Welcome back to another night of blogging on the phone rather than an actual computer from the drawer bed. I'd rename this "Behind Closed Drawers," but the drawer has to be open for me to actually sleep in it, and I don't want to lie to you guys.
Today has been filled with a whole lot of nothing. We sat around for most of the day, and then there was a brief walk to dinner (followed by me going on a longer walk while calling The Lady, because there is little quite like a walk in an unfamiliar city when it's cold outside) and a watching of Freaks (and later Say Yes to the Dress, which a.) makes me glad I'll only have to deal with tuxes and won't have to deal with family members trying to dominate what I wear and dictate how much skin I should or should not be showing, b.) recognize that most of the folks working at bridal shops are absolute saints for being able to put up with customers and families who are that demanding and awful, and c.) remember that they're charging thousands of dollars for a dress that really is only going to be worn once and making it into this big to do. Thankfully, there was one family that had a very reasonable "I don't care how she looks as long as she feels good about it" sort of dad whose daughter shot down the dress because it was too expensive, even though her dad was totally willing to pay for it. It was surreal. Clearly I have strong opinions about my experience watching Say Yes to the Dress. But we won't talk about that. We'll get to the actual topic in a minute. I know, you're dying of anticipation right now, which is probably a pretty awful way to go. I'm also pretty sure that I've kept this parenthetical going on for way too long, because that is just how I do.).
For those of you who have not seen Freaks, it's a pretty decent movie, and you should give it a shot. For those of you who are completely unfamiliar with Freaks, let me give you a rundown. There's a circus, and among its acts (a strong man, and allegedly beautiful trapeze artist, a wacky but lovable clown, and a cute seal trainer who falls in love with the wacky but lovable clown), there is a freakshow. The studio cast actual sideshow performers in the various roles, so you have several dwarfs, amputees/folks who were born without certain limbs, a bearded lady, etc. Some fun facts about the cast: the bearded lady (Madame Olga/Jane Barnell) was vocally against the film after its release due to the portrayal of sideshow performers, which seems to miss the point of the movie somewhat. Also, Hans and Frieda (two of the main dwarfs) were somewhat written as love interests but were siblings in real life, which explains some of the rather stilted interactions that they have.
Anyway, back to the plot. Hans, a dwarf, has a thing for Cleopatra, the allegedly beautiful trapeze artist. She has a thing for Hercules, the strongest man in the world, but takes advantage of Hans' generosity and wealth. Frieda (the love interest played by the sister, or as I'll henceforth call it, the reverse Leia) sees what Cleopatra is doing and understandably takes umbrage. She pleads for Cleopatra to stop and lets slip that Hans has inherited a fortune. Cleopatra (encouraged by Hercules) decides to go full on black widow on Hans. He and the other Freaks realize what's going on, and they set out to fuck her up, because if you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.
Anyway, the thing I wanted to talk about comes from the scene where Hans and the Freaks confront Cleopatra. They're all in one of the circus wagons, and Hans tells Cleopatra that the gig is up. They cut to a dwarf taking out and polishing a switchblade before cutting to another dwarf who takes out a handgun and polishes it. Weapons always need a good polishing- it makes the killing go faster. Anyway, yeah, when you get a literal description, it loses a lot, but in the actual film? It's genuinely menacing. It would probably be menacing, even with "normal" actors instead of dwarfs. What's interesting to me is that you can't really pull off menacing in movies anymore. The fact that I can put in that description of the actual events from the movie just proves my point.
Real menace can be hard to pull off to begin with just because, deep down, you know it's all fictional. No matter how well the scene is staged, no matter how well the actors act, no matter how well the director directs, no matter how well the cinematographer cinematographs, it's neither easy nor trivial to get past the knowledge that it's all fiction.
More than that, though, menace has been defused by comedy. Everything the dwarfs did in Freaks by polishing their weapons has been recreated ad nauseum and almost belongs more in a Will Ferrell movie than in a horror movie. I mean, the concept behind the action makes a lot of sense. There is a clear threat being made, but nobody is verbally making the threat. It is absolutely clear what will happen of demands remain unmet (even though the gun never gets fired, much to Chekov's dismay). You don't do what I want? You're going to get hurt. It ends up being akin to the old, "Oh, hey, just waking around the neighborhood all casual and normal-like. I noticed your house. It's a really nice house. Sounds like you drive a nice car to a nice job to support your nice kids who have their whole lives ahead of them. It would be an absolute shame if anything were to happen to them, such as various forms of mob-related violence for example as I speak purely hypothetically." Except that whole statement itself (even boiled down to purer forms) is vaguely comedic. The iconic example of that particular threat is probably the dude in the whitish suit in The Untouchables, and his menace was undercut by his wardrobe (because eggshell is not a great color for a three piece suit in the 20s) and his general appearance and demeanor. Most of the nonverbal menacing poses have been subverted in comedies, which just makes them harder to take seriously in horror movies.
Another big aspect that has gotten lost is the presence of the actor. In Game of Thrones, Charles Dance is Twin Lannister, and they play up how menacing he can be for all it's worth (if only to make it that much stranger when he doesn't get to be menacing in a given scene). Charles Dance is tall, has an imposing face, and has a pretty commanding baritone voice. He gets to be pretty intimidating, as do several other members of the cast. On the other hand, you have Emilia Clarke, who plays Danaerys. She has dragons, horsed berserkers, an army of the finest soldiers in the world, and legions of untrained slaves. Okay, fine, she gets those things eventually, but even without all of it, she's got the berserkers and the dragons for pretty much the entire season. And every time she makes a threat, it falls woefully flat. Part of that is that she over threatens people, so any given threat loses its impact, despite the reality of dragons and the reputation of the berserkers in universe. But because the threats are made by an unassuming little blonde with a somewhat high-pitched voice, it's hard to take her menace seriously. And, no, it's not just a "Game of Thrones hates women" thing, because Maisie Williams, Michelle Fairley, and Lena Headey (mmm Lena Headey) do pull of some pretty chilling moments of intimidation.
What's interesting to me is that what works for menacing now is the entirely unpredictable. I feel like unpredictable menace could not work in the 30s, partly because the tropes we expect from film (that the unpredictable subverts) weren't established well enough yet and partly because audiences weren't ready for that sort of character. Heath Ledger as The Joker is a great exanple. His introduction basically consists of him convincing everyone he's working with to kill each other. He goes to a mob meeting and impales a goon with a pencil. Throughout the movie, you sense that he has some sort of plan, but it unfolds so slowly and so chaotically that you feel a sort of unease because you can't be sure. Another great example is Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl. Everything she does is meant to be planned out meticulously and effectively, but you don't know what her plan is. Yes, she is methodical, but her plans start over fairly petty offenses, and she manages to improvise fairly well throughout the movie. Ultimately, I guess it's not a such about the unpredictable as it is the person who knows SOMETHING but you can't tell exactly what it is or why it's important.
That sort of uneasy menace is great, and it definitely serves a purpose with the right sort of character. However, I'd like to see the old school sort of menace, the menace that arises with a clear and nearby goal rather than the menace that comes from grand, unknown plans and insanity. I want to see the avenging supporting character in the backseat of the car. I want to see someone sharpening a knife just before the fade to black. I want to see a character with a simple and tangible goal (sorry, Heath, no chaos for the sake of chaos) who relishes the moment before its attainment. Yes, it's cheesy, yes, it's poor villainy, but are they being menacing to scare their victim or to convince themselves of what needs to be done? Or do they know that they can't be stopped anymore and cam finally tip their hand?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire