♣ Dead Man's Shoes
Saturday 28 April 2007
I have read a fair amount of bad press for this film, saying it's not up to scratch. Lewis Beale of the Film Journal International says it, 'Isn't a mess, but it's sure no competition for Winchester 73, Once Upon a Time in the West or even Kill Bill, films in which payback really is a bitch.' I think he somewhat misses the point however. In my mind (and others dispute this) Dead Man's Shoes is more than a simple slasher movie. It is affecting and disturbing, and, led by Paddy Considine, the actor who plays Richard, it manages to pull it off with a fair amount of panache. In short, it has a great deal of depth, paticularly psychological depth which the others simply don't have to the same degree.
As for plot: Richard returns home from military service to a small town in the Midlands. He has one thing on his mind: revenge. Payback for the local bullies who did some very bad things to his brother Anthony. (These bad things are gradually explained in flashback, and with increasing ferocity, making for a climatic realisation of the reason for Richard's killing spree). At first his campaign employs guerrilla tactics, designed to frighten the men and put them ill at ease. But then he steps up his operation, and one by one the local tough guys are picked off by the terrifying angel of vengeance that Richard has become. In the final flashback we come to understand that Richard's brother is actually dead. This is something of a revelation as we see his brother following him in various scenes, with direct dialogue between the two, leading to a Sixth Sense style realisation that he is a part of Richard's memory now. This aspect of the film was an excellent addition. No explanation is made for the brother, the film is too slick for that, it merely expects the audience to understand Anthony is now an intrinsic part of Richard's revenge-set mind. Similiarly, we do not really understand the reason for Richard's vigilante attacks until the final flashback when we see his brither die at the hands of those he now kills. It's something of an ask for the audience to keep up with the action not really understanding the motive, and I appreciate the film not dumbing down for the sake of easy watching. The mysteriousness of Richard's vendetta is a useful device; it echoes the vengeful and animalistic nature of Richard's revenge, implicating the audience in Richard's psyche (as he later says, "Now I'm the monster.")
Richard: [to Mark] You, you were supposed to be a monster - now I'm the fucking beast. There's blood on my hands, from what you made me do.
There is a small but appreciable element of humour noir here as well. At one stage, Sonny, one of the main persecuters of Anthony attempts to kill Richard by shooting him, but only manages to shoot his colleague Big Al in the head. This kind of darkly macabre slapstick only enhances the surreal ambiance of the film. In another scene, Richard meets the wife of his final victim Mark, and she accuses him of giving a knife to her son, which of course he did. Richard's reply is the telling, 'but it was blunt' and here we see Richard at his most childlike; he fails to understand how this is 'irresponsible.'
This was the first film I had seen from Shane Meadows, though his name had been bounded about a lot in front of me, and I thought his direction was actually very good. The film seemed to rise above the simple killings of several men to deal with grander themes: revenge, mercy, the point at which man becomes animal, and the squalid decadance of the bourgeoise pretenders in little England; shifting drugs like small kings. Cinematically, there are some fantastic shots; a good use of filters, perspectives etc lend the film an uncanny air throughout much of it, giving a slightly surreal atmosphere. The film as it's whole is a wonderful package. Film and sound come together incredibly well, complimenting one another perfectly. The harsh electronic sounds of the score provide a chilling backdrop to the murders, and sum up the dystopian view of life in their cacophony.
The film comes in at just 120 minutes. It's short by any standard, but by the end we feel that to have carried on any longer would have been an indulgence. All credit must be given to Meadows for producing a film quite bare bones in terms of production, but so much grander in execution and thematic content. Meadows also has an excellent eye for locations, something reflected in his cinematography. Even in the first opening shots we see a picture of Midlands suburbia, bland in all senses of the word, and yet, in the very distance the powerful silhouetteed intrusion of a castle on a hill. This Gothic incursion into the ordered and banal life of suburbia gives us immediately an impression of the untapped power, the looming threat of more primal elements coming to power. This certainly reflects the cast: in a town of big fish in a small pond, it's the agressive nomad, the troubled outsider who wreaks revenge on his former friends. In one of Richard's early attacks on his victims (at this point he is more concerned with firhgtening and humiliating them rather than actually killing them) there is a terrific shot of two fat men sprawled on couches; near-empty pizza boxes strewn about the room, decorated in the most tasteless way possible. When Richard comes to the scene and spray paints their clothes and hair, we can't help but feel a certain empathy with him. If this life portrayed is what Richard stands against, is it any great loss? There are a number of great scenes showing the contrast between the victims indulgent, stagnant lifestyles, cooped up in dark, drug-filled dens with Richard's own vagrant lifestyle. He stays for the majority of the film outdoors, seeking shelter in an abandoned outbuilding of a farm. There's obviously a great deal of imagery here in terms of the raw strength of nature's fury (Richard's revenge) and his victims weakness, having succumbed to the easy life, a life which is emasculating in it's removal of dignity. There is more than a hint of the Romantic Byronic hero here as well; the nomadic Richard has a definite power, wandering through, seeking something, which allies him even more to the audiences sympathies.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the film is in Paddy Considine's rendition of Richard. It is rare to find in film an anti-hero of such tremendous psychopathic tendencies, and yet one capable of such endearment. Though Richard's murders are graphic and uncompromising, Meadows allows for a look at his complex psychology and allows us to feel more than a little pathos for the man under the mask. (Literally 'the mask' - for a good portion of the film Richard wears an old gas mask to kill his targets, showing not just his military background, but his faceless, driven focus for murder).
Penguin from Penguin's verdict? 4 1/2 Artic Penguino's
Labels: film
posted by danny @ 06:24,
