what’s wrong with this picture?
by Douglas Messerli
Giogos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou
(screenplay), Giogos Lanthimos (director) The
Killing of a Sacred Deer / 2017
Like the two previous movies by Greek director
Giogos Lanthimos, his 2017 film, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is rather
quirky work that in its highly fictional elements blends a kind of Kafka-like
world with a naturalist presentation. In all three films, despite the
impossibilities of the plot, Lanthimos treats them as full realities in which
we have no choice, if we are to follow his movies, but to enter; and once we do
enter that world we realize despite their lack of credulity, his stories still
have deep meaning and connection to our own lives. No, we are not living in
separate, imaginary world such as that the parents create for their children in
Dogtooth; nor are we forced into
marriages, as in The Lobster, with a
danger of transformation into animals if we do not marry. Yet, metaphorically
speaking, we are the products of our parental upbringing, which we can all
perceive as rather strange at moments; and we are, in our societies, often
shoehorned into the marital condition.
Nor are we all punished, as in The
Killing of a Sacred Deer, for our major failings in the past, particularly
not by being forced into a decision for which our children will be permitted to
live or die; yes, we have similar stories throughout literature, including the
Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac (in that instance the child was saved),
William Styron’s painful novel (and later movie) Sophie’s Choice, and Euripides’ ancient drama Iphigenia at Aulis, which is referenced in Lanthimos’ film. In that
play the Greek warrior Agamemnon is forced to sacrifice his eldest daughter,
Iphigenia, in order appease the goddess Artemis who has refused to allow the
winds to rise enough so that his fleet might leave its port.
The surgeon’s relationship with Martin, Lanthimos gradually reveals, is
not an issue of illicit sex but of guilt, for Martin is the son of the man who
Steven, ten-years earlier had operated on after drinking. It is this occasion
of bad medical practice that clearly haunts our hero, and his friendship with
Martin is an attempt to assuage his guilt and to rectify the years the young
boy has been fatherless.
In
retrospect, I perceive that his invitation into his home is almost a possible
antidote to what later happens, for in many respects, he is inviting the
guilt-ridden Steven to actually replace the father he has lost, sharing with
him one of his favorite films; Martin’s mother (Alicia Silverstone), in fact,
attempts to seduce him, encouraging him to stay, even after Martin has gone to
bed, to try her “tart.” It’s quite clear that she would be glad to become his
mistress or, if possible, his wife; and perhaps had Steven taken the bait, his
own family might have been saved. True to his own wife and family life,
however, he hastily departs.
Soon after, Steven’s son Bob finds that he can no longer walk. Rushed to
the hospital Bob is found to have no neurological problems, and his parents can
only imagine that his inability to walk has been psychosomatic, a diagnosis
confirmed, apparently, when the boy eventually regains the use of his legs.
Yet, as he leaves the hospital, in a long and quite shockingly-filmed scene,
the child descends the escalator with his mother, only to collapse as he comes
to street level. He also finds that he wants nothing to eat, and later begins
to bleed profusely from his nose.
Immediately
after Steven, despite all of his scientific education, begins to perceive that
something supernatural is occurring, his daughter also loses the use of her
legs and shares the same inability to consume food. The two siblings share the
same hospital room, while Murphy revisits Martin’s home, where those within
refuse to respond.
Only later does he again meet with Martin, who calmly explains that both
children will die if their father does not make a decision to kill one of his
beloved offspring as retribution for his acts.
Murphy’s relationship with Anna is also in jeopardy, particularly since
he had hidden his connection with Martin and she discovers, through Matthew,
that Murphy had drunk during the morning of operating on Martin’s father.
Critic Brian Tellerico argues that the situation is one of a kind of
“god and devil” playing out their destinies:
“Steven plays God. He saves lives and he makes
mistakes that take lives. And he sees the world in that kind of black and
white. Martin breaks down his perfectly controlled worldview, and demands
something rarely asked of the gods, personal sacrifice.”
Yet, we also perceive just how ungodly Steven has truly been, despite
the suburban castle which he inhabits and the moral sacred ground in which he
has pretended to live. Like all of us, Steven is an ordinary sinful being of
whom the devil or simply a supernatural force is now demanding revenge. As in
all of this director’s films to date, we are forced to ask the simple question:
“What is wrong with this picture?”—not necessarily the “motion picture” we are
watching (although by extension Lanthimos also asks you to judge his highly
improbable conceits) but the extravagant societal structures which his films
represent. Something is truly rotten in all his various Denmarks—the Danes now
described as one happiest of people on earth.
By
film’s end it appears that Steven has no other choice left, as he covers his
children’s heads and shoots randomly toward them. The first two bullets miss,
but the third kills his youngest.
Later, at the diner where Steven first met with Martin, the remaining
family sits, Martin entering and all exchanging horrific glances. The family
quickly stand and exit while the devil, or perhaps just a still-longing boy,
stares after them.
Los Angeles, December 28, 2017
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment