Review: The Fall

The Fall (2008, trailer) is both one of my favorite and one of the most obscure films I have ever come across, and everyone I have shown it to has really enjoyed it. There are also countless glowing reviews on IMDb, and why it is not more well known continues to be a mystery to me.

Our story takes place in 1919, in a hospital/monastery in California. The two principal characters are Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), a five-year-old Romanian immigrant with an arm broken from a fall out of a tree; and Roy (Lee Pace), a stuntman who is rendered bedridden from a fall of his own.

While wandering around the dreary and uneventful wards, Alexandria encounters and begins chatting with Roy, who starts to invent and recite to her an elaborate tale featuring a grand quest and fantastical characters.

Including the Indian, who whenever anxious always stroked his brow.

At first Roy develops the story out of his own boredom and his rapport with the wide-eyed Alexandria, but soon he starts leaving tantalizing cliffhangers and strange requests: ‘I’m having a hard time sleeping, and I can’t remember the story... I need pills to finish the story.’ The rest of the film explores the ulterior motives of Roy, Alexandria’s growing attachment to him, and the progression of his story.

My Take

The key to the film’s success for me is the character of Alexandria, the five-year-old protagonist.

Let’s face it: young child actors are terrible, and filmmakers must know it, given how mercifully small many of their roles are. They are wooden and unconvincing when given lines, and otherwise they are either just mute props who need protecting and rescuing, or stationary wallflowers to provide ‘cute’ eye candy and/or padding for a Family Environment.

I don’t mean this as an insult, I just believe that young children are spontaneous and don’t yet have the requisite attention span and experience to imagine, create and ‘lie’ a character. Paradoxically, the inevitably obvious artifice required for them to play written roles often traps and sabotages their actual childlike behaviors and makes them appear dubious even in their roles as small children.

Which brings me to The Fall. Like Rob Reiner and his junior high-aged actors in Stand By Me, Fall director Tarsem Singh makes the shrewd and uncommon decision to search for a child actor who could ‘be’ Alexandria, rather than simply assign her role to just any child actress and tell her to ‘act’ it.

Catinca Untaru’s honest, unscripted childlike logic and candor provide a funny and colorful sense of personality which I don’t think I have before seen explored in film. Before Roy comes up with his epic, he recounts a tale in which Alexander the Great is stranded in the desert dying of thirst with a band of men. After being given a helmet full of water he decides, Solomon-like, to pour it all out onto the sand.

‘Why?’ Alexandria asks.

‘Well, because there wasn’t enough water for all of them. It was Alexander the Great’s way of showing his army that they were all equal.’

‘It’s stupid.’

‘What? What would you do better?’

‘Was Alexander throw the water, instead to give every soldier a little bit.’

Or, with her accent, a leetle beet.

The Fall features much quirky humor around the theme of childlike spontaneity, both in young Alexandria and in Roy.

For example, Roy appropriates Charles Darwin as a character in his story and describes in voiceover that Darwin is ‘looking for something’, and on screen we see him climb to the top of his greenhouse and peer through a telescope. ‘A butterfly?’ we hear Alexandria ask. ‘Good guess,’ Roy confirms, and we see Darwin ditch the telescope for a butterfly net.

The filmmaking keeps us rooted in Alexandria’s reality, as in one scene where she is waiting to meet Roy, who is busy conversing with a visitor about his injury. We hear snatches about Roy’s accident and his personal life, which are intriguing to ‘us’ watching the film, but none of this concerns Alexandria, whose attention wanders. As her perception shifts, so does ‘ours’ – the camera turns to a priest talking to a patient, and the sound design now puts him in the forefront and Roy in the periphery.

Roy’s story is represented visually, and this lavish fantasy comprises much of The Fall’s runtime. The dozens of stunning locations featured range from France to Fiji and showcase stretching deserts, majestic ruins and a butterfly-shaped tropical island.

The heroes are dressed in colorful, larger-than-life costumes, and their adventure sequences are masterfully filmed with immersive, kinetic camera movement and rhythmic editing. Clever and creative transitions are employed, like this cut from the face of a traitorous monk:

to the betrayed characters’ entrapment:

Since Alexandria is the one imagining the fantasy, what we see is influenced by her mind. Roy’s character of the ‘Indian’ is obviously meant to mean Native American, and Roy even refers to his home as a wigwam, but in Alexandria’s imagination we see a literal turbaned Indian living in a resplendent palace.

The characters surrounding Alexandria in the hospital also appear as thematically similar characters in the story. We see a kindly old patient as a wise mystic, and a lead-clad X-ray technician becomes the basis for the malevolent henchmen of the evil Governor Odious. Alexandria’s fondness for Roy is also manifested in the revelation of his face under the mask of the Black Bandit, the hero of the story.

I think that The Fall is a real achievement; both in naturalistic, intimate character study and in epic, extravagant imagery. Tarsem Singh financed the film himself and made it over the course of four years to maintain his creative freedom over the project, and the result is very striking and makes me appreciate his ability and potential.

In the meantime, I guess he’s just decided to make ridiculous-looking blockbusters, though.

Screengrabs: The Fall was produced by Radical Media, Deep Films, Absolute Entertainment (II), Tree Top Films Inc. and Googly Films. The UK DVD was distributed by Momentum Pictures.

© Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and 'NickGBrown On Films', 2012-14. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog's author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and NickGBrown On Films with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Review: Across the Universe

Across the Universe (2007, trailer) is what you get when you cross the Beatles’ music with the maniac director who spent $80 million to make the Broadway musical ‘Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark’.

Jim Sturgess is [Hey] Jude, a Liverpudlian shipyard worker who ends up in America to search for his long-estranged father, who turns out to be a janitor at Princeton. They don’t really reconnect, but on campus he befriends a student, Max[well?] (Joe Anderson).

Jude goes to Max’s for Thanksgiving, and we meet Max’s sister, Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood). Jude falls for Lucy, which we know because he sings ‘I’ve Just Seen a Face’ in a Big Lebowski-aping bowling sequence.

Over the line.

Instead of going back to college, all three move to New York City and move in with [Sexy] Sadie, a nightclub singer. Jude adopts a dopey McCartney mullet and enters hippiedom. He becomes a protest-zine artist, while Max gets by as a cab driver.

At this point, the plot gets pretty arbitrary. The characters all drive places together, protest and do other typically hippie-ish things.

My Take

Based on this summary, it might sound like the movie is about the Sixties. Well, The Vietnam War is featured, but as far as the movie’s concerned, it’s just a Cause that the characters are Against. Civil rights is brought up…using the obligatory ‘I Have a Dream’ clip. Instead of providing historical details which could better explain the characters’ actions and motivations (and provide a more immersive period context), it gives us a slideshow of superficial, stock Sixties iconography: draft-dodging, hitchhiking, beaded curtains, psychedelic tie-dye, Volkswagen hippie vans, bell-bottoms.

Oh look, it’s the Sixties!

Within the first minute of the film we hear both ‘Girl’ (from Rubber Soul, 1965) and ‘Helter Skelter’ (The Beatles, ’68). This might sound like nitpicking, but I believe that mixing up the chronology of the music from the band’s eight-year tenure and massive musical progression just reinforces the lazy Sixties iconography; it seems to me to imply that the Beatles were just Some Band from the era who came out with a bunch of songs in no particular order.

I mentioned before that the characters are insipid. They all have very basic types, and everything that is said by and between them exists solely to indicate and reinforce these types: Jude compliments Lucy on her good teeth, and adds that women where he comes from have nasty teeth, sticking out everywhere. ‘You ever heard of braces?’ she asks, to which he replies: ‘We use them to keep our trousers up’. He’s from England, geddit?

Lucy is a revolutionary all for The Cause, as she repeatedly tells us, using such great lines as ‘They should be radical. You should be radical, we should all be radical!’ and ‘I would lie down in front of a tank if it would stop this war!’

Much of the dialogue sounds like empty, nonsensical aphorisms that people enter as their Facebook statuses in an attempt to sound 'deep': ‘Music’s the only thing that makes sense anymore. Play it loud enough, and you can keep the demons at bay.’ What?

The emotions of the characters are reverse-engineered from the mood of the songs in the soundtrack. ‘Strawberry Fields Forever’ plays, so the characters get depressed. Now they are angry – I can’t imagine who wouldn’t be, with ‘Revolution’ playing behind them. Lucy is especially volatile in her emotions; I can’t count the number of times I saw her pouting face shed a single tear.

Drama.

So Across the Universe isn’t really about the Sixties. But it’s about the Beatles, right?

Again, not really. There are a couple of references that Beatles-heads such as myself can pick up on: John was abandoned by his mother, and Jude by his father. ‘Dear Prudence’ was written for a woman who isolated herself in a cabin in India; in Universe it is sung to encourage a character named Prudence to come out of seclusion in a closet (also, the closet serves as an obnoxious allusion to the character’s homosexuality.)

The other Beatles references are pretty brazen: a character climbs in through the bathroom window, and another remarks ‘she came in through the bathroom window.’ Does simply reading out song titles count as references?

I Saw Her Standing There and said ‘Honey Pie, let’s Come Together,’ and She Said She Said ‘You Can’t Do That’. Oh Darling, I thought there was Something between the Two Of Us.

Part of my interest in The Beatles comes from the sense of history; of a time when popular music was much more simple and direct than it is now. The guys themselves were not particularly attractive-looking, and their voices were by no means perfect.

The characters of Across the Universe, on the other hand, are presented through an impersonal and charmless modern-pop lens: everyone is super-attractive and spotless, and many scenes depend way too much on computer-generated graphics and environments, sometimes to the extent that they look like some kaleidoscopic version of outer space that the characters unconvincingly float around in.

The singing voices are heavily produced, and are auto-tuned to match the notes that the actors apparently couldn’t reach perfectly enough. Lucy sounds just like Avril Lavigne, Jude sings like he’s in a boy band. Also, for some weird reason, Sexy Sadie sounds exactly like the guy from Mötley Crüe.

I did enjoy three of the sequences. The ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ sequence has one of the terrified characters going through a nightmarish and menacingly choreographed military recruitment testing. The ‘I Am the Walrus’ and ‘Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!’ sequences have great cameos; the former is sung by Bono in a Ken Kesey/Magical Mystery Tour-bus tribute, and the latter has English comedian Eddie Izzard bellowing the lyrics as a maniacal ringleader attracting spectators.

We’re gonna run out of kites at this rate.

I would have preferred to see a segmented series of figurative music videos of Beatles songs, but without the anemic plot Universe’s sequences are clothes-pegged on to.

I think there were missed opportunities: ‘Blackbird’ is included, but it accompanies a soppy love sequence instead of the civil rights bit, even though it is famously a civil rights song.

Later, ‘All You Need is Love’ is sung on top of a roof. The Beatles never sung that song on their actual rooftop performance, but the real performance of the song – in a big studio with a worldwide TV broadcast, a big band, extravagant outfits and a star-studded audience – is legendary.

Also, a Hendrix look- and sound-alike (Martin Luther McCoy) joins the cast and sings ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’. In real life Hendrix had very little to do with the Beatles, but Eric Clapton actually did play lead guitar on that song's recording.

Instead of whatever the filmmakers contrived to go with the song’s somber tone, I feel they could have used it to tell part of the Beatles’ story: At the time of the making of the ‘white’ album, the cracks in the band were becoming increasingly visible. George specifically was frustrated about not being taken seriously as a creative force, and was anticipating the launch of his solo career.

Concurrently, Clapton was tormented by his attraction to George’s wife Pattie Boyd (Clapton’s feelings of love and pain were the inspiration of his 1970 album Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs) All this turmoil could be dramatized by the acidic and bluesy tone of ‘Gently Weeps’.

Evidently, I want to see a musical about the actual band. And why not? The members each have very distinctive and well-known personalities, and together they have a colorful history that could be illustrated through their songs:

Love Me Do – the first song written by schoolboy-aged John and Paul; we could also see George’s famous guitar ‘audition’ in the second floor of a double-decker bus.

I Saw Her Standing There – the band cutting its teeth at the Cavern and in Hamburg, putting together its famous lineup, recording Please Please Me.

A Hard Day’s Night – ditching their leather greaser outfits for suits, making TV appearances, Beatlemania flaring up, making the A Hard Day’s Night film.

Drive My Car/Taxman – touring America, discovering drugs, evolving musically, George picking up his Indian influence, making the Help! film

Strawberry Fields Forever – John starring in the film How I Won the War in Germany, writing ‘Strawberry Fields’ in a fit of loneliness, depression and disillusionment in his unhappy marriage to his first wife Cynthia.

[various White Album tracks] - The band going to India to practice transcendental meditation, writing many songs - but individually, rather than as a unit.

Don’t Pass Me By – This Ringo song could illustrate his treasured vignette of feeling left out in the corrosive atmosphere of the 'white' album studio sessions, leaving the band and feeling unloved, and being welcomed back into Abbey Road studios, which were bedecked with flowers.

One After 909 –The bitter arguments that characterized the making of Let it Be (both the album and accompanying documentary) meant that the band had to finish, but the rooftop performance of ‘909’ is a heartfelt is throwback right back to the beginning of their career and earlier, happier times (look it up on YouTube – the fond smiles and knowing glances between John and Paul as they sing are priceless)

I think the filmmakers’ aim was to capture and translate the ‘spirit’ of the music, but if you want that kind of Beatles retrospective you could do a lot better by listening to ‘Beatles: Love’. Or, if you want to see the actual ‘60s, just watch the real Beatles movies; A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, and Yellow Submarine.

The Beatles’ music tells of a great progression and reflects the time in which it was made. Their music could be used to tell a great story, but it’s not Across the Universe.

Screengrabs: Across the Universe was produced by Revolution Studios, Gross Entertainment, Team Todd and Sound Film. The UK DVD was distributed by Columbia TriStar Home Video.

© Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and 'NickGBrown On Films', 2012-14. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog's author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and NickGBrown On Films with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Review: Troll Hunter

Quick, what does a troll hunter look like? A dashing adventurer? A leather-clad super-hero? A suited government agent in sunglasses?

According to the Norwegian film Troll Hunter ('Trolljegeren' in its native Norwegian) (2010, trailer), this is a troll hunter:

All in a day's work.

His name is Hans (Otto Jespersen), and he works for the Troll Security Service, a clandestine subsidiary of the Norwegian Wildlife Board.

He does not hunt indiscriminately; he is tasked with the disposal of errant trolls who transgress their territorial borders and pose a threat to rural towns and livestock.

Troll Hunter is presented in the found-footage style, filmed by zealous students looking to make a documentary. Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud) presents, Johanna (Johanna Mørck) carries the boom mic, and Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) shoots the footage.

We start in the rural mountains as the three interview hunters concerned with a bear poacher in their midst. The suspect is Hans, who has recently started lurking in his nearby trailer and stalking around at night in his truck, which is punctured with ominous gouges.

Hans dismisses the amateur filmmakers’ questioning and tells them to stay away, but Thomas is undeterred: ‘Do you think Michael Moore gave up after the first try?’

One night they follow Hans’s truck into a towering forest, where we hear guttural grunts and roars. A panicked Hans stumbles towards them through the trees and yells: ‘Troll!’

Thomas’s car is mysteriously savaged and upturned, so Hans offers them a ride. He allows the team to film his return to combat the alleged monster, on the condition that he is assured that nobody believes in God, as trolls feast on Christian blood. The team must also scrub themselves in a freezing brook and mask their scent with ‘troll stench’ - a viscous, putrid-smelling slime made of ‘all the crap you can squeeze out of a troll.’

The miserable group then slogs into the forest, and Hans tells them to wait while he goes ahead. ‘Maybe he’s filming us’, Thomas observes. ‘He’s somewhere laughing at us’. Pretty plausible, actually.

Wouldn't you know it, the troll is real. Furthermore, what Hans thought was only a Ringlefinch turned out to be a much bigger Tosserlad (other impressively-named troll varieties include the Jotnar, the Rimetosser and the Mountain King). The group flees back to the truck and Hans flashes a huge ultraviolet light, which instantly turns it to stone.

Throughout the rest of Troll Hunter, the students learn more about trolls and chronicle Hans’s investigation as to why so many are suddenly going rogue.

My Take

Why does Hans let these people film him? Well, troll hunting is miserable work, and he is disgruntled: ‘I get no night bonus. No overtime. No nuisance compensation.’ He wants the footage to be broadcasted on TV, in hopes that the exposure will cause a change in 'troll management', which would presumably grant him his rightful benefits.

He sleeps under UV-lights in his battered, troll-stank-dripping trailer, and apparently only has access to outdated equipment - including a clunky, segmented suit of rusted armor with a diving bell-like helmet. I thought all this provided an interesting angle – Hans’s amazing job is downplayed as thankless work, not unlike that of an exterminator or a janitor.

With only a meager $3.5 million budget, the filmmakers manage to craft surprisingly realistic CGI trolls, which are - I think - very well designed. They look basically like elderly Neanderthals covered in shaggy hair, but their scoliotic postures and craggy, rock-like skin reinforce the idea that they are ancient relics - according to Hans, some reach over a thousand years old.

Evocative touches characterize them as both threatening and dim-witted, but in a human way – we see two Mountain Kings have some kind of grunting dispute, and in one of the build-up shots of the Tosserlad we see it scratching its giant troll-butt.

