I feel like I know this place.

Triangle

(2009)

(SPOILERS of Triangle and Time Crimes) I've not seen Chris Smith's Severance, mainly because Danny Dyer's in it. On the evidence of this film, however, he's got talent to spare as a director, although I'm not so sure the several years he spent on the script have paid off.

Melissa George and her yachting companions encounter strange weather conditions and then come across an apparently deserted ship. Exploring it, things start to get weird. And then a whole lot weirder.

Whilst the "What is it about?" is evident by the time the credits roll, a glance at IMDB's Boards indicates how much debate the different possible permutations of the plotting have provoked. I actually prefer the looseness of possible interpretations (in comparison with the too rote for me Time Crimes for example, with which this shares certain structural similarities even if its conceptually very different) but there's a sense that getting to caught up in analysing every detail will end in disappointment, reading in levels and tangents that were not intended.

Melissa George is outstanding, some of the CGI is ropey, and there's a shot reveal just after an hour in that is just jaw-dropping.

Time Crimes stopped working for me when the protagonist decided to wrap the bandages round his head. Then, without reflection or (apparent) flaw in his actions, he went through the motions of repeating himself as the antagonist he’d encountered earlier, in order to complete the loop. How, aware of the situation, was he able to repeat his actions and why did he make the assumptions he made and decisions he did, which were pretty grim ones? I just didn't buy into the character’s choices. And more than that, the action of playing out the earlier events to the tee did not engage me or seem remotely plausible.

Likewise, in Triangle I began to get uneasy when George seemed to be blundering into forced repetitions. Then - joy - she became aware of her ability to change the outcome, which culminates in the shocking scene of all the dead copies of the female character she sees on the deck (and a nice touch that many of them have the cardigan she then puts on the dying character). So other versions had that self-awareness.

But then, after this flash of insight, she seems to revert to type, repeating the actions in order to fulfill the narrative demands (as far as I could tell). Which seems to involve the same kind of precise repetition of events we see in Time Crimes. Even though they require different definitions of what the loops "constitute", they are played out in similar language. It left me disappointed as, from that point until she reaches shore, I found the film all-too predictable again.

I can see some of the arguments that others have presented; that she would ultimately succumb to her violent nature and so, despite a flash of awareness, reverts to type. And, the compulsion to get back to her child operating as an overriding impulse. But, as at least one version of her (the one who was beaten to death on deck by herself) hadn't taken that course, I'd have liked to see more variations of it play out differently. There's a point in the film where the giddy potential (the bodies on deck) falls into a more routine line; there could have been any number of variations on the theme presented or versions of herself on different courses aboard the ship. The course chosen might serve the purgatory/damnation theme more fittingly, but it fails to satisfy in terms of character logic.

There are still other aspects of Triangle that require protective logic to explain, like the "gods" rules for what on the ships stays and what goes with each loop. The mirror sequence is probably the most under discussed moment in the film in terms of symbolic importance; is there supposed to be a "switch" then, where full realisation of what George must do takes place and she becomes the ruthless killer version of herself?

Ultimately, I was left dissatisfied as the film was neither as rich or layered as I hoped it would be; partly because the use of certain elements felt over familiar, but mainly because the characters become slaves to the where Smith wants to take the plot and so cease to hold integrity.

***

Comments

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

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.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

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.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

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.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

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.

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.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog