Topic 4: Media
Product Review
For our
final blog posting, I have chosen to review the movie “Stoker”. I chose this
movie because I am attracted to the intricacies of the human mind….and its
abnormalities. I believe this movie stands out because it is very much about
the secrets we keep beneath our glossy, crafted exteriors.
Now, please enjoy this complimentary trailer from the movie.
It would be hard to describe this movie in detail without, as I have been cautioned against doing, spoiling the ending. I will summarize the plot of the movie thus: The death of Richard Stoker sets off a chain of events steeped in blood, lust, and insanity; events which will forever and inexorably bind together Richard's widow Evelyn, his daughter India, and his brother Charlie. The characters in this film are played like tightly wound violin strings.....and as you know, tightly wound strings are liable to snap from the tension.
It would be hard to describe this movie in detail without, as I have been cautioned against doing, spoiling the ending. I will summarize the plot of the movie thus: The death of Richard Stoker sets off a chain of events steeped in blood, lust, and insanity; events which will forever and inexorably bind together Richard's widow Evelyn, his daughter India, and his brother Charlie. The characters in this film are played like tightly wound violin strings.....and as you know, tightly wound strings are liable to snap from the tension.
The director of this movie is Park Chan-wook, whose previous directorial work includes the "Revenge" trilogy: Sympathy for "Mr. Vengeance", "Oldboy", and "Lady Vengeance". As you may have ascertained from their titles, those three movies gravitate heavily around revenge, as well as murder, betrayal, and brutality. Mr. Chan-wook is a film director, screenwriter, producer, and former film critic who was born in Seoul, South Korea. His films are very masterfully directed.
The screenplay for "Stoker" was written by Wentworth Miller, who is mostly known as an actor. He has a penchant for submitting his scripts under a pseudonym. He was greatly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock's, "Shadow of a Doubt" in his writing of the screenplay for "Stoker".
I find "Stoker" to be similar in particular to the "Revenge" Trilogy in that the main characters are broken persons attempting to deal with or overcome enormous trials and tribulations while fighting to either find or preserve who they are as people. Also similar is the fact that yes, violence is indeed a part of this movie, but as with the Trilogy, the violence is a matter-of-fact affair that accomplishes whatever goal the character perpetrating it has.....as opposed to the violence that you might find in a run-of-the-mill slasher flick where the violence and gore borders on senselessness.
I have to say that I find this movie to be far superior to the majority of the thriller or suspense movies that are on the market these days. I believe the minute subtleties of the story and camerawork of "Stoker" places it above the other movies of its ilk....they are reduced to poor cousins of "Stoker", residing on the same family tree but not on the same branch.
I do not profess to know whether this film is important or if it matters to the public in general, who seem to consume what is before them but rarely appreciate it; but it is certainly important to me for the reason that watching it has made me think and I have been changed by the watching of it. I think it reflects a certain undercurrent in our culture, that we like stories featuring troubled or dysfunctional people and situations because they give us something to compare our own lives to and feel better about ourselves: "At least my life is not as disturbed as that", et cetera. Or perhaps we are drawn to them because of the parallels we feel or see between such films and our own lives. Maybe somehow, we are soothed by this.
The target audience of this movie would seem to be all-inclusive, but upon deeper thought it is most likely aimed at peoples of my age group, between 18 and 30-something. I suspect that the story and dark themes would resonate most truly with those of that age group as opposed to peoples of an older generation. Although I could be wrong about that. I merely could not imagine my grandmother or even my mother enjoying this film, they would find it far too disturbing. Maybe that says more about their movie preferences or their sensibilities than it does about any generational issues. The film does not seem to carry any overt stereotypes, but there are messages that some people might find offensive, about sexuality, proper family relationships and boundaries, and mental illness, if the viewer forgets to keep these aspects in their rightful place as part of the story being told.
