Skip to main content

Bad luck to kill a seabird.

The Lighthouse
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Robert Eggers’ acclaimed – and Oscar-nominated – second feature is, in some respects, a similar beast to his previous The Witch, whereby isolated individuals of bygone eras are subjected to the unsparing attentions of nature. In his scheme of things, nature becomes an active, embodied force, one that has no respect for the line between imaginings and reality and which proceeds to test its targets’ sanity by means of both elements and elementals. All helped along by unhealthy doses of superstition. But where The Witch sustained itself, and the gradual unravelling of the family unit led to a germane climax, The Lighthouse becomes, well, rather silly.

Is that a somewhat glib verdict? I don’t think so. As noted, Eggers (with his brother Robert sharing screenplay duties) is venturing back into the territory of the mind overwhelmed by the natural world, with all the evils, fantasies and unchecked emotions that can be set loose in the absence of civilisation to distract or suppress it. But The Lighthouse’s framework authorises too much unearned escalation into unhinged states too soon, and without enough consistency to be convincing.

Ephraim Winslow/Thomas Howard (Robert Pattison) doesn’t drink a drop of spirits for his first four weeks on the rock, but very soon during that time he’s hallucinating visions of enticing mermaids. Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe) is already on the antic side, a (highly enjoyable) caricature of the salty old seadog complete with gammy leg, who strips off in the lightroom – which he exclusively occupies as his own ("Take your duties. The light is mine") – as if he’s experiencing a nightly rite of religious ecstasy (complete with ejaculate). But he’s just crusty, not kill happy.

Essentially, the insanity that takes a hold – essentially of Howard – is insufficiently motivated. Eggers creates a great visual sense, with the black and white, 1:19:1, 35mm frame, but he fails to muster the claustrophobic encroachment on the mind that gripped Roman Polanski’s Repulsion, or even the pervasive, creeping paranoia of his previous film. Howard flips back and forth, once he is storm stranded, between getting pissed out of his gourd and performing the mundane menial chores. His state isn’t sustained, so his breaking point doesn’t convince when it comes.

At which point, The Lighthouse leaps off the deep end, with Howard’s confused perspective fracturing the timeframe and causing the confusion of little details such as who’s doing what to whom (Wake claims weeks have passed, and tells Howard the axe attack on the boat by the elder keeper actually occurred the other way round). All culminating in Wake on a leash, buried alive – before returning for some gratuitous violence – and Howard finally venturing up to the lightroom as if re-enacting Danny Boyle’s Sunshine. But that isn’t quite the end of it: he takes a tumble, and is finished off by gulls risibly pecking him to bits. I mean, it’s very silly, isn’t it?

I was put in mind of Midsommar several times, where a lot of good work is done in establishing mood and aesthetic sense, but the filmmaker ultimately appears exhausted of inspiration for how to bring matters to a satisfying head. And so he proceeds incautiously; so much easier just to get very messy. There’s a point where The Lighthouse’s perpetual, storm-tossed drunken abandon begins to test the patience, and it’s the sure sign of desperation that Eggers reroutes his existential character study into full-blown art gore.

There’s also that the director, despite his keen visual instincts, falls back on geek-pleasing standard visual tropes – tentacle monsters, seductive sirens, the admittedly perfectly-captured Dafoe as Triton – so doubling down on the sense that, despite the laudable focus on two actors, The Lighthouse is almost all about the visuals and the authenticity of setting rather than the content.

I’d suggest the atmosphere is a major achievement, except that I think Eggers fails to imbue the piece with a real sense of madness borne of isolation, or even a proper sense of setting (we have no idea of the isle’s geography, and surely the first thing Howard would do would be to explore it). Eggers relishes the dirt, filth, depravity, the lack of hygiene, the farting, the wanking, the excrement (full in the face), the cold and the damp, the storms and desolation of the spot, but none of this actually amounts to very much. This most certainly isn’t a haunting tale, one that stays with you. It is, despite its palate, garish and grotesque, too large and lurid and obsessed with its viscera to be affecting or convincing. When its protagonists descend into drinking turps, I was put more in mind of The Goodies (who also made a memorable lighthouse episode, Lighthouse Keeping Loonies), than anything dramatically cogent.

Then there are the characters. Dafoe’s great – he always is – as the sometimes-incomprehensible Wake, mighty of beard and given to voicing his myriad superstitions, curses and tall tales. He also delivers the overwhelming majority of the picture’s laughs. But Wake isn’t allowed a soul; he’s much too much a reflection of Howard’s impression of him, his fear, hatred and, to some extent, awe. And Pattison is reliable in his sullen intensity as Howard, but Howard only really engages as a character when he’s the subject of Wake’s tyranny. He isn’t interesting, even when he’s revealing his dark secrets. There’s an extent to which this is germane – Wake mocks Howard for being nothing special, for being just like anyone else feeling life owes them something – but it makes the lurch into more extreme territory in the final twenty minutes banal, for all its intensity. Indeed, the reverse dynamic reveal borders on, dare I say it, trite.

There are elements here, the brooding paranoia, the sexual undercurrents and over-currents felt by the men – in response to the environment (events go south, via the onset of the storm, after Howard kills a seagull in a frenzied rage), directed at each other, fantasised mermaids or an all-consuming lifeforce (or lightforce), the anarchic abandon that comes with intoxication – that Eggers handles extremely deftly. And he’s an expert at suggesting man’s fragility in the face of nature and myth. Plus, his depiction of insane seagulls is every bit as memorable as his goat in The Witch. And yet, The Lighthouse is a film that only seems to be saying a lot, until it boils down to saying very little.


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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

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.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There