The Post (2017)

Summary:

As Kay Graham preps the Washington Post to go public, a large government cover up story revolving around the outcome of the Vietnam War breaks, and she is forced to choose whether or not to publish material that Nixon is trying to conceal. Publishing could mean major backlash from investors and possible jail time, but not publishing could bring about the death of the First Amendment and possibly prolong the fighting in Vietnam.

My Thoughts

Seeing Streep and Hanks lead an all-star cast while Spielberg works his magic behind the camera should be enough to get any cinephile to the theatre. This movie, while slow and somewhat convoluted at the beginning, is one of the most important movies of the year. Why? The answer lies in the first scene Streep and Hanks have ever shared together. At a luncheon meeting, Hanks is justifiably upset that Nixon is refusing to let a reporter from the Post cover Nixon’s daughter’s wedding, because of the coverage they put out on another article a few years ago. He says: (I’m paraphrasing slightly here- the exact wording escapes me) “Just because the president doesn’t like the coverage we give him doesn’t mean he gets to dictate what we publish.”

In the dark corner of the small, sparsely populated theatre, I couldn’t help but smile.

The film starts in Vietnam with a brief but chaotic battle scene. Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys, “Burnt”), a military analyst, types up his thoughts on the progress made. On Air Force One, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek (2009)”), asks Ellsberg for his opinion on the war, and disheartened, Ellsberg says that nothing has really changed. McNamara, frustrated, turns to H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, and says that they’ve been deploying more soldiers to Vietnam, and the lack of progress despite more troops effectively means the war is getting worse. Immediately after landing however, McNamara smiles at the press and tells them the war is going well. Ellsberg wont stand for this, so he begins to covertly sneak classified documents from the Pentagon, making copies with his coconspirators. Upon reading the documents, he discovers the government’s lie stretches further than Nixon’s presidency; the cover-up was known by the four previous presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

While the film starts off with a (literal) bang, the next half hour of the film takes a noticeable loll as it tries to find its footing. Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”) nervously discusses plans for the company to go public with Fritz Beebe (Tracy Letts, “Lady Bird”), a trusted friend and board member for the Post. He reassures her that everything will go fine, but she is determined to memorize her talking points. She meets with the Post’s Chief Editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Saving Private Ryan”) to discuss how to attract a wider demographic. Graham then goes to a board meeting, wearing a greyish suit but surrounded by a sea of men in black; she is a woman, desperately floundering to stay afloat and relevant in a business run predominantly by men. During a board meeting, when Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford, Get Out) asks a question regarding the budget, she answers, but the answer is ignored until a Beebe parrots her. Throughout the film, there are dozens of shots where Streep is literally surrounded by men that loom over her, almost claustrophobically so. The recurring theme of woman being forced to the back of the workplace is impressively subtle, but also incredibly important. Streep is looked on as a type of stoic, silent role model for women.

For a while we are a fly on the wall of the Post, watching as Bradlee scrambles around the office trying to put together the next paper with his reporters, while simultaneously keeping a close eye on his rival competitors: The Times. Bradlee sends an intern to the Times to try to find out what the Time’s best reporter, Neil Sheehan, is working on. The intern is unable to find out what the piece is on, but he does find out that Sheehan’s article will be on the front page the next day. Meanwhile, Graham receives a visit from McNamara, who is a lifelong friend, and he tells her that the Times will be printing something about him on the front page. The next day, the Times publish their first story on the Panama Papers and it takes the country by storm. During a dinner Graham the Times editor, Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name”), Rosenthal receives word that Nixon intends to take the Times to court over the published documents.

Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk, “Incredibles 2”), a reporter with the Post, after hours of cold calling, finally makes contact with Ellsberg. Ellsberg meets Bagdikian in a motel; documents are spread round the cheap room in thick, incriminating piles. Ellsberg asks if Bagdikian would go to jail to stop the Vietnam War, and Bagdikian answers, “Hypothetically, yeah.” Ellsberg shakes his head. “You’re going to publish, right? Then this isn’t hypothetical.” As the story progresses, and the Post’s reporters diligently comb through the thousands of pages to find a story, the question of whether or not Graham will allow the story to go to press garners more and more implications. Should Graham publish, not only will the Post be going directly against an order of the courts, but she may also be putting her freedom, and the freedom of those she works with, at risk.

