Great Creepy Art

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

There isn't much time with the Dardennes brothers' The Kid With The Bike starting at 7:30 (i.e., 85 minutes from now) but the absolute best film I've seen at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival is a somewhat chilly, jewel-precise study of an Austrian child molester. Markus Schleinzer's Michael (pronounced "miKAYel") isn't "pleasant" to watch, but it's briliiant -- emotionally suppressed in a correct way that blends with the protagonist, aesthetically disciplined and close to spellbinding.

Because the titular character, a 30something office worker (Michael Fuith) is an absolute fiend and because the film acquaints the audience with the behavior and mentality of a child molester in ways that are up-close uncomfortable, a fair-sized portion of the crowd in the Lumiere theatre was booing when it ended. Those were the chumps in the cheap seats -- the moralists. The people who know from film and especially a powerhouse flick when they see one were clapping, of course.

Michael is easily the most gripping and cunning film I've seen here. It operates way above and beyond the raw brushstrokes and the imprecise, at times florid manner of Lynne Ramsay's over-praised We Need To Talk About Kevin. Don't even talk about Ramsey's film at this stage.

The story is basically about how and when Michael's evil behavior will reach out and take him down. That's where the story tension is, and why it holds you in its grip. This guy is going to suffer some payback sooner or later. You can sense that early on.

A milquetoast fellow in nearly every respect, Michael has a regular dull office job where he's liked (from a certain distance) and respected. But in his modest home he keeps a young blonde boy (David Rauchenberger) prisoner in a basement room and uses him on occasion. The film never pushes your face in the ugliness of this crime, but it let's you know exactly what's going on. And every person whom Michael knows at the office and those in his grown-up family...nobody knows who and what he is. He's very careful, of course. Fastidious, cautious.

That's all I have time to say except that Michael, so far, is it for me -- the cream of the crop.

Michael director Markus Schleinzer, center, with cast (l. to. r.) Viktor Tremmel, Ursula Strauss, Michael Fuith, David Rauchenberger, Christine Kain and Gisella Salcher --Saturday, 5.14.11 in Cannes.

Foot Traffic<< previous | next >>Respectable But Minor

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 14, 2011 at 8:49 AM

comment #1

musealien1 says ...

I hate this phrasing that repeatedly appears here - "the people who know from the art of film". Who know from? This doesn't mean anything. It's a completely invented and illogical phrase. It means nothing. Speak English, for Christ's sake.

Posted by musealien1 at May 14, 2011 10:11 AM

comment #2

djiggs says ...

Interesting. One of those "chumps in the cheap seats" must have been Lisa Schwarzbaum from EW. Her description is " sadistic and meaninglessly voyeuristic Austrian pedophile drama Michael ". She is touting the Israeli drama Footnote as the best so far. Any thoughts on Footnote, if you've seen it?

P.S. - Shouldn't they just give the Dardenne brothers an award already before they show their film? It is amazing how the Coens and Dardennes win jury prizes almost every time they submit a film to Cannes.
Coens with Barton Fink (Palm D'Or, Best Director, Best Actor), Fargo (Best Director), Man Who Wasn't There (Best Director Tied with David Lynch's Muholland Drive), and The LadyKillers (1st ever Supporting Actress award for Irma P. Hall). They have had some films go unrewarded with Hudsucker, O Brother, and No Country for Old Men.

Dardennes have a better record with Rosetta (Palm D'Or & Best Actress), Le Fils (Best Actor), L'Enfant (Palm D'Or), & Lorna's Silence (Best Screenplay).

I am a big fan of both the Coens & Dardennes...it is just interesting how Cannes & its different juries seem to favor their films.

Posted by djiggs at May 14, 2011 10:25 AM

comment #3

Ray DeRousse says ...

I hope the film is as surgically-edited and as silent as that trailer.

It's always surprising when major film critics balk at films like this because they take you somewhere unpleasant. The film isn't justifying the crime or even explaining it. Can't these critics understand that some films exist to explore the worst parts of the human experience?

Posted by Ray DeRousse at May 14, 2011 11:05 AM

comment #4

Glenn Kenny says ...

Looks like somebody is upping the "I hate fun" ante.

