Post by No Personality on Mar 7, 2010 11:12:45 GMT -5
Nothing about or within the world of The Company of Wolves is simple or cleanly cut. It took me a good 3 viewings to even arrive at the ability to give it 3 stars. Why is that? There are a few reasons. One is that here I judge films based on their horror credentials. Company may owe a lot to films like Suspiria in that most viewers never really know what's going on, or Carrie because it really holds on to its' horror and waits a long time before letting go. This film is rather stuck between the worlds of classic horror which wouldn't allow it to be this sexual or this suggestive about its' subject matter, and the world of modern fx-driven horror which almost demands that it deliver hard shocks or a modern 80's sarcastic attitude.
So to take some of that pressure off of it, the hardcore fans of the movie have made sure to call it fantasy more than horror. Of course the nature of the horror film dictates that, among other things, it's never completely accessible or easy to digest. There's a certain amount of waiting the audience has to do to plug into it. But it usually pays off because no matter what happens in a horror film, we know we can be ourselves and the movie will almost never be shy about the darker things of life. The things our leaders and institutions don't want to look at in the light. Company is about opening new worlds of discovery after being told that "straying from the path" is dangerous, or that if you're "bitten" by a "devil," you'll go to hell.
That's not to say that it's overly religious. There's a very touching moment where a Priest looks at a... well, so as not to give away too much I'll just use a generic word (which may have absolutely nothing to do with the movie at all) - "mutant," and after questioning whether he should help (it) because (it) might be "the work of the devil," he decides to not think about that because (it's) wounded and needs help. You might think that's religious. But you won't when the scene comes up. It's about things like that being irrelevant in the grand scheme of humanity, that there's always something more important. Give this film credit for being able to do something I've never seen another horror film do- hold back on brutality and overbearing creepiness and make you appreciate that.
The film is always more intriguing than outright dangerous. It initially broke my cardinal horror rule about protecting all the characters or proving my prediction that they won't die to be correct. But even then, it has its' dark side and surprised me several times by earning its' R-rating. It almost feels like something made-for-television and does seek to hit high emotional archs in spite of the fact that most of the people in the story are old-fashioned, quiet mannered, and passive in many ways. But eventually, I was riveted into whatever the story was aiming to accomplish. It is a thorough work of dark fantasy, and passionately dedicated to the "what you see isn't always what is real" school of storytelling.
So, that's what the film is. A tug of war between the light and the dark inside the characters. Some have a lot more light and little dark. Others have very little light and quite a bit of dark. You'll know the balance of each the moment they turn up onscreen. This film references fairy tales throughout. Such as Little Red Riding Hood. And seeks to pretty much let you know the end of everyone when you meet them. What's even more fascinating though is that this film also wants to be a kind of anthology. The bookends seem to mean very little in setting things up. The main story is that it begins and ends in the 1980's but that the very long middle takes place in the fairy tale anywhere-time/place and consists of the characters telling each other stories.
Those stories look as though they bounce all over the place in history. Though I say that because I'm a total idiot when it comes to history. One story seems to take place in where I assume is France, because of the costumes and what we naturally assume is French aristocratic behavior and the fancy, overindulgent banquet setting. Although I seriously doubt they're speaking with French accents. So this is probably England. And I gather the characters in the main bulk of the middle are either from New England (in America) or from a very far back colonial village / farm peasant era in England. Elements from a more industrial / mod-con businessman era even invades the period farm village in one totally awesome sequence, the shortest tale of the movie.
To the film's further credit, there's a running theme throughout of forceful or powerful women. There are several moments where I almost clapped. After hearing a very graphic and bloody story about a woman whose first husband returns years after having gone missing and tries to attack her when he transforms into a werewolf, what the little red riding hood of this movie responds to is the fact that the woman's current husband slapped her. Several references are made to this girl's fearlessness. She's not entirely fearless, but when her mother and grandmother warn her that the woods are dangerous- she makes sure to take a kitchen knife with her. And to show it off to the cute little village boy who has a crush on her.
