Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Columbia Film Review Vol. 2 #5-6 (Jan.-Feb. 1984)

    Uploaded by

    Columbia Film Review
    106 views20 pages
    Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Film Division. New York, New York. Adviser: Prof. John Belton. Founders-editors: Maitland McDonagh, Robert Lang. Designer: Lynda Moss. Layout: Maitland McDonagh, Marvin Hoshino. Typesetter: Kathy Frank. Contributors: Don Daniels, Henry Dreher, Louis Morra, Michael Berick, Vivek Adarcar, Timothy Clinton, Andrej Gustincic. Illustrator: Christopher Fay. Assistants to the editors: Laura Gwinn, Judy Perlman. 513 Dodge Hall, Columbia University.

    Original Title

    Columbia Film Review vol. 2 #5-6 (Jan.-Feb. 1984)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Film Division. New York, New York. Adviser: Prof. John Belton. Founders-editors: Maitland McDonagh, Robert Lang. Designer: Lynda Moss. Layout: Maitland McDonagh, Marvin Hoshino. Typesetter: Kathy Frank. Contributors: Don Daniels, Henry Dreher, Louis Morra, Michael Berick, Vivek Adarcar, Timothy Clinton, Andrej Gustincic. Illustrator: Christopher Fay. Assistants to the editors: Laura Gwinn, Judy Perlman. 513 Dodge Hall, Columbia University.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    106 views20 pages

    Columbia Film Review Vol. 2 #5-6 (Jan.-Feb. 1984)

    Uploaded by

    Columbia Film Review
    Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences: Film Division. New York, New York. Adviser: Prof. John Belton. Founders-editors: Maitland McDonagh, Robert Lang. Designer: Lynda Moss. Layout: Maitland McDonagh, Marvin Hoshino. Typesetter: Kathy Frank. Contributors: Don Daniels, Henry Dreher, Louis Morra, Michael Berick, Vivek Adarcar, Timothy Clinton, Andrej Gustincic. Illustrator: Christopher Fay. Assistants to the editors: Laura Gwinn, Judy Perlman. 513 Dodge Hall, Columbia University.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 20
    Columbia Film REVIEW VOL. 2, NOS. 5 & 6 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW Editor: Maitland McDonagh, Robert Lang Designer: Lynde Moss Marvin Hoshino Assistants to the Editor: ‘Laura Gwinn, Judy Periman Typesetter: Kathy Frank Contributors on Daniels Henry Dreher Louis Morra Timothy Clinton Andrej Gustincic Iustrator: (Christopher Fay COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW welcomes sub missions, Please send material to 513 Dodge Hal, Columbia University, New York, Ny 10027, Columbia Film Review is published times yeerly by the Film Division of the School of the Arts In September, October, November, December, February, March, April and May. Opinions expressed in reviews and articles are those of the Authors, not necessarily those oftheeditors or faculty Copyright © 1984, Maitland McDonagh, Robert Lang Printed in United States of America All Rights Reserves 2 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW VERTICAL Holding the camera ‘Two recommended ways of holding the camera are shown above. Some other way may be more convenient—but be sure you: (A) Avoid camera movement during exposure by holding it as steady as possible. (B) Always press the shutter release with a slow, steady, squeezing action. HORIZONTAL Fils in Review Corrupt USA d. Roberto Faenza Although Corrupris.aclassictaleof the exchange of guilt (like Strangers on a Train) which bears out that fdm noir logic in which the wrong man is gui ty anyway, it doesn't look or really fee like one. There is a sexual tension and ambiguity in the ‘main characters that makes a dangerous situation uitecomplicated—or atleast alittle more interest- ing than it would otherwise be. Fred O'Connor (Harvey Keitel is @ cop in the ‘Narcotics Division who officially livesin Brooklyn but who, under a different name, shares a large apartment on Central Park West, with Bob. There, this cop with blue-collar origins, will smoke an expensive cigar, pour himself a shot of Johnny Walker Red, put on some music, and gaze ‘outat the expensive view of Central Park and Fifth Avenue. He has been able to play out this odd, part-time fantasy for four years, from the kick- backs he gets as a narcotics cop, but things start hhappening all at once. Bodies of cops in the narcotics squad have been found with their throats slit (with a bread knife?) and theres suspicion that i is acop who is doing the killing. O'Connor comes “home” one day to find Bob shaving off his beard and packing to leave. He has decided to sell his share in the apart- ‘ment and find a place in the country with Le(o)nore. ‘Appale, weird boy (John Lydon) whom we think is the cop-killer starts following O'Connor around, ‘and one day slips past the doorman and pays O'Connor a visit. He confesses to the killings (why2). O'Connor refuses to believe him, slaps him around abit, and locks him in the closet. He gets out (with a bread knife?) but doesn't leave and Bob is back and seems mightily concerned about this boy. The boy Leo says he is (and it turns out that indeed he is) heir to a fortune, with a grand ‘mother (Sylvia Sidney) rating around in a Hud- son Valley mansion In his upstairs bedroom there, ‘we see (late) even more to bogele the ming: lif size photographs of Leo, naked and bound in black leather S&M paraphernalia. Grandma thinks Leo fels the need to confess to crimes he didn’t com- ‘mit, to pay for his inheritance which he feels he doesn't deserve. We've already heard O'Connor's own inverted ideas about confession and corrup- tion (it’s the reporters who are responsible forthe Killings; and to do nothing is corrupt) and Leo in sists that O’Connor has a need to confess, which i why Leo chose him. ‘There are more scenes back in O'Connor's bath- room of Leo naked and bound. Then Bob is killed. Lenore, a reporter, is suspicious about every thing and wants to write a book about Bob and the ‘whole affair, but of course the affuir is not con ‘luded nor anywhere near resolved. This film is quite interesting, and a nicely de signed production besides although the fimstock fof cinematography is uneven)—from Fred and Bob's nearly empty I-could-go-for-something- Gordon's apartment, to Sylvia Sidney's denim outfit and tennis shoes. The casting is inspired — in fact it makes one realize what’s wrong wit so many otherwise good movies. Even ifone had not seen any other Harvey Keitel movies or had no ‘dea who John Lydon a.k.2. Johnny Rotten is, or didn’t consciously know why Bob must be hand: some, almost pretty, these choices work in the way they're meant to, which is to say, to subtle but compelling effect. Hlichood’s name is aways invoked apropos fms ‘whose stories hinge on shared gui, mistaken identities and iroictwiss offi, but inthe cae of Come there ‘rence is particularly af. Though O'Connor appears st frst simply tobe simply the vc of Leo's obsessions (ral is vices are minor it quickly becomes lear ‘thar his ov guilt (over what exactly, one i kf to wor- de as acted sighting rod, drawing the bol fram the bueto im, Atempeing wo erica himseif,O'Con- nor chooses a course of action tha is bound to make things worse his are not the ations ofa afl, nocent rman, but these of ane with sami to hide. Overy that thing isthe apanment, bur there seems to be even ‘more; afer al, Lenore is capable of seriously wondering ‘whether he might be the killer. This is the aspect of Cor rp that cleats it above the level of mere nastiness nto the realm ofthe intriguingly perverse RL Star 80 USA. 4d. Bob Fosse Bob Fosse's Star 80, Jonathan Kaplan's Heart Like a Wheel and Philip Kaufman's The Right ‘Stuff all have one basic fault in common: the film makers have miscalculated the realty effect on which their films are based All three films strive to recreate real-ife events instead of building upon them. The films need, ‘ultimately, only to refer to these events; instead, they make these events their backbone. This is un- fortunate because media events do not become dramatic stories by themselves. They contain stories which have to be treated in their own right, in terms of the live of individuals in which the ‘media events form only a backdrop. What direc tors Fosse, Kaplan and Kaufman do is use the ‘media events themselves as units of dramatic con- struction for their film stories. The result is that Intimate Strangers (Corrupt) these film stories remain far removed from the fabric of individual lives and consequently, from the stuff of drama, ‘Kaufman constructs his film story around cer tain breakthroughs in aviation history andthe suc cessive accomplishments of the Mercury Project. Kaplan’s film story concerns the successive drag racing championships won by Shirley Muldown- ey. Fosse contrasts Dorothy Stratten’s murder with her ise to popularity as a Playboy center fold. In all three cases, the viewer who enters the hall in search of a story is shortchanged by the depiction of events whose authenticity does not ‘make up forthe lack of human drama, In Star 80, we get only a glimmering of an in sight into centerfold Dorothy Stratten’s life and even for this litle bit, no thanks are due to director Fosse, The artistic intent behind Fosse’s suppos edly sophisticated formal structure may have been to highlight the sense of mystery behind the in stant captured in a snapshot. Instead of attempting to reveal this mystery, Fosse capitalizes on it. Like the disjointed flashes of time, immortalized in lossy, multi-plated color, which comprise his JANUARYIFEBRUARY 1984 3 hheroine’s claim to fame, everything is disjointed in Fosse's presentation. Fosse insists on preserving, the mystery behind the Strtten pin-up by distanc- {ng us from Straten's life as well. He does this by intercutting Dorothy's rise fom her life as a ‘waitress in a fast-food outlet in Vancouver to na tionwide popularity s “Playboy's Playmate ofthe ‘Yeat” with scenes of interviews by her and about her. Fosse also juggles with time. All this might Ihave succeeded had Fosse kept the focus ofhis film confined to Stratten. Apparently unsure of being able to sustain an en tire film on his kind of formal distancing, Fosse dwells instead on Stratten's “discoverer,” a worth less smalltown greaseball of a hustler whose acquisitive jealousy eventually leads him to ‘murder Dorothy. What a girl like Dorothy could find attractive in someone like Snider is left for 4 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW Playboy's Hugh Hefner to comment upon in an interview that interrupts scenes of courtship. This is a fair indication of Fosse’s stylistic concern for Dorothy's tragedy. ‘What is unfortunate from the dramatic point of view, however, is that it does not tke the number of scenes that Fosse devotes to Snider for us to size him up. We want to know more about Dorothy Dut seldom are her feelings allowed to reveal them- selves to us. Either Fosse cus to interviews of her ‘or to Playboy pin-ups of her to blowups of her on Snider’s wall. For example, after Hefner (played with undeserved sincerity by Cliff Robert: son) opposes Dorothy's plans of marriage to Snider, Dorothy is shown leaving the room, mut tering to herself, “T'm so confused. I don't think anybody understands. I owe it to him.” Fosse dis tances us at once by cutting to an informal press conference where Dorothy cites her vital statistics and speaks of Snider’s work as that of organizing shows. Bang on follows a rowdy male strip show organized by Snider. And so on. This frenetic pace leaves us with the feeling of being cheated out of Dorothy Stratten’s reali story. More so, because Mariel Hemingway brings to our notice the transformation in Dorothy. In bed witha film director who tells her that she has matured, the precise extent of Dorothy's maturity is visible in Mariel Hem- ingway’s performance. It is Dorothy’s lack of idealism about her work that makes it clear to us just how mature she has become and so she rises immeasurably in our estimation. Thus, Fosse’s repeated cuts to interviews and scenes of Snider appear even more unjustified The one truth that emerges ou of Star 80s that Eye of the Beheld (Star 80) Foss's style isn't so much formalism ss a cop-out Given a choice between sensation and insight, Fosse chooses sensation asa safe box-office bet and then drapes it in Citizen Kanetype formalism. Moreoever, Star 8 isa coprout in more ways than one. Hefner and Playboy are transposed ‘onto the screen without change of name but the ‘name of the film director andthe tiles of his films have been changed. Fosse expects us o play along with his publicity-oriented fctionalizng. Simi- larly, Fose opens his film with shots of Snider's blood-stained face. We are to assume that he has just murdered Dorothy. Fosse keeps cuting back to the blood but not to the scene or the act of murder. Again, a cop-out. Fosse ams at revulsion bout not up to the point where it might become a boxoffice threat Perhaps along with Heart Like a Whee! and The Right Stuf Star 8 represents a stage inthe evlu- tion ofthe fiction film where i loses faith in the power ofits “sas” as physical constants andsceks those constants in the lives of individuals spot lighted by the media, However, to exploit the Power ofthese constants would require the flm- makers to know what they are doing. Fosse’ ig norance becomes particlaly disturbing because it represents an artistic attiutude to a reab-fe tragedy. One can only hope thatthe atitude isa lapse on the part ofan individual director and not symptomatic ofthe times. Sudden Impact U.S.A. d. Clint Eastwood Detective Harry Callahan offends his San Fran- cisco Police Department superiors yet again by displaying just atl too publicly his contempt for procedure and proper channels, which only get in the way of his pursuit of frontier justice. He's sent to investigate the background of the victim of a brutal castration/murder, whose seaside home- town seems just the place for Harry to lay low while things cool off. There he discovers a heady enclave of smalltown perversity and corruption, and he eventually uncovers the identity of the kaller as well, though not before several more indi- viduals die. After realizing the muderer’s eminent- ly just motive (good, clean revenge), Harry les a dead psychopath take the rap forthe killings and is able to rest assured that the aims of erue justice have been served. Freed from the constraint of subtle narrative by the wellknown history of the Dirty Harry pic- tures, Sudden Impacts an assured piece of baroque filmmaking. The minimal plot is established at a leisurely pace; the opening sequences are mostly reiterations of Harry's persona—he’s tough, he's High Plains Drifter (Sudden Impact) cool, he doesn't take any nonsense from anyone and he doesn't care about the rules, etc, ec. ete ‘That's not news, and neither is the story proper. Sociopaths clude the system, Harry sets outon the track of a Killer, people die, Harry survives @ savage beating and ultimately ges his man, one ‘way or another. What makes all his entertaining is the gleefil lan with which itis executed. The gi dy opening shots of nighttime San Francisco set the stage for what isto some; they're pop-culture bbeautifial, slick, and a little disconcerting. What, after all, do they have to do with anything? Nothing happens during these shots, they don't tell the viewer that Harry has joined the airborne division, they don’t even lay bare the geography of the city that isn't even where most ofthe action takes place. They're just there because they're tit Jating fan to watch. They function inthe same way a the oppressively extreme close-ups that occa- sionally fill the screen—the action is stopped dead, and a peculiar tension is generated by the very in- ability of such extreme shots to advance the narra- tive. By denying straightforward movement through space and time, these shots create an abstract, disjointed space that demands ex- ploration. Unlike truly baroque filmmakers like Leone, Fellini and Russell, Eastwood's employment of such extreme elements is sporadic—long stetches of relatively conservative exposition connect the stylized set pieces. The set pieces are, however, JANUARYIFEBRUARY 19845 ————_—_—_————————— sufficiently amazing to warrant the wait. In an ea ly conffontation (the ‘‘go ahead, make my day” (one) Harry is fired upon by overarmed thugs at ridiculous range, telegraphs his draw through a speech tha, though entertaining, is a prime exam- ple of outrageous time-wasting, and still shoots them all down and walks away without a scratch. He should be dead with his hand halfway to his ‘guns fhe were the equivalent of Tuco's nemesis in The Good, The Bad, and The Usly (“When you Ihave to shoot, shoot—don't talk"), he would be. ‘The thought suggests itself that Harry Callahan ‘must have died in some previous, unseen film and really has returned as some kind of exterminating