Quantcast
Channel: This Island Rod
Viewing all 421 articles
Browse latest View live

Devil Girl From Mars (1954)

$
0
0


In spite of plentiful competition, few film titles of 1950s are as strikingly, screamingly, irresistibly camp as Devil Girl From Mars, a low-budget British attempt to get in on the decade’s sci-fi craze. This contender from director David MacDonald came out a year before the film adaptation of Nigel Kneale’s The Quatermass Xperiment helped to properly define the peculiarly British version of sci-fi cinema, but there is something to this film’s heavily contrasted visuals and sense of flailing impotence in the face of overwhelming threat, which presages the parochial genre just a little. Devil Girl From Mars is, sadly, less Nigel Kneale than Nigel Tufnell. Many of the cheaper ‘50s sci-fi flicks tried to dress up their seamy wares with soft-core titillation and incidental sexism, and Devil Girl From Mars, with its PVC-clad, mini-skirted dominatrix from outer space having come to Earth to search for masculine breeding stock, encapsulates much of the era’s curious blend of displaced eroticism and terror of gynocracy, a mixture that often bobs up in such films. But describing this film in such a fashion places me at risk making it sound entertaining in a trashy kind of way. In fact, it’s not really trashy, and it’s not entertaining either. It is, rather, dull, slow, self-serious, and betrays its origins as a play so baldly you can practically hear the smoker’s cough of the stage hand and smell the stale tea in the dressing room kettle. Like Edgar G. Ulmer’s The Man From Planet X (1950), this film chooses rural Scotland as the place where mankind and alien meet; but unlike Ulmer’s even cheaper film, director MacDonald can’t wring much atmosphere out of this felicitous locale. Which is a pity, because the essential situation is close to that of the most impressive of MacDonald’s films I’ve seen, the claustrophobic thriller Snowbound (1948), but this is closer in result to some of his other credits, like the awful biopic The Bad Lord Byron (1949), and the better but still very stodgy Christopher Columbus (1949). 



The action is mostly restricted to a homey, isolated inn, kept by a cheerily bickering couple, the Jamiesons (John Laurie and Sophie Stewart). Reports of strange fiery objects falling from the sky in the area bring scientist Professor Hennessey (Joseph Tomelty) and journalist Michael Carter (Hugh McDermott) to the inn. Amongst the inn’s few guests is model Ellen Prestwick (Hazel Court), who’s on the run from heartbreak in London, whilst barmaid Doris (Adrienne Corri) has taken a job so she can be close to her former boyfriend Robert Justin (Peter Reynolds), who’s in jail nearby for killing his domineering wife. Justin chooses the same night to bust out and pose as an itinerant eager to work for his keep at the inn, as the cast find themselves confronted by the eponymous black-clad femme fatale, Nyah (Patricia Laffan). Nyah parks her spaceship nearby and explains she’s been forced to make an emergency stopover by engine trouble. Because she had planned to land in London, Nyah is reduced to showing off her incredible power and scientific advancement for the sake of cowering the collective at the inn, including parading her robot, which, sadly, evokes not its clear precursor, Gort from The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), but a ‘30s radio with legs and amusing vestigial arms. The model work for Nyah’s spaceship and the sets depicting it are standard-issue for ‘50s interstellar craft, all sliding external hatches and glowing recessed lights to suggest mysterious power sources without anything our puny ape minds would think of as controls. 



It is diverting to see Court and Corri together in this prototypical work, as both would become popular faces in the oncoming boom of British horror and sci-fi films. Laffan’s role exploits her minor stardom after playing Poppaea in Quo Vadis? (1951), where she was the decadent, feline opposite to Deborah Kerr’s goody-goody Christian lass; here she’s pitched to offset Corri’s emotive, selfless reject and Court’s anguished professional beauty, parading into the film clad in her fetishist’s delight garb. Nyah’s costume, with modified Inquisitor’s helmet, black glistening cape, and threateningly proffered penis-envy-powered ray-gun, provided ‘50s genre cinema with one of its purest, most easily excerpted icons: Nyah has stalked her way through countless genre surveys and television encomiums to retro cheese. But the fun provided by Nyah’s outlandish look drains away after about five minutes, and in spite of the high-contrast gender-coding, Nyah proves less an icon of insidious, order-destroying feminism than just another high-toned, big-talking alien invader, one who continually promises to astound mankind with infinitely superior technology, whilst failing to properly browbeat the bunch of losers she’s confronted with. She also flies about in a spaceship that can, apparently, be sabotaged with a good hard punch to the reactor. The film’s mid-section is little more than a succession of sequences in which Nyah, after dismissing feeble acts of resistance, shows off some piece of hardware to browbeat the characters, like history’s most evil Tupperware party host. The script, by James Eastwood from the play he wrote with John C. Mather, promises early on to offer fleshed-out characterisation and contrived but potentially interesting dramatic intersections, but as it plays out the characters are revealed as insipid, the dialogue painfully dull, and the drama weakly developed. Time seems to stand still as Carter and Ellen romance, and it's not because Nyah has some beam that can make that happen, but merely because of boredom. Nyah hypnotises Julian to go and do her evil bidding, which is, apparently, that he should sit in an upstairs room glowering for the next half-hour of running time.



What is obvious is that the original play structure was barely revised, in spite of the occasional moves outside to the vicinity of the space craft, as most of the action takes place in the inn’s dining room, and Nyah repeatedly enters stage left, marching in through the inn’s French windows, to speak haughtily at the Earthlings and deliver some sort of ultimatum, and then leaves them to argue, fret, form swift bonds, and try their various lame attempts to outsmart and kill her. The climax is predictable, nay, inevitable from the first moment Justin is introduced, as he, the doomed transgressive outcast, is the logical choice to go on a suicide mission, having proved he’s competent at eliminating bitchy females. I do jest, but the film does not. Still, there’s an ever so slight hint of something deeper, a sense of pubescent forbidden delights in the way Nyah takes local boy Tommy (Anthony Richmond) under her wing, or cape, and leads him into her spaceship for a tour, a metaphorical induction into mysteries of adulthood for the lad in a moment aimed exactly at the disquieting nexus of maternal and sexual interest, a point which is fleshed out when Nyah later confirms she plans to take Tommy back to Mars as her choice for breeding stock, unless another, more developed male volunteers to take his place. Fortunately, Julian is ready to prove that a human male would rather die than accept the status of intergalactic man-ho with nothing to do other than service a race of latex-clad hotties. 



Suspense, Thy Name is the Film Preservation Blogathon

For the Love of Film…start your engines!

$
0
0


Ladies and gentlemen, the time is here.  A time to love, a time to die, a time…to blog.
Yes, the third annual Film Preservation Blogathon is nigh: official kick-off time is Sunday, May 13, 10:00 a.m. (US East Coast Time) and ends on Friday, May 18, 10:00 p.m. (USECT) (give or take a few hours), so if you haven’t composed your sterling masterpieces of scholarly, critical, and appreciative exegesis, get motivated. This year, the three participating blogs are all sharing host duties on a rotating roster: Marilyn at Ferdy on Films will be your fearless leader Today and Monday; Farran at Self-Styled Sirenwill be your goddess of choice on Tuesdayand Wednesday, and I will be the stern and ruthless taskmaster for all the slackers on Thursdayand Friday. So let the thought of my whip cracking against your buttocks as you labor in the dazzling, life-sucking sun to complete this cruel potentate’s monument to cinematic restoration spur you to finish and post your pieces more quickly!

And for donors, remember that pharaoh's might is great and his generosity even greater: 10 of you, to make up for your lighter pockets, will walk away the richer with a NFPF Treasures 5: The West box set, featuring the two short films, The Sergeant and The Better Man, the restoration of which the first For The Love of Film blogathon helped fund. Those two shorts came from the same amazing New Zealand trove of short films in which this blogathon's annointed project, Graham Cutts' The White Shadow, was also found.

And don’t forget: all blog posts MUST contain the donate button and/or link:

https://npo1.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=1001883&code=Blogathon+2012.

If you don’t have the link on your post, it will not be included on the blogathon home page.
Here are the donate buttons:

This is your captain speaking…

$
0
0


…as you can see, this blog is not really This Island Rod, per se, but in fact This Lifeboat Rod. Never fear, this is still a refuge from the cruel sea, the bloody conflict, the insanity that turns man against his brother, and the horror of Michael Bay’s movies. Your captain and crew, all one of us, are ever-ready to save bored and horny socialites, sneaky Nazis, angry working men, the lost and confused, the shell-shocked and the maimed – in short, all you flotsam of the internet, left stranded and bedraggled and still desperate to make the last two days of the For the Love of Film blogathon an experience to savour.
So sit back, relax, ration your water, fend the sharks off, and join us, for the best of the film blogging world’s most incisive intellectual exegeses, paeans to remembered awesomeness, and celebrations of all things cool.

First, please join me in a hearty cry of thanks for Marilyn at Ferdy on Films and Farran at Self-Styled Siren for their ceaseless labour and attentiveness over the past four days. And an equally hearty cheer for everybody who's contributed the time and effort necessary to give unto us this collection of truly excellent posts - you crazy kids!





And now please remember that as great as the enthusiasm we see in all these posts is, and worthy in and of itself, this Blogathon has a serious purpose, to raise money to give Graham Cutts’ The White Shadow the showcasing it deserves for the enjoyment of film fans all over the internet. So please, donate. For the Love of Film. We beg you. Or we'll have to steal it, like Janet Leight in Psycho. And we all know how that finished up.

So now down to business - today’s fresh-baked steaming tray of new posts:

Thursday, 17 May

The redoubtable, indefatigible, inexhaustible, indomitable, and just plain super Sam Juliano of Wonders in the Dark has composed a sterling, attention-raising piece about the Brigham Young University Film Music Archives, and their peerless work in tracking down, obtaining, restoring, and releasing original movie score recordings.

With her customary sang froid, excess of energy, and ineluctable intelligence, Christianne from Krell Laboratories has given us a post a day this week, and the latest is one on Hitchcock's last British film, and the work of his the Master was least happy with, Jamaica Inn; Christianne wrestles with her feelings for the film and also the legacy of its place in the Medved's The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time. A legacy to which I personally, blow a very loud raspberry to.

Meanwhile, International Blogger of Mystery Bill Kelso continues to compile a remarkable series of antique advertisements for Hitchcock's films at Scenes from the Morgue, the latest being original newspaper and magazine ads for Suspicion, Rope, and Psycho. He's also done a piece looking at the original cinema trailer for Psycho at Micro-Brewed Reviews.

The sinuously synaptic Sinaphile Ariel Schudson has a piece on the role of children in Hitchcock's movies at the blog of the AMIA Student Chapter at UCLA, and the way the adults and those children in his films are often oddly interchangeable.

The canny David Cairns of Shadowplay has for our reading pleasure presented a piece on the 3D version of Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder, with some fascinating discursions into Hitch's use of space in the film and its similarities to the Japanese master Yasujiro Ozu (note: link to Shadowplay links on to The Daily Notebook at MUBI).

The one and only Ed Howard of Only the Cinema continues his series on Hitchcock's early films with Number Seventeen.

Dave Enkosky of KL5-Film, the site which has my favorite movie blog banner in the universe, presents the trailer for North By Northwest after a brief but engaging commentary where, he claims, the film in question "broke my Hitchcock cherry". So we have that in common, too.

Meanwhile, rugged man of cinematic action Andrew Welch talks Rear Window at Adventures in Cinema, with some particularly interesting comments on the villain.

At the aptly titled We Talk About Movies, Vincenzo Tagle analyses the intricate visuals of Hitchcock's silent fight drama The Ring.

Way over yonder at the mOvie blog, everyone's favorite self-described Irish nerd Darren Mooney continues his look at episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents with the episode "The Hidden Thing"...

...and over at Limerwrecks, the dreaded duo of David Cairns and  Hilary "Surly Hack" Barta continue to terrify the countryside with artfully witty doggerel: today their poetic subjects are those nice young boys of Rope
.

Peter Labuza of LabuzaMovies.com picks out an intriguing continuity flaw in Psycho and follows where it leads his thoughts...

...whilst Tim Lacy at US Intellectual History digs into the voyeuristic implications at the heart of Rear Window.

The redoubtable Lee Price, whose blog 21Essays has been a ceaseless engine of creativity in this blogathon, studies Blackmail and Hitchcock's gift for depicting loneliness, through the device of an imagined argument between Hitch and Michael Powell.

Kenji Fujishima, the esteemed ringmaster at My Life, at 24 Frames Per Second, delves into another less celebrated Hitchcock film, the "anti-spy thriller" Topaz...

... whilst the eminent Peter Nellhaus of Coffee, Coffee, and More Coffee deftly gives his immense knowledge of Asian cinema a Hitchcockian twist, as he takes on the Rear Window-esque Taiwanese film Zoom Hunting.

...and Eric Bondurant of The Movie Review Warehouse changes tack to look at the effect of the vast gaps in the silent movie catalogue on the way we perceive that era, and in particular the way the pioneering work of early female directors like Alice Guy and Lois Weber is obscured in assessing both their careers and the impact they had on cinema culture at the time.

At Mindless Meanderings, the experienced Buckey Grimm offers more rare photos detailing the Library of Congress Paper Print Collection and its efforts to remaster its vast collection of historical documents and media, and a link to a newspaper piece he wrote on the subject of film restoration there in 1997.

At Backlots, Lara delves into the 1926 Lon Chaney The Phantom of the Opera, a pillar of silent film culture...

...and high in the gilded, fog-shrouded towers that crown the mighty citadel of Vanity Fair, James Wolcott talks up our Blogathon.

At Strictly Vintage Hollywood, Donna takes a look at Hitchcock the actor, photographer's model, showman, and married man - in specific, married to the great Alma.

The voices inside Sean Cohen's head at High Def Digest are having an ongoing row over the quality of The Birds and this is distracting colleagues from completing their own posts for the blogathon - so we can only pray they can sought it out soon.

At The End of CinemaSean Gilman's ongoing  descent into the netherworlds of early Hitchcock sees him delving into Hitchcock's wild and woolly, expressionist-influenced comedy-adventure, Number Seventeen.

The team at Cinema Sight have been sorting through their favourite Hitchcocks all week: here's the latest fruit of the endeavour.

Flash: at High Def Digest things now progress apace, as film writer extraordinaire John Carvill has contributed an "unscientific analysis of the Blu-ray editions The 39 Steps & North by Northwest."

At InessentialsTimothy Yenter is another for whom North By Northwest was a pivotal film lover's experience.

Darren Mooney at the mOvie Blog continues to expand his studies of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes, this time analysing Hitch's self-satirising humour in "Mr. Blanchard’s Secret".

The indubitable dabbler from Dubai, Hind Mezaina of The Culturist, contributes a fifth epic piece for the blogathon, this time tackling the fascinating topic of the many dream sequences in Hitchcock's films...

...whilst over in a Wide Screen World, Richascends The 39 Steps to a place of cinephile delights.

The one man unafraid to mix the culinary and the cinematic, Ron Deutsch of Chef du Cinema, will serve up three more Hitchcock recipes.

At Not Just Movies, Jaketakes on Notorious and finds it a work of unusual subtlety and intricate skill for the Master...

...whilst the ostentatious Odienater, aka the oracular Odie Henderson, talks The Birds at Tales of OdieNary Madness...

...and at Way Too Damn Lazy to Write a Blog, Paul Etcheverry writes a blog - specifically taking on Hitchcock's most atypical, yet thematically linked films, the screwball comedy Mr and Mrs Smith and the neglected and personal early sound work Rich and Strange.

Speaking of rich and strange, Joe Thompson of The Pneumatic Rolling-Sphere Carrier Delusion continues his explorations of old film yearbooks for Hitchcockian ephemera to trace how Hitchcock was seen in the movie world before he became a singular icon, and digs up other delights in the process.

At MSN, Kate Erbland hacks her way through the jungle to discover the lost treasures of the Academy Film Archive...

...whilst the axiomatic Sean Axmaker, denizen of ye olde Parallax View, celebrates Abel Gance's much-restored epic Napoleon.

Feminéma is comin' at ya with a reverie regarding Anna Ondra, the first Hitchcock Blonde.



Hold on for a thrilling finale...

$
0
0

It's the last day of the blogathon, friends, and what an event it's been: for all of you who have laboured so hard and so long to keep this cauldron of cinephilia on the boil, I salute you. But the end will prove, I know, equal to Alfred the Great's propensity for memorable climaxes, and never fear: there's plenty of room for all, so you won't have to fight for a place on the last day here like Roger and Valerian above, although you might still like to, and that would be your own affair. Later in the day I'll have the winner of yesterday's draw for donor prizes. And remember, there's also still plenty of time to donate, and the bigger and fatter the donation, the more our father who art Hitchcock will smile upon you from...whichever section of the afterlife he currently prefers to reside in.


FLASH: Thursday's Lucky Draw winner was Thomas Bolda! Congratulations, Thomas.

Friday, 18 May

Over in the ceaselessly toiling, malefically hued, smoke-shrouded depths of the Krell Laboratories, mistress of mad science Christianne has given the floor to guest writer Lokke Heiss, who recounts his experience of indulging all of Hitchcock's silent works in 1999, the centenary of the Master's birth.

At the AMIA Student Chapter of UCLA, another cabal of sinister geniuses labours to produce scintillating movie commentaries as well as new frontiers in acronyms: today Jon Marquis reconnoiters Hitchcock's late masterpiece, Frenzy, specifically the immortal scenes of Alec McCowen's attempts to eat, and how they form an ingenious sabotage of traditional exposition, amongst other pleasures.

The bounteous and beatific Brandie of True Classicsconsiders the case of Young and Innocent, one of the more unusual suspects from Hitchcock's run of '30s British classics.

The nefarious mastermind Jaime Grijalba of Exodus 8:2 considers the proliferating similarities between the visuals of Psycho and episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

Speaking of which, Darren at the mOvie blog continues his exploratory reports on episodes of that seminal show, with "A Dip In The Pool", in which the Master collaborated with another hero of a dark and wicked wit, Roald Dahl. And sorry about that last link Darren: html is the devil's work.

