Such a disturbing, ironic vision of human existence could be found in the theater of the absurd, typified by plays, all familiar at the time to the director, written in the 1950s by Samuel Beckett, Eugène Ionesco, and Harold Pinter. Yet the predominant tone of the film is, albeit blackly, comic. It’s a pitiless clash of opposing worlds, with movie hoods crashing into a scene of sadomasochistic marital games, all in the ideal setting for a gothic horror film. Katelbach, but has to contend with some unexpected guests who serve to upset his control of the situation and wind up the tension. He banks on help appearing in the form of a mysterious offscreen presence called Mr. Leaving Albie in the car for the time being, Dickie takes refuge in this bizarre household. The latter are a very odd couple indeed: George (Donald Pleasence), a bald, pedantic Englishman, and his much younger, flighty French wife, Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). What follows is an unpredictable confrontation between these outsiders and the occupants of an isolated medieval castle. The vehicle is in fact not being driven but pushed along, by a blustery American with his arm in a sling, Richard, or Dickie (Lionel Stander), while Albie (Jack MacGowran), an Irishman seriously wounded in the gut, sits redundantly at the wheel-two gangsters on the run from a botched robbery. But as the credits finish, we perceive something peculiar that alters those expectations. Audiences may at first think they’re in for a thriller. Cul-de-sac confirms this from its first frame, a mysterious, long-held shot of a road empty but for a slowly approaching car. Even by this early stage in his career-he was only thirty-four years old-it was clear the filmmaker would put a distinctive spin on any subject he touched, with dark humor and dramatic suspense delivered through a brilliant yet unpretentious camera style. As a movie, it unashamedly flirts with several genres-thriller, horror, comedy-but ultimately belongs to none, other than that of a Polanski film.Ĭul-de-sac was the second feature Polanski made after leaving Poland, one of three shot in Britain before he began his adventures in Hollywood. The shoot was a much-troubled one, yet the world he created before the camera, both weirdly real and abstract, appears perfectly achieved. Part of his pride in Cul-de-sac came from the fact that it sprang directly from his imagination, being neither an adaptation nor a response to someone else’s demand. Would he maintain that verdict today, despite those obvious-and his subsequent-career peaks? I suspect he would. It is real cinema, done for cinema-like art for art.” That was Roman Polanski’s view of Cul-de-sac in 1970, four years after its release and just following his hugely successful Rosemary’s Baby (1968) and before the similarly acclaimed Chinatown (1974).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |