The WHF Film Club

[Frank Harvey]

As always, my memory isn't over clear on the details of the film, even though I only watched it last weekend, so I'm unsure whether the film shows us a descent into mental illness, or something else, though I'm favouring the mental illness explanation.

I started thinking twice about this after Richard's post! Then I remember the Exorcist-esque voices coming from her possessor. This is one reason why I like to watch films without ever reading anything about them or seeing any trailers - initially you think she just sleepwalks. Then you think she has some mild illness, then possibly something a little more serious, then something far more serious like schitzophrenia, and then you realise she is actually possessed. But it is how she is treated by everyone along the way - as Richard states, it does show how patients with certain symptoms are treated sometimes.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think-if time allows-I will adopt David's method of viewing the films twice in the month, once in the first week, and again in the final week of the month.

I think it is worth watching some films twice anyway. Sometimes a film doesn't ran you the first time round - I had that with Under The Skin - second time round I enjoyed it far more. Some films have so much information sometimes that one viewing just isn't enough, David Fincher's films are a good example (and dare I ay, David Lynch).

Funnily enough, my colleague has just been sharing some quotes with me from a film forum, with statements like 2001 is boring and almost pointless, Social Network is David Fincher's worst film (let's guess why - no car chases?), No Country For Old Men is boring and there's no point to it etc etc. I can guarantee that most comments like this are from one time viewers. Nothing wrong with that as it is natural to watch a film once and discard it from our memory if we didn't enjoy it, but to post up opinions like that online should at least be backed up by a two viewing strategy. In my opinion.

🙂

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I do find myself getting really annoyed when people dismiss films like 'No Country For Old Men' as boring, you just want to hunt them down and smash them around the face until they stop being so dumb. A friend of mine's wife said to me that she doesn't watch any films when she doesn't know what is going to happen. I don't really speak to her anymore. *smile*

I think you're right, all, well nearly all films deserve 2 viewings. I might well watch 'My Life As A Dog' more than that this month. *smile*

Just off topic, I had recorded 'Marvellous', the story of Neil Baldwin, and got around to watching it last night. I loved it, great fun.

 

[Frank Harvey]

So she only watches films like Titanic, The Hindenberg, and Sex And The City? 🙂

You could lure her into watching Pearl Harbor under false pretences...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Watched a Bruno Forzani double bill last night. Two films made in "giallo" style. I've seen Amer a few times now, and loved it during first viewing - the whole look of the film, from its picture quality to the locations, feels very 70's, with suitable Euro style music too. Small sound effects are very pronounced, which adds to the intensity of some of the scenes. Everything about it just screams 70's, and if you watched it without knowing anything about it, you'd swear it was of that era.

To follow it, I watched The Strange Colour Of Your Body's Tears, which I've never seen before, but is similar in style, only it seems they've gone for better picture quality this time round. This film is a bit of a head twister, and sometimes you're not sure whether you're viewing a dream or what is supposed to be real. But I like that kind of stuff. There's quite a few common themes/images between this and Amer,made spite the stories being completely different.

Both are a bit sexual/sensual in nature, with some nudity, and a bit of gore here and there, just to forewarn those who may not like that type of thing. Don't exlect it to be the typical horror film with flashes of boobs though, as that is exactly what these two films are not.

Both recommended, but if you're unsure, don't spend too much purchasing them. The latter film is on Netflix at the moment in HD and 5.1, so give it a go. I think the first time I watched Amer was via LoveFilm, and shortly after that I ordered it on Bluray.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I had a Giallo box set which I got in a job lot at an auction, but it didn't quite look my cup of tea, so I sold it without watching any of the films.

http://www.avclub.com/review/the-giallo-collection-the-bloodstained-shadow-shor-17163

I watched 'Running With Scissors' last night, but inevitably fell asleep before the end. *blush*

It was supposed to be a black comedy, but I obviously didn't get the comedy. It was kind of working as a quirky drama though, so I may go back to it later.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I forgot to mention how much I liked the soundtrack of 'Requiem'.

 

[richardw42]

Here is the Wikipedia article on the real events that inspired REQUIEM.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel

 

[BenLaw]

Excellent film on tonight - This is Not a Film, 2.25am Film4.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Any thoughts on 'Requiem' Ben?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

And Mike?

 

[BenLaw]

I have but I've been run off my feet with work and can't post posts of any length on my phone. I'll get on it.

 

[BenLaw]

Ok, sorry for the delay.

This film was everything I'd hoped it would be in terms of presenting an alternative stance to the typical, usually 'Hollywood', exorcism film. (Some friends recently made us suffer The Conjuring, it was a fun evening but a dire film.) I've watched quite a few films recently that deal with problems in the Catholic church. Calvary is one of the best films I've seen in a long time (the much more serious follow up to The Guard) and Mea Maxima Culpa is a very interesting documentary.

I have to say I'm pretty surprised that David has concluded 'then you realise she is actually possessed', as it's clear to me the thesis of the film is that there is no such thing as possession and this is a film about why she behaved as she did and why she was responded to in the way she was. If nothing else, the real case on which it was based (as Richard has linked to) is an obvious, horrific, example of someone falsely diagnosed as being possessed, who died as a result, and where the people involved were convicted of homicide.

I agree with what others have said that the film is about (but not only about) the inappropriate reaction to mental illness, in particular by the Catholic church. Assuming you haven't concluded, as David did, that she really was possessed, then it's obvious we're meant to be pretty horrified by the mother, the second priest and the bishop. We're also meant to be angered by the supine and ineffective reactions of the father and the first priest by the end of the film.

As I say, that seems fairly obvious. I think the film on a deeper level is more about how people, especially the vulnerable, can be influenced by others, and also about repression and trying to escape from it. In fairness to David, there is obviously the moment right towards the end of the film when the protagonist has some demonic speech. It seems to me this is not only designed to give a touch of ambiguity but to emphasise the point about how she has been influenced by others.

It's clear early on that she has epilepsy. Her parents are religious and very strict. It seems they are particularly repressive towards Michaela. Her mother tries to emotionally pressure her into not going to university. Any child is 'vulnerable' to religious indoctrination by their parents (read some Dawkins on that); Michaela is especially vulnerable because of her illness. She is still aware that she needs to escape this repression and leave for university but can't break free from her religion, at least initially.

I thought the scene at the disco where she meets her boyfriend and then dances alone, but clearly very free, was especially sweet. It seemed to symbolise her potential to leave the repression from her family. However, she was unable to escape (i) her illness, as she fitted again at university, and (ii) her parents, as she has to return home for the holidays.

Whether through personal weakness or what her parents and religion have done to her, she is unable to handle the pressure of university. The scene where she runs out of an ink reel for her typewriter is particularly distressing, as it symbolises not only her personal struggles but also the breakdown of her relationship with her boyfriend, who is unable to cope with her condition. The irony is that the only coping mechanism her parents have given her - her religion - actually makes her worse not better.

There is therefore something of an inevitability to her descent. She seeks solace in the priests, and again the stronger willed is the more misguided of them, as with her parents. She moves away from seeking a rational explanation for her illness. This is not surprising, given her long term negative experience of doctors and their lack of success and the fear of the serious diagnosis they eventually come up with. Possession offers a simple explanation and one with an 'easy' solution, promised by the Church she has been taught to believe from a young age.

Whilst she initially resists this explanation, she is worn down over time and becomes mentally weaker and yet more vulnerable. She eventually is in a spiral of increasing belief, which exacerbates her 'symptoms', which exacerbates the response from the priest and her mother, which exacerbates her belief, and so on. It seems to me this is the explanation for the demonic voice, as she is unconsciously 'acting up' to the religious diagnosis of possession. As this is not the real problem and the exorcism takes place to the exclusion of her personal care, she eventually dies from the process.

