Willem Dafoe: a man for all seasons

For our impromptu Actors Month, members of Team Experience were free to choose any actor they wanted to discuss. Here's Daniel Crooke on Willem Dafoe.

Willem Dafoe is a Greek god, in the most ceramic of ways. Rather than present himself as a blank canvas, Dafoe’s vessel is a malleable lump of clay that he shapes on the kiln as the character sees fit. His fire-burnt expressions, calcified in psychic scars, detail their histories in an unrelenting mask of past, present, and future. The man is drama. But his tragic side so often overtakes the comic in the cultural consciousness that his nimble lightness often sneaks under the radar. As his performances play out in the frame, he tactfully tears at their rigid façades to reveal the far more complicated, often contradictory stories within; He’s always got a secret.

The severity for which his performances are known is only half the story. Just as his luminescent Sgt. Elias in Oliver Stone’s Platoon offsets the pitch-blackness of Tom Berenger’s sadistic Sgt, Barnes, Dafoe has an uncanny ability to hide his radiant purity behind a stalwartly strict face. For God’s sake, he defined the model of a conflicted Christ in Scorsese’s Last Temptation; doing the impossible, he reconfigured the Messiah’s pop cultural characterization as a man with a pulse, who sinned and lived off the cross. He is a duplicitous study, ready to convince you that he’s a treacherous monster until he reveals on his deathbed – over a ceremonial sip of Bean’s delicious cider – that he was a misunderstood sideliner all along.

More Willem worship after the jump...

Click to read more ...

NYFF: A Swarm of Surrealism

Our coverage of the 2014 New York Film Festival, which opens today, continues - here's Jason with an askance look at some of the unsung heroes of The Wonders and their cinematic precedents...

Earlier this week Glenn wrote up a review of Alice Rohrwacher's really very fine film The Wonders, which I also heartily endorse. I was sitting next to him at the press screening and besides being communally delighted (that sounds dirty but I mean it in the most innocent way possible) by the movie together we squirmed, writhed, and let out little moans of discomfort (alright it sounds dirty again, just bear with me here) when the screen repeatedly filled with bees - so many bees! If I'd given it any thought beforehand I might have skipped the film because despite not having an allergy I am a total melissophobic and watching them crawl on human skin is akin to water torture - you might know me as a horror movie fan, a badge I wear with pride, but nothing will make me cover my eyes and climb backwards in my seat quicker than a plain ol' minding-his-own-business honey-bee. Know the real enemy.

That said there's a surrealistic beauty to ways the bees are shot in The Wonders (there's a reason that the poster uses the imagery), and also another animal in the film (which I won't name since it contributes a nice jolt of WTF), and all this got me thinking about the use of animals as surrealist props. It's got a long, sometimes sordid (think of Jodorowsky blowing up all those poor frogs in The Holy Mountain or the tortoise being slaughtered in Cannibal Holocaust) history - I'm sure there have been plenty of dissertations written on it but what I think it comes down to is the unfathomable interior life of The Beast - we cannot know what is going on behind the eyes of these creatures, and so they will always remain strange, the Other. They're a nice short-cut to Uncanny Land, in other words.

And now, because I agree with Nathaniel that lists are super fun, here are the 5 fun instances of animals being used to inject a little surrealism into a film.

The Giraffe in The Great Beauty

The Escaped Zoo Animals in Twelve Monkeys

The Cat Attack in Let the Right One In

Chaos Reigns: The Fox in Antichrist

The Elephant Funeral in Sante Sangre

---

Name some of your favorites in the comments!

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Melancholia"

yes no maybe so ~ in which we determine how we feel about new movies based on their trailers.

Lars von Trier. Those three syllables used to excite me beyond any others in moviedom. I'm not sure where I lost the thread but ever since the brilliant Golden Heart trilogy (Breaking the Waves, The Idiots, Dancer in the Dark), it's been like the air slowly (very slowly) going out though I still find a lot to enjoy, respect and respond to in the films. So how about the wedding set MELANCHOLIA, von Trier's spin on the Apocalyptic Drama.

Yes. First things first, I have been a major believer in Kirsten Dunst as an actress and have been ever since The Virgin Suicides. I think that if she stays focused on her craft andgets the opportunities, two big "ifs", she will continue to surprise and evolve. I'm also delighted that von Trier cast Stellan Skarsgård and Alexander Skarsgård as father and son because that's always a treat in movies when people fictionalize their own realities.

All that and then then Charlottes? I'm in. Von Trier always gives his cast a lot of thematic and character meat to chew on... and then he makes them gag on it.

Is everyone in your family stark raving mad?

No. I don't get what Keifer Sutherland is doing here exactly and sometimes I suspect that Lars von Trier casts in a similar way to Woody Allen where he only vaguely pays attention to Hollywood and then is like "they're popular right now, right? Let's use them" and sometimes there is a lag in awareness or what not. And I do worry a bit about trying to do a Celebration style family drama AND an apocalyptic drama. Too ambitious?

Maybe So. Then again... this collision of genres might be completely fascinating. Von Trier's gift with indelible images -- and they're totally spoiling us with how many there are in this one trailer -- combined with how far he pushes his actors could make this truly special. And not to get all philosophical as we wrap up but should the apocalypse we always fear come, wouldn't it arrive and be experienced in a terrifyingly intimate way with friends and family and our neurotic interior monologues rather than with CGI explosions, a motley cast of strangers and Hollywood bombast?

This is actually the one thing i really loved about M Night Shyamalan's Signs (2002) though I didn't otherwise care for that movie and I never ever ever ever ever thought I'd cover M Night with Lars von, and I feel perverse doing so now. But watching that movie -- at least for the first hour, I thought 'this is how you'd experience something that was affecting the whole world.' It'd be how it hit you at home and what you saw on the news and what you attempted to piece together and how it affected you and your loved ones.

I am resounding "Yes" all told but I'm trying to keep my expectations down in lieu of Antichrist which I was too excited for, heard too much about before seeing it and was only thrilled by it visually.

Melancholia from Zentropa on Vimeo.

So what about you: YES, NO, or MAYBE SO?
Did Antichrist's wicked idea of a horror movie leave you ready for more or do are you hoping this is more in the harrowing Breaking the Waves human vein?