I See Dead People: The Sixth Sense (1999)

The name M. Night Shyamalan has become quite the running joke in contemporary Hollywood, indeed a name that once carried weight in the thriller community has been relegated to mocking and outright avoidance, in so much as his most recent film Another Earth went quite out of its way to assure avoid noting that it was directed by Shyamanlan, wherein during his height as a filmmaker he could earn viewers purely by attaching his name to a project, even as just a producer.  This may seem almost impossible now given the string of terrible movies from the director, but when one revisits Unbreakable, or even Signs they can see an auteur at work who has been allowed free reigns in making directorial choices, even if some of them were less evocative than others.  However, there was a decided phenomenon surrounding his 1999 work The Sixth Sense, one that became so evasive in popular culture that everybody was aware of the spoiler well before encountering the film.  Admittedly I had never encountered the film in its entirety until yesterday when I finally, with a degree of hesitation, popped it into my Bluray player.  Initially, a little hesitant to embrace the cinematic elements of the film, I realized that there was something wonderful, in a completely eerie sense, at work.  This realization, would, however, not have come were I not completely aware of the reveal at the end of the film, which is made somewhat nauseatingly clear throughout the film.  It is not the on-the-nose ways in which I find the film particularly well-executed, but more so in regards to the more subtle elements.  For example, there are some notable choices with the cinematography and mise-en-scene that pay off in major ways by the end of the film, and much to my surprise Bruce Willis delivers a rather nuanced performance that calls attention to the major issue his character is facing throughout the film.  Of course, an argument could be made that these moments are far from the credit of Shyamalan and this might well prove true, but it is precisely this combination of factors that make for a somewhat timeless thriller, which might be ripe for rediscovery in about twenty years, who knows maybe Shyamalan will have found his footing again, or he will have made so many missteps as to become completely irrelevant.

The Sixth Sense begins with Dr. Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) indifferently celebrating the receiving of an award for his work in child psychology alongside his wife Anna (Olivia Williams).  When they return to their room after talking, they are stunned to find one of Malcolm's former patients half-clothed in their bathroom, blaming Malcolm for his societal issues.  Frustrated the young man shoots Malcolm before killing himself.  The narrative then jumps forward a year to show Malcolm undertaking a new case with a young boy named Cole (Haley Joel Osment), who suffers from incredibly intense social anxiety and depression issues following the divorce of his parents.  Malcolm, hoping to use this a point of redemption after what he deems a failure with his former suicidal patient dumps everything into his helping Cole, much to the frustration of Anna, with whom Malcolm is continually growing distant.  Yet, when Malcolm makes a breakthrough with Cole, who has been previously incapable of help from other psychiatrists he feels obligated to go above and beyond his duty as a psychiatrist, particularly since it is revealed that Cole believes that he can see dead people wandering about the world, in his mind unable to realize that they are dead and thus going through routines to fix wrongs.  Malcolm is decidedly suspicious of this claim, but, nonetheless, follows Cole through his visions, particularly brutal ones involving images of hanging bodies and violent gun accidents.  When, Cole begins describing in great detail individuals' most repressed secrets, Malcolm begins to take his claims seriously, even agreeing to drive Cole to a some what far off funeral to help a young girl correct her wrongful death, one she managed to videotape.  This endeavor causes suspicion in Anna who has become involved with her shop hand, as well as Cole's mother Lynn (Toni Colette) who has become frustrated by ungrounded claims that she is partaking in child abuse, as well as fear for Cole and his, in her eyes, unhealthy attachment to his dead grandmother.  When Cole finally explains in great detail what he sees, a series of events paired together make Malcolm realize that not only is his attachment to Cole a unique one, but his growing distance from his wife, might be predicated not upon this attachment to his patient, but a very tangible removal from the physical world.

