When a filmmaker puts a priority on style over substance, the result can be quite frustrating. In many cases, it is clear the director has some genuine talent, unlike the Michael Bays or Roland Emmerichs of the world, but the application of his/her creative gifts leaves something to be desired. This is how I feel when I look at the first two pictures from Tarsem Singh, a director of commercials and music videos who made the leap into feature films back in 2000. Other filmmakers who have taken a similar path, like David Fincher, seem to have adapted quicker and enjoyed superior results.
Tarsem's first film, The Cell, is the story of a serial killer whose method of murder involves a watertight glass room that fills gradually, drowning his prey. The FBI discovers his home early on, but the killer is comatose within, leaving the whereabouts of his final intended victim unknown. The FBI must find her before the cell fills with water, so they enlist the help of Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), a psychologist experienced in a new virtual reality technology that allows her into the minds of comatose children. The idea is that Catherine can find the victim's location by taking a trip through the killer's head.
Visually, when it comes to bringing a demented mind to life on the screen, Tarsem does a fine job. The art direction is highly effective, and costume designer Eiko Ishioka adds her own special touch, formerly seen in films like Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters and Bram Stoker's Dracula (the similarity between Gary Oldman's armor in Dracula and the VR suits in The Cell is entirely obvious). It is unfortunate, however, that these superbly imaginative sequences are trapped within such an inept narrative. The characters are dull, and neither the criminal investigation or VR portions of the film are particularly satisfying on an intellectual level.
While Catherine is inside the killer's mind, she discovers a duality to his psyche, represented by an innocent child and a horned monster. The child is how the killer sees himself in the years before his father's abuse took its toll, while the monster embodies his murderous rage. As it turns out, the killer's method goes back to an event in his youth, when he chose to drown an injured bird to save it from his father. Frankly, the premise is interesting, and in the hands of a director who cared more about seriously exploring such themes instead of guiding us through a simplistic carnival of horrors, The Cell may have been a good movie. As it stands, there are far better pictures about serial killers and the compulsions they can't escape, including M (1931), Peeping Tom (1960), 10 Rillington Place (1971), Vengeance is Mine (1979), and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986).
As for Tarsem's latest film, The Fall, it earns full marks for effort, but ultimately possesses similar pros and cons. Set in Los Angeles in 1915, the plot follows a five-year-old girl named Alexandria (a marvelous debut from young Catinca Untaru) who is recovering at a hospital after breaking her arm. She meets Roy (Lee Pace), a paralyzed former movie stuntman, who befriends her by telling a fantastic story about five banished heroes in a faraway land and their quest to kill a villain called Governor Odious. Little does Alexandria know, Roy's motives are not entirely sincere, and he intends to end his life once she fetches him a bottle of morphine.
The story he tells is the key to earning Alexandria's trust, and though Roy just makes it up as he goes, she becomes engrossed in it. We see the tale unfold as she imagines it, changing according to her whims. Originally it is about pirates, but Alexandria doesn't care for pirates, so the heroes become “bandits”. Roy describes the Black Bandit as having a gap in his teeth, but Alexandria doesn't find that flattering, so Roy's more attractive likeness replaces the hero in her mind. With the major characters in the tale being played by people she sees around the hospital, one can not help but be reminded of The Wizard of Oz (1939), though the film also resembles Rob Reiner's The Princess Bride (1987) and Guillermo Del Toro's recent Pan's Labyrinth (2006).
Shot over four years in eighteen countries, The Fall sat on the shelf for another two years until finally given a limited theatrical release several months ago. To the film's credit, the cinematography is often gorgeous, the colorful costumes (again by Eiko Ishioka) practically leap off the screen, and despite all the grand looking production design, there are no computer generated effects. Unfortunately, there is also a lack of real substance or drama. These pictures, pretty as they are, feel indulgent and hollow. They are engaging only on the most superficial level, but the film is pretentious enough that plenty of viewers will believe they are watching a work of genius.
To those people I would like to recommend the 1986 BBC miniseries, The Singing Detective, which deals with imagination, perception, memory, and storytelling in a far more fascinating way. In short, it is about Philip E. Marlow, an author who retreats into his troubled childhood, paranoiac fantasies, and the plots of his old detective novels, while bedridden with a rare skin disease. It may lack the visual splendor of The Fall, but Dennis Potter's wonderful screenplay, John Amiel's unassuming direction, and Michael Gambon's terrific lead performance more than make up for that. Additionally, for those interested in a visual, cerebral, and less dialogue-heavy exploration of similar themes, Andrei Tarkovsky's Mirror (1975) and Yuri Norstein's A Tale of Tales (1980) will both put Tarsem's film in its place.
Near the end of The Fall, there is a prime example of why it fails to reach its lofty goals. In a state of emotional distress, Roy begins killing off everyone in the story, reducing Alexandria to tears. Even though the interplay between Alexandria and Roy is the best thing about the movie, this scene falls flat because we can't relate; it is absolutely impossible to care about these character's deaths. There is never any connection between the viewer and the fantasy story, as it rarely feels like anything more than a high quality vacation video.
Perhaps the day will come when Tarsem Singh will make a film with all of his strengths accounted for, and none of his weaknesses. If we are lucky, maybe it will happen in 2010 when his next film, War of Gods, is due to be released. Until then, I'm inclined to disagree with the title of the bonus feature on the DVD of The Cell: "Style as Substance". As I said, it is clearly style over substance in Tarsem's case.
Posts
10 comments:
I completely agree. Great blog by the way.
"The Fall" - A great story told
Maybe your the one who is "indulgent and hollow"?
Ahh yes,
"The Singing Detective".....
Really, this is nothing but a formless, plot-less blob that is the typical M.O. of a bad writer. It makes no sense, goes nowhere, starts a bunch of unclever plot threads that never really tie together or pay off that well.
It was a chore to watch. After the first episode, nothing had gotten started. But I pressed on, the second and third went by with no improvement. But according to some other reviews you have to be patient and it comes together. So I watched on, noting that at this point, I was doing so SOLELY for the reputation this had.
It did not pay off. I wasted 6 hours of my life and a small handful of twenties in cash.
"The Singing Detective" is not the greatest thing put on television. For my money, it is not even very good. Some people seem to like the depth of character provided by all the history scenes...but to what end? There was no goal. No tension. No story at all. I consider it a mess by a writer who in my mind didn't have nearly the talent that was attributed. And I don't want to believe that British television is so bad that this was outstanding.
I'm sorry if The Singing Detective did nothing for you anonymous, but calling Dennis Potter a bad writer (and adding that his work "makes no sense" and "goes nowhere") is going a bit far I think. Those comments say more about you than they do about him. He's one of the more inventive writers that ever worked in television, and certainly one of the most intensely personal.
For instance, the skin disease that plagues Gambon's character in The Singing Detective was actually an ailment of Potter's. Many elements from his own life were in the series, and while that isn't what makes it good, it is worth noting.
At any rate, I don't think I'm too far off base in my view of The Fall. It is sitting at a 55% at Rotten Tomatoes, a review compilation website. 41 positive reviews, and 34 negative. With an average review score of 6.1/10. The Singing Detective, on the other hand, is at 100% positive reviews and an average score of 8.7/10.
You would probably reply, "Those are just the opinions of stuffy, pseudo-intellectual film critics!" But even at the IMDb, where any Joe Blow can vote toward a film's score, The Singing Detecive has a 9/10 while The Fall sits at 8.1/10.
Mind you, I'm not saying my views represent absolute fact, but I'm far from alone. In fact, I unfortunately find myself in the majority on this.
If you listen to Tarsem Singh's commentary track on The Fall, he mentions some of his influences (such as Andrei Tarkovsky). These influences are clear, but the student has nothing on the teacher. Tarkovsky's images have something to say, Tarsem's are "indulgent and hollow", as I said.
ben,
thanks for the well though out article on Singh's films.
I think you are right that if such a talented visual stylist were to team up with an acute storyteller (can't think of anyone better than the coens at the moment) then the potential for masterpieces seems probable.
