Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Blood ties: Eastern Promises

By Matt Zoller SeitzThat Eastern Promises is steeped in bodily fluids should come as no surprise; for almost four decades, director David Cronenberg's great theme has been the malleability and fragility of flesh. What is surprising, however, is the grace with which Cronenberg integrates these notions into an outwardly unremarkable crime thriller. Eastern Promises is about a tough chauffeur (Viggo Mortensen) for a Russian mob family in London who gets caught between his employers and a half-Russian midwife (Naomi Watts), who has come into the possession of an incriminating diary and an orphaned newborn. The film is comprised of moments you've seen countless times, but in Cronenberg's hands, they bloom like orchids. The opening barber shop throat-slitting; the follow-up scene where a pregnant 14-year old prostitute named Tatiana staggers into Trafalgar hospital, utters a strangled "Ch-help me," expels a pint of innards on the floor and collapses; cinematographer Peter Suschitzky's tracking shots through the restaurant owned by mob boss Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) -- a fecund dreamspace whose black, brown and dark red color scheme complements Semyon's footsoldiers' dark suits and sunglasses and his granddaughters' dark red dresses; the corpse-disposal sequence, with Nikolai using shears to snip off frozen fingertips; the bathhouse fight, in which a naked Nikolai pulps two thugs' bodies, blow-by-blow: described on the page, these touches threaten a genre movie that offers cruelty and opulence in place of metaphoric intricacy and feeling. Luckily, Eastern Promises is as affecting as it is savage, and it violates as many expectations as it satisfies. That's the director's blood onscreen. Every shot pulses with life.

The movie dramatizes Cronenberg's preoccupations more, well, organically than his his other collaboration with Mortensen, A History of Violence -- a film whose near-monolithic acclaim continues to elude me. While characteristically gripping, the latter struck me the closest thing to a canny resume-builder that Cronenberg had offered since The Dead Zone; superficially edgy but easily digestible, Violence was an arted-up but otherwise straightforward Reformed Killer Kills Again to Protect his Family movie. Mortensen's character, ex-mob assassin turned diner cook Tom Stall, really and truly Weren't Like That No More, to paraphrase the thematically similar, superior Unforgiven; yet he retained a convenient Rambo-like knack for lethal improvisation, his chops apparently maintained by years of cooking flapjacks. His wife (Maria Bello) and son (Ashton Holms) were troubled but essentially decent and as physically beautiful as Tom. The villains were so irredeemably nasty -- their eeee-vil confirmed by repugnant personalities and/or faces -- that Tom could exterminate them at will. (The ordeal might have caused the Stalls some sleepless nights, but did anyone who watch the movie lose one wink?) The Cronenbergian touches (coolly frank sex, tight closeups of mangled flesh) seemed forcibly imposed from without, a la Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear remake. Garishly foregrounding its subtext, and aping Blue Velvet's tone and production design but not its nightmare anti-logic, Violence didn't offer true complications, but a seductive facsimile. If it had come from a director known as a straightforward, semi-anonymous craftsman (Curtis Hanson, for instance, or James Foley) it would have impressed. But Cronenberg's name promises more.

His follow-up doesn't entirely deliver, but it's still a thing of beauty. Compared to Violence, it's subdued -- as subdued as a gangster film drenched in gore can be, anyway. The construction of Steven Knight's intriguingly anti-commercial script back-loads a movie-upending revelation, then puts a period where most filmmakers would gear up for a bullet-riddled third act. The twist doesn't wreck the movie, but it does severely diminish it in the memory, redefining once mysterious, touching decisions and making them seem inevitable. Yet the film is still a major evolutionary step for the director: a non-science-fiction-inflected story whose Cronenbergian touches are embedded in its marrow rather than grafted on like armor.

The story's general outlines are as unremarkable as Violence's, maybe more so --think The Professional infused with The Godfather's familial obsessions, ethnic details and stately pace -- but it doesn't play that way. The characters, who by all rights should seem flat and dead, are so completely imagined that we come to understand -- even empathize -- with all of them. Semyon -- acted by Mueller-Stahl with his trademark mix of courtliness and lethal entitlement -- is every inch the controlling, violent gangster daddy; but awareness of his mortality and his legacy drives his every decision, large and small. There's tenderness -- and evident musical skill -- on display when he shows his granddaughter how to play her violin with feeling. And when Semyon's hot-tempered, alcoholic, unreliable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel) makes fun of a 100-year old restaurant patron celebrating her birthday at Semyon's restaurant by teasing, "Who's the party for, the Angel of Death?", Semyon rebukes him for his immaturity and disrespect. Kirill initially seems like yet another crazy-macho weasel thug -- a Fredo Corleone with delusions of Sonny-hood -- but he's more than that: jovial, witty, ambitious, sexually confused and as expressive as Nikolai is terse. Anna, whose attachment to Tatiana's baby numbs her grief over a miscarriage and sparks awareness of the Russian heritage she has downplayed, could have been a plaster saint; but Cronenberg's direction and Watts' mix of warmth and fervor invest her actions with an undertone of compulsion. (She's a seeker on a quest and doesn't know it.) Even the smaller roles defy expectation: Anna's uncle Stepan (superbly played by director Jerzy Smolinski) at first seems a typical hard-assed reactionary emigre. Referring to Anna's black ex-lover, he mutters, "It's not natural to mix race and race -- that's why your baby died inside you." Yet after he grudgingly agrees to translate Tatiana's diary, Stepan's outrage at the girl's degradation sparks Anna's resolve.

Most surprising of all is Mortensen's Nikolai, a man who avoids conflict and insists he's just a driver. He seems a standard-issue brute with a conscience, kin to John Wayne's Ringo Kid and Vin Diesel's Riddick. Yet Knight's restrained dialogue, Cronenberg's oblique tone and Mortensen's muted performance allude to pain that the character won't discuss. You can learn more from reading his gang tattoos -- talk about a history of violence! -- than by parsing his words. To quote The Shamus:

"There is a long history in the movies of the quiet, powerful stranger, but Mortensen and Cronenberg remind us why this cliche continues to exert such an allure. Mortensen says little, and when he does, he speaks with a fluid Russian accent. He passes the Streep Test. But he goes beyond that. Observe the way he acts with his eyes. The way you can see him process thoughts, from pure anger to sympathy, and express them with a physicality where words would be superfluous. There is a scene where a mobster says something bad about Nikolai's mamma. In most movies, this would be The Big Payback scene. Some smart-ass rejoinder and bust out the fight moves. What's fascinating is that Nikolai responds simply by standing up quickly, then burying whatever he feels, or whatever he wants the mobster to think he feels."
Cronenberg's direction is similarly economical. He doesn't cut unless he has to. He covers complex dialogue in two or three setups, often staging crucial exchanges within cinema's workhorse angle, the medium shot. When he blocks his actors to suggest the characters' shifting power dynamics, he goes for old-movie compositions that emphasize but don't editorialize.

Case in point: the scene on the loading dock between Semyon, Nikolai, and Kirill. Semyon asks Nikolai to leave the truck with its purloined vodka and join him on the dock to discuss important business. The moment threatens Kirill's ego because it confirms that Semyon trusts Nikolai more, and perhaps sees the driver as the son Semyon wishes he had. Cronenberg clarifies Kirill's distress by cutting between medium low-angle shots of Semyon and Nikolai up on the dock and a reverse shot looking down at Kirill framed between legs of Semyon and Nikolai's dark trousers. Physically diminished in the frame, Kirill suggests a child watching adults decide his fate. Good direction makes an idea clear; great direction makes it clear in retrospect, when you consider the movie in total, and within the context of the filmmaker's career. Eastern Promises, for all its limitations, confirms Cronenberg as a great and still-searching director. He hit the peak of his power 20 years ago, with The Fly and Dead Ringers; he'll do it again if he keeps making films as heartfelt as this one.

21 comments:

Nate said...

Fantastic review, Matt. I agree with your assessment regarding A History of Violence (a film that has slowly faded from my memory).

One gripe I had was how Kirill gracefully kidnapped the baby from the hospital without knowing noticing (apparently no one keeps watch at London hospitals). It was too much of a moving plot point that Cronenberg couldn't work around.

P.S. - I think the old lady at the birthday party was turning 100 years old, not 90.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Just fixed it.

I agree about the baby-napping. I also raised an eyebrow over Nikolai and Anna following Kirill afterward -- it seemed too convenient how they found him. But those are fairly small quibbles compared to what the movie accomplishes.

