William Friedkin's KILLER JOE (2011) a noir masterpiece (NC-17 thread) (3 Viewers)

[Richard--W]

A search did not turn up a thread about William Friedkin's latest film, so I'm starting one.
Has anyone seen KILLER JOE? This film is righteously wrong and I can't wait to see it again.
From the summary on amazon:

"The films of director William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist,
Sorcerer) have been called many things over the years, but "subtle" has never
been one of them. While his brash, purposely nuance-free style can sometimes
prove overpowering, when it clicks with the right material, it booms
brilliantly. Killer Joe, Friedkin's reunion with playwright Tracy Letts (Bug),
finds the director's in-your-face expressionist tendencies working like
gangbusters, propelling this black comedy to places where most movies fear to
tread. The laughs become winces, and vice versa. Letts's script (adapted from
his play) follows a Texas bottom feeder (Emile Hirsch) with some serious gambling
debts. Looking for a way out, he teams with his dim dad (a hilarious Thomas
Haden Church) to hire a legendary hit man (Matthew McConaughey) for some dirty
work. When the duo fail to come up with the collateral, however, Killer
Joe sets his sights on Hirsch's beautiful sister (Juno Temple). Things go
downhill at warp speed from there. Trafficking in bad taste from the very first
scene (Gina Gershon makes a sleazy entrance for the ages), Friedkin and Letts
take a no-holds-barred approach to their low morality tale, depicting even the
darkest moments with overwrought relish. The already unstable mood is only
boosted by the endearing scuzziness of Hirsch, Temple's lovely space cadet, and
the fantastic Church, who deadpan annihilates every line and reaction shot
tossed his way. Ruling the roost, however, is McConaughey, who spikes his
trademark charisma with layers of serious menace, creating a villain who can
seemingly do anything at any given moment. In a movie where virtually every
character has an aura of 30-weight motor oil, he shines the darkest. --Andrew Wright."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0090SI3DY

William Friedkin shot KILLER JOE for a paltry $10 million in 5 weeks in New Orleans (standing in for Texas) in 2010. But the film doesn't look deprived of anything it needs. The craftsmanship on display is peerless. This is back-to-basics, down & dirty film making the way films ought to be, with no distracting CGI and no special effects except a few squibs, a pan flash and a rain pump. A character-driven crime noir told the way it should be, with no concessions to good taste, morality or censors. The story by playwright Tracy Letts channeling Jim Thompson is pure Texas grunge punctuated with uncomfortable truths and observations of human nature that will make you squirm in your seat when you're not laughing too hard. Utterly outrageous, clinically insane and perfectly reasonable all at the same time equally and with no effort (to paraphrase Jack Nicholson). Which character is more twisted than the other? The film begins promisingly with Gina Gershon showing her bush (don't believe those stories she's telling about wearing a merkin) then keeps getting better and better until the feverish third act. You won't forget the third act for a long time, nor that last shot before the bump-cut to black. To sustain a tour de force like this a director needs to strike just the right emotional pitch and escalate it like the click-stops on the volume knob of your stereo, which Friedkin does. He tunes these actors like violin strings. Everybody is totally immersed, completely fearless, and you never doubt them for an instant -- not even

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

the 22-year-old playing the 12-year-old-sister* who shadow boxes Sonny Chiba videos in the buff.

I haven't seen a film this politically incorrect since the early 1970s. KILLER JOE makes BLOOD SIMPLE look bland in comparison. Why couldn't THE KILLER INSIDE ME (2010) be more like this?
KILLER JOE is my favorite film of the year -- perhaps of the last several years.
Thank you, William Friedkin.
More films like this, please.
Not that it matters, but it's probably the best-quality digital capture I've seen projected theatrically.
The cowards at Lionsgate / LD Entertainment have been sneaking KILLER JOE into theaters across the country for a week or two since July 29, unannounced and unpromoted. It has even turned up on military bases and airplanes, usually the last venue for a release. If you haven't caught up with it yet, don't hesitate to drive out of your way to see it.
A report on Friedkin's battle with the MPAA:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/william-friedkin-interview-part-1-killer-joe-and-mpaa/

 

[TravisR]

I wanted to see it but I'm assuming that the NC-17 kept it out of any theaters within about 40 miles of me.

 

[Craig S]

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/324454/william-friedkins-killer-joe-2011-a-noir-masterpiece-nc-17-thread#post_3988634
I wanted to see it but I'm assuming that the NC-17 kept it out of any theaters within about 40 miles of me.

Ditto. I've wanted to see this one, but I'm afraid I'll have to catch up with it on Blu.

 

[Michael Elliott]

This has nothing to do with a studio being cowards. If they were cowards they would have cut the film down to a R-rating that way it could play 2500+ theaters. The fact that they sent it out NC-17 was brave in this day and age and once you see the film you'll know there's just one scene that got it this rating and they could have cut it out or refused Friedkin from shooting it to begin with.
With that said, I saw it a few weeks ago and gave it a 4 out of 4 rating. The performances were great, the story was sick and just got sicker as it went along and it's certainly one of the better films I've seen this year. Your review with the age is a pretty big spoiler IMO.
Even the arthouse I attend had issues showing this because the newspapers wouldn't even allow them to put the name in their listings. It just said "NC-17 Film: Call for Title and Showtimes." That right there is going to keep people away if they don't know what it is.

 

[Richard--W]

I think the distributor's lack of commitment, or cowardice, has everything to do with it, Michael.
NC-17 films have been announced and promoted in all the media before, and this film is mild compared to others.
I didn't think my comment about the age of the actress was a spoiler since the articles I've been reading all make a point of mentioning it.
No posters in the theaters that are showing it. No trailers in the neighboring auditoriums. No electronic press kits. No commercials on television. No radio spots. So far as I know no admats, not even in adult magazines I'm told. That's a film that isn't being promoted let alone announced. The title shows up at the ticket window and the online schedules, and that's all.

 

[Michael Elliott]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=NC-17&p=.htm
That link will show that NC-17 films simply have nowhere to play and nowhere to go. You can't show them in malls. You can't show them in major chains as most don't want to deal with the added money spent to make sure those under 17 don't get it. Newspapers can't advertise the film. Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and several other mags have given the film good reviews but people still aren't turning out enough for this to get a wide release and it couldn't. Even if these places were allowed to show the film there just wouldn't be much demand. The film is actually doing quite well compared to other NC-17 films.
When this came to my arthouse I thought for certain that it would play a month or two. I really thought this type of film would go over well and I went on its second week and was shocked to see it in the smallest screen (meaning it's going away) and that the manager said no one had come to see it.
As for the spoiler, I'm not sure what you've read but I think it does play a big turning point in the film when you hear how old she is and realize what's really going on has just gotten even sicker. Plus

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

if word did get out that a movie was playing about a 12-year-old getting fucked by a 40+ year old man, don't you think this here would be enough to keep people away? The film keeps the age a secret and then throws it on you during a pretty graphic and disgusting scene. When the age was announced you just sink even deeper in your seat.

With the rating:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I thought the film was rather tame in regards to what we were actually seeing and I was shocked thinking they had given this a NC-17. Then, the chicken scene happened and it all made sense. There's just no way on Earth this was going to get through without the film getting a NC-17.

 

[Richard--W]

But Michael, I saw KILLER JOE in a major theater chain (Harkins), in a very busy shopping mall, in one of the most conservative towns (Phoenix) in the most conservative and intolerant state (Arizona) in the union. I agree there are obstacles to NC-17 films, but even with the obstacles, Lionsgate / LD Entertainment still could have done a better job promoting the film. Further, I haven't heard of the film being banned or refused a screening anywhere. There may be a fear of controversy, but so far there's been no controversy during the theatrical run. It's coming to an end now and the film is going to be released on home video in region 2 in November.
Let's not over-react. The behavior in the film is intended to be transgressive and a taboo-breaker, but the dirty part happens off-screen, and what little that does happen onscreen between the adults is depicted softly. KILLER JOE is not pornography and it's not hardcore. The metaphorical behavior with the chicken leg is not a sex scene at all although it's meant to stand in for one. There is more explicit nudity and sexuality in R rated films like HARDCORE, THE EMERALD FOREST, THE BOUNTY, EYES WIDE SHUT, the Greenaway films, and some of the recent girl romance films like Julia Leigh's SLEEPING BEAUTY and I don't know how many others. Again, it's implied behavior for which this film is rated NC-17, specifically because

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

the 12-year-old girl is duplicitous and corrupt at the outset, and already has an agenda of her own before she takes up with Killer Joe. She looks innocent, but she's as bad the rest of the family. At the end, she is also a killer who is about to pull the trigger on the man who finally gave her what she wanted, however unwittingly.

. I find these low-life characters believable and true to life. The writer Tracy Letts pulls these characters from life; he's not making them up.
Despite the fact that both the play and the story are well-known and hotly discussed, I inserted a spoiler in the initial post to cover up the part that worries you, Michael.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't want to bring politics into it but Phoenix played I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and several unrated horror films so I'm guessing it's not too rare for the city. I've never heard of the theater chain you mentioned but Rave, AMC, Great Escape and several others in this area would never touch any NC-17 or unrated movie. AMC did a few try-outs (HATCHET II) but that didn't work out too well. If you saw this at a mall with teens running around outside then I'd stay living there. You're certainly not going to find that in this area and I'm not sure if others would find it around them. I wish more mainstream theaters would show these type of films.
I think the point is that this film has a very limited appeal and there's just not a market for it. I'm not sure what else to say. Where the movie is playing (outside of big cities) it's usually just sticking around a week at most. Everyone involved is happy with the box office take for such a film so I'm not sure what else they could have done. Even if the material got this released to 3000 theaters, no one would go see it. The producers and director knew they were going all out when they made the picture so I really don't think they were trying to get box office dollars. As someone who follows these indie box office takes, a lot more titles open to less and they don't have all the road blocks that this one did. The majority of the people who buy tickets can't see this or get in with an adult. A trailer, TV spots, radio spots aren't going to change this. Mags covered the film more than they would for other material like this because of Matthew but the appeal still isn't there. I'm not sure what else they could have done.
Matthew fans want to see him as a stripper. They don't want to see him playing the character here (or THE PAPERBOY which is fastly fading). TWILIGHT fans want to see Robert playing a vampire and they'll stay far away from everything else he does. It would be great if people would go see a film like this because it truly is a great one but it just doesn't work that way and I can't blame a studio for not pumping more money into something that they might not get back. Home video is another animal all together and I'm going to guess this is where the film will turn into a cult hit.
SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT
We'll just have to disagree on why it got the rating. You can't have a similated oral sex scene with a real penis, a chicken leg or any other object. This is 100% a R-rated movie up until that time and there's no way on earth that this could have gone out there without it getting cut. The violence, nudity and sex is rather tame outside the fact that it's surrounding a 12-year-old. I personally didn't take the film too serious as to me it was very much a black comedy. Had it been 100% serious I think it would have just been too much.
Again, I'm not sure everyone knew going in that this girl was 12-years-old. It's never mentioned anywhere in the film until we get to the sex scene and the way it was announced was meant for it to shock the viewer once again. Even the ending with the chicken leg was just meant to be one more way to shock you and then we get to the twist ending. I've heard different opinions on what happened at the end so I guess everyone can make up their own mind. I didn't see the girl as you did. At first she's presented as mentally retarded or just messed up from the family. I think she just got fed up with everything that was going on around her and especially with Joe. I know some think they went off together but I didn't buy this.
The one issue I did have with the film is how Joe let the family get so close to him. I had a hard time believing that such a professional would allow himself to let his guard down and let this family in on everything. Yes, they had a young one he wanted but I'm sure he could have gotten this at others places without risking so much.
I'd agree that these characters feel real. Living in KY it's not too hard to find these type of characters once you get out to the trash parts of various cities so they did do that right.
It is good to finally talk about this movie though. I do agree we need more like it and I hope Friedkin has something else lined up (I also really liked BUG).

 

[Paul D G]

I've been waiting on this one to come to my area for months. It's still not. I'm afraid this will be a Blu rental for me as well.

 

[Richard--W]

The actors really sell the chicken leg business, but I could have done without the scene, and I think audiences in general could do without it, as well. The film works brilliantly as a crime noir and a black comedy, but the chicken leg business pushes the scene too far, into farce. I wonder if Friedkin didn't insist on keeping it in because somebody pushed him too hard to cut it.