ben wheatley - kill list

i'm listening

yeah this should be great

this was bullshit

― johnny crunch, Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:07 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OK maybe not total bullshit but I was disappointed.

psyched
http://twitchfilm.com/assets_c/2014/02/WheatleyHighRise-thumb-630xauto-45750.jpeg

Nice! Re-read it recently and really think this could work well. Actually bits of it reminded me a little of that one Wheatley short of him chucking televisions off the top of a building onto other people's heads (<-- might have misremembered this)

High-Rise is one of my favourite Ballard novels, and I was excited to read this in an interview with Wheatley a couple of days ago:

Yeah, well, I mean it's going to look like the 70s. It's going to be very styled in that way. We're looking at the Ridley Scott adverts of that period. It's going to be modern in a way that the 70s looked.

From the looks of that poster, they're well on the way to nailing that aesthetic.

(that interview was here, btw: http://io9.com/doctor-who-director-says-capaldi-brings-back-the-classi-1515244187)

Very stoked. I very much liked Sightseers.

OK, this is my first time on the board, is there some kind of pact against discussing spoilers? Is that why we haven't gotten into the meat of this movies' mysteries? Because I think I have identified an important clue that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere and I thought I'd share it here, with the appropriate spoiler space, of course.

I don't know if it is a good sign when you have to watch/read the screenwriter's interviews to get a better sense of what's going on. I don't mind ambiguities or unresolved endings, but for me they works much better in movies that have an experimental feel from the outset (like the Fountain or Meek's Crossing, for example). In Kill List, Wheatley spends a lot of time establishing a linear plot, so the ending feels manipulative and cheap to me.

That said, this is one of the best movies from the 2000s. The parts are nice enough to overcome my problems with the whole. Here's the clue I discovered:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
>
>
>
BEWARE
>
>
>

In one of the Kill List interviews, the interviewer asked Wheatley about why he was drawn to write an ambiguous ending. In his response, Wheatley cites "Taxi Driver" as a big influence, particularly the scene at the end where Bickle looks into the mirror and sees his love interest (who previously found him revolting, before he committed the premeditated homicides) gazing at him lovingly as her hair is blown cinematically.

This is one of the most famously ambiguous endings in films, because it is so unrealistic and bizarre that it seems like Bickle's dying fantasy. I think this is a clue that the last part of "Kill List" is a dream, or at least Wheatley is deliberately leaving that idea open.

But what really clinches the deal for me is the inhuman, dying-pig-like screaming noises that the cultists make when they are attacking Gal and Jay. The sounds are so over the top that I don't think any person could make them, not even a talented voice actor.

When I watched the film, I assumed that adding the irritating pig noises were simply was either a concession to horror movie tradition or, more likely, simply a lazy way to build tension. After watching Wheatley's other films and reviewing the interviews, I think Wheatley is too smart and self-possessed to have included those absurd pig noises without a better reason. I believe this surreal touch is a sign that Jay is dead or dreaming when he encounters the cultists. Of course, this raises another question that is hard, maybe impossible to answer: at what point in the movie does the dream begin?

Since I'm doing Wheatley with spoilers, I'll add a note about _Down Terrace_. Did anyone else find it surprisingly disturbing when Karl killed his parents? I went into the movie with that plot point spoiled but it was still surprisingly shocking. I mean, if anyone "deserves" to be offed, cinematically speaking, it is that couple. Who knows how many lives were saved when that evil old couple went down? Their cavalier attitude towards murder seems to imply they're not strangers to the act and they don't have any qualms about doing it again. In other directorial hands, the death of these two could have been portrayed as grim but necessary vigilante actions.

Wheatley doesn't give the viewer even that limited satisfaction. Although Karl accuses his father of planning his death, it is a fairly weak accusation. We have every reason to think that the higher-ups in London are indeed responsible. Didn't the messenger from HQ refer to Karl as "your idiot son" or something along those lines? And while Karl is upset about Eric's death, his trivial, impulsive killing of Garvey and his weak intercession for Pringle both show that he's not exactly sentimental about this type of thing.

To me, Karl's final slayings were probably the culmination of years of slow-building resentment towards their emotionally abusive ways. (it's bleakly amusing when Dad plays the victim and tries to pass off his bile as "banter"). In light of his codependent, unhealthy relationship with his parents, Karl may have found it easier to kill his parents than to resist their nagging attempts to separate him from his girlfriend. The subplots with Eric, Pringle and the jogging assassin seem like red herrings to distract from Karl's awful, homicidal personality.

On an intellectual level, it shouldn't matter to the viewer why Karl did what he did. Murder is murder, right? But cinema so often panders to our innately savage nature. At one time or another, many otherwise decent, ordinary people fantasize about hurting or even killing awful people. Instead of pandering to that, Wheatley deprives us of that sick satisfaction we derive when we see "bad guys" killed onscreen. Karl and his girlfriend weren't enacting the rough justice enshrined by Hollywood--they were simply engaging in violent tantrums. Drawing on Wheatley's interviews regarding _Kill List_ and _Sightseers_, I see this as a conscious theme in his work: that the vigilante maintains a thin veneer of morality to hide a sick desire to lash out and hurt someone, anyone.

That's why I think it is so wrongheaded to see Wheatley's films as "revenge fantasies" ala Harry Browne. Reviewers seem to make this mistake fairly often. I think the intent and the effect of the violence is ultimately far more serious than that. In one _Sightseers_ interview, Wheatley was quick to correct an interviewer who wanted to make too much of Chris's socially conscious reasons for choosing his victims. Wheatley clarified that Chris killed out of simple frustration and his class consciousness is a paper thin justification for violence. We're well familiar with the witless, exploitative directors who laughably claim that their bloodbaths are socially and politically poignant. I think Wheatley offers a rare example of a director who really does use violence to make an important point about human nature.

Oh jeez, I just realized I spoiled _Taxi Driver_ without appropriate warning. So sorry to any spoilees! Hopefully it's such a hoary cinematic chestnut that my slip won't ruin any cinematic experiences.

SPOILERS:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Another interesting tidbit someone reminded me of: When Jay cuts his hand in the car, he wasn't reopening a gangrenous wound, he was apparently cutting a new wound in unbroken skin. I noticed this as I was watching but I wrote it off as a minor inconsistency and promptly forgot about it. Now, I think it's another interesting, intentional surreal touch.

OK, I'm really not good at this. I gave a spoiler warning for _Kill List_ but then I absentmindedly spoiled THREE other movies in the post! So sorry. I've flagged the post, hopefully I can get them removed and start over.

Opinions differ on spoilers, as always, but usually on a thread dedicated to a film that's been out for a while people are cool with discussing such things. You've probably covered yourself adequately with spoiler warnings but if you did want to remove anything your best bet is probably to start a thread on the Moderator Request Forum.

This film isn't even out in cinemas yet is it?

Errr, Kill List? It was released in 2011, Michael.

need to see kill list again. can't believe i left it so long to watch down terrace, definitely gave a different spin to the next folk gig i went to in brighton. also been listening to the field in england soundtrack which i think only got released electronically fairly recently. pretty enjoyable, but it does feel very much like a retread of what ghost box-ish people were doing a few years back with a bit of wicker man ost thrown in.

i thought he was discussing "high rise", emily. lazy skimming on my part.

terrific film this. I really liked the last third in fact.

kill list? yeah it's amazing. wheatley is one of my favourite current directors and he gets england/englishness better than almost anyone

watched it again for the second time. definitely a film to go back to. it might be in my top ten horror movies now.

I had that eerie whistling tune stuck in my head last night when I went to bed... brrr!

it's a deliberate puzzle box with no solution but it speaks to me a lot about England as construct and project and it's pretty beautiful

― the SI unit of ignorance (Noodle Vague),

Ya

Loadsa clues he's a nutter

But nothing definite.

But here.

If you started playing it backwards do eg the rabbit scenes, the swordfight scenes, converge/mirror? Is there an obvious point of convergence or a scene where we can say OK this isnt happening.....

Either way it was great...

Watching Down Terrace tonight

not bad as a first film. Tight and compact, the plot and characters felt like one of the bloodier Shakespearean tragedies - all these long-simmering familial conflicts setting off a pattern of paranoia, recrimination and murder. I gather this was received as something of a satire of British gangster films? Not having seen any that went right over my head, if so. Enjoyable nonetheless.

I'm going to a preview screening of High-Rise this evening, with Wheatley doing a Q&A afterwards. I will report back...

I'm at the stage where I'd put Kill List in my firm top 5 films of the last 10 years at least. It does everything I like: mixes the mundane with the arcane; leaves things open to interpretation; toys with symbolism and suggestion; demands repeat viewings; all within a UK suburban/rural horror context. Along with Berberian Sound Studio, it's the closest thing we have to a modern Wickerman and absolutely the best way to do horror in the 21st century. Totally psyched to see High Rise and to check out some of his other films.

based on everything you like, suggest clearing your schedule to watch a field in england twice in a row tonight if you haven't already done so

High-Rise was... pretty good. It was played for laughs a lot of the time and did that well, it looked great (superb production design) and had an excellent cast. On the less positive side there were some pretty heavy-handed references to Thatcher and Thatcherism chucked in there (in a DO YOU SEE??? sort of way), and it dialled back on the hard satirical edge of Ballard's book. I'm not sure Hiddleston's affectless performance survived well when up against a certain amount of scenery chewing from the other characters. Definitely worth a watch, but it's a black comedy with some satirical elements.

Some pretty great posters for High Rise knocking about.

Film4 are showing Kill List, Sightseers, and A Field in England this Friday night from 10:45pm. I fancy a rewatch of all three, but I don't think I'll be staying up till 4am doing the triple bill.

mother of god

I am going to stay up b/c I haven't seen either of the latter two. Though now I'm really really craving wine but I don't wanna leave my house, outside is terrible.

is the Ballard book a good one?

I love sightseers so much, enjoy his sense of the landscape as much as the humour

xpost
High Rise might well be Ballard's best book

Maybe it's the use of popol vuh triggering the thought, but it'd kind of herzogian in that regard xp

idk if Ballard ever wrote a bad book tbh, altho of course some are better than others

Sightseers was my introduction to Wheatley but in retrospect it's my least favourite of his. I find it relatively cozy compared to his other films, kill list especially left me gasping for air. Field in England is gloriously disorientating. Psyched for high rise, although how Wheatley's humanism will mesh with Ballard's disregard for anything related to human emotion, I don't know.

Sightseers def the weakest in his ouevre. I think he and Jump (why is she always ommitted?!?) a great match for Ballard, personally

their ouevre, I should've said. see, now you've got me doing it

let me add to my post just there^

this film is fucking incredible

Which

Both

Help out here.

He's such a mensch as well - came off so well in the q+a. He reminds me, not just physically, of Richard Dawson. Maybe the southern version, chronicling the dark & violent folk history of his people with rare aesthetic brilliance. Also he made it quite clear how much Amy Jump gives to their films - she's as much responsible for them as he is.

High-Rise? I mean...there's just so much there, too much to fit in one post, but the number of exceptional shots alone is worthy of mention. And the spectacular use of sound. Even before we dive within the sensory, it's a savage, beautiful banquet.

Amy Jump doesn't even have a wiki page >:(

Kill List obviously amazing too but this felt like it had 30x more money thrown at it, even though it didn't - everything was realised so magnificently, and the folkloric signifiers arguably stitched in even more sublimely.

Sightseers is fun but its basically Nuts In May with psychopaths. If Im up late enough ill give "a field in england" another watch. I found it a but inscrutible last time i watched

Looking forward to High Rise

A Field in England def benefits from multiple viewings (I watched it twice in a row, and then a third time much later with the wife)

AFIE is maybe my favourite one still? but it'd probably be on an all-time list of mine so i'm biased

Saw a field in England the last night and liked it very much but think that it's quite clearly not bothered about 'making sense' as a plot. Loved the floaty mystic stylised feel and the nature and the characters and the performers and wow did it look great.

Kill list otoh has plots, they just contradict each other and there's no one answer that makes sense within the film's logic. That's fine too, it's quite brilliant without having to tick off plot boxes at the end.

Somehow I made it to 2019 without having seen Kill List or having it spoiled - what a movie!

behold the dark heart of england

it's one of my favourite films of the last ten years

yep.

Still thinking about this. I've been so frustrated and disappointed with the current round of gimmicky or mystery box horror movies...