Skip to main content

Abra Kadabra. Shalakazam. Bye-bye, baby. Boom.

A Shock to the System
(1990)

(SPOILERS) A Shock to the System might have arrived a few years too late, even though it’s as sharp as ever. Based on Simon Brett’s 1984 novel and relocated across the Pond – one can’t help thinking it would have been more effective, not least on Michael Caine’s never-entirely-effective transatlantic vowels, to stay put – it reputedly got the greenlight off the back of Wall Street’s success. By the time it, and The Bonfire of the Vanities for that matter, appeared, the zeitgeist appeal had dispersed. If it had waited another few years, it might have garnered the era-retrospective credit awarded American Psycho. Nevertheless, this ranks as one of Caine’s best from that period, a chance for him to flourish the full lizard-eyelids psycho that had made his Mona Lisa cameo so memorable.

Christopher Bray, in A Class Act, compared A Shock to the System to Kind Hearts and Coronets. Except that Dennis Price is not required to undergo humiliation to get us on his side. You might as well call the movie a sociopath’s How to Succeed at Business at Business Without Really Trying (albeit, Caine’s Graham Marshall is already an executive at his ad company). Certainly, the final shot, suggesting his boss’s plane is about to experience a mishap, echoes that picture’s “only way is up” corporate methodology.

A Shock to the System was variably received when it came out. I remember the pleasant surprise struck by the tone of some reviews, but Harlan Kennedy in the Film Yearbook Volume 9 demolished it, finishing with “Is there another film playing in the next cinema?” Still, Time Out’s Brian Case commented “Seldom have Caine’s cobra eyes been used to better effect; it’s a chilling tale, cleanly directed”.

Director Jan Egleson would spend most of the next decade supervising TV movies, and he’s certainly more the safe pair of hands than a showman; he throws in the occasional Dutch angle, but it’s left to Caine’s confidential, engagingly third-person voiceover to strike the movie’s tone, Caine and voiceovers go well together (Alfie, Hannah and Her Sisters), offering an intimacy of motivation. Gary Chang’s playful score also helps set the tone (Chang struck a similarly wry note with the same year’s Miami Blues). Ideally, I could have seen someone like Danny De Vito (in director mode) making the most of the screenplay’s heightened milieu.

Andrew Klavan penned the adaptation (several of his novels, including White of the Eye, True Crime and Don’t Say a Word have become movies). If there’s a fault to the picture (running to a very lean ninety minutes), it’s that it doesn’t spend enough time allowing Graham to enjoy the fruits of his crimes, focussing instead on the Hitchcockian device of his potentially being found out due to an incriminating lighter.

Graham, passed over for promotion and pilloried by insensitive wife Swoozie Kurtz, experiences a moment of existential clarity when, during an argument, he pushes a beggar in front of an ongoing subway train. He’s delighted to discover he feels no remorse – to the extent that he has to check himself that he actually did it – and his narration elevates this sense of a sociopath discovering the rarefied area of action without fear of a pricking conscience. He refers to himself as a sorcerer, invested in the perceived magic he is able to weave on the physical world in order to get his own way. Caine delivers this with conviction and an infectious sense of humour, particularly in his Cinderella-quoting “spells” (“Bibety bobety boom”).

The key to A Shock to the System’s black comedy is that those who are on the receiving end of Graham’s murderous acts are “deserving” of their fate, mostly through being insensitive or manipulative or just plain rude. Leslie (Kurtz) has the effrontery to tell him, “Graham, I forgive you for failing” (to get his promotion), so it’s only a short step from there to her planned electrocution. Bob Benham (an oily Peter Riegert) is promoted over Graham and actively begins to undermine him, since Graham is too senior to be fired for anything other gross insubordination (“So, you’ve decided to have me removed piece by piece. A privilege here, a responsibility there. Never enough to fight over. Just a subtle drain of power, right?”) So Bob expects Graham to light his cigars, invites him over for the weekend so he can hear him have sex with wife Haviland Morris (Gremlins 2: The New Batch), and forces him to share an office (with Philip Moon’s lackey). It’s thus no surprise when Bob’s boat blows up in a terrible mishap (and takes Moon with it).

Graham’s career prospects are overtly equated with emasculation and libido, such that he invies Elizabeth McGovern out for dinner no sooner than he has dispersed Leslie’s ashes (over himself): “He felt like one of those gods who appeared to maidens in human form”.

As noted, the picture perhaps gets a little preoccupied with standard suspenser tropes during the third act, when McGovern deduces she has been manipulated (Graham drugged her to create an alibi). This is thanks, in no small part, to Will Patton’s persistent – but persistently outclassed – cop. Graham efforts, meanwhile, are focussed on securing his mislaid lighter from Jenny Wright’s receptionist. But even under stress, the coolness with which he responds to threats (“Whoa, let’s not all panic. You, you and you panic. The rest of you stay calm”), enervated rather than stressed, shows him up as the model of the well-observed sociopath.

Caine called A Shock to the Systema lovely little film… But at the time, it just got lost in the system”. I’d agree with that take. Egleson and Klavan don’t spend their time expanding on the white-collar rat race. It’s all there in Caine’s (middle-)aging male attempting to rejuvenate his prospects. And often the best way to do that is to have some fun with it.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

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

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 .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

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 ?

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.