RAMPART

You like films about dirty cops? You like to watch them run off the rails doing bad things? You like to watch them make wise cracks as they crack skulls and rob perps while they beat them to a bloody pulp? If the answer to most of these is yes, then Rampart will be disappointing. BUT, if you like intense character studies, low key performances and altogether something a little bit different, go and see it because you will not be disappointed.

This pretty much sums up the overall reaction to rampart, which has been mixed to say the least. Woody Harrelson plays ‘Date Rape’ Dave Brown - a police officer belonging to the LAPD Rampart division - a man who is in control, knows his business and isn’t afraid to cross the line in the name of justice both in aid of the court and himself. Based around the true case of the Rampart police corruption scandal in 1999 that subsequently shut down the department, the film’s director - Oren Moverman - takes us away from the overarching big case story and instead chooses to focus on Dave’s life as it begins to fall apart in the wake of the scandal. The result is a very intimate portrait of a man who is so completely convinced he is in the right that he will go further into the wrong to prove it.

This is subjective filmmaking at its most prominent. Moverman really presents the world as seen through Dave’s eyes, from every argument he has with his family (he has fathered two daughters by two sisters and still lives casually with them) to a mad night in a deranged club (which is one of the best club scenes committed to celluloid). This is just as well, because if this story were to be seen from the outside, Dave would seem like a complete prick. And he is a complete prick, but the subjective filmmaking allows us to sympathise with him…OK maybe not ‘sympathise’, it just makes us hate him a whole lot less.

Harrelson goes full throttle into the performance, right down to the big, butch LAPD walk. He’s hyper masculine, yet charming, yet troubled, yet paranoid and so on and so forth. Moverman and Harrelson have created an incredibly complex character that completely carries the audience through the jumpy narrative - we never really see any of the big events break AS they break, just how they’re filtered down to Dave and how they affect him. There is no clear and concise narrative sequence, which can leave viewers feeling frustrated, but once you get settled into the film you begin to connect the various dots and you can really see how adamant this man is that above all things, he is right.

So, as I’ve said before, this film won’t be for everyone. The almost vignette-like narrative combined with a more intimate and emotional approach that doesn’t have any explosions or car chases will leave many fans of the dirty cop genre  (or any other action/thriller for that matter) disappointed. There are some great, straightforward dirty cop movies out there, but not many of them really go into such psychological detail as Rampart, which is definitely a great strength to have. Here is a relatively fresh take on a tired subject that isn’t afraid to delve right into the intimate emotions felt by these people that breaks down the whole myth about the LAPD to reveal that despite their tough image, they are still human.

THE WOMAN IN BLACK

Horror films both amaze me, and infuriate me. The good ones are completely nerve shredding and the bad ones cause fits of laughter. It is perhaps one of the most parodied genres of all time (Scream, Scary Movie et. al) thanks to its conventions being so overused and obvious, but it is also one of the most interesting in that treading the history of the genre correlates to societal fears at the time of release (e.g. one can see Ringu as a fear steeped not only in technology, but identity theft, as Sadako kills, leaving her victims almost unchanged, coupled with the need to copy the tape to pass the curse on induces the idea that she steals a persons soul and repeats the process). So where does The Woman in Black fit into this highly varied genre? Well, to put it simply, it’s in the bad pile - but not for a lack of trying.

Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a man about to lose his job and his home. Working for a law firm, he leaves his young son to work on a job sorting out the plethora of legal documents left behind by an old woman in a big mansion in the middle of nowhere. Pretty standard set up, all delivered in a highly contrived and clunky piece of expositional writing that is so desperate to get on with the scares that it completely forgets the story. In the end, it just means that there is no characterisation and no concern as to what actually happens to Kipps - which dulls the scares quite a bit if you’re planning on putting him in jeopardy. What we actually have here is shoot-by-numbers horror film that stays so true to its gothic horror nature that it becomes predictable and trite - using generic shock tactics that pack all the punch of a soggy marshmallow.

Not that I’m against this kind of film. It can work when it’s done well, but most of the time that means not taking itself too seriously. Drag Me To Hell was a rollercoaster that had small sections of simple story punctuated by big jumpy set pieces that just had a lot of fun with the ridiculous story and just wanting to make the audience scream as much as possible. The main problem with The Woman in Black is that it takes itself way too seriously considering that it follows to a fault all the conventions of a ghost story without the actual story part to back it up. What it has ended up as is a film about a guy wondering around a haunted house and sometimes in the neighbouring town to encounter the strange townsfolk for an hour and a half. There is a story to be had, but it would rather get on with being scary than really get you involved in the world it creates.

