Distant Relatives: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Shutter Island

Robert here, with my series Distant Relatives, where we look at two films, (one classic, one modern) related through a common theme and ask what their similarities and differences can tell us about the evolution of cinema.  This week since both films deal with a twist ending, be warned there are definitely SPOILERS AHEAD

Madness

Audiences don’t much like engaging with a film, its characters, its plot and anticipating its outcome for two hours only to be told that the entire thing was untrue, a dream, the story of a crazy man, an elaborate roleplay. The two films we’re looking at today, though made ninety years apart do that exact thing. Clearly this is a cinematic convention that has stood the test of time.

In the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a young man named Francis relates the story of a visiting carnival which brings the evil Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist slave to town. After a series of strange murders and the kidnapping of the young man’s betrothed Jane, Francis leads a posse and discovers that, surprise surprise, Dr. Caligari is the mad director of an asylum, and that his catatonic servant are behind it all. Shutter Island follows two U.S. Marshalls, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck, sent to a hospital for the criminally insane to investigate a disappearance. As their investigation goes deeper and deeper Teddy begins to suspect a deeper plot involving the hospital’s head psychiatrist, the disappeared Rachel Solondo and Andrew Laeddis, the man who killed his wife.

Unreliable narrators

Now for the twist. If you didn’t see it coming, both of our protagonists are in fact patients in their respective mental facilities. Francis has made up his entire story. Jane and the somnambulist are fellow patients. Dr. Calirgari is in fact the good director of the asylum. Teddy meanwhile isn’t Teddy at all. He is Andrew Laeddis. He killed his own wife. The entire investigation is a ruse attempting to jar him back into reality. It doesn’t quite work.

You’d be forgiven for seeing both twist endings coming for miles. Both films feature stories that become increasingly fantastic and highly expressionist production design that seems to be peace with the reality of the film at first, but eventually we wonder. Yet I’m not sure that the purpose of these films is a cheap trick twist. We logically recognize that films are fake, actors and props on a set. Yet we accept it as a reality that plays beyond the limits of the film. We consider pasts and futures for characters, motivations, inner thoughts. There’s something uncomfortable about movies that tell us explicitly that they’re fake.

The mind’s eye

The significant difference between these two movies may be the process by which they do this. Shutter Island makes little effort to cover up the fact that the “surprise” is coming. This in turn turned off a lot of viewers who anticipated the reveal, and took the falsehood of what they were witnessing as a sign that their emotional involvement was for naught. It’s an understandable reaction. Who wants to put their time and emotional effort into something untrue? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari strings the audience along with more determination. The reveal that the entire plot is the invention of Francis is more likely to be a surprise and more likely to be received with delight (though this isn’t always the case).

Yet, as the film that spends more time winking at the audience with it’s own artificiality, Shutter Island contains more reality than Dr. Caligari. The events (or at least most of the events) in Shutter Island actually happen. It’s simply the perception of Marshall Teddy that is false, leaving us less clear as to what plot points his mind has manufactured and which are objective reality than Francis’s tale which is entirely concocted and untrue. Both of the protagonists in these stories create realities where they are heroes instead of madmen, and thus both lean toward a question asked frequently in such fantasy films (and DiCaprio’s other movie of 2010): Is a pleasant fantasy better than a troubling reality? Is it really wrong if we don’t know the difference?

So too can it be said of the movies. We allow ourselves to experience reality vicariously through characters we know are false but don’t want to believe are false. Teddy and Francis would rather be great than recognize that they are in fact powerless, ordinary, and flawed. When their films admit that they are in fact all those things, are we vicariously forced to admit that we are too?

Akira Redux

You've heard that they're making a live action American version of Katsuhiro Otomo's Akira (1988), right? That's the sci-fi cartoon that really opened the Anime floodgates here in the States. I have a faint memory of seeing the movie in the theater when it arrived in the States -- I think 1990? -- and that memory involves two things: my jaw was mostly open throughout from the epic violent craziness, and my best friend at the time who I went to every movie with (hi Kevan!) turned to me during the climactic battle when Tetsuo transforms hideously into this blob like creature and said something silly like "quivering mounds of blubbery goo" in a dramatic but silly voice. We started giggling and a rather, um, large patron in front of us turned around to give us hateful looks. Embarrassing! But we were just reacting to the visuals on screen, I promise.

For those of you who are unfamiliar, the film is about a gang member biker Kaneda and his efforts to stop his powerful psychic friend Tetsuo from destroying Neo-Tokyo, an artificial city of sorts built after the destruction of the real Tokyo by another psychic boy named Akira who is still alive but imprisoned. (It takes place in 2019.) The new version will be directed by Albert Hughes (The Book of Eli) and the adaptation was done by Steve Kloves (The Fabulous Baker Boys, the Harry Potter franchise).

Though it was to be expected that the American remake would Americanize the story (it'll now take place in a futuristic New York City. Will they call it "New New York"?), some of us were stupid enough to hope that they'd realize that America does not equal caucasian. When your movie is based on a famous Japanese movie, it's not like you couldn't win lots of street cred and fan favor by casting Japanese Americans in the lead roles. Hell, even just Asian Americans of any type would win you non-racist points, as you'd still be acknowledging that people of color should maybe lead properties that are non-white in origin. Oh sure, you can say "there are no bankable Asian American actors" but how will there ever be if they're never given opportunities? And here's a thing Hollywood often forgets in their risk averse decisions: remakes of famous movies as well as virtually all genre titles, are sold primarily on their brand awareness and on their genre. This may be an unpopular theory but even something like Inception. Consider: What sold more opening weekend tickets? The folding city in the trailer or Leonardo DiCaprio's name in the trailer. The latter cost them 8 figures. This is why I've never understood why Batman in his multiple incarnations always requires an expensive leading man; BATMAN IS THE STAR, not the actor. Movie producers used to understand this. Christopher Reeves was not famous when he signed on for Superman and it sure didn't hurt that film's box office. District 9's box office wasn't hurt by using an (excellent) unknown in the lead role. With certain genres (mostly the "geek" genres: superhero, sci-fi, horror) the genre and the concept is the star.

My points is this. New York City is not lacking for diversity. I am white and I am most definitely a minority in my neighborhood. So why do movies set in NYC always seem lily white? And surprise: Actors come in all nationalities and skin colors, not just American/British/Australian and white.

illustration by taka0801

The actors being discussed for the lead roles of Kaneda and Tetsuo, who'll obviously have to be renamed Ken and Todd, are the following: Robert Pattinson, Andrew Garfield, James McAvoy, Garrett Hedlund, Michael Fassbender, Chris Pine, Justin Timberlake and Joaquin Phoenix. That's a lot of different acting styles and accomplishments and types and even ages. So basically, once again, we see that casting has nothing to do with what's required for roles or what tone a film is aiming for, it's just "whoever is on the studio's lips" each time. Sad. Casting is an artform, too. I really wish we'd see some acknowledgement that it is.

If The Film Experience were a massive site with millions of readers I'd demand a casting call right here. I'd be asking for all unknown or 20to30something Asian actors with excellent English skills, physical action film aptitude, and movie star good looks to send in their headshots and reels and I'd be packaging it all up with the top 20 and sending it Warner Bros way. Freelance casting director for hire!

Daniel Henney, Won Bin, Chang Chen, Masahiro Motoki, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Dennis Oh, Matsuyami Kenichi and Hiroshi Tamaki

Seriously, I don't understand why I can spend (literally only) 15 minutes brainstorming and come up with a couple of handfuls of Asian actors that might be cool to think about / test / consider for these roles (even allowing for the studio's random age ranges and no discernable "type") if they spoke English well -- surely some of them do, especially the American ones! ;)  -- but Hollywood studios with all of their casting resources and their budgets and their months of pre-production work don't ever even consider meeting with any of them? Do they even look at headshots? Do they even know that male actors of Asian descent exist? I'm beginning to wonder.

I suppose the most we can hope for at this point is that they deign to let Ken's (née Kaneda) love-interest Kei keep her Asian-ness. Every once in awhile the studios will let an Asian actress play a girlfriend. But Asian men? Forget about it. Shame.

