Skip to main content

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy
(1968)

(SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst, and leading it in Duffy. He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

Stefane: Gonna be a groovy little happening, man.

When a movie ends up this way, so sloppily directed by Parrish that one is barely certain he was even on set, it’s difficult to ascertain if the screenplay itself could ever have passed muster. Penned by groovy young occult hipster Donald Cammell as a deep-dive, some might say cynically minded embrace of prevailing vibe, much like the same year’s The Touchables (which he wrote first but was released second), it’s difficult to be fair to Duffy’s content and thus work out if Cammell ever had anything more on his mind than a larky rich-kids heist picture. Certainly, he was so dismayed by the results that he vowed to direct next time. Which he did. Three years later, he would be deeply drinking in the down side of the love generation with James Fox (again) and also with Nicholas Roeg, who would go on to the acclaim Cammell could never quite muster. And Duffy undoubtedly suggests that all is not hunky dory with the hipsters, nursing a deep suspicion of the prevailing much-vaunted sexual freedom, as embodied by Susannah York’s easy lay Segolene (which in turn peels away Duffy’s carefree façade, rousing his jealousy such that he accuses her variously of being a slut and a “groovy old hooker” – Segolene objects to the first but seems content with the second).

Stefane: Well, you can create beautiful absurdities. Why can’t I?

One might extend this line of inquiry further. Let’s not forget that Cammell came from the connected classes, having grown up the child prodigy of a writer/poet father in a highly bohemian environment. Annigoni bacchanalian parties were attended by both father and juvenile son. He was definitely one of the favoured, going on to attend the Royal College of Art before becoming a leading portrait painter for London society. He subsequently became chums with rampant occultist Kenneth Anger. It was also rumoured he had Aleister Crowley for a godfather (although Film Comment dismissed this as a “technical impossibility”). With such privileged beginnings, one might posit that Duffy’s entire premise, in which the upper classes see the entire counter-culture movement as something of a frivolous game, holds a kernel of autobiographical insight. The same attitude holds for the apparatus that hypnotises the lower classes, beholden to the financial system and everything in it; money is merely a plaything to James Mason’s JC Clavert. Duffy is the setup’s outsider, and he’s rather patronised and manipulated than warmly welcomed. If Duffy remains ultimately separate, we later see blurring of societal lines in Performance, where the unlikely gangster form of Fox is thoroughly debauched, or further debauched, by his initiation into pop star Jagger’s world.

Duffy: It’s a fairly tempting script, true. A sort of morality crime.

The Duffy screenplay was credited to Cammell and Harry Joe Brown Jr; the pair shared a story credit with Pierre de la Salle. It’s said the story was based on the experiences of Albee Baker as related to de Salle, but since the source of this is IMDB Trivia, that may not be wholly accurate. Cammell was certainly vague on the facts and dismissive of the movie generally: “It’s based on an adventure that really happened to a mate of mine, or maybe it was all my lovely group – Susie York, James Mason, James Coburn, and Willie (James) Fox. It’s not a serious movie, more of a bon bon, very carefree. Not worth discussing”.

Antony: I think I’ve broken my neck.
Duffy: Good.

His reasons for not wishing to discuss it were probably more to do with the experience – like pretty much all his filmic ones outside of Performance –not being such a happy one. Cammell was fired for “independent thought” during the production and was less than keen on the finished movie, as noted above. The premise of rich kids (Fox’s Stefane and idiot stepbrother Atony, played by John Alderton) attempting to steal money from their father, aided and abetted by Stefane’s girlfriend Segolene (York) and old hipster Duffy, the key to facilitating the operation, is very much a “bon bon” but one can see certain personal impulses feeding into the brew.

Segolene: He looks groovy in that drag.

