I like stylish and convincing noir films, unlike film Derek Malcolm I found ‘The Killer Inside Me’ neither. Nor would I describe it as a ‘serious film – a haiku of despair‘. The film is based on Jim Thompson’s pulp fiction of the same name (he too wrote ‘The Grifters’) and I first heard about regarding this film a couple of months ago. I decided to see it, to make up my own mind. I had read Rachel Cooke’s and Natasha Walter’s reviews.
This could have been a fascinating illustration of the small town mentality, where everyone has murderous secrets, skeletons in the closet, a snakepit of a town where people are poisoned by their own venomous ways, and seemingly the deputy sheriff, Lou Ford, is the antidote to this venom, a man who seems good and not like your average killer. But the viewer knows what he is and that he too has his own murderous secrets. A town that sees a corrupt construction builder who rules the town, a corrupt union official and other small town crimes. A sheriff like Bob Maples who drinks himself into a stupor. Winterbottom could have created a politically insightful film that attempts to understand the mind of young, brash, deputy sheriff Ford. Indeed it is very interesting that nobody really has Ford down as a murderous psychopath, instead his caring and considerate behaviour makes people, fatally for some, trust him and that’s how he traps people. But instead of trying to unravel the complexity of small town life, and what kind of material conditions creates someone like Ford, Winterbottom concentrates on Ford’s relationships between the 3 women in his life Joyce, Amy and his mother. Ford is told by his boss to run local prostitute, Joyce, out of town. Joyce who knows the vices and needs of the local men and their secrets and lives on the margins of the town and society, a case of out of sight out of mind. When he visits her she attacks him, Ford whips her. The camera pans in on Amy’s face that goes from fear to enjoyment. He stops and apologies, she embraces him. This was the first of many unnerving scenes that made me angry. More intent than content, that woman really enjoys being roughed up.
Winterbottom blurs the distinction between abuse and consent. Joyce’s character is built up as someone who enjoys submissive sex, and part of the narrative with a man in a very powerful position. Ford then discovers that Joyce is having an affair with Elmer Conway (the construction builder’s son) who genuinely, it seems, has feelings for Amy. Because of the secrets and lies that persist, and the viewer is shown the underbelly of this society, it is all hidden therefore Lou can manipulate the situation for his own gain, advantage and more importantly, ‘settle some scores’ (his brother died on a construction site own by Chester Conway… murder or accident..that is left open). The ‘score settling’ culminates with Elmer being set up by Lou after he beats Joyce to a pulp while saying in his Texan drawl, ‘sorry’… And this scene (though the later one with Amy’s death is just as shocking and needless) is where the viewer gets to witness the full throttle of Lou’s violent misogyny.
But why does Winterbottom have to linger on this scene, a protracted scene of utter violence, where the viewer witnesses and hears every bone crunching detail? The violence Lou dishes out to men is usually quick, restrained and off camera (the ‘suicide’ of Johnnie where Lou walks out of the cell, with a fixed stare at the camera that turns into a grin says it all in much more potent way) while the violence against women is long and, gratuitous. Is it necessary, is it part of the narrative? I agree with Rachel Cooke when she writes that Winterbottom ruins the film by using the violence as a distraction (“The violence is a bloody blot on an otherwise beautiful canvas”.) And yes, Casey Affleck’s performance is mesmerising and believable but the whole film collapses…needlessly… with this violence. We know what Lou is capable but do we need to see and hear the level of violence?
Another critic, Stephen Dalton, believes critics have confused content for intent? But is that the case? Is Winterbottom confusing content for intent? He explains the level of graphic violence towards Amy and Joyce, “It’s more moral to make it unwatchable.” What does that precisely mean? The women characters aren’t created in the same dynamic as the male characters, there is more dimension to the male characters while Amy and Joyce are there mainly to sexually satisfy Lou (I don’t think I saw Amy or Joyce fully clothed in more than one scene). Again, a similar theme throughout the film is Lou’s enjoyment of sexual sadism with ‘willing’ women like Amy and Joyce. Lou, we find out through flashbacks, sexually abused a child. His brother took the blame. Lou went on to become the deputy sheriff. What also unnerved me was Joyce being built up as this character who likes it rough and therefore the vicious beating is an extension of her enjoyment of submissive sex… Is that what Winterbottom is saying? And sometimes violence is necessary in putting your cinematic point across, having something that is an integral part of the storyline, but the graphic violence towards Amy and Joyce said nothing except gratuitous voyeurism where the viewer is meant to sit and watch the unwatchable, does turning away make it more moral? One person’s moral another’s vicarious catharsis?
It does lead me to another central question, what makes Lou Ford into a killer? We witness various flashbacks to his childhood, ones that show his mother lying on bed bruised and inviting Lou to beat her, another scene showing Lou attacking her. His mother in both scenes seemingly enjoying the violence. What is Winterbottom saying, his mother’s enjoyment of sexual sadism and violence sowed the seeds for his misogyny? Women really do enjoy it rough, consent and non-consent blur into one? Violence is romanticised and normalised. It is all his mother’s fault? Along, there is an emphasis on his mother’s presence yet no mention or sight of his father. Interesting as well where the camera scans Lou’s book collection with it stopping at Freud and the Holy Bible.
To compare this film to any of the Coen brother foray into noir is unfair. Unfortunately, with Winterbottom’s film I can’t see beyond Joyce having her face pulverized by a gloved Lou or Amy, lying on the floor desperately trying to breathe after being beaten covered in her own urine whilst Lou looks on. Do we need to be reminded constantly of the level of Lou’s barbarity? The rest of the film pales into insignificance, such as Lou’s inevitable self-destruction (and Casey Affleck does create a complex character in Lou…shame about the direction), an ‘outsider’ like Howard Hendricks (Simon Baker…he of ‘The Mentalist’ fame) intent on unmasking the killer in Lou and bringing him down, and the reaction of the town (who probably know deep down what Lou is capable of). I found the ending odd, unsure whether this is meant to be a twist?
For me, this film was far too near the knuckle in its depiction of needless, brutal and senseless acts of violent misogyny, a reflection of reality. Also, male interpretation of women and sexual desire (violence is being romanticised without any discussion or understanding or insight… it did seem to hark back to the idea that women really do enjoy violence) and For what purpose? Violence can be used to express, illustrate and explain narrative, it can say something about the world we live in. And with art surely there’s a level of accountability in expressing the political intent, I couldn’t figure one out for this film. I do think it is misogyny dressed as art as I certainly can’t see a reason or moral in the story. We know Lou is a cold calculated misogynistic killer therefore why do we, the viewer, have to be part of the senseless brutality, to act as some voyeur to the violence towards Amy and Joyce? To make a film like this you need to have insight and politics, Winterbottom on this occasion seems to possess neither.
Posted by harpymarx 
