Change Your Image
rodneydareguez
Reviews
August Underground's Penance (2007)
Fred Vogel stares into the abyss
So what's the message in Penance then? A guy brutally murders people because he hates himself? Well f**k me what a revelation! This bombshell aside, there appears, not surprisingly to be no valid reason whatsoever for this incredibly crapulent and nauseous creation. If it's purely infamy Vogel's looking for he's gone about it the right way, but hey Vogel, why not surprise people and at least try to make something remotely intelligent, then you can throw in as much filth and degradation as you like and still get taken seriously? The thing is, Vogel doesn't have the minerals to create anything of any quality or depth, and Penance is a hollow exercise in pushing the boundaries of what is watchable. It's utterly devoid of any subtext whatsoever.
Ironically the only thought provoking element in this film is Fred Vogel himself, who co-writes, directs, produces?, and stars. In much the same way as Argento used to perform the stabbings himself in many of his films, Vogel has a vested personal interest in the violence displayed here. Writing, directing and playing the central character seems to be giving Vogel the closest experience possible to fulfilling his ultimate fantasy without actually having to get arrested, although one could argue that even the inclusion of such a young girl in the filming of this offal is worthy of a stern ticking off. Has she seen it yet? I wonder. Charming.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a lover of extreme violence in cinema when it is in context. Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer, Man Bites Dog, Peeping Tom - these are all violent films - Henry especially, but they also deal with serious themes such as alienation, voyeurism, the boundaries between audience and spectator, and in particular, audience complicity. Vogel's film, on the other hand is designed purely to shock and/or titillate. The only comforting thought one should be drawing from this experience is that you're not turned on by imagining yourself sexually and violently abducting people. If you are, then perhaps you should be applying for a job at Toetag films.
In Penance, Vogel seems, more than anything to be exploring his own psyche - his own capacity for the kind of behaviour he's mimicking, and it really does look like he's ready to take the plunge.
Beware Vogel - when you're staring into the abyss, the abyss is staring back at you!
Dahmer (2002)
A missed opportunity
What about Dahmer's childhood?- The double hernia operation which is believed to have sparked off his obsession with the inner workings of the human body? What about "infinity land"? - The game he invented as a child which involved stick men being annihilated when they came too close to one another, suggesting that intimacy was the ultimate danger. What about the relationship between his parents, and the emotional problems of his mother that were far more relevant than just his own relationship with his father? His feelings of neglect when his brother was born? What about his fascination with insects and animals? How he would dissect roadkill and hang it up in the woods behind his home?What about focusing more on his cannibalism? And what about his parent's divorce? These are all things that should have been included in the film. Instead the film maker chose to give us a watered down 'snapshot' from a night or two in his life, and combine it with series of confusing and at times unnecessary flashbacks, to events that weren't even particularly relevant to our understanding of Dahmer.
Why didn't the film maker show how Dahmer was interested in people as objects rather than people? He could have made this point many times, particularly in the scenes in which he drugs his victims whilst he has sex with them (which actually took place in a health club, not a night club). Instead he just shows him ramming away at them from behind.
Whilst I appreciate there is only so much information you can cram into 90 minutes (or however long), but why spend such a large part of the film examining his relationship with Luis Pinet? (known as Rodney in this film). My only guess is that the director was trying to build up Pinet's character, to try and make us fear for or empathise with him, but this film is supposed to be about Jeffrey Dahmer, so why couldn't he have spend those forty five minutes on something else? If the scene and their relationship was important enough to warrant such time then fair enough, but it wasn't. The scene in which he kills Steven Hicks, his first victim, is a vital part of the Jeffrey Dahmer story because it was the first killing, and because of the effect that killing had on the rest of his life. Unfortunately the film doesn't explain that it was his first killing, or that he didn't kill again for nine years. We assume, because his hair style is different, and he is wearing glasses that this is a flashback, but to when? And why?
What about the shrine he made in his sitting room towards the end of his career?-one of the most important clues we have towards understanding Dahmer and his motivations..
Some people may find my need for accuracy in fact and detail a bit anal, but having studied Jeffrey Dahmer in depth, it is plain to see that this film has very little in common with the person he was and the crimes he committed. Why bother to spend the time making a film loosely based on Jeffrey Dahmer rather than tackle the real issues behind his descent into madness and the carnage that ensued?
Finally, a film with subject matter as repellent as this should carry an 18 certificate, not a 15. We needed to see his perversion in more depth, to understand just how detached he was from the rest of us. That doesn't mean showing the drill actually entering Konerak Sinthasomphone's head for instance, but at least an indication of the amount of people he killed, and what his Modus Operandi was when actually killing. Anyone watching this film who doesn't know the story of Dahmer might come away thinking he had only killed a few people. He actually killed seventeen men.
Aside from the facts and lack of depth, the film isn't all bad. There is some nice cinematography, and good performances from the two main characters. I'd like to see this done again by a film maker who has more knowledge, more energy, and a better reason for making the film in the first place.