Review:
Stoker is an artistic
and twisted character piece. The film is about India a young woman who is an
outsider within her own surroundings, but very close to her father. Then, her
father dies suddenly in a car accident and India finds herself alone. However,
a mysterious uncle, Charlie, shows up wanting to be in her life. She knows that
there is something not right about him, but instead of being afraid she finds
herself drawn to him.
Making his English-language film
debut, Korean auteur Chan-wook
Park brings almost an abrasive style to Stoker. The film is incredibly
stylized with the use of sound and his kinetic camera playing a vital role. The
sound is exaggerated to illustrate that India is a little weird and alone – she
hears things and sees things that others do not. The use of sound also creates
sort of an off-putting sensation within the viewer, as things do not sound as
expected. Park does this to put the viewer on edge, making his narrative
tension more affecting while creating an overall atmosphere of strangeness/creepiness
for the film (and viewing experience).
Park’s camera/framing is
constantly playing with both the characters and the viewer – setting up scene
dynamics, creating tension, and otherwise rendering how the audience interacts
with the narrative. The camera is often put in the perspective of one of the
characters (mostly India and Charlie) giving the audience their POV. This is
done in such a way as to show the voyeuristic aspect of the relationship that
is developing between India and Charlie. Their exchanges start out as merely
looks, accelerating from there to darker and more twisted places.
The editing also plays an
important role in the film’s artistic style. Park uses flashes of images to
evoke perceptions in the audience of what the character is feeling or thinking.
The editing is used in its most basic form (what Eisenstein
called montage) – juxtaposing two images to elicit an emotion in the audience. Hollywood
filmmaking often tries to make editing feel seamless to the extent that viewers
do not even notice it – but with Stoker, Park very much wants the audience to
react to the contrast of images being put together.
In addition to Park’s aggressive
editing, framing, lighting, use of sound, and camera moves, he also arranges
the narrative in a manner to combatively interact with the viewer. He shows the
audience something, and then twists it to reveal something else – preying on
their expectations. This heightens the mystery and tension within the film, making
the truth’s disclosure very compelling. For the most part, the film is told in
a linear fashion, but Park will revisit moments to provide more information,
twisting and warping the audience’s persecution – juxtaposing expectation with
reality.
The narrative is also developed
very slowly, as Park devotes a sizable amount of time to small character
moments early in the film. He wants India to seem strange, but secretly very
strong – and, Charlie to seem perfectly quaffed, but secretly off kilter. He also
wants to develop these elements slowly so that the tension builds while also
keeping an air of mystery to the story.
Thematically, Park does some
interesting things as well. For example, he uses a spider to represent Charlie.
The spider crawls onto India, and she does not seem to mind – even inviting it
to climb higher up her leg. This expresses her intimate fascination with him,
even though he is a predator (and a spider is something that people would
normally find repulsive or be afraid of).
However, this abrasive style that
Park imposes upon the narrative mixed with the slow pacing bogs the film down a
bit. It takes a while to really get into the meat of the story. Once things get
going, the narrative is very compelling, but it just takes too long for that to
happen. And, by then, Park has probably lost a portion of his audience. As
aesthetically enthralling as the film is, the slow pacing as a result of the
early stylistic choice does hurt the overall film.
The darker, sexual, and more
twisted elements – often found in Park’s work – may not appeal to all viewers
as well.
The slow pacing does undermine
Stoker considerably, but even so it is an artistically brilliant film with sure
masterful direction and wonderful performances. It is a thriller that does not
rely on action and other cheap tricks; rather, it builds tension through the
slow cat and mouse game between India and Charlie (much like Hitchcock’s
Shadow of
a Doubt – which this seems to be influenced by). For those willing to
invest in the characters and embrace the style, the experience is rewarding.
Technical,
aesthetic & acting achievements: Chan-wook Park’s films all have a
very aesthetically interesting style and edginess to them. However, with
Stoker, he seems to have gone to more of an artistic place putting the
aesthetics somewhat above the narrative. This works and does not work. As
stated in the review, the film develops too slowly, but every visual is
fantastic. Plus, the overall aesthetic creates this ambiance of creepiness and
tension that greatly benefits the narrative and might have been lost had things
progressed quicker or if the story had been told in a more standardized manner.
In this way, the film is both a directorial masterwork and failure at the same
time, because while the artistic aspects do make the film more fascinating and
grander on a more sophisticated level (the story is greatly elevated by Park’s
stylistic choices) they also take the viewer out of the story to some extent. Pacing
is maybe the most important element in structuring a great narrative (and
notoriously difficult to get right in a character piece, rather than something
driven by the story). When a film feels slow the audience’s attention drifts
away (maybe never to fully return – and then what is the point of all the
artistic choices if the audience is not engaged).
Clint Mansell’s score is very
good. It fits the tone of the film very well – it is not really a horror film,
but Park seems to want the tone to feel like it is and thereby heighten the
tension. Mansell’s work does this brilliantly (here is a good example). The music
also feels a bit off – like the characters. Chung-hoon Chung’s
cinematography is beautiful. The visuals of the film are impeccable. The color palette
that Chung, Park and production designer Therese DePrez use fits the feel
of the narrative (being toned down colors: white, black, grey, brown, etc.),
which allows Charlie to stand out much more in his bright sweaters. The
production design overall is also wonderful. DePrez gives the visuals an
American Gothic look to match the tone. India’s world (the house and grounds)
also seem very out of touch with the world around it – paralleling the
character.
Even with all the substance that
Park brings to the film with his style, this is a piece that would not work at
all without strong performances (because after all it is character driven). Jacki Weaver and Phyllis Somerville are good in
small roles, but really this film rests with its three leads. Nicole Kidman plays India’s
mother Evelyn, who comes across as sort of an archetypal ‘evil stepmother’ even
though she is India’s biological mother and deeply wants to have a meaningful relationship
with her daughter, only one never developed, so she feels like an outsider burdened
with a child when her husband dies. Kidman is both antagonistic and sympathetic
(something very hard to pull off). It is her most compelling work since The Hours.
Matthew Goode plays Charlie
as seemingly mild mannered, but also extremely intense (his glare is menacing).
He seems cut out of a chic East Coast men’s leisure catalogue – perfectly put
together – but again Goode has such a edge to his performance as if there is something
chaotic and dark just bubbling under the surface. It is definitely a breakthrough
performance for him. Mia
Wasikowska plays India as sort of your typical weird outsider school girl
(a bit like Wednesday from The Adams Family, but
not as goth-looking), but what is interesting about her performance is that
there is not even a hint of aspiration for something more. She is completely
content with who she is. However, when Charlie arrives, he awakens something
within her, something that she fully embraces. In many ways, this is also sort
of a coming-of-age narrative for India. Wasikowska envelops herself in the
character not shying away from the more thematically twisted and darker
material. It is another great performance from this rising star.
Summary
& score: Stoker is for the most part an aesthetically magnificent
stylish thriller, but its pacing problems (and to some extent its style) also debilitate
its overall effectiveness. 7/10
