Skip to main content

I'm no longer observing.


Altered States
(1980)

Ken Russell goes mainstream Hollywood, with pleasingly demented results. The late ‘70s and early ‘80s increasingly looks like a never-to-be-repeated golden era for science fiction, when invention and originality were par for the course. It’s difficult to imagine something so based on experimentation, and so experimental, being made today.


Russell was coming off several (unsuccessful) idiosyncratic biopics and was reportedly far down the list of choices for the film. Paddy Chayefsky had adapted his novel, based on the sensory deprivation work of scientist John C Lilly. Lilly’s experiments involved subjects spending periods of time in isolation tanks dosed up on psychoactive drugs. Critically, Chayefsky was on a high, having recently won an Oscar for Network, and reportedly hated what Russell did with his screenplay. Russell in turn claimed the writer was impossible to please. There’s no doubting the quality of the dialogue, which pays no concessions to the inattentive viewer and never feels the need to simplify or patronise (nor over-explain what can be surmised).


There’s little doubt that if you wanted a straight telling of a story, Russell’s not the guy to go to. And the hallucinatory scenes in the film are as amped up as you’d expect, full of (Christian) religious imagery and OTT back projection. The effect is sometimes just whacky and clichéd (the hell scenes lifted from Dante’s Inferno), at others weird and disturbing (Blair Brown behaving in the manner of the Komodo dragon William Hurt was fixated on moments before, a seven-eyed goat man suspended on a cross). 


Most impacting is the unsettling soundtrack, and ironically for someone better known for bludgeoning subtlety out of the screen, Russell exerts the strongest effect on the audience in the atmosphere he builds up before the (literally in one scene) fireworks begin; Hurt suspended in the tank, describing what he sees, and the incredulous reactions of his colleagues.


This was William Hurt’s big screen debut, and his natural tendency towards being a mass of neuroses percolates into a gripping central performance of a man with a grand obsession and tunnel vision to match. But the supporting players are superb too; Blair Brown’s understanding but pushed-away wife, the ever-cast-as-a sympathetic-boffin charm of Bob Balaban and a scene-stealing Charles Haid as the disbelieving and reluctant faculty supervisor.


Mason Parrish: I'm gonna show these to someone who can read them right, 'cause you're reading them wrong, that's all there is to it. Because no one is gonna tell me you de-differentiated your goddamn genetic structure for four goddamn hours and then reconstitued! I'm a professor of endocrinology at the Harvard Medical School. I'm an attending physician at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital! I'm a contributing editor to the American Journal of Endocrinology and a I am a fellow and vice-president of the Eastern Association of Endocrinologists and president of the Journal Club! And I'm not going to listen to any more of your kabbalistic, quantum, friggin' dumb limbo mumbo jumbo! I'm gonna show these to a radiologist!


I hadn’t really taken in the ellipses of time in the opening sequences before. The film appears to begin in 1967, and really the party with everyone sharing joints to the sound of The Doors should have got that message across. Then there’s a leap of seven years and Hurt and Brown are married with kids, about to split up. The triptastic Mexico sequence follows before the main meat of the tale. We probably end up close to the time the film was made when all is said and done.


Thematically Altered States isn’t exactly subtle; here we have an individual so obsessed with finding the true self, the god within, that he can’t see the one meaningful aspect of his life (which inevitably involves saying those three words). That this doesn’t come across as trite is at least in part down to the performances, but also because the stakes involved never allow enough time for mawkishness (one can only dread what a Spielberg would have done with it). The moral seems slightly incongruous for the characterised infant terrible Russell, as it appears to encourage a position of limitation and restraint, of recognising that it is only through engagement with others and society as a whole that one can discover peace or comfort. The pursuit of knowledge for its own ends will result in destruction and mental disintegration. The central character forsakes his quest for (science-fuelled) spiritual enlightenment and retreats to a position of here-and-now humanism.


If Dick Smith’s physical effects look variable to todays eye, they have a tangibility that retains an impact. Hurt holding up a prosthetic-enhanced arm that is bulging and straining manages to be both fake-looking and alarming. But the later stages of his transformation, in particular the optically-enhanced corridor scenes at the climax still look incredible. 


Corridor shots are something of a motif throughout; Hurt first appears to Brown silhouetted in angelic light as he arrives at Balaban’s house, and later a similar but more subdued shot is used when she sees him following his regressed rampage (it must be noted that the caveman make-up is fairly unremarkable, but part of the problem may be that regressing to the state of primitive man isn’t that fascinating an idea in itself). 


The use of lighting effects also deserves a mention. In particular, the lightshow where Hurt is lost in the flotation tank and Brown has to rescue him recalls the striking white lighting that punched through doorways and windows in Spielberg’s Close Encounters (and later in Poltergeist).


There’s no doubt Altered States is replete with flaws, but they don’t prevent it from taking its place as a science fiction great. It’s such a peculiar and distinct film, a combination of two disparate personalities taking on already out-there material.  It was made at a time when studios were much more open to the genre in the hope they could have as big a hit as the one that other studio scored last month; despite the troubled production that relative freedom of expression shines through.

***** 


Here's the 1980 trailer:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.