Tag: Leonard Rossiter

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Kubrick’s enigmatic masterpiece will open your mind in the same way as its mysterious monoliths

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Keir Dullea (Dr. Dave Bowman), Gary Lockwood (Dr. Frank Poole), William Sylvester (Dr. Floyd Heywod), Douglas Rain (HAL 900), Daniel Richter (Moon-Watcher), Leonard Rossiter (Dr. Andrei Smyslov), Margaret Tyzack (Elena), Robert Beatty (Dr. Ralph Halvorsen), Sean Sullivan (Dr. Bill Michaels)

When I first sat down to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey I was a teenager. It quickly became clear I had no idea what I was getting into. Somewhere in my mind I pictured an experience a bit like Star Wars. What I wasn’t ready for was the enigma wrapped in a mystery Kubrick actually made. Watching it was rather like a teenager chugging back a fine red wine as their first drink: I spat it out and reached for a can of Fosters. Appreciation for that sort of stuff has to grow with age. Today, for all Kubrick can be self-important, this is visionary, individualistic, ground-breaking film-making. A truly unique piece of film artistry and a masterclass in sound and vision, presenting something unanswerably different. No wonder its impact has stretched through film, like the monolith’s on mankind.

2001 could arguably be about everything and nothing. It was developed by Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke, working in tandem to produce both script and Clarke’s novel. But Kubrick flew in a radically different direction. While he and Clarke populated the novel treatment with greater context, Kubrick felt (as the film reached its conclusion) that explanations weakened the film. Its power lay in maintain the mystery. Kubrick cut a voiceover, trimmed out characters, sliced out dialogue and removed all references to aliens behind events: he left the film itself as a mysterious artifact, the viewer could touch it and experience their own unique odyssey into the unknown.

Split into four chapters, we are taken from the dawn of our civilisation to (perhaps) the dawn of our next civilisation. A prologue shows the arrival of a mysterious monolith on prehistoric Earth, where a group of ape-like humanoids encounter it and learn to use tools (namely to hunt and kill). Millions of years later, mankind’s early colonisation of space discovers another mysterious monolith, buried millions of years earlier. A mission is sent to Jupiter years to find out more about its origins. On that mission, all the crew bar Dr Dave Bowman (Kier Dullea) are killed when on-board computer HAL seems to malfunction. Bowman is left alone to encounter a monolith circling Jupiter which takes him into the infinite, a whole lifetime lived in minutes in a dream-like French drawing room, before his rebirth into a giant space baby.

What’s extraordinary about all this, is that Kubrick does nothing to place any of this into an understandable context. 2001 is a sort of Last Year at Marienbad in Space, a journey into a series of questions with no answers – but yet somehow never feels unsatisfying. It’s also fascinating as a work that feels profoundly philosophical, but with very little actual philosophy or insight in it. Instead, what the film supplies is a sort of raw, elemental power that makes you tremble to your very bones. You can feel it worming inside you, its unfathomable imagery, haunting audioscape and sometimes impenetrable logic making it even more engrossing.

It’s often been said the only character in 2001 Kubrick related to was HAL, the emotionless but sinister computer. In fact, I’d say the character Kubrick most relates to is the Monolith. For, essentially, what is it but a film director: a master manipulator holding all the cards, knowing all the answers and choosing what to share with us? We understand nothing in a film without the director’s guiding hand. Like the Monolith, 2001 has such overwhelming awe and majesty that people are drawn to it while barely understanding it. That’s a Godlike power I feel Kubrick relates to.

2001 is a master-class of the director’s art. The visionary beauty of its imagery is breath-taking. From its sweepingly empty vistas of the barren rocks of pre-historic Earth to the serene majesty of space, this is a film filled with indelible images. There is a true power in the geometrical perfect, bottomlessly black Monoliths that make them something you instantly can’t look away from. And don’t forget that 2001 has one of the two greatest jump cuts in history (the other, of course, being in Lawrence of Arabia), as an ape celebrates victory by flinging a bone into the air that cuts suddenly into a similarly shaped space craft as it falls.