It's interesting, the hierarchies that critics set up, respecting themselves and others. I'm reasonably sure that Ms. Schwarzbaum probably thinks of Wells as something of a chump herself, his rose pastille pass notwithstanding. And at the moment, the consensus take on "Michael" from a lot of Wells' "pallies" is that it's Haneke-Lite, sadistic sucker bait for rubes who can't distinguish faux art film from real. I'm not calling our genial host a rube, mind you, I'm just saying it's kind of diverting to see how the different sides concerning this film are lining up, which is really the only thing those of us who aren't there can actually directly perceive.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 14, 2011 11:18 AM

comment #5

YND says ...

You can call Mike D'Angelo contrarian and you pretty much have to call him a curmudgeon... and I disagree with him as (or more) often than I agree with him... but "a chump in the cheap seats" who "doesn't know from the art of film", I really don't think so. He gave MICHAEL a 32 out of 100 and provided my fave Cannes reaction so far: "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH EVERYONE IN AUSTRIA?"

Posted by YND at May 14, 2011 11:26 AM

comment #6

JohnCope says ...

More and more I'm hoping against hope that Habemus Papam wins the Palme.

Posted by JohnCope at May 14, 2011 11:52 AM

comment #7

Mr. Palmer says ...

Wouldn't bother to see this crap. Life is too short.

Posted by Mr. Palmer at May 14, 2011 12:14 PM

comment #8

DuluozGray says ...

Amazed these films get money, and glad. I just don't know who invests in these types of flicks save the rich uncle here or there.

Posted by DuluozGray at May 14, 2011 12:38 PM

comment #9

Robert Cashill says ...

Psyched for the American remake.

Posted by Robert Cashill at May 14, 2011 2:17 PM

comment #10

Funker Hornsby says ...

"Michael" may be a lot of things, but it certainly is NOT voyeuristic. That's really a stupid remark. Schleinzer goes to great pains to not be voyeuristic. The fact that the act is not shown but more than implied by the fact that Michael jots down an "x" in his diary when he had sex with the boy is much more chilling. You know WHAT has happened. No need to show it. What makes "Michael" hard to watch is the fact that Schleinzer does not judge the pedophile. He just shows him in his everyday life. I didn't think it was all that great (with all the facts about the Kampusch case fairly well known), but it's certainly not a film that is easy to dismiss. It doesn't have all that much Haneke in it, more of a touch of Seidl in how Schleinzer shows that devastating and depressing sadness of everyday people's homes (and Michael is nothing but an "everyday people").

Posted by Funker Hornsby at May 14, 2011 2:25 PM

comment #11

cyanic says ...

Its subject matter alone has as much appeal to me as a new Tyler Perry movie has to anyone who post here.

Posted by cyanic at May 14, 2011 2:30 PM

comment #12

Mr. Palmer says ...

Ray DeRousse says ...

"It's always surprising when major film critics balk at films like this because they take you somewhere unpleasant. The film isn't justifying the crime or even explaining it. Can't these critics understand that some films exist to explore the worst parts of the human experience?"

Just because a movie takes you some place unpleasant or disgusting doesn't mean a critic, or anyone, has to revel in it or give it a pass. If a film is boring or exploitive simply to be so, then it fails as a film.

Posted by Mr. Palmer at May 14, 2011 2:47 PM

comment #13

Gaydos says ...

Hmmmm, I don't think of Variety critic Robert Koehler as a rube or an easy pushover for any kind of filmmaking, whether the brows are high or low and he pretty much agrees with Jeff here:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945227?refCatId=2531

Posted by Gaydos at May 14, 2011 3:24 PM

comment #14

Jericho Cane says ...

Kenny's elitism is even more nauseating than the subject matter of "Michael", really.

Posted by Jericho Cane at May 14, 2011 3:31 PM

comment #15

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Kenny: Those who wrote or implied that Michael is "Haneke-Lite... sadistic sucker bait for rubes who can't distinguish faux art film from real" are playing a familiar game...they find a film emotionally discomforting so they resort to the default dweeb putdown -- i.e., you're just not smart or educated enough to understand what a sucker you are. I've seen Michael & I know what it really is, and what astonishing & stunning bullshit this is from the "pallies" who are using the elitist line.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at May 14, 2011 4:46 PM

comment #16

HarryMoseby says ...

I'm copying this down for when I finally see We Need to Talk About Kevin.

Posted by HarryMoseby at May 14, 2011 4:54 PM

comment #17

Glenn Kenny says ...

Like I said, sir, I was merely making an observation. Check your Twitter feed if you doubt the veracity of what I have gleaned. Also sorry to have upset Jericho Cane so much. Wow. More nauseating than pedophilia, eh? I won't ask the individual to elaborate, yeesh...

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 14, 2011 5:13 PM

comment #18

Jericho Cane says ...

It's just a bit of hyperbole, that's all. In general you rock and your strange relationship with Wells is one of the things that keeps me coming back to this site.

Posted by Jericho Cane at May 14, 2011 5:17 PM

comment #19

Pinko Punko says ...

I feel like Glenn is an unelected but well-chosen spokesman for some of us who maybe used to feel like common travelers along the HE road and now feel like we're seeing a genial acquaintance perfect a Larry David slow motion HBO dramedy disintegration. And that is saying a lot because I remember way back when GK really pissed me off about something or other, but now I root for him because otherwise I would think that I was going crazy.

Posted by Pinko Punko at May 14, 2011 5:48 PM

comment #20

George Prager says ...

Who cares what Lisa Schwartzbaum thinks. Her reviews are worthless and she's Peggy Noonan's BFF.

Posted by George Prager at May 14, 2011 6:02 PM

comment #21

Kakihara says ...

Alright. Women like fart jokes in movies, too. I guess I was wrong. Maybe that Jason Bateman body-switching movie has a chance now, too. http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/first-box-office-bridesmaids-looking-to-open-to-20m-weekend-priest-17m/#comments

Posted by Kakihara at May 14, 2011 9:22 PM

comment #22

Phatang! says ...

I can think of a long list of movies I've felt critics and audiences were suckered by. It's harder, oddly, to think of a single movie that I myself was suckered by (at least since RETURN OF THE JEDI).

Posted by Phatang! at May 14, 2011 9:44 PM

comment #23

Bob Violence says ...

Hmmmm, I don't think of Variety critic Robert Koehler as a rube or an easy pushover for any kind of filmmaking, whether the brows are high or low and he pretty much agrees with Jeff here:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945227?refCatId=2531

Robert Koehler did not write this

Posted by Bob Violence at May 14, 2011 9:53 PM

comment #24

snowback says ...

@musealien1

"Those who know from film" is a variant of "I don't know from _____" and similar constructions. It's derived from Yiddish. It's pretty common. Maybe not where you live.

Posted by snowback at May 14, 2011 10:04 PM

comment #25

actionlover says ...

".....she's Peggy Noonan's BFF." You say that like it's a bad thing.

And since Jeffrey's in France does that mean we get a temporary reprieve from the weekly "enlightening and thoughtful" Bill Maher clip? (fingers crossed)

Posted by actionlover at May 15, 2011 12:12 AM

comment #26

the400blows says ...

So, Jeff, what did you think about FOOTNOTE?

Posted by the400blows at May 15, 2011 12:50 AM

comment #27

md'a says ...

I should note that my all-caps cry about Austrians was strictly a joke, and has nothing to do with my disdain for the film. I did not find it "too tough to take" or any such nonsense. My response throughout was one of neutral indifference, as Schleinzer's detached take on disturbing material seemed to me very festival-rote. Only at the very end, when he starts sadistically fucking with the audience, did that shade into active revulsion.

Posted by md'a at May 15, 2011 1:58 AM

comment #28

Glenn Kenny says ...

Wow, look at m'da, waxing all quasi-Nabokovian ("neutral indifference," nice; way to set it up with that "throughout," too!) and stuff. Too bad he can't embed a gif of himself turning up his nose and making a dismissive hand gesture to complete the imperious effect.

Posted by Glenn Kenny at May 15, 2011 4:39 AM

comment #29

Max Cherry says ...

And Glenn Kenny for the block. (And I mean that as a compliment.)

Posted by Max Cherry at May 15, 2011 8:33 AM

comment #30

colintiv says ...

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me

buy adderall online

Posted by colintiv at January 24, 2012 1:25 PM

comment #31