The Local Stigmatic (1990) User Reviews

A Must See Pacino Performance

[pacinoyes · 24 August 2007]

This short film (less than 60 minutes) of Heathcote Williams' play features a remarkably vibrant and physical performance from Pacino, that ranks with his career best. Filmed in the period where the actor was at a career low point (post-REVOLUTION/pre-SEA OF LOVE), Pacino is mesmerizing as Graham, a celebrity obsessed Cockney sociopath.

Because the film is faithful to the text of the play it can be difficult to watch. The dialogue is so structured and vague that it's easy for the viewer to get lost. However, subsequent viewings reveal the subtext underneath and once the film clicks in your head it becomes a disturbing and unforgettable experience.

Two of the worst English accents in film

[Matt-Judge · 2/10 · 11 November 2011]

As an Englishman, the fake English accents really grate inside and distract from what otherwise might be a good film. The main characters would have been well served spending some time in London to learn the inflexions of a proper London accent - I might then have been able to have forgiven the extras for their errors if the main characters had actually done their homework. This definitely rates as one of the worst Al Pacino performances I have seen: All the pronunciations were wrong; Frost, Holborn & Cartland are just a few to give an example without even touching the swear words. It's a good job they didn't have something tricky to say that ended in 'shire' for example.

I would love to see someone redo this properly.

Al Pacino's nightmare

[barryweir · 1/10 · 8 January 2015]

Well, so I finally got to see this after years of looking.

Much like a reviewer above, I'm British. Worse still I'm a Londoner. Quite simply the performances in this movies are a disaster. It's not so much the quality of the acting per se, but rather accents so atrocious to the extent that it provides a constant distraction and, worse still, for this Londoner, quite simply alien and difficult to understand. Both performers offer intelligible dialogue, but it's Pacino that, frankly, truly needs subtitles to understand. I genuinely couldn't understand anyone but the "famous actor" who appears about 60% through, sporting an upper class but not entirely inaccurate accent (played by Irishman Joe Maher). But Pacino, dear oh dear, his accent switches between his natural Italian American accent and bizarre strains of what sounds like a mix of Australian, garbled Liverpudlian and a strange attempt at Cockney that sounds like someone trying to do a parody of Dick Van Dyke's accent from Mary Poppins. The closest it comes to being British would be to describe it as a cross between Michael Corleone and Harry H. Corbett from Steptoe & Son, who Brits will know for having a rather ridiculous comedy accent. To add insult to injury, aside from some occasional shots and props, the picture is clearly shot in America, almost lazily so. Even the background sounds of the city includes America horns and sirens and, curiously, continental ones. I could have handled these elements had the accents been remotely tolerable, but with them being so damned awful, the lack of English aesthetics just felt like insult added to injury.

I would say that if you are British this is one to avoid unless you are a Pacino completest and are curious. If you are American or otherwise, I will leave you to form your own judgement. But, I'm sorry to say for Al, but this is, whether knew or knows it or not, to him what the Star Wars Holiday Special is to George Lucas, Harrison Ford & Co. It certainly throws into question the often mentioned accolade Pacino receives of being the greatest cinema actor, especially considering this project was apparently subject to substantial rehearsal. I couldn't help but feel that other American actors would've given a more convincing turn, even other Italian Americans such as DeNiro.

The irony of all this is that I had so much difficulty understanding the picture that I didn't assimilate or contemplate Heathcote Williams' original work but, as a result of that, I am now minded to go and check out the play just so I know what on Earth the characters were actually saying! One to avoid. Pacino should have kept it in his private collection. He is capable of so much better.

A dark and brilliant film

[Dziga7 · 10/10 · 23 February 2006]

I had the chance to see this film in NY about 10 years ago, at one of the 'cast and crew' screenings that Pacino would have - he used to show the film to friends/colleagues when working on 'big' Hollywood pictures - private screenings for 50 to 200 people. It's a really interesting, complex film - at only 56 minutes. In the style of British playwright Harold Pinter, it portrays dark, weird, complicated relationships - you're not really sure who's doing what and why - but in a good way, it's all intentional. Lots of pauses and silences, elliptical dialogue. Similar to films like ICE STORM - or Bergman stuff. It's mysterious - the psychology and personalities and motivations of the characters are all hidden and they are evasive - but it's fascinating to watch. What are these characters really after? Some GREAT acting from Pacino and Paul Guilfoyle (now in the original CSI!) - like a master-class in acting, seriously. They play Graham and Ray, two friends (lovers?) in London, who embark on a dark and mysterious journey. I don't want to give too much away! The late Joe Mahar plays a fastidious and pompous celebrity in the film and is also terrific. Film was produced by Pacino and directed by David Wheeler (who directed him on Broadway in Richard III and Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel). Beautifully shot, too - on Super-16. It's never been released until now - it showed only at museums and a handful of film festivals - but it FINALLY came out on DVD in June 2007 - in a trio box-set entitled 'AN ACTOR'S VISION' (along with Chinese COFFEE and LOOKING FOR RICHARD). I hear there is an annoying interview with Pacino on the DVD, as an epilogue, that 'explains' the film - what a mistake to pander like that.

Looking for Al

[seeingdouble007 · 3/10 · 20 June 2007]

I like Pacino a lot. I feel he is one of the last centuries' finest actors. But I believe something happened to him during the mid-80's which made him forget how to act, and instead immerse himself in craziness. We began to glimpse this bizarre, slivered transformation in the over-bloated, highly overrated SCARFACE. He had ceased to act and began to perform. The camera became the audience. Not the people constituting an audience. With the exception of a couple roles (GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, THE INSIDER), poor Al has literally become one of his inventions (Big Boy Caprice of DICK TRACY springs to mind) and has come full circle in his transcendence...he has become a parody of his former self, and unlike some actors who embrace this fact and make a lucrative career (Christopher Walken, William Shatner), Pacino continues to blindly lampoon himself. It is a known fact that Al Pacino loves rehearsal, almost to the point of despising the performance aspect. This is highly interesting, and an extremely creative slant in any area of art...but the art is not in creation of art, but in the result. Some may argue this against me...but, if I can filter my point exclusively into the realm of cinema, indulge me please; unless a film calls for the fact a fourth wall is to be penetrated, who wants to see a camera cable, a boom microphone, or a reflection of a crew person? These mistakes cannot be made and the film to be considered an artistic work. Whatever...I am off the point somewhat. I guess what I'm trying to say is that where Pacino prefers to rehearse is marring his result. He has become too opaque...and when a viewer is left alienated by characters time and time again, the actor ceases to be validated, and instead violated. Pacino is violating his talent. Not all material calls for complete comprehension...I am aware of this fact. But THE LOCAL STIGMATIC is directed and performed NOT for an audience...but for the directors and performers. It is self-centered, self-involved, indulgent, and ultimately tiring. There is a reason this was Pacino's hidden child...one to show off only to friends and artists. Like his rehearsal style, this film is over rehearsed and under achieved. That is simply my view. I still like Pacino...and THE LOCAL STIGMATIC may be important in it's own way. It just struck me as very, very Al.

A difficult Al Pacino film for the average viewer.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 23 April 2023]

"The Local Stigmatic" is a most unusual film. Clocking in at under an hour, it's based on a play by Heathcote Williams. Because of this, it plays like a play...and Al Pacino not only stars in it but directs it. Like his other film, "Chinese Coffee", it's obvious Pacino was not concerned with making a film to make him rich...it was obviously a labor of love.

When the film began, I was immediately taken aback by Al Pacino's incredibly bad accent. He was supposed to be Irish or British...but it sounded much more like a Brooklyn accent. While a very fine actor, he really was all wrong for the film....and I am sure I'm not the only one who could not get past this accent or those of his co-star. They just weren't appropriate to the characters they were portraying.

As far as the film itself goes,...well, it's a labor of love...but a labor OTHERS will have a hard time enjoying. The film is incredibly talky and violent. Overall, I cannot see the average viewer enjoying this or sticking with it for long. I know I really needed to struggle to watch.