Skip to main content

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms
(1995)

(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

The concept, such as it was, was to present a unity of independent spirit (the Sundance “Class of 92”), overseen by that bastion of the same – unless your movie “needed” cutting, that is – Miramax. Alexandre Rockwell, director of second sequence Room 404 – The Wrong Man, referred to a “New Wave feeling” among the filmmakers (including Richard Linklater, who must count himself lucky to have dropped out), and it’s Rockwell who must cop the blame for the premise, that of a bellhop getting into scrapes with different guests on New Year’s Eve. Those involved opine that the picture became a different beast once it was snapped up by the mini-major, eager to have a chunk of whatever Tarantino was involved in; it was no longer a collaboration of equals, but of Quentin and whichever nobodies he brought along with him.

If the results seem scrappy, that’s a reflection of the making; Anders observed that the first draft was accepted as the final, while Rockwell noted that, on a wave of Pulp adulation, all approvals for everything had to go through Tarantino’s people. Miramax, unsurprisingly, acted like oafs, cutting the movie down, mainly at the expense of Anders and Rockwell’s segments. Harvey said “You know what the problem with this movie is? We’re working with two geniuses and two hacks”. Yeah, I know he really was including Rodriguez in the former category (Peter Biskind, in Down and Dirty Pictures, from which I’ve sourced most of these anecdotes, cogently summed him up as “a delayed adolescent”).

Miramax, as Anders saw it, were doing exactly the opposite of the idealistic intent of the exercise, pitting the filmmakers against each other in test screenings where audiences were asked which room they liked best. As such, while it may be a little uncharitable to say it, Anders’ and Rockwell’s are the inferior segments, which isn’t to suggest any of them are anything to write home about.

Honey Moon Suite – The Missing Ingredient

Anders’ room finds a coven of starry but otherwise unexceptional witches (Madonna, Alicia Witt, Sammi Davis, Lili Taylor, Ione Skye, Valerie Golino) intent on reversing a spell cast on goddess Diana (Amanda De Cadenet, bizarrely). Skye has to procure some semen, and with little spare time focuses on Ted the bellhop.

It’s worth emphasising straight off the bat that Tim Roth’s performance throughout is quite dreadful, the kind of frantic mugging that suggests he should never be let near a comedy script. For some reason, there seemed to be a lot of bellboys in movies around this time from Cinqué Lee in Mystery Train to Steve Buscemi’s Chet in Barton Fink and even Bronson Pinchot in Blame it on the Bellboy. It emphasises how bad Roth is when I say that even Pinchot is more watchable. If they’d wanted someone to gurn and put on a silly voice, they should have had just thrown caution to the wind and cast Lee Evans, the latter-day Jerry Lewis (it figures, however, that it was written with Buscemi in mind).

It’s difficult to critique this in any way as it functions as an airless waft of nothingness, and presumably, since Anders had it cut from under her with a script she wasn’t happy with, she’d probably agree. At least Madonna doesn’t get a chance to be terrible despite her Razzie recognition, because you’ll barely remember she was in it. Aside from bringing her own outfit.


Room 404 – The Wrong Man

Rockwell’s premise feels like it has more potential, at least, with Ted mistaken for a role-play participant in an uncomfortable “hostage” scenario, with a gagged-and-bound Jennifer Beals at the behest of her husband David Proval. It’s ultimately no less tiresome than the opener, though, and mostly notable for someone nearly vomiting over Ted from the room above as he attempts to escape through the bathroom window.


Room 309 – The Misbehavers

Rodriguez ropes in Antonio Banderas, as the latter and wife Tamlyn Tomita leave Ted in charge of their kids, who inevitably run amok when he leaves them unattended. Rodriguez undeniably injects some energy into his room. However, it’s expectedly as tonally shot – the kids discover a dead prostitute under the bed – as everything he does, as well as telegraphing his future capacity for kids’ movies no one wants to see (Spy Kids and their endless sequels). There’s also a weird coda with Kathy Griffin and Marisa Romei where Ted wants to quit; I thought for a moment that it might be the part of the next segment. Which is, of course…


Penthouse – The Man from Hollywood

Tarantino, as Anders pointed out, is basically offering an autobiographical piece. One in which he’s surrounded by sycophants (Paul Calderon, Bruce Willis, Beals pops up again). Plus, he gets to indulge his yen for being taken seriously as an actor. There’s a mention of a “tasty beverage”, and structurally it can’t help but be more engaging than anything preceding: various requested ingredients for a task as yet unspecified, which turns out to be cutting off Calderon’s finger, which Ted duly does for a fee. Accordingly, it also includes the requisite Tarantino violence, however minimal that may be. It is however, as noted, a Tarantino acting showcase, and so can only be so engaging.


So what’s there to summarise about Four Rooms, other than its anecdotal failure (it cost $4m and made only a tad more than that), and the trashing of various filmmaker friendships? Biskind notes that anthology films rarely work, and he isn’t wrong. The portmanteau horrors of the ‘60s and ‘70s tend to be exceptions (although, even then, they’re hit and miss) and the Coens recently pulled off a western with something approaching aplomb. Four Rooms ought to have worked, to the extent that its self-imposed limitations (one bellhop, one room) spurred creativity. Instead they seem to have clogged it up. Only Tarantino really gets the right idea of the twist element common to the form – that there should be a satisfying reveal or gag that justifies the indulgence – and that’s because he’s ripped of Roald Dahl’s The Man from the South (sorry Quentin, homaged it). And in his case the indulgence is barely justified by his indulgent performance.

Overall:

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

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 ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for