Skip to main content

Oh man, they wronged you. Why they gotta be like that? You exude a cosmic darkness.

Mandy
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Sometimes you're left scratching your head over a movie, wondering what it was about it that had others rapturously raving while you were left shrugging. I at least saw the cult appeal of Panos Cosmatos’ previous picture, Beyond the Black Rainbow, which inexorably drew the viewer in with a clinically psychedelic allure before going unceremoniously off the boil with a botched slasher third act. Mandy, though, has been pronounced one of the best of the year, with a great unhinged Nic Cage performance front and centre – I can half agree with the latter point – but it's further evidence of a talented filmmaker slave to a disconcertingly unfulfilling obsession with retro-fashioning early '80s horror iconography.


There's a ponderousness to the first hour of Mandy that suggests Cosmatos believes he's rendering something of depth, that will get under the skin, but really all he's doing is fine-tuning atmosphere, to be discarded later for Nic going the full Cage with a chainsaw; he's in the service of portentous shlock, basically. I'm sure advocates of the picture are responding to the whole kit and caboodle –mostly the chainsaw fight, though, let's face it – but my reaction was one of listlessness. Mandy's too self-seriously moody to be a fun movie wallowing in its gory tropes, and that moodiness tends towards an endurance test; the addled ramblings of a writer-director evidently far too fixated on his own formative altered-states drug habit, even if it's largely historic ("I just can't do drugs any more"; "Every time I've tried to smoke weed now I feel like I'm in a battle with the demon's embrace. It feels like an epic power struggle against the universe"). 


Cosmatos' garbled account of what Mandy's about suggests he's still suffering the after-effects even when he doesn't try to smoke weed now. Of Cage's Red, transforming into a revenge-fuelled unstoppable force in the second half of the picture, Panos comments "he has sort of modified into this sort of demigod-like, gazing war beast, gollum, sort of enacting pure will on the mortal coil". Yeah, dude! Righteous! Er, what? 


As such, I evidently saw a different film to one of the year’s most visceral love stories "handled with profound sensitivity and told with hypnotic precision". Rather, I encountered an exercise in juvenilia in terms of structure and content, the junk imagining of a fourteen-year-old let loose with a movie trainset and a packet of pseudish gibberish ("I wanted the weapon he forges himself to crystallise, a manifestation of his grief and insanity and not like a real object"). Yeah, it probably is the best movie of the year if you're really high while watching.


Don't get me wrong, Cage and Andrea Riseborough (the titular character) are great, and I'm happy to watch either in pretty much anything (although Cage seems intent on testing his faithful with his output of late), but I'm not wholly persuaded by the great love story allowed to breath in the opening stages. It feels to me that Cosmatos thinks this slow, underwritten, wispy Athena poster of interaction will instil meaning into their relationship and so underwrite the revenge side when Mandy is taken. But it doesn't really. Instead, we're constantly barraged by geek trapping distractions. Mandy's more defined by her Black Sabbath t-shirt than her starlings story, Red by his affinity for Galactacus as his favourite planet ("Galactacus isn't a planet"). 


Early on, I wondered if there might be conceptual coherence to Red's initial choice of Saturn, the expression of the demiurge, that he might be seen in some way to have invited the events that follow, just as Mandy wearing an inverted pentagram may have attracted the cult. But I don't think there's any kind of depth to the references; Cosmatos has just thrown in stuff he thinks is cool. He talks in interviews about how Mandy is Galactacus, "she is the one who eats planets", but the reference is one he added after Cage was cast. It smacks of making it up as you go along. No, I don't want to smoke any more weed. Oh, okay. Go on.


Honestly too, the much-cited vodka-fuelled full-Cage scene, in which Red breaks down in his underpants, did nothing for me. But then, the director refers to the sequence as "an absurdist one-act play", so if he's that removed from making us care about the central relationship, it's not surprising it doesn't quite hit the spot. It pinpoints where the movie is lacking; Cosmatos is big on the atmosphere – credit where it's due, he's really, really good at it – but he appears indifferent to the beats of emotion. The second half is a revenge picture, but it isn't driven by our desire to see Red's revenge, in the manner most such narratives operate (take Straw Dogs, for example, where it's palpable). It just happens. Of course, this is a director who gave his star Friday the 13th Part VII to watch as prep for the movie's climax.


You can dress a movie up in whatever finery you like (if in doubt, throw in some Joseph Campbell), but when you hear "I think maybe one of the first things I realised I wanted done was probably the chainsaw fight", it becomes pretty clear where the viewer stands. Perhaps Cosmatos is genuinely bewildered by the serious attention he's receiving for Mandy. He comments that this is a movie about dealing with loss… Yeah, but so is Death Wish; are we going to campaign for the auteurist rep of Michael Winner? 


Cosmatos seems content to throw in any kind of randomness under the loose label of an alternate, mythologised '80s landscape, believing that's enough. So we get an acid bikers that ate Paris from hell gang that may as well have ridden off the An American Werewolf in London set, just without the accompanying laughs. There's something slightly infantile about his approach. But then, Panos pretty much admits as much, that the 1983 depicted is "this sort of landscape of my childhood memories and my emotions of the time and I’m coping with them now".


Jeremiah: Do you like The Carpenters? I think that they're sensational. But this is even better.

I was going to suggest Cosmatos has no idea about how the Children of the New Dawn, the cult he's created, functions, but apparently there's a seventeen-minute track called My Journey, in which Jeremiah Sand (Linus Roache) gives his views on the world and God. From the movie, though, they're a mash of incoherent tropes, from Manson-esque musical stylings (and concordant mockery of the same from Mandy – "You wrote this song?" – before laughing). Red refers to them as "Jesus freaks", but there seems precious little evidence for that, particularly since he follows it with "They were weirdo hippy types". Cosmatos refers to "creating this mythological landscape, and then populating it with neurotic people", which to be fair does describe its members, and the jealousy of Mother Marlene (Olwen Fouere) at the new chosen one in their midst (Jeremiah "thinks you’re so special").


They appear marked as a personality cult ("If you’re not with me, you will not ascend") who, of course, take weird William Burroughs drugs ("I like to call that the cherry on top") and have an artificially elevated view of their superiority: "Take a good look, you worthless piece of human excrement. This is the Tainted Blade of the Pale Night. Straight from the Abyssal Layer". Red's a mere human, one of the "Poor stupid dogs. Born without souls". This has been something of a year for cult movies, as in movies featuring cults, but this one's are much nearer to the spurious group of Apostle rather than the clearly demarcated one of Hereditary.


The picture boasts a fine Jóhan Jóhannson score and effectively evocative cinematography from Benjamin Loeb, but when I read about the "unnervingly beautiful and grotesque worlds" of Cosmatos' imagination, my kneejerk response is to suggest "You mean retro synths and a red colour filter?" I'm being reductively crude, but then so is much of Mandy, complete with lovingly silhouetted axed villain's head. There are appealingly goofy touches, like the Ralph Bakshi-esque animated Mandy seen by Red at intervals, but it simply underlines that these are the teenage appetites of its director put on celluloid.


Cage gets some good Cage-isms that will no doubt go down in his lexicon; his obsession with his favourite item of clothing ("You ripped my shirt!" he declares to a cannibal biker before stabbing him in the throat, this after he's dispatched another with "You are a vicious snowflake" sign off). And he takes some weird biker drug – of course he takes some weird drugs – so becoming "a Jovan warrior sent forth from the eye of the storm". Which effectively means he ends up embroiled in a sub-Bruce Campbell/Braindead splatterfest, culminating in his confrontation with Jeremiah, where he grandly announces "I’m your god now". And engages in some orgasmic skull bursting. The effect is nothing so much as puerile. Ultimately, though, this isn't the Cage-rage classic I'd hoped for; there are only a few precious moments offering the kind of manic flip out he's celebrated for, certainly nothing that can go the distance with the monumental insanity of Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.


Red: They were weirdo hippy types. A whole bunch of them. Then there was the muscle. It didn't make any sense. They were bikers and gnarly psychos and… Crazy evil.

You've got a plot synopsis for Mandy right there, and just as intelligible. It's clear Panos Cosmatos never got past the early '80s video nasties his dad let him watch unfiltered; at least, it looks as if he's going to be stuck on that track, stranded in 1983, for the rest of his career. Which is a little weird. Mandy suggests his approach is all period reference, with no real identity beyond that. I thought Beyond the Black Rainbow might have been a taster for a director who would grow in psychedelic splendour and thematic depth, but this suggests only regression. There's something of a witless Garth Merenghi about Cosmatos' era-specific genre doodling, but without the accompanying mirth. Mandy's undoubtedly worth a look for the sounds and visuals, but they ultimately serve to emphasise how empty it is.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

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…

This dog is my Patty Hearst.

Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Martin McDonagh’s In Bruges is one of my favourite films of the past decade, hilarious and profound in equal measure. His follow-up may lack Bruges’ emotional through line, and thus its resonance, but in its own way Seven Psychopaths is just as perfectly formed.

We’re Americans. We read your emails.

Domino (2019)
(SPOILERS) Brian De Palma essentially appears to have disowned his unhappy latest motion picture experience (“I never experienced such a horrible movie set”). He opined that he came in on a script that wasn’t of his own devising (by Petter Skavlan of Kon-Tiki) and did his failing best to apply his unique vision to it. And you can see that vision, occasionally, but more than that you can see unaccustomed cheapness and lacklustre material that likely wouldn’t play no matter how much cash was thrown at it.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.