Skip to main content

Everything begins and ends at exactly the right time and place.


Picnic at Hanging Rock: Director’s Cut
(1975/1998)

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS My sympathies lie squarely with those who feel Peter Weir shouldn’t have gone and meddled with his film (removing eight minutes). Some of these individuals are actors and production crew interviewed on the feature-length making of documentary included on the Blu ray/DVD. Michael Mann is the biggest culprit in this inability to leave well alone (and then there’s George Lucas… ). Weir at least claims he’d wanted to edit out sequences that didn’t work so well since its original release outside of Australia. I can understand his reasoning, in particular with the excised scenes between Irma and Michael and their loss didn’t diminish my appreciation of the film as a whole; possibly their loss even had the desired effect.

It’s one of those horror films, like The Wicker Man, that you’re slightly shy of defining within that genre; so few of its scenes or elements are designed to frighten in a classical sense. This is a horror film by dint of what you don’t see and don’t know, the atmosphere created by that absence and the effect it has on the characters involved. As with Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now, there is a sense of the supernatural infringing upon the everyday but this is a force evoked by the feelings of the principals rather than anything tangible. Also, unlike many horror films, the motivating event happens in the first third, in broad daylight, and the rest of the film plays out on the responses to this.

The audience and the characters share bewilderment at what has transpired, ever more so when one of the four missing characters (three schoolgirls and Mrs Mangel from Neighbours) is returned. It’s easy to see why the tale has retained the aura of “true story” long after it was established that it was not the case, because there is something very uncalculated about its ambiguity. Any number of explanations is possible, and characters voice many of these, but the power of the film is its pervasive resistance to a fully-formed, rational answer.

Mention of Roeg beckons a comparison between Hanging Rock and the earlier Walkabout. Both films dwell on the disturbing clash between the repressed (English colonial) feminine and untamable, pagan forces of nature as represented by the Aborigines and the Outback. There is an accompanying fractured approach to time and perspective. But Rock is more overtly mystical. It directly invites the horror film interpretation that something potent, powerful and primordial happened to these girls. The helicopter shot of Edith fleeing the three girls, who have just disappeared into the rocks, her screams augmented by Bruce Smeaton’s eerie use of melatron, is chilling. Later, the experience of Michael on the rock is revealed to have been nerve-shattering (and curiously ritualised by his marking a way to guide himself back from wherever he must go to find the girl).

But, perhaps the explanation is altogether mundane; Edith’s fevered imaginings as the girls leave her behind, the missing parties succumbing to accident or foul play (at points both Michael and Albert invite suspicion, even if it does not linger), the possibility of sexual indiscretion or transgression (it is revealed that Irma was not wearing her corset when she was discovered). But then, the peculiar disappearance of Mrs Mangel, sorry Miss McGraw, also in a state of discarded apparel flicks the register back to the mystical.

Certainly, the events following the disappearance on the Rock show characters haunted by the loss of the girls. Or, more particularly, the loss of Miranda (Anne-Louise Lambert) who has been repeatedly remarked upon, or obsessed over, for her beauty and grace; Weir continues to remind us that she holds more of symbolic, archetypal role, Botticelli’s Venus (or an angel), than that of a fully-formed character. The toll is particularly exacting on Sara (Margaret Nelson) and the tyrannical headmistress Mrs. Appleyard (Rachel Roberts; superb, although reportedly little acting was required to put the fear of God into the cast and crew), while Michael is haunted by visions of her. It’s an aspect that, again, puts one in mind of Don’t Look Now; individuals struggling to cope with the fall-out of an event that sends one’s world reeling.

As I said, I can understand Weir’s rejection of the scenes between Michael and Irma; there’s something more powerful about the lack of head-on interrogation of either their experiences in the Director’s Cut. And it makes the scene where the other girls round on Irma, who has come to say goodbye, all the more chilling. I like also how the fate of Sara, tying into the revelation of her relationship with Albert, is highlighted, and the sense that this scene qualifies as support of the film’s more mystical themes.

I had not been aware of the original ending of Joan Lindsay’s novel, upon which the film is based. It was excised by the publisher and eventually saw light of day several year’s after Lindsay’s death. Reading the synopsis of “Chapter Eighteen” it came to mind that the sequence wouldn’t have been too out of place in a novel of Alan Garner’s devising. The ideas also further emphasise the theme mentioned earlier of the discord between British and Aboriginal systems and values. But, while the events of the chapter felt consistent with the possibilities raised by the film, that’s in no way to suggest that attempting to render them (even if the filmmakers had known about the ending) would have worked.  The power of Picnic at Hanging Rock lies in its being so close to an explanation one can grasp but paradoxically so far from one at the same time.

*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.