Showing posts with label 1969. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1969. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

29: Age of Consent (1969, Michael Powell)



Owned version: The 2015 "45th Anniversary Series" DVD released by budget-disc kings Mill Creek Entertainment.

Acquired: June 25th, 2017 from Amazon.

Seen before?: No.

Or, This Deserted Island Wasn't Deserted Enough.

Age of Consent centers around James Mason as a creatively frustrated painter who moves to a tiny island off the coast of Australia in search of solitude; instead, he finds a lively and pulchritudinous teenager played by a debuting Helen Mirren, and a lengthy tete-a-tete begins to develop. As the title implies, Mirren is suggested to be underage (though she seems to have no knowledge of her age, and the one character who repeatedly insists she's too youthful has good reason to keep her believing so); her side of the narrative, then, chiefly involves her own growing sense of autonomy. Indeed, the film uses a series of visual metaphors to suggest that both characters are prisoners in their own lives, from the opening credit sequence revealed to be a fishtank in which a watch is suspended as a form of advertisement to an early shot of Mason in bed with a woman shot through the headboard so as to suggest prison bars to the first meeting between Mason and Mirren - a negotiation on the price of fresh seafood caught by Mirren - arranged so that Mirren is trapped by the front door frame of Mason's beach hovel. So I guess it's ironic that the film ultimately gets imprisoned by the necessary compromises of its screenplay.

Consent, the last theatrical release of the legendary Michael Powell, had the potential to be a rough-hewn gem if it had stuck with the Mason/Mirren dynamic, if it had been possible to pare it down to a two-hander. Mason takes his natural unctuousness and tweaks it enough so that the smarm turns into a wince, the oblivious defense of a man intensely discomfited by the presence of others - he's the kind of guy you can totally see buggering off to some isolated paradise in hopes that the cessation of noise will stoke his waning muse. Mirren, meanwhile, is coded as Nature Girl, the wild animal instinct to Mason's artistic rationality; she's introduced literally emerging from under a dock as though the sea just spat her forth, and her wide-brimmed sunhat stays on even when she dives back into the ocean to escape detection by Mason's dog. (In this light, Mirren's legs and armpits going unshaven is a perfect and necessary touch.) As such, there's a base satisfaction in seeing these two find someone who can give them what they need - Mason gets a model, someone to put a spark of life back into his art, and Mirren gets an adult who will see her and treat her (to a degree) as a fellow adult. Powell's direction is unsurprisingly gorgeous - beyond the nuanced central performances, the editing is crisp and clever (and painful when necessary, e.g. the violent cut when a nude Mirren gets hit across the back with a switch) and the colors pop even on this disc's drab garbage transfer, with sparkling oceanic blues and lush overgrown greens providing contrast to the cool relaxing blacks (for shadowy exteriors) and browns (for interiors). There's even some lovely underwater photography, a fluid accoutrement that takes full advantage of the allowed access to the Great Barrier Reef (even if Mirren's big nude underwater swim is shot, due to necessary adherence to censorial codes, exactly like a nudist-camp movie). The surf-and-sand setting, the beautiful bohemian surroundings with the preponderance of natural color, makes the occasional splash of the artificial that much more impactful; while there's nothing on the level of the berserk use of the red dress in Black Narcissus, the discovery of Mirren's secret money stash - her ticket to a life off the island and thus true freedom! - by her drunken avaricious aunt is given an extra frisson by the pointed contrast of a hot pink handbag tossed on top of moss and rock, screaming the defilement of this secret place to the woods around it.

That drunken aunt, though, is indicative of the crippling problem with Age of Consent - namely that there's other people in it. Every time Powell has to drag in another character, the film loses its bearings; it's a delicate back-and-forth into which a goddamn Carry On film keeps poking its snout. There's the aunt, an unintelligible screech machine. There's the young man who runs the ferry between the island and the mainland, a lean himbo whose big scene is one where he unsuccessfully attempts to force himself on Mirren. (This scene, truth be told, isn't a complete botch - it's mostly about the young man's awkward nervousness, which is both an interesting way to defuse any potential ugliness and an interesting way to play with a completely different vague sort of ugliness.)  There's Mason's neighbor, a female chicken farmer whose sole character trait is that she really, really badly wants some dick. And there's Mason's friend/agent, a licentious mainlander who spends the majority of his screen time talking about banging beautiful women and steals a wad of cash from Mason so that the plot will have somewhere to go in its last half-hour. The last two get dovetailed in quick plot thread about the two of them meeting for dinner, culminating in a baffling and tasteless joke where the agent declares he's been raped. If it happens to Mirren, it's uncool, but when it happens to this jerkwad it's a larf. Yeah, sure, whatever.

