When a British midwife (Naomi Campbell) unknowingly delves into the dark secrets of a Russian mafia family in London, she uncovers a world of rape, sex-trafficking, alcohol, drugs, murder, and lies. While not a horror film (though I did watch some scenes with my hands over my eyes) David Cronenberg's 2007 film Eastern Promises features the trademark style of the director’s work. His recurring focus on gore and to some extent bodily horror makes this film not one for the faint of heart. The means by which people die or are maimed in this film are calling cards of the director’s auteuristic style.
For instance, from the very beginning, the viewer is not spared any blood or gore. The first man to die, Soyka, (Aleksandar Mikic) has his jugular sawed as he bleeds out, instead of having his throat simply slit. Another director may have opted for something less sinister but not Cronenberg. The very next scene is of a young girl (Sarah-Jeanne Labrosse) beginning to gush blood after going into a complicated and ultimately fatal labor. More blood in this scene may have come across as unnecessary and gauche, but from experience Cronenberg has discovered just how far he can push audiences. From the beginning of Eastern Promises, he goes for the full effect of blood and gore and is unrelenting throughout the film.
Finally, there is the famed fight in the Turkish baths. In this scene, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) fatally injures two men sent to kill him in gruesome ways. One man’s head is driven into the blade of knife. The other is stabbed in the eye after pulling the knife out of his chest with his bare hands. For Cronenberg, there are no tiny, clean bullet holes, but an emphasis is placed on gore, blood, and violence.
Auteur theorist directors reflect their personal creative vision in films. Cronenberg did just that in Eastern Promises . His presence becomes known in the scene of extreme sex, violence and gore. The film actually depicts the actual slashing of throats and the gory side of childbirth. The bathhouse fight sequence in particular is poised to sit among the greatest and most brutal of all time. I read in a blog that Cronenberg is one of the principal originators of the "body horror" genre. A style of filmmaking that explores and exploits people's fears of bodily transformation, harm, and infection.
ReplyDeleteYou drew attention to violence in your blog but focused on auteur theory, which I thought was interesting. In mine, I focused on realism but also ended up focusing on the graphic fight scenes. While I recognize that this very well could be a hallmark of the director, I also think that such violence provides a realistic look into the mob. The scenes are so graphic that we, the audience, feel like we're there, and subsequently put our hands over our eyes while these people fight for their lives. :) It's very interesting that two theories can be applied to the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI liked the points you brought up. I used some of the same examples in my entry, however, I used them to prove that the director took a realist approach to the film. I think you can apply these examples to both arguments. You are correct that Cronenburg does not spare any blood or gore in the film. I think this could also be considered realism because he refuses to dumb down any of the violence. I think both of these theories are correct. I did not really find enough evidence for the auteur theory when I was doing my entry, but you shed some light on some really good examples.
ReplyDeleteI I agree with Kylee’s statement in regards to the films violence, “While I recognize that this very well could be a hallmark of the director, I also think that such violence provides a realistic look into the mob.” While neither of us, I’m assuming, has been in the Russian mob to know for sure, it seems like the ambiguous nature of this movie was chosen on purpose by our professor for this exact reason. Though in my post I give points for this movie to be considered auteur theory, I think that one cannot simply judge the plot sequences as an end-all be-all of representing the theory of a film. The end of the film and overall message must be taken into account when trying to determine if a film is influenced by its director personally, because the role of a director is to put the concepts in his brain and translate it to the film medium. If that is the only definition one uses to determine the theory of a movie, every single film falls under that net because directors can only direct like themselves, of course the scenes will be influenced by them.
ReplyDelete