Bradford English | Through the Shattered Lens

Will Randall (Jack Nicholson), the editor-in-chief of a New York Publishing house, doesn’t get much respect, not from his wife (Kate Nelligan), not from his boss (Christopher Plummer), and certainly not from Stuart Swinton (James Spader), the sleazy executive who is plotting to steal his job and destroy his marriage. But then, one night, Will runs over a black wolf on a country road. When he tries to helps it, the wolf bites him. Soon after, Will starts to feel different whenever the moon is full.

I remember that, when Wolf came out in 1994, some people said that casting Jack Nicholson as a werewolf seemed like typecasting. Nicholson apparently understood this as well so he actually downplays his usual mannerisms for the first part of the movie and gives a convincing performance as a harried executive who is worried he’s about to lose his job. It’s only after he is bitten that Will Randall starts to come alive. Not only does he develop the predator instinct necessary to survive in New York City but he also, without fear, pursues his boss’s daughter, Laura (Michelle Pfeiffer, at her most beautiful). Typecast or not, Jack Nicholson is excellent in Wolf. Equally good is James Spader as Will’s business rival, who starts to show some predator-like aspects of his own.

Director Mike Nichols was not normally a horror director and, around the midway point, his direction falters and there are times when he just seems to be going through the motions. He gets good performances from his cast but doesn’t know how to craft a good jump scare. The best parts of the movie are when Wolf uses lycanthropy as a metaphor for petty office politics, with Will “marking” his territory while talking to Stewart and showing a renewed killer instinct. Wolf works better as a social satire than as a horror movie.

Fans of Frasier will be happy to see David Hyde Pierce in a small but key role. He delivers the film’s best line. Fans of Friends may also notice David Schwimmer in a small role. He says nothing worth remembering. Their presence, though, is a reminder of just how much American culture changed in 1994. By the end of the year, both went from small roles in Wolf to co-starring in the two of the most popular sitcoms in America.

When it comes to true crime cases, few are as disturbing as the story of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

Paul and Karla were a young, married couple who lived in Ontario. They were both attractive. They were both popular. They were both superficially charming, in the style of someone who you might have taken a class with but the only thing you can really remember about them is their smile. And they were both killers. Paul Bernardo, a wannabe rapper who had previously made his money by smuggling cigarettes and who was also a serial rapist, murdered at the least three teenage girls, including Karla’s sister, Tammy. When Paul was arrested, Karla told prosecutors that she had helped Paul with his murders but only because he threatened and abused her. Prosecutors, perhaps moved by a picture that Karla’s friend took of her bruised face after one of Paul’s beatings, made a deal with her for her testimony. In return for testifying against Paul Bernardo, Karla was convicted only of manslaughter and given a 12-year prison sentence. (She was 23 at the time and would only be 35 when released from prison, assuming that she served the full sentence.) However, during the trial, video tapes of the murders were uncovered and showed that Karla had been a far more active participant in the murders than she had originally admitted. That included the murder of her sister, Tammy.

There were calls to rescind Karla’s plea bargain and to try her for murder but since her plea bargain had only required her to provide enough evidence to convict Paul, it was ruled that she had upheld her end of the bargain. While Paul Bernardo is currently serving his life sentence, Karla Homolka is now free and living somewhere in Canada.

Needless to say, the case drew international attention, both due to the circumstances of Karla’s plea bargain and also to Paul and Karla’s image of being the “Ken and Barbie Of Serial Killers.” It’s a case that continue to haunt Canada, an example of how the accused was ultimately treated with more respect than the victims. For her part, Karla continues to claim that it was all Paul and that she was forced into helping. Paul claims that he and Karla were equal partners and that the actual murders were all committed by Karla. Personally, I think they’re both lying.

2006’s Karla stars Laura Prepon as Karla Homolka. The film opens with her already in prison and being interviewed by a psychiatrist (Patrick Bauchau) who has been assigned to determine if there’s a risk of her reoffending. As Karla tells her story, we see flashbacks of Karla’s life with Paul (Misha Collins). Prepon and Collins are both chillingly believable as the soulless Paul and Karla. Laura Prepon plays Karla as being a narcissistic sociopath who is incapable of understand that she’s not the victim in this story. I imagine that Prepon’s performance probably captures the essence of the real Karla, even if Prepon doesn’t really look like her.

That said, the film itself is largely a surface level exploration of the case. The film’s script attempts to maintain some ambiguity as to whether or not Karla Homolka was a voluntarily participant in the murders or if she actually was just too scared of Bernardo to stop him. Prepon plays her as being a sociopath but the script still tries to play both sides of the debate and, as a result, the film falls flat. The film may be called Karla but it doesn’t really get into her head and, as a result, it has all the depth of an Investigative Discovery special. In the end, the film feels like it’s trying to exploit the notoriety around a famous case without taking a firm position on the case’s biggest controversy. When it comes to the crimes of Karla Homolka, that’s not an option.