Skip to main content

I put the poison in her porridge.

Crimson Peak
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Oh, Guillermo, Guillermo, whate’er has become of you? Perhaps Pan’s Labyrinth, with its resounding critical acclaim, was del Toro’s creative (rather than crimson) peak, and he decided he didn’t need to strive so manfully any more. Or perhaps the debacle of bumping himself off The Hobbit knocked the wind out of his sails, so struggling to regain his previous form after all that lost time. Whatever the root of his malaise, del Toro’s most recent two pictures have been disappointments, ones unfortunately redolent of his early Hollywood ordeal Mimic. They’re examples of well-made emptiness rather than rich with texture and resonance. Crimson Peak is better than Pacific Rim, but that’s more down to performance than screenplay, and del Toro must take (at least half of) the blame in both instances.


He co-wrote Peak with Matthew Robbins, a contemporary of the Hollywood movie brats whose best known and most ignominious directorial credit is the sub-Spielberg slop *batteries not included. Crimson Peak couldn’t be accused of falling into schmaltz, far from it, but it continually overplays its hand in a manner del Toro might argue is merely representative of the tropes of gothic romance (a genre he was continually at pains to state it belonged to, rather than horror, putting the picture’s financial failure at the door of what he saw as misleading marketing, which conveniently skirts its more fundamental shortcomings). Really, it just highlights a certain crudity of plot and characterisation that will come as a shock to anyone only familiar with the nuance of his Spanish language outings.


The ghost is just a metaphor, for the past” announces Mia Wasikowska’s budding writer, and the subsequent movie becomes a barrage of too self-conscious displays of fictioneering, as del Toro sets out his stall of text and genre within the text and genre itself. He runs through the expected compendium of precisely devised patent del Toro gadgets, and clumsily attempts to evoke era by dropping in references to Conan Doyle, spirit photography, and assorted over-elaborate anecdotes and factoids that call this out as otherwise unanchored in time and period.


I mentioned the Peak in my Carol review, as del Toro is going for something similar to Hitchcock and Scorsese in his emphasis on touch and sensation, but he ends up nose-diving into unhinged melodrama and tonally excessive Grand Guignol (the skull-splitting in a men’s room). It’s over-studied, and unconvincing in its lavishness. You can see what he’s trying for, but there’s emptiness at Crimson Peak’s core.


One only has to compare it to the archetype of motion picture gothic romance, Rebecca, where the house is imbued with a sense of character no veneer of modern production design can muster, where there’s a genuine sense of the uncanny and a haunting atmosphere the actual spooks in Peak can’t begin to match, and where the characters betray palpable passions, fears and simmering emotions that render del Toro’s cock-riding and incestuous liaisons flagrantly attention-seeking.


And yet, del Toro has assembled three-quarters of a fine cast. In the principal roles, as the mysterious siblings who lure Edith Cushing (I know; alas, Cushing is about as understated a nod as this gets) to the unreal edifice, are Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain, as Thomas and Lucille Sharpe. Or, more accurately, Mia Wasikowska is playing Mrs de Winter, Hiddleston is Maxim, and Chastain illustrates a particularly berserk incarnation of Mrs Danvers, with Allerdale Hall substituting for Manderlay.


The secrets, over-exerted, are much less effective, and thus so are the characters. While the trio of leads are top-notch performers, they’re left inhabiting caricatures. Edith seems to do what she does purely because she’s a piece on del Toro’s chess table, while Thomas is suitably raffish but his essential unreadability never translates as intriguing. Lucille, meanwhile, is plain insane, and Chastain is clearly having absurdly camp fun, particularly when it comes to running around, stabbing and slicing willy-nilly, in the blood-spurting third act, but the overriding effect is rather pedestrian, as if del Toro has missed the wood for the pastiche.


He’s even borrowing for the miscast Charlie Hunnam, as Edith’s forlorn suitor. McMichael is essentially Arbogast from Psycho, something evident as soon as he arrives in England to set the Sharpes to rights. Except del Toro and Robbins know we know this, and know Kubrick also copied Hitch with the similarly haunted mansion and Scatman Crothers’ doomed knight in shining armour in The Shining. So instead, McMichael survives, just about. Hunnam’s face is far too contemporary for this kind of fare, which is probably why he’s also been cluelessly given lead duties in The Lost City of Z and Knights of the Round Table: King Arthur.


Talking of clueless, I’m guessing del Toro will claim it was intentional that Allderdale Hall and its environs fail to look or feel remotely like England; after all, Manderlay was achieved entirely in Hollywood and the surrounding Californian countryside. Unfortunately, the decision leaves Peak further adrift, and with ghost designs we’re assured weren’t CG rendered, but look it thanks to post-production processes, the whole tends to the mechanically undemanding. Much has been made of the bodice-ripping sex scenes, but they aren’t anything all that eyebrow raising, unless you happen to be taking tea with the vicar while watching.


If I make it sound as if I didn’t enjoy the film, that’s not exactly the case; it’s just disappointing that a director so talented should make something so middling for the second time in a row. Crimson Peak ought to have played a blinder. It can be a bad sign when a filmmaker opts to up the ante of bloodshed, no matter how much he may adore it anyway, because it may be in service of hiding a story that isn’t working. The picture’s third act is really little more than an elaborate display of dismemberment and mutilation, which is all very well, but Guillermo can do so much more. And, to an impartial observer, it does make the movie read as horror rather than gothic romance.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

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.

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

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…

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

You’re a staring Stanley!

The Sixth Sense (1999)
(SPOILERS) It has usually been a shrewd move for the Academy to ensure there’s at least one big hit among its Best Picture Oscar nominees. At least, until the era of ever-plummeting ratings; not only do the studios get to congratulate themselves for their own profligacy (often, but not always, the big hits are also the costliest productions), but the audience also has something to identify with and possibly root for. Plus, it evidences that the ceremony isn’t just about populism-shunning snobbery. The Sixth Sense provided Oscar’s supernatural bookend to a decade – albeit, The Green Mile also has a stake in this – that opened with Ghost while representing the kind of deliberate, skilfully-honed genre fare there was no shame in recognising. Plus, it had a twist. Everyone loves a twist.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).