What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Director Nicolas Roeg - A Critical Reappraisal (1 Viewer)

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
Bio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Roeg

Select filmography

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/10-essential-nicolas-roeg-films-you-need-to-watch/

I've recently come to the conclusion he is criminally neglected and underappreciated. The Man Who Fell To Earth, Don't Look Now and Walkabout are visually stunning masterpieces with influential fractured, non-linear editing, plot and narrative, as well as innovative casting and use of music, that at times explored extremely dark subject matter (some similarities to Kubrick - Roeg was approached to direct Clockwork Orange first).

They are all available from the Criterion Collection on Blu-ray (as is Insignificant), and Bad Timing is on DVD. He had a penchant for casting musicians (Mick Jagger, Art Garfunkel and most iconically, David Bowie), also his then-wife, Theresa Russell.

The Man Who Fell To Earth trailer '76 (narrated by William Shatner)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-YcQh9pzM

'93 review

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/807-the-man-who-fell-to-earth

'08 review

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/386-the-man-who-fell-to-earth-loving-the-alien

Don't Look Now trailer '73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3kVAVng-p4

'15 review

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3460-don-t-look-now-seeing-red

Walkabout trailer '71

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdqwbs8uKwQ

Ebert review '98

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/20-walkabout

More recent review '10

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1466-walkabout-landscapes-of-memory

Roeg was the second unit cinematographer for Lawrence Of Arabia, later cinematographer on Fahrenheit 451, than co-directed the mind freak exploration of identity, Performance with Mick Jagger (thematically similar to Bergman's Persona, also recently released on Blu-ray by Criterion), before his solo directorial debut, Walkabout. He also did The Witches, a dark children's story, which was the last adaptation of a Roald Dahl work during his life, arguably the greatest author of children's books in the 20th century. He also wrote Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Fantastic Mr. Fox (Criterions first animated feature in the DVD/Blu-ray era, Akira was once on the obsolete laser disc format) and screenplays for Ian Fleming's James Bond novel You Only Live Twice and children's book Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't watched any of his films for years. I really liked Don't Look Now but I remember his other films as beautifully shot pretentiousness. I rate him much higher as a cinematographer than as a storyteller. Nobody ever made Venice look more mysterious and alluring. But I recall his movies using lots of non-linear narrative techniques to cover up the fact that not much was really happening.

That said, he was/is an original and his inability to find projects after the 70s doesn't speak well of the film industry. He also has my respect for being able to woo and marry a very hot Theresa Russell when he was nearly 30 years her senior. Bad Timing is streaming on Amazon Prime so maybe I'll give that one another shot, although I think that one was pretty preposterous even by Roeg's standards.

 
Thanks for the input and feedback, I repect your opinion from previous music threads. I'm a lot higher on The Man Who Fell To Earth and Walkabout. I've seen Performance, but it has been a while, I'll watch it again soon. I still have to watch Insignificance, Bad Timing and The Witches. Agree on Don't Look Now, one of the more stylish and genuinely (opposed to cartoonishly) scary horror genre films from the '70s, when Roeg was at his peak. As we both noted, he was the cinematographer on David Lean's epic, Lawrence Of Arabia, one of the most beautiful films ever shot. I like non-linear and fractured, chopped up plot and chronology, like Kubrick's The Killing (direct, primary influence on Reservoir Dogs, and just about all Tarantino since, practically a signature). But I like Lynch, too.

As to the stories, and their telling, maybe similar to Kubrick, he used existing novels as his source material rather than develop an original one. Walkabout was an Australian classic children's book (akin to Swiss Family Robinson), made darker by at least two key plot changes. Don't Look Now was based on a short story by Daphne du Maurier (Hitchcock used two of her stories, for Rebecca and The Birds). The Man Who Fell To Earth was based on a novel by Walter Tevis (also had The Hustler and The Color Of Many made into films). It was included in the now OOP Criterion Blu-ray edition, I haven't read it yet, but understand it differs in a few important ways, typical of most novel/movie relationships (Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is very different from the Philip K. **** novel, another novelist with a prolific film adaptation record, deviating in many ways from the source material, though ****, admittedly in the throes of his VALIS work about being contacted by an external, higher intelligence, exclaimed that it was as if Scott had been inside his head and read his mind, so closely in alignment were the screen images with his personal, interior vision).

Metaphysical cultural historian William Irwin Thompson had a theory that MWFTE paralleled some gnostic myths in which angels placed their consciousness inside of primates, and then became so entrapped in the realm of physicality and materiality that they could no longer escape, causing the evolution to man (gnostic myths, like cosmology and psychology linkages in the Kaballah, are frequently symbolic and metaphorical - this description has some resonance with Wim Wenders Wings of Desire, about an angel that opts to become human). The alien or visitor in MWFTE certainly gets trapped and is unable to complete his mission, to bring water to his dying family and planet. A Bowie lyric in Darkstar references, "How many times can an angel fall?" (which has a possible, more sinister and infernal connotation - one fallen angel springs immediately to mind).

Agree he was an original and would have liked to see more work at his height in the '70s.

The three primary Roeg films mentioned (Walkabout, DLN & MWFTE) were extremely dark in places, but not sure if this can account for his inability to garner greater critical acclaim (though he is well represented in the Criterion Collection?) and wider popular recognition. Kubrick was another director with an at times darkly uncompromising vision and artistic sensibility, but he leavened some of his films with black humor (such as Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange & Full Metal Jacket - though not The Killing, Paths Of Glory, Spartacus, 2001, Barry Lyndon, The Shining or EWS). Roeg's could be unrelentingly bleak.

* Malick (Badlands, Days Of Heaven, Thin Red Line and Tree Of Life), Cronenberg (The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Fly, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch and Existenz) and Lynch (Eraserhead, Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive) are contemporary directors that can also be very dark and have at times been relegated to fringe, cult status like Roeg, but generally with far greater recognition in terms of their overall body of work and legacy. Of course, that could be accounted for if they are more talented?

** I thought Bowie as the alien/visitor in MWFTE was inspired casting (Rip Torn, Buck Henry and Candy Clark were also good in their respective roles). And a nice knowing musical nod (pretty cool score partly composed by John Phillips, Walkabout's intro featured Stockhausen). The last song of big band jazz was famed clarinetist Artie Shaw's theme - Stardust! :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Man Who Fell To Earth

TMWFTE review - Ebert '11

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-man-who-fell-to-earth-2011

In the 35 years since its first release, Nicolas Roeg’s “The Man Who Fell to Earth” has attained such cult status that it was remade in 1987 for television, and its poster can be glimpsed in the recent “Green Lantern.” It centers on an eerie performance by rock star David Bowie, as an alien from a drought-stricken planet who journeys to Earth in search of water. Bowie, slender, elegant, remote, evokes this alien so successfully that one could say, without irony, this was a role he was born to play.

His character, named Thomas Jerome Newton, splashes to Earth in a remote Western lake, walks into a town, sells some gold rings to raise cash and searches out a patent attorney named Farnsworth (Buck Henry). He offers plans for a group of advanced electronics products (one of them, not so amazing, is a disposable camera that develops its own film). Farnsworth establishes the World Enterprises Corp. to market these inventions, and Newton grows wealthy. His plan, we learn, is to build a spaceship and transport water to his home planet.

This is seen as a desolate desert world whose only visible inhabitants are his family. They wear plastic suits to conserve precious bodily fluids. They apparently live or travel in something that looks like a hunting lodge with wings and runs on a monorail. There is no dialogue on this planet, only sad, spectral gestures.

On Earth, Newton (a name with a lot of gravity) isolates himself and communicates with Farnsworth only by telephone. In a motel, he meets a chirpy young woman named Mary-Lou (Candy Clark). They begin an affair, and she introduces him to gin and tonic and television. He becomes addicted to both, eventually watching several channels at the same time.

The plot thickens. The CIA becomes involved. He is taken captive, and so on. You will discover the story for yourself. The movie is intriguing primarily because of Bowie’s performance as Newton, and Clark’s as the girl (Buck Henry, and Rip Torn as a scientist, could be playing their characters in any movie).

Bowie has an enviable urbane charm. I met him once, and rarely have been so impressed by someone’s poise. If he hadn’t been a rock star he could have had success as an actor, playing roles such as those given to James Fox or William Hurt. Bowie demonstrated that in such films as “Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,” “Absolute Beginners,” “The Hunger” and “Labyrinth.” Apart from a few moments involving special effects, he and Roeg make no overt attempt to show Newton as particularly alien. They simply use his presence. He is ... Other. Apart. Defined within himself.

And lonely. From his body language on his home planet as he takes leave of his family, we assume he misses them. His plans to return with water get mislaid as he loses focus with too much gin and television, as has happened to many humans. It’s hard to say what actual connection he feels with Mary-Lou. His personal style, reflected in his wardrobe, seems to be reality rotated through conscious design. He’s curiously passive — not one of those aliens hellbent on a mission, but a man almost dreamy at times.

As science-fiction films go, this is a unique one. It focuses on character and implied ideas, not on plot and special effects. It’s very much a product of the 1970s, when idiosyncratic directors deliberately tried to make great films. A production of this style is almost unthinkable today; it’s too challenging and abstract for the Friday night mobs and requires too much thought.

Nicolas Roeg was on a roll when he made this film in 1976. In 1970, his first film, “Performance,” also centered on a nontraditional role for a rock star, Mick Jagger. In 1971, Roeg made the visionary “Walkabout.” In 1973, there was “Don’t Look Now,” recently voted the best British film of all time. Then this.

It’s slow going at times, and the plot isn’t worthy of the performances. Too many shots of limousines and an unexplained big truck. Too many unfocused conversations in offices. I gave it 2.5 stars in 1976. That was about right. But I’m nudging it up to three stars for the 2011 re-release. Star ratings are meaningless, anyway, so consider this just a quiet protest vote against the way projects this ambitious are no longer possible in the mainstream movie industry.

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/jun/14/man-who-fell-to-earth-review

Alan Yentob was responsible for getting David Bowie his proper first feature-film gig, after director Nicolas Roeg watched his legendary 1974 documentary Cracked Actor; Bowie stepped seamlessly from one outsider's odyssey across the American mindscape into another. He is like ET's spindly, sexy older brother as stranded alien Thomas Jerome Newton, seeking to transport water back to his parched planet. Bowie's skewed affect was a clean fit for the role, and it's not clear how much acting is on display; the musician, apparently up to his eyeballs in medicinal-strength cocaine, wasn't sure either. The wry playfulness of Paul Mayersberg's script offsets Bowie's imperial detachment, and keeps TMWFTE grounded as Newton's quest dissipates. Roeg surfs the delirium throughout, finding stratospheric poetic imagery in the New Mexico locations and peering towards the horizons of present-day America: immigrant marginalisation, ecological violence, corporate corruption and, in Newton's bank of television screens, traumatic media consciousness of it all ("Get out of my mind, all of you!"). That a major America studio (Columbia) was prepared to bankroll this kind of visionary circus is more proof of how far gone we are. Iconic, and nearly canonic.

