|
Directed by: Neil Jordan Starring: Sarah Peterson, Angela Lansbury, Micha Bergese There are a lot of bad werewolf movies. Maybe it’s a hangover from the whole “wolf-man” thing from the old days, but the werewolf seems to be short on good films in comparison to vampires, zombies and other classic movie monsters. Really the only werewolf movie that I would call great is An American Werewolf in London, and the others that are even watchable don’t really hold a candle to the other monster’s movies. I think it has something to do with the confused sense of identity the werewolf has had over the years. The original wolf-man character was basically just a guy with make up who was violent, and didn’t really distinguish himself from other monsters aside from his appearance and the way he transformed every full moon (they unfortunately never truly explored the theme of “passing” in those movies). Lately, as a way to give the character a boost in interest, the werewolf has taken on the mantle of analogizing sexual adolescence, with the monster’s transformation acting in the same way as the changes one goes through during puberty (usually applied to a female character). This new take on the creature was begun by Angela Carter in her short stories, which were adapted into a film by Neil Jordan in The Company of Wolves. The Company of Wolves is more of a loose association of fairy tales and short stories than a singular narrative, though it tries to link them all together by using the same characters and actors in each chapter. The focus of the film is a young girl, Rosaleen (Sarah Peterson), who spends time listening to stories from her grandmother (Angela Lansbury) when she’s not helping out around the house. Most of the tales she hears are about men who transform into wolves and do wrong to women, typically deceiving them or attacking them in some way. In between story sessions, Rosaleen is pursued by one of the village boys, though she’s somewhat capricious in her attitude towards him, ignoring him at any given time and then impulsively flirting with him the next. The story goes on, and gets really heavily into sexual metaphors and symbolism, but I won’t give anything else away, for fear of spoiling some of the more interesting parts of the film. This is a really hard film to fully understand. It’s a labyrinth of metaphors and allegory meddled together in a complex story structure. The film itself is beautiful, and it’s easy to spot a lot of the repeating visual motifs, but a few of them remain somewhat incomprehensible for a good part of the film. Toads and snakes appear every time someone wanders into the woods; portentous of an encounter with a werewolf, but the significance of why these two creatures were chosen is somewhat of a mystery. Maybe the snake has something to do with the Garden of Eden and the breaking of utopia, but the toad seems a total enigma to me. The best I could gather is the way it’s used in Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter, though even that doesn’t make much sense. The color red is also used with an obvious intention of purpose, but I couldn’t grasp what that was at times. My first reaction was it was meant to represent virginity and/or womanhood, but it seems to be used in contradictory ways throughout the film. Milk also seems to be an important object, probably having something to do with motherhood, but it is also not always applied in a decipherable fashion. The sexual themes throughout the film are also handled in a mixed way. You’re either beaten over the head with redundant messages (Granny’s stories about “staying on the path”), or shown something that’s completely contradictory. For the most part, it seems to be satirizing the way old fairy tales tried to be cautionary about sexuality, turning some of the old concepts on their head, but it doesn’t seem to take a real stance on its own. Until the very end I though it was sort of encouraging youthful exuberance and discovery, but the final scene seemed to do away with that. Either way, students of psychology will probably find this really interesting and have a field day trying to decipher everything. The structure of the film, while incredibly innovative and fascinating, can really be a confusing disorder if you aren’t fully alert. The movie begins in a contemporary setting, but almost immediately goes into a dreamworld set in a Brothers Grimm style universe, never returning to or connecting with the original setting until the very end. Within the fairy-tale setting, the film moves in and out of separate episodes with little warning or set-up, and many of them seem either redundant or unnecessary. This is one of the most complicated extradiegetic presentations of storytelling I’ve ever seen in a film. It can be rewarding to work through everything and put it all together, but my first reaction was one of frustration. Considering this was only Jordan’s second film, it’s a marvel that he was able to put something so complex and intricate without completely butchering it. Every werewolf movies needs cool creature effects and makeup for the metamorphosis of man to wolf, and The Company of Wolves does not disappoint. While the effects aren’t as realistic or technically impressive as those in An American Werewolf in London, they are incredibly imaginative and rich in metaphor. The first transformation features a man tearing of his own skin and flesh, revealing an inhuman structure beneath. His body of muscle and sinew then transforms into the form of a wolf, with his nose and neck extending, and his fingers and legs turning into animal limbs. The second, and more famous example (its on the video box), is of the wolf bursting out his human disguise, with the snout protruding from the human mouth. Both are pretty artificial looking, but they are nonetheless stunning in the power of their visual presence, and are the most imaginative ways of showing the transformation process I’ve ever seen. Considering the low budget of the film, the creature effects and art direction are unbelievable. The movie looks ten times more expensive than it actually cost to make. The weakest link in the film is Sarah Peterson, who while pretty, is an incredibly dull actress. She delivers almost all of her lines in a poker-faced, emotionless voice, sort of like Natalie Portman’s performance in Episode 2. It’s almost as if she was sleep walking through the whole thing. The supporting cast is for the most part excellent, which only makes her look more inept. Micha Bergese, who plays a huntsman, provides easily the best performance in the film. I can’t really explain why without spoiling parts of the film, but he’s incredible. This film really needs a DVD commentary with the director and author to explain some of the more confusing parts. It’s incredibly original and adventurous, though maybe it was too ambitious a project for such a young director. Jordan has gone on to direct many other interesting films, including The Crying Game. For fans of werewolf movies, this is probably the next best thing after An American Werewolf in London, though it is a completely different type of film. Recommended. RATING: 4.0 PROS: imaginative, great effects, rich in metaphor CONS: really complex story structure, a few contradictions ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087075/
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2004 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Edit: Utter rubbish, totally incorrect. Well wholly accurate, just concerning the WRONG MOVIE.
Was Taters fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Aug 18, 2004 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 09:02
|
|
|
If I said that way too many furries get a stiffy over this flick, would you understand the problems with it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 15:59
|
|
|
quote:whatstaters came out of the closet to say: Wrong movie dude. You're thinking of The Brotherhood of the Wolf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 16:58
|
|
|
How embarrassing, I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2004 19:43
|
|