(Click to see the full-size image.)

(A crop of this piece.)

Karina Marandjian AKA Daunhaus’ intense, deeply visceral art, horrific and beautiful, grabs my attention as little else could. Her Website is currently under construction, but you can find her on DeviantArt.

Martyrs is one of those movies that are considered so controversial and I don’t quite understand why. Maybe that’s because I’m not fazed by anything. After watching 2008′s Deadgirl, I think I’ve plumbed the depths of exploitation that a film can indulge in (and I liked the movie). Lots of people emphasize the “gore” aspect of Martyrs for some reason, but I really don’t think the movie is that bloody, the gore isn’t even as extreme as in many mainstream movies.

This movie is a little tricky. It takes huge, drastic, nearly schizophrenic turns in plot; what’s kind of odd is that it’s sort of about three entirely different things, and sectioned into different parts. It tells the story of Lucie, the main character (during the first part of the film), who as a young girl was kidnapped and horribly abused and tortured by this married couple and escaped, permanently traumatized. She carries a sort of “ghost” around, a vicious feral woman that Lucie perceives as physically attacking her in rage, and for a while it’s hard to tell what this ghost really is, to figure out the reality. (Initially I thought that she might be the grown-up “ghost” of the little girl who was locked up and abused in that basement, that it was who Lucie would have been if she hadn’t in reality escaped; I don’t know if that makes any sense, though).

So the first part, the first path the movie takes, is about trauma and revenge against a couple of psychopathic serial killers. In the second part, the truth about the ghost woman is revealed, and the movie takes on more of a theme of psychosis, and doubt about what’s right and wrong. The rest of the movie focuses on Anna, Lucie’s best friend. Without giving too much away, the third part is about people who try to create “martyrs” in the modern age: martyr in the sense of a witness to another plane of being, not someone who sacrifices their life for their beliefs. But what happens is very specific (almost science-fiction-y), and the premise is sort of silly and ridiculous. So the plot shifts completely from the beginning to the end. And it’s not quite like anything I’ve ever seen before. As a character says in the movie, “It’s so easy to create a victim” (but not a martyr).

The opening scene of the movie I absolutely loved, and it reminded me a little of The Orphanage (which is a great horror movie). It consists of old-fashioned video clips of Lucie and Anna at the orphanage where they grew up. It shows how deeply traumatized Lucie is by the events that happened, and how Anna sort of opens her heart to the vulnerability she sees in the other girl and longs to take care of her. How they become best friends. Sadly, the rest of the movie isn’t nearly consistently as good as the beginning.

Lucie is played by the gorgeous Mylene Jampanoi (made up to look really tired and worn-out). She is captivating, with the most intense eyes, and her performance is so visceral and seemingly natural. Anna is played by Morjana Alaoui, who gives a great performance as well. That’s one of the good points about Martyrs: the really intense, visceral quality of the characters, how they sort of throw their bodies around and express their emotions so powerfully. I quite liked the first part of the movie.

I can’t really say that I don’t like the latter half of the movie, however; no, it doesn’t quite work, and it’s really pretty silly and weird, but it’s still interesting. There’s something about it that captures the attention, and the whole movie is visually interesting.

Anyway, for both those who are looking for a thrill, over-the-top horror, and who want something more interesting/intellectual/artistic in a horror movie, you’ll probably get something from Martyrs. It’s definitely memorable, at least. I can’t deny liking it quite a lot. It’s just one of those movies that stick with me, even if it’s imperfect.

7 out of 10…ish.

An hour-long surreal horror film called “Imprint” is Takashi Miike’s contribution to the Masters of Horror series. It takes place (vaguely) in 19th-century Japan, but everything is spoken in English, and it’s very sort of ahistorical; it’s much more about a modern aesthetic interpretation of the times that the story takes place in rather than any real historical basis. Based on a traditional Japanese ghost story, an older American man travels to an island, where a brothel is kept, in search of his long-lost love, Komomo, who he promised he would take away one day long ago. Once there, he meets a disfigured/beautiful prostitute who tells him the story of (and many lies about) her life and Komomo’s. The girl’s appearance/disfigurement reminds me a bit of Yotsuya Kaidan, one of my favorite ghost stories.

This movie has such beautiful visual imagery. As Miike is known for, it combines eroticism and beauty, the grotesque and the macabre: there are cringe-worthy torture scenes and the incredibly intense cruelty of characters towards one another; and beautiful, imaginative visuals and cinematography that make it impossible to resist the pull of the movie. Totally perverse. Gorgeous girls, upon which the most horrible things are inflicted, including this weird erotic/absolutely horrific rope-bondage scene, and all the while there’s that eerie stillness and somehow elegant, serene quality that sets Miike apart from other, noisier horror movie makers.

I don’t know if the story or dialogue is that great, but it should be seen just for its visual element. I love how all the other prostitutes were contrasted with the main girl by their hair (huge, stylized wigs with giant hair pins) and clothes all being red while hers were blue. I really wanted to find some good pictures from the movie, but I couldn’t, really. I particularly liked the role of the main girl (unnamed), she was so alluring, and I loved her voice. And yet she became kind of repulsive later on; beauty and repulsion are constantly mixed in the female figures in this movie.

One of the downsides is that I thought the man’s performance was kind of amateurish, rather one-sided, and his voice didn’t really fit in at all, you could barely understand him at times. He seemed more like an amateur stage actor acting with misguided gusto or something, trying to come off as enigmatic, eccentric, and haunting/haunted. The “twist” at the end is also just bizarre and silly.

Anyway, the movie holds a lot of interest for me because of its imagination, visual concepts, and quirks. I think Takashi Miike gets categorized as a “B-movie” director a lot of times (which is bizarre whenever I hear that), but for me his work has a lot of beauty, I couldn’t ever see it as somehow bad or low-quality because it’s “shocking.” I’d give the movie maybe a 7 out of 10.