Skip to main content

There will be nothing of you left inside. Only space for me.

Suspiria
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Luca Guadagnino’s remake of giallo-meister Dario Argento’s 1977 film is set in the same year as the original for reasons that ultimately seem rather spurious. Indeed, while Suspiria 2018, also concerning a coven of witches running a dance school – as you do – is meticulously made and frequently mesmerising in its slow-burn dynamics – at an extremely indulgent two-and-a-half hours, it would have to be – it is transparently victim of the mutton-dressed-as-lamb approach taken by filmmakers tentative about approaching what they see as a lesser genre. As such, this is not justa horror movie. No, it has all this other stuff going on to justify its existence, you see – notably, screenwriter David Kajganich professed not to be a fan of the original. Even if, frankly, all that other stuff is largely beside the point, its inclusion made to seem slightly facile as a consequence.

But still, such overt thematic content makes Suspiria rich pickings for critical analysis, the pollination of horror films with ripe subtext having always been the first love of the habitual voyeur. You can analyse the motherhood theme, and the implications of matriarchal authority tending to the extreme negative, but it amounts to little more than salad dressing, as do the in-vain (and vain) attempts to parallel the activities of the coven mothers with the Nazis’ abuses of power and news footage of then current events.

The holocaust theme comes via Dr Klemperer, a bizarrely and distractingly cast Tilda Swinton again – again, since she’s already playing academy artistic director Madame Blanc, and distractingly if you’re watching Amazon Prime and the name comes up when you press pause – since its apropos nothing other than, perhaps a bid to Peter Sellers her (although possibly Jack Nicholson in Mars Attacks! would be a more appropriate comparison). Klemperer’s is a subplot that could have easily be removed from the movie without any adverse effect; indeed, Swinton wanders about in (very good) old age makeup doing very little for most of the movie, Klemperer’s actions designed to parallel doing very little under the Nazis, which the witches point out to him, thus rather undermining what little validity there was by hanging a neon sign around the character. (Swinton said she took the part for the fun of it, but you might, should you want to read it thematically, see Klemperer as a point on the scale of her other roles here, representing the evil of doing nothing about evil, as opposed to the evil imposter and the evil but relatively amicable art director).

Dakota Johnson’s Susie is the focus, though (no one else really gets a look in, not Mia Goth, a cameoing Jessica Harper, and certainly not Chloe Grace Moretz, who ends up a vassal in the attic in a manner suggestive of The Hunger as much as Bowie-alike Swinton’s old age makeup). And she’s very good, possibly too old for her part, but adept at the necessary unreadability. Rather like RPatz, she’s been unfairly maligned for her association with a crappy franchise. Susie/Mother Suspiriorum embodies a dispenser of justice and righter of wrongs, so making her a “compassionate” force of evil – and one pissed at Mother Helen Markos for posing as her (Markos being the other Swinton performance, resembling a grotesque combination of Dan Aykroyd in Nothing but Trouble and Baron Harkonnen). It’s fairly well signposted that Susie isn’t all she seems, and indeed, it’s chiefly this aspect that maintains interest, which really is little more than your standard twist, but again, dressed up in art house trappings (if this wasn’t an intrinsically “worthy” film, Thom Yorke surely wouldn’t have volunteered his sensitive scoring, wanting some of that Jonny Greenwood PTA-acclaim flavour).

Stylistically, though, Suspiria is very impressive. The 1970s milieu feels drably, austerely lived-in, and one could quite easily imagine this occupying the same universe as Roeg’s Don’t Look Now (even if it’s much more literal in scope than Roeg’s highly symbolic sphere). At times, I was also put in mind of The Witches, Roeg’s Roald Dahl adaptation, just with all the malicious fun hypodermically extracted. The dance choreography and schooling sequences are transfixing; indeed, Guadagnino shows the greatest accomplishment in this area, the interactions between (apparent) pupil and tutor. The sound design wouldn’t be out of place in a Peter Strickland picture, and if the dream sequences tend to the mechanically processed veal, they’re still of a piece. As such Suspiria is a highly atmospheric film without being especially scary; it’s all brood and mood, and even the gore and splatter, unrestrained as it is, is limited to very particular moments (a sequence in which Elena Fokina’s Olga is thrown about, twisted hideously like a puppet on a string as Susie, now inhabiting her role, dances her moves, is as masterfully achieved as it is repellent, and then come the meat hooks).

I think we can be grateful that David Gordon Green didn’t direct Suspiria as originally planned, then – one only has to look at his functional and unremarkable Halloween retcon sequel for reasons why – but on the other hand, he surely wouldn’t have felt the need to attempt to artificially boost the picture’s cachet and in so doing draw unflattering attention to its deficits (his idea was more operatic, so who knows, Argento, who slated the remake, might have liked it). It isn’t as easy as Kajganich thinks to graft themes onto existing material; they tend to look exactly what they are, so ensuring Guadagnino has made a highly engrossing – and highly gross, albeit usually when the dancing starts – film that staggers under the weight of its desire to be more than its humble self. If you can get past the self-indulgence of its pretensions, and stay awake, this is nevertheless a rewarding art house horror.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?