THE HAMSTER CAGE
Canada, 2005, 93 minutes, Colour.
Patricia Dahlquist, Jillian Fargey, Scott Hylands, Carly Pope, Alan Scarfe, Tom Scholte.
Directed by Larry Kent.
The Hamster Cage is a Canadian film that has a potential to alienate almost all audiences. It was written and directed by Larry Kent, born in South Africa, but doing most of his film work in Canada.
The film is a contrived situation along the lines of such stories as Pasolini’s Teorema. It is also modelled on such stories as family reunions and bickering in the Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf style.
The film focuses on two children, who both rival each other in the academic world, the daughter being far more successful than the younger brother. Their father is to receive the Nobel Prize for Physics and they return home for a celebration. While the surface is normal, the family begins to unravel very quickly. The focus of attention is Uncle Stanley (portrayed by Scott Hylands who appeared in many Hollywood films and telemovies of the 70s and 80s). It appears that he is a paedophile, has abused his niece, has turned up for the celebration with one of his university students, a Candy- Lolita type of person who is exploiting her studies via a relationship with the lecturer.
The father, about to receive the Nobel Prize, is also eccentric and self-centred. He dislikes his son entirely, wiping him off as a loser, but is very fond of his daughter. On the other hand, his alienated and fussy wife of many decades cannot stand the daughter but dotes on the son.
Stanley brings a number of gifts and when they are opened they bring back memories of the past and the various conflicts and abuses. In a fit of anger, the daughter kills him – but, like the plots of stories like The Trouble With Harry and Weekend at Bernie’s, the problem is disposing of the body. This time the corpse is not quite dead and there follow quite a number of attempts to bury him, see him rise from the dead again, attack them, and their attempts to kill him off. In the meantime he has returned to the meal table and continues his unmasking.
The film then reveals the dark secrets of all the characters – all of whom have an obnoxious past. There is also a huge eruption of violence.
Many audiences find that paedophilia and sex abuse is beyond the pale for black humour. However, those who feel that there are no limits on what can be satirised may be intrigued by the presentation of the characters and their behaviour.
1. The impact of the film? Comedy, offensive?
2. A black comedy, satire? In its topic, treatment, characters, farce and irony? Could the film be seen as a comic psychodrama?
3. The visual style, televisual style, the focus, the lake, the house, interiors? The score?
4. The title, the experience of mechanised experiments?
5. The attitude to paedophilia, the film’s stance, the rationalisations by paedophiles, the glossing over of responsibility? Paedophilia and its effect, consequences and punishment?
6. The dysfunctional family, the introduction to Paul and Lucy, the good services? Their meeting, the lake, talk, the past, the prospects for their scholarships, resolution?
7. Lucy and Paul, brother and sister, the bonds between them, the rivalry, Lucy and her success, Paul and his lesser success?
8. Philip and his winning the Nobel Prize? A wilful man, staying in his room, underwear, the phone connection with his wife, wanting the drink brought to him, intolerant and arrogant? Lucy and his love for her, Paul and his disdain and insulting him? The story of taking him into the woods when he was six, firing at him, leaving him to chance in the woods? Candy’s arrival, the discussion, her flattery, his lecherous attitudes, the talk and the sex? His despising his wife, going through the polite motions? The meal, Stanley’s visit, the talk with him, his lack of interest in Stanley’s career? The gift, the picture of the broken-down shed, his recounting the story, their father as abusive to Stanley, Philip and his interpreting that he was unlovable by his father? His finally taunting Paul with the gun, his death?
9. The mother, thirty years in the marriage, cooking the meal, communication with Philip by phone? Her memories, the ballet, looking at the ballet shoes gift? The story of Philip’s breaking her legs, her career ruined? Her having her children, bringing them up? The memories of Rudolf Nureyev – and the room as a shrine? Her being upset, ringing the bells? Her demonstrative love for Paul, intensity? Disdain for Lucy? The meal, the stories? Her passionate kissing of Paul, her being shocked at his suggestions? Falling over the railing and being killed?
10. Stanley and his bringing Candy, his various gifts? Seeking out Lucy, her being in the toilet, his explanation about his paedophilia, healing, the panties, the rationalisations? His being attacked by Lucy, battered, carried in the wheelbarrow, buried? His reviving? Twice? His coming to the table, his death? The story of the abuse in the shed, Philip’s grief after his death?
11. Paul, his relationship with his mother, with Lucy? The butt of his father’s attacks? Preparing the meal, Lucy spitting in the salad? His glee about Lucy’s killing Stanley, helping to carry him away, their return to the drinks, Stanley arriving again, battered and buried? Rising again? The gun as the gift, the story?
12. Lucy, her love for her father, her mother’s ignoring her? Blaming her? In the toilet, Stanley’s talk, her revulsion, anger and killing him, feeling that she was on a high, disposing of him, burying him again?
13. Candy, the name, the references to Lolita, her being twenty-two, the way that she was dressed as a schoolgirl, provocative, her consciousness of this? Coming with Stanley, her praising him as a genius? Sexual excitement with geniuses? Her course, creative writing? Visiting Philip, the sex, her writing down the stories? The family’s despising her? Her eagerness in listening to the stories, writing them down? The end, her being tied up, let go, the guns, her running to get her notebook?
14. Paul explaining to Lucy that their mother knew about the abuse all the time? That bringing them together, the long sequence of the kissing? Their being together? The satiric presentation of incestuous relationship?
15. The effect of black comedy, satire and its attack on its targets? This film as offensive, lacking in taste, a comedy about paedophilia – is this possible?
