Split: the twenty-four personalities of Kevin (and a review)

Three Young women are kidnapped by a deranged man named Kevin who suffers from multiple personalities (twenty-three to be exact). As they try to escape the cellar they are kept in they soon find that there is a danger looming in the near future: Kevin’s personality twenty-four is about to manifest itself. 

Is M. Night Shyamalan back? That’s probably the first question people will ask over the course of the next ten years. I mean, with Avatar: the last airbender, Lady in the water and The Happening M. Night has made such a strong case that he completely lost his storytelling touch that this actually became a legitimate question.

However, as I wrote before in my review of The Visit, I don’t think he ever lost his touch. M. Night Shyamalan is simply a talented man that needs a good producer. Don’t give him free reign or he will create something abysmal as Lady in the water. And also don’t give him a massive budget for a movie with CGI spaceships and whatnot because he doesn’t know what to do with it.

So Blumhouse productions is a perfect fit for him. Small budgeted movies which force him to use his creativity on a penny.

And this is exactly what he showed us in his last two outings. The Visit and now Split are master classes of telling a thrilling story without needing to rely on a big budget. Much more comfortable for M. Night. And much more pleasing on the eyes for this amateur reviewer.

Having said that: Is M. Night back? I would say that, for me, he managed to regain enough goodwill to imagine a sunny future ahead. But he’s not there yet, there’s still doubt.

The cinematography

I especially liked the framing in the various session-scenes between the psychiatrist and Barry.

As pretty much all of M. Night’s movies his main tropes are back with a vengeance. Yes the movie takes place in Philadelphia. Yes, there are various reflection-shots in the picture. Yes, there are basements. And, yes, M. Night simply can’t help himself giving himself a cameo.

But, especially concerning the latter, there’s more an ‘air’ of giving what the audience expects whilst staying true to the movie than there’s any sense of groveling  in it.

It’s fun to notice that M. Night’s movies have been gradually getting smaller and smaller (I’ll excluded  Avatar and After Earth). The Sixth sense had the entire city of Philadelphia as its playing field. Split, in contrast, is pretty much a locked room thriller. So with such a small set M. Night gets to have a lot of fun with the camera. Finding the right angle. Switching between POV and observer. Each scene in Split is (camera wise) well thought out to make the best of the sets and the actors in them.

 One thing I did notice though is something that can easily explode in some feminist discussion.

I loved how the Claire-character immediately decided to fight back. These young women will not be victims.

Yet, at the same time the plot does demand for them to lose most of their clothing. So strong women in their panties for people to goggle at. Thus, the stripping down felt a bit forced to me. To please the male members of the audience as it were. But, then again, Ripley defeated an Alien in her panties and she’s as strong as they come.

Now, M. Night Shyamalan can make a scene scary, no problem. But usually he prefers a slow burn sense of unease. That’s Split in a nutshell. It never truly becomes a standardized thriller (there are hardly any jump scares)  but it gets under your skin and stays there and the camera serves that purpose perfectly.

The acting

Anya Taylor-Joy has quite a difficult part when you think about it. As in the end it becomes very clear why this girl made some (as it turns out) bad choices early on. Now a lot of this acting is helped by plot and the Kuleshov effect.

The tendency of audience members to project interpretations onto a blank canvas.

But little looks and small hesitations in the voice does elevate the character of Casey into a well rounded character who is introvert, angry and confused.

Which is, in turn, a nice scriptural contrast with Bette Buckley’s Karin Fletcher: Kevin’s psychiatrist. She’s open, very sharp and utterly convinced of the path she’s on. This (along with the color pallet surrounding the two characters) balances the movie quite nicely as it moves closer and closer to the finale.

Buckley plays Fletcher in a way I can only describe as a loving grandmother who doesn’t want to be a grandmother. She has no intention of slowing her life down and this drive for her profession shines from he every scene this character is in.

The other two girls Casey is locked up with (Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula playing Claire Benoit and Marcia respectively) are well rounded as well but, in the end, only serve as a means for the final confrontation between McAvoy and Taylor-Joy.

I think it also helps that James McAvoy is such a charming man.  Because, basically, Kevin is mad as a hatter yet still you care for him in the end.

And then there he is: James McAvoy. He is the main attraction of this movie and rightfully so. He plays his character’s various personalities with such dedication and glee that he effortlessly steals every scene he’s in.

If you just imagine a page of the script which has four of these personalities (let’s say Dennis, Barry, Hedwig and Kevin); that might be an easy read. But for an actor to switch between these characters and make it clear for the audience that it’s now ‘another person’ talking is quite a feat.

