So, back on schedule. Now that the Oscars are finally over,
it’s time to stop rambling about many films at once, and revert back to
rambling about just one film in particular. Hey, it’s the title of the blog;
it’s what you signed up for. I’ve had this particular article in development
for literally months, and it’s been the desire to perfect this borderline-essay
which caused my long period of inactivity at the end of last year (yeah, that’s
the official excuse; I'm sticking with it). So, what was this remarkable film I
saw last year that stunned me into transcribed silence? Well, dear readers; let
me tell you about a film. A film that goes by the name of Michael.
Michael appears to
be somewhat of a hidden gem, because despite having a decent IMDb score of 7.0 (that’s
decent considering the kind of film it is), it seems to have flown completely
under the radar. No-one I know knew about it and I only found out that it
existed whilst skimming through the reviews section of the Radio Times, since
by chance it happened to be showing as part of Channel 4’s “Daring Directors” season.
Besides that, I haven’t seen or heard any real media attention or any kind of
proper recognition of this film’s existence, which is a shame because this film
deserves it, for its sheer balls if nothing else. So, I think it’s time I gave
this film some praise and publicity (on probably the world’s least visited
blog, but oh well), and maybe then I can spread the word on this wonder.
Now, I am willing to bet that within the next few sentences,
someone reading this blog will think that this film is some ghastly abomination
and needs to be burned at the stake, banned in all countries, blah de blah de
blah. You know, the usual knee-jerk reaction possessed by utter twats with
minds so narrow they’re practically two-dimensional. Some may just see it as
some kind of shock cinema with no real value, made simply because someone had
to eventually, or maybe others don’t want to watch something as serious and
thought-provoking and would rather stick to their safe zone; consisting of
light hearted romcoms starring Bill Nighy. But I implore you to let me change
your mind.
Michael is about a
paedophile and the relationship he has with a ten-year old boy locked in his
basement.
Right, statistically speaking, the only people still reading
this are people who are open to and intrigued by daring film ideas. Bravo to
you! I know it sounds like a horrible, disturbing film but, and I hope this
doesn't make me sound too much like a monster but, that’s kind of what
attracted me to the film in the first place.
Now, it’s probably worth explaining that I’m quite a big fan
of controversial cinema. Even though I haven’t watched many titles from this
subset of motion pictures, I feel particularly drawn to any film which pushes
the boundaries of what a film can depict, and challenges our own insecurities
by exploring the taboo. While I haven’t seen any of the following, titles such
as Pink Flamingos, Flaming Creatures
and Salo: 120 Days of Sodom are all pictures
which I find intriguing, and hope to watch someday. I'm not particularly fucked
up in the head or anything, it’s just that a) I'm not easily disturbed/offended
and b) I like films that are different, and try things other, mainstream films
wouldn't dare. Which leads me nicely to my next point.
One of the biggest draws is that Hollywood would never make
this film. Especially in an industry hell bent on generating money rather than
any actual decent content with moral value or artistic expressions or messages.
No no, we don’t want to use this incredible art form to enrich our minds and
culture, or challenge our own perceptions of this cruel world and explore the
vast depths of human existence; more Transformers
please. Sarcasm aside, if a film hasn't got the wide, mainstream appeal to
generate a nice fat profit on opening weekend, then Hollywood don’t want to
hear about it. Which actually benefits the film quite nicely, but I’ll get on
to that later. With a subject as
controversial as paedophilia, it’s obvious that this film did not have economic
gain in mind during its inception, which is great, because it means there’s
only one other reason the film was made; the director wanted to present his
thoughts on the topic. So, with that in mind, Michael is a film that actually has heart and soul behind it,
rather than financial backing, and that is what makes Michael so powerful.
Michael does not excessively
demonize paedophilia, nor does it need to. Anyone with even the slightest moral
centre knows that paedophiles are horrible people and that what they do is one
of the most awful things it is possible for a human to do. So, Michael does not need to emphasize and
exaggerate the titular character as some kind of demonic villain or heinous
psychopath, but merely show him as he really is.
Let me explain.
If Hollywood were to make this film, which as previously
discussed they wouldn’t, Michael himself would be running around, shouting
obscenities, cackling maniacally and eating small puppies for breakfast. Ok, maybe
not quite so literally, but that’s the kind of depiction they’d go for, which
is just awful. If nothing else, it’s unrealistic, immature and borderline
offensive. To treat such a serious issue in such an over-the-top manner is just
such an insulting way of dumbing down a serious real world issue so that the
average brain dead American can still process it whilst stuffing their face
with junk food and pretending not to be racist. Michael understands this, and so presents our antagonist as a
fairly average man. Michael knows and
knows the viewer knows that paedophiles are horrible, and therefore the viewer
is already against Michael from the get-go, therefore leaving no reason to
satirise him or demonize him further, and instead focus on his day-to-day existence.
That being said, this concept is marginalised slightly by the skiing scene, which felt like a bit of an “everyone laugh at the horrible paedophile as he
struggles in the snow” kind of scene: where the plot ground to a halt for a
spot of slapstick schaudenfreude, instead of continuing with the lovely, mature
attitude set up by the rest of the film, but I’ll let it slide just this once.
From a critical perspective, there’s nothing ground-breaking
about Michael; its cinematography,
editing, production values, etc. are all as good as you’d expect from this kind
of production. Where the film shines is simply in its character relationships:
the depiction of Michael and his captive, Wolfgang. As mentioned earlier,
Michael is not excessively demonised and is shown to be a fairly average guy on
the surface. He works an office job at an insurance company, occasionally hangs
out with some drinking buddies (although admittedly he looks rather detached
from the experience) and even goes on previously mentioned skiing holidays. We
even see that he still stays in close contact with his family, and here we
drive towards Michael’s primary, and
best presented point.
The overall message of this film is that anyone could be a
paedophile. Now I don’t mean that in a paranoid way; I mean that paedophiles
can be anyone and anything. They do not have special jobs or a certain
appearance or any means of differentiating them from others visually or
socially, (besides being a 70’s TV presenter, I suppose) and their horrendous
acts could be taking place anywhere, even in your very neighbourhood and you
would never know. Going back to my rant on Hollywood, one of the reasons this
film would not have done well in a high budget setting is because this entire,
crucial aspect of the film would have been completely lost on those over
bloated money-powered automatons who run the studio, and they would never dare
to present a paedophile in such a balanced and realistic fashion, and couldn’t
risk scaring their naïve audience with revealing the unflinching and awful
truth of this world, lest they ask for a refund for making their brains do some
actual deep thinking for once.
And so, to draw this gushing to some kind of conclusion, I
would now like to talk to you about the ending. So, of course, spoilers ahead.
Wolfgang, desperate to escape, waits for Michael to come and
check on him, before throwing a kettle full of boiling water into his face.
Whilst the audience cringe from this painful scene, Michael manages to stop Wolfgang
from escaping, locking him back in the room, and then running off to treat his
injuries. Michael ends up driving to the store to get some medication, but crashes en route and dies.
After his funeral, his family come to his house and begin
sorting out his possessions. There is no clear indication of how much time has
passed since the night of Michael’s death. His mother goes into the basement,
many times walking straight past the door which hides Michael’s secret world.
I was tense, and not just because of the ending itself. This
film was working towards having an impeccable ending, but just one slip could
ruin the whole thing; execution was key. It would seem, however, that fledgling
director Markus Schleinzer knows what he’s doing because he hits it out of the
park. After several nail biting minutes, the mother finally notices the door,
and cautiously, unlocks it, and enters. Cut to black. We don’t see her
reaction, we know nothing of the aftermath, and most importantly, we do not
know of Wolfgang’s ultimate fate. Some have argued that the film stops here
because this is the point at which Michael’s control over Wolfgang ended, but I
prefer to liken it to the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat. Wolfgang is both
simultaneously alive and dead, as its all down to the audience’s opinion of how
much time has elapsed, whether Wolfgang knew to ration his food supplies
properly and, slightly more pivotal perhaps, the viewer’s own optimism. Yeah, I
know that’s not quite how the original paradox worked, but that’s the way I
like to think of it. Regardless, the ambiguity of this ending is one of the
strongest points of the entire film, possibly the strongest point, and Schleinzer’s choice and execution couldn’t
be better if he tried.
End of Spoilers
But enough about quantum mechanics; as is probably clear by
now, this is an excellent, daring and thought provoking film that challenges
the bitter, over-sensitive and unadventurous audiences of today and makes a
bold statement about one of the most disgusting current affairs. In my eyes, Michael is a prime example of the kinds
of film the industry needs nowadays; powerful, compelling, intelligent, and
arguably most important, different. It’s such a shame that this film is such an
unknown, because I’d say this is one of the most important pieces of modern
cinema, and I think everyone should watch it, at least once. The film isn’t
particularly graphic, so if you’re worried about nudity or violence, rest
assured, this film would have been a PG/12 if it weren’t for the subject
matter. Be warned though, this isn’t the kind of film where you round up your
mates and crash on the sofa with a bowl of popcorn; this is a personal
experience, best seen on your own on a quiet weekend afternoon. With that in
mind, I really hope I’ve inspired at least some of you to open your eyes and
mind a tad further and explore some of the juicier fruits cinema has to offer,
and if you’re already into these kind of films, then congratulations; you just
got a 2000 word film suggestion!
That’s about it for now, but stay tuned, since I’ve already
got my next discussion outlined, and let me tell you, my subject matters are not getting any more cheerful. See you
next time!
Michael – 2011 – Markus Schleinzer - German
Score: 9
Recommendation: High
