Daily Archives: Saturday, April 2, 2016

  • High-Rise

    Ben Wheatley (2015)

    ‘Later, as he sat on his balcony eating the dog, Dr Robert Laing reflected on the unusual events that had taken place within this huge apartment building during the previous three months.’

    This is the famous first line of J G Ballard’s dystopian novel High-Rise, which describes the breakdown of mod cons and the moral order in a newly-built high-rise block in London in the mid-1970s.  (The novel was published in 1975.)  Within a paragraph, Ballard has begun to relate these ‘unusual events’.  The prologue to Ben Wheatley’s film lasts only a few minutes but is significantly different.  The opening shots of the interior of the building suggest the aftermath of cataclysm; the canine limbs roasting on a spit are, rather than a bewildering starting point, the climax to the prologue and of a piece with the images that have preceded them.  High-Rise is Wheatley’s fifth feature.  I’ve not seen his first, Down Terrace; of the next three, Sightseers has the best script (it’s the only Wheatley film to date for which someone other than he or Amy Jump had the main writing credit).  Sightseers wasn’t as effective as it should have been, though, thanks to the director’s impatience to indulge his appetite for mayhem – a predilection that trumps storytelling:  it comes as no surprise that he plays more of his hand than J G Ballard does at the very start of High-Rise.  It’s no surprise either, therefore, that Wheatley and Amy Jump (who has the sole screenplay credit this time) prove to be less interested in the process of disintegration than in putting on a gruesomely spectacular show – a more expensively gruesome spectacular show than the budgets for Wheatley’s previous films allowed.  (None of them cost a seven-figure sum.  IMDB and Wikipedia don’t currently give the production costs of High-Rise but Nick Roddick’s interview with Wheatley in the Standard last September mentions ‘a budget north of $5m’.)

    The inhabitants of the high-rise reflect a British social hierarchy, though only part of the real thing.  The tower block’s architect, Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons), lives at the very top with his wife Ann (Keeley Hawes).  The roof of the building features a formal garden and a Marie Antoinette folly.  This was designed by Royal for his wife but she remains unsmiling – and indolent, except for hosting parties for the upper-class residents who live on the upper levels.  Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston), a medical academic, moves into an apartment on the twenty-fifth of forty floors.  (Ballard probably meant his protagonist’s name to evoke the psychiatrist R D Laing – just as the architect’s surname is right for the man at the top – but there doesn’t seem to be a deeper connection.)  Lower down the building are families – one of them including a documentary film-maker called Richard Wilder (Luke Evans), his pregnant wife Helen (Elisabeth Moss) and their young children.  The dwellers in the lower depths are the first to suffer from the power failures and other technical breakdowns; much of the violence becomes tribal; but nearly everyone in the building seems to be middle-class or upwards.  Among the few exceptions are the surly, antagonistic Nathan Steele (Reece Shearsmith) and the caretaker (Robert Way):  their underclass status is established mainly by their relatively unprepossessing looks.

    The voice of Margaret Thatcher, extolling laissez-faire capitalism, supplies a brief postscript to the film.  It’s hard to fathom why Wheatley decided to introduce this jarring, incongruous note of Political Irony – unless as intended compensation for neglecting the social structure details of the story during the preceding two hours.  He’s indifferent to detailing the class distinctions of the place other than by obvious visual means – nor does he dramatise the gradual but inexorable breakdown of life in the building.  Wheatley prefers to keep upping the lethal ante and the result is a film chock-full of super-gross images, which plenty of people will enjoy and plenty more will be nervous about not enjoying.  The latter can find relief in the occasional campy touches.  Edgy laughter in the Curzon at Wimbledon settled into easier titters when a costume party at the top of the building was scored to an arrangement of Abba’s ‘SOS’.  The number is reprised at greater length in a later sequence that’s closer to the plangent tone of the Abba original – but ‘SOS’ got a laugh here too.  (I felt grateful that this is an impregnably good pop song.)  In the foyer afterwards, a youngish woman was telling her companion that this ‘must be one of the best uses ever made of an Abba song’ in a film.  You could hear from her awkward, eager voice she thought this was the right thing to say.  The ominous original music for the film, by Clint Mansell, is mostly superfluous to the more-than-self-sufficient sights on the screen, photographed by Laurie Rose.

    For Wheatley’s purposes, Tom Hiddleston may be the ideal Laing.  I first saw Hiddleston on screen in Midnight in Paris, in a cameo as F Scott Fitzgerald, and The Deep Blue Sea, as Freddie Page.  With prior expectations of how those roles might be played, I found Hiddleston feeble in both (more damagingly so, of course, in the larger part) but he’s now a big name:  High-Rise was released in cinemas midway through the six-week run of the BBC dramatisation of John le Carré’s The Night Manager, in which Hiddleston played Jonathan Pine, the title role.  It’s not difficult to see why he’s getting these high-profile jobs.  He holds the camera:  he’s very good-looking and able to suggest in his face a sharp mind at work behind it.  But he shows you that his character’s thinking rather than what he’s thinking.  Both in The Night Manager (which I saw on and off) and in High-Rise, Hiddleston seems like an intelligent person who’s watched screen acting and decided to give it a try.  He does an able impression of an actor acting, except that there’s no characterisation.