So not only is The Woman in Black not a very good horror film, it also is not a very good film as a whole. There are a couple of scares that were effective, and it did show some promise, but its chopping and changing between the house and the neighbouring town isn’t handled very well in creating an overall atmosphere other than it being grey and miserable. This lack of atmosphere is not at all helped by the poor sound design. A horror film’s worth is largely based on a good sound design, whether it be signifying sounds that indicate something is wrong (the beeping of the scanner in Alien), a genuinely freaky sound that send shivers down your spine (the ‘click click click’ sound of The Grudge), or even the really subtle sounds that are grounded in reality (The House of the Devil does this for most of the film and it’s incredibly tense), anything lacking in the sound department can lead to change the mood entirely from something scary to something funny.

Thankfully The Woman in Black doesn’t stray too much into the ‘funny’ side of horror, but a better handling of it could have delivered something much better. But the things it really lacks are a point and a decent story. There is no particular fear that it addresses and nothing has been put in place to make you care about what happens to the characters. It tries to characterise a lot of people and as such ends up painting nothing more than caricatures and because it’s so confused between trying to scare you and trying to make you empathise with people it doesn’t have time to find a fear it’s trying to address.

So as a post Harry Potter vehicle for Radcliffe (I guess it had to be mentioned at some point), it’s hardly anything to write home about. It wasn’t the best casting choice (despite it being biologically possible, his baby face really doesn’t make him look like the father of a 4 year old), but it doesn’t really point to how well his career is going to go. A limited range of being either scared of confused doesn’t really allow him much room to prove himself, but I can’t deny he has this effortlessly likeable screen presence, meaning this film isn’t going to ruin him. But down the line, I don’t think he’ll be reminiscing about this outing to Eel Marsh if he ever picks up an Oscar.

CARNAGE

Parents will always worry about how their children will turn out, and there will always be the debate of nature vs. nurture. Are our kids naturally destined to become reprobates on the Jeremy Kyle show or can strict parenting get them on their way to achieving that PhD from Oxford? Such concerns are those of the parents at the centre of Carnage, Roman Polanski’s satirical stab at the politically correct middle classes who are so very desperate not to offend anyone.

The four protagonists are two sets of parents (one couple played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, the other Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly) whose children have gotten into a fight. They decide to meet up and discuss the incident and how to go about reprimanding the children in a civilised fashion. Of course, things spiral out of control, tempers start flaring and everyone ends up acting more childish than the kids. Add alcohol to the mix and…well I’m sure you’ve experienced the emotional effects of one too many.

Originally based on a play (the playwright also helped Polanski pen the screenplay, so at least the spirit of the original source material is there), 99% of the film takes place entirely in one location. For a play, this is advantageous because it doesn’t require set changes and the stage is the actual boundary in which this rather talky story can be told. However, when you get into the realm of film, these boundaries cease to exist. Camera angles and sets, even planets can change with a simple cut, so it’s hard to confine all the action to one space that doesn’t physically trap the characters. What this ultimately means is that you find yourself constantly asking why they don’t just leave. Even at the points where they are practically out the door, something manages to drag them back in again and this repetition causes the opening to drag somewhat.

However, once their manners begin to dissipate, the real comedy starts and the film gets very entertaining and begins to flow a lot more. The humour is witty and snide, backed up by decent performances (from a cast where 3 of 4 have won Oscars, what would you expect?) from the four leads. Each character is has their own set of believable ticks and the character progression from civilised to barbarism is natural. And at a brisk 80 minutes, it certainly doesn’t want to hang around for too long, which is more than can be said about the characters.

There is one big problem with it though - it really isn’t very memorable (apart from Kate Winslet’s no infamous projectile vomiting scene), which leads me to think that maybe Carnage isn’t as aggressive as the title claims it to be. It’s an interesting thematic concept - how adults are trapped by manners and attempts to please everyone, when all they want to do is act like children and lash out at anyone that says they’re wrong - but is it one that really needs addressing? Surely we all know this, even if it’s subconscious, we know it. This intimate knowledge of the driving force of the story then in the end sucks out the venom that Polanski is trying to sting you with.

It’s a shame really, because it really is so bloody entertaining. So by all means, go and watch it, enjoy the great performances and the zinger upon zinger dialogue. Just don’t see it as anything more than watching intellectuals trip over their own political correctness which, let’s face it, is always fun.