Review Angel Dust

divemaster13

Member: Rank 4
For Monday's review, I present to you Angel Dust (1994).

Previous reviews:
2/13: A Tale of Two Sisters
2/20: Comrades, Almost a Love Story
2/27: A Chinese Tall Story
3/6: The Mystery of Rampo
3/9: Clean
3/13: The Bride with White Hair
3/20: No Blood, No Tears

----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Dust (1994)
Directed by Sogo Ishii
Starring Kaho Minami, Takeshi Wakamatsu, and Etsushi Toyokawa
In Japanese with English subtitles
Film: 4.5 stars (out of 5)

If, like me, you got interested in Asian film back in the VHS days, you probably spent a lot of time scouring the Blockbusters and Hollywoods and independents for whatever cool-looking stuff you could find. Perhaps it was anime, or maybe kung-fu, or older period pieces by Kurosawa. One day, on my own quest, I saw an intriguing-looking tape of a movie titled Angel Dust. The accompanying promo material referred to it as “The Japanese Silence of the Lambs.”

It’s really not, however. Yes, the two films share a basic plot: an attractive female detective/ psychologist tracks a serial killer while tapping into the talents of a manipulative mentor type to help get into the killer’s mind in order to catch him. But the similarities pretty much end there. There are elements of a whodunit and we get just enough police procedural to keep us on track, but those expecting a big-star Hollywood type production like Silence of the Lambs, or a trendy, graphic thriller like Tell Me Something or The Chaser will probably be disappointed.

But if you enjoy the psychological aspects of a hunt for a serial killer; think that a secluded brainwashing clinic can be a creepy setting; and appreciate mood, atmosphere, and symbolism over jump scenes and gore, then I suggest that you seek out this little-known film.

Every Monday at 6:00 PM a 20-something girl drops dead right in the middle of the crowded Tokyo subway. The killer’s predictability is more than offset by his elusiveness. Meanwhile, we are introduced to our detective, Setsuko Suma. Described as an “analyst on abnormal criminal personalities,” she seems to be a cross between a psychic and an empath and is driven to get into the mind of the killer in order to stop him. However, Suma is no confident and strong Clarice Starling. In fact, she is barely hanging on to her sanity, and we get the feeling that the efforts of the investigation just might tip her over the edge, if not kill her. Suma has frequent nightmares and fugue states. In these she finds herself descending into a cave (her nightmares? her memories? a trap from which there is no escape?). The symbolism is effective.

To complicate matters, her investigation leads her to a former mentor and lover (Rei Aku), a mysterious renegade psychologist who has set up a “reverse brainwashing” clinic known as a “Re-freezing Psychorium.” We aren’t quite sure if the mind games he draws Suma into serve the purpose of helping her in her quest, or something more diabolical. In any event he is always several steps ahead of her and she finds herself psychologically and emotionally at his mercy once he gets into her head.

Something that impressed me greatly about Angel Dust was the visual style and the director’s stylistic touches. The look of the film is grainy and washed out. The Tokyo of Angel Dust is bleak and full of urban decay that hangs like an oppressive weight over everything. The color palette tends toward sepia and a pale industrial green that will have you thinking about basement cafeterias, hospital corridors, and flickering fluorescent lighting.

We are treated to some interesting visuals, and I firmly believe the sound editor must be a genius. (I can hear you saying it now--“Oh great...divemaster’s going off on the sound editing, that’s like telling me the sister has a great personality”). No, no, really. It’s very effective, including the use of an atonal synthesizer that really complements the production design.

The DVD is non-anamorphic 1.85:1, and the quality of the transfer is rather poor it seems. The DVD is coded as R0, although it says R3 on the case. Audio is Japanese Dolby Digital 5.1 or 2.0 with removable English or Chinese subtitles. The subtitles have their share of grammatical and syntactical misconstructions, but nothing too egregious. The only bonus feature is the director’s filmography. Also, the DVD has probably the most uninspired cover art I’ve ever seen. It’s a shame they couldn’t (or didn’t) use the fantastic cover of the VHS.
 

sitenoise

Member: Rank 5
My Poster for this compares it to The Usual Suspects. It's something I've had around for a long time, never got around to watching. I started Rampo ... Been a lot of good recs lately. Now that there's a break in the VB season maybe I'll get caught up.

Sound design can make or break a film. Don't hesitate to mention it in reviews.

Can you explain in practical, dumb-downed terms what "anamorphic" means? I've read the Wiki articles but still don't get it, why it matters. Is it just file size?
 

divemaster13

Member: Rank 4
My Poster for this compares it to The Usual Suspects....
Good grief. When will the marketing folks be required to at least watch the film the're blurbing about? This movie has nothing in common with The Usual Suspects. NOTHING. I'm flummoxed at how that association was made. At least the comparison to The Silence of the Lambs is fair, if a bit misleading. The role of the female investigator and her mentor, who she must rely on and who may or may not be toying with her is a fair comparison.

Can you explain in practical, dumb-downed terms what "anamorphic" means? I've read the Wiki articles but still don't get it, why it matters. Is it just file size?
I'm certainly no techy, so I invite anyone else to give you a better answer. But it boils down to if a movie is already "enhanced" via an anamorphic process, it will fit a 16:9 (flatscreen) TV as is. If it is a non-anamorphic image, it won't fit properly--for it to fit on a flatscreen TV, either the DVD player or the TV itself will have to squoosh it into a "letterbox" to display the entire image. In so doing, the image is somewhat distorted. That's why some movies actually look better on VHS displayed on a CRT TV rather than improperly transferred onto a non-anamorphic DVD used in conjunction with a 16:9 TV.

(Is "squoosh it into a letterbox" dumbed-down enough? I hope so, b/c that's about the limit of my understanding! LOL)
 

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
I like your synopsis. Silence of the Lambs is one of my all-time favorites. Gosh when will I be able to finish all these queue on my watchlist. :(
 

Zelena

Member: Rank 2
Can you explain in practical, dumb-downed terms what "anamorphic" means?
May I?
Anamorphic lenses are a technique they used a lot when wide-screen films became a thing in the 50s -- they wanted wide images to capture the vast expanse of the western prairie and stuff like that. So like divemaster says, the lens would capture a wide image and squish it (vertically) to fit in the more square shape of 35mm film, so that they didn't have to change cameras and film types and everything. Then another anamorphic (unsquishing) lens was used in the theater on the projector to unsquish the image to look like it appeared to the camera. I think in some cases, movies have been released "unsquished" on vhs and dvd, and just wrong in proportion because of that. They also often just chopped off the sides, so you're only seeing like 60% of the movie. Personally, I'm not bothered by "letterboxing" with black bars on top and bottom, so I don't see what all the grousing is about.

As a side effect of all this, anamorphic lenses have a distinct "look" to them that is different from non-anamorphic lenses. The stuff that is out of focus in the background is out of focus in an oval way, rather than round. It's subtle, but it has a subconscious effect on the audience, because this certain look means you're not just looking at film (as opposed to video, television) but you're looking at really high-quality film, really big-budget film, real cinema. Spielberg, Coppola movies look like this -- especially anything big-budget from the 70s.

Another side effect is that anamorphic lenses are hellaciously expensive, so it looks like that. Some nerds like Tarantino are really into using anamorphic lenses because they think it makes their movies better (hint:no -- just like putting "A Shaw Brothers Production" on the opening title cards doesn't make Kill Bill.... I digress..)

Here's a sample from Apocalypse Now. They used a f*&^%$ing sick-ass Cooke anamorphic zoom. These lenses cost tens of thousands of dollars and they're worth it. If you're looking for that look, you'll see it everywhere. Sorry, this was not really meant to be a clear explanation, but rather an excuse to spout off on a photography subject. But you read it, lol. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


 
Last edited:

clayton-12

Member: Rank 4
Angel Dust has been on my to-watch list like forever. One of the first Japanese films I saw was Sogo Ishii's The Crazy Family, which was given festival screening here about 4 or 5 years after it was released.
 

divemaster13

Member: Rank 4
Angel Dust has been on my to-watch list like forever. One of the first Japanese films I saw was Sogo Ishii's The Crazy Family, which was given festival screening here about 4 or 5 years after it was released.
Well I hope my review prompts you to move it up the queue a bit. Perhaps you will like it (perhaps not). Either way, let us know what you think. I actually have not seen any other of Sogo Ishii's movies. I'm not a "follow the director" type as a general rule (there are a couple of exceptions--Tarantino and Kurosawa being two), but if there's something you would recommend, I'd give it a try.
 

sitenoise

Member: Rank 5
The stuff that is out of focus in the background is out of focus in an oval way, rather than round
Beyond that going around my head, I still don't get this. I kind of do, but. To take it one thing at a time: When it gets squished vertically (wait, is that right?) for TV, why doesn't it then look stretchy on the other axis?

The TV look vs the Film look vs the Digital Film look. I wonder if I could pick them out of a lineup. If the obvious clue of aspect ratio were eliminated I don't think I could. I don't have an intelligent visual sense at all.

I don't mind letterboxing either. And I sort of understand that when you see a picture that looks like if you were actually at the place being photographed you would have to move your head a little from left to right to actually see everything you see in the picture, it's ... something. But then again, isn't it really just as if you cut off the top and bottom.

I have anamorphic block
 
Top