Skip to main content

I’ll tell you how good that is. Even a gifted director couldn’t hurt it.


(SPOILERS) If you’re going to build the plot your play/movie on delirious/absurd twists, you’d better be sure you can sustain (or even escalate) them, or you’ll end up leaving your audience feeling short-changed. I suspect that’s why Deathtrap lacks the longevity of Sleuth, with which it is often compared. It might also be because Supes v Caine isn’t quite the event Sir Larry v Caine was. Which is to say, Sidney Lumet’s adaptation of Ira Levin’s 1978 play is highly entertaining. And then, it isn’t so much.

Others have been less kind, invariably others who didn’t much like Sleuth either (Pauline Kael in devastating put-down mode: “This movie is for people who dream of seeing Sleuth again – there must be one or two of them”). There is a sense, however, that the inherent theatricality of such material needs to be retained in a movie medium for it to be effective. The plotting is so intrinsically bound up in artifice, in an even greater, meta- sense in Deathtrap, that to play the play too straight draws attention to its show-off moves and mechanics in the wrong kind of way. As if the makers are asking for it to be seen as robust rather than absurd.

This is why Olivier was an absolute boon to Sleuth, as he was as theatrical as they came. Caine isn’t, of course, but he can be a voracious scenery chewer, which is gravy for the confined setting found here (Connery could too, come to that; I hadn’t realised Caine passed on Lumet’s The Hill to star in Alfie, so freeing it up to be one of Sir Sean’s best pictures. Connery’s burly bulk makes it more impressively brawny than Caine would have mustered, I suspect).

Sir Michael’s thus completely at home in the part of arch schemer Sidney Bruhl, ostensibly out to steal himself a hit play from Christopher Reeve’s Clifford Anderson by murder most foul. Much to his wife Myra’s (Dyan Cannon) disbelief, then shock, then adjustment. Really, though, Sidney’s out to murder Myra, in consort with lover Clifford, as we discover at the end of Act I, Scene 3 (at least, on stage). This, as many have also pointed out, is basically the gist of Diabolique (both versions, albeit the remake wimps out). Kael was of the view that Lumet and adaptor Jay Presson Allen opted “to make the movie version as realistic as possible. What this comes down to is a very broad, obvious movie that looks like an ugly play and appears to be a vile version of life”.

There’s something to this, in that Lumet doesn’t really have a feel for the material or how to extract the best from it, but I don’t think one could watch Deathtrap and contend he’s quite trying to go for realism either. There’s just no way you’d aim for such a thing and then furnish it with a “this is just a playful jape, not real at all” jaunty score from Johnny Mandel (Agatha, The Verdict).

There’s no doubt, though, that Lumet’s strengths were in the crime genre, preferably the more urban the better. His choices tend to emphasise the play-ness of the piece (its sets as a stage) rather than its theatre-ness, if that makes sense. As a consequence, Cannon and Reeve have problems, at times, locating a rhythm that doesn’t make them seem slightly wooden.

Cannon, startlingly narrow hipped and expertly highly strung, takes something of the short straw out of the trio, but that’s less about her acting than the limitations of the part. Reeve delivers more than a hint of mince as Clifford, along with a slightly ungainly quality that might be considered either a performance choice or unskilled failing, depending on your view of his range and technique. Essentially, though, he’s unable to hold his own with his co-star, which is the main concern. Caine has no problems at all, by turns gimlet-eyed, charming and snarling, playful and prissy.

Bigger than the adaptation, however, are the ingrained problems with the material. Once Levin (also Rosemary’s Baby, The Stepford Wives, The Boys from Brazil and, er, Sliver) runs out of Diabolique, he rather runs out of ideas. Or rather, instead of hatching something in keeping, he pursues the self-reflexive potential of what he has. That in itself isn’t such a bad notion, but not as the be all and end all. Clifford, to Sidney’s fury, decides he’s going to turn their deadly deed into a play, something that elicits some amusing self-critiques: “Scene 1 is still coming out a little stilted and heavy handed”; and, when Sidney comes on board to help – so he says, but what’s he really up to – “Let me do the thinking about Act II”. Thus, when Sidney dismisses Clifford’s initial conclusion (“Julian shoots himself? That’s exceedingly feeble, Cliff”) it could as easily be an assassination of Levin’s actual climax.

Because all Levin really has going for it is the “twist” that Clifford has anticipated that Sidney is planning to do for him. Which can’t possibly come up to par with the initial twist. Add in some Chekov’s Houdini’s Trick Shackles, and an aggressively intrusive and ungainly Swiss psychic (Irene Worth as Helga Ten Dorp – “portend”, geddit?) and you’d be forgiven for forming the impression Levin genuinely thought he could sell a crap resolution as actually quite clever (who knows, maybe he was correct; the play did incredibly well and sold for big bucks: $1m, the then-costliest purchase of non-musical adaptation rights, complete with a four-year window before the movie could be released).

My feeling is, the only way Deathtrap could truly have upped the ante on the first act would have been to contrive Myra somehow surviving it (such that the only way to achieve this would likely have been Clifford having an affair with her too). After all, after a certain point – the Diabolique idea of inducing a heart attack is pretty iffy in the first place, frankly – you can expect your audience to roll with the mounting twists within twists, and it would certainly make the Rubik’s Cube-style poster more appropriate.

The Film Yearbook Vol. 2 was of the view “Sleuth was no masterpiece, but it begins to seem like one compared to this”. Again with the Sleuth barbs. Sure, have a go at Sir Ken’s version, but I was unaware there was a groundswell against the original. What’s that? Time Out’s Tom Milne too? “Undeterred by the resistance to translation from the stage of Sleuth and its parlour murder game…” Ah well.

Apropos of nothing, I was struck by how the scuzzy Clifford bursting into the attic room resembled a similarly dishevelled Bruce Campbell from the same year’s The Evil Dead. Also, this idea that Caine was delivering nothing but turkeys during the 1980s simply isn’t borne out. I mean, next up was Educating Rita. And the following year we were awarded the classic Blame it on Rio! Not nearly as good as Sleuth then, Lumet’s movie is only a potential Deathtrap.

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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…

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.

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.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi