“Eastern Promises”
Rating: ★★★★
David Cronenberg’s latest film, Eastern Promises is like a photo negative of The Godfather. There are gestures of politeness and the family dinners within the large Mafia family but this film peels them away to examine if there are such things as loyalty and morality at all. And it also deserves the high praise and comparison with Francis Ford Coppola’s influential classic.
What distinguishes this film from other violent crime thrillers is that it introduces a person of decency into the story. She is Anna (Naomi Watts), a dedicated doctor in
Led by a flyer found in the diary, she knocks on the door of a restaurateur, Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl). As played by the great Mueller-Stahl, the man is courteous to her but rarely has courtesy seemed so threatening. He kindly "requests" (really demands) her to hand him the diary that contains incriminating evidence about his mob family’s deals of illegal prostitution.
The other two key players in the story are Kirill (Vincent Cassel) and Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen with a convincing Russian accent), who will remind many of the sons of the Corleone family and more recently the crime family portrayed in Road to Perdition. The former is so much a loose cannon that it is doubtful he will become a proper leader if he does not self-destruct first. Nikolai is Semyon’s “driver” and a violent thug, too, but more reticent and aware of the code of loyalty in the Mafia. As he is gradually drawn to Anna, however, it becomes clearer that her safety and trust may depend on his examination of his own values.
The plot contains far more intriguing turns that I must not even hint at. What I will say is that the screenplay by Steven Knight (who wrote 2002's Dirty Pretty Things, another movie about a netherworld of illegal human trafficking, and Amazing Grace earlier this year) is simply ingenious in constructing its psychological suspense. The eventual revelations in the story are not based on actions and reactions but on peering unblinkingly into the clashes and turmoil of personalities and motivations.
The director David Cronenberg, who is best known for his earlier creepy, gothic horror films, has made yet another impressive, realistic examination of a violent world following A History of Violence. Some have criticized him of detaching himself too much from the material but I consider it his singular merit. Cinema is often considered an emotional medium of sensations and Cronenberg’s approach is a uniquely cerebral one that leaves the audience to intuit how they should feel about the darker human natures he unveils.
Much has already been written about that vicious fight between a nude Mortensen and two thugs in a public bathhouse. The scene especially stands out in its messiness and lack of choreography, which is a signature of Cronenberg who presents violence with almost a cold surgeon’s eye while forcing us to deal with the ugly results. This and other bursts of violence are shocking but not pervasive and never gratuitous.
At the center of the film are the sturdy performances by Naomi Watts and particularly Viggo Mortensen.
Many films dealing with crime families including The Godfather romanticize them, presenting the unit in a sealed world where the members define their own code of morality. They conceal the true consequences of their criminal activities and how they kill to maintain such a lifestyle. Eastern Promises knows better.





7 comments:
Another great review. You're always so thorough, in every aspect. I may go out and check this one out now. I've got so many movies in the queue.
This sounds awesome - great review, man.
I loved the film, Eastern Promises, but am left with two essential questions:
1) What, exactly, was the reason the guy in the barber chair was killed in the opening scene? What exactly did he do to piss off the Chechens?
2) Did Semyon set up Nikolai because he lied to him about the real reason behind the killing of that guy in the barber's chair? (Nikolai had told Semyon that the guy had been spreading rumors about his son, Kirill, saying that he was a drunk and a "queer"-- and that's why they had to get rid of him, But in a subsequent scene, Azim (sp/?) explains the real reason to Semyon. At this point, Semyon tells Azim to tell the Chechens that he will deliver Kirill to them in two days--and then promptly double crosses Nikolai by setting up his intended murder in the bath house. Did he do so because he was simply unwilling to give up his son (I can't believe he couldn't have thought of a way past this crisis), or because he knew that Nikolai had lied to him--and he had to deal with his betrayal?
Could someone please clarify this for me? Many many thanks.)
(Spoiler warning) The opening killing was ordered not by the Chechens, but the reckless Kirill, as Semyon figures out in one scene (echoes here of the wayward son in Road to Perdition). This is why the Chechens wanted revenge. Thus, Semyon set up Nikolai (ordering Azim to say that he is Kirill since the Chechen thugs don't know his face) in order to protect his biological son. This goes in line with the fact that Nikolai is Kirill's protector of sorts and thus Semyon saw Nikolai as expendable despite that he depended more on the latter.
Great review. I enjoyed the film a great deal, and hope that Vigo Mortensen and Cronenberg work together again.
Hello,
Your blog entry was really informative :). Also, I have a request for you. We, at Vaestro ( http://vaestro.com), are trying to build a community of audio bloggers. I would be very grateful if you could look at it sometime and try using it's service :). It's free...and in need for quality bloggers like you.
Thanks,
Simone (http://vaestro.com/userprofile-simone)
Good review, and I definitely enjoyed it myself.
Post a Comment