Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

[John Cope]

Kind of hate to resurrect this thread as I have nothing really new to add but I had to voice my enthusiasm for this film as I only just saw it recently and since we are talking about the best of the year...

Though you can count me amongst those who appreciate most what I guess we could call mid-period Cronenberg (i.e. Naked Lunch and Crash) I would argue that Eastern Promises is one of his absolutely finest accomplishments, in a way I was quite unprepared for. The essence of it is exactly what has been derided on here amongst some, which is the fidelity to the forms of melodrama. I anticipated a more "mainstream" Cronenberg but what was so gratifying here was the way in which he willingly subordinated and redirected his most characteristic impulses. Everything works primarily at the service of the narrative (and a particular kind of narrative at that) and yet, despite criticisms to the contrary, Cronenberg's singular vision is preserved and even refined. Of course I may be the wrong one to ask as I also deeply appreciate what TV did for David Lynch (this opinion being much the opposite to that held by Jonathan Rosenbaum).

What I love about this one is the fact that I can honestly say it is successful primarily because it is a good story well told. The rich thematics too are infused within a larger narrative superstructure; they aren't prominent or as pronounced here as usual. I am reminded of what Viggo says on the featurette about how the scene before the mafia bosses was handled--it was not an excuse for Cronenberg to indulge his quirks but rather a proper narrative moment that offered an opportunity for those features to flourish within a prescribed frame. I admire the hell out of this type of restraint and discipline. It provides a new outlet for the artist and a new way for his audience to conceive of his philosophy. This is the opposite of A History of Violence in that that film was all about setting the Big Themes in high relief and then demanding for us to acknowledge that we don't know as much about them as we think we do; that monolithic absolutes simply don't cut it. The "quirks" in that case were unwieldy and elusive and that worked well to further his larger point.

The fact that Eastern Promises is, finally, a melodrama, and is, in fact, not ashamed of that is perhaps the most startling aspect of it. Cronenberg does not give up his mode of inquiry and his even gaze; he just relents a little to another facet of human experience and does not judge it as invalid. Can these elements co-exist? I think he proves they can in a fine balance. His skepticism does not contextualize the melodrama (this is an important distinction, I think) but seeks to meld with it, to fuse into an irreducible substructure. Though this creates a new model of ever expanding possibilities its very expansiveness may be the thing some did not like. It suggests that we do not know the forms as well as we thought we did; that they can ultimately escape us.

One example of subtle innovation (belonging probably to both Cronenberg and Knight): the immediate follow up to the infamous bath house row is actually an elision when we would normally expect to be provided with yet another confrontation. We don't ever really know what Kirill said to his father or even who can be trusted. Clearly this has larger implications as well. But to dole out the drama so judiciously speaks to an awareness on Cronenberg's part of what not to emphasize. It speaks to the finer balance of the whole.

It saddens me some that when Cronenberg does something truly perverse, which is what investing in melodrama is for him, he gets kind of dismissed by much of his usual fan base. However, I find this response instructive as it demonstrates the limits of what we want as an audience. I had a reaction like that to Herzog's Rescue Dawn, a fine film but nevertheless ultimately not tremendously impactful as it simply does not give me what I go to Herzog for. In other words, are we genuinely interested in an artist's evolution or only insofar as it complements our own set of interests or priorities?

[Antoine Doinel]

I finally got around to watching this tonight after I was on the fence about seeing this after thoroughly disliking A History Of Violence and not being too drawn in by the premise. Be warned, I figure the statute of limitations of spoilers has passed so I'm not going to tag 'em.

That said, I have to say I largely enjoyed this film because, as a lot of posters have commented, it's a good story, well told. Cronenberg is really in debt to the cast here, particularly the trio of Mortensen, Stahl and Cassell because they really elevate a fairly ordinary script that is riddled with plot holes. It's utterly absurd that the baby wasn't put under some sort of protection for the film's final sequence. Moreover, Anna's confrontation with Kirill outside the restaurant was simply unbelievable. Finally the kiss between Nikolai and Anna and the ultimate adoption of the child just rang as hokey in a film that manages for the most part to be refreshingly dark for a mainstream film. Even after the reveal of Nikolai really is, you get a sense that he loves the life. That he has more importance and respect within the mob than outside of it. Oh yeah, and is it really advisable for a lone Arsenal fan to cheer in the midst of a pack of Chelsea lovers?

