BAD GIRL!

Confession- I saw 'The Exorcist' when I was 23 years young. After I had seen so many other horror films, I had become desensitised to cinema and genre. Consequently, upon first viewing Friedkin's acclaimed adaptation of William Peter Blatty's novel, while I certainly did feel it was worth a watch (as opposed to the supposedly "OMGAWESOME" 'Friday the 13th' which I felt was an over-bloated, badly-realised piece of sh--) I just didn't see WHY WHY WHY 'The Exorcist' had been bestowed with the reputation as one of the most important horror films ever. Obviously, back when it was made it frightened many of the bums in seats, but these days, unless you have the constitution of cheap toilet papter or if you are a religion nut, it's not that mind-blowing or spiritually confrontational upfront.

                                                                         WHUT?
However.

That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate the goods that this movie offers, and belive me, there are many of them, and all of this is apart from the fantastic actors who took part in this.

Upon recently watching it again recently (two nights ago), I found that this film's disturbing factor was more effective when it was subtle as opposed to in-your-face. Okay, sure, those possession scenes were crowd pleasers, but what appealed to me the most was this is a film that without the demonic possession, was still quite eerie. An example? The scene that made me the most squeamish was when little Regan was being tested in the hospital. You can masturbate with a crucifix, walk backwards downstairs and turn your head 360 degrees as much as you like, but those are nothing compared to seeing a child being subjected to all of these invasive medical procedures only to yeild no result. To me, due to it's realism, that entire sequence made me the most uncomfortable. Addtionally, seeing Ellen Burnstyn's Chris McNeal having to watch her daughter being poked and prodded gives it all that much more of an impact. And this is before the really nasty stuff happens.

                                                              That wasn't an invitation...

Other beautiful piece of subtlety can be seen when Jesuit wonderguy Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) merely faces off with an imposing statue of Pazuzu at an archaeological site. Nothing happens, but you can feel a tension rise within that moment when good and evil face off in the calm before a battle. I don't know what it was about it that worked so much for me, the camera work, the scenery, the incredible score, or even von Sydow's and the statue's presence in the same frame, but wow.

Okay, I'm done being introverted, let's talk about the money.

For a film that was made back in the early 70's before extreme censorship became a pain in everybody's butt, this one is a corker. Frankly, I don't believe I have seen many fantastic films that effectively shows a child being exploited in such a way. Visual effects or no, Linda Blair really did make the movie work, despite her young age. I wonder what her parents thought when she was cast in such a role and became immortalized in this portrayal. In saying that, equal praise must be given to Mercedes McCambridge. Who is she? Why, she was the voice of the possessed Regan/Pazuzu- every spurt of profanity, demonic gibberish and cackling was her, and even now, she doesn't recieve the praise she deserves.

                                                                 The voice of Pazuzu

In addition to the projective pea-green vomit, self-inflicted icon mutilation and head twisting, another thoroughly effective effect in this movie is almost always blink-and-you-miss-it: Pazuzu's face. I actually had to step through a few sequences in order to find these faces because they really are that fast. Now, some of you may laugh, but this face is pretty unforgettable:

                                                                              Gack.

Although it looks nothing like Pazuzu, when you are able to catch these subliminal flashes, they make you think "What was that?" as opposed to many films these days that rely simply on shock value and cat jump scares.

Now, when the movie comes to it's finale, it would be easy to dismiss that this film preaches the tired "God ALWAYS triumphs over Satan!" rhetoric- wait a moment. Pazuzu is a demon, yes, but he was not a demon of Christianity- he was Assyrian. That being said, while little Regan is exorcised of Pazuzu, he is not vanquished, he merely chooses another body of a priest who commits suicide- you think suicide is enough to kill a demon, a demon that is not of your faith? Bless you. Given this is explored in the sequels, I won't go further on this point, but despite the fact that faith won, it was for now, not forever, which is something Friedkin (and Blatty for that matter) emphasize- it never ends.

                                                                     Look! Paz Penis!

Ice Cold

'Basic Instinct' really is one of those movies you will either appreciate or say is utter trash, and it just so happens, if done cleverly, I love utter trash which has an entertaining face. While this film really makes no bones (he he, I said 'bones') about what it is on the surface (a lurid, early 90's erotic thriller), deep down, there are so many issues that can be discussed on an intellectual basis.We all know that this movie did not and never will win any awards for being a sterling look into the human spirit, but it is almost always overlooked as an important piece of cinema just because the audience saw va-jay-jay. To me, this is a very stylized look of the ever-going battle of the sexes on celluoid. While this battle has seen many arenas through drama, comedy and even action, 'Basic Instinct' takes this to the battlefied of sex, violence and mindgames, a clever option because those three sensationalist elements really do put bums in the seats. Paul Verhoven, you really are a sly bastard. 

Happy ending! Stabbity stabbity!

Upon viewing this movie recently, what surprised me is that despite the movie opening with a bang (literally), there really isn't a lot of the torrid sex this film is lauded to have. Yes, it is there and yes, it's explicit, but a distinct aura of sex is what truly permeates through this movie more than the sex itself. When we first see Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone, in a performance which truly has defined her career for better or worse) she was the Hitchcockian icy blonde for the '90's- she doesn't give anybody the time of day unless it's for her own amusement. Despite her gorgeous looks, she is anything but vulnerable. She is feminine yet masculine in how she conducts herself around other men. She is for all intents a purposes a predator rather than prey in the male gaze. Although she isn't afraid to show off her body, she doesn't allow anybody to touch it without her permission- in short, she is a sex bomb, NOT a sex object, something which no doubt makes her a threat to the male characters in this film.

When vice-ridden Detective Nick Curan (Michael Douglas) decides he is the best man to bring Trammell to justice and in the process becomes involved in a dangerous affair with her, he knows she could very well be the death of him, but does that stop him? 

                                                                  Of course not, silly!

I am of several minds when it comes to this movie. I do not believe this is a terribly intelligent film, nor do I believe it is strictly an excuse to show flesh. Countless musings have been made about 'Basic Instinct' and how it symbolizes the on-going 'battle of the sexes', transgression, sexual preferances and a whole plethora of matters that concern society even today. Back in 1992, although bisexuality and homosexuality was indeed common, it held an enormous amount of shock value when it came to displaying its extremities on the big screen. One of the major selling points of this movie that has provoked so much discussion is the portrayal of these sexual culture- it is seen as highly sexual, but to the hetrosexual outsider Nick, it is an alien world filled with temptation and danger. 

                                               Well aren't you boys just the CUTEST?

On the flip side, others have said it is a film about female empowerment, with Catherine Trammell as the figurehead of this. Sure, it's not a wholly positive portrayal of pro-feminism, but it is a sensationalized example of it. Whatever was Verhoven's actual intent may always remain an mystery, but you can't blame people for analysing this movie and the two central characters. 

Personally, how I feel about this movie changes every time I view it. One day I may see it as this 'battle of the sexes' masked as an erotic thriller, others I may see it as a cheap yet entertaining tramp who only looks pretty but is otherwise a boring ride... so to speak. In saying that, I really have nothing new to add to this movie that hasn't already been said someplace else, but Paul Verhoven is a director who is (in my opinion only) dismissed unfairly just because he tends to exploit the more graphic elements of humans and their world. Okay, his films aren't ashamed of wallowing in exploitation (hola, 'Showgirls'), but at the same time, they never feel as if they are done PURELY for sensationalism for they actually have something to say (take a look at 'Starship Troopers' and 'Robocop'- both of them focus on the absurd lengths the propaganda machine goes, the excessiveness of violence in Western culture performed for our entertainment). Verhoven isn't saying EVERYBODY does it, his films come across as a general statement. In the case of 'Basic Instinct', Verhoven is possibly saying that people are too eager to be titilated about the unknown elements of sexuality and turning it into some whacked out adventure rather than focusing on what it really is. Dare I say, 'Basic Instinct' is masquerading as a form of arousal in order to make fun of how humans think and act.

Verhoven... you slick Dutch bastard.

However Did Adrian Lyne Make A Movie About 'Lolita'

I just want to start with two gripes before I get on with this review:
a) A poster for this movie was difficult to find even though it shows absolutely nothing explicit
b) This film does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT glorify or condone paedophilia, unlike what so many critics and do-gooders said upon the film's release.
-Sigh-
I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but when Adrian Lyne's re-telling of Vladimir Nabokov's novel was released, Australia wanted absolutely nothing to do with it, saying that it was a love letter to kiddy fiddlers and sickos in general. When I finally got to watch this movie a whole two years after it's initial banning due to the critics loosening their arses a little, I gotta say... was I watching the same movie as those folks because I couldn't see anything like that.


While this movie looks and sounds stunning with gorgeous photography and realistic production values, boasting a great cast, many surprisingly comedic moments and a sublime score by Ennio Morricone, at it's core, this is an ugly tale of a grown man wanting to touch forbidden fruit in the form of a 14 year old girl, yet simultaneously, this was a movie about a 14 year old girl KNOWINGLY coercing the grown man into an affair that would destroy them both.

                                      A beautiful example of the film's dreamy cintematography


Lyne, mostly known for Fatal Attraction is no stranger when it comes to telling a story about what happens when human beings who are wrong for each other get involved only to have their worlds unravel and leaving them with no redemption due to their stubborness and pride. In Lolita the relationship between Humbert Humbert (Jeremy Irons) and Dolores Haze (a then 15-year old Dominique Swain) is doomed before they even meet- see, Humbert lost his childhood sweetheart due to typhus and ever since then, he has searched for the same girl, finding himself attracted to minors who he affectionally calls 'nymphets'. It just so happens, Dolores Haze, a precocious and knowing woman-child looks exactly like Humbert's lost love and against his better judgement, forms a relationship with her. Now this is pretty bad, but what makes it worse is that Dolores is not as pure as she appears and quickly sinks her claws into Humbert, knowing that if she wants anything, he has no choice but to give it.

                                                    The happy couple- and the third wheel


I guess it's needless to say that both Irons and Swain deliver stellar performances, Swain in particular- this movie for all intents and purposes was her debut and she had all of the right notes for the character- scatter-brained, gum-chewing and playful one moment, knowing and manipulative little bitch the next. It really is a shame she hasn't had a notable career save for being Travolta's wayward daughter in Face/Off. It's a pity she has now been regulated to B and C movie fare.


Irons meanwhile really fits this role it's both pathetic and charming. Given Irons's talent he brings a humanity to the role which is frightening- he knows what he is doing is very wrong, but he can't help himself. Given we are seeing the story through his eyes, we have no choice but to go along with them, despite being a monster and for that matter an unreliable narrator. I also think he looked exceptionally handsome because he supposedly worked out for the role and the man has biceps I never thought he had.


I've heard from many that Melanie Griffith's role as Lolita's mother had gained a lot of criticism, but I think she worked fine- we are not meant to like the mother because this story is told in first person by Humbert.
Boomkat favourite Frank Langella is but a shadow for most of the movie, but he plays a darker equivalent to Humbert and when he does show up to work his magic, you feel it. Even when he isn't there later on the movie, his presence is. There is a truly bizarre and whacky scene with him and Irons at the end, but I won't spoil it- all I can say is that Langella was fearless in this movie despite his limited screentime. What an actor.


Okay, I know what you are all asking- IS there any sex scenes between Swain and Irons? NO! Obviously the film, unlike Kubrick's 1967 rendition is a lot more liberal when it comes to the taboo sexuality of the movie, but trust me- in no way was Swain involved in the raunchier scenes, it was her body double or else very clever photography.
Do I have any glaring gripes? No, not really. It is understandable that, by first glance, this looks like a dreamy love story, but Lyne is a master at showing tragedy under a seemingly romantic exterior- in this case, the dangers of paedeophilia and not following common decency. I also have no issue with the comedy because Nabokov injected plenty of gallow humour into his story and it translates very well here- the movie is chock-a-block with double meanings, puns and subliminal sight gags that you need to watch it a few times to catch all of them. Trust me- despite the taboo factor, this movie also works as a darker than dark comedy. 
My final verdict? Watch this movie, at least once, screw what the naysayers think and make up your own mind. What you see is what you see, but remember- Humbert's words are his, and it's up to you if you believe them or not.