The film's strengths are numerous, among them: wonderful acting, skillful screenplay and directing, and subtle nuances. These all blend together to require the viewer to indulge in repeated viewings. The main weakness, I felt, was the somewhat unexplained ending. I am not going to reveal the ending, as that would ruin it for those of you have not yet seen the film. Suffice it to say that the ending is one which lets the viewer fill in the gaps, if you will, with their own imagining of how they think it may have ended. I can't honestly decide if I would have liked a more definitive ending, one that explained all; or if I like the ending the way it is because it is in keeping with the vein of uncertainty that pulses beneath the skin of the whole film. I lean towards the latter.
I find the movie very good, as you can tell from what I have already written here. I believe it is entirely up to Park Chan-wok's previous standards that are prevalent in his other films. Since this is the debut of the writer, Mr. Miller, I cannot say whether this is above or below his screenplay standards, but I would feel safe saying that this movie's screenplay has set the bar quite high for any of his future writing endeavours. I will personally remember this movie, it is quite possible that parts of it will stay with me forever because of the thoughts it provoked in my mind.
The professional critics seem to be rather fond of the movie, and I enjoy some of their more purple prose I found in their reviews. Says A.O. Scott of the New York Times: "The first half of “Stoker" passes in a rapture of dread, as the viewer anticipates terrible things to come.......we find ourselves in a world of lurid, saturated colors; languorous camera movements; temporal displacements; and jagged shards of sound." NY Times: A.O. Scott's review of "Stoker".
In contrast, Russ Fischer of slashfilm.com opines: "There’s an influence from Hitchcock – the imposition of a long-lost Uncle Charlie can’t help but conjure thoughts of Shadow of a Doubt — but Stoker doesn’t feel like a Hitchcock film at all. Unfortunately, it doesn’t feel much like a classic Park film, either. There’s lush cinematography to spare, and a strikingly vivid color palette, yes. As a story or character portrait, however, Stoker is resoundingly hollow". He gave the film three stars out of ten, which I feel is harsh. Russ Fischer: The Man Who Hates "Stoker".
The screenplay for "Stoker" was written by Wentworth Miller, who is mostly known as an actor. He has a penchant for submitting his scripts under a pseudonym. He was greatly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock's, "Shadow of a Doubt" in his writing of the screenplay for "Stoker".
I find "Stoker" to be similar in particular to the "Revenge" Trilogy in that the main characters are broken persons attempting to deal with or overcome enormous trials and tribulations while fighting to either find or preserve who they are as people. Also similar is the fact that yes, violence is indeed a part of this movie, but as with the Trilogy, the violence is a matter-of-fact affair that accomplishes whatever goal the character perpetrating it has.....as opposed to the violence that you might find in a run-of-the-mill slasher flick where the violence and gore borders on senselessness.
I have to say that I find this movie to be far superior to the majority of the thriller or suspense movies that are on the market these days. I believe the minute subtleties of the story and camerawork of "Stoker" places it above the other movies of its ilk....they are reduced to poor cousins of "Stoker", residing on the same family tree but not on the same branch.
I do not profess to know whether this film is important or if it matters to the public in general, who seem to consume what is before them but rarely appreciate it; but it is certainly important to me for the reason that watching it has made me think and I have been changed by the watching of it. I think it reflects a certain undercurrent in our culture, that we like stories featuring troubled or dysfunctional people and situations because they give us something to compare our own lives to and feel better about ourselves: "At least my life is not as disturbed as that", et cetera. Or perhaps we are drawn to them because of the parallels we feel or see between such films and our own lives. Maybe somehow, we are soothed by this.
The target audience of this movie would seem to be all-inclusive, but upon deeper thought it is most likely aimed at peoples of my age group, between 18 and 30-something. I suspect that the story and dark themes would resonate most truly with those of that age group as opposed to peoples of an older generation. Although I could be wrong about that. I merely could not imagine my grandmother or even my mother enjoying this film, they would find it far too disturbing. Maybe that says more about their movie preferences or their sensibilities than it does about any generational issues. The film does not seem to carry any overt stereotypes, but there are messages that some people might find offensive, about sexuality, proper family relationships and boundaries, and mental illness, if the viewer forgets to keep these aspects in their rightful place as part of the story being told.
The film's strengths are numerous, among them: wonderful acting, skillful screenplay and directing, and subtle nuances. These all blend together to require the viewer to indulge in repeated viewings. The main weakness, I felt, was the somewhat unexplained ending. I am not going to reveal the ending, as that would ruin it for those of you have not yet seen the film. Suffice it to say that the ending is one which lets the viewer fill in the gaps, if you will, with their own imagining of how they think it may have ended. I can't honestly decide if I would have liked a more definitive ending, one that explained all; or if I like the ending the way it is because it is in keeping with the vein of uncertainty that pulses beneath the skin of the whole film. I lean towards the latter.
I find the movie very good, as you can tell from what I have already written here. I believe it is entirely up to Park Chan-wok's previous standards that are prevalent in his other films. Since this is the debut of the writer, Mr. Miller, I cannot say whether this is above or below his screenplay standards, but I would feel safe saying that this movie's screenplay has set the bar quite high for any of his future writing endeavours. I will personally remember this movie, it is quite possible that parts of it will stay with me forever because of the thoughts it provoked in my mind.
The professional critics seem to be rather fond of the movie, and I enjoy some of their more purple prose I found in their reviews. Says A.O. Scott of the New York Times: "The first half of “Stoker" passes in a rapture of dread, as the viewer anticipates terrible things to come.......we find ourselves in a world of lurid, saturated colors; languorous camera movements; temporal displacements; and jagged shards of sound." NY Times: A.O. Scott's review of "Stoker".
In contrast, Russ Fischer of slashfilm.com opines: "There’s an influence from Hitchcock – the imposition of a long-lost Uncle Charlie can’t help but conjure thoughts of Shadow of a Doubt — but Stoker doesn’t feel like a Hitchcock film at all. Unfortunately, it doesn’t feel much like a classic Park film, either. There’s lush cinematography to spare, and a strikingly vivid color palette, yes. As a story or character portrait, however, Stoker is resoundingly hollow". He gave the film three stars out of ten, which I feel is harsh. Russ Fischer: The Man Who Hates "Stoker".
I must confess that I did not go out and buy other movies that feature the same actors or the director, but that is due to my financial restrictions. I have become more interested in the actors of the movie (I already knew the director was very good) and will be looking forward eagerly to watching other movies they are in; and also in any upcoming screenplays by the writer. I did research the actors and various contributors to this movie online. I have some friends, mostly in my age group, who do enjoy the movie but admit to not quite grasping the story of the film in its entirety. The majority of my family has either no interest in the movie based on its synopsis; or they refuse to watch it because I described it as something I'm interested in. My tastes tend to differ greatly from those of my relations, you see. They can use my interest of lack thereof in a topic, movie, book or TV show and get a fairly accurate measurement of whether they would be interested in it, as well.
In summary, I am anxious to add this movie to my collection of films and believe that it is one of the rare ones I can watch repeatedly and not become tired of. Doing this critique has forced me to delve deeper into the film, to consider aspects that lie beneath the exterior of what we are presented with on the screen. I greatly enjoyed getting into the head space of the director and the actors' characters....although, if you watch the film, you might conclude that getting into the head space of any of the characters of "Stoker" may not be a healthy undertaking. I still highly recommend it.
In summary, I am anxious to add this movie to my collection of films and believe that it is one of the rare ones I can watch repeatedly and not become tired of. Doing this critique has forced me to delve deeper into the film, to consider aspects that lie beneath the exterior of what we are presented with on the screen. I greatly enjoyed getting into the head space of the director and the actors' characters....although, if you watch the film, you might conclude that getting into the head space of any of the characters of "Stoker" may not be a healthy undertaking. I still highly recommend it.
