Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

Take out sensationalist and you'll have what Greenaway says about every director, except himself of course.

[exte]

Before I read all the reviews and shrivel back, I'd like to be very honest - I like Cronenberg, like reading his interviews, etc, but this was a piece of shit. Absolute drivel. Pure melodrama. Poor Naomi Watts. People hold such low opinions of her, and screenwriting like this doesn't help. Then again, who else can you get to sell this schlock? Certainly not Jodie Foster. I can just picture her looking at Cronenberg like what the fuck were you thinking? Everything about this film strikes me as convoluted, and I hated just about everything save for a couple moments at the end. And really, all the talk about the tattoos is overblown; maybe it really was vital for their 'process,' but it didn't mean a goddamn thing to me in the end... Sorry guys. I'm sure this is all blasphemy on this board, but this is not 'minor Cronenberg,' it's shit Cronenberg...

[Robotron]

Well, I for one, probably won't even see the movie, at least not until it arrives on video. God only knows why Cronenberg is trying to elbow his way into becoming a mediocre Peckinpah imitator (at least if this film is anything like the Straw Dogs remake A History of Violence), continuously taking fewer risks, becoming more "respectable", simplifying both his subjects and his style, but I don't care enough to watch him lower the bar anymore.

[Stagger Lee]

I won't condemn you for blasphemy, but I disagree wholly.

I felt like this was a tight, well-written, well-acted vehicle for some very similar themes to those in History. First, there's the violence, which is so unflinching that the entire gangster theme is utterly robbed of all the glamor that usually accompanies it. I felt like Cronenberg allowed us to foresee the ambush in the bath house so far in advance so that we could dread it: dread seeing how Nikolai was going to kill the two men with his bare hands. It helped the message to sink in. I know the audience I saw it with was squirming during each killing.

It's not just a rehash of History, though, because now Cronenberg wants to talk about sexual exploitation, too. Both in real life (in a recent book, Chomsky quotes the figure of "perhaps 100,000 Ukrainian women held in sex slavery.") and in the movies. In addition to Tatiana's story, we also watch, rather uncomfortably, as Nikolai "fucks a bitch". Watts, despite being gorgeous, is never "used" on screen for titillation; in fact, the lack of romance is striking for a film with such a hot star.

The film was more effective for me than History. I hope someone else will see the same things I did and be able to express them more articulately.

Also, I think Viggo affects the best Russian accent I've ever heard. I normally hate anything in which the actors are required to fake an accent, but this was excellent.

[miless]

I find that Cronenberg's latest films are subversive forms of hollywood films. Cronenberg is taking a form and adding his touches in order to sell his films to the mainstream. A History of Violence went against the typical thriller form created by Hitchcock. Eastern Promises brought an extremely homo-erotic crime thriller to the masses without even the slightest stir of controversy (like Brokeback Mountain did). I'm not saying these films are my favorite from Cronenberg (that belongs to his magnificent Spider), but they definitely deserve some credit for undermining traditional American values. The highly expressionistic gore alone is making audiences cringe across the country.

[Stagger Lee]

Maybe I'm revealing my ignorance, but I am not sure why the bath house scene is almost universally seen as homoerotic. If Kirill had been one of the attackers, yes. But the presence of a naked man on screen does not, in itself, create eroticism (homo or otherwise), and it seems juvenile to suggest that it does.

[Oedipax]

Maybe I'm revealing my ignorance, but I am not sure why the bath house scene is almost universally seen as homoerotic. If Kirill had been one of the attackers, yes. But the presence of a naked man on screen does not, in itself, create eroticism (homo or otherwise), and it seems juvenile to suggest that it does.

Well - I think homoeroticism is something that runs throughout the film, most prominently in Viggo and Vincent's ambiguous relationship, and in general it's almost bound to be a feature of any almost completely male subculture, whether it's the Russian mob or the prisons Viggo carries the physical and psychological marks of. As for the bath house scene in particular, Cronenberg certainly could have staged it elsewhere, if the fact of it being another males-only locale wasn't somehow significant to the film. Throw in an explicitly naked Viggo in an extremely physical battle with two other men, along with the explicit connections Cronenberg draws between sex and death in his films, and you've got a pretty decent argument in favor of the scene's homoerotic overtones.

[Stagger Lee]

Well argued. Thanks for the response.

[Svevan]

I think the homo-eroticism of the film is found in the passionate one sided relationship between Kirill and Nikolai, and as Oedipax said, the male subculture (and ethnic subculture) that despises gays.

Spoiler

Kirill kills a man for calling him queer, but later forces Nikolai to have sex with a prostitute to prove Nikolai's heterosexuality (while Kirill watches). Kirill's father also speaks disdainfully of "queers," knowing fairly well that his son may be gay. Kirill's struggle to be accepted in this culture leads to his shame and secrecy (allowing him to betray his father in the end).

The bathhouse fight is a minor footnote to this major theme in the film.

[DrewReiber]

Well, I for one, probably won't even see the movie, at least not until it arrives on video. God only knows why Cronenberg is trying to elbow his way into becoming a mediocre Peckinpah imitator (at least if this film is anything like the Straw Dogs remake A History of Violence), continuously taking fewer risks, becoming more "respectable", simplifying both his subjects and his style, but I don't care enough to watch him lower the bar anymore.

Thank god, I thought I was the only one who noticed this. Between his last couple of films and his public spite toward both his own original work and the genre he used to be a leader of, I've completely given up on his contemporary filmmaking.

[Gropius]

I find that Cronenberg's latest films are subversive forms of hollywood films. Cronenberg is taking a form and adding his touches in order to sell his films to the mainstream.

With the caveat that I haven't seen 'Eastern Promises' yet, this argument sounds like a case of auteurist special pleading. If it looks, talks and acts like a mainstream film (give or take a few fleshy gunshot wounds in 'History'), isn't it, in fact, a mainstream film? What exactly is Cronenberg subverting, other than his own reputation for original filmmaking?

[David Ehrenstein]

Homoeroticism is less at issue here than homophobia. It's an invariable component of all-male societies of this kind where same-sex attraction is not acknowledged. Consequently whether Kirill is gay or not is less important than the fear that he might be. That in turn stokes paranoia amidst the group -- leading to its destruction from within.

It's ironic in that this is a British gangster film. And the kings of British gangsterdom were The Krays. Ronnie was gay and this was accepted (and how!) by the rest of "The Firm." (see Performance and Love is the Devil -- also Villain and The Krays.)

But these British gangsters are Russian. And Russians hate all gays -- despite a cultural legacy that includes Tchaikovsky, Nijinsky, Diaghilev, Eisenstein, Nureyev, et al.

[Stagger Lee]

I think that the act of making a mainstream film that is painful for the mainstream to watch is subversive. The few areas in which this film is not conventional are the most important. If a cool track had been playing over the bath house fight, or if Nikolai had stood up and dropped a one-liner before walking away unscathed, I would agree that Promises has nothing more to offer.

Homoeroticism is less at issue here than homophobia.

I definitely agree with this.

[colinr0380]

Ronnie was gay and this was accepted (and how!) by the rest of "The Firm." (see Performance and Love is the Devil -- also Villain and The Krays.)

Also discussed during this clip from Qi!

[Stagger Lee]

It also occurs to me that the obviously gay Kirill and the fully naked Nikolai may be additional shots taken at the mainstream audience, considering that the audience for glorified gangster violence likely overlaps considerably with the macho homophobes. I know many men who are more discomfitted by the occasional male ass in a film than almost anything else. The exceptions being male kissing or obvious gay themes, which are both more rare.

[Cronenfly]

It's not just a rehash of History, though, because now Cronenberg wants to talk about sexual exploitation, too. Both in real life (in a recent book, Chomsky quotes the figure of "perhaps 100,000 Ukrainian women held in sex slavery.") and in the movies. In addition to Tatiana's story, we also watch, rather uncomfortably, as Nikolai "fucks a bitch". Watts, despite being gorgeous, is never "used" on screen for titillation; in fact, the lack of romance is striking for a film with such a hot star.

But do you think the movie really treats this issue with the respect it deserves? I felt it just came off as more bland background than something the film really engaged with in a way that gave it any meaning. Nikolai's "[fucking] a bitch" is a plot point, nothing more (though Nikolai's actions afterwards suggest there's a bit more to it), unless you decide to give it that significance, and I don't think that the movie earns that kind of relevance to the issue at hand. I'm not saying that Ukrainian sex slavery isn't a vital issue to deal with, but rather that it gets short shrift here in such a way that doesn't do it justice at all. I don't need it to be dealt with in huge neon letters, but I still think that Cronenberg, Knight and co. are getting more respect for "tackling" this issue than they really deserve.
EDIT- And this is all probably a tangent of my not liking the direction that Cronenberg is going in with regards to his more recent films: his workman-like approach is leaving his films bloodless (figuratively), without the insight or inspiration of his earlier work. He may be getting more "masterful" (as many critics have rushed to suggest) but in that mastery of form he's losing all that made his films worthwhile to begin with. He feels forced and uncomfortable in his new shoes, to my mind.

[David Ehrenstein]

It also occurs to me that the obviously gay Kirill and the fully naked Nikolai may be additional shots taken at the mainstream audience, considering that the audience for glorified gangster violence likely overlaps considerably with the macho homophobes.

True, but largely to the extent that Kirill is coded for suspicion of being gay, while Nikolai is not.

And speaking quite frankly, I know a lot of gay men who act like Nikolai and few like Kirill.

[Robotron]

I think that the act of making a mainstream film that is painful for the mainstream to watch is subversive. The few areas in which this film is not conventional are the most important. If a cool track had been playing over the bath house fight, or if Nikolai had stood up and dropped a one-liner before walking away unscathed, I would agree that Promises has nothing more to offer.

"Realistic", "important" violence has been a part of American culture for forty years now, I really don't see the subversion of moving into territory better covered by plenty of talented auteurs whose films have become an accepted part of popular culture despite their subversive nature and the public's appetite for what appears on screen has largely remained unchanged, with the exception of popular entertainment becoming more graphic to keep up with the art films.

Cronenberg is taking the easy way out. It doesn't take much to subvert the mainstream's comic book mentality, but by doing so he ceases to make anything interesting for anyone who expects real art from from cinema.

[Stagger Lee]

True, but largely to the extent that Kirill is coded for suspicion of being gay, while Nikolai is not.

I may misunderstand you, but I think Nikolai's orientation is irrelevant to my impression of the bath house scene's intent. I've heard people condemn Soderbergh's Solaris for having "too much male ass." Putting full male nudity on display so prominently in a film that, ostensibly, panders to the crowd who might in some way identify with the homophobic gangsters seems pretty confrontational to me.

"Realistic", "important" violence has been a part of American culture for forty years now, I really don't see the subversion of moving into territory better covered by plenty of talented auteurs whose films have become an accepted part of popular culture despite their subversive nature and the public's appetite for what appears on screen has largely remained unchanged, with the exception of popular entertainment becoming more graphic to keep up with the art films.

Well, I confess to having a relatively limited knowledge of this particular method of social critique as it has been used in the past (which may be why Promises worked so well for me). The point, I think, is that Cronenberg's method forces the issue down the throats of the unwilling masses, while (and perhaps I'm wrong) past efforts have had the message there only for those sharp enough to find it.

But do you think the movie really treats this issue with the respect it deserves?

I don't think he so much tackled the issue as brought attention to it and then, perhaps, linked it to sexual exploitation on screen. Many films "pimp" their heroines by tacitly promising something in the way of sexuality. When I see a film advertised with a hot male lead and a hot female lead, I expect some steam from it and perhaps some titties. I think Cronenberg hinted at a possible romantic direction between Nikolai and Anna, but intentionally kept Anna in all her warm clothing.

I think the film was expertly directed and gorgeous, as well as being very concise as a vehicle for these various confrontations with his mainstream audience. It's possible that I'm giving him too much credit, but I hesitate to assume that these aspects were not deliberate. Working them into a film with huge mainstream appeal is far more aggressive than essentially preaching to the choir in a film that will either be seen only by intelligent cinephiles, or one whose message will only be gleaned by intelligent cinephiles. The audience I watched this with that covered their eyes and groaned during the killings, and giggled nervously when Viggo's balls were visible, indicates to me that Cronenberg is preaching his message, at the very least, in the appropriate vehicle.

[David Ehrenstein]

I may misunderstand you, but I think Nikolai's orientation is irrelevant to my impression of the bath house scene's intent

Well you do misunderstand me because I wansn't talking about the bathhouse scene as having any bearing on Nikolai's orientation. It has to do with all his other scenes -- how he behaves with his bosses, how he behaves with Kirill, and how he behaves with Anna (Naomi Watts.)

It's possible to be gay and fully clothed.

He as in intensely guarded character, full of secrets. Self-preservation is first and foremost on his mind but Cronenberg is far from a superficial filmmaker. Nothing in any of his films is ever quite what it seems -- in a seemingly 'realistic" film like this one more than ever.

[Stagger Lee]

Well you do misunderstand me because I wan\sn't talking about the bathhouse scene as having any bearing on Nikolai's orientation. It has to do with all his other scenes -- how he behaves with his bosses, how he behaves with Kirill, and how he behaves with Anna (Naomi Watts.)

I apologize for mistaking you, but I'm afraid I am still not catching your point. I didn't consider that scene relevant to his orientation either, but even the other scenes do not seem to indicate that he was actually gay.

Spoiler

We learn late in the film that there's another reason he was hesitant to have sex with the hooker; the same revelation also gives him reason not to resist Kirill's suppressed but subtly visible attraction. In the final scene with Anna, when Nikolai has no reason to hide anything, we see the sole romantic moment in the film.

I hope I am not still on a completely different page.

It's possible to be gay and fully clothed.

True! I only meant to point out the embarrassment of the audience at seeing a naked man from many different angles. What is relevant to this particular scene's impact is the audience's discomfort with male nudity.

He as in intensely guarded character, full of secrets. Sefl-preservation is first and foremost on his mind but Cronenberg is far from a superficial filmmaker. Nothing in any of his films is ever quite what it seems -- in a seemingly 'realistic" film like this one more than ever.

I agree completely, and I think your last sentence expresses exactly why this film feels like a very strong success to me.

[Barmy]

I saw this for a second time and felt more relaxed about its weaknesses. Yes, the script is dire, but Viggo gives a great perf and the lighting and overall cinematography are stunning.

But in what way is this film "subversive"? Although it may not have been intended as such, the bath scene reeks of "publicity stunt". Entertainment Weekly gave a lot of coverage to this film last week, and followed up this week with a lengthy investigative piece on the history of nude fighting, lumping EP in with Borat and Women in Love. And my audience laughed and cheered at the eye gouging, a narratively unnecessary bit that was the equivalent of a silly "witticism". (A neighbor chortled: "I bet he didn't see that coming!") No squirming in NYC, at least.

At a bare minimum the publicity for NudeViggo must have put at least an extra US$1,000,000 of asses on seats this weekend.

[David Ehrenstein]

the other scenes do not seem to indicate that he was actually gay.

No they don't, but I was mentioning it in that there's no reason why he couldn't have been. All the emphasis is on Kirill who is thought of by the other characters as gay and is concerned (or what degree of authenticity it's hard to say) that Nikolai isn't gay. Of course he could very well be getting off on watching Nikolai bugger the prostitute, but that's all up in the air.

What is relevant to this particular scene's impact is the audience's discomfort with male nudity.

Which audience?

I for one am scarcely discomfited by the sight of a stark naked Viggo (hubba-hubba!)

At a bare minimum the publicity for NudeViggo must have put at least an extra US$1,000,000 of asses on seats this weekend.

It's called "giving the public what it wants."

[Mr Sausage]

At a bare minimum the publicity for NudeViggo must have put at least an extra US$1,000,000 of asses on seats this weekend.

With all the undue publicity and shallow pleasure associated with celebrity nudity, I'd like to think Cronenberg felt he was being just a bit cheeky by associating it with the most gruesome and savage violence.


On another note, I felt early on that Kiril was gay, and as such his destructive behaviour--his drinking, his loutishness, his desire to control subordinates--was the result of the conflict of being gay within a subculture, and within a familial and social context, where such an identity is condemning. I actually feel sorry for Kiril, since he seems, despite it all, to possess an over-sensitive character, which comes out (in hard contrast to his father) in the scene with the baby. Notice that Kiril's boisterous demeanor, which we first understand as an inherent part of his character, becomes in this scene a clear defense mechanism to pain, given how quickly he adopts it after his very sincere emotions over the baby. In which case the claim that Vincent Cassell is over-acting is unjust, since it is really the character who is over-acting, or more accurately, overcompensating.

As to Nikolai, I hesitate to say he is homosexual, but I love the suggestion that, if he is not gay, he is at least partly reciprocating Kiril's barely concealed feelings as a way to further infiltrate the Russian mob. But he has clearly not engaged in any overt sexual acts with Kiril since that renders certain scenes between the two nonsensical (like when Kiril, at the height of his sexual excitement, demands to observe Nikolai in a sexual situation, but uses homophobia to disguise what is nevertheless obvious about this demand).

I did find the plot of the movie lacked drive, but this was only apparent after the movie was over since its strengths--the authenticity of its mood and situations, the interesting and vivid characterizations, and the generally engaging world it constructs--make up for this nicely.

[Stagger Lee]

Which audience?

I for one am scarcely discomfited by the sight of a stark naked Viggo

Of course you aren't! Because of the film's deliberate appeal to the mainstream, its success as a confrontation of the exploitative conventions of mainstream movies must be judged by its effect on a mainstream audience. In other words, not you.

Well-stated points, Mr_sausage.