Man Bites Dog

I remember renting 'Man Bites Dog' (or 'C'est Arrivé Près De Chez Vous' which is its original title) on a hunch in the mid-nineties, because I found the title and the cover on the VHS cassette intriguing. I had no idea for what kind of ride I was in. At first I was taken aback a bit, as I didn't expect the film to be in black and white. And then it simply blew me away. This mix of realism, pitch-black comedy and shocking (though not very graphic) violence had me on the edge of my seat throughout, and I simply hadn't seen anything like it before.

The direction and the realistic performances in 'Man Bites Dog' are simply outstanding; when I later watched it with a friend of mine he was visibly shaken at first, because he had thought he had watched a real documentary (which is obviously the film's intention). What must be mentioned above all else though, is the standout tour-de-force performance by the charismatic and frequently hilarious lead: Belgian actor Benoît Poelvoorde who also co-wrote and co-directed the film. He IS the film, and I have a hard time imagining the story working so well without his inspired, genius turn.

'Man Bites Dog' is perhaps one of the best and most original satires on sensationalist media since Sidney Lumet's seminal movie 'Network'; it's certainly the meanest (and not for the easily offended, mind you). In my opinion, it's a flat-out masterpiece. Highly recommended. 10 stars out of 10.

P.S. In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, just check out the lists below, and you'll see exactly what kinds of films I like:

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

A film crew is making a documentary about Ben, following him around, interviewing him, filming him at work. His job: serial killer. Over time, however, rather than remaining observers of Ben's life and activities the film crew become participants in them.

Absurd, but in a good way. The idea of a serial killer being treated like an everyday person and a documentary being made on his life, and the film crew just watching while he does what he does, and then even helping him in his endeavours, is preposterous. But it works.

Darkly funny but all told in a straight-faced, matter-of-fact sort of way by writer-director-actors Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde. The film does rely on suspension of disbelief but get past that and it's a hilarious, dramatic, action-packed ride.

I consider it a brilliant film, but also very very disturbing. I'd sooner warn people about it than recommend it, even though it's an amazing achievement. So, for what it's worth, here's my viewing experience:

I heard about this film and was immediately hooked on the absurd idea of a serial killer, on the loose, as a willing documentary subject. I also heard that it was pitch-black comedy, and a commentary on violence, society, media, etc. -- blurring the lines between observing and becoming an accomplice and whatnot.

Well, in the first two acts it certainly delivers on the absurdity and the black comedy. Both Ben and the filmmakers are as matter-of-fact about his prolific killing as if it were a documentary about urban architecture, and even in the middle of his murderous acts he remains an engaging conversationalist with all sorts of attributes our culture values: extroversion, confidence, charm, a sense of humor, and fairly informed views on diverse subjects. The juxtapositions are disturbingly hilarious. He laments that African immigrants like the one he just shot don't have equal opportunities in this racist society, or that the color and layout of a certain housing project encourages violence and other social evils. He kills an entire family in their home, then reflects on the waste of human life and how there "should be a law" against that sort of thing. He explains a lot of aspects of his trade (like how to dispose of bodies and which victims are most likely to carry money), but leaves other elements in the dark. He first seems like a murderous variety of the common robber, but then plenty of killings seem to have no material motive at all, while others are clashes with rival killers (the absurdity reaches meta-levels at some points).

I was shocked by the violence and I was also laughing, and I was feeling uneasy about that.

Many reviews talk about how the documentary crew moves from "observers" to "accomplices", but any court of law would already consider them "accomplices" within one minute of the film starting, so that development didn't register so much to me. Sure they started taking a more active part in the carnage, but this wasn't something I considered an unexpected development.

What did register to me was the shift somewhere in the third act. Suddenly I was no longer watching a dark comedy. The violence escalates to a nasty scene that I couldn't even watch, and that left me disturbed and depressed for days. It's like the movie finally decided to show me what I was looking at and say, "well, are you still laughing? Are you?" And I realized: what was there about Ben that was engaging? Even his charming ways among his friends and family were just socially acceptable methods of getting his way and remaining the center of attention, just like killing people and starring in documentaries.

So among the unexpected things I found in this film was a chillingly believable portrait of a textbook sociopath. (The scary thing is that I know someone in my neighborhood who fits that profile as well.)

The film is brilliant and disturbing. Proceed at your own risk.

Man Bites Dog (C'est arrivé près de chez vous).

To say this movie is disturbing would be an understatement. A massive, gigantic understatement! But it is also a display of film-genius.

The movie is filmed in Black and White and is presented as a "documentary" of a serial killer. The film crew follows Benoit, the killer, around town as he recites poetry, muses on welfare and housing reform, ponders philosophy, and ... well, kills. Totally randomly.

He explains to the film crew the lessons he has learned about killing, how to stay low key, who to go after, and what potential victims are a waste of time. For Benoit, killing is an art form, but not one that should be undertaken frivolously.

There are scenes when his lunacy are briefly pierced by humanity - he counsels one of the film crew not to kill, because once you start it becomes a habit. In another scene he laments having killed a suburban family, because they had nothing good to steal, as it turned out. He proclaims that "there should be a law against" killing for no good reason.

Those who shy from blood and killing - about the most graphical violence you'll ever see "documented" in a film - should shy from this movie. But anyone with an interest in a glimpse at the darkest side of human nature will appreciate this film, not necessarily for its story or its darkness, but for its ability to make us think, and open our eyes to human behaviour we don't like to admit might exist.

During the course of the movie you become totally numb to the act of killing (or maming or torture or rape or any violent crime). It is no longer shocking when he kills yet another victim. It has become commonplace. You just sort of scratch your head and wonder - why this one? why now? why him? why her? This mental numbness is made possible by the way it is filmed - as though it were a documentary. Not long into the movie you begin to wonder if this is real, or just a movie. I wonder if this is the kind of numbness that soldiers experienced in wars like WWI, entrenched and under constant fire - to where the violence around become the norm. I read a book once called "My War Gone By, I Miss it So" (that's a whole 'nother review) in which a war-writer kept returning to the front because after experiencing violence all around him day after day after day, he could no longer live without it. In Man Bites Dog the killing is Benoit's addiction, but we, as viewers become complacent to it. We have been numbed to where it is no longer disturbing. Makes you scratch your head and wonder: is such detachment from emotion and what's right really possible???

To add to the realism, all the actors play characters with their real names. The killer's mother and grandparents in the movie - are really the actor's mother and grandparents in real life. During most of the filming they were not told it was about serial killing, just that they were in a movie with their son. So they just act normal around the son they love, only to find out in later scenes that the whole film is about killing. Imagine the look of shock on their faces to find this out - to them the story then is no longer acting but real: they've just discovered their son/grandson made a film about brutal killings and the shock shows in their faces.

Is it real? Is it a movie? What defines the difference?

When I told him about this movie, a friend mentioned that "society,as a whole, is already numb to brutal killing and violence." He's right about that. But this movie is so ridiculously brutal and violent it is more a mockery of our society's complacence to violence, not an endorsement.

Make no mistake this is a disturbing movie. And yea it's just violence with no reason behind it. But it's portraying being on a ride with a twisted, psychotic, sociopath who doesn't care. Kind of like how a war criminal would act. And then makes some off-color jokes about it while he's killing.

Notice the art snobs on here don't only attack the movie but they need to attack the viewer as well. The movie is mocking them and they can't take it. So they write a 4 paragraph review on how much the he or she hates it and how stupid and dumb a person must be if he likes it. It's not supposed to be taken seriously.