I want to note that there are some problems of dated choices in the film, but one could make that claim for most every "great" movie from 1999, perhaps the most important year in film since 1976.  A few moments of slow motion filmmaking and sickeningly heteronormative narrative aside, The Sixth Sense manages to create an ambiance of otherworldliness without ever making it frustratingly clear.  Again, I came at this film already aware of the reveal, so my ability to pick up some of these directorial choices was indeed predicated upon this and I could not speak for a completely blind viewing of this film, although I would be quite intrigued to see a legitimate cinephile go into this film blind as to its narrative and reveal, although that is probably impossible.  However, I digress, I want to hype the cinematography of this film above anything else, particularly the way in which Tak Fujimoto makes the "non-human" entities of the film pop out against the mildly gritty posh urban backdrop that is downtown Philadelphia.  The film lights Willis in such a way that his eyes become piercing black orbs, indeed quite spectral in their essence and the use of the now iconic Willis scowl draws even more attention to this idea.  Never one to layer on the performance, what Willis brings to Malcolm's character through a barebones performance is an individual who has lost the ability to express himself physically to another person, which is indeed true of a narrative where he is dead and incapable of communicating in any way beyond changing the temperature of the room or through influences of memories.  Also, the manner with which the film is edited allows for a very, very subtle breaking of the linear narrative, at times even the most minimal of jump zooms noting the difference between the space of the human figures and those of the ghosts, undoubtedly, a purposeful choice on the part of Shyamalan who has never failed at creating suspense.  Of course, this film is also quite scary, although it does lull viewers into its intensity, much like Signs much of the film is spent anticipating the presence of a scare and while there are really only one or two examples of this in The Sixth Sense when they do occur they prove to be almost too intense to handle, an execution of horror that has only really occurred with perfection in The Exorcist

Key Scene:  The ghost reveal in Cole's tent will scare you, if it does not then you have a nervous system made of iron.

I cannot defend this film enough and considering that it is pennied out on DVD, grabbing a copy is a given.  If not from Amazon it is readily available at pretty much any place that sells media in its various forms.

I Disappear, And If You're Smart, That Scares You: Jack Reacher (2012)

I am a big fan of films that are decidedly ambiguous in their moral commentary, it is not necessary, in my worldview that one must be provided answers to all life's large questions through a deeply engaging film, in fact, this is one of the many reasons I am enjoying the string of work coming from Paul Thomas Anderson.  However, with that in mind I am completely bothered when a film attempts to embrace some degree of moral ambiguity, only to make it blatantly clear that it has created a fine line between right and wrong.  The recent adaptation of Jack Reacher, from the novels of Lee Child, seem to exist in this problematic realm.  Before being critical I want to note two things.  First, I understand that this is an adaptation, therefore, it will be impossible to create a perfect reflection of any ideal character or subject study from the text, because you will invariably be required to cut elements out.  Second, aside from a few moments of less than stellar acting on the part of Cruise and a few of the other performers, this is a solidly composed and well-delivered film from a formalist frame of reference.  These elements help to explain why it got such surprising reviews even from people who found themselves to have preconceived notions about its assumed terrible nature.  I am bothered though because the version of the screenplay that does emerge on the screen is something of an absurdity, because it manages to paint an image of Jack Reacher, an ex-military police officer, as being something far beyond the morally straight, in his quest for truth, even if it means a bit of deception along the way.  Unfortunately, whatever version of the script this idea emerged never really came to fruition and instead viewers are provided with a character, and even villains who are supposed to navigate a grey area of moral values, only to end up reaffirming them, something I will elaborate on a bit later, because while I am quite critical of its implementation, I am also aware that this action film is a few strides ahead of its contemporaries, almost moving into the space of the superhero film.  Of course, the biggest travesty of this film is to include both Robert Duvall and Werner Herzog in the cast and only provide them with what probably amounts to a collective of fifteen minutes of screen time.

Jack Reacher begins with a tragic and unexplained shooting that leaves five victims dead, leading to a quick investigation on the part of the police force that pins the murders on ex-Army sniper (Joseph Sikora) who is immediately put into custody and severely beaten by fellow convicts who see him as a ruthless and psychotic killer, however, before this occurrence he asks for the help of man named Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) and before the attorneys can even attempt to hunt down the man, Reacher emerges from nothingness to involve himself in the case.  Reacher is a decidedly enigmatic individual, using only cash transactions and a completely nomadic lifestyle to avoid detection of any degree, as a clever aside he even changes his name when meeting people, always choosing a Yankees second baseman as his moniker.  However, Reachers arrival does not solve the case by any means and the district attorney and his young gun aid are set on putting Barr on death row, although the D.A.'s daughter Helen (Rosamund Pike) seems to insist that him having a fair trial is of the upmost importance, even if he is assured to be guilty.  Reacher seems solely concerned with obtaining a factual reason for each killing, believing that Barr's previous indiscretions as an ex-sniper void him of criticism and that there is clearly another layer of motive.  All the while, Reacher begins navigating the crime world and discovers that there are crime syndicates out to get a particular building company, and that Barr was likely framed by this syndicate led by The Zec (Werner Herzog) a grotesque giant of a man whose will to survive led him to chewing off his own fingers and completely losing any sense of relation to the world.  Reachers continual investigation leads him to also discover that the attorneys supposedly in charge of helping individuals are likely tied to the syndicate, putting Helen in an incredibly tense situation as her choices to delve deeper into the investigation result in her being a subject of scrutiny by her father and his aide.  However, Reacher knows that by finding one person to affirm Barr's character, he will be able to make it to the killers, finding this in Cash (Robert Duvall) a cantankerous old man whose work at a shooting rage allowed him to come into contact with Barr, as well as another man who Reacher suspects to be the real killer.  Of course, this is not the end of the film there is a large, excessive shootout leading to the death of nearly everyone involved, with the exception of the clearly delineated good guys.

