Skip to main content

You don’t know what dreams are any more.

The Last Wave
(1977)

(SPOILERS) Peter Weir’s perception- and reality-bending third feature may not hold quite the same level of foreboding or uncanny resonance as Picnic at Hanging Rock, but it is very much kindred. The Last Wave comes at a point when Weir’s cinematic explorations were neither bound nor fully-informed by the strictures of the traditional Hollywood narrative, at liberty to take his tales wherever he felt they needed to go.


In terms of premise, you might be forgiven for regarding The Last Wave as one part cautionary eco-parable and one part white man’s guilt espoused over the treatment of Australian Aboriginals. Certainly, Pauline Kael tore the picture apart over its perceived hand wringing. Her case is overstated, as was often the case with her vibrant and engrossing critiques, and she is unfairly dismissive of Weir’s main intent.


The opening finds a desert school deluged with enormous hailstones. It sets the scene for the torrential rain underpinning much of the picture. There is a sense throughout of the uncontrollable forces of nature rearing up and opposing the systems of order enforced upon it.


This feeds into the plot “proper”, as lawyer David Burton (Richard Chamberlain) takes the defence case of five Aboriginal men accused of murder. An additional man, Chris Lee (David Gulpilil) appears in David’s dreams prior to their meeting in the flesh. A process of awakening begins for the lawyer. He meets tribal elder Charlie (Nandjiwarra Amagula) and is informed that he is a Mulkurul, one of a race of spirits who “came from the rising sun, bringing sacred objects with them”. David becomes increasingly obsessed with understanding the strange dreams, signs, and portents he is experiencing, the possible prelude to a coming apocalypse.


Weir introduces us to a murder mystery, but this is something of a misdirection. It’s a means to immerse David in a hitherto hidden world, rather than an actual case that will be resolved with a satisfying conclusion. It springs open the themes of the picture, although only one of these forms its backbone.


It’s true that characters are given to statements of a perhaps overly didactic nature at certain points. There is discussion of how the accused, city dwellers, are cut off from tribal ways, and are no different to depressed whites; David’s colleague comments how the western influence has “destroyed languages ceremonies, songs, dances and tribal laws”. But David, who has ended up with the case for unknown reasons (“My field is corporate taxation”) wishes to pursue a tribal law defence. He is convinced this might get them off, as he sees more going on than an open and shut case of a pub fight where the victim (Billy) was knocked into a pool of water and drowned. His colleague, experienced with defending Aboriginal cases, objects to David’s stance, maligning him for being out of touch and making a fortune from tax dodgers. He singles out David’s “idealistic romantic crap about tribal people”.


Which sounds like one of Kael’s criticisms of Weir’s film. That Weir is conscious of this suggests she didn’t look too hard below the surface. That said, when David’s wife Annie (Olivia Hamnett) observes, “You know, I’m a fourth generation Australian. I’ve never met an Aboriginal before” one couldn’t accuse its director and his fellow screenwriters of subtlety. 


There is also the danger of falling into a fanciful tour of Aboriginal mysticism when David visits museum curator Dr Whitburn (Vivean Gray, Mrs Mangel herself, who also appeared in Picnic at Hanging Rock) and receives a lesson in the dreamtime. She informs David that Aboriginals believe in “Two forms of time, two parallel streams of activity. One is the daily objective activity to which you and I are confined. The other is the infinite spiritual cycle called the dreamtime”. This is “more real than reality itself”.


This scene also serves to link David’s experiences to the strange weather activity we have seen. Dr Whitburn judges that white people are no longer capable of exercising spiritual perception, unable to experience the premonitory dreams that precede the end of a cycle (her language is framed as a believer, rather than a sceptical scholar).


Weir has a flair for the elements, and affinity with, and disconnection from, the natural world is a theme running through Witness, Master and Commander and right up to The Way Back. The Last Wave offers up (or rather, down) frogs, suggestive of the biblical plagues of Egypt, thunder in a cloudless sky, earthquakes, and the vision of a submerged city with a bodies floating by David’s windscreen.


Kael was all for the garish, hyper-stylised flourish of Brian de Palma, which may point towards the reasons for her resentment of credulous acceptance of the unknown and mysterious found in the work of Weir and Nicolas Roeg. It reads that she just simply didn’t respond to their fascinations, pronouncedly rejecting the idea that western culture has lost something important. As a result, she appears to work backwards in finding fault in the design of the films themselves; they are calculated or hokey.  She rejects Roeg’s distinctive filmic language and the palpable sense of a universe limited by the established western paradigms; “maudlin hysteria” she scoff at The Last Wave.


