Synopsis:

After the tragic death of their infant son, John (Sam Neill) and Rae (Nicole Kidman) decide to embark on a sea vacation to help them cope with their loss. However, after three weeks into their journey, they come across a seemingly deserted sail boat. As they study it from afar, they suddenly notice a man aggressively rowing towards them in a dinghy. Hughie (Billy Zane) comes aboard in a panic and declares that everyone on board that ship has died from food poisoning, and that he is the only survivor. John, in disbelief, decides to search the boat himself, and in an instant, their journey becomes a nightmare in more ways then one.

Analysis:

SPOILERS are included in this piece.

‘Dead Calm’ is a simple film. Its story structure largely focuses on the exploits of three people set adrift-both physically and emotionally-in the Great Barrier Reef (off the coast of Australia). The setting is defined by an extremely vast and spacious landscape, but yet the thematic elements prevalent in the film are of claustrophobia and loneliness. Director Phillip Noyce is able to create a foreboding sense of dread throughout most of the film by incorporating many tight framing shots (especially when he frames Rae’s face) and by staging many scenes in small enclosed areas.

As previously mentioned, ‘Dead Calm’ is a very lonely film. Other than the three characters, this film is devoid of any other human element. And even then, there are very few scenes in which the audience witnesses the three characters interacting with one another on screen. Of course, there are scenes between Rae and Hughie, but for the most part, their isolation from one another highlights how truly cut off these characters are from society and themselves.

Adding to these feelings of isolation and loneliness is, perhaps, the most hauntingly written score ever penned for a feature film. The music is eerily chilling, and creates such a sense of trepidation within the audience that at times the film is overly uncomfortable to watch. Graeme Revell, in charge of the original music for the film, establishes such a sense of unease that it provides the film with an added element of depth. As a result, the overall emotional and psychological impact of the film is heightened.

Australian action cinema* has always concerned itself with depictions of the masculine male. Masculinity is crucial to these particular types of films, and the representation of it is largely enhanced by the male’s assimilation into the wilderness of the Australian backlands. In most Australian action films, there is usually an ongoing tension separating the elements of wilderness and civilization. Men are typically associated with the wilderness while women are usually affiliated with civilization.

In ‘Dead Calm’, the wilderness of the outback is substituted with the limitless boundaries of the sea. In regards to civilization, it remains a foreign, unwelcomed entity as a result of the lawlessness typically associated with the unpredictable nature of water. For the first forty five minutes of the film, typical gender roles are reinforced. John, who is skeptical of Hughie’s story, decides to take on the role of active, participating male and search the other boat himself (leaving Rae alone). While on the other hand, Rae is defined as an inactive contributor. She is still greatly traumatized by her child’s death, and thus acts as caregiver who provides Hughie with drinking water when he arrives on board. When John visits the ship, he understands that the people on Hughie’s boat have not died as a result of food poisoning but rather have been murdered. In a desperate attempt to save Rae, John attempts to return to her on the boat. However, it is too late. Hughie realizes that John knows the truth and attempts to take control of the ship. Rae tries to fight Hughie off but he is too strong for her, and she is knocked unconscious. Hughie turns the boat around and leaves John behind.

It is at this time that the typical gender roles are forced to reverse. Rae must now learn to become an active participant if she is to have any chance of saving her husband. John, on the other hand, has now become an inactive member in the progression of the main storyline because of his isolation from the action. So, as a result of this key plot point, Rae’s character begins to change. She begins to grow stronger and more confident in her abilities. She learns how to load the gun, take control of the boat and defeat Hughie. In the beginning of the film, she was defined as a frail, weakened woman (unable to cope with the loss of her son), but now she has assimilated herself into the role of courageous leader (she is propelling the narrative forward). Rae has absconded with the character typically associated with the male protagonist (her name in itself is highly representative of the masculine traits associated with this individual). Her transition as a character is clearly indicated through Nicole Kidman’s excellent, strong-willed performance.

In perhaps the most telling scene, Rae is able to find and save John from imminent death. In fact, when she does discover and rescue John, she utters the words, “I found you”. Yes, it was her who found him. This woman has conquered the harsh landscape and saved the day. She has successfully subverted all of the masculine ideals Australian action cinema has typically been associated with**.

