Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

 

Dangerous Liaisons

A few years ago, I reviewed the book “Dangerous Liaisons” on my book blog. Now, five years later, it is time to do the same for the 1988 movie based on that book. I went back to my old review and found that it could be used 1:1 as a review of the movie. Normally, that would be a recommendation since a faithful adaption is the exception rather than the rule, but this was a story I did have some trouble to digest and so I find the same problems apply to the movie.

It is the era of the Ancien Régime in France, the period of idle rich nobility in wigs and powder and silly outfits before they got a close shave in the French revolution. Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) are two such unprincipled libertines who entertain themselves with manipulation of other people. Both consider themselves absolute master of the art of seduction and manipulation and have sort of a game going on, which is not entirely transparent.

Merteuil requires Valmont to seduce and ruin the young Cecile de Volanges (Uma Thurman) as revenge on her future husband, an absent and much older man who has a history with Merteuil. Valmont has another task in mind, to seduce and corrupt the religious and married Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), a much harder challenge than the inexperienced Cecile. He does get a chance at both at his aunt’s chateau which involves a lot of deceit, blackmail and spycraft. A very young Keenu Reeves as Chevalier Danceny is thrown in as a tool of Merteuil for the corruption of Cecile.

As in the book, the plot is rather confusing. Partly because of the several, often contradicting, agendas, but also because it is hard to understand the motivation behind these shenanigans. At times this looks like a simple scoring points game. Sort of a game to prove how awesomely powerful Valmont and Merteuil are. At other times it looks like they are trying to impress each other so that, if they are awesome enough, the other will love him or her back. This may be particularly the case for Valmont, whereas Merteuil simply define herself by this craft. Still, these seem very unsatisfying motivations, to do these things simply because they are good at it, and as I wrote in my review of the book, they are both more like caricatures, the boogeymen libertines used to scare people away from an immoral life, than supposed to be actual living people. While this would work well for a novel in the eighteenth century, it is hardly an argument for a movie in 1988. Rather than being scary characters, they came across as pathetic and sorry creatures who are entirely delusional both of their own prowess and the meaning of their lives. The ending seems to confirm this impression.

John Malkovich’ Valmont is a strange creature. At least in his own eyes he is dashing and irresistibly charming and, yes, I know I am of the wrong gender, but I totally fail to see how Valmont is so fantastic. To me he is incredibly creepy and not subtle at all in the way he comes on to women. Except when he resorts to blackmail, I do not understand why it should be so hard to say no to this creep. I know this is a different era with women in a much less favourable position, but should they be this weak? I find that hard to accept.

“Dangerous Liaisons” has two things going for it big time though. The cinematography is amazing. Everything is all eighteenth century. Costumes, sets, music, tone. I can live with the American accent as I doubt this cast would do well in French and I got used to it super fast (with the possible exception of Keenu Reeves). The second thing is that very cast. This is almost a who-is-who in acting, 1988. Especially on the women’s side, this is a supremely strong cast. I can sense the glee in the dressing-up and they are all a lot more than just pretty princesses. If only they could have been allowed to be stronger, but that I suppose is very much a product of the time.

Ultimately, it is a story about vastly delusional characters who are allowed to get away with their abuse, but ultimately implode when reality burst their bubble. Is that great to watch? Probably for a lot of people, but I get very little out of this. I therefore find it hard to recommend it.

   

RoboCop (1987)

 

RoboCop

“RoboCop” is one of the weirder gaps in my movie experience. I have known about Robocop since it came out and have been watching enough clips from it to recognize it, but I believe I have never actually sat down to watch it. That is, until now. I cannot say why. Teenage me would have loved this movie.

In future Detroit, the city looks like shit, and the police is run as an investment by a large corporation. So far, this is not too much of a stretch. Being an officer on the street is dangerous business. Standard equipment includes helmet and body armour, and the casualty rate is still high. Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) has just transferred to a hard-hit downtown precinct and on his first patrol with officer Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen) he gets captured and shot by a particularly vicious gang led by Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith). Somehow, he survives long enough to be salvaged by a development team under Omni Consumer Products (OCP) to be incorporated into their new super cop cyborg: RoboCop.

OCP is the big corporation than owns the police. In fact, they seem to own most of everything in Detroit, but it is also subject to internal power struggles. The department outfitting the Robocop prototype, led by Rob Morton (Miguel Ferrer) is rivalling a group headed Dick Jones (Ronny Cox), who is developing a robot named ED-209. Not entirely surprisingly, Dick Jones is allied with Clarence Boddicker. It is into this fray the incorruptible supercop enters with determined and unquestioning steps.

