A film recommendation: Night Watch (Nochnoi Dozor), Russian fantasy (part I of a trilogy), recently opened in the US; the original was an enormous hit in Russia and the sequel just premiered. The short version: it’s a confused stylistic hodgepodge with a simplistic moral underpinning, but so consistently ugly/beautiful (visually and viscerally) that it’s a must-see. (Not particularly suitable for Mum, though — that “viscerally” isn’t entirely metaphor.)

I’m coming to this one awfully late. The English version (subtitled I presume) premiered April last year, and the sequel (Day Watch) opened in Moscow in January. On the other hand, Night Watch only hit US theatres in February — I’m hoping Day Watch will get to the Netherlands somewhat quicker. (I saw a downloaded copy, but I’d gladly pay to see it again in a theatre, and definitely shell out for part II.)

As I said above, stylistically it’s a hodgepodge. In one of the most disturbing scenes, the protagonist fights a hopelessly mismatched battle against an invisible enemy who stabs him again and again with a pair of scissors. Intercut, we have his backup team racing to the rescue in a jet-assisted electricity services van, confusing the address, and at one point apparently sidestepping into the world of comic cartoon physics in order to avoid running down a pedestrian (you’ll know it when you see it). Sickening violence and Keystone Cops, at the same time.

So why am I recommending it? Well, both these sequences share two features, despite their emotional dissimilarity: they’re beautiful, and they’re dirty. In fact, they’re beautiful because they’re dirty; it’s the very antithesis of Matrix chic, the heroes wear old raincoats and hoodies and get spat on in the subway. Even the pure CG scenes mainly succeed at looking grimy. (The biggest exception, and the main visual failure of the film, is unfortunately the repeating motif of the Armies of Light and Darkness in battle; some doublethink is needed to get around this one, I’m sad to say.)

The same oily grime extends to the moral and emotional dimension of the film. At root, it’s an overly simplistic morality: a thousand years or so ago, the Armies of Light and Darkness (the “Others”, vampires and witches and similar more-than-humans) fought each other to a standstill. Realising they were precisely evenly matched, they formed an agreement; the Night Watch are Light Others policing the darkness, the Day Watch are their opposite number. There’s an attempt at nuance: the Dark Others are issued licenses to prey on humanity by their Light compatriots, and throw this fact in their faces at every turn. But we’re shown the simplicity and honesty of the Light Other characters, and their manipulation by the Dark Others, and there’s no real doubt where good ultimately resides.

Again, the saving grace of the film is the gritty grimy edge. Our hero is undoubtably on the right side, but nonetheless he does terrible things. He has no answer when a vampire asks him what makes his way better than hers; we know it is, but like him we’re unable to voice an answer that will convince her. They’re not trying to say that the line between good and evil is blurry, or that it’s just a question of naming the sides; it’s clear that in this world the Army of Light are the good guys. It’s just that the justification for this point of view lies more in the voice of the narrator, and the character of one footsoldier, than in the immediate evidence of events. (I’m especially interested in how Day Watch will inform this picture, if —as I’m hoping— we see more from the perspective of a Dark Other.)

It’s an interesting level of nuance that I’m finding quite difficult to articulate, and that might be significantly altered by the next couple of films — another attempt would be to say that I’m sure that either moral absolutism or moral nihilism underpin this world, but I’m not totally sure which (the question basically hangs on whether the framing narrator of Night Watch is to be taken as partisan or objective). This still isn’t quite correct: it’s not an absolutism/nihilism dichotomy, but the question of where moral authority resides. It’s quite clear that Anton is on the right side, but I’m not sure if that’s because the Army of Light is the right side, or if it’s the right side because he —as a basically good person— has chosen it.

I think I’ll leave the moral dimension before I embarass myself any more… and return briefly to the visual, to say that the photo gallery on the website (Flash, sorry, so no direct link) doesn’t begin to do justice to the film. We get one beautiful shot of the vampire with the scissors, and one closeup of a mosquito (from one of the truly effective CG sequences), and the rest is fairly mediocre. The shots seem carefully picked to reward people who have already seen the film, but not to draw in those who haven’t. (There’s a birdwoman in the pics. They could hardly have chosen a less representative moment to immortalise, and it’s a shame because the character flat-out rocks.) Between that and the streaming trailers with no download link (and my broken plugins), I could almost believe they don’t want people to see this film… Take my advice, and see it anyway.

(Marginally related: the same evening I saw a tiny fragment of MirrorMask. I’d heard not to expect too much from it, but judging from a scrap two minutes long, it might be worth it just for the design. Beautiful, and the soundtrack for that moment was entirely inappropriate and totally right, not to mention gratuitously funky. Reckon you might be hearing about this one again sometime soon…)