THE WOLFPACK
US, 2015, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Crystal Moselle.
As we watch this film, it is something with something of disbelief. How could the situation be? And how could it be on the Lower East Side of Manhattan? Is it real? Did this really happen? Could it have happened? This is a New York story, but a story with a great difference.
And the opening of the film rather compounds the disbelief. Here we see half a dozen young men, dressed like the characters from Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, re-enacting some of the key scenes, doing role-plays of the violence – allotted each of the characters of Mr… And dressed in those black suits. And it continues, with one of the young men transcribing all the dialogue from Pulp Fiction, and re-enacting the car wash scene. And who are these young man – quite obviously brothers, with strong facial resemblances.
And, how could they possibly have allowed the film makers into their apartment to photograph everyone in such detail?
Actually, the answer doesn’t come in the film but rather in the press notes. The film’s director, Crystal Moselle, says she was walking down a New York Street when she saw the six men on the sidewalk, was fascinated by the way that they were dressed and how they walked. She spoke to them, listened to what they had to say and asked could she photograph them – and they agreed.
The father, Oscar Angulo, came from Latin America, married an American, and always planned to move his family to Scandinavia where he thought they would be much safer than in New York City. But, they never hade the money and so they stayed. He was fascinated by Indian Vedic religious traditions and gave his children Indian names. But, he kept them all inside the apartment, six boys and a girl, home-schooling, making them wary about going outside (although they could see so much of the city, the lanes of cars on the road outside their window) and finding that they could live their lives within their apartment. His main concession was allowing them to watch the movies, which they did avidly, discussing their preferences in the film, showing their reenactments – making us realise that they had absorbed a lot of the expletive-dialogue that they heard in the movies.
We contemplate this for quite a while and there is very little seen of the father until almost halfway through, an interview with him, his explaining his philosophy of life, his fear of the violence of the city, his protectiveness. We see a great deal more of the children’s mother, a friendly kind of woman, loving her husband, going along with his plans, but now coming to the realisation that perhaps they were too over-protective and that the young men need to venture out into the world. Which one would think would be easy, given their familiarity from the films, but as they go out, they are quite tentative, travelling on the subway, walking along the sidewalks, going to the first film in an actual cinema. The sequence where they go out into the countryside and breathe the air, experience the sunshine, pick fruit from an actual tree reminds us of how limited their life had been.
At this stage, there are moments of rebellion, criticism of the father – but a certain generalisation about what they had experienced with him, although the film is dispersed with home movies of their childhood and growing up.
So, the filmmakers observe life within the house, some of the venturing outside – but there is very little given by way of explanation (the director not intruding with questions or voice-over) of their growing up, the tensions within the family (they are never shown clashing with one another), emotional development, psychosexual development.
The story seems very bizarre at times and we are somewhat relieved that the young men are venturing outside – but it would be very interesting to do a follow-up, to see how they cope, and hear how they begin to articulate their experience of what happened to them, their growth, and their criticisms of what was, in many ways, an imprisonment.
1. The impact of the film? Awards?
2. A true story, the director seeing the brothers in the street, the way that they were dressed, asking who they were – and being allowed to film their story?
3. The credibility of the story, the family, the father from Latin America, marrying an American, the seven children, the six sons, the place of the daughter, confining them to their apartment, home education, sheltering them from New York City, the reliance on movies?
4. The perspective of the director, making a documentary, something of an expose? Photographing the characters – but not intrusive?
5. The credibility of the situation, showing actual footage from home movies of childhood, the gradual explanations? The father, background from Latin America, interest in Hindu traditions, the Indian names for the children, his desire to take them to Scandinavia for further protection?
6. The introduction to the brothers, the focus on cinema, their watching DVDs, lists of favourite films, the influence of Quentin Tarantino? Re-enacting Reservoir Dogs, the violence in shooting sequences, studying Pulp Fiction, transcribing the screenplay, watching, enthusing, acting (and absorbing the
rough language of the films)?
7. The mother as a character, the interviews with her, her appearance, age, the relationship with her children, marrying her husband, loving him, affection towards him over the years, her changing attitude towards the children at home, phoning her mother for her 88th birthday, no contact for 50 years? Participating in the family activities? The cheerful person? Going out, her joy in looking at the car window, the beauty of the cliff, in the orchards?
8. The six boys, 18 and under, the physical resemblances, the different ages, allowing themselves to be photographed, the insertion of the range of the home movie clips and the images of themselves and their growing up? The explanation of the home-schooling, protection, not going out, watching the cars in the streets and the life of the lower East Side from the window? A kind of imprisonment?
9. The late interview with the father, his life, origins, New York City, Scandinavian hopes, keeping the children apart, his protecting them, the bad impression of New York life, his fears? The mystery of his treatment of his sons, the repression, their comments on his behaviour, rebellion, possibilities for
forgiveness?
10. Growing older, the change, going out, the clothes – and the touch of Reservoir Dogs? Walking the sidewalks, encountering people? Travelling on the subway? The fresh air, the joy of going to the cinema for the first time, the effect of everything? Their hair cuts? The trip outside, in the orchard, the fruit, in the sunshine and the light of day?
11. The connection amongst themselves, their bonds, sharing, the place of their sister, protected and isolated, the effect?
12. The film and their acting and photographing, glimpses of the virtues and vices through the window, Chloe and her being made up, participating in the film? The masks and reality?
13. The film not exactly giving explanations of their emotional development or lack of development, family bonds, psychosexual development? Seeing the brothers only in harmony with each other?
14. The film as something of a glimpse, providing the images and story, and provoking more questions than giving answers?
