South Korean director Chan-wook Park is mostly known for mixing artful filmmaking techniques with violent and gory subject matter. But while his recent films like Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, and Thirst have earned him a pretty large cult following among film aficionados, he’s still not the sort of name that normal folk on this side of the world have heard of. That could be about to change though, because this film, Stoker, is his first English language film, his first movie made with Hollywood actors in the Hollywood system, and the first chance he’s really gotten to make a splash on the international scene.
Park’s getting this opportunity begs the question though, is his unique style one that’s going to be able to translate to making movies for Western audiences? Or will his style, experimentation, and penchant for lingering on disturbing violence prove to be too much for all of the everyday Joes going to see the new Nicole Kidman movie to take? The answer to that question is complex, and requires a bit of explanation. Stoker is way too strange and disturbing to play to mainstream audiences, but any worry of there being a culture divide between Park’s work and Western sensibilities can be put to rest. His artistic vision is definitely strong enough to bridge any cultural gap, and filmgoers used to indie and art house fare should have no problem getting into this film.
The basic story being told is about a mother and daughter who are dealing with the death of their husband/father, Richard Stoker (Dermot Mulroney). The mother (Nicole Kidman) is generally checked out mentally, and definitely an addict of some sort. The daughter (Mia Wasikowska) is one of those weird, indoor kids—the type that scribble in their notebooks and aren’t so good with socializing. The family isn’t coping with the death well at all, feeling more divided from one another than ever, but things take a turn for the weird when Richard’s long lost, lookalike brother Charles (Matthew Goode) shows up and moves into the house. He’s got an intimidating charisma about him, and it isn’t long before his possible hucksterism starts to have an effect on both mother and daughter alike.
The thing here that’s going to jump out right away and catch your attention is the level of Park’s craftsmanship. Stoker is just gorgeous to look at, and it’s so good at setting a mood that it can’t help but sweep you up into its world almost instantly. This is the sort of movie that’s dreamlike in its storytelling and that moves at its own pace. You have to be willing to put yourself in its hands and let it lead you along to where it wants to go, because it doesn’t unravel a story or develop its characters in any traditional way. The characters that Park gives us are blank-faced phantoms, or demons with fake smiles, and he poses them like mannequins in order to craft his scenarios. Craft being the key word. There’s nothing passive about the way Park shoots his scenes. In addition to the impeccable eye for framing a shot that he and his cinematographer, Chung-hoon Chung, display, there’s also a ton of interesting editing going on here—editing that juxtaposes long shots with closeups, that fades one image seamlessly into another. There’s one scene where Wasikowska’s character engages in a nighttime frolic in a children’s playground with a boy from school that’s just masterful in its conception and presentation. If you approach Stoker as a motion painting that’s interesting to look at rather than as some sort of scintillating murder mystery, you’ll find a lot in it to love.
The performances are a little bit more of a mixed bag. Wasikowska has been really great in everything she’s done, so I was interested to see what she was going to do here, but she ended up giving her first performance that I’ve ever had qualms with. She has moments that really grab you, sure, but generally she’s doing broad work that plays as being almost operatic. This definitely feels like a choice that she was directed toward, but it can be a bit much, nevertheless. At times it feels like she’s a disturbed character in a Tim Burton movie, but she’s existing in a world that looks like ours, at least from a production design standpoint. What she’s doing would have looked more at home set in front of expressionist sets and among characters wearing outlandish costumes.
Kidman is mostly just doing her Nicole Kidman, Ice Queen thing, and while she’s still pretty good at it, at this point it’s all starting to feel old hat. She plays characters with such little humanity—who are so difficult to sympathize with—so often, that you start to wonder if that’s all that she’s capable of. You wonder if that’s the way she really is. Softening her character a bit and giving us a reason to care for her, or at least understand why she’s so cold and distant, would have been welcome.
Goode is a completely different story though. You can’t really say that he steals the movie, because he’s in a featured role, but he’s just so slimy, charismatic, and completely creepy as Uncle Charles that none of the other performers are able to shine as long as he’s on the screen. Even if this movie comes and goes without making much money or being nominated for any awards, it’s impossible to imagine that it won’t end up doing good things for Goode’s career. He’s done strong work in things like Match Point and A Single Man before, but this is likely to be his coming out party. If there’s any reason that Stoker is a can’t miss, it’s the opportunity it provides you to take in this performance. Expect to see this guy popping up a lot more frequently from here on out.
We still haven’t completely answered the question of who’s going to like this movie and how much though. Stoker can be a difficult watch. The characters can be hard to relate to, the pacing can get frustratingly slow, and once it does start to become story-heavy in the third act—honestly—the places that it ends up going are pretty dumb. Subtly, the movie is always building up to a big revelation, but once that revelation comes, it’s about the simplest and cheesiest explanation for what’s been going on that you can imagine. Huge chunks of the film are beautiful, evocative, and completely rewarding to watch, but in the end the pieces don’t come together to form something that’s wholly satisfying. Stoker is good enough to be worth a watch, but it also can’t help but make you long for what could have been if all the skill on display was used in the service of a story and a collection of characters that actually had some humanity to them. Maybe next time.
