Entre vivos y muertos

I think it would be fair to say The Living and the Dead had me held in some sort of blind terror for more often than not. The film is so outrageous in the places it goes and the manner in which it acts when it gets there, that it's impossible to merely put aside the watching experience having seen it. The film is a freak-show, yes, of characters; visual tricks and constructed scares, but a calculated and carefully constructed one: one that I think will tap into a nerve within, whether you're a veteran of many-a horror films or not. The film is something like a little under an hour and half long, but when it had ended, felt as if it had clocked in at something like three hours; such is the grip of terror and unease I was in. Like a hypnosis session in which you're out for the count for all of about thirty minutes, but the deep-rooted places you may have been to during that time unearthing such discomfort and a sense of feeling, that the whole process feels like half a day's gone by.

The film's premise sees it set up a perilous exchange between a middle aged mother and her twenty-something son in a large, pre-modern and isolated house in the country. She's physically unwell, suffering from some sort of extreme form of M.E. whilst he's a scatty, eccentric schizophrenic whose mannerism; movements and vocal tone is wildly inconsistent and unnerving. The mother is Nancy (Fahy), the son is James (Bill) and the family name is Brocklebank; something that I think instills a certain amount of pride into the household as father and husband of the piece Donald (Lloyd-Pack) seems to furiously defend them and their right to house there by way of a number of conversations over the phone with someone. It's this someone Donald must leave the property to venture out and see, and it's from here that most of the trouble unfolds.

The film's tone is unbearably downbeat, beginning in the present tense with a greyed out Donald covered in injuries as he observes an ambulance advance down his property's long, lonely driveway towards him. His face is glum, rueful and regretful and a perfect teeing up for the events the film covers in instilling a sense that something's up: he's thinking that leaving that final time was a big mistake. In flashing back to better times, certainly the best times either of these characters find themselves in throughout the film, it's revealed Donald cared for both his wife and son accordingly; with the early exchanges coming across as calm and methodical in their feeling and construction what with static camera work and long takes. This is in stark contrast to when James takes over as the self proclaimed "man of the house", a title actor Leo Bill does well in his character's mixture of pleading and exclaiming, in what is a desperate attempt to try and prove to his parents that he's able to take on responsibility. The danger signs in this lie within the fact his strict medication diet of various pills and vaccine shots sit uneasily with the fact he's commanded by his father to hide from visitors and avoid the newspaper, instilling a certain child-like sensibility to him and acting as triggers to stoke a fire of warning.

Leo Bill plays James as a sort of pastiche of Rik Mayall's character from popular 1990's British TV show 'Bottom', only rendered schizophrenic and far more mentally ill. Early on, I wondered if the man had an agenda; whether or not he was at all homicidal and indeed hated his mother which added to an intense element of unease. As the film switches perspectives in carer, a gradual shift in emphasis onto James becomes apparent in the conventions writer/director Simon Rumley applies. In switching from a mainly static camera complete with long takes which took prior precedence, Rumley then throws sped-up footage; bizarre angles; editing as well as distorted sound effects which amalgamate to form odd music into the mix, getting across a sense of chaos and somebody seriously ill-suited for the task. Rumley's tactics of applying a disorientating and off the wall aesthetic to most of the scenes James' acts as carer beautifully but disturbingly conflicts in a highly effective manner with this large, decrepit, centuries old manor house with which you do not associate the given conventions.

There are killings in the film; somebody gets knifed and there's a fair degree of blood running on a premise that sees it bed down in one place as terror and uncanniness plays out, but don't let that lead you to think this is a Halloween sequel or some similarly underwhelming slasher film. One sequence which goes a long way in highlighting this odd combination of techniques and conventions to actually form something half-decent occurs nearer the end when, isolated and on their own, a young female supporting character creeps through the dark passages and corridors of the home unaware of what lurks around them but knowledgeable that there's a male lead, somewhere, who could very well react negatively if he sees or finds her. The whole thing is constructed like an age-old sequence in a slasher-sub genre flick, but the film sets a bar far higher. Roger Lloyd-Pack does a superb job, banishing any lingering memory you might have of him in a prior comedic role as we observe his envisaging of what might very well have gone on during his absence. Rumley's film is not all about shocks and scares; a sequence later on in which many family members have gathered in the house's main area is shot from high on up in the rafters, the camera just too embarrassed or ashamed to go to ground level and capture these people's expressions and reactions. I found The Living and the Dead to be a smart and affecting film.

I just finished watching two seasons of The Vicar of Dibley, and I thought I would see Roger Lloyd-Pack (Bartie Crouch in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) in something more serious.

He is a country gentleman whose son (Leo Bill, Alice in Wonderland, Kinky Boots) is schizophrenic and whose wife (Kate Fahy) is dying. He has to leave home, so he hires a nurse (Sarah Ball) to watch both of them.

The son locks out the nurse and cares for his mother. This proves to be extremely embarrassing to Mom. And, if two pills are prescribed, then taking a dozen or more will get you better quicker. Mom went from embarrassment to fear.

The sinking into schizophrenia is disturbing and frenetic and may upset some viewers, but it is an emotion packed film that bears watching.

Unlike the previous comment(er) on this film, I'd have to say that I quite enjoyed the film, also saw at the RFF, when quite a few people walked out. The thing is you see is that I am film fodder, and I find many things enjoyable that bemuse the people I know. This is a film that dwells on suffering, and, knowing first hand what it is like to suffer, and be around suffering, I can honestly say that the film engages the element of undue pain very well. Sometimes within films it is necessary to linger upon things for longer than some viewers would like, and this is one of those cases. I hope that the collaborators of this film will not be forced into procrastination by the previous comment(er), as I would very much like to see further works of the same mould, albeit without having to travel across the sea to view them. For most people you'll need to watch this film twice to really find the intensity that was so brilliant, there are gaps, but then again, TITANIC is the highest ever grossing film, who knows perfection?

Ignore the previous comment by 'perisho', but I would take something from the others thereafter, both positive and negative.

Firstly the negatives - yes there are gaping holes in the plot, seemingly situations that wouldn't happen, possibly too long for its plot subject. Right, the positives - great acting, good use of dialogue (often repetitive and therefore affecting), good use of ambiguity (which helps convey the mental health issues that the family have) and possibly explain the seemingly apparent plot holes (is all we see really occurring?), brilliant cinematography, and it's a brave attempt at a all too often patronised subject matter.

Furthermore, it is made on a tight budget in Britain. A rare commodity nowadays. Only a handful of directors in the UK work outside of the mainstream, and Rumley's effort should be applauded. Even the film factory that is the Hollywood machine can't achieve this level of skill (A Beautiful Mind, Rainman...please!). Only say Keane, Devil & Daniel Johnston and Julien Donkey Boy have we seen schizophrenia in the manner with which we see here. Yes, not everything works, but when it does, this film is powerful and touching as anything else in cinema dealing with mental illness.

Well done to the director and may your second feature be as strong.

This is possibly the worst film i have ever seen. I actually saw the premiere in Rotterdam Film Festival, and whilst many people walked out I stayed to the bitter end. But that was mainly because I didn't want to lose my friends. Self indulgent is a word often overused in the arts, and some of the best music and film is incredibly self indulgent, but behind that indulgence there is often genius. Unfortunately here there is nothing, not even a plot. The mistake the director Simon Rumley makes is to dwell on the suffering of the characters, all in a kind of 'gross out' adolescent way, without any insight, or any freshness. All the best films now tend not to be so mawkish, making The Living and The Dead seem like a bad student project from the 1970s. There's no lightness of touch here and no humour. Perhaps we're supposed to laugh at mentalist James in the same way we laugh at Julian Donkey Boy. But he's just not that funny and he has none of the demented hilarity of Donkey Boy. Like the rest of the cast, he's just a stereotype, an extremely annoying stereotype. All you'll learn from The Living and The Dead is that some people clearly have much more money than sense. And I'm not talking about any of the characters in the film here.