Ring (Ringu)

Adapted from Koji Suzuki’s 1991 novel, Hideo Tanaka’s is the second film version of the book. The first one was a Japanese television movie in 1995. A number of remakes and sequels have been made since, both in Japan and Hollywood. The franchise was so successful that two 3D movies were released earlier this decade. Hideo Tanaka’s film, however, remains the most powerful and successful one to date. Luckily for me, having never seen the original it was a revelation to watch the story unfold with fresh eyes in a superb 4k restoration.

This is truly a story from which nightmares are made, a situation that any viewer can imagine themselves in. Late at night with a group of friends you find yourself watching this video that apparently has a curse, maybe you were dared to watch it. You all laugh and think this is a bit of joke and then (as promised) your phone rings and someone tells you that you will die in seven days.

The simplicity of the idea works well, even if the film is viewed on a video tape. The concept does not lose its impact. It is easy to imagine that we are watching a film made just now and set two decades ago. The new version has a crisp bright quality to the image which gives the effect of having us believe we are watching something set in the past. The use of the schoolgirls at the beginning of the film lends itself to this film being viewed during a teenage sleepover. The plot is carefully constructed following Tomoko (Yuko Takeuchi) who has been given this cursed video by a group of friends who watched it the week before and through her niece’s death to our central character, journalist Reiko (Nanako Matsushima) who feels compelled to investigate this mystery.

Her journey towards the truth leads her to involve her ex-husband Ryuji (Hiroyuki Sanada) who proves to be a willing ally in the adventure. Their son Yoichi (Takashi Yamamura) becomes involved accidentally and has to be left with his Grandfather Katsumi (Koichi Asakawa) for safely. The tension and stakes build exponentially as the search for clues to the origin of the curse progress. The image of water is used throughout to build atmosphere tension and the inner mood of the protagonist. Water is a central device in many Japanese horror films, including Nakata’s 2003 Dark Water. The surging black ocean mirrors the grainy fuzz on the video before we see the blurred face of Sadako (Rie Ino’o). Rain pours down at key moments, and during Ryuji and Reiko’s investigation on Oshima Island they uncover the well that they have seen in the video. They must empty the water to find out if this is where Sadako’s remains are where they suspect them to be. The swampy water at the bottom of the well needs to be dredged by hand, Reiko and Ryūji are on a physical as well as psychological quest.

The complexity and intensity of the story is developed brilliantly by Nakata as he brings in the psychic element of the plot, not only has Sadoko brought the haunted video into being psionically, but Reiko and Ryūji are both psychic themselves and see the whereabouts of the well in a vision.

Just as Reiko thinks the curse has been broken and their efforts rewarded, the plot takes a deeper and satisfyingly shocking turn. Perhaps the only “jump out of your seat” moment, but it is worth waiting for. The final moments of the film pose a very human dilemma for the leading character and for the audience. We are invited to muse about what our choice would be faced with this dilemma. To perpetuate the curse and it’s ‘get out’ clause or to have it end by sacrificing someone else. Sacrifice will be involved whatever the choice and it is just this dilemma and psychological drama that makes this film still so watchful 20 years after its original release.

The 20th anniversary restoration of Ring is out in UK cinemas and also on Blu-ray on Friday, March 1st.

Call it by another name!!!

It’s rare for cinema to come quite so close to perfection as Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino, 2017).

The Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay earlier this month was well deserved, and the legions of devotees on Twitter to be expected. That Instagram account where lead actors Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer are superimposed over Monet canvases captures the essence of the picture perfectly (pictured above and below), in a bizarre way.

Much like a snatched afternoon trip to the Musée de l’Orangerie, with its impressive exhibition of Monet’s waterlilies spanning the entire length and breadth of the walls, Call Me By Your Name feels like a fleeting glance into something much bigger than oneself. A snapshot of a world more delicate, more fragile, than our own. A world where you’re welcome to come and look, but unfortunately where you can’t stay. The museum is closing, and the reel has run out of film.

.