Astounding all, the wondrous and waggish Laura attacks from her not-so-secret base at Laura's Miscellaneous Musings to consider Rope, a recent conquest in her efforts to topple the Hitchcock canon.

Not to be outdone, Matthew of The Chiarascuro Coalition sings of the tragedy of poor Margaret, the crofter's wife who makes The 39 Steps an indelibly darker and richer experience...

...whilst W. B. Kelso returns to life just when everyone throught he was dead, with the last of his series showcasing vintage ads and articles, with one of Hitchcock's original obituaries at Scenes From The Morgue, and a commentary on the trailer for Frenzy at Micro-Brewed Reviews...

At Memories of the Future, intrepid voyager through time, space, and mind Jesse Ataide investigates a little case of Suspicion...

...whilst esco 20, aka he who is By Film Possessed, takes a deep, deep dive into Shadow of a Doubt.

The dashingly dextrous disseminator of Dubai, no dubiety, aka Hind Mezaina (see, that's what you get when you encourage me) wraps up a week of wonders at The Cineaste by showcasing a interview with Hitchcock on the television show Monitor, from 1964. A must-watch for Hitch fans.

The indefatigable crew at Limerwrecks come to the end of their journey but not before offering more of what they do best: Jim "Norm Knott" Siergey composes upon a theme of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and Hilary "Surly Hack" Barta sounds off and rounds off.

...and David Cairns contributes his own lines as well as links over at Shadowplay.

The great and all-seeing Ed Howard brings his epic trek through early Hitchcock to an end with the original The Man Who Knew Too Much at Only The Cinema.

Brian Doan at Bubblegum Aesthetics comes through with a piece that boils the Hitchcock touch down to essentials.

Meanwhile, at Hell on Frisco Bay, a whole other Brianspeaks of the NFPF, the rise of digitalisation in cinema, and film festivals showing newly restored films he's going to be attending, which I suspect he wrote purely for the purpose of making me feel insanely jealous...

...and at 21 Essays, Lee Price is celebrating concluding an awesome series of posts with a sixth that ties together Hitchcock, Blackmail, the MacGuffin, Michael Powell, and Alma Reville in a great big cinephile slashfic. Seriously, kudos, Lee.

Strictly Vintage Hollywood presents an approximation of Hitchcock's second feature and the only one of his films that is considered lost, the elusive The Mountain Eagle.

The sartorially splendiferous Stacia of She Blogged By Night is another hypnotised by the seductive sway of Rope...

...and AdamBatty at Hope Lies at 24 Frames Per Second joins the ranks peering into the shadows of Shadow of a Doubt; and that site's Hitchcock-a-thon will continue throughout the weekend, like those guests who just won't leave after a party's over, but they're so much fun to have around you just can't kick them out...

...but Marc Edward Heuck of The Projector Has Been Drinking has chosen to celebrate Hitch's showman side, as the master of marketing.

At Silent London, Pamela Hutchinson naturally has the silents of Londoner Hitchcock on her mind, in specific his actual debut as director, The Pleasure Garden.

At U.S. Intellectual History, Ray Hiberskidiscusses Notorious.

Strictly Vintage Hollywood, not satisfied with rocking our world all week, offers up Mary Mallory's glance at another Graham Cutts and Alfred Hitchcock collaboration, The Passionate Adventure, a project that first brought Hitch into the orbit of the Selznick clan...

...and Sean Gilman brings it home with a glass of Champagne - that is, Hitch's 1928 silent film - at The End of Cinema.

At John McElwee's Greenbriar Picture Shows, part two of a study of the impact made by The 39 Steps in the US upon first release, marking the beginning of Hitchcock's arrival as an international filmmaker...

...and at Cinema Sight, they rage, rage against the dying of the light with two last day posts, as the crew rounds off their top ten of Hitchcock's films with their individual picks for Hitch's absolute best, but you'll have to click to see what they are! And Peter J. Patrickdiscusses Hitchcock's way with actors, moving beyond that "actors are cattle" jive to study how well he handled stars and got them to play against type. Thanks for all, guys.

KC, not the one with the Sunshine Band but of the far more awesome Classic Movies, has collected together a formidable set of links to pieces on Hitchcock around the web at the moment, including one piece that presents the irresistable what-if notion of Ian Fleming's interest in getting Hitchcock to direct the aborted James Bond film that was later transmuted in Thunderball, and which caused Fleming so much legal heartache.

And in true Hitchcock style, we return to where it all began, as Ferdy on Films hosts guest writer Paroma Chatterjee and her piece on Suspicion.

High Def Digest wraps up that site's buffet of Hitchcock posts for the blogathon with David Krauss' look at Hitch's fondness for one-word titles.

Adam Zanzie of Icebox Movies finally gets his backside around to contributing (I kid 'cause I love, Adam) as he jumps into Hitchcock's visually innovative The Ring, and finds it a mixed experience.

At Shadowplay, David Cairns continues to stun through his dedication in offering a study in Hitchcock's use of vertigo-inducing high and overhead camera angles and aerial shots.

Darren Mooney concludes his survey of the trove of riches that are the episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents at the mOvie blog,with a look at "The Horse Player". All hail Darren!

At Moving Image Achive News, the team there have pitched in to raise consciousness of the blogathon and its purpose, and Caylin Smithtakes a look at the film all this fuss is about - The White Shadow. They've also posted a piece on their Facebook page.

At They Live By Night, the mysterious beast whose rampant cinephilia is feared by all bloggers known as Bilge Ebiri writes about perhaps the most atypical and least-known film in Hitchcock's oeuvre, Waltzes From Vienna, and finds the signs of Hitch's grasp on cinematic rhythm glimmering through the costume drama trappings so interesting he wonders if Hitch wasn't a maker of musicals all along...

...and Joe Thompson of The Pneumatic Rolling-Sphere Carrier Delusion hits the end of his drive through Hitchcock-related historical ephemera at 100 MPH, as he takes a leaf through 1933's The World Film Encyclopedia and looks at the entries on Hitchcock, Cutts, and the other neglected heroes of The White Shadow. That's some class scholarship, Joe.

And the charming young Miss Rachel, who is seen so often parading the sunny boulevards holding aloft her cream-coloured light-deflecting mantle that she is now widely referred to by the hoi-polloi as The Girl with the White Parasol, expounds with solicitous delicacy upon the subject of one Miss Ingrid Bergman, who starred in some of those new talking pictures directed by that frightful Mr Hitchcock, and especially one called Notorious, which sounds, well, notorious, but we would not know, as we avoid such vulgar pastimes.

At Kine Artefacts, the eliptically effusive Ellieexplores the problems of working with old nitrate film, that delicate, dangerous and endangered material upon which the entire legacy of early movies rests, and celebrates the skill of those who take it upon themselves to save it and store it.

Old salt Buckey Grimm wraps up his series on places where films are stored and restored at Mindless Meanderings with a brief but charming photographic paean to the little workshops where the archivists labour.

And roaring out of times still to come, riding upon a wave of curved space, The Futurist! pauses on adventures only long enough to hurl us his piece on Family Plot, Hitchcock's very last movie, which is darned apt for the last hours of our last day.

...The End.

$
0
0
Postscript: because I'm a really nice guy (you guys owe me something now, preferably in a bottle), I present two late-comers:

Silken scribe Sheila O'Malley, she of the SheilaVariations, is fascinated by the antiheroism of Cary Grant's Devlin in Notorious...

...and Jill Blake of The Cinementals has also seen Notorious, except this time at a theatrical showing at the College of Art and Design in Savannah, GA, which is cool beyond all reason, although the projection left something to be desired.

Oh, and Jill, you are the winner of Friday's donor draw - congratulations.

And a very (very) late contribution from Noel Vera at Critic After Dark!













Coda: For The Love of Film

$
0
0
Well, folks, the 2012 Film Preservation Blogathon has wrapped up, and I can say without hesitation that it’s been a great success. The six days of the blogathon saw 112 bloggers post 208 essays, articles, commentaries, and features on the behalf of this unifying cause. We beat our total donations from last year handily, netting $6,490. Sadly, this isn’t enough to achieve the result we were aiming for, which was to bring in enough to pay for the ASAP presentation of The White Shadow online; there’s still so much work to be done in preparing it, including paying for the recording of the soundtrack, that needed every cent of the official target of $15,000. But that was an extremely ambitious target by any standards, and what we have brought in is the seed from which this evergreen shall rise eventually. Rather than lobby for more donations, we’ve decided to rest on these particular laurels, although of course you can still donate at any time, through any donor link on any of the blogathon posts. And given how many of those there were, and of such high quality, I’m sure we all still have a lot of reading to do in the near future. 

My profound congratulations to all who helped to make this a genuinely global event for cinephiles.

And for those of you who got a little more than congratulations out of this, a full list:

Shannon Fitzpatrick has won an autographed copy of Roger Ebert’s memoir Life Itself.

Rebecca Naughten is the proud new owner of the autographed copy of Betty Jo Tucker’s Confessions of a Movie Addict.
  
Peter Nellhaus won the French Notorious poster. 

Aurora Bugallo gets the photo of Alfred Hitchcock and the giant telephone,
  
The NFPF’s Treasures DVDs have gone to Jill Blake, Thomas Bolda, Kenji Fujishima, Catherine Grant, Katherine Kehoe, and Lee Price.
  
Of course, we owe extra-special super-duper thanks to the NFPF, Donna Hill, Betty Jo Tucker, and Roger Ebert for contributing these prizes. You guys are all more awesome than spending Christmas with the Avengers.

From myself, Marilyn, and Farran, thank you, and have a good year.

Civic Mythology in Cinema: a sequence from Gallipoli (1981)

$
0
0



An academic piece.


Amidst the visual and narrative sprawl of Peter Weir’s 1981 film Gallipoli, the sequence in which the film’s heroes Archy (Mark Lee) and Frank (Mel Gibson) spend a brief interlude in the house of a pastoralist family after their gruelling trek across a vast salt lake, stands out in spite of its brevity for several pointed reasons. On a narrative level, this sequence contributes to the forward motion of the story, marking the point in which Frank decides to join the army along with Archy, thus placing him on the same trajectory as his new friend, directed inexorably towards Anzac Bay. It is also an islet of compressed and efficient screenwriting and directing by David Williamson and Weir, as the sequence contributes not only characterisation, as aspects of Archy and Frank’s burgeoning friendship and individual expectations are examined, but also the engagement with the historical context and underlying social, gender, and ideological presumptions which fill out the film’s self-mythologising bent. Gallipoli actively seeks to engage with and transmit a specific national image of the past and, by implication, of the present and future, through its employment of such mythology. This sequence presents, in miniature, a cross-section of the film’s version of the epoch and its society, creating a carefully woven tapestry of psychological, physical, and social cues, which help Weir in his attempt to capture “the burning centre that had made Gallipoli a legend.”



This sequence consists of three interlocking scenes: Archy and Frank dressing for dinner, in which the two men mock each other for their sudden attentiveness to their appearance, the conversation of the two men with the pastoralist family, and then Archy and Frank retreating to their beds, whereupon Frank reveals he is reconsidering his choice to avoid joining the army. In terms of direct narrative flow, these scenes follow on directly from those immediately preceding, in which Frank and Archy cross a vast and inhospitable salt lake after being deposited in the middle of nowhere by the train they think will take them to a city, and lead on directly to an abortive attempt by Archy to teach Frank to ride a horse: Frank’s lack of skill in riding for the time being keep them separated once they join up. For the two heroes, the homestead represents a welcome respite from the rugged landscape, and also a graze with a higher social level then either man is used to, one being a roustabout, the other a labouring vagabond. Archy and Frank neatly embody two distinct variations on a stereotyped ideal of the Aussie male: Archy is a rural lad of pure, naïve outlook, physical prowess, and spiritual simplicity, and Frank, the more urbane, larrikin type with a gentle cynicism that camouflages a spirit essentially in accord with Archy’s. The oppositions that the two men offer in their disparate personalities, and also their unity as swiftly unshakeable mates and Australians, are consistently used throughout Gallipoli to signify the tension between these spheres of Australian life. “Frank’s character as one fearful of war is out of character to the man of the myth, the polar opposite to Archy’s innocent, sacrificial, heroism,” (Melksham’s words), yet the story of Gallipoli is the story of their essential, unshakeable unity in that opposition.





Whilst it is then apt to admit that “in nostalgic films such as Gallipoli (…), mateship is seen an innocent and noble form of bonding,” as Dennis Altman said in a 1987 article, that bond is enabled by the disparate personalities and personal competitiveness of Archy and Frank, and whereas before this has been expressed in sport, here there is the men’s efforts to appeal to the family’s attractive daughter Mary (Robyn Galwey). The first scene, depicting the two men fastidiously grooming themselves, presents homosocial humour as Archy laughs at Frank’s slick appearance and Frank ripostes, “Don’t wear out the leather on them boots, will ya?” This exchange reveals much: mutual masculine scorn at a sudden desire to look good, with the consciousness of the violation of the presumption of the unpolished, expedient lifestyle favoured by real blokes, an underpinning of the larrikin sense of humour, coupled with anxiety over class status, and their nascent move into the environs of the squatocracy, in a family parlour, a familial and feminine-friendly space where decorum and bearing are currency. The undertone, too, of sexual competition, serves both a significant thematic purpose that is revealed as the scene plays out, and also, incidentally, illustrating that Archy and Frank are not homosexual, a seemingly necessary corollary to the film’s celebration of mateship. The room the two men are given to sleep in, worker’s quarters with tin walls and bunks, indicates their status in regards to the household, but they are given momentary distinction by their crossing of the lake and Archy’s intent to join up, thus inspiring a compromised but consequential moment of egalitarian feeling for the characters, one which matches the moment of national evolution engulfing the country.




The family consists of Mary, her mother Laura (Phyllis Burford), father Lionel (Don Quin), and Gran (Marjorie Irving). Mary is the first member of the family the two men have met, in the moments immediately prior to the sequence’s commencement, in which she watched the two men approach her from the wilderness. Mary, with white linen strapping a broad hat to head, is here an image of idealised femininity who, along with the colonial house, stand on the edge of like an outpost for civilisation. This contrast possesses supplementary meaning to the iconic image of the two men in the midst of vast desolation, setting up an opposition of masculinity, and its link to the rugged landscape, and the house with its genteel but incomplete family unit. Galwey’s Mary suggests a previous archetype of idealised femininity in a Weir film, Anne-Louise Lambert’s Miranda in Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975), similarly pursued by a innocent young hero in an equally doomed quest, except that whereas in Picnic the innocent sacrifice is the young girl, and the film’s dominant paradigm is that of the Anglophile, feminine world of the Appleyard school, here it is the polarised masculine world of mateship, labour, sport, and war, momentarily coming into contact with its opposite. In the hallway outside the parlour, Mary takes a drinks tray from a serving girl to carry in to the family and their guests, a move that matches the two men’s efforts to ‘rise’ in smartening themselves up in adopting the servile task herself for the sake of social lubrication and flirtation. Mary remains throughout the sequence an inviting and responsive emblem of all that men like Archy and Frank might reasonably aspire to, crystallising in the moment in which Mary says to Archy, “Most of the boys around here have joined the Light Horse.” An implicit aspect of this sequence’s dynamics, for as Trevor Melksham says of another passage of the film, the language has little to do with the underlying meaning of the character exchanges, is elucidated here by Weir’s framing of Mary, seated, gazing up at Archy in particular with adoring eyes. Archy, in addition to his physical qualities, possesses a dazzling cache in his intent and nature that has powerful social and erotic appeal.


With a different but equally powerful appeal, Laura says, “I do love the Light Horse uniforms!” whilst Lionel states, “If I’d had a son that’s what he would have joined too.” The Light Horse gains the lustre of special distinction or, as Frank later puts it, “The Light Horse – that’s got a bit of class.” The Light Horse has links to an older world of landed gentry and agriculture, or, again as Frank puts it, “Toffs and farmer’s sons,” and, more remotely, mounted knights. Archy bears much resemblance to mythical knightly figures in his transparency, dedication, and determination, for whom Mary becomes then a fitting lady fair. As Melksham describes it, “Weir (draws) on classical mythology to root the Anzac myth into classical myth by creating an immortal hero upon whom to centre a cult.” Frank, in contrast to the guileless Archy, characteristically appropriates an earlier line of Archy’s, “All you need is your watch and the sun and you can find your way anywhere!”, to present a confident and persuasive demeanour to the family, and his employment of the euphemistic “business interests” similarly signals both his ambition and his capacity to wrap truth in a glib raconteur’s package. Yet he still finds Archy has gained the upper hand in this contest for the family’s admiration. Archy and Frank are sportsmen, another trait associated with the quintessential Aussie male, and they are used to the distinction, and the reward, this brings: Frank is confident enough of winning in the first race to suggest it isn’t the first time he’s made such a bet. But this distinction, this sequence suggests, is momentarily losing its strength as a means of impressing the ladies, so to speak; in the moment of national maturation, it’s Archy’s guileless patriotism that is now the social and sexual cache. One appropriation gives way to another as, upon sensing the specific respect Archy is given for his intention to join, Frank begins to reconsider his own attitude, keen to the social distinction the Light Horse might convey and, in a time when everything is pointing towards war service. Frank’s reasons for choosing this option are enlarged upon in the culminating scene in which he mentions his plans, now impossible, to start a bike shop with the winnings of the race he lost to Archy. Thus a convergence of influences presents Frank with the inevitability of joining up, and he will try to take the most advantageous alternative this offers.


The parlour’s environs squarely evoke a familial atmosphere, a feel of genteel inclusion and closeness: family photos on the walls, polished silver, depicted in a group shot in which the men stand and the women sit before them in the foreground, both marginalised but also in a spectator’s position, the two interlopers actors upon a stage of family where they are being assessed for worthiness. The lone note of specific tension introduced comes when Gran challenges Frank in his plans not to join up: “While the Germans are crucifying kittens on church doors in Belgium?” This line provides one of the film’s relatively few engagements with the background of World War One, its propaganda, the wider political context, and the social dissemination of that context through discourse. Gran’s pointed question is a demand for action, and also a set of absurd, emotive images, for which there is no comfortable or easy riposte, and the momentarily sheepish look of Frank and Archy reveals the discomfort such rhetoric is intended to provoke. Gran here in her single line becomes the voice of the pro-war party across the British Empire, creating the melodramatic need for action. Mary and Lionel step in to save the two mates from this momentary humiliation, with their positive pronouncements on the Light Horse, and as they speak their lines, the only close-ups not on Archy and Frank are proffered, lending their more positive pronouncements more weight and appeal. Gran operates as rhetorical stick to the carrots proffered by the rest of the family.


That carrot is however just as manipulative, as each embodies for the two young men objectives for the returning hero: for Archy, who has no apparent family beyond father-figure Jack (Bill Kerr), and Frank, who has a father (John Murphy) and plentiful siblings but no mother and no sense of belonging in his society. Lionel and Mary become then icons of a social embrace, patriarch offering the nominal place of son, and Mary as prize of beauty. This would be an idyll for a post-war state, a complete and settled patriarchal family unit, which can be interpreted as equivalent to an Imperial family, too. When the two young men retreat to their room, enthused and partly drunk, what is revealed is not simply that Frank now wants to join up, but that he and Archy are destined, after coming together for initially pragmatic reasons, to be inseparable friends: the images of the two men lounging in their beds, excited by the elusive promises of their evening, suggests sublimated sexuality as well as comradeship. “It (Gallipoli) has been described by some as a male love story,” film scholar Brian McFarlane has reported, and this moment is mindful that mateship, as Archy and Frank embody it, is a bond associated with frontiers, violence, and labour, inimical to settled, domestic, feminine niceties, and imported Euro-centric world view that is still the aspiration of the pre-Gallipoli Australia portrayed here, and mateship is a substitute for and relief from traditional family structures and sexual couplings. Before they can truly come ‘home’, Archy and Frank must, as mates, brave a different frontier as a mutually supporting unit, the perfect axiom of mateship in such a context. 





The intense, building bond of the two men is deepened in this scene where the invites presented might threaten it, revealing how closely bound up this ideal of masculine friendship is not only with their immediate experiences, but also the exigencies of a great communal activity, that is, the nation going off to war: “Mateship…is supposed to have been born in the bush, then galvanised in the trenches of World War I,” as Jane Freebury put it in her 1987 essay ‘Screening Australia: Gallipoli – A Study of Nationalism on Film.’ But Gallipoli also depicts the alienation of the emerging Australia from its colonial roots, and the British Empire, its sire. As the narrative engages with the clash of attitudes between the Australians and British officers, and the final portrait of Aussie soldiers sacrificed for Imperial war aims, the film exposes tensions of world-view introduced in this earlier scene, as the two men travel from the point of utmost isolation, upon the salt lake, to engagement in a moment of history that straddles world, empires, and eras, a shift which the journey of Archy and Frank actualises in physical and emblematic movement. The pastoralist family comes, incidentally but inevitably, to stand for a world that is unobtainable to the two young men until the call to Archy’s final blood sacrifice is answered. Because the promises and threats presented by the family are proved illusory or incidental: the Light Horse will finish fighting alongside the Infantry as cannon fodder, against the Turks and not the Germans, and the young knightly hero will be consumed by the dragon he seeks to fight. 


Immortals (2011)

$
0
0


Billed by some as an artistic visionary’s riposte to the pompous, FX-driven, mythology-derived sludge that the CGI-riddled, post-The Lord of the Rings fantasy cinema has given rise to, Tarsem Singh’s Immortals proves rather that it’s extremely easy to be considered an artistic visionary by modern Hollywood, and how nice it is to be feted by the worshippers of anything resembling a crossover between early ‘90s alt-music culture and contemporary cinema, such as currently infest many critical rags. Immortals is one of the worst films I’ve ever managed to watch through to its conclusion: derivative, formless, witless, and downright excruciating in its lack of any coherent sense of drama and mythological meaning, Singh’s work here reveals that his sensibility has not deepened in the slightest since he made a name for himself directing music videos that showed off how many underground and foreign films he’d seen. Instead, he settles for caking his tiresome saga in a hyper-fluorescent MTV style that has to gall to filch imagery from the likes of Fellini’s Satyricon (1973), Sergei Paradjanov’s Sayat Nova (1968), Cocteau’s Orpheus (1949), and other doyens of the dreamily esoteric, to give a facile impression that this is something more than a completely by-rote script cobbled together by the most cynical of Hollywood hacks, and that Singh has created something actually arty and interesting.


For one thing, in spite of the great difference in stylistic repertoire, this is close to being exactly the same film as Marcus Nispel’s dreadful remake of Conan the Barbarian, released only a couple of months earlier. Story is reduced to an essentialist conflict in which a buff hero, clearly a hero precisely because he is buff, is enraged when a parent is slaughtered by a gruff and growly super-villain, defends an anointed female sought by said gruff and growly villain, as a thin pretext for soporific action scenes and, in this case, perfunctory mythological revisionism. With the Clash of the Titans series having already cordoned off the tales of Perseus as their cynically corrupted stomping ground, Immortals borrows from the tales of Theseus, once in legend the unifying king of Attica, slayer of the Minotaur, and perhaps the biggest man-slut of classical Greece. Singh and screenwriters Charley and Vlas Parlapanides however feel no need to really delve into those tales: instead, they largely ignore them, and offer instead the usual tale of a prole hero ennobled by divine mission. Here Theseus (Henry Cavill) is raised by his single mother Aethra (Anne Day-Jones) in a fishing village, watched over by an old man (John Hurt), actually the human guise of Zeus (Luke Evans), but Zeus is maintaining a hands-off approach to humanity in the hope Theseus will prove the necessary leader of the Hellenics, the citizens of a vaguely described, persecuted ethnic enclave. Theseus’ opportunity comes when King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke, making an even bigger ass of himself than he did back in his supposedly lesser days of Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man, 1991) goes on a genocidal rampage, apparently after his family died in something or other, and he begins accumulating an army of spayed, masked thugs to kill indiscriminately, whilst he tries to track down a magical bow. Said bow was invented for killing Titans, but Hyperion wants to free the Titans from their underground prison where Zeus stashed them after the last heavenly war, in the hope they’ll take on the Gods in an apocalyptic auto-da-fe. After Theseus’ mother is murdered, and he’s victimised by a snotty Hellenic officer, Lysander (Joseph Morgan), Theseus is captured and enslaved, which puts him on a collision course with seer Phaedra (Freida Pinto), also taken captive by Hyperion, who needs her to find the magic bow.



Singh’s supposedly stylish, original approach is to hurl tropes of a dozen disparate cultures and eras holus-bolus at the screen, without any actual care for what meaning or context can be derived from this, as if all this is an excuse to jerk off hipsters with tattooed lower backs who wait tables in cafés where world music vibes play endlessly over loudspeakers. Whilst such a cut-up approach, tethered to imagery inspired by past-masters of oneiric cinema, would be justified if any sense of spiritual and intellectual depth was apparent, and if Singh displayed an actual gift for unmooring the viewer from literalism, the result here is inane and leaden. Phaedra and the other three members of her vaguely Sapphic cabal of seers are glimpsed swathed in pseudo-Bedouin robes and rocking in incantatory moves like members of a suburban Shakti clique. Stupid costumes that blend apparel copied from ancient frescos with ‘80s fashion spread chic proliferate, like the clunky golden armour the gods wear. Panoramas and buildings are reduced to Dali-esque, stylised and geometric arrangements, to increase the sense of this being some kind of abstract, universalist vision of the mythical past. But peering beneath this glitzy wallpaper, it’s impossible to not notice how constantly plagiaristic the concepts are, particularly from The Lord of the Rings series, like Hyperion taking over Phaedra’s temple and having his soldiers dig out underneath it, a la Sarumon’s tower in The Fellowship of the Ring, the wall which the Hellenics hide behind and which Hyperion penetrates is out of The Two Towers, and the collapsing mountain over the Titan prison is pure The Return of the King. At other points, Chan-wook Park is mercilessly referenced in laterally-moving fight sequences, and that last shot of Avatar with eyes snapping open in close-up gets another work-out.



The story lacks anything like interesting development, the characterisations are so thin it’s a wonder they don’t speak in comic book speech bubbles, and whatever validity Singh wanted to bring in evoking a sense of the past through artifice is constantly deferred in favour of shameless pandering to the 300 crowd in the series of amazingly unexciting action scenes. Singh sneaks in fashionable cruelty and hints of his familiar S&M peccadilloes to give this stuff an illusion of being more adult that the otherwise sub-adolescent plotting and conceptual depth would indicate. The captive Titans are all hanging, biting on gags, and Singh proffers a variation on the infamous Roman torture device of a steel elephant, here a bull as per Hyperion’s symbolic fondness for the beast, within which people are locked and slowly roasted. Singh ghoulishly hints at victims inside, until he can’t resist having the other three members of Phaedra’s cabal prove to be held within at one point. Testicles are crushed with hammers, faces scarred, and other acts of sundry cruelty flit by. In the final rumble of Gods and Titans, their whirling weapons cleave each other into hunks and digital muscles and intestines fly about in super-saturated pixelated hues, apparently completely oblivious to the contradiction of such anatomical precision in creatures that are beyond the familiarly corporeal, and just flying along on a slipstream of way-cool gore. Worse, there’s no actual conceptual depth to back up Singh’s pretences: the tension between human and deistic world-views is trucked in from every other modern fantasy film, Hyperion is a boringly obsessive and one-note villain, and whilst Cavill’s undeniable athleticism and hints of charisma, which hopefully will bear fruit when he plays Superman, make Theseus a superficially attractive protagonist, he’s finally even less compelling in terms of deed, speech, and gesture than the denuded Perseus Sam Worthington finished up playing. Stephen Dorff is momentarily diverting as Stavros, the compulsory sidekick of less elevated moral fibre that Theseus and Phaedra pick up, but he can’t make you forget that his role came out of the bottom of a cereal box.



By the time we get to Theseus’ inevitable rousing speech, so clichéd by now you can practically make up the dialogue beforehand and it would surely sound close enough, I was sunk deep into my chair groaning in pain at the desultory lack of real imagination on show here. There are potentially interesting but largely senseless and isolated concepts throughout, as in a subplot of how Zeus tries to keep his fellow gods from intervening on Theseus’ behalf; when Ares (Daniel Sharman) does so, Zeus kills him with a lash of his fiery whip. Flourishes that suggest a demythologising approach to the mythical matters at hand – the Minotaur is here simply one of Hyperion’s heavies with a barbed bull mask on; the labyrinth is the Hellenics’ twisty burial chamber – are rendered pointless and self-contradicting when gods are romping around in disco outfits, and worse yet, reveals that far from elucidating some surrealist-derived, psychologically-informed take on the Greek myths, Singh’s window dressing is actually painfully ignorant of the symbolic meaning and potential of the material. Flickers of inspiration throughout Immortals offer a minatory charge and hint at the film Singh perhaps thought he was making, in images like Phaedra reviving Theseus by dribbling water from her mouth into his, their conversing when he’s caked in oil and she’s spotless, and the image of a grief-stricken Zeus holding his daughter Athena (Isobel Lucas), slain in combat by the Titans, disapparating amidst crumbling stones and the massed blue meanies. But these images, like most of the film via Brendan Galvan’s photography, seem better suited as background illustrations for a decent video game, or stills in a fashion photographer’s portfolio. There are exactly two substantial moments in the film: the first comes when Phaedra seduces Theseus, longing for some manly lovin’ and a respite from her painful burden of  prophecy, stripping down (at least, Pinto’s body double strips down) and hopping into bed with the weight inherent in the first sexual act heightened by the awareness here of its spiritual repercussions. Once fucked, however, Phaedra is rendered instantly irrelevant to the drama as the usual macho matters rise to the fore; the only clear memory I have of her in the second half is of Theseus ordering her to hide as she cowers behind a door. Whatever this movie is, it sure as shit ain't Racine. The second moment is in the finale as Theseus and Hyperion battle to the death, Theseus slowly driving his knife into his enemy whilst rhetorically taunting him. Both of these scenes are intimately carnal reckonings. The rest just proves that if there’s anything worse than empty bombast, it’s pretentious empty bombast.


Turn Me On, Dammit! (Få meg på, for faen, 2011)

$
0
0

Mordant Scandinavian slice-of-life movies aren’t much rarer than teenage angst flicks, but Jannicke Systad Jacobsen’s brief and gossamer, yet exact and flavourful Turn Me On, Dammit! is a superior example of both.Rather than great, gruelling transformative experiences, Jacobsen, adapting Olaug Nilssen’s novel, aims rather for minimalist depictions of covert epiphanies and quicksilver changes of temperament in her portrait of adolescent agonistes. Set in the small Norwegian hamlet of Skoddeheimen, a trio of 15-year-old-girls are going through the early, chafing experiences of real sexuality and frustration in their settings. Alma (Helene Bergsholm), single daughter of a single mother (Henriette Steenstrup), is going through the most dreamily discomforting phase of adolescence, with distinctive modern boldness: she’s introduced frantically masturbating on the floor whilst on the hotline to a phone sex service she calls so incessantly she racks up a colossal bill. Alma is forced to go to work in a store so boring the paint can almost be studied in its peeling process to pay the bill, and her mother is increasingly disquieted by her daughter’s loudly nascent sexuality, but these soon prove the least of her problems. At a party, a boy she has a crush on, Artur (Matias Myren), guitarist with a local youth choir, seems to furtively jab Alma with his raging hard-on. Except that with Alma’s sexual fantasies having already warped our on-screen reality several times, it’s hard to know whether this really happens or if it’s just another manifestation of her new and overheated libido. Alma certainly thinks it’s real, and blurts out what happened to her friends, with Artur angrily denying the act and Alma’s would-be hottie pal Ingrid (Beate Støfring) suddenly turns against her friend because she has a crush on Artur. 


Alma’s social standing instantly tumbles: she is nicknamed “Dick-Alma” by all and sundry, including even the two tots seen perpetually bouncing on a trampoline (the film’s funniest moment). Alma tries to weather the storm, split between impulses to both shy away from trouble, and also to court it and live up to her antisocial impulses. Gripped by the latter impulse, she buys a joint from local stoner Kjartan (Lars Nordtveit Listau) and tries to make a show of her new bad habits, but fails to gain any compensatory cool points. Kjartan meanwhile has a crush on Ingrid’s sister Sara (Malin Bjørhovde), who can’t really live up to her own edgy image as a death-penalty protesting, vaguely gothy rebel; she can’t bring herself to mail the letters she writes incessantly to prisoners on the Texas Death Row, initially spurns Kjartan’s pot-imbibing habits, and can only defy her sister’s pouting wrath to the extent of meeting Alma after school. Jacobsen sets out less to shake up the thematic or stylistic territory of the film than to deliver its modest insights with concision: she captures the ebbs and flows of Alma’s psychic and social self-perceptions with a casual-seeming clarity. Even Alma’s fantasies, from imagining Ingrid dominating her to her dull employer Sebjørn (Jon Bleiklie Devik), who is actually Ingrid and Sara’s father, breaking out into ecstatically flirtatious dance-moves, are absurdist yet acute passports into the protean fever-dreams of that age. The key moment of Artur’s dick-poke (said glimpsed member safely false) is a deft little axiom from Jacobsen, turning it from islet of carnal clownishness to a moment of strange, incantatory promise, as if Jacobsen senses its links to phallic imagery of dawning human cultures and implicit totemic magic; Alma is, for much of what follows, far more obedient to that totemic power than Artur, who, whilst eventually confessing that yes, he did do said deed, still can’t admit it publicly and save Alma from disgrace.


Apart from its mildly transgressive – actually not transgressive at all, but we’ll pretend it’s so, as there are people on both sides of our modern cultural wars who seem to need such merely honest works to be that – portrait of a teenage girl as randy and frustrated rather than a boy, Turn Me On, Dammit! is otherwise a smoothly orchestrated, diverting, and not at all surprising film, but to  a certain extent its lack of startling twists attests to its basic authenticity. Peripheral figures, like Alma and mother’s perpetually attentive neighbour who denies any suggestion she spies on people and yet keeps a meticulous record of others’ comings and goings, skirt good-natured cliché. But Jacobsen, even in engaging the material with a frankness that ranges from the deadpan to the faintly beatific, completely avoids the crassness and moralism often inherent in such material. Succinctness is her chief achievement, and not just in how the film runs about the same length as an old B-movie, but in how the crisp editing style and interpolated still shots keep the narrative from falling into lulls whilst capturing the periphrastic stages of Alma’s journey not to a place but a more mature state of mind, and connection with others in a fashion that is no longer merely cliquish or masturbatory. The dreamy, distracted, reality-disconnected vibe coexists easily with a clear and naturalistic feel for locale and acting. Some off-hand details, like the teenagers’ ritual of flipping the bird at the town sign, to the nervous, gnawing smoking style of the girls, the angst-exorcising confabs in bus stops, and the sight of Sara and Kjartan lying limply toasted on ratty furniture in a back yard, are torn from the race memory of the last fifty years of teenage life in the boondocks. Climactic shifts are intelligently muted: when Alma is irritated enough to hitch-hike to Oslo to seek out Ingrid and Sara’s older sister, Maria (Julia Bache-Wiig), a university student who represents hope of life after Skoddeheimen, she’s briefly adopted by Maria’s funky flatmates who greet her formative problems with empathy and humour (the song one improvises to celebrate Dick-Alma is purposefully silly and still more entertaining than the last four or five songs to win Oscars). Soon enough, Artur finally proves his love for Alma with a declaration that’s both uncouth and very sweet, paving the path for the next great moment of crisis and education in teenage life, one which mother’s final line nervily fends off for at least another night.



Declaration of War (La guerre est déclarée, 2011)

$
0
0


It’s peculiar how a film can seem for me both intermittently striking and certainly deeply felt, and yet also curiously facetious all at once. Declaration of War, a labour of personal love from French actress-director Valérie Donzelli and former beau Jérémie Elkaïm, attempts to delve with seemly moderne bravado into a crisis in the lives of two young, pretty people: Donzelli and Elkaïm cast themselves as Romeo and Juliette, who met at a party amongst Paris’ bohemian demimonde, whereupon Romeo scored a slum-dunk with an ecstasy tablet into Juliette’s mouth from across the room before underlining their seemingly magical connection when they discover their star-crossed names. Embarking on an adventure in life together, mildly frustrated by lack of success in their desired fields – he wants to start a record label but settles for manning the counter in a CD store, she wanted to be an artist – but generally happy, they have a child, Adam, who forces them onto the steep learning curve of parental responsibility. They respond with slightly neurotic but essentially, merely careful vigilance, negotiating the uncertainty as to whether peculiarities in the child’s demeanour is a major problem or minor peccadillo. But as Adam enters his second year it becomes apparent that he’s suffering from some peculiar ailment, as he can’t walk properly, often vomits, and is now visited by a face-distorting lump. Medical investigation soon proves that Adam has a large brain tumour that requires an operation, and Romeo and Juliette now move into the strange twilight world where the following events will engage every particle of their attention, and yet in which they are essentially impotent, entrusting Adam’s diagnosis and treatment to a succession of medical wizards, including the titan of the city’s paediatric surgeons, Saint-Rose (Frédéric Pierrot, impressively world-weary). “What’s the difference between God and a surgeon?” a doctor friend of Juliette’s jests: “God doesn’t think he’s a surgeon.”






Declaration of War vibrates with a sense of intimate meaning that separates it from the pack of usually gruelling, mawkish dramas about such subject matter, in part because it depicts how the young parents and their families try to cope with the situation through humour and a determination to retain clear heads and their essential personality as hip, spirited, open-minded young people, rather than succumbing to the usual reactive temptations. Romeo checks Juliette’s occasional wavering towards neurotic obsession and franticness, but sometimes gives in to his own frustration in shows of bullish irritation. Similarly, the film attempts to keep its freak flag unfurled, often at its best when engaging with the couple’s scenester friends and oddball parents. I couldn’t help but feel Donzelli strays close to archness as the film validates the suffering of our good-looking young white hetero protagonists and their hipster pretences by providing them with a sufficient number of oddball relationships – check, black friend; check, married lesbian parent. The latter, Romeo’s mother (Brigitte Sy), contrasts the more traditionally bourgeois coupling of  Juliette’s parents, marked by an interlude of angry sniping and recrimination, as neat signposts of clichéd traditional partnering that our heroes seek to avoid.  Donzelli’s direction from the outset seeks to borrow the mantle of the French New Wave, and the film’s inclusive, multicultural bent could be argued to be more consistent and appropriate use of the New Wave’s lexicon than the backward-looking, carefully scrubbed retro bonhomie of Amélie (2001), which raided the same arsenal. There’s a great scene in which the couple escape their troubles for a moment by going to a party that becomes an “open-kiss party”, all and sundry getting in for a snog in a moment of numinous free love. Similarly well-depicted is the decreasing frequency of the times the couple get to engage with the life outside hospitals in such a fashion: later, they’re momentarily freed when Juliette’s father forgets to bring an item which they then go out to get themselves, taking the interval to snatch a break at a cafe, sitting and letting the world pass by punch-drunk quietude. 



Donzelli extends the New Wave sensibility by excavating images from canonical films – an early shot sees Romeo and Juliette running hand in hand over urban nightscapes like the contemporary inheritors of Truffaut’s young scallywags – and familiar devices, like solemn third-person narration and iris fade-outs, and even a musical interlude, lending the early scenes an air of blithe romanticism and playfully louche attitude that befits the portrait of specifically contemporary young love. Rather than successfully sustain the sense of driving, expressive anarchy that the New Wave references entail, however, Declaration of War’s assimilation of such flourishes rather evokes how Romeo and Juliette’s attempts to write themselves into the great lexicon of French culture founder on the rocks of necessity and bad luck, and yet resurge in the act of transmuting trauma into art. But as the film goes on, it rather slowly but surely succumbs to more prosaic stylistics, with about fifteen minutes added to the running time by montages set to amiably lilting music, reminding me of similarly insipid interludes of Alexander Payne’s The Descendants (2011) and Jason Reitman’s Up In The Air (2009), where you can sense the director’s self-congratulation on being so artfully unemphatic whilst still cutting a slice of the cathartic cake. Frankly, in spite of the film’s charms, there were many points where I drifted far out of the film’s gravitational pull.



Still, many moments of Declaration of War feel surely ripped from personal memory, like the sequence in which the young parents snap into action when the diagnosis first comes through and rush to get their son onto a train to make an appointment with specialists, Romeo weaving his vehicle’s way at high speed through traffic, fuelled by the electric sense of crisis. It’s a scene that points to the title’s dual meaning, as the film gives the timeframe as Romeo and Juliette watch the start of the Iraq War on TV, whilst they themselves declare war on disease and unhappiness. Some lovely little fillips of behaviour come through, like Romeo and a pal obliviously painting a room with dance-like enthusiasm, and a hospital orderly tenderly picking up Juliette where she’s collapsed on the floor in exhaustion. But other moments, like Donzelli’s madcap dash through the halls of the hospital on first learning Adam’s diagnosis, and Romeo’s explosion of showy grief when he, too, learns it, struck me – and possibly this is the remnant Celt in me – as excessive, moments of actor-writer-director show-off. More deeply problematic is the fact that the film essentially evades it last act, which should depict the sundering relationship of the couple that is the sad counterweight to the successful treatment of Adam. Indeed, the film’s very first scene already assures us that Adam lives into much later childhood, thus removing much sense of suspense from the proceedings. Thus the film concludes with a reassuring portrait of survival, but it leaves a hollowness in the film's centre in bypassing the grief and making straight for the uplift. Obfuscation like this, whilst perhaps partly forgivable in Donzelli and Elkaïm’s unwillingness to delve into touchy personal territory, robs Declaration of War of any final, real penetration or fresh experience, and belongs far more to Hollywood than Truffaut. And yet, Donzelli clearly seems a talent to watch, perhaps with material that doesn't provoke the observation that maybe, sometimes, some stories are just too personal.

Chronicle (2012)

$
0
0


There’s a real case to be made for the return of the B-movie to modern cinema screens: compact, smart, fast-paced films that don’t bear all the burden of being spectacles big enough to shake worlds or justify their existence with extended, eventful running times. Chronicle, a surprise hit earlier this year, is a B-movie in both length – it caps off as barely 80 minutes long, not counting credits – and essential creed, in spite of the glitzy special effects, as a clever and dexterous spin on the screen-hogging glut of superhero flicks. Chronicle develops a basic theme with a reasonable, if hardly watertight, internal logic that is both intelligent and beguilingly unpretentious. Directed by Josh Trank, working from a script by Max Landis (son of John), Chronicle is the latest in a nascent side-stream to the superhero movie craze positing more “realistic” takes on the genre, also including Peter Berg’s Hancock(2008), Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass(2010) and James Gunn’s Super (2011). Each of these movies handle their takes in a very different fashion, which ultimately puts them at odds less with each-other than with specific exemplars of the genre they’re both lampooning and elevating to new levels of scrutiny: Super is to Christopher Nolan's Batman films as Kick-Ass is to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man series. Whereas Hancock presented the basic gag of an unlikeable crud stricken with superpowers, the other two mostly focused on the distaste of the vigilante aspect of the superhero mythos, whilst also exploring the charm of costumed adventuring to troubled outsiders. Chronicle takes as its core subject the appeal of the genre to teenagers, the way it reflects and exploits their desires to be popular and powerful and also channels their anxieties over being different and perhaps not meant to live conventional lives, whilst recognising that such power in the hands of the damaged and the still-unformed might be terrible. Simultaneously, Trank takes on the stunt of the found-footage movie, which by now ought only to elicit groans of pain, and manages to expand its palate with some wit. Ultimately, the strongest story template for Chronicle is not the superhero tale at all, but Stephen King: it’s basically Christine rewritten as superhero origin story, transferring King’s template from one realm of the fantastic to another.



Whilst not exactly subtle or involved, Chronicle works because it squarely captures the internal and exterior state of antihero Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), who is caught between the eternally elusive promise of conventional fulfilment, the hope of adulation, and a relentlessly Darwinian viciousness underlying this portrait of modern American life. Bullies of all strips pervade the social scenery, oedipal rage is stoked to extremes whilst the harsh reality of mortality corrodes restraint, financial worry is pervasive, and humiliation and violence wait around many corners. Andrew has a mother, Karen (Bo Petersen), slowly dying, and an abusive, alcoholic father, Richard (Michael Kelly), who takes out his frustration and anger on his son: he’s introduced kicking on the door of his son’s bedroom, demanding admission, as Andrew pleads for his father, obviously drunk, to leave him alone. Whilst Richard departs for the time being, later, when Andrew’s guard is down and his door open, Richard enters and clobbers him without warning. Andrew is, understandably, socially reticent and barely able to express himself, and he’s taken to filming himself and his life to develop a sense of detachment, and his only real friend is his glibber but not much more accomplished cousin Matt Garetty (Alex Russell). When Matt convinces Andrew to go to a party, his camera-pointing earns the aggression of possessive alpha males, whilst he and Matt encounter the wryly dismissive Casey Letter (Ashley Hinshaw) who’s engaged in a similar video project, on whom Matt has a serious crush. Later in the evening, Andrew is dragged into the woods by the school’s heroic jock wannabe politician Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), who wants him to film a bizarre phenomenon he’s come across. Andrew, Matt, and Steve climb into a hole in the ground from which emerges rumbling sounds, and encounter a mysterious, clearly alien machine that departs rapidly and leaves them unconscious, unsure of exactly what befell them. They shortly find they’ve been changed by contact with the craft: they now have powers of advanced telekinesis.



Soon the young trio are levitating objects and then themselves, flying amongst the clouds and having close encounters with jets: when both Steve and Matt are nearly killed by a passing plane, Andrew saves them. The three lads bond into a genuine friendship in their shared capacities in spite of their previous representation of different stratum of high school life, and Steve convinces Andrew to use his powers sparingly to make a splash at a high school talent contest. Andrew is immediately transformed from outcast to lusted-after hero, but this lasts only a couple of hours, as he makes a fool of himself vomiting over a girl who seduces him. The three soon prove to have been linked more deeply, however, as each physically manifests blood and vomit when one uses his powers in an extreme manner. The darker potential of the gifts rises to the fore as Andrew, who first signals a reckless, reactive sense of his power by swiping a pushy driver off the road, is stoked to a homicidal rage by his father’s browbeating, both emotional and physical. Andrew responds by clobbering his old man and retreating into the clouds to brood. When Steve comes to talk him down and tries to reach out to him, he is instead fried by the lightning Andrew is generating. There’s a clever metaphorical directness here for the way the need to be admired and loved, and nihilistic anger and negativity, can simultaneously afflict the unhappy adolescent, taking the familiar dynamics of this process and inflating them through the motif of superpowers. At the same time, Chroniclefeels weirdly keen to its moment, grasping a dichotomy of aggression and depression besetting recessionary America, and the popularity of escapist fantasies of empowerment in our time, with Andrew clearly beset as much by class anger as by social dysfunction or emotional issues: with his mother dying and his compensation-bum father tormented by his inability to take pay for her medicine, Andrew lives in a neighbourhood where the streets are filling up with unemployed young scrubs who also use him as targets. As Andrew gains greater control over his power, he becomes increasingly volatile, and starts lashing out with his gifts: the iconic conflicts of Peter “Spider-Man” Parker and his bully Flash are maliciously recast here as Andrew crowingly displays for his camera the teeth he’s knocked out of a tormentor’s jaw with one good telekinetic wallop.



The challenge of the found-footage genre is in its “look ma, no hands” quality, as special effects that might seem relatively mundane in other contexts become unusually thrilling in the unblinking faux-verisimilitude, and Trank gets the most out of this aspect. And yet he also revises the form considerably: rather than found footage per se, he’s showing footage as it is shot, for later it’s revealed that several scenes we’ve witnessed were recorded on a camera that is lost. As he develops his gifts, Andrew takes to listlessly filming himself by levitating his camera and letting it drift over his bed, allowing him to show off his power and make himself the subject of his camera’s gaze, uncovering the outright narcissism technology allows so many to uncover these days, deepened by Andrew’s desire to be desired and to wield power. With his gifts he now neglects trying to shoot attractive exemplars of a richer, flashier, sexier world, and becomes his own fetish: such is a conceptual by-play between object and image that wouldn’t be unworthy of Brian De Palma at his best. This touch also allows Trank to brazenly toss out some of the rules of the found-footage style, as Andrew can argue with friends and perform feats of legerdemain whilst shooting himself in elegant overhead tracking shots, quietly reasserting fluidity to the image. The finale, taking place in the centre of Seattle, exploits the many security cameras in such a setting for a constant, dynamic shifting of perspective, allowing Trank to have his set-piece cake and eat it too. Not all of Trank’s attempts to expand the lexicon are convincing, nor all of Landis’ script flourishes well-fulfilled: Casey is easily the least satisfying character in the film, existing basically to get another major camera perspective in on the more humdrum drama, with her and Matt’s relationship left vague and heading nowhere.



In spite of its detectable dead spots, however, Landis’ script manages to bring conceptual and thematic depth to the essential conceit, exploring not simply the notion of people we’ve all known, or perhaps been, being suddenly beset with great power at a moment when they're least equipped to handle it, but also offers connections that the superhero genre usually neglects. Before he begins to go mad, Andrew wants to go to Tibet to speak to monks who it is said have achieved similar powers through meditation, thus bringing a crypto-spiritual edge to the fantasy. The sense of a lack of structuring ethics and moral depth in the face of an all-consuming, all-powerful obedience to raw power, be it physical or financial, is constantly reiterated through the film, questioning the usual assumption of the superhero tale, that the individuals blessed with such gifts have ingrained morals and can resist the temptation to play god. Andrew begins to style himself as an “apex predator” as a new form of life, and by the time he is badly wounded attempting to use his power to rob a gas station to pay for his mother’s medication, his mother actually already dead and his father precipitates a final eruption into chaos as he assaults Andrew’s already fragile psyche in his hospital bed. Andrew begins an inchoate rampage, complete with attempted parricide, which conflates teen temper-tantrum and Godzilla-like destruction, enacted upon downtown Seattle, with Casey caught up in the tussle of best friends. Matt tries to talk his friend down from his hysterical warpath, but finally has to use his own powers to bring him down. The final image, of Matt depositing Andrew’s camera upon a Himalayan peak overlooking a temple, not only returns to the spiritual refrain and lends weight to the story’s implicit message - that gaining knowledge as both superhero and individual personality entails a kind of transcendence experienced only through poles of suffering and discipline - sees Matt now ennobled as the conscientious remaining heir of the initial trio’s powers, and possibly now himself to become a proper superhero. It would be a mistake to praise Chronicle too highly, for the qualities that make it a refreshingly non-belaboured tale also ultimately limit its reflexes and insights to fairly blunt essentials, as it leans on a lot of clichés and truisms familiar from the teen-flick and superhero genres, and it lacks the vibrant, genuinely creative generic anarchy of Kick-Ass and Super. But it’s still a surprisingly compelling gambit that takes what could have been a tiresome one-joke notion and invests it with force and invention.


An Unavoidable Paucity of Posts

$
0
0
Apologies, all, for the lack of action on this blog in the last few weeks, and it's likely to continue for the time being, as I'm engaged in a large writing project at the moment that's eating up most of my intellectual energy, and what little I have left over has been going into my commitments for Ferdy on Films. Nonetheless, in spite of the tumbleweeds blowing by and the cackling of the ancient, insane crone on the porch, TIR is not abandoned, and hopefully posts will continue to come occasionally, if not constantly, for the next few months.

-- Roderick

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

$
0
0












The original Bourne trilogy grew out of Doug Liman’s smoothly orchestrated, fashionably reserved 2001 adaptation of Robert Ludlum’s novel, and was expanded by Paul Greengrass into something less traditional. The template was boilerplate spy adventuring, but charged with elusive qualities of existential melancholy and pervasive paranoia, sustained by a coherent visual texture, a switchback-inducing interplay between Kafkaesque surveillance perspective and the fragmented, instinctive world of its super-soldier hero. Whilst more than a little over-regarded and already not ageing so well – six hours of cinema with perhaps less than half an hour of proper human interaction doesn't make for the sort of trilogy one can revisit endlessly – the series sustained a kind of “top that!” élan as it unfolded that was akin to great performance art, and is definitely destined to go down as a signal franchise of the millennium’s first decade. Tony Gilroy, co-author of the first three Bournemovies and director of the solid corporate thriller Michael Clayton (2007), makes a stab here at taking over the reins and giving the franchise a makeover by employing a fresh star to play a whole new lead character, and nominally adapting one of Eric Van Lustbader's continuations of Ludlum's originals. In other words, more of the same, but different. Trucking in the nervy, intelligent, far less boyishly handsome Jeremy Renner to play the faux-Bourne, Aaron Cross, The Bourne Legacy unfolds more or less simultaneously to and just after The Bourne Ultimatum (2007). As a terse and merciless wielder of patriotic expedience, retired Colonel Eric Byer (Edward Norton) is asked to stem the damage being done by Bourne’s rampages, and his former persecutor Pamela Landy’s (Joan Allen) attempts to blow the whistle on the whole dirty business to the media. Byer decides the only option is to destroy all of the enhanced warriors produced by the various connected projects of which Treadstone, the one which produced Bourne, is only one of many.



Aaron is one of these marked agents, belonging to another project called Outcome. Aaron is introduced on a survival training mission in the Canadian Rockies, engaged in what seems to be this year’s compulsory rite of passage for the approval of macho onanists: fighting off wolves. Aaron is characterised as intriguingly different to the general run of the enhanced agents. As an Iraq veteran who has been badly beaten about over the years, and who steps up for the team not to exorcise a heinous past but to become the man he feels he ought to be, operating with a real hunger for doing good, he’s talkative, restless and uncomfortable with the duplicitous extremes of his new profession. After emerging from the woods, he tries with little luck to get his taciturn contact, No. 3 (Oscar Isaac), to open up, and when a rocket fired off by a drone aircraft from the sky annihilates his contact and the cabin about him, Aaron responds with instantly provoked craft, bringing down the drone and then contriving a clever way of making his hunters think he’s dead. He returns to the US when he recognises a face on a news report: Dr Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a scientist with the labs that produced the ability-enhancing drugs for the Outcome subjects, whom Aaron had encountered several times, but who now has almost been the victim of the same assassination program Byer has initiated.



The Bourne Legacy does little to revise the essential formula of the series, to its detriment. The assumption that Greengrass capitalised on so well, that with set-up out of the way he could essentially reduce drama to a series of breathless, fleet-footed epigrams punctuating set-pieces of stalking, evasion, and ass-kicking, is difficult to append to a new character who faces a different, much less initially intriguing quandary. Whereas Bourne had to work out who he was and then whether or not he was actually a good man, Aaron’s situation is much less defined and immediately empathetic. Gilroy only offers hints of the sort of backstory that could lend it more substance: his attempts to sustain a similar kind of flashback structure to earlier instalments that reveal fragments of Aaron’s motivations prove perfunctory and actually more confusing than clarifying. Legacy is finally crippled by a poorly assembled and frustrating narrative, which Gilroy’s direction can’t leaven, as the film progresses at a relentlessly fidgety pace and yet, somehow, also takes forever to get going. It’s somehow telling that in spite of everything, Hollywood’s basic database of plot situations now thrusts Weisz into almost the same role she had in her first major American vehicle, Chain Reaction(1996), as the hot female scientist dragged about by the dashing hero. The actual stake of the plot is some annoyingly vague pseudoscience: Aaron needs Marta to find him a way to free himself from the control of the medication the Outcome project has him on to maintain the edge of his enhancement, and to make his edge permanent, so he doesn’t return to the dim bulb he once was. This notion, that Aaron was once so dumb his recruiting sergeant had to lie about his IQ so he could get him into the army and now he’s afraid of returning to that, is redolent of Charly (1968), but the potential numbing fear and alienation of this motivation is fumbled, and never gains immediacy.



Particularly awkward, and indeed straddling the borderlands of bad, are the clumsy, repetitious scenes of Norton providing exposition for the audience under the guise of clueing in Keach’s irritable overlord, which have the impression they might have been shot over a couple of days for some telemovie rather than a major franchise picture. Norton, looking glazed and testy, could well be wondering how he slid so far down the totem pole as to be landed with this functionary bad-guy role. The first half is also interspersed with fleeting appearances by some of the series’ previous supporting stars, like Allen, David Strathairn, Scott Glenn, and Albert Finney, in attempts to maintain continuity, but instead only ever adding up to an infuriating patchwork quilt of false cues and poorly matched footage, engendering an air of cynical box-ticking. Gilroy gains a little juice from a dissonance between two levels of engagement with life and death, as in Michael Clayton, where murder for profit was just another service to be done well and efficiently. Here the same feeling is present as the drone pilots trying to kill Aaron in the Canadian wilds do their work with listless efficiency from secluded command centres, like uteruses of technology, whilst the man on the ground experiences it as a primal act of desperate survival. Gilroy, in fact, only really jars The Bourne Legacy to life in the blunter essentials of his action set-pieces, where he can at least reduce the driving forces to girl-in-danger essentials. But these are few and far between. The eerie and nail-biting moment in which Marta is nearly murdered by her colleague (Zeljko Ivanek) as he stalks around their laboratory, gunning down his co-workers with glacial calm, works particularly well, as does the old-fashioned of melodrama of Aaron bursting in on an attempt by Byer’s spooks to force Marta into a fake suicide, setting in motion a well-composed sequence as Aaron proves his smarts in outwitting the assassins in the obstacle course that is Marta’s country house, a white elephant fixer-upper that provides numbingly blank walls and clear spaces for a deftly athletic hero to run, jump, climb and hide.



That Renner and Weisz succeed in keeping the film focused is true, and indeed almost stating the obvious. They’re both serious, talented actors who can communicate intense emotions and also thoughtfulness with swift strokes, and the fact that neither of them are spring chickens, but rather weathered and refreshingly adult presences – although Weisz manages to get lovelier every year – is nicely out of step with Hollywood’s usual youth obsession. And yet the film seems to presume too much of them. Gilroy’s handling of his actors is also an issue, swinging from mere competence to the distractingly poor: several scenes, including a crucial one between the leads after Aaron’s first rescue of Marta, in which major nuggets of plot are breathlessly bandied, are excruciating in their obvious mixture of exposition and acting exercise-like, high-pressure banter. The inevitable conclusion is that Gilroy should have set himself the task of rebuilding the series’ aesthetic from the ground up, instead of half-heartedly imitating Greengrass’s model. So poor is Legacy’s dramatic balance that it neglects until the last half-hour to include another super-baddy, a la Karl Urban’s in The Bourne Supremacy (2004), to give Aaron more trouble than the usual befuddled urban cops to be smacked silly and have their wrists snapped. That said, Gilroy does manage to a certain extent to revive proceedings in the steadily mounting urgency of the final act, firstly as Aaron and Marta bluff their way into a Manila pharmacy plant to steal some of the live toxin that will make Aaron’s gifts permanent. As in the previous episodes, the hero’s capacity to pull rabbits from his hat in the form of solutions to rapidly crowding problems suddenly supplied with reflexive wit comes to the fore at last, before thunderous action becomes the method. Commencing in a prosaic foot chase through intricate folds of Manila’s less glamorous areas, the finale begins to assemble the familiar elements of the series action sequences, like flight across rooftops and dazzling high speed chases, with increasing cheeky verve. Not too little, but admittedly rather too late to really save the film, nonetheless the climax delivers what we all came to see.


Lawless (2012)

$
0
0


Of the movies of 2012 I’ve seen so far, few have put together such a surplus of promising raw materials as Lawless, nor wasted them as egregiously. I'm no big fan of director John Hillcoat: whilst he has a minatory gift for creating and sustaining a fetid physical atmosphere, his grip on dramatic pace and perspective are weak, as evinced by the two films of his I’ve seen, To Have and To Hold (1997) and The Proposition (2005). Both bored me eventually with their mix of murky yet shallow psychological dramatics and witless carnality, spiced with occasional outbreaks of obnoxious brutality. The Proposition was particularly, astonishingly over-rated, a clichéd neo-Western in all regards but location, but it gained notice for Hillcoat’s attention-seeking use of violence, the relative unfamiliarity of the setting, and the marquee cast. Oh, and hipster deity Nick Cave wrote the entirely unremarkable, poorly developed script. Hillcoat’s prestige adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (2009) passed me by. But Lawless has a strong pedigree, a potentially engaging story and setting, and to be fair it starts promisingly, as it reunites Hillcoat and Cave, working this time from a novel by Matt Bondurant, purportedly based on his family history. The film depicts a war between the independent moonshiners of Franklin County, Virginia, with the increasing power of big city mobs, who take control of the local law enforcement. 

The Bondurants are the biggest swinging dicks in the county thanks to eldest brother Forrest’s (Tom Hardy) reputation for invincibility, having survived the Great War, and he and second brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are two-fisted sons of the soil. Youngest whelp Jack (Shia LaBoeuf) lacks any sign of developing the macho bulk and physical potency of his brothers, who patronise him, but he begins following the well-blazed trail of Michael Corleone after Forrest is temporarily knocked out of action by a slight case of having his throat cut. Trouble blows into the county, first in the form of a bob-haired woman from the big smoke, Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain), who asks Forrest for a job tending bar in his seamy speakeasy, and then the more overtly alarming person of Special Deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce). An enforcer with a veneer of law enforcement legitimacy, Rakes represents shadowy syndicate powers trying to force all of the moonshiners to sign on to a monopoly supply chain, having easily annexed the local cops. Forrest tells him where to go, precipitating a tit for tat struggle for loyalty of the other moonshiners, with Jack beaten bloody by Rakes in an attempt to provoke the other brothers into action. But Forrest demurs, and after he is badly injured and Maggie raped by some of Rakes’ goons, Jack decides to take a chance and, with the aid of his nervous, crippled pal Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan) who has a gift for engineering, he begins selling hooch to bootlegger Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman), outwitting and outracing Rakes.


Lawless can blame its cloddishly flat title on someone in an executive suite who decided that “The Wettest County in the World”, the source novel’s name, was too likely to make people think the film was about parochial meteorologists. The rest of this misbegotten mess can only be blamed on the filmmakers. Lawless works through just about every regulation motif and worn-ragged situation in the gangster genre, without inspiration or effective purpose. Hillcoat and Cave display a lack of basic craft as they fail to introduce characters with specificity, with the Bondurants surrounded by a free-floating collective of glowering crackers, and ideas that ought to possess a flash of pulpy brilliance, like covering The Velvet Underground’s hard drug paean ‘White Light/White Heat’ as a bluegrass foot-stomper, resolutely fails to connect proto-punk attitude with period grit, because the utterly ordinary filmmaking communicates only half-hearted prestige flick pretences. Pearce’s performance as Rakes strikes the right jarring note of violence incarnate as a jazz-baby Droog with hair so greasy it could be a BP spill and shaved eyebrows, moved to volatile demonstrations whenever his personal space is violated. But Rakes never really progresses beyond a showy screenwriting collection of tics and traits, except to serve as a hiss-worthy bad guy. Hillcoat only seems to focus when violence is the matter at hand, and he leans on visceral effect, like the sight of Hardy’s neck with a second grin spitting blood, a sack of severed testicles, or Rakes and his goons pouring hot molasses over a sundry victim, to give juice to a narrative that otherwise, by its tired and incompetently staged conclusion, totally loses cohesion. 



I’ve seen duller, more expedient romantic interludes as those featured here, but I can’t remember when. They swerve from the numbingly coy, between Forrest and Maggie, to the patently irritating, in those between Jack and Bertha Minnix (Mia Wasikowska), whose father is a preacher for an oddball Baptist sect. I could desperately have used a remote control to speed through the repetitions of LaBeouf trying out his smarmy anti-charm on the pasty pretty whilst glancing about nervously for her hirsute zealous papa. Chastain is so underserved in her part, trying to put heat into her exchanges with Hardy that the pathetically written role doesn’t justify, that wasted doesn’t begin to describe her situation. The script has the gall to serve up a late moment in which Maggie confronts Forrest, for one of those scenes where the woman begs her man not to go and risk his life, representing for Hillcoat and Cave a desperate stab at giving the couple’s relationship substance, and offering another perspective to the drawling machismo the film otherwise gets completely off on. There’s a nugget of possibility in the study of Jack’s status as the weak member of the herd in a culture that only respects brute force, hitting a strong note of vulnerability and fear as Rakes picks him out and beats the hell out of him to chip away at the edges of the Bondurants' communal self-possession, and even the titanic Forrest proves vulnerable to dirty tricks. But the film plays out its urine-strength Godfather variation, with patriarch swapped for older brother as the wounded titan whom the runt must prove himself heir to, and WASP princess exchanged for Bertha as an emissary of another uptight subculture.



Oldman’s presence as Banner is only explicable in light of the Weinsteins’ penchant for stuffing movies with name actors to give them more Oscar night gravitas. Banner is introduced with striking, Peckinpah-esque bravado as Jack is privy to the sight of him tommy gunning a pursuing car. But Banner proves to be only a plot mechanism, one who clangs an employee over the head with a shovel only because it’s been more than five minutes since the last time someone got hit in the film. To say that Hardy sleepwalks his way through his role as the lumpen, sullen Forrest is again an understatement. He’s supposed to smoulder with low-key strength and potential saurian ferocity, but he was more persuasively, erotically menacing wearing that stupid gas mask in The Dark Knight Rises, and after his early, amusing confrontation with Rakes which sees the two men threatening each-other and neither quite realising how dangerous the other is, he steps back into a narrative irrelevance which the film never recovers from. There are hints throughout Lawless that Hillcoat wanted to follow up The Road with a story essayed in a similarly Cormac McCarthy-esque attitude regarding violent situations in a primal, inhuman dimension, as one facet of modern existence still rooted in unfiltered pre-verbal, pre-moral, prehistoric experience, rather than standard melodrama. The film similarly makes gestures throughout towards a demystification of alpha male posturing, as suggested by Forrest’s bleary, mumbling disquiet after he’s nearly killed, and the revelations about the night of that attack, in which Maggie’s willingness to put the past behind her proved more durable than Forrest’s legend.



Such is a theme worth engaging, but the film lacks any fundamental radical fire in attacking this backwoods patriarchal, self-serving violent mindset, considering that its focus on the independent, self-willed Bondurants cannot help but elevate them, as one part proto-Tea Party naysayers, and one part gangster rap demimonde deities. Rakes is such a wretched villain that he becomes a mad dog everyone feels by the end needs to be put down, and the audience is never really called upon to ponder whether Forrest’s decision to fight him was unreasonable. The failure is less thematic than dramatic, considering that a film like Bring Me the Head of Alfred Garcia (1974) long ago did the same things, and better. The lack of precision and intensity to the way Lawlessplays out is all too obvious. Basic exposition is weak throughout, and significant elements of the plot are infuriatingly hazy, like who exactly is running the operation that Rakes is the sharp end of and what Banner knows about it all, and Rakes’ immediate superior, another faux-lawman, Mason Wardell (Tim Tolin), remains so vaguely described that when his arrest is mentioned at the end, it only registers with the question, “Who?” More importantly, the film never significantly engages with its characters, except for Jack, and he’s about as interesting as a toadstool, particularly once he starts getting cocky as his and Cricket’s dipshit enterprising gains traction. As is so often the case in films where the makers have lost all idea of how to piece together what they’ve shot, significant dimensions and developments to the story are dismissed in voiceover during montage sequences, whilst the most potentially entertaining scene, a Thunder Road-esque backwoods car chase as Jack and Cricket elude Rakes, speeds by half-noticed. Even Hillcoat’s strengths in evoking atmosphere are hollowed out: in place of a real feel for the time and locale, pieces of self-amused fancy, like Jack’s inebriated visit to Bertha’s oddball congregation, flit by without sense, grit, or weirdness. The finale spirals into a shoot-out where nobody, least of all the filmmakers, really knows what they’re doing, with Pearce allowed to descend into ridiculous, anachronistic ranting. Finally Lawless sputters to a dead stop with a postscript so clumsy in its tying up the narrative that I was left wondering why I’d just wasted nearly two hours of my life. 



The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

$
0
0


Ten years after Sam Raimi’s Spider-Manreinvigorated the superhero genre with spectacular financial success and a measure of aesthetic worth, reboot time has rolled around already. Apparently necessitated by a strict mixture of fiscal and contractural requirements, this year's model was entrusted to the inevitably pun-inspiring Marc Webb. Webb’s speciality is a slickly commercialised version of independent film’s toey romanticism, having helmed the mildly acute(500) Days of Summer (2010), and therefore it’s not too surprising that the best parts of The Amazing Spider-Man are those that concentrate on Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and his immediate human quandaries. In theory the rehashing of Peter’s tragic relationship with his inevitably murdered uncle Ben, and his attempts to leave behind the petty harassments of high school alienation, ought to be tiresome, considering all of that stuff is so fresh in the memory from Raimi’s film. Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005), generally considered the progenitor of this style of reboot, wasn’t a film I enjoyed much, but it was at least an origin story -- the events between an iconic initial trauma and eventual caped crusading -- that was usually elided by other versions, and therefore worth reiteration, whereas Spidey’s is well-known, and not that complicated. The Amazing Spider-Man has pretences to offering, nonetheless, an account hewing more closely to the comic book’s original storylines and retconned developments, and to presenting a deeper, more intimate and authentic portrait of the superhero as a troubled teen. Mary Jane Watson is left out for the time being and Peter’s most tragic lover in the comic, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), steps up. The specifics of how and why Peter was left living with his aunt and uncle (Sally Field and Martin Sheen), what happened to his parents (Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz), and how this ties in to the incidents that transform him into Spider-Man in a matrix of convenient plot convergences, are worked through with care if not particularly great drama.



And so, Webb and company laboriously set up franchise fodder in hinting Peter’s parents’ close involvement with Norman Osborn, who remains off-screen undoubtedly to facilitate the casting an appropriately big-name actor at a later date. The mystery of the Parkers’ deaths, not long after they fled their house following a suspicious break-in with a brief stopover to leave Peter with the far more earnestly blue-collar Ben and May, haunts Peter with far greater immediacy here than in earlier films. The presence of screenwriter Steve Kloves, fresh off a decade on the Harry Potter series, suggests attempts to reforge Spidey in the bespectacled boy hero’s mould, and there are obvious conceptual similarities. Garfield, slipping into the skin-tight spandex, offers a less stereotypically nerdy version of Peter than the one Raimi and Tobey Maguire crafted. Whilst still being beaten up by school bully Flash (Chris Zylka) and at odds with his environment as a young prodigy with an alienating past, this Peter is more wilfully an outcast, beset by a private tension, stemming from his awareness of his own mismanaged intelligence and the emotional damage he’s suffered, and trying in spite of inevitable consequences to stand up for the victimised. Ben and May are still more distinctive, eccentric, less idealised versions of plebeian decency, and Sheen and Garfield manage to invest their scenes together with enough vitality so watching this predestined Calvary again is more than tolerable, particularly as the script and the actors sharpen the edges on Peter’s sense of loss, his long-withheld anger and grief leaking out in a fit of teenaged insouciance. Webb’s skill with depicting contemporary mating rituals is manifest as Gwen’s attraction to Peter is more clearly based in their shared smarts and love of science, and Stone and Garfield, both excellent actors, are a delight when interacting, particularly in a scene where Peter asks Gwen on a date and she accepts all without any actual, specific words being uttered. 



After Ben is killed, Peter’s search for a new father figure presents two alternatives, in the form of Gwen’s stern police captain sire (Denis Leary), and Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). Connors happens to be both a former colleague of Peter’s father and Gwen’s mentor, and as Peter follows a thread of evidence he discovers in his father’s long-forgotten briefcase, he sneaks into Connors’ labs and is bitten by one of the genetically modified spiders ironically developed by his father years before. Peter discovers and learns to control the powers this imbues him with, and he seeks out Ben’s long-haired killer in what evolves into a crime-fighting crusade, whilst handing to Connors a crucial formula of his father’s that allows Connors to finally achieve his dream of improving human DNA with advantages borrowed from other animal species. This advantage is the one Connors particularly desires, to regrow his missing right arm, and which his financer Osborn, who is dying, also wants badly, with sleazy middle-managers pressing for results. But what worked accidentally for Peter proves still maddeningly elusive for Connors, as he transforms under the influence of his serum into a lizard-like monster that rampages periodically about the city, and eventually develops a psychotic intention to subject the rest of the city to the same transformation. 



Garfield’s Parker, twitchy, muttering, distracted, is more realistic than Maguire’s, and it doesn’t feel so sarcastic to describe this as the first mumblecore superhero flick. But therein lies some of the problem that begins to unravel the initial effectiveness of The Amazing Spider-Man: where Raimi’s deliberately naïve, deeply stylised take was keen to the shifting energies of the comic book style, this Peter Parker feels distant from the cheeky, dynamic superhero, too great to be chalked up to the liberating factor of the mask. In much the same way, Webb’s engaging teen angst film remains largely disconnected from the entirely lumpen superhero film around it. There’s little if anything original and striking about Webb’s visuals as he goes through the already dutiful poses of Spidey flying through the air, trucked in via Raimi from the comic, given the slight tweak of being mostly nocturnal now. The action is weak, and the situations delve into the dullest clichés of the superhero genre. Whereas The Avengers dressed up the familiar “climb the skyscraper and knock out the villain’s super-duper thingamabob” climactic contrivance with sufficient distractions, here it’s unadorned and cruelly unimaginative. Ifans, an excellent actor who managed to be at once plaintively endearing and perversely menacing in Enduring Love (2004), is fine as Connors when he’s supposed to be a vaguely paternal, brilliant yet slightly pathetic savant. But once the good doctor is beset by his transformations, Connors becomes schizoid and megalomaniacal, and prone to delivering veiled warnings in a low and menacing fashion to his good friend Peter, for no particularly good reason other than the script requires it, and the resulting monster mayhem is pretty dreary. The fact that this is nothing more than a half-hearted recycling of the same relationship between Peter and Otto “Dr Octopus” Octavius in Spider-Man 2 (2004) is all too apparent, and whereas that film allowed Alfred Molina to work arch magic, here Ifans is lost under remarkably unfrightening CGI.



Webb presents Peter’s initial discoveries of his powers with a nifty subway fight that’s 90% slapstick, and there’s an amusing aside revealing that Peter’s inspiration for his mask is a Mexican wrestling poster, but afterwards the details of Peter’s invention of Spidey, particularly his development and deployment of web-shooters utilising an Oscorp invention – how does he obtain supplies of this stuff? – are sped through, and the sense of the film just checking off necessary details begins to feel oppressive. One terrific aside nearly rescues the film’s second half from doldrums, as Peter combats the Lizard in his high school, the duo rampaging through the school library whilst the librarian – the cleverest cameo for Stan Lee yet – is obliviously listening to dashing orchestral music on headphones, a beautiful mismatch of sound, attitude, and violence that suggests what the film might have become if Webb had asserted more personality over the fantastic action part of the movie. When I first learned of their casting, I thought that Stone ought to play Spider-Man, or Spider-Girl or Spider-Chick or whatever, and Garfield ought to be the sweetly befuddled love interest, and after watching the film, I still felt the same, not merely in the interests of seeing the ranks of female superheroes filled out a little, but because Stone has the physical wit and gumption that suits the role. Here Stone is as beguiling as ever, adding suggestions of real dramatic strength to her already proven comic abilities particularly in the epilogue, elevating Gwen far higher than the usual girlfriend part, but that’s still all it is. The script tries to help her by having her perform some heroic acts, particularly in her rush to create an antidote for Connors’ transformation gas, but it’s all too rushed and silly to be effective. 



Similarly, the attempts to restage the climactic aid of ordinary New Yorkers for Spidey in a tight situation seen in Raimi’s first film, and which felt unusually powerful in the wake of 9/11, are here stymied in impact by the clumsiness of the scriptwriting as it strains for an effective device. So we get skyscraper cranes ranked out like a video game obstacle course, so that the wounded Spidey can more easily reach his destination. And that’s a problem The Amazing Spider-Man never quite escapes: so many of its basic elements are just by-rote repetitions designed to quickly move the tale back to an acceptable jumping-off point for generic adventures and familiar narrative reflexes, giving so much of it a feeling of deja-vu, and even the presumption that most of its key audience, now pubescent, were pre-schoolers when the first film came feels dodgy in our great new digital age. So much of the labour of this reinvention seems set to pay off later – will the tame blockbuster mentality this film exemplifies have the cojones to mimic Nolan and bump off Gwen? And will the admittedly engaging evolution depicted in Peter and Flash’s prickly relationship pay off with substance? And should I care? One of the best things about Raimi’s series, including, yes, the lumpy third instalment, was that it added up to one of the best portraits ever put on screen about a particular phase in life, the shifts in expectations, passions, and sense of self that can beset us in the years between leaving high school, and finding whatever, and whoever, constitutes an acceptable future. This clear basis in realistic experience underpinned the candy-coloured action and self-mocking veneer. Ultimately, in this regard, The Amazing Spider-Man seems both more down to earth but less coherent, and the product engenders a seriously mixed response, travelling a course from something like exhilaration at the unexpected strength of its first third to a bare interest by the finale. I was torn between admiration for the stronger aspects on offer, the skill with which it recycles some aspects, and also bewilderment in how those good things still can’t add up to a genuinely enjoyable film, as the whole superstructure strains and groans for the weight of its own mercenary, shop-worn raison d’etre.


Ladies and Gentlemen, presenting The White Shadow

$
0
0


Earlier this year, This Island Rod took part in the third annual Film Preservation Blogathon, alongside Marilyn Ferdinand at Ferdy On Films and Farran Smith Nehme at Self-Styled Siren, for the sake of raising money for the restoration and web hosting of The White Shadow, a long-lost film that was one of a trove of silent treasures rediscovered in New Zealand several years ago. The White Shadow is a work with great historical resonance for world cinema. Directed by Graham Cutts, an important figure of early British cinema, the film features a lauded performance by lead actress Betty Compson, and also sports actor Clive Brook, who would later go on to romance Marlene Dietrich in Shanghai Express (1932) and star in the Best Picture winner of 1933, Cavalcade. But the chief reason for the film’s special stature, of course, is that it constitutes the earliest extant film credit for Alfred Hitchcock, who served a multiple roles on the production, including as writer and editor. It also marked the start of two fateful associations for Hitchcock, one with the Selznick family, which distributed the film in the US (what is left for us comes from one of their prints), and with his future wife and life-long collaborator Alma Reville. The object of our labours and donations during the Blogathon is finally ready for all to see: for the next two months, starting today, the restored print ofThe White Shadow is available for viewing at The National Film Preservation Foundation's Preserved Films page. This remarkable resuscitation for a work once considered probably lost forever is thanks to the restoration labours of Park Road Post Production for the New Zealand Film Archive, whilst the esteemed film viewing and critiquing website Fandor has donated web hosting, and the film now sports a specially written and recorded score by Michael Mortilla, sporting violinist Nicole Garcia. 



A slice of good old-fashioned melodrama with clear intimations of some of Hitchcock’s favourite themes already apparent, The White Shadow sees Compson playing a dual role, as English twins Georgina and Nancy Brent. Nancy’s wayward nature is excited by her schooling in Europe and a romance with a dashing American gentleman, Robin Field (Brook), and she eventually runs away from home, abandoning her family and her beau in favour of Continental kicks. Georgina pretends to be Nancy, for Field’s sake and to try and sustain her sister’s honour, whilst their father (A. B. Imeson) attempts to track down his missing daughter. But tragedy is unavoidable, as the girls’ mother dies heartbroken after her husband fails to return, and a friend of Field brings news of his amour’s depraved adventures. Sadly, the last three reels of the film are still missing, filled in for the moment by a synopsis of the conclusion. Also featured on the presentation page are program notes about the film by David Sterritt, a short biography of the New Zealand projectionist, Jack Murtagh, thanks to whom the film was saved in the first place, and a slide show about the story of the film’s discovery and work of the New Zealand Film Archive and the Academy Film Archive. For anyone at all interested in silent cinema in general and Hitchcock in particular, what remains of The White Shadow represents an irresistible lode of cinephilic fascination. Marilyn and Farran, esteemed creators and leaders of the Blogathon’s efforts, and my humble self bid you enjoy. We also give our thanks to Annette Melville of the National Film Preservation Foundation and her organisation, for all their efforts in bringing this project to fruition, so that you can watch:



Les Démoniaques (1973)

$
0
0


Jean Rollin’s debut film, Le Viol du Vampire (1967), began life as a short quickly flung together at the behest of a distributor to fill out the allotted theatrical bill with another vampire film, and then expanded it into a feature when the money men and audiences alike were intrigued by the result. In spite of its commercial reasons for existing, Le Viol du Vampire is all but an underground film, a heady whiff of transgressive pleasures offered up with a sense of humour and a large dash of Dadaist art and late-‘60s-style rebelliousness exhibited on many levels of style and story, purposefully grotesque and incoherent, textured like a fevered onanistic dream. In his subsequent films, La Vampire Nue (1969), Le Frissons du Vampires (1970), Requiem pour un Vampire (1971), and La Rose de Fer (1972), Rollin’s rough-hewn artistry erupts in moments of splendiferous strangeness and surrealist virtuosity, both liberated by and just as often held in check by the awkwardness of his cruelly low budgets, and the crude necessity of the sexploitation he injected to make the films commercially viable. Watching Rollin’s works always requires tolerance for sitting through the sometimes arbitrary and prolonged nudie scenes, which coexist uneasily with Rollin’s genuine, wittier eroticist impulses. But his fascination for the potent commingling of the savage and the romantic defined films which, at their best, turn into protean dreamscapes of Sadean imagery and symbolism.



Rollin was still warming up for his greatest achievement, the Proustian fantasia of Lips of Blood (1975), when he made Les Démoniaques, his sixth feature (not counting his forays into straight-up porn), and a relatively straightforward narrative compared to his early odyssean nightmares. That said, it’s one of his most brutal and direct films. Rollin’s obsessive efforts to capture the atmosphere of the French coast are here justified by a story that plays like Rollin’s peculiar twist on Hitchcock’s Jamaica Inn (1939), or Fritz Lang’s Moonfleet (1955), whilst anticipating Jacques Rivette’s Noroit (1974) as a freewheeling riff on nautical shenanigans. Les Démoniaques, set sometime around the turn of the 20th century, introduces its cast of villains, a small band of wrecker cutthroats, consisting of the bristling Captain (John Rico), his two semi-loyal helpmates Bosco (Willy Braque) and Paul (Paul Bisciglia), and their sensual, capricious, sadistic squaw Tina (Joëlle Coeur), with a series of portraits that fill us in on their nefarious actions and their relations with one-another, excusing Rollin from any need to interrupt the tale’s subsequent texture for characterisation. This style of introduction proves a miscue, however, as it’s not so much the individual characters and group tensions of the wreckers that preoccupy Les Démoniaques, elements Rollin was scarcely interested in anyway, so much as their embodiment of base, reactive impulse, and animalistic instinct. 



Attracted to the shoreline by floating wreckage of a smashed ship, the criminals discover two tragic maids (Lieva Lone and Patricia Hermenier, filling in, it seems, for Rollin’s regular pairing of doppelganger waifs, the Castel twins) clinging to each-other as they cry for help and stumble out of the surf. True to their natures, the criminals attack, rape, and leave the girls for dead. An uncertain amount of time later, the Captain, drunk in a tavern run by the psychic Louise (Louise Dhour), is beset by visions of the two victims as pale, wraith-like, and blood-smeared, driving him into a panic. Reports come to the gang that the women, who may be actually still alive or the living dead who refuse to be stilled, are lurking in the wrecks ranging the coast. The gang set out to finish the duo off. If the opening seems almost like Rollin’s personal take on Boorman’s Deliverance (1972) mixed with Frank Perry’s Last Summer (1969), the narrative accords roughly with the decade’s fondness for rape-revenge sagas like Last House on the Left (1972) and Lipstick (1976), but deeper within this saga are clear links to Jacobean drama, with the Macbeth-esque nature of the Captain’s growing hysteria in the face of a tormenting guilt that he mistakes for literal supernatural haunting. The supernatural does play a part in Les Démoniaques, but not until after the Captain has whipped himself into frenzy in seeing the gore-spattered angels hovering over his cups, and once the uncanny does enter the story, it does so with typically eccentric Rollin style. 



Rollin’s magic-realist talent for coaxing a powerfully oneiric atmosphere in films that could scarcely afford any artifice, his unique capacity to suggest the ethereal through the firmly tangible and corporeal, and his mining of the complex relationship in the western canon between erotic and macabre imagery, is in constant evidence throughout LesDémoniaques. His touch is especially apparent in sequences set in the ships’ graveyard, and the cavernous ruins in which a satanic force dwells and damaged purity ironically finds safe-harbour. Rollin’s keenness to space and physicality, and his capacity to dream up images that seem torn from some Jungian lode of imagery, pay off in moments of weird majesty and sonorous strangeness: the Captain’s hallucination scene, dogged in the midst of the steamily boisterous tavern by the pale ghouls, complete with a pinch from Hawks’ Rio Bravo (1959) as the Captain espies blood dripping into his beer; the two demon-girls marching stark naked through the cavernous spaces of a ruined cathedral, transformed from ravaged innocents to pagan priestesses imbued with the right to unleash incredible powers; the two shipwrecked girls slowly emerging from the black sea, groaning in desperation only to be confronted by human savagery that accords with the violence of the elements and exceeds it; shots of Tina dancing and copulating in ecstatic abandon after the Captain has been draping her in fineries retrieved from the wreck, and driven to new heights of sensual excitement by the spectacle of the girls being ravaged and murdered.



Much of the appeal of Rollin’s films, if one gets into synch with them, is found precisely in their no-budget, bare-boned beauty, their air of having been improvised on the weekend by a cabal of cinematic anarchists. It’s this aspect which feeds the elusive quality they possess, of having been half-remembered and anxiously sketched from the very horizon of liminal awareness, a quality Rollin finally nailed by making the poignant nature of memory itself the lynchpin of Lips of Blood. Here Rollin’s usual 30 franc budget seems here to have been boosted to about 50, as he employs an actual set for the tavern, although he obviously could not afford to keep all the extras needed for these scenes around for long. A lengthy chase scene sees the wreckers hunt the girls high and low in a vibrant piece of location shooting, as the gutted, skeletal hulls of the ships suggest a graveyard for marine mammals, consumed by the rage of the sea and the demimonde scum who wait on the shore to pick over their remains. This is a fairly well-staged action sequence by Rollin’s one-shot standards. The duo elude their enemies within the hulks, battle off Tina, and finally escape, leaving Tina to almost die in the blaze her fellows have started to burn out their prey; Tina is only narrowly rescued by the Captain. As usual in Rollin’s action scenes stuntwork and pyrotechnics are non-existent, but compensated for by the immediacy of the conflict, especially as the two girls, who seem so weak and outmatched, furiously wrestle and defeat the knife-wielding Tina, in the most genuinely ferocious-seeming cat-fight I’ve ever seen in a film, and the flames of the burning wrecks begin to whirl about the cast. The girls manage to flee across a shallow and Tina’s comrades prevent her from following them into the ruined cathedral that abuts the beach, a taboo place for the locals because of the legend that the Devil is imprisoned there.



Rollin’s reductive contemplations of the human animal often boiled all motivations to Freudian essences, and biological essentials of reproduction and consumption, with ironic reflections on contemporary western society as an ever-worsening Faustian bargain trying to buy off mortality, but eaten away by the undimmed natural impulses. Finally, true to the surrealist creed, passion transcends material boundaries and distorts reality. The wreckers all take a very real pleasure in asserting power over others in their crimes, particularly Tina, for whom the need to extinguish the supernal threat of the two haunting women becomes a mad lust. Within the film’s purposefully crude logic, killing and subjugating are the ultimate way of proving one’s own life potency, an aspect which specifically seems to motivate Tina, who charges most recklessly into the fray against the demon-girls, repeatedly declaring her lack of fear, whilst the dead refuse to surrender to oblivion before karmic balance is exacted. The two women discover helpmates, in a duo who live in the ancient ruins: a young woman dressed in garish clown make-up – a bizarre touch that self-references the opening scenes of Requiem pour un Vampire– and an Exorcist (Ben Zimet), perhaps her father, who live as the appointed guardians over the imprisoned Devil. The Exorcist, however, encourages the two girls to release his charge, which only innocents can do, for the sake of their revenge, whilst cautioning them that this Devil is a trickster who is possessed by evil, and all his gifts are two-faced.



Les Démoniaques, like many of Rollin’s films and indeed exemplifying this quality, feels like a folk myth partly misheard and translated into one language and back again. The traditions and peculiar mood of sea shanties and murder ballads are beautifully captured, and specifically invoked as Louise sings one such morbid ditty with the specific aim of torturing the Captain’s already fraying nerves. Louise is a bridge between the worlds of the spirit and the worlds of flesh, empress-chanteuse in her gin-joint who welcomes the two strayed waifs with assurances she’s on their side, and she expires with an axe planted by Tina in her back. Rollin was often mischievous, and equally often careless, with the specific laws of whatever supernatural gimmick he was using (the nature of vampirism, for instance, changes from movie to movie in his canon), and here the Devil (Miletic Zivomir) the girls release proves, far from being a source of infinite malignancy, rather a commanding, handsome necromancer with immediate empathy for the girls’ hunger for justice, beset by distinct limitations on his power over the natural universe. He agrees to give his powers over to the girls to exact their revenge, and they consummate the pact in a languorous scene of rutting as he deflowers one and the other masturbates excitedly whilst watching. One problem Rollin’s films in this phase exhibited – one that hurts Requiem pour un Vampire particularly – was his uncertainty in how to develop story when trying to tell more ordered narratives, after leaving behind the artful gibberish of his first few works. This uncertainty helps make Les Démoniaques both frustrating and also surprising, as the film’s last third, seemingly set up for a familiar, Stephen King-esque vengeance tale, refuses to play out that way. The girls turn up at Louise’s tavern just as the wreckers are forcing her to use her psychic powers to locate their prey: “They’re right there!” Louise informs them as they march in the door, baiting their enemies as one unblinkingly accepts a knife in the chest from Bosco, who retreats in horror that his ever-effective phallic weapon has been rendered impotent.



Rollin’s oeuvre is filled with oddball twists on the familiar rules of supernatural figurations, and openly embraced the surrealist-informed chaos underneath the surface of seemingly rigid concepts. Where in La Viol du Vampire the undead cabal stood in for corrupt regimes to be torn down, that would be totally reversed by the time of Lips of Blood, where the vampires would become symbols of revolutionary sexuality and subversion of a repressive social order. Here the reconceptualization of the Devil figure makes him an empathetic force who is actually neither good nor evil but a repository of cosmic power and justice beyond the familiar limitations of humanity. Magic is another force to be used constructively or clumsily, and one that proves, finally, less powerful than the raw malignancy in the human soul. Imbued with Satanic powers, the two demon-girls almost manage to destroy Tina, utilising telekinetic force to topple statuettes in the church, one (of Jesus, naturellement) momentarily pinning her down. But they fail in their efforts, because their quarries are still powerful in their relentless hate and sadism: whereas in most horror films good mortal characters struggle to overcome the seemingly limitless force of the supernatural with bravery and determination, here the supernatural is a positive force of mystery and sublime intent rendered meek by the sheer unrelenting force of the flesh, and the intended targets are ruthless bastards. The girls are also defeated by their own remnant compassion, as the wreckers turn their fury on their helpmates the Exorcist and the Clown, who are mauled and left dying. The girls forlornly give the Devil’s powers back to him so he can save their lives, at, he warns them the inevitable cost of their own.



Les Démoniaques, thus, finally becomes a peculiarly blasphemous reconfiguration of the Christ myth as a pseudo-feminist, psycho-sexual passion play, as the wreckers, capturing the now-defenceless girls, crucify them by tying them to pieces of wreckage, with Tina joyfully egging on the men to rape the girls again, seeming to be a complete triumph for rapacious amorality. But this is finally undone as the same force of termite-like guilt that started the wreckers’ hunt sends the Captain into a fit of lunacy: he strangles Tina and wastes Bosco, before drowning in a desperate effort to save the tethered girls. The demon-girls thus die as Christ figures, ruined innocents sacrificed for the world’s sins who nonetheless inspire, at last, a maddened but powerful moral reaction. This is one of the purest figurations of Rollin’s ingrained streak of Catholic fetishism, an assault on the traditions of religious art as well as an evocation of them, as well as one of his darkest, most cruelly lustrous inversions on standard moral meaning. The delirious conclusion of Les Démoniaques stands as one of Rollin’s greatest achievements, in a career notable for its prolixity of great climaxes. Rollin’s constant collaborator at the time, Jean-Jacques Renon, provides the grainy yet expressive cinematography that gave Rollin’s films their air of rough, low-fi yet poetic beauty, and whereas Rollin’s works often featured weak and deliberately flat performances from amateur actors, here Rico is effective, and Coeur is something else. Like Brigitte Lahaie, who would feature in Fascination (1979) and other mid-period Rollin films, Couer came to his horror work first from one of the hardcore movies he made in between his genre efforts, and like Lahaie goes off like a firecracker in playing one of his merrily evocations of unruly femininity, taunting her masculine partners for whom she serves theoretically as shared love object but in fact commands and excels them all as an unregenerate barbarian, whether pleasuring herself on the seaside rocks in imperial delight in using the men as her phallic proxies in savaging the girls, and unleashing unhinged contempt on all the neutered, timid humans around her, feeling all the fury and pleasure of heaven and hell through her own sex and violence-fed nervous system.


Argo (2012)

$
0
0


Argo is a tale about a fake film, and it is itself a fake film. Made with perfunctory professionalism by a stolid actor turned stolid director, Argo sets out to explore one of modern geopolitics’ pivotal moments through the lens of a true yet authentically absurd event, one that saw reality reshaped by the powerful effect of Hollywood’s distorting gravity. But far from evoking any depth of cultural contemplation or significant irony, Ben Affleck has turned a fascinatingly weird appendix to a greater, distinctly antiheroic tale into a monument to the hermetic values of Hollywood myth-making, shallow nostalgia shot through with appropriate levels of both patriotic affirmation and liberal piety, and simplistic suspense-mongering. The opening sequences are the best in the film, depicting the unnerving terror underneath an illusory normality: the bureaucratic labours of the staffers at the American embassy in Tehran, registering the rage and revolution outside as a causative for having to work longer and faster, suddenly faced with an invasion of their bland modern offices by yowling mobs, like the French Revolution restaged as the Martyring of Dilbert. The need to trash classified documents forestalls necessary escape, so most of the embassy staff are taken captive, but a venturesome quintet slips out onto a side street which is, by contrast, bewilderingly calm. After being turned away by several potential safe harbours, they eventually find refuge in the house of the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber).




The State Department takes charge of the situation as war by media erupts between the Carter administration and the professional ranters of the revolution, and methods to get the escapees out are bandied. Enter the CIA, whom, the opening voiceover has informed us, were responsible for the unseating of Persia’s democratic leader Mohammad Mossadegh, but hey, never mind, here they’re going to keep themselves strictly to heroically aiding US citizens. Tony Mendez (Affleck) is the anointed expert in extracting people from danger zones, but the problems in this situation seem too scary until, as he chats with his son over the phone to his son who’s watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1974) on TV, he has a brainwave. What if he pretends to be scouting locations for a Hollywood production, and passes the escapees off as members of a film crew? His plan is quickly assessed as the least-bad one available, and Mendez calls up Planet of the Apes’ make-up wiz, and occasional CIA helpmate, John Chambers (John Goodman). Mendez has Chambers dig up a producer who might be able to effectively create a fake production so that the cover story can stand up to scrutiny, and Chambers obtains the services of Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), who uses bluster and clout to obtain a real screenplay for a cheesy Star Wars knock-off called Argo, and arranges phony Variety articles and casting calls for the production, as well as setting up a production office to which any enquires from the Iranian authorities will be routed. Armed with all the material he needs for the mission, Mendez then travels to Tehran to sell the would-be escapees on the plan.




Argo deals with still-relevant, potentially touchy and unpleasant realities of the world stage, but in invoking the peculiar relationship the US has with Iran, and the one the US and the world at large both have with Hollywood. It seems like a wealth of opportunity is presented by the subject matter for a director with a strong grasp on the peculiarities of those relationships, of the duplicity of image and reality, and of the innately surreal aspect of fantastic fiction coming to the rescue of people trapped in invidious reality. Affleck was not that director, nor Chris Terrio the right screenwriter. Terrio’s work relies on obvious stereotypes and well-studied rhythms of scripting. Chambers and especially Siegel emerge as flat clichés, spouting gruff insider speak, operator bullshit, and an apt number of cuss words. We get a scene of Siegel negotiating with foul-mouthed exuberance for the rights to the crucial Argo screenplay, a supposedly terrible but appropriate template for the fake production, with agent Max Klein (Richard Kind), before an awkward and entirely unconvincing scene in which Siegel and Mendez bond over their troubled family lives, a moment of character interaction and development so bland it could well have been clipped complete from any halfway decent screenwriting guide. That Arkin is the chief reason to watch this film, with his liquid-nitrogen delivery and atomic clock sense of timing, is a proposition not worth arguing with, but the number of films that waste him in variations on the same aging comedic coot are piling up. A joke that was reportedly shared amongst the rescuers and rescued in the true story, a pun on the title of the faux-movie, “Argo fuck yourself”, is presented here as a sharp non-witticism thrown by Siegel at a journalist, and then adopted as a sarcastic, and finally a smarmily emotive, battle cry. 



Mendez speaks of his intent to exploit the fact that Hollywood is notoriously oblivious to anything but its own fantasias, counting on this to explain the bewildering indifference of his “crew” to the reality unfolding in Iran. But Argo is happy in sticking with the one basic gag: hey look, Hollywood types really helped out once in a real-world situation. See, they’re not all a bunch of useless overpaid fruits, are they? The film’s most amusing vignette comes when Siegel arranges a fake read-through test for potential actors, with no less a figure of late ‘70s pulp cinema than Adrienne Barbeau included amongst the unwitting, auditioning enablers of this burlesque, but Affleck fails to wring as much delight out of this as he might. The basic choice for Affleck here in approaching this story was to either make it farce or to play it straight, and personally I think it would have been far better, and ultimately deeper, played as farce; here the experience of the real people, whilst taken as nominally grave, is belittled just as much by making them an addendum to a by-the-numbers caper flick as it would be by making Shakespearean Pastoral mirth out of their lot. The fake film Argoitself seems strongly reminiscent of 1979’s immortal craptacular, Starcrash, whilst the plot to foist this phony production on the Iranians suggests some amazing real-world simulacrum of After The Fox (1966). Affleck wants to ape the best examples of ‘70s cinema, when even cheeseball sci-fi movies had a kind of tactile intensity to them. But rather than accentuating the tension between veracity and fakery by offering any sign of it in his filmmaking, Argo plays out as relentlessly competent and dourly “realistic,” except when making up stuff to make itself seem more important and exciting than it actually is. Affleck works to recreate the verisimilitude and workaday grit of Alan Pakula, Peter Yates, and Sidney Lumet, but he lacks some significant traits of that breed of filmmaker, most particularly their ethic of avoiding as many pleasant conventions as possible, whereas Affleck is beholden to them. He shows off his glib grasp of the period detail by having the besieged staffers celebrate their imminent departure by listening to music nobody in their right minds in such a situation would listen to, designed rather to show off the director’s taste in retro tracks. 



Affleck’s former creative partner Matt Damon this year had planned to make his directing debut with a variation on that ever-popular avatar for limousine liberal male actors, the conflicted schill with a conscience faced with the malfeasance of his fill-in-the-blank Evil Corporation, in the dreary but occasionally less programmatic Promised Land, which Gus Van Sant finished up helming. Here Affleck casts himself as Mendez, an ethnic role that might have offered an interestingly different perspective on this kind of patriotic adventuring, but the hero is stripped of any specificity of motive or world-view. The erstwhile auteur tries to present Mendez as a figure of admirably low-key professionalism, beset by a patina of shell-shocked confusion over the loss of effectualness in his life and job, but his marital strain, and eventual reconciliation facilitated by success in his mission, sits inert and underdeveloped, a supernal gesture towards humanisation that seems, rather, to suggest that if American men had been consistently aggressive in standing up to the Middle East, then all of this feminist divorce shit would never have caught on. The characters in Argo seem to have been spat out of a computer databank of stock types. We’ve got the gruff boss with a heart of gold in the form of Mendez’s superior (Bryan Cranston). We’ve got the veteran film producer, in keeping with a popular image of Hollywood Jewish ballbusters unchanged in fifty years, spouting har-de-har dialogue right on cue about how certain movie-related organisations are far more difficult to deal with than religious fanatics with guns. 



Meanwhile, the five escapees are so little characterised they’re practically interchangeable under their ‘70s hair-don’t wigs: there’s the nerdy one with glasses, the even nerdier one with glasses, his wife with big glasses, the other wife with the blonde hair, and the older one. The nerdy one is anxiously guilty for getting his wife into this situation and so plays the querulous punch-pisser for this particular party, but of course he comes around at the last minute to seemingly save the escape from disaster by talking around a particularly suspicious security officer. There could be a supply of self-aware humour in the way that Mendez casts each of these people according to their archetype in who they will be in the film crew – director, screenwriter, etc – and in the contrast of Hollywood’s scripted nonsense versus the equally scripted, carefully cast propaganda war of the Iranians, but Ruffio’s script tends to state such aspects, rather than animate them, and Affleck’s relentlessly unimaginative direction means these possibilities remain entirely unrealised. Likewise, there’s a suggestion that the Iranians might see a parable for their own fight for nationalistic self-determination in the adventures of the nobly square-jawed hero of the fake film, just as the Americans see their own impossible lot in it, with a concomitant wryness about the vague but powerful way such symbolic tales can be interpreted according to the predisposition of the viewer. But Affleck's filmmaking has no wit to build upon these possibilities, and the Iranian setting never feels very convincing. Affleck doesn’t want to investigate the relationship between life and pulp fantasy, but rather transmute life into pulp fantasy, for the sake of box office and comfortably award-ready aesthetic, as he draws out his conclusion with increasingly contrived devices, like a last-minute cancellation of the mission which Affleck makes a last-minute decision to ignore, and Chambers and Siegel have to make a last-minute intervention to save the cover story. Argo powers to a conclusion with a chase scene so stupid, contrived, and incompetently handled that I cannot believe it’s received such a general pass mark from commentators: Iranian police pursue the airbus the Americans board down the runway in a scene of pseudo-action that wouldn’t pass muster in an average James Bond film, whilst others beat on the door of the control tower, apparently because no-one thought to telephone the controllers, and scant seconds later the plane is out of Iranian air space. Argo wants to please its audience with a happy ending and a sense of old wrongs at least partly righted, but it proves instead cavernously empty. What we’re left with is yet another film that determinedly exploits the paranoia of white westerners about being glared at by vaguely threatening foreigners.


MASH (1970)

$
0
0


MASH commences with a sequence that is at once extremely familiar and yet demands new attention. Helicopters carry mangled men in flight, suspended between heaven and earth, life and death, a sense of narcotised isolation imbued by the hazy photography and the bleakly beautiful, blackly funny ode to suicide on the soundtrack. This opening would be recreated and seen week in and week out by millions of television viewers when the movie was turned into one of the most popular shows of all time. And yet the TV version fudged two crucial aspects – the haunting tone of the visuals and the actual lyrics of the song. This brilliant credit sequence segues in a moment of verbal humour that seems like a lost Bob Newhart or Bob Hope sketch, as Col. Henry Blake (Roger Bowen) barks out a stream of orders to his pint-sized yet ultra-competent orderly ‘Radar’ O’Reilly (Gary Burghoff) who anticipates every single one, whilst another, SSgt. Vollmer (David Arkin), doesn’t catch any. And so, in the first few minutes of MASH, director Robert Altman leads his audience through rapid and disorienting alternations of tone and artistic intent, provoking his audience to wonder, what the hell kind of movie is this? It’s only then, with the mock-heroic concision of an Alexander Pope poem, MASH gives us our first view of antihero Capt. Benjamin ‘Hawkeye’ Pierce (Donald Sutherland), spotted emerging from the latrine, whilst the words of Douglas Macarthur flow by in exultant pomposity, followed by an underwhelming yet fittingly stark promise by Dwight Eisenhower.




This audio-visual gag was actually the product of studio pressure on Altman to properly identify the setting after he had done his best to fudge it, for the Korean War, so often described as “the Forgotten War”, provided MASH’s director Robert Altman with a doppelganger for Vietnam that could be offered fearlessly in a commercial cinema context. But Altman still made this work for him, as he condenses four levels of meaning: the obvious disparity between the dishevelled character just exiting the can with the earth-shaking titans; the bald contrast of the high-falutin’ with the grubbily everyday business of being in a warzone; the gallant strains on sound which mock music cues in nearly every straight war movie ever made; and a kind of miniature history lesson is given, offering the movie’s timeframe and historical context, capturing something amusing in the gap between Macarthur and Eisenhower’s rhetorical styles, and exposing the semi-secret suspicion, rarely allowed expression in popular culture before, amongst soldiers former and serving, that all those guys were full of shit.



For a director who eventually became legendary as a radical storyteller and rare kind of cinema artist, Altman served a surprisingly long and thorough apprenticeship in mundane professional labours after he returned from service in WW2. Following years directing short industrial films and documentaries in his home town Kansas City, he made the 1957 teen flick The Delinquents for $60,000, and this brought him to Hollywood, where he made his name as a TV director. Alfred Hitchcock gave him a crucial break on his Alfred Hitchcock Presents show, and gaining particular attention for his ground-breaking work on Combat. One of his episodes for Kraft Suspense Theatre was even given theatrical release, retitled Nightmare in Chicago. His two follow-ups, Countdown (1968) and That Cold Day In The Park (1969), were both frustrating experiences for Altman. And yet, someone had the bright idea of hiring him to direct MASH, and somehow, he actually got the job. This was not so much an act of faith in Altman as a last resort, as several other directors had already passed on the script, composed by veteran Ring Lardner Jr and adapted from Richard Hooker’s novel inspired by his experiences in Korea. Although MASH as a film would become an icon of Vietnam-era, anti-establishment, anti-militarist cinema, Hooker was staunchly conservative, and Altman disliked the racist and sexist overtones of the novel, which was considerably altered first by Lardner and then more deeply by Altman with his improvisational approach. Altman began experimenting with a wilfully strange shooting style, encouraging his cast to ad lib, perturbing stars Sutherland and Elliott Gould so much that they campaigned to have him fired.