Father Charles (James Mason) is present at their wild parties, as Cammell’s father was at Donald’s, and if their relationship is far from one of equals, it involves a mutual embrace of immorality (or, if you’re feeling generous, amorality). In the last ten minutes, we learn Charles has been having his way with Segolene too, and indeed that he has been aware of his offspring’s entire plot throughout (it’s only Duffy, cottoning on, who prevents the entire affair from resolving itself in Charles’ favour). This is both suggestive of the Annigoni period and Cammell’s later love life, notably his embarking on an affair with a teenager – the daughter of Marlon Brando’s girlfriend – in his forties. Evidently, he considered himself an old hipster, one for whom the normal rules did not apply; not so uncommon in such rarefied artistic or select circles (in contrast to Mason’s character, who at least entertains his children, Cammell would shun any contact with the child he had with Maria Andipa).

Stefane: I want to create a fantastic amateur theatrical. A happening.

The biggest problem with Duffy the screenplay is that it’s so self-consciously empty of stakes – swindling tolerant crook dad (who broadly claims to engage in “nothing illegal”) – and is clearly a big lark on both sides. It absolutely needed a director who could embrace the material’s bubble-gum energy if it were going to stand a chance of translating. Yes, there are guns, and there’s some corpse snatching, but Duffy is the only one present even to intimate that this is something to give one pause. Which means much of the proceedings revolve around interminable interactions between Duffy and the privileged oiks, as he gets the hots for Segolene, objects to their careless planning, and comes back on board the operation after he beds her.

Duffy: You’re not a psychopath.
Stefane: Oh, I’m not?
Duffy: No, somewhere inside you is a, an unborn psychedelic Cecil B DeMille.

These passages are ultimately rather tiresome. Ernie Freeman does his demonstrable best to inject some zip into the production with a very groovy score, but Parrish, an Oscar-winning editor, seems to have absolutely no aptitude for the visuals. The framing is sloppy, the timing – particularly for an editor – non-existent. Scenes that might well have been rambunctious fun – the characters dressed variously as sheikhs and priests – fall flat. The heist itself is only kept moving by Freeman. Cinematographer Otto Heller has some fine work to his name, including The Ladykillers, Peeping Tom and The Ipcress File, but Duffy opts for a dull realist look, such that even Spain doubling for Tangiers isn’t overly attractive. Cammell’s screenplay only really stirs interest about ten minutes from the end, when the twist with Segolene is revealed; the rest is often a bit too much like a 60s scene pop group movie vehicle, but lacking the pop group and their concomitant witticisms, camaraderie and banter.

Duffy: This, er, psychopathic convulsion you had just now, fascinates me. And, speaking as a professional clinical psychopathologist, tell me, was it not traumatic?

The non-pop group cast are all individually good actors. James Mason manages to rise above it all because he’s James Mason. Alderton plays an idiot with conviction. Fox likewise as an entitled brat. But the consequence is that both Stefane and Antony are incredibly irritating, the former monumentally so, and you have no wish to spend any time with him. York looks delightfully groovy, baby, but she’s also stuck with an entirely unsympathetic character. Worse still, there’s zero chemistry between her and Coburn.

Duffy: You’re not a slut. You’re just one big drag.

As for Coburn, sporting a Hunter S Thompson hat – or is it Monsieur Hulot? – and a very with-it vernacular, the character would only work if he was as wise, hip and above-it-all as the scenario and would-be style calls for. Revealing him as petty, jealous and obsessive entirely topples any breezy momentum the picture covets (and if Cammell wanted an analysis of the illusion of free love and partner swapping, he should have written Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice).

Stefane: Don't get hippy with me.

Variety wrote “Coburn tries awfully hard to be a hippy” but it isn’t that he tries hard; it’s that the characterisation does its best to make Duffy uncool, and Coburn is playing to his comedic strengths when he is cool and knowing. We’re given a sniff of Swinging London before we’re off to Tangiers (Spain), a dismissive reference to The Beatles (had they lost their lustre even then?) and a definite swipe at modernist art as the gang arrive at Duffy’s pad and witness a series of plaster-of-Paris and mannequin limb atrocities adorning every nook and cranny (“sort of rotting erotica”, or “pop porno”).

Stefane: Did you ever think about piracy in your more active days?
Duffy: No man, its’s not in my bag.

I was trying to place the movie Duffy wanted to be, and the best I could come up with was the decidedly less glam and idiosyncratic (but much better made) Shooting Fish. Duffy’s a dead-in-the-water caper, and it’s only the undertow of Cammell’s psychosexual obsessions that identify it as other than frivolous. To be honest, I’ve never cared hugely for Performance; perhaps it’s the overkill of saturnalia. Apparently, his absurd transhumanist nightmare Demon Seed was intended as a comedy (who knew?) His later films are certainly infested with a brooding occult spell (his Jack the Ripper with freemasonic ties script might have made an interesting picture). If Roeg conjures the forces of nature, Cammell’s diabolism is altogether more malevolent, poised to erupt into violence at any moment. Duffy, however, offers no violence. Or consequence. And it barely scrapes a smile.

Duffy: Keep the faith, baby.

Duffy was originally called Avec-Avec, the title changed, it seems, when a journo mistook the translation for “with-it”. I can’t imagine a title imitating a French art movie would have better suited the material. York was unimpressed at the decision, calling it (presumably in character) “boring and square”. I wouldn’t call Duffy square, but too often, much too often, it is boring.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Lieutenant, you run this station like chicken night in Turkey.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) (SPOILERS) You can’t read a review of Assault on Precinct 13 with stumbling over references to its indebtedness – mostly to Howard Hawks – and that was a preface for me when I first caught it on Season Three of BBC2’s Moviedrome (I later picked up the 4Front VHS). In Precinct 13 ’s case, it can feel almost like an attempt to undercut it, to suggest it isn’t quite that original, actually, because: look. On the other hand, John Carpenter was entirely upfront about his influences (not least Hawks), and that he originally envisaged it as an outright siege western (rather than an, you know, urban one). There are times when influences can truly bog a movie down, if it doesn’t have enough going for it in its own right. That’s never the case with Assault on Precinct 13 . Halloween may have sparked Carpenter’s fame and maximised his opportunities, but it’s this picture that really evidences his style, his potential and his masterful facility with music.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984) If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights  may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box ’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisi

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

I dreamed about a guy in a dirty red and green sweater.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) (SPOILERS) I first saw A Nightmare on Elm Street a little under a decade after its release, and I was distinctly underwhelmed five or so sequels and all the hype. Not that it didn’t have its moments, but there was an “It’ll do” quality that reflects most of the Wes Craven movies I’ve seen. Aside from the postmodern tease of A New Nightmare – like Last Action Hero , unfairly maligned – I’d never bothered with the rest of the series, in part because I’m just not that big a horror buff, but also because the rule that the first is usually the best in any series, irrespective of genre, tends to hold out more often than not. So now I’m finally getting round to them, and it seemed only fair to start by giving Freddy’s first another shot. My initial reaction holds true.

He must have eaten a whole rhino horn!

Fierce Creatures (1997) (SPOILERS) “ I wouldn’t have married Alyce Faye Eicheberger and I wouldn’t have made Fierce Creatures.” So said John Cleese , when industrial-sized, now-ex gourmand Michael Winner, of Winner’s Dinners , Death Wish II and You Must Be Joking! fame (one of those is a legitimate treasure, but only one) asked him what he would do differently if he could live his life again. One of the regrets identified in the response being Cleese’s one-time wife (one-time of two other one-time wives, with the present one mercifully, for John’s sake, ongoing) and the other being the much-anticipated Death Fish II , the sequel to monster hit A Fish Called Wanda. Wanda was a movie that proved all Cleese’s meticulous, focus-group-tested honing and analysis of comedy was justified. Fierce Creatures proved the reverse.

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman (1984) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman ’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

You absolute horror of a human being.

As Good as it Gets (1997) (SPOILERS) James L Brooks’ third Best Picture Oscar nomination goes to reconfirm every jaundiced notion you had of the writer-director-producer’s capacity for the facile and highly consumable, low-cal, fast-food melodramatic fix with added romcom lustre. Of course, As Good as it Gets was a monster hit, parading as it does Jack in a crackerjack, attention-grabbing part. But it’s a mechanical, suffocatingly artificial affair, ponderously paced (a frankly absurd 139 minutes) and infused with glib affirmations and affections. Naturally, the Academy lapped that shit up, because it reflects their own lack of depth and perception (no further comment is needed than Titanic winning the big prize for that year).

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.