The Good:

Spielberg is in fine form here; though his subject matter isn’t as intense as some of his well-known Blockbusters, he still manages to build a surprising amount of tension throughout the film. There are plenty of long takes with expertly choreographed deep staging. He provides plenty of background humor with minor characters, and he conveys the hectic nature of a newsroom with beautiful precision. The writing of Liz Hannah and Josh Singer (“Spotlight”) brilliantly touches on many issues of the era and also succeeds in drawing many comparisons to modern times. I would honestly be surprised if this didn’t receive a nomination for writing.

Streep is fantastic as the meek-mannered but firm Graham; she does an amazing job making us feel her constant insecurity but desire to prove herself. The real scene-stealer was Hanks, whom I thought gave his best performance in years. “Captain Phillips” (2013) was the last time Hanks really generated Oscar buzz, but I would not be at all surprised if we see him on the docket this year. But though Hanks and Streep were the standouts, everyone else in the A-list cast provided commendable performances as well; particularly Odenkirk, who really shines as the nervous but tenacious Bagdikian.

The Bad:

As I said before, the beginning of this movie is a little convoluted and slow. There are so many characters wrapped up in all of this, all of which are important; but at the start, the viewer almost feels like a person on their first day at a new job, being introduced to everyone in the office and expected to remember names. It’s overwhelming. But soon, as the pacing picks up, you get caught up in the story and the drama, and the movie sweeps you right along with it.

Verdict:

(MINOR SPOILERS)

Towards the end of the film, a portion of Justice Hugo Black’s statement is read: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” That quote drew some small applause from the people in my theatre. Whatever your stance on the whole Fake News hullabaloo that's permeating current daily news, this statement by Black is extremely important, and I believe the entire reason Spielberg made this film. As Americans, its our inalienable right to be informed and speak our minds; it’s why freedom of speech is our first amendment. No, the government might not always like what the media says, but tough luck. Grow a spine and take it. You asked for power; deal with the byproduct. The people in charge need to be okay with their power being questioned, because, in the words of Terry Pratchett: “Authority that cannot be questioned is tyranny. And I will not stand for tyranny.”

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Dark City (1998)

Summary:

A man with no memory awakes in an apartment to find a murdered woman beside him. In an attempt to learn his identity and the truth about the city in which he resides, the man becomes caught up in a twisted game of cat and mouse, only to find things are not at all what they seem.

My Thoughts:

I wanted, so badly, to love this movie.

The first minutes of this film were tailor made for my tastes. From the incredibly bizarre opening scene featuring an Igor-esque scientist played by Kiefer Sutherland (“The Lost Boys”); to the creepy, pale, corpselike men going about the city in their peculiar ways; to the shadowy, noir-like cinematography- this movie had me- hook, line, and sinker. The film continues to inspire suspense and surprise as it goes on, but seems to really loose focus towards the third act. Still, while this movie is not perfect by any means, it’s unique aesthetic alone puts it miles ahead of your average, run-of-the-mill blockbuster.

Reader’s Note: Before I go too far, though, I want to say that this film is best seen without any prior knowledge. I went into this movie blind as Ray Charles; I knew only that it was a sci-fi mystery. There will inevitably be some (minor) spoilers peppered throughout this review, but I will shy away from any major plot twists.

A man without memory (Rufus Sewell, “A Knight’s Tale”) awakens in a dark apartment where he discovers a woman covered in blood; the blood, inexplicably patterned to look like inward spiraling swirls. Suddenly, pale strangers in long black trench coats appear at the door. The man, confused and frightened, flees the strangers, but as he does, he discovers that the white strangers in black cloaks have a sort of telekinetic power, and to his shock, he too seems to possess a small inkling of that same power. As the story progresses, the man discovers his name, John Murdoch, and that he is married to Emma Murdoch (Jennifer Connelly, “Phenomena”). John and Emma reunite. John is still without his memory, but he’s begun to piece together bits of his life; with Emma’s help, he hopes to find out what is happening on the streets of the mysterious city.

