Skip to main content

Just a little whiplash is all.


Duel
(1971)


(SPOILERS) I don’t know if it’s just me, but Spielberg’s ’70s efforts seem, perversely, much more mature, or “adult” at any rate, than his subsequent phase – from the mid-’80s onwards – of straining tremulously for critical acceptance. Perhaps because there’s less thrall to sentiment on display, or indulgence in character exploration that veered into unswerving melodrama. Duel, famously made for TV but more than good enough to garner a European cinema release the following year after the raves came flooding in, is the starkest, most undiluted example of the director as a purveyor of pure technical expertise, honed as it is to essentials in terms of narrative and plotting. Consequently, that’s both Duel’s strength and weakness.


Strength, because while it was positioned as a TV movie, it carries with it the relentless dread and oppressive nightmarishness of the horror film, The boogeyman as a mechanical dreadnaught of the highways, bearing down with inexplicable fury on its prey. Weakness, because at ninety minutes, you do begin to notice that there’s nothing else to it. No luxuriation in finely wrought characters or comic relief as there is in Jaws, where Spielberg would take Duel’s essentials and swim with them, to undreamed-of box-office rewards.

Richard Matheson’s fortunes on TV and in movies – outside of The Twilight Zone, of course – we’re mixed, starting with the acclaim of The Incredible Shrinking Man, and followed by the various flawed interpretations of I Am Legend, the adaptation of his The Martian Chronicles and all the way up to Richard Kelly’s take on The Box. He adapted his own short story here (originally published in Playboy), and Spielberg knew well enough to accentuate a good thing. The TV movie was about quarter of an hour shorter, with the director reconvening to shoot several further scenes subsequently, several of which are fairly essential to a divergent reading of the movie. These comprise the opening departure and city drive-through by David Mann (Dennis Weaver), the conversation with his wife (Jacqueline Scott), the encounter with the school bus, and the rail-crossing drama.

Without these, Duel is pretty much what it says on the tin: man vs machine, the personification of technofear as an unquenchable behemoth will not stop until it has crushed its target (the truck is The Terminator, basically). Indeed, one might stretch – and stretch is the word – the reading further; the truck represents the Elite (the driver’s face remains hidden throughout), bent on depopulation. David’s surname is, after all, “Mann”.

It seemed clear to me watching Duel on this occasion, however, that the truck is the manifestation of Mann’s wife’s id, set on doing unto him what she very nearly suffered due to her blithely inattentive husband: rape (the truck is, after all, always bringing up Mann’s rear in the most threatening manner). “I’m sorry about last night” David confesses when he calls her, but she is having none of it, owing to how he failed to defend her against Steve Henderson “trying to rape me in front of the whole party”. Naturally, David’s car is a Valiant, the very opposite of his demeanour; his worm has to turn, in order for him to express himself in a Mann-ly way. He can do this only by going up against the inflamed truck, a reflection of his toxic masculinity (is there any other kind?)

However, even conjured in this way, the terror truck isn’t simply a manifested demon. Indeed, it displays a nurturing, maternal quality that belies its phallic rage, and so underlines the feminine force behind it. Mann is disinterested in helping those he encounters on his way. He can’t wait to get away from the bus load of kids (Spielberg, obviously, wants to linger in their company for as long as possible). The truck, however, halts its predatory mission to rescue the vehicle, pushing it back on the road. And perhaps there is also an implicit disapproval of the exploitation of animals when it proceeds to wreck the roadside gas station with its caged creatures for sale; it’s the only time where we see intentional endangerment of life beyond David himself.

Spielberg was up to his ears in an era of everyman protagonists during the 1970s, flawed men who don’t stick up for their wives (David Mann), or even leave their whole families (Roy Neary in Close Encounters of the Third Kind). Or fail them by winding up dead (Clovis Poplin in Sugarland Express). Weaver is spot on as the little man who, even in triumph, doesn’t really become a big one (his jig of jubilation after the tanker has crashed to its doom). There’s lots of smart, low-key observation here, from David’s washroom internal monologue, to his café imaginings that the driver is also among the patrons, to his nervy laughing along with the radio (“I never heard of anybody who plays meat”) to take his mind off the menace.

Kim Newman, in the first edition of Nightmare Movies, called Duela survivalist Luddite masterpiece, and just about the best monster movie of the last twenty years”. It’s operating very much in the survivalist pose of Deliverance, but rather than the untamed wilds, the foe is the beast lurking beneath notionally civilising methods.

For such movies to work, there needs to be a special means of isolating the hero. Sometimes, that simply entails disposing of anyone who might get in the antagonist’s way (The Terminator). At others – Joy Ride – it’s about an environment where there’s only you and your oppressor. Such as on a boat in the middle of the ocean. It’s not for nothing that many still regard Duel as one of the best pictures Spielberg helmed. Becoming slicker doesn’t necessarily make you better, and picking more demanding material doesn’t mean you’ll rise to the challenge. The decade following Duel amounts to far and away the director’s best work.

 
 
 



Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .