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.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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.

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

You’d be surprised how many intersectional planes of untethered consciousness exist.

Moon Knight (2022) (SPOILERS) Now, this is an interesting one. Not because it’s very good – Phase IV MCU? Hah! – but because it presents its angle on the “superhero” ethos in an almost entirely unexpurgated, unsoftened way. Here is a character explicitly formed through the procedures utilised by trauma-based mind control, who has developed alters – of which he has been, and some of which he remains, unaware – and undergone training/employment in the military and private mercenary sectors (common for MKUltra candidates, per Dave McGowan’s Programmed to Kill ). And then, he’s possessed by what he believes to be a god in order to carry out acts of extreme violence. So just the sort of thing that’s good, family, DisneyPlus+ viewing.