But that those didn't bother me enough to dismiss the film, mainly speaks for well Cronenberg delivers the tale. I was still fascinated to see how it all wrapped up and Mortensen was frankly, mesmerizing. His physicality and imposing figure, particularly during the extended conversation with Semyon in the loading area was exciting.

While I understand that this was a more commercial endeavor for Cronenberg, I really wish he had delved a bit deeper into the racial and sexual aspects of the script a bit more. While I felt the homophobia/homoeroticism angle was handled well, I felt the throwaway treatment of Anna's father line about race mixing could've been explored a little more. There is also something to be said about the attraction to underage girls that falls to the wayside. In short, this is a very good film with hints of an even better one had Cronenberg felt the impulse.

[Mr Sausage]

Finally the kiss between Nikolai and Anna and the ultimate adoption of the child just rang as hokey in a film that manages for the most part to be refreshingly dark for a mainstream film.

You would have preferred the child killed, or just not adopted (even tho' the film visibly moves towards this outcome)? And what about the kiss struck you as hokey? It was an appropriate end to Anna and Nikolai's relationship, it is the logical result of the characters and the situation, and it is an appropriate contrast to the final scene of Nikolai sitting at the table, alone, having snatched one bit of real feeling before descending back into the moral confusion of his double life. You'll excuse me if I do a bit of conjecture: it sounds like you didn't like the moment not because it wasn't earned aesthetically, but because it's not what you wanted, to wit: a movie that doesn't seem to capitulate to the mainstream. Are you're conceiving the kiss as a surrender to mainstream sentimentality, to the happy resolution? I hope not. It's neither of those things. Some good questions: is there any reason why Nikolai would not have kissed her? Is there any romantic fulfillment in the kiss, or does it highlight unfulfillment?

I felt the throwaway treatment of Anna's father line about race mixing could've been explored a little more.

Really? I thought it was just one more contribution to the general aura of intolerance in these old Russians, which is critical for understanding Kirill's position as a homosexual, tho' is neither here nor there concerning Anna (aside from introducing her miscarriage). Also, I believe it was her uncle not her father that made the comment.

I'll add that critics, in general, badly misread Kirill. Far from being a monster, he is the character who most deserves pity, and who has the most revealing and human moment in the movie: the conversation with the little kid. The true gentleness of his character comes through there.

[Antoine Doinel]

Finally the kiss between Nikolai and Anna and the ultimate adoption of the child just rang as hokey in a film that manages for the most part to be refreshingly dark for a mainstream film.

Are you're conceiving the kiss as a surrender to mainstream sentimentality, to the happy resolution? I hope not. It's neither of those things. Some good questions: is there any reason why Nikolai would not have kissed her? Is there any romantic fulfillment in the kiss, or does it highlight unfulfillment?

I think the kiss does surrender to mainstream sentimentality. While Nikolai and Anna did share an emotional journey together, I think the film would've played better had they not kissed. Nikolai still lives in a morally confused/corrupt world and I think a better sign of how it's compromised him would be that he doesn't know how to act anymore. And I'm shocked that Anna, especially at this point in the film, continued to give in to her most obvious emotions despite repeated warnings from her family about the Russian mob. I would think at this point she would be hesitant to trust anything Nikolai says and would only be concerned for the child. Whether or not the kiss highlights fulfillment or not is immaterial as I don't think the motivations are there.

As for the adoption, it played hokey to me simply because the audience gets to feel nice that since Anna lost a child previously, she now has a child she rescued so she can feel good again. Please. I think having the child rescued was enough but it turns into a device for some wishy washy "happy" ending for Anna.

Really? I thought it was just one more contribution to the general aura of intolerance in these old Russians, which is critical for understanding Kirill's position as a homosexual, tho' is neither here nor there concerning Anna (aside from introducing her miscarriage). Also, I believe it was her uncle not her father that made the comment.

I'll add that critics, in general, badly misread Kirill. Far from being a monster, he is the character who most deserves pity, and who has the most revealing and human moment in the movie: the conversation with the little kid. The true gentleness of his character comes through there.

