Tuesday, November 29, 2022

DAVID BOWIE

 

DAVID BOWIE

 

            For some time now the documentary dealing with the life and work of a singer, musician, actor, band, or member of Andy Warhol’s cult has become something rather like a genre all its own.  Like all other movies, of course, these differ in style and certainly in quality, but most of them follow a familiar pattern.  They usually provide some chronological information, reflecting the subject’s childhood, family, background, and so forth; making the filmmaker’s job fairly easy, in our time these people, like most of us, appear in innumerable photographs, home movies, and videos.  Of course, since the figures also spend their time in the public eye, a good deal of film showing performances and various appearances in the media already exists for exploitation, so much of the productions consist, in a sense, of archival recovery, the visual records of a familiar past.

            The new biography of David Bowie, Moonage Daydream, follows a mostly predictable pattern, though like too many of its ilk, leaves out information that might enhance the subject and instruct the audience.  The film itself at times appears to be its own subject, a showcase for the director’s ingenuity; it serves as a kind of anthology of clips and scenes from scores of other movies, from many of the singer’s professional appearances, a kaleidoscopic presentation of colors and images only vaguely related to its central figure.  The scenes and sequences that appear in the movie tend strongly toward science fiction, horror, and shock, with repeated visual references to Fritz Lang’s classic Metropolis, but with little connection to the narrative of the singer’s career, little apparent relevance to any particular period in his life; several others feature some of the films in which the singer himself acted.

            The career itself mostly appears in a series of concerts where Bowie performs before some enormous and enthusiastic crowds.  Going back and forth in time, and interrupting those moments in no particular chronological order, the film includes several scenes of the singer being questioned and sometimes baited on one of those dreadful English interview shows; unlike most of the interviewees, he dresses in full drag, with lipstick, makeup, and extreme shoes, which catch the interviewer’s eye and inspire his questions.  Despite Bowie’s success, his apparent talent, and of course his groundbreaking creation of various onstage personalities and styles, the whole business smacks of the decadence spawned by rock musicians these days.

            In a couple of repeated sequences, a camera follows the singer through the streets of some city in what seems to be Southeast Asia—Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos?—where he undergoes some sort of initiation or baptism in some Eastern faith (Buddhist? Hindu? Tao? Shinto? ) from an apparent religious figure.  The process, almost obligatory for contemporary rock stars, really seems a holdover from the days of empire, when moneyed Brits sampled the customs of the Orient, now translated into spiritual enlightenment or something similar.

 

            Aside from the various triumphant scenes from a rich and varied career, the movie dwells only momentarily on the singer’s personal life.  The director shows a glimpse of a woman, apparently a wife, and children, then later, another woman who also apparently became his second wife.  The film never reveals the progress of a career in any sort of chronological order; one photo of the young David Jones with his parents pretty much sums up the whole of his past; whatever else the movie provides, we actually never learn how David Bowie became David Bowie, probably the major disappointment of Moonage Daydream.

 

 

 

Whodunit

 

WHODUNIT

 

          In a famous essay, the crime novelist Raymond Chandler remarked of the classic British detective story, “it has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”  The form, as Chandler suggested, remains fixed, stuck in the grip of conventions so often repeated that its readers—I am one of them—know what to expect and are perfectly happy about it.  Almost any imitation of the great days of the past, the Golden Age of detective fiction, qualifies as self-referential, as they say in the literary racket.

  Agatha Christie of course dominates all the innumerable practitioners of the form, which underlines the appropriateness of the allusions to her work and, fleetingly, her presence in See How They Run.  Directed by Tom George, the movie confronts and essentially discusses the conventions and traditions of the (mostly) English mystery.  In a voiceover narrative Adrien Brody, playing a wiseass American film director, Leo Kopernick, comments on the story, explaining the differences between two approaches to detective fiction, the British and the American, and pretty much disparaging the form that unfolds before us.  Set in 1953, the action opens with a celebration by cast and crew of the one hundredth performance of Agatha Christie’s most famous work, The Mousetrap, which in fact seems likely to run for a hundred years. 

Kopernick wants to make a movie based on the play, only with sex, nudity, and violence, following in the great American tradition.  He discovers that he can’t get the rights for film until the play finishes its run, not knowing of course at that time that it actually might run forever.  Although he appears several times in flashbacks and his voiceover continues through much of the movie, he actually becomes the victim whose murder must be solved.

Instead of the usual brilliant amateur, the investigation depends upon the work of two Scotland yard officers, Detective Inspector Stoppard (Sam Rockwell) and Constable Stalker (Saorise Ronan), whose names suggest some of the in jokes in this essentially comic work.  A far cry from the tight lipped professionalism of the Yard, Stoppard is a drunk who muddles through his work, barely escaping the censure of the commissioner; Stalker is an eager beaver rookie who jots down everything she notices and everything Stoppard says, not always a wise or useful practice.

In flashbacks and in the course of the investigation, the narrative introduces a variety of eccentric characters, all associated with The Mousetrap , and proceeds through a number of often farcical sequences.  The solution to the mystery, which probably few members of the audience by that time really care about, finally takes place in—where else?—Agatha Christie’s country house, another reference to the tradition of the form.

Although hardly the sort of mystery story that entrances millions of readers, See How They Run manages to sustain a certain level of interest through the  travails of the mostly bumbling and frequently inebriated Inspector Stoppard and the contrasting diligence of Constable Stalker.  Ultimately, I doubt if anyone otherwise finds the puzzle itself satisfactory or its resolution acceptable.  The film works best as a mildly entertaining commentary on its tradition and even on itself.