As I mentioned before, I'd always had a problem with this movie. I've always loved fairy tales and fantasy-horror movies, so this seemed right up my alley. And there are certainly moments that do seem like they were made for me, actually in the movie. But the film does have its' heavy-handed moments. I practically didn't even know what heavy-handed was until I saw this movie. For example, there is some wholly lame symbolic stuff in an otherwise strikingly beautiful scene in which little red riding hood Rosaleen (and you'd better believe you'll see roses in the movie) is climbing a tree where she finds birds' eggs that hatch and inside are statues of little babies. Cherubs. I've just been told, of course, that it's symbolic. I couldn't come up with that on my own
(or what it could possibly mean).
One explanation I've heard for why the symbolism exists in the film is a link to mythology. There's something else I remain completely ignorant about. However, in the movie, you do see several mothers, two of them being pregnant and later having given birth, then you have Rosaleen's mother and grandmother all throughout. Baby symbolism would seem to me to be almost a commentary on Rosaleen and the scenes that suggest she's growing up or on the verge of getting in a relationship with a boy since she's incredibly beautiful (as is her mother). Perhaps that is "the path" that is constantly referenced in the dialogue. But then, you have to read into what happens when Rosaleen sees the baby / cherub statues.
What she does is becomes very excited and finds it really beautiful. But if that's "the path," then why does she always stray from it? Every scene shows her disagreeing with everyone she talks to and every time you see a road or pathway, she goes into the woods instead of following the road where it leads. This makes her a very interesting character. At least so far as the period fairy tale is. The way most of them are told, the girl is not only unwitting and naive but falls victim to her naivety and needs to be rescued by a man. I believe in this movie, the "Huntsman" character from the Little Red Riding Hood story is the person playing the Big Bad Wolf character here. He carries a big shotgun with him but dresses like a rich, fancy traveler. Like he escaped from the ("French") story I described above.
The technical and artistic aspects of the movie are first-rate according to their budget. I first thought the transformation scenes were very lacking or victims of a lower budget. But then, I have to remember that I've never been that big a fan of transformation sequences. There are a few that really stick out, mostly in monster movies. Very few werewolf transformations (though they are classic to the genre and many people are huge fans) have ever impressed me. But since revisiting the movie yesterday, I have to say that the first one (which is also the only one that bothered me, other than perhaps the last one- just because the shot of the guy's writhing back was in closeup much too long) is surprisingly very good. He's supposed to look more like a pet dog or wolfhound than a monster anyway.
It's just recently come to my attention that this movie has taken some heat from men who assume that it has an anti-male agenda. Could people be less mature or what?!
It's amazing to what new lows certain insecure men will sink to. In this movie, almost all the men are presented as powerful or sophisticated or as being the most understanding or sensitive characters (the Priest, Rosaleen's father). If anything, it's the mother and the grandmother who are presented as being either uptight or confused. And with Rosaleen being the strong young independent woman she basically turns out to be (if the previous scenes didn't drive this home, the twist ending within the last period scene does), you can't call the movie sexist either way. It's surprisingly not a parable about women or men being evil or that you can't trust them. It's about something inbetween.
The film is not scary, but it is an overall intense-fantasy. It has its' own tremendous power. One that I can't deny anymore, even though parts of it still make no sense to me whatsoever. I can however appreciate the mystery of a film that could be considered style over substance (Neil Jordan's follow-up horror film, 1994's bloated Hollywood snoozefest Interview with the Vampire). This movie though actually has substance. Even if you take it at complete face value, the acting is so damn good and there's a surprising amount of drama, that the film achieves a great many more layers than you might expect. As a monster movie, it does deliver albeit... sideways. If you're looking for it, you'll find something to be scared of. Though again, look within the cracks. Because after all (forgive me for doing this- I'm all year round filled with the schlocky Halloween spirit), things aren't always what they seem.