 

[Frank Harvey]

If she wasn't possessed, I really don't see the need for the demonic voice - they'd done a good job without that! With the way she was sounding, I'd took it as red that she was. I'll be watching it again tonight/tomorrow though, so maybe things will be clearer. Maybe because I'm open to the fact that this could be possible (amongst many other strange phenomena in this world), I wanted to believe it!

 

[BenLaw]

As I say, it seems to me there was no way the filmmakers would be suggesting there was a genuine possession. There really is no such thing as demons so it's not something to be 'open' to any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is.

I wanted to add, my cyclical explanation of her descent misses out one likely part of the explanation, that she was going through a particularly florid episode of her psychosis, with the particular symptoms no doubt influenced by her beliefs and the pressures from her family and the priest.

 

[richardw42]

An interview with the director

http://www.cineuropa.org/ff.aspx?t=ffocusinterview&l=en&tid=1296&did=69918#cl

use the previous / next for more on the film, including an interview with the lead actress.

 

[strapped for cash]

Any child is 'vulnerable' to religious indoctrination by their parents (read some Dawkins on that)

Nothing to do with the film, which I haven't seen, but I wouldn't count Dawkins among the most astute commentators here, even though I'm in certain ways sympathetic to his aims.

Dawkins engages religion and ideology from what we might term a cultural studies perspective, but he has little grounding in the relevant theory and literature, and thus often deals in generalisations and soundbites. In this sense Dawkins builds his argument on shaky foundations.

It bothers me somewhat when "hard scientists" dip their toes in social scientific waters. There's an arrogance underlying to their presumptions that they can acquire mastery of a new field without the requisite discipline and experience. (Take "meme theory" as another crude attempt to explain social processes.) Indeed, "hard scientists" become agitated when sociologists seek to explain "scientific knowledge," yet often see little issue with their own encroachments on social scientific territory.

Dialogue among the hard sciences and Humanities could be more co-operative. Humanities scholars, for instance, should interrogate ostensibly benign scientific research directions and their political, human and environmental dimensions. And this should be dialogue rather than one-way traffic. (I'm not for a second arguing that the hard sciences have nothing to say to the Humanities. I'd just rather hard scientists didn't presume to understand other subjects better than the scholars who specialise in these areas.)

Returning to literature on religion, while he writes from a faithful perspective that hardly chimes with my atheism, I'd rather read any of James Davison Hunter's books than The God Delusion.

Rant over.

 

[strapped for cash]

More in keeping with the thread's focus than my post above, Lynch and Frost announced that a new series of Twin Peaks will air on Showtime in 2016. Unsurprisingly, I'm pretty excited by this news.

Message to Lynch, Frost, and all other involved parties, who won't read this, though I'll say it anyway, please don't mess it up.

 

[BenLaw]

Any child is 'vulnerable' to religious indoctrination by their parents (read some Dawkins on that)

Nothing to do with the film, which I haven't seen, but I wouldn't count Dawkins among the most astute commentators here, even though I'm in certain ways sympathetic to his aims.

Dawkins engages religion and ideology from what we might term a cultural studies perspective, but he has little grounding in the relevant theory and literature, and thus often deals in generalisations and soundbites. In this sense Dawkins builds his argument on shaky foundations.

It bothers me somewhat when "hard scientists" dip their toes in social scientific waters. There's an arrogance underlying to their presumptions that they can acquire mastery of a new field without the requisite discipline and experience. (Take "meme theory" as another crude attempt to explain social processes.) Indeed, "hard scientists" become agitated when sociologists seek to explain "scientific knowledge," yet often see little issue with their own encroachments on social scientific territory.

Dialogue among the hard sciences and Humanities could be more co-operative. Humanities scholars, for instance, should interrogate ostensibly benign scientific research directions and their political, human and environmental dimensions. And this should be dialogue rather than one-way traffic. (I'm not for a second arguing that the hard sciences have nothing to say to the Humanities. I'd just rather hard scientists didn't presume to understand other subjects better than the scholars who specialise in these areas.)