I mention that the film ends with the good guys winning, because it spends so much of the film suggesting that everyone is capable of morally questionable decisions when in the appropriate setting.  For example, it is not necessarily within Helen's moral goodwill to invade the victims of the shootings homes, yet when told that it will help her case she does so with fervor, much to the anger of a father, who clearly seems intent on blaming Barr for his daughters death, completely throwing innocence out the window.  Even the attorneys on the case seem indifferent to morals, in fact, this becomes very clear by the end of the film, but as Helen makes clear, her father only chooses to pick cases he knows he can win, because such a reputation allows him to have sway over criminals even if they are innocent.  Reacher himself also navigates some questionable ethical territory when he steals multiple cars and creates an overblown police chase an event that causes a ton of damage and fails in his ultimate goal of leading the cops directly to the real criminals.  Furthermore, once his car is immovable he is afforded aid by a group of citizens who see his fleeing from a ton of cops as something to embrace, one man even offering him his hat to allow for a disguise as he hops on the bus and is driven away.  People within the context of this film seem uncertain about what role authority plays, particularly since it seems subject to its own levels of corruption.  One of the more intriguing conversations in the film centers around Reacher and Cash considering the threat of gun violence on the livelihood of his shooting range.  Reacher knows that he only need to mention that Barr was a frequent visitor to his range to get a paranoid soccer mom to get the place shutdown.  It is a decidedly valid threat and causes the film to exist in another layer of gun rights commentary, however, even when one assumes this to be an underlying theme it too is undermined and inconsistently discussed throughout.  Also, The Zec, proves to be a less than stellar character, whose willingness to but his body into pain in the name of survival has its own degree of intrigue, and his admittance to having no clue about his real identity speaks volumes to his complexity, but he is killed moments later, for what is a rather inexplicable reason.  Nothing is fully fleshed out in the moral world of the film and it is frustrating, thankfully, its showiness makes that somewhat bearable.

Key Scene:  The car chase was quite enjoyable, it had been sometime since I had seen one with any degree of excellent execution, aside from the obvious ones in a certain Ryan Gosling flick.

This was a free theater screening for me and made it somewhat less terrible I imagine, although I can say that it is worth renting, if only as an example of how not to approach moralism in film.

But She Isn't Going To Say Anything, Is She?: Dial M For Murder (1954)

I am beginning to think, after watching so many Alfred Hitchcock films that the man had to have murdered a few people in his illustrious life.  As is the case with Dial M For Murder, as well as so many of the autuer's other works, the execution of the perfect crime seems to be a topic of great concern for Hitchcock, and while this work in particular is based on a play, it, nonetheless, finds itself filled with various influences from the master of suspense.  Furthermore, I am fully aware that this particular Hitchcock film is not exactly the most entrenched within the horror genre, but I feel quite strongly that this landmark in cinema still packs in enough suspense to deserve mention this month on the blog, not to mention it is one of the Hitchcock films that I had not seen prior and I am always ready to move through more of his oeuvre.  A film that is based on a play is nothing new, but in Hitchcock's hands, the performance and setting aspects of the film become heightened considerably, he, as a director, is keen to pay homage to the play by setting the opening shots in a frozen manner, suggesting the opening of a scene right after the curtain has raised.  Furthermore, in a manner that has become Hitchcockian in its execution, the film manages to take actions and items within the plot and drastically change their meaning and representation to the audience once the plot thickens a bit, and as many a film scholar know, one cannot watch a Hitchcock film with out considering the deluge of various Freudian implications latent to any of his works.  Essentially when viewing a work by Alfred Hitchcock you can be assured that plot, acting and miss-en-scene will come together in a masterful way and provide a film that magnetically pulls you towards whatever screen you are watching the work and Dial M For Murder is certainly no exception to this idea.