However, the film most certainly does not “romanticise the victims”. Kael high-mindedly suggests “simple equality” as necessary, ignoring Weir’s intent. White man’s guilt is only a stepping-stone for the picture, not the focus. Weir is not simply venerating the Aboriginal experience as superior, he is exploring the idea that a way of seeing has been lost to the western consciousness. If Weir were merely romanticising, he would surely not have positioned the murder of a man by a noble and beautiful culture as his starting point. Weir commented in interviews of the period that his motivating force was the loss of a past, a culture, an identity. As he said “The loss of dreamtime on our side is much more interesting” a subject than that of white guilt.


David: We've lost our dreams. Then they come back and we don't know what they mean.

Kael is correct that the picture is about alienation, although she references the subject as if it is a dirty word. Moments she suggests are dreary are among its most enticing; David’s inability to perceive his own repressed abilities, that “Dream is a shadow of something real” reflect something greater on Weir’s mind than a simple (convenient?) use of Aboriginal insights as the key. His is a not dissimilar device to Roeg’s use of the blind psychic in Don’t Look Now.


Like Sutherland’s protagonist in that film, David has lost his sense of a fuller identity. His clergyman stepfather (Frederick Parslow) tells him of forgotten childhood incidents, how he was afraid to go to sleep at night ‘because when you go to sleep bad people come and steal your body” and how, when his father died, “for a whole month before you dreamt of it, and what you dreamt happened”. Weir is interested in the idea that our innate abilities are indoctrinated out of us by a society with but a single, rigid reality.


There’s certainly no room for anything as mutable as Aboriginal perception. David’s formative years were informed by fear of “witches, ghosts, the wind”, and Weir pays attention to David’s children playing, in a creative, as yet unconditioned, state. It can be no coincidence that, when one of his daughters sees Charlie outside, she refers to him as a “witch”. (Weir took on board the advice of Nanji, an actual clan leader, that Charlie could not be human.  Rather, he is a spirit that who on human form; we see this most clearly during the trial scene, in which Chris sees Charlie sitting in public gallery. The fascinating interview with Weir gives some insight into what it was “to delve into the system of perception”.)


David: But surely men are more important than laws?
Chris: No. The law is more important than just men.

While David is ultimately undone (by intent or as a consequence of essential confusion is unclear) through breaking tribal law, Weir allows for an unresolved conflict between two realities. Billy dies, it seems, through Charlie’s curse, and Weir is content to leave a fundamental difference in ideology between David and Charlie (“For Christ’s sake, you killed a man”). The specifics of Charlie’s law and his justification for his actions are neither explicitly endorsed nor condemned.


David: Why did Billy die?
Chris: He saw things, took things, things he shouldn’t took.
David: Could I see them?
Chris: No.
David: Why not?
Chris: Then you must die too.

What is evident is that David’s inability to process his sight (rather than insight) leads to his undoing. Whether that last shot is literal or another vision isn’t too important; David is now overwhelmed by a state of spiritual and mental disarray. It’s a common theme in ‘70s pictures, such as The Wicker Man and Don’t Look Now, to depict a staunchly grounded protagonist who finds himself undone by old ways and systems he cannot process or countenance. It's an effective counterpoint to the more common hero's journey of becoming important, significant, special or chosen. David fails to pass the test.



David does exactly what he was told not to do when he descends to the ruins beneath Sydney; he attempts to leave with artefacts (including a face mask that implies he is indeed the reincarnation of the Mulkurul). Chris, who showed him there, explicitly says he broke his people’s law in revealing the place to David. Charlie materialises to stop David and, following an unseen affray, the latter emerges into a sewage outlet system, promptly losing his precious items.


He eventually emerges onto a beach, where he is, it seems, engulfed by a huge wave. If David’s motives are unclear (did he take the pieces as evidence of his story, simply because he felt the attachment to his prior existence, or perhaps because he thought he could use them to impede the oncoming apocalypse), it’s obvious his prompting has failed to elicit a full awakening. Whether the wave is death resulting from Charlie’s curse (Billy was drowned in a puddle, will David be drowned in a foot of sea water?) or the big event, presaged by environmental aberrations, has arrived is open to the viewer to interpret.


David: Who are you?
Charlie: Who are you?

It’s unclear where the rising sun referenced by Charlie lies; we assume it is earthbound, but Weir’s obliqueness and use of symbols allows for a variety of interpretations. Charlie is able to transform into an owl, which is frequently seen outside David’s window. Owls crop up in a variety of occult contexts, from masonic symbols to accounts of alien abductions, and it’s certainly curious that the books David flicks through relating to the sun god show images resembling popularised grey aliens.


Then there’s the suggestion of childhood abduction experiences, even if taxi drivers are to blame. Whether Weir was conscious of this or not is also unclear but, since this came at the zenith of Chariots of the Gods in the popular consciousness, it’s quite possible. Certainly, one line of interpretation of the alien phenomenon revolves around whether it is actually inter-dimensional (relating to perceptions of reality again) or indeed extra-terrestrial. 


There are a couple of areas where I’d give Kael’s complaints a pass. One is the aforementioned dialogue, which is at times perfunctory. The other is the conclusion among the temple ruins. David’s descent underground is rather literal and overly grounding, coming as it does after a pervasive undermining of reality. Suddenly we’re in an Indiana Jones (or Allan Quatermain) set, as Weir addresses his lost spiritual life “with some logic, some realistic elements”. It’s clear what he was aiming for, but he can’t quite pull it off.



I wouldn’t go out of my way to praise Chamberlain here, but he’s effectively cast as a man at a loss. He’s a long way from Dr Kildare, and Weir is able to emphasise the alien-ness he saw in his face (significantly less so than the alien quality Roeg saw in Bowie in The Man Who Fell to Earth, it must be said). Gulpilil and Amagula are tremendous presences.


The picture is as striking as one would expect, from regular Weir collaborator Russell Boyd, and Charles Wain’s synth score (his only credited feature work) is memorably atmospheric and unsettling. Which describes the picture as a whole. It’s been suggested The Last Wave’s is a horror film (not least by some of the more lurid advertising blurbs at the time) but, aside from the occasional shock moment dream sequence, it has different DNA. It’s only a horror movie to the extent that any movie pitching into the uncanny could be labelled one.


Weir’s starting point was “What if someone with a very pragmatic approach to life experienced a premonition?” The inquiry into perception and reality will continue into his Hollywood films, from Allie Fox’s madness in The Mosquito Coast, to Max Klein’s perceived imperviousness in Fearless, to the blissful ignorance of Truman Burbank in The Truman Show. If Weir has departed from an overt affinity for the “occult and mysterious” it should be noted he didn’t see it that way even then, viewing such elements as “merely natural”, a result of choosing to see the world a certain way. This awareness has remained with him throughout his subsequent career.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve.

Jeeves and Wooster 2.5: Kidnapped  (aka The Mysterious Stranger)
Kidnapped continues the saga of Chuffnell Hall. Having said of 2.4 that the best Wodehouse adaptations tend to stick closely to the text, this one is an exception that proves the rule, diverging significantly yet still scoring with its highly preposterous additions.

Jeeves: Tis old boggy. He be abroad tonight. He be heading for the railway station.
Gone are many of the imbroglios involving Stoker and Glossop (the estimable Roger Brierley), including the contesting of the former’s uncle’s will. Also gone, sadly, is the inebriated Brinkley throwing potatoes at Stoker, which surely would have been enormous fun. Instead, we concentrate on Bertie being locked aboard Stoker’s yacht in order to secure his marriage to Pauline (as per the novel), Chuffy tailing Pauline in disguise (so there’s a different/additional reason for Stoker to believe Bertie and she spent the night together, this time at a pub en route to Chufnell Hall) and …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Barbarians? You call us barbarians?

The Omega Man (1971)
(SPOILERS) Chuck Heston battles albino mutants in 1970s LA. Sure-fire, top-notch B-hokum, right? Can’t miss? Unfortunately, The Omega Man is determinedly pedestrian, despite gestures towards contemporaneity with its blaxploitation nods and media commentary so faint as to be hardly there. Although more tonally subdued and simultaneously overtly “silly” in translating the vampire lore from Richard Matheson’s I am Legend, the earlier The Last Man on Earth is probably the superior adaptation.

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985)
Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon. Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires).

Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg (Kick the Can). There, OAPs rediscover their in…

Actually, I look like a can of smashed assholes.

The Arrival (1996)
(SPOILERS) I’m mostly an advocate of David Twohy’s oeuvre, from his screenplay for Warlock (Richard E Grant as an action hero!) onwards. In particular, like a number of writers turned aspiring directors (David Koepp, Scott Frank, the Gilroys) he has also shown himself to be proficient behind the camera. His Riddick movies (albeit only the first half of the third) are enjoyably B-ridden, while A Perfect Getaway is giddily delirious confection. I’d managed to mostly forget The Arrival, however, so with another similarly titled science fiction picture incoming, it seemed like a good time for a 20th anniversary revisit. The most surprising aspect is that, while Twohy’s direction is competent and script serviceable, this is Charlie Sheen’s movie through-and-through. In a good way.

That’s Charlie Sheen pre-tiger’s blood (here his character, the ludicrously named Zane Zaminsky even states “I don’t like blood”), also a few years shy of finding a more profitable home on televis…