McAvoy manages with a good control of his voice and accent and subtle expressive changes. Through that he creates a nice balance between a silly goof and a highly dangerous person. Very impressive.

However, the two personalities of Dennis and Hedwig are so different that this ‘changeover’ between them would result in such a stark contrast that –I think- the script sometimes uses another personality to smooth the transition over. If this suspicion of mine is the case I herald it as a brilliant move.

The story

The story is pretty good. As always in M. Night’s better movies the character development is the main part of the script. We spend a lot of time in the heads of each of the main players.

In one particular scene a bit too much for my taste.

And that all just builds the story. At the end of the tale each and every main character is a changed person which is how it should be.

M. Night hasn’t made it easy on himself though. There are personalities in Kevin’s mind pretending to be other personalities, off-screen discussions and power plays that are only referred to in the main text and strands left open for the viewer's interpretation.

One nitpick though: This movie sells a medical notion that might be a bit hard to swallow for the critical mind. Which, if you don’t buy into it, does cause the finale to be a bit over the top.

I had some problems aligning myself completely with the fiction I was offered. But at least it wasn’t as silly as that ‘Water-versus-Aliens’-stunt he pulled in Signs. So I’ll just leave it at that.

This part, of course, is reserved for the twist. Now, I’m fully aware that masking a part of a  text on a M. Night Shyamalan-movie is pretty much the same as waving a red flag around. But, I couldn’t think of any other way to talk about this bit.

Now, unlike The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable there isn’t much of a level playing field for the audience to guess the twist. I got it a mere minute before it happened because I recognized the audio-change. Before that this movie could just as easily have been twistless.

However, there are two things that I like about this. For starters that it works in this fictional world M. Night Shyamalan has created (it is the age of franchise building after all). What could the future bring? Second, this twist is like a cherry on top of the cake. It doesn’t turn the entire movie upside down I just adds a little bit. 

This is something I started to appreciate in M. Nights latest movies (let’s say Devil, The Visit and now Split). He’s no longer forcing his own hand to come up with a groundbreaking twist because that’s what we expect from him. Instead he makes the revelation a logical part of the story (like in The Visit) or he simply adds it as an additional layer (said ‘cherry’). Like his cameo; yes, it’s still there but it’s not the main attraction of the movie anymore.

I think that’s is the wise move for Shyamalan. He can’t cold-turkey quit ‘twisting’ like Whannel and Wan did after their first few movies. Shyamalan is the man who will always be remembered for pulling the rug out from under you. So gradually changing it towards less topsy-turvy  is a great way for him to rebuild his career to storyteller instead of one-trick-pony.

According to the rumor mill M. Night has every intention to make a third movie to complete his trilogy. Now I’m excited.

Conclusion

Split is a wonderful second installment in the return to form for M. Night Shyamalan. It’s well written, well shot and perfectly acted. Especially by McAvoy who is an absolute joy to watch. It is clear now that M. Night Shyamalan and Blumhouse are made for each other. Keep it up.

All of Kevin’s personalities.

As a bonus I wish to include a little (fan) project of mine. These are the twenty-four personalities of Kevin based on his computer desktop in the movie. Naturally this little picture (and list) is a little bit of a spoiler so be warned.
 

 Yes I did notice, after the fact, that the ‘Orwell box’ looks like Adolf Hitler. Sorry about that.

Here is the original size

1. Barry

The fashion designer.
Very insecure and protective
of his drawings.

2. Jade

She is the only person who needs insulin shots.

3. Orwell

A scholar who likes to rant a bit.

4. Kevin (Wendell Crumb)

The original personality. He's been 'sleeping' since September 18th 2014.

5. Heinrich

6. Norma

7. Goddard

8. Dennis

This character suffers from O.C.D. He also has a preference
for watching young girls/woman dance.

He and Patricia share the same believes about 'the beast'.

9. Hedwig

A nine-year-old boy.

10. Bernice

11. Patricia

A classy elderly lady. She too suffers from O.C.D. wanting
everything to be perfect.

She and Dennis share the same believes about 'the beast'.

12. Polly

13. Luke

14. Rakel

15. Felida

16. Ansel

17. Jalin

18. Kat

19. B.T.

20. Samuel
 

21. Mary Reynolds

22. Ian

23. Mr. Prilchard

24. The beast

A terrible creature of immense strength that can scale any
wall and feeds on his victims.

La La Land - a review

Just in time for the Oscars.

A down on her luck actress meets and equally down on his luck Jazz-pianist. They fall in love and together they muse about their futures and the dilemma of success and staying true to oneself. 

The reason I like movies isn’t just about the stuff I see on the silver screen. There’s more. There’s the element of movies being a sign of the times. Easier rider, Taxi driver, Battleship Potemkin, these  movies could only have been made at that precise moment in history and like a moving painting they tell the generations to come about their time.

But movies can also be made to create a time. Every few years a new anti-apartheid movie comes out (Twelve years a slave, Amistad, Crash) that gambles on the slumbering knowledge that there will come a time in de near future in which racial discrimination in the western world dies out completely. And wouldn’t it be great if this particular movie was the final sledgehammer against the crumbling wall?

This is one of the ways to look at Academy Awards (best picture) contestants. A correlation between a ‘sign of the times’ and the ‘changing of the times’.

Now; Donald J. Trump is president of the United States of America (something liberal Hollywood isn’t quite pleased about). More so, half the world is ablaze in some kind of warfare. 

Not really that much more as, say, twenty years ago but nowadays we can watch the slaughter live on youtube.

In a (somewhat) depressing world that deals out a daily dose of violence on our senses the time might be right for a happy movie for a change. Something to show the viewer that not everything is terrible; and this is where La La Land comes along. Shot well before Trump’s surprising win of the American Presidency it still works as an antidote against the darkness in the world (a sign of the times) while highlighting the changing of time.

The review

Chances of La La Land winning the lot this year are pretty likely. Directing, editing, original score, cinematography, costumes, acting, make-up, effects – and I’m probably forgetting some- are all of the highest level. I think, if there is one little cloud on this star scattered night it’s that La La Land is trying a tad too hard.

This is something I hated about Birdman. It felt like that movie was ticking all the boxes to become the ‘quirky’ Oscar hit. La La land also has this a bit.

The first kiss happens at the exact hour mark, there’s an ambiguous ending and there are various other formulaic moments.  It leaves a bit of an ‘oscar bait’ aftertaste in your mouth.

But then again, this movie is such a happy moment in dark times I’m more than willing to forgive it.

And If a movie has so much fun throwing in references to olden time movies I’m the happiest geek on the planet – I’m sure  I’m not the only one who giggled when he caught the Balon Rouge and the  American in Paris reference.

The story

I’m a script junky who keeps on hammering home one of the most basic rules of screenwriting: keep the story simple!

Well, La La Land’s story is as simple as can be and therefore  the visual side of things have every chance to spread its wings.

For starters, this movie is an unapologetic old fashioned Hollywood fairytale. And yes I completely agree with the criticism online that their characters aren’t entirely down on their luck.

I don't know my cars that well but the one he's driving will cost a pretty penny. And her driving a Prius? That's not a cheap car. Not to mention that both characters pretty much start off in a rather good position -it's not unplugging the sewers of McDonalds or anything. And both their apartments are way roomier that my first dorm room. So, the critical me, had a few problems taking their personal problems seriously at the start.

I’ll also won’t deny the criticism that Hollywood should stop making movies that take place in Hollywood. There’s far more to Los Angeles than the movie business. So why make one of the characters an actress?

But the movie has one big plus these (solid) points can fight against: La La Land is filled to the absolute brim with charm.

Each and every single character, shot, mise-en-scene is there to woo the audience into the loving fiction surrounding Sebastian and Mia. You might try to stay critical, but it's like watching a baby making happy faces: your heart just melts.

This happy script, with warm colors in clothing and décor just wrap around you like a comfortable blanket.

Script wise/acting wise the movie even throws in some clever running gags to keep the audience on its toes like Ryan Gosling’s constant ‘surprise shock’ or his hilarious car horn.

Acting

Which brings me to the acting. Ryan Goslin and Emma Stone are two very solid actors, no question there. And they can even sing somewhat (more about that later).

The movie entirely depends on them and they both bring their A-game. I would have preferred a bit more grandiose drama to suit their acting chops perhaps but then again that’s not the material they are working with/ the movie they are making.

That’s a small duality in La La Land. The opening song is grandiose in its lavishness but after that the movie becomes smaller and smaller. I liked it but, in the end, it does make the (cold) opening song feel a bit misplaced in retrospect.

Décor and clothing

It’s always fun when a movie takes the extra effort to show the costumes they make. Normally this is something reserved for the fantasy genre of movies (e.g. The Lord of the rings) or the extravagant movies like The Birdcage. For La La Land the choice was made for primary colors all the way through. Which creates a great fifties/sixties-sense not seen since West Side Story.

La La Land relishes in it. Two good looking stars in beautiful clothing against a wonderful sunset: simple to write perhaps; amazing to see it executed so marvelously.

However

However, there are some nitpicks here and there in this movie. Let’s begin with a simple one: apart from J.K. Simons there’s hardly anybody over forty with speaking lines in the entire movie. What is this, a Millennial thing? It’s just something that caught my eye.

Should I read La La Land as a movie for Millennials? Am I reading too much into it?

Second, I’m growing a bit weary with the long-take. I love, adore, the long take but if everybody is going to do it –especially now with digital effects to hide away the cuts- I fear it’s going to lose its charm.

There are various scenes in La La Land (the getting dressed song-and-dance-scene, for instance) that didn’t need a long take. I would even suggest faster cuts (and closer shots) to tighten it up a bit. So don’t overdo it, is my advice.

My third nitpick then is one I tend to repeat: The choreography is awesome (though I do miss Fred Astaire and the like), but what is so wrong with hiring some professional singers to dub the voices of the actors?

For a while now it's been a trend for movies to let actors sing themselves. And if you've got Beyonce at your disposal -perfect, no problem. But you're not always that lucky. La La Land lucks out with the singing voices and the demands of the songs - but for the next time play it safe: just do a My fair lady and dub the voice. I'll be just as happy to pretend it's the real Ryan Gosling singing as I'm willing to pretend he's dancing on the moon with the love of his life.

I think this is especially annoying when you listen to the songs and realize that they could have been even better if sung by a professional singer. I, for one, can’t wait for the cover of A lovely night, because the acting was great, the choreography was great, the singing –however, not perfect, which is a shame.

Conclusion

Is La La Land a sign of the times or a wish for a change? I think both. As always the world dreams for a better future. But it think we now start to realize once more that we can actually make it better. Maybe I'm naïve, I don’t know. I do know that this movie is the surefire Oscar winner this year and for once in a long, long time (since the Departed – and that wasn’t even Scorsese’s best work) I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Update: As it turns out I was wrong in my prediction. How about that?

A series of unfortunate events (the series) – A review

After an unfortunate event Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire find themselves orphaned and in the care of the sinister and vile Count Olaf whose only goal is to get his grubby hands on the Baudelaire fortune.

It’s up to Sunny’s biting skills, Klaus’s reading and Violet’s inventions to escape the clutches of Count Olaf time and time again as they try to solve the mystery their parents left behind for them to discover.

The 2004 version of Lemony Snicket: as series of unfortunate events was a nice treat for any of the weary movie buffs like me. Obviously produced as a competitor to the highly lucrative Harry Potter franchise it took the daring step to tell a dark and, actually playfully, dreadful children’s’ story. This wasn’t some teenaged nickelodeon movie in which the main lesson to be learned was that you need the right boyfriend for junior prom. No; this was a dark tale of three siblings fighting for their lives in a world run by adults who, each and every one of them, failed to see that being an adult doesn’t automatically bring wisdom.
 

Now in the words of the author of the books (Daniel Handler). The initial production of this movie didn’t go without a hitch. There were troubles all over. So, in a later interview, he stated quite correctly that he was pleased that the movie didn’t turn out as bad as he expected it to be. And he’s right! Even though the original A series of unfortunate events-adaptation failed at the box-office (a daring move doesn’t automatically mean that the average audience warms up to it), it did gain quite a cult following in the years since.
 

This had everything to do with the perfect casting of every single acting part. The children were perfect, the family members were perfect (I adore Meryl Streep in this one); but above all the biggest respect has to go to Jim Carrey who played his version of Count Olaf in a deliciously villainous manner.

I would even argue that, comparing this movie to, let’s say, the Harry Potter adaptations, that the script of A series of unfortunate events is actually one of the better book-to-screen adaptation. Using the three first books as the source material this movie goes through the action on such a comfortable pace that there isn’t enough momentum to get too emotionally attached to the terrible things that happen to the Baudelaire orphans and their kinsmen.

The screenplay

So why this lengthy introduction about the first adaptation? Because this time something fundamentally different happened. The author himself (again Daniel Handler) wrote the screenplay. Now he was involved in the original adaptation, but –as I said- there were numerous problems along the way. Here he actually get to do it his own way and it brings a richer, yet similar, version of the stories.

To start with the most obvious one. The Lemony Snicket-books are filled with wordplay. And the television version is equally bursting at the seams. This was mostly lacking in the first version (but not missed). Here however it works to highlight the absurdity of the situation (even if said situation is dripping in blood).

There is, however, a drawback to note as well. Filling up a two hour movie is a simple enough task. However, filling up eight forty minute episodes is a bit more problematic. The episode: The reptile room –part two, for instance, does have a tendency to meander a bit by over explaining stuff the audience doesn’t need to know. But since a television-show is more than mere screenplay these moments of ‘plot stalling’ are easily filled up by sets and acting.