ange (in fact the scenario of his remarkable High Plains Drifier, particularly when men with sub- machine guns spray an entire area but miss him (the phrase “shooting fish in a barrel” covers the situation) and wind up dead themselves. He drives his car calmly even as itis consumed by flames (ala Gihristine, gives a tough mobster a heart attack by ‘mere verbal intimidation and virtually rises from the dead onscreen: beaten and thrown into the river, he reappears silhouetted against garish car nival lights, a gloomy phoenix whose sloppy presence puts the fear into the most sanguine evildoers. Less metaphysically, Sudden Impact features some outrageously overdetermined images (most of them involving guns) which culminate in the Kalling ofthe vile psychopath, who is impaled on the horn of a carousel unicorn which bobs fero- ciously up and down as blood streaks its wooden sides. I's all just a litle much for words. Bur then, thats the point ofthe cinema, or atleast one of its points. —MM. Scarface U.S.A. 4. Brian DePalma ‘More than most movies Scarface hopes, I think, asa gangster film and remake, to rely on the rtual- istic element (in viewing the movie) of knowing the genre and the events (based on the life of AL (Capone) that provide plot sources. What happens, though, is that an element of boredom gnaws away a its underside. Nevertheless iti a highly enter- taining movie, with flash and energy, some violence, and enough observation of detail (how they dress, how they furnish their houses, and so 6) to help one overcome the problem that one al- ‘ways seems to know what's coming next AA Pacino is terrific, foreign accent and all. He hholds together this epic charting ofthe rise and fall of Tony Montana, Cuban immigrant to Florida, ‘who dreams the American Dream too quickly and too extremely, with some perverse and catas- trophic results. The original Scarface (1932) by ‘Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht, with Paul Muni, is set in Chicago with the bootlegging of liquor 6 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW during Prohibition providing Tony Camonte with. the opportunity to reach for whatever itis thatthe American Dream offers. Now it is cocaine that puts tens of millions of dollars into Tony ‘Montana's coffers, and he has time to ask himself, before everything goes wrong, what it’s all for and why. Asin the eponymous 1932 film, Pacino's “Scar face” rises in the ranks ofthe gangleader’s racket to become his secondin-command, then orders his Killing (not before the gangleader tries to kill im) and becomes boss, also taking over the angleader’s mistress, a Vogue-cover-beautiful blonde whom he calls “my tiger.” The fulfillment ‘of the American Dream for these people isnot so paradoxically an emptying out of meaning, since they lack imagination. The “tiger” does nothing ‘but lounge by the pool, wear gorgeous clothes, polish her fingemails, and snort coacine in ever ‘greater quantities. He keeps making more money, but also breaks Rule No. 2: never (snort?) your ‘own product. At the height of their money-suc- cess, “Scarface” and the “tiger” are shown in his (curely the world’s largest) bathroom, bitching iri- tably like Charles Foster Kane and Susan Alex ander at Xanadu. Things can only end badly for these two, Curiously, “‘Scarface’s” biggest supplier, the English-educated Bolivian of good family, begins to function asthe image ofthe successful racketeer against which we are led to measure the reasons for ‘Tony Montana's downfall. Implicit in the parallel between this suave, elegant ganglord who lives in tasteful Iuxury somewhere in Bolivia, and our “Scarface” who literally has more money than he knows how to spend, are significant differences in style and class, and possibly sexuality, as the rea sons for Tony Montana’s perhaps inherent instab- ity and inevitable doom. Tere are hints thatthe handsome, unscrupulous Bolivian is homosexual (hints coded by the movies). Where he would not hhave hesitated to kill the innocent wife and children of his nemesis in order to save himself, Tony Montana, who wants children of his own, hesitates and then refuses. The protective feling “Scarface” has for his sister is blown by the film’s end into a shudderingly selfconscious finale of bullets and incest, a hint of necrophilia, and the ludicrous inclusion of a silent killer in dark lasses—some sort of personification of ‘Scarface’'s” nemesis, not to be taken too literally, ‘one supposes (since when did the blackest of dark slasses improve one’s aim in the blackest of dark nights2). The Bolivian Cocaine King will de be cause of a snag in his bestlaid plan. “Scarface” dlies because he has flaws in his character. ‘As with all of DePalma’s films, to a greater or lesser degree in each, Scarface shoots the rapids in American Dreamer (Scarface) 1 dangerous course between allusion, hommage, cliche and plagiarism, healthy selfreflexivity and pretentiousness, violent sexiness and porno- graphy, exuberant vulgarity and sheer tasteless- ness. If you're a DePalma fan you'll love it. If you're not a DePalma fan but a Pacino fan, you'll like Pacino anyway, in spiteofthismovie. —R.L. Terms of Endearment USA. 4d. James L. Brooks James L. Brooks! Terms of Endearmont has be- ‘come the most highly praised example of the ‘American neo-melodrama which emerged in the late seventies. The characters are contemporary ‘American self images; they probably remind us of people we know, o a least people we have seen on ‘TV sitcoms and commercials. Brooks’ television experience gave him the advantage of understand- ing the American visual illusion of who and what we are, and hie style of directing made a sophist- cated translation from TV to film. Brooks succerds at Old Hollywood's chief spe- cialty: the melodramatic but convincing reflection of American life. Like the best melodrama, depth of characterization is the essence of Terms of En dearment, The script (also by Brooks) develops in derail the personal evolutions ofthe two main char- acters, Aurora (Shirley MacLaine) and Emma (Debra Winger) The title is @ verbal irony, capturing the dual nature of Aurora and Emma's mother-daughter relationship. All the scenes up to Emma’s move to Des Moines with her family focus on the ambi- sguity and latent/not so latent hostility surrounding their love. “Terms of endearment” can mean words of affection, or it can mean conditions plac cedon someone for approval and loveto be given. It is Aurora's expectations and control of Emma that center the film, unifying the two plotlines of Em- sma’s marriage and Aurora's midlife reawakening, ‘This mother domination is what undermines Em- sma’s marriage ‘There is a dark side to Terms of ‘which is emotionally darker than Emma's cancer. ‘The repartee between Emma and Aurora is ini ‘mate—too intimate, maybe frighteningly intimate. Debra Winger portrays Emma as intimidated, her thinking ruled by her mother. They are roo close, a indearment Setting Out the Terms (Terms of Endearment) “erm” or condition of Auror which she hes all the power. Shirley MacLaine’s characterization of Aurora defines this in the opening scene, when she pinches the infant Emma. When she forces her ‘way into the bed ofthe young Emma following her fbusband’s funeral, Emma’s hesitation and ‘Aurora's will clash forthe frst time onscreen. Em ‘Emma was more than just ordinarily hurt when ‘Aurora did not attend her wedding. Winger’s facial gestures are marvelous at showing this. Why did she forgive Aurora unquestioningly, and talk snimatedly with her on the phone the same day, just as she and Flap (fff Daniels) were about to ‘make love? Whose love did she need more, Flap’s or her mother's? Emma always seems full of rosy naivete. Be neath it, she does not seem to believe in herself, as ‘when she tells Flap how he'll hurt himself if he hurts her. She is constantly on the edge of hope thar this transparent oversincerty will win some- one over. It didn’t work on the supermarket cashier, but Sam Burns (played by John Lithgor) may have found some of Emma’s hidden beauty (and she his). Emma’s choice to keep her affair a JANUARYIFEBRUARY 19847 —————$—$—_—_—_—_—_————————————— deathbed secret from Flap was among the movie's ‘most individual touches. We are never told anything about how Sam and Emma relate. Terms of Endearment is full ofthis kind of food for thought. The movie is sufficient ‘nits surface, but the characters are rich enough to provoke viewer speculation about the remainder of their lives. This is arguably one of Brooks’ chief successes with his film. Terms of Endearment is something of the “romantic comedy” Brooks claims. The outstand ing comic moments between MacLaine and Jack Nicholson are only the most obvious display ofthe magic they create together. Winger enlivens the screen with juicy comic energy, though her scenes are never really funny. But it remains the dark emotional sce ofthe characters that lends so much suggestive power to the three star performances. Jack Nicholson as Garrett Breedlove may be mellowed by the closing postfuneral scene, but a warped character stil lurks beneath the charm. ‘MacLaine, of course, has created the role whi encapsulates her career, allowing usto unify every- thing she has ever done. Isn't this also true of Nicholson and Breedlove? Nicholson says 0 much through this supporting role because the 8 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW decadent astronaut is his type, quintessentially distilled. ‘The acting, in particular that of the two ‘ve rans,” has received every possible accolade. Much of what enable MacLaine and Nicholson to reach these heights was the scope for selPexpres- sion provided by the parts. Brooks was able 10 licit performances of memorable intensity by subuly shaping the characters to the ators, yet pre- serving a breadth of originality. The latter offered space for MacLaine and Nicholson, as well 2s Winger, to go beyond self limitation, to do a great deal ofnew workin delineating ther roles. Intelli- gence and care of this kind is more than just rare. One is tempted to hope that Brooks will become the next modern-day Hollywood mogul. —L.M. The Keep USA. d. Michal Mann Despite warnings from the local peasants, Nazi soldiers occupy the Keep, a strangely designed for- tress nestled in a mountain pass in Romania. They are soon sorry to have done so—soldiers are hor ribly Killed by something that roams the corridors at night. There is some talk of partisans, but the message “I Will Be Free” carved ona wall in an ancient Romanian language suggests that the guilt lies elsewhere, somewhere far more sinister A Jewish doctor who grew up in the town that ies at the doorstep ofthe Keep is brought there with is devoted daughter, Eva) to try to uncover its secret, and soon afer a stranger arrives in the village call fed by some supernatural means. The doctor is tricked into becoming the ally of the Keep's demon prisoner, Malasor, while his daughter be comes the stranger's lover. Inthe climactic on the stranger and the demon are destroyed within the Keep, while the doctor and his daughter are reunited without ‘A big budget film with great production value, ambitious but lessthan-sucessful effects and st tractive ating, The Keep falters under the weight of ts pretentions. The human evil ex ancient evil theme is played out thoroughly and unsubrly ina form clearly meant 10 suggest some kind of fry tale for adults, The Romanian vile isa pastel, nistshrouded locus of enduring values (family, church, community) the Keep ablack, monolithic frontation, The Haunted Screen (The Keep) challenge toll that is right withthe world—a bed- chamber where the sleep of reason does indeed produce monsters. The Jewish Dr. Cuza is the Keep's unwitting Faust, who sells his soul to ‘Malasor (who needs a human consort to remove the talisman which binds him tothe Keep) for the best of reasons and, asa bonus, reeuins his youth and strength in retum. The stranger is Malasor’s benevolent mirror image: fleshtoned rather than black, with green eyes (green—fertilty, rebirth) to Malasor’s red (red— flames, destruction). The truncated cross that ‘keeps Malasor’s evil contained is opposed to the ‘broken cross of the Third Reich, emblematic of ‘evil unleashed, and between the poles lies the im- Potent slavic cross of the Orthodox church. “There is a humane German officer and his re- placement, the psychopathic Nazi sadist who kills ‘him and isin turn destroyed by the demon, even as hhe brandishes a stolen cross. This is all very schematic, but it never really leads anyplace. For all the allusions tothe cra evil that les within the human heart, the only eal monster around is Mal- asor. Admittedly, The Keep is caught in arock-and- sshard-place situation in this respect: graphic final solution footage would be in the worst ofall pos: sible taste, but vague allusions just don’t carry the ressage. This dilemma points up The Keeps larger problem —its philosophical pretentions are illsuited to its format. David Pirie’s contention that Nigh ofthe Living Dead merits reading as an ‘exploration of America’s Vietnam mentality is apt precisely because the film is not abour Vietnam; horror films can easily reflect, sometimes power- fall, political issues, bu they don't function well 4 political allegories. That i, perhaps, the realm ofthe adult ry tale, but fo, then something else is amiss in The Keep. Whatever it is, the film is ‘neither one thing nor another: political but not o0 Political is, after all, set ina very safe past—who ‘an reasonably argue forthe Nazi movement and its results?) spiritual but not roo much so, allegor- ‘cal with Freudian underpinnings but not too per- verse (what of Cuza’s regained and lost youth and his slavishly devoted daughter?) and violent but not overly so. This tasteful line-walking is The Keep’s eventual undoing; al too often it wobbles into sheer dullness, and no amount of beautifil ‘Photography can save it. =MM. Christine US.A. 4. John Carpenter Amie Cunningham, a high school outcast is possessed to buy 2 rusty, broken-down 1957 Ply- ‘mouth Fury named “Christine” (by her demented owner?). As her new owner Arnie is gradually transformed into a pretty nasty type, even as the car spontaneously regenerates. When she is vandalized by local thugs who are also (almost co- incidentally) the worst of Arnie’s former tormen- tors, Christine takes off down the long road ofven- geance and wreaks a pretty havoc with several teen-aged bodies. Armies best fiend and former girlitiend realize that something terrible is going ‘on and resolve to put @ stop to it—they comer Christine e garage and inthe ensuing fray Arie dies with an icy shard of her windshield through his heart. She winds up in an automobile grave yard, compacted into an unguiet rectangle of twisted metal, stil bad to the bone John Carpenters perhaps Stephen King’s most perfect cinematic interpreter, though Brian dePalma isa close contender. His ashy, shallow style isthe deal equivalent of King’s brand-name- ridden prose; familia allusive and ultimately fair ly meaningless. Christine herself is perfec, a candy-colored-vermillion fake streamlined-baby to ‘warm the hear of any American romantic—thisis 2 car to admire, to lust after and possess only at one’s peril. Chriss kustom kar kommandos perish because they are unworthy to live in the Same world with such perfection, unless they are willing to become worshipping acolytes, ike Ar- nie, and even heis ultimately unable to survive the aura ofhis demon lover. Heady stuf for a teenage car movie, and finally litle more than the fim can comfortably sustain, ‘its most obvious Christine is iritating—when her doors lock shu he radio plays Lite Richard screaming “You keep s-knocking but you can't come in”; as she prepares to bite the hand of ‘quality checker asshe rolls ffthe assembly lines in the opening scene, the soundtrack offers George ‘Thorogood snarling “Bad tothe Bone”—very lit- tle ofthis sort of thing is quite enough. The elder Cunninghams are justo unreasonable, the pre transformation Arnie such a geek thatthe mind rebels—thedeckis obviously stacked fom the start and though such artifice can be pleasing, it isnt always so. Nevetheless at its best Cine is pop- poetry, @ sappy ballad about a boy and his car thwarted by fate and united in death. The lyrics couldbebeter,butitsgotagreatbeat. MLM. d. David Cronenberg The Dead Zon, David Cronenberg’ ost eent fm and one of spate of curent adaptations of ‘Steven King novels, came and went rather quick- Iyshaving slipped trough the rack of the anal avalanche ofhoidy ims. Ir wa el victim of critical condescension (they didn’t dislike it but couldn't possibly have laded it and of the increasingly rabid needs ofthe target uence for this type of “product.” “Making fall use ofa generally sharp and pare screenplay by Jeffrey Boam, Cronenberg found the paycholgial enter of King’s story, and developed a miseenscene based on it. Thank: fll, he chose not to superimpose his by now ‘overwrought schtick onto the material. Cronen- ‘berg has practically surrendered his repertoire of special effects for a more fundamental cinematic ‘excitement, letting his effets come out ofthe a ing andthe power ofimages of human connection and disconnection. ‘The story begins with schoolteacher Jonny Smith played by Christopher Walke, showing us his budding relationship with fellow teacher Sarah (Brooke Adams, in a moving performance). The sense of impending dissolution is achieved with reat exonomy a terrifying rollercoaster ride all the more effective forthe lack of extaordinarness ofthe presentation; and a parting scene on rainy potch, all the more wrenching for the shee cre bility ofthe actor's responses. (The scenes capped by a line uttered by Walken, one that resonates with ll the proper iter irony. Sarah ask Johnny to come inside, and he declines: “Some things are ‘worth wating fr”) Johnny driveshome alone inthe rai, anda milk truck the size ofan oil truck that has gone out of control ying on its side and bathed in blue ight, sates slowiy uphill before coming into view. But ofcourse it's 10 lat for Walken in his vulnerable ‘VW; predicabl, he crashes into the sie ofthis mobil edifice, and white uid gurgesoutonto the ground. Not so predictably, he wakes up inaclinic only tobe told by the head doctor (Herbert Lom) that he's been in a coma forthe unlikely stretch of| five years. An awkward device to be sure, but enough to pave the way forthe subsequent inter: vention ofthe supernatural: Johnny is now able read minds and hook into the past, present, and farure, simply by grasping the subjec’s hand. The device works perfectly to enable Cronen- berg and Walken to work their way deeply and camestly into the rich subtext ofthe story. The result isa lot more than one would ever expect fiom a Steven King vebicle—perhaps even more than “The Shining.” Having ‘zoned-out having Jos time and hence his job his girlrend—in too, his worldly connections, Johnny wakes up not deadened, nt spacedout, not grotesque, nt phy- sically transformed, not super powerful—just lost, but now even more painfully connected to the world of others. And remarkably, his inital lost 1nes, his profound malas, slowly gives way 10 a sense of responsibility of connectedness, based on an achingly heightened sensitivity to the lives of others. Walken plays this with briliant, understated nuances he creeps under the skin with aconrlled bt powerfully expressive sens of bth aloneness and connection. He’ parched insde—as Walken plays im, Jobnay has had so much ie crushed out of im as to emotionally wasted, but not so ‘much as to spare him the suffering of having lost his grip on existence, He also sill has the eapacty for revivifcaton. When Sarah, who married while Johnny slum- JANUARYIFEBRUARY 1984 9 ‘ered, overcomes her inhibitions in order to sleep with him (“some things are worth waiting for") his joie de vivre is restored for an instant. But as they part, Sarah lets him know that it can never hhappen again, only confirming that he can never regain the piece of his life that slipped away—he's left with the sting of needs and feelings re- awakened ‘This prompts Johnny to finally use his powers altruistically: to catch a habitual murderer, to save a young boys lifes to stop @ power-mad politician (Martin Sheen) who, in Johnny’s vision, would eventually become the button-pusher of nuclear apocalypse. These episodes overlap seamlessly and ‘ach has moments of real power. Sarah is woven back into the story under not- very-redible circumstances, bur the denouement, ‘hich involves their reunion at the moment of Johnny's death, i 0 strong that we don't ask ques- tions (atleast I didn). ‘The point behind Johnny's powers is a con- cxpt—"Dead Zone”—which is explained as the “blank spor’ in his visions that represent the possi bility of altering the outcome ofthe premonition. Finally, a scifi concept that has emotional and oh my God) political resonance! It’s something the protagonist actually discovers for himself, not something we're fed like so much psychotropic shredded wheat. Whats so surprising is that it's Cronenberg who Keeps flooding his pictures with imteresting but convoluted ideological scifi con- ceptualizations that don’t jive with the basic ten sions and requirements ofthe story being told (see ‘Scanners, Videodrome). Here the concept really works. Walken disocversthathe can seethe future, and then that he can alter it; he ean make the eru- cial difference. I's philosophically old hat, but in the hands of Cronenberg and Walken, the idea has fiesh visual and dramatic reverberation Perhaps there isan explanation for such a plea- sant surprise as Dead Zone; Cronenberg had vicious nightmare two years ago, one where he made a film about a band of alien terrorists who come to take over the world, disguised as door-t0- door salesmen, each of whom has a proboscis that ‘70ws into an M-16 that shoots radioactive bullets capable of turning victims into flesh-and-blood VCR's programmed to kill everyone. But thank- fally there was a blank spot—let’s call ita “dead zone'—in Cronenberg’s nightmare. I allowed for the possibilty of altering this gruesome vision, and atleast for now, thas been. -HD. Silkwood U.S.A. d. Mike Nichols Itis Meryl Streep’s acting, rather than the plight ‘of the character she plays, that makes one warm to Sillewood, her remarkably serious and intimate ‘conception of the role is completely in line with the 10 COLUMBIA FILM REVIEW Down the Backroads of My Mind (The Dead Zone) film’s underplayed execution, which allows no room for showy or arty displays of emotion. This ‘heroine is a woman who is both earthy and sexy, perhaps even alittle slovenly in her demeanor and ‘careflly reserved judgment—one is never sure ‘what her personal idiosyncrasies mean to her own happiness, but they are there and part of her. The film simply enumerates these traits ina believable ‘manner and demonstrates their effects on the peo- ple around her, as well as showing some of the overt choices Karen Silkwood made during her brief ie. ‘The events surrounding that life are not there just to lead up to her eventual death. That death is not inevitable because of any one action, or even ‘group of actions; her end simply occurs in almost the same surprising and inexplicable way that such things really happen. Silkwood’s awakening as a socially responsible person is not handled as a ‘great victory over the mindless doltishness that is the norm at the plutonium processing plant where she works, nor is it clear that she has signed her ‘own death warrant by speaking out against those in power. These things are clearly possibilities, and there are intimations that various conspiracies hhave risen up against her and it is more than pos- sible that her death is actually an assassination. But the fault does not lie squarely with one or more of the other characters, in a refreshing break from the norm for bio-dramas, nr is it brought irrevocably home to Silkwood herself. There is no clear-cut blame in Siflwood, only sadness at the waste and horror at the lessons unlearned. Sitksood is not Norma Rae meets The China Syndrome, Rather, it is film about cerain people ina situation which they have perhaps helped to create, but which also exist independently of the manipulations of the higher beings—the screenwriter and the director. Meryl Steep deserves credit for playing Silk- ‘wood so modestly yet with such a sense of personal worth. Hers is a complex delineation ofa character whose overriding characteristic is that she would blend into almost any crowd. A character remarks that Silkwood!'s moods shift from bitch to angel, and Streep manages to make both believable with- ‘ou giving the sense that she is outside the charac- ter, looking in. Silkwood’s character is Fused into a cogent whole, and the characterization builds to- ‘wards a conclusion in which her feclings and Streep's are indistinguishable, ‘Mike Nichols must be commended for directing film s0 alien to his previous, britle work. Some of Silkewood's minor cfaractes are showcased in a fashion that is too showy and cameo like, but there are many other examples of almost imperceptible naturalness and beauty. The contrast between the (Oklahoma landscapes and the coldness of the fac- tory is never just acheap effec, for even the factory is inflected by the life forces of its workers, and a sunset doesn’t mean much if there's nobody around to appreciate it. Kurt Russells especially well directed—he never seems to be straining for obvious, showy emotions. Rather, his love and ‘compassion come through in juxtaposition to his —_—_—_—_— ‘nominal macho-ness. Cher is also impressive as Silkwood's lesbian roommate, but her role is underdeveloped except fora final brief suggestion that she shared accidental complicity in her fiend’s death. ‘Sitlewood concludes with a slowed down version ‘of her last visit with her lover before she is killed. On first viewing the scene is affecting just because ‘one knows that is about to happen and she doesn't, ‘buta second reveals even more the nuances in Sil ‘wood’ personality I is the beauty ofthis remark- able film that it manages to find the most feeling in apparently inconsequential moments. Reuben, Reuben US.A. 4d. Robert Ellis Miller Reuben, Reuben seems for most ofits running time tobe surviving rather nicely the handicaps of a fairly banal plot and some excruciating dialogue ofthe “I's because I love you that I won't marry you” sort. The acting and sometimes witty dia~ dogue area the mercies of a lched vision ofthat classic stereotype, the drunken English poet at large among the uptight Connecticut Wasps. The film does benefit from a top-notch performance by ‘Tom Cont in the leading (but not he tte) role, but this apparently minor issue (titular vs starring) is part of its fital Naw-—one which ultimately destroys the film and turns it into a thoroughly nasty piece of work. ‘The story is essentially the center section of a novel by Peter DeVries, dating with several deni- zens of a small Connecticut town. Gowan McGland (!), the oversexed but poetic sot fits neat- ly into DeVries’ biterly ironic fictive world, and his die fates sealed by the one character whom he treats decently. The servantimaster relationship which i at the core of his felings about his uli mate assassin is cleverly contrasted with ‘McGland’s own shame at spanging money from people he doesn’t like and (even more painfully) fiom those few whom he does. Reuben, Reuben chops out all DeVries’ side characters, and what's left is @ portrait of a selfish drunk who happens to ‘be witty and interesting but isn't profound or wor- thy of much attention. There are reasons why the entire female population of this small town should develop sudden aymphomania around this un- emptbore, but that clearly dont interest the film- ‘maker enough to explore them. In fact, nothing is explored except the imme- diate concerns of MeGland. There are some pre

    You might also like