What seemed like an outlandish mess from their perspective proved however to be a film composed of rich and peculiar new textures, and it met with colossal success, including a Palme D’Or, as one of the brightest jewels in the crown of the American New Wave. MASH swamped the highly touted Mike Nichols adaptation of Catch-22, which came out weighted down with artiness, where Altman’s film was buoyed by its rudely expressive vivacity. MASH became at once Altman’s most financially successful film, and a template for almost all his future artistry, but also an albatross about his neck, for he never quite recaptured his connection with the popular zeitgeist on a commercial level, whilst the film was transmuted into the enjoyable but far broader, essentially defanged series. Whilst MASH isn’t Altman’s best film, it remains my personal favourite from his oeuvre, and it’s a great comedy that inflects much of the modern genre. Reputed to be the first mainstream film where somebody says “fuck,” MASH gave birth to the kind of bawdy, adult comedy manifest in ‘70s movies as different as Slap-Shot (1977) and National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978), and which has been recently revived, if usually lacking MASH’s crucial satirical and self-critical streak. MASH also belongs discernably, if eccentrically, to a solid tradition of serviceman comedy that encompassed the likes of the plays like What Price Glory? and Mister Roberts, the cartoons of Bill Mauldin, the writing of Jaroslav Hasek, Hans Helmut Kirst, David Hackney, and Spike Milligan, and movies like The Big Parade (1926) and No Time For Sergeants (1958). Such works usually emphasised the existential dread of the war zone as a corollary of the often absurd, wryly observed business of life behind the lines, a never-ending stream of indignities, conflicts with the pettiness of authority and the weird and wonderful types so often caught up in nets of drafting, absurd actions caused by boredom and anxiety, and less then noble impulses in the midst of supposedly noble undertakings. Altman delved deeper into the cinema comedy tradition to find the Marx Brothers, Chaplin, and Keaton.




MASH revolves around a simple dynamic: its “heroes” attempt to stave off boredom, frustration, and soul-grinding horror by approaching a terrible job like they’re still in college, having a never-ending kegger, playing crude pranks to pass the time and see off the self-important boobs who try to complicate their lives. Whereas the series turned this into a schematic battle of playful but omnicompetent saints against dimwits and cardboard baddies, Altman keeps his heroes in some perspective, for sometimes they’re delightful rebels, and sometimes they’re just as accomplished in being childish jerks as the people they’re crossing swords with. Indeed, for Altman, this was part of the point, not to present unblemished moral characters far above the muck, but to offer ordinary humans, and that no matter how crude the protagonists become, it’s still paltry in the face of the actual obscenity of the war around them. Hawkeye’s first encounter with authority is an officious and sarcastic black motor pool sergeant who assumes Hawkeye’s an asshole because he’s an officer and immediately proves himself one (“Racist!” is Hawkeye’s muttered rebuke). So when another newly arrived surgeon, Duke Forrest (Tom Skerritt) thinks Hawkeye’s his driver, as he’s used his captain’s pin to fix his busted luggage zipper. Hawkeye is happy to go along with it and rides off in the jeep, prompting the sergeant to send MPs after to them, except that the sergeant and MPs finish up beating hell out of each-other whilst Hawkeye and Duke ride jauntily off to their war. As they reach the 4077 MASH unit, they’re quickly introduced to its coterie of professional weirdos, including obtuse CO Blake who tries to chide them for their bad conduct. But Blake soon reveals his actual, laissez fare attitude, for when Forrest replies that he and Hawkeye have been boozing all day, Blake congratulates them: “Good – you’ve been working close to the front.” The pair are dropped right in the thick of things, patching together ruined hunks of men for hours on end and stumbling back to their tent to try and relax with their playboy affectations, only to find this stymied more than slightly by their tent mate, Maj. Frank Burns (Robert Duvall), prone to reciting lengthy prayers out loud.



Still perhaps the most surprising aspect of MASH is its outright aggression towards religion, which approaches Buñuel-esque anti-clericism (Altman was perhaps half-remembering a moment from Buñuel’s Viridiana in one key shot), stopping short insofar as Father Patrick ‘Dago Red’ Mulcahy (Rene Auberjonois) is presented as a befuddled but decent representative of religion, albeit one who, after he’s pressed into aiding one of Duke’s operations, can never quite settle back into merely spiritual aid. Burns’ religiosity is quickly revealed as hypocritical, with overtones of a smug, smouldering need for superiority. One of the strangest scenes in the film, and the first to really suggest what an uncommon artist was making it, is the moment in which Burns’ prayer is mocked by Hawkeye and Duke, and their playful refrain of “Onward Christian Soldiers” is taken up by the rest of the camp who form into an improvised chorus. Altman’s use of the mesh walls of the tents as a permeable screen through which he can constantly keep interiors and exteriors in a theatrical dialogue with his remote sound and zoom shots comes into play here, as the singers march by in a hazy, ironically spiritual etherealness, alternating with a slow zoom in on Burns’ face in prayer until he opens his eyes with burning wrath all plain, privileging the audience to a glimpse of the powerful egocentric resentment that underlies Burns’ affectations. This emerges more clearly later as one of his patients is dying and he orders a hapless hospital orderly, Pvt. Warren Boone (Bud Cort) to help, and then takes out his frustration once the patient dies. Boone, young and naïve, breaks down in tears, earning Burns the unremitting enmity of the other doctors, on top of the fact that he’s a bad surgeon.


This was another, key radical idea driving MASH, the notion that the wilfully undisciplined, individualist heroes are actually better at their jobs than conformist, uptight people who hide within institutions. Burns is soon given more support by the arrival of uptight, upright head nurse Maj. Margaret O’Houlihan (Sally Kellerman), who quickly announces her admiration for Burns to Hawkeye because he’s a “good military surgeon”, upbraids Hawkeye for letting the nurses call him by his nickname, and smudges the grin on his face when she answers his question about where she comes from with, “I like to think of the army as my home!” The side of non-virtuous fecundity is fortunately reinforced by the arrival of a mysterious new chest surgeon, played by Gould, looking and acting like a hippie Groucho Marx, who keeps mum about his origins and produces a jar of olives from under his voluminous fur coat to fill out the homemade martinis Hawkeye and Duke imbibe. Only after one of their exhausting marathon surgeries, as they stumble out into the bleary morning, do the surgeons get caught up in a casual football game, the stranger tossing a long pass to Hawkeye that jogs his memory of a college football game he won thanks to the same pass and he finally recognises ‘Trapper’ John McIntyre. It’s Trapper who tries to wallop Burns after the incident with Boone, and as the medical staff have their rowdy, near-orgiastic interludes between duties, they stoke the ire of Burns and O’Houlihan to the point where they compose an angry letter to Blake’s commanders, an act that proves rather an extended mating dance for the two super-squares. This culminates in a fumbling sex act (“His will be done!”) that becomes public entertainment when Radar sneaks a microphone under their cot, and Margaret gains a permanent new nickname, Hot Lips, from her coital groans echoing out across the camp.


The structure of MASH is essentially a series of chapters, fragmented moments of life over the course of about a year, one reason it loaned itself easily to transformation into a TV series. The main “incidents” of the story include Hot Lips and Burns’ tryst and Burns getting himself a Section Eight discharge after he attacks Hawkeye when he teases him about it; the famously well-hung camp dentist Walt ‘Painless Pole’ Waldowski (John Schuck) deciding to commit suicide when he’s struck by anxieties over latent homosexuality and impotence; a bet over whether Hot Lips is a real blonde demanding and receiving a communal exhibition; Hawkeye’s an ill-fated attempt to save one of the camp’s teenage Korean auxiliaries, Ho-Jon (Kim Atwood) from being drafted; and Trapper and Hawkeye being drafted into performing surgery on a congressman’s GI son in Japan. Amongst the many discursions and radicalisms of Altman’s style, which blended intimately with the intermittence of this tale, perhaps the most significant is how the actual narrative, the progressions of character and story, are inverted in focus. Thus themes that would be hammered home by other hands here form merely the background texture: the evolution of Hot Lips, the devolution of Burns, the shift of Duke from faint remnant racism as a southern gentleman in the face of army integration and his later affair with Hot Lips, whilst Dr. Oliver Harmon ‘Spearchucker’ Jones (Fred Williamson) proves himself as both an excellent surgeon and a leader, and of course the entire Korean War itself. Several of the most important moments in MASH can be entirely missed by an inattentive viewer if they aren’t looking in the right place. The foreground action consists of absurd interludes and vignettes built around the the hip, almost post-modern sensibility of its protagonists, who try to turn their own lives into comedy, in cope with the stream of carnage, depicted in gruesome and exacting detail, which they endeavour to repair.



Altman’s shambolic shooting practises, which so disturbed Sutherland and Gould at first, proved to be a kind of immersive, artificially imbued neo-realism which would inflect everything seen on the screen. The MASH camp is rendered a dirty, muddy, teeming space in which the cast amble, slouch, run, or lounge depending on the moment. The set, with iconic details like the sign at its heart pointing directions to every other place in the world, is carefully manipulated as a multileveled stage akin to, but more sophisticated than, the kinds of theatrical settings Shakespeare worked with, with Altman’s camera zooming and panning with seemingly lazy interest, picking up on stray details and rambling figures, and then zeroing in a moment of meaning. One of the film’s most singularly brilliant moments encapsulates this quality perfectly, as Altman’s camera drifts in front of the tent in which the characters are gathered for a farewell for Painless, and zooms in. The composition of the scene snaps into focus as the actors arrange themselves into a recreation of Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper”, renaissance precision suddenly resolving out of ambient messiness. The film as a whole and Altman’s career in general sustains the approach inherent in this shot, form and substance coming out of chaos and contradiction. Whilst MASH often seems superficially random, Altman’s extraordinary cinematic epiphanies flow right through it, particularly in the episode of Painless’s “suicide” and his subsequent “cure”. The mockery of ritual and death becomes a moment for magic for the team as they get to turn the twin poles of sex, the root of Painless’ fear and the cause of his resurrection, and death, into a rewrite of Christian resurrection as a pagan phallic ritual. Painless’s apostles are gathered in surgical whites, transmuted into perverse angels, billowing dry ice and intricately arranged lighting endowing the moment with overtones of actual spiritual drama. 


Painless lays himself out to die in a coffin with his friends passing by in a premature wake and parade of behavioural comedy. Painless is soon found splayed naked under a sheet surrounded by ghostly mosquito netting and the scene bathed in rosy light from a pair of panties stretched over a light bulb to imbue a low-rent mood of erotic frisson, Painless ready to be called back to life as Hawkeye talks the semi-witting Lt. ‘Dish’ (Jo Ann Plfug) into sleeping with him. Dish is antsy until she lifts the sheet and catches sight of his enormous penis. Next morning sees her flying off to heaven, or someplace, still beaming in ecstasy whilst Painless leaps back into rebuilding jaws. Here it’s not just Altman’s sublime direction and Harold E. Stine’s witty photography that imbues the air of simultaneously sarcastic and yet peculiarly earnest beauty, but Johnny Mandel’s scoring, soaring choirs evoking Hollywood’s most elevated religious epics even as they’re entirely trashed. The whole sequence is as grand a display of Altman’s sinuous genius as any he made. Altman’s studious realism is so often tweaked to somehow retain a dusting of magic, as in a scene in which the hospital’s lights black out, leaving the surgeons to flounder in the dark for a moment before lanterns are lit, and the crew immediately begin singing “When The Lights Come On Again,” or the infernal flames that dance before Burns’ face as he’s taken away to the madhouse. Similarly inspired if darker in tone and effect is Burns and Hot Lips’ tryst: as their sexual tussles echo about the camp, Hot Lips suddenly realises what’s going on and throws Frank out as the strange doppelganger effect of the sound lends an edge of frantic, disturbing nakedness to the moment of seemingly straightforward farce, the electric anxiety of having a moment of passionate privacy become public entertainment communicated precisely.


Altman turned MASH into a vehicle to express not only his feelings on Vietnam but to dramatize his conflict with authority of many stripes, particularly Hollywood nabobs, to the extent where Altman was taking studio memos and tweaking them to use amongst the film’s absurd PA announcements, and also with moviemaking clichés: constant reference is made to cheesy old wear movies, often also mentioned in the PA, and in moments of outright spoof, often through Mandel’s scoring. But Altman’s deeper war was with a certain kind of lie that hides behind an agreeable convention, something that it’s easy to inscribe in principled terms and yet which doesn’t entirely hide the stink. In Altman’s eyes here, humankind is fundamentally a body, be it broken, intoxication, or sexually aroused, and it’s this exceedingly corporeal sensibility that permeates everything. Everything that denies this in MASH is ultimately ridiculed. The cast, primarily of improvisation-steeped actors from San Francisco, most of whom were making their cinema acting debuts, flocking around the stars to form a community that the main characters stand out amongst and yet remain inextricable from, filling out frames with a Hogarthian vista of humanity, chattering, eating, lusting, cheering, jeering, snoozing, playing, teasing, dying. No character seems too small to have meaning for Altman, from Capt. ‘Knocko’ (Tamara Horrocks) who sits trembling with randy excitement as she listens to Burns and Hot Lips shagging, to Capt. Storch (Dawne Damon) who lays claim to Boone, PFC. Seidman (Ken Prymus) who warbles “Suicide is Painless” at Painless’s wake with increasingly enthused gaiety at odds with the solemn moment. Indeed, it’s partly through this layered communal scope that Altman visibly fights the overtones of sexism and racism trucked in from Hooker’s novel, and partly remakes it into the first of his panoramic dramas about the American experience, a free-for-all depiction of all the rough and rowdy energy inherent in sticking a bunch of young horny angry people in a small area.


In the second half, the pace and tone change notably as longer mini-stories are offered, with more clearly composed filmmaking. Hawkeye and Trapper’s journey to Japan sees them finally as something like heroes, even as they become even brattier. They snatch a needed break when they’re called away from their frontline duties to operate on the congressman’s son who doesn’t even really need that good a surgeon. But in their desire to get to work so quickly, barging in in a whirlwind of comic antics at once obnoxious and revitalizing, barking efficacious orders when push comes to shove, and pissing off the officious poltroons of the army hospital, including its head, Col. Merrill (James B. Douglas). The mordant anaesthetist proves to be another of Hawkeye’s old pals, ‘Me Lay’ Marston (Michael Murphy), who tells them he’s “moonlighting down at Dr Yamachi’s New Era Hospital and Whorehouse.” Here the occasional moments of proper pastiche that dot MASH coalesce into its funniest outright spoof, as Merrill has the surgeons chased by MPs into his office, and the two act as if they’ve been caught in a spy movie (“I think it was the girl.” “She was the one in Tangiers!”). Merrill is easily disarmed for the moment as the surgeons have done their job better than his staff, but from Marston they inherit a sickly baby from the whorehouse and decide to operate on him too: Marston tells them they can’t because Merrill never lets “natives” be treated at the hospital. The boys go ahead and when Merrill makes trouble they gas him unconscious, and arrange for photos to be taken of him waking up in bed with a prostitute, to make sure he doesn’t give them anymore trouble. This episode ends with another of Altman’s great visual coups, however, as they return to the 4077 still wearing their golf gear only to be caught up in a new wave of wounded, and are next seen still clad in their jaunty coloured socks as they operate.


MASH’s last phase is preoccupied with a football match that springs out of the attempt by Blake’s superior Gen. Hammond (G. Wood) to investigate Hot Lips’ complaints: when he gets to talking and drinking with Hawkeye, Duke, and Trapper, Hammond becomes interested when the guys complain that Hot Lips won’t let them play football, and he gets them to commit to submitting a team to a league Hammond and other bigwigs are running. Hammond isn’t as buffoonish as Merrill or as zealous as Burns, but he’s quickly characterised as a boorish misogynist and a creep eager for a chance to milk money out of the MASH outfit and win without scruple. Hawkeye’s flash of inspiration for taking on Hammond’s manpower is to obtain a ringer, getting Blake to specifically request Jones’ transfer to the unit, being as he is both a neurosurgeon and a former pro footballer, so he can beat the potential players into shape and give the team an edge. Jones does just that, unofficially, as Blake has pretences to being coach (“What do all these lines mean?” he asks Jones in surveying the plays he’s drawn up). But the actual match proves to be a chaotic, epic contest in which Hammond proves to have brought in his own ringer, an incredibly fast runner who has to be taken out of the game with the artful expedient of injecting him with an anaesthetic that leaves him dazed and thinking he’s in a track meet. The football match finale of MASH is quite simply one of the great comedy set-pieces of all time, a distant descendant of the football matches of the Marx Brothers’ Horse Feathers (1932), depicted as a whirlwind of brutal body-clashing, resulting in a stream of battered and bloodied men being carried off, a knowing simulacrum of the war.


In between flows an inexhaustible spring of comic vignettes: Kellerman’s performance in particular hits glorious heights as Hot Lips gives herself up to the job of head cheerleader with a manic if clueless enthusiasm that suggests she’s realising a childhood dream (“My god, they shot him!”). Racial drama plays out on the field as Jones coaches another of the black team-members, Judson (Tim Brown) on how to turn the tables on Hammond’s hulking bully #88 (Ben Davidson), which results in #88 chasing Judson around the field, and victory is finally achieved thanks to Vollmer of all people hiding the football under his jersey and dashing to the finish line. All is watched over by reefer smokers on the benches beaming with Buddhist indifference to the circus. The underlying beauty of the climax is in its complex depiction of the MASHers operating as a team, not just on the field but all around it, everyone taking a share of the glory of beating out the bigger guys. In spite of the great differences of attitude, here MASH reveals its similarity to works of John Ford like They Were Expendable (1947), The Long Grey Line (1953), and The Wings of Angels (1957), in all of which a similar dynamic between unruly individualism and group function, fighting spirit and communal amity, manifest in warfare and sporting contest. It’s typical of Altman’s artistry that one of the happiest shots, of the MASHers playing poker after the football game, with Hot Lips now one of the gang and an air of pacific harmony finally upon them all, is also one of its saddest, as they glance over their shoulders at a jeep carrying bodies in bags away. This paves the way for a final, wistfully sad grace note, the lingering stares swapped between Duke and Hot Lips over a hospital table as Hawkeye tells Duke the time has come for them to leave, Duke imagining his homecoming as a joyous charge into the arms of his family, whilst Hot Lips glares at him in anguish. The final irony of MASH is that for all the effort expended in trying to forget where they are, these characters may never feel so alive again.

“Goddamn army!” 

That is all.


Viewing all 421 articles
Browse latest View live