This film's major selling point seems to be that it stars Mike
Patton (of Faith No More, Fantomas and tons of other projects). The man runs Ipecac, home
to the mighty Dälek, so I can't fault his taste entirely, but after
seeing Firecracker one thing is for sure: he's not an actor.
Firecracker plays like a directorial wank from someone who's just a
little too in love with David Lynch and the Coen Brothers. From the
opening shot of the film with its hollow, wind-tunnel sound design and
its man with a strange gait running around a small town street, the
Lynch flag is flying high. I love David Lynch's movies, and if I ever
made a film myself, it would probably have a lot of Lynch in it too
because I think his eye for strange details is amazing. Then again, no
one is helping me make a movie, and I have to wonder why anyone thought
that this film would work either.
To be fair, it has some lovely
cinematography and some great lighting design. It's clear that the
filmmakers know the craft of putting together a shot, and have at least
studied the masters in this regard. Unfortunately, they can't edit the
shots together well enough to tell a story, and they haven't hired a
cast able to sell just about any of it.
The basic premise is
that Mike Patton plays a sadistic asshole who abuses his family and his
mother and little brother turn on him and kill him, leading the small
town's persistant female sherrif (where have I seen THAT before?) on a
mystery trail. Since it's obvious to the audience what has happened to
Patton's character, there's no real suspense except for wondering when
the movie will draw to a close. Add to the abysmal edits and acting a
strange woman who talks to dirt and plays a pivotal role in the plot
despite making no sense at all, and the film really begins to fall
apart. You can also tack on the fact that nearly half of the movie
takes place in and around a cast of carnival characters that seem to be
a badly realized fantasy projection of the young, victimized brother.
The
film is borderline misogynistic as the female lead is continually
subjected to abuse, rape, and mutilation at the hands of Patton's
character and there seems to be no reason for most of it. Once we see
Patton's character anally rape his younger brother, we've seen all we
need to see to make up our minds about him and what he deserves.
Unfortunately, the film lacks the ability to draw out any catharsis
because the emotionally shattered characters inhabiting the story are
played with melodramatic sobbing and biblical monologues to the
heavens.
There
is a decent film in here somewhere: 30 minutes could be omitted it
would probably work better. Nearly every scene with the distraught
younger brother completely fails because the actor can't find the
character and keeps playing him as a combination of shellshocked and
retarded. The entire carney story could be completely excised from the
film, and while it would lose one of the more interesting visual
aspects of the movie (the carney scenes are in oversaturated color, the
rest is in black and white), the whole idea doesn't work. Are the
characters real? (Two of them are played by Patton and the mom, in
similar roles of abuser and victim.) Is this all a fantasy for the
younger brother, and if so, why is it so bleak and brutal towards the
analog of his mother? Why do the carneys turn on one of their own who
they've been trying to protect all along, and let her get raped and
beat to death for a few coins? It's all just nonsense.
This
would have worked as a Coen Brothers film, filled with real dread and
the kind of sickly beyond-repair characters that they excel at bringing
to the screen. It might have worked as a David Lynch film, although
most of this ground was covered in Blue Velvet to much greater
effect. It certainly DOES NOT work as a Lynch/Coen pastiche that as my
friend Bryan put it "is only slightly better than a college student
film." There is a reason this won't be in theaters any time soon.