London Film Festival review - Shame

Steve McQueen’s second feature (following the critically acclaimed Hunger) is another bleak film. Shame follows Brandon (Michael Fassbender), a yuppie living in New York with a pristine, minimalist apartment and the world at his feet. Unfortunately, Brandon is a sex addict, and spends every spare moment watching porn on the internet, engaging prostitutes or pleasuring himself in his office toilet. You see, underneath the cool exterior, he isn’t a very happy bunny.  

Into this cloud of self-loathing walks his little sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan), a fragile and slightly zany singer. Brandon is extremely shaken by her presence and the cracks in his carefully carved persona begin to show.

McQueen has crafted a film which completely complements its protagonist – beautiful to look at but sordid and ultimately empty inside. This is a mood piece rather than about story. Not very much happens, it’s not clear what that is, and it takes a long time to get there.

What you get on the way is some absolutely beautiful photography of a gritty and glamorous city. Shots are long, lingering and often not contextualised. The film is very “provocative”, but not dirty. Yes you do see a lot of Michael Fassbender naked, but the sex here is not about audience titillation – it’s about the emotional mess inside Brandon. The score by Harry Escott is wonderfully, sadly dark, and complemented by some great disco tracks which punctuate the story.

However exquisitely crafted, Shame does begin to drag by the end. The trouble is that the characters do not hold your attention. Brandon is a blank slate and Sissy is just annoying. Fassbender and Mulligan do give convincing performances, but there is little in the script to make you care about either of them.

Another concern I have with the film is that it is set in New York. The director is British, the screenwriters are British, the lead actress is British, and the funding is British (it was even partly financed by the UK Film Council).  Why isn’t it set in London? Michael Fassbender could surely have played an Englishman as convincingly as he played an American (and they had to give Brandon an Irish back story to explain his slightly odd accent). Is it just to reach a wider audience? Perhaps our class system limits us to only accepting middle class versions of London through the eyes of Richard Curtis. Can “gritty” British films only be set on council estates? It would have been interesting to see London portrayed in a new way on screen, but that opportunity has been lost.

As it is, set in New York, Shame is a dark art film which asks few questions and gives even fewer answers. Depressing but not satisfyingly so.