[Freya-dæg] A Movie That's Been Unnecessarily Burked

It seems that there's something that I should have considered in last week's review of The Love Guru. Watching such a bad movie will make any movie watched immediately (perhaps up to a week) afterwards seem amazing. At least, that's the feeling that I'm left with after reading reviews of Burke and Hare - which got a 34% from critics and a 37% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.

However, I seriously disagree with these numbers.

But what am I disagreeing with? What are so many peoples' beefs with this movie?

The biggest beef, I think, is the movie's being labelled a "dark comedy."

Yes, there are laughs. Yes, there are murders and messy 19th century dissections. But these two elements of "dark comedy" aren't pushed as much as you might expect from a movie labelled as such.

There are some good laughs and witty lines (maybe these seem even more so after watching The Love Guru), and there are some gory and grim scenes too. Yet nothing caused the laughs that Shaun of the Dead brought out, or the sort of atmosphere of fear that a story of 19th century murderers (the movie is based on the real case of Burke and Hare) often does.

Aside from the movie's mis-labelling, the story itself also seems to have been softened. Of Burke and Hare, Hare (Andy Serkis) is the schemer and the plotter, while Burke (Simon Pegg) is played more naively. Hardly do they seem like hard-boiled murderers for money/medical science.

One specific plot point stands out as falling flat.

It happens in the scene where Edinburgh's crime boss, Ferguson, takes Hare aside for the second time. Ferguson asks Hare to be his partner, and says that he has a choice to accept or decline, despite the situation suggesting that to decline would mean death.

My feeling is that Hare wouldn't be killed if he refused (as he and Burke were earlier in the movie), but it isn't that he'd be tossed from the carriage either. Further, if the fact that Hare's hesitation and the lack of a definite answer is supposed to humanize Hare, then the scene seems even more out of place.

Moreover, the movie plays the scene as a major point in the plot - but to me there's no real conflict present in it. Hare is the amoral one of the pair, and so of course he's going to accept, or, if he refuses, be able to slip through the hands of death.

More generally, there's too much going on in the movie plot-wise.

Three plot lines (Burke and Hare trying to make a buck, Ginny (played by Isla Fisher) trying to put on an all female Macbeth, and Drs. Knox and Munroe competing for glory) are definitely not too many, but one of these shouldn't have as much screen time as it does if the movie is supposed to be dark. Yes, alas, I'm looking at you all-ladies-Macbeth, or, rather, the Ginny-Burke romantic subplot.

However, this romantic subplot is engaging and enthralling. It's definitely nothing new in the world of cinema romance, but partly because Simon Pegg is playing the naive sidekick rather than the serious ideas man (as he had in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), partly because it involves Shakespeare, and partly because Isla Fisher effectively convinced me that she wanted to put on the Scottish play, it works.

Actually, both Fisher and Jessica Hynes (playing Lucky, Hare's wife) are excellent matches for their male counterparts and show that they've got serious chops on their own, too.

But it is really the relationships between Burke and Ginny and Hare and Lucky that fire up the movie. As with the romantic subplot, these relationships don't break new ground or anything, but they really give an extra punch to the movie.

In particular, Burke and Ginny's relationship is so engaging that when Burke suggests that she goes to London and says that she doesn't need her anymore I found myself preemptively mouthing her reply. Yes, it was that predictable, but their relationship is also so engaging that I found myself mouthing lines.

And bolstering the strength of the main players in the flick, are a number of cameos and other fine stars (Tim Curry, Bill Bailey, and the inimitable Christopher Lee). These might just be little one offs or brief scenes, but the appearance of these actors is amazing. In a similar vein, references to and cameos of famous Romantic Poets are presented as well. I think I know why this movie only made $4,833 ($945 opening weekend) at the US Box Office.

Some solid bits of dialogue are also on offer.

Among these exchanges are incisive and revelatory bits of 19th century Scotland (Hare (on the cost of living in Edinburgh): "I thought life out here was supposed to be cheap" McTavish: "It is.") and those that are at the level of a highbrow Love Guru (Dr Munroe (of Dr. Knox's new students): "Are they enjoying your lectures?" Dr. Knox: "Not as much as they're enjoying your wife"). In either case, Mordecai and Rigby of Regular Show fame aptly capture my reaction to such wit:

{Found on Tumblr, uploaded by cferrr.}

The historical details that are included in the film are excellent as well - from fashion to architecture and design. Most notable of all such references being the offer of "chocolate" to the captain of the militia when he's meeting Lord Harrington. But they don't mean a piece or a chunk - oh no.

They mean hot chocolate, a drink made of cacao mixed with various spices. A drink that was a high style contender in the UK until coffee shops proliferated in the middle of the 18th century. My guess as to why hot chocolate's still around the chambers of power in 1828 Edinburgh: they knew a good thing when they had it and were slow to make the change.

Before I can securely pass judgment on Burke and Hare, I need to address head on one last issue: Ginny's all female Macbeth production.

Critics are perfectly right to ask why it's included. However, I believe that I have an answer.

It's kind of a contrived means of doing so, but I think that the Macbeth rigmarole is included as a reflection of Burke and Hare's consciences. Quite a bit like the play within a play in Hamlet. In answer to the question of "why Ginny?" my theory is that it's the writers' way of showing that she's a strong female character, as well as giving the romantic subplot more detail. Perhaps it's an overly elaborate way of accomplishing these ends, but it's the way the writers went with.

Ultimately, it's safe to say that I disagree entirely with the overall ratings from both the critics and the audience as they appear on Rotten Tomatoes.

Burke and Hare is a film featuring great actors, great characters, awesome literary and historical references, and a few chuckles here and there. In fact, this movie illustrates my general taste in movies: hammy drama and comedy that balance the subtle and the slapstick.

Burke and Hare might not be acted as hammily as some of the old Hammer movies that it refers to, but the comedy is a refreshing blend. The Love Guru may be *ahem* thanked for that, but I am also confident that this movie stands on its own merits as well. After all it's this English major's dream come true to see a 19th century movie that isn't set in London.

And screen-cap Tim Curry also approves.

So, Freya, fly low that you may bear this one up as though it were on eagle's wings.

Check back after the weekend for the waxing moon installment of my musings on teacher's college, and if you've got your own thoughts on Burke and Hare that you want to share, leave me a comment.