Michael

Such is the sensitive nature of child abuse andpaedophilia, one has to really question the desire to view a film that divulges the inner routines and horrors of such heinous crimes. Recent history has many examples of almost unimaginable atrocities, notably the arrest of JosefFritzl who imprisoned his daughter and repeatedly abusedher over a period of 24 years, and Natascha Kampuschwho was similarly kidnapped and kept in a cellar formore than 8 years until she escaped in 2006, have both occured in Austria. It comes as no surprise that Michael has some obvious connotations to these particular cases. Set in Austria and featuring a captor of a young boy in a soundproofed basement, Markus Schleinzer‘s debut film is aclinical, almost scientifically dissected, study of a fictionalcoercion.

wordsby

jack jones

The title character, Michael, is presentedas a placid and reserved figure, and issomeone who is as plain and boring ashis beige jumpers and Ikea furniture.He is a stark contrast to the charismatic and ultimately entertaining monsters in films such as David Fincher’s Se7en or Michael Mann’s Manhunter.

Schleinzer favours for a more calculated approach and frustratingly banal exposéof Michael and the boy’s routines. Andeven though the situation is itself fictional,

“he (Michael) is as plain and boringas his beige jumpers and ikea furniture”

the unspectacular atmosphere projectsan almost factuality of the events in amanner that are all the more disturbing and uncomfortable. In fact, the ‘every day’ordinariness of Michael is perhaps whatis so frightening because it paints a realitywithout any disguise or smoke screen.

Much like Michael Haneke’s original andUS versions of Funny Games, Michael persists in asking questions of the viewer. Schleinzer deliberately takes a non-judgmental approach and avoids any

explicit ideals he may personally hold, thus exposing the audience to their ownthoughts and feelings towards the subject.It comes as no surprise therefore to findthat Schleinzer has previously worked with Haneke as a casting director on three of his films and referenced him as an influencein the closing credits. In style Schleinzer has certainly inherited Haneke’s interest in the banality of evil but also his eye for chilling cinematography and cinematic spaces. And as a debut, you’ll be hard pressed to find one as bold as this.

“Michael is so utterly terrifying because of the way in which it avoids any preconceived notion of redemption or catharsis for the audience to feel safe or indulge in”

Much of what works in Michael is down tothe unbearable tension that Schleiznermanages to create through seeminglyinanimate sequences. Michael may be athriller but don’t expect to be suddenly thrown into a rubber burning car chaseor bone crunching fight scene. Michaelis all mood and suggestion, leaving blankspaces to be filled and fulfilled. Apart fromthe occassional shock, Michael is almostcompletely absent of anything explicit. Yet,the film remains so wholly terrifying. This is perhaps a consequence of a public consciousness when it comes to child abuse, that we automatically fill in the gaps that Michael leaves. But it is also aresult of the overall mood of the film that leaves you on edge. The opening sequence of Michael’s routine is superbly crafted, symbolising not only the boy’s imprisonment but alsohis captors. By conceiling the crime, Michael is in his own existence a trappedand impoverished being. Little is drawn outabout Michael’s background or what makes him the way he is, and Schleiznermomentarilly serves up some all too obvious signposts of what a paedophilemight be defined as. Yes, Michael is reclusive and socially inept, even at timesa repressed childlike behaviour makes

him seem mentally immature, butwouldn’t it have been more frighteningif he had been someone that doesn’ta what seems to have become a verytypical and predetermined profile? One doesn’t doubt Schleizner’s research, but perhaps by playing it so accurately andexaminatory he has missed an opportunity to offer something we haven’t seen before.

The only other noticeable mis-step the filmmakes is its misjudged use of Boney M’scover of ‘Sunny’. First we see Michael humming the tune whilst in his car aloneand as the credits roll the same musicis played out in an ironic and ultimatelyinsensitive manner. Up until this point Michael is superb in its icy cold andblank depiction of evil, was this suddenplayfulness necessary? If Schleizner hadplanned for something so crude, why not use Boney M’s ‘Daddy Cool’? Perhapsthat would have been too innapropriate?

Nevertheless, the situation in Michael is soutterly terrifying because of the way in which it avoids any preconceivednotion of redemption or catharsis for theaudience to feel safe or indulge in. Andby achieving an enduring feeling of terrorMichael is masterful.

Both Michael Fuith andyoung actor DavidRauchenberger are superb as one of themost magnetic yetuncomfortable screenduos imaginable. If you come out feeling disturbed and terrified byMichael, assume that the film has worked asthis is not an obviouslyenjoyable experience.Michael is in cinemas 2March