Skip to main content

Renfield the Familiar: A Dithering, Gutless Derivation


It’s hard to tell how seriously Renfield takes it’s own conversation on toxic relationships and codependency.  Four scenes across the ninety minute movie take place at a support group for people struggling with these very things, and there’s an ironic detachment with which it is played, Brandon Scott Jones’ aphoristic group leader especially characterized as a figure of parody. And the links drawn by the titular character, the age old familiar of Count Dracula, and his relationship with the Lord of Darkness, are especially in the early goings baked with such contextual extravagance that it seems a quaint analogy. It’s not until later in the film that the script seems to endeavour to make some genuine comment on the nature of toxic relationships, but by then it’s difficult to parse any apparent sincerity from the cheap way that idea and it’s pithy grammar has functioned through most of the movie as a mere device to drive apart master and servant.
But the messy ways in which this movie both makes fun of and raises earnestly the notion of Dracula and Renfield as a centuries-old partnership of abuse is just one part of what results in Renfield, directed by Chris McKay and written by Ryan Ridley, being so confounding and honestly irritating a film. A tepid, generic comedy that attempts to attach itself to the legacy of Tod Browning’s 1931 classic but it is as far apart in aesthetic, tone and craft from that as any movie made in the modern studio system. In fact, though it’s likely not the exact origin, this movie stinks of being built around a gimmick -in this case almost certainly the idea of Nicolas Cage playing Dracula. An actor known for his expressionistic, hammy style playing one of the best known models of that form in Hollywood history; because he is playing specifically the Bela Lugosi model and enjoying it thoroughly. But the actor having fun doesn’t always translate to the audience having fun, as Cage’s late career speaks to emphatically. There’s only so long before his take on Dracula wears thin (it’s after about five minutes of screen-time), and yet nowhere else in the movie will you find half as much dedication.
Maybe that is a bit unfair, because Nicholas Hoult playing Renfield, is not phoning it in by any means. In fact he’s playing a thoroughly decent character competently -just not a character who should be Dracula’s Renfield. Hoult, who famously played Hugh Grant’s son in About a Boy twenty-one years ago, has grown up to choose the Hugh Grant type as his approach here. And he makes for a good charming, bumbling Brit -he might do well in a rom-com- but it’s a bizarre take for his character here, who is missing most of Renfield’s defining features from the story, minus the bug-eating and corralling of victims for Dracula. Because he is required to be the protagonist, he is written to a modern homogeneous pitch -a sympathetic guy who is in no way insane, just dealing with some shit. Also, he has superpowers because it’s important the film tap into that market.
It’s an overall abysmal screenplay, even just going off the jokey dialogue, which can be surprisingly hackneyed and derivative (it’s got an R-rating but uses it for the tamest comedy). Yet the blandness of the plot structure is probably what most hurts the film. It’s set in New Orleans, a seeming nod to Anne Rice, where Renfield has been slowly rejuvenating Count Dracula after his last near-death, and questioning his relationship to his vampire master. As Dracula nears full strength, Renfield gets involved in the cross-hairs of a completely unrelated conflict involving the mob and the police, specifically a traffic stop officer, Rebecca Quincy (Awkwafina), whose hero father was killed in the line of duty by this same crime syndicate. You see the problem. A stack of highly conventional and utterly mundane crime movie clichés, the kind a comedy like this might have one time mocked, are made the principal context Renfield and Dracula’s conflict is set against. It’s such a weird choice to have a melding of dollar store Scarface and dollar store Serpico as the central plot-line to a story about a vampire’s inane ambition to take over the world and the wishy-washy moral quandary of his servant. And with the main figures on each side of the law played by a bored Awkwafina and Ben Schwartz of all people (if you ever thought Schwartz could work as a villain -he can’t), there really is nothing to that story angle of substance -the writing lending it an even more undeniable character of celebrity cosplay.
On that note, Renfield’s ambitions to look like a superhero movie are in some way understandable, but pretty expectedly artistically cheap. It’s a dull approach made all the more dull by the hectic way in which the primary action scenes are executed, shot and cut in a way that disorients the space or any elements of reality -but always with an eye for the gore. Indeed while it’s superhero archetype might be something in the vein of Spider-Man it’s going for The Boys -style visuals. Which makes it all the weirder that it’s so restrained. Yeah, it wants to show off it’s bloodiness but is doing so in a movie that feels otherwise downright kid-friendly in it’s base character types and humour. And even the splatter elements leave a lot to be desired -there’s very little creativity to the graphic violence and none of it feels tangible.
To the film’s credit, it is one of the rare movies of the last couple of years that has been bold enough to portray it’s cops as inherently awful and corrupt, even if it has no interest in examining that beyond adding another meaningless obstacle for the protagonists to push through. Certainly there’s enough to shield the movie from accusations of social commentary. And yet Renfield still wants to look like it is saying something. It still wants that conversation on codependency and the related trauma to mean something -because such a subject is the mark of a conscientious, good movie these days. But it is ultimately trapped by its’ own irony and unwilling to make the sacrifices of tone and character needed to explore such a theme substantively. It is also just overall a gutless movie -it’s final minutes proving this decisively. In the original Dracula, Renfield is a character nobody thinks about too much -he is arguably more of plot device than anything else. And Renfield the movie deserves even less of a glance.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more