24 January 2009

Ever feel like beating random strangers? This one's for you.

Violence! Senseless Violence! So Will and I saw an entry in the dramatic competition entitled Bronson. The blurb in the Sundance guide made it sound interesting: a criminal who believes himself an artist, learns to make violence his craft and perfect it into an art.



In theory, it sounds really disturbing and strange. I could think of a million interesting things to do with this synopsis were I making the film. True to the nature of the Sundance guidebook, the movie you see is rarely the same thing they explained to you. That can go either way of course, some of the worst sounding films turned out indeed to be the best. And I'm sad to report that this movie just didn't make the grade.

The story focuses on Charlie Bronson (not the actor, although that is where he pulled his pseudonym from), a british man with few if any morals who spends his time beating people up in prison. And loves it. The narrative unfolds partially through seeing the action, but also through a series of "stage performances" in which the actor tells his story to group of tux clad theater-goers. These departures are enlivened with Bronson's unique whiteface or playing multiple characters ala-Harvey-Dent-style make up. It is an interesting effect, and I was willing, even excited to go with it . Oh, and it's based on Britain's most violent/notorious incarcerated inmate, the real Charlie Bronson. What could make a more interesting film?



Here are my problems. First, and perhaps a minor detail: A story concerning one of the most violent men in the UK prison system, particularly a story about a man who defines himself by violence should be... violent. Honestly. I wanted this movie to make me uncomfortable, have to look away, make me shudder at the horror. Perhaps I expected a little more Clockwork Orange or some American History X curbing, but the violence was fairly generic, bloodless punching and beating that looked all a little too staged.

Look, I'm not into gratuitous violence. I'm not wild about seeing graphic violence. But I think violence serves a purpose and can prove a point; it is one of many tools a screenwriter can use to convey the message. The ritualistic attacks in this film however, struck me as unremarkable, which is unfortunate. How can you showcase this character's personality if you don't offer what he is capable of. In many ways he is a monster. But we are denied that monster in most respects, and by the end when he kidnaps and holds hostage a character that we might feel sympathetic for, I found myself actually hoping Bronson would viciously hurt the victim, if only so I could then feel justified in being shocked by him. And I was disappointed.

This leads into my second and more vital argument. The character never went anywhere. And this, for any story, but especially where the narrative completely revolves around a character, spells certain doom. At first Bronson seems interesting, mysterious and you're trying to figure out why he does what he does. The film doesn't give us this psychology and worse yet, allows Bronson to remain static throughout the film. He is the same person at the end as the beginning growing neither better nor worse in response to his situations.

That makes for boring cinema. The last third of the movie I simply stared at the screen, Wagner blaring over images of him taking on the the guards for the umpteenth time, and couldn't help but be disinterested. More of the same. It's just more of the same. It felt like the secondary characters were more developed than the film's namesake. Characters need story arcs. Even if the individual fails, or you want to present a character who embodies senseless violence for no particular reason. There still needs to be something for the audience to work with. Watching the first five minutes of this film is about all you need. You've then seen the end too - all the information about Charlie Bronson you're going to get.

Bronson make me want to commit acts of violence. On the filmmaker. Okay, it wasn't Midnight Meat Train awful, but it fell flat and that such a dull film was made about such an potentially interesting subject is disappointing.

2 comments:

Jiles The Great said...

Hmmmm...you should really go watch My Bloody Valentine. It's fun (you know, a slasher film kind of fun...), and it will satisfy the whole "show me violence" thing. Now THAT is a film which completely lives up to its name.

Lisa said...

This movie sounds odd. What was the bit about beating people up while in whiteface in front of a theater audience . . .?