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

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.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

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.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

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.