Alright, I am going to be completely honest here. This is going to be a biased review. The reason is that this film star David Bowie and one simply cannot criticise anything that Bowie participates in. It’s simply not heard of. Listen, this guy owned the 70’s. Ziggy Stardust? Station to Station, Low, Heroes, Scary Monsters and many more. And in his coke-fuelled madness of creating music Bowie also found time to star in Nicholas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth, playing the alien. Fittingly, actually, as aliens and outer space are often subjects of Bowie’s music. And indeed, Bowie is quite freaked out as the man from outer space in this.
So this man from outer space lands on earth, in search of water for his family back on his home planet. The plot maybe doesn’t seem too intriguing, but the execution, and perhaps more importantly, the development of Bowie’s character is what is important in the film. Along the way he is sidetracked by all the wonderful attractions that earth has to offer. Or wait, actually they aren’t that wonderful. The alien is caught up in an endless spiral of sex, alcohol and materialism, and loses track of his ultimate goal. Like most of these types of films, it is rather a scathing criticism of human nature and society rather than a simple story of an alien coming to visit (E.T. anyone? Or Close Encounters of the Second Kind? In fact, everything Spielberg ever made. Except for Jaws, of course, Jaws was awesome). There is one thing about Roeg’s directing that ticks me off, and that is his insistent use of the zoom button on his camera. It is at most times annoying. However, it is not overused otherwise. Which is great, because every other single element of Roeg’s directing is brilliant and flawless. The cinematography is unique and beautiful in its own gritty way, his editing flows like no other film, and his sense of pacing and atmosphere reaches new heights in this. So except for the use of the zoom, the film, aesthetically speaking, is perfect and beautiful in every way.
Actually, I can’t understand why this film isn’t as iconic as it should be. It features one of the most iconic artists of the 70s, the style is perfect for the era but still completely unique to Roeg. I also don’t understand people who say they can’t “get” the film. What is there to get? Alien comes, looks for water, stays. It couldn’t be simpler. But then again, the average audience will let an aesthetic style that is slightly different from the Hollywood standard obscure an otherwise simple narrative (Mirror by Tarkovsky is a good example of this). Bowie is perfect in this. There is, even outside this film, something strange and otherworldly about him, which makes him so perfect. Also, at the time his nose was for the most time buried in cocaine, which might contribute to his “strangeness”. But there are also some emotional moments that seem very true, and his performance is very versatile. There are other actors, and they do good work, particularly the lead lady, but don’t forget, this is Bowie’s film. His presence on screen gives the whole feel a strange atmosphere, and coupled by the brilliant and unique directing from Roeg this is indeed a wonderful mix. They are both equally important to the film, and it couldn’t have been as good without either of them. The themes developed are also very interesting, and the film is quite intense at times.
Brilliant aesthetically, a brilliant Bowie with his head in coke, a Roeg on the top of his game and we have probably one of the best films of the 70s. And that’s not an overstatement, because I really believe this. The hypnotic feel of the film makes this stick to my mind, and a re-watch seems imminent. Watch it, you may not like it, but you will never see a film like it. Unless, of course, you watch another film by Roeg. But then again, his other films don’t feature Bowie. “There’s a starman waiting in the sky. He’d like to come and meet us. But he thinks he’d blow our minds.”
6 comments:
I agree, it's a very special film with some great photography. But wasn't the female lead a bit miscast? I felt she was not acting as good as the rest of the cast, and the movie could have contributed with a more complex female figure. And I know I am being blasphemous when I say this (cause you're a big Bowie-fan) but I felt he was out of his element in scenes where he was to be upset. It felt very awkward, I thought. But overall a good movie.
Hey, thank you for your comment.
No, I can't remember feeling the female lead being miscast if felt she was in many ways simple and honest, naive, which contrasted nicely with the Bowie character. The female character was, in many ways, just another one of the elements that made the alien forget about his home planet and plunge into his own personal hell.
Generally though, I don't rate acting that high, or atleast, not in the "classical" sense. Take Rock Hudson in All That Heaven Allows, that was one of the greatest performances of all time. Was the acting of Rock, though, really that "good" compared to say, the more classical realistical performances of such actors as Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Robert de Niro? Well, no, but it was still fantastic in its own style. Method acting is overrated.
And yes, you are blasphemous, heathen, no one may criticize Bowie, go out and buy "Heroes" and Station to Station.
Hehe. I am of course a Bowie-fan myself, owning most of his albums :) I'm not too preoccupied with acting, and agree with your statements on method acting. But there were small episodes in The Man Who Fell From Earth that drew me out of the movie's diegesis and I consider that a bad thing. Anyway, I agree that it's a good movie.
first of all, let me tell you i'm a huge Bowie fan and also own most of his albums.
David Bowie is no stranger to playing an alien; i never feel like i watch Bowie playing Thomas Jerome Newton when i watch "Man...", as he was in character.
the story is very straightforward, but Roeg added lots of visual flourishes to help distance (alienate) the audience and there can only be two responses to the style the film was made in: repulsion and attraction. if they're attracted to the film, to Roeg's direction, to Bowie, they're going to hang tough.
the film is very low key, even with the few, exceptional moments of creep and shock, and Bowie's performance here is wonderfully understated; for a film to be considered iconic, it has to hit certain people (even many film critics) over the head like a hammer, it seems.
is David Bowie an icon? obviously. but Bowie's involvement doesn't necessarily make the film iconic. actually, "Man..." is considered to be one of the best sci-fi films that came out of the 70's, but The Academy is not completely won over by sci-fi.
i think "Man..." should be considered a classic for several reasons... one, at least, is that Roeg put the audience in a similar frame of mind the lead character has, and this is no small challenge; very clever to ambiguate whether Newton is a stranger from another country or another world, to the audience. very clever to ambiguate Newton's sexual orientation, to the audience, as well. everybody can get in on the act this way (indirectly), but less of us have the desire and patience to do so.
the most pressing dilemma of the film is Newton's (and our own) "moral dissolve", and let's face it; can we really take the punch well if it hit us squarely in the face? because, during the entire 140 minutes of the film, we are told in so many ways that we are completely immoral.
see what Tevis, Roeg and Mayersberg (sounds like a firm) use to show what dulls us all into further immorality: material wealth, social status, recognition, sexual gratification, emotional gratification, drugs and television, fueled by corporate greed.
and look what characters are chosen to tell the story: a visiting alien (Bowie) from another planet (Anthea, purposely unmentioned in the film), a randy, university professor living out a middle age crisis (Torn), a gay industrialist (Henry), a poor, lonely, oversexed, alcoholic waitress (Clark) and a black bodyguard (Casey, who has model/actress Claudia Jennings! as his movie wife) who plots to take over the company... no one (in any age, color or station in life) is free of the greed and immorality.
if the film is guilty of any wrong it may be too clever, but it was panned by some critics as being pretentious.
i don't know how a movie can put over a huge, bombshell message like this one has to audiences and avoid the accusation of being heavy-handed, without making the film clever or funny or creepy or dreamy or surreal and ambiguous, and yet no one has come back complaining the film is preachy and heavy-handed.
the film is monumental in theme and also in its understated presentation, but its subtlety and bite is very cat-like.
a definite, must-see for all Bowie fans.
thank you for the opportunity to comment about the film, and too bad for the self-righteous idiots who don't enjoy it.
astronomius
hmmm, well, i keep thinking about your comment about why the film is not considered "iconic"...
i finally received and watched my Criterion Collection copy on DVD with a current copy of the original novel, and have since reviewed the film a few times online.
the film quickly made my Top Five films list from recently watching it, and i can tell you i now have a much better understanding of it since having tried to watch it as a young teen.
why the film is not considered "iconic" by many film enthusiasts and critics puzzles me, because of so many beautifully filmed and memorable scenes, but i suspect that the film isn't taken as seriously as other Nic Roeg films are because these same jerks don't really take David Bowie seriously.
the truth is, Bowie stands tall having given his best (and first) acting performance on film in "Man..." and played a very difficult role with a great deal of (subtle) range, intelligence and sensitivity; all the critics can see, however, is Bowie acting out another version of himself.
having thoroughly enjoyed his music and studied the life of the person a little, i can tell you that Bowie is indeed a performance artist whose skills as a theater actor come close to matching his skills as a(n outstanding) musician; this, of course, makes him a classic "triple threat" in the industry, and quite frankly, has probably been a sizable threat to several of his peers for many years... just ask Keith Richards.
another reason why this film may not be considered "iconic" is because many of these film goers probably aren't well-versed in classic literature and the other arts, and probably don't know how much they are intellectually starved.
i mean, the film is very consistent throughout in its themes and symbolic references, and contains very potent messages, but i also suspect that there are two different audiences watching the film: 1) those who rightly stick with the story, and 2) those who stumble over the obvious shocks and ambiguity in the film.
the critics who don't understand how / that the shocks and ambiguities in the film help tell a much bigger story expect to get hit over the head and have everything spelled out for them.
i submit to you that the buffoons who criticize the film constitute a hung jury (obviously not well-hung) and don't know their a**es from a hole in the ground.
b.
I popped a mushroom or two ok maybe three and a e pill then I understood the movie at the hight of my high I saw what Bowie saw and it was amazing. Try it.......
Post a Comment