1973 black comedyRating: 17/20
Plot: Michael Travis is training to become a salesman for a coffee manufacturer when another employee unexpectedly dies, opening a door for him and giving him control over the Northwest part of England. He travels to his region to sell some coffee, apparently enters a dream, and has a series of surreal misadventures involving raunchy sex shows, top secret military locales, experimental hospitals, and hippie communes.
This sneakily surreal and completely fascinating satirical comedy-musical had been on my "Want-to-See" movies list for a while. It's likely way too long and definitely in the not-for-everybody camp, but I really enjoyed it. It's a movie with a rhythm of its own. There are a few outrageous moments (a very strange and shocking scene in the hospital most notably), but for the most part, this is a calm movie, filled with extended scenes and quiet humor. I really like Malcolm McDowell here. He's the center of attention for the entire three hours, and his performance just fits. It's the type of character whose shoes you can't imagine anybody else filling. Maybe that's just a Malcolm McDowell thing though. It's not just McDowell though because O Lucky Man! overflows with terrific comic performances, most of the actors playing three or four roles. Seeing the familiar faces pop up as brand new characters also added to the dreamy quality this has. I was surprised after I watched this movie how much I actually laughed out loud. This is a funny movie with no punchlines, and a few times, I think I laughed just because I felt the need to react in some way and figured laughing was as appropriate as anything else. There are a few times (once at the very beginning) when the film turns silent, black and white with title cards. Those are cool. Oh, and the songs. I thought this was supposed to be a musical, but the characters don't sing. There are interludes with Alan Price and his band though, and I enjoyed those songs and thought they added to the narrative. I won't claim that I completely understand what this movie's about, but it doesn't really matter. I thought this entire film was a treat, a baffling and refreshing and unique treat. Add this to the ever-lengthening list of great things that came from 1973.
8 comments:
You are very right about two things; it was not for me, and it was way too long. It is trying to be a black comedy, but I laughed exactly once (when the fired professor drags McDowell out of his chair). I also may have smiled once, but overall this is the least comedic black comedy I have ever seen.
I'm not really a good judge of this, but Malcolm McDowell is not a classically good-looking guy. He has a naturally mean or evil looking face (making his role in "Time After Time" all the more impressive). In this film though, he seems to be instant catnip to anyone who looks at him, male or female. I'm thinking that the story being his idea may have something to do with that.
I understand what this film is trying to say in it's bloated three hours; life can be pretty random, and how it turns out for an individual can be largely determined by luck. OK, I buy that. Thank you. It is with the conceptualization and execution that I have an issue. That, and it's too damn long.
Let's start with McDowell. He is in every scene, but he is totally unlikeable. He brings no edge to his unpricipled weasel until near the end. His open-faced ambition look (that gets him constantly laid) made me want to punch the screen.
The plot is almost completely random and episodic. The makers may say "that adds to the point", but I think it's more like a bunch of guys saying things like, "hey, let's have him meet a mad scientist, here" (I do have to admit that the silly scientific explanation made "Them!" seem logical by comparison and there was a thrill when McDowell answered "ants?"!). I also can't believe I am complaining about nudity and sex, but it seems like the the makers are using it. It's like they are saying "we don't know what were doing, so how about some boobies? Nice, huh? How about a chocolate sandwich?" Sadly, the second half doesn't even have anything similar to amuse us. Most scenes have no logical segue and most end in some ludicrous fashion. In fact, I can say that outside of travelling scenes where the scenery is nice, the "going to London" van scene, and the early studio music scenes, there is not another that I can't take issue with. I liked the Alan Price stuff at the beginning (the lyrics are surprising good and they have charisma), but like everything else in "O Lucky Man", it quickly wears out it's welcome and becomes annoying.
If I were in a bad mood and not so exhausted from 'Up", this is a film that I could simply eviscerate. It is filled with flaws that cannot be excused by simply saying it is meant to be surreal.
A few questions:
How do the cops appear at the mist-hidden accident with their flashers already on? Why is a man suspected of being a spy left alone in a room so he can wonder about? Why does the woman suckle him in the church? Why does the rich man let the fraud guys inside? Why does the gold stay in the room? Why do the incriminating papers stay in the room? Why didn't I stop watching when the Judge stripped? Why doesn't the crowd help at all after he falls from the window? Why do the homeless attack him after he tries to save the woman who has fallen in the fire? Why does she fall in the fire that way? It goes on and on?
The above may make a naive person think, "hey this sounds trippy and like campy fun". They would be wrong. This film is three hours long, deliberately paced to the point of being dull, and earnest in it's ineptitude. My copy came with two discs. After the first was over, I was hoping it was mostly over (maybe the second disc had a lot of special features). Realizing I was only half-finished was about as pleasant as being kicked in the nads.
Why you gave this a 17 (and placed it above many, many, many superior films) is beyond me. I would never recommend this to anyone. An 11.
Oh, one more thing... is the president of the fictional country a black man, or a white man wearing black-face? I was going nuts trying to figure it out.
Blackface.
Why I gave this a 17? I think I articulated that in the write-up, didn't I?
No way I would have recommended this one to you, especially after you didn't like 'If. . .". I'm not completely sure why you hated it so much, other than the length, but I wouldn't have expected you to really enjoy this one very much at all.
The songs have a sameness to them, but I still really liked them.
I never thought the movie was dull. A lot of times, I have to watch 3+ hour movies in a couple installments, but I didn't feel the need to do it with this one. I even stayed up way past my bedtime to finish it.
The more I thought about the ending, the more I DIDN'T like it.
There's more here than the randomness of life...there's a lot in here about greed and how human nature gets in the way of ideas that sound great on paper...like capitalism.
Although you wouldn't recommend it, I would be curious to see what Larst thinks. I think he might like it.
But yeah, this will go down as another one that we have wildly different opinions about...kinda like the next movie I'll be writing about.
Random Malcolm McDowell note: I was talking with a couple teachers yesterday about movies. One has seemingly seen nothing but Disney cartoons. She asked me what my favorite movie was, and I told her that I didn't really know. Then, she said, "Have you ever heard of A Clockwork Orange? You probably like that one." She'd never seen in though.
You all miss the entire point of this film. It is not that life is completely random but the complete opposite. Life is like a movie. Scripted, bound by the nature of this world. Elusively determined by its forces. Seemingly random yet perfectly staged. The end of this film points this out, that there is no luck, no hope, no dreams. The film uses irony to point this out, that there is no such thing as a lucky man. This is why when the director hits Malcolm with the script he realises life is just meant to be experienced, by us, the viewers. That there is no good or bad, right or wrong, lucky or unlucky. We are an audience and nothing more.
Well, now it's been 2 1/2 years (where were you before, Josh?) but you're exactly right here. I think Cory probably was writing more about how the events in the movie felt random, as in illogically structured or something. But the entire point probably is that what seems most random about our lives is actually carefully orchestrated by some powers that we can't control or understand.
Now you've made Cory want to see this again...way to go.
Fittingly, I remember very little of this movie except that it took three hours to make the point that I apparently didn't get. I will not be looking to refresh my memory.
Stating the obvious, Shane, is there not a way to block the anonymous drug dealer from your blog comments? I keep checking to see new stuff, but instead now have an urge to shoot up. Your 365 seems to be in great peril.
Yes, I can set it so that anonymous people can't comment. Good idea.
Post a Comment