Joseph Howell
“It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time” is a series that focuses on movies that either have a bad critical reputation, bombed in the box office or serve as guilty pleasures. It will largely focus on genre movies, though I will venture outside of that area
I became a fan of director Nicolas Winding Refn when I saw “Bronson,” the based on a true story tale of a man (played by Tom Hardy) who became one of Britain’s most notorious violent criminals. After seeing it, I began to see his other films. The “Pusher” trilogy, “Fear X” and “Valhalla Rising” were all films met to varying levels of acclaim, but had gained the director a sizable cult following among both genre fanatics like myself and art house aficionados.
Then “Drive” happened.
With a cast including Ryan Gosling, Carrie Mulligan, Christina Hendrix, Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, and a cast against type Albert Brooks, “Drive” was a modest box office hit that brought the Danish director to the mainstream. Critics, blogs, comments sections, popular websites, your friends and family – those that saw “Drive” loved it, and turned it into something of a phenomenon. I should know, because I was one of those fans. It’s my favorite film of the director, and is my favorite movie of the decade so far.
So when his follow up, “Only God Forgives” was met with boos at the Cannes Film festival (joining “Taxi Driver”, “Wild at Heart”, “Tree of Life” and “L’Avventura”), one couldn’t help but notice. Not that it was too surprising really. Refn has always followed his own path instead of the one people would expect, so for him to try and replicate “Drive” would ring somewhat hollow. At the same time, anticipation for the film was high so one can’t help but feel that no matter what, it probably would have paled in comparison for many.
The plot deals with Julian (Ryan Gosling), who along with his brother Billy (Tom Burke) runs a boxing ring in Bangkok that doubles as a drug smuggling ring. One night, Billy declares that it’s “Time to meet the Devil” and rapes and murders an underage prostitute. Billy is found by the police, and is killed by her father. However, that isn’t enough for retired police chief/avenging angel Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), who proceeds to cut the man’s arm off as a reminder of the sin of selling his own daughter into prostitution and not doing enough to prevent her death.
When Julian finds out the circumstances involving Billy’s death, he isn’t too fond of the idea of avenging his death. As far as he’s concerned, the dude deserved it. That’s not enough for his mother Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas), who makes it clear from the get go that Billy was her favorite son, and that she will not be happy until the people responsible are dead. At the same time, Julian has been seeing visions of Chang, and develops a desire to fight the man. Chang, however, is no mere man.
It’s not much of a spoiler when I point out that Chang is essentially God in this movie. Nobody ever hurts or even touches him. He’s the one who always dishes out pain, and delivers it as both punishment and a harsh form of forgiveness. He can be forgiving, such as when he spares the life of a man who offers his own for the safety of his young son, but he’s more likely to lop off limbs with his trusty sword that just happens to magically appear out of nowhere behind his back.
So if there is a God here, then who is the Devil? That would be Scott Thomas, who steals the show as the mother from hell. She’s always domineering, not to mention insulting. A key example of this is when Julian has dinner with her, and brings along a prostitute named Mai (Rhatha Phongam) he hopes will come off as his girlfriend. Crystal doesn’t buy this, and proceeds to call Mai a “cum dumpster” and belittles Julian and his manhood, talking about how Billy had a bigger dick (indeed, one of the things heavily hinted is that Crystal had a sexual relationship with her sons, and that is part of the reason they turned out the way they are.) Simultaneously, she is always tempting and calling on Julian to avenge Billy’s death, even though he knows that it’s not really worth it.
So, with all the discussion about plot out of the way, is “Only God Forgives” a misunderstood masterpiece or a mess of a movie? It’s a bit of both.
On one hand, it’s very well directed and edited, with deep reds and blues permeating nearly every scene. The cinematography (from former Kubrick cinematographer Larry Smith) is superb, making the city of Bangkok a neon drenched hell where violence and vice is a way of life. Also worthy of mention is the score by Cliff Martinez, which is a great blend of pulsating, ambient electronic music with a pinch of Thai classical and folk music. Some other performances also work, especially Pansringarm as Chang. Whilst he’s the God/angel of vengeance of the title, there are still moments – such as getting to meet his family and his fondness for karaoke – that let the viewer see a glimpse of the more human side of the man. Finally, the violence is extremely effective. Bloody and to the point, it’s a world in which punishment is the same as forgiveness, and everything from a torture scene to the inevitable fight between Chang and Julian are brutal and unforgiving.
At the same time, I couldn’t help but feel like it’s a missed opportunity. It’s obvious what Refn’s influences are here – David Lynch, Alejandro Jodorowsky (there’s even an “in tribute to” at the end credits for the man), Luis Buñuel, and Takashi Miike – but he’s unable to coalesce them into a satisfying whole. A part of this is the fact that at the end of the day, the story is pure, unapologetic pulp, but unlike “Bronson” and “Pusher”, he seems unsure of how to combine this with art house sensibility. All the violence hits hard, but it’s combined with long periods of silence in which people just stare into space.
This leads me to Gosling. He’s not bad per se, but his performance does ring as somewhat false. Refn clearly wants to present him as a troubled man, and it’s a nice touch to see that he only has 17 lines of dialogue. However, he’s not really all that well defined. There are hints as to why he’s the way he is (implied incest, murder and his life of violence and dealing drugs), but we don’t get to actually know who he is as a person. Whereas his character in “Drive” felt like a human, Julian is just kind of a slate. In a way, he represents the movie’s biggest flaw – vagueness. I don’t mind movies being vague, but this one is extremely vague. Little if anything makes much sense, and while it has all kinds of interesting themes going on, it doesn’t know what to do with all of them. It ultimately feels like a movie that isn’t as deep as it thinks it is.
I’d be lying if I said this movie isn’t a disappointment. After the surreal but haunting atmosphere of “Valhalla Rising” and the art house meets adrenaline fueled pulp of “Drive”, I can’t help but say I wish I had gotten better from a director whose work I tend to love. At the same time, it’s not something that I will forget anytime soon, and I will more than likely watch it again in the future. Besides, I have to applaud him at the same time. Instead of trying to replicate the success of “Drive”, he decided to make the movie he wanted to make, and if his biggest disappointment still sticks with me, that says a lot about him as a director.
Next Time: “The Forsaken” is one of the gayest horror movies to be released by a major studio. I don’t mean that in an derogatory way either. It literally is one of the most homoerotic studio horror films ever made.
