The Farmer Takes a Knife

THE COTTAGE is a new British horror film from writer-director Paul Andrew Williams, who had a critical and commercial hit in 2006 with LONDON TO BRIGHTON.

The Smiler with the Knife

Backstory: after trying for three years to get THE COTTAGE made, PAW approached producer Rachel Robey and offered her the script of LTB, provided she got the budget (£65,000) very swiftly — he was sick of waiting.

They shot the thing with private investments, then got completion money from The Film Council’s Paul Trijbits (Richard Stanley’s bête noir) and had a festival hit on their hands.

Road trip

I haven’t seen the result, but Fiona has and was very complimentary — she expected to hate it, as it’s that kind of low-budget “gritty realism” much in fashion in the UK and especially Scotland, seemingly because nobody has any idea what else cinema can be. But it also has a gripping narrative hook, and is a thriller and sort-of road movie. Fiona saw the thing at the Edinburgh Film Fest in 2006, where she attended one of the big parties and saw Rachel R being spanked by Brian DePalma (he tried to get her to sit on his lap, she refused, and received swift bottom-related justice from de palm of DePalma). Fiona relayed this gossip to me that night, and I was glibly recounting it to a friend the next day when I realised to my embarrassment that the subject of the story was sitting behind me. But Rachel is a very good sport.

After scoring with his feature debut, PAW suddenly had no trouble finding support for THE COTTAGE —  The Isle of Man paid him to come to their benighted land mass to shoot it, and The Film Council stumped up a considerably greater sum. Yet Williams has sounded rather muted when “promoting” his resulting dream project in interviews.

The film is a mess. Two incompetent kidnappers (Andy “my precious” Serkis and Reece Shearsmith of TV comedy troupe The League of Gentlemen) come to the titular cottage with sweary hostage Jennifer Ellison. It’s immediately clear that the film is madly off-target. Jokey credits that fly in from all directions for no damn reason (and without any of the wit of Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST titling) and 10th generation Danny Elfman rip-off music (LOUD! HEAD-ACHY!) give way to mismatched performances from the annoying and unsympathetic characters. Serkis and Ellison are relatively naturalistic, but Shearsmith is shrill and “comedic”, which might be more appropriate to the kind of film this is, but stands out as unconnected to the other players, and is rather tiring on the ears and nerves. Inexplicably, the two kidnappers are brothers, sharing a house since childhood, but Serkis is cockney and Shearsmith clearly from Hull. Similarly, Ellison is Scouse but her step-brother, who’s in on the caper, is a soft southern bastard and amusingly middle-class to boot. Played by Steve O’Donnell, he’s the only funny one, with his constant mild air of failure although he’s party to all the “these characters are unbelievably stupid” stuff, which is a major part of the film’s massive irritation factor.

The Big Mouth

Plot holes… so many, and so glaring. Starting with the title — it’s called THE COTTAGE, and there is a cottage fairly prominent in it, but the centre of terror proves to be a farmhouse. Ellison’s gangster dad is forever on his way to wreak mayhem, but never turns up — a stab at Waiting For Godot? (Fiona’s diligant research turns up the fact that Stephen Berkoff cameos in this role after the end credits — somebody was optimisitc enough to hope the audience would stick around). The farmhouse’s occupants have some kind of backstory that’s hinted at in diaries, photos and news clippings, but it never makes sense or adds up to anything evocative. A bog-standard TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE set-up is all we really get. The role of farmer’s wife wastes the excellent Scottish actress Katy Murphy, so maybe there was more material originally. Another lacuna involves the brothers and an incident in a greenhouse from their past — referred to several times, never elucidated, and never acquiring any resonance from being kept mysterious. One character has a moth-phobia. Of course he’s confronted by masses of moths at one point, but the effect is a big “so what”? He isn’t destroyed by his fear, he doesn’t triumph over it, he just leaves the room.