Meanwhile, Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”) makes an entrance at the apartment where Murdoch first awoke. (Side note: Hurt easily gives the best performance here- I’ve come to love Hurt for his characteristic subtlety and monotone mumbling; Bumstead’s character benefits immensely from Hurt’s portrayal.) He is charged with the investigation of the woman murdered. Bumstead, while searching the apartment, finds evidence of Murdoch at the scene of the crime. He goes to Emma, hoping to find John. Emma attempts to convince Bumstead that John is innocent, and that there is something much larger going on behind the scenes. For reasons he can’t quite understand himself, Bumstead believes her.

Meanwhile meanwhile, (a lot happens in this movie, which is surprisingly under two hours in length) Dr. Schreber (Sutherland), an enigmatic scientist, works on a secret project for the strange men in black cloaks. I won't go into what’s going on here; as to do so would be to give away some of the twists.

There’s so much going on in this movie. The three main storylines overlap and weave through each other, for the most part, seamlessly. There are problems, however, many of which come from the length of the film. Like Alice after ingesting the “Eat Me” cakes, the story was much too large for the room it was given. I think this movie could’ve been great- a true sci fi classic- if it had been allowed to breathe.

There are many things done very right in this story- first is the setting. In a good story, setting is just as much of a character as the actual humanoid characters; setting can be moody, murky and brooding or cheery, colorful and bubbly. Setting is the invisible character that provides mood, backstory and crisis by simply being there. In this story, the crepuscular city is a more interesting character than many that live within it.

The design of “Dark City” lends itself to the incredible- the buildings (minor spoilers) move and grow into themselves, morphing old brick and steel into new architecture. This, right here, gives the world of “Dark City” plenty of intrigue. Even from the beginning, we know something is amiss with this tenebrous town, and Murdoch seems to be the only one attuned to the amorphous nature of the city. The dated special effects, it must be noted, do take away from the film, and while they don’t look terrible, it is distracting. The effects crew had a hard job to pull off; in some scenes they succeeded admirably, and in other scenes, particularly the climax, they failed; but the effort is still quite admirable.

The Good:

Alex Proyas has created a nightmarish pseudo-bureaucratic dystopia that is even more interesting than the world in which he set “The Crow”, and that in it of itself, is rather impressive (“The Crow” is another movie that, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the heck out of). These worlds have depth, and they hint at even deeper backstories. But I wanted more from this world. I easily could’ve watched another twenty or thirty minutes and not have been bored. In Proyas’s 90’s films, setting seemed to be everything, and it paid off. Proyas was onto something in the 90’s; sadly his latest works- “Knowing” and “Gods of Egypt” - have left a lot to be desired.

The story, though at times convoluted, is an interesting adventure in storytelling. There are plenty of twists, but if the viewer is paying close attention, they should be able to piece together what is happening before the end, as I did. Strangely, though I was able to take a guess at what was happening, that doesn’t make the film overly predictable- there is so much going on that there are bound to be some surprises along the way.

The Bad:

This film was so close to great, but it missed the mark a few times, and as a result, I imagine it is only a pale shadow of what Proyas envisioned. As I mentioned before, the third act is where the story really loses its focus. Near the end, all of the storylines are whirring about in a chaotic fashion- the storylines are like atoms in a particle accelerator- and as they collide, the result, as can be imagined, is explosive.

Now, ‘explosive’ could be taken by many to mean a great compliment to the movie, but that is not my intent. When I say the movie’s climax is explosive, I don’t mean that I was at the edge of my seat and I thought my eyes might pop out of their sockets. No, what I mean is that the film devolves into deliriously hectic pandemonium. I won't give anything away because “Dark City” is still 100% worth watching. But know that near the end, viewers are bombarded with twist after twist after twist and then, on bated breath, they are catapulted into a less-than-stellar special effects extravaganza that sadly looks, after nigh twenty years, slightly silly. The streamlined ending leaves the viewer little time to react to any of what is happening until after the climax has happened, the denouement has been hastily rushed past, the film is over, and the credits are rolling.

Verdict:

What started as a truly remarkable film ended up being a decent movie; there is a skeleton of a great film beneath all the bits that didn’t work. This movie is truly one of a kind. Watch it for the unique craziness that it is; there aren’t many films that boast this much originality, and even if this one doesn’t work on every level, it absolutely succeeds in entertaining the viewer from start to finish.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Heaven Knows What (2014)

Summary:

Harley is a homeless teenage heroine addict living in New York City  desperately trying to navigate the grim ghettos of dealers and users. She survives by panhandling and backstabbing friends for her drugs, all the while flirting with her on-again-off-again psychotic boyfriend, Ilya, and the idea of suicide.

My Thoughts:

This film is BLEAK.

Inspired by the unpublished memoirs of lead actress, Arielle Holmes, “Heaven Knows What” is the story of Harley, a homeless heroine addict living in New York City. One of the most interesting tidbits about this movie is the fact that the lead actress is portraying a fictionalized version of herself. Discovered while she was panhandling on the streets, Arielle Holmes was encouraged by directors Josh and Benny Safdie to write a memoir; “Heaven” is the product of her memoirs and some fictional happenings added by the Safdie brothers. “Heaven” was Arielle Holmes’s first credit as an actress.

The film starts with Harley (Arielle Holmes, “American Honey”) as she sits in a library, writing a suicide note to her boyfriend. She’s made a mistake, and Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out”) is angry with her. She believes the only way to redeem herself is through death. She writes a suicide note, telling Ilya that him she loves him, and he gives her reason for living. She delivers the letter to Ilya and he, without reading it, tears it to shreds and lets it fall to his feet. Ilya tells Harley to prove that she loves him, so she buys razors and, with his prompting, she slits her wrists in front of him.

From there, Harley is taken to a hospital. When she gets out, she goes to score drugs without a second thought. Despite the warning of her friend, Skulky (Ron Braunstein, “Good Time”), Harley meets up with her dealer, Mike (Buddy Duress, “Good Time”). After spending the night with Mike, Harley begins living with him, panhandling for money to buy food, drugs and alcohol.

This film is a remarkably harrowing character study. Most of the time, the plot takes a back seat- it doesn’t go much further than Harley trying to get money or drugs- but the plot is not the thing that drives this story; what drives the story is the tumultuous, destructive chemistry between characters. This film gives us a passenger car filled with characters to care about, and all of them are barreling blindly towards an inevitable train wreck, and honestly, it’s impossible to look away.

Arielle does an amazing job portraying Harley, which makes sense considering the character is based on her. As she wanders through the streets, bleary-eyed and dejected, continuously making decisions that will sink her further into her habit and further into trouble, we can’t help but feel sorry for her. She inspires so much sympathy, but at the same time so much frustration. You want to help her, you want her to help herself, but time after time she disappoints and fails.

But she keeps trying. She is determined. And though her determination is misplaced- directed towards finding enough drugs to keep her from getting sick- we still can't help but hope she does the right thing next time. She is such a beautifully broken, schismatic character. I found myself drawing many comparisons between Harley and Rodion Raskolnikov. She is a slave to her heroine as Rodya was a slave to liquor; both characters are poor but do nothing to rectify their situations, despite many opportunities to do so; both do things that cause themselves and others harm without thinking them through, turning to violence on impulse, lashing out at those who help them; both characters are reckless and put themselves at great risk for minimal gain.

I suppose many people could look at this movie and see only sadness, only darkness. It is a sad story, that much is true, but it’s important to look beyond the circumstances in which the character find themselves, to try and find some semblance of meaning, some light in all this. Harley is always looking for redemption no matter where she goes, she’s just always looking in the wrong places; but she is at heart, despite all her flaws, a good person.