I'll agree on the race mixing, it did play into the larger sphere of intolerance and wasn't critical but I guess I was looking for a more filled in portrait of Russian mob outside of "these guys are racist, sexist, homophobic jerks". I'm not sure if I agree Kirill deserves to be pitied. While his sexuality marks him as perpetually unaccepted, he's also terribly mean and violent. And while he's nice to that kid in one scene, I don't think the discrimination by the rest of the mob excuses his murders, beatings etc. It might explain them perhaps (esp regarding Tatiana), but I think pity is too strong a word to use for Kirill. I think there is a terrible sadness about what he's become and why that it is but I don't necessarily feel sorry him.

[Mr Sausage]

Nikolai still lives in a morally confused/corrupt world and I think a better sign of how it's compromised him would be that he doesn't know how to act anymore.

When had Nikolai ever shown any inability to know how to act? When had he ever been anything except in control?

I'm not sure if I agree Kirill deserves to be pitied. While his sexuality marks him as perpetually unaccepted, he's also terribly mean and violent. And while he's nice to that kid in one scene, I don't think the discrimination by the rest of the mob excuses his murders, beatings etc. It might explain them perhaps (esp regarding Tatiana), but I think pity is too strong a word to use for Kirill. I think there is a terrible sadness about what he's become and why that it is but I don't necessarily feel sorry him.

Pity is too strong a word for a character who elicits strong reactions? A weaker word would be better?

I actually wrote a long, clunky response to this, before I realized I said the same things earlier in this thread, and said them much, much better. I'll quote the relevant paragraph

...I felt early on that Kiril was gay, and as such his destructive behaviour--his drinking, his loutishness, his desire to control subordinates--was the result of the conflict of being gay within a subculture, and within a familial and social context, where such an identity is condemning. I actually feel sorry for Kiril, since he seems, despite it all, to possess an over-sensitive character, which comes out (in hard contrast to his father) in the scene with the baby. Notice that Kiril's boisterous demeanor, which we first understand as an inherent part of his character, becomes in this scene [with the baby] a clear defense mechanism to pain, given how quickly he adopts it [when he walks off with Nikolai] after his very sincere emotions over the baby. In which case the claim that Vincent Cassell is over-acting is unjust, since it is really the character who is over-acting, or more accurately, overcompensating.

The moment with the kid is the one moment in the film where we really get to see what's left of Kirill's actual, honest personality (sweet, kind, a bit embarrassed).

The above makes an excellent contrast with Nikolai, who never once seems unsure of who he is, who never overcompensates, who is never torn. One can get a surer grasp of Kirill than Nikolai.

[Antoine Doinel]

That's a very excellent reading of Kirill's character, and one I don't necessarily disagree with, but didn't resonate as deeply with me. I don't pity him simply because he still has blood on his hands. Just because he hired other people to murder for him, still uses/abuses the young women at the brothel even though drunk, his desperation behind the acts don't excuse them.

However, I strongly disagree that Nikolai is sure of himself. I think beneath his assured exterior and his strong masculinity, there is a certain element of him that enjoys the power he now has within the mob. I think he's proud of the stars he's earned and influence he now wields within the mob at the end of the film. Yes, he stays on to continue undercover work, but he also had an opportunity to walk away and he turned it down. Yes, because of his stature, but I think the stature that position holds is alluring. I think Nikolai is conflicted simply because I felt he enjoyed being a mob member. He was in no hurry to leave and I don't think it was for entirely selfless reasons. The line between playing the mob member and being the member have become blurred to a degree that I don't think he will ever go back. Worse, I don't think he recognizes it and that makes it all the more troubling.

[Mr Sausage]

Just because he hired other people to murder for him, still uses/abuses the young women at the brothel even though drunk, his desperation behind the acts don't excuse them.

Well I hope it doesn't come across like I'm trying to excuse brutality. One is allowed to pity people while condemning their behaviour.

However, I strongly disagree that Nikolai is sure of himself. I think beneath his assured exterior and his strong masculinity, there is a certain element of him that enjoys the power he now has within the mob. I think he's proud of the stars he's earned and influence he now wields within the mob at the end of the film. Yes, he stays on to continue undercover work, but he also had an opportunity to walk away and he turned it down. Yes, because of his stature, but I think the stature that position holds is alluring. I think Nikolai is conflicted simply because I felt he enjoyed being a mob member. He was in no hurry to leave and I don't think it was for entirely selfless reasons. The line between playing the mob member and being the member have become blurred to a degree that I don't think he will ever go back. Worse, I don't think he recognizes it and that makes it all the more troubling.

