All language subtitles for born.to.be.wild.the.story.of.steppenwolf.2024.1080p.bluray.x264.aac-_yts.mx

Hello, and welcome to the audio
commentary for Steppenwolf.

My name is David Flint, and I'm a film
critic and pop culture historian, and

the editor of Desperate Living, which
you can find online at desperate-living

.com. Over the next hour and 40 minutes
or so, I'll be talking about this movie,

the themes it plays with, how it fits
into the established genre cinema.

Notably, director Adol Khan Yersinov
stated that this film is genre cinema in

its purest form and I'll take a look at
what he might mean by that and how that

plays out in both the film's visual
style and the nods it makes to other

movies, other genres across the board.
Some of which are obvious, some of which

may be a little bit less obvious.

I'm assuming that you've already watched
the film before listening to this

commentary.

Obviously, I might be dropping the odd
spoiler here and there.

Not that this is the film that has the
kind of sudden plot twist that can be

really ruined by that. But still, if for
whatever reason you have come here

before watching the movie properly, I
can't imagine why you would have done

that. But, you know, you never know.

Any case, just stop now, turn the
commentary off, and start the film

again. Watch the movie, come back,
listen to this later.

I should also say that I'm not going to
be doing a scene-by-scene description of

what is happening on screen at any
particular point.

I'm not the filmmaker, I'm just a
critic, and I'm assuming that most of

you can see what's going on on screen
just as well as I can.

So if major plot points sail by while
I'm talking, that's fine.

I'm looking at the bigger picture, not
picking up very specific individual

points, but obviously anything important
that I need to mention, I will do. But

generally speaking, as I say, I'm
looking at the bigger picture, the

themes, the influences, the cultural
reference points of the film, rather

than just describing them.

what's happening on screen. This isn't
an audio description track.

As we've seen during the opening titles,
right away the film acknowledges where

the title comes from with the quote from
Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf, which nicely

sets up where the film will go and the
nature of the main character.

Though arguably which main character
might be a bit more ambiguous than we

think.

Obviously, calling the film Steppenwolf
immediately brings to mind the 1927

existentialist novel, which was filmed
in 1974.

That version of Steppenwolf is long
overdue a new release, by the way.

But that's a different story.

I mean, it certainly seems that
Yersinov, as both writer and director of

this film, is making a nod towards the
inspiration of the novel's themes with

the film's title.

He does that with a couple of things in
these opening scenes that I'll come back

to in a second.

But this is obviously a story that has
little in common with Hess's book

narratively. It's perhaps more
atmosphere or a vibe that plays as an

inspiration.

Still, it's nice to see the connection
acknowledged, even if this isn't in any

tangible way a genuine adaptation of the
book.

This image that we've just seen, the
shot in the doorways, obviously a nod to

John Ford's The Searchers, which of
course shares the general narrative with

this film, the search for a kidnapped
child.

It's certainly an early sign that this
is a Western movie as much as anything

else, or at least a Western-influenced
movie.

There's an in-depth discussion elsewhere
on this disc about Westerns, post

-Westerns, and whether or not we can
call films that don't take place in the

Old West.

Westerns.

Or not.

So I'm not going to go over that to any
great degree.

But the themes of Westerns are obviously
often universal ones. Stories that could

work in different times and places.

You can look at a movie like John
Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 or

something like Fort Apache the Bronx
where the latter emphasises the

connection of Western cinema to
contemporary crime and action cinema

right away in the title.

Or perhaps more recently, and more
connected to the film that we're

watching now, many of the crime movies
that have emerged from Eastern Europe

and Asian cinema over the last couple of
decades that play on Western movie risks

of revenge, rivalry, the fight to
control a land.

It's not for nothing that we tend to
refer to any sort of lawless environment

as being like the Wild West, after all.

Peter Adamski's 2019 Polish film Ethan
even plays on that in the title where a

community dominated by gangs is
presented as being very much in line

with those lawless western towns where
corruption, violence and rivalry rules

the day.

The opening scenes of this film from the
pre-credit sequence

to what we're seeing now have a
genuinely unsettling feel to them.

Not only because at this stage we have
no real idea who is who or what is

happening but because it all feels
incredibly tense and apocalyptic.

I use that word deliberately and we'll
come back to the whole world of post

-apocalypse cinema and where this film
fits into that a little later on.

But there is a sense of immediate unease
and bleakness here that I got genuinely

uncomfortable when I first watched the
movie.

A lot of this is down to the way the
film looks, it's down to the music, it's

down to the general vibe of the
characters.

Because we're not told anything.

And that's...

how the film will progress of course you
know we're given as much information as

we need to follow the story as it's
happening but we're not bogged down with

backstory with character development
with anything else that gets in the way

or maybe makes makes things easier for
us again we'll come back

to talking about the look of the film
the music and so on and so forth as this

commentary goes along

You know, I think we can see the
connection to the Wild West scenario in

a lot of real life situations that are
playing out in countries where

revolutions or social collapse has taken
place.

And I think one reason why this film
feels so immediately unsettling when we

watch it is because a lot of it, a lot
of the images, a lot of the actions

feel very familiar from what we see
going on in numerous Middle Eastern

countries and of course in Ukraine right
now.

These images of executed prisoners,
gun-toting men in the wastelands,

shattered families feel very much like a
world that we now see on the TV news.

The fact that it takes the film a little
while to reveal just who are the

official authority figures, the police,

and who are the quote-unquote
terrorists, is pretty telling.

This is a scenario where there's no
sense of control beyond that which

various rival groups, gangs we might
call them, I'm including the police

here, they just grab from each other,
take what they can, they're only looking

out for themselves, and each side, of
course, is as dangerous and corrupt as

the other.

opening of this film to be so
uncomfortable because it has an

authenticity and a realism about it that
you don't often find.

The violence is casual and brutal,
normalized abuse that comes with a need

to cling on to power.

And it's impressively un-graphic. This
is the sort of film where you tend to

think that you've seen a lot more than
you have.

simply because of the sounds, the
inference, and the indifference of those

involved. And of course, the brilliance
in which the whole thing is set up, so

the implication is everything.

And that indifference is perhaps the
most unsettling aspect of things,

because movies tend to monsterize
characters.

villainous characters I should say,
giving them a sadistic glee or a

psychotic madness when they torture and
kill.

Movies like to show villains as being
utterly villainous and taking great

pleasure in what they do.

But here it's completely dispassionate
and I think that makes it all the more

disturbing because you can see how
dehumanised the whole situation is.

There's no sense of being able to reason
with this nameless character, who is our

central figure, or indeed with anyone
else here, because they're not even

seeing their victims as human.

You know, he might as well be stamping a
clerical form at stabbing somebody in

the hand.

And I think it's this complete lack of
humanity and empathy that has turned

some people off from this movie.

Even if they don't necessarily register
it, I think there's a subconscious

revulsion that some people will have to
a film like this because it doesn't

present its violence in a comfortable or
exciting way.

In the way that we're used to seeing
violence presented in the film, where

it's all very dramatic and, you know, it
gets the adrenaline pumping.

I mean the action scenes here are
certainly dramatic and everything is

beautifully shot but there's no sense of
the film trying to make the violence

thrilling or cathartic or enjoyable.

Movies generally avoid the ugliness and
the immediacy of violent death by either

making characters into say cannon fodder
like armies of henchmen or

enemy soldiers that we see mown down by
the hero in most action films.

Or else they drag it out and make it
very emotionally involving.

They make it painful, they make it
tragic.

Which actually takes away from the
nihilism rather than adding to it.

There is, of course, a long history of
movies that have made audiences very

uncomfortable because they present
violence in a way that isn't remotely

entertaining.