One nitpick: I loathe coincidental coincidences. So the whole overflying airplane helping out the children to create a fire in episode six. No, not for me.

Acting

Neil Patrick Harris had big shoes to fill after Jim Carrey’s turn. But he does so marvelously. He constantly shifts between being a theatrical nincompoop and a knife-wielding madman.
While in other characters (or shows) this might unbalance the whole a bit – here it feels fitting. It’s the absurdity of this fictional world that creates the legroom for this character to maneuver in.

Having said that I do have to mention that his Count Olaf make-up doesn’t really work for me. In comparison with Jim Carrey’s (flexible face) turn Neil Patrick Harris’s Olaf still looks like a man in make-up. Fortunately the elaborate dress-ups this Olaf character gets up to in later episodes work far better.

The children then are pretty much at the same level as the previous version. I would say that this Klaus is a bit better than the 2004 version. And that Emily Browning was a bit better Violet than the current actress. But this is hardly noteworthy. Above all they are sweet, smart and relatable. Which is exactly what you need in protagonists.

Though I do think that the Violet-character would benefit from being a bit more protective in the next season. In the movie it was the collapsing of Aunt Josephine’s house (and the exploding doorknob) that made the Violet character stronger. Here, however, that scene was (somewhat) given to the Klaus character.

Also, I hated to lose those 'magical' predictions coming true as in the 2004-version.

Matty Cardarople, for one, is fun as the

’Henchperson of Indeterminate Gender’

though he plays pretty much the same character

as he did in Jurassic World. 

Now there’s a possibility: the Baudelaires

versus Raptors…

I do love, though, that this show didn't bother with trying to coach the toddler (Sunny). Babies can't act - so why try it? Besides, seeing the child make all these silly non-contextual baby-faces works for the absurdity of the show.
 

Now there are some characters who do take a bit of getting used to if you’ve seen the first movie. Billy Connolly, to me, was brilliant as Dr. Montgomery Montgomery. So it’s a bit difficult to see another actor take on this part. Nonetheless both actors played the character exactly right: caring, brave and hopelessly naïve.
 

K. Todd Freeman’s Poe, then, is a bit of a mixed bag for me when I compare him to Timothy Spall in the first movie. In the 2004 version Mr. Poe was the ultimate pencil pusher. This was because he wasn’t on screen enough to be investable. Freeman’s version, however, does have a lot of screen time. And, at times, he becomes a bit overacting due to it all. There’s only so much naivety one can muster. I would say that some scenes in The reptile room –part two, is a showcasing of overacting. Whereas in other scenes he plays the character just right.

His wife, though, is absolutely hilarious in her egocentricity. At times I didn’t know whether I wanted to laugh or slap her in the face. 

And, then, there’s the last big change: In the original movie Lemony Snicket was played by a (heavily backlit) shadow of Jude Law’s soothing voice. Here Lemony Snicket is front and center as played by Patrick Warburton. It’s a new approach that I liked. This Mr. Snicket is our stone-faced guide through the perilous story of the Baudelaire orphans (wearing a bathing suit when needed) who adds a nice little explanation here and there.

Design

This strange twenties-setting the A series of unfortunate events take place in is the main reason why I love the first movie. This is a world of steam trains, electronic contraptions and (probably) computers that nobody knows how to operate. In short: books are still on paper.

The miserable mill, for instance, is a feast for the eyes. Every bit of the scenery is as depressing as it can get and - one of the fun parts of this set design - every machine you see has a purpose.
 

Including two -my technical eye immediately spotted those – high risk chains.

And together with the witty script, the silly acting and the mystery; the setting is the final ingredient in this deliciously poisonous cocktail.

Conclusion

The biggest reason to watch Netflix’s A series of Unfortunate events has to be the absurd dark humor and the set design. There is some mystery to it all (just enough mystery to set up the next season) but that shouldn’t be the biggest draw.
 

All the actors are highly invested to bring the best portrayals of the character to the screen – and they all succeed (except baby Sunny –this is a joke).
  

If there is one main critique it has to be that the source material is a bit too stretched at times. Which is sometimes a good thing because it allows characters to have silly fun. However if (in the case of Mr. Poe overreacting) if it doesn't work for you you'll occasionally find yourself staring at your watch.
 

I loved the finale song. Every disastrous unhappy tale should end with an inequitable depressing lyric set to an upbeat tune.

Next season promises us no more dillydallying between caretakers and probably the answer to a mystery or two. But then again in A series of unfortunate events it’s the misery we are looking for, not the mystery.