By "sure" of himself I meant that he has an assurance in his actions, whether he understands them fully or not. His dual role may be a conflict of interest to us, but it is hardly a conflict to Nikolai. He is inscrutable precisely because he never gives that much away. If he were losing his identity, breaking apart, working under a moral haze, you'd never know. He has complete control of himself. Otherwise I agree with your assessment of his character.

[Antoine Doinel]

Hey Mr. S, I think our observations on the Nikolai and Kirill are probably pretty similar, but how deeply felt and complex we interpret them differ between us. I think Kirill is more pathetic than he is pitiable but I can certainly see how one can view him in the that light. And no, I don't think you were trying to excuse his brutality, insomuch as I find it difficult to pity someone if I condemn their actions. As for Nikolai, I agree with you about his self assurance which for me made the kiss with Anna ring all the more false. It seemed like a stupidly emotional (and largely baseless) move but someone who is more calculating and in control than that. I don't see the point of it or what is gained by it as he had already earned her trust by that point. And if he is/does continue to see her, it obviously puts her and the child back at risk for no reason.

[Mr Sausage]

Hey Mr. S, I think our observations on the Nikolai and Kirill are probably pretty similar, but how deeply felt and complex we interpret them differ between us. I think Kirill is more pathetic than he is pitiable but I can certainly see how one can view him in the that light. And no, I don't think you were trying to excuse his brutality, insomuch as I find it difficult to pity someone if I condemn their actions. As for Nikolai, I agree with you about his self assurance which for me made the kiss with Anna ring all the more false. It seemed like a stupidly emotional (and largely baseless) move but someone who is more calculating and in control than that. I don't see the point of it or what is gained by it as he had already earned her trust by that point. And if he is/does continue to see her, it obviously puts her and the child back at risk for no reason.

Seemed to me the kiss was something he had wanted to do for a while, and waterfront was his only possible chance, future included. I did not get the impression it was intended by either party to lead into a relationship (it felt as much as a goodbye kiss than anything). Let's not forget, he does not return to the hospital with Anna; he leaves with Kirill. Certainly the final shot reinforces Nikolai's continued autonomy.

[Antoine Doinel]

For me this kiss was something more, something built on long shared gazes, touching hands and was a culmination of the sexual tension between them. But it still rang false for me, because so much of Nikolai is disconnected emotionally and invested in the mob world that it seemed out of character that he would swoon randomly over a woman that comes into his life. Certainly the final shot emphasizes his autonomy, but that autonomy includes a chilling emotional disconnection.

[Mr Sausage]

For me this kiss was something more, something built on long shared gazes, touching hands and was a culmination of the sexual tension between them. But it still rang false for me, because so much of Nikolai is disconnected emotionally and invested in the mob world that it seemed out of character that he would swoon randomly over a woman that comes into his life. Certainly the final shot emphasizes his autonomy, but that autonomy includes a chilling emotional disconnection.

That's a good question, how connected is Nikolai to himself (or indeed what is that self). Instead of violating the character, I'm sure that kiss actually reveals something of it.

We're probably not going to convince each other of anything, but that is alright. Just taking the time to think about such things cogently is reward enough.

[Zumpano]

Cronenberg, Knight, and Mortensen to reunite for sequel

[Murdoch]

Hmm, interesting news. I thought the ending provided a fine conclusion to the story and I wonder how the story can be expanded upon. It doesn't mention Watts at all so I also wonder if they are going to scrap that aspect of the story and focus on Mortensen.

[karmajuice]

Interesting news indeed. A sequel never even occurred to me, even if the film is clearly very open-ended. It FELT so conclusive.

Still, I'm excited to see where this goes. Hopefully Knight manages to restrain himself and keep his oppressed immigrant sob-stories to a minimum. Cronenberg made it work in Eastern Promises but I think it would overstay its welcome in a sequel.

The first film was such a complete work, but they can take a sequel in so many directions. Obviously I've got some reservations -- sequels tend to inspire them -- but I'm far too interested to be really worried.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

They've been talking about a sequel since the original came out, I'll believe it when it goes in front of the cameras.

[flyonthewall2983]

The sequel is dead.

[The Narrator Returns]

Long live the new sequel!

[flyonthewall2983]

The sequel might be on