Kubrick’s imagery of planets in mysterious line-ups, or the sun emerging over the top of the Moon have helped define how we think of space. His vision of mankind’s future, full of pristine surfaces, corridors that curve and rotate to create gravity has a power behind the simplicity of its design. So mind-bending is Kubrick’s vision of entering the Monolith – a kaleidoscope of colours hurtling towards the camera – that only the knowledge of his control freak self would let you believe that he (unlike many of the film’s viewers) never once dropped acid.

But the real genius Kubrick used was to match the stately, patient beauty of his images – and you can’t deny that 2001 is a film that frequently takes its time – with striking, perfectly selected classical music. You can argue what Kubrick does here is piggy-back emotional and spiritual effect from the work of others. But his choice of musical score is unfailingly, undeniably perfect: there is no chance Alex North’s rejected score could have had the same power. The deep rumblings of Richard Strauss’ Also sprach Zarathustra so perfectly captures the endlessly, unknowable power of space, time and the Monolith itself that it’s now become a landmark piece. The scenes of the ships in space are given a balletic beauty by being perfectly cut to Johan Strauss’ The Blue Danube. Could the Monolith have had both the power and unsettling sense of the unknowable without the sound of Ligeti’s Reqiuem? There is not a single decision to combine sound and visuals in 2001 that isn’t perfect.

And it only adds to the mysterious power of a film that can be deeply unsettling. If there is a transparent philosophical idea in 2001, it’s that mankind uses tools for conquest; the Monolith at first inspires a progression from the empty posturing of rival ape-tribes, into head-smashing violence. And, millions of years later, mankind is still two tribes (East and West), with weapons that could blow each other out of existence. But, whether that was the aim of the Monolith we never know. Just as we never really know what’s going on with Bowman’s fast track life through his neoclassical hotel (though I find something terrifying at Bowman encountering increasingly older versions of himself in silent trepidation).

Is 2001 optimistic or pessimistic about the future? I think Kubrick is aiming for letting us make up our in mind – after all this is our own private communion with his monolith. It matches his own natural inclination for distance. The humans in 2001 are almost impossibly stoic: space travel is no more exciting to them than a plane trip to a frequent flyer (the curved space station is basically an airport, which the character’s treat with the same time-killing blaseness as we do at a terminal). Messages from family members are twice watched by different figures with impassiveness. HAL’s control of the ship is so total, you wonder what the crew is for. Has the Monolith-inspired technology stunted mankind – now we are so dependent on machine that we just cogs in their workings, has progress stalled? 2001 could really be about mankind’s rebirth for a new life.

The HAL sequence – a precursor in many ways to The Shining in its unsettlingly invasive atmosphere – sticks in the mind as it has easily the most dialogue, plot and overt drama. HAL is a brilliant creation – Douglas Rain’s emotionless voice subtly shifting from strangely sweet to terrifyingly relentless to surprisingly sympathetic when he meets his end – and the sheer terror of these technological marvels turning against us (a space probe that shifts into a sort of monster, followed by a jump cut to HAL’s glowing red eye is just breathtakingly brilliant).

But if 2001 is short of narrative drive, surely that was Kubrick’s point? To keep 2001 as a mysterious encounter with no real answers. It opens and closes with two thirty-minute sequences devoid of any dialogue (the last word we here is “mystery”) and gives us such a blast of the senses that it feels more like being flung into a void of unanswerable questions. I was certainly not ready for that when I first watched it. But now, I just have to bow before Kubrick’s mastery. This inspired so many, its power is felt in thousands of works of art since. And it does this because it balances awe, wonder and mystery in a masterful way few other films can. You learn nothing in 2001. It has no real message, argument, or philosophical points, But yet it leaves you utterly satisfied, bursting at the seams with the power of your own imagination. That’s masterful film-making.

Oliver! (1968)

Mark Lester asks for More. You may not share his sentiments in the Oscar winning Oliver!

Director: Carol Reed

Cast: Ron Moody (Fagin), Mark Lester (Oliver Twist), Jack Wild (The Artful Dodger), Oliver Reed (Bill Sikes), Shani Wallis (Nancy), Harry Secombe (Mr Bumble), Joseph O’Conor (Mr Brownlow), Hugh Griffith (Magistrate), Peggy Mount (Mrs Bumble), Leonard Rossiter (Mr Sowerberry), Hylda Baker (Mrs Sowerberry), Kenneth Cranham (Noah Claypool), Megs Jenkins (Mrs Bedwin)

1968. The Vietnam War gets worse. The My Lai Massacre is a low-point in America’s global reputation. MLK is assassinated. Student protests rip through campuses, culminating in Chicago riots at the Democratic convention. RFK is assassinated. In the UK, Enoch Powell talks about “Rivers of Blood”. A flu pandemic sweeps the world. The USSR ends the “Prague Spring” with tanks. It was a year of horrific global turmoil. Perhaps it’s not a surprise the Oscars chose as Best Picture something as blandly comfortable and utterly disconnected from all this mayhem as Oliver! A personality-free re-tread of a successful stage musical, with a few good tunes bolstering a lobotomised adaptation of Dickens’ novel, Oliver! is so coated with sugar it must have helped the medicine of 1968 go down.

Young Oliver (Mark Lester with his singing voice dubbed) is an angelic orphan, thrown out of the workhouse for asking for “more” (Never before has such an event occurred), eventually escaping to London (Where is Love eh?). There he finds the Big Smoke to be nothing less than a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Invited by pickpocket The Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) to consider himself part of the family, he’s soon learning how to pick a pocket or two from Fagin (Ron Moody). It’s not all fun and games though: violent criminal Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed) is a wildcard, although his devoted girlfriend Nancy (Shani Wallis), the sort of girl the boys will do anything for, remains loyal to Bill for as long as he needs her. But there’s a secret in Oliver’s past – who are his parents?

Carol Reed could once make a claim for being the greatest director in the world. You couldn’t make a case for that based on this cosily chocolate-box, unimaginative trudge through a musical that has little other than a couple of catchy tunes to really recommend it in the first place. The real MVP here is Onna White, whose choreography is very impressive. White takes everyday acts and, with a little bit of jazz and a dollop of musicality, turns them into dance movements. It gives the dance numbers a heightened reality that kind of works and provides nearly everything worth looking at it in the film. Reed certainly leaves her to it, carefully setting the camera up with simple wide and medium shots to capture as much of it as possible.

And you could argue that’s his job. But he brings nothing to the other parts of the production. Of course, Lionel Bart’s musical is a much lighter affair than Dickens’ original (although, in actual fact, this is much more of a musical remake of Lean’s Oliver Twist, making many identical cuts and sharing nearly all the same dialogue), but you’d think the director who gave us Odd Man Out and The Third Man could give some drama and character to London’s underbelly. Not a jot. They have the same muted technicolour cleanliness of everything else, and any hint of ruthlessness, criminality or moral conundrums are well and truly left at the door. What we get is a world where everyone – apart from Bill – is fundamentally nice and decent, and rapacious old men using children as criminals is basically not a lot different from running an after-school club.

It isn’t helped that Oliver!, like Bart’s stage original, has a weak book that offers little light or shade for its characters other than to typecast them into simplified “goodies and baddies”. Reed and the film either can’t or won’t stretch this much further – although the film does rearrange some events of the original production to give a bit more motivational heft to actions and introduce Bill earlier to at least add a bit more tension. The film is as quickly bored with the angelic Oliver as the original is – fair enough since he’s a tediously saintly chap – with Mark Lester alternating between looking winsome and shocked at the company he finds himself amongst.

Nothing can interrupt the overflowing “niceness” of what we are seeing. Ron Moody’s Fagin had been honed from performing it on stage so often (and he is very good). But his Fagin is a cuddly uncle, the sort of grown-up scamp you would invite over for a drink, only keeping an eye on the silverware when you did. This is, let’s not forget, a bloke who colludes in murder (though the film reduces his responsibility), kidnapping, grooms kids for a life of crime and willingly lets them die for him. Not a whiff of this is allowed onto the screen. The Artful Dodger (played with a cheeky but tellingly amoral charm by Jack Wild, who tragically never hit these heights again) is given more light and shade than Fagin.

Like the musical, the film downplays the abusive relationship at its heart. Nancy is little more than a walking embodiment of the cliched “tart with a heart” trope, and the film adaptation chooses to praise her for not just sticking with her abuser, but slavishly devoting herself to him. In fact, beyond being casually kind to a child once in a while, this devotion is pretty much Nancy’s entire personality – and the film approves of it. This isn’t a dark picture of a violent man victimising a young woman, folks, it’s love! See, there’s a ballad about it and everything!

It’s a family drama so her murder takes place off screen (just her death spasm legs are seen), but you’d like to think the film could have taken a few moments to put a bit of light and shade on just why this character feels the way she does and does the things she does. In fact, the film is quite dependent on Oliver Reed, the only actor in it who dares to touch some sort of psychological depth – it’s quite telling that, even though he was a famed drunk, he’s the only member of the cast to have had any success after the film was released.

Instead, this is a great big, colourful, empty pantomime of a musical, devoid of character and (outside of its choreography) inspiration. It’s a great big explosion of tasteful sets, mugging actors, pretty colours, prancing and the odd catchy tune. It’s got no idea what the original novel was about at all, and no interest in even touching some of the themes of poverty and criminality Dickens was aiming at. Reed directs the entire thing with the indifference of a gun-for-hire.

Its syrupy sweetness and hammering tweeness leaves you punch-drunk rather than sugar-rushed. Oliver is such an insipid fella you’ll be delighted when he shuts up and sits in the background for most of the second half. It clumsily unveils a mystery and then drifts towards a conclusion that lacks any real drama. It studiously avoids anything that could remotely stretch the viewer. It’s trying so hard to charm you and hug you, it comes across like a lecherous stranger offering you sweets. Oliver! wasn’t even the best musical of 1968, let alone the best film. But in a year when the world was going to hell in a handcart, perhaps a kid-friendly fable bending over backwards to charm and reassure you was what the world needed. Doesn’t mean I need to stomach it now.

This Sporting Life (1963)

Rachel Roberts and Richard Harris excel in brutal kitchen-sink drama This Sporting Life

Director: Lindsay Anderson

Cast: Richard Harris (Frank Machin), Rachel Roberts (Margaret Hammond), Alan Badel (Weaver), William Hartnell (“Dad” Johnson), Colin Blakely (Maurice Braithwaite), Arthur Lowe (Slomer), Vanda Godsell (Mrs Weaver), Jack Watson (Lennox), Harry Markham (Wade), George Sewell (Jeff), Leonard Rossiter (Phillips), Anne Cunningham (Judith)

The British New Wave of the early 1960s embraced working-class stories. They centred on chippy, confident, crowd-pleasing working-class young men (it was always men) from regional towns, doing blue collar work, thumbing their nose at the establishment and fighting to find their own way. This Sporting Life takes a similar route – but its central character, Frank Machin, is a furious, resentful and selfish man, who seems hellbent on destroying everything he touches. Unlike Arthur Seaton or Billy Fisher, he’s hard to like – and the film hits as hard as scrum of rugby players.

Frank Machin (Richard Harris) is a miner turned professional rugby player – not that he has any love for the game (“I only enjoy it if I get paid for it!” he contemptuously states). Machin is an articulate brute of a man, a pugilistic whirligig of resentments, barely expressed or understood desires, and a deep-rooted and chronic insecurity that cries out for love while pushing it away. He’s in love with his landlady, widowed mother of two young children Margaret Hammond (Rachael Roberts). They begin an affair of sorts – but it can barely survive her trauma and Machlin’s self-destructive rage.

Lindsay Anderson’s films are notable for their anger and bitter satire, so it’s no surprise he directed the least crowd-pleasing, angriest angry-young-man film of all – or that This Sporting Life killed the genre. The film is a series of hits, aimed far and wide, from the deference of the players to the owners who treat the clubs like playthings (the “amateur fair play” British attitudes to sport from the patronising owners gets a kicking), to the hypocritical judgemental attitudes of the working class. Even its romantic story features two characters so unable to engage with or understand their feelings that they only really seem able to communicate fully when raging at each other.

Anderson’s new-wave, kitchen sink aesthetic creates a film that feels like a series of battles. From Machlin moving in local clubs to visiting the home of creepy closeted club owner Weaver (a smooth and unsettlingly cruel Alan Badel), whether rebuffing the advances of Weaver’s wife or at a Christmas party, he always seems ready for violence. The rugby matches are filmed like mud covered fights, with players piling into each other like sledgehammers. Even the “romantic” (and I use that word advisedly) scenes between Roberts and Harris feel like conflicts (they frequently tip into nerve-shreddingly raw emotional outbursts).

Anderson’s film takes everything you expect from the Saturday Night and Sunday Morning expectations and amps up the danger, anger and tension. Machlin barrels through scenes, conversations and relationships in the same way he charges through the rugby pitch. The whole film is a sharp warning of the danger of unrestrained masculinity, pushing all softer emotions to one side. Machlin wants so desperately to be a man that everything must be a battle, at all times displaying his most manly qualities. The tragedy is that you can tell there is a far more sensitive and intriguing personality below the surface.

All this comes together in Richard Harris’ searing performance in the lead role. His career break – he won the Best Actor award at Cannes and was nominated for an Oscar – Harris was possibly never better. He’s a brooding force of nature in this film, utterly convincing as a man who bottles up his feelings until it is way too late. He hits out at everything, but you feel he is really running scared from the vulnerability in his own personality. With children, Machlin is tender and gentle, but with adults he is unable to express his feelings. His emotions for Margaret are based around suggestions of a need for a mother figure, sexual desire – and a desire for an answer to the emptiness he feels in himself. Harris is like an Irish Brando here, a marvellous, emotional, dangerous, brutal figure.

Rachel Roberts (also Oscar-nominated) is just as good, giving another extraordinary performance (to match the similarish role she played in Saturday Night and Sunday Morning) as Margaret. Grieving her husband, terrified of commitment, aware of her own position, as incapable in her own way of expressing her emotions and feelings as Machlin is, Margaret is as much a damaged and combative character. Roberts’ performance suggests years of disappointment and struggle behind the eyes, and she has a rawness and humane anguish in her scenes with Harris that sear the eyeballs. The scenes between these two are difficult to watch but engrossing.

The film is stuffed with excellent performances. William Hartnell is heartbreakingly tragic as the closeted talent scout who spots Machlin, only to be dropped by the new star. Colin Blakely is excellent as Machlin’s more grounded and engaging teammate. Vanda Godsell is the face of female corruption as Weaver’s sexually possessive wife. Arthur Lowe (who went on to work with Anderson several times) is very good as a stuffy but shrewd board member. All of this is beautifully filmed in black and white, with an urgency mixed with flashes of impressionistic grimness.

Anderson’s film, though, is primarily a working-class tragedy, about a man unable (until far too late) to really understand what he wants. Why is this? Because of failings in himself, but also failings in his upbringing, where qualities of self-understanding and expression are not encouraged, where pressure is placed on men to be men, where class and stuffy attitudes look to stamp out any real sense of self-knowledge. It’s an angry young man film that is truly, really angry. No wonder it flopped at the box office. But no wonder it lasts in many ways better than other films from this genre. It feels like a film that wants to say something, that has an urgent message. And it has at two extraordinary performances.