Need More Akira? We'll be celebrating again in April in our "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series. It's collaborative so join in.

Are you a new reader? Welcome. Please consider subscribing or bookmarking - some more pieces on animated films and Asian cinema coming up. We've been in the mood.

Another article addressing this problem -- though not Akira related:
Asia Pacific Arts "Hot Asian Actors Hollywood Doesn't Yet Realize It Needs"

Linkboy

Guardian an "intimate" Q & A with the one and only Hilary Swank. Admit it: you want to know how often she has sex and what her most embarrassing moment was.
<--- ExpressUK talks to Lucy Punch whose career has apparently been reheated by playing that golddigging bimbo in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger last year.
Movie|Line offers up suggestions for replacing Darren Aronofsky on The Wolverine. I do vaguely like the Andy and Lana Wachowski suggestion. The others, not so much.
The Playlist Joseph Gordon-Levitt will play The Holiday Killer in The Dark Knight Rises (2012). That'll mean something to some of you but for me it's the first Bat villain from a movie that I'd never heard of prior to the movie.
Every Film in 2011 Just like it sounds. Hats off (but maybe straightjacket on?) to this UK guy Neil White who is going to review every film released in the calendar year. Insanity! He's already to #105 (The Adjustment Bureau).
Orlando Sentinel here's a charitable movie promotion: Disney is encourage potential young Tangled customers to get their hair cut. The locks go to making hairpieces for those suffering from medical hair loss.

One of my friends asked if I wanted to see [lists four movies] yesterday. I say 'I'll see any of those but Paul.' My friend is all "oh, right. You hate geek things." Total misconception! So many people think this about me so I feel defensive. Not true. loves geeky things. I just have a weird ambivalence about fanboy culture because it's too narrow/noisy. I love superheroes and sci-fi and such but how you gonna live on only one to three genres? Why limit yourself? If you're not also taking in classic cinema, Almodóvar, serious actressing, arthouse, silent film, talky dramas, and other genres you're going to die of artistic malnutrition! So I say "Ugh, stop it. I do so love geek things. But Paul? Seth Rogen voicing a CGI alien?"

[Diesel Sweeties]

For what it's worth I ended up at Rango finally. Y'all were right to push me in that direction. In case you aren't aware, the "Reviews" on the banner will take you to an index of movies seen and screening log and when I've reviewed something the link itself. I'm behind so I'll need to do capsules soon.

Off Cinema Diversions
Towleroad photos of last night's super moon. It was just blinding and beautiful here in NYC. Were any of you killed by werewolves?
Warren Ellis issued a challenge to his readers to remake/remodel The Fantastic Four. Super fun illustrations followed. They don't mention it in the thread but 2011 (November to be precise) marks the 50th anniversary of the cosmic ray mutated superfamily. Too bad the film version was so terrible.
Spiegel Knut the famous polar bear has died.
The Awl answers the question "What is a Rebecca Black?" in case you noticed that name clogging up your twitter feed and facebook wall this past week.
Vulture has a funny "dos and don'ts" for making your own Friday style viral hit. Warning: Disturbingly homogeneous Teen Girl emerges! I haven't been a teenager in a long time but I remember there being more than one kind. I mean there's even several different types on Glee each week.
Antenna offers an informative primer on all sorts of things going down with Netflix, Google, MPAA, NPR if you, like Nathaniel, find the behind the scenes of  media-internet-showbiz occassionally confusing / disorienting.

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Super 8"

We already did this once during the Superbowl but here's the full trailer to J.J. Abrams Super 8, a clear attempt to recapture 80s Spielbergania. Disturbingly hypey things are flying cross the internet like 'a Best Picture nomination is all sewn up!' uh... from 2 minutes of footage? It's not like its a Holocaust drama or a biopic and looks particularly fetching. History is littered with trailers that looked awesome, the movies proving less so. We shall see. The other disturbing thing I read was that the internet had 'a collective boner'. Call me old fashioned but the only way I'd ever be interested in a collective boner was if I could handpick the orgy members. Ewww. But those caveats aside the trailer IS good. I'm a "yes." But let's play our game anyway.