If the script dumbs itself down to allow for these broad Komedy interludes, resulting in corny groaners like the agent seeing Mirren and declaring, "I've got a bird of me own," immediately leading to a cut where the chicken-farming neighbor is carving up a roasted bird, it ultimately self-destructs by trying to reconcile the incompatible relationship between the two. Here, then, is where its capitulation to a certain form of crowd-pleasing formula goes past tiresome into fatal - the more I think about the end, the more sour it seems. As Consent digs into the relationship between Mirren and Mason, it comes to an impasse - Mirren clearly has feelings for Mason, feelings which are not being reciprocated. He sees her as an adult, which is gratifying and fulfilling for her, but she comes to realize he only sees her this way because he sees her as a subject - just because he recognizes her womanhood doesn't mean he recognizes her autonomy, and in a scene like the one where Mason is struggling to paint a posing Mirren only to shake his head and mutter, "It's the dress. Take it off." without so much as looking at her... well, that evocative downcast glance by the newly-nude Mirren speaks volumes. She's merely traded one jailer for another and she knows it. So why then, given that this is about her struggle towards autonomy, does it end the way it does? I have to assume this is a function of needing to adhere to the source material - a novel by an artist renowned for his work with the nude female form - but there's still something desperate in the way it manufactures a facsimile of a happy ending, with Mason at the last minute understanding the emotional attachment Mirren has developed for him and deciding - whether out of emotional epiphany or panic at losing his muse, the film isn't clear - sure, fuck it, I do love you too. I try not to be the kind of person who reviews the film they wish they'd seen rather than the one they did, but picking at a perceived flaw necessarily assumes there's a version of this material that would have pleased me; therefore, I submit a stronger film would have Mason left abashed and alone as a chuffed Mirren swims back into the sea that birthed her. But Powell ain't Rohmer, and this ain't La Collectionneuse. So her nascent autonomy gets betrayed in favor of her being revealed as an eleventh-hour Manic Pixie Dream Girl. She was right when she tearfully said, "You only want me for the pictures," and it's to the film's ultimate detriment that it realizes this and frantically tries to wave it away anyway. A pantheon director deserves to go out on better than such a flat note.

Monday, February 26, 2018

14: The Abnormal Female (1969, George Rodgers)



Owned release: The 2006 DVD put out by Something Weird & Image Entertainment. This is the second of three featured films on the disc, sandwiched in between One Shocking Moment and Maidens of Fetish Street.

Acquired: July 1st, 2017 from Amazon.

Seen before?: No.

Yup, that's this site's first NSFW image. Showed up a bit quicker than I expected, I'll be honest.

This, though, is also a remarkable indication of the film to come - it can't even get through the opening credits without pushing out some naked flesh. Literally the first image in the film is that of an FFM threesome, and an unceasing parade of sexual imagery continues under the whole of the opening credits. All are images that will reappear later in the film - the image above, for instance, is extracted from the film's second segment, regarding a housewife who is compelled towards extramarital affairs - but sans context it still serves as a statement of purpose: You came for some sex, you're gonna get some fuckin' sex, mister.

This being 1969, the mainstream breakthrough of hardcore porn is just around the corner, and The Abnormal Female plays like a film with a foot in both camps - the single-mindedness of a hardcore film joined to the cynical, judgmental morality endemic to a lot of sexploitation of this era (though, to be fair, that attitude was hardly limited to the grindhouse circuit). Mostly, this feels intensely frustrated at not having been made and released three years later, and that anger comes out in the treatment of the women in the film. It's framed as a series of case histories by a psychologist who specializes in this sort of thing, and as the title implies, it's very concerned with a "right" way to be a female in opposition to all we see here. These profiles concern, in order, a sadist, a serial adulteress, a nymphomaniac, a married couple of swingers and a lesbian; as their sordid histories are being depicted, the narrator in the guise of the psychologist breaks down their neuroses with no small amount of tongue-clucking. This is especially strong in the second segment, wherein the adulteress's outside activities are explicitly contrasted with her married sex life - the latter is "decent" (read: dull), the sort of thing where the husband likes to do it in one way and that's all that's being brought to the party, while the former is taboo enough that the woman demands to be demeaned by her lovers in the filthiest terms imaginable.

Yet, sex needs filth, right? Because of that, there's another part of me that wonders if this is a bit of a jape, an ironic laugh up the sleeve at the notion of sexual mores by aspiring pornographers. I sense a bit of hand-tipping at times: in the ludicrous outsized origins and appetites of the nymphomaniac, who spied on her parents both in the act and during solo work, the latter of which led to her own taste for self-pleasure, and once had fifteen guys in one afternoon and by the way, she's also fifteen years old; in the sadist finding a way to torture her slave with citrus fruit; in the married couple being horny enough to fuck every day and eventually get into threesomes but still wholesome enough to call it "intercourse." The Abnormal Female is the kind of grungy black-and-white chunk of sleaze that tut-tuts about the sleaze while making sure to slather it on you in great greasy dollops, and part of the amusement is the friction between word and deed, between the ostensible morality being espoused and the actual one being depicted. Are the filmmakers looking down their nose or thumbing it? Do the quotes on the title card belong around the whole thing or just the second word?

The bigger question, though, is: Does that really matter? Because, if I am to judge every film by its intent, then I must loop back to the beginning of the review and get back to the main intent of this film. Which is fuckin'. Lots of fuckin'. And, in that regard... this is actually pretty enjoyable. It's fairly well-shot for a film of this era, with lots of rich shadowy blacks adding just the right dose of moody grime to the copious rumpy-pumpy, and director George Rodgers has enough skin in the game (excuse the pun) to suss out the occasional startling composition, e.g. the low-angle closeup on Vicky the sadist as she whips her slave, turning her growling visage into a mass of flying hair and swirling leather. The women are more attractive than average, with the actress playing Janet the young married being legitimately supercute, and the guys are... well, the guys are mustachioed skeeves, mostly, but Vicky's slave and Janet's husband Fred aren't so bad, and two non-skeevy guys in a film of this type and time is two more than most. It has its problems - alarmingly, nobody in this movie seems to have ever kissed another human being before, and they stop just short of straight-up licking each other's mouths - but as far as this ignominious genre goes, I've seen a lot worse. The sex is decent, the women are decent, and it's not weighed down with extraneous nonsense. It does its thing in an hour's time and gets the hell out. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.