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A04EFD6123BE334BC4151DFB366838D669EDE

There are quite a few science-fiction movies scheduled to come out in the next year or so. We shall be lucky if even one or two are as absorbing and as beautiful as "The Man Who Fell to Earth," which opened yesterday at the Cinema I and Cinema II Theaters.

When science-fiction writing enlisted such authors as Ray Bradbury, the emphasis on space machines, time warps and little green men gave way to more philososhical and emotional approaches. It was man or Martian, not as physical but as metaphysical travelers. Space was filled with loss and melancholy as well as gadgets.

"The Man Who Fell to Earth" makes some use of far-planetary landscape, of extrahuman physiognomy and even of space machinery. Sparingly, though; as a touch of color. Mainly it is about exile, about being an alien. Its story of an extraterrestrial visitor from another planet is designed mainly to say something about life on this one.

Nicholas Roeg, who made the powerful but grotesque "Don't Look Now," is an elaborate and mannered director. He does nothing simply; he uses indirection and ambiguity paced with sudden shocking effects. His complexity, his baroque style, is redeemed by a considerable though not total precision and control. His idiosyncracies overweighted the story of a grief-hallucinated couple in "Don't Look Now": they are extraordinarily well suited to this space allegory.

Mr. Roeg has chosen the garish, translucent, androgynous-mannered rock-star, David Bowie, for his space visitor. The choice is inspired. Mr. Bowie gives an extraordinary performance. The details, the chemistry of this tall pale figure with black-rimmed eyes are clearly not human. Yet he acquires a moving, tragic force as the stranger caught and destroyed in a strange land.

The story is complicated. It is set up as a near-total mystery that unfolds bit by bit, leaving—it must be said—a few small unexplained gaps. The price paid for this method is a certain confusion; the gain is the spectator's tingling desire to have the puzzle work out.

There is an explosive splash in a Western lake, and soon Newton — David Bowie — is walking into a town. Immediately the film's theme is set. He passes, and is alarmed, by a garishly painted fun-park gondola in which a drunkard sits, gibbering. Where is Oute Space? Right here on earth.

Newton pawns an immense collection of gold rings for $10,000. He takes the money and a sheaf of papers to Farnsworth, a top patent lawyer, played by Buck Henry. The papers are nine major electronics inventions. Farnsworth can't believe what he sees: "For starters you can take General Electric, Polaroid and I.B.M.," he tells his strange black-garbed visitor. He is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, he tells him. "Is that all?" Newton asks.

Newton gives Farnsworth complete authority to set up a huge corporation. He takes shelter in a radio-equipped car, then in a motel, then in a lavish lakeside house, then in a desert shack. He is accompanied by a lovely, simple and increasingly tormented woman whom he picks up at the motel. All his contact with the outside world is by telephone through Farnsworth.

Newton's empire grows, but is eventually sabotaged by a shadowy, C.I.A.-like group that enlists all those around him—his mistress, his bodyguard and a brilliant, cynical scientist, played by Rip Torn.

Alongside this plot, giving it texture, are the gradually revealed mysteries. Why does Newton drink so much water? Why is he intrigued by railroad trains? Why does he continually watch television? Why does he use all the resources of his vast empire to build a one-man spaceship?

The movie has its incoherences. Sometimes the mannerisms — overlapping shots, for instance—are excessive. Once Newton is broken, and his homeward drive is fully revealed and fully frustrated, the ending drags on for too long.

But it is a first-rate achievement; helped by stunning performances not only by Mr. Bowie, but by Candy Clark, as his mistress. Buck Henry as the lawyer and Rip Torn, the scientist, are subtle and impeccable.

The Cast

THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, directed by Nicolas Roeg; screenplay by Paul Mayersberg, based on the novel by Walter Tevis; produced by Michael Deeley and Barry Spikings. At the Cinema I and Cinema II Theaters. Running time: 158 minutes. This film has been rated R.

Thomas Jerome Newton . . . . . David Bowie
Nathan Bryce . . . . . Rip Torn
Mary-Lou . . . . . Candy Clark
Oliver Farnsworth . . . . . Buck Henry
Peters . . . . . Bernie Casey

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the Walter Tevis novel that inspired the TMWFTE film (he also wrote The Hustler which was made into a movie)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/09/the-man-who-fell-to-earth-is-a-classic-twice-over-as-a-movie-and-a-novel.html

David Bowie's cocaine alien and The Man Who Fell To Earth from The Guardian (TMWFTE was one of five classic British sci fi films featured in a 2012 retrospective), BTW, the review notes his immediately preceding film, Don't Look Now, was voted the greatest British film ever in a then contemporary critics poll

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9333719/David-Bowies-cocaine-alien-and-The-Man-Who-Fell-To-Earth.html

An in depth article on Nicolas Roeg in general and TMWFTE specifically from The Dissolve

https://thedissolve.com/features/laser-age/693-the-man-who-fell-to-earth-erased-time-and-space-wh/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's probably an interesting story behind Roeg's fall in the industry. He was a well-known, critically acclaimed auteur in the 70s and early 80s whose most recent directorial credit is for "Puffball: The Devil's Eyeball".

