← Back to Reviews
in
Plot – Jean Claude Van Damme has hit some hard times. Struggling with money problems, with his waning star status and with a custody battle over his daughter things don't seem like they could get much worse for the Muscles from Brussels, and then of course they do. Returning to his birth country of Belgium, seeking some kind of refuge he instead find himself caught up in an attempted robbery at a post office, becoming one of the hostages. And even worse the police think he is actually the person responsible. Forced by the robbers to negotiate with the police, the safety of all the hostages depends on his ability to follow their orders.
What a curious little oddball of a film this is. When I first heard buzz about this film starting to build, and was hearing about the notion of a Jean Claude Van Damme arthouse film, I was quite understandably sceptical, but undoubtedly intrigued. It sounded like quite a prospect and for the most part it lives up to it, it's far more than just a mere curiosity. As for its unusual arthouse credentials, it may not quite be as weird or surprising as Steven Seagal popping up in Michael Haneke's next Cannes-winning picture, but it's certainly territory I never imagined I'd see Van Damme venture into, and I can't imagine many other people did either.
And it's certainly not just an ego trip for Van Damme, he doesn't just use it as an opportunity to bitch and moan about where he has ended up. He sheds his ego and leaves himself completely exposed. Yes he's unhappy with the films he's making and he takes the chance to try and explain some of his strange behaviour, but he doesn't wallow in self pity. He owns up to his mistakes and shows the effect he has had on his family. The film borrowing much from Van Damme's actual life – the drugs, the financial difficulties, the divorces and the custody battle. And through it we get a commentary on the celebrity obsessed culture we live in, and how at some point people become more interested in reporting on your problems than anything positive; the only time Van Damme now gets any notice is due to a custody battle or apparently robbing a bank. The film also shows the toll this hero worship can have on people as they strain to keep up the façade of what we see on screen.
Even though the film clearly establishes that this is not the movies, that this is the real Van Damme and this is real life, we still feel certain that at some point we are going to see Van Damme be Van Damme. He is going to kick some ass, save the day and be the hero. And knowing this, the film actually plays with these expectations. Towards the film's conclusion we are presented with a Van Damme fantasy where he disarms one of the hostage takers before delivering a trademark spin kick. He then plays up to the adoring crowd, flexing his muscles and pumping his fists as he receives the congratulations of the cops and SWAT members. The sequence is presented with a golden tint to proceedings, before the reel stutters to a halt and returns us to reality. And the reality of what occurs proves to be much less dramatic and heroic.
Anyone who has heard anything about this film will most likely have heard about the moment where Van Damme turns towards the camera and addresses the audience. It's a quite astonishing scene. All of a sudden in the middle of this hostage situation everything stops. Van Damme ascends above the set, into the rafters and breaks the fourth wall. He stares directly into camera and just talks to us for about six minutes or so. It's like a Shakespeare soliloquy. He sheds aside any pretensions of being an actor or a star, leaving himself naked for us to judge. He talks of his mistakes and his regrets, addresses issues regarding his family, his personal life and his professional life. It's such a personal and genuinely moving moment, I actually found myself getting a little bit choked up. Who would have ever thought I'd have that emotion in response to Jean Claude Van Damme acting?!!! But it's a quite wonderful moment. People will argue whether it's a great acting performance, or if he's just playing himself but I'm going with great performance.
Even without the presence of Van Damme the film would be fairly offbeat anyway. This isn't a straight-forward thriller with bad ass thieves. The men who hold up the post office aren't slick professionals, for the most part they're bumbling idiots. They have no idea what they're doing, forced to just make it up as they go. In this sense, and indeed in many other ways it bears a very close resemblance to Dog Day Afternoon. The tone and scenario are very similar, they both make some comment on the nature of celebrity, both films feature crowds gathered outside the building cheering on the bad guys of the situation and JCVD even features an almost dead ringer for Dog Day's John Cazale.
|
|
Year of release
2009
2009
Directed by
Mabrouk El Mechri
Mabrouk El Mechri
Written by
Mabrouk El Mechri
Frédéric Bénudis
Christophe Turpin
Mabrouk El Mechri
Frédéric Bénudis
Christophe Turpin
Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
François Damiens
Zinedin Soualem
Karim Belkhadra
Jean-François Wolff
Jean Claude Van Damme
François Damiens
Zinedin Soualem
Karim Belkhadra
Jean-François Wolff
JCVD
Plot – Jean Claude Van Damme has hit some hard times. Struggling with money problems, with his waning star status and with a custody battle over his daughter things don't seem like they could get much worse for the Muscles from Brussels, and then of course they do. Returning to his birth country of Belgium, seeking some kind of refuge he instead find himself caught up in an attempted robbery at a post office, becoming one of the hostages. And even worse the police think he is actually the person responsible. Forced by the robbers to negotiate with the police, the safety of all the hostages depends on his ability to follow their orders.