However, during the making of this film, many studio executives felt that audience members may be confused as to the ambiguous ending of Hughie***. Did he die? Where was he if he did not perish? The studio did not want these questions to linger as debate, so they forced a Hollywood-style ending on the film. Thus, Hughie is not killed by Rae. He returns and proceeds to attack her. She is defenseless and it now becomes John’s job to save her. In one telling instant, everything this film has worked for (the subversion of masculinity) is discarded and the normal gender roles (typical of film) are reinforced. It once again becomes a male versus male battle with the female incapable of action.

In the end, however, this film still remains a wonderful thriller. It is beautifully shot and the acting embraces an unforced naturalness to it. In basic terms, the film is a true classic that leaves one with an undeniable mark afterwards. ‘Dead Calm’ stays with you.

^^Of note, there are many instances where Hughie is associated with the colors of the red, white and blue. To say this Australian film is connoting many negative accusations about America is a monumental understatement.

^^In Tom O’Regan’s book, Australian National Cinema, he provides an idea as to why America is regularly identified as the personification of evil in many foreign film nations (and, on occasions, in American films, as well): “Part of Hollywood’s very popularity turns on its capacity to show American evil through hyperbolic representations of its own social, cultural and political dysfunctionality. And this is a temptation to any national cinema to itself produce American villains as Phil Noyce did in ‘Dead Calm’” (P.283). I’m not sure if this necessarily explains it, but at least it makes a valiant effort at attempting to justify it.

Synopsis:

In 1985, an ambitious young broker, Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), is lured into the illegal, lucrative world of corporate espionage. His downfall culminates as a result of his addiction to the seductive enticement of power, status and financial wizardry promised to him by Wall Street legend Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas).

Review:

Janwillem Van De Weterling once said that: “greed is a fat demon with a small mouth, and whatever you feed it is never enough”. Greed is good according to Gordon Gekko. It is the template of society. Without greed, there would be no progression, no desire, no nothing.

Michael Douglas’ portrayal of Gordon Gekko is masterly. The slick and calculating financier who uses and abuses the people around him is perhaps one of the most vile and despicable characters in film history. However, for as much as the audience hates him, they can never take their eyes off of him. He controls the gaze through his manipulation and twisting of the emotional core found within the people he is trying to convince. As he notes to Bud Fox, there are no friends in the business world: “If you want a friend, buy a dog”.

Gekko’s name has clearly been inspired by the lizard that feeds off insects less powerful. Scaly and slithery, the gecko is a creature that is quite innocent from a physical perspective, but is driven by a desire to live and survive in the jungles of the land from all adversaries. Gordon Gekko is exactly the same. He is not content with merely surviving in the jungles of the business world, but rather is determined to destroy all of his competition with a vengeance. He is a greedy, self absorbed mongrel but people attach themselves to him as if they were moths to a flame. Bud Fox fits this analogy to a tee, and is definitely burned by it.

The 1980s were a decade in search of an identity. The 1960s and 1970s had been tumultuous years for America, and great change was thus needed in the 80s in order to instill some sort of defined leadership to appease society. When Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1980, he demanded alterations in hopes of witnessing the revival of The United States of America. He pushed forward the prospect of individual freedom and the idea that the individual could accomplish anything on the strength of himself, rather than through a reliance on government institutions. In connection with this, Reagan also wanted to reinvigorate the United States economy.  Driven by the idea that dreams could be accomplished through capitalistic practices, America became a self-absorbed culture of excess. Greed was good!

Bud Fox is a man driven by these very needs. A broker who frantically must sell himself to clients all day long finally begins to become disillusioned with his current status. At one point, he notes that he wonders when he will be on the other end of the line. Instead of selling, he wants to be buying. His desire is to be like Gordon Gekko. He is passionate and determined and after 40 days of constant harassment, Gekko finally agrees to see Fox. But he is in over his head from the get go. When he enters Gekko’s luxurious office (which is ten times the size of his apartment on the upper west side ofNew York), he stares in amazed wonderment. Gekko is such an imposing figure that he intimidates the young Fox. Being slightly coy with him, he demands that Bud tell him something worthwhile. He is playing and toying with him the entire time (just setting him up for the kill). That is until Fox surprises him with a tip. Gekko no longer feels the need to kill him off (figuratively) and cast him back out in the harsh world of bureaucratic business. Gekko understands that he can now use him and mold him into someone who can help him become even richer.

Fox is so enamored by the chance to alter his present situation of financial strain that he quickly becomes enveloped into the lecherous world of Gekko.  Immediately, Fox begins to change both externally and internally. His suits become darker, his hair becomes slicker rather then frazzled, his ideals begin to change and arrogance begins to manifest itself from within (which has never been transparent before). In one instance, his desire to become someone has corrupted his ideals, and thus transforms him into the man Gekko wants him to be.

Oliver Stone provides an interesting sub-story at this point of the film. Fox’s father, Carl (Martin Sheen), is an honorable working class man who fixes airplanes. He is a morally centered man. He dreams that his son will make something of his life and desires the best for him. He truly cares for his son whereas Gekko merely uses him. In a sense, Carl Fox and Gordon Gekko are vying for the soul of Bud. He must choose between the ideals emphasized by the character traits of these two men. Bud’s desire has always been to become successful and rich, and he is easily manipulated by the temptation of what Gekko has to offer him. Gekko not only blackens the soul of Bud, but he also becomes a new father figure to him by lavishing gifts and women on him (which Carl never had the ability to do). Bud turns his back on his father because success has tainted him. Money has become his life; his new family (quite reminiscent of an important Biblical story involving God, Jesus, and the temptations by The Devil).

‘Wall Street’ is not a perfect film in any way. In fact, it is not one of Oliver Stone’s masterpieces. But it does capture a time period with magnificent clarity as a result of Stone’s ability to capture greed at its finest. With this being said, there are some elements that detract from the overall impact of the film. For instance, Darryl Hannah’s performance is forgettable, Sean Young’s turn as Gekko’s wife is small and unmentionable (she is barely in the film, although I assume that this is the point-the business world and personal world do not mix, and Gekko has clearly chosen the professional world as his family), the music is typical cheesy 80’s fare, and the self- reflecting dialogue by Fox is sometimes forced and illogical.

Though the story follows a familiar trajectory with rise, fall and redemption elements, there is still something truly intoxicating about the film. As we journey with Fox, we realize what he is becoming. He is no longer in control of his destiny. He has sold his soul to the devil in order to embrace superficial happiness. It is a morality tale that can speak to the likes of everyone. How much is too much? Is financial success the true meaning of happiness? Gekko is happy but he never truly lives in this film. He lives for the money and power but for nothing else. Is this the symbol of what life should be? Only you, the individual, can decide for yourself.

Synopsis:

A six year old child is institutionalized after murdering his sister but escapes fifteen years later. He returns to the scene of the crime where he systematically sets his sights on murdering a group of teenagers who happen to live in the area.

Review:

‘Halloween’ does not intend to disgust, nor does it aim to sicken. What it does instead is to truly frighten the audience like a good old fashioned horror film should. The film is ingenious in its attempt to create a mood through its impeccable restraint in pacing. The film does not rush into violence. It merely waits and waits, causing an unheard of apprehension within the audience, until it finds the right note and then strikes with a vengeance.

‘Halloween’ has been credited by many critics as a film that influenced the slasher film craze that bombarded theatres in the 1980s and 1990s.  Though not the first of its kind, this film did help to usher in an era of cinema that soon became monotonous and obvious. Films such as ‘Friday the 13^th’ (1980), ‘Terror Train’ (1980), ‘Prom Night’ (1980), and ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ (1984) (as well as many others) all owe a tremendous amount of credit to ‘Halloween’. These films are mere exploitations of the success garnered by this film.

