From a different perspective ANAMORPH might be good. But Simon isnt convinced...
A film starring Willem Dafoe and Peter Stormare, with a distinctly SEVEN-esque flavour to it sounds like a pretty damn good prospect, does it not? So, why is it that HS Millers dark self-consciously intellectual thriller flown straight in at DVD level? Well, frankly, its rubbish. The principle isnt a bad one. Based on the Renaissance idea of Anamorphosis, an art technique that uses a distorter image that is only visible when viewed from a specific perspective often revealing something counter to the primary image- so theres always another angle, another meaning, depending on where you stand. You can see why such an idea appeals to a serial killer format, with the idea that lateral thinking might reveal clues that werent necessarily visible during the primary investigation (the hidden clues are all very DA VINCI CODE). So, we are met with the idea of killer as artist, a difficult idea to come to terms with, especially the way the film seems to glorify the serial killer at the centre of it- the ridiculously named Uncle Eddie- and admire his works. The artistic undertone also paves the way for Peter Stormares art dealer, who seems to be given a little too much access to the details of the murders, and an improbable, but thoroughly pleasing cameo by none other than wrestler Mick Foley as an antique dealer. Its all a little bit daft. From the DVD menu and its cover, ANAMORPH would appear to have been marketed as a gorefest, the hanging severed arm akin to HOSTEL or SAW VIs severed heads. Why this is the case, when really it attempts to be far cleverer than that, is beyond me, other than to try and give it Video Nasty credentials that it simply cannot and shouldnt not attempt to live up to. And that attempt becomes less confusing as the film unfolds- there are innumerate problems with what could have been a good idea, that are obviously a result of bad production. So perhaps the distributors decided that shunning a European cinema release and going whole hog for the controversial straight to DVD slasher genre was the best way of extending the sales legs of a film that shouldnt make much money. The worst thing is that director HS Miller seems to be operating under the pretence that what he has created is a profound and visionary statement, exploring life, death and art. To attempt to reconcile this misguided opinion with the way the film appears to be marketed is a difficult endeavour at best, and one that I fear is very much beyond me. There are certain things I find unforgiveable in film-making, and one of them, which ANAMORPH is guilty of on more than one occasion, is the attempt to force-feed the audience in an attempt to lead their reactions and even worse their emotions. The music is very insistent and a little intrusive, swelling at those points deemed dramatically important, which just annoyed me. I recognise the narrative function that music has to play in cinema, but I simply cannot abide it when it is thrust upon me and shouts Insert relevant emotion here. In all honesty parts of ANAMORPHs clunky dialogue exhibit similar forceful characteristics: the fact that Willem Dafoes jaded detective is haunted by his guilt for a dead girl, and that his confidence is in tatters should be inferred, rendering despicably delivered lines like As hard as the Uncle Eddie case was, youre STILL a detective happily obsolete. But instead, the film gives too much away about Aubrays internal conflict too early, and treats its few viewers like utter morons. I just dont know how to take Willem Dafoes performance as Stan Aubray, no matter how I break it down: there are just too many conflicting aspects that dont add up. It is either a performance of measured genius, the emotionally dead conflicted detective tortured by his ghosts, or it is a terrible performance. The problem I have with judging Dafoe is that he has the least expressive face, apart from when the role asks for rage or monstrosity which his grizzled features capture better than most. It is difficult to work out whether Dafoes apparent lack of commitment to the emotional rawness of the cases presented to him are an extension of the clinical removal he affects to get his job done efficiently. And that is at the crux of one of the major problems with ANAMORPH- there is too much confusion surrounding Dafoes character: ambiguity is often an important element in thrillers, but that can only go so far before you dont know who the character is trying to be. We are presented with three ideas of a character, which never really link up. First we have the hint of the man Aubray was before the first Uncle Eddie case ruined his life, the old swagger and bravado that forces its way into a crime scene first, and who swans into an autopsy late with an impassive What did I miss? Secondly we have the diligent criminal investigator, fascinated by his cases and intrigued by the psychology of the killer, who exhibits slightly obsessive impulses bordering on OCD levels. More than a little touch of Tony Shalhoubs excellent MONK character here. Next, we have the jaded cop, haggard, embittered and trapped in perpetual turmoil by the guilt he feels for serial killer Uncle Eddies last victim, who he was personally invested in. This is the substance abuser, the brown-bag drinker we see more as the film progresses, the one who is going through the motions until he can retire. My problem is, the three character types cannot coexist successfully, no matter how conflicted the character- the alcoholism does not sit well with the OCD, as the lack of control would surely trigger his obsessive compulsive behaviour. Nor does the hint of a swagger and crime scene confidence fit with the idea of the jaded cop who is haunted by the ghosts of the past: irretrievably Dafoe seems to go from meek fear to incredible courage in the blink of an eye. There are a certain amount of good ideas that find themselves unfortunately wallowing among the mire- there is an intriguing idea of the psychology of the serial killer; compelled to re-enact the decisive moment of the kill again and again. Even more interestingly the film likens the idea to Francis Bacons Study after Velazquezs Portrait of Pope Innocent X, and his subsequent repainting of the study in more and more grotesque forms. The concept of the serial killer as an artist is hinged upon this idea, his fascination with recreating the decisive moment like Bacons obsession with repainting the same subject, seeking the moment when composition, form and perspective combine to a point of perfect revelation. You can even see elements of Bacons work elsewhere in the film: a Baconian triptych appears as the background to one victims body and with varying success the flashbacks that haunt Aubray, revealing elements of the first Uncle Eddie case, are shot in a peculiar way, broken by shards of light. The gimmick doesnt work well as a cinematography tool as it compromises the picture- its only when you look at Bacons Study After that you recognise what the director is attempting to say about the link between Bacons subsequent studies and the potential that Uncle Eddie is killing again. Good idea; but then perhaps thats the art critic in me over-thinking it. The film suffers fatally from a lack of suspense in the most crucial parts- there is no crescendo at the end, not even in the sequence starting with Stan stalking the killer up admittedly impressive looking final scene. If Im supposed to be watching a thriller, why am I not thrilled? ANAMORPH is also woefully subservient to too many overplayed stereotypes- the jaded cop, the personal investment in the case and subsequent suspicion, the bolshie polar-opposite New Partner figure (painfully acted by Scott Speedman might I add), and the obligatory Dead Ex-Partner. There are even a Femme Fatale reporter type, inevitable press leaks and an oh-so-necessary similarity between the hero and the villain (Aubrays OCD and fascination with Art mimicking Uncle Eddies obsession with form and perspective). It reads a little like a role-call sheet for every attempted Film Noir in existence. The influence of SEVEN becomes more and more obvious as each crime scene is revealed, with a similar sense of maudlin occasion as the horrific scene unfolds- the fatal difference for ANAMORPH is the rather worrying fetishistic manner in which it approaches those scenes. There is an awful clinical gore that is obscenely grotesque- even the Gore-Porn fans of HOSTEL or SAW will find no pleasure in these severed body parts because the crime itself is never shown (something that also makes it difficult to give a shit about the killer). This is fetishised death for the sake of it, and left me wondering whether Miller is attempting to make the grotesque scenes look beautiful. I understand that the idea of artistry is important to the overall concept of the film, but this was too much, and left me actually repulsed- there is simply no merit to it at all. Not only that, ANAMORPH seems far too interested in looking like an over-long episode of CSI- all extreme close-ups and familiar supposedly zingy dialogue that just ends up sounding cheap and forced (Aubrays conversations with Crystal the reformed smackhead prostitute are the worst). But, credit where credit is due, it does use the retro style visual technique that ZODIAC accomplished so well, and looks gorgeous for the most part. So, it seems ANAMORPH is a magpie of a movie, but instead of picking up only the shiniest of keepsakes, there is a sort of scatter brain approach; creating an amalgam that pales into insignificance next to any of its supposed influences.