The plot is fantastically simple:
Two men (Robert
Shaw & Malcolm McDowell—what a cast, right?), with their hands tied behind
them, are on the run, with a helicopter chasing them.
And that's it.
It’s just a tad off—I can’t quite put my finger on it: maybe the timing, or rhythms
in editing—too much information, or not enough?—
some of the dialog is a bit forced—but I am the first to
admit that I did not see this flick under optimal circumstances at all: an often
out-of-sync transfer of an anamorphic print that wasn’t “unsqueezed” on TheTubes of You—
Yeah, it’s gonna look suck-ass,
and this film is something that appears like it NEEDS to be seen in a theater. As
far as I’m concerned, there are plenty of faves that I would not have liked if
I had seen them first on a small screen, such as There Will Be Blood and Gran
Torino.
Cronenberg’s current cinematographer
of choice, Peter Suschitzky, is one of the cameramen on Figures in a Landscape, and even on a “scrunched”
version, you can tell this film often looks good, if not technically perfect.
Stand-out are the beautiful
over-the-pilot’s-shoulder/helicopter POV scenes which are scored with atonal
music (and I swear these scenes are practically rip-offs/homage to parts of the
stargate sequence from 2001), as well as several shots of Shaw and McDowell clambering
and scurrying across the arid and rocky landscape (the film was shot in Spain,
in areas reminiscent of the desert the astronauts have to cross in Planet of
the Apes).
The mentioning of those two 1968
science fiction classics isn’t accidental, either: because the film is very
existential by not mentioning what Shaw & McD are running from, who is
chasing them, nor why they were ever even in that country in the first place. And
as such, Figures in a Landscape develops an almost sci-fi vibe—is this some
sort of alternative reality? A crypto-fascist future?—
Meanwhile, the helicopter is the
third “figure in a landscape,” and the way it is anthropomorphized, the pilots
are secondary—parasitic—the chopper is the character pursuing the puny humans—also
feels very much like a science fiction film, like one from Eastern Europe,
where a robot or giant hand represents “The State.”
(If Figures in a Landscape "tributes" 2001, then Peter Hyams’ underrated sci-fi-conspiracy-actioner Capricorn
One (1978), with its “chattering choppers” chasing astronauts across a desert, tributes
Figures in a Landscape.)
A feeling reinforced by acting
styles: I’ve always felt McGoohan and Shaw’s styles of acting were very
familiar to each other—a sort of super-intelligent, but mocking and nasty
personality, done to cover a vulnerability they’d rather die over before
revealing.
(McDowell’s acting style can also
fall into this bracket, but in Figures in a Landscape, made between If… and A
Clockwork Orange, he’s more of a “straight man” to Shaw’s rants, if not the
only voice of reason in the film. However, if you want to see McDowell go stone
cold bonkers, dig up the DVD MIA The Passage (1979; J. Lee Thompson). In it,
McD plays the most outré SS officer imaginable, bringing style and verve toevery line. Personally, I think Tarantino completely ripped this part off for
Colonel Landa in his WWII epic.)
That said, Losey’s track record
as a blacklisted left-leaning director of politically-themed films of course
reinforces the feeling that what we are watching is also in some way political—but
in a semi-absurdist, deconstructivist, existential style where Man, Like Sisyphus, Struggles Eternally Against
Fascism!
Describing Figures in a Landscape
like “Michael Winner discovers Franz Kafka” wouldn’t be too far off the mark.
We learn about the men themselves
(jobs held, philosophies, families), but never find out how they got in this predicament—they’ve obviously escaped from
some sort of military unit or prison, but why were they there in the first
place?—and we never learn where
exactly they are.
And then the helicopter returns…
Unable to work in H’wood in the
1950s, Losey self-exiled himself to the UK, where he focused on films of a
strong socio-political nature, including the excellent, and ultimately heartbreaking
“preparing for doomsday”/teddy-boy mash-up for Hammer, These Are the Damned,
and then a series of films with noted playwright Harold Pinter, including the wicked
and scorching The Servant (both films released in 1963).
Losey wasn’t this film’s original
director—that was Peter Medak (who went on to direct The Ruling Class and The
Changeling).
For reasons unknown, both Medak
and original star Peter O’Toole quit the flick; Losey was hired, and he then made
screenwriter Robert Shaw the star.
If you didn’t know, Quint was an
accomplished playwright as well back in the day; he also wrote The Man in the
Glass Booth (available on Nflex Streaming), which I have to catch up with soon—
After listening to the monolog
(about meeting his wife) that he gives himself in Figures in a Landscape, I can
hear Shaw’s voice in his Jaws monolog, giving much credence to the rumors that
he extensively rewrote the “Indianapolis” speech.
Like Otto Preminger, Joseph Losey
is a filmmaker that used to be a really “big deal” in the world of movies, but
recently has almost fallen into obscurity or worse, mockery.
I have been aware of both for
quite some time, but had not given any critical or intellectual attention to either
until relatively recently.
Yeah, their films are somewhat
dated—or to be nice: “these movies are of a distinct era.”
As such, I’ve been enjoying
rediscovering the films of both these directors, as well as the work of Ken
Russell, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Costa-Gavras, and several others, all of
whom—for whatever reasons—had been under my radar before;
I’m glad my film education is far
from over!
Unfortunately, as far as I know, on-line
is the only way to catch this flick, though; it’s a DVD MIA partially due to
the financial collapse of its distributor, Cinema Centers Films.
The next time there’s a Joseph
Losey retrospective, I hope they feature (a good print of) Figures in a Landscape.
No comments:
Post a Comment