A lot of those movies have, of course,
been censorship hot potatoes over the

years precisely because they haven't
sugar-coated the horror, which I think

is quite interesting when you think
about it because you would expect movie

censors to be far more concerned by
films that glamorize violence or

trivialize death.

But if you look at some controversial
movies like the Cannibal Holocaust,

Maniac, I Spit on Your Grave, several
others.

You can see that they were, quite often
still are in many cases, criticised by

audiences because they're too
mean-spirited and depressing.

You know, these are horror films, but
they're not supposed to be dark.

They're too real, I guess.

I mean, I do get it, because obviously
most people watch films, even violent

horror films, as escapism.

Even the genre cinema that's too much
for the mainstream, like, say, Saw or

Hostel, they still work within the
boundaries of an entertaining

horror film, I suppose.

So if a film doesn't give you that
rollercoaster ride or it becomes too

real, then audiences tend to reject
them.

And I can fully sympathize with that. I
remember being genuinely upset by both I

Spit on Your Grave and Cannibal
Holocaust when I saw them in my early

teens during the pre-Video Nasty era.

And that was precisely because they were
not like any horror films that I'd ever

seen before, even within that whole
Video Nasty, uncensored video realm,

because they offered.

No sense of escapism, but rather,
instead, just bludgeoned you with this

horrible, authentic, relentless realism.

Even though you knew the films were
works of fiction, there was something

genuine about them that would speak to
you on a very visceral, emotional level.

You were seeing violence in a completely
unvarnished way.

And I think that this film does that as
well, so I certainly understand why

there are some people who were genuinely
appalled by it. You know, especially if

they came across it on the festival
circuit where you probably don't know

all that much about what you're going to
see beyond maybe an organizer synopsis

in the brochure or online.

And that can never really set you up for
a film like this.

You can reduce Steppenwolf to its basic
plot narrative. You could even tell

people that it's an entirely bleak
experience.

But everybody reading that will just
probably be saying, yeah, yeah,

whatever, I can take it.

But obviously no one's going to say that
the film they programmed in their

festival is a complete downer. And I'm
not saying that this film is a complete

downer, by the way. Not at all.

But I can see how this would not speak
to some people who might be in the

middle of a few days of horror films and
may well have come to this straight from

something much lighter.

Let me give you an example.

I mean, I know this because I first came
across Steppenwolf at the Mayhem Film

Festival in Nottingham in October 2024.

And this was the Saturday afternoon
movie following the last video store.

And the last video store is a very
entertaining horror comedy awash with

1980s VHS era nostalgia and action and
fun.

It's the very definition of fluffy
lightweight retro horror.

So it's completely removed from the vibe
of this movie.

And I do like it when festivals mix it
up and Mayhem in particular has always

been very good at that going from the
grim to the lightweight and back again.

But certainly I wasn't sure what this
would be in terms of tone or style.

Would it be entertaining?

Would it be very slow?

Would it be fast paced?

Obviously there were references

And the critiques to movies like Mad Max
will come back to that in a little bit.

But, you know, you just don't know what
you're going to expect from a film like

this. And I know that it definitely
split the audience.

Some people loved it. Some people
absolutely hated it. And quite a few

people that I spoke to afterwards seemed
genuinely baffled by it.

Not so much that they...

they didn't like it they just couldn't
relate to it in any way shape or form

and you know what that's that's fine
that's totally fair enough not

everything is going to be for everyone
um god knows you know the mayhem chaps

could tell you how many movies i've
walked out of at that event over the

years and i know that will horrify some
film purists and I kind of agree walking

out of a film generally is quite a bad
thing but when you've got something like

16 movies to watch in four days if
something isn't working for me I'd

rather skip it and go and get some food
or something because you know you've got

a lot of stuff to get through but if we
get back to this movie

one of the criticisms that I've seen of
the film

certainly from a couple of people
online, is that it is a misogynistic

film.

Which I have to say, I think is
completely wide of the mark.

I understand it, but I think it's wrong.

I think some people really struggle to
divorce a movie from its narrative, its

makers from its characters.

Now certainly the men in this film are

very misogynistic.

Or at least, they treat women as
horribly as they treat each other.

I mean, that's arguably more
misanthropic than misogynistic.

You know, I would be a lot more
sympathetic to claims that the film

itself had a very misanthropic view of
the world.

But misogyny?

I'm not sure.

I think that we're perhaps unused to
seeing women treated in the way that

Tamara is here, or perhaps being so
submissive in her acceptance of this

treatment. And that may be why it's just
so shocking to some people. This isn't

something that you will find in a modern
Hollywood movie.

I don't know that that's because she's a
woman, though, because, as you all know,

you will have watched this film already.

There's a distinct lack of sexual
motivation throughout the entire

narrative. It's not as if she's being
trafficked or sexually abused.

In fact, most of the characters seem
entirely disinterested in the fact that

she's female.

I think that her victimization comes
about because she is so obviously

vulnerable.

whether she had learning disabilities,
whether she experienced some sort of

devastating trauma, or perhaps more
likely both of these things have

combined to make her the way she is.

And I think in a sense that's probably
even more shocking for audiences because

seeing vulnerable people taken advantage
of or abused is definitely something

that makes most normal people feel
inherently uncomfortable.

I mean certainly

For me, watching this film for the first
time, it was, yeah, uncomfortable.

I think that's, you know, the way to
describe it.

But again, I don't think that's
necessarily because she's a woman. I

certainly didn't take it when watching
the film originally that she was being

victimized because she was a woman.

Maybe she's being victimized because
she's weaker.

But then, you know, weaker men are
potentially victimized in this film too.

I think when you see the treatment that
our main character, our man with no

name, dishes out to everyone, men,
women, and children, then, you know, you

can see that he's an equal opportunity
nihilist.

The only person that he's remotely
interested in, really, is himself and

everybody else. He's barely even human
to him.

But here's the thing. I mean, the film
doesn't condone this behavior.

It's not as if the movie is trying to
make us admire him.

I do think that a lot of people tend to
struggle with the idea that a central

character might not be a hero or even
what we would call an anti-hero.

An interesting term that I've never
quite got my head around.

That still suggests somebody who is
admirable in some way.

I know that movies tend to give us
somebody who we are supposed to

empathise with as the central character,
as the main character.

And maybe that's Tamara here, but it's
not this guy.

He's clearly selfish, untrustworthy,
psychotic and somewhat unhinged.

And I don't think the film is remotely
trying to humanise him at any point.

Not even when we find out what...

his real motivation for helping Tamara
is.

You know, that just comes over as
another sign of how he uses people and

is then prepared to throw them away when
they're no further use.

I mean, you clearly can't trust him.
He's going to stab you or shoot you in

the back if it's in his interests, as
we've seen.

And as we'll see in a moment here.

So this idea that the film and the
filmmakers are somehow sympathetic to

him, that he's supposed to be somebody
that the viewer relates to, admires,

likes, whatever that might be, that just
feels like a very misguided

interpretation of the film.

And I do think potentially it's a very
deliberate misinterpretation of the

film. I think that we're at a point of
time where some people figure that

they can get social media clout by
finding something offensive in a movie

and then being the first person to point
that out.

That might just be the cynic in me, but
I have seen this kind of thing

happening. I'm sure you have too.

And, you know, I'm not saying that the
people who instinctively dislike the

movie are wrong.

That's obviously a matter of personal
taste, and we don't all like the same

things, quite clearly.

But, you know, I do think that there is
this tendency in some circles to not

simply dislike a movie, but then to
ascribe a philosophy to it that simply

isn't there. So, as I said, like a
willful misrepresentation.

to have to have a reason why you don't
like a film rather than it just not

speaking to you.

And that feels very odd.

I mean, if we were to say that every
film is in sympathy with the worst

aspects of its worst characters, where
would that leave us?

I mean, a film that's about racists,
racist, is a film about rape,

celebrating rape.

Well, I know that some people do like to
make that argument, but it's obviously

nonsense.

Drama often centers around conflict and
often features awful people with

dreadful opinions.

I think the best films can also
acknowledge that these monstrous people

can also be charming, personable, even
fun, rather than making them into

completely one-dimensional.

But that still doesn't mean that they
admire the character or that we're

supposed to like them. I think the film
can show how manipulative they are and

it can show us why people will be
attracted to those people.

I mean, I doubt that even the worst
monsters in society see

themselves as evil.

You know, I know we used to see these
single-minded killers and morally

irredeemable characters.

But, you know, in real life, it's a lot
more nuanced. And everybody believes

that they're on the side of the angels.
And what they do is justified, whether

it's for their own needs, for the needs
of their family, the needs of their

nation, the needs of whoever.

You know, we can convince ourselves that
anything is justified if it's for the

greater good.

You know, I think the nuance is being a
bit lost as audiences demand everything

as black and white, good and evil, right
and wrong, and worry that allowing

somebody, no matter what the character
is, to express a hateful opinion is

dangerous, lest it influences other
people.

And like all good censors, they always
think that it will be the other people

affected, not them.

But I can't see anybody watching this
film and thinking that this is someone

to look up to.

Not unless they're as completely
psychopathic as he is, in which case,

you know, he's probably already too late
for them.

I am always fascinated by the whole kind
of monkey-see, monkey-do attitude that

drives censors, and those who are their
fellow travellers.

which tends to include a lot of film
critics, social media commentators, and

everybody else eagerly looking to be
offended.

I fully understand the dangers of fake
news, propaganda, and blowhards egging

on the mob, but works of narrative
fiction are a very different kettle of

fish. I mean, yeah, some are clearly,
obviously, propaganda.

But movies like this, you know, they're
telling a story. They're telling a story

about people that you would never want
to meet in a place that you would never

want to be.

The idea that Steppenwolf is some kind
of lifestyle guide that people will look

at and then want to copy, it seems
hilarious to me. I mean, what is there

here that anyone would possibly aspire
to?

Of course, I do understand that the film
might well trigger people who have

experienced domestic violence or
bullying or

any kind of violence. And I'm certainly
not belittling that in any way, shape or

form.

I'm not sure where I really stand on
trigger warnings because I think they

often act, partly as a spoiler, but more
significantly, they reduce a

movie. that might have a very complex
narrative to a series of moments and

events.

But I do understand that, you know, that
may be helpful for some people in order

for them to avoid seeing something
upsetting.

Though, you know, I do wonder if having
that content spelled out so bluntly out

of context isn't itself a potentially
triggering moment for the time.

And... Yeah, I'll be honest, you know, I
don't subscribe to the idea of film

being harmful.

That's the justification that censors of
all types use, and it makes me

immediately, automatically very
suspicious.

I think films can be upsetting,
disturbing, offensive, challenging,

but I can't believe they cause actual
harm, not in a serious,

lasting, meaningful way.

I mean, there are things that I've seen
in films and documentaries that have

stayed with me far longer than I would
have wanted them to.

Thinking of the documentary The Bridge,
for instance, the final shot of the guy

throwing himself off.

That's something that lingered in my
head for a very long time afterwards.

You know, these are images that you can
never unsee and moments that you might

have avoided in retrospect.

But I mean, have they harmed me?

You know, I don't think so.

And the problem is that we never know
what will trigger a negative reaction.

I mean, we could guess, but the oddest
things might have an unexpected effect

on people.

When I was a little kid, I had a
vomit-inducing nightmare about Oompa

Loompas after seeing Willy Wonka and the
Chocolate Factory in the cinema.

And I don't think that anyone saw that
coming, not even me. I didn't find those

characters at all frightening when I
actually watched the movie.

Clearly, I'm not trying to trivialise
ideas or triggering images, and I'm not

dismissing how problematic that can be
for some viewers. This is just my

opinion and my experience.

But I do think we need to see everything
in context, particularly if it's a work

of fiction.

So the narrative context of the film,
and not simply reduce a movie to being a

manifesto of the worst characters'
ideas, or...

a list of upsetting moments.

Incidentally this is arguably the only
point of the film where Tamara is

sexualized in any way shape or form and
it is a a

very subtle moment that doesn't really
go anywhere.

But yeah I mean there is one point of
the film where she is treated

differently because she's female.

So, fair enough.

But I think a lot of the film's problem
for some people, for some viewers, is

the way that Tamara is shown as such a
passive victim.

Now, this isn't a portrayal of women
that we tend to see in modern Western

movies. Movies made in the West, I mean,
not Westerns.

I kind of need to say that given the
film's connection to that genre.

The way she behaves, her constant
talking to herself,

her inability to say no to people or to
assert herself, and the fact that she's

further victimized because of that
behavior.

You know, her mumble dialogue is
definitely challenging for some people.

Either they find her very annoying or
they are completely infuriated by the

way she doesn't stand up for herself.

But I think that this is a remarkable
performance by Anna Starchenko.

Brilliant and nuanced and far more
complex than a lot of people have given

her credit for.

You know, it's really, really hard to
convincingly portray somebody who is so

completely damaged.

At least I assume it is, I'm not an
actor, but given how few people have

managed to do it well, then I think it
must be quite a difficult acting job.

There seems to be a tendency to over-egg
the pudding by a lot of actors who are

playing somebody traumatised or damaged,
and Achenko does quite the opposite

here. Everything is very quiet, but
fixated.

with her broken persona struggling with
a situation that is clearly beyond her

ability to cope with.

You know, she has no kind of
self-preservation instinct whatsoever.

But I don't think that the film would
have benefited from a portrayal of her

as a strong, powerful woman.

She needs to be this way so that the
viewers can connect with her, can

connect with her plight.

You know, I think she's our
representative here, not this

psychopath.

She's the person that we are supposed to
empathize with.

And, you know, she's confused. She's
shell-shocked. She's beaten up by a

world that's gone to hell.

It's significant that, as with
everything else in this movie, we're not

told exactly what is going on with her.

What is it that makes her the way she
is?

You know, I suspect that a lot of
Hollywood movies would feel the need to

spell it out, explain things so that we
can relate to whatever has happened and

understand why she is the way she is.
But we don't really need a backstory in

this film, not for anyone.

I mean, obviously, our policeman, I was
going to say hero.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how we'll
describe him. Let's just say the

policeman.

You know, he'd get a bit of a backstory,
you know, a very small degree, and it's

the bare minimum.

I mean, the film itself is very
ambiguous about what exactly has

happened. How has society reached this
point?

It's been called post-apocalyptic, and
it certainly is that, though maybe it's

kind of more kind of currently
apocalyptic.

It might be a better description.

You know, there's no time set for the
film.

Is this the future, the present, or
what?

And equally, it's never spelled out
exactly where this is taking place.

I mean, obviously we can say Kazakhstan
because of building, signage, text, etc.

But, you know, that's because the film
was made in Kazakhstan.

But maybe it's not. I mean, it could be
anywhere.

any time.

I mean, clearly it's a world where law
and order has collapsed, but equally

it's still functioning in a lot of ways.
There's electricity, there's radio and

TV broadcasts, there are working
security cameras, and still some sort of

government, clearly, that's at war with
a terrorist group.

So this isn't some kind of
hyper-futuristic cursed earth scenario.

It feels a lot more like a country at
war, or maybe civil war.

That sense of social collapse that we're
in the center of, that we're kind

of maybe weeks from the normality of the
past.

You know, on all the kind of the tribal
infighting, the grasping for power, the

settling of scores, somewhere that's
evolving out of civilization.

which is the kind of thing that we see
in a lot of real-life war zones,

especially civil war zones.

You can look at this film and you can
see images of Bosnia, Somalia, Syria,

and countless other countries that were
and are torn apart by a power struggle

between the established government and
the terrorists, the insurgents, the

freedom fighters.

Call them what you will, depending on
where your sympathies lie, I suppose.

And obviously where there's a power
vacuum, people will take advantage,

seizing control of small areas.

We can see this with characters like
Max, petty little thugs who gain a bit

of power, and Taha, who is a step above,
but still you suspect somebody who will

be pretty small time in normal
circumstances.

It's all rather pathetic, a bit like
postcode gangs who defend their turf

against... the handful of people who
live less than a mile away.

Being a big fish in a small pond is
something that's very attractive to a

lot of people even though they often end
up getting swallowed by much bigger fish

in the end.

Now what this movie reminds me of in a
lot of ways is the first Mad Max movie.

We tend to think of Mad Max in terms of
the world that the second movie set up

which

Then would act as the prototype for
countless other films, mostly Italian

movies like The New Barbarians, Bronx
Warriors, 2020 Texas Gladiators,

Endgame, 2019, several others. That
whole kind of punk

rock, BDSM inspired look, the futuristic
wasteland, the pumped up cars and

bikes, the general futuristic
post-apocalypse vibe of the things.

but I think because of the impact and
just the sheer quantity of those movies

we do tend to quite often forget that
the first Mad Max took place in a much

more recognizable world one that was
perhaps on the verge of collapse or the

midst of collapse maybe a world that's
again a few weeks before this takes

place

but still something we could relate to.
It didn't feel as if it was taking place

in some far-off distant future.

That film is very much about how
everything begins to fall apart, how

assorted crises, in the case of Mad Max
that's an oil shortage, looming

environmental catastrophe, these things
can push civilization to the edge.

That it doesn't take a lot to send us
from where we are now

to where we'd be then.

So in that sense, it's probably a film
that's more dystopian than post

-apocalyptic.

That's an area that the sequels would
increasingly head in.

And you know, I'd say the same thing
about this film.

Dystopia doesn't have to be futuristic,
even though it usually is in movies

where a narrative has to be established
of things to come to explain the

alternative reality that we're seeing.

God knows we've seen enough countless
dystopian nightmares taking place in the

real world, several of which are still
ongoing right now.

Obviously, I mentioned earlier that it's
hard to watch this film

Right now, I'm recording this at the
start of January 2025.

You know, you can't watch it without
thinking of the war in Ukraine.

Kazakhstan is, like Russia and Ukraine,
a former part of the USSR.

And so it's easy to relate the imagery
here to the pictures we're seeing on the

news and the stories we hear of lawless
soldiers and war crimes and crumbling

social structures.

I think that that war has also made
everybody around the world a lot edgier

about the possibility of global conflict
and the unthinkable nuclear war.

We've seen people, politicians, talking
heads, military people, openly

discussing the idea of tactical nuclear
strikes and the options for what they

seem to think is a non-apocalyptic
nuclear war, as if such a thing could

ever be contained once it began.

that radiation would somehow simply blow
away on the breeze you know we only have

to look at how many people in the world
of politics the media and beyond seem

almost desperate for an escalation to
see how things could go very bad you

know then we've got all the other
conflicts and revolutions around the

world with rogue states and power grabs
hype scoring

grudge settling, the rise of political
extremism and division.

I'm not taking any political stance on
any of the conflicts going on right now,

other than to firmly hope that by the
time you sit down to listen to this,

they've all come peacefully to an end.

But you can see how the world is a lot
more focused on the idea that everything

is going to hell.

And that's not even getting into climate
catastrophe, which used to be the thing

of science fiction.

And I mean literally the narrative of a
bunch of movies like No Blade of Grass

and The Day the Earth Caught Fire.

But of course it's something very real
that most people, apart from the

wackiest cranks, have now come to accept
as a genuine and imminent threat that we

have to get to grips with if it's not
already too late.

I do think it's actually quite
interesting how we tend to...

I almost always think of post-apocalypse
cinema, TV and literature as being post

-bomb. The idea that the remnants of
civilization battling it out for

survival in a radiated wasteland.

And obviously there's a lot of that
stuff out there.

Pretty much all of the Italian films
mentioned earlier.

Things like A Boy and His Dog,
Deathsport, Sardar's, Logan's Run,

Planet of the Apes films.

And a whole load of 50s sci-fi, like
Five, The Day the World Ended, into the

60s with things like Panic in Year Zero.

But actually, the world of
post-apocalyptic cinema is a great deal

more varied than that, and a lot more
interesting.

I think a lot of the films made in the
1960s, 70s, even the 80s, feel

surprisingly prescient now.

I mean, like I said a few minutes ago,
movies like no blade of grass positive

future where environmental catastrophe
has decimated the earth and we've got

movies like silent green and zero
population growth that are predicting

the horrors of population explosion of
food shortage too many people not enough

resources obviously we're all now a lot
more aware

or the dangers that are shown in movies
like The Ultimate Warrior and Virus, TV

shows like Survivors or books like
Stephen King's The Stand where the world

is decimated by a rampant pandemic.

You know, this stuff is a lot less
far-fetched than we might once have

thought.

Even the zombie movies of George Romero
like Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of

the Dead, not to mention his very
underrated movie The Crazies and some of

David Cronenberg's early films like
Rabid.

you know essentially deal with the idea
of an infection that is out of control

so movies about disease be it natural
man-made or even alien you

know they tend to be amongst the most
unnerving because this is an apocalypse

that we can all relate to the nuclear
war is still an unimaginable horror and

hopefully we'll remain that way but the
idea that a new infection can emerge and

spread rapidly unstoppably across the
world We all know that it can happen.

We probably got off very lightly with
COVID-19, but we know that when the next

pandemic happens, and it is a matter of
when and not if, then things could be a

lot worse.

Had we learned anything from the COVID
days, it's that society will very

quickly splitter and lunatic ideas will
spread like wildfire.

The idea of us all coming together for
the greater good was clearly a pipe

dream and so the apocalyptic world that
we see in a lot of these movies now just

feel like yeah that's how it would all
end up if things were worse than covid

I think it's our knowledge of human
nature and the assorted

perils that we now face and which could
literally hit us out of the blue are the

things that make the various
post-apocalyptic stories so unnerving I

think it's almost certainly why the
zombie movie became the predominant

horror genre, overtaking the classic
monsters of the Universal and Hammer

eras.

It's not just the idea that the zombies
are us, as Romero often said.

Even the idea of dead bodies walking,
coming back to life and eating the

living, it was more of a genuine threat
than a Transylvanian Count or a single

Frankenstein monster.

If we look at some of the various
tabloid horror stories of recent years,

all the tales of assault zombies, people
on designer drugs who became crazed,

attacked and ate people on the street,
stories that were somewhat exaggerated

as it turned out, but still have at home
the message that we have no idea what

will suddenly infect people and turn
them into monsters.

It doesn't even need to be a chemical or
natural infection.

We saw again and again in places like
Rwanda and Bosnia how easily people can

be made to see that people who used to
be their friends and neighbours are

suddenly subhuman and be willing to
murder and brutalise them once tribal

rivalries have been stirred up.

But I guess it's how all wars work to a
large extent because we do need to be

convinced that killing other people is
noble and necessary for war to happen

but it does seem especially monstrous in
civil wars especially between religious

or tribal groups I think similarly
dystopian narratives work for us because

we've seen enough real life examples
from Nazi Germany to Cambodia to

know how possible it is

Given how fractured our societies are
now with so many countries, so many

communities, so many families split
politically to the degree where one side

will literally dehumanize the other and
there can never be any level of coming

together or understanding or tolerance,
we can all see how fragile democracy and

free speech and individual liberty are.

