Stoker is sort of an adult fairy tale / psychological thriller, in which a young woman undergoes a sexual awakening when the uncle she didn't know existed turns up at her father's funeral. This man (Charlie - played by Matthew Goode) is tall, dark, mysterious and captivating to young India (Mia Wasikovska) and her widowed mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). India is immediately fascinated by Charlie, yet repulsed by him at the same time as she realises her mother's obvious attraction towards him. India comes to realise that there is a connection between herself and Charlie, a connection that she struggles to understand. Is this connection simply the result of a hapless teenage inability to cope with her own awakened sexuality? Is it something deeper? As India begins to discover disturbing snippets of information hinting at Charlie's past, her responses will surprise even her.
Stoker is a film that uses a slow pace and a simple score to generate atmosphere. There is time while watching the film to look at the small character set and try to understand what they're thinking, time to get inside their heads. It's a film littered with metaphors and symbols which I admit some might find irritating, but I was fascinated by and thought added depth to the story. A spider crawls up a girls leg then later over a dead man's body. A pair of sunglasses are passed from one character to another. India's father's belt is used to do several different things. A lot to get your teeth into when chatting about it in the pub afterwards.
Hopefully you can tell by now that I liked this film - a lot. But it's not all about metaphors and layers of atmosphere and subtext; there are some outstanding individual scenes in Stoker. India plays a duet on the piano with Charlie - or does she? It's a powerful scene that's jarringly edited together and reflects India's jumbled emotions towards her uncle. Better still is a scene later when she showers after being attacked by boy from her school and is rescued by Charlie. We see the events of the attack in flashback as she showers. At first it is seems clear that she's washing herself clean of the horrific experience of nearly being raped; then the scene changes tone in both the present and flashback and we realise that something far stranger and disturbing has happened. It's a moment of realisation for the audience and awakening for India that's brilliantly presented.
There is one small strange thing I'd like to bring up about the film. And that is the possibility of a supernatural subtext to the story. There is nothing overt in the film that says there is anything supernatural about what happens, but I think the film is littered with suggestions that there is. The film is called Stoker, raising the possibility of Bram Stoker and Dracula. India defends herself by drawing blood after stabbing a boy with a pencil - is that a stake? Charlie doesn't ever seem to eat and knows without being told that India has extraordinarily good sight and hearing. She is able to hear him whispering at a distance of 100s of yards in the film's opening scene - supernatural senses being a classic part of the vampire mythology. The concept of the hunter is an important theme too; India is taught hunting by her father and told that she must sometimes do bad things to avoid doing worse things. Does her father know that she's likely to do bad things? Is he trying to help her contain an otherworldly evil? What did they really get up to on those hunting trips? All this points strongly towards the idea that India and Charlie are vampires or somehow touched by creatures of the night. At the very least they share a connection - be it genetic, psychological, mystical or something else otherworldly - that inexorably attracts them to one another.
The ending will perhaps come as little surprise to anyone who is used to the traditional Asian horror trope of the girl with the long dark hair, or anyone who's paying any attention really. But this isn't a film you watch to find out what the twist is a la Oldboy, it's a film that asks you to soak yourself in its atmosphere and look into the soul of someone else's psychosis. If there is a problem with the film, then it could have avoided overdoing the sexual awakening metaphors that are littered all over the place - but this is a minor thing. Also it's possible that you might think the film rather linear and pedestrian if you're not prepared to immerse yourself in the potential for deeper meaning in what you've seen. For me though the film is superbly acted, Wasikovska especially, interestingly shot and edited and a joy to spend time thinking about afterwards. It's flying high in my mind at the moment and I want to see it again.
Hmm...... Good review. I watched Stoker last Sunday at the Curzon Soho. I found it very atmospheric and thought the sexual awakening scenes tender, disturbing and arousing: Quite an achievement!
ReplyDeleteI like your analogies with Bram Stoker and vampirism. I too must watch this again.