redmecca

The only shortcoming perhaps of this documentary, is that it didn't range too far beyond the context of the group and into the rest of the music scene at the time. However that is a valid choice for the film-maker. There was a lot of ground to cover, and fans will appreciate the depth and attention paid to the music and live footage.

The film zeros in on the dynamic formation and growth of this seminal band, and particularly the increasing struggles of fated lead-singer, Ian Curtis. This was handled with surprising candor and integrity, no small accomplishment.

Those with only a basic knowledge of the role Joy Division played in the renewal of both the post-punk music scene and Manchester will find this an informative documentary. In addition to retrospectives by all remaining band members, a well-balanced range of contributers comment on everything from the scene, to music production and cover art design, to the cultural influences behind the band's unique style.

I kept waiting for this film to reveal itself in terms of satire, dark humour, social commentary - whatever. I am not overly familiar with Belgian culture, but I am left to assume this film perhaps has more relevance in its country of origin.

The film is supposed to be about a band, comprised of "handicapped" men - who are looking for a handicapped drummer so that they can play at a rock festival. The handicaps of the members, as I understood it, are that one is a rapist, one is deaf, and one has an arm that he can not move because his mother caught him masturbating at a tender age. Right off, I'm a little lost. Perhaps if some of these performances had been convincing or had any depth, I would see the humour. But Ex Drummer fails to convince me that being a rapist is a handicap, or that the afflictions of a man who lives in addicted squalor while beating his coke-whore wife - both who eventually terminally neglect their infant child, are downplayed by his "handicap" of being a deaf musician.

Let's move on, the band finds their drummer, a successful writer who, out of bourgeois ennui wants to submerge himself in the sordid underbelly of society and whose magical "handicap" is his inability to play the drums. He manages this with frequent trips home to his posh-toddy wife to partake of threesomes and panoramic views from their well-appointed condo.

One of the bands rivals at the upcoming music festival will be fronted by a lead-man called "Big Dick". A fair amount of the film is dedicated to his big dick, including a life-sized tour of his wife's vagina, which we see two men standing in, and is referred to as her "blasted out rat". We also get to watch a rather drawn out scene of a gay man trying to put his pants back on and walk down the street after taking the 20 inch "big dick" in a toilet stall. Ridiculous? Yes. Funny? Not so much. Shocking? Maybe if you are a 12 year old. Ah, yes Big Dick is also a racist - apparently he feels bad that he has to pay for the "darkies" out of his dole allowance.

For something to pass as satire, or social commentary I think the audience needs to be able to identify with the afflicted. It would be impossible to do that with the two-dimensional caricatures put forward in this film with little to no character development except the wanna-be hip try-to-shock me intro by Dries (the writer). It all just seems like misogyny, gay-bashing and racism. The plot and pacing are bad to awful. Characters, like I said, completely uninterested in each and every one of them including the dead toddler of the marginalized addict parents.

Comparing this film to Trainspotting is just wrong. Clearly the obvious references - gratuitous vomiting in filthy toilet stalls, dead babies of addicts and people walking on the ceiling, all of which you'll see here - were memorable moments of that (vastly superior) film. And I guess both are book adaptations. I don't really think it's appropriate to compare one film to another when the similarities begin and end with fairly obvious mimicry.

The trailers for this film make much use of "special" effects: walking on the ceiling, repeated car-hitting reminiscent of Jonathan Glazer's music video for Rabbit in your Headlights. But the movie doesn't bear this out stylistically. And anyway all this stuff is almost a decade old - hardly fresh. Sitting through this film there's no sense of stylistic innovation - like I said the production isn't bad, but it's nothing special outside of these few effects. In short, don't let the packaging fool you - this is not a cutting-edge, stylie piece.

Some people have said this film isn't for the feint of heart. I've sat through many films that have earned that title, the most memorable at this point would be Noe's "Seul Contre Tous" which I watched to the end at the Toronto Festival after fully half the theatre had walked out. I don't think I'm typically prudish, queasy or easily-offended.

This film is not shocking. I felt no real revulsion toward it, but I did not feel any connection to any of the characters. Nor did I appreciate it as a dispassionate survey of a marginalized sub-culture as some have implied. I think it was just poorly directed.

Maybe being Belgian helps with this one - but maybe not.