I am the Super Mother Bug!

Bug

(2006)

If his resumé is any evidence, it can’t be very nice living in William Friedkin’s head. Less uncomfortable, perhaps, during that brief period in the ‘70s when he married his murky obsessions with strong material. Since the ‘80s his script choices have been dependably erratic, but the odd commercial success (Rules of Engagement) has kept him working. His last couple of films have exemplified his strange fascinations, as characters in tawdry circumstances spiral off into crazed, over-cooked, theatricality.

One might argue that this is appropriate, as both Bug and Killer Joe are adapted from plays. But the effect on this viewer is to ultimately disengage from the story. Maybe the hyperbolic climaxes Friedkin thunders towards are designed to reveal that, actually, he’s really making comedies. I can see that Killer Joe’s finale could be construed that way, except that it’s the kind of queasy humour that requires one to see the funny side of being suspended upside down in a brimming cesspit. Friedkin just isn’t a funny guy; he’s much to literal to translate humour or nuance from the page. Why bother when repeatedly bludgeoning the same spot over 90 minutes will do? As a result, the cumulative effect of Bug is wearying rather than compelling or provocative.

Lonely Agnes (Ashley Judd) lives in the misleadingly-named Rustic Motel. She waitresses at a lesbian bar and consumes assorted narcotics with her co-worker R.C. (John Carter’s Lynne Collins). R.C. introduces Agnes to Peter (Michael Shannon), a disturbed veteran, and a tentative but increasingly claustrophobic relationship begins between the two of them. Meanwhile, Agnes’ abusive ex (Harry Connick Jr.) has been release from prison.

There’s little need to open out the play from its single location, and Friedkin sensibly restricts himself accordingly. In contrast, he leaves little to the imagination as the inclusive paranoia and isolation of Agnes and Peter grow. One can imagine how much of this would have been based solely on the performances as a stage play, as it’s all about inviting an audience to identify with the leads’ delusional states (Peter, in particular, is a part that invites absurd grandstanding, and the never-reticent Shannon bites the head off the role, then proceeds to heave bloody chunks of it over the screen throughout – sometimes literally). When Peter hears helicopters we don’t just hear helicopters too, the lighting changes accordingly; they’re outside, dammit!

This might work if there was ever any Polanski-esque uncertainty over whether the demons in Peter’s mind were that alone, but casting bug-eyed Shannon ensures there’s no chance. You know Peter will be climbing the walls before long within a minute of his introduction. Which is a shame, as there’s legitimate reason for Peter to be concerned over untoward military experimentation with his health and wellbeing (Gulf War Syndrome, etc). As it is, Peter is dismissed as a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy nut, obsessed with the idea that he has been infected with tiny bugs and eager to fold every grand scheme he can think of into his fantasy.

Friedkin is similarly unsubtle with Agnes, highlighting her addiction issues early on (be it coke, crack or pot) so it’s very clear where her shifting lines of reality come from. Judd is very good, an underrated actress generally, but as the performers are pitched into the antic final act there is no place to go but OTT. The resulting sensation is one of watching little more than a misjudged amateur dramatics production.

I’m not sure much could have been done to prevent this without doing serious work on the structure of the piece. Certainly, the late-stage appearance of Dr. Sweet (Brian F. O’Byrne) does a little to offset the increasingly one-note crescendo of tone. But going any further in that direction would probably require a Jacob’s Ladder-esque shift in emphasis. There are a couple of shots on the end credits that appear designed to either provide answers (Agnes’ missing child) or add ambiguity (the fate of Dr. Sweet), but by that point you’re past caring.

I’ve seen it suggested that the film is too sophisticated for a mainstream audience. I’d argue that the reverse is true. I don’t think it’s the cup of tea of a wider crowd anyway, but Bug is relentlessly unsophisticated. It takes a hammer to crack a nut (or a bug) and ends up a victim to its own relentless histrionics.

**1/2

Comments

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog