The accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty, but not anymore. Now, the mere accusation of anything from sexual harassment to racism is enough to "cancel" anyone or anything. After the Hunt, I think attempted to give a wider scope to whether the truth is stronger than "your truth". It is unfortunate that while there were a few strong moments, After the Hunt is a sheer disaster.
College professors Alma Imhoff (Julia Roberts) and Hank Gibson (Andrew Garfield) are both up for tenure at Yale University. These frenemies find the prospect of one getting tenure and one not both amusing and nerve-wracking. Hank is a proud bachelor, enjoying flirting with everyone, even the students. Alma for her part has her loyal husband Fredrick (Michael Stuhlbarg). One thing that Alma and Hank have in common is Ph.D. candidate Maggie Resnick (Ayo Edebiri). Michael, as swishy a straight man as has been seen in film, thinks that Alma likes Maggie and Hank because they look up to her. He goes so far as to say that Maggie in particular seems to model herself after Alma and may, as a lesbian, harbor secret passion for Alma.
However, does Hank harbor secret passion for Maggie? If so, how far would he go to fulfill said passion? Maggie goes to Alma and says that Hank, who was inebriated when both left the Imhoff's party, attempted to assault Maggie. Alma is not as believing as Maggie would like. Maggie believes that Hank is using his white cisgender male privilege as protection. Later, Hank contacts Alma where at an Indian diner, he tells her that this accusation is false. It is revenge for Hank finding that Maggie has plagiarized her dissertation and confronting her about it.
There is no time for a "he said, she said" type of situation. Hank is fired due to the allegations alone. An enraged Hank confronts both of them in Alma's class. Fredrick makes his feelings clear at the dinner that Alma invites Maggie to at their home. He is openly passive aggressive: blaring loud music and walking in and out of the kitchen with theatrical flair. Now, however, there is room to doubt Maggie. Could she be using her own black female lesbian privilege in being presumed the victim? The publicity that Maggie is getting for her "courageous" act, thanks in part to her transgender girlfriend Alex (Lio Mehiel), raises Alma's suspicions.
The article that Maggie writes also raises Alma's suspicions. It is strikingly similar to an article that Alma herself wrote about her own experience when she was a young woman in Germany. Even that story, however, may not be what it appears? Could Maggie have weaponized her status as a minority as well as her family's considerable wealth to get away with something sinister? More secrets and accusations come. There is the medical scandal Alma unleashes when trying to pull a fast one on Dr. Kim Sayers (Chloe Sevigny), the student liaison and licensed physician. Who will come out on top of the tangled web?
I think Garrett deserves less of the blame. The overall plot lurking about After the Hunt is actually a pretty interesting one ripe with possibility. The idea that someone could use their status as a minority to shield themselves from their actions is an intriguing one. The twist that Maggie, far from being a victim, could instead be the villain would be fascinating to explore. Maggie is black, a woman, and a lesbian. In some circles, this would suggest that she is oppressed on a myriad of levels due to her race, her gender and her sexual orientation. However, she is also the daughter of wealthy Yale patrons. Could she have used these aspects of herself to her own advantage against the embodiment of oppressors: a white cisgender male? Would or should people take the word of someone as true based not on an investigation but on perceived victim status?
Other moments, such as Alma berating some of her students for insisting that they cannot be made uncomfortable, also work well. It is as if After the Hunt had something within it but kept losing itself.
It is Guadagnino who denotated After the Hunt beyond saving. It is almost as if he intended to make an anti-film, something that went out of its way to be rubbish. His directing of scenes is almost unhinged in its chaotic nature. After Hank storms out of Alma's classroom, the various closeups look strange. It is as if a novice cameraman is attempting to film the actors moving about. When a surprisingly small number of students surround Alma in solidarity with the oppressed Maggie, the camerawork too is a bit odd.
It is not just in how After the Hunt looks. It is in how it is acted. There is not a bad actor in the film. There is not a good performance in it. If I judge by degrees, I will say that the best performance is Chloe Sevigny. That is because she probably has the smallest amount of screentime. Her character of the doctor caught between treating Maggie and finding Alma's deception gives her something to do. Who can explain Michael Stuhlbarg in this? I left After the Hunt convinced that the character was gay and in a lavender marriage. He was so exaggerated in his manner, almost theatrical. He could be waving his towels like a flag girl. He could be very bitchy in playing loud music and stomping about. I found it all inexplicable.
Andrew Garfield is one of my favorite actors. I figure that he is hitting a downturn in his career. This is probably one of if not his worst film performance (and that includes his turns as Spider-Man). He was, like Stuhlbarg, so exaggerated as the essentially alcoholic Hank. It was very strange to see. I soon became fixated on two things with Garfield. The first was how jerky his body was. I figure that he was trying so hard to communicate something. What that was, I do not know. The second was on a tattoo on his arm. Was it for the character? Was it Garfield's own ink? I can't figure any of it out.
After the Hunt is loaded with flat-out odd choices that make one wonder if the film was even trying (Julia Roberts aside). The Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross score was very peculiar. That is not counting the sound of an incessant ticking clock. I figure that was meant to represent something. Again, what exactly it is meant to represent is anyone's guess. The cinematography at times makes even beautiful people like Roberts and Garfield look atrocious.
It is to where when the film literally ends with someone shouting "Cut!", I thought I was hallucinating. This closing bit comes after a postscript informing us of some absolutely bonkers conclusions. It is five years after how things ended. Alma had both her tenure offer suspended indefinitely and was hospitalized for massive ulcers. Maggie's plagiarism was exposed. Hank's career is in ruins. Now, Alma Imhoff is Dean at Harvard. She and Maggie reconnect at the Indian diner where Hank told his side of the story. Despite Maggie publicly having slapped her all those years ago, they are very chummy. Hank, we are told, has I think gone into politics as an aide or consultant.
How any of this happened or why will not be revealed. Yet, after all that, After the Hunt ends on the camera focusing on the bill and a $20 to cover the check and an offscreen voice shouting, "CUT!". I sat there, flabbergasted, convinced that I had not actually heard someone shouting "CUT!". It was all so horrendous.
It is deeply, deeply frustrating to have a film that touches on interesting topics and do nothing with them. Worse, it almost seems to be making fun of them while thinking itself a serious drama. After the Hunt is probably not the worst film of the year. The reason for that is that there are simply too many other films that somehow managed to be even worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Views are always welcome, but I would ask that no vulgarity be used. Any posts that contain foul language or are bigoted in any way will not be posted.
Thank you.