This is one of the reasons why this movie is so good: because it convinces you to root for a character so deeply flawed, so horribly broken, that it gets you to want to believe in some sort of redemption for her. I found there is so much beauty in this film. Down among the broken hearts, slit wrists, needle-pierced veins, and drug-riddled minds- in the trash-filled gutters of our society, people can still find love; it might not be whole or perfect, but they can still find it.

The Good:

Arielle Holmes is amazing as Harley, Caleb Landry Jones is fantastic as Iyla, and Buddy Duress is great as Mike. None of the actors here (save Caleb) have big credits, but most of them really hold their own on screen.

But the real talent here is behind the camera, with the writing and directing. The Safdie brothers are incredible. Though the story draws on the almost meditative state in which Harley lives her life, the direction is anything but meditative. Colors are at times vibrant and rich, and other times dull and drab (much like the schismatic nature of Harley and the high and withdrawal of her drug). Some scenes linger, while others are quick and intense. The brothers show an incredible amount of range in such a short time frame, something they do again in “Good Time”. Their work will be something to watch for; though their next film, “Uncut Gems”, which has Jonah Hill attached to star, still has no release date.

The Bad:

The content matter is very disturbing; the whole story focuses on a teenage girl’s addiction and the addictions of those around her. You really have to look through the darkness to see the light in this film; but the light is there, if you search for it, and it is beautiful.

Verdict:

This is a great movie, but it is not for everyone. There are plenty of trigger warnings: drugs, violence, domestic abuse. But it's important to remember that this stuff really does happen, and there are teens that are going through what Harley went through right now. So often we get caught up in the comfortable bubbles of our own world and forget how much pain some people experience every day. I believe if you can look at this movie for what it is, not a picture of a good, noble person, but a portrait of a broken person searching for redemption, then this film is an incredible odyssey to experience.

Closing thought: I don’t know where Arielle is now, but I pray that wherever she is, she’s well. After completing her work on this film, Arielle asked the Safdie brothers to help her in recovery, and they brought her to a treatment facility in Florida. She has since has been in two other films: “American Honey”, and “2037: Winter’s Dream”, but her IMDb page shows no upcoming projects.

This film was dedicated to Ilya, Arielle’s real life boyfriend, who died of a heroin overdose in 2015.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Summary:

Bradley Thomas is a down on his luck ex-boxer forced to turn to drug running to make ends meet; through a series of misadventures he winds up in prison. But it gets worse- his pregnant wife is kidnapped by the cartel that Bradley used to work for, and unless Bradley can kill a high-profile inmate, who's being kept in the high security ward of the prison, the cartel’s surgeon will perform an experimental procedure to hew the limbs from his unborn child.

My Thoughts:

Last year, I checked out Zahler’s “Bone Tomahawk” at the recommendation of a friend. The violence in “Tomahawk” was absolutely brutal, and though the story was somewhat slow and probably could’ve been trimmed by a half hour, the movie was worth watching (provided you’ve got a strong stomach.) When I learned of “Brawl”, I was eager to see if Zahler could live up to “Tomahawk”, and I was not disappointed. “Brawl” is better than “Tomahawk” in many ways; it’s an epic tale of violence, revenge, and justice.

Bradley Thomas is a hulking ex-boxer with a large black cross tattoo on the back of his skull. In the first scene, Bradley is fired from his job, and upon arriving home and he finds his wife (Jennifer Carpenter, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”) talking on the phone with another man. After a brief confrontation, she admits she’s been cheating. Bradley tells her to wait inside, and as soon as she closes the door to their house, he begins to beat his wife’s car with his bare fists. He breaks a window, pulls out the headlights, rips the hood off and throws it across the yard. The way Bradley does this is methodical, slow; he takes his time; makes every punch count. It’s the way he does everything. Bradley slowly tearing apart this car piece by piece becomes a metaphor for the whole film.

