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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There