|
|
|
|
Critical
Writings
-> Academic Journals -> Newpaper Articles
& Reviews > Film
Articles and Reviews: FILM
The War Zone
Directed by Tim Roth
Acclaimed English actor Tim Roth’s directorial
debut feature The War Zone got a pre-release
screening on August 18 last at the IFC, as part of
the Film Institute of Ireland/The Irish Times
Public Interview series, and Roth, accompanied
by the film’s lead actor Ray Winstone, chatted
with Irish Times film critic Michael Dwyer
afterwards. Producer Sarah Radclyffe was also in attendance.
Adapted by Alexander Stuart from his own 1989 novel
(which I should admit from the outset to not having
read), the film deals graphically and uncompromisingly
with the harrowing subject of incest and parental
abuse of children. It thus joins a number of recent
movies which concern themselves, however tangentially,
with this emotionally charged issue, including November
Afternoon, Priest, Festen and Happiness.
However, while there is much to admire here, namely
Seamus McGarvey’s superb cinematography, with
rigorously composed, carefully lit long takes of dark
interiors and desolate landscapes, and the understated
yet intense performances Roth has coaxed from all
his central players, this is ultimately an ill-conceived
and unsatisfying film.
|
|
Back
|
|
|
|
The story is seen from the point of
view of Tom (Freddie Cunliffe), a 15-year-old who resents
his family’s move from London to Devon. Being
uprooted from his friends has exacerbated Tom’s
feelings, common in adolescence, of estrangement from
family. He observes with equal measures of curiosity
and anxiety his pregnant mum (Tilda Swinton), his quiet-around-the-house
Dad (Winstone), and his attractive sister Jessie (Lara
Belmont), three years his senior. Lonely, alienated
and bored, Tom is an alert and perceptive youngster
who soon detects a terrible festering secret that binds
his father and Jessie together. When Jessie repeatedly
denies Tom’s allegations, he follows her and their
father to a secluded coastal bunker, and witnesses an
explicit scene of incestuous anal intercourse.
My unease with the film stems from the fact that none
of the family members is given any interior psychology,
and they remain bereft throughout of any coherent social
context. We are told almost nothing of their backgrounds,
of what has brought them to the present situation. While
Beckettian abstraction or Brechtian expressionism has
its place in cinema, and as much can be revealed by
leaving spaces and silences for the audience to fill
in, or place itself in, as by more realistic exposition,
if one is taking as well-defined and shocking a phenomenon
as incest as one’s sole or central theme, and
has gone to the trouble of particularising it in an
specific family, then the viewer simply has to know
more about them. There is no sense here of either the
family dynamics or the social concern which underpin
the aforementioned Festen, for example, where
the patriarch’s abuse of his son and daughter,
and his affection for the most boorish and racist of
his offspring, links into a broader condemnation of
how he has succeeded in business in the greater bourgeois
society he is a part of and which celebrates him, indeed
how the very impulse towards the behaviour he indulges
in in his personal life may well have its corollary
and been an asset, and is certainly given a more socially
acceptable outlet, as part of the worldview which sponsors
his role in the public sphere. If you see your more
sensitive and vulnerable children as mere vessels for
your own self-gratification, how will you treat your
employees, or those you have business dealings with?
Also, his wife’s knowledge of, consent to, and
subsequent repudiation of his activity is made abundantly
clear.
If I was an actor in The War Zone, searching
for my character’s motivation, I’d feel
very under-equipped for the task in hand. Winstone’s
promotional spiel for the publicity circuit, first heard
by this writer at the IFC and then again when it was
repeated almost verbatim the following week on Channel
4’s coverage of the Edinburgh Festival, defends
the film, and the bunker scene especially, by arguing,
“That’s what these fuckers do.” Fair
enough, but that begs the obvious question, as does
the entire movie, “Why do they do what they do?”
And there’s more: what’s Dad’s job?
(the film distributor’s bumf calls the family
middle-class, while a review by Emanuel Levy in Variety
clearly thinks it is working-class); why have they relocated
from London to rural, isolated Devon?; how much does
Mum know?; why is 18-year-old Jessie so compliant and
conspiratorial with her father?; what is the nature
and significance of Jessie’s lesbian relationship
with her friend Lucy, and how and when did it come about?;
why does she instigate a sexual encounter between Tom
and Lucy?; what, if any, is the significance of the
car crash at the beginning of the film, when Mum is
in labour and being driven to hospital (an incident
which has the unfortunate consequence of making one
suppose publicity stills of battered and bandaged female
faces are as a result of beating rather than the accident)?;
and was Dad at his baby girl, or did she just start
vaginal haemorrhaging anyway? Too many questions, and
not enough answers. All takes place in hugger-mugger,
is hinted at, but left undeveloped and unexplored.
But what compounds these criticisms is the air of self-righteous,
self-congratulatory loviedom that surrounded the IFC
interview. Granted, Roth may have been nervous, an actor
without a mask, but he came across as offering himself
as the only hope left for a radical British cinema,
taking some unsubstantiated and gratuitous pot-shots
along the way at actor/directors he has previously worked
with (Allen, Tarentino). Although careful to distance
himself from any comparison with Gary Oldman’s
success with Nil By Mouth (“That’s just
criticism, and that’s cheap.”), Oldman and
Roth are presenting themselves, or being presented,
as the only alternative to the ubiquitous Merchant Ivory
heritage movies, or to the cosiness of The Full
Monty or Notting Hill. But it should be
remembered that these need not necessarily be the only
games in town.
The bottom line is that The War Zone would
have had a lot more difficulty getting made if someone
with Roth’s clout had not come on board (Nick
Roeg had already passed on it, for unspecified reasons,
as had a pre-Trainspotting Danny Boyle), but that still
doesn’t mean that he was the best man for such
a delicate job. And although he is not the most articulate
individual in the world, these public interviews are
not going to have any real value unless they probe and
prod a little deeper than the average promo tool. As
it was, Roth’s behaviour on the night in question
was little more than that of a dial-a-quote rebel. We
are, in effect, being asked to choose between those
with style and those with attitude. But what we really
need are articulate rebels.
Roth has made an ‘actorly’ movie, and the
cast must have been exhilarated by working on such a
challenging but rewarding task. But the end result,
despite its subject matter and explicitness, is nevertheless
without much substance at its core. Any film concerning
itself with incest is going to create controversy, or
at least attract attention. While it would be egregiously
cynical to question Tim Roth’s bona fides in undertaking
the project, something as serious and devastating and,
let’s face it, as common as incest deserves a
much more in depth examination and dramatisation than
these alternative lovies have shown themselves capable
of giving it.
First published in Film Ireland
|
|
|
|
Home
Biography
Fiction
Critical Writings
Travel
Writings
Awards |
|
|
|
|