Wednesday 14 May 2014

Review of The Book of Revelation (2006)

“A lot of men would pay to be in your position.”

“If I paid, this would be my choice. This is not my choice”

This dialogue, between a rapist and her victim, occurs about one third into Australian Ana Kokkinos’ “The Book of Revelation” (based on Rupert Thomson’s novel) a film which is not about the Bible, and to my mind has few Biblical allusions. It is instead about a dancer called Daniel, played by Tom Long, who is out buying cigarettes when he is abducted by three hooded women, taken to a secluded shack, and sexually assaulted for twelve days. Then he is released, and the rest of the film details his attempts at piecing his life together, and re-integrating himself into society following his traumatic experience.

If it sounds like this film might be too harrowing, then it is and it isn’t. This is not an “easy” film, in the sense that people who are sensitive to graphic sex or sexual assault will likely be put off by two or three scenes, yet the scenes of assault largely occur in one ten-minute stretch, and the film is careful to surround them with scenes which are real. This film could not be less exploitative.

No, this film is more difficult because it raises a number of questions about the nature of rape, and the so-called rape culture that is contained within our society.  As David is being assaulted, as a man myself, I found myself aroused, purely as a physiological reaction, in much the same way David was aroused against his will. This echoes Michael Haneke's Funny Games, which made the viewer complicit in the torture of a middle-class suburban family to make you think about the true nature of screen violence; I admired that film for its nobility of purpose, and I feel much the same way about this film. You may note that the film is directed by a woman, but this is not an overtly feminist film, and it does not subvert the rape revenge genre in the way Baise Moi did. The film forgoes the revenge entirely. It instead has a vivid sympathy for all suffering, irrespective of whether it is a man or a woman who is suffering, or whether it is a man or a woman who is inflicting the suffering.

What massively helps the film is the central performance. Tom Long is incredibly adept at conveying mental anguish behind a stony exterior, and whilst there is only one real moment where we see his anguish get on top of him, his emotions appear to be painted on his face. I was surprised at how involved I became in his journey and attempts at piecing his life together following what he went through. His behaviour may not make logical sense at times, but he makes us understand how sometimes we behave illogically under pressure, and that’s a tricky thing. Excellent performances also come from Greta Scacchi as David’s dance tutor, and Deborah Olsen, who plays Julie, the woman David attempts a relationship with following his ordeal. They care for David, and again their performances seem real and convincing; this helps, in a film which could very easily have been highly implausible.

The film also has a clinical detachment, echoing the texture and tone of 90’s Cronenberg, which I came to appreciate. The camerawork has a certain classical quality, placing what we need to see plainly at the centre of the screen, whilst also leaving time for little details (the film is very good at drawing out smaller moments, such as when David traces his finger over objects in extreme close-up; instances like this, far from being amateurish film-school tics, bolster the film’s realism and subtly draw the viewer in). Note also the infrequent symbolism, such as the planes and boats flying away from David. Just because what it symbolises is obvious doesn't make it any less effective. 

I understand that this may not be a film for everyone. It asks difficult questions, and does not pretend to have the answers. It doesn’t explain things that people accustomed to a traditional narrative may expect, such as who the rapists are, and why they are doing what they are doing. The conclusion is far from tidy, and those who are averse to interpretive dance may be advised to stay away. The film to me is more depiction of what would happen if a man was placed in the same scenario women are placed in every single day, as we see and read in the news. It understands socially perceived notions about the male and female libido (one brave scene sees David try and tell the police what has happened; they say he must be a “lucky guy”), yet overlays this with the principle that all forms of violation are bad. The film sticks to its guns with a certain determination, remembers to be emotionally involving, and can genuinely claim to make you think. Here I am.



No comments:

Post a Comment