Do you know what your kids are up to?
And there was me, whining on about a dearth of decent horror, apart from in Spain. Good to see that the Brits are still capable of delivering intelligent ‘video nasties’ – here, young first-time director James Watkins, whose previous honours include the screenplay for the deeply unsettling and underrated My Little Eye (2002), delivers a stomach-churning journey into pastoral savagery that explores an aspect of social unease that’s blighting Blighty (if you buy what you read in the papers).
We’re talking about ‘chavs’, of course – the latest ‘social phenomenon’ to be bandied both by screaming tabloid headlines and liberal handwringers. For myself, I hate the word and the latest class-war salvo that it represents (so I suppose that marks me as a polo-neck wearing Guardian reader, right?), but I am prepared to accept that the spectre of increasing youth delinquency, with its concurrent knife crime, gang-wars and general alienation from society, is a problem that would appear to be affecting the UK in particular in the early years of the 21st century.
I’ll put my soap-box away shortly, promise, but I am convinced that Eden Lake, in its guise of a Deliverance/Straw Dogs/Calvaire-style horror show, touches on a great deal more than mere blood and mayhem.
It’s Friday, and young, liberal, white middle-class couple Jenny (Kelly Reilly) and Steve (Michael Fassbender) are heading off for a romantic weekend in the sticks – Steve is planning to propose, and the pair are going camping on the shores of Eden Lake, a rural idyll that’s set shortly to be converted to an ‘enclosed’ yuppie housing development. Jenny, a nursery teacher, asks shortly after arriving at the lake: ‘What are they shutting themselves away from?’. A scrawled message on the reverse side of a development billboard may offer a clue, as our visitors are about to find out for themselves, when a confrontation with a group of noisy young teens turns deadly…
It’s reminiscent in some ways of David Moreau and Xavier Palud’s Ils (Them) (2006), but what’s interesting is that the French film sold itself as ‘Based on a true story’, whereas Eden Lake doesn’t have to – such is the growing fear of ‘feral’ youngsters in the UK, there is a successful subtext of ‘This could happen to you’ that pervades the entire film.
This is entirely down to the superb performances from the young actors who play the assailants, with Jack O’Connell leading the field brilliantly as ring-leader Brett (pictured). The transition from truculent, sneering kids to brutal would-be murderers is seamless, with Brett’s girlfriend Paige (Finn Atkins) also chilling in her impassiveness, as she records the escalating atrocities on her mobile phone, thus tapping in to yet another frequently reported real-life social outrage.
Thomas Turgoose, who was excellent in This Is England (2006), also shines here, even if there’s a slight wish that he had been given a touch more to do in the story. The protagonists are also very well cast, with excellent chemistry between Fassbender and Reilly, which then neatly dovetails into a credible sense of facing terror together as the pair realise that what they are up against is nothing less than a fight to the death. But their attackers are just kids, aren’t they?
Reilly, in particular, makes a skillful, believable transition from gentle, beautiful liberal to feral ferocity in her efforts to save herself and her love. A pity, then, that Watkins only really overplays his hand at the film’s denouement – while even worthy genre examples appear increasingly to be moving towards the nihilistic, the ‘final horror’ still seems a little too pat for its own good. It’s all the parents’ fault, apparently, so that’s alright then.
Still, you should see it. Whichever side of the ‘chav’ debate you’re on, this is bloody scary.
91 mins.
Hi James,
Don’t know if you caught the Daily Mail‘s review but it was a corker. Taking the perspective that the movie was more docu-drama than hysteria-driven horror, Chris Tookey bellows that Eden Lake was:
‘…willing to say what other films have been too scared or politically correct to mention: the true horrors we fear today are not supernatural bogeymen or monsters created by scientists. They’re our own youth.’
Tee-hee.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1054787/Eden-Lake-A-great-movie-stomach-it.html
Hi Chris,
Yes, what a surprise – Chris Tookey using a film review to promote his own (or, more accurately, the Daily Mail‘s) political agenda. I think you know what I think of this kind of reviewing – namely, that it stains the wrong kind of paper, if you receive my meaning.
Tookey is far and away the worst film critic on God’s green Earth, working for the UK’s most repugnant newspaper. I thank you.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ll be sure to catch this film. What amuses me about Tookey and his review of Eden Lake in particular is that, rather than see that the antagonists are young deliquents because that taps into modern fears (thus making for an effective horror film), he chooses to see it as a Conservative bunch of filmmakers who really must agree with everything the Daily Mail espouses and be on the Daily Mail‘s side because the Daily Mail is right and prevails by ALWAYS sticking the knife into liberal sensibilites and being ‘un-PC’, which is a good thing in the Daily Mail‘s eyes. If only they could grasp what ‘political correctness’ actually is.
Quite right, once again Tookey isn’t reviewing it as a film, but using it to promote his paper’s ludicrous agenda. Fancy writing another letter?
Dear Chris (the other, funnier one
)
Spot on, my dear chap. I mean to say, I was pleased at least by the initial impression that Tookey might actually be reviewing a film on its own terms but then, of course, he fell helplessly back into his predictable habits. His (and the Daily Mail‘s) ‘Where Did The Rot Set In?’ attitude to the class issue seems to me reminiscent of that marvellous Big Train sketch, the one that parodies the scene from The Birds (1963), only this time it’s the ‘Working Classes’ that are congregating on the climbing frame, and menacing the Tippi Hedren-style character.
You seem to have the ‘damning letter’ down to a fine art, as in your work with Bond, Matthew Bond. Fancy submitting a draft for my approval?
It’ll be on the way to you soon sir, I’m about to start it, honest.
Yes, that Big Train sketch is superb. ‘Awight darlin’, sweetheart.’
I too was surprised that Tookey seemed to like Eden Lake, and like it simply for what it is, but then I think he thought: ‘No. It’s no good. These filmmakers are clearly like-minded people, it would be irresponsible of me not to comment on the quite clear message that I, Peter, the Richards, Melanie, Roy, Amanda, Max, Quentin, Tarquin and all of our readers happen to have been banging on about until we are (true) blue in the face.’
Git.
Quite. A pity that James Watkins didn’t choose to make the youths homosexual and immigrants as well – Tookey would have died a happy man.
I look forward to your letter, CS – the revolution starts here!
This is confusing. There are three ‘Chris’es (Chrisi?) now.
I’m pretty sure Chris Tookey is the funniest one, though.
Watkins set the record straight in an interview commenting that the paedophobic subtext of the film is common all the way back to Lord of the Flies and beyond, and more to the point, the script was written long before knife crime and hoodies became an issue.
Hi Chris Peck
Yes, it will have to be CP and CS from now on, but not sure who the third ‘Chris’ is that you’re referring to? Or maybe, for nostalgia’s sake, I should call you ‘Chrissy’? I remember how much you enjoyed that when you were younger…
I certainly did, ‘Jimbo’.
That’s ‘Big Jim’, Chris, if you want to get it right – not important to you normally, I know…
Fighting talk, from the critic who gave QofS a glowing report…
Well, show us what you’re made of, boy…get thee hence to my review and leave a comment. Enthrall us with your acumen, please…
I wouldn’t have thought you needed that much insight to see that it was a stinker, but I have left a comment or two on the relevant thread. (I’ll be in the bunker.)
Hmmm. I’m kinda disappointed with this movie – the baddest guy didn’t die, but the nice guys who didn’t want to kill anyone did. So the bad guys live happily ever after? Wow.
Hi Pinoy,
Welcome to Picturenose, and thanks for the comment.
I think, in reference to your first point, that was in fact the overall reason for the film existing in the first place – to show that life, unfortunately, doesn’t always have a happy ending, no?
And as to whether the bad guys live ‘happily ever after’, well, that’s not the impression I got from observing the family ‘dynamic’ and the despairing look on the face of Brett in the mirror at the very end. They’re in hell, was my impression. Thoughts?