What a curious little oddball of a film this is. When I first heard buzz about this film starting to build, and was hearing about the notion of a Jean Claude Van Damme arthouse film, I was quite understandably sceptical, but undoubtedly intrigued. It sounded like quite a prospect and for the most part it lives up to it, it's far more than just a mere curiosity. As for its unusual arthouse credentials, it may not quite be as weird or surprising as Steven Seagal popping up in Michael Haneke's next Cannes-winning picture, but it's certainly territory I never imagined I'd see Van Damme venture into, and I can't imagine many other people did either.
And it's certainly not just an ego trip for Van Damme, he doesn't just use it as an opportunity to bitch and moan about where he has ended up. He sheds his ego and leaves himself completely exposed. Yes he's unhappy with the films he's making and he takes the chance to try and explain some of his strange behaviour, but he doesn't wallow in self pity. He owns up to his mistakes and shows the effect he has had on his family. The film borrowing much from Van Damme's actual life – the drugs, the financial difficulties, the divorces and the custody battle. And through it we get a commentary on the celebrity obsessed culture we live in, and how at some point people become more interested in reporting on your problems than anything positive; the only time Van Damme now gets any notice is due to a custody battle or apparently robbing a bank. The film also shows the toll this hero worship can have on people as they strain to keep up the façade of what we see on screen.
Film trivia – The film's concept was born out of an agreement Van Damme had with a producer to play himself in a movie. The original idea however was for Van Damme to play a more clownish version of himself. When El Mechri was brought in for a rewrite, he agreed to do it only on the condition that he could meet Van Damme beforehand. He wanted to know if Van Damme would be comfortable with the direction he wanted to try, so he wouldn't just waste six months writing for Van Damme to veto it. As a result of his script El Mechri was subsequently asked to direct.
Anyone who has heard anything about this film will most likely have heard about the moment where Van Damme turns towards the camera and addresses the audience. It's a quite astonishing scene. All of a sudden in the middle of this hostage situation everything stops. Van Damme ascends above the set, into the rafters and breaks the fourth wall. He stares directly into camera and just talks to us for about six minutes or so. It's like a Shakespeare soliloquy. He sheds aside any pretensions of being an actor or a star, leaving himself naked for us to judge. He talks of his mistakes and his regrets, addresses issues regarding his family, his personal life and his professional life. It's such a personal and genuinely moving moment, I actually found myself getting a little bit choked up. Who would have ever thought I'd have that emotion in response to Jean Claude Van Damme acting?!!! But it's a quite wonderful moment. People will argue whether it's a great acting performance, or if he's just playing himself but I'm going with great performance.
As you should be able to guess this certainly isn't your normal Van Damme flick. If you're looking for a healthy dose of action, then this certainly isn't the place. However it does include one quite terrific action sequence. The film opens in classic Van Damme fashion as we see him acting like a one man army, taking down a seemingly unending number of adversaries. As the sequence moves along however we begin to spot the truth. We see that he is not actually connecting with the villains, he's pulling his punches and we see that he is actually on a set. This is not a Van Damme film we're witnessing, it's Van Damme making a film. It's a highly impressive piece of film-making as the whole thing is done in one continuous tracking shot that runs at least four minutes, an impressive calling card for debut director Mabrouk El Mechri, as the whole film is indeed.
Film trivia - Much of the film is improvised. According to the director only about 70% of the dialogue was scripted, with Van Damme in particular improvising the large majority of his dialogue. El Mechri didn't want to write much for Van Damme, not wanting to limit him with words as he feels Van Damme has 'his own music'.
His villainous turn in The Expendables 2 aside, this film has not as of yet kickstarted any big comeback. As a fan of many of his movies I'd have loved for him to be back on the big stage, and I just think it's a shame it's not happened. The film and his performance deserved to be a bigger deal and deserved to be wider seen.
Conclusion – I'm really not sure how you'd describe this film; a post-modern meta thriller perhaps. Whatever tag you put on it, this is a clever, touching and frequently amusing film. A very unique viewing experience. A true one-off in terms of Van Damme films, and not a million miles away from a being a one-off in general. It's a film that I would recommend as worthwhile viewing to anyone, whether they be a Van Damme fan or not, as I think it's a little bit of a gem. The only question I'm left with is, where was Van Damme's Oscar nomination?! 