Saturday 2 March 2013

REVIEW - STOKER


There are parts of Stoker that I could gorge on. Guilty pleasures in specific scenes and images, where Park Chan-Wook's enthusiastic direction is let loose, and he tears the whole thing up, with a grand abandon. His signature offbeat style has been re-interpreted here into one that allows him to revel in these moments with great verve, in a way that is new to him. But it is also more precious, and its superfluity through the film is distracting. There comes a point, though, when I began to appreciate it. Wentworth Miller's script has no space for subtlety, but it is at this point that this is no longer its biggest issue. This new issue is best summarised by one word: 'why'? Stoker is a mystery, all tantalising hints and questions, although many of them are most adequately signposted in one form or another, diminishing much potential surprise. Miller's stab at unravelling the mystery is so extraordinarily incompetent that the film falls apart there and then, every seam coming immediately loose at the slightest touch. Existing little niggles all assemble alongside newer, larger ones, and form an itchy big rash on Stoker's pristine facade. But there remain those guilty pleasures - the acrid colour scheme (shamelessly on-the-nose), the riotous sound design, the playful opening credits (Park plays with cinematic conventions regularly - they're parts of his filmmaking fabric, and he's hardly aiming for realism), Nicole Kidman's deliciously garish ham, almost Joan Crawford-esque, the botox gradually being purged from her face, and Alden Ehrenreich, who turns a perfunctory character into a sex god. Actually, Alden Ehrenreich could turn Frankenstein into a sex god, but never mind...

5 comments:

  1. The script here was hugely problematic (I saw it last night) but I was never a fan of this nonetheless stylish director, dissenting most strongly on OLDBOY. STOKER never really adds up to anything. Terrific analysis!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I love Park Chan Wook's other work, but yeah, Stoker's script is pretty shit. Wentworth Miller should go back to being just a pretty face.

      Delete
  2. Oh. Was expecting great things fromPark Chan Wook's Hollywood debut.
    Wentworth Miller's script was voted to the 2010 "Black List" of the 10 best unproduced screenplays making the rounds in Hollywood.
    What could have gone wrong?
    Do you see Park Chan Wook's direction losing any credibility in Hollywood translation?
    The Vengeance trilogy was by far some of the stellar Asian work. Oldboy was audacious cinematic achievement in my view.
    With Kim Jee Woon, Park Chan Wook and Bong Joon-ho having had their / going to have Hollywood debut this year, how do you see the influx of South Korean talents to the English speaking audiences?
    Have got high regards for their unflinching Korean movies blending genres with such detailed narrative visual flair, complex cultural presence, ruthless violence and unique cult following.
    But still, their vision limits the appreciation and accessibility, as compared to the likeness of Asian giants - Ang Lee, Wong Kar-wai and Zhang Yimou.
    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always a little apprehensive when non-Hollywood filmmakers go Hollywood. I think the issues with Stoker were mostly in the screenplay, so I don't think the problem is directly related to the fact that Park has moved to America for this one. Were it a Korean film, those problems would have remained.

      Delete