The trailers currently in circulation for In Bruges, the feature directorial debut from Martin McDonagh, the Britain-born Irish playwright whose first film, the short Six Shooter, won him an Oscar, make the movie look like more of a errant lark than it actually is. They're not misleading, exactly; yes, the picture is about two hoodlums who are ordered to hide out in the ancient Belgian town of Bruges after a hit gone somehow wrong; yes, the younger hoodlum is a rude hothead who can't stand the staid old place while the older one is more patient and appreciative; yes, the master of the hoodlums goes apeshit after things don't go the way he wants and he's then forced to come after the duo; yes, there is much running, swearing and shooting.
But there isn't that Pixies song "Something Against You" in the movie, despite its inclusion in the trailer. The music is instead by Carter Burwell, and there's quite a bit of, and it aims for the tragic and mournful more than anything else. This is an important difference. Because for all its very snappy dialogue and daringly crass humor, In Bruges aims to be about, in one character's words, " guilt and sins and hell and all that."
The biggest sin—not a deliberate one, but a big one nonetheless—belongs to Ray, the younger hood, played by Colin Farrell, often in the manner of a vulnerable chimpanzee. I mean that as a compliment, incidentally. A lot of acting with the eyes and eyebrows—when Farrell inverts them, and sets and resets his jaw, it's as peculiarly compelling a sight as Anthony Perkins' Norman/Mother trying to get to the correct expression to make everyone believe he's not a fruit loop at the close of Psycho. Farrell's got a great burden to carry, one that becomes greater once the viewer is filled in on just what he's guilty of, but he doesn't falter once. Nor does Brendan Gleeson, playing Ken, Ray's mentor. Gleeson's got an even heavier burden than Farrell in a sense, in that his character type—the soulful older hit man!—is among the easiest to make hackneyed.
So...while we're on the subject, let's step back (even if it means I may tire out before I'm able to praise Ralph Fiennes' oily, fang-bearing performance as the duo's harrowing boss); yeah, this is a Sundance movie featuring, don't stop me if you've heard this one before, a soulful older hit man. Will wonders never cease! And it's unspooling right after Festival founder Robert Redford gives the opening night crowd a speech in which he invokes "change!" Would not material such as is to be found in In Bruges be likely to represent, not change, but more of the same, for both this festival and putative indie film in general?
Since you've already probably gathered that I liked the film pretty well, you might expect that I brought up the question in order to answer it in the negative. Maybe yes and maybe no; maybe I brought up the question in order to confront the idea that my own function as a critic as far as I see it is not to answer it. That is, in the end, I'm more interested in individual works than putative trends. When it comes to McDonagh, who's copped to the Tarantino influence, one doesn't expect Funny Face. There is much that is familiar here; tropes and devices that bring to mind a wide-ranging group of other pictures, from Living in Oblivion to The Stunt Man. And yet, and this is the crucial thing, the voice remains that of McDonagh, and when he lays all his cards on the table in a finale that piles one bloody absurd epiphany after another you want to hand the pot over to him even if he hasn't, in fact, won the hand.
Good for him for going big. It makes In Bruges a fairly auspicious kickoff for the festival.
In other news, it's really frickin' cold up here. If you're thinking of coming, don't. Really, it's for your own good.
Living in Oblivion and The Stunt Man? So is this some kind of meta-narrative, where the hitmen are actually actors in a hit-man movie? Considering your description of the film, these seem like odd comparisons. I'm kind of looking forward to this, since I wanted to see (but failed to make the trip to NYC for) The Pillowman.
Posted by: Joel | January 18, 2008 at 01:10 PM
I thought of "Living in Oblivion" for sure, and can now see "The Stunt Man" after you jogged my memory, though I can't say I'll go as easy on yet another soulful hitman rehash. What worked for me in this picture were a handful of moments, not arcs -- and definitely not the spiritless code-of-honor tropes -- and while I was half-expecting Michael Caine to turn up instead of Fiennes (agreed, fun to watch him go restrainedly apeshit), I can't help but think the last 20 minutes were laid on too thick, gift-wrapped to reward audiences for staying one step ahead. (Fiennes just happened to say what he would do under such tragic circumstances, and those bullets just happened to be that kind? I won't even get into the skinhead's gee-what-a-small-world interconnectivity.) Maybe Syd "Wrigley" Field or Lew "Rachel" Hunter would appreciate that almost every scripted setup has a whistle-clean payoff (I was too often conscious that this was a playwright-director at work, which I found distancing), but c'mon, this one had more endings than "The Return of the King." An overstayed welcome, and uneven before that.
Gleeson always wins me over, even when he's better than the material. And I think Farrell is a remarkable actor when playing to his strengths (hard-living types who don't give a fook, yet comfortably oblivious to how exposed their vulnerabilities are), but I find him at his most forced when he lets his hurt-puppy eyebrows do the acting for him. (Rosman suggested that maybe he gets miscast because he's so hard for producers to insure, oof!) Easy charisma notwithstanding, exactly how different is his effort in "Cassandra's Dream" (besides McDonagh allowing him to actually be funny) considering how similar both characters' issues are? Not enough to sell me on his empathy, which I know is too subjective for argument fodder, but if I can't find freshness in the script or filmmaking as you seem to be more forgiving of, what else can I cling to?
Lastly, and I suppose this might overstate how capital-W writerly I found the film to be, McDonagh's endless wave of anti-American, anti-Belgian, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-dwarf, yet deep down anti-bigoted humor felt like it was trying to both subversive AND safe, and therefore not sincere. What do you think he was attempting there? Maybe I'm just not jiving with his Irish wit.
I know you dug it, but has "Sundance opener" become a derisive term?
Posted by: Aaron Hillis | January 18, 2008 at 02:50 PM
last year I couldn't make it.. may be this year I can, guess the biannual Novo Film Festival is to be held this march.
Posted by: ferries | March 04, 2009 at 01:24 AM
I think.. now the novo festival is going on
Posted by: ferries | March 19, 2009 at 08:15 AM
Its a great pleasure to travel by ferries to france
Posted by: ferries to france | July 09, 2009 at 10:04 AM