Directed By Nathalie Biancheri

Starring – George MacKay, Lily-Rose Depp, Paddy Considine

The Plot – Jacob (MacKay), a man who believes he is a wolf trapped in a human body, is sent to a clinic by his family where he is forced to undergo increasingly extreme forms of “curative” therapies at the hands of The Zookeeper. Jacob’s only solace is the enigmatic wildcat (Depp) with whom he roams the hospital in the dead of night. The two form an improbable friendship that develops into infatuation.

Rated R for some abusive behavior, sexuality, nudity and adult language

WOLF – Official Trailer [HD] – Only in Theaters December 3 – YouTube

POSITIVES

– Immersive production. On a technical merit, “Wolf” is very much a film that takes advantage of the unique perspective of animalistic tendencies, marrying a union of sight and sound that feeds coherently towards the introspective vantage point of its protagonist. The weathered color grading and methodical movements of the camera from cinematographer Michal Dymek breeds a hopeless despair to the incarceration of these helpless victims, which plays into a tranquil atmospheric element to the movie’s corresponding imagery. Likewise, the experimentation prescribed towards the film’s intricate sound design echoes a conscience from with Jacob that challenges and enhances interactions in the same way his animal counterpart would hear them, complete with echoing and distortions that wholeheartedly embrace the aspect of the gimmick itself, which in turn cements the dreaded disposition in Jacob that we positively define as truth in the legitimacy of species dysphoria, making him different from any of the characters we ever come across.

– Valuable idea. In the concepts and reality of species dysphoria, there’s plenty that lends itself to the compelling nature of the screen, while also playing into the moral debate of its legitimacy. In the ways that Biancheri attacks it as an internal conflict, it resonates as accurately to the heart of the narrative in the same way that movies pertaining to conversion therapies do for gay population, outlining a suffering for those affected, who never chose the lifestyle, but are forced to embrace it from within, as the voice that keeps on persisting. Biancheri herself doesn’t fully capitalize on the magnitude of possibilities that could stem from such a compelling idea, but she does paint a bleak and disparaging circumstance to clinical resolution that does weigh its hand to the ages old trauma of animal abuse, turning the camera on the human characters to outline them as the true predators to the innocent prey, whose only desire is the freedom that they’re entitled to. For creativity, it’s an idea that has rarely been exploited for cinema, and at the very least justifies its existence on-screen for the factual reality it serves in real life.

– Committed performances. For the work of MacKay and Depp, the emotionality in layers certainly distinguishes itself with an air of tragedy and longing that envelope much of their quieted demeanors, but it’s their physical transformations in bodily movements that were most beneficial to the believability of their portrayals. When George is on all fours with his back and neck distorting in ways that doesn’t feel smooth or natural for a human body, you really sort of interpret the soul of the species from within being held prisoner, while conveying the familiarity of their structure in ways that keeps their animal counterparts fresh in our heads at all times. In addition to them, Paddy Considine also hands in an equally moving, yet terrifying channeling of his role as The Zookeeper. Considine uses humility and torture as a means to an end in the therapies he supplants to his patients, and when combined with Paddy’s soft-but-methodical vocal consistencies, outlines a character who is every bit as disturbing and devastating as Nurse Ratched in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.

– Nuanced enhancements. While the spectacle of the animalistic transformations are mostly subdued to bodily contortions and enhancements with the sound design, the aspect of make-up does make its presence felt, but in a refreshing manner that I wasn’t expecting. Instead of alterations lending themselves entirely to humans becoming animals, they instead alleviate the struggle and tirelessness of the bodily capacity, complete with a sagging of the eyes and stretching of the skin that is captured breathlessly from some subtle-but-enhancing aspects of off-screen influence at their disposal. In addition to this, the coloring of the facials elicits a tone that is bleak and lifeless for the interpretation, equally feeding into the aforementioned atmospheric elements, like the seamless consistency of a painting, with all of its rich textures and color coordination of the same inspiration. It provides depth within the body cavity, even when the delve of its animalistic transformation isn’t fully explored, providing stakes for such a lifestyle that externally emits the internal struggles of those plagued.

NEGATIVES

– Timely limitations. With the depth of the possibilities mentioned above in the heart of this original idea, 93 minutes of screen time from bell to bell just simply isn’t enough time to properly flesh out each of their necessities. You understand this sentiment in many aspects of underwritten emphasis in the film, but primarily the romance between Jacob and Wildcat, which feels tremendously forced and unearned in the concepts of the minimal time allowance of their on-screen interaction with one another. In addition to this, the entirety of the cast, minus Jacob, are never given any semblance of backstory or characterization to flesh them out in a way that makes them feel like living, breathing entities in the constructs of the film, so most of the time we’re left with ambiguous interpretation with regards to the legitimacy of their dyspheria. Finally, the ending itself is one of the least climactic that I have seen this year, reaching a minimal level of satisfaction for one character, while refusing to resolve anything for the others that hang in the balance. It’s abrupt, underwhelming in its direction, and inconsequential with the stakes and circumstances hanging in the balance, serving as the loudest echo to the missed opportunity that was summarized by this the frequently rushed pacing.

– Tonally improper. For my money, this film is far too pretentious to the point that it directly undercuts the appeal and consciousness of its narrative. Considering we’re experiencing deliveries and interactions that breed an inescapable layer of awkward humor, it leaves the experience all the more ambiguous by the way it directly contradicts this with a lack of self-awareness that it emphatically chooses to never indulge itself within. With a more fun and energetic approach towards the film’s tonal capacities, it could’ve opened up these pocketed moments of levity that would’ve eased weight and expectation off of the repetitious nature of its formula, and in turn create emphasis for the unstable characters who often serve as nothing more than window dressing without a shred of influence to their appearances. Similar to the characters it constantly depicts, “Wolf” too is a movie yearning to be something it rightfully isn’t, and in turn is locked away in a prison of mediocrity because it refuses to accept the reality of its situation that frequently defines it for the worst.

– Meandering score. Without question for me personally, the single worst aspect of the film, and one that doubles down on the unnecessary seriousness of its aforementioned tonal problems, is the musical accompaniment from Stefan Wesolowski, which feels like it was lifted from an entirely different film all together. Most of the problem certainly pertains to the compositions and precise instruments constantly reaching for a purposeful profoundness, but feeling all the more hollow with the strange lunacy transpiring on-screen. During moments of human characters barking and hissing at each other, the tracks swell to inspiring resonance that doesn’t work cohesively with the complete lack of magnitude in the visuals and material it accentuates on-screen. Likewise, many of the tracks themselves are repetitious and predictable in the moments they enhance their audible influence, forcing the shelf life of Wesolowski’s work to spoil long before we even reach the midway point of the narrative, with the score transcribing something that never feels synonymous with the integrity of the narrative.

– Missing links. If you seek more proof that very little was actually put into these concepts or corresponding world-building, look to these moments of suspended disbelief, that brought forth a new question every ten minutes that halted my investment. If the medical staff are trying to cure these people, and convince them that they’re actually human, then why would they put them all together in the same rooms, and often unsupervised? Why do the therapies themselves, like walking them around on leashes, feel like they encourage their animalistic tendencies rather than suppress them? Why does one girl get to keep a bird costume when no one else attains one fabric of their animal counterpart? Seems pretty counterintuitive to me. This aspect could certainly lend itself to the lack of development that fit into the aspect of its minimalistic run time, but when the exposition itself can’t even answer a few obvious questions of matters transpiring on-screen, then it points to the lack of creative depth from Biancheri as a screenwriter, and proves that too much responsibility overwhelmed her from being a one-woman army of the film’s creative elements.

My Grade: 5/10 or D