Dial M for Murder's central figure is Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) a former tennis player who has retired from the game and is living rather comfortably of the wealth of his wife Margot (Grace Kelly) and appears content to do so, if it were not for his knowledge of an intimate affair Margot is engaged in with a former American beau named Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings).  Playing oblivious to the involvement between the two lovers, Tony plans an elaborate ploy to get both himself and Mark away from Margot, ultimately, intending to murder his wife.  However, realizing that his motives would be rather clear Tony calls upon a former college mate named Charles Swann (Anthony Dawson), in trouble with authorities for identity fraud and various forms of theft, all aimed at paying up his serious gambling debts.  Tony explains in great detail how he has planned the perfect crime for Charles to commit and that if he is willing to undertake the task he will be handsomely rewarded.  At first hesitant to do so, Charles attempts to counter Tony by threatening to turn him into the police, yet as Tony points out through various actions Charles has undertaken just by walking in the door, it would be in his better interest just to go through with the murder, because he as already set him up for trouble if he refuses.  Begrudgingly agreeing to the task, Charles goes through with the murder, however, in a moment of hesitance Margot reacts to the attack by Charles causing him to fall fatally on a pair of scissors, resulting in his death, as opposed to Margot's.  Frantic, Tony returns home to attempt to cover up his involvement in the entire course of events, suffice to say no matter how much practical planning Tony can go through certain things cannot be foreseen, such as the logical capabilities of those involved with the case, as well as occurrences within nature that lend to the emergence of one or another form of evidence.  In the end a perfect crime is impossible within the narrative of Dial M for Murder, because at some point a fact will not match up with the lie that is ultimately being told.

I mentioned the Freudian implications latent within Dial M for Murder and as I have attested multiple times on this blog I am by no means versed in my psychoanalytic theory, however, watching Dial M for Murder has made me want to uncover some of the film theory surrounding Hitchcock specifically, meaning of course that I will attempt to crack into some heavy Zizek in the upcoming months.  However, at the moment I can make a few observations of Freudian influence within the film, firstly, the notion of impotence manifests itself quite blatantly in this film, at the onset Tony is a man who is scorned by his lover, causing him to feel a strong degree of impotence, Hitchcock brilliantly provides the character with a cane as a visual metaphor for his lack of sexual drive.  However, notice the disappearance of this cane upon Tony's believe that he has succeeded in killing his wife, all be it a bit backhandedly.  The impotence, at least metaphorically disappears and he is able to exert his masculine zeal again.  One could also read Tony has being a character with a degree of homosexual desire, whether it be his unusual attachment to Charles or the way in which he robotically deals with Margot by way of affection.  Even Charles, who is relatively minimal to the plot has his moment of phallic pride when he is shown in a picture with Tony, smoking the "biggest cigar in the room," a clear reference to penis size and envy surrounding such rhetoric.  In this picture, Hitchcock never one to shy away from metaphor, the cigar referenced is truly something to be seen.  Finally, much could be said about a certain affixation with one's facial hair in the films closing scenes, but that is an entirely new critical approach all its own.

Key Scene:  Margot's trial scene is rather surreal and minimalist, but probably the most intense moment of the film.

Dial M for Murder is a classic, I would suggest purchasing the film, but if you are anything like me you probably want to get the huge bluray boxset that has just been released, so waiting is certainly justified.

Do I Have To Be The World's Champion Blind Lady?: Wait Until Dark (1967)

I went into Wait Until Dark not realizing who Terence Young one, only to do a quick IMDB search and realize he is responsible for the earliest, and, and to some degree, best James Bond films.  Once again this creates a film that is not entirely a horror genre film, but instead a thriller in which one woman attempts to save her life, while also dealing with the troubles of blindness along the way, which appear to manifest themselves in both a physical and metaphorical way.  Wait Until Dark carries a level of suspense that is almost Hitchcockian in its composition and a couple of extremely wry moments of humor that hearken back to Audrey Hepburn's performance a few years earlier in Charade.  While one could definitely argue for this film being a bit on the slow side I would venture to say that the closing moments are so damned rewarding and well-executed that the wait is certainly justified and Wait Until Dark consists of some excellent characters, all with brilliant performances, non greater than Alan Arkin as a psychotic killer whose poise and planning are inconceivably precise.  The world of Wait Until Dark moves dangerously around being ruled by contingency and change, quite similar to a film noir movie and manages to set nearly all of its scenes within an apartment, quite similar, but not as technologically brilliant as Rope.  From the hip title cards, to the technicolor palette of the film and right down the the sleek fashions worn by the characters in the film, Wait Until Dark is a movie from Hollywood that simply is no longer made and certainly suffers from a lack of awareness.  Not to mention, considering that this is a month dedicated to horror movies, Wait Until Dark definitely has its share of tense moments, as well as one genuine scare jump.

