Today on Blogcritics
Home » Film » DVD Review: Shopping

DVD Review: Shopping

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone


Paul W.S. Anderson, although he’s made a pretty successful career for himself as a writer, producer and director, doesn’t get much respect from either critics or audiences. Personally, I don’t believe he deserves the contempt so frequently heaped on his work. Even in some of his bad movies, he exhibits a genuine sense of visual style. But I’m not sure that Severin’s recent release of his first feature, Shopping, on DVD and Blu-ray is likely to alter very many people’s opinion.

What it does do is highlight quite clearly both his strengths and weaknesses. As Anderson says in the DVD’s supplements, the film was a deliberate reaction to what he and producer Jeremy Bolt saw as the stifling nature of the British film industry in the early ’90s, the hegemony of literary adaptations and bleak social realist dramas at the expense of “entertainment” – by which, they mean the visual and narrative pleasures of action and genre. In other words, Shopping was the work of rebellious young men.

At the time that the film was made, the issue of “ram raiding” was of some concern in certain areas of England, particularly the North; aimless, unemployed kids stealing cars and smashing them through store fronts, more for fun than profit, though the ostensible purpose was theft. Shopping takes this phenomenon and sets it in a stylized, slightly future city where the charming and handsome Billy (Jude Law in his first movie) is addicted to cars, speed, danger and the social cache his actions gain among the other kids. His rival is Tommy (an excellent Sean Pertwee) who has moved beyond thrills for their own sake and is turning ram raiding into a business. Authority is represented by the policeman Conway (Jonathan Pryce) who ineffectually tries to persuade Billy to smarten up. However, a failed relationship with his own father has given Billy a complete lack of respect for any authority.

The only possible influence which might change him is Jo (Sadie Frost), his constant companion in crime, who urges him to get away and offers the possibility of some kind of adult relationship. But Billy isn’t an adult; he’s a petulant, nihilistic adolescent, a pre-sexual boy whose hormonal energies are channelled into aimless anti-social behaviour, essentially giving the finger to the father who rejects him. It’s not hard to see that none of this is going to end well.

While the film itself is infused with some of the protagonist’s immaturity, there can be no denying Anderson’s filmmaking skills. He directs with great energy, the constantly moving camera, dynamic angles, skillfully staged action scenes all belie the minuscule budget. He gets fine performances from his cast, both the inexperienced newcomers and the seasoned pros. And he has a terrific eye for locations, transforming grim industrial landscapes and derelict areas of London into a composite city devoid of any kind of human warmth or hope.

Less than a year after Shopping was released, Danny Boyle’s Shallow Grave turned up, and a year after that Trainspotting. So Anderson and Bolt have some justification for claiming that they were working at the leading edge of a new wave in British filmmaking. But the critics and the censors weren’t quite ready for it and the release of Shopping was delayed for months by the BBFC and when it did finally come out it was savaged by most of the critics as reprehensible, a senseless orgy of wanton destruction, etc. Looked at now, there’s an almost sweet-natured naivety to the film, mostly arising from Jude Law’s wide-eyed innocence as Billy. It’s like Mad Max re-done as Bugsy Malone.

In his native England, the negative response was sufficient to send him packing, looking for work in the States. I’m not sure what might have happened if he had been offered a different project as his first American production; Mortal Combat (1995) is definitely one of his worst films, and perhaps it set him on the videogame-movie path which has to some degree caused much of the negative opinion about him.

But the fact is he followed Mortal Combat with a couple of very good genre films: Event Horizon (1997), an effective blend of science fiction and horror, well designed, with a strong cast, and Soldier (1998), a terrific sci-fi story written by David Webb Peoples (Blade Runner, Unforgiven, Twelve Monkeys, etc.), which provided Kurt Russell with one of his very best roles.

Anderson’s finest film to date is Death Race (2008), a superbly grim piece of sci-fi action filmmaking made all the more impressive for his decision to go with real, on-set stunts rather than synthetic CGI, even to the point of flipping a full size semi tanker. It’s an intensely visceral film, and one only has to compare it to the recent sequel, Death Race 2 (Roel Reine, 2010) to appreciate Anderson’s skill.

In Death Race, the action sequences are completely coherent, the rules and structure of the “game” always clear so that the viewer never loses sight of the relationships among the drivers or the events unfolding around them at high speed. In the sequel, although Reine knows how to stage a stunt, he completely fails to establish the geography of the action so that no matter how many spectacular crashes there are, they never seem to connect with each other or create a narrative line. But strangely, Anderson’s film was treated with general contempt when it was released, while the sequel garnered surprisingly positive reviews. A case, it seems to me, of people viewing through preconceptions rather than looking at what’s actually up there on screen.

Paul W.S. Anderson isn’t a sophisticated filmmaker, but he has a real sense of style and at his best, working from a well constructed script, he is capable of creating strong genre movies. Shopping, despite its low-budget, earns a place on the shelf among other near-future dystopian stories like Mad Max and Streets of Fire.

On the DVD: Severin have obviously put some care into this edition of Shopping. Much of the film was shot at night with hard-working smoke machines providing atmosphere, and in some of the darker scenes there is noticeable grain, but overall the image is dense and colourful. The Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is lively, with the techno-heavy score well balanced with dialogue and effects.

There’s an amiable commentary track with director Anderson and producer Bolt. Both of them are obviously proud of their work and offer an enthusiastic account of what it took to get the film made; because the negative reception of Shopping still seems to sting, they perhaps overstate the significance of what they accomplished in relation to what was going on in British film at the time, but there’s no denying that in terms of style and content they did in a sense give the finger to Merchant-Ivory.

There is also an interview-based featurette (24:22) in which Anderson and Bolt repeat some of what they say in the commentary and add a few more details about the production, plus a short EPK (7:06) which contains some behind-the-scenes footage and brief interviews with the actors. This is pretty standard promotional material in which everyone says how great it is to be working on the project, but it’s still interesting to see the barely 20-year-old Jude Law when he was basically just an enthusiastic kid, not yet aware of the star he’d soon become.

Powered by

About K. George

I have been a film editor for some twenty years, cutting shorts and features, drama and documentary, theatrical and television. Since my earliest memories of movies — watching Omar Sharif as Ghengis Khan, Ursula Andress as She in the Odeon or Regent or Pavilion in Chelmsford, Essex, in the early ’60s, or catching King Kong or Quatermass 2 on a small black and white television in our living room in White Roding — what engaged me, and still engages me, is story and the techniques of storytelling. Even in my documentary work, the concern is always with how to shape the material into a compelling narrative. When I returned to school in my mid-20s, I started hanging out at the University of Winnipeg student newspaper office and eventually became the weekly film reviewer — an excellent gig because it meant I got to see a lot of movies for free. No doubt that experience helped when I fortuitously got an opportunity to go to Los Angeles and interview David Lynch and many of his collaborators on the production of Eraserhead for an article for Cinefantastique. And that article in turn landed me a job on the production of Lynch’s Dune, a remarkable six months in Mexico helping to document the day-to-day details of production on one of the most expensive movies ever made. Eventually returning to Winnipeg, I wrote fairly regularly about film and other matters for Border Crossings, an arts quarterly. And then, in 1989, I joined the Winnipeg Film Group and set about making my own first film, a 9-minute comedy in the form of a dubious documentary called Incident at Pickerel Fillet. This was followed by a short piece in a collaborative project called The Exquisite Corpse, and then a more ambitious comedy parodying old-style sci-fi movie serials called The Adventures of Stella Starr of the Galaxy Rangers in the 23rd Century. These experiences led inexorably to a career in film editing, mostly on documentaries. Over the years, I have also sporadically continued writing — a number of unfilmed scripts, plus a brief history of the Winnipeg Film Group for Cinema Scope, and most recently a chapter on filmmaker John Kozak in the WFG’s anthology about Winnipeg directors, Place.