138 - Man Bites Dog, 1992, Belgium. Dir. Remy Belvaux, André Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

138 - Man Bites Dog, 1992, Belgium. Dir. Remy Belvaux, André Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde.

Benoit is a killer producer.

Literally.

He kills to get money to produce a film about how he kills to get money to produce a film.

His fellow filmmakers, Remy the director and Andre the cameraman, follow his actions.

First they film him.

Then they help him.

Then they become like him.

No dogs were bitten in the making of this film.

No dogs are shown in the film.

The phrase comes from journalism.  From a phrase that says--

When a dog bites a man, it is not news; but when a man bites a dog, that is news.

We are not exactly sure what the man-bite equivalent is in the film, as the newsworthy events are not the unusual reversal of mundane events, but the relentless killing spree of an amoral cynic.

Perhaps it is that he is otherwise so pleasant.  Interested in classical music, poetry, architecture, and amateur philosophy.

The film was originally titled It Happened in Your Neighborhood.

I hope not!

The film was made by a group of Belgium film students who had no money, so they made a film about a group of filmmakers who had no money.

And they filled it with their own black humor.

It is filmed in grainy black and white and is replete with graphic violence, rape, and misanthropy.  In America it is rated NC-17.

Somehow the film got picked up by festivals, won awards, and received praise from critics.

It is understandable that some critics might find it provocative, "intentionally disturbing," and a statement about the depths to which man can go.

But it seems they give the young film students more credit than they have earned.

In film schools these kinds of films are a dime a dozen.

Many students have no money.  Many make films about filmmakers making films about filmmakers making films.  Many fill their films with their own black humor.

Posing.  Emoting their darker thoughts.  Trying to shock.  Claiming irony.

In an interview on the disc the three young men are asked if their film is a critique or an exploitation.  Naturally, they say it is a critique.  But they have a difficult time articulating themselves and they seem to have no supporting rationale for their claim.

Not that it has to be exploitation either.

They were simply student filmmakers making a film with no money.  And having fun with their dark humor.

My questions are, 1) Does the film stand on its own?  2) Does it show a burgeoning talent that will be developed in their upcoming careers?  3) Did these young filmmakers move into sustainable careers.

Whether or not it stands on its own is up to the viewer.  I found it trivial.

It is like a joke that once told belabors the punchline for another hour and a half.  Look!  He is a truly amoral man!  He does shocking and terrible things, but he feels no remorse and he is so charming!  Do you get it?  Do you get it?  Yes, I got it in the first five minutes.  Now I have 90 minutes to be subjected to more of the same.  With no character or narrative development.  Just a long series of shock and charm, shock and charm, shock and charm.

And of course they themselves die in the end.  Get it?  Get it?

It does show some talent.  The editing, for example, is good.  It has a feel for timing and effectiveness.  And Benoit plays his persona with charisma and panache.  He plays the sadism and violence in the same way he talks to his mother.

As for the careers of the three filmmakers, two have done little else and one of them has died.  The third, Benoit, has continued to work as an actor, and he has worked steadily.

His charisma has been rewarded.

I suppose one could make comparisons to Malcolm McDowell, who as a young man played the amoral Alex in A Clockwork Orange and has gone on to have a stellar career.

Not that one is equating them on the quality and quantity of their output, but on the trajectory.

This film appeals to a narrow taste.

And I want to encourage young critics that you do not have to be manipulated into a corner.  Where if you point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes you will be labeled as squeamish or prudish or square.  Where you feel you have to pretend the emperor is wearing clothes just to be accepted as sophisticated.

After all, the clothes may be metaphorical.  Or imagined.  Or microscopic.  Or in another dimension.  Or maybe others just do not see them!

So you had better play along!

Or maybe some films are simply just not that great.

And frankly, this kind of sudden fame can be unfair to the filmmakers as well.  They were kids in school making an assignment.  They had no money.  They were having fun.

They are not the ones claiming to be great auteurs.  The critics put them on that pedestal.  I can imagine they may have been scared out of their wits that they could not fulfill the expectations suddenly thrust upon them.

So what if we remove the pressure.

What if we remove the baggage that the Criterion label can bring to a film like this.

What if we let it off the hook of having to be important and allow it be cheap entertainment.

As if we had picked it up from the local drugstore bargain bin and watched it on a late Friday night with some beer and pizza and some easygoing friends.

Then maybe we can allow the film to breathe better.

And stand on its own.