Skip to main content

Not even darkness lasts forever.

Legend
(1985)

(SPOILERS) Despite being nearly as much of a creative and box office bust as the majority of family fantasy epics made during the ‘80s (Willow, Krull, Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, Dragonslayer, Ladyhawke) – the lustre of sepia-tinged childhood nostalgia notwithstanding –  I’m fairly charitably inclined towards Legend. It doesn’t really work, but I can’t help but admire (Sir) Ridley Scott’s attempts to make it float. Part of the problem is his lead, a whippersnappery Tom Cruise on the cusp of mega-stardom who just cannot make anything of such a bland character and so whose perma-curtained hair and cheese-devouring grin become continually irksome signifiers of forest child Jack’s entire personality. But a bigger issue is that, as gorgeously visualised as this is (and it is by far the most impressively rendered fantasy world of its era, even given the pop video-style bubbles floating freely through the studio forest set), Scott has absolutely no feel for his milieu. It is at once too simple and too challenging for him; he’s not a fantasist, and he’s very far from a humourist, which means that, for long stretches, the picture is curiously flat and disengaged. The immersive quality of the production design and photography (and, sporadically, Jerry Goldsmith’s score) is unable to seep into the tale itself.


It’s curious that, in Scott’s account, the idea for Legend was born during The Duellists period, as it feels very much a response to what was going on in cinema during the early ‘80s, and that, having achieved success through distilling one half of George Lucas’ sci-fi/fantasy blend, he should now attempt the same with the other half. While the simple polarities of good vs evil undoubtedly have their basis in the Lucas-verse, they had inherited additional currency through the mostly flailing attempts by less-rigorous creative forces to replicate such iconography subsequently. 


One obstacle is that, when evil only is, when the elements are emboldened in their broadest, purely-silhouetted sense (Scott claimed to have read “all the fairy tales” prior to formulating his premise) and you’re dealing with the very literal, you have to either embrace a dream-like environment (Cocteau-esque, which Scott, to give him his due, occasionally summons), such that the tone is more sensory than it is didactic, or you must opt for juxtaposing it with humour, in order to offset the demand on credulity involved.


On that score, it isn’t all together surprising that Scott took the material to Disney (which considered it too dark, despite this being their uncertainly-footed dark period), since the studio was, from the off, mixing such elements in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. But Scott lacks the unbounded imagination for either. The out-of-focus creations of JF Sebastian in Blade Runner succeed entirely because they’re footnotes Scott isn’t obsessively deliberating over; when he tries the same thing with Jack’s entourage, the sidekicks are painfully leaden, with all the charisma and personality of a stand-up comic dying on stage.


And you can see exactly where he’s taking sidelong glances for inspiration: at Terry Gilliam, who instinctively knew how to treat the elements of dark and light, of fantasy questing and unlikely heroes. Imagine Time Bandits made by someone with zero sense of humour. Scott presents himself with quite a task, one that has defeated many who were hoodwinked into thinking it would be  a breeze: the fashioning of pure, unadulterated fantasy with no room for nuance, the most basic of humour, basic, black and white perspectives –  particularly when, as here, it isn’t overtly directed towards a children’s audience (the first draft screenplay from William Hjortsberg, who would later provide Angel Heart for Alan Parker, is in places more suggestive of Walerian Borowczyk than the wonderful world of Walt, while Scott picking Alex Thomson as his DP, who had recently worked on distinctly adult-hued fare such as Excalibur, The Keep and Eureka, is also illustrative of the way the director was leaning). None of the supporting characters, good or bad, are memorable, even given Rob Bottin’s prosthetic work, with one real exception.  Although, David Bennent (The Tin Drum) is accomplished as Honeythorn Gump, in spite of the elf’s lack of gumption.


Jack: You don’t really want to eat me. Ma’am.
Meg Mucklebones: Oh, indeed I do!

It’s only really a brief sequence with Joe Dante regular Robert Picardo as hideous crone Meg Mucklebones that offers a taste of what might have been, if its director had been able to mine a consistent sense of fun and twisted threat. Suddenly, we’re in a Sam Raimi movie – or the kind of thing Sam Raimi would be putting into Evil Dead II two years later – as Picardo’s leering, vain hag is sweet-talked into having her head lopped off by young, brave, feckless Jack.


But that’s about the best the picture has to offer in its first hour (I’m revisiting the Director’s Cut here). The most consistently impressive material only occurs after we descend with Mia Sara’s Princess Lily into the lair of Tim Curry’s Darkness (who arrives through a mirror in imagery John Carpenter would later appropriate for Prince of Darkness), leaving behind the Timotei forest (which is beautifully lensed as these things go, but not with the conviction, the sense of depth and recesses, of say Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back).


The trigger for the drama may sound a bit twee, even given the way it lends itself to obvious eco-parable (breaking the natural order by killing a unicorn brings on an ice age), but stories have succeeded on more slender premises; the problem in the early stages is that, Mia Sara aside, no one gives the proceedings any lift But, when she is brought before Darkness, despite the essentials of the conflict being unchanged (he has been told to woo her by his father, so he won’t be getting all brutalist immediately), we get what the picture has been desperately missing up to this point; two actors really making the most of the material and interacting with each other.


Darkness: What is light without dark, and what are you without me?

And it’s also here that the set design comes into its own. Lily running through a vast room/hall of ornate columns, or engaging in a dance with her shadow self, where she is tempted to “become one of us”, suggestive of Scott being influenced by Powell and Pressburger, is the closest we get to a true artistic flight of fancy. 


Lily emerges in a sexualised outfit and sporting black lippy (and a trace of uni-brow), suggesting an entirely different proposition to her slightly cheeky, playful-at-worst prior persona. It’s a pity, then, that she instantly rejects Darkness’ overtures – since this isn’t actually that sort of film –  and it’s left to this conception of evil, a visually extraordinary creation that completely immerses Curry yet cannot suppress the quality of his performance and silk of his vocalisation, to point the finger of relative complicity (“Was it not your sin that trapped the unicorn?”; “We are all animals, my lady. Most are too afraid to see it”; “The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity… Through dreams, I influence mankind”).


Darkness also presents, as his ethos, one backed up by the contrasting visual palette of the picture, an apparently Zoroastrian vision of this realm, one in which light and dark are co-dependent and interlocked. It’s an engrossing take, particularly as savoured by Curry, but one disavowed entirely by the good forest folk, and effectively by Legend’s conclusion (although Darkness makes a reappearance in the US cut before the end credits). Which is a shame, as again, Scott’s invocation of the fairy tale fails to fully trade in its more unwholesome elements, or explore them as it might. Of course, design-wise, Scott’s touchstone is Christian imagery for Darkness (as filtered through the pagan horned god); Darkness is red-skinned (the fires of hell), cloven-hoofed and has a pair of enormous and unwieldy horns extending from his forehead, which requires a singular and complete victory by the forces of goodness.


So it’s an additional shame that these forces are embodied by slack Jack, charging in to save the day, with a bright idea about bringing light to darkness as he does a whole lot of jumping about in a giant’s kitchen before confronting big bad Tim. Who is ejected into space much in the style of a xenomorph. That, in the Director’s Cut, Jack and Lily don’t end up together isn’t really enough to subdue the sickly feeling of Goldsmith’s score washing over the hand-waving forest folk as Cruise runs into the sunset (the Tangerine Dream contribution to the US version is a different story; some of it is entirely synth-tastic, but it also lacks the enduring, entrancing quality of Vangelis’ work on Blade Runner; Scott was no doubt thinking of the latter’s phenomenal contribution to that film when he gave them the call).


Hjortsberg’s account of the writing process is suggestive of a director, if not as hare-brained as say producer Peter Guber (his demands for the aborted Superman Lives have become infamous), who really doesn’t know his storytelling arse from elbow. Particularly amusing is his suggestion that Jack be green, to which Hjortsberg asked for clarification and Scott replied “Absolutely! Lizard boy”. The writer had to point out “how do we explain why the princess would fall in love with a lizard boy?” to which Sir Ridders concluded “Right. Fuck me. Forget about it”. Alas, once a terrible idea like that is out there, it can never be put back in the bottle. This is the same Scott now feeding poor, unfortunate scribes his defective inspirations for the continuation of the Alien franchise.


Legend was, of course, a box office bomb, one that sent Scott into a tailspin, retreating into the respectable safety of contemporary thrillers. As a cap to his unofficial “other worlds” trilogy, it’s a disappointment, but more so is that it seemed to break something within him, ambition-wise. For all that Legend is a failure as a piece of storytelling, it does create a world, and a world with form and embellishment, that is striking and exotic. After this, Ridley would be less and less willing to let his landscapes breathe, more and more focussed on the next cut than letting us linger.







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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c