The Man Who Fell to Earth (Nicholas Roeg, 1976)

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.”

Performance (Donald Cammell; Nicholas Roeg, 1970)

About a year ago, I had a period where I was obsessed with the 60’s. The clothes, the music, the changing culture and politics. Now, about a year later, I have fairly left that period behind, although I still listen to The Beatles, Bob Dylan, other sorts of 60’s bands and artists, and not least of all, the Stones. Now I watched Shine a Light this summer and loved it, the Rolling Stones are still one of the best Rock ’n’ Rollers around. So I went into this film with slightly ambivalent feelings, I’m sure I would have loved it no matter what a year ago, and I still love Mick Jagger, but I was still unsure how I was going to approach this film.

The cover of the film strategically forgets to mention the actor playing the main character, James Fox. He has much more screen time than Mick Jagger, and still isn’t even mentioned on the cover. This is one thing that often irritates me, but I understand why it was done. When the film was released, The Stones were at the height of their popularity, so it makes sense in advertisement, but a release, now thirty years later you would think we would be slightly less jaded, particularly considering James Fox I great in this movie and extremely important to the narrative. This is though a fairly daring film, especially back in the days. It’s a twisted mix of violence, sex, drugs and rock. But this is not a glorified version of the 60’s, this is almost like a look back at an era already over, the Mick Jagger character is isolated and weary. It’s gritty, and this is further shown by the very interesting film techniques used throughout the film, as well as the sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly cinematography. But it works all the way, the film balances between the realistic, the hypnotic and the psychedelic. It doesn’t cover from showing the dark sides of the hippie culture, but doesn’t condemn it either. What I like is the juxtaposition of the violence of James Fox’s character and the drug addled life of Mick Jagger’s character. When the protagonist is forced into living the world of Mick Jagger, his world slowly clashes with the psychedelic carpet of drug abuse, and I felt that as the film progressed, this result became more and more spectacular.

It’s interesting to note that the filmmakers who made this film were at the time amateurs, they had never made a film before. This impressive considering the highly experimentation with the form, but also the parts which seem fairly classical are executed very well. It’s also cut together in a fast paced and interesting way, although this technique has become way overused these days, but as the film stands it makes it better. There is a certain progression in the film, the techniques and style used changes over the course of the film, mirroring the psychological state of the protagonist. One of the slightly depressing things about the film is the way it shows how the hippie era has failed and deteriorated, already in 1968 (the year the film was actually made) they could see where this period was going, and the film encapsulates every aspect of the 60’s. The film and its meaning though might be a bit too ambiguous for some people, but I like the ambiguity, particularly towards the end. There’s also even a musical number, in which Mick Jagger sings, and I think it is probably one of the very first musical videos; it certainly looks a lot like music videos that are made today, which I found quite interesting. One thing that adds to the whole feel of the film is the architecture of the house the film takes place in for most of the time. The rooms are big, but are all designed in a very psychotic way, chaotic but beautiful at the same time, much like the film.

I liked it a lot, and if you’re interested in the 60’s, then you should absolutely check it out. Not always as a whole does it come together, but the mix of the entire psychedelic atmosphere and the unique editing and filming techniques should make it interesting for film buffs as well.