Skip to main content

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose
(1977)

(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem with the shock tactics of possession and courtroom drama.

And with regard to both the latter areas, Audrey Rose fails miserably. A big part of the problem is the title character, or rather her reincarnation as Ivy Templeton. Frank De Felitta’s 1975 novel, which he also adapted, was a bestseller, managing to blur the supernatural horror vogue with a flavour of New Age eastern mysticism. But if its literalist tackling of the metaphysical worked on the page, it quickly gets bogged down in sheer unlikeliness on the big screen.

The focus is on Ivy Templeton (Susan Swift), the troubled daughter of two New Yorkers, Janice and Bill (Marsha Mason and John Beck), who find themselves troubled by Elliot Hoover (Anthony Hopkins), a stalker claiming to be the father of Ivy’s former life. In embryo form, there’s an engaging mundanity to the unusual premise, while simultaneously offering the opportunity for a clash of beliefs and pricking of societal norms. But to deliver that, you need to believe in the performances, or you’ll quickly run into trouble. Linda Blair was considerably aided in The Exorcist by unnerving makeup and vocal augmentation/dubbing. Swift is entirely unconvincing; even her saucer eyes tend to suggest someone who’s been told there’s ice cream for dessert rather than the soulful depths of duality. And when it comes to flailing about wailing, as with a re-enactment of the fiery demise of Audrey, Swift’s acting is sadly rather pathetic, if not laughable.

In contrast, Hopkins is expectedly role-proof, admirably restrained in a part that could easily have become unhinged (we’re dealing with a character, after all, who kidnaps a couple’s daughter claiming she is his). And both Mason and Beck, the latter rocking a very '70s porn tache, respectively on the edge of losing it completely in the face of a situation she has no control over and blaming everyone, particularly Hoover, because he is in complete denial, are both convincing and compelling; their aggravating responses are aggravating because they’re authentic ones, as far as the screenplay allows for the same.

And during the first hour, for all the abstraction involved, Audrey Rose succeeds in eliciting interest. A scene in which Hoover has inveigled himself into the Templetons’ apartment and managed to talk their daughter down from her hysterical state believably ends with Beck attempting to beat the living crap out of him (Hopkins, being Welsh, is having none of it).

But the ambiguous tone is entirely dampened when the film unaccountably launches – or lurches – into a court case, in which Elliot attests his innocence of abduction because he was attempting to bring peace to Audrey’s spirit (the idea presented is that she is “in terrible pain and torment” because she reincarnated almost immediately upon her death; she was not karmically equipped to deal with a new body).

The film takies it as read that Audrey has reincarnated, which is fine and dandy, but De Felitta and Wise end up pulling increasingly unlikely scenarios out of their narrative hat in order to enforce this, culminating in a rather facile Exorcist-lite sequence as part of the evidential proceedings. Norman Lloyd’s psychiatrist Lipscomb hypnotises Ivy in order to relive her life as Audrey but is unable to bring her back from this place (“She’s not Ivy” repeats Ant, identifying why the literal-minded shrink is unable to reach his patient).

Curiously – or not, given the decade – the picture ends on a downer of Ivy’s demise. Albeit, Elliot and a quote from the Bhagavad-Gita try to paint this as a positive (“Her soul is set free”). It’s hardly surprising the sentiment failed to provide much balm to the picture’s box office prospects. Thought-provoking fare on the page can easily be rendered trite if the tone is just a little off in movie form. Notably, Audrey Rose came out two months before another child horror bomb, Exorcist II: The Heretic, which rather drew the line under supernatural kids for a while. Wise wisely, or unwisely depending on how you view the results, went back to science fiction. Audrey Rose is entirely without merit, but it’s fatally undermined by being simultaneously too earnest in its intent to succeed as a genre outing and too ridiculous to take seriously.




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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

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…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

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.

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.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.