Review of Last Days (2014) by Rune B — 16 Aug 2008

I can't help but wonder if the expectation can make this a better or worse film. I personally went into it knowing the premise, and to me, this may have added to the tension. Wondering when it was going to happen, and who would be victim to it, meant that in the few moments I was acquainted with each character, I tried to establish the most intimate understanding of each one of them that I possibly could. Each moment was valuable, and I found myself actively engaged as a witness of their daily routines.

When "something finally happened," I was not disappointed, nor did I feel betrayed by how little I saw, how even in a moment of panic, the film's slow pacing never really seemed to speed up. It didn't quite feel climactic, and part of me suspects that that may have been intended.

The moments in which we can actually see violence onscreen are not entirely sequential. We are continuously being pulled in and out of the antagonists? perspective, maintaining tension while never quite satisfying our desire to experience violence in such an instant way. Media violence, as evidenced even in the news we are fed daily, is almost sexualized; there is a sort of instant gratification in seeing violent imagery. Violence, including that which seems real, has been and still is a source of entertainment. What Van Sant can achieve beautifully is an engaging film devoid of that sensationalism. Where many directors have the decency to pull off the band-aid with one swift tug, Van Sant?s method is much more drawn out process, and it works to a startlingly engrossing effect.

I am partial to this director, namely because he ?de-sensationalizes?, but also because he challenges our senses. His later film, [i]Last Days[/i], loosely based on the final moments of Kurt Cobain?s life, leaves no traces of a premeditated or purposeful suicide, but instead portrays the drug-induced aimlessness of a most pitiful burnout. Not once are we ever conveniently placed inside of his head. Not once are we ever given concrete, indisputable answers, because frankly, there may not have been any.

Some may criticize Van Sant for being too vague, and therefore noncommittal to a specific idea, intent, or purpose. After all, [i]Elephant[/i]?s antagonists never vocalize a reason for their actions, we are merely shown a myriad of possibilities (their home life, videogames, even some rather extended shots of the weather). I would argue that where many would commit to a single idea, Van Sant explores the multiplicity of meaning inherent in perception, and in doing so leaves a level of responsibility to the viewer. Whether we care to accept that responsibility is our own choice.