    Shortly after Laing moves in, he goes to a drinks party and finds himself stuck with Nathan Steele.   According to Steele, Laing, inexperienced in the ways of the building, is responsible for blocking up the rubbish chute.  In response, Laing affably reassures him:  ‘I’m a quick learner’.  As he says this, Hiddleston rocks forward on his toes, looming towards Reece Shearsmith, then rocks back again.  This socially exuberant movement doesn’t connect with anything we’ve so far seen of Laing nor with anything we see subsequently – it’s rather what an actor does, so that you notice him.  Hiddleston’s meaningless charisma may not matter for as long as he’s playing a ‘chameleon’ (I gather this is what Jonathan Pine is meant to be) or animating a character as thinly-written as Laing is (at least in the Wheatley-Jump version of the story).  His approach works fine in High-Rise but when Laing has relatively little screen time, during part of the second half, you don’t miss him.  There’s no one to miss – only a series of sleek effects.   I’m looking forward to seeing Tom Hiddleston in I Saw the Light, the forthcoming Hank Williams biopic, in which he’ll need to add up to a personality. 

    Hiddleston is surrounded by a mixed bag of supporting turns that range from the creditable-all-things-considered (Sienna Miller) to the even-worse-than-it-was-bound-to-be (James Purefoy).   Miller plays Charlotte, who is some kind of assistant to Royal – who also fathered her son, Toby (Louis Suc) – and has a relationship with Laing.  Purefoy’s cartoon of one of the high-ups is quite remarkably clumsy.   As Richard Wilder, Luke Evans is a mixed bag all on his own but he gives the film’s most taking performance.   As usual, Evans’s speaking voice lacks colour but his shouting voice is a lot better, and he has plenty of opportunity to use it – as Wilder, relegated to one of the bottom floors, leads a rebellion against the status quo and tries to make a film documenting what’s going on in the high-rise.   Evans is amusingly vigorous leading a march into the building’s swimming pool, to evict a private function and allow the residents’ kids to use the facility.  He’s a cross between a big kid himself and a much duller version of McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (this isn’t only because the top-floor residents discuss lobotomising Wilder).   Later on, though, Evans is surprisingly witty – as he purposefully eats a tin of dog food (food for dogs rather than dogs for food) and especially when, at the height of the mayhem, Wilder is asked how things are going and replies, ‘Comme ci, comme ça’.  I think I also warmed to Evans because Wilder’s angry, thwarted fight chimed with my feelings of powerlessness against the onslaught of Ben Wheatley’s hideous film-making.

    Roz Dineen in the TLS is right enough when she describes the exterior of the high-rise as ‘stunningly rendered, back-lit by a flare-casting sunshine, surrounded by cars from the 1970s’.   Wheatley – with the help of his production designer Mark Tildesley and costume designer Odile Dicks-Mireaux – strikes a clever balance between a period setting (many cigarettes are smoked) and stretching this so as to imply an enduring relevance to the themes of Ballard’s story.   The building is such a dominant image that you’d be prepared to accept its residents and facilities, which include a large supermarket, as a detached, microcosmic world.  Ben Wheatley, however, isn’t sufficiently disciplined to push for this kind of suspension of disbelief.  If he were, he surely wouldn’t have opened things out to include sequences at Laing’s work place.  The most striking of these involves Laing’s demonstration to a group of student doctors of the functioning of the human skull and brain.  This scene shows the physiologist Laing to be just as much a head doctor as his real-life namesake – but only in order for Wheatley to show a man’s head being stripped of flesh and bloodily deconstructed with a saw.  The setting of High-Rise is de luxe brutalist.  The film luxuriates in brutality.

    24 March 2016

  • Letter from an Unknown Woman

    Max Ophüls (1948)

    The film was made in Hollywood but it’s set mainly in fin-de-siècle Vienna (‘about 1900’ and the preceding years).  Stefan Brand, a former concert pianist but a more enduring hedonist, arrives home late one night; at dawn he is to fight a duel with a man called Johann Stauffer.  Brand has no intention of keeping his appointment – his opponent is a renowned duellist – and means to flee Vienna before his companions return to collect him next morning but his departure is interrupted.  He has received a letter that begins ‘by the time you read this I may be dead’ and he reads on.  Letter from an Unknown Woman is the story of a woman’s obsessive and unrequited love for a man who, following the intervals between their encounters, repeatedly fails even to recognise her from their previous meeting.  The film’s mise-en-scène is a wonder (the cinematographer was Franz Planer and the art director Alexander Golitzen).  The play of light on costumes and jewellery is beautiful and the variety of movement of Ophüls’s camera quite extraordinary:  it darts and spins, glimpses through windows and into the confined, dark interiors of horse-drawn carriages, up and down and round staircases.

    Michael Kerbel’s piece in Film Comment (1971), which the BFI used as the programme note, treats the picture exclusively as a work by Max Ophüls – not as the romantic melodrama that it also is.  Kerbel’s commentary has only a little to say about the two principal characters – he describes how they feature in particular visual compositions and quotes one or two of their lines – and nothing to say about the actors playing them.  This is understandable because Ophüls is such a distinctive stylist yet it still seems a limited approach to a type of film in which engaging the audience’s emotions is an integral part of the experience.  The success of the picture depends ultimately not on the look and sound and movement of the piece, important though these are, nor on the believability of the series of events described.  It depends on whether you believe the emotional truth of the state of mind and predicament of the heroine Lisa Berndl.  In order to do so, you need to be compelled by the woman’s obsession; in order to be compelled, you need to be persuaded by the actress playing the woman.

    Joan Fontaine gives a good performance as Lisa, especially – and remarkably, given that she was thirty when the film was made – as the teenage girl who falls completely in love with Stefan Brand as soon as she sees him, some time after he and his musical instruments have moved into the block of apartments where Lisa lives with her widowed mother.  (Lisa hears Stefan playing well before she sets eyes on him.)  Fontaine’s naturalness – the combination of physical spontaneity and emotional transparency – makes you believe in Lisa’s love at first sight.  (And the fact that she barely describes or tries to analyse her feelings helps to convey the unconditionality of Lisa’s love.)  Fontaine has some strong and affecting moments as Lisa grows older and the relationship with Stefan darker yet her acting pays diminishing dividends.  She tends to rely on a single mannerism – she moves her head forward, seeming to suppress a cry – to express suffering, and she’s not able to make you feel that suffering.  When she reads from the letter she’s written to Stefan, her voice has a regretfulness which, although hypnotically unvarying, is inexpressive.  She’s nonetheless charming, and funny, in the course of the film’s central passage, the one enchanted evening that she and Stefan share.  (It ends with their making love and Lisa’s becoming pregnant:  some time after the child is born, Johann Stauffer, fully aware of what has happened, proposes marriage to single-mother Lisa and she accepts.)   At one point during the evening, the couple sit together in an amusement park train – you choose the country you want to travel to and the operator turns a handle to make a painted backdrop of it appear from the train window. Fontaine’s chatter, as Lisa tells Stefan that her father worked for an international travel company but never visited any of the places about which he was knowledgeable, has a lovely rhythm.

    The pair go round the world in this train, then, when they’ve run out of countries, begin their travels over again.   This is a great sequence.  It’s delightful because Lisa is happy and Stefan is brilliantly seductive and there’s real connection between Fontaine and Louis Jourdan.  It’s comical, thanks to the cameos of the woman at the box office and the train operator.  It’s chilling because the really-going-nowhere repetition of their travels crucially illustrates Ophüls’s view of the relationship between Lisa and Stefan.  The sequence also resonates with others involving real trains:  when Stefan, the day after their night of love, sets off for Milan with the orchestra he plays for (and vanishes into thin air); when Lisa puts Stefan Jr on the train that will take him back to boarding school and they sit, for a few fatal seconds, in a carriage that shouldn’t have been accessible – quarantined because of a typhus outbreak.   The music by Daniele Amfitheatrof – a beguiling waltz whose repetitive lilt becomes more and more sinister and claustrophobic – perfectly supports Ophüls’s main theme.  That theme is rather contradicted by the eventual resolutions of the story:  Lisa is disillusioned, realising that Stefan will never love for her; he rises from reading her letter a contrite man and rides off to his duel – and, we assume, his death at the hands of Lisa’s husband (a death that Stefan now believes he deserves).  This may reflect the tension, about which Nick James wrote in his good recent piece in Sight and Sound, between the intentions of Ophüls and those of Stefan Zweig, from whose novella Howard Koch adapted the screenplay.  Yet it’s the director’s vision that we experience primarily and Ophüls’s superb control ensures that he has the upper hand.  (It also serves to reinforce the sense of the characters being less than free agents – which makes sense of Michael Kerbel’s response.)

    The underrated Louis Jourdan is increasingly impressive as Stefan – and disturbing because his charm is as undeniable as his heartlessness.  He has an easy, humorous intimacy with Fontaine on their big night out.  Jourdan’s not very believable playing the piano and his vocal emphases are sometimes odd (this was one of his first early English-speaking roles) but he ages convincingly, both physically and spiritually.  Ophüls directs him very cleverly – Jourdan oftens seems to be looking away or down, keeping his face in the shadows, in a way that dramatises both Stefan’s elusiveness and the potential for guilt which is eventually realised.    There are some good performances in the supporting cast – notably from Art Smith, very effective as Stefan’s mute, all-seeing valet, and Mady Christians as Lisa’s widowed mother, who’s socially proper but palpably pleased to get herself a new and affluent husband.  The starchy, honourable Johann Stauffer, is played by Marcel Journet.  Leo B Pessin is the odd, unhappy little boy who is Lisa and Stefan’s love child.

    16 February 2010

Posts navigation