On State of Mind in 'Hounds of Love'

Emma Booth, Stephen Curry

Through its sheer sense of presence, Hounds of Love doesn't ask for, but rather demands, an appreciation for the visceral experience it cultivates.

Hounds of Love

Rated: 18
Director: Ben Young
Cast: Ashleigh Cummings, Stephen Curry, Emma Booth
Length: 108 minutes
Distributor: Arrow Films
Year 2016:
UK Release date: 2017-07-07
US Release date: 2017-03-11

Hounds of Love, the bold debut feature of Australian filmmaker Ben Young, follows in the footsteps of compatriot Justin Kurzel’s own viscerally disturbing urban nightmare debut, Snowtown (2011). Young’s film can only be described as a gruelling experience to be endured, fraying the nerves as early as the halfway mark. Through its sheer sense of presence, it does not ask for, but rather it demands an appreciation for the visceral experience it cultivates.

Young tightly constructs his film around the claustrophobic captivity of Vicki (Ashleigh Cummings), who is lured to and then imprisoned in the home of serial killer couple John (Stephen Curry) and Evelyn (Emma Booth). The act of narrative isolation is one that calls to mind David Fincher’s Se7en (1995), whose story was told from the isolated perspective of the investigators. Whether or not this is the storyteller teasing his audience, it's nonetheless an effective creative choice.

In spite of Vicki’s recently separated parents' search running parallel to our increasingly isolated view, its sparse inclusion as a thread to alternate between search and captivity forces us into the uncertainty that defines her experience. This increasing sense of segregated and claustrophobic suffering preys upon our hope of escape, as Hounds of Love meticulously inches it's way towards an emotionally dramatic and uncertain crescendo.

Amidst this conscientious construction the narrative has an air of starkness, the cast of characters complicating the simplicity of the drama with their mix of impulsive, cruel and volatile natures. Fate, or rather the question of it, plays a part in the film. It's a subject on which Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds.” It's a sentiment that echoes The Buddha’s teaching in The Dhammapada: “Our life is shaped by our mind; we become what we think.” While it's easy to see Vicki disobeying her mother to sneak out to a party and into the clutches of her captors as an act of fate, in reality it's one of not individual, but communal choices. It echoes the sentiments of The Buddha and Roosevelt in that she is a victim of her own rebellious and impulsive nature, that in turn shapes her future.

Yet Hounds of Love looks to destiny as a communal interaction -- Vicki’s captivity a consequence of her own mind in as much as it's a convergence with the minds and actions of her captors. Therein when Vicki and Evelyn converse on the irony of her fateful choice to forsake the safety of her mother’s home, it's cast as nothing more than an admittance of the unpredictable consequence of actions. Although Evelyn’s reference to fate, a thought that will already have occurred to us long before, sees it convoluted by the habitual human practice to explain life's events away with mysticism.

The irony, however, is more deeply layered by way of Vicki identifying her mother as the one that fractured her parents’ marriage; her mother's new home is neither a place she feels nor wants to belong. Therein, Vicki’s mind and actions constitute her fate, yet as one person in an intricate and long spanning network of lives and choices, an expansive tapestry of cause and effect, it illuminates that both Roosevelt and The Buddha are guilty of an oversimplification.

This submission to spiritual inclinations is evidence of a thoughtful piece of filmmaking, its pervasive sense of dread underpinned with a dark philosophical underbelly that merges oppressive mood with ideas. While the suffering inflicted upon Vicki is not a proportionate reaction, it speaks to the narrow margin between being in and out of control; predator or prey. John and Evelyn embody this duality amidst the introverted versus the extroverted strength of personality -- John and Evelyn society’s introverted predators, as opposed to the extroverted thugs that intimidate openly, to whom John is prey on this urban food chain.

Stephen Curry as John

The opening casts the camera’s perspective as an overtly sexualised one, dehumanising and objectifying the adolescent school girls in the way their bodies are framed in slow motion. It's an act of voyeurism that accentuates the presence of the unseen and unexpected threat from introverted killers. Evelyn’s character looks to the submissive woman embroiled in those unspeakable crimes that scar a society, expanding the film’s inclination towards a study of submissive tendencies. In director Young and actress Booth’s hands she's a compelling character, offering a portrait of a woman in emotional and psychological conflict, her identity under construction as her conscious and unconscious personalities and instincts duel, complicating the idea of fate as one that is shaped by unstable minds.

It's here where those brief moments of Vicki’s mother’s search feeds into this study of women. A woman who has reclaimed her independence from her husband and an unsatisfactory marriage offsets Evelyn’s own submission to John. Hounds of Love is a perhaps most aptly described as a story about the confrontation with and resistance to submission, whether it be in the form of masculinity or mysticism.

If the film's characters must accept the uncertain consequences of their actions and not look to mysticism, then that same uncertainty bleeds into the audiences experience of the film. Loyal to the creation of emotion, Hounds of Love creates an experiential uncertainty up until the final shot, drawing out this gruelling experience in which we encounter the foreboding realisation that we may experientially remain captive in this circle of hell, depending on the outcome.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.