Returning to literature on religion, while he writes from a faithful perspective that hardly chimes with my atheism, I'd rather read any of James Davison Hunter's books than The God Delusion.

Rant over.

I don't disagree with the thrust of that, I just recall Dawkins making some fairly good arguments as to why it was unfair on the child to indoctrinate them with religious beliefs. Can't actually remember which book it was in or the precise arguments! Making children who don't know any better believe in a supernatural being does trouble me though. The God Delusion is much the worst of his books that I've read. His early, 'hard science' books are much better.

Did you watch Requiem?

 

[strapped for cash]

Did you watch Requiem?

I haven't seen Requiem, though I'm intrigued enough to watch it. I doubt I'll find time before you've finished discussing the film on here, however.

As I always pose questions on style, how is the film constructed?

Since the filmmakers, as I understand it, present a secularist view of an alleged possession, and in doing so seek to critique certain theologies and associated institutions, do the filmmakers employ realist techniques by working to minimise (as best possible) film style, or use more formally abstract methods at certain times?

Friedkin et al. use realist techniques and documentary styling to ground The Exorcist's supernatural themes, which are blended with expressionist and at times surreal methods to convey extraordinary elements. The Exorcist remains a very well crafted film, whatever my religious perspective. How might Requiem compare?

 

[BenLaw]

I did mean to say something about this in my first post but it was rather long as it was!

The construction is a simple chronological narrative progression. In terms of style, it is entirely realist. Given the thesis I'm not sure anything else would have worked, as in The Exorcist (not that I've seen it since it's re-release a dozen or so years ago) the point was obviously that she was possessed, allowing the use of surrealism and expressionism.

In Requiem, we had real locations, a distinct lack of make up and a general sense of 70s drabness, in all things: colour palette, film grain, sets, costume, locations (her university accommodation was a little larger than mine in Manchester but equally bleak!).

 

[strapped for cash]

Thanks Ben

Requiem looks "realist" from the trailer -- handheld camerawork, eye-level framing, long takes (perhaps), seemingly natural lighting, location shooting... Such an approach makes sense given the filmmakers' view of the subject matter, though opportunities arguably remained for greater stylistic adventure.

On occasion, bolder formal choices could have conveyed subjective character experience, without attributing the protagonist's episodes to supernatural phenomena.

It's questionable whether this would have made for a better film. I mention the above only to stress that the filmmakers made very deliberate choices, and that realism remains a film style, even when the objective is to eradicate style completely.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Watched it again last night. There was no demonic voice! I have no idea where that thought came from. This is why I try and leave the film as close to discussion as possible, but in this instance I'd watched another 12-14 films. As mentioned though, I'll be watching the film when I get it from now on, then watching it again before discussion. Just as enjoyable and powerful the second time round. As mentioned, far more realistic in its approach than other movies of its type.

oh, watched Gone Girl yesterday. Highly recommended. You'll definitely need to watch that more than once to discuss it!

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Watched it again last night. There was no demonic voice! I have no idea where that thought came from. This is why I try and leave the film as close to discussion as possible, but in this instance I'd watched another 12-14 films. As mentioned though, I'll be watching the film when I get it from now on, then watching it again before discussion. Just as enjoyable and powerful the second time round. As mentioned, far more realistic in its approach than other movies of its type.

oh, watched Gone Girl yesterday. Highly recommended. You'll definitely need to watch that more than once to discuss it!

1. I didn't remember a demonic voice when I watched it, but didn't want to contradict you in case my goldfish like memory was letting me down.

2. You are Barry Norman.

3. We'll be going to see it in the next week or two. Looking forward to it.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Watched about 450 films last year - not sure how that compares to others. There's a lot of wasted time in there though! I hope to be putting some of that wasted time to better use over the course of the next year...