What Would You Do?: One Week (2008)

I debated about whether or not to even include this film on this blog.  After all, it did earn Joshua Jackson a Genie Award (that's the Canadian equivalent of the Oscars for all my American friends), and another nomination for Liane Balaban.  Still, with all its acclaim, this gem of director Michael McGowan's remains relatively unheard of outside its native Canada.

The film focuses on Ben Tyler, a man who at the very start of the film is diagnosed with stage 4 cancer.  However, rather than being a melodrama where Ben is shown fading away in a hospital bed, loved ones at his side, this film has its protagonist take a radical approach.  He decides on a whim to purchase a motorcycle and just ride.  The trip begins as a two-day excursion, but transforms into an cross-country journey from Toronto to Vancouver, Ben meeting a cast of characters along the way.

Photo credit: timeslikethose

The whole idea behind this film and Ben's reasoning for his trip did nothing but inspire me.  For being a film about someone with cancer, I never once felt depressed.  It balances the profound moments with a lot of humor, and the people Ben meets as he goes are all unique and interesting, each with their own story.

Ben's frequent stops at various sites along his path got me thinking.  Where would I go if I just decided to go on a week-long trip one day?  How would I travel?  What would I see?  Maybe a cross-country trip of my own?  I could start in New York, pass through all these different places I've never stepped foot in before, and finally end at the foot of the Pacific.  Who knows?

My question is...Where would you go?

I'm the Lord of This World: Crazy As Hell (2002)

One genre of film that has become increasingly popular in recent years is the psychological thriller.  It has become so popular in fact that, as with other trends, everyone is now trying their hand at it.

Think about it. How many movies have you seen lately that have all the key signs?

Supernatural elements. Suspense. And most importantly:

The twist ending.

These things have become so common that they don't even hold power anymore.  "Twist" endings are not only no longer surprising, but practically expected.  People go into a film labeled "psychological thriller" now and already have ideas set in their minds about what they will see.  And they're usually right.

Hidden among this saturation, however, are the occasional gems. This post will discuss one of these hidden treasures. A film I honestly consider the epitome of what a psychological thriller should be. Eriq La Salle's 2002 independent film, Crazy As Hell.

Before I get into the film itself, let me give you a little background on yours truly.

I was always one of those people who loved to go down to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video (yeah, remember those?) every weekend and rent a few movies. I especially reveled in finding ones that I had never seen before. If I hadn't even heard of them, even better.

So, one day my friend and I were at Hollywood Video browsing for something completely unknown to both of us. We both caught sight of a case with a striking cover. An almost demonic-looking face with bright yellow eyes, the shadow of a man standing in the open mouth. We were both so captivated that after a quick read-through of the synopsis on the back, we decided to get it.

Photo credit: DBCovers

After we watched it the first time, we both experienced what I now see as one of the ultimate goals of this genre.

Utter confusion.

Once the credits had wrapped, we sat there and just talked about it.

What did this part mean? What did the ending imply? What was the meaning of this building's name?

We saw that the DVD included a commentary by the director (who also played one of the main characters). Now, I am one of those people who love special features on a DVD.  My friend on the other hand is not. This time was different, however. We were both so engrossed in this film and wanted to figure it out, so we watched the film again with the commentary on.

Both of us were fascinated with the explanations. Clues were brought up that made us have several of those “Oh!” and “A-ha!” moments.  The biggest one came when the director revealed the symbolism behind the name of the hospital, which is the setting for most of the film.  Before watching with the commentary, we literally sat at my computer and looked up any and all meanings for the name:  Sedah. Still, even after viewing the film a second time with commentary, we had questions and attempted to answer them by researching more on the Internet. That just proves how genius this film is.

Now back to the genre as a whole. Besides leaving the viewer with questions and requiring a second (or third) viewing, there are several conventions of psychological thrillers that La Salle's picture executes masterfully while giving them a unique approach.

1. Returning to the Beginning

Photo credit: Humble Journey Films

The film begins with a scan of the walls of what looks like an office before a man the viewer does not know yet awakens from a sleep on an uncomfortable chair. As he startles himself awake, the man glances at the nearby clock and then sees a trail of blood on the floor. He quickly awakens again, realizing that the first rising was a dream.

This sequence was beautifully done, as it took things typically taken for granted in film and made them important. The time on the clock. An object missing from the wall.

At the end, the film returns to this scene, with the same trail of blood and the clock showing the same time. Only this time, the scene plays all the way through, leading to the “big reveal.”

2. The Helper

Photo credit: Humble Journey Films

It is common in psychological thrillers for there to be a character who tries to help the protagonist, though his advice is often ignored. In this film's case, the character was written specifically for Sinbad (in one of his first “serious” roles ever).  Even though this character did not exist in the film's original draft, and it could have worked perfectly fine that way, I do not think the film would have been the same without him. Sinbad's character (nicknamed 'Right Eye' due to a glass eye) tries to talk to the main character, Dr. Ty Adams (Michael Beach), but he is continually ignored and shot down.

This is expressed visually in a very creative way if I do say so myself. I did not even notice it until the director pointed it out in the commentary, but halfway through the film, Right Eye's glass eye changes sides and Dr. Adams doesn't even notice. The director uses this shift to symbolize that Dr. Adams does not “see” Right Eye. Due to his god complex, the doctor doesn't even take the time to notice something so drastic.

Brilliant.

3. The Innocent Girl

Photo credit: Humble Journey Films

We've all seen it. Films of all genres take a young (typically white and blonde) girl and portray her as the epitome of innocence and fragility. The damsel in distress. La Salle plays with this perception by introducing his audience to this character, a young woman named Cheryl, by shooting her against a large glass window, the incoming sunlight casting an almost ethereal glow on her. This is only enhanced by Cheryl's thin pale nightgown, her soft blonde hair, and the stuffed animal she holds to tightly.

She looks like an angel.

This angel quickly loses her perceived purity, however, as she begins to violently attack Dr. Adams when he goes to grab her stuffed turtle. As the doctor leaves the room, Cheryl instantly snatches up her turtle and returns to her window, the image of naïve innocence once more.

4. Devil/Angel Dichotomy

Photo credit: Humble Journey Films

A major theme in this film is the juxtaposition of the “devil” and the “angel.” Eriq La Salle's character is a man who claims to be Satan himself. This would naturally place Dr. Adams, the one trying to solve the mystery of this man with reason and logic, as the “angel,” the hero of our story. He is the protagonist, after all. He has to be the good guy, right?

Wrong.

As the film progresses and we become more and more familiar with Dr. Adams, we realize just how not only egotistical, but unethical he is. This dichotomy becomes increasingly blurred the further we get into the film, finally taking literal form in one of the most suspenseful scenes in the film. Here we find the man known as Satan on one side of Cheryl and Dr. Adams on the other, both trying to convince her to follow their advice as she finds herself in dire need of help. The confrontation begins with the sound of two swords swiping against each other. This battle between archetypes teases the audience because at this point, if we think rationally, we know Dr. Adams is far from a decent person, and yet he is placed in the “angel's” spot.

5. The Ending

Photo credit: Humble Journey Films

And here we have it. The ultimate payoff. The final revelation.

This is the element most commonly done in psychological thrillers.  It's what people expect most.  I don't think any film has truly been able to pull it off successfully since The Sixth Sense (1999).  It seems like since then, that is the film every director tries to emulate.  Big twist.  'Wow' moment.  Movie makes sense. 

Still, La Salle is determined to make this film his own to the very end.

Dr. Adams seemingly “wins,” at last figuring out the true identity of “Satan” and coming to peace with his difficult boss before moving on. A slight change of plans emerges, though, and Dr. Adams makes a startling discovery about “Satan.” As he chases after him, he returns to the office he began the film in and it slowly dawns on him what had been truly going on the entire film. The film ends with the sounds of the “good doctor's” pleading cries.

I try to not be overly enthusiastic about a film on this blog. I try my hardest to offer balanced insight, but I do have to say that this film is a masterpiece. It makes the viewer think and brings about questions that don't necessarily have answers. It's one of those films you could watch over and over and find something new every time. I know I have.

This is without a doubt how a psychological thriller should be done.

Hollywood, take note.

He's Just a Man: Savage Messiah (2002)

Murderers.  Maniacs.  Madmen.

It's no secret these creatures are a natural draw at the box office, but I couldn't tell you why.  I’m not quite sure what our fascination is with them.  Is it that seeing them on screen makes us feel "normal"? Is it that we can live vicariously through them, seeing an exaggerated version of what we'd secretly like to do to a difficult boss or an ex-lover? It’s probably different for each of us.

At any rate, when I think of “killer films,” one that definitely sticks out in my mind is the 2002 picture Savage Messiah.

Directed by Mario Azzopardi, it tells the story of Roch Thériault, the leader of a polygamist commune in Canada in the late 1980s.  Roch's followers, who were mostly women, believed him to be a reincarnation of Moses.  With this status came a power Roch would use to mentally, physically, and sexually abuse his sheep-like disciples.

I am always wary of “based on a true story” films, but Azzopardi does a phenomenal job of creating an engrossing story while still staying true to the actual events.

Photo credit: The Cinematic Intelligence Agency

The highlights of the film are the performances of Luc Picard, (Roch/Moses) and Isabelle Blais (Lise).  I would later learn the character of Lise, one of Thériault's concubines,  was based on Gabrielle Lavallée, who wrote an autobiography exposing life at the commune.  Picard brings the perfect balance between crazed madman and charismatic leader, while Blais gives a unique depth and strength to a character so weak on the surface.

After seeing this single film, Luc Picard instantly became one of my favorite actors (I immediately began searching for and quickly devouring anything else he was in that I could find).  He just captured the character so well.  He had to have done some sort of research on his role, immersing himself in the cult leader's life.  It was even his eyes.  You could tell he believed what he was doing.  I was sucked in and could forget that I was watching a film.  He became Roch Thériault.

Photo credit: Amman Cinemas

The part that both fascinated and horrified me was that I could completely see and understand why people would have been lured in by him. Roch had something about him, a presence and a sense of self that made even the strongest of women fall over themselves and the most cynical of men believe everything he was saying.  According to Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent, the most common trait of a dangerous cult leader is extreme narcissism.  Leaders believe they are inherently special.  That they alone have all the answers.  This fits Roch Thériault to the T, and was somehow captured exquisitely on film during several scenes.

The first that really struck me was the barroom scene. This is when we see Roch truly “work his magic” for the first time. He joins a group of women and can instantly read the underlying emotions churning within one of them. He then comes in contact with a waitress who is obviously in great physical pain. Roch tells her that he can heal her with his hands. This begins an almost hypnotic sequence where he is somehow able to cure the woman's pain. The viewer is sent into just as much of a trance as the waitress herself.

It becomes evident that his power is not merely limited to women, though. There is a later scene in which an independent assessment team, made up of two women and one man, is brought to the commune. It is here that Roch really shows his brilliance. He is able to play to the weaknesses of each assessor individually. Discussing the struggles of French Canadians with the woman who shares that lineage, encouraging the other woman when she talks about a commune she lived on in the 60s, and even offering a sexist view of a woman's “place” when talking with the man.

The most telling moment of his power, however, comes at the end of the film when Roch is sentenced for his crimes. All of the women who had been under his control, even those who have left him, are brought to tears, several even hyperventilating.

They can't even breathe without him.

Roch's power sounds unbelievable. And I suspect it would not have been if not for Picard's performance. He balances crazy with sympathetic flawlessly, even up to the very last moments of the film.

Still, a cult leader is only as powerful as the followers he is able to seduce.... 

Photo credit: allmovie

The “leading lady” of the film was no doubt supposed to be Polly Walker, as social worker Paula Jackson. She was written to be the savior, coming to rescue the lost souls, but she turns out to be one of the film's few but noticeable weaknesses. When compared to the others in the film, her acting is just not up to par and the times when the audience is supposed to sympathize with her, it never quite works out.

Instead, it is Isabelle Blais who clearly steals the show. She captures that innocence of a weak woman who has been manipulated, but is somehow able to separate herself from the others, bringing a hidden strength of sorts to her character.

This was no doubt an intentional move by the director, but it could have come off extremely trite if done by another actress.

I also have to give a shout out to the other women cast as members of the commune. Several of their performances stood out, even if their characters did not have much to do or say. Pascale Montpetit and Julie La Rochelle, in particular, playing Marie-Claude and Suzette respectively, gave powerful performances as women who adored their children but still felt pulled to the man causing their despair.

In the end, Savage Messiah is a little gem of a film. Made on a very small budget, it is still able to tell a story effectively with amazing, believable performances.  As I was doing research, I learned that it was actually made for television, but was so popular it was released theatrically in Quebec, where it was again successful.

This is a testament to just how powerful a film can be, regardless of budget.