His anger abates, and Bradley goes inside to talk to his wife. He’s not angry with her, he knows things have been bad, and he promises he's going to do everything in his power to make things better. He goes to an old acquaintance (Marc Blucas of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) who helps him get into the drug running business. Time passes, and Bradley is at the top of his game again; his wife is happy, pregnant- their lives are going the way they want.

But alas, good things are not meant to last.

(Mild Spoilers)

During a drop, two new runners accompany Bradley. Bradley senses something is wrong and suggests they walk away, but the new runners refuse. Cops descend on the smugglers as Bradley watches from afar. One of the cops takes a bullet, and Bradley knows he can’t stand idly by. He approaches the drug runners from behind and kills them. The cops then arrest Bradley and he’s sent to jail (the judge gives him a light sentence for helping the cops.) As Bradley arrives in jail, he receives a message from the cartel: you killed our men, we’re going to cut the limbs from your unborn child unless you can kill someone for us- an ex-cartel member who’d ratted them out, who is being kept in the most secure location of the prison Bradley is being held. Bradley agrees to kill the man to save his wife.

(End of Spoilers)

Vince Vaughn deserves far more credit than he gets. In the underwhelming second season of “True Detective” he gave a standout performance, and in “Hacksaw Ridge” he did the same, but this movie is a milestone for him. Vaughn absolutely kills it (no pun intended) as the stoic, straightforward, no-nonsense, anti-hero Bradley; he dominates every frame of the screen, he has more presence than any of the other actors, by far. Even veteran actor Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”, “Django Unchained”), whom plays Warden Tuggs, pales in comparison to Vaughn.

The deliberate pacing in this movie allows for the characters to breathe and adjust to their environments before making rational decisions on what to do next. Though the word ‘Brawl’ is in the title, none of the violence is unwarranted; all of it is necessary to the story. The style of violence, too, is deliberate. The meticulous way that Bradley destroys the car at the beginning of the film is how he fights the entire movie. Bradley is an ex-boxer; he defends himself when he knows he’s going to take a hit, then packs a wallop when finds his opening. The violence is slow, but so brutal. There are broken limbs, bashed faces, beatings with barbells, headshots and much more. The camera likes to linger on each hit, making you feel the impact of every blow Bradley takes or deals out. The taught thriller builds towards the end, gathering speed as Bradley works his way through different cellblocks towards his mark.

The characters in this film are all believable, and though they commit crimes and horrible acts of violence the writing makes us sympathetic towards them. Vince Vaughn’s character in particular stays on a straight and narrow path- he knows what he has to do, and he never strays from that path, even if it means a lot of pain for him. He wants to do right by his wife, and nothing will stand in his way; he is a very commendable character in that regard. The tattoo of the cross, featured prominently throughout the film, seemed to be a symbol of a kind of sainthood achieved by the martyrdom Bradley goes through.

There’s no way to beat around the bush here; some of the effects look really bad. Really, this is the only issue I had with this film. There are some scenes where the victims of Bradley’s beatings are clearly mannequins. It is quite distracting, and honestly takes the viewer out of the movie a bit. Strangely, I said the same thing about some of the special effects in “Bone Tomahawk”. Zahler needs to find someone else to do his practical effects.

Verdict:

The movie is entertaining as all get out; intense, thrilling, satisfying, and even a little emotional at times. This is one thriller that has, sadly, flown under the radar, but it is well worth checking out if you get the chance. If you like this, keep your eyes on the horizon; Zahler has reteamed with Vaughn, Carpenter, and Johnson (and added Mel Gibson) for his next film, “Dragged Across Concrete”, which, if the title is any indication of content, could provide another bloody thrilling ride.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Tenant (1976)

Summary:

Trelkovsky is a young bachelor renting an apartment in Paris which had previously belonged to a woman who’d committed suicide. The longer he stays at the apartment, the more paranoid he becomes about the intentions of his callous neighbors.