Subjecting the characters to their worst nightmares is what the film is all about, I suppose. But it’s all so unimaginative — they get bones broken, bits lopped off, other bits impaled, they eventually die. It’s like a literal execution of brain-dead “script guru” Dov SS Simmons’ dictum, “send seven characters into a house and chop them up.” Not very enlightening. The complete lack of character sympathy negates suspense and helps kill laughter too. PAW tries to find some compassion for the central duo about ten minutes from the end, by which time it’s an exercise in pointlessness on a par with the rest of the film. Everybody in the story is a stereotype and they behave accordingly, with only the tiniest amount of development permitted, and no surprises anywhere. Inexplicably, the kidnap victim is portrayed as the most unpleasant of them all, in keeping with a pervasive tone of misogyny that’s completely unexamined by the script and direction.

Cambell's Kingdom

A proper film.

It’s not FROM DUSK TILL DAWN — the music and overacting tip us off to the intended genre shift before the story’s even started. It’s not EVIL DEAD II — the violence is graphic and unpleasant, rather than cartoony and funny. It’s actually worse than CREEP, which was also full of plot holes and lacked any kind of explanation, but took itself seriously, which at least allowed for a small amount of dramatic tension.

What we have is a combination of the two genres beloved of The Film Council, genres it has consistently failed to master — the gorefest and the mockney gangster romp. Everybody got sick of the latter about eight years ago, with only SEXY BEAST winning any friends since, through its sheer demented originality. Suturing a brainless crime comedy onto a mindless splatter film does NOT make anything new or different or interesting.

I can’t work out what’s gone wrong with PAW — my best guess is that, having made LONDON TO BRIGHTON he actually found a style and tone that suited him better than his intended “crowd-pleaser”. Given the opportunity to make the film he’d hoped for, he found suddenly that it held no interest for him, was shallow and devoid of humanity compared to what he’d found himself capable of. He couldn’t bring the depth and passion of LONDON TO BRIGHTON to it because the whole idea lacked any weight or relevance to the real world (the inbred serial killers inhabit a yokel village an hour outside of modern London), was just a compendium of horror clichés put together with no love for the genre or affection for the characters. It would be torture porn only it lacks any actual sadistic relish, which in the context of this deadening mishmash would actually constitute a redeeming feature. And it’s flatly made in a joyless televisual style that confirms again the serious lack of visual literacy in the UK film industry.

I don’t LIKE using Shadowplay to be mean about films. I want British genre films to be made with love and to deliver pleasure to people who care about cinema. I can even just about tolerate something that’s mean-spirited and nasty if it shows a love of CINEMA.

Michael Powell had an expression he’d use when he saw a disappointing film, and it’s apposite here: “He didn’t teach me anything.”

About these ads

14 Responses to “The Farmer Takes a Knife”

  1. A very well argued review. Haven’t seen it myself, but nothing about the clips of trailer got me excited. I think British film’s general failure to make good -or at least entertaining- films comes from an ignorance borne out of snobbery. A frightening amount of film-makers in the UK think they’re somehow able to subvert and mess with a genre before they even understand it. ‘Shaun Of The Dead’ (bar the rather too convenient arrival of the cavalry at the end) worked because Edgar Wright knows and respects Romero’s films and horror in general. From what you’ve said ‘The Cottage’ didn’t, and doesn’t.

  2. I agree that there’s snobbery and ignorance at work somewhere… possibly at the Film Council…? They want to make commercial cinema but they don’t seem to be very good at it. And yet, despite their track record, they still insist on interfering with the filmmakers they DO back. Apparently they told PAW he had to cast a young actress or the film wouldn’t get made, despite the fact that he made London to Brighton and they made Creep…
    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the genre-shift in The Cottage, as a concept. It even has an advantage over From Dusk Till — in that film, the first half is really about Clooney being saddled with a psychopath for a brother. Not only does part 2 switch genre and tone, it abandons the thematic driving force without having done anything with it. In The Cottage the brothers’ relationship continues to be central. But you learned not to like them in act 1, so it counts for little.
    For some reason, a lot of British “commercial” films seem to go out of their way to establish protagonists as dislikeable (Creep, everything from Andrew McDonald’s DNA) as if this were a prerequisite of mainstream cinema, when in fact it’s a substantial risk to take with the audience. I think maybe it does begin with the filmmakers’ feeling an obscure need to establish themselves as superior to the material, characters, and by extension, audience.
    Where’s the love?

  3. Oh, a friend objected to the happy ending in Shaun because it violates Romero’s genre rules. But it’s in keeping with romcom rules, so what are you gonna do?
    Also, the army’s arival, for me, is a decent joke because while Shaun was leading his friends to the pub, the other lot sensibly went and got the armed forces. So it’s set up, both as plot point and gag.
    Another friend pointed out that Pegg’s films are implicitly rightwing, which I find much harder to dismiss. I still love them, but… he’s kind of right.

  4. Please, a post (or link to something) on Edgar Wright’s and Simon Pegg’s right wing credentials..
    Mr. Wright is currently writing Ant Man with Joe Cornish of Adam and Joe fame. I’m not hugely into the ‘ol Comics but I must admit to being a bit curious about this one. I doubt it will be miserable at the least.

  5. I’m curious about your fascination with ‘miserablist’ cinema. I see very little Scottish filmmaking (I’m Irish). I saw the super happy Young Adam not so long ago and I absolutely take your point. Having said that is your problem with practically every Scottish film being of a ‘miserablist’ variety or are the films themselves proving intolerable?
    Red Road received excellent reviews over here so maybe an occasional exposure to dowdy Scottish (and English) films, albeit wellmade ones, can prove a healthy experience.

  6. The short miserablist flms are almost as bad as the long ones – I’ve sat through shorts that FELT feature length. I’ve sat through short which made me feel that everyone concerned should be made to pay in prison time. And Don’t Get Me Started On Documentaries.

  7. The Pegg thing is my friend Benjamin Halligan’s bugbear — he did write something about it, I’ll see if I can find it online. He did cite 1) comparing supermarket employees to zombies and 2) the army saving the day. Hot Fuzz needs no explanation, although the bad guys are vigilantes. How do you calculate the rightwingness of a film about rogue cops versus rustic vigilantes? It’s like Magnum Force all over again!

    As far as miserabilism goes, certainly too many films with a similar tone seems like a problem in itself. You could say that neo-realism had the same kind of consistency, but the Italians were making comedies and then sword and sandal films and all kinds of other stuff too. And their films were actually POPULAR.

    I think most of the films are also NOT GOOD, which connects to their sameness — people making the only kind of thing they can think of, which is what’s being made already. A self-perpetuating illness of tormented unimaginative bullshit, would be a harsh way of describing it. Which isn’t to say there’s no worthwhile work being done in amongst that, just as the plague of Brit gangster films did throw up some decent work. 90% of everything is crap, to quote Sturgeon’s Law. I would be slightly happier with a few different SHADES of crap, but I think we could actually aim EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT.

  8. [...] it unfolds. Of course, CLOVERFIELD has already delivered the big-budget version of this trope, and rogue spankerBrian DePalma’s REDACTED uses a similar approach. It’s a zeitgeist thing, I guess, [...]

  9. Some one with too much time on their hands wrote this tiresome rant. As Ralph Emerson said, “What you are shouts so loud in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

  10. So, what’s your involvement with The Cottage?

  11. [...] the experience). I was worried that I wasn’t being fair to it. I was much meaner about THE COTTAGE (and somebody, perhaps the director, has objected to this in the Comments section) but at least I [...]

  12. I saw London to Brighton in the presence of its producers a couple of years ago, and it was an interesting experience all round. The film worked really very well, up to a point. Infuriatingly, that point was about three minutes before the end credits rolled, when the writer-director allowed himself to succumb to a horribly Hollywood bit of ‘neatness’, a rotten off-the-peg slice of motivation that threw the honesty and integrity of the entire previous hour and a half into question. Afterwards, the producers explained that PAW had made some well-received shorts, been enticed to Hollywood and then realised that all that was on offer there was the opportunity to direct sequels to successful horror movies. His escape route was doing London to Brighton, and he was lined up to direct his dream project – The Cottage – next.

    As of now, his next job is 28 Months Later. What a roundabout route he’s taken. I hope he gets back to whatever inner need motivated the first 95% of London to Brighton some time soon.

  13. Strange, isn’t it? His good film was the result of having no money and needing to compensate for the lack of resources with searing honesty. Maybe employing that honesty in a bigger budget project would be a good idea.

  14. [...] it TRANSFORMERS II, but we know the truth) and actor Reece Shearsmith to bitterly complain in an anonymous comment that I must have too much time on my hands. (He’s [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 410 other followers

%d bloggers like this: