I was re-watching Lipstick
(1976) yesterday, for the hundred millionth time (though the first time in 5
years). I was joyful it’s still just as
cracking a film as when I first saw it when I was far too young to grasp it
properly. In fact, all these films here,
I was far too young to grasp properly and yet there I was, watching them
anyway, Sunday after Sunday in my living room 6 floors up, alone in the midair
of London.
I grew up as homelife, with mum in the kitchen listening to
sermons and doing the ironing and stuff; dad in the big bedroom, listening to
classical music and reading. This meant,
mostly, during the day at the weekends and holidays from school, I would
inherit the living room by default. I
also had very loose bedtimes, because I was good at getting up in the morning,
even on school days. So I saw lots and
lots of late night Hammer horror double bills with dad, and lots and lots of
gritty 70s thrillers and vigilante films and such (also with dad). As well as lots of wonderful afternoon
30s/40s black and whites, and all those new wave and angry films of the 50s. I was steeped in film as a child and
teenager. I did nothing much with my
home life except read incessantly, watch TV and film and go for big fat long
walks (we lived very near Hyde Park then, about 10 minutes max).
I’ve known for ages that the decade of my birth, the 70s, is
my decade of obsession by choice. I love
the clothes, the music, the weird morality, the gritty sleaziness, the
powercuts and striking bin men (I remember the smell). I was far too young to be terrified by the
way 70s England
was in fact coming apart at the seams, though I was aware of the facts (I knew
why we lit storm lanterns, and mum worried about stockpiling food and the costs
of everything). It just was as it was. In many ways, it’s a lot similar to now, only
now I’m grown up enough to be aware of how all these things really affect me,
the planet and everyone, so I quake in my boots everyday. Hopefully it will all work out just like the
70s and I will eventually look back and laugh – it all got better, things move
on.
TV used to repeat a lot of things in those days, way more
than now. And because there was only
terrestrial TV, you got to see the same things with more regularity. So I watched these 5 films in particular,
over and over, by myself with the curtains closed in case real life and light
interfered with the total immersion process.
When we got our first video recorder (we were very first with that – dad was a techno hound his whole life and
both of us lapped up TV and film, though slightly different in emphasis on what
we liked) – we quickly set to buying up everything we ever enjoyed. I had pocket
money which I was very good at saving, but dad was overwhelmingly generous when
it came to my film collection. By the
early 80’s our living room was a library of VHS, organised by genre and who
owned it, in every bookcase, shelf and box.
He was a strange man in many ways, my dad, but when it came
to reading books and TV/ film, he denied me nothing. If we could afford it and it existed, we both
had, in our collections, whatever we wanted.
I had lots of very unsuitable things (to the great worry of my
mother, who stood on the sidelines; and very often at the door of the living
room, plaintively saying: “Sid, do you really think she should be watching
this, she’s only 9/ 10/ 11/ 12/13?” at The
Evil Dead/ Rabid/ Shivers/ 10 Past Midnight/ Scum/ Midnight Cowboy/ Midnight
Express etc etc etc). I of course,
thought I should. I was taking from them
whatever I was. Definitely it was
something. Though I understand all of
the grittier or more adult themed films much better now in the literal sense, I
got the feelings of each one perfectly, with zero experience of any of the
situations to call on. They all affected
me deeply.
Though I do worry that I was so young and impressionable
that the messages, sublimal or not of some of these films taught me things I
might have done best not learning…I treated them as the bible, I believed these films (and most films I saw
as a child/ early teen). I trusted not
their literal truth, but their morality and character messages. They are partly responsible for the patchwork
of me, the great mess that is sometimes good and sometimes not so.
Anyway – all these films are desert island ones for me. I loved them then; I love them now. I can re-watch them and never get bored. So here are they are. They aren’t my favourite films ever, but they
are most definitely among them (I have lots in different categories!).
Lipstick (1976)
Ok, so, I first watched this rape drama on TV when I was 10
or so. The thing that got me first and
still gets me now, is the MUSIC. That
creepy, creepy, scary arse music that
the rapist music teacher makes! The plot
is this: A successful model lives with her younger sister. The younger sister has a crush on her music
teacher. Younger sister invites music
teacher to meet older sister, hoping she can introduce him to others who may
like his music (he composes), help him get on.
Music teacher meets older sister… and rapes her. There is a courtroom drama. He is
acquitted. Older sister’s career is
ruined. By contrivance, he meets younger
sister again, and rapes her too (yes, this does sound extraordinarily unlikely
as I write the whole thing down, but suspension of disbelief is why fiction
works, shhhhhh!). Older sister loses it
and kills him. I never fail to feel very satisfied at this point, especially
when she shoots him in the groin: Yay! As
you can see from the plot, this is 100% 70s politically incorrect drama; as it
was also a Dino de Laurentiis film, it was also lushly colourful and beautifully
shot. But there was something small and
low-key about it, much more so than some of the other films in this series I’m
doing here.
As I say, its music grabbed me. It has a soundtrack by the avant garde French
composer and pop icon Michel Polnareff, which is a real mixture. One moment sweeping sad epic ballad of
tragedy as a main theme, the next that scary scary electronic sampling and
angry synthy sounds used for the music teachers compositions. He used pigeons cooing, and human breathing
to great and scary effect. Of course
this was used in the film as narrative as well, in that near end scene, where
younger sister contrivedly meets him again and he is rehearsing his music for
some sort of barely plausible ‘Essays in Light and Sound’ show, with innocent
teenagers in leotards littered about.
The other children leave, and he sees her there, and calls her
down. She is struggling with her feelings
about whether he truly raped her sister, and whether it was her fault for
bringing him into their house, and whether he can really not be the so nice man she has always thought him
to be (and that he portrays so convincingly).
He attaches her mike to her chest, via one of those hospital electrode
sticky things (much creepy play of him licking it over and over to get it
stuck, and of him reattaching it a couple of times, each time pulling her
Tshirt down slightly more to get it lower on her chest). He is scaring her, especially after he turns
the lights off in the studio and projects weird evil twin Jean Michel Jarre
light show effects over both their faces.
All you can hear is her breath getting shallower and shallower and her
heartbeat, getting faster and faster.
She realizes in that moment that he is the man her sister said, that he
is feeding on and getting off on, her increasing fear. As a scene, it’s intense, melodramatic and effective. She bolts; he chases. You learn that a man who felt overtaken and
overlooked in life, who felt others, especially women, had all the glory and privileges
and wealth – and respect – he craves, is instead going to punish and dominate
those women, as it’s all he thinks he has. (See here: http://youtu.be/zvuHbx6csjA)
Chris Sarandon’s performance in this is both understated and
spot on. As I got older, I would watch
the earlier scenes, wondering why why why
he does it. It’s not telegraphed. It’s all on his face, his reactions to the
women, his perceptions of his lack of importance in the world. It’s an early role for him, and a good
one. He manages a horribly convincing
sweetness that you see is his daytime face; his other one (not the real one,
just another part of him) is in that music and it’s just full of rage at the
world, and a need to take back power.
Though this film is definitely exploitative and melodramatic (Anne
Bancroft as the lawyer for the older sister in the courtroom scenes has great
fun overplaying it), it makes good points about what rape is about. You see clearly it’s not about just how you
are perceived to look; it deals squarely with the ‘you were asking for it’
defence (and this model sells sexy looks to sell lipstick – “I’m supposed to
look like every woman wants to look, its not for men, its for women”, she
pleads, on the stand), but about who is in charge.
I also feel rather sad when I watch this film. It’s star, Margaux (aka Margot) Hemingway,
grand daughter of the famous Ernest, died at 42 from an overdose or a huge epileptic fit (or a combo of both), after too
much modelling and acting fame got to her.
She died, apparently, friendless and alone, and was so decomposed when found,
she had to be identified from dental records.
Her younger sister in real life, Mariel Hemingway, played the younger
sister in this, at Margaux’s suggestion – and she was nominated for a Golden
Globe for Best Newcomer that year. Her performance is a powerhouse of nuance and teen confusion and
honesty. After this film, slowly slowly,
Mariel’s star rose thanks to Margaux’s beginning it, and Margaux’s started to
decline. Nowadays, as well as acting,
Mariel is a lifestyle guru, yoga, cookbooks and a love of nature. She seems a lovely person, a survivor. I hate when I used to hear people compare the
two sisters and say Margaux was less talented – all it was, in my opinion, was
that Margaux had a huge overbite, which made her face look a bit dopey in
repose sometimes; but if you watch her acting, it was all there, she convinces
me. She’s not overblown, she’s just
doing it, she had a quiet style. Also,
how hard is it to move from modelling to acting and be taken really seriously? In the 70s?
Everytime I watch this, I am absorbed again. In how people can come across one way and be
another inside, whole layers to them unseen and seething. How loyalty to a person can actually not help
them; how honesty sometimes isn’t always the best move. How the failure of justice can erode a
society and cause its own kickback chaos – as Ann Bancroft quotes in the
closing moments.
It’s a dated film, sure, but I love it. I’m not sure its vigilante message is a sound
one. I have great personal love of summary justice of this kind; but I’ve had
it explained to me a hundred times why people can’t go about doing stuff like
this and I intellectually get it; its
just that my vengeful gut likes loose ends tidied away and got rid of…and this
film shows, from the look on her face, that needing to have had to shoot him herself
because the system failed her, has changed her forever. She’s not smug; she’s closed: that her
sister, a 13 year old had such a horrible life changing experience because no
one believed her own account of events, and because there are too many “eighteenth
century juries” out there (that’s Anne Bancroft again)... It does make you think. This film is more than the exploitative sum
of its parts. Get a copy if you can, it’s
out there.
***
I realized I have waffled too long on this one. I was going to put all the films together,
but I can’t now. I will have to split
them up, you know, so you don’t grow beards and get very old reading this. So – I am going to be thematic: the first
three films have themes involving the fashion world, but more specifically, the
appearance of women, what it is used for, who looks and how (remember,
feminists, the study of ‘the Gaze’?). So
– next: The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978). Now that’s a cracker too.
"You learn that a man who felt overtaken and overlooked in life, who felt others, especially women, had all the glory and privileges and wealth – and respect – he craves, is instead going to punish and dominate those women, as it’s all he thinks he has."
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------
I wish lol
You do dissective writing of fiction very well - you don't have this apologist mentality in yr writing like you do when analysising real life in the coffeehouse entries, which is weird because we both know these fictional characters could equally get hurt feelings just as real people could ;)
Good read
Michael
I'm not aware of this apologist tone you keep telling me I'm taking!! Of course, the fictional characters could easily get hurt feelings - they have transmitters to our dimension, you know that ;-)) You'll love my next Dr Who book post if you can bear to snooze your way through it - I actually give a book a bad review, for the first time ever; you know I can find good in most things!
Delete