The film begins in a drug heist manner with a woman named Lisa (Samantha Jones) waiting for an old man to fill a doll with heroin, prior to her smuggling it on a plane from Montreal to New York City, however, upon arrival she realizes she is being trailed and passes the doll off to a man she met on the plane named Sam (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) who is a photographer in New York.  Upon attempting to access the doll later, Sam is unable to find it, due a neighbor girl borrowing it without permission, and dismisses the entire event leaving his blind wife Susy (Audrey Hepburn) to deal with the aftermath, which involves a group of henchmen and a hired killer trailer her with the intent of finding the doll.  The henchmen Mike (Richard Crenna) and Carlino (Jack Weston) play a friend of Sam's and a cop respectively who try to play up on Suzy's blindness to scare her into returning the doll, while the assassin Harry Roat (Alan Arkin) plays a handful of different roles, which becomes immediately suspicious to Susy who has learned to listen to sound clues besides ones voice for identification, taking note of a particular limp of Roat's.  Once Susy metaphorically sees that she is being tricked she plans, along with the help of a neighbor girl named Gloria (Julia Herrod) a means to protect the doll as well as her self which includes employing a non-verbal communication system with Gloria as well as removing every light from the apartment to gain an advantage over her non-blind attackers.  Mike and Carlino forfeit when the realize they are no matter for the cunning woman, only to be killed by the maniacal Roat, who then takes it upon himself to attack Susy and attempt to rape her, something we are led to believe he also did to Lisa.  Ultimately, Susy wins out and is rewarded with the loving return of her husband Sam.

I could play up on blindness as metaphor in this film, but that is far to easy of a reading and is probably exhausted at this point in time, instead I would rather focus on what this film says about intersectionality and how we define and acknowledge able-bodied individuals in society.  Susy is certainly at a disadvantage in some ways, in that she is sequestered to a rather indoor life, because it is dangerous for her to walk across even at cross walks without loosing her sense of direction and becoming a point of frustration for everyone in her path, of course, this says a lot about a groups inability to help when they would rather honk at a blind woman than get out of their car and help her cross the street.  Furthermore, even in a house prepared for her to move about blindly, the slightest movement of a chair or relocation of a object can throw one's entire ability to navigate a space in the way an able-bodied person might, something that is emphasized multiple times throughout the film.  However, what is perhaps most interesting is that it reconsiders how we discuss a blind body.  In societal conceptions of blindness we either assume a person to be born blind or to acquire the unfortunate trait in their old age, yet in the case of Susy she is a fairly young woman who has gained the handicap while still able, causing distress for herself, as well as those who help her, as is realized in scenes of frustration with both Sam and Gloria, yet in times of adversity, it is shown that Susy can not only be self-sustaining, but excel in self-preservation as well, a complete reconsidering of how a blind person engages with the world.  Furthermore, this film also deals heavily with theories of gaze in horror films.

Key Scene:  The closing moments between Hepburn and Arkin are cinema gold.

I am glad to have made a blind (no pun intended) purchase of this brilliant film and cannot recommend it enough, should you find yourself a fan of any of the people involved I would suggest purchasing the DVD immediately, however renting might be the best initial option.

For Your Awareness: The Silent House (2010)

I have often noted to my friends that the horror genre is in dire need of continual innovation if it is to ensure any staying power in contemporary cinema.  Currently it seems as though the Paranormal Activity franchise is the only horror film series to get this memo, along with a recent Uruguayan release called The Silent House.  A considerably short horror film given its 89 minute run time, the brilliance of this foreign horror film is that it contains on continuous shot that spans over the course of 72 minutes.  Drawn out shots are nothing new particularly given the magnificent feat that was The Russian Ark or John Woo's famous 2:42 scene from Hardboiled.  However, incorporating the rather tedious film style to suspenseful filmmaking is a completely different story.  The Silent House manages to do so with utter brilliance and careful composition.  At times it is easy to predict a moment of shock given that the camera pans off for a lengthened time, but even the most veteran of film goer will find themselves anxiously waiting a moment of horror, because in this film the horror is drawn out and the viewer is never finds a moment of relief.  There is one particular moment that you will not see coming and many that you will, but I can assure you without a doubt that it will scare the crap out of you.  If the sheer horror of the film were not enough, the plot is rather complex and certainly leaves the viewer with a larger amount of questions than answers, which is amazing given its rather short run time.  I am going to shy away from elaborating anymore on this as it is very much an experiential film and one that needs to be seen sooner rather than later, particularly given its upcoming American remake that will assuredly fail to do it justice.