APPARENTLY WITH MANY SURPRISES

THIS IS A COPY OF AN E-MAIL I SENT TO SOMEONE:

There are many reasons why I like WOLF CREEK. One reason is that I maybe insane. Hahaha.

1.I always like movies about serial killers, and WOLF CREEK is one of my most favorite films in this genre. It is very exciting, and surprises me a lot. I guessed wrong about who would live and who would die, and that’s one of the main reasons why it is very exciting. If it were predictable, it would not have been as exciting as this.

2.WOLF CREEK is different and better from many serial-killer films in many ways. One difference is the structure of the film of which the first half is a romantic road movie. I think this is a very brilliant idea that I like very much. It lends great credibility to the story. It makes me care a lot about the good characters. It makes the good characters have real flesh, blood, and soul. Most serial-killer movies try to scare the audience as early as possible. The latest example of this might be SEE NO EVIL (2006, GREGORY DARK, B+). Most serial-killer movies provide details about the characters only when the details are important to the plot, or only when the details make the characters look suspicious. Most of these films don't make their characters look like real human beings. These films make their characters look like sexy groups of people whose main purpose of their existence is either to survive or not to survive. There seem to be no other purposes for the existence of these characters.

In my personal point of view, some serial-killer movies are better than most just because they provide unnecessary details about their characters, or just because they don't try to scare the audience as early as possible. Two movies that I like because of this are JEEPERS CREEPERS (2001, VICTOR SALVA, A+) and HOUSE OF WAX (2005, JAUME COLLET-SERRA, A+). In JEEPERS CREEPERS, the first five minutes of the film has two characters talking about things unnecessary to the plot, but this scene is very important to the movie, because it makes me feel as if these characters are real humans, and when you feel the characters are real humans, the story will seem more real to you, and that can make you feel much more frightened, and more painful when the characters are hurt.

In the case of HOUSE OF WAX, except for the opening scene, there is nothing frightening happening in the movie for the first fifteen minutes or so. The characters in HOUSE OF WAX don't seem like humans, anyway. They still look like 'expendable characters' like in most serial-killer movies, but I still like the first part of the film. Somehow, it feels like a breathing space. It makes you feel that these characters don't exist just to survive or to be killed. It makes you feel that these characters had really 'lived' before they met the serial killer.

However, WOLF CREEK goes far beyond JEEPERS CREEPERS and HOUSE OF WAX. The nothing-happening part is very long, and the longer the better. I think the characters in WOLF CREEK might be the most "human" in serial-killer movies. I feel as if these characters really had "lives", really had "dreams", really have flesh and blood and soul. Moreover, I feel as if these characters are more "real", or more "human" than characters in many dramatic movies. Characters in WOLF CREEK are more real to me and more human to me than characters in CRASH (2005, PAUL HAGGIS, A+). Characters in CRASH make me feel almost all the time that they exist just to teach the audience something, while characters in WOLF CREEK make me feel that they exist because they exist.


3. The romantic part in this film is very very credible in my point of view. It is much more credible than many romantic movies. The awkward behaviors between the characters in WOLF CREEK are what I might find only in Eric Rohmer movies or in ALL THE VERMEERS IN NEW YORK (1990. JON JOST, A+).

The other girl, who is not the object of desire of the handsome male protagonist, is a very good character in my point of view. She reacts to the blossoming romance of her best friend, not by envying, but by encouraging the romance, though I think deep down inside she might wants the guy for herself. This is a kind of supporting characters which always make a deep impact in my heart. Maybe it is because I'm a guy who always wants husbands of my friends, Hahaha. That's why I feel very connected with this kind of characters. The other character who can be compared to this character in WOLF CREEK is the sister in TWO ENGLISH GIRLS (1971, FRANCOIS TRUFFAUT, A+). Ann Brown in TWO ENGLISH GIRLS might like the guy (Jean-Pierre Leaud) very much, but she still encourages him to be with her sister.

The main female protagonist in WOLF CREEK is also very good. She is not too beautiful or too sexy, and that makes her seem more real.


4.The most important reason for my fondness might be this one: WOLF CREEK seems to present the universe in the same way as I view the universe. WOLF CREEK seems to present the universe as CRUEL and UNFAIR, and the movie did this by the emphasizing of the tremendously beautiful landscape and by the dialogue of the characters.

