Devs (2020)

The first episode of Garland's latest kicks off giving a pretty good picture of what's to come. A meditative mood piece, with its somber tone, dissonant score, mesmerizing images and a brooding atmosphere; very much a wet dream of any serious cinephile.

Revealing much about the plot would do it disservice. Those familiar with the excellent "The OA Part II" will probably find some thematic similarities, although "Devs" is more on the sci-fi/tech side and less dense, plot and characterization-wise.

"Devs" manages to hold our attention to a considerable degree, with its intriguing story-line and hypnotic camerawork. At its core is a heartbreaking story of love, loss and an obsessive desire to overcome this loss. For those who crave some cerebral content in their cinema, there is a lot to chew on with its subject material and heavy verbiage concerning quantum physics, free will, the multiverse theory, the De Broglie–Bohm theory and what not! You will probably have to google all that up!

All this manages to keep us hooked, trying to make sense of everything that unfolds on screen as we relate the complex verbal exchanges to the progression of the story.

The trouble however starts glaring with Garland's casting choices and writing.

The female lead Sonoya Mizonu who is supposed to carry the entire show on her shoulders is god-awful with her singular expression and grating dialog delivery, and hence her presence mostly sticks out like a sore thumb. No matter how much you try to ignore her, you cannot, because she pretty much ruins every frame she is in. This makes it difficult to take her seriously or root for her as a lead character. Perhaps she is best suited for roles like she did in Ex-Machina (2014); Kyoko the robot!

Much of the exchange between her and the character of Jamie (Jin Ha) is cheesy and uninteresting, bordering on the cringeworthy. The dialog often tends to get repetitive, as if Garland is trying to fill up the per episode space of around 50 mins. There is also one particularly off-putting exposition-heavy sequence explaining the whole business as some primer textbook, in the latter half of the series. This sequence comes in a tad too late, when the more discerning viewer has already figured out what is happening and does not need another half hour to cover that aspect.

Some of the character actions seem completely out of place and clumsy in hindsight. For instance:

************************SPOILERS*****************************************

How could a hard-boiled spy sent in on a dangerous mission be so clumsy as to vomit and sob upon reading some lines of code, and attract attention? Why would he be so hasty as to try to steal something on the very first day of his engagement with Devs? Why not wait for an opportune moment?

************************SPOILERS END*****************************************


Also baffling is the choice of a female actor to play the wunderkind Lyndon (Cailee Spaeny). She tries hard but comes off as awkward pretending to be a smart-ass geeky "boy".

The two actors who shine in the whole affair are Nick Offerman as Forest and Zach Grenier as Kenton, his loyal security in-charge. They add the much needed edge to the proceedings and make us cheer, their moral compasses notwithstanding.

Despite the shortcomings, "Devs" is certainly worth the ride. Check it out on Hulu or Hotstar.

Score: 3.5/5

Silence (2016)

Set in the 17th century, "Silence" tells the story of Father Rodrigues and Father Garupe, two Jesuit priests who travel to Japan to propagate the Christian faith, and also to find out what happened to their mentor Father Ferreira who vanished years ago, amid mass persecution of the followers of Christianity in Japan, where the religion is officially outlawed.

The mission proves to be an ultimate test of faith for Father Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) as he struggles to find hope in a scenario where believers continue to live in fear, and the unfortunate ones face torture and death, for their refusal to renounce Christianity. Along his journey, Rodrigues occasionally questions God's unbearable silence in the face of rampant atrocity.

Having seen and loved the 1971 Masahiro Shinoda adaptation of the Shûsaku Endô novel, I couldn't help but go into comparison mode whilst viewing and reviewing Martin Scorsese's version. The Shinoda version is definitely superior in every way, but Scorsese is not too far behind, and certainly packs a searing punch with some of his own expert touches that are unique to his version of the film.

For one, the film is a visual feast; the cinematography is gorgeous, the visuals are awe-inspiring with a pitch-perfect atmosphere and a chilling opening sequence that is straight out of a nightmare! Scorsese's version is longer and perhaps more dramatic as compared to Shinoda's more objective, yet highly effective and better story-telling style.

Scorsese adds some powerful and surreal imagery including the aforementioned opening sequence depicting torture at the hot springs accompanied by Father Ferreira's (Liam Neeson) hair-raising description of  the method of torture in a voice-over. Another striking scene is that of Father Rodrigues' hallucinatory vision of the distorted reflection of Christ in the stream as he goes ballistic.

One of the things handled better and accentuated here is a sense of constant danger and a feeling of mistrust. The priests find themselves venturing in an unknown land under the guidance of an unreliable alcoholic and they are always anxious as to what would await them next. This boosts an element of suspense, for the viewer is equally in doubt whenever a new person comes in contact with the priests and offers to take them somewhere; whether he/she will betray or whether they would take them to their destination. A boat journey in the night highlights this aspect, as Rodrigues suddenly feels disconcerted about his boatman. 

However, Scorsese somewhat waters down some of the other cardinal sequences that were the highlights of the Shinoda film. The capture of Father Rodrigues and the conversation between him and the main antagonist, Inoue (Of concubines and Christianity!) fail to produce the same impact as did Shinoda's version.

Even Inoue's caricature-like portrayal as an effeminate old man (Issey Ogata) with over the top mannerisms is disappointing as compared to Eiji Okada's restrained, gentlemanly depiction of the opponent with a smiling face in the original. Ditto for the characterization of Kichijiro; the weak Christian who displays more human traits than Christian, upholding life over religion but ultimately torn in a never-ending conflict of faith. The weakness was more palpable in the Shinoda version; here he comes off more as a conniving, unremorseful betrayer except in but one scene in the final hour.

Scorsese also completely omits one great sequence from the Shinoda film, the horse hooves torture, that is somewhat difficult to watch. This scene is replaced by a rather quick and tame beheading scene, seen from a distance. 

Rodrigues' voice-over reports, presumably conveyed in letters, are also quite unsubtle, hammering in God's deafening silence, as experienced by him, once too many times. The ending is extended in the Scorsese version showing us more of the fate of Father Rodrigues. Shinoda's way of ending it is bleaker and much better. 

It is good to see Liam Neeson in a serious, meaningful role after a long time. The leads Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver appear a little too young compared to the leads in Shinoda's film. Not sure how they were written in the novel though, that would perhaps make it clearer if they were miscast. Driver doesn't get much scope in his short screen time. Garfield does well, and maybe it is just me, but he lacks the mature persona that a role like this demands.

While Shinoda tells the same story in a more concise, to the point fashion, Scorsese goes for a more sprawling, epic scope, and comes up with a superb product in its own right, but falls short of matching up to the brilliance of the 1971 masterpiece.


Score: 9/10 

The Curse (1987)

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a torch, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters, and many men died of the waters." - Revelations of St. John, Chapter 8.

Director David Keith and screenwriter David Chaskin dumb down and oversimplify some religious quotes to find a connection to the sci-fi horror brand of H.P. Lovecraft, specifically his short story, "The Colour Out of Space". Nevertheless, in the attempt, they do deliver some fairly watchable B-horror schlock that has its moments, with a little help from the undisputed king of gore, Lucio Fulci!

It all begins one fateful night when a giant glowing ball of fire, presumably a meteorite crashes on the self sufficient farm land of the devout and almost fanatical Christian, Nathan Crane (Claude Akins). Crane resides with his oafish lard of a son, Cyrus, his beautiful wife Frances (Kathleen Jordon Gregory) and his stepchildren Zachary (Wil Wheaton) and Alice (Amy Wheaton). The event is unexplainable, as is the origin of the rock. The only local scientist/physician around, Dr. Forbes (Cooper Huckabee) isn't able to do much with his knowledge. Overnight, the rock glows, shrinks and finally melts into the ground. But ever since, something begins to go wrong on the farm, starting with the water from the farm well turning putrid, and then eventually affecting the crops, the livestock and the inhabitants of the house themselves, mentally as well as physically.

Of course, as cliche' would have it, there is a strong atmosphere of denial. The strict, curmudgeon, bible-verses-spewing Nathan refuses to believe that anything is amiss, despite Frances showing visible ugly warts on her face and symptoms of insanity, as well as the deteriorating quality of food and water. Only when things go horribly out of control, does he believe that something is indeed wrong, except, he blames it all on Frances who has a one night stand with the temporary hired farmhand, thereby sinning and bringing upon a curse on the family! Only Zack recognizes the problem and keeps himself and his sister Alice away from their food and water and smuggles supplies from town and the neighbours' property.

Keith's film is not a great one by a long shot, but thanks to a strong and intriguing concept, a crisp length and some insane events unfolding on screen, he manages to deliver an entertaining and sometimes hilarious (perhaps unintentionally so) sci-fi/gore film. Zack's predicament, and his struggle to keep himself and his sister safe while his mother disintegrates, is palpable, what with his minor age and his stepfather's draconian ways. While the actors themselves do leave a lot to be desired, Keith delivers by subjecting his characters to some squirm-in-your-seat treatment that makes it all work. 

Gore genius Lucio Fulci was brought in to monitor the special effects and therefore, do expect a lot of gooey, pus-like seepage, from practically everything including vegetables that look very rich and nutritious on the outside but ooze some thick, foul juice from the inside! Adding to genuine horror fun are a full, fresh crop of apples full of maggots and rotting insides, and characters going gradually insane along with their physique exhibiting visible malformations, as they regurgitate and start melting away! 

There's some unnecessary comic relief, even slapstick, in the form of subplots with side characters including the selfish realtor Davidson (Steve Carlisle) and his fly swatting secretary, a Tennesee Valley Authority representative Willis (John Schneider), and Dr. Forbes' comely wife Esther (Hope North). Most actors are either wooden or over-the-top, or unintentionally funny, including Claude Akins and his way too hyper bible rantings and slap-happy ways. 

Malcolm Danare mostly irritates, even when he gorges on his food like a pig, and seems to wear only one set of clothing in the entire film! Wheaton's act is artificial and mannered, while Kathleen Jordan Gregory has to wear zombie makeup way too soon and thus her acting is mostly limited to a display of demented histrionics, which is a good thing in the context of the film.

Keith's film has a few logical holes and technical issues to take some plot developments very seriously. While the gory nastiness is mostly well handled, it is the other effects, in some areas, where the tackiness shows. There are some (un)pleasant surprises in the narrative, but overall it is not difficult to guess where the story would eventually head. The final twenty odd minutes come off as a wrap-up job with a deus ex machina coming into play along with usual climactic cliches. Another aspect that lets down is Franco Micalizzi's Italo disco like booming soundtrack that is totally wrong is some of the more tense sequences, thereby rendering them slightly damp.

Despite its problems, "The Curse" remains faithful to Lovecraft's story to a large extent. It is this story and the generous display of putrefaction that keep the film together and could please a gore hound, nevertheless. This reviewer had fond memories of watching the film at the age of 12, when procuring films on VHS was a task and the intricacies of the craft of filmmaking were overlooked in favour of a decent enough plot with a good dose of icky visuals. The film does not hold up as much now, upon a rewatch 20 years on though, but still qualifies as a decent pick for a weekend midnight screening of some good old B-Horror, with an additional point for nostalgic value.

Score: 7/10

The Pawnbroker (1964)

The Holocaust during World War II was one of the worst chapters in the history of mankind. There were atrocities of the most heinous sort. Scores of Jewish families were wiped out by the Nazis, and tortured most brutally in the process. The genocide was so ruthless, it beggars the imagination to even think that humans were capable of such things. It is an event that still continues to haunt the entire world. Some Jews managed to survive this nightmare. Well, technically at least; for they did not die at the hands of the Nazis. But the damage done to their spirits was irrecoverable. The incident scarred them for life and they ceased to be the human beings they once were.

Sidney Lumet's "The Pawnbroker" (1964) tells the story of one such survivor. Sol Nazerman is a middle-aged, broken man who came back alive from the terrible tragedy that shamed the world. He now runs a small pawn shop in East Harlem. He is practically a walking dead, though. A joyless, desensitized individual, a misanthrope who is only living for the basics of food and shelter. Humanity and God mean nothing to him now. A hardened cynic, he rejects any friendship or camaraderie that is attempted by those around him. Although they all fondly call him "Uncle", he rarely ever looks his patrons in the eye or engages in small talk. He has regular visitors including one particular rambler who comes looking for someone to talk to but is always rebuffed and driven away, for Nazerman wouldn't entertain anyone who doesn't have anything to pawn. Others come for compassion or fellow human warmth but they have no place in this pawn shop. 

Nazerman has a junior assistant with him, a Hispanic by the name of Jesus Ortiz (Jaime Sánchez) who appears to have been involved with some hoodlums in the past but is now trying to go clean. He is very ambitious and flamboyant and wants to be a protege under Nazerman to possibly learn some tricks of the trade. Nazerman however is mostly very rude to him barring a couple of occasions when he genuinely teaches him something. 

Every once in a while Nazerman visits the wife of a friend who died in the concentration camps. He supports her financially and has physical relations with her. However, even this arrangement and a female company doesn't seem to bring Nazerman any joy, partly because the woman's bedridden, cantankerous old father Mendel (Baruch Lumet) does not approve. He attacks Nazerman verbally and asks him "Does blood ever flow through you, Sol Nazerman?" 

It is a wonder that despite such difficult behaviour, Nazerman still has people like kindly Miss Birchfield (Geraldine Fitzgerald), another lonely soul who tries to come close to him but is bluntly told to the face to stay out of his life! Then there are other problematic individuals he has to deal with, like the mobster Rodriguez (Brock Peters) who uses the pawn shop as a front to run his nefarious activities. 

Nazerman goes on through this kind of nihilistic existence on a daily basis and his motto seems to be to purge himself of any kind of emotion as a means to get over the trauma that affected him in those years. "I have escaped from the emotions", he says to Miss Birchfield as he asks her to stay out his life! Tormented by memories of helplessness and guilt, and to save himself from a lifelong depression, Nazerman has carved himself out to be a hard-hearted man, devoid of any shred of humanity, over the years, on the other side of the camps. In a scene that would make the viewer almost hate Nazerman, the old father of the widow (Marketa Kimbrell) he visits, dies and she turns to him for help asking him what she should do. A merciless Nazerman snaps back, "Well..you bury him. There's nothing else you can do. You want me to come cry with you?"

Lumet's film is a searing character sketch of a man trying hard to stay detached from society but one whose repressed humanity eventually gets the better of him. This is a man so devastated by his past that he chooses to go the other extreme and build a wall around himself; a wall of total detachment, that would protect him from softening! Such a conflicted and complex character couldn't have been portrayed more accurately and we have Rod Steiger's towering performance to thank for this. Nazerman becomes aware that it is not humanly possible to cease to be human. And hence, despite his icy cold demeanor towards almost everyone including the visitors to his shop, those flashes of his nightmarish past keep coming back to him.

In a bizarre editing technique inspired from the French New Wave, we see fraction-of-a-second flashback scenes of the horrors faced by Nazerman in the concentration camps. These flashes are disorienting for the viewer, but they perhaps emphasize Nazerman's attempts at ridding himself of these memories. They appear, but he wants them to disappear in a flash. He is trying to leave that horrid past behind. These split second frames later evolve into longer scenes, ones that are pertinent to showcase the increasing conflict of Nazerman with his own soul towards the latter half of the film, when a turn of events sees him desperately trying to save his stone exterior from eroding away to expose his softer side. Also notable about the editing is how some occurrences in the present remind Nazerman of some disturbing happenings in the past. The scenes flash back and forth rapidly, like a flip book. For instance, when a weeping, possibly heartbroken girl comes to pawn her ring and shows Nazerman the back of her hand, he is reminded of how rings were taken away from the fingers of fellow prisoners in the concentration camps.

While the film is heavily intense with gripping portions of heightened drama and some seriously crushing moments, it could've done without the highly inappropriate jazz score by Quincy Jones. Moreover, there are some awfully stagey acts by some of the supporting cast, most importantly Jaime Sánchez who sometimes irritates with his over-the-top performance and stilted delivery. But it is bits with him and his prostitute girlfriend (Thelma Oliver) that provide some of the greatest acting moments for Steiger as he holds our attention with his angry monologues with some snapping dialog and theatrics that are powerful to say the least.

Where the script falters is when they try to intersperse a heist subplot almost randomly over an outburst between Jesus and Nazerman. "The Pawnbroker" could've done without these unnecessary developments that lead to a cliched, violent denouement that you very well see coming. The film just needed to be what it intended to be; a character study of a detached man forced to face his human side owing to all the warmth and misery around him. For this aspect and for Rod Steiger's bravura act, this overlooked and forgotten Sidney Lumet classic deserves to be watched.

Score: 8/10

Meek's Cutoff (2010)

***NOTE: The following analysis/review may contain MILD SPOILERS regarding some detail in the film, but not to the extent of making the film viewing experience any lesser.***

Now this one was a big surprise, a pleasant one at that, for it surpassed all expectations. Kelly Reichardt's "Meek's Cutoff" (2010) is a refreshingly different and original American indie. When you know you are watching a film from the 'western' genre, you would expect action and gun violence, but hell...there must be about two shots fired in this film, and only in the air if you take it from the audiences' perspective.  

It would be misleading to even call it a 'western' in fact. That probably explains the low score on popular film websites such as IMDB too. Western film freaks did not get what they bargained for. Although by definition a western is a film that has stories set in the 19th century American old west, the term has become synonymous with gunslinging cowboys making stylish moves, horses, damsels in distress, heroic badassery, lots of poetic, memorable dialog, theatrical performances and unreal action among other things.

But just because "Meek's Cutoff" has a bunch of guys with hats, guns and horses, that need not make it a 'western' in the more popular sense. It would be more fair to treat it as an American indie meditative drama.

Devoid of any flamboyant score, or cool looking cowboys making epic entries, this is a realistic film pigeonholed in a genre that mostly depicted unrealistic romanticism. There's just this small group, consisting of three humble looking couples en route to somewhere. Where they came from, what their destination is, is unknown. All we know in the first few frames is that they appear lost. 

The era is circa 1840s, and the group is following a man by the name of Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood) who has been hired by them to lead them across a rough terrain across the Oregon trail. It is a route that mostly seems to consist of vast empty, barren desert landscapes, dirt, grime, and a dearth of water! 

Doubt is slowly sinking in, and the stronger voice of the otherwise suppressed womenfolk, Mrs. Tetherow (Michelle Williams in a splendid act) begins to get skeptical about the credibility of Meek as an able guide. But danger lurks somewhere not far away in the form of brutal Red Indians who are known to be animals, torturing their victims. It is a matter of time before Mrs. Tetherow spots a Cayuse Indian (Rod Rondeaux), who is later captured by the men. The journey as they know it would never be the same again, as dynamics shift and the helm gradually changes hands.

Reichardt's film is aesthetically brilliant with some great sights to behold, accompanied by gorgeous cinematography and an eerie score that spells death and danger every little time it fills your ears. It is a minimalist setting, with a minimal number of people trapped in the 4:3 aspect ratio frame (a deliberate choice, symbolically relevant and also a nod to the older popular westerns), sparse, vague dialog for the most part and a languid pace that is apt to showcase the excruciatingly long and seemingly endless journey undertaken by our travelers. One can actually feel the fatigue, the thirst, the hopelessness experienced by these hapless beings. In spite of the seemingly glacial pace though, the proceedings are tense as curiosity progressively mounts.

Despite the lack of a neatly developed plot or characterization, and not much of a narrative to speak of, "Meek's cutoff" is a magnificent canvas that packs in heavy thematic material and some substantial food for thought. For one, it a fantastic study of trust (or lack thereof), fear, prejudice, pessimism, optimism and doubt. When it appears that the once confident Meek is just shooting in the dark, Mrs. Tetherow is among the first to trust a local, an Indian, who has a reputation for being dangerous, and who is incapable of communicating with the gang. Yet, some inner voice tells her that only this Indian will show her the way to a better land where she will find food and water. 

And hence she makes every effort to win his favour, despite never being certain if he has even understood what they want from him. Maybe it is that general feeling; there is always an inherent curiosity of the unknown. In a deliberate move, the spoken words of the Indian in his language are not translated in subtitles. This is to make us viewers feel the language barrier and the futility of any communication with him. Yet there is hope that he will lead them to a better destination. Of course, not all of the travelers are confident about this. Some of them express strong disapproval, claim that the Indian will probably lead them to his people instead and they will all be massacred!

It wouldn't be wrong to say that the travelers' journey to an unpredictable future symbolizes man's eternal quest for utopia. That endless odyssey to a promised land led by a bearded guide, a biblical figure perhaps, who has the faith of some and mistrust of others. Emily Tetherow's trust is dwindling and she is losing her faith in this figure, while the others are blindly following him, uncertain of their future. In such a circumstance, she chooses to trust the Indian who is notorious for being a devil. Meek warns something to the effect that they have no idea what awaits them on the other side, perhaps more heathens of his kind, and hence to not trust him. One amazing visual cross fade across scenes almost shows Meek at a distance and as the scene shifts to the next, his image appears to be floating across the sky; a deliberate move, perhaps, on the director's part to stress upon the biblical connection of the character in question!

What lies beyond, no one knows. What path to take, who to trust is ultimately determined by the individual's faith and personal judgement, much like the choice of what religion to embrace, if at all!

In one scene, a small piece of gold is found and a couple of people are overjoyed. "Well, you can't drink it", says Mr. Tetherow (Will Patton). Perhaps it was the devil's temptation that they manage to overcome and keep going.

There are strong feminist undercurrents in "Meek's Cutoff". Several scenes highlight the status of women at the time, like how they are kept out of important decision making. In one key scene, the women look to their husbands and struggle to hear what they are saying, and so does the viewer, for the dialog is almost drowned out for the entire duration when the men decide upon what direction to follow. The drowning out of dialog is intentional, for the filmmaker wants the audiences to feel the frustration of the ladies at not being able to catch the plan of action as it gets made. But in a dramatic turn of events, the leader Meek eventually finds that he is indeed meek and bows down to the command of Mrs. Tetherow, who takes control and establishes that she means business! 

Emily Tetherow decides to stick with the Indian and urges the group to follow. She believes that she has won his favour by feeding him and helping him; that kindness begets kindness. As the group march toward their uncertain fate, a solitary tree with greens is spotted along the way. Could it be the tree of life? How did it stand there in the barren land without water? The tree then, symbolises hope. It means one should always follow their heart and stick to their guns. Emily turns to the Indian with a look of hope that he will take her there where there is happiness. The viewer keeps looking at the screen and hopes that the Indian really has become compassionate toward these people and will eventually save them from certain death. 

Films like "Meek's Cutoff" don't come out very often. About time we all checked this little gem out and spread the word. 


Score: 9/10