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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.