FilmDailies.com – A filmmaker’s blog

I haven’t seen a Russian movie in ages. I was tempted to go see the Night Watch (Ночной Дозор) but after much deliberation I decided against the “Russian” Matrix. It’s a good thing Russian cinema moved away from the subject of the Great War though.

The Return is Andrey Zvyagintsev (Андрей Звягинцев) feature debut and has that authentic indie movie aura. He’s not the only debutante in the credits. In fact, this is a first feature for most of his crew.

A ton of credit should go to Mikhail Krichman (Михаил Кричман) who does an amazing job as a first-time DP. The colors are very intense yet they lack saturation which contributes to overall mood.

In a recent interview Andrey Zvyagintsev said he chose “Misha” because of the vacation video he shot when in Spain. Same goes for the subdued and sombre soundtrack, courtesy of Andrei Dergachyov (Андрей Дергачëв), another first-timer.

I recently reviewed The Descent and I noted the movie is devoid of any allegory. Quite the opposite is true for The Return. The movie does work on it’s literal level quite well but there’s a deep undercurrent that puts these archetypes in a political and even religious context.

The story is that of two boys – Andrey, played by Vladimir Garin (Владимир Гарин), and Ivan, played by Ivan Dobronravov (Иван Добронравов). They’re growing up in a small Russian town and are taken care by their mother and grandmother. The inciting incident is that of their father coming back. He’s been missing for 12 years and the boys have to look for family photographs to recognize him.

“It’s him,” they both agree and the mother concurs. This doesn’t change the fact that a stranger has entered the boys’ lives. The father, Konstantin Lavronenko (Константин Лавроненко), is an ominous figure. He offers to take them fishing. They’re not really in a position to object.

Andrey is the hopeful and submissive one, he ends sentences with “papa” while Ivan is filled with doubts about this new authority figure. The road/boat trip follows an interesting path, exploring the interactions between the boys and the new person in their lives. It’s clear from the start their father’s word is the law and the consequences for not following it are always unpleasant.

The movie ends as a tragedy but the tension it builds is not released at the end. Some people will complain they received no payoff. Others will praise it as a starting point for exploring a father-sons relationship and its allegorical nuances.

Since this is an allegory, there a plenty of interpretations around. The father figure is that of strong-hand Russian leadership, some say. It’s been missing for 12 years but now Putin is back and civil liberty watchdogs issue one warning after the other. Strong-arm tactics appear throughout the movie and I definitely feel such an interpretation is not only plausible, it’s a required second layer for this movie.

If you’re going to see one Russian movie this year, I recommend it’s this one. The only OTHER allegory I’ve seen all year is Guy Ritchie’s Revolver. The only reason Revolver is supposed to work as an allegory is that it’s not working as anything else.

Note for indie producers: The budget for The Return is a secret. In an interview for the Russian media, however, Andrei Zvyagintsev and Dmitri Lesnevsky hinted that it was well below $500,000. Andrei Zvyagintsev also pointed out that the producers turned a profit even before The Return was screened at Venice Film Festival. It also won 2 awards in Venice: Golden Lion, and Best First Film for Andrei Zvyagintsev. This can’t be bad for business either.

Due to Lost in Translation’s enormous success, Bill Murray is now seen by many as Bob Harris. So much so that there’s plenty of people on movie forums that keep asking if this is Lost in Translation, part 2. I hate to disappoint but Jim Jarmusch is man and Sofia Coppola … is that girl from Godfather III.

Broken Flowers won the Jury award at Cannes which is just one of many for Jim Jarmusch. I saw his heavily decorated Mystery Train a year ago and some of the same themes appear in Broken Flowers. The protagonists in his movies are often outsiders who seek (and find) solitude. In his own words:

I am interested in the non-dramatic moments in life. I’m not at all attracted to making films that are about drama. A few years back, I saw a biopic about a famous American abstract expressionist artist. And you know what? It really horrified me. All they did was reduce his life to the big dramatic moments you could pick out of any biography. If that’s supposed to be a portrait of somebody, I just don’t get it. It’s so reductive. It just seems all wrong to me.

Broken Flowers is a minimalist comedy presented as mystery thriller. The movie opens with Don Johnston (Bill Murray) watching a black-and-white version of Don Juan. This sets the first scene where his latest “girlfriend”, clad in pink leaves him. Pink is important in this movie. A mysterious pink letter arrives shortly after. It’s like a Hitchcock’s McGuffin – an object that drives the characters but is not central to the story itself.

Don reads the letter which basically says he has a son. The mystery is who’s the woman who wrote it. Don seems unmoved at first but then his neighbor, a wannabe detective starts prodding him towards finding the truth. His son is supposed to be 19 which narrows it down to 4 women (well, five but one of them died).

Don sets sails for a road trip that takes him through four potential mothers for his son: Laura (Sharon Stone), Dora (Frances Conroy), Carmen (Jessica Lange), and Penny (Tilda Swinton). The interactions are mostly brief and uneasy for Don. You start wondering what it is about him that women like.

Jarmusch has written the part with Bill’s strengths in mind. If you’ve liked the Bob in Lost in Translation, you’ll like Don too. The performance is unemotional and reserved with flashes of Don’s vulnerability.

The ending has been subject to much discussion. It’s open and encourages the viewer to explore different scenarios. Here’s what Jarmusch said:
It’s great that the audience have their own different takes on what they have just seen, and don’t know all the answers. Often, I don’t know all the answers either.

The movie is dedicated to Jean Eustache, a French filmmaker who focused on “desire and despair”. It shares certain elements with other movies from the French New Wave, like Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. All in all, Bill Murray is on roll – following Lost in Translation with an interesting movie like Broken Flowers.

The movie’s still only available in Europe but hopefully it will get a worldwide release. It deserves it. Good horror movies are rare and far in between.

Neil Marshall’s previous movie, Dog Soldiers, follows a similar course but I like this one better. Monsters excluded, it’s an all-girl cast which strikes an interesting balance between blood baths and hysteria.

I liked the cinematography and set design – except the “night vision” mode. Unless it’s a Paris Hilton movie, it’s better keep to the “night vision” off. The movie was shot on a £3.5M (about $7M ) budget in Pinewood studios in England. The establishing/exterior shots come from Scottland but since I’ve never been to the Appalachians, I bought it.

SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie is free from allegory. There are a few “dream” sequences but overall what you see is what you get. A lot of people seem to (want to) misinterpret the ending so here’s the plot outline, clear and simple:

1. Movie opens with Sarah, Juno, and Jessica white water rafting. End of “Prologue” ends in blood – Sarah’s husband and daughter die in the car crash.

2. One year later, Sarah’s still recovering from the trauma, she’s still on medication. Juno invites her to a cave expedition in the Appalachian Mountains.

3. Juno leads them to an unexplored cave (instead of the planned one). The cave entrance/corridor collapses trapping the 6 women inside.

4. Sarah sees a crawler – a primitive humanoid whose evolved for life in complete darkness (the crawlers appear Gollum-like, the difference being they’re all blind). The crawlers are hungry (duh!) and go after the women.

5. During the fight, Juno accidentally stabs Jessica and leaves her to die.

6. Sarah is lost in the cave but eventually finds the dying Jessica. Jessica tells her Juno stabbed her and also gives her Juno’s pendant which is indication Juno had an affair with Sarah’s husband. All but Juno and Sarah die in the hands (nails, and teeth) of the crawlers.

7. Juno and Sarah get close to the exit and another fight with crawlers ensues. Once the crawlers are dead, a psycho Sarah stabs Juno in the leg to avenge Jessica and to punish her for the affair.

8. Juno is left to die, buying precious time for Sarah to escape. Sarah falls – fade out. She’s out in the open, goes to the Jeep and hits the road.

9. Unfortunately, this is a dream sequence and once she wakes up, she’s back in the cave, staring in the darkness, seeing her dead daughter. Arguably, she accepts her fate.

The performances are solid and the monster make-up is convincing. Neil Marshall’s pulling all the right strings. The movie raised quite a few hairs on my neck. Then again, I thought the Diablo 2 trailers were scary. Wait till Blizzard release Diablo 3.

If you enjoy monster horror, forget Doom The Movie and go see this one. I still can’t turn the lights off and it’s way past midnight. Brrr…