We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay, 2011)

[pzadvance]

I'm sure some critics will fawn over his icy-cold stare, meant to convey all his unfathomable depravity and hidden menace, but I honestly thought his performance was rather bland and without much depth. Rather than presenting anything novel or surprising, Miller's role functions more as a hollow imitation of what the general conception of an adolescent sociopath would be, and while that might hint at the concept of adolescent sociopaths embracing their role as a villain while believing their actions serve as performance, it's execution still feels overly contrived - basically like a mechanical impersonation of other serial-killer performances that an overly ostentatious theatre-kid would create as an emulation of a "disturbed soul". However, Miller isn't aided by the final moments of the film, which include a marginally redemptive scene (or at least an attempt at one) that robs the film of much of its intended impact, since it negates much of Eva's anguish and guilt.

Completely agree with all of this. While I was very impressed with the film overall, I was disappointed that Ramsay chose to portray Kevin as evil incarnate, with a demonic look in his eyes from the time he's a toddler. Miller is really just aping the younger Kevin's icy stare. At my screening, Ramsay told about how Miller studied the younger actor, mimicking his walk and mannerisms. The little kid said, "His Kevin swallowed my Kevin." The problem with all of that is that their is no dimensionality to the character. He's almost completely one-note, which makes the concept of "how did it come to this" far less interesting. Again though, there is a lot to admire. Swinton is amazing as usual, Ramsay's use of red is heavy-handed but effective, and the film contains some of the most wonderfully composed shots of the year.

I definitely wrestled with his performance but where I ultimately landed was that it seemed in some ways more heartbreaking that he had displayed incredibly clear signs of psychopathy from an early age and ultimately made good on that promise. Swinton's character was tuned into this from his birth but was repeatedly pressured into accepting his behavior from her husband and from various doctors. I feel like the typical reaction from a parent in this type of situation is the "I never saw it coming" approach, but this strikes me as a more tragic variation on that, since Swinton had seen it coming all along, but did nothing/was unable to prevent it.

There's also the potential interpretation that the portrayal of Kevin in this film is relative to Swinton's recollection of him, now irrevocably colored by his recent violent acts. I don't know how much there is to support this in the fabric of the film, but it's something that's occurred to me.

Without having seen "Beautiful Boy," (which ought to automatically discount what I'm about to say but allow me to indulge in assumptions if you will) from what I know of it it seems to assume the more typical approach of a sort of sustained shock and disbelief on the part of the parents. To me, the various tones employed throughout Kevin made it a hugely interesting film (it never came across as Lynne and Tilda's Somber Hour), and the portrayal of Kevin feeds into that for me.

[Andre Jurieu]

I definitely wrestled with his performance but where I ultimately landed was that it seemed in some ways more heartbreaking that he had displayed incredibly clear signs of psychopathy from an early age and ultimately made good on that promise. Swinton's character was tuned into this from his birth but was repeatedly pressured into accepting his behavior from her husband and from various doctors. I feel like the typical reaction from a parent in this type of situation is the "I never saw it coming" approach, but this strikes me as a more tragic variation on that, since Swinton had seen it coming all along, but did nothing/was unable to prevent it.

The film's approach to Kevin certainly makes Swinton's character (Eva), particularly her conflicting motivations prior to the events and her plight afterwards, far more interesting. However, in my mind, making Kevin's psychopathy so blatantly obvious to Eva, simultaneously makes Kevin rather one-dimensional and also reduces the impact of Eva's relationship with the other supporting characters in the story. Given that the signs of Kevin's disturbed nature are so incredibly clear, the film spends an inordinate amount of time almost mimicking the paranoia-plot of some sort of thriller, where the audience has every indication of something awful happening in time, while the central character experiences repeated bouts of anxiety over whether their suspicions are accurate, as well as frustration over the fact that few others will realize or acknowledge that the threat that they have identified has the potential to harm many of the other characters, especially if our central-character's suspicions continue to be ignored and discarded.

The problem with Eva serving as the only person that acts normal within this scenario, is that it basically renders her husband (and a few other observers) into a total dolt, incapable of noticing the clear symptoms that his son is exhibiting. Now, that's not to say that Reilly's performance is weak, because he executes every scene incredibly well, and you never doubt that he is a compassionate person. Unfortunately, the fact that he seems totally reasonable, intelligent, and capable within any other component of his life, makes him even more of a cad in the end, particularly given his inability to recognize obvious signs of Kevin's psychopathic nature and Kevin's rather ridiculously simple methods of manipulation. Since Eva is the only character to recognize Kevin's distressing actions, the film remains stalled as a paranoia-horror film. The only interesting twist on this tale is that Eva serves as potential source of Kevin's troublesome personality due to her disconnection with him after his birth. Nevertheless, the impact of those events is also greatly reduced because Eva appears to be forced into her constricting life due mostly to Franklin's concept of an ideal family-life.

Basically, the film falters somewhat - in my mind - because it excuses so much of Eva's behavior and choices and thereby shifts a great deal of Eva's responsibility in nurturing Kevin onto the fact that Kevin is so incredibly difficult from the beginning and the rest of the world is oblivious to Kevin's real personality. It becomes even more frustrating when we see the productive nature of Eva's relationship with her daughter and are able to contrast it with her relationship with Kevin. Now Ramsay doesn't entirely absolve Eva of of her culpability in the circumstances that lead up to the events, but she does really emphasize many of the fears (and guilt) that any mother would have regarding the parenting of a child that displays many traits of a monster, almost from the moment of conception.

In some sense, I think the impact of the film would be greater if Eva took more direct responsibility for raising Kevin, but had less of a suspicion that he possessed a monstrous-mentality. Instead, she's so disconnected and frustrated with Kevin and the lifestyle she's constricted to by her husband, to such a great extent, that it almost provides more of an excuse than an explanation.

Having said all that, the choices that Ramsay makes really does provide Swinton with a great role, where she conveys a great range of emotions through rather subtle methods and slight shifts in expression. It's kind of a frustrating circumstance, because without all the artifice of the plot and contrived nature of the supporting characters, I'm not sure Swinton's performance would be as mesmerizing.

[John Edmond]

I'd agree with everything everybody said, if the film was remotely meant to be realistic,

[zombeaner]

I'd agree with everything everybody said, if the film was remotely meant to be realistic,

This, the film is not a realist one.

[Andre Jurieu]

I'd agree with everything everybody said, if the film was remotely meant to be realistic,

Well, the film isn't exactly audaciously surreal in any notable fashion and the depicted events certainly take place in a world that closely resembles our own, so I'm not sure that Ramsay's being obvious that her film is deliberately attempting not to be realistic. In terms of style, the film is far more conventional in delivery than something like Van Sant's Elephant, which also concerns itself with similar events (though I guess one could say Elephant's straightforward delivery is what made it so unconventional). The homage to Persona is clear, but the execution of Ramsay's film is nowhere near as peculiar or striking in terms of filmmaking techniques.

Even if we assume that the depiction of the events are slightly heightened and/or exaggerated, I would hope that the characters actions, decisions, motivations, and basic interactions with one another were meant to be somewhat realistic, otherwise I'm not entirely sure why the story would be grounded in the mundane atmosphere of any North American suburb or why the events would resemble a phenomenon that has repeatedly occurred within our society over the past few decades.

There's also the potential interpretation that the portrayal of Kevin in this film is relative to Swinton's recollection of him, now irrevocably colored by his recent violent acts. I don't know how much there is to support this in the fabric of the film, but it's something that's occurred to me.

I would be more inclined to assume this perspective than to state with conviction that the film is not at all interested in being realistic. This assumption would certainly explain the inherent severity, intensity, and partiality of the perspective that the film imposes, and it could definitely provide another explanation of why the treatment and reactions that Eva suffers and endures are so harsh and relentless (for the most part).

However, that doesn't really resolve the basic problems with how the film treats any of the other supporting characters, as it actually augments the bias towards Swinton. In effect, if the film is basically composed of Eva recollection of past events and perception of current ordeals, then it's even more troubling that she remembers the events as overtly demonstrating how oblivious everyone else was to Kevin's explicit displays of disturbed and psychopathic behaviour. If we're to assume this perspective, then we're basically witnessing Eva's attempt to warp her memories in order to provide her the opportunity to take less responsibility for her ability to influence Kevin's actions, since no one else would believe her or allow her to act on her fears that Kevin was so inherently evil.

It's quite plausible that Ramsay intends for the audience to be immersed into Eva's memories and perspective, as it would be fascinating to view these events from her perspective in order to witness and comprehend the alterations that Eva needs to make to her memories of the actual events in order live with herself and come to terms with Kevin's actions. The problem, at least for me, is that Ramsay is only mildly critical of Eva (she certainly does emphasize that Eva sometime acts selfish, or distant, or cruel, but it's a very soft critique), so when Eva routinely provides herself with easy excuses for her mistakes, it rarely feels like the audience is supposed to judge her in any overly negative way. In fact, due to her fears being constantly ignored and the harsh treatment she constantly withstands, it really feels as though we are asked to not only identify with Eva's plight (which is understandable) and comprehend her circumstances (again, understandable), but also sympathize with her to a great extent, which in effect feels like an attempt to absolve her of her transgressions.

[John Edmond]

I think you've got too narrow a definition of unrealistic. You don't need overt surrealism to get there (and indeed the plausibile possibility that this is Eva's warped recollection fits under the umbrella of unrealistic). A disinterest in typical Hollywood-esque psychology also counts as does Campion-esque overly tactile/sensorial filmmaking (psychology by other means).

Spoiler

Kevin starts as an Omen boy and ends ups as a bow carrying cross between Cupid and Narcissus/a James Bidgood model; worrying about say, the reasonableness of the husband's reactions simply strikes me as missing the point. The minimum justification is provided, and that's all that's needed.

Like all of Ramsey's films this is about a perverted grieving process (and her aborted Lovely Bones would certainly have fit into that pattern) but in no way is it obliged to waste so much time explaining the unexplainable (Elephant takes the opposite approach, parodying the cause by an oversupply of explanations).

[Andre Jurieu]

I think you've got too narrow a definition of unrealistic. You don't need overt surrealism to get there (and indeed the plausibile possibility that this is Eva's warped recollection fits under the umbrella of unrealistic).

Well, I was basing a great deal of my comments upon your statement that clarified that the film was not "remotely meant to be realistic." I can certainly agree that the plausible possibility that we are immersed in Eva's warped recollection of events falls under the umbrella of being unrealistic, but I would say the application of a biased perspective only slightly alters the events we witness, considering that general narrative is still fairly conventional and remains straightforward for the most part. That essentially just makes the perspective of the film only slightly unrealistic, as opposed to completely uninterested in being realistic. So, I guess I'm saying I believe that Ramsay only applies a subtle shift of the events that merely asks us to question the validity of the scenes, rather than directly acknowledging that the proceedings have been overly influenced by Eva's viewpoint.

A disinterest in typical Hollywood-esque psychology also counts...

I'm less inclined to believe that the film avoids typical Hollywood-esque psychology, considering the dull portrait that is fashioned for Kevin, including the final scene that conveys how fragile he's suddenly become.

Spoiler

Kevin starts as an Omen boy and ends ups as a bow carrying cross between Cupid and Narcissus/a James Bidgood model

I'm also not sold on this description of Kevin, since he's stalled in the same Damien-mode for the majority of the film and any abrupt shifts in his character - while likely intentional - didn't feel as if they served any substantial purpose. I'm also wasn't all that intrigued by the image of him as Cupid and/or Narcissus as it seems rather inert and ineffective in execution, but a great deal of that has to do with the way that Ramsay chooses to shoot the scene in question.

...worrying about say, the reasonableness of the husband's reactions simply strikes me as missing the point. The minimum justification is provided, and that's all that's needed.

I think what constitutes the minimum justification is probably quite different for every viewer, but if a filmmaker makes a conscious effort to marginalize or devalue a character within their narrative, I believe a viewer has every right to evaluate the purpose of this treatment and determine not only whether it serves a greater purpose within the narrative, but also whether that creative choice is executed well.

Like all of Ramsey's films this is about a perverted grieving process (and her aborted Lovely Bones would certainly have fit into that pattern) but in no way is it obliged to waste so much time explaining the unexplainable.

First off, I actually like Ramsay's other films and I think the execution within those films is perfectly in synch with her subject matter, characters, and her personal fascinations. I actually wish she had been provided the opportunity to film Lovely Bones, as I think the nature of that narrative would have better suited her filmmaking style.

I'm also not interested in Ramsay explaining the unexplainable aspects of grieving or high-school attacks or psychopathic personalities. In fact, Ramsay is far more successful when she fully commits to being ambiguous with her style and simply conveying a sense of how her characters interact with their surroundings. In this case, what's frustrating is that she's deliberately made choices to be less-ambiguous, but she kind of concentrates her efforts in one direction, thereby weakening some of the other potential within the film. My frustrations with the film are due mostly to the lack of empathy and sensitivity (two of her stronger aspects as a filmmaker) she shows towards her supporting characters who do have a significant presence within the film. I would have almost that she rather just discard them entirely rather than allow them to appear so vapid.

Really, by having Eva's perspective dominate the viewpoint that the audience is forced to adopt, and thereby warping the depiction of the other characters so severely, Eva's own grief is actually considerably diminished because we are basically only witnessing the surface appearance of the events. I would have to say that, while it certainly enhanced my appreciation of Swinton's efforts, it kind of hindered my appreciation of Eva as a character since the perspective applied feels rather shallow or hollow.

[John Edmond]

Well, I was basing a great deal of my comments upon your statement that clarified that the film was not "remotely meant to be realistic." I can certainly agree that the plausible possibility that we are immersed in Eva's warped recollection of events falls under the umbrella of being unrealistic, but I would say the application of a biased perspective only slightly alters the events we witness, considering that general narrative is still fairly conventional and remains straightforward for the most part.

I meant narrow definition in that films can be very unrealistic in not just terms of surrealism, but also psychological motivation. Which is something that can be equally unrealistic, but less blatant in its lack of realism (which is we're having this conversation, it's far harder to prove intent). Sorry if I did not/am still not explaining myself properly.

And is the general narrative really that conventional? Even by art film standards it's fairly chopped up. For instance, take the tomato fight sequence - it's only really after the end of the film that we can presume it's a distant prologue and not a distant epilogue (a possibility encouraged by Eva's distant facial expression, the grieving seen in Morvern Callar, and by Ramsey's decision never to adjust Swinton's age in her depictions of Eva*).

I'm less inclined to believe that the film avoids typical Hollywood-esque psychology, considering the dull portrait that is fashioned for Kevin, including the final scene that conveys how fragile he's suddenly become.

If I thought we were meant to take that sequence straight I would agree with you. I’d say the possibility that Kevin is just fucking with her is strong.

In fact, Ramsay is far more successful when she fully commits to being ambiguous with her style and simply conveying a sense of how her characters interact with their surroundings. In this case, what's frustrating is that she's deliberately made choices to be less-ambiguous, but she kind of concentrates her efforts in one direction, thereby weakening some of the other potential within the film. In fact, Ramsay is far more successful when she fully commits to being ambiguous with her style and simply conveying a sense of how her characters interact with their surroundings. In this case, what's frustrating is that she's deliberately made choices to be less-ambiguous, but she kind of concentrates her efforts in one direction, thereby weakening some of the other potential within the film.

Because while it becomes less ambiguous in terms of whether Kevin is evil, it becomes more ambiguous over what it can suggest. The realistic depiction of psychology makes a tacit argument that psychology is the best framework for understanding what is being shown. By shifting to more stylised characters it allows the meaning of what is being suggested to float a bit more freely. It’s why a friend who suffered from Post-Natal Depression could see as akin to the self-aware hyperbolic fantasies/genuine fear she had**, while another friend saw it heavily in terms of Kevin’s sexual appeal***.

But you’re right, I didn’t care about the other two members. And if you want to care about them that’s a problem. But, since I didn’t care about them, I didn’t care that I didn’t care about them.

I think what constitutes the minimum justification is probably quite different for every viewer, but if a filmmaker makes a conscious effort to marginalize or devalue a character within their narrative, I believe a viewer has every right to evaluate the purpose of this treatment and determine not only whether it serves a greater purpose within the narrative, but also whether that creative choice is executed well.

Leave it at that?

* The opening of Ratcatcher and its billowing white curtains is also alluded to with the opening of We Need to Talk About Kevin.

**Tellingly her favourite moment was the jackhammer scene.

***Cough.

[Andre Jurieu]

Leave it at that?

Well, I'm probably going to look like a jerk for continuing the discussion, but I after reading your feedback I did have a few more thoughts, which I hope don't come off as pestering, because I think this exchange has been pretty productive in helping me figure out exactly what I think about the film.

I meant narrow definition in that films can be very unrealistic in not just terms of surrealism, but also psychological motivation. Which is something that can be equally unrealistic, but less blatant in its lack of realism (which is we're having this conversation, it's far harder to prove intent). Sorry if I did not/am still not explaining myself properly.

I think my issue with the film is that I don't really find that Ramsay is being unrealistic with the psychological motivations. I'm actually less interested in understanding the psychological motivations of the characters, whether authentic and accurate or ambiguous and outrageous, as I am in just having the filmmakers provide a more nuanced (not necessarily balanced) depiction of the characters. If anything, I found the psychological motivations of the characters to be kind of derivative and typical. In fact, I think my issue is that I though Ramsay alternated/waivered from being either too deliberate or too vague with her depiction of the psychological motivations of her characters.

Again, I don't really require a definitive explanation of why Kevin acts the way he does. There are certainly many films that weaken themselves by choosing to attempt to directly address motivations while examining psychopathic characters.

While abrupt inconsistencies in the behaviour of a character could be fascinating, Kevin's behaviour is so incredibly cliched and tedious throughout the movie, that his inconsistent behaviour feels almost trivial and definitely became tiresome for me - at least, during adolescence and early adulthood, because the shifts in his behaviour as a child are actually quite intriguing (again, this goes back to how pedantic I found Miller's performance to be). Perhaps more frustrating is that the other characters aren't even deemed to be important enough to display discrepancies in their behaviour and are therefore rendered stagnant, which I understand many viewers may not mind, but which I found to be kind of cruel for the filmmakers.

And is the general narrative really that conventional? Even by art film standards it's fairly chopped up. For instance, take the tomato fight sequence - it's only really after the end of the film that we can presume it's a distant prologue and not a distant epilogue (a possibility encouraged by Eva's distant facial expression, the grieving seen in Morvern Callar, and by Ramsey's decision never to adjust Swinton's age in her depictions of Eva*).

I guess, much like most of the stuff our discussion has touched upon, the determination of what classifies as conventional is relative. Personally, I think the back-and-forth chronological jumps (temporal shifting?) between scenes - while, perhaps, not a standard Hollywood blockbuster technique aimed at major multiplex masses - is used quite often nowadays, especially in any films geared towards art-house, independent, "niche" audiences.

Whenever these techniques are applied, you're bound to encounter some reveals of how scenes play differently once the audience receives more information about what we're watching. Now, unlike many other modern filmmakers who apply the technique without any real thought as to whether the manipulation of time serves any other purpose besides limiting information and creating some sort of overused "Reveal!", I think Ramsay's application of the technique here is fairly suitable to her material, since she's dealing with the extended build-up and prolonged impact of a specific event, as well as attempting to convey the permanence of guilt and grief. Yet, in terms of the actual events and scenes being chronicled within the film, as well as the routine oscillation between the past and present, the narrative within the film is pretty standard. While viewers may need to consider a few details as more of the past is revealed or ponder the reasons for certain circumstances, the actual events, when arranged in a chronological order or even when bounding back-and-forth, proceed in a resoundingly regular fashion and aren't exactly unusual at any point.

...including the final scene that conveys how fragile he's suddenly become.

If I thought we were meant to take that sequence straight I would agree with you. I’d say the possibility that Kevin is just fucking with her is strong.

It's certainly a possibility and it was something that I considered while watching that scene. However, considering Miller's performance as Kevin in every previous scene is consistency straight-forward and devoid of much subtlety, the notion that Kevin is merely manipulating Eva during those final moments isn't that strong. Throughout the film, Miller conveys Kevin's personality and mentality as lacking any real depth, so even when he's manipulating other characters, it's quite transparent. Perhaps he's perfected his craft

Spoiler

while incarcerated,

but if this possibility exists, it certainly isn't conveyed very well through the filmmaking or the performances, since the prevailing mood and tone of the scene is sincerity, in no small part because of the contrast created when comparing these concluding moments to the prior interactions between the two characters within the same setting, which were so artificially aloof. Regrettably, I would be more willing to allow for this possibility that Kevin had enhanced his technique in maneuvering, if Kevin wasn't as so cliched in prior scenes.

Now, Kevin's sudden alteration in personality and/or his new-found ability to conceal his actual psychopathic mentality within these final scenes could be explained away by the fact that we are still uncertain of the perspective of the film. I guess depending on one's interpretation of events, as well as the filmmakers' intentions, we are either still bound to Eva's viewpoint or we are no longer constricted within Eva's warped perceptions and are now actually witnessing an unbiased version of the events as they transpire. Unfortunately, that uncertainly doesn't really enhance the film in any great way, since it's completely arbitrary as to which perspective one assumes is being applied. This is essentially the fundamental weakness of assuming the filmmakers are complicating matters by shifting the perspective, without providing clear indicators, as the viewer could simply choose to alter and adopt any viewpoint for the events and the characters in order to suit their own interpretation. Hence, if one assumes that the filmmakers are subtly revising and amending the perspective, unless executed expertly and with a clear purpose in service of their goals, it isn't always audacious or courageous filmmaking, and more often than not is just sloppy and lazy.

After considering the possibility that Kevin may be manipulating the situation, I actually was slightly annoyed at my leniency, as I actually started to feel as though I was giving the filmmakers too much credit, in the misguided hope that they had constructed Kevin to be a more complex character than what had been exhibited on screen. In this case, I think my fondness for Ramsay's previous films had momentarily coloured my interpretation and somewhat hindered my ability to perceive the actual execution of the scene.

Because while it becomes less ambiguous in terms of whether Kevin is evil, it becomes more ambiguous over what it can suggest...By shifting to more stylised characters it allows the meaning of what is being suggested to float a bit more freely.

I guess I'm just not really seeing what is being suggested. In my estimation, the film isn't interested in suggesting much beyond the trauma, paranoia, alienation, constriction, shame, fear, shock, isolation, guilt, remorse, and general anguish that Eva experiences during these events. Personally, it didn't feel as if the filmmakers were interested in extending the topic beyond the repercussions upon Eva's life, and the aspects of these events that were conveyed weren't exactly novel or fascinating beyond exploring Eva's mental state and experience. In effect, other than the remarkable work that Swinton exhibited (which is also a credit to Ramsay's talents at working with her actors), I walked away from the film without obtaining any greater perspective on the topic, or being impressed with the methods by which anything was conveyed, or with any inclination to ponder the film much further.

The realistic depiction of psychology makes a tacit argument that psychology is the best framework for understanding what is being shown.

I have to be honest here - I'm uncertain why this discussion continues to return to psychology. Perhaps I'm mistakenly implying that I require Ramsay to provide us with clear psychological motivations for her characters? If so, that's really not my intention. I don't need to understand everything that motivates characters. I was simply hoping that the characters wouldn't be so predictable and banal.

It’s why a friend who suffered from Post-Natal Depression could see as akin to the self-aware hyperbolic fantasies/genuine fear she had

Which I think is a reasonable and somewhat predictable reaction considering the film is so focused on Eva's experience. But, again, the film's ability to successfully convey Eva's experience isn't really in question. Rather, its concentration upon her angle reduces the overall impact of the film in my opinion because we realize her interpretation of the surrounding characters is extreme and somewhat self-serving.

[Guido]

[John Edmond]

It feels weird defending this again; I'm not that big a fan of it. But I'm pretty sure the film is aware of its ludicrousness.

I am curious if there's a split between American and non-American viewers of the film.

Spoiler

I don't mean to be callous but outside America mass school killing are regarded equally as a gun tragedy and a form of funny Americana Kitsch. And I'm pretty sure that's the mixed angle Ramsey took to the subject (it may not be a gun shooting, but that's part of the joke).

[mfunk9786]

Huh?

[Andre Jurieu]

I am curious if there's a split between American and non-American viewers of the film.

Is the divergence in the reception of the film a function of the difference in perception between viewers residing in America and the rest of the world or is it between viewers residing in the UK as opposed to the rest of the world?

Spoiler

I don't mean to be callous but outside America mass school killing are regarded equally as a gun tragedy and a form of funny Americana Kitsch.

So... you're saying Ramsay (and the rest of the world) is also incredibly insensitive?

I don't live in America, but as a resident of a country outside the US-boarder, I have to say that I don't believe many of the people who live in this country perceive mass-school killings as anything but a tragedy (with a variety of aspects that are tragic) and we certainly don't regard it as a form of "American Kitsch". At most, I believe most people outside the US view America's collective attachment to their firearms (which is likely overblown from the reality) as a phenomenon that is specifically associated to America (again, the reality of the situation may be different). However, I doubt we would ever describe this US fascination with firearms as a form of "American Kitsch".

[MichaelB]

I am curious if there's a split between American and non-American viewers of the film.

Spoiler

I don't mean to be callous but outside America mass school killing are regarded equally as a gun tragedy and a form of funny Americana Kitsch.

Not in Scotland, believe me.

And Lynne Ramsay is Scottish.

[Oedipax]

I saw the film while I was on holiday in France and that audience was just as bummed out as you would expect. As an American I get the kitsch/Americana angle but Ramsay's film really didn't have that vibe for me apart from the Korine-aping soundtrack.

[John Edmond]

I do want to assert that I'm not trying to be callous here. Nor that overall the film isn't a downer. Kitsch I reget, I meant it more as a multiplier of Americana. And I was also thinking of Guido's kitsch picture of a gun waving family at Christmas which has inconveniently disappeared from this thread (sorry Guido).

But I still think Americana is important. Like Scotland, Australia has also experienced mass shootings, and yet when friends told me of the Norway shooting they described it as an American-style shooting, or a mass shooting, like in America. And in Australia, Norway or Scotland you couldn't make this film because the film would be referring to one specific incident, but when set in America it refers to an abstracted type of murder. This is because of the frequency of these events in America. And this frequency is because of the intersection between America's gun culture and American culture as a whole.

Spoiler

Kevin's use of a bow is a deliberately ironic choice that only properly makes sense in light of gun culture debates, the importance of guns in enabling massacres and differing countries' varying reaction to these massacres (in most countries a severe tightening of gun-ownership control; in America no change bar a general loosening of gun regulation that's been going on for decades). A bow is a comically implausible weapon. Which is why Ramsey/Shriver chose it.

[mfunk9786]

I wasn't offended by your comment, I just thought it was ridiculous. And I don't really see the humor in the whole

Spoiler

bow and arrow

thing, considering that the film presented a plausible way that someone who's very skilled could use that to pull off a pretty easy mass-murder, but okay

[oneshotmonkey]

Is the divergence in the reception of the film a function of the difference in perception between viewers residing in America and the rest of the world or is it between viewers residing in the UK as opposed to the rest of the world?

new Sight and Sound comments on this - says that the film went down badly with all but UK critics in Cannes.

But you can't blame Ramsay. Problem is, this is yet another bestselling adaptation. The new Davies is a lot better, but still disappointing - another adaptation. If they'd just let these talented directors write/select their own material we'd all be better off.

[Matt]

We're not in the Hollywood studio system circa 1940. It's not like Ramsay and Davies were assigned these films, and there's nothing wrong with adaptation when it's done well (c.f. Bresson, Kubrick, Melville, Campion, et al). It's always been harder to get an original project off the ground than an adaptation, but let's not assign blame to some nameless, faceless "they" who are holding good writer/directors back.

[MichaelB]

Almost everything that Davies has pitched in the last twenty years has been an adaptation, whether made (The Neon Bible, The House of Mirth, The Deep Blue Sea) or unmade (Sunset Song). In fact, his output essentially falls into two camps: autobiography (i.e. 'adaptations' of his own life) and literary adaptations.

And, as Matt says, countless great directors have worked mainly or exclusively from other people's literary properties - Kubrick being a particularly good example. Kurosawa is another one - he's adapted Gogol Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare and Ed McBain. Indeed, Shakespeare himself almost invariably drew on other literary sources.

[oneshotmonkey]

Davies didn't pitch The Deep Blue Sea, it was brought to him and at first he turned it down. This is after a decade of being refused funding for his own projects (ditto Ramsay).

[Shrew]

A good deal of Ramsay's downtime was because she was trying to put together an adaptation of The Lovely Bones, wasn't it?

The problem is not adaptation, which has a loooooong tradition in film (seriously, how many filmmakers can you name without an adaptation in their resume) and every art medium back to antiquity, but more a trouble of what gets adapted, who gets to do it, and how. Hence stuff like Peter Jackson's safer approach gets picked out over more idiosyncratic visions.

[oneshotmonkey]

I did say "bestselling adaptation". Imho even Kubrick's commercial adaptations (Lolita, The Shining) pale a bit next to his more artistic choices (Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut).

But yeah you're right the problem isn't adaptations per-se but the problem of projects being assigned to directors by producers or agents in a way that isn't so materially different from the 40s studio system actually. With Kevin, the Shriver original really is dreadful rubbish and Ramsay did quite a good job considering.

[MichaelB]

Davies didn't pitch The Deep Blue Sea, it was brought to him and at first he turned it down. This is after a decade of being refused funding for his own projects.

But those "own projects" were, by and large, adaptations. There was Lewis Grassic Gibbon's Sunset Song (which he still intends to make), the Ed McBain-sourced He Who Hesitates, and a film about Emily Dickinson - an original screenplay, but nonetheless based on a real person.

[Lars Von Truffaut]

Tilda on KEVIN