RoboCop is the corporate solution to law enforcement. Highly efficient, no salary, long working hours and no pestering union. An employee who simply does the job. Should it get hurt and die it is not really a problem because it is already technically dead. All this is of course a big issue for the actual police force in the precinct and in these AI times, this conflict is easily the most interesting in the movie. Unfortunately, it is not getting anywhere enough space in the movie and that is a real shame. Instead, the focus is on the corruption at the very top, which provide us with a lot of noisy and very violent action. The question here is how does a square thinking machine react when the very source of its orders is the problem. There is some philosophy here and it gets a bit more space. Finally, there is the question of how much humanity is left in the cyborg. Does it still identify as the original human or is it entirely disconnected from it. As the movie progresses, more and more of its humanity is surfacing, but besides making RoboCop more sympathetic, more human if you like, it is a bit difficult to see where that story element is leading.

At the end of the day, RoboCop is an action movie, and it is the action sequences everything else must eventually make way for. It is a good action movie. Verhoeven, the director, is known for not pulling any punches and here he is going all in. In fact, “RoboCop” does feel more modern than its age, and that is largely because the violence is so much in your face. The is not “The A-Team” where nobody seem able to hit their target, but unflinching and merciless violence. A part of me is saddened that it is this sort of violence that makes it feel modern.

The brutality is strangely offset by a dark humour that at times is so silly that it almost derails the movie. The competing robot, the ED-209 is so brutally overpowered and insanely incompetent that it is darkly funny but also difficult to take it serious as a competitor to the RoboCop. Broadcasts are interrupted by absolutely insane commercials for products such as a boardgame where you nuke your family.

Taken apart, “RoboCop” sounds like a mess, but it actually works. I would personally have preferred a movie that would follow through with some of the many very interesting ideas the story presents instead just reducing itself to an action movie, but I suppose that would require a TV-series to realize that and there “RoboCop” is 20-30 ahead of its time. Today, such a series would be both possible and absolutely work.

I still do not understand why I did not watch “RoboCop” back in the day. It is possible the world needed to catch up with it.

Big (1988)

 

Big

It is not a secret that “Big” is a long-time family favourite in our home. Both my wife and I love it, we acquired the DVD early in our marriage and we have watched it a gazillion times over the years. I am therefore totally biased here and will be completely unresponsive to critique.

“Big” is a play on the What-would-you-do-if-your-wish-came-true theme. In this case it is as simple a child wishing he was big as in not a child anymore. Josh Baskin (David Moscow) is a 13-year-old boy, living a normal suburban life with his family and best friend Billy (Jared Rushton). At the town fair, Josh wants to impress a girl but is rejected at the ride for being too short. Humiliated, Josh makes a with at a Zoltar machine that he was big and his wish is granted. The next morning, Josh is an adult (Tom Hanks) with all the complications that entails.

Josh’ mother (Mercedes Ruehl) freaks out and does not recognize Josh. Billy takes some convincing, but comes around and together they decide Josh should hang out in the city (New York) until they can find a Zoltan machine to turn Josh back to child size. When this appears to require some time and they are short on cash, Josh will also need a job. He finds one as a computer operator at a toy company. It is a universal truth that young people are more tech savvy than adults and nobody understands toys like a child so Josh is a fish in the water. Before long Josh is VP of product development with his own office and secretary.

One of the truly amazing things about “Big” is how believable Tom Hanks is as the 13-year-old Josh in an adult body. His facial expressions, body language and way of talking is exactly like David Moscow’s and what we see is really a young teenager trying to get along in an adult world. It is heartbreaking to see him curl and cry up on the mattress in the seedy hotel he is staying at. When he enters the big toy store Macmillan owns, he is in a child’s heaven and starts playing with everything, forgetting he is supposed to be an adult. Even when Macmillan himself (Robert Loggia) shows up, it is difficult to get back into the role of a grown up and, discovering the walking piano, he forgets it altogether and needs to play. This is the iconic scene everybody knows from the movie, two adults jumping around on the keys. This entire part of the movie is filled with these child-encounters-the-adult-world events. Josh at the company party, Josh’ new loft apartment, which is more like a playground, Josh attending business meetings and playing paddle with a man who sees him as an enemy.

The longer Josh stays in this world, the more he grows up and the real turning point is his first sexual encounter with the mercenary Susan Lawrence (Elizabeth Perkins). This is also the part many people have a problem with. Susan acts in good faith. To her, Josh is a bona fide adult with a boyish charm, the entire opposite of her former boyfriend. We know that Josh has started thinking of girls, so entering this world is a magic dream, but also one he is entirely unequipped to deal with. We know Susan is having an affair with an underage boy, but she does not. When she eventually realises this, she does act accordingly, she is no paedophile. To me, this is also what saves it. To none of the involved there is an intent of doing something creepy.

Josh is being sucked into the adult world and it takes a wake-up call or two to realize what it is he is missing out on and to know he must get back. Being an adult for a few months was quite an experience but he will get there soon enough.

This is an endearing movie, partly because of the way it is told, but mainly through Tom Hank’s entirely convincing performance, one he was nominated for at the Academy Awards. Early in the development, adult Josh was supposed to have been performed by Robert de Niro. That would have been a very different movie, and I am happy it ended up with Tom Hanks. This is a movie that works at all age levels, and each age group will see something else in it. Yet, the relationship between Susan and Josh, key as it is to the story, has seriously threatened the reputation of “Big”. I understand where that position is coming from, but I do not share it. It is a (scary) part of the adult experience, and it is dealt with with sensitivity. There is not evil intent, and it convinces Josh this is all too early for him. Yet, there is no way this could have been made today.

Beetlejuice (1988)

 

Off-List: Beetlejuice

If you are a ghost and somebody have moved into your beloved old home and are making a mess of things, who’re you gonna call? Ghostbu... no no... Betelgeuse! (or Beetlejuice if you are so inclined). This fantastic and hilarious reverse of ”Ghostbusters” is my third off-List movie for 1988.

The Maitlands, Barbara and Adam (Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin), live in a cozy country house in Connecticut when they have the misfortune to die in a car accident. They are slow to realize they are dead and even slower to work out what that implies as the “Handbook for the Newly Deceased” is particularly cryptic. They do realize they cannot leave the house without ending up on Saturn’s moon Titan, which is infested with colourful sandworms.

Their second disaster is the new owners of the house, the Deetz’es, Delia and Charles (Catherine O’Hara and Jeffrey Jones) and Charles’ daughter Lydia (Winona Ryder). Charles is a developer looking for a quiet place while Delia is a sculpturer and very impressed with herself. Lydia is a goth girl living in perpetual misery. With those parents I am not certain I blame her. Delia’s art friend, agent or leech, Otho (Glenn Shadix), practically moves in with them. Right from day one they are busy changing the house in the most horrendous, but likely fashionable, way and the Maitlands want them out. The only place they have for themselves is the attic.

Lydia befriends the Maitlands as she is the only one who can see them and when their first serious attempt to scare them away fails (the famous Banana Boat Song scene), Lydia becomes the unwilling intermediary as the Deetz’es see great possibilities in a haunted house. It is time to get serious so, against advice from their caseworker, the Maitlands summon Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton) and this is where it gets really funny.

I was surprised how late in the movie Betelgeuse appears. I recall it as much earlier, but it is really only the last 20 minutes or so we get the fireworks which this bio-exterminator is. Sure, he pops up before, but only as hardly more than a mention. Betelgeuse is what everybody remembers from this movie and Keaton went all in on this character. He is repulsive and offensive, but also a hilariously funny clown. The uncle nobody wants to invite to the party, but all the children love. Well, who all the adolescent boys love.

It is true that the movie pulls into high gear when Keaton shows up, but what we forget is that this is already quite a feast. The Otho character is so sleazy and slimy that he is a hoot, and Jones did everything right back then in the eighties. Despite Keaton, my favourite scene of the movie is the Banana Boat Song sequence. Watching those pompous narcissistic bozos succumb to the song is always a laugh for me and it was heavily referenced in the sequel. The Maitlands’ visits to the afterlife are also legend. This messy place that looks like a Kafkaesque nightmare is all we fear about public sector bureaucracy. Being number 1000000 in the queue, a caseworker who do not have time for you. Paper and dust everywhere. Regulations nobody understand and catch-22s that means you are pretty much stuck. Dying sucks because this is where you end up.

Ryder’s Lydia is the heart of the movie, and she is fine and everything, but in this party everybody is having she is drowning out a bit. Her function is mainly as the only truly sane person among all these weirdos, the sounding box to make everybody else funny.

Only recently a sequel was made (it took 36 years!) and despite my fears of the opposite, it works surprisingly well. Keaton’s Betelgeuse gets a far more prominent role in that one, but it is otherwise faithful to the original. It works well as a double feature to watch them together.

“Beetlejuice” carries all the hallmarks of Tim Burton, the primary colours, the imagination and the larger than life characters and the crazy thing is, this was only his second feature. I would add this to the List without hesitation.