Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Hayley Squires’

I expect future generations will come to look back on the Corona pandemic in the same way that we look back at one of the wars of the 20th century – and this will probably extend to making films about it, too (although whether any of those films will be as good as Soderbergh’s Contagion is of course another question). War movies tend to divide along the lines of whether they were made during or after whatever conflict they depict; the pandemic still technically being a going concern, no-one seems keen to address it as a story element directly so far. There’s also the fact that the coronavirus has the capacity to mess with film production in a way that most wars have never been able to.

One consequence of this is a selection of Corona-era films and TV shows that, regardless of their subject matter, have been inevitably influenced by the circumstances created by the virus – for example, M Night Shyamalan’s Old, which has nothing to do with the pandemic but mostly features a very limited cast list and a constrained, well-ventilated location. There have been others: some people seem to have relished the challenge of trying to assemble a functional movie despite the limitations of the lockdown period.

And one of these was Ben Wheatley, who seems to be in the process of trying to establish himself as a mainstream director – along with those of my friends who know Wheatley’s work, I was rather startled to see his name attached to a major blockbuster due out imminently – Wheatley is probably best known for a series of quirky, low-budget films, usually with an oppressive atmosphere and a sense of insidious, creeping madness. His next film is a sequel about Jason Statham having a fight with some giant prehistoric sharks. It will be interesting to see if any of Wheatley’s auteurishness survives in this setting.

His last film, however, was made mid-lockdown in a couple of weeks and is definitely what you’d expect from a Ben Wheatley film. It is called In the Earth and it concerns an agricultural scientist named Martin (Joel Fry) who arrives at a remote government-run outpost monitoring access to a large tract of forest; a lockdown is in progress to try and stop the spread of an unspecified virus. Martin is here to check out the research of a colleague, Olivia (Hayley Squires), who has been in the forest for quite some time investigating some odd fungal growths. It’s apparently a two day hike through the woods to the place where Olivia was last reported – Martin and his guide Alma (Ellora Torchia) set off, not without a sense of foreboding.

Sure enough, the signs become ominous: Alma reports that no-one has had direct contact with Olivia for months. They come across an abandoned tent. Mysterious attackers set upon them in the night, breaking gear and stealing their boots. Martin badly gashes his foot while trying to continue the journey. Help possibly arrives in the form of Zach (Reece Shearsmith), a rather eccentric man who has been living in the woods for some time. He takes them in and offers assistance.

However – and this may not come as a complete surprise – Zach is not quite the good samaritan he first appears to be, for he has his own intentions with regard to the duo. Quite apart from his horrific attempts at treating Martin’s foot, he seems  be some kind of Pagan, worshipping a vaguely-described presence in the wood with different kinds of offerings. But what is he actually trying to do, and does it have any connection to Olivia and her research…?

People have slapped the folk-horror label on In the Earth almost reflexively – is it my imagination or are we living through a sort of folk-horror boom at the moment? – but I suppose it is justified given the primeval tone of much of the movie and the importance of ancient knowledge and traditions. It seems to me to be a sort of attempt to do a Nigel Kneale-ish SF-horror fusion, about an ancient sentience residing in the landscape (or features thereof) and responding to messages which are sent by methods which look very much like the rituals of witchcraft.

It takes a while for this to become fully apparent, though, and prior to this the film makes do with a sort of general sense of dread and anxiety, coupled to some icky gore – the film is most obviously a horror film for most of its length in the way it deals with Martin’s foot injury and the way it is handled, especially a sequence in which Zach announces the foot has become infected and will need extra treatment, hefting his axe as he does so. Wheatley gets the mixture of black comedy and visceral nastiness spot-on in what follows (Shearsmith is obviously in his element) and this is possibly the most memorable part of the film.

The film becomes increasingly more cryptic about what the characters are dealing with, and I was actually reminded of Phase IV, another story of scientists trying to deal with an alien intelligence operating through elements of the natural world. Suffice to say that it all gets a bit trippy towards the end, as it so often threatens to do in a Ben Wheatley film (for some reason one is inclined to imagine that the parties round at his and Amy Jump’s house are fairly spectacular), even if this means that the story gets a little bit unravelled.

Still, it’s an interesting and distinctive piece of genre cinema, not the most accomplished piece of folk-horror to come along in the last few years but still worth a look. I imagine that if you did look at it, unaware of the fact the whole thing was done in two weeks on a tiny budget, you would probably be less than entirely impressed – but on the other hand, it doesn’t seem that different to films like Sightseers, which Wheatley was making long before the virus came along. And it does feel distinctively  Wheatleyesque in way that some of his attempts at mainstream success haven’t always been. A tribute to the talent and creativity of its makers, anyway.

Read Full Post »

It is surely very heartening to see that, even in times as dark as the present, society still offers a chance for success to people who are clearly a little bit weird (especially heartening for those of us who are weird ourselves). Currently I am thinking of Peter Strickland, whom I may be jumping to conclusions about. Never having met the gentleman, I may be taking liberties by labelling him as weird, but the two films of his that I’ve seen have both been, well, weird. Weird in a very interesting and entertaining way, I hasten to add. But they’re still weird.

I saw Strickland’s Berberian Sound Studio towards the end of 2012 and came out feeling rather well-disposed towards it (certainly more so than the gentleman who stood up at the end of the screening and shouted ‘Utter rubbish!’ to no-one in particular). His follow-up, The Duke of Burgundy, didn’t trouble the cinemas around here so far as I can recall, but his latest film did – albeit not in a very conspicuous way. Another victim of the great Disney squeeze, one might suggest.

The new movie is In Fabric, which is a fairly odd title and thus rather undersells the film, which is extremely eccentric, to say the least. The setting is the UK in what looks like the late 1970s or possibly early 80s (one character has a misleadingly contemporary hairstyle, but it soon becomes obvious that email and mobile phones don’t exist yet). Marianne Jean-Baptiste plays Sheila, a recently-separated bank clerk with a teenage son who is a bit thrown to discover that her ex-husband has already found himself a new girlfriend. As an odd form of passive-aggressive retaliation, she decides to join a lonely hearts dating service, but only after refreshing her look a bit. And so she goes out and buys a new dress.

This proves to be a choice of questionable merit, as the department store she visits is a rather unusual one which appears to be run by witches, or possibly devil-worshippers. Even the sales assistants are rather peculiar, such as the one she encounters (an uproarious turn from Fatma Mohamed). However, the ‘artery red’ dress she ends up buying is something else again, as it is apparently cursed and possessed of a malevolent sentience, and is determined to do her ill. This initially just takes the form of giving her a nasty rash and destroying her washing machine (the dress doesn’t like being machine-washed), but soon its activities become absolutely murderous…

There is a camp ridiculousness to the premise of In Fabric which clearly owes a debt to some of the sillier horror movie premises of years gone by – I’m thinking of the homicidal vine from Dr Terror’s House of Horrors or the man-eating furniture in Death Bed – although, come to think of it, Stephen King did a book about a haunted car and no-one called that silly. Certainly this resonance doesn’t seem to be a matter of chance, for the film also has a quasi-portmanteau structure which inevitably recalls Dr Terror and the various other portmanteau horrors of decades ago.

It isn’t quite as simple as this film simply being a spoof of that particular genre, though. Strickland’s fondness for Italian giallo horror was evident in Berbarian Sound Studio and this film has that same kind of visual artfulness and richness. The combination of arty continental horror stylings and everyday naturalism which  makes In Fabric so distinctive is almost enough to make one suggest that this is what it would look like if Dario Argento and Mike Leigh ever worked together on a project (or if such a project were lovingly pastiched by the League of Gentlemen).

The most impressive thing about In Fabric is the way in which it takes such a richly over-the-top premise, and such a seemingly-incongruous set of clashing influences, and still manages to be a coherent and cohesive movie rather than a mess of clashing styles and tones. This, it seems to me, is the sign of a very fine film-maker – the ability to turn a film on a dime and shift between tones so effortlessly is exceptionally difficult. And there are lots of different things going on here. As I said, this isn’t exactly a horror parody – it is knowing and tongue-in-cheek, and the audience is expected to recognise this, but at the same time it is a genuine horror film, intent on unnerving and rattling its audience. It is attempting to be weird and creepy rather than actually scary, and there are some extremely odd and rather graphic sequences that certainly won’t be to everyone’s cup of tea.

And then Strickland will smoothly go into another encounter with the bizarre shopworker Miss Luckmoore and her preposterous turn of phrase (this is a woman who says ‘I have reached the dimension of regret’ when she means ‘I’m sorry’), or a scene where one of the characters is dragged in for a nightmarish encounter with Julian Barratt and Steve Oram’s useless managers, or even a genuinely moving scene filled with real pathos. It shouldn’t work; it certainly shouldn’t look as easy as Strickland manages to make it appear.

I shouldn’t neglect to say that this is a genuinely funny film, albeit often in a highly surreal way (at one point Barratt and Oram are reduced to a priapic stupor by someone describing washing-machine faults to them). You find yourself wondering if you’re actually supposed to be laughing at this or if you haven’t quite understood what kind of film you’re watching. In the end I did conclude that very little in this movie has been left to chance.

For all that it is an unusual and rather intoxicating concoction, I would still say In Fabric has the odd flaw – primarily that the opening segment of the film is stronger than the rest, which is unfortunate if nothing else. Marianne Jean-Baptiste’s performance is a bit more rounded than those of Leo Bill and Hayley Squires, who carry the later parts of the movie. I might even suggest that the portmanteau structure of the story isn’t signposted at all and is a bit wrong-footing when it manifests itself.

Nevertheless, this is a film made with obvious confidence and skill and a definite sense of visual style (the soundtrack, from the splendidly-named combo Cavern of Anti-Matter, only adds to the hypnotic effect). It is distinctive and highly unusual (and probably not very mainstream, to be perfectly honest), but also very funny and always interesting. I liked it very much.

Read Full Post »