MovieChat Forums > Fear X (2003) Discussion > Oh, for *beep*'s sake...

Oh, for beep's sake...

posted 12 years ago by budarc
1 reply | jump to latest

I've only seen three movies by Refn, but I can already tell he is an infuriating director. I saw Fear X for the first time in 2003, was baffled by it, then swept it under the rug of my subconscious. 10 years later, having enjoyed Drive and being similarly baffled by Only God Forgives (which this movie resembles, in so many ways), I decided to look back into Refn's filmography and made the Fear X connection. So I decided to watch it again (it's become increasing hard to find)...and once again, I'm baffled beyond belief. I like the slow, overdramatic way the scenes play out (which is incredibly theatrical), and the odd colors and visuals, and the way the music seeps into the picture. But I am so annoyed at not being able to put anything together at the end. Briefly reading other people's comments, I guess there are two "favorable" interpretations:

1) Harry has been dreaming about "revenge" for so long, that he created this delusion, putting together all the pieces from the few clues he's scavenged; or

2) Everything that happens in the movie is literal -- Harry traces his wife's murder to Montana, ends up finding the detective who is part of some sort of strange conspiracy, meets him in a hotel room, gets the detective to "confess" more or less, then gets shot (the bullet passes clean through), has some sort of fantastical delusion that he actually killed the detective (whether it happens or not is reduced to some red smudges on the screen), then wakes up in a hospital on his side (it is never revealed whether or not he's actually been shot), and is basically told to eff off by the police, as some sort of "cover up."

I'm not sure which of these two explanations is the more reasonable, or satisfying for that matter. I do know that I am compelled by Refn's films, for better or worse, and whether I ever receive a satisfying explanation to these works comes second to my perverse and persistent fascination in the unexplained and commonly aggravating.

(Speaking of which, what the hell is the significance of the title???)

[–] Baby_Seal_Clubber 10 years ago

I belive this is a movie part of a tradition where meaning isnt necesserally dependent on a interpretation beyond the direct relation to the movie. By that I mean the interpretation should be social. I think Its representative of such a, truly humanist, tradition together with Buñuel, Lang (some times at least), Roy Andersson, Fassbinder etc.
So basically I think the most interresting aspect of his movies is Its form, its object, rather then Its subject.

Sorry for my *beep* drunk and on a phone(my point still stands though!)