My Thoughts:

Reader’s Note: Before diving into the claustrophobic world of The Tenant I’d like to address the inevitable elephant in the room that unfortunately comes with every Polanski film. No, I do not approve of Polanski’s personal choices in life, but I do find his work compelling. It also does not escape me that this was the last film Polanski made before becoming a fugitive from the US following the Samantha Geimer incident. Now more than ever, as the #MeToo movement erupts across Hollywood, the question of whether or not we can judge art separately from the artist hangs in the air. I don’t have an answer for that question; you must make that choice yourself. If you’d like to hear more of my thoughts the Polanski /Geimer incident, I urge you to check out my review for “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”.

This film is the final and often forgotten about entry in Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy (following “Repulsion” and “Rosemary’s Baby”). The apartment trilogy is not being a conventional trilogy with a continuing storyline, instead the films center round similar themes of claustrophobia, sexual repression, paranoia and slow descent into madness. These are themes around which Polanski has built a career.

“Filthy little brat!”

When looking for an apartment to rent in Paris, Trelkovsky (Polanski, “The Fearless Vampire Killers”) wanders into a tall, narrow, gothic building where there is a room for rent on one of the upper floors. The vacancy is good news for Trelkovsky, but the reason for the opening, he soon learns, is because the previous tenant threw herself out the window (when touring the room he peers curiously out the window and sees the exact spot where she fell). Before moving in, Trelkovsky meets a curmudgeonly old neighbor (Melvyn Douglas, ”Being There” ) who complains about the woman who’d committed suicide, and all the racket she made. Trelkovsky reassures the man that he’s a quiet bachelor; the neighbor retorts, “Bachelors can be a problem, too.”

So begins the standoff.

One night, soon after moving in, Trelkovsky has a few friends over for a housewarming party, including a young woman named Stella (Isabelle Adjani, “Possession”). They drink, put on a few records, and talk quietly amongst themselves, but apparently, not quietly enough, for soon the neighbors are rapping on the door and calling for the music to be shut off and his friends to leave. Desperate to make a good impression, Trelkovsky decides he’ll keep to himself when he’s home, so as to make as little noise as possible, but in doing so he retreats into isolation. Paranoia sets in. Was there someone watching him from the dark apartment across the road? Is there someone waiting in the stairway outside his door? Who were the people wandering down in the shadows of the street? Is he being too loud as he walks about? Are his neighbors in on some malevolent plot together? What really happened to the woman who lived in the apartment before him?

Many horror films today shy away from the psychological reasons of why things scare us, instead opting for blood, gore and nudity (look at half the films included in 31 Nights of Thrills). Those films are fine if you’re looking to kill some time on a rainy afternoon. By the time you go to bed, you’ll have forgotten about the horrors you saw earlier that day. Not so with Polanski’s films. Polanski shies away from gore and guts, and instead he likes to linger on the terror of confusion. He likes to play with your emotions and make you wonder what’s gathering in the dark corners. Many times the viewer isn’t sure what is real and what isn’t. Even after the credits roll there are some questions left unanswered, or answered ambiguously. The confusion that Polanski creates for the character bleeds from the screen into the viewer’s mind, seeping deeper and lingering longer than any splatterfest today.

Fans of Polanski’s work will recognize the deliberate pacing associated with his other films (“Rosemary’s Baby” in particular); the film starts off slowly before building to its shocking, horrific climax. Polanski dazzles in taking the reins as director, lead actor, and co-writer of this brilliant piece of cinema. As his character sinks further into madness, his performance never slips. He lingers on the things that make us uncomfortable, and delights in shocking us with a disturbing ending. The viewer never really knows what is going to happen next, and even when we think we’ve figured it out, there always seems to be something else we hadn’t expected. As a horror film it succeeds in shocking, exhilarating and disturbing the audience.

Verdict

While I cannot recommend “The Tenant” to everyone, there are certainly people who will see it for the masterful work of art that it is. The film is slow but it is very rewarding for those who stick it out to the end. For fans of 70’s cinema, claustrophobic thrillers and twisty plots this film will be a delight… maybe not a delight- but certainly a thrill.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele