The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael Movie Review:


“The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael” is very effective at what it does – but I’m not entirely sure what that is. It is a slow-paced, at times almost beautifully filmed story that ends with an act of violence as horrific as anything I’ve seen in a movie – and I’ve seen “Irreversible.” It arrives at the Edinburgh Film Festival on a wave of controversy; it had walkouts at both Cannes and its two earlier screenings at the EIFF (both public and press). Artistic director Shane Danielson showed his usual subtle wit by explaining: ‘Most critics over here are stupid.’ One could say the same thing about his response.

The title character is a troubled teenager, who despite being smart and a talented cellist, misses classes and buys various drugs from his friends. His mother (Lesley Manville) seems unable to help him much; she just doesn’t seem to want to find fault in Robert.

It’s not a movie cluttered with plot, and its visual style is refreshingly graceful. The camera movements are slow, the shots long. I risk using the term ‘mise-en-scene,’ so I will stop there. The whole movie has a feel of lifelessness, its characters moving through dull existences like zombies. The youths have apparently lost all sense of morality. The second-most memorable scene in the movie is one in which some guys rape a teenage girl, offscreen, in the bedroom of a flat, while the camera slowly makes its way around the living room, and the characters play music and watch television to drown out the sound of the girl screaming through the wall. It’s an outstanding, and disturbing, shot.

(Note: A full discussion of this movie seems impossible to me without giving details of the closing scene. If you would prefer not to know about it, read no further.)

A few subplots develop, one involving the drug dealers, one involving Robert’s teacher, another involving a TV chef and his wife who have recently moved into town. The latter storyline introduces the element of class into the movie, and the difference between the poor drug-dealers and this rich celebrity is the given motivation for the final, brutal chapter of the film. Robert and his friends, who have been working through a stash of drugs, decide to break into the chef’s house. They tie up the chef and his wife, and after raiding the house, they perform a gang rape on the wife that ends up being unspeakably violent.

At this point in the movie, there were walkouts at the screening I was at, and those leaving did not do so quietly. I think what makes the scene so disturbing is the unwillingness of the filmmakers to interfere; the sequence is done in precisely composed shots, and there are no contrivances to help this woman, who ends up bleeding to death (her husband, whom the boys kill afterwards, is forced to watch all this).

When a movie presents me with an image like this, I take it seriously, and I have not, like some critics, dismissed it altogether, although it would perhaps be easier. Some have said that it’s worthless, faux-artistic pornography, and I could do the same, but I would be kidding myself. Since seeing the movie, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the scene’s purpose. The press notes did not help, as they basically say ‘It’s very violent, yes, but it’s also beautifully shot, and involves class.’ The director, Thomas Clay, has said the movie is an allegory for the war in Iraq. This is anticipated by the number of scenes with Bush and Blair seen talking on TV in the background. The end, perhaps, represents going somewhere you don’t belong and performing horrendous acts. Maybe Clay thinks the Iraq war constitutes a rape. But what does that have to do with the rest of this movie? The allegory is open to interpretation, but it’s not a wholly successful one.

Indeed, I was reminded of Peter Greenaway’s great movie “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover,” another violent political allegory, but a better one, with even more impressive visuals and better performances, and one that gives more thought to its characters. Whatever interpretation you have of this movie, it shows a group of youngsters doing disgusting, evil things to a defenceless couple. If you blame the behaviour on class, you’re just making excuses. And if you bring in the ‘atrocities of war’ argument, you’re ignoring the fact that these are characters that were interesting, and they’re being made to do horrible things. Characters should never be reduced to pawns in the agenda of the filmmakers.

Adam Whyte

Site Contents Copyright© The Z Review, unless used with permission.This site has no intention to infringe on the rights of the film owners of The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael and intellectual copyright holders of the movies mentioned herein & hold copyright over the movie, characters, merchandise & storyline.