History tells us that These are ideas
that flourish and then fall time and

time again.

So there's certainly no reason to
believe that it couldn't happen again,

that it couldn't happen here, and that
it could quite easily happen

almost every night.

You know, certainly dystopian cinema
narratives have been very popular in

recent years with things like The Hunger
Games and The Handmaid's Tale.

all seem to reflect a current unease
about where we're going politically with

the far right raising up populist
politics a lack of tolerance

and the general othering of those we
disagree with

I think obviously a lot of this stems
from Brexit in the

UK, the election of Donald Trump in the
US.

They seem to be both events that have
absolutely just made the

cultural, social split between groups
one that, you know, it's a divide that

can never be brought together again now,
it seems, which is sad,

really.

You know, I do think that it's entirely
understandable that people are then

attracted to these dystopian stories
because it's that weird

thing. I think some people watch them
because it's a frightening view of a

potential future. Some people watch them
because, you know, they get some kind of

smug satisfaction in saying, look, this
is what's going to happen. You know, I'm

right, I know.

But equally, I think it's just something
that feeds into the general zeitgeist.

It's something that kind of sits in our
subconscious and then feeds out. A bit

like, you know, how many films in the
late 60s and early 70s were kind of

channeling the Vietnam War in America.

Movies, books, TV shows, you know, they
will reflect our cultural concerns,

even if they don't do it.

openly, even if they don't do it
consciously.

You know, I think it's all
understandable because, you know, we

have the lessons from history, we have
people's fears about the current state

of the world.

But I do think stories like this one,
Steppenwolf, which we're watching now,

where everything has just fallen apart
and everyone is in it for themselves,

they're much more interesting than some
of the other dystopian, apocalyptic

narratives.

Not the more fun, it has to be said,
because there's rarely the same sense of

hope that we get in some of the other
films, the films that are about

oppressive states where the grip on
power is often loosened or overthrown by

the end, or at least where the central
characters get to escape to a sense of

personal freedom.

Not always, obviously.

I mean, we can look at things like 1984
to see how many of these narratives have

decidedly bleak endings.

I think the sense of civilization simply
disintegrating is a much scarier thing

than it being taken over.

Because, you know, we can see how
nightmarish that is in countries where

it has happened and where life suddenly
becomes pretty much entirely worthless.

You know, at least in the movies about
the European dictatorships, they're

still generally functioning societies.

Not free societies, certainly, but, you
know, they still

operate on a day-to-day level.

Something like this, you can see that
everything you do, everything that makes

you feel safe, everything that is
civilized has gone, and it's just

been replaced with...

very random violence and i think this
long

sequence that we've been watching here
is you know a great example of that that

it just the sheer level of cruelty

of dehumanization of thinking

that the only way you deal with people
is

through violence which is clearly where
he's reached you know it's the point

he's reached in life and maybe at the
point he was always at in life that's

the interesting thing we can uh we can
argue about that just how much he's

someone who's been corrupted by what's
happened in the world and how much he

was already very corrupt but yeah you
know i mean i think that these films

films like this offer so little sense of
hope even for

people who would you know maybe in a in
a dystopian dictatorship be happy to toe

the line obey the rules and and get on
with life that isn't even an option for

people here

So let's talk a little bit more about
Anastaschenko.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say
that it's probable that most of the

people who buy this disc will not be all
that familiar with Kazakh cinema and its

stars.

Some of you might be, I mean some of you
may be Kazakh so you know I'm not making

a blanket statement but on the whole I
think that that's probably going to be

the case.

I think even if you are, you might not
be particularly familiar with her

because this is only her second movie
after making the film Natai in 2022.

Since making this film, she's also been
in Aralkan Yersinov's next movie,

the horror film Kadett.

Prior to this, she studied at the Kazakh
National University of Arts between 2009

and 2013, and she graduated from the
Russian Institute of Theatrical

Arts in 2017.

I mean, perhaps it's because she's not a
hardened screen actor that she manages

to give such an honest and affecting
performance.

I think somebody more experienced may
well have been inclined to act a bit too

much rather than taking the less is more
approach.

I think that she's genuinely superb in
this.

Maybe the best thing about the movie.

So I think that there are strong
performances all around, even from the

supporting characters.

But certainly, you know, she plays her
part very well. She seems very

convincing. And she works well with Eric
Azov, who's a much

more experienced actor.

And, you know, as you can see in the
movie, you know, a very powerful and

unsettling presence.

You know, the kind of person that would
watch a film like this and despite the

fact that you know it's all acting
probably find him a little bit of a

scary person to ever meet.

Eisenhoff has been working solidly since
2007 and I imagine that for most

people outside his home country he's
probably best known for his work on the

film The Liquidator in 2011.

where he appeared alongside Vinnie
Jones.

Not quite sure what I should say about
that.

Maybe nothing.

He was also in Yusinov's previous film,
Goliath, which is, if you haven't seen

it, it's a pretty impressive crime
drama, well worth checking out. Very

different in style to this film, but in
its own way, equally dark and edgy.

I think that Yusinov does well here with
the role that It is obviously pretty

thankless in many ways.

I know that a lot of actors relish
playing awful characters and that the

villains are quite often the most
interesting characters in the movie.

I do think that his role here is one
that could have very easily become one

-dimensional and artificial in the wrong
hands.

I think he does a very good job of
humanising his character without ever

making him sympathetic you know he's not
simply a mindless thug

and probably makes him all the more
reprehensible because you know that he

he can read it but you know little
moments like this the kind of crazy

little dance um what's going through his
mind while he's doing this it's it's

these little these little touches that i
could make the character all the more

disturbing because you know this looks
like somebody who is on the constantly

on the verge of exploding constantly on
the verge of doing something awful to

somebody who may or may not deserve it
and clearly he's you know hugely

unsympathetic to Tamara you know making
her go out to identify this child to see

if it's hers just that's

cruel and unnecessary.

I suppose it is necessary that she has
to identify the body, but I think you

know what I mean. It just seems
sadistic.

I mean, he does a lot with this role
without saying very much.

You watch him and you can see that the
character is constantly thinking,

plotting, working out how to turn things
to his own advantage.

You know, it's a great portrayal of a
very feral character, one who, you know,

you can definitely imagine was already
corrupt and brutal long before whatever

has happened, happened.

If anything, you can kind of imagine
that this catastrophe has played into

his hands, bringing out his instinctive
survival instincts and that he can get

what he wants at whatever cost without
any sense of...

having to answer to anyone anymore.

So in a way I think he's probably just
as broken as Tamara.

Obviously he has this kind of
psychopathic lack of empathy except

where it works at his advantage and he
can fake being personable when he needs

to.

It's the classic psychopath behaviour
that they can act at all knowing what

people expect of them but

None of it is genuine.

None of the emotions shown are real.

I think this is a fine, subtle piece of
acting. And I say subtle because even

though his performance is quite big and
broad, there's a lot more going on

under the surface.

You know, and I think scenes like the
one we've just seen with the kind of

weird childlike game.

Again, interesting examples of how he is
playing with her,

but not in a positive way. You know,
he's kind of leading her into thinking

that he's somebody that wants to help
her, but only in order to get what he

needs.

I think he pulls off the odd impossible
that he makes us relate to the character

while still wanting us to see him get
his comeuppance.

It's a difficult balancing act because
obviously there are only two central

characters that are with us throughout
the film. And so we need to find them at

least interesting.

Maybe even sympathetic without
necessarily liking them.

I don't think any movie would work with
two characters who were utterly

unrelatable, utterly without any sense
of redemption.

That would be very hard going.

I mean, like I said earlier, even the
most awful people in real life are not

one-dimensional villains.

They'll all have their good points,
their humanity, their moments of

kindness, their humour, whatever it is.

You know, when you think of dictators
and historical monsters, it's clear that

they all obviously had some sort of
charisma that enabled them to climb to

power in the first place, because no one
can do that on their own.

You know, the worst people are often
very good at convincing others that

they're decent, even heroic, that they
have the best interests of others at

heart, their mission, their group of
people, whoever it is that they need to

convince.

The psychopaths are noted for being very
manipulative because they don't have

properly functioning emotions, so they
just act that role convincingly for

whoever they're trying to use.

Again, I think that a lot of movies we
see with psychopathic characters, those

characters are a bit too broad.

I suppose we tend to think of psychos in
terms of psycho killers, madmen, people

who are deranged, and so those
interpretations tend to become a bit

over the top.

But, you know...

He does a great job here of being
unbalanced enough for us to see just how

screwed up he is, while also being
horribly exploitative.

So, you know, our symptoms are limited.

And the film, again, likes to give him
just enough of a backstory to intrigue

us, you know, like what has gone on with
his family to make him do this with his

brother to lead to such a violent
moment. And his prayer is such a nice

touch because it's obviously an
imitation of what he's seen Samara do

earlier. Again, it's somebody behaving
as he believes he is supposed to rather

than somebody expressing a real human
emotion.

So I think that's a really nice, subtle
touch.

You know, this whole interaction again
with his brother, I assume his brother,

kind of leaves us with more questions
than answers.

You know, what happened to bring him to
this point?

What has gone on in the family?

But the film doesn't need to tell us. It
can let us make up our own backstory for

everybody involved here. And that's
potentially more interesting because our

backstories can be equally as valid as
anybody else's.

So, you know, there's far too many films
that just feel like they have to spell

everything out because the last thing
they want are audiences scratching their

heads and saying, who was that?

Why was that?

What's been going on?

Everything has to be kind of hammered
home and explained to you like you're an

idiot.

And there's room for ambiguity. There's
room for not knowing.

You know, the great thing about
something like, say, Dawn of the Dead,

not to the living dead, to a degree, not
to the living dead, doesn't quite work

this way. But, you know, if you look at
Dawn of the Dead as a sort of standalone

continuation.

Again, there's no explanation as to why
the zombies are rising. They're just

there. They're just doing it.

And even in Night of the Living Dead,
there's the interest that it's to do

with a space probe, maybe bringing back
some alien infection, but that's never

confirmed. That's just a theory.

So, really, the film just has the dead
rising, and

nobody knows why.

I think one of the most impressive
things about this particular film is

just how gorgeous it is given the bleak
narrative and

the equally bleak barren locations.

This is definitely a film that makes the
most of its landscape and manages to

bring a certain grandeur to an empty
wilderness.

I think in that it

very similar to a lot of the Westerns
that inspired it, I guess.

You know, that's a genre that often used
the size and the emptiness of the open

spaces of the West to full advantage,
often almost playing with agoraphobia to

make deserts and empty spaces seem
actually more threatening than dark,

closed-in locales.

Equally, Steppenwolf is a film that
knows

how to best exploit the world it
occupies. And, you know, it doesn't have

a lot to work with. That's the
interesting thing.

You know, you look here,

you look, like, out the window, you look
at the scenery.

There's not much going on.

So to try and make that seem grand, seem
epic, seem

dangerous?

Now, I think that's a skill.

A lot of the credit for this must go to
the director of photography,

Yekinbek Petrelif, who is one of
Kazakhstan's most acclaimed

cinematographers. I'm kind of hoping
that I'm not mangling Kazakh names, by

the way. Sorry if I am.

I'm doing my best with pronunciation.

But yeah, as I say, he's one of
Kazakhstan's most acclaimed

cinematographers with very good reason,
as you can probably appreciate watching

this.

I think he definitely brings this movie
an epic scope that suits the narrative.

And I think the fact that he graduated
to making feature films from the

documentary world probably helps him
bring a certain realism to the look of a

film, even as he explores the vastness.

I think it will be much easier for
everybody involved to make a movie like

this, dark, claustrophobic, oppressive,
because, you know, it is, after all, a

character study of two damaged people at
its heart.

But I think the decision to kind of open
it up, have it take place primarily in

very bright daylight, you know, give it
that set of grandness, you know, I think

that was absolutely the right.

the right choice.

And I think that that bigness of the
film is something that's also helped by

Gallim's and Moldan Azar's impressive

soundtrack music which you know is it's
a very 1980s inspired

10th wave score that perhaps shouldn't
work

You know, you might reasonably expect a
film like this to have a rather darker,

maybe more minimalist soundtrack.

But I think the score is actually
inspired.

You know, it opens the movie up.

It helps give it that scope that it
might otherwise lack.

You know, and on top of that, it's
genuinely great music. I think a lot of

these 1980s pastiche electronic
soundtracks can be...

can be quite often a bit hit and miss
sometimes they labor the point a bit too

much they perhaps don't get quite what
it was that made those original scores

work because they're just trying to do a
second-hand version of it but i think uh

this movie um doesn't think here that
says that this film trained to look like

an eight season film and so the
soundtrack actually impressively works

because you know it's you know and it is
used fairly sparingly it doesn't

overwhelm the film it just opens it out
at the right moment so you know i don't

know if there's um if there's a
soundtrack to this available there

probably should be there are plenty of
labels out there who who really should

be picking this up whether they're aware
of the film or not i don't know but

hopefully again releases like the one
you are watching now will help boost the

profile of the film and get that
soundtrack out there where you want the

vinyl

Of course, the music also helps tie the
film to genre cinema.

Because, of course, you know, genre
cinema is where that kind of electronic

score was most often used.

That kind of John Carpenter synth score
is something that you connect to a

certain kind of movie.

And, you know, you could easily see the
influences here of Carpenter's films,

like Escape from New York, Assault on
Precinct 13, as we mentioned earlier.

movies themselves made by a director who
was fully immersed in genre history and

was actually reinventing the western in
particular in modern dress i know that

for for years in the in the early 1980s
captain had wanted to make an actual

western you know a film set in the west
you know a kind of a real bravo type

movie but of course in many ways he'd
already done it a few times at that

point

I'm actually a big fan of movies that
play with genre.

The ones that take elements from several
different genres to create something

fresh and original.

It's kind of interesting how people tend
to be so single genre

fixated that they have to kind of
pigeonhole a movie into one or maybe two

specific genres when it's clearly
playing with ideas from several.

But it has to be, this is a such and
such film with elements of this.

You know, I think we like to categorize
things, don't we? I mean, you know, you

look at musical genres, you look at
movie genres. People like to put things

in little boxes so they can relate to
what it is and they can decide, is it

their thing, is it not their thing?

You know, I think Steppenwolf is a great
case in point.

You know, Yersinov is taking bits from
here.

bits from there, blending them together
to make something fresh and new.

I mean, obviously, the Western is the
most obvious influence, and it's the one

that he has very specifically referenced
in interviews and in the film itself.

You know, I mean, there's no attempt to
hide the fact that this is effectively a

reworking of the searchers.

That early shot of Tamara in the doorway
virtually screaming the influence at you

right away.

You know, you don't have to be a...

a hardened, silly-ass movie expert to
recognise that that is a reference

point. You know, that's a very smart
move, by the way.

There'll always be critics who want to
show how smart they are by spotting the

fact that a film has ripped off an
earlier movie.

So I think stating that influence up
front in what is effectively the second

scene in the movie, you know, putting it
up there, so stating the influence

Kind of effectively silences critics.

You know, Yusinov is hardly trying to
hide where he's taken his central

narrative from.

But there are a lot of other connections
you can make here, and I'm not going to

go into all of them because it's a lot
more fun to let you try and pick up on

these yourself.

And also, you know, there are probably
some that I've missed, some that will

become noticeable on further viewings.

I think this is one of those films that
will reward repeated viewing because

it's something that I think will offer
something new every time you watch it.

It's certainly done that. I mean, I've
seen the film. This

country is my third viewing of the film.

So, you know, I've watched it properly a
couple of times and now I'm...

watching it again and there are the
moments that just pop out moments that

may have gone by you the first viewing
the second viewing so I think this is

something that you know it's going to be
a rewarding repeat view

you know clearly there are several genre
connections that we can make nods to

other movies that stand out obviously
there's a lot of Mad Max here Even down

to the fact that our central character
is a cop whose family has been killed

and he's seeking revenge.

That's the major plot turn of the first
Mad Max.

The point where the film becomes
genuinely dystopian when Max's family is

killed and he becomes an avenging angel.

His humanity is kind of chopped off at
that point.

Again, people tend to forget just how
grounded the first Mad Max was, at least

visually. It all happened in a world
that's gone to hell, but it's still very

recognizable.

And that's certainly the case here.

I mean, these shots, the shots on
Hossbach, are pure Western movie,

obviously.

You know, this could easily, you could
just take that shot right now, show it

to somebody, say that's from a Western,
and of course, you know, they're going

to believe you. Why wouldn't they?

We could also see the influence of the
Samurai movie and that's where things

get really fun because obviously Samurai
films, Japanese Samurai films or people

like Kurosawa, there's cross-pollination
between those movies and

Westerns where Westerns influenced
Kurosawa, Kurosawa then influenced

Westerns, particularly the spaghetti
Westerns.

That would then, of course, go on to
influence American Westerns and the way

those films looked.

And those Westerns would then feed into
the post-apocalypse movie. I just find

all this really fascinating, the whole
idea of how we just see something, take

it, we change it to something else. And
then the thing that was inspiring us can

become inspired by what we've done so
that there's constant growth.

new levels of inspiration.

I love that. I think that's the very
definition of creativity to me.

There's something very intriguing about
a movie that takes a familiar story or a

visual palette and transposes it to a
different genre, a different time, a

different place.

As has often been said, there's probably
only a handful of core narratives in the

world.

that everything else has been spun off
from one way or another.

And clearly the idea of the strong,
silent anti-hero arriving in a corrupt

town and playing two sides up against
each other for his own purposes is

something that can be endlessly
reworked. We've seen that used in sci-fi

and action movies, even in dramas,
because you can make a narrative like

that work without even involving any
violence.

So I think the gritty crime films of the
1970s, especially things like Dirty

Harry and all the Italian polizioteschi,
they all play a part here as well.

You know, you can get that vibe, even if
it is just in that sense of

having a hero who is simply the least
flawed.

I mean the cop in this film is a
particularly dirty cop but all those

movies tended to play on ideas of the
cops and the criminals being essentially

two sides of the same coin and plenty of
the Italian films in particular were

themed around stories of vengeance and
heroes working outside law.

And I mean this is of course at its
heart a road movie as much as anything

else. Road movies are always intriguing
in the way that they all play with

metaphor. Pretty obvious metaphor, of
course. The road represents the

emotional, psychological journey of the
characters involved.

We have that here.

Certainly for Tamara, who I think we can
say finds her inner strength by the end

of the movie.

The film doesn't go for some kind of
cliché.

crowd-pleasing moment of the victimized
woman suddenly becoming a kick-ass

action hero and it's not it's not like
the terminator movies or something like

that you know she is still very damaged
very vulnerable and while she gets to

return to her own private world at the
end of the film you know you can't help

but think that her future is still going
to be pretty bleak but Having said

all that, she's clearly found the
strength she needs to fulfil her

mission, to rescue her son and the
children.

And she's stood up for herself.

It's interesting that she goes from
earlier seemingly wanting to be killed

by the cops, she literally says, kill me
once you've rescued him, to

killing him, which you might say is the
only way that a film like Steppenwolf

can... can end satisfactorily you might
be right but then I don't

really think that Steppenwolf is in the
business of satisfying the viewer I

don't think this is a feel good movie so
the ending didn't need

to deliver any sense of catharsis the
ending could have easily been as

nihilistic as the rest of the film it
could allow evil to triumph because

Sadly, you know, evil quite often
triumphs in the real world.

Yeah, so I think that the fact that the
film ends with Tamara

going back to her life, having done what
she set out to do, you

know, it does that because that's what
film, that's what the filmmakers want,

not because it thinks that that's what
the viewer wants and it's delivering the

goods.

You know, there's a lot to be said for a
film as being crowd-pleasing.

We don't always want to be beat over the
head. We don't always want to leave a

film feeling more depressed than we were
when we started watching it.

But at the same time, I think a lot of
films have

very compromised endings.

Endings that, as we know, people will
watch films in production they'll go to

preview screenings, write down their
comments and then studios will insist on

changes being made and the ending is
quite often the point where changes get

made because audiences obviously have
this idea

of how they want something to end and
they want it to end in a very satisfying

way which doesn't always help the story
but...

You know, that's just the way it is. I
mean, I imagine a film like this has not

gone through too many committees during
production or post-production.

And so it's essentially been able to go
its own way.

So I really should... talk at this point
about the director and writer of the

film, Adol Khan.

Yes, and I've obviously mentioned him
throughout, but we've not actually

discussed him.

You know, he's not somebody who is
especially well-known in the West.

You know, he's had films that have
played at festivals like Cannes and

Venice, but generally speaking, I think
that... distribution of his work

international distribution of his work
has been somewhat sporadic and often

restricted to the the art house circuit
it's not been

kind of widely available commercially um
particularly on on home video where of

course most people see their films most
films don't get any kind of theatrical

release

If they do, quite often it's a very
small theatrical release.

He's a filmmaker who has been working
incessantly since making his debut

feature, Rialto, in 2011.

I don't say that lightly. I do mean he's
worked incessantly.

The man has made 17 features in 13
years, as well as making shorts and

working TV.

He made five different productions in
2022 alone, which kind of puts him on

the same level of prolific filmmakers
from the 1970s, like Jess Franco.

So, you know, if you've been impressed
by this, his previous film, Goliath,

which is probably the second most
accessible of his works at the moment,

honestly, there's a lot to explore.

But the great thing is that I think what
we can see is that He's making a lot of

films and he's doing stuff, I guess,
very quickly.

But at the same time, there's no
skimping on the quality of these movies.

These are all fantastic films, at least
in terms of the ones that I've seen. So,

you know, this isn't somebody who's just
grinding out crap.

He's making quality stuff.

I mean, he's a filmmaker whose work
seems to cross genres.

Most of his films, most of the stuff
he's done has generally been more

realist dramas.

I'm not saying that Steppenwolf isn't
grimly realist, but I think you know

what I mean. Maybe more grounded dramas,
as well as thrillers and

crime movies like Goliath.

His latest film, Cadet, as I mentioned
earlier, is a horror film, so perhaps

he's continuing with his exploration of
genre with that.

It's yet to be released, so we have to
wait and see, but I'm very much looking

forward to that. Hopefully it will be
something that gets a UK release, a US

release, maybe play the festival
circuit.

I think my hope is that the wider
release that Steppenwolf is receiving,

and the fact that you're watching this
movie on Blu-ray, on...

whatever format you're watching it on,
but the fact is that you're watching it

in a way that you probably haven't been
able to do with some of his other films,

might now mean that his earlier work may
start to find a more global audience,

because he's clearly a very impressive
talent.

It's interesting, and I have to say a
bit depressing, just how many

countries are still

still somewhat overlooked in terms of
their cinematic output.

I mean, we've come a long way in the
last few decades, don't get me wrong. I

mean, I think the film industries of
Japan, South America, India, Pakistan,

South Korea, China, lots of other
countries. Countries that once were

culturally marginalised to a degree and
had their movies stuck in that

art house world rather than having any
sort of commercial wider appeal.

You know, those now get the sort of
releases that were unimaginable.

I think we have to thank genre cinema
for that.

A lot of mainstream movie fans, not even
mainstream, a lot of your kind of self

-declared intellectual film fans,
various film fans, will look down on

genre fans.

But, you know, the truth is that...

The fan base for horror, for action, for
sci-fi, for westerns, for erotica, or

whatever else, those fan bases are often
much more open to international cinema

and experimental cinema than either
mainstream audiences or the arthouse

audience.

And, you know, the whole movie market,
since it emerged in the beginning of the

80s,

certainly has allowed once marginalized
national cinema to find a wider audience

than traditional mainstream distributors
ever imagined when films were only

playing in cinemas but you know a lot of
countries they still have to see the

domestic cinema breakout of the festival
and art house niche and Kazakstan

certainly seems to be one of them I mean
to be fair you know kazakh cinema has

not generally had the best reputation in
its own home country you know a bit like

british films of the 1980s you know a
lot of people in kazakhstan the locally

made movies is being kind of worthy arty
not very entertaining made

with government subsidies that prop up
the film industry and they've struggled

to compete with More expensive, more
commercial, more entertaining Western

and Russian movies.

But, you know, there has been a step
forward.

More commercial films are now being
made.

More popular films are now being made.
There was a revolutionary move.

in the film industry, in the Kazakh film
industry, called Partizan Cinema, which

feels a little bit like a kind of less
restrictive version of the Dogma 95

movement, involving people making
socially realistic, low-budget, but

commercial movies that are made without
data and all the restrictions that

perhaps come with that.

So you probably won't be surprised to
hear that Yasanov has been involved with

that movement.

Steppenwolf, I don't think is really
part of that.

This is a film that obviously does have
some state funding, and it's not social

realism.

It may be low budget, it may be
commercial, but it's certainly not a

domestic drama.

But nevertheless, I think the fact that
it does have state funding shows that we

can probably assume that whatever
restrictions...

that are placed on filmmakers using that
funding method are probably not too

restrictive. You know, I can't really
think of a more problematic narrative

for any government official than this
one.

But there you go.

I mean, of course, the elephant in the
room when we talk about Kazakhstan and

cinema is Borat.

Sasha Baron Cohen's typically
stereotyped, some might argue, racist

character slash movies, who is a Kazakh
journalist.

I'm sure that all of you are very
familiar with Borat, probably much more

so than you are with Kazakhstan cinema
in most cases, I'll bet.

You know, I'm not going to be all holier
than thou and po-faced about what is

clearly a satirical comedy, but I do
think that the films and the character

have probably not done much.

for the cultural reputation of a country
in places where exposure to actual

Kazakh art has probably been very
limited, if not non-existent.

So I'm hoping that we'll get to see more
examples of Kazakh cinema emerging

internationally.

I'm saying this as somebody who probably
has as much exposure to the films as

everyone else so it's always possible
that I might eat my words after seeing

some but you know seriously I suspect
that there's still a wide world of

undiscovered cinema out there in places
that we tend not to associate with

filmmaking in fact you know I don't need
to assume that I know there is because

you know we see examples of these films
turning up from time to time at

festivals films from places like
Ethiopia that then don't go on to

get much distribution so that's the
stumbling block I think you know they

might play the festivals they might be
seen by a handful of people but either

they're too outside what we see as I

was going to say commercial cinema not
even commercial cinema maybe what we see

as proper cinema because you know they
don't all necessarily follow the same

filmmaking rules that we've all got used
to.

But it's crazy really because all this
stuff is going pretty much unnoticed but

given how many outlets there are now for
distributing movies so many boutique

video labels so many streaming options
it seems

kind of unacceptable that We're still at
a point where huge amounts of world

cinema is just not being seen.

Obviously, I'm going to argue that this
is a pretty exceptional film no matter

where it comes from.

I'm not expecting that there will be
loads more like this out there as we

explore the world of Kazakh cinema.

Who knows? Maybe there will be.

Maybe it's a kind of a J-horror
situation

where you just scratch the surface and
there's so much good stuff.

But even if it's not, that's not the
case. I don't think we should be seeing

more of those movies.

But I think the fact that this release
exists...

at this time shows that this is
obviously a kind of a cut above the

average but you know sometimes it takes
a great and accessible film to then pave

the way for the rest maybe some of those
films won't be quite as commercial but

you know they still deserve to be seen
and you know this is certainly not not

an easy film to get into it's not what
we would describe as comfortable viewing

I think it perhaps becomes a little less
difficult on each subsequent viewing

because you at least know where it's
heading and can focus on the other

aspects of the film than simply just
being overwhelmed by the bleakness of it

all. Which is certainly something that I
think is the case for a lot of viewers.

I'll admit that I found this to be very,
very hard work for the first 20 minutes

or so when I first saw it.

Before it...

It kind of hit its groove, and I settled
into the film's style and got into terms

with the sense of nihilism and the very
difficult characters. And I'm a

big fan of park cinema.

I'm assuming that if you're listening to
this commentary, that you also like the

movie. So I'm not going to say to you,
stick with it.

But certainly that's what I'm advising.

people who haven't seen the film to do
especially if they're the sort of person

who might find the unreal ending
grimness of it a bit too much you know i

think this is a movie that rewards you
for your patience and takes you into

places that are uncomfortable and
challenging you know i mean i think the

whole plot point of children being
trafficked and murdered for their organs

will be very difficult for a lot of
viewers but ultimately i think it's a

very rewarding experience and you know
it's full of so many amazing moments

like the one we're seeing now. Just
images of

corroded beauty.

I don't think that many people will
think of this as a fun viewing.

You know, not all cinema needs to be a
sleepism. Not all cinema needs to be fun

to be appreciated.

You know, there's room for desolation in
cinema. There's room for something that

shows you a side of life that you don't
want to see.

There's room for darkness as well as
light.

And everybody takes a different approach
to what they find rewarding in a movie,

I suppose.

Some people just want throwaway
entertainment. Some people want

something that is speaking to them on a
much deeper level. And

perhaps that's what this film does.

You know, I do think that Steppenwolf
manages to temper its absolute horror

with just enough visual panache,
inventiveness and genre

nods to make it much more entertaining
than you might have imagined it to be

and arguably than it should be.

It's a film full of brilliant

One of those films, I think, where you
can just hit pause and there's a pretty

good chance you'll find a remarkable
still image.

Incredible moments like the one we've
just seen there, that kind of crazed

scream of triumph.

It's minimalism.

It's lack of compromise.

I think all of these are points that
make this...

I mean, it's more than the sum of its
parts, I suppose. They make it a film

that is recognizable and unique.

Depressing.

Sometimes uplifting.

Ugly. Beautiful.

You know, and, yeah.

I think it's an extraordinary piece of
work.

So...

Thanks for sticking with it when you
first saw this. Thanks for sticking

around to listen to me talk about it.
And I hope that every time you see this

film, you'll find more and more to
appreciate.

I'm David Flint. This has been
Steppenwolf. And hopefully I'll get to

run into you again on another commentary
very soon.

Once again, thanks for listening.