Some would say that there would never have been a ‘Halloween’ if it were not for ‘Psycho’ (1960). This is very true. ‘Psycho’ did set the standard of the modern day slasher film, but what ‘Halloween’ was able to do eighteen years later was to reshape and remold the genre into a viable, economically safe entity (‘Halloween’ was made for $325,000, and went on to make $47 million at the box office). The film arrived at a time when the film industry was looking for an easy and cheap way to make a profit. The slasher film provided this opportunity through its relatively unknown casts, cheap generic sets, and low production values. Nobody cared about the acting because it was all about a young beautiful cast being systematically eliminated/slaughtered by a ferocious beast.

As was noted earlier, ‘Halloween’ does not intend to disgust. The film is very deliberate in its pacing, which creates an aura of suspense and dread. Through every death scene we encounter, there is no rush to the finish line. From the first sequence of the film where we move around and about the house, our eyes being the lens of the camera dictated through a P.O.V. shot, we come to understand that this film is in no hurry to achieve an answer to the problems it is creating. During the first scene, the camera (situated outside) focuses on a young woman and a young man becoming intimate on the couch. They soon head upstairs to the bedroom. The camera turns and heads to the backdoor. The camera/character walks into the house and into the kitchen. The camera then pauses and looks at a drawer. A small, child like hand reaches down and pulls out a knife. As the camera/character makes its way to the stairs, it pauses and hides in the living room as the young male exits the house after his illicit affair. The camera then slowly makes its way upstairs and pauses, as we once again see a small hand reach out and pick up a small clown mask. The clown mask is then placed upon the camera and we enter a bedroom where the young, naked girl is combing her hair. As the camera moves closer, the girl becomes aware of the presence and turns. But it is too late. The character pulls out the knife and begins to assault her with it. This is a truly terrifying and unnerving beginning to a film. It is only when the character has exited the house and his mask is removed (this is where the P.O.V. perspective ends) that the audience discovers that it is a young boy in a clown costume. The use of music, lighting, and camera shots all add tension to an already disturbing sequence.

The film is very simple in its structure. A killer is sent away only to escape and return home to continue his onslaught. The theme has become a staple of the horror genre because of its relatively simple explanation as to why there is a killer on the loose. If the technique worked once and made the film a tremendous amount of money, then why not exploit it for future use.

John Carpenter directed this film, and though I do not care for many of his movies (‘Ghosts of Mars’ (2001) anyone?), Carpenter perfectly balances suspense with the mundane. As characters speak, they do so in relatively normal, boring teenage banter. However, Carpenter never allows the audience to forget about this unknown presence that has infiltrated the normality of this city. Carpenter’s framing and camera angles (his use of the foreground and background in many scenes are amazing in their structure, and have been clearly lifted by countless others intending to recreate the same effect for their horror films), are wonderfully exploited, and he achieves a tremendous amount of detail from them. For instance, in one scene where Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is walking away from the camera down the street, Carpenter positions the camera perfectly to capture the shoulder of the killer (Michael Myers) enter the foreground of the frame and watch her as she walks away. Laurie is unaware of her dangerous predicament, but the audience is now fully alerted to this unknown, unseen presence. We pray that she will just turn around.

John Carpenter also composed the music to this influential horror film, and no review would be complete without mentioning it. To say the least, the music is eerie and terrifying. The amount of emotional attachment the music connotes is remarkable in that it sets the mood of the film from the very beginning. The audience is fully aware that this is not going to be a happy story. It is going to strive to unnerve, disturb, and frighten. The music is highly representative of the power of this picture. Even today, the piece is still one of the most recognizable themes in film history.

For those who have not seen this film, do it. Certain scenes from the film were not discussed for the simple reason that it would alter the experience of witnessing them for the first time. This film has become highly influential, and the character of Michael Myers is now viewed as a truly iconic figure within the horror genre.

See it for many reasons but definitely see it for the pacing of the story and the construction of a truly frightening atmosphere. The use of lighting adds a sense of dreariness and bleakness to the overall understanding and reading of the film. However, the greatest achievement of this film is in it’s refusal to become a blood and gore fest. The film relishes in its role as a suspense picture. In many ways, the film is more of a thriller/suspense then an outright horror flick. It is one of the greatest suspense films ever created, and most likely one of the more important one’s of the past thirty-five years.