Showing posts with label Seven. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seven. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Article: Procedural - Cure (1997)

Some of the best horror is effective because of how the uncanny quietly seeps into the mundane. Director Kiyoshi Kurosawa is masterful in injecting the eerie into the everyday. Pulse (2001) prophesies a world of deadly loneliness and makes the loss of connection commonplace, with characters quietly succumbing to the “ghost in the machine” once the internet's grip takes hold. Creepy (2016) has its antagonist distressingly abuse the social contract of neighbours in a manner which films like Speak No Evil (2022) riffed on years later. With Creepy, hidden rooms, sedative drugs and corpses become the order of the day, simply due to discreet manipulation of people’s obligatory requirements of “being nice”. Cure (1997) was released 2 years after David Fincher’s deeply pessimistic Seven (1995). However, Kurosawa’s enigmatic feature plunges us into a discomfort that crawls deeper under the skin. The frostiness which inhabits Cure is illustrated in its “middle distance” visuals. There are rarely any close-ups employed to humanise the story’s characters. Isolation is the name of the game here. Dissociation rips through regular people in Cure with a steeper potency than the deranged pseudo-religious crimes of John Doe. The crimes in Seven can be isolated, pinpointed and despite the repercussions, somewhat contained.  In Cure, it’s suggested that transgressions that occur will have no end. That what conspires may spread like a virus, quietly destroying the unassuming nature of its victims. This leaves them with a terrifying outcome and no idea of how such violence came about.

Kenichi Takabe is a police detective who is balancing his troubled private life while trying to solve a spate of violent killings. The murders are puzzling, as each case has the perpetrators caught close to the scene with no explanation as to why they’ve committed the murders. This is despite freely confessing to their crimes with complete recollection of what they did. Takabe is fighting to crack the case while also struggling to care for his schizophrenic wife, who is slipping away from him mentally. Soon it is discovered that each killer encountered a mysterious drifter named Mamiya. Takabe slowly uncovers that Mamiya, despite his extreme short-term memory loss, is the architect of these crimes. Asking simple questions and triggers actions using the elements. Very soon, Takabe and Mamiya collide, with the mysterious nature of Mamiya’s “mission” gradually taking the detective to breaking point.

You meet an unassuming stranger, who disarms you with a series of innocuous questions which subconsciously loosen your inhibitions. Moments later, you are compelled to murder someone close to you. Something you would never consider when your civility is armoured around you. Everything you do to the person you remember, and while you were shocked at your actions, your intentions suggest it was always at the back of your mind. This hideously simple yet terrifying conceit lies within Cure, a film in which its antagonist quietly fractionates those around him through frustration, repetition, and obfuscation. Cure toys with the idea that people believe they’re more in control than they are. With the thin veneer of polite society as the one thing that stops the chaos, Mamiya’s ability to easily remove that layer of civility makes Cure terrifying. We like to believe that we have control. Even when it’s evident that we don’t. Mamiya's actions are devastatingly simple, and the menacing aspect stems from the fact that he doesn’t even seem to know himself how easy it is to arm multiple timebombs. Lit fuses that are primed for volatility because their courtesy is so neatly removed, and the last thing you would expect to be keeping you from becoming a raging killer. By removing people’s consideration for others, Mamiya unlocks a seething repression that lies within the characters. Cure proposes that this violence is always within us, and by opening them up to this brutality, it purges one's soul. They become vessels for a blank-faced missionary.

Takabe is a classic flawed protagonist. His quiet animosity towards his ailing wife, along with his frustrations on the case, slowly blend him into a dark anti-hero, a cop who’s only a couple of degrees from boiling over. The mannerisms between Takabe and Mamiya are in stark contrast, yet the motivations of both pursuer and pursued are muddied and troubling. In the scant confrontations between the two, there’s always the feeling that Mamiya’s quiet manipulation will unlock Takabe’s restrained anger. Mamiya’s mission appears to be setting people free from the restraints of society. Takabe is so tied to society through his wife and job that he’s unable to break free. Yet Kurosawa crafts the scenes of the duo in such a way that we’re never too sure if Mamiya hasn’t infiltrated the fracturing detective’s mind.

Cure plays on the known unknown. Tearing at the fabric of Japan’s well-known social norms of etiquette. Kurosawa primes everything to unsettle, with even the hum of a washing machine becoming something which unbalances the ambience. A familiar appliance which we use for cleaning is now something which rattles the nervous system. While no sequences in the film are executed as grimly as in Seven, the detached way Kurosawa situates his characters manoeuvres Cure into becoming the Yin to Seven’s visceral Yang.

Cure’s ethereal ambiguity and dread make it tough to talk about but absorbing to watch. Every watch gives a fan something new to chew on, yet it never feels possible to get a full handle on the events at play.  Its vaporous nature gleefully rewards you with added strands to any theory you may have, while also obscuring any previous certainty. On a previous watch, I was more certain about the melancholic relationship between Takabe and his memory-depleted wife. This current viewing left me further in doubt, with more reason to question Takabe’s possible malevolence.

Such thoughts bring me to the film’s ambivalent finale, which suggests a possible “passing of the torch” or a previous continuation of events that had never diminished. That the film is happy to leave its conclusion in the delicate hands of its viewer is a strong example of its assuredness. It’s also the best display of the film’s ambiguous power. The final moments remind me of another deeply disquieting thriller: Michael Haneke’s Cache (2005). We’re given a wide shot loaded with information, but no clear explanation of the outcome. If you rewatch both scenes, it’s possible to pick up something deeply unsettling that may not have been considered before.  What makes it more horrific is how easily the threat of violence is lost within a sea of the mundane. Something insidious occurs but is soon lost within a crowd of the everyday, which is how Kurosawa likes it.

 

Cure is available to buy on Blu-ray. 

Dig what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

Monday, 30 September 2024

Article: Sleaze on the streets - A first viewing of Cop

 A grim neo-noir which is as blunt as its name. Cop (1988) is a morbid curiosity which only matches its bloody violence with absurdity. Roger Ebert’s review of the movie notes the film becomes an essay on the “Cop” genre; with its final shots slamming the book shut. Cop which certainly borrows from the likes of Dirty Harry (1971), certainly feels like a full stop on a certain type of cop drama. While of course, films like Cop have never stopped being made, its release coincides with the final Dirty Harry entry: The Dead Pool (1988). A film which had the cracks more than starting to show with the series. Cop also comes out the same year as Die Hard. Kathryn Bigelow’s Blue Steel appeared soon after in 1989. Looking back at this moment, it feels like subconsciously there’s a crossing of the guards. It might be harder to get away with films like this in the future.  Once Silence of the Lambs and Seven appeared in the '90s, it felt like the book Ebert talks about had been rewritten. Cop now feels even more like a relic. That doesn’t stop it from being an entertaining watch though.

The cop of the film’s title is deliriously played by James Woods, who portrays the role with the intensity and odious sleaze that only an actor like him can provide. Woods plays Lloyd Hopkins, an unorthodox police detective who, like Dirty Harry, doesn’t play by the rules, but damn sure gets results. However, while Harry Callahan's dubious morals are built towards a black-and-white view of justice, Woods Hopkins is a grubbier prospect. He is happy to rely on graphic stories of the scumbags he arrests/murders to his eight-year-old daughter, while his wife pleads with him to go to therapy for his troubled mind. The issues Hopkins has become quite apparent when he takes on a murder case of a young woman. He believes the murder is one out of a string of similar killings which have been occurring for almost two decades. Hopkins is a good detective, but his evidence in this case is flimsy. Therefore, Hopkins executes all the tricks of his playbook. Take note early one, Hopkins blows away a criminal suspect in a shower of bullets before making the moves on the dead man’s date before the split blood has even cooled. Lloyd Hopkins is a particular kind of asshole.

This is what makes Cop a fascinating watch. Hopkins’ talent as a detective is formidable. Shown early in the film’s second scene in which he shows a greener cop the ropes of what to pick up on when a call comes through. Yet why he’s a Cop seems to be for the sport, with little care for upholding the law. He puts on a front that he’s part of the thin blue line stopping L.A. from being overrun. Hopkins displays his little bedtime story to his daughter as something to prepare her for the scum she may have to deal with in her life. All the while, Hopkins’ objectification of women is as dubious as the hypothetical crims he claims that he is preparing his daughter for. Another litmus test for his values is his behaviour when canvassing a feminist bookstore for leads. Here he meets the owner, Kathleen; a woman who may hold the key to finding the culprit of the case. Here Hopkins pulls out his inner James Bond, putting on all his sleazy moves to seduce her. This is also while being wholeheartedly dismissive of her as a survivor of sexual assault. Seeing her as merely another object that can hurtle him towards his goal.

Woods’ ability to sink into Hopkins’ grubby nature makes the endeavour immensely watchable. There's a swiftness in how he fornicates with a sex worker witness. A brazenness to the obnoxious tone in his exchanges with his boss. Hopkins is, for lack of a better word, a sleazy prick. However, the amount of concern he gives to this case, along with the fact his hunches keep him on track of the killer, only makes him more compelling. This is Bad Lieutenant (1992) before Bad Lieutenant. The way the film cannily keeps focus away from the killer helps suggest that you don’t need villains around when you have cops like this. In an updated reference, Hopkins is no better than the killer he’s chasing. Seeing people, particularly women, as disposable. He would be a reason to choose the bear.

Despite this, the film applies a certain level of absurdity to the proceedings. Leslie Ann Warren, a feminist book owner comes across as a fierce activist for women’s rights. However, it’s surprisingly troubling how easily Hopkins puts the moves on her; and how swiftly she indulges him. It’s a dynamic that would be more interesting if Hopkins needed to chip away at her defences. However, the weakness within this character and her belief in white knights and happy endings feel underwritten. Although it does bring forth a dark humour to the situation. Albeit one that would perhaps get the stink-eye from folk today. Also, while Hopkins's cop credentials are established well early on, it’s a narrative in which Hopkins rarely seems to struggle in his investigative work. Hopkins is allowed to have some fiery exchanges with his head of department when he’s deprived of resources for the case. However, his hunches are unwavering, a small piece of detective is uncanny, and the conflict within the film never gets as hostile as Hopkins himself.

However, the brutally abrupt finale to Cop is such a ballsy slap in the face, that it’s lingered in my mind for a few days since my viewing. It’s not that the last moments are shocking in any grotesque way. But the film’s ending is so sudden that it forced me to think about the film, as well as parts of the subgenre. It’s commendable that the film's unromanticised finish ensures a sense of nihilism all the way up until the end. Cop starts and ends with a Detective on the edge; who’s so enraptured by sleaze that he’s become addicted to it. He talks a good game about wanting to solve the case, but the disillusionment and emptiness can be seen from the start to the final three shotgun blasts. Copagander this ain’t.  


Cop can be found on various streaming platforms.

Dug what you read? Buy me a Ko-fi!