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

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…

Imagine a plant that could think... Think!

The Avengers 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green
Most remarked upon for Robert Banks-Stewart having “ripped it off” for 1976 Doctor Who story The Seeds of Doom, although, I’ve never been wholly convinced. Yes, there are significant similarities – an eccentric lady who knows her botany, a wealthy businessman living in a stately home with an affinity for vegetation, an alien plant that takes possession of humans, a very violent henchman and a climax involving a now oversized specimen turning very nasty… Okay, maybe they’re onto something there… – but The Seeds of Doom is really good, while Man-Eater of Surrey Green is just… okay.

You better watch what you say about my car. She's real sensitive.

Christine (1983)
(SPOILER) John Carpenter was quite open about having no particular passion to make Christine. The Thing had gone belly-up at the box office, and adapting a Stephen King seemed like a sure-fire way to make bank. Unfortunately, its reception was tepid. It may have seemed like a no-brainer – Duel’s demonic truck had put Spielberg on the map a decade earlier – but Carpenter discoveredIt was difficult to make it frightening”. More like Herbie, then. Indeed, the director is at his best in the build-up to unleashing the titular automobile, making the fudging of the third act all the more disappointing.

Why are you painting my house?

mother!
(SPOILERS) Darren Aronofsky has a reasonably-sized chin, but on this evidence, in no time at all he’ll have reduced it to a forlorn stump with all that stroking. And then set the remains alight. And then summoned it back into existence for a whole new round of stroking. mother! is a self-indulgent exercise in unabated tedium in the name of a BIG idea, one no amount of assertive psued-ing post-the-fact can turn into a masterpiece. Yes, that much-noted “F” cinemascore was well warranted.

This isn't fun, it's scary and disgusting.

It (2017)
(SPOILERS) Imagine how pleased I was to learn that an E Nesbitt adaptation had rocketed to the top of the US charts, evidently using a truncated version of its original title, much like John Carter of Mars. Imagine my disappointment on rushing to the cinema and seeing not a Psammead in sight. Can anyone explain why It is doing such phenomenal business? It isn’t the Stephen King brand, which regular does middling-at-best box office. Is it the nostalgia factor (‘50s repurposed as the ‘80s, so tapping into the Stranger Things thing, complete with purloined cast member)? Or maybe that it is, for the most part, a “classier” horror movie, one that puts its characters first (at least for the first act or so), and so invites audiences who might otherwise shun such fare? Perhaps there is no clear and outright reason, and it’s rather a confluence of circumstances. Certainly, as a (mostly) non-horror buff, I was impressed by how well It tackled pretty much everything that wasn’t the hor…

It could have been an accident. He decided to sip a surreptitious sup and slipped. Splash!

4.10 A Surfeit of H20
A great episode title (definitely one of the series’ top ten) with a storyline boasting all the necessary ingredients (strange deaths in a small village, eccentric supporting characters, Emma even utters the immortal “You diabolical mastermind, you!”), yet A Surfeit of H20 is unable to quite pull itself above the run of the mill.

Have no fear! Doc Savage is here!

Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze (1975)
(SPOILERS) Forget about The Empire Strikes Back, the cliffhanger ending of Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze had me on the edge of my seat for a sequel that never came. How could they do that to us (well, me)? This was of course, in the period prior to discernment and wisdom, when I had no idea Doc Savage was a terrible movie. I mean, it is, isn’t it? Well, it isn’t a great movie, but it has a certain indolent charm, in the manner of a fair few mid-‘70s SF and fantasy fare (Logan’s Run, The Land that Time Forgot) that had no conception the genre landscape was on the cusp of irrevocable change.

Don't worry about Steed, ducky. I'll see he doesn't suffer.

The Avengers 4.11: Two’s A Crowd
Oh, look. Another Steed doppelganger episode. Or is it? One might be similarly less than complimentary about Warren Mitchell dusting off his bungling Russian agent/ambassador routine (it obviously went down a storm with the producers; he previously played Keller in The Charmers and Brodny would return in The See-Through Man). Two’s A Crowd coasts on the charm of its leads and supporting performances (including Julian Glover), but it’s middling fare at best.

Let the monsters kill each other.

Game of Thrones Season Seven
(SPOILERS) Column inches devoted to Game of Thrones, even in “respectable” publications, seems to increase exponentially with each new season, so may well reach critical mass with the final run. Groundswells of opinion duly become more evident, and as happens with many a show by somewhere around this point, if not a couple of years prior, Season Seven has seen many of the faithful turn on once hallowed storytelling, and at least in part, there’s good reason for that.

Some suggest the show has jumped the shark (or crashed the Wall); there were concerns over how much the pace increased last year, divested as it was of George RR Martin’s novels as a direct source, but this year’s succession of events make Six seem positively sluggish. I don’t think GoT has suddenly, resoundingly, lost it, and I’d argue there did need to be an increase in momentum (people are quick to forget how much moaning went on about seemingly nothing happening for long stretches of previ…

James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman and she starts to hear heavenly choirs singing.

Thunderball (1965)
Look up! Look down! Look out! Her comes the biggest Bond of all! So advised the poster for the fourth 007 cinematic feast. Biggest it most definitely was, but unfortunately in almost every other respect the finished film is inferior to its three predecessors. Nevertheless, the approach taken by the producers (a favourite of Hollywood generally) was to throw enough money at the screen in the hope it would result in higher box office receipts. Which proved a successful one on this occasion. It remains the highest grossing Bond film (inflation-adjusted), in the US.