162 - Ratcatcher

[captainofbeef]

- New digital transfer, enhanced for 16x9 televisions
- 2002 video interview with director Lynne Ramsay
- Three short films by Lynne Ramsay: Gasman (Winner of the Jury Prize at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival); Kill the Day (Winner of the Jury Prize at the 1997 Clermont Ferrand Festival); Small Deaths (Winner of the Jury Prize at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival)
- Stills gallery
- English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
- Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition

[criterionmaster]

Ratcatcher was not the masterpiece I was lead to believe. A good film, but not a great one.

My main problem was the way the whole thing was presented, it would go between times and show different things. It would at one second be telling the "story" and at another shoot to an entirely unrelated scene, that didn't connect well. And I feel it was just to show off, like obviously the scene where he is jumping around in that field is going to be beautifully shot and maybe have some sort of message behind it and purpose but I just didn't feel it. It tried to hard to be poetic.



I also thought the relationships between some of the characters were a bit "off" as well. I just didn't care for the characters. One girl just gives herself to guys to make herself feel loved, and I am supposed to feel sorry for her? Well I didn’t, something about her character just made me not care.

Now I will say that the soundtrack was outstanding and there were obviously other great things as well. Like the performances from mostly non-actors.

But like I said, all this skipping around through times, and this pretentious "poetic" moments with slow motion. Trying to show the "beauty" in images just felt so forced to me. It has been done to death really.

EDIT: Oh yeah and the relationship between the two kids is very creepy. Child porn anyone?

[criterionmaster]

andruini said:

I cannot believe you did not like Ratcatcher, truly one of the masterpieces of modern cinema.

Let's go through your thoughts on it one by one, shall we?

SPOILERS MAYBE

"And I feel it was just to show off, like obviously the scene where he is jumping around in that field is going to be beautifully shot and maybe have some sort of message behind it and purpose but I just didn't feel it. It tried to hard to be poetic."

This one hurts, cause I think the scene you're referring to is actually very beautiful AND meaningful to the story. It's not a standalone scene, it's actually a part of all that happened before in the abandoned house.
We see James having fun, being childish, playing around with stuff around him, then jumping out the window and running around in the field. If you look at it in context to what is going on around him, all the suffering and decadence around him, it's actually really nice that Ramsay can find some time in this story to show her characters having some pure unadulterated fun, and just doing the stuff kids do. Like that scene where he's playing around with the salt on the table, an action which is clearly a focus point in the scene.
I also think the house is full of symbolism. I for one, think it represents childhood, and innocence. You can see this by the fact that after his dad comes home and hits his mum, and the whole argument about the soccer shoes arises, he goes back and it has been closed with windows. We see James outside the window, looking sadly into the warm house, a place that had once provided interminable fun for him. Innocence was lost, and it's easy to see the relation. Once you lose your innocence you've lost access to that warm home called childhood.

It just feels like I have seen stuff like this all the time, with these kinds of scenes. Running through things, jumping around, etc. It's all nice but it feels like they are trying too hard. Trying to show fun in an overly artistic way, while also trying too hard to make it a minimalist scene. Like trying to produce art while acting like it is not being manufactured, like it is just happening. You know what I mean?

"I also thought the relationships between some of the characters were a bit "off" as well. I just didn't care for the characters. "

I have no response for this one, though I think the character Kenny is a very good one, and I find it weird that you wouldn't care for him. He's clearly the counterpart to James, the kid James could be, if all this stuff hadn't happened to him, and he's an adorable character, in my opinion. But that's just me.

Kids too often irritate me in films; I thought this kid did a good job. But still the characters seem too forcedly interacting with each other.

"But like I said, all this skipping around through times, and this pretentious "poetic" moments with slow motion. Trying to show the "beauty" in images just felt so forced to me. It has been done to death really."

I really don't agree with that. I didn't find it pretentious, I found it real, genuine and human. I have heard before that the shot of the boy at the start spinning around in the curtain is so beautiful. THAT, I don't agree on. But one of the film's strong points (if not the strongest) is it's way of showing things, this is, the photography, the composition of shots, etc. It exudes beauty from the first to the last frame, and if you can't see that, then I can't help you. Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, but I really wish you'd give it another shot.
I also think that what you said about "trying too hard to be poetic" is complete bollocks. If there's anything this film isn't, it is pretentious. Just look at "indie films" nowadays. If you think Ratcatcher is half as pretentious and "trying too hard to be poetic" as those films, then I'm apalled by you.

Yes, that curtain spinning was dreadful, but that is the way a lot of the images in the film felt, forced. And obviously Ratcatcher is light-years beyond the likes of Garden State and others.

"Oh yeah and the relationship between the two kids is very creepy. Child porn anyone?"

No, you got it wrong. What Ramsay was trying to show with the scene I think you're referring to, in my opinion, is that nakedness doesn't always have to be such a big deal, that two people can be naked together, having fun, in a completely pure way. You seem to have reacted the opposite way. Now, it may seem like this has NOTHING to do with the story, but I personally think it fits perfectly with what I was talking about before, that is the innocence the character has, before his surroundings take it away from him.

Well there whole relationship felt a little too creepy. Because for one, the kids are much old enough to know things, I mean they aren't that young. They know these kinds of things so to pull off the feeling that you are referring to I think the kids would have had to act much less like adults. I mean the girl was very adult-like in the way she acted, and let the other kids rape her.

I'm not too good at making my thoughts clear, and this is just my opinion, just as valid as yours, but I really, really urge you to give it another shot some time. Who knows, it may grow on you.

Well actually it has been wearing off of me. I now give it a 7.5, which is still a great grade, just nowhere near a masterpiece. This is a good discussion though, maybe we could discuss more. I would like to hear your take on some other things in the film and on what I said. Like did the other mother know it was the kids fault her son

SPOILER: Click to show

was killed?