Ted Pigeon said...

You're right: Every shot of this movie does pulsate with life. That simple statement may be one of the most keen observation about the movie. Cronenberg is one of the most distinctly visual directors making movies today. He actively plays with visuality and common narrative and stylistic tropes so as to subvert genre and narrative familiarity throughout. That he manages that along with his subtle, yet incredibly evocative images in various locales makes for a sensuous cinematic experience that enables him to explore bodies in both complex and accessible ways.

Your evaluation of a A History of Violence is convincing as well. I just watched it again recently and remain perplexed by my utter admiration of it. Even though I think it's Cronenberg's finest hour, seeing you wrestle with its subtexts and positionings is fascinating. I'd love to see longer review of it if you get a chance.

Also, great description of Nikolai, and Viggo Mortensen's expressive inexpressiveness with his eyes. His performance held that film together. It makes him so ambivalent and so uncompromising at the same time.

Tom said...

Really perceptive review, Matt. I loved this movie, despite its Achilles-heel of a plot twist. (After, I couldn't help but think of David Chase's well-known reservations about the prospects for "The Sopranos" had it been picked up by FOX.)

Another predecessor of "Eastern Promises" is, of course, "The Road to Perdition." "EP" is a much better movie. By keeping its plot and characters so rooted in a specific time and place it achieved the mythic stature that "RtoP" self-consciously aimed for.

I eagerly await Mr. Cronenberg's next movie.

Anna Laperle said...

After seeing this film, I've decided that razor-wielding Russian mobsters are scarier than any gun-toting gangster.

Both Mortensen and Mueller-Stahl, in their performances, seemed to be restraining some terrifying promise of ultraviolence. Interesting enough, the cruelty of Semyon is described rather than shown (reminding me of Music Box - another Mueller-Stahl film) whereas Nikolai does show us (in every way) what he's made of in the bath house scene. What is additionally interesting is that Cronenberg does not show us a big ass-kicking scene involving Kirill and Nikolai after the baby's rescue. Instead, he cuts to Anna and her family, the baby, covered in sunshine. Tatiana then repeats her voice-over diary entries and we see Nikolai one last time, apparently installed as king. It's interesting because Cronenberg did show us a big ass-kicking scene in A History of Violence but here he uses the bath house as the centrepiece. Rightfully so, I think. It is a scene of betrayal, a pivotal moment where Nikolai realizes that he is still, despite the stars, a slave in the eyes of the vor.

Toadmonster said...

Hm. My friends who've seen EP tell me "Don't, it's not bad but it's completely conventional." But they all liked HoV, which I disliked for exactly the reasons you gave at the time. So maybe I should go see it.

Matt, yours isn't the first review I've seen that praises the movie for its focus on the body, yet tonally rather than through a gimmick. Don't get me wrong, I love The Fly etc. But in general, the more something can be achieved through mise en scene, visual tropes, etc rather than obtruding plot devices, the better (and the more potential for failure, since it demands better directing).

So if Cronenberg's thematics are incorporated more fluidly here, then cool. But, does the tonal focus on the body have any intrinsic relation to the other aspects of the movie, i.e. does it connect up thematically? Or is it just stapled on there because hey, he's Cronenberg?

Steven Santos said...

I didn't have problems with the plot twist and felt that it made this movie a companion piece to the themes of duality in "A History of Violence". One movie was the POV of someone living the American Dream (under a false identity) under siege from outsiders and this one was the POV of the immigrant longing for the British stand-in for the American Dream (once again under a false identity), but destined to stay on the outside looking in. The connection between Mortensen's character and the pregnant girl is emphasized this way in the last scene, in my opinion.

Mortensen really gives such a committed performance in this movie that much of what works in this story depends on it. I've also noticed how Cronenberg is very understated in his filmmaking, never calling attention to camera moves or composition, but finding the right camera placement to understand the characters and also bring out the best performances.

It isn't a coincidence that Cronenberg has directed some of the best performance of certain actors such as Mortensen in EP & AHOV, Jeff Goldblum in The Fly, Christopher Walken in The Dead Zone and Ralph Fiennes in Spider.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Toadmonster: Cronenberg's themes are definitely incorporated more fluidly (ahem) here. They flow throughout the narrative (ahem again; it's hard to discuss Cronenberg without making unintentional puns).

From the scene where a character uses a corpse as a means of communication to the drawing of blood from another character to the central role played by blood, pregnancy, birth and death, to the biographical tattoos inscribed on Nikolai which sync up with the late Tatiana's diary, I think it's all there, and all justified.

Steven: I agree that the twist is defensible, but I found that I was more impressed with the revealed character's actions before I found out the truth. What seemed a moral awakening was explained as duty, or so it seemed to me.

Jesus, it's tough to discuss this movie in specifics without revealing the twist, and I kind of don't feel like going through the dance. So if you're reading this comments thread and don't want it spoiled, quit reading now. Everything below this comment is a SPOILER ZONE.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

One ambiguous note that I really liked -- and maybe it's more in Mortensen's performance than on the page -- I couldn't be sure if the biography that's confirmed during Nikolai's confirmation was invented or if they were true aspects of his life. The character's so private that there's no way to know for sure, but I think Mortensen's performance signals that yes, what we hear of Nikolai's character is in fact the truth about who he is and how he was raised, although certain details may have been changed.

I also wonder if Stepan really was a KGB auxiliary, or if that was also a diversionary cover story for a guy who settled in London and wanted to wipe the slate clean and start over. Nikolai at first reacts to him as if seeing through bullshit, but his actions later suggest that maybe the old man had more juice than he let on -- or at least an active Rolodex.

Steven Santos said...

Matt: I also took it as Nikolai's past was mostly the truth, which was why, in my mind, I felt he connected with the girl's diary.

Like her, he entered into this world because he felt there was some light at the end of the tunnel (my guess, to distance himself from his past). But, obviously, for his character, it was going to be a long time before he reaches that point, if he ever does.

Since we're in spoiler zone, did anyone feel the last shot of this movie was meant to echo the last shot of A History of Violence?

Ted Pigeon said...

Interesting point, Steven. They both end with a sort of coming together of family via wordless encounters among characters who are naked inasmuch that they make themselves vulnerable to one another.

Tom said...

I agree that the plot twist is defensible, but it was unnecessary and weakened the story. Like Matt, I think seeing Nikolai's moral wakening onscreen is a more satisfying story than seeing him acting undercover in the wake of a moral awakening that occured before the movie starts. And the reveal felt like something added in an attempt to make Nikolai "likeable" -- whether that's how it came to be written or not I do not know. But wondering about it took me out of the movie at a key moment, and that's never good.

I do think that Nikolai's tattooes represent his actual past, and I love the tantalizing detail that his father was a government worker. A police officer? KGB? A postman with a motorcycle?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Ted: My NYPress review of "A History of Violence" is here.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Reading over this exchange, I'm starting to think that -- as The Shamus said in the review I linked to -- Nikolai (and Mortensen's performance) really is the linchpin that makes this movie almost great instead of merely interesting. I can see the justification for the twist, but before it came, I felt a sense of electricity in the scenes where Nikolai acted against his interest as a criminal. I kept wondering, "What is it that makes him behave this way? Is it conscious or involuntary?" Certain situations seemed to draw deep responses from him and intimate great sorrows in his past -- particularly the weird commingling of his reluctance to have sex with the prostitute to prove himself to Kirill; the subsequent tender chivalry he shows toward her afterward; his evident respect for Anna, who's trying to take care of a dead prostitute's baby; the fleeting statements about Nikolai's mother; Nikolai saying in the scene where he gets "made" that he has no mother or father, and last but not least, that incredible throwaway statement to the effect that slaves breed slaves. Is Nikolai a prostitute's child? Are there some serious mother issues going on here that the movie's too subtle to exploit?

All these elements seem more urgent and consequential if Nikolai is what he appears to be early in the movie. With the big reveal, you switch over to a different sort of reaction, wondering how much of his backstory is concocted -- a cover -- and how much is drawn from his own experience, and wondering if he would have done any of the un-criminal things he did were he not actually an undercover agent.

If Nikolai had been simply a criminal who experienced some sort of halting moral awakening, the story would have been no less hackneyed, but it would have been much more moving that it already is.

Benaiah said...

I just watched EP for a second time and I think it holds together better this time. The twist almost doesn't matter, it is ambiguous anyway since Nikoli seems to be using that status as just one more avenue in his pursuit of revenge or power. He clearly oversteps both his responsibilities as a police officer and as a criminal, with the great clue to his true motivations being the bracelet that he plays with throughout the movie. It points at a common past with the dead 14 year old, and a truer motivation than police work.

The movie makes a compelling case for the city as a center of evil. ("I blame London") Especially since the end shows Anna and Christine out of rainy London, while Viggio sits in misery on the throne. I felt that Viggio's duty (he is already dead after all) pulls him away from his last chance at real redemption (he pauses for a moment on the stairs as he walks away from Anna and the baby) and then there is that fantastic shot of Viggio walking away from the motorcycle towards Kiril. But I like HoV too, so maybe I am just not on the same wavelength as you.

As to your two objections, they followed Kiril and the baby because he went to the spot that Nikoli had showed him earlier in the movie ("This is the best place to dump bodies") so that is easily explainible. As for stealing babies from the hospital, I think this just reinforces the city as corruption theme ("There are open doors everywhere.")

If Viggio doesn't get some love from the Academy...

colin said...

I agree with BENALAH that the twist is almost irrelevant when you watch the film again, but the first time I saw it I thought it was not only enjoyable but necessary. In the consideration of the genre expectations the film establishes to NOT have a twist would be disappointing, as though Cronenberg had forgotten to include it.
In that way I find it more interesting than any "moral awakening" would have been. Nikolai lives in a world without morals - Anna's world, the moral world, is what he wants and cannot have.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Wow. I was probably going to see the film a second time anyway, but now I might see it sooner, based on these reactions.

Seeing "A History of Violence" a second time didn't elevate my opinion of it. Ditto "Existenz." But I was on the fence about "Videodrome" and "Dead Ringers," and second viewings of those put them over the top for me; I now think "Dead Ringers" is Cronenberg's greatest film, though certainly not his most enjoyable, because it's so despairing, a tragedy in slow-motion. Overall I consider "The Fly" to be his most altogether satisfying film. It's got all the thematic touchstones, plus a gripping narrative, one of the great love stories in movie history, and a wonderful sense of humor, thanks partly to Charles Edward Pogue's script, and the distinctive personalities of Jeff Goldbum and Geena Davis, who could have been the Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell of sci-fi had they made more movies with Cronenberg. "The Fly" is to Cronenberg's career what "Goodfellas" is to Scorsese's; "Dead Ringers" is his "Raging Bull," a great film that's so punishing that you can't watch it too often, otherwise you curl up in a little ball and don't want to talk to anyone.

colin said...

would that make "Naked Lunch" his "New York, New York"?

Hilts said...

Good discussion. Wanted to jump in on a few things.

I thought A History of Violence was trash (but that's another conversation), but I enjoyed Eastern Promises. That said, put me on the list of those who think the twist weakens the story, or at least the Nikolai character (who, in my opinion, is the story). True, the revelation makes Nikolai wildly interesting in an entirely new way, but it robs us of the earlier fascination in ways Matt (and others) have already described. Primarily, once revealed the twist seems, yes, sadly inevitable.

Which brings me to this: Matt, I wouldn't disagree one bit with your analysis of the loading dock scene. Then again, I'm hesitant to get too complimentary of Cronenberg’s direction. Did he frame scenes thoughtfully and economically? No question. But let's be honest: a huge part of the reason that we knew these characters without a lot of expository dialogue is because they were clichés plucked from the genre. At least half the time we were one step ahead of the game. And some of that was just uninspired character creation. And, sure, that plagues a hell of a lot of movies these days. I’m just uncomfortable gushing about Cronenberg’s visual storytelling without acknowledging that his story often had the depth of Dick and Jane. But maybe that's just me. Still, the film's general quiet (due in part to the sparse dialogue) added to the terrific ominous mood.

As for the uncle: I say there’s no way he was KGB. Or certainly not any person of importance. Otherwise after reading the diary he’d be smart enough to know that the whole family needed to leave town on the double. I just took him for a bitter drunk searching for a past he'd be understandably tight-lipped about.

Question: What did people think about the voice-over? Did it add anything? Did it distract?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Colin: "Would that make "Naked Lunch" his "New York, New York"?

Actually...that movie was crying out to be a musical.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

hilts: I thought the voice-over distracted at first, then added something, complementing everyone's story in ways that thankfully were not defined too specifically.