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.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

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 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.

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