Dead Man's Shoes (Shane Meadows, 2004)

[LeeB.Sims]

I considered just listing this in the "Underrated" thread, but I was really so blown away by this film that I believe it could deserve it's own individual discussion, hope that's not out of line. I originally rented it because I like Paddy Considine a lot and he not only stars in it, he co-wrote the script. The layman's synopsis colors it as a revenge drama with a guy returning from the military to pick off the town bullies that picked on his retarded brother... which is why I was so unbelievably floored with what it turned out to be. It is an intense, searing, psychological meditation on the nature of vengeance itself and the atrocities we may all be capable of in a moment where we are asked to prove ourselves. Its so sneakily disturbing that you don't really catch what it is doing to your mind until it is too late and you are sitting there wondering "How could it have possibly come to this?". The true motivation of most people bent on revenge may just turn out to be an insatiable self-loathing, remember that... I really want to try and articulate just how much of an impact this film had without giving too much away, and I also really hope someone else has some thoughts they could share. For one thing the cinematography is gorgeous...

[miless]

well hey there, Lee Baby Sims...
I really, REALLY enjoyed Shane Meadows' most recent film, This Is England.
I had to watch it for work (quality control on all films) and I normally have to (re)watch mediocre films (Lives Of Others). Occasionally a brilliant film sneaks through (I Don't Want to Sleep Alone and This Is England are the best two). Now, I was looking forward to it, but the depth to the filmmaking was inspiring.
In my view, This Is England is how American History X should have been, a complex look at complex characters. AHX was very (pardon the "pun") Black&White in terms of racism and its causes... meanwhile TiE shows the individual's struggle to grip with their own racist tendencies. I won't give away much more, but I can wholly recommend it.
I really wanted to watch Dead Man's Shoes to see if it could be nearly as good... I'll have to watch it now.

[Rsdio]

It's an incredible film from a director who doesn't get anything like as much attention as he deserves. I've got to admit I'd never been particularly interested in him myself until a friend bought me a copy of Dead Man's Shoes back when it came out, the snippets I'd seen of his films before then never seemed to suggest anything special to me.

What you didn't mention is that it's also absolutely hilarious, although I'm not sure how much of that would translate outside of the UK because a lot of the humour comes from small details and the fact that everyone who's ever lived in a shitty little town or village has known people like this - 'hard men' who drink out of mini beer bottles and have only a clapped-out banger between them for transport. So much of it just rings true in a way British cinema very rarely does.

A Room for Romeo Brass is another of his that I would enthusiastically recommend but it's probably more parochial again if anything, Paddy Considine plays a very much more British kind of weirdo in that one. TwentyFourSeven is also well worth seeing.

There's a thread on This Is England here, by the way.

[Narshty]

I had a loathsome reaction to Dead Man's Shoes, mostly to do with Meadows' infuriatingly cheap use of violence and the studenty ineptness of his direction and screenplay (Paddy Considine as well for the second).

The hypocrisy of condemning violence while gleefully revelling in it as your sole source of tension and dramatic motion (an entire "suspense" sequence is based around the question of, when is Paddy Considine going to stab the man he's talking to at knifepoint?). I don't hate violence on the screen, but I hate the kind of director who'll be apparently trying to condemn it in an ultra-realistic setting (Rsdio's right, several of the dialogue scenes do ring true in a low-key, amusing way), while tarting it up with costumes and gimmicks: the killer has a bizarre Jason-style uniform of SAS gear and gas mark, for little discernable reason apart from he came from the army, and hangs around at his crime scenes writing menacing slogans on the wall in blood. It's pathetically straining - with nil dramatic credibility - for iconoclastic status. The whole have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach to violence (yes, it's a grim and unending cycle but, gosh, isn't it exciting) pissed me off no end.

The use of flashbacks was shabby - Meadows doesn't think his audience can distinguish them unless they're in black-and-white, and only seems to make them visually distinguished to crowbar in his clumsy, oh-so-plagiarised little twist at the end. If the audience had all the information about his brother that we had at the end

Spoiler

- ie. he's already dead -

then the flashbacks might add up to a genuinely unsettling portrait. But Meadows, apparently uncertain his audience will grasp that the abuse of a young lad with learning disabilities is a bad thing, over-eggs it by underscoring these scenes with sad strings or ominous music. Aside from the fact that the very subject matter is guaranteed to whip up an audience's emotions - Meadows can sit back and do nothing - the use of mental disability strikes me as nothing more than a hook to have a conveniently helpless punching bag repeatedly battered throughout. I'm amazed people talk about its "power" with a straight face, as if they can't see what a cynical, simple-minded machine it is.

This is what I find so intensely objectionable - if the film has to satisfy a Saturday night crowd or take a cold unsettling look at a cycle of brutality - like, for example, Alan Clarke's The Firm - it sits happily on the side of macho revenge porn every time. I could say how utterly terrible the soundtrack is too (the godawful twangy guitar music at the start and the toe-curlingly pretentious heavenly choirs at the end - oh Paddy, you martyr you) but those aesthetic offences are almost incidental compared to the bulk of the film.

Having said all this, I'm still looking forward to seeing This is England. I just think this Dead Man's Shoes is a bottom-dwelling con job.

[LeeB.Sims]

While we might not agree, I commend you for a very well-articulated argument. You've obviously taken the time to think clearly about why you hated the film. The only point I will concede to you however is that the Latin choir music at the end is pretentious as hell. The acoustic folkish type songs throughout the previous portions of the film however suited me quite well. I'm a sucker for the (perhaps manipulative in your opinion) old technique of letting the soundtrack work in direct contrast to the action on the screen. Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans was my first childhood experience with this technique where slowly building, repetitive violins underscore a particularly tense chase sequence. It really stirred me at the time and has never failed to since.

I also have to offer up that I don't agree with your assessment of the treatment of violence. I felt it was anything but “gleefulâ€

[Rsdio]

It's British, set in the English Midlands as all Meadows' films are - it's where he and most of his cast members grew up. I imagine the subtitles must come in handy on his films when they're watched in other countries

[quote="LeeB.Sims"]The flashbacks were important however, in my opinion, in that they added to my feeling of discomfort because the “tormentâ€

[LeeB.Sims]

[quote="LeeB.Sims"]The flashbacks were important however, in my opinion, in that they added to my feeling of discomfort because the “tormentâ€

[Narshty]

I didn't particularly enjoy watching the punishment that Richard (Considine) meted out on his brother's tormentors and in fact found my own reaction to be one of intense discomfort, not chest-thumping satisfaction.

The violence is unpleasant and not designed to amp up the viewer, but it's the way the threat of violence is used as pretty much the sole means of creating suspense that I find so objectionable. There's no ambiguity as to what might happen - ugly violence is the only thing the audience is waiting for. That prolonged scene when he's about to stab the fellow sitting on the sofa is flat-out sadism.

As for the flashbacks, no, they didn't need to be in black and white but I didn't really feel like that was condescending, just an esthetic choice. And, to be completely honest, it may have been confusing for me if they weren't in black and white, at least in the beginning when I really had no idea where the film was headed.

That's my very problem with it - it's more interested in gimmicky storytelling for the sake of it, rather than a serious examination of guilt and revenge. If we'd known

Spoiler

that his brother was already dead

it would have placed the actions in some sort of understandable emotional context.

The whole time Richard was exacting his revenge, my shock and horror was intensified by the thought that yeah, these guys were assholes, but do they really deserve this? I didn't personally get the feeling that the handicapped brother was used as a cheap gag and in fact I found his performance very compelling, to the point where I wondered if he was really handicapped.

It just seemed like a convenient dramatic device to provide a helpless victim to get viewers wound up knowing that he couldn't fight back, then watching the abuse pile up. I've no doubt there are cases similar and much worse to the one depicted in the film, but it only uses it as a shortcut to a viewer's distress - it's scarcely a recruiting video for social services. Watching some with developmental disabilities being threatened with sexual assault is a deeply nasty thing to watch on the screen whoever does it in whatever context - that's my problem; the work's already done for them. You slot that in anywhere and you're guaranteed a horrified audience reaction, especially in a self-proclaimed thriller.

Indeed, I can understand Rsdio's reasoning, but that doesn't change my dislike of the ways in which Meadows and Considine try and "get reactions", as if any sort of reaction at all is worthwhile and inherently a sign of creative skill. Despite its "uncompromising" determination to rub an audience's face in lovingly detailed sordidness, it's still basically a cop-out, choosing lazy button-pushing over the hard work of building real psychological intensity.

[caminoreal]

I'm bumping this thread up as I watched the film last night after hearing so much about Shane Meadows and This is England which I've yet to see. To be honest I wasn't that impressed. I did work out the final twist after fifteen minutes had gone by and hoped Meadows would have another rabbit to pull out of his hat for the end of the picture, but alas it was not to be.

I did like some of the humour in the early scenes but as I could see where this film was going I didn't really get invested in any of the characters. Like Narshty I thought the music, especially near the end was over the top especially as I wasn't at all surprised by the climactic revelation.

One question. How did Considine's character know who was involved in causing the tragedy? Did I miss a bit of vital information?

[Cockney_Geezer]

not really sure what's about them films that make them so depressive, but i guess it's the weather.
what i like about Dead Man's Shoes is how it takes hollywood ideas and just puts it in a totally different reality and sticks to it.