THE CINEMA OF NICOLAS WINDING REFN PART 2: VALHALLA RISING & BRONSON

I'm not a fan of the 'Pusher' movies and we already discussed 'Fear X' last year, so lets take a look at Nicolas Winding Refn's other pre-Drive work (consider this a revision/re-write of the reviews I did for the old FLUD site as well as a companion to last year's "The Cinema Of Nicolas Winding Refn"). Although I do think 'Drive' is the best thing he's done so far, he still has other interesting work out there for you guys to explore. I recently revisited 'Valhalla Rising' (a movie that I thought was just "ok" when I first saw it) & 'Bronson' (a movie I was disappointed by) to see how they hold up against 'Drive'.

I’m just so sick of talking about ‘Drive.’ You’re always happy with the success. But I’ve talked about this movie extensively for more than a year, so that’s it. I don’t know what else I can add at this point - Nicolas Winding Refn

Years before Nicolas Winding Refn had Ryan Gosling and Albert Brooks stomping and stabbing people at the drop of a hat in 'Drive' (a movie I love and talk about very much here on PINNLAND EMPIRE and will continue to do so in this blog entry), he had already created some really violent and interesting characters as well as some of the most brutally violent scenes on film in the last couple of years. Between "One-Eye" (the main character in 'Valhalla Rising') and Charlie Bronson ('Bronson') you could actually find elements of "The Driver" (Gosling) in both of those earlier characters. One-Eye and The Driver barely speak (One-Eye doesn't speak at all actually), both have a kind of compassion for children and all three characters (Bronson, One-Eye and The Driver) have an uncontrollable violent side. Refn makes up the kinda characters that'll have you wondering who'd win in a fight if they squared off against each other.


VALHALLA RISING

After watching this twice in less than a week I've come to the conclusion that it falls into the "misunderstood masterpiece" category. 'Valhalla Rising' comes off like a collaborative piece between Andrei Tarkovsky, Werner Herzog and Terrance Malick after they got together and watched 'Apocolypse Now' and a bunch of old UFC tapes, under the influence of hallucinatory drugs with their minds set on making a violent yet trippy & ambient film. It stars Mads Mikkelsen (on of Refn's regular actors) as “One-Eye”: A Norse prisoner/slave in 1000 A.D. who’s forced to fight other prisoners to the death for the enjoyment of their captors. His ruthless fighting ability has not only left him undefeated but it slowly builds him a reputation through out the land. Finally after breaking free from his captors early on in the movie he joins up with a group of religious crusaders set on claiming whatever land they see in the name of god (we later come to find out that this land they plan to claim is already occupied by a certain type of NATIVE people). Outside of the Herzog/Tarkovsky influence, Refn was also clearly influenced by everyone from Francis Ford Coppola to Ridley Scott. Obviously the idea of a group of warriors on a doomed crusade is going to draw comparison to other stuff like 'Apocolypse Now' and Herzog's 'Aguirre The Wrath Of God'. The structure of 'Valhalla Rising' even draws inspiration from fellow danish director; Lars Von Trier as the film is told in chapters (something Von Trier is known for in almost everything he's done since 'Breaking The Waves'). The soundtrack, reminiscent to Brion Eno's score for 'Fear X', is extremely unsettling and really does a great job at setting the mood. The one-on-one fight scenes are realistically brutal and entertaining (one scene in particular shows One-Eye almost decapitating another fighter with a chain) but there's not as much of those scenes as you would think. The trailer for 'Valhalla Rising' IS somewhat misleading. The fight scenes between the other slaves really only take place in the first quarter of the film while the rest of the story focuses on the crusade One-Eye goes on with the christian soldiers until they meet their demise in the end. But all the violent scenes from the first part of the film are what stand out the most. In my opinion Nicolas Refn has a talent and maturity for showing violence on screen that other directors don't...

VIOLENCE IN VALHALLA RISING:

 The older I get the more I can see how directors like Tarrantino or Takashi Miike (sorry, not a fan) approach violence in their films like immature boys. Its as if they sit at home, do/or drink a bunch of coke (depending what kinda "coke" we're talking about), writing a script and saying out loud to themselves: "Oh Yeah! This guy's throat is gonna get slit open and then blood is gonna go everywhere, then a bunch of people get shot with machine guns! Its gonna be CRAZY!". But somehow Refn's approach to violence and how he shows blood & guts doesn't seem to bother me at all (same thing applies to directors like Gaspar Noe or David Cronenberg). I know this is going to sound kinda pretentious, but there's beauty in the way he shows people getting their faces smashed in, throats stabbed or necks snapped (hope that didn't sound too morbid). I guess a lot of it has to do with the almost indescribable atmosphere that surrounds the violence he shows on film thanks to the dark lighting, industrial/Brian Eno-esque score, minimal dialogue and cinematography. The "look" of 'Valhalla Rising' is just haunting...

THE HAUNTING ATMOSPHERE OF VALHALLA RISING: 

With Valhalla the specific atmosphere comes from all the shots of the sky (reminiscent of Michael Mann's sky shots in Miami Vice and Ali), the fog, clouds, mountains and the Scottish landscapes where the film was shot. Subconsciously you're reminded of everything from Malick's 'The New World' (especially with the presence of the Native Americans at the end of the film) to the opening shot in 'The Shining' (Jack Nicholson driving through the foggy hills on his way to the overlook hotel). Its nice to know that a young-ish director that's commonly associated with the independent/art-house scene isn't afraid to make a film like 'Valhalla Rising'. I almost get the sense that Refn felt this could compete with studio films in the vein of  '300' or 'Gladiator' but on a smaller scale. Some may be turned off by the middle part of Valhalla as it does dabble in religious symbolism and becomes VERY dreamlike. Its an acquired taste but if you're a fan of the film's influences that I mentioned earlier (Tarkovsky, Herzog, Von Trier, etc) chances are you'll enjoy this.
And on a side note, I'm at the point where I'll watch just about anything with Mads Mikkelsen in it...

BRONSON

'Bronson' is a film I'm still conflicted about. I guess its not as disappointing as I use to think it was but its still over-hyped. One of those movies that falls in to the 'Fight Club' category where you cant just simply "like" it. You have to think its the greatest thing ever. 'Bronson' tells the story of real life celebrity criminal; Charlie Bronson (not to be confused with the actor). The movie takes us from his birth to the present day where Bronson is still a prisoner. Through out the movie we follow his violent history from the bank robbery that landed him in jail for the first time, to his stint at a mental hospital for the criminally insane, to his brief release from prison where he became a bare knuckle fighter and then right back to prison. 'Bronson' was dubbed by some critics as; “A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century”. At first glance i could see why someone would make a statement like that. The narration in 'Bronson' IS reminiscent of clockwork, both Charlie and Alex have a charmingly evil personality and Refn is also clearly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick “glare” shot. But a comparison to 'A Clockwork Orange' is pushing it. 'Bronson' isn't as explosive and action packed as it was made out to be by critics. It also plays in to that cliche crazy British tough guy stuff that we've already seen Ray Winstone, Tim Roth and Gary Oldman play back in the 80's. We get it already, British guys are tough. Stop trying so hard to prove it in movies. But people love angry, violent, bald headed white guy characters so I can see the appeal that 'Bronson' has to some. Valid points have been made about the film by credible people but I cant fully get in to it. If you’re a fan of British gangster/tough guy movies (the krays, football factory, the firm, etc) chances are you’ll like 'Bronson'. And even with all of my criticisms I still own this on DVD for some reason and feel the need to watch it from time to time yet I don't fully understand why. There's a lot of unexplained elements and indescribable feelings that come along with Nicolas Refn's work. I can write about all of his films and tell you why I like his work and blah blah blah, but there's always that element I cant fully explain or convey through words. Like 'Valhalla Rising', Refn does a great job of creating a tense, violent and aggressive vibe almost like you're inside Bronson's somewhat deranged mind or trapped in a prison cell with him...

ANGER, VIOLENCE & AGGRESSION IN BRONSON:

My biggest beef with 'Bronson' has to do with the fact that like I have a problem praising shitty human beings or calling them "cool" (and lets not kid ourselves, part of this movie's purpose was to make him seem cool). I guess its kinda harsh to call the man a shitty human being...or is it?? I get the feeling that so many people have had the wool pulled over their eyes about who Charlie Bronson is (which is strange because all the information is right there in front of us). Its not like Refn leaves out his criminal history and his childish nature to just start trouble and act crazy for the hell of it. Refn throws in all those interludes and comical moments that make Bronson out to be this funny, charming, awesome guy (like Eric Bana's performances as real life Australian tough guy; "Chopper"). Once again, maybe it comes with age and my growing intolerance for the kinda violence and characters in films by Tarrantino or a lot of modern Japanese directors in the same vein as Takashi Miike. I know Charlie Bronson is a cult figure among people in the UK but he's a still a violent bully with no real reason to be the way he is (in the film he even states how he came from a normal family and had a good home life).  Now this does kinda contradict many other movie characters and performances that I'm a fan of but at the same time those characters are fictional. Charlie Bronson is a real person. Tom Hardy's lead performance makes things even more conflicted because no matter how much I don't like the subject or praising non-fictional bad people, he really did transform in to Charlie Bronson. And not just physically. I'm talking about everything from his manner of speech to his actual face. The Tom Hardy in 'Bronson' is a completely different person than the Tom Hardy we see in 'Inception' or anything else he's been in. Hardy's charming performance is also what clouds who Bronson really is to the viewer. 'Bronson' is filled with plenty of images of his big childish grin which is one of the reasons that makes him so likable to some people...

Also this film not only brought Tom Hardy to international fame, but it quickly became a new-age cult hit and got Nicolas Refn more exposure. He went from being nearly bankrupt (thanks to 'Fear X') and having to make two more 'Pusher' films that he really didn't wanna do, to becoming a minor crossover director with 'Bronson'. Had 'Bronson' not been made then he may not have had the opportunity to make 'Drive'. I'm happy that a director like Nicolas Refn with his kinda style is slowly making the transition in to the mainstream. In my opinion his work isn't meant to be seen on small art house screens like the film forum or cinema village (no offense). I guess you could look at Valhalla and Bronson as his early attempts at "mainstream" movie making which eventually turned in to a success with 'Drive'. I don't love 'Bronson' but I respect it.