No reason

Half a dozen chairs stand on a dirt track in the desert. A car comes into shot; it drives slowly up the track, knocking the chairs to pieces with the slightest touch. We see it is approaching a small group of people. The car stops and a man in sheriff’s uniform climbs out of the boot holding a glass of water. He gives a speech, the concluding each line with the statement; ‘no reason’. “In The Pianist by Polanski, how come this guy has to hide and live like a bum when he plays the piano so well? No reason.” After several of these he pours his water on the ground and gets back in the car boot.

That is the opening to Rubber, a very odd horror movie about a telekinetic tyre – I know, but bear with me – and another of the unknown gems which would probably never get seen without services like Netflix. Along with Ink and Lunopolis it is something I would never had watched had it not just been there and for having done so, as with all forms of art, life is richer for having done. These are tiny independent films which never really get seen outside of festivals but they certainly deserve to be in an age where ‘inspired by the Hasbro toy’ is becoming an alarming alternative to ‘based on true events’ in opening credits. Battleship – enough said.

Where did these services come from? It seemed like all of a sudden they were everywhere, like FaceBook. At their hearts these virtual video stores are the bastard children of internet piracy. Put simply someone in a suit realized that those adverts weren’t fooling anyone and the only way for the movie industry to survive torrents was to offer a service which is easier than piracy. Itunes took baby steps in that direction but balked at really lowering prices and increasing accessibility. With a subscription setup like Netflix you may as well watch that random movie that piqued your interest, you have nothing to lose. I can’t get my money back because I don’t like something on iTunes, by charging per download and at a price point which is where our high street shops were at anyway before we left them to die. At least then we could lend them to our mates or sell them on without little text boxes popping up asking for passwords.

Regardless, services such as Netfilx, Lovefilm and now Amazon have enjoyed huge success over recent years and the pressure to avoid ‘tape left in car syndrome’ has given filmmakers the exposure they always hoped to find on youtube. There was a time when everyone thought they could put a short film on Youtube and be annoying the world with high-pitched blatherings by the end of the week but it all became so much noise. Why? Because there is no curation. Deep within Youtube there are great documentaries, short films, fascinating stock footage and beautiful works of art and music but I challenge you to find more than one an hour beneath the lolcats, whining teenagers and people falling off things.

It is also the element of surprise and discovery which has been reintroduced to media through these services. We are assured in the role the service plays, that by its own standards and the user’s ‘taste profile’, and we can take riskless chances. The way we as a society have consumed media before the digital revolution was always a pro-active choice within a limited range. The cinema, Blockbusters or Pirate Bay, we always met half way at best. Yes, there have been surprise hits such as Iron Sky but this trade on their kitsch appeal using snappy taglines ahead of deep plot-lines. “In 1945 the Nazi’s went to the moon – in 2010, they’re coming back.” The film was funded on the back of a teaser trailer and that line alone. This isn’t a new thing either Troma made a genre out of it in the 80’s with movies including ‘Surf Nazi’s must Die’ and ‘Killer Condom’, however, their titles were their only strength.

Trailers and movie marketer’s clear contempt for the public intelligence have been undermining the multiplex for years particularly with trailers. Take as an example the current remake of Carrie. The trailer contains, Carrie discovering her powers, being bullied in the shower, being invited to the prom, confronting her mother, killing her mother, the pigs blood, the burning hall, and John Travolta’s (or whoever’s) car crash. That is the whole plot. Why bother going now?

The remake itself, as the majority of Hollywood’s output over the past decade, has become homogenized and committee designed to an aimless gloss. The Stephen King novel is a character piece. It follows the same lines as most of his books – an individual who is different in some way but doesn’t want to be, yet society’s wider fears, prejudices and venom are directed at resulting in some form of cataclysm which is again played out on a personal level.

The original movie is an uncomfortable watch to say the least. Sissy Spacek is perfectly cast. She is awkward both in appearance and character but she is also able to portray Carrie’s sweeter side – the girl who just wants to be normal. Chloe Morretz is a strong actress but she is too attractive and energetic to be believable in her pariah’s role. The inner cruelty of the mother’s preaching is also lost. In De Palma’s film there is a clear overtone that the mother’s central motivation is her fear of abandonment. She claims ‘the devil made your father leave us,’ and ‘God cursed us because I was weak and let him put it in me’. She undermines Carrie much more out of a lack of control within her own world view; that she fears will take her daughter, in whom she sees redemption, away from her.

