Skip to main content

Well, one thing's for sure: this building's nowhere near as homogenous as some would like to think.

High-Rise
(2015)

(SPOILERS) There seem to have been plans to adapt JG Ballard’s High-Rise in getting on for forever, but Ben Wheatley’s achievement in finally succeeding could well leave you thinking it would have best been left on the page. Written by regular collaborator, wife Amy Jump, the picture is a turgid, disconnected mess, one in which the satirical elements are either so underlined they have long since shuffled off any impact or are tonally buried by Wheatley’s general uncertainty over quite how to underpin his ungainly edifice.


There’s a lot of mood in Wheatley’s film, but it’s mostly bad mood, and it’s so inert dramatically, sometimes it feels as if you’re watching a tableau. There are lots of well-staged shots, but nothing holding them together; it becomes meaningless montage. Possibly the self-consciously retro-’70s (revisited for his latest, Free Fire) setting handicapped him.


Certainly, there’s a lack of congruence between the (not-so) gradual escalation of anarchy in the tower block and the oblivious continuance of normal life outside. The picture isn’t sufficiently heightened in milieu or attitude for the commentary on isolation and degradation brought on by urban impersonality to resonate, so what you’re left with is that the narrative makes little logical sense. Like Snowpiercer, we have subtext made text in a building where the privileged lodge up top while the chattering classes rot down below, but there’s an instant disconnect in translating that idea from page to screen. It feels like a stretch that the rich would even share the same street as the riff-raff, let alone deign to co-exist in a building. And, since there’s nothing (barring an apocalypse) to stop residents leaving, rather than wallowing in the spiralling depravity, the picture ends up looking like weightless, posturing bereft of core integrity.


Wilder: Living in a high-rise requires a special type of behaviour.
Laing: Acquiescence?
Wilder: Restraint. Helps if you’re slightly mad.

What is said is announced by Luke Evans’ Richard Wilder, commenting on the kind architecture of that shoves its subjects together in a combined space and sends them slowly, inexorably mad. Really, though, this rising urban tension isn’t explored in any kind of visceral or coherent manner; Royal’s great social experiment is more about the art direction than an exploration of the crumbling psyche in a deleterious environment. Wilder’s rapist is “possibly the sanest man I know” announces restrained, acquiescent Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston), which tells you a lot about the other residents. Or indeed the cool, detached Laing (who we first see spit roasting a husky). At least, it would if they were remotely relatable as characters.


Wheatley occasionally offers a glimmer of engagement with the material, rather than just staring it down. Although, as Laing, Tom Hiddleston is in danger of turning into his own posh caricature of the urbane, smooth equivalent of Hugh Grant’s comedy stammerer of the ‘90s, his attempts to climb the social ladder are some of the few episodes that offer any dramatic consequence, be it threatened by heavy Simmons (Dan Renton Skinner, Bosh from Reeves and Mortimer’s House of Fools, is bizarre casting, but strangely effective) or playing caustic tennis with Jeremy Irons’ aloof and cutting architect Royal. But the essential poshness of Hiddleston, who he exudes the air of those who won’t let him join their gang, undercuts the tension of his intent.


In addition, Wheately, possibly due to budget, but more likely owing to a lack of wherewithal, offers little sense of geography in this all-defining space. Worse, his various locations, be it rooftop, swimming pool or carpark, only ever feel like disparate locations, never part of the wholer building.


The rising tensions and outbreaks of violence lack sufficient build-up (I wasn’t the greatest fan of Kill List, but one thing it definitely had was an inescapable sense of escalation), and the breakdown of this society in microcosm/building form are fractured and unconvincing.
There’s orgiastic violence as well as orgiastic orgies. And lots of eating of pets, but it’s all profoundly unaffecting. We see rotting fruit in the on-site supermarket at one point, but only much later are there fights over food (and paint). Any sequence or shot only ever seems to be about that sequence or shot (there’s a beautiful piece of kaleidoscopic violence when Wilder meets his end, but it’s a propos nothing). I don’t suppose it matters if you’re uninterested in assembling something that hangs together, but as it is, this has no more dramatic tension than, say The Bedsitting Room; High-Rise is at least as unsubtle with its targets, when indeed it is hitting its targets.


The cast are mostly pretty good, meriting the adaption with more talent than it deserves. Evans is surprisingly strong (I say that because he hasn’t fared too well of late in starring roles), embodying something of a ‘70s Oliver Reed in Wilder’s feral, pugilistic menace (since he was aiming for this, the boy Evans done well), and James Purefoy is reliably superior and disdainful. Some roles (notably those of Elizabeth Moss and Keeley Hawes) are undernourished, while some, such as Reece Shearsmith, stick out like a sore thumb, his performance far too broad for Wheatley’s style. Maybe Shearsmith had the right idea, but for the wrong director; maybe approaching High-Rise like an extended episode of League of Gentlemen would have done it favours. Certainly, Wheatley appears to have been the wrong director.


Or perhaps it’s just that Ballard’s satire has dated? Not in terms of the themes lacking topicality, but in the crudeness of the presentation. Lines such as “I conceived this building as a crucible for change -  I must have missed some vital element” might have seemed pertinent in ’75, but are bleeding obvious regarding the failures of modern social planning now (Wheatley even adds a Thatcher quote at the end, as if the gist wasn’t evident enough).


Which may explain why Wheatley went period, but the decision doesn’t help matters. And with it, the tipping point of man revelling in technological progress before falling prey to the same in primitive regress, when the former goes bad, is rendered rather arbitrarily (it isn’t the most insightful of insights anyway, much explored, and the third act for most Alex Garland screenplays). Wheatley’s made a picture of messy transitions (he must take the blame for the editing) and narrative incontinence; High-Rise has no rhythm, no form. It’s shapeless. Perhaps, as was once suggested, it is indeed unfilmable?


Would Nicolas Roeg’s version have been better? I’m bound to think so, particularly since Paul Mayersberg (The Man Who Fell to Earth, Eureka) wrote that screenplay). Or Richard Stanley’s script for Vincenzo Natali? Stanley offers hope, Natali’s previous form less so. Bruce Robinson also penned a screenplay in the late ‘70s. Cronenberg’s clinical indifference might have done the material a service, if he hadn’t already done a horror in an apartment block (Shivers, released the same year as Ballard’s novel). As it is, I’d sooner rewatch Sylvester McCoy in the goofy Doctor Who take on the premise (Paradise Towers), which at least refuses to get bogged down in its own self-importance (it hardly could, not with Richard Briers hamming it up the way he does). At least that story had a sufficiently absurdist approach; someone who can make the abstract elements of Ballard work for rather than against the adaptation. I hadn’t bought into the cult of Wheatley before this, and at this point I suspect it’s never going to happen.



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

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.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

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

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.

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 .

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’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.