It looks like his last midrange-budget project was "The Witches" way back in 1990. He was 62 at the time but that's not that old for a filmmaker. In the 25 years since, he's done mostly shorts and TV work. He hasn't even been active as a DP--his last cinematographer credit was on the 1967 spoof version of Casino Royale.

There are other filmmakers with a distinct personal vision who haven't been as active as they (or I) would have liked, but guys like Malick and even Cimino have been able to get the occasional project made. There's no huge bomb like "Heaven's Gate" on Roeg's resume but he must have done something to somebody in order to get reduced to the films he's made. Maybe he's just an uncompromising SOB although that doesn't explain "The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles"

 
Nicolas Roeg interview: the director who fell to Earth

His films disgusted critics. His stars threatened walkouts. So how did Nic Roeg cause so much controversy? It all happened by accident, he tells John Preston

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10185575/Nicolas-Roeg-interview-the-director-who-fell-to-Earth.html

The Telegraph film critics poll - Top 21 British directors of all time (Roeg #5), it would seem he is more appreciated and recognized for his historical cinematic stature in his home turf?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/3664474/The-top-21-British-directors-of-all-time.html

1 - Alfred Hitchcock

2 - Charlie Chaplin

3 - Michael Powell (and Emeric Pressburger, since the shared production, direction and writing credits?)

4 - David Lean

5 - Nicolas Roeg

6 - Carol Reed

7 - John Boorman - another underrated and neglected talent, imo, excelled in genres as diverse as noir [Point Blank], sword and sorcery [Excalibur] and hillbilly rapist exploitation [Deliverance, massive, primary influence on Tarantino]

8 - Terence Davies

9 - Alexander Mackendrick (helmed iconic Ealing comedies The Ladykillers and The Man In The White Suit, Sweet Smell Of Success was a box office bomb that torpedoed his Hollywood career, yet critics later hailed it as a masterpiece)

10 - Stephen Frears

Ridley Scott just missed the Top 10 cut (#11)

Don't Look Now: best British film of all time?

Don't Look Now, the 1973 chiller starring Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland, has been named the best British film of all time by a panel of industry experts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8311268/Dont-Look-Now-best-British-film-of-all-time.html

Top 10 - Roeg's Performance (#7) also made it

1 Don’t Look Now (1973)

2 The Third Man (1949)

3 Distant Voices, Still Lives (1988)

4 Kes (1969)

5 The Red Shoes (1948)

6 A Matter of Life and Death (1946)

7 Performance (1970)

8 Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

9 If… (1968)

10 Trainspotting (1996)

* Roeg has an interactive, multimedia iPad book titled The World Is Ever Changing ($7.99)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nicolas Roeg: 'I don't want to be ahead of my time'

Once audiences make sense of his work, Nicolas Roeg has usually moved on. As the film world rushes to canonise him, he tells Ryan Gilbey about the curse of bad timing ('11 article in advance of a BFI Roeg retrospective, from The Guardian)

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/mar/10/nicolas-roeg

"These would seem to be happy days for Roeg. His workrate may have decelerated (his most recent picture, the Irish voodoo horror Puffball, was made four years ago) but his stock is higher than ever. A retrospective is underway at the BFI in London, stretching back to his early work as a cinematographer, which includes credits as varied as the Roger Corman-directed The Masque of the Red Death and François Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451. A recent poll by Time Out magazine to find the best British films of all time settled on Roeg's psychological horror Don't Look Now as the winner, with three more of his movies in the top 100 (alongside Lawrence of Arabia, on which he shot second unit). His influence is everywhere. Among those who have taken their cue from his complex editing patterns and narrative conundrums are Todd Haynes, Steven Soderbergh, Wong Kar-Wai and Charlie Kaufman. Christopher Nolan has said Memento would have been "pretty unthinkable" without Roeg, and drew on the explosive ending of Roeg's 1985 film Insignificance when making Inception." (Soderbergh has noted in an interview that he has stolen from Roeg possibly more than any other director, and if pointed out, he would take it as a compliment, Danny Boyle has also gone on record as being a huge admirer, citing Roeg and David Lynch as arguably the foremost contemporary masters of manipulating time to cinematic ends)

Roeg's Time, regarding the '15 BBC doc, a career spanning retrospective on his body of work

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/06/my-time-why-work-filmmaker-nicolas-roeg-rewards-second-look

Roeg on making The Man Who Fell To Earth

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/nicolas-roeg-on-the-man-who-fell-to-earth

Who Would Believe It?

Film director Nicolas Roeg talks to his friend, the artist John Stezaker, about collage, editing and memory, and film’s ability to ‘trap shadows’

http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/who-would-believe-it/

Mystic Nic: in praise of Nicolas Roeg

In this extended interview recorded for a new BBC profile of the top-drawer British cinematographer turned master of the supernatural sublime, Roeg’s fellow director, fan and sometime collaborator Bernard Rose celebrates the accidental visionary behind classics from Walkabout and Don’t Look Now to Bad Timing and beyond.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/interviews/bernard-rose-nicolas-roeg

Book review of The World Is Ever Changing - Spectator

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/07/the-world-is-ever-changing-by-nicolas-roeg-a-review/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"There's no such thing as a coincidence" - Roeg

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/13414710.TV_Review__Damien_Love_on_Arena__It_s_About_Time__BBC_Four_/

"There's no such thing as coincidence," the 86-year-old Nic Roeg says amiably in tonight's profile of the inimitable British director, and as often happens when Roeg is involved, it gave me an uncanny feeling.

Literally the day before I learned about this new documentary, I'd found myself thinking about Roeg's richly complex, deeply disturbing 1980 movie Bad Timing, and the tragic coincidence surrounding that film about dark coincidence. In the movie, Art Garfunkel arrives at his girlfriend's apartment to find she's fatally overdosed on pills; as shooting ended, Garfunkel got the news his long-term girlfriend had fatally overdosed on pills in their apartment. He later claimed to have experienced a vision of her dying while making Roeg's film.

Such occurrences are not uncommon in Roegland. Most notorious is the way art and reality blurred on his first film as director, 1970's Performance, the mix of East End gangsters, decaying bohemia, altered states and black-sex-magick that saw James Fox's thug losing himself in a dingy mind game with Mick Jagger's rock recluse. After filming wrapped, Fox quit acting and took shelter with a fundamentalist religious sect for almost a decade.

Maybe the weirdest thing about that movie about identities merging, though, was how Roeg himself seemed to merge with his co-director, Donald Cammell. They never worked together again but, in their subsequent films, each returned repeatedly to ideas exploding in Performance: above all, the notion that all of time - every moment, past, present, future - is occurring simultaneously. (In Performance, Jagger is shot in the head; Cammell coincidentally shot himself in the head in 1996.)

Cammell, though, never quite caught it again the way Roeg did time and again: Bowie seeing pioneers by the highway in The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976); Donald Sutherland half-glimpsing past and future as they coincide to rupture the chill Venice present of Don't Look Now (1973). No British director since has come close to the way that Roeg - using composition, framing, colour, sound, camera movement and, above all, soft, sharp, kaleidoscopic, coincidental editing - expresses, suggests and exposes things that dialogue, language, cannot.

It's Roeg's concern with time, or transcending it, that the director of tonight's documentary, David Thompson, nods to in his title. But you can take it several ways. For one, it's about time for this film. Although he's appeared in documentaries before, this is the first time Roeg has sat still for such a tribute. (In 1982, Channel 4 did a brilliant Roeg documentary, Nothing As It Seems, but Roeg himself appeared only briefly, saying nothing.)

For another, time works against this film. Thompson, who has made some of the best BBC cinema documentaries of the past 30 years, has gathered the stuff to make the ultimate Roeg profile. There are interviews with Roeg, his producing and writing partners, and actors including ex-wife and muse Theresa Russell and Don't Look Now's iconic couple, Sutherland and Julie Christie.

But where once Arena could mount a three-hour biography on Orson Welles, today Thompson has an hour to capture Roeg. It's not enough. He deserves an hour on Roeg's pre-directing career as cinematographer alone, working with David Lean and Francois Truffaut, obsessing on red, coincidentally filming Christie's face time and again.

Still, this is to be treasured. It scratches the surface, but - allusive, elusive - scratches deep enough to show that Roeg, who resembles a retired bank manager and makes films that make your mind shiver and split, is the most deceptive surface of all.
 
Possibly an apocryphal story, but there were rumors that during a preview of Roeg's co-directed Performance, a Warner Brothers exec's wife found the film so disturbing she vomited during the screening. Maybe that could have been worked into the promotion - "You may love it? You may vomit! :)

The studio thought they were getting a Rolling Stone's version of A Hard Day's Night. Nope. They initially wanted to burn the negative, and as it was, held it for two years before allowing any kind of general release or distribution. Co-star James Fox (with Mick Jagger) joined an evangelical Christian ministry and ended up taking nearly a decade hiatus from acting - he is the brother of fellow actor Edward Fox, who played the assassin in political thriller Day Of The Jackal.

As noted above, a recent poll voted it one of the 10 greatest British films ever (with Roeg's Don't Look Now #1), how times change.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roeg was DP of the '66 film Farenheit 451 (directed by Truffaut, scored by the great Bernard Hermann, based on the Ray Bradbury sci fi novel) VIDEO 97 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bVqgBSZHk

He was a second unit director for David Lean on Lawrence Of Arabia - Freddie Young won the Oscar for cinematography. When Young was unavailable for Dr. Zhivago due to working on Khartoum, Lean promoted Roeg, but he was dismissed for stylistic differences, and an interim replacement was chosen until Young was again available, winning his second of three Oscars on a Lean film (he also did my second favorite Bond film [[after Goldfinger]], You Only Live Twice - Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, Roeg later did the film adaptation of his The Witches).

Career spanning '05 article from The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/jun/03/hayfilmfestival2005.hayfestival

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is fascinating...I had no idea about this director & his films. You managed to pique my curiosity, especially his one film's comparison to Bergman's "Persona". Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" gets all the plaudits, but I much prefer Persona; difficult, but uncomfortably rewarding. I'm much obliged; looking forward to watching some of these movies...

 
Sorry Bob- I tend to not read your lengthy stuff.. not enough time/energy.

But I'm a fan of Roeg's first two- wouldn't call them masterworks, but definitely had a distinct point of view and method of telling the story visually and naratively. Man Who Fell... yeah. interesting, but a hot mess IMO. plus I saw it in the theaters... hell... when I was my son's age (!). god bless my parents for taking me to these kinds of things- definitely ####ed me up, that one, but I'm all for exposure. cripes. we second guess taking my kid to even the most demure movies- time to loosen up.

 
This thread is fascinating...I had no idea about this director & his films. You managed to pique my curiosity, especially his one film's comparison to Bergman's "Persona". Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" gets all the plaudits, but I much prefer Persona; difficult, but uncomfortably rewarding. I'm much obliged; looking forward to watching some of these movies...
Thank YOU.

My main intent was, regardless of whether or not anybody ultimately appreciates Roeg more if this thread prompts them to discover and explore him in greater depth, is to recommend his larger body of work to the attention of others. I suspect a common reaction is bafflement and bewilderment to his extremely oblique narratives and highly elliptical forms of editing and storytelling, with intricate, non-linear flashback structures (and in at least one case of a famous scene from Don't Look Now, flashFORWARD). As I have watched some of his films 2-3 X and read more about him, I've come to appreciate it is an organic development originating from his personal philosophy of time (echoes and resonances from the past and premonitions and intimations from the future situated in an eternal now), as well as individual sense and view of how larger patterns of information, knowledge and consciousness can be interconnected (in countless different ways, not only for others, but even ourselves, at different times in our lives - the difficulty in authentic communication and existential isolation and dislocation also seem to be important themes to him that he circles back on again and again). In both cases, it resonates with my own sensibility and some principles that inform and underpin my own outlook (Jungian archetypes and synchronicity, the Buddhist metaphor of Indra's net*, some ideas in 20th century quantum physics, etc.).

But he is nothing, if not challenging and difficult. I tend to like movies that don't spoon feed narrative and plot (sounds like you do to, if you like Persona - there are no doubt a lot of ways Performance ISN'T like Persona, but they share the role reversal structure and mechanism), but Roeg takes it to another level, and makes David Lynch's Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive look like a Michael Bay Transformers entry. :)

I'm interested in his choices to cast rock/pop stars Mick Jagger, Art Garfunkel and David Bowie as leads in some of his greatest films (his take was that their vastly greater charisma than a mere actor in the service of the role would more than compensate for superficial technical gaps).

IMO his first four are his greatest:

Performance (technically co-directed)

Walkabout (first solo directed)

Don't Look Now

The Man Who Fell To Earth

On deck for me (not yet seen) are Bad Timing, Insignificance and The Witches. All but the first and last of these seven films avail from the Criterion collection (and all but Bad Timing on Blu-ray).

He tends (like Kubrick) to not develop his own stories but start with established writers. Walkabout based on an Swiss Family Robinson-like Australian children's classic but changed in ways that made it more mature and disturbing, Don't Look Now on a short story by the author of the origin source material of Hitchcock's Rebecca and The Birds, TMWFTE on an unventional sci fi novel (really using just the trappings to make a subversive social critique of Nixon-era America, much in the spirit of classic dystopian predecessors such as Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984) by Walter Tevis, who incidentally also wrote the Hollywood adapted, pool/gambling-themed The Hustler and The Color Of Money, The Witches on one of the 20th centuries greatest children's authors, etc.

DLN recently voted in a UK industry poll as the greatest British film ever (not just in the horror genre, but period), and is by consensus his greatest masterpiece - Performance made the top 10. I find Walkabout fairly straightforward, blending the titular Aboriginal with Western coming of age themes, albeit with symbolic allusions to the often problematic meeting of ancient and modern. Performance and TMWFTE are >>>META WEIRD<<<, but not imo completely inscrutable and inpenetrable to their symbolism and allusions, with patience and the prior expectation of his unconventional, unorthodox editing method and story telling style. The latter has only recently become one of my top 10 favorite movies (with the likes of 2001, Blade Runner, Seven Samurai, Friedkin's neglected masterpiece Sorcerer, Wenders' Wings Of Desire and Vertigo). In some ways also recently, I have come to view Roeg as a misunderstood, underappreciated (at least in the US, seemingly not in the UK, based on the poll noted above), poor man's Kubrick. He doesn't have anything remotely like Kubrick's imo crystalline lucidity. But if we compare TMWFTE with, say, 2001, the parallel as I see it is they are telling a highly complex and symbolically fertile and rich story (just started reading the source material novel by sci fi master Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick also used Lolita by Nobel Laureate Nabokov, the seminal dystopian novel Clockwork Orange by Burgess and The Shining by horror genre master Stephen King) THROUGH PRIMARILY VISUAL MEANS.

Enjoy.

* Indra's net

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have a lot I'd like to say, but have trouble expressing my thoughts/interpretations with written or spoken words...I am no wordsmith either (soccer thread will bear that out)...suffice it to say, I really enjoy cinema & literature that make me work to either interpret or divulge their meaning, relative to me, not critics or Zeitgeist. Ironically, my favorite Kubrick movie is Paths of Glory, BECAUSE of it's lack of ambiguity, & the rawness of its execution(literally & figuratively). Bergman also; one of his first movies was a skeleton production with the word Devil in its title(at least the translated copy I had) & I was enthralled. It contained all the essential motifs he would later expound upon in latter movies, but the eloquence of his vision lie in his "simple" interpretation of man's duality, especially in the nebulous conflict of our struggle with the existence of God. The production quality of said movie was poor, & obviously in black & white, which I thought made its simplistic presentation even more profound/ironic. It was Dostoyevsky, without his clarity of who/what was right/wrong. Fellini too; while I enjoy most of his works, it is "La Strada" that resonates most with me. I guess I just appreciate certain directors' works that evolve beyond their initial themes, & advance, intelligently complicate their visions...like I just didn't. See, I told you...I just confused myself. My point was...? Anyway, thanks for making me think again, its been too far & in between lately!...now back to my staid & sad existence. I accept my plight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You were perfectly clear. I also like Kubrick, Bergman and Fellini, true masters among the finest directors in world cinema, imo (with Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, Powell/Pressburger, Malick and Bunuel). I once bought an old Ebert review book at a thrift shop for like $1, and in the back, he mentioned among his favorite directors as being Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bunuel and I think Hitchcock? That was among my first exposure to some of those names, as I had come to trust Ebert as sort of a barometer and litmus test for my own. Not to say I always liked what he did, or never did what he didn't, but there was GENERALLY significant overlap in both categories. I appreciated that he judged movies within the framework of their genres, and he typically looked at things in a novel and insightful, but humanistic way. I sensed he was a good, intelligent, well rounded PERSON, and that was reflected in his writing. At one time, he was the only film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for his prose.

Some favorites by director:

Kubrick - 2001, Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove

Kurosawa - Rashomon, The Seven Samurai, Throne Of Blood, Yojimbo, Ikiru, High And Low and Ran (prolific, if you have a couple masterpieces like Coppola you are a genius, he had at least a half dozen, as did Hitchcock, and arguably Kubrick)

Hitchcock - Vertigo, Notorious, North By Northwest, Psycho and Spellbound

Charlie Chaplin - The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times and The Great Dictator

Fellini - 8 1/2, La Dolce Vita and Amarcord

Bergman - The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries (I need to see Fanny And Alexander - I think Rashomon '50 and Seventh Seal '57 practically broke the foreign art cinema circuit in the US)

Tarkovksy - Solaris and The Stalker (former was a kind of stylistically different response to 2001)

Powell and Pressburger - Black Narcissus and Red Shoes (Powell also was one of several directors on the children's classic The Thief Of Bagdad, a big influence on Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits)

Malick - Badlands, Days Of Heaven and Thin Red Line

Bunuel - Exterminating Angel and The Discrete Charm Of The Bourgeoisie

Criterion essays for classics by Gary Giddins (who also coincidentally did the commentary track for Criterion's awesome restoration of Kubrick's Paths Of Glory, as well as essays for several other films), arguably the greatest jazz critic alive, he was the star of Ken Burns epic 10 volume doc series.

The Seventh Seal

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1171-the-seventh-seal-there-go-the-clowns

La Dolce Vita

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3335-la-dolce-vita-tuxedos-at-dawn

City Lights

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2957-city-lights-the-immortal-tramp

I sometimes am interested in what movies directors that I admire in turn admire, and can find that illuminating. Welles was said to be a great fan of The General by Buster Keaton, calling it maybe one of the greatest films ever made. Kubrick greatly admired City Lights by Chaplin and thought it was a work of genius. Wim Wenders (and many others) thought Ozu's Tokyo Story was maybe the pinnacle of cinema. Friedkin was a great fan of Welles, Hitchcock (did a brilliant commentary track for Vertigo, he is clearly a student of film history and passionate about his medium, he did The French Connection and The Exorcist, which may have partly prodded Kubrick to make The Shining) and Kubrick's 2001, among others. Tarkovsky had a few champions (Bergman stated he might be the greatest director overall, Kurosawa visited him on the set of Solaris and wrote an intro essay for the Criterion version). Google's back propagation algorithms revolutionized search engines by not just focusing on the number of other links to a given site, but their importance and authoritativeness, by that measure, Tarkovsky could have a very high standing. Scorcese was maybe the greatest champion of the British co-production/direction/writing team of Powell and Pressburger (with the former primary director and latter primary writer), even employing for a long time Powell's widow as editor. Unfortunately the film Peeping Tom basically destroyed Powell's career in the UK, though in many ways it was brilliant and prescient, and while violent and controversial (for its time), released the same year in '60 as Hitchcock's Psycho, which was near universally hailed as a masterpiece - it was later, as so often happens, for instance with Leone's Once Upon A Time In America (though in that case due to the butchered, incoherent initial 2 hour theatrical cut being restored to the director's original vision and nearly 4 hour edit), critically reevaluated as a great work, albeit belatedly for Powell's career.

The Criterion film currently highest on my "to do list"? Close-up by Abbas Kiarostami (many of these avail on Hulu Plus, which has close to 1,000 Criterion titles)

https://www.criterion.com/films/1092-close-up

Sight & Sound/BFI conducts the most prestigious peer reviewed poll once a decade, latest was in '12, here is the top 50 link (one potential flaw with the poll method is if sometimes great directors divide their own votes?), from which I've excerpted the top 10

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

1) Vertigo - Hitchcock

2) Citizen Kane - Welles (great film, deserving spot, legit genius, game changer in terms of film syntax, but imo unfortunately too erratic and uneven in terms of his body of work)

3) Tokyo Story - Ozu

4) La Regle du jeu (?) - Renoir (I'm more familiar with Grand Illusion and Rules Of The Game)

5) Sunrise - Murnau (silent masterpiece)

6) 2001: A Space Odyssey - Kubrick

7) The Searchers - Ford

8) Man With A Movie Camera (?) - Vertov (?)

9) The Passion Of Joan Of Arc - Dreyer

10) 8 1/2 - Fellini

Sight & Sound's 10 Best Director's poll results '12

https://forrestinfocus.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/sight-sound-part-three-who-is-the-greatest-director/

Sight & Sound Director's Favorites poll '12

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/sight-sound-2012-directors-top-ten

1. Tokyo Story

Ozu Yasujirô, 1953

(48 votes)

Subtle and sensitive, Tokyo Story lets the viewer experience the tensions and demands that modern life makes on people – here family members.

Adoor Gopalakrishnan

=2. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick, 1968

(42 votes)

This is the film I’ve seen more than any other in my life. 40 times or more. My life altered when I discovered it when I was about 7 in Buenos Aires. It was my first hallucinogenic experience, my great artistic turning-point and also the moment when my mother finally explained what a foetus was and how I came into the world. Without this film I would never have become a director.

Gaspar Noé

=2. Citizen Kane

Orson Welles, 1941

(42 votes)

Welles’s feat of imagination in Citizen Kane remains dazzling and inspiring. Cinema aspiring to great art, political import – and delivered with unabashed showmanship. The fervour of the work is as excited and electric as ever. The thriller plot never disappoints.

Kenneth Branagh

4.

Federico Fellini, 1963

(40 votes)

A true classic has to be both intimate and universal. To speak about cinema through cinema requires a voice unwavering in its passion and purity. 8½ speaks as much about life as it does about art – and it makes certain to connect both. A portrait of the teller and his craft – a lustful, sweaty, gluttonous poem to cinema.

Guillermo del Toro

8½ is a film I saw three times in a row in the cinema. This is chaos at its most elegant and intoxicating. You can’t take your eyes off the screen, even if you don’t know where it’s heading. A testament to the power of cinema: you don’t quite understand it but you give yourself up to let it take you wherever.

Pen-Ek Ratanaruang

5. Taxi Driver

Martin Scorsese, 1976

(34 votes)

A film so vivid, hypnotic and corrosive that it feels forever seared onto your eyeballs, Taxi Driver turns a city, a time and a state of mind into a waking nightmare that’s somehow both horribly real and utterly dreamlike.

Edgar Wright

6. Apocalypse Now

Francis Ford Coppola, 1979

(33 votes)

Coppola evoked the high-voltage, dark identity quest, journeying into overload; the wildness and nihilism – all captured in operatic and concrete narrative, with the highest degree of difficulty. A masterpiece.

Michael Mann

=7. The Godfather

Francis Ford Coppola, 1972

(31 votes)

A classic, but I never tire of it. The screenplay is just so watertight, and Michael’s journey is one of the best protagonist arcs ever created.

Justin Kurzel

=7. Vertigo

Alfred Hitchcock, 1958

(31 votes)

[These are the scenes or aspects I usually think about in the movies I have thought about most often…] In Vertigo, after he’s worked so hard to remake her and finally she emerges: hair dyed platinum, grey suit, misty lens. It’s her!

Miranda July

9. Mirror

Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974

(30 votes)

I must have been around 13 when I first watched Mirror. This time I realised that there are films that are not even meant to be ‘understood’. It’s the poetry of cinema in its purest form, on a very delicate verge of being pretentious – which makes its genius even more striking.

Alexei Popogrebsky

10. Bicycle Thieves

Vittorio De Sica, 1949

(29 votes)

My absolute favourite, the most humanistic and political film in history.

Roy Andersson

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bicycle Thief...the penultimate scene where the boy sees his father stealing the bike, after all they went through, is one of the most difficult, saddest and tragic scenes I can recall. I've watched quite a few disturbing movies, but as a father myself, that left me gutted.

 
El Floppo said:
Sorry Bob- I tend to not read your lengthy stuff.. not enough time/energy.

But I'm a fan of Roeg's first two- wouldn't call them masterworks, but definitely had a distinct point of view and method of telling the story visually and naratively. Man Who Fell... yeah. interesting, but a hot mess IMO. plus I saw it in the theaters... hell... when I was my son's age (!). god bless my parents for taking me to these kinds of things- definitely ####ed me up, that one, but I'm all for exposure. cripes. we second guess taking my kid to even the most demure movies- time to loosen up.
How old were you when you saw it, El Floppo (agreed, sounds like you had some artistically open, cool parents)? Was that the last/only time?

Only asking because I didn't like it as much as I do now the first time, but it gradually grew on me after seeing it 3-4 X, I found it to have some symbolic depth and richness and layers and levels of meaning rewarded through multiple viewings (in a way I didn't find a parallel for with, oh, say, the challenging Porky's "Quartet" :) ). I missed it the first time around, and don't recall if I saw it in my 20s (may have seen all or part on TV?), otherwise maybe not until I got the Criterion edition in my 40s?*

* The commentary track by Roeg, Buck Henry and Bowie was insightful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was 8.

I've seen parts of out since, never the whole thing. That's where the "hot mess" comment came from before.

 
You were perfectly clear. I also like Kubrick, Bergman and Fellini, true masters among the finest directors in world cinema, imo (with Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Chaplin, Tarkovsky, Powell/Pressburger, Malick and Bunuel). I once bought an old Ebert review book at a thrift shop for like $1, and in the back, he mentioned among his favorite directors as being Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bunuel and I think Hitchcock? That was among my first exposure to some of those names, as I had come to trust Ebert as sort of a barometer and litmus test for my own. Not to say I always liked what he did, or never did what he didn't, but there was GENERALLY significant overlap in both categories. I appreciated that he judged movies within the framework of their genres, and he typically looked at things in a novel and insightful, but humanistic way. I sensed he was a good, intelligent, well rounded PERSON, and that was reflected in his writing. At one time, he was the only film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for his prose.
He was definitely rounded

 
:rim shot:

Eephus will be here all week, ladies and gentleman, and recommends the veal. Please tip your bartender.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top