My thoughts on Eastern Promises
March 31st 2008 13:05
Could you talk about the violence [in Eastern Promises]?
- David Cronenberg, interrupting himself whilst on discussing the relationships in the film.
I won’t be talking about the violence - there are enough reviews and analyses that do that. I’m here to discuss the things I actually found interesting, and the moody, gritty realism of the piece or its dependence on blood for a story-point don’t hold my attention longer than it takes to disdain them and hope for something better to fill their place. I’m in no way interested in stomaching everything that this movie has to offer, and will happily celebrate my schizophrenic approach to it.
Anyway, so… I don’t think I’ve mentioned it before, but I love it when actors take on characters that require them to alter their accent. I think it’s very interesting to observe this exchange of cultures – it says a lot about the actor’s native culture as well as the culture they are trying to take on. Speech is just another part of body language, if you like (body language just an extension of lingual mechanics), and appropriating different modes of speaking leads to a different state of mind. Speech deconstructs gestures, facial expressions and body movements, like the melody works off the drums and bass in a song. Performances are often not just nationally confined, but vary from region to region. When speaking in a way you aren’t accustomed to for an extended period of time you need to pronounce certain actions and marginalise others, rework your instincts and create a new for of 'natural'. I think an accent is often made more interesting when spoken by someone to whom it is not native, as they bring out different notes in the speech, unprecedented undertones and fiddle around with how it affects the rest of their demeanour in a way that defies the norm.
I had Eastern Promises on my radar since its presence was announced on imdb.com, since two of my favourite actors, Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts, were to be involved. Luckily for me, they were both adopting a new accent for their roles. While Naomi has links to England, having been born there, she has an Australian accent, so there was a coach on the set to assist her… I think I can still pick up a bit of Australianness in Naomi’s accent, but it does sound predominantly English, so well done. As for American and multi-lingual Viggo (he speaks Spanish and Danish fluently and is good at Italian, French, Swedish and Norwegian), he had to speak in Russian, Ukranian and take on a Russian-influenced English accent. Apart from some slight emphasis issues, I think he is brilliant in his role. He traveled to Russia before the shoot and would listen to audio of Russian in his spare time, and he even picked it up by the end of all this training. I do, however, take issue with his detachment. Russian people tend to be pretty all-or-nothing. Also, he cannot completely mask his inner mildness. He may put out cigarettes with his tongue and swill drinks, but when he delicately raises a thin eyebrow or slightly tilts his head, the subtlety floods his performance and I think of Viggo the artist, poet, painter and publisher.
I highly enjoyed the kiss between the two, a memorably tender exchange despite the fear and brutality that permeate the film.
But for me the most complicated relationship in the film, erotic and otherwise, was the one between Kirill (played by Vincent Cassel) and Nikolai. One of the most interesting things about it is that Kirill’s attraction to Nikolai, and his refusal to acknowledge it, are in the script. When he forces Nikolai to have a sexual exchange with one of the sex slaves in their private domain, it’s ‘lust and drunken jealousy’ that he is experiencing as he watches on. When Nikolai and Anna approach him in his final scene, he ‘stares at the man he loves’. As my friend Debra phrased it, the gay content is not actually subtext this time. It’s all on the surface, if you’re perceptive enough to pick up on it. Not that I haven’t seen representations of gay men before (there are many, if not enough for my satisfaction), but it’s a rare movie that explores Russian homosexuality, or homosexuality in mafia members. This one does both, so I can forgive it for providing cinematic history with yet another villainous gay person. I had almost forgotten about that subculture of men who are so infatuated with hate that it rules their lives.
According to David Cronenberg, Vincent Cassel initially approached Viggo’s Nikolai as more of a father figure, but as they created the characters, the dynamic turned out more flirty. David also finds that Nikolai’s affection towards Kirill could either be genuine or put on. Viggo does a wonderful job of representing someone who is not afraid of practicing the art of manipulative seduction, despite (or perhaps because of?) what he is feeling. The actor has commented that he thoroughly understands Nikolai’s motivations (overall), but he’s not going to share any of his insights into him with the audience. The dynamic between the two characters left me thinking about what would happen between them in the future. How far Kirill would let himself experience his attraction, and on what level Nikolai would indulge his volatile partner-in-'law''s secret desires so as to earn greater mastery over him?
I’ve found some good fan fiction on the Nikolai/Kirill pairing, if you're interested.
Updated: Here is a more in-depth analysis of the treatment of Kirill's sexuality than mine.
Updated further: I was reading posts on Viggo-Works and one very astute reader described the way Nikolai addressed Kirill in the scene depicted above as 'father to son, brother to brother, lover to lover'. I think this represents the multitude of roles Nikolai assumes in Kirill's life, his need to all-encompassing to him. It makes me think about relationships in Eastern Europe, where people often do not find fulfilling relationships in their families, and often one person is seen as the substitute for those kinds of relationships. The heterogeneity of the bond makes it a very powerful, tenacious one. As someone else on the forums pointed out, the two characters contrast each other very well, with Kirill being explosive, out of control and unaware, while Nikolai keeps his emotions tightly under wraps, is always in control and is able to manipulate everyone around him due to his insight into human psychology.
- David Cronenberg, interrupting himself whilst on discussing the relationships in the film.
I won’t be talking about the violence - there are enough reviews and analyses that do that. I’m here to discuss the things I actually found interesting, and the moody, gritty realism of the piece or its dependence on blood for a story-point don’t hold my attention longer than it takes to disdain them and hope for something better to fill their place. I’m in no way interested in stomaching everything that this movie has to offer, and will happily celebrate my schizophrenic approach to it.
Anyway, so… I don’t think I’ve mentioned it before, but I love it when actors take on characters that require them to alter their accent. I think it’s very interesting to observe this exchange of cultures – it says a lot about the actor’s native culture as well as the culture they are trying to take on. Speech is just another part of body language, if you like (body language just an extension of lingual mechanics), and appropriating different modes of speaking leads to a different state of mind. Speech deconstructs gestures, facial expressions and body movements, like the melody works off the drums and bass in a song. Performances are often not just nationally confined, but vary from region to region. When speaking in a way you aren’t accustomed to for an extended period of time you need to pronounce certain actions and marginalise others, rework your instincts and create a new for of 'natural'. I think an accent is often made more interesting when spoken by someone to whom it is not native, as they bring out different notes in the speech, unprecedented undertones and fiddle around with how it affects the rest of their demeanour in a way that defies the norm.
I had Eastern Promises on my radar since its presence was announced on imdb.com, since two of my favourite actors, Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts, were to be involved. Luckily for me, they were both adopting a new accent for their roles. While Naomi has links to England, having been born there, she has an Australian accent, so there was a coach on the set to assist her… I think I can still pick up a bit of Australianness in Naomi’s accent, but it does sound predominantly English, so well done. As for American and multi-lingual Viggo (he speaks Spanish and Danish fluently and is good at Italian, French, Swedish and Norwegian), he had to speak in Russian, Ukranian and take on a Russian-influenced English accent. Apart from some slight emphasis issues, I think he is brilliant in his role. He traveled to Russia before the shoot and would listen to audio of Russian in his spare time, and he even picked it up by the end of all this training. I do, however, take issue with his detachment. Russian people tend to be pretty all-or-nothing. Also, he cannot completely mask his inner mildness. He may put out cigarettes with his tongue and swill drinks, but when he delicately raises a thin eyebrow or slightly tilts his head, the subtlety floods his performance and I think of Viggo the artist, poet, painter and publisher.
I highly enjoyed the kiss between the two, a memorably tender exchange despite the fear and brutality that permeate the film.
But for me the most complicated relationship in the film, erotic and otherwise, was the one between Kirill (played by Vincent Cassel) and Nikolai. One of the most interesting things about it is that Kirill’s attraction to Nikolai, and his refusal to acknowledge it, are in the script. When he forces Nikolai to have a sexual exchange with one of the sex slaves in their private domain, it’s ‘lust and drunken jealousy’ that he is experiencing as he watches on. When Nikolai and Anna approach him in his final scene, he ‘stares at the man he loves’. As my friend Debra phrased it, the gay content is not actually subtext this time. It’s all on the surface, if you’re perceptive enough to pick up on it. Not that I haven’t seen representations of gay men before (there are many, if not enough for my satisfaction), but it’s a rare movie that explores Russian homosexuality, or homosexuality in mafia members. This one does both, so I can forgive it for providing cinematic history with yet another villainous gay person. I had almost forgotten about that subculture of men who are so infatuated with hate that it rules their lives.
Nikolai turning on the charm - note how the lighting is darker here than it is above with Anna, though it's part of the same scene
According to David Cronenberg, Vincent Cassel initially approached Viggo’s Nikolai as more of a father figure, but as they created the characters, the dynamic turned out more flirty. David also finds that Nikolai’s affection towards Kirill could either be genuine or put on. Viggo does a wonderful job of representing someone who is not afraid of practicing the art of manipulative seduction, despite (or perhaps because of?) what he is feeling. The actor has commented that he thoroughly understands Nikolai’s motivations (overall), but he’s not going to share any of his insights into him with the audience. The dynamic between the two characters left me thinking about what would happen between them in the future. How far Kirill would let himself experience his attraction, and on what level Nikolai would indulge his volatile partner-in-'law''s secret desires so as to earn greater mastery over him?
I’ve found some good fan fiction on the Nikolai/Kirill pairing, if you're interested.
Updated: Here is a more in-depth analysis of the treatment of Kirill's sexuality than mine.
Updated further: I was reading posts on Viggo-Works and one very astute reader described the way Nikolai addressed Kirill in the scene depicted above as 'father to son, brother to brother, lover to lover'. I think this represents the multitude of roles Nikolai assumes in Kirill's life, his need to all-encompassing to him. It makes me think about relationships in Eastern Europe, where people often do not find fulfilling relationships in their families, and often one person is seen as the substitute for those kinds of relationships. The heterogeneity of the bond makes it a very powerful, tenacious one. As someone else on the forums pointed out, the two characters contrast each other very well, with Kirill being explosive, out of control and unaware, while Nikolai keeps his emotions tightly under wraps, is always in control and is able to manipulate everyone around him due to his insight into human psychology.
| 41 |
| Vote |
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More
