![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockAs I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish I wish he'd go away.
I watched Identity tonight.
That is some twisting fucked up shit.---- Let's do it again!
Man, this makes the Matrix 2 look so bad. Speaking of summer movies that I missed in Theaters and watched on DVD, I mean. This was a cool movie, and I'm glad no one spoiled it for me before hand, because it really would have killed the experience.
Just for general knowledge, I like twisted movies. Memento. Fight Club. Se7en. Donnie Darko. The Ususal Suspects. The Sixth Sense. I dig them. I can cheerfully add Identity to that list now.
Identity takes nearly every cliche of murder-slasher movies imaginable, dumps them on you, and then turns everything sideways and four feet to left, so that nothing is what is seems, as cliche as even that sounds. This movie takes that to the extreme, and it's gloriously outrageously fucked. Also, creepy.
And now here we go onto the sticky, dirty, evil parts.
I KNEW it was the kid! Well, I mean, I didn't , but about half way through my mom and brother were saying "It's a supernatural thing," and I said "Maybe the little kid's a demon."
I love how this movie plays out, how everything seems to be a classic slasher movie, and then it's not. I love the title, because that's what it really is ALL about. And not in the normal horror-movie way of having the killer be in disguise. Because I'm a geek now who likes to analyze movies, let's count the times the theme of "identity" is used or changed for the effort of confusing or enlightening the audience:
Who we assume is the hotel manager, is not, but they're both the same name.
Who we assume is the boy's father, is actually his step-father.
Who we assume is just a rich woman, is recongized/revealed as an ex-actress.
Who we assume are boyfriend and girlfriend, are actually married, and expected parents--- oops, wait, no they're not.
Who we assume is the driver, is an ex-cop.
Who we assume is the "irredeemable whore," is a person with dreams who is going to be a farmer if she survives the night.
Who we think is the movie-killer is not.
Who we think is the killer-on-trial is not.
Who we think is the cop is also a killer, but not, as we think later, the movie-killer.
The people are born on the same day, therefore are the same "person."
The boy is not a boy but also the killer, and the mental representation of the child the killer used to be-- and, just as the killer witnessed his family murdered at a young age, so does the boy witness his family die... except of course we later learn that he killed them, so even that identity of innocence is switched.
I loved Larry's despcription of taking over the manager's job after finding his body. That was funny, funny, shit for being so macabre subject matter. It was morbid, but god it was funny. "So I moved him---his name was Larry too. I put him in the freezer. I wasn't trying to hide him. It was hot out. I- I figured it was the best place for him till his family or someone to came...only no one did. Only more guests. So I kept checking them in. They seemed pretty happy about it." ::falls into giggle fit.:: I should write down that whole conversation and make it into a crossover icon for something. Maybe Giles behind the counter of the Magic Box, or Clem or something.
Larry was my favorite character in this movie. He was just so funny and pathetic. "What do we have in common?
"We're all in Nevada."
The most surprising switch-- that of the group of random hotel customers being all an illusion inside the mind of the killer, and the deaths being the final showdown between the multiple personalities-- was a completely new idea to me, not something I'd seen done exactly that way before. This movie simultaneously gives you ever cliche imaginable, and in another way creates something totally, utterly original. evne the "identity" of the genre of this movie is an illusion-- this is not a film about a murder spree at a hotel, as you think at first; it's a film about the battle of control of the mind of one man before his execution. Completely different stories, taking place at the same time. An impressive feat.
Another interesting thing was that the doctor in "real" part of the movie, at the legal conference, said that they gave the killer medication so that his identities would confront each other. And besides the obvious way of them all arriving at the hotel at the same time, each character's back-story involves a recent "coming together": the two young people got married (join together) only 9 hours before hand. The driver wasn't a driver always-- he only later became that. The step father joined the family, wasn't part of it the whole time. Larry came to the hotel and took over, he wasn't the original. Them came together in other ways before coming together in the obvious way of the motel.
Besides the overall cleverness, simply having the murder spree be a mental dellusion is a comment in itself about the genre itself. Because they took all these cliches of famous horror movies and stories [stormy night, rain, power loss, a group of strangers each from very different backgrounds so you have a collection of "types", the msyterious connection between them all, the woman hiding from the killer in the bathroom (anyone seen The Shining?), the first victim being the jerk who wanders off alone for shallow reasons, the semi-psychic innocent, the child, the person of social authority], and then they said "It's all fake." It's a comment on the whole genre of slasher murder/mystery films of this type. This movie basically says that the only way you could ever have 10 people of these outrageous stereotypes with the same birthday all come together and get stuck in a storm and then there just happens to be a killer among them who starts murdering and leaving evidence everywhere... is if it was in a madman's head. Because this kind of situation is so unlikely it's absurd, when you actually think about it.
And yet-- isn't that the exact situation so many horror movies are about? The genre is embraced in this film, and then it's inherent absurdity and unrealness is revealed in a very literal way. Indentity says to the slasher/horror film genre what Dogma said about Catholicism: We mock because we love.
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today,
I wish I wish he'd go away.
I watched Identity tonight.
That is some twisting fucked up shit.---- Let's do it again!
Man, this makes the Matrix 2 look so bad. Speaking of summer movies that I missed in Theaters and watched on DVD, I mean. This was a cool movie, and I'm glad no one spoiled it for me before hand, because it really would have killed the experience.
Just for general knowledge, I like twisted movies. Memento. Fight Club. Se7en. Donnie Darko. The Ususal Suspects. The Sixth Sense. I dig them. I can cheerfully add Identity to that list now.
Identity takes nearly every cliche of murder-slasher movies imaginable, dumps them on you, and then turns everything sideways and four feet to left, so that nothing is what is seems, as cliche as even that sounds. This movie takes that to the extreme, and it's gloriously outrageously fucked. Also, creepy.
And now here we go onto the sticky, dirty, evil parts.
I KNEW it was the kid! Well, I mean, I didn't , but about half way through my mom and brother were saying "It's a supernatural thing," and I said "Maybe the little kid's a demon."
I love how this movie plays out, how everything seems to be a classic slasher movie, and then it's not. I love the title, because that's what it really is ALL about. And not in the normal horror-movie way of having the killer be in disguise. Because I'm a geek now who likes to analyze movies, let's count the times the theme of "identity" is used or changed for the effort of confusing or enlightening the audience:
Who we assume is the hotel manager, is not, but they're both the same name.
Who we assume is the boy's father, is actually his step-father.
Who we assume is just a rich woman, is recongized/revealed as an ex-actress.
Who we assume are boyfriend and girlfriend, are actually married, and expected parents--- oops, wait, no they're not.
Who we assume is the driver, is an ex-cop.
Who we assume is the "irredeemable whore," is a person with dreams who is going to be a farmer if she survives the night.
Who we think is the movie-killer is not.
Who we think is the killer-on-trial is not.
Who we think is the cop is also a killer, but not, as we think later, the movie-killer.
The people are born on the same day, therefore are the same "person."
The boy is not a boy but also the killer, and the mental representation of the child the killer used to be-- and, just as the killer witnessed his family murdered at a young age, so does the boy witness his family die... except of course we later learn that he killed them, so even that identity of innocence is switched.
I loved Larry's despcription of taking over the manager's job after finding his body. That was funny, funny, shit for being so macabre subject matter. It was morbid, but god it was funny. "So I moved him---his name was Larry too. I put him in the freezer. I wasn't trying to hide him. It was hot out. I- I figured it was the best place for him till his family or someone to came...only no one did. Only more guests. So I kept checking them in. They seemed pretty happy about it." ::falls into giggle fit.:: I should write down that whole conversation and make it into a crossover icon for something. Maybe Giles behind the counter of the Magic Box, or Clem or something.
Larry was my favorite character in this movie. He was just so funny and pathetic. "What do we have in common?
"We're all in Nevada."
The most surprising switch-- that of the group of random hotel customers being all an illusion inside the mind of the killer, and the deaths being the final showdown between the multiple personalities-- was a completely new idea to me, not something I'd seen done exactly that way before. This movie simultaneously gives you ever cliche imaginable, and in another way creates something totally, utterly original. evne the "identity" of the genre of this movie is an illusion-- this is not a film about a murder spree at a hotel, as you think at first; it's a film about the battle of control of the mind of one man before his execution. Completely different stories, taking place at the same time. An impressive feat.
Another interesting thing was that the doctor in "real" part of the movie, at the legal conference, said that they gave the killer medication so that his identities would confront each other. And besides the obvious way of them all arriving at the hotel at the same time, each character's back-story involves a recent "coming together": the two young people got married (join together) only 9 hours before hand. The driver wasn't a driver always-- he only later became that. The step father joined the family, wasn't part of it the whole time. Larry came to the hotel and took over, he wasn't the original. Them came together in other ways before coming together in the obvious way of the motel.
Besides the overall cleverness, simply having the murder spree be a mental dellusion is a comment in itself about the genre itself. Because they took all these cliches of famous horror movies and stories [stormy night, rain, power loss, a group of strangers each from very different backgrounds so you have a collection of "types", the msyterious connection between them all, the woman hiding from the killer in the bathroom (anyone seen The Shining?), the first victim being the jerk who wanders off alone for shallow reasons, the semi-psychic innocent, the child, the person of social authority], and then they said "It's all fake." It's a comment on the whole genre of slasher murder/mystery films of this type. This movie basically says that the only way you could ever have 10 people of these outrageous stereotypes with the same birthday all come together and get stuck in a storm and then there just happens to be a killer among them who starts murdering and leaving evidence everywhere... is if it was in a madman's head. Because this kind of situation is so unlikely it's absurd, when you actually think about it.
And yet-- isn't that the exact situation so many horror movies are about? The genre is embraced in this film, and then it's inherent absurdity and unrealness is revealed in a very literal way. Indentity says to the slasher/horror film genre what Dogma said about Catholicism: We mock because we love.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-21 09:28 pm (UTC)I loved the Ten Little Indians tie-in, I lovelovelove that nursery rhyme in the beginning. Thanks, actually, for writing it down because I've been trying to remember the exact words ever since I saw the film. I never heard it as a child, and when it was first said in the movie it gave me the chills.
Your analysis of how identity is used and the mockage of the horror was enlightening as well, a bunch of it I never had thought of.
I think the best line in the movie has to be "Whores don't get a second chance!" It's just TOO. FUNNY.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-21 10:26 pm (UTC)I loved that book tie-in too! Probably because And Then There Were None (the original title of the book in its first release) is still the only Agatha Christy mystery I've ever read. I liked it though.
Oh, and I'm going to change the second and last line on the poem in my journal, I think I got it wrong. Here's what it was in the movie:
As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish I wish he'd go away
Here's how it is on the internet version I used for my journal:
Yesterday upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh I wish I wish he'd stay away.
I'm inclined to think that the movie version was the correct one, simply because people research this kind of thing.