Paul_Chance
The Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Posts
- 21,547
I had the movie on my "to watch" list and just watched it yesterday. As a movie, it's a great little mood piece, with a solid performance by Julie Garner (I'm a fan of hers since Ozark).I’d read about Kitty Green’s movie, Royal Hotel, but hadn’t got round to watching it until this week. We saw it over two nights, finishing last night.
It’s about two female American backpackers, who run out of cash in Australia and have to take the only jobs available, as bartenders at a remote mining community. If this set-up is seen as fanciful, it’s actually adapted from a documentary about two Finnish backpackers who had the same thing happen to them IRL, plus the director / co-writer’s own experiences.
Without getting into spoilers, the entire movie is about how women act around men and men act around women. Obviously as it’s a remote mining community, the guys are a bit rough at the edges (though not tropey IMO). Green goes out of her way to not make any of the men 2D villains. Even the most obvious “bad guy” has redeeming features and may just be misunderstood. Not understanding intention is a big theme.
Neither of the women are sure how to respond to the situation. Are some comments jokes, or are they meant to demean? Are the women in any danger, or are the guys just drunk and lonely? Is the banter and crude conversation just guys letting off steam, or something more sinister? This is compounded by cultural aspects, is this normal in Australia, when not so much in American? As if on cue for Lit, the use of the word “cunt” is one such area of potential misunderstanding.
One of the women reacts to the circumstances by shutting people out. Does that only encourage them to go at her harder, does this approach make things worse? The other embraces things and goes with the flow. Is that just asking for more of the same treatment? The movie doesn’t take sides. While the women’s growing unease is real, it’s never clear whether it is wholly warranted.
The movie is laced with a sense of dread, that the two FMCs are doomed and on a path to some awful ending. It’s almost Hitchcockian. But is that real, or their misunderstanding of how things are in this place and culture?
Taking to one side the foreign (speaking as an American) setting and the exaggerated (somewhat) behavior of the men, it resonated with me. We spend a lot of time trying to be safe. But it’s never clear if safety is best achieved by being a fun girl, or a cool bitch. Which is less likely to provoke a negative reaction? Which is less likely to lead to people misunderstanding what we want and don’t want?
In some social circumstances, it can feel like the hamster is on steroids, calibrating and recalibrating in real time.
I’m not in the least saying men are bad, or even that a significant minority are. But, you have to be careful, because a small minority are not good guys, and it’s not like they have a stamp on their forehead identifying them. Any guy might be a threat, which leads some women to often treating all new men (and some familiar ones) with some caution.
I’m not trying to demonize anyone. But if – in your writing and personal life – you want to better understand the female condition and maybe why some women (me included) react how we do here and IRL, then watch this movie.
Oh, and Julia Garner is amazing in it.
Emily
Note for Americans: I think it was free on Hulu, but I may have misremembered
Then, I read through the thread which of course went skittering off in a dozen directions. Here are my thoughts.
1. Women view and experience the world from a different perspective than men. If you give them the opportunity, they'll explain it to you. While they're doing it - don't try to fix it, don't try to right the wrong, don't try to explain what they've experienced or are experiencing - just listen, learn, and act accordingly. Ask them if there is anything you can do to support them, then take the actions necessary to support them. Do this because it's the right thing to do, not with an expectation of reward or appreciation. Take whatever steps you can to make it a better world for them. If you're in a position to teach and mentor other men, do it.
2. The movie itself is an exercise in general dread - primarily along three lines.
a. "Fear of the Strange/Different". Compare the opening scene - the two female main characters engaging in certain behavior in an urban rooftop bar and then contrast thsat behavior with their experience in the remote town/pub. In the environment they're comfortable in (the urban setting), their behavior has a certain tone. In the strange environment (the rural/remote setting) there is another tone.
b. "Fear of Rural Culture". This is a common trope in horror movies, where the emphasis on physical location serves to amplify the characters fears. As someone who was raised in a very rural setting, this always amuses me, because it's an assumption of difference that is unwarranted. I actually see and hear of it when speaking to my cohort here that were raised in a suburban/urban environment.
c. "Fear of Rural Males" - it's an interesting exploration of the trope, though, personally, I found it rather stereotypical of horror movies and certainly not reflective of rural males in my experience. (Which would be different than the experience of a stranger in the same setting.)
Then, I ran into what I considered to be am interesting part of this exploration of dread. Consider Julie Garner (Hannah's) reactions to the environment. I'd call it pretty problematic if you watch the movie and pay attention to her actions/reactions. Without giving any spoilers, simply observe how she takes actions which escalate and exacerbate problematic situations. As an ex-cop, there are multiple felonies committed in the movie - by Hannah (Julie Garner). I'll forward for your consideration this - she is actually the villain of the piece. Of all the male characters, only one commits a felony and that is directed at another of the male characters.
All in all, a good movie, and I'd recommend it. It's very nuanced and deftly done by all involved. Julie Garner's performance is amazing. She is quite the actor. Hugo Weaving is also great, though he is barely recognizable.