If you are gay, you’ll suffer

It’s is also unique in the way it depicts gay romance, being that it is one of the only noteworthy works I can recall which does not eventually circle around into some sort of unbearable misery. The traditional queer breakdown scene is absent, as is the tearful coming out, the familial rejection, the violent assault, the tragic untimely death.

The overwhelmingly negative story arcs occupied by gay characters in both mainstream and arthouse media have a funny habit of leaving a bad taste in the mouths of young LGBT people. And I’m not talking about homophobic works, about the queer coding of villains, but the films the community reveres and holds up as our own.

Brokeback Mountain’s (Ang Lee, 2005) Jack Twist is murdered by a gang of passing homophobes. Sook-hee and Hideko’s relationship The Handmaiden (Park Chan-wook, 2016) verges on abusive, founded on a veritable mountain of lies and deceit. The eponymous Carol (Todd Haynes, 2015; pictured below) loses custody of her daughter. Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016) is a lifelong chronicle of one man’s struggle to come to terms with his identity. The message starts to become clear. You’ll suffer, if you’re queer.

.

A rosy existence

While Call Me By Your Name may not neatly tie a bow around Elio and Oscar’s relationship with all the fairy tale charm of a romantic comedy, at no point does their homosexuality cause them undue heartache or suffering.

Neither feels ashamed of their attraction to the other. Their family and friends are accepting of the relationship. There isn’t even any ill will from Elio’s ex-girlfriend Marzia, who gets a rather raw deal from the entire situation. No one is left beaten to a pulp on the pavement. Chalamet’s tearful Visions of Gideon closeup does not play out underneath the yellow light of a hospital ward, as his lover wheezes out his final breath. Elio and Oscar may not ride off into the sunset together, but the extenuating circumstances which tear them apart are not founded in prejudice or violence.

This is what made the film radical. Call Me By Your Name demonstrated that queer love could exist on screen, not to be some parable of noble suffering, but to simply play out for its own sake.

.

So, what’s next?

Director Luca Guadagnino told USA Today on the Oscars red carpet that a sequel was in the early stages of production, loosely based around the epilogue of André Aciman’s original novel. He plans to set it five years on – the original film is set in 1983 – and deal directly with the AIDS crisis.

This is where the proverbial fly begins to make its way into the ointment.

I preface what I’m about to say with the following: queer narratives where characters suffer as a result of their queerness remain deeply relevant, and will do as long as the community continues to face undue discrimination and misery. This particularly applies to stories concerning the AIDS crisis. Furthermore, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that Elio and Oliver get an easier ride than other queer characters because they’re two affluent white men, which is worth keeping in the back of the mind when discussing LGBT sorrow in film in this context.

Gay narratives can hardly be expected to exist in an a political vacuum, at least not quite at this stage in history. But to create a sequel to Call Me By Your Name which leaves the rose-tinted world it presently depicts, to hit it with a cold harsh dose of reality, dilutes what was ultimately innovative about it. It’s like spray painting a vital political statement over Monet’s water lilies. There’s a time and a place, and for once it’s not here.

Only having access to queer cinema pockmarked by pain is devastating for children growing up gay, as they come to believe this is all their life can ever be. Subliminally, they are told they carry within them a defect, and someone somewhere will always be conspiring to punish them for it.

I’m sure Guadagnino would create a work of abject beauty for this proposed sequel, if his filmography thus far is anything to go on. I’m sure I’d enjoy it, too. But if this is the direction he plans to take, then I fear it may dilute what made it the original work beautiful. By all means, make a film about the Aids crisis – cast Chalamet and Hammer all over again, for what it’s worth. But make them different characters, make it a different world. Let us keep our happy gays. We have so very few.

We need positive queer narratives. We need stories where boys can fall in love with boys and girls can fall in love with girls without fear that some outside force will make them hurt for it. We need bike rides through the Italian countryside, we need impromptu dances parties set to the Psychedelic Furs, we need that whole saga with the peach. We need friends and families who accept us as we are, we need beauty and art and life, and we need to know that if it all falls through it’s not because we were queer and that meant we weren’t allowed to be happy in the first place.

We need Call Me By Your Name. Unadulterated, and as it is.