If I don't remember it wrongly, the characters question why the meteor had to strike the earth at this certain place, or something like that. And that dialogue makes me think about FATE. Why did the meteor have to strike the earth at this place? Why did the characters' car break down because of the strange power of the crater? Why did they have to meet the serial killer? Why didn't some of them survive? The questioning about "WHAT" decides the fate of the meteor seems to impact the whole movie. Because of that question, the movie seems to ask if there is a governing benevolent power in the universe or not. And if there is a governing benevolent power, why did this power make the meteor strike the earth at this certain place and make these good characters get butchered indirectly. Is the governing power in the universe really benevolent, merciful, or fair, or is it really indifferent to mankind, cruel and unjust?

And this question is very important in real life, or in the life of the audience outside the movie theaters.

The dialogue of the characters is not the only thing that makes me think about the questioning of the governing benevolent power in the universe. The tremendously beautiful landscape and the solar eclipse scene also make me think about the universe, too. If WOLF CREEK were just a normal serial-killer movie, the landscape would not be emphasized as much as this, or it would be emphasized only for its haunting atmosphere. But in this movie, its beauty is emphasized in such a way that makes me feel as if the landscape, the nature, or the unseen power of the nature seem to be INDIFFERENT to mankind, or the suffering of mankind.

WOLF CREEK was shown in Thailand nearly the same time as SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006, BRYAN SINGER, A-) was shown. Coincidentally, the sun seems to be much more than the sun in both movies. In SUPERMAN RETURNS, the sun shines a benevolent light. The sun seems to be something good. The universe seems to be good. But in WOLF CREEK, the sun also shines a very beautiful light, but the sun (or the universe) is INDIFFERENT to the suffering of mankind. Superman seems to smile and be happy under the sun, while characters in WOLF CREEK tries so hard to survive under the same sun. Somehow, watching these two movies nearly at the same time makes me think about what TESS said in TESS OF THE D'UBERVILLES. She asked, “I shouldn’t mind learning why—why the sun do shine on the just and the unjust alike.”

The suffering under the beautiful landscape in WOLF CREEK also makes me think about an important scene in LORD OF THE FLIES. In that scene the pig is brutally butchered in a beautiful natural landscape. What happened in that scene seems to be evil, but the butterflies still flew happily in that scene. The contrasting between the evil doings and the beautiful nature in WOLF CREEK and LORD OF THE FLIES both make me question about the governing benevolent power in the universe.

Lastly, WOLF CREEK makes me think about a poem of EMILY DICKINSON.

APPARENTLY WITH NO SURPRISE

Apparently with no surprise,

To any happy flower,

The frost beheads it at its play,

In accidental power.

The blond assassin passes on.

The sun proceeds unmoved,

To measure off another day,

For an approving God.

The story in WOLF CREEK is very different from the story in APPARENTLY WITH NO SURPRISE in many ways, The killing is WOLF CREEK is intentional, not accidental. The killer is WOLF CREEK is ugly, not beautiful like the frost in the poem. But somehow both WOLF CREEK and APPARENTLY WITH NO SURPRISE seem to present "EVIL UNDER THE SUN" and seem to ask IF THE SUN APPROVES OF THIS EVIL.

I think this is what makes WOLF CREEK stands apart from many serial-killer movies, because most movies seem to present evil characters or evil men, but no questioning about the approval of the universe. Moreover, movies about natural disaster which should have asked the same question, don't ask it, because most movies about natural disaster tend to emphasize on the benevolent acts of people or selfless sacrifices which can help humans survive natural disaster.

This is not an analysis of WOLF CREEK anyway. It is just what I feels by watching WOLF CREEK. I think now you know how insane I am. Hahaha.


http://xq28.net/s/viewtopic.php?p=213833#213833

เพิ่งไปซื้อนิตยสาร PORTFOLIO ในเครือ I AM GUY มา และก็กรี๊ดสลบกับนายแบบหนุ่มคนนี้ "กฤตนัย บุญชิต" (ปาล์ม) อายุ 27 ปี สูง 180 CM

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/440310440_31855a58a3_o.jpg