraid to say that I haven't seen any Raul Ruiz films, but this comment is equally applicable to the Ju-On films, when they're good.
A whole article on Kurosawa and not one mention of his none relation to Akira. That's terrific!
I don't know about Kurosawa though. After Pulse, which I thought was just about the best thing I saw in 02, he hasn't done much to really build on it. His subsequent movies, while it's personal and it's probably the movies he wanted to make, Loft and Doppelganger also seemed sort of just keeping his hand in the movies too.
Maybe it's me setting my expectation too high (Both movies mentioned above were enjoyable). I don't know whether a different mode of working will energize him, but he needs something to keep his must-see-promising-young-moviemaker status.
Jeff: "...this comment is equally applicable to the Ju-On films, when they're good."
True enough. What I meant to say, but muddled, was that JU-ON consists of variations on a theme, while MAREBITO's narrative consists of a series of sharp left turns that, like Ruiz, reveal themselves at the end to have described a downward spiral.
That was a good read.
Of Kurosawa's, I've only seen Bright Future, and its fussy, arty "restraint"--which in that case felt like the sloppiest indulgence--made me itch for a loud, stupid zombie movie. Gonna try Pulse when I get a chance, though.
But your comparison of genres and directors brought to mind John Carpenter's featurette Cigarette Burns, which sounds like Retribution in reverse: Carpenter tries to tackle the allusive, nightmare surrealism of directors like Lynch and Cronenberg but can't overcome his schlock tendencies.
Steven: Yeah, but Carpenter got much closer to visualizing unimaginable evil than I would have thought possible. The whole featurette builds up to the point where you finally get to see a snippet of a movie allegedly so disturbing it drove anyone who saw it mad. What you see onscreen isn't as scary as what was in your imagination, but it's profoundly, even blasphemously revolting, obscene in a way that few horror film images are. I have a strong constitution, and I was a bit freaked out by it. A Kurosawa/Carpenter comparison might be instructive, since they both traffic in the uncanny but literalize it, which invariably removes a bit of the sting.
I thought CIGARETTE BURNS shot itself in the foot narratively by revealing the angel in the first five minutes, then trying to ignore that to drag out the suspense of how potent the final film could be. It also didn't help that you can't help comparing it to Carpenter's previous, far better Lovecraft riff IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. But the momentum does build, and the climax earns its shivers not just for the eeriness of the revealed film but the whole bloody excess of it all. By the time Kier's guts project as a smeary, boiling red across the movie screen it went a long way towards redeeming what had come before.
For Carpenter's "allusive, nightmare surrealism", Steven, it's all in the build-up. Stephen King once admitted he'd never have the courage of Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING in not showing what was behind that booming, bulging door, and I think Carpenter has that sensibility as well. But he remains unparalleled in deploying the widescreen to sinister ends, and would look at the moodier, opening bits of THE FOG, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, and even VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (which, yeah, falls apart after that terrific beginning) for exquisite examples of allusive horror. A bit of special pleading, perhaps, but we're talking about Carpenter, man!
Had to skip most of the post; what I did read was interesting tho--"metaphysical artist working through issues of alienation and social contract" about sums it up. Had a few other thoughts about alienation and Kurosawa's strategies in depicting this in this article.
I liked Nakata's Ringu films just fine, and thought his Ring 2 underrated (well, it borrows, and borrows well, I thought, from Dark Water); Shimizu smacks of opportunism--never mind that the plot makes little sense, just go for the easy scare. Kyoshi's got a different set of priorities entirely, and that I appreciate very much.
Failed experiments interest me more than they probably should as well (Altman's Popeye, anyone (which I hardly consider 'failed,' myself)?); I do want to see this one.
Noel: Plot is rarely Shimizu's concern. He's more of, as bruce says, a "thrill technician". The genre director among genre directors, I would say. His movies are more carnival rides than "art", but damn do I have a lot of fun in the end.
I am actually thankful Kurosawa can make something as artful as Bright Future. I never thought it was self-conciously "arty", fussy, sloppy, or self-indulgent. It's simply a graceful, restrained piece of art, and still managed to deal with the themes his films are known for.
I wonder why idiosyncratic filmmakers are always persecuted when they make a straight up "art film"? That doesn't happen with other regular "art film" directors like Kore-eda. Takashi Miike received the same kind of flak earlier this year. It's just the ugly reversal of genre condescension, this time towards "art films". Yawn.
quoting cole above: "I wonder why idiosyncratic filmmakers are always persecuted when they make a straight up "art film"?"
In the case of Bright Future, I'm stringing up K. Kurosawa not because he's embracing art but because his thoroughly predictable unpredictability, sullen, generic Disaffected Youth characters and ponderous pacing just don't have much life in them. High, low or sideways, in 1st or 5th gear, I demand that a flick have vitality to go with its big ideas or cheap jokes.
What do Ugetsu and Roll Bounce have in common? They have--ahem-- a pulse.
to Matt, Carpenter-wise:
The Cigarette Burns I saw had no narrative traction whatsoever, a film school calling card quality to the performances and crushing literalism. I'm tired of giving filmmakers a pass for coming up with some striking images. I saved a bunch of amazing screencaps from Cigarette Burns, and they'd make a brilliant photo book or exhibit.
But cinema is cinema. Sculpting in time etc. etc. The Carpenter who made Assault on Precinct 13 and Halloween was brilliant at subtly organizing screen time and point-of-view to explosive effect. Somehwere in the '80s--probably in the middle of that They Live fight scene--he lost that sensitivity and became a less crass, more political Wes Craven.
I'm still petitioning for Showtime to hand over all the raw footage from Cigarette Burns to David Lynch and Angelo Badalamenti. Not really, but...
I liked Bright Future. I do think it has a pulse; you just have to listen to it beating, the way you would in a Hou Hsiao Hsien or Tsai Ming Liang or Lav Diaz film.
Is Shimizu fun? I don't know; I suppose he's not to my taste. I like it slow and creepy, and philosophical, I suppose. Oh, he gets inventive with the staging, but by the time of Marebito, it's worn thin for me.
Post a Comment