Yes It certainly looks intriguing... and all the things that worked in the 30 second version (the mystery, the borrowed music, the "gee whiz it's 80s scifi!" feel) are expanded and gain in oomph at 2 minutes. Surely a good sign for the next (two hour) expansion, right?

No Sometimes when people (J.J. Abrams) try to be someone else (Steven Spielberg) they feel like jpgs that have been saved at lower resolutions. Or they miss the mark and end up like some weird amalgam (Spielberg + Shyamalan ÷ Abrams = ?) The proof, one way or the other, will be in the full 2 hours.

Maybe So I know that this is about the kids but wouldn't it be appropriately wondrous if Coach Taylor knocked a plum supporting role out of the park and had a big screen career and/or an awesome TV offer to follow his Friday Night Lights perfection since that stellar show has filmed its last scenes.

Here's the new trailer

Yes No or Maybe So people?
Okay okay, I'll bite on the overhype. Let's discuss Oscar prospects, too. A few techs or much more?

New DVD: Let Me In

It occurred to me recently that I had never said anything about Let Me In, post theatrical release, so let's do that now since it's fresh out on DVD. The American vampire film won a few year-end citations here and there as a high-quality film but it didn't fare well with the public. It was featured in Cinematical's surprising and funny list of the lowest grossing wide releases of 2010 a month ago. Here's what they said about the vampire film.

Let Me In (Gross: $12.1 million. Widest release: 2,042 theaters.) Let's face it. No matter how good it was, a moody remake of a Swedish import about a non-sparkling teen vampire was never going to be a blockbuster. But we were still surprised at just how poorly this fared in theaters. For comparison's sake, 'Twilight: Eclipse' made $300 million, and even 'Vampires Suck' made $36 million. This is why we can't have nice things.

I get the sentiment and love the joke but I can't agree that it's a big loss as a "nice thing".

It's true that I objected to the remake so I wasn't automatically the most receptive audience. But I kept hearing how good it was so I finally caved and watched a couple of months ago, at first with great interest, about what they'd alter and how its new American setting would affect it. The strong reviews are not surprising. It's a well made, handsome movie. The cinematography is beautiful and moody (though it heavily borrows from the aesthetic ideas from the original, particularly in regards to depth of field), the performances are solid, etcetera.

But the movie fails to answer the question that all remakes must answer: What is the reason you are remaking this? If the movie presents no answer beyond "because it was in a funny language" the movie has failed.

The American version of Let The Right One In didn't make radical changes or bring in new exciting ideas about the characters/story. The few alterations seemed to merely underline the originals suggestion that the victimized boy (Oskar/Owen) would one day become the serial killing man (Håkan/The Father) because he loves that little monster (Eli/Abby). It's creepier when you have to do the work to connect those dots yourself. The only big alteration (place but not time) adds nothing new. And then there were minor erasures of the first film's more difficult and more ambiguous sexuality. Gone was the shock cut to Eli/Abby's genital area and gone was Oskar's gay (?)  father  -- this character never appears in the remake except by telephone where we learn that he's shacked up with someone named "Cindy". Unless that's a drag queen, he's safely heterosexual for American audiences. Audiences of the original seem to disagree on matters of Eli's gender and on Oskar's father's orientation but the very fact that they prompt argument is another testament to the first film's insinuating ambiguous grip on its audience.

Oskar & Owen

Mostly Let Me In seems content to love and ape Let The Right One In clinging to it as willfully as Oskar/Owen latches on to Eli/Abby. The love is a mark of good taste but a weak excuse for a remake. If you love something, watch it! Be inspired by it. Make your own thing instead. The film it most recalls, other than the Swedish original, is Gus Van Sant's Psycho (1998). That earlier much-reviled "recreation" is a far more interesting artistic exercize because it's so weirdly honest about it's own borrowed artistry and masturbatory xeroxing. Critics weren't at all kind but then that one wasn't in a 'funny language' to begin with.

Also New on DVD This Week
Critical darling indie Monsters, the true story Conviction (interview with Juliette Lewis), the sci-fi tinged drama Never Let Me Go (here's a piece on Andrew Garfield) and Oscar doc finalist The Tillman Story.