Skip to main content

I hope nobody else is going to make me cross today.

The Witches
(1990)

(SPOILERS) Nicolas Roeg making a kid's movie? Why, that would be tantamount to… someone as twisted as Roald Dahl writing children's stories. What's strangest is that it should have dropped in Roeg’s lap at this point, after a decade of making wilfully uncommercial movies even by his idiosyncratic standards. The last time he'd flirted with anything the public might go and see in any numbers had been Flash Gordon, before Dino de Laurentis decided not to give him a huge budget for something that would probably go straight over people's heads (more's the pity), with its "metaphysical messiah", and be unsuitable for family viewing with the intended sexual innuendo (although, there's a fair bit of that in the Mike Hodges version we got). That lack of attunement with fashioning hits might explain the financial failure of The Witches, even though it’s generally regarded as one of the best Dahl adaptations. It's exactly what you'd expect from the director of Don't Look Now making something for junior: unsettling, macabre, twisted, but also very funny and delightfully cartoonish.


The Film Yearbook Volume 9 called it "a misogynistic horror film for kids", which I guess is one way of looking at it. Dahl's novel also had the charge of misogyny levelled at it, not least by Dahl's editor, who suggested he tone down the manner in which the tale's women "took a lot of abuse"; "Almost every one of his numerous books rehashes the same tired plot: a meek boy finally turns on his adult female tormentors and kills them" argued Michele Landsberg. Will Self, meanwhile, attested that "The infanticidal witches of The Witches stand proxy for all mothers – who kill that which they claim to love; true, the boy's Norwegian grandmother is a good enough parent, but she’s safely de-sexed by age and illness".


That grandmother, Helga, warmly portrayed by Mai Zetterling (informed by Dahl's own Norwegian grandma), rather punctures this all-pervading charge, which is why critiques have to come up with reasons Dahl's otherwise vehemence doesn't apply and she doesn't really count.

 
What stays with you in the film isn't its gender politics, however; it's the tone and imagery. Roeg's particularly good with the opening flashbacks to the Norwegian village of gran's youth, as she informs Luke of the crones' (un)natural characteristics: bald, itchy scalps, toeless feet – Dahl's take on what women look like beneath all those layers of makeup and couture? – along with a hatred of children, who "smell like fresh dog's droppings" to them, a good excuse for Luke not to wash more than once a month. Also related is their deadly natures; particularly striking is an account translated from the novel, of a child trapped in a painting, moving position before eventually fading away; David Lynch was surely influenced by this for Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me


Later, Roeg effortlessly turns quiet English country lanes into a prowling ground for predatory child snatchers, poised to offer children in trees chocolate (the meeting organised by Anjelica Huston's Grand High Witch/Miss Ernst is nominally in the name of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). 


When the action relocates to a typical seaside hotel, complete with Rowan Atkinson as Basil Fawlty-lite manager Mr Stringer, there’s a resultant relish for the familiar made strange. Broad comedy characters (Atkinson, Bill Patterson's boorish guest Mr Jenkins) vie with a convoluted evil plan, and when the witches are revealed in their unfettered lack of glory, Roeg pulls out all the stops with unsettling handheld camera work, dollying in on the freaks, their transformations replete with disorientating angles and sudden cuts. Combined with the prosthetics and puppetry, the effect isn't very far at times from early Peter Jackson; the climactic change of the Grand High Witch into a rat resembles Braindead's rat monkey crossed with The Dark Crystal's Skeksis.


Roeg recognised the nightmarish potency of the material, that a film shown in the cinema couldn't be readily escaped, unlike the closing of a book. He noted how he "took out a lot of stuff that was quite extraordinary" from the final edit; "It was one of the few occasions I didn't mind the studio actually wanting to change the ending. Curiously enough, when Dahl saw if the first time, he didn't mind at all". Dahl evidently revised this view, announcing how appalled he was by The Witches (ostensibly because it messed with the book's conclusion, in which the young hero, irreversibly transformed into a mouse, is content to have only another nine years of life as he doesn't want to survive his gran anyway; I wonder if he'd have felt the same by the time he was a seventeen-year-old mouse?) 


The witches plan to turn the nation's children into mice, which is some way short of mass slaughter, although the book assumes teachers will proceed with the messy mouse-squishing business; the protagonist turning into a mouse actually came at the suggestion of Dahl's editor. The first to experience this transformation is Jenkins' son Bruno (Charlie Potter), followed soon after by Luke (Jasen Fisher, also of Parenthood; the acting life was evidently not for him as he abandoned the profession after Hook Hook will have that effect on you). 


If it's easy to see what attracted Jim Henson to the material (he bought the rights soon after it was first published in 1983), his choice of Roeg is more elusive. One might have expected someone a little less distinctive and more obviously audience-friendly (such as Terry Jones, who penned the screenplay for Henson's Labyrinth), so it's a sign he knew exactly the kind of tone he wished to bring most from the material. And he evidently saw it is a director's project; screenwriter Allan Scott was surely Roeg's pick, having collaborated previously with the director on Don't Look Now and Castaway


Dahl may have been livid over the changes to the ending, but he's said to have been over the moon at the casting of Huston. Understandably, as she's a deliciously unrepentant villain, prone to incinerating her subjects at the drop of an injudicious interjection. Roeg reportedly suggested she made the character sexier, which makes for an effective contrast with her decidedly unappealing true self. 


Horrocks presence as Susan is sure to have met with equal disavowal from Dahl; the character, assistant to the Grand High Witch, wasn't in the novel, and worse, she's revealed (or finds herself) as a good witch, thus diluting the author's alleged gender ire. It's Susan who turns Luke back into a boy (a line is overdubbed about doing the same for Bruno). 


The change was apparently made at the behest of test audiences (Roeg had shot two endings, one as per the book), but I'd be surprised if the sway didn’t come from concerned adults. It's little different to Time Bandits, where Kevin's parents are vaporised by a piece of evil; Gilliam said kids weren't worried by such things. I'm not sure that's entirely the case (anecdotally, one hears of children being freaked out by the ending), but in The Witches' example, I'd wager most kids would think it was pretty cool being permanently turned into a mouse. That said, I don't think the decision's in any way a killer; it's usually those who are too close to the material who can't see it any other way (Daniel Waters and Heathers).


Mr Jenkins: Just flew in, did you?
Miss Ernst: What?

Indeed, you can readily see that curious blend of standard British humour and more unrestrained (and sometimes disturbing) fantasy that informed Gilliam's '80s trilogy throughout The Witches. Many of the asides are wonderfully well observed, not least the essential untrustworthiness of adults, even those who aren't witches (again, Helga is honourably excepted). Most are up to sexual misdeeds, from the manager's affair with a member of staff to Jenkins' roving eye ("It's not every day one meets a lady of such quality and composure"), or of questionable morals (Jim Carter's chef, told that a guest's veal is too tough, extracts a discarded cut from the waste bin, wipes it down and deposits it on the plate). 


I can't attest to how disturbing The Witches is for a younger audience, since I was already an adult when it was released, but it fully passes the test of entertaining regardless of age; that it's now regarded as a classic and as one of the best Dahl adaptations is likely reflective of concerned parents blanching at what looked likely to make their moppets run screaming for the exits. It's generally under seen, though, which probably means Guillermo del Toro thinks he has good enough reason to remake it (which he's been angling to do for a decade); really, he should be vouching for the quality of a really good adaptation and leave it at that, but it seems Robert Zemeckis, now a permanently past-it underachiever, is tackling it after the forthcoming (horrible looking) Welcome to Marwen. If nothing else, it should serve to spotlight that there is another version out there; the uninitiated will be richly rewarded when they discover it.



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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.