Spacek – who has a reputation for Daniel Day Lewis style character acting – took the role very seriously. She plays three different women; the timid and terrified girl at the beginning, she is radiant with happiness at the Prom and finally a silent psychic banshee of vengeance and bulging eyes. With each change she moves differently, changes her posture, her way of speaking. It is subtle and brilliant.

Morretz and Moore are very capable actors as we have seen before but here, for whatever reason they fall flat. Sure, Morretz hunches her shoulders and puts on an ugly cardigan but she is clearly still a confident young woman. The way she moves, particularly entering rooms/scenes does not have the timidity or frailty the role demands. In the role of her fanatical mother Moore is left with nowhere to go but histrionics. Every argument and condemnation just gets louder. Piper Laurie in the original adopted a preacher’s tone, she sermonizes to Carrie as if addressing a room making her seem detached and all the more threatening. The scene where she visits another student’s mother seeking converts but is turned away with a dismissive donation is a perfect example of how she turns the mood of a scene.

Then finally there is the double catch within the denouement. The popular boy (Tommy) is taking her to the prom at his popular girlfriend’s (Sue) request. We know another couple, their friends, are planning to humiliate Carrie. At first we assume they are in on it. Especially when the girl goes to watch them at the prom. Yet we see in their reactions that they are not, they actually are trying to give Carrie something nice. The audience knows about the bucket but as the camera lingers on the couple we realize they do not. Carries eyes well up and Tommy smiles gallantly if not a bit patronsingly at her. She is transformed we are witnessing the brightest moment of her life. She knows it is an act of charity but accepts the bittersweet. They are chosen as prom king and queen and Sue wells up too.

If we were to leave the story there, to abandon the bucket, we may have seen a reborn Carrie. A moment of acceptance, a few minutes of fame. Her picture would be in the yearbook and she would have graduated with a new found confidence. She had stood up to her mother that night and would soon be leaving for college. Most likely a good student she would have had opportunities and ‘creepy Carrie’ would be a passing memory.

As Sue wipes away her tears she sees the rope. The camera runs in slow motion as she tracks the pulleys to the bucket. She tries to stop it and is thrown out by a teacher who believes she is here to cause a scene. She will be the only survivor. The bucket falls and everything burns. Ultimately, you are left without a doubt that she was the victim here and in her frightened final moments there is a sense that the audience is as responsible for this as the bullies. ‘Why couldn’t you all have just left her alone?’

In all of the remakes, and in film in general now, there is an obsession with surface. The effects are loud and polished. Furniture lifts and objects rush through the air. Every actor cast is beautiful, rich and usually pushing 30. There is no way that someone at 2013’s Bates High wouldn’t have said ‘that Carrie White is a bit weird but she has a really striking look’. Why not? No reason. It’s the same on TV too; no-one in Dawson’s Creek ever asked, ‘why are there no ethnic minorities in our town at all?’ No reason. We all agree to suspend our logic gland when we buy a cinema ticket. Why is it a galaxy far far away? No reason. However, everything is hyped to the point of saturation and gimmicks bolster takings.

It would be fabulous if the various online services could come together into one giant library like we had in piracy’s heyday but the market will dictate that and most likely many great IP’s will languish under supported and under exposed. Another option would be a curated version of YouTube allowing people to upload serious works and bring some semblance of culture to the noise of web 2.0.

As we increasingly hear about democratisation of media we increasingly see its fallacy. Yes you can get news online from innumerable sources but at least our mass media is governed by some semblance of law which allows us to trust it or at least to make informed decisions based on our view of it. The more people ‘broadcast yourself to the world’ the more we see that in the face of our entire world’s problems a grumpy cat or an adolescent idiot is higher on the agenda. So many images and messages fly past us everyday that there is a risk of the loss of authority and credibility of information, we need some way of wading through the lies and rubbish and thus far we have trusted common sense but the simple fact that more people have watched Gangdam Style than have read Wikileaks illustrates our misplaced confidence.