I agree with you more with the cell than with the fall - i think the latter is a more mature and nuanced film - that being said - strong narrative isn't a necessity for a strong film. (manufactured landscapes)
neither are strong visuals. (hmm dogville)
in this post i think you discount the power of the visual too much. The fall for me was a highly enjoyable (top 10 of 2008) film on its merits, including exceptionally good casting of those leads.
Tarsem's films are most certainly style as substance. You seek substance purely in the narrative, where as the substance resides in the visuals themselves. Study and interpret them as if viewing a painting, or watching a Terrence Malik film. Note the symbolism and how it reflects the psyche of the characters. Sometimes this symbolism is clearly evident, other times not.
Regarding The Fall, your prime example is valid, but arguably dubious. The characters are a manifestation of the struggles of Pace's character. It's not necessarily important to empathize with these fantasy characters, only the stuntman.
Actually Anonymous, I'm all about the visuals telling the story in film. Check out my first blog post: "Wall-E: The Return of Visual Filmmaking". Also, how can you say that I "seek substance purely in the narrative" when my very next blog post was about Baraka, a non-narrative film?
I see that you mentioned Terrence Malick, and I myself used that example long ago in the Wall-E post when criticizing people who do not appreciate film as a visual medium. Here is an exact quote:
"Nothing is required of the viewer whatsoever, which is why people have fallen into this pattern of “watching” TV as they piddle around the house. “I'm listening,” they say. Then they “watch” a film like 2001 or Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven and wonder why they don't know what the hell is going on, or why they ultimately disliked it. Like the scene in WALL-E that I described above: if you look away, you are lost, and there is no dialogue “safety net” waiting to rescue you."
I adore films that use their visuals to tell the story, as opposed to merely supporting what is on the page. Unfortunately, Tarsem's film simply didn't work for me in that way. It is a very visual film, without question, but I found the images shallow. I didn't care about the characters much or empathize with Pace's character. Visual films can still be flawed, and I believe The Fall is a flawed picture.
I recommended Tarkovsky's The Mirror and Yuri Norstein's A Tale of Tales as better examples of visual films where the images are a manifestation of what the character feels. The Fall can't hold its own against those, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, but there's a difference between a film that demands one watch the visuals and a film whose visuals have a greater depth and meaning, that ideally demands one to analyze and interpret.
In the case of Baraka and Wall-E, even as terrific as that first half hour is, it's more laid out for us. We watch, we understand.
2001 & Days of Heaven at times require greater effort by the viewer (more so with Malick's Thin Red Line vs Days), it's more akin to interpreting the nuances in great literature.
I argue that the visuals in his films aren't as shallow as you believe. He's not merely composing visuals to look aesthetically pleasing, interesting or cool for the sake of looking cool.
In his review of The Cell, Ebert said it quite eloquently, "landscapes by Jung out of Dali". In the opener to The Cell, before one sentence is even uttered, alot about her character, not just the child, is already alluded too.
That said, I can't argue that the Fall while fascinating still fell a bit flat. Nor would I compare his works to those in the rarified stratosphere of Kubrick, Malick or Tarkovsky.
Btw: In the previous post I meant to state you "seem to" seek. No offense intended. Good blog and your knowledge of films is clearly evident, from your first post comparing Wall-E against the parthenon of animation including Grave of the Fireflies to acknowledging Anthony Mann in your latest post.
I'll check out your recommendations, I've seen quite a few Russian films from Tarkovsky to Klimov, but neither of the two you mention. Thanks.
First of all, Ebert says everything eloquently. :-) He's a great critic, even though I don't always agree with him. He gave The Fall 4 stars if I remember correctly, and I certainly disagree with that assessment. It must also be said that Ebert used to be a tougher critic. Lately, 4 star reviews from him are pretty commonplace.
By the way, I agree with you that Tarsem Singh is doing more in his images than composing pretty pictures, but like you said, he doesn't reach the "rarified stratosphere of Kubrick, Malick or Tarkovsky." I can not personally say that I get much out of Tarsem's images, at least when compared to what I get from those masters of the medium you mentioned.
I suppose I have now opened myself up to another criticism...that of being unfair. Indeed, it may be unfair to expect Tarsem to match Tarkovsky or Malick. Tarsem loves Tarkovsky, he says as much in his commentary track for The Fall, he even admits to having certain scenes inspired by Tarkovsky. I respect Tarsem's intentions, I simply haven't "felt" them. They haven't really reached out and grabbed me the way a great film does. Perhaps they did for you, and I respect your view. Then again, even you said The Fall "fell a bit flat." That's kind of how I feel, except perhaps more strongly.
Just so you know, my fiance was moved by this film. It "worked" for her. It just didn't work for me, somehow. The very scene that I described as an example of why the film fails (the scene with Roy killing the heroes and the little girl crying) had my fiance in tears.
Anyway, thanks for your kind words about my blog and the mature discussion (a rarity online these days, it seems). I hope I don't lose your interest with the long wait between entries. Part 2 of the Mann blog should be up within the week. Then I hope to get on a quicker pace. Any suggestions for what I could do to improve the blog? I'm pretty new to this whole thing.
As for Mirror and A Tale of Tales, please do let me know what you think of them after you see them. Personally, I think Mirror is Tarkovsky's best.
I am a fan of Signh, so far, even though I usually don't enjoy gore or things nightmares are made of, such as 'The Cell'. Still, because I have lived a nightmarish life, I am quite touched by his style and the images he uses. He utilized a child ego state, as well as imaginary experiences while in that state, in 'The Cell' to mitigate the anger and violence of the antagonist. Not only was it totally unexpected, but I found it heart-wrenching. Again, he enlisted a child, this time as a catalyst, towards motivating our protagonist to either self-destruct, or not, in 'The Fall'. While I appreciate the irony and brilliance of 'The Singing Detective' which was stylized in its own way, I found myself profoundly impacted by Singh's more affectateous technique in regard to the dark subject matter.
Do you think that possibly, there are more than one or two ways to 'speak' through film and be appreciated by our planet's hugely varied 'audience'? My 19 year-old autistic daughter watched 'The Fall' with me. She enjoyed it so much. We laughed and we cried. So much emotion elicited. Then, we talked for some time about death, disability, and suicidal ideation. It was a great opportunity born from a quality experience. Unfortunately, she was not a bit interested in watching 'The Singing Detective.' I must tell you, we loved the stylization and I don't consider either of us idiots. Also, it very possible that the low rate of viewership is at least a great deal due to the very limited time of release. Love reading your stuff, even if I don't always agree! Respectfully, Kathryne
You make some good points but there is one thing you wrote about The Fall that I have to disagree with, that in fact, makes me believe that you didn't understand the movie at all. You say that the climax of the movie falls flat because the audience can't relate let alone care when Roy starts killing off all the characters in the fantasy, but I think you're missing the point. It's not the deaths of these particular people that drives Alexandia to tears, it's the fact that Roy is killing off all the characters in THEIR story, and therefore ending the story, and also their relationship. When Roy starts talking about the death of the last character, the 'blue bandit', Alexandria tells Roy, " I don't want you to die". The audience was never meant to connect with the fantasy story because the fantasy story was never the real story; the real story here was the interplay between Roy and Alexandria, and everything else was just very beautiful connective tissue.
And of course it was indulgent, as the majority of the film focuses on Roy indulging in Alexandria's imagination in order to minipulate her.
And I wouldn't call it 'style over substance'. There are great movies like The Godfather that have a more thought out and intricate plot, and then there are great movies like The Fall which for the most part, is a feast for the eyes. Watching this movie, at certain times, was more like looking at a piece of art than learning a story, even though Tarsem said that this movie was about storytellig. But who says visuals can't be substance?
HOwever, you are right. I was blown away by this movie because of its independece and creativity and emotional depth (yes there is depth) but there was something about it that left me just a little unsatisfied. There is no other movie like it as it's not of any particular genre, I don't feel right labeling it a fantasy and I don't feel right calling it a drama, and I can't tell if it's a tragedy or a comedy. It's hard to put this movie in a box, and it's therefore hard to explain. I think this is a film that requires multiple viewings.
By the way, love your blog, you need to keep posting.
Post a Comment