Another way the filmmakers sell the trolls is by using practical effects to have them interact with their environment, much like District 9 did with its aliens. A Ringlefinch creaks and shakes the boards on a bridge it walks on, and the Tosserlad fells trees in its path.

Other clever touches include the use of an actual stone model for when Hans breaks apart the petrified Tosserlad, and sequences where we see the trolls through a night vision filter.

Trolls. Believe.

The effects are coupled with great scenery, which was shot on location in Norway. Mist-swathed mountains, deep valleys, towering forests, ominous caves and vast plains facilitate the atmosphere of a mysterious land which could conceivably hide unknown creatures.

I feel that Troll Hunter strikes a great balance between effective fantasy and affectionate parody. The trolls are presented as completely real, but there is also an undercurrent of self-aware commentary about the silliness of it all:

Bizarre and fantastic troll details (some of the trolls have three heads) get weird faux-scientific explanations (actually, they are not technically heads, but growths meant to scare rivals and attract mates).

At one point the students recruit a crew member who isn’t a Christian, but a Muslim. They ask Hans if that will be OK, and he nonchalantly answers: ‘I honestly don’t know. We’ll see what happens.’

I thought that was great – after all, how would he know? This highlights the absurdity in how supernatural creatures’ details are always somehow explicit in their myths. In real life, how would anyone figure out that only silver bullets kill werewolves, or that garlic does in a vampire?

I do think the film does have its falling points: Kalle the cameraman becomes involved in a crucial plot point, but this is confusing - I saw and heard so little from him that I forgot that he was even a character. We do, however, see a lot  more of Johanna the microphone carrier, even though she is not as important plot-wise.

The film’s end is very abrupt, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it seems a bit lazy and smells like the money ran out, but on the other hand the ending text cards evoke and parody melodramatic Loose Change-like conspiracy theory videos:

‘The teenagers behind the recordings have vanished without a trace. We strongly encourage anyone with information about their fate to contact your local police station.’

The lead up to the end is spectacular, though.

You're gonna need a bigger truck.

Apparently Chris Columbus (director of the first two Harry Potter films) bought the rights to Troll Hunter, and intends to remake it as an American blockbuster. I would like to encourage people to see the original before the title inevitably becomes associated (Wicker Man-style) with an overblown, ostentatious remake. Meanwhile, I anticipate whatever writer-director André Øvredal does next.

-----

Further Reading

For more films that aren't in the English language, you can see my posts about Mother, The Skin I Live In, and Nine Queens.

Screengrabs: Troll Hunter was produced by Film Fund FUZZ and Filmkameratene A/S, and the UK DVD was distributed by Momentum Pictures.

© Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and 'NickGBrown On Films', 2012-14. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this weblog's author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and NickGBrown On Films with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Review: Hard Candy

If the media teaches us anything about faceless Internet contact, it’s that evil is most certainly afoot.

Hard Candy (2005, trailer) starts with a computer display of a flirtatious instant-message exchange, apparently between a teenage girl and an older man:

Creepy.

They agree to meet at a coffee shop, where our fear is confirmed: ‘Thonggrrrl’ is Haley (Ellen Page), a naïve fourteen-year old girl wearing a Red Riding Hood sweater, and ‘Lensman’ is Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a gravely-voiced man in his thirties whose face is often cast in shadow.

Haley is trusting and provocative, and Jeff coaxes her into coming to visit his house. The camera glances at a Missing Persons notice displaying the picture of another teenage girl.

The two drink screwdrivers at the house, and as she becomes inebriated and relaxed, Jeff prepares to take photos of her. Just when the unassuming Haley seems to be doomed, the tables turn: Jeff collapses and wakes up tied to a chair, drugged, and at the mercy of a not-so-innocent Haley.

From now on, the movie is a high-concept, dialogue-based thriller, during which Jeff struggles to escape while Haley searches the house for evidence to incriminate him of pedophilia.

My Take

Technically, I think that Hard Candy is well made. The set of Jeff’s photographer pad is (impossibly) stylish and spacious, and the walls are flushed with menacing reds. As tensions rise the colors de-saturate, which creates a bleak, washed-out atmosphere.

The music is negligible, but probably for the best, since a score might imply a sense of presence that would be dissonant with the film’s small cast and theme of confinement.

The cinematography is crisp and dynamic: our introduction to innocent Haley is a gentle swoop that closes in on her cheery face like a peek-a-boo; later with the change in tone the camera winds and creeps like a snake through Jeff’s (again impossibly lavish) bungalow.

Unfortunately, the few scenes with fast action use the ‘jiggle the camera around like a maniac’ filming approach. I’ve never really understood this style - sure, the frantic juddering implies urgency, but I imagine that if I were in such situations, fear would make me more deliberate and focused in my movements – especially if, as in this case, I didn’t know where the danger would be coming from. Besides, wouldn’t a slower, steadier camera be scarier?

Hold still, I can barely see the horror.

Anyway, the writing and performances in the opening are strong; Jeff subtly gains Haley’s trust with friendliness, flattery and a non-threatening demeanor; Haley in turn acts like a precocious child, but is very forward with Jeff – which seems odd at the time, but makes sense later, when we learn that she’s actually the one doing the seducing.

After the first scene I feel that the actors’ performances are good, but only inasmuch as the screenplay is. Although Jeff is appropriately anxious and frightened throughout, Haley’s character is some kind of two-dimensional angel of retribution who carries out Old Testament-style punishments.

She speaks of the pain and trauma Jeff’s actions inflict on young girls as if she were an adult authority on the subject, instead of one of the potential victims. This is an incredibly hard-to-believe concept for an ostensibly fourteen-year-old character.

My favorite scene is when a suspicious neighbor knocks on the door, and Haley stumbles and stutters her way through an explanation that she is the niece of Jeff, who cannot answer the door because he is out. She fails to sound remotely plausible, and actually seems way over her head in nasty business she shouldn’t be in. Here I believe that she really is a fourteen-year-old, and that the movie is finally putting her insane actions into (a) perspective.

Actually, never mind, that’s only within this one scene.

The dialogue gets surprisingly bad, especially Haley’s:

‘I asked my friend if she’d help castrate a guy, but she made these sounds like I’d asked her to swallow worms or something…I wonder why they teach girl scouts things like camping and selling cookies, because this is what’s really useful.’

I can tell that lines like these (and their blasé delivery) are meant to provoke phrases such as ‘darkly funny’, ‘feminist’, 'edgy', or perhaps even ‘badass’ in feedback, but to me they sound silly and only make me think ‘this girl is a psychopath.’ An unrealistic one, too - I’m not too convinced by these threats coming from this tiny girl.

Be afraid?

Despite there being little cause for drama, baffling amounts of it appear at times; Haley runs an extensive gamut of emotions, from anger to sadness to condescending mockery. In one bizarre scene, she appears to be devastated to find out a certain piece of information which we later learn she had known the whole time.

In another confusing emotional moment, Jeff tearfully confesses a traumatic childhood experience completely out of the blue, when he really, really should be paying attention to what’s going on in the scene.

The movie attempts to be ambiguous as to who is really the bad guy - that’s right, Pedo-Jeff is sort of shown to be the victim.

In one scene where he escapes his ropes, we see his suspenseful advance towards freedom from his perspective; i.e. Haley is the off-screen monster who could appear at any time - and we are frightened on Jeff’s behalf. This and the fact that Jeff is the helpless, pleading prisoner the whole time weirdly makes the tone of the film sympathetic to the pedophile, instead of the 'blameless' girl/cartoon villain.

As the film goes on, Jeff escapes and gets knocked out more times than a Warner Bros. cartoon character, the girl on the Missing Persons notice is awkwardly and hastily shoved back in as a suddenly important plot point, and the story generally devolves into a mess of inconsistencies.

Haley also develops superhuman strength, as demonstrated by a sequence where Jeff regains consciousness to find himself somehow tied up and suspended from the ceiling by a series of ropes.

Out of the many faults I found in Hard Candy, I think the biggest one is the decision to make the antagonist/anti-hero so young. Maybe the story would have made more sense to me if Jeff had been captured by an adult woman, perhaps as a form of revenge for the trauma that another pedophile had once done her.

This way, the Haley character would actually have reason to be impassioned and self-righteous in her actions, and she would also be more threatening (because fourteen-year-olds aren’t scary).

What if this hypothetical adult-Haley lured him into a trap by posing as a young girl online? What if Jeff was lured while posing as a teenager in the same way? The creepy possibilities are endless!

-----

Further Reading

For more about Internet deception, see my post about Catfish.

For more about the horrors of technology, see my post about Black Mirror.

Screengrabs: Hard Candy was produced by Vulcan Productions, in association with Launchpad Productions. The UK DVD was distributed by Lionsgate.

© Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and 'NickGBrown On Films', 2012-14. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog's author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Nicholas Gonzalez Brown and NickGBrown On Films with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.