Film review

  • Faust

    Alexander Sokurov (2011)

    The screenplay – by the director, Marina Koreneva and Yuri Arabov – draws both on Goethe and on Thomas Mann’s Doctor Faustus.  The film, in German, is set in the early nineteenth century (in other words, in Goethe’s own lifetime) and Alexander Sokurov’s realisation of this world is very fine.   He conveys an overpowering sense of the physical basis of human life.  Faust’s interior monologues reflect a mind grappling with the realities of appetency, of flesh and blood and bodily stench.  Death is everywhere – in the mortuary, in the alleyways of the neighbourhood, and inside Faust’s head.   The predominating earth colours in the cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel’s palette help to reinforce both the physical insistency of this world and its transience.  Yet Faust apprehends or wants to apprehend, in spite of the evidence of his senses, a spiritual dimension to existence – in an early scene, we watch him literally searching for the human soul in the body parts of a corpse – and Sokurov weaves into his startlingly carnal universe images and movements, of animals, birds and sometimes people, which are unnervingly sudden and supernatural.  At the very start of the film, the camera moves from what seems an extraterrestrial viewpoint towards a landscape – are the white things fluttering about a mountainside seagulls or sheets of paper?

    Sokurov, with the help of Delbonnel, maintains momentum by continuing, through the 134 minutes of the film, to create remarkable moving pictures – like the sequence in which the local women bathe and are joined in their ablutions by a hideously naked Mephistopheles.  The rolls of decaying (prosthetic) flab on his body are powerfully disgusting – they suggest putrid bandages as much as decaying flesh.  Faust very strongly visualises life as a largely unvarying, inescapably narrow passage.  Its limitation is that it’s dramatically monotonous too – it doesn’t really build.   As Faust, Johannes Zeiler has broad, rather coarse features but you see a mind working through them – Zeiler is well cast as a man struggling between physical and mental planes of existence.  Anton Adasinsky’s Mephistopheles – in the human form of a moneylender called Mauritius Müller – is a genuinely disturbing creature, although his grossly distended belly and huge hips and backside look more and more like padding as the film goes on.  The very pretty Isolde Dychuk, as Gretchen, is good at registering this young woman’s distaste for Faust, who lusts after her. The only actor I recognised was Hanna Schygulla as the moneylender’s wife.  Because I recognised her, I was conscious of her acting in a way I wasn’t with the rest of the cast; but Schygulla is, as usual, very strong – she’s able to make her character both typical and individual.

    20-26 May 2012

     

  • Family Plot

    Alfred Hitchcock (1976)

    Hitchcock’s last picture and very poor it is too.  Of course it has its place in history just because it was his swansong but I don’t know if his inveterate admirers cherish it for other reasons.  (Fans of particular directors have been known to claim their late works as distinctively brilliant:  in the hope of disarming criticism that the films betray a serious loss of energy and are hopelessly inferior to the master’s best work, the ardent supporters will say they show a supremely confident and playful command of the medium.)  Family Plot, adapted by Ernest Lehman from a Victor Canning novel called The Rainbird Pattern (a more attractive title), seems meant to be fleet-footed and light-hearted but it’s rather clumsy and tediously arch.  The main characters – a fake medium, her con-artist taxi-driver partner, a murderer/kidnapper/jewel thief and his repeatedly disguised sidekick-girlfriend – may sound promising on paper; and the people playing them – Barbara Harris, Bruce Dern, William Devane and Karen Black respectively – are probably all better actors than many of those Hitchcock used in some of his more famous pictures.  The trouble is that none of them has a transcendent star personality to fall back on and, except for Harris, they don’t have a lot of charm either.  (Harris’s sham psychic routines are entertaining – putting on voices, peeping furtively through her fingers to check if her client is watching.)

    And the plot just isn’t inventive or fast-moving enough to compensate.  Ernest Lehman, in the only other screenplay he wrote for Hitchcock, gave him the wherewithal for one of his finest films, North by Northwest, so it’s all the more regrettable that he’s so far from repeating the magic here (especially in view of what seem very clear nods to North by Northwest in a sequence which includes a dizzying car ride, a threatening dusty, empty road and the medium and her man being threatened by a distant automobile relation of the crop duster).  There are sequences needed to move the plot forward – the title’s double meaning also refers to a burial plot – which are so feebly unconvincing that you wonder if the whole thing is a spoof of comedy-thriller mechanics.  Yet the film has no life on that level either – and the music by John Williams, although it sounds like pastiche Hitchcock, isn’t as enjoyable as the real thing (which, in Bernard Herrmann’s best scores, usually had a strong streak of humour anyway).  With Cathleen Nesbitt, Ed Lauter and Katherine Helmond.

    30 March 2010

Posts navigation