Review: Noise (2007)
By Luke Buckmaster on May 6, 2007 in Reviews
Imagine you’ve got tinnitus, a sickness of the ear that causes a constant ringing sound in your head. Imagine you’re a cop. Imagine you try and get some time off work, but no such luck. Imagine you’re confined to a police caravan over Christmas. Imagine there’s recently been a ghastly unsolved crime in the area. Imagine your presence in the caravan somehow draws the perpetrator to the surface. Imagine your tinnitus is getting worse. Now imagine you hear a gun shot, and it sounds like a nuclear bomb detonated right in your cochlear. Welcome to Noise.
It’s an appropriate title for writer/director Matt Seville’s debut feature film, because while the hearing of protagonist Constable Graham McGahan (Brendan Cowell) might be shot, ours, inside the cinema, has rarely been better.
Collaborating with sound designer Emma Bortignon and composer Bryony Marks, Saville whips up one hell of a soundscape: a brooding and constantly shifting score dances beneath an accentuated series of aural pinpoints, niggling the senses like the first rising vibes of a nightmare hallucinogen. Slurping coffee, smoking cigarettes, clicking jaws, unanswered telephones - the prosaic effects of day-to-day life become tools for atmosphere and Leone-esque bursts of sensory showmanship, but Saville is careful not to milk it to the point of novelty. Noise builds a disquieting sense of realism and finds in its protagonist’s ailment a justification to toy with the surfaces of sound. The acts of hearing and listening are central to the film’s premise, and not necessarily in literal terms.
We begin with glimpses of a tragedy that would have Connex executives sweating bowling balls and reaching for the Vicodin. A horrible, bloody mass murder leaves a sole survivor, Lavinia (Maia Thomas), and a perpetrator detectives are searching for. McGahan is stationed at a police surveillance caravan and has a cycle of encounters with members of the community who grapple with the tragedy in one way or another. The story builds a crosshatch of characters and writhes between their relationships with each other and the police, exposing angst and insecurities, kindness and empathy, violence and malevolence in the local residents. The film incidentally touches on familiar characters (the grudging cop, the killer on the prowl, the unsympathetic superior) but it is deeply tuned to personalities and refuses to lean on stereotypes. “In this world,” says Saville, in his Director’s Statement to the media, “heroes do casual labour on building sites and in fast food restaurants. So do the villains.”
“The acts of hearing and
listening are central to
the film’s premise”
The cast, many of whom appear in a feature for the first time, fill out the script’s gray areas with juggernaut performances. Maia Thomas (watch this face) ripples with highly strung emotion: her character has witnessed a ghastly crime, and we believe it. The cast is small and many of them play small characters, but even the bit parts resonate: Lucky Phil (Simon Laherty), a local with a mental impairment and a crotchet for photographing his dog in funny outfits, is indicative of the story’s complex consideration of its people. Brendan Cowell, a Love My Way regular, is the glue that binds the cast together. McGahan is a grudging, almost anti-hero; not happy with his job, wrestling with this affliction, tussling with his girlfriend; he isn’t occupied by notions of heroism and nor is bound by a sense of duty. McGahan struggles to deal with the noises inside his head while all around him hoof prints of tragedy lead to conflict and unresolved tensions, and his character transforms gradually yet fundamentally. Exposing the audience to the pangs of his illness pries the character open just that little bit more, and Cowell hangs it all together neatly.
So does Saville, whose consummation of production elements will leave most film directors wet around the lips. The soundtrack almost literally speaks for itself, and the visual surfaces of Noise are also scintillating. Cinematographer Laszlo Baranyai, whose roots are in Eastern European filmmaking, coats the film in a midnight ambience of blues, grays, odd colour mixtures and monochromatic tones. The effect is a surface that feels like it’s ever-expanding, a breathing, pulsating energy that haunts and illuminates. Even though almost half of the film is situated inside the police caravan, Noise was shot on 35mm in glorious widescreen, every inch of the frame treated as part of an evolving landscape.
Noise is so many things at once: a quietly enlightening character piece, a social study of conscience and decency, a catch-the-killer police story. It finds new angles and directions as it rolls along, never simplifying for the dumb-dumbs in the audience and constantly enlightening its complications and grey areas with fresh perspectives as it progresses. Interpret the film as an allegory or a metaphor, or just sit back and enjoy the ride. It’s a sublimely harrowing cop movie and a powerful psychological thriller that refuses to succumb to conventional definitions. Don’t miss it.
Review by Luke Buckmaster
Cast: Brendan Cowell, Maia Thomas, Nicholas Bell, Richard Cawthorne, Luke Elliot, Simon King, Fiona MacLeod, Henry Nixon, Damien Richardson, Katie Wall
Director: Matt Saville
Screenplay: Matt Saville
Editor: Geoff Hitchens
Cinematographer: László Baranyai
Running time: 108 minutes
Australian theatrical release date: May 3, 2007
Bookmark and Share:
Hi Luke,
Just read your views on the film ‘Noise’. Watched it last night and I must admit I was very disappointed. I am not a film critic but I found it bane, predictable and about as far from real life as one could get. I don’t like to vent but I was quite angry at the way the police where portrayed. Being a retired cop I could not believe the liberties taken regarding police procedures alone.
It does reflect poorly on our police service. The main actor Cawell, as presented, would not get near the Police Academy in this day and age. It is now (or soon to be) a degree course in training with an academic structure. Two fully trained primary school teachers failed the entrance exam some years ago.
A few procedural failings of interest:
Police caravans are never left out to operate all night; they are towed to a location, used, and towed back to base,
Police are never be left to work ‘one up’ in such a situation,
Police don’t pull firearms on drunks, they call for assistance,
Police don’t leave equipment/caravans unattended at any time,
I have never heard police officers conversing the way portrayed in the van, the language, derogatory remarks about civilians etc. In my 28 years I have never heard that tone of conversation,
I have never known of any police to use grass in my time, but I suppose there are a few. They do drink, I agree, probably part of the police culture but is changing,
Police do not take firearms home,
Any use of a firearm is fully investigated by internal affairs and not left as was by the detectives at the caravan,
I have never witnessed such unprofessional conduct or think it could be possible on the scale exposed in the film.
Witnesses are never treated as badly as shown, the female witness would have been traumatised and I doubt in any state to wander the streets, or have much of a conversation with anyone.
How does the lead actor help the community come to terms with a shooting massacre? I didn’t see anything remotely close. Where was the devastated community? I saw no heroic actions. I saw a fool who caused his own demise and did everything a police officer would not do.
I found the house inhabited by the Cawell and partner as not what would be expected of a young couple. There house interior appeared old and more suited to an aged couple. It just didn’t look right.
It is very unusual for a disabled person, eg Lucky Phil, to be involved in criminal activity. To steal, take a photo of the items, and leave them on the wall in the pub is a bit much; I have never witnessed that type of behaviour in my time.
I could not find any redeeming features in the film. The only moment of interest is when he was mucking around with the firearm at home and couldn’t hear his partner who was distressed. The use of the noise was good.
Our nephew is Wayne Hope of the Librarians fame. I am always interested in what he does and discuss films etc when I see him. I just could not see any strong acting ability, insight into how police operate, insight into serial murderers in this film. It was just a peak at the usual low life Aussie idiots that pervade society. I’m sorry for the rant but I was very disappointed. I did watch the reviews on the ABC and expected more.
I have a BA and post grad studies in psychology. I was the president of a major road trauma group for 4 years and know a little bit about trauma. I do like to support our film industry. Am I missing something? I know the film is about the character; the situation and outcomes and not police procedures but it should have some input otherwise it falls in a heap.
Thanks for taking the time to read my diatribe,
Regards Tony Grigsby
Tony Grigsby | Jan 5, 2008 | Reply
What tosh. Noise is one of the best films I have seen…taught, gripping performances by extraordinary actors portraying ordinary and extraordinary situations.The characters are believable and real in my experience. I think Tony needs to take off his rose-coloured glasses and see the real thing.
Chris Beal | Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I must agree with Tony. Not being an ex-police officer I had no idea about the mistakes made re police work. However I found the movie unbelievable and boring in the extreme. We watched it the other night on cable because I’d read good reviews about it. My husband suffers from tinnitus and I thought it would be an interesting film. Pity we have to copy American films and use bad language so much to make characters appear ‘real’. No sympathy, empathy or interest was invoked by any of the characters in the film. Sad to say, I seldom have the same opinion of films as the professional critics. We expect more of the Australian film industry. Cheers.
Phil Soriano | Feb 22, 2008 | Reply
I guess if I was a goat farmer and someone made a movie about goat farmers and it didnt live up to my expectations then i’d be dissapointed. I mean come on its a movie. since when did a movie have to be real life accurate to be enjoyable? Unless you’re really uptight and have predetermind ideas of how the movie should be before you watch it, you’ll enjoy it, maybe not love it but its worth checking out.
mike m | Jul 22, 2008 | Reply
I loved this movie. I found it captivating. I must say that I totally got it wrong, though. Through the entire movie I had thought that Graham McGann was the killer because he was quite an oddball, was working in the area of the trains at the start, and he blacked out from his tinnitus while on the escalator and I thought he said that he couldn’t remember it. I thought that the noise caused by his tinnitus caused him to lose control of himself kind of like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. As the movie went along and I saw his good qualities I figured that he didn’t know what happened during his “episodes.” Naturally, the ending left me quite surprised. Even then, though, I figured his good qualities brought him the “Heavenly” end he had imagined. Then I figured that he never could have lived with himself if he thought he commited such horrible crimes. Well, it made for a very exciting film throughout for me and even with the new perspective (he was apparently just an odd, but good guy)I loved this movie. This was an unforgettable character and a very absorbing plot.
Susan | Jul 23, 2008 | Reply
I too am not a film critic, so perhaps I must be one of the dumb-dumbs Luke Buckmaster refers to! Upon reflection the frustration i felt with this film comes from it not fitting into a conventional story line. On a positive note the lack of a rounded ending places greater emphasis on the incidental elements within the film which would otherwise have been lost (with a conventional ending) and forces the viewer to seek other ways of understanding or interpreting the film. On a not so positive note as the credits started to roll I had a look in the DVD case for the second disc, just in case. For me films are supposed to (and/or) entertain, enlighten, question, provoke that sort of thing, this one left me frustrated. If asked I would have to describe the film as a week in the life of some ordinary people. It was pleasingly different in its construction, annoying in its overuse of dark rooms and night scenes and somewhat disappointing much like a promising cake missing a few ingredients and taken out of the oven too early.
David | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply
look, i don’t know where to start. who was the guy on the train who pulled the gun on lavinia? was he the actual train killer or just some mad guy? because he had a different haircut to the guy who shot brendan cowell’s character in the caravan at the end - whom i am assuming was the actual train murderer. and the guy on the train, wasn’t he the guy in the line-up and then the same guy who picked up lavinia on the street after chasing her in the car? was he lying about finding her name in the visitor’s book because he really he had the photo? and then who killed the girl near the bridge? was it the same killer? i’m so confused…someone put me out of my misery, because although it was interesting enough to watch until the end, i don’t think i could sit through it again.
Beck | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
I really held on to this movie hoping that it would come up with a twist or at least an ending but it came up with nothing. About 2/3 of the way through it became obvious that the protagonist would die.
I was hoping that he was the killer (with a wig of course) - or - there would be some sort of resolution to the mystery of the case, and the lives of McGahan and Lavinia.
The overuse of profanity and drug abuse makes this movie an australian cliche of sorts - trying to resonate the abusive culture that we all like to sweep under the rug of society most of the time.
Also, a lot of the actors all seemed to look the same - especially the suspects - I wonder if this was done deliberately to make this movie even more confusing than it already was, nevermind the irrelevant pieces of information they all seemed to spew out as the movie progressed.
I do agree with the first comment - I have nothing to do with the police but do wonder why this guy is doing night shifts on a caravan all alone - and why he had a live gun. But I disagree with the first comment in that I did find the main character believable, and he did have some depth..
Joel | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
Beck.Here’s what I think are some answers to your questions.
“look, i don’t know where to start”
Start by realising that this aint a Hollywood film where every open questions gets closed.
“who was the guy on the train who pulled the gun on lavinia? was he the actual train killer or just some mad guy?”
We don’t know. In particular we don’t know what happened from the time he put the gun to Lavinia’s head to the time he got off. She won’t tell the detectives and we know she is lying because suddenly her clear description gets vague she doesn’t even know how or where he got off the train. It’s possible the guy on the train was the killer, or he himself a witness who then went a bit nuts with the gun. Remember he went to the end of the train to pick the gun up off some guy’s body.
“He had a different haircut to the guy who shot brendan cowell’s character in the caravan at the end - whom i am assuming was the actual train murderer”
Big assumption to make. He may or may not have been the train killer
“The guy on the train, wasn’t he the guy in the line-up and then the same guy who picked up lavinia on the street after chasing her in the car? was he lying about finding her name in the visitor’s book because he really he had the photo?”
No. The guy in the line-up picked up Lavinia because he was traumatised by being picked out. He wanted her to know how he felt. He didn’t know WHAT he was being picked out for doing. Then he realised that she was more traumatised than he could ever know. That’s why he said “I’m sorry” and she said “I know”. This whole sequence is about what it’s like to be traumatised and innocent.
“Who killed the girl near the bridge? was it the same killer?”
We don’t know. Could have been the train killer, the cop killer, a third killer, or all three could have been done by the same guy.
The whole movie is told from McGahan’s point of view. When he dies it’s over.
Tim | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
This was just dull - boring - uninteresting. A pointless 15 minute story crammed into an hour and a half. I sat through the first third of the movie and it had not taken me in, it was not holding my interest and it left me with no reason to keep watching it other than to see if it would get any better. It was just minute after minute of nothing. I found myself checking the time every minute, the slow progress of time holding more interest for me than where this nothing story would meander next. It looked like some art student’s homework to me. No matter how clever the story may seem to the director, if the audience don’t get it than there is no point to it - it will never make it in the commercial environment. In the end I just stopped watching it. it would surprise me to see this director produce any future commercial work and I expect that he will just blunder along making work or arts grants. In case you were wondering, I did not like it.
Paul | Sep 28, 2008 | Reply
Well I saw this movie ‘by accident’ on SBS last week. I am not a film critic, but I was caught up in this one, that I stayed up to finish watching it.
Thoroughly enjoyed it, even though some aspect were not correct in todays age,
Things were quite often done very differently 20 years ago, thank goodness, police were more approachable and helpful than today. .
I prefer the old style where you could walk into a police station and they knew the law and could give you advice and were more human”
Back to the movie.
I could not work out who “done” what. Couldn’t figure out who was the killer on the train, was it the accused or not
The murdered girl found on embankment I thought the fiance killed her, he seemed very pleased with himself after he burnt her car and it was almost like he set up the policeman?
And did the policeman die? or didn’t he.
Frustrating - I hate loose ends but I loved the movie.
Beats any American who done it, with more inconsistency and was more “real”
Janina | Sep 29, 2008 | Reply
I’m glad others were as confused as I was! I couldn’t work out who did what either. Perhaps if some of the actors didn’t look so similar it might’ve helped. I was also a bit disappointed in the lack of answers. It’s not that I don’t like movies which don’t neatly tie up ends. They need to be clever about it though, e.g. provide the slice-of-life story and leave us thinking or at least having gained something from the viewing experience. This movie though gets you in because you want to find out who the killer is - it seems the movie revolves around it - but when it’s not really resolved, you just feel cheated of your time. Why bother?
Claire | Oct 6, 2008 | Reply
Janina - the fiance burned the car that belonged to the guy that beat up Lucky Phil (he and Graham talked about it the next day).
As for my own take on the film, I too felt a little ripped off by the complete lack of resolution at the end of the film. I enjoyed it thoroughly until the credits. The sound and cinematography were fantastic.
I can’t believe that someone thinks this movie was “American” in its language - how many American films have the word ‘f*ck-knuckle’ in them during a existential discussion about heaven and hell?
However, I do like “stories”, whether conventional or otherwise, and I like endings. It doesn’t have to all come together in a neat little package, but some kind of resolution to something, please! The intrigue, the suspense, particularly of the train massacre, it just hangs out there and seems pointless.
Having said all that, the longer I leave this film, the more I forgive and the more I seem to like it…
Adam | Oct 17, 2008 | Reply
I watched this last night in New York…I was quite confused, and would note that the Australian accents are slurred to the point of intelligibility, without any subtitles available…not good for the export market.
Jay | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply
whoops - make that UNintelligibility!
Jay | Jul 20, 2009 | Reply
brilliant movie. thanks for the thoughtful review. some harsh reviews make me wonder if these folks expect answers in life the way they expect them from movies. If so: this is prelude to metaphysical disappointment for them. For the rest of us: sublime enjoyment of a masked world.
Acting: brilliant.
Tension: near-constant.
Production: shimmering.
thanks for boosting me to see it.
ejb | Aug 25, 2009 | Reply
This will not be a thoughtful or intelligent review… Just my disgusted gut response after having wasted an hour and a half of my life watching it.
To the Producers and Directors and Writers of ‘Noise’:
Noise was the worst film I have ever seen. Please save your money
from any future planned productions and burn it instead. The heat
generated from the flames would be of better use.
jr | Mar 20, 2010 | Reply