Summary:
A retelling of the infamous Borden murders of 1892.
My Thoughts:
I had thought Lizzie Borden was enough of a legend that she was common knowledge, but apparently some people are still unaware of her story. You can find references to her everywhere. I’m sure my first encounter with her was through a reference in a Steven King or Neil Gaiman novel, but I honestly can’t remember when I first heard that infamous rhyme:
Lizzie Borden took an ax
And gave her father forty whacks
When she saw what she had done
She gave her mother forty-one!
Now, if you’ve followed this site for a while, you know that the darker aspects of the human psyche fascinate me. I went through a phase in high school where I loved Ripperology (the study of Jack the Ripper), I’ve watched documentaries on H.H. Holmes, read transcriptions of some of the oldest legends surrounding Sawney Bean, heck, I’ve even scanned the public FBI files on Jeffrey Dahmer… So, naturally, as this film was right up my alley, I’d done a bit of reading into the infamous Borden murders before this film came out. I’m no expert, but I knew the main details: Andrew and Abby Borden were brutally murdered and the only suspect ever brought to trial was their daughter Lizzie. Rumors have surrounded these murders for years, but, just like the Whitechapel Murders (Jack’s murders), we’ll never know the truth for sure.
That’s one of the reasons these types of stories are so fascinating to me. The air of mystery that surrounds these gruesome deaths has never dissipated, even after one-hundred-and-twenty-seven years. As that mystery has never been solved, the real challenge of telling this story is a) making it believable, and b) giving us a reason to care about Lizzie, especially since, in this story she is our protagonist. Making a murderer sympathetic is difficult to do, particularly when the murders are as heinous as they are in this film, but somehow, I felt as if this film pulled it off.
“To your knowledge, did your father have any enemies?”
After the Borden family welcomes and Irish maid named Bridget (Kristen Stewart, Clouds of Sils Maria) into their home, she and Lizzie Borden (Chloe Sevigny, Zodiac) become friends in the face of Lizzie’s father Andrew’s (Jamey Sheridan, Spotlight) abusive tendencies. Meanwhile Andrew’s business dealings with the shady John Morse (Denis O’Hare, Garden State) has resulted in threatening notes being left on the Borden’s porch each day. As tensions in the household rise, Lizzie’s mother Abby (Fiona Shaw, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone) starts to imply that they would be better off if Lizzie were to be sent away.
One of the things I liked most about this film was its subtlety and the way that it approached certain themes. Early this year, I reviewed Mary Queen of Scots, and in that review I talked about the mishandling of themes. In that film there is a homosexual character that is featured quite prominently, and in every scene I felt as if the director was using that character as a fulcrum for her own political agenda. I said in that review the same thing I will in this one, I have no problem with homosexual characters in historical pieces, but that theme needs to be approached reverently. When you belittle the struggles that the homosexuals of that time faced, you insult them, not further their cause. This film really handles the themes of homosexual oppression in years past with brilliantly subtle deftness, and a lot of that is due to the wonderful performances from our two leads.
I know a lot of people will hear Kristen Stewart’s name and immediately jump to Twilight, but that’s not fair. Stewart’s indie work since her time as the awkward, lip-biting Bella Swan has been something to behold: The Runaways, Still Alice, Certain Women, Personal Shopper, and Clouds of Sils Maria are all above average, if not really good films. This movie really showcases her talents with subtlety. Sevigny too does a wonderful job in this movie; her subtlety is also used wonderfully, but where she really shines is in showing her power.
One thing that really took me by surprise in this film was the direction, particularly the direction when it came to this films use of nudity. Now, this isn’t something I’d normally go out of my way to bring up, but in this film it feels important. The ending of this movie, as one might imagine, revolves around the murders, and the way in which the murders are portrayed almost take this film from an arthouse drama to a grindhouse horror thriller in an instant, but somehow it really works.
(MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUT THE ENDING FOLLOW)
A strange sort of love affair sprouts between Lizzie and Bridget in the face of Lizzie’s father’s abuse, and when her mother threatens to send Lizzie away, she decides to take matters into her own hands. When Lizzie decides to killer her parents, she first removes her clothing (they only have a few sets of clothes, so she can’t risk getting blood on the fabric). Usually, I find nudity to be unnecessary in films unless it is used artistically, but the way it was used in this film was so brilliant that I found I had to comment on it. This removal of clothing not only makes sense in terms of practicality, but it also works for the themes of this film. This is a very feminist film, and when Sevigny removes her clothing at the end, it is kind of symbolic that she is, at this point in time, the essence of a woman scorned. She is naked, but not afraid. She is, in a sense, her purest form when she first kills her mother. It’s a “I am woman hear me roar” moment that feels incredibly earned and justified (I felt that this film and last year’s shockplotation film Revenge used nudity in very similar, very symbolic ways). A little while later, Bridget removes her clothes in preparation to kill Andrew, but when she comes face to face with him she can’t do it, so Lizzie has to step in and swing the ax in her stead. As Bridget watches Lizzie murder her father, she weeps and cowers naked in the corner. I find it incredible that within a few scenes, the director of this film was able to use nudity to show a sense of absolute power and a few scenes later, use the same tool (nudity) to show an overwhelming sense of fear and vulnerability.
Verdict:
I was more impressed than I expected to be with this film. It is slower paced in the first two acts, but Sevigny and Stewart both deliver performances worth watching, and the smaller details of the story are livened up enough that I was interested throughout. With some films surrounding killers, I feel as if the moment of murder is the only interesting aspects, but with this film, Lizzie’s character was compelling enough to keep me engaged throughout. There were a few shakier scenes with some minor characters, and a few scenes that felt a touch overdone, but for the most part this was a very decent film.
Endnote: This really has nothing to do with the film itself, but while I was watching this I found myself thinking back to another film I reviewed for last year’s 31 Nights of Thrills series: The Limehouse Golem. Both have similar feeling and tone, and both have a few shakier scenes that probably earned them similar middling reviews, but both movies, I feel, had some merit. I’d be remised if I didn’t take an opportunity to throw a little love towards a movie I feel was unjustly forgotten.
Review Written By: