Skip to main content

One eye from night, as they say.

The Salute of the Jugger
aka The Blood of Heroes

(SPOILERS) The extreme-sports version of Number Wang, the rules of The Game at the heart of The Salute of the Jugger are so baffling, it’s amazing writer-director David Webb Peoples was able to muster any tension in the contests at all. But I guess hitting, mutilating and maiming one’s opponent will tend to have that cumulative effect, even when the objective (sticking a skull on a spike, loosely) is vague. It’s big in Germany, apparently (playing The Game, that is). The Salute of the Jugger is, in its own oddball way, kind of great, despite not being especially stunning in terms of ideas, themes or action.

Enough that you half wish Peoples, who has had his screenplays confounded – Leviathan, Hero, Soldier – as much as they were elevated – Blade Runner, Unforgiven, 12 Monkeys – by directors, had tried his hand at helming again subsequently. Although, an extra posting on IMDB gives a few clues as to why he might have sworn off.

Given Peoples hasn’t been enormously prolific, it’s easy to fix on the predominance of science fiction in his work, and more still, literate science fiction. As much as Blade Runner was a trend setter, and 12 Monkeys found raves for using a short film as a jumping off point, the likes of Leviathan (Alien) and Soldier (Terminator) wore their influences on their sleeves. So too The Salute of the Jugger.

Mad Max. You have the setting (post-apocalypse), the location shoot (Australia), the designer leather and rags, and the makeshift settlements (the underground Nine Cities is the equivalent of Bartertown). You even have a Mad Max villain, with Hugh Keays-Bryne essaying a much more refined, if equally decadent, character than his earlier Toecutter, and its cinematographer (David Eggby, fresh off cult REG item Warlock). Producer Charles Roven, meanwhile, would later take Peoples’ 12 Monkeys screenplay to Gilliam (and also, inadvisably, get a Rollerball remake off the ground).

You also – and this is crucial – have Blade Runner’s antagonist Roy Batty, aka Rutger Hauer, as team leader Sallow, bringing his uniquely idiosyncratic charisma to a role that is, by turns, brutish, sly and sensitive. The mood Hauer sets is as crucial to the picture as anything its director and his various production departments deliver. Indeed, it’s a role where Hauer’s allowed to do a lot with very little, breathing life into Sallow and so making it one of his more iconic performances. At least, for those who have seen the movie.

Peoples has done well with his cast generally, though. Joan Chen was a weak link in Twin Peaks around this time (not entirely her fault), but her petite vulnerability serve her character (Kidda, a “Qwik”, the player who runs with the skull while her teammates protect her. See, it does have coherent rules… Kind of. Just like Number Wang). Vincent D’Onofrio, Delroy Lindo and Anna Katarina round out their group (Kidda replaces Justin Monjo’s maimed Dog-Boy early on). Later, Max Fairchild (also of Mad Max) makes an impression as an old opponent of Sallow, one who won’t be persuaded to play a foul game.

Of which, we join the picture in the above-ground scrub towns, as our team wanders from settlement to settlement playing the locals. There are, however, higher stakes, in the form of the Nine Cities; Sallow was once a player there, his past left murky, but ructions evidently involved one of the ruler’s daughters. The impression he made was significant enough that the wonderfully named Lord Vile (Keays-Byrne) makes a point of instructing veteran champ Gonzo (Fairchild) to do for him. By this time, Sallow has lost an eye, making him somewhat the underdog.

People no longer remembered the Golden Age of the twentieth century. They didn’t remember the miracle technology or the cruel wars that followed. They didn’t remember when Juggers first played The Game and how it came to be played with a dog skull.

There isn’t a whole lot of subtext to be wrought from the game itself, except perhaps as recognition of a disappointed people, conditioned by their ancestors into an obsession with mindless entertainment, seeking the same once again after a collapse. Rather than more, for example, spiritual pursuits. Indeed, the introductory text has either the affront or irony to call our current era a golden age, and here we witness, post-collapse, much the same in the way of governing structures enduring. The elite rule underground (as some believe they do right now), decadent, spoiled and entirely devoid of empathy, and with a concomitant thing for ingesting blood (very suggestive).

The game, when it’s discernible, resembles some unholy – and unruly – mashup of rugby, American football, cricket and medieval jousts. Despite his inability to martial the play entirely convincingly, Peoples does show a commendable ability to quicken the pulse; this picture is very brief (admittedly, I watched the shorter cut), but one might easily imagine a more fully-fashioned realm on a more sizeable budget. The Salute of the Jugger isn’t a million miles from Gladiator in its essential beats. The longer version includes a longer concluding sequence that finds Kidda taken in by the Nine Cities elite, while Sallow is destined to continue playing the game (much like Gonzo, but above ground). ’Twas ever thus.

Duncan Jones, who made such a striking debut with Moon and went on to not so much, sung the picture’s praises: “It was an influence on me because he had found a way to make a science fiction film on a budget, which had a real sense of world creation... Even though it’s a small film, I feel like this exists in a reality I can believe in” (that extra mentioned above seems to think it was quite costly, though). The Salute to the Jugger is one I well recall being released, and the negative reactions; Time Out’s Tom Charity suggested “this thin, sloppy scenario hasn’t an original idea to its name”. Like that’s everything. I nevertheless had a hankering to see it – especially due to that deliriously unapologetic title (much better than The Blood of Heroes) – but never got round to it, until now. I’m glad I have. I salute those Jugger. It’s the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome should have been.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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

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

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…