Change Your Image
info-105-331725
Reviews
The Last Movie (1971)
Favours intellectual over emotional approach - haunting, to be seen multiple times
I was originally attracted to "The Last Movie" as "Easy Rider" is one of my favorite films, not in small part because of its very inventive stylistic choices in regards to cinematography, editing and use of music. Since I learned that director Dennis Hopper after "Easy Rider" collaborated again with cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs among other cast and crew members, I had wanted to see "The Last Movie" for a long time.
Well, it is certainly very different from Easy Rider in many respect, though the cinematography and editing are very similar. Personally, I love the experimental edits; the constant switch between an almost documentary look and stylized, beautifully composed shots. Scenes are edited precisely to sound effects and music, and the cinematography has a beautiful, "playful" and unconventional feel to it. One example that stuck in my head is the moment when Kansas is first introduced, riding on his horse. We start in a closeup, then the camera zooms out and pans to reveal him riding away into the distance - but unlike most films would do, it does not stay in that framing. Instead, without cutting, it suddenly pans down across some flowers until we cut to the next shot.
The story and narrative style are entirely different from "Easy Rider", and the film - in my case - needed multiple viewings to be fully grasped. To be honest, after the first viewing, I did appreciate many elements, but did not overall "like" "The Last Movie". But it stuck with me, I kept thinking about it and eventually watched it two additional times within a few weeks. Each time, I noticed (sometimes important) details that can hardly be understood upon the first viewing. And after each successive viewing, I liked it more. In a way, "The Last Movie" reminds me rather of a piece of almost abstract art. Unlike a "classic" film which would be about a storyline that can be summarized easily, "The Last Movie" is constructed like a puzzle, revealing many thoughts and ideas only after the audience has been exposed to bits of them for a while. I suspect this might account partially for some of the bad reviews it got: People judging it expecting a "regular" film with a more or less classic storyline and emotional attachments to characters instead of a rather abstract work. In an interview shortly after the NY premiere, Dennis Hopper himself suggested it might be best to watch the film 2-3 times to fully grasp it. When I first listened to the interview, I had thought this might be a bit of a pretentious, generic thought, but after watching "The Last Movie", I do agree.
The structure of "The Last Movie" deconstructs classic cinematic narrative approaches. A lot of details are presented almost in passing, easy to miss during the first viewing. For example, when a stuntman falls from a horse in the Western being shot, we can see an extra being worried that he is really dying, seemingly not understanding that it is acted. Upon second viewing, I noticed that the "extra" later in the storyline actually becomes the "director" of the Peruvian villagers. But even during my first viewing, I found the opening 20 minutes brilliantly executed. I feel it is best to enter the film without knowing the storyline first, because then the opening is especially innovative and enigmatic. We start with Kansas (Dennis Hopper) with the Peruvian villagers in the movie sets, then cut to a Western in the 1860s (which might appear like a flashback into the past when one first watches without knowing the storyline ), then to Kansas on a horse and during a party- and after a while, suddenly, in a magnificent shot, it is revealed that the Western is actually a film that is filmed in the storyline, and all is tied up.
I do find the film's strength in its opening and ending - particularly the ending brilliantly deconstructs any sort of narrative structure. It starts once Kansas suddenly - almost embarrassed - reveals in a dramatic moment that he has no wound make up, covering a spot where he had been shot earlier that now features no traces. From then on, it becomes an almost abstract work, showing outtakes, people getting in and out of character, which I found beautifully executed. My favorite moment is actually right towards the ending, when we suddenly see the camera filming the burning villagers' "camera". There, we can see how Laszlo Kovacs adjusts the framing, looks for a good spot - all the material between "good" shots that would normally end up on the cutting room floor is suddenly inserted, giving us a subtle but unexpected glimpse into the filmmaking process. As I myself often edit film, it was very interesting to suddenly see such a moment included.
The middle part of the film is where I feel it loses focus partially. The film appears to be not about relating or emotionally connecting with characters, but about the more abstract ideas behind its construction, appealing almost entirely to the audiences' intellect rather than emotions. Therefore, hardly any characters are explored in depth, and even emotional scenes (like Kansas running with his girlfriend to a beautiful soundtrack after the Western wrapped) do not really allow any lasting emotional impact. When Kansas decides to stay back in Peru, the viewer at first can sympathize with him, and his love story with a local prostitute appears touching in a few beautiful moments. But in the course of the film, him and the people around him appear more and more flawed and unlikable, which culminates in him beating his girlfriend and trying to make up by getting an expensive coat for her. The way the characters in the middle of the film are constructed I felt might be a deliberate attempt to distance the viewers emotionally from the them, thus preventing viewers from getting "lost" in the storyline, which would be a kind of almost Brechtian approach that is also supported by the fragmented narrative (though, the middle has a more conventional narrative flow than beginning and end).
I personally prefer the approach of "Easy Rider", which mixed more thoughtful, abstract moments with more emotionally relatable ones (the farmer, the commune, George Hansen, etc.). There were no parts in "The Last Movie" that gave me the sort of emotional positive "relief" that the mentioned scenes/characters gave me in "Easy Rider". The closest equivalent to a likable character in "The Last Movie" were intially Kansas (until the middle) and maybe the priest, who - in the beginning - appeared to be a voice of reason in chaos and tries to prevent violence. But - as all characters - he is also not really explored, and during the ending, his character, too, becomes very different, as slowly the narrative structure is deliberately "eroded", creating an emotional distance between viewer and that character, too.
All in all, I find that "The Last Movie" is a film with many subtexts and thoughts. Putting its focus on a rather intellectual approach makes it less accessible than "Easy Rider", but very interesting nontheless. Its very experimental approach certainly was unexpected to many viewers, and I personally also prefer "Easy Rider "- but respect Dennis Hopper's work in "The Last Movie" as the work of an artist with a strong, unconventional vision for this particular film, making it more of an abstract arthouse film with a "European" vibe. I am quite sad that Dennis Hopper didn't do more films right afterwards with the same crew - I like his visual style of the period, and believe him to be a very talented director - the competence with which he handles scenes of many styles (like the incredibly staged and filmed Western shootouts) demonstrate his abilities to direct scenes of various genres, and it would have been interesting had he done more "emotionally relatable" mainstream compatible films right afterwards. I watched a murky VHS copy, and really hope that the film will be reissued soon on Blu-Ray or DVD - I would certainly buy it as I feel there might be more things "hidden" in the images that are necessary to "decode" more of the storyline.
The Other Side of Madness (1971)
Terrific mix of art-house film and almost documentary - using real locations and stunning cinematography.
To me, "The Other Side of Madness" is an incredible film. Filmed just a little while after the portrayed events took place in reality, the film has an unique documentary value: Entire sequences are shot on location at Spahn Ranch, where the real life "Manson Family" used to live. We even see George Spahn (the owner) himself in a brief shot. Just a little while after the film was made, the ranch burned down in a wildfire, meaning that this is probably the only filmic recreation done in that real location - which is shown in great detail.
Shot and edited beautifully and artistically, the film works on multiple levels: Even if it were an entirely fictional story, it would still be a well-done, eery - almost David Lynchian - stylized portrayal of group dynamics and how a crime is committed. It is not an exploitative, gory film - unlike one might assume given its title and topic. The crime itself is shown in a very "matter of fact" way without resorting to unnatural filmic distortions (like sound-effects/strange lighting) which makes it appear very realistic and uneasy to watch, but the camera does not linger on the violence. Instead, the film draws you into its strange, but incredibly captivating, dark, almost 'dreamlike' atmosphere by creating a very tense mood throughout in its well composed black and white photography.
Director Frank Howard uses little dialogue. Instead, he mostly relies on music, visuals and monologues in the background to transport the mood. This approach works very well. Sequences like the killers driving up into the hills (as a slightly distorted monologue plays in the background) have an almost surreal, David Lynchian atmosphere. The use of music / sound design is quite inventive; the song "Mechanical Man" by Charles Manson - which is first heard when we see Manson lying in his prison cell, or much rather the shadow of his hand against a wall - becomes a kind of "leitmotif" as life on Spahn ranch is recollected during a flashback.
Generally, the narrative structure of the film gives it an almost abstract quality that challenges the viewer in a skillful way: Instead of the events being recollected one by one, we start with the accused in their jail cells after a prologue. Then, through testimonies at the trial, slowly the story/events starts to "emerge", and the audience has to piece them together as we see 'patches' of what happened. It is a rather risky approach, but pulled off very effectively, as it works well. In narrative terms, there is a fine line between being "abstract/challenging" and being "disjointed" - and this film pulls it off to be the former, keeping a stylistic and narrative unity. Scenes are connected through editing (matchcuts, interesting transitions) and sound effects, making it "flow". What could have been a cheap, quick, shocking film based on murders committed a short time before the film was released, was instead done as a challenging narrative that is, in my opinion, a fine piece of art as all filmmaking elements (acting/music/sound/cinematography/editing) flow together so well.
The cinematography is incredible. Shot mostly in black and white (with one sequence in color, in which we are shown the film star's 'world') it has beautifully composed shots. Before watching the film, I expected it to have a low budget "underground" style of the period, but I was wrong: Every shot appears well composed; in fact, I believe every shot would by itself, without context, already be a beautiful well-composed still image. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it's true: The way that light and shadow are used in combination with very original camera angles reminds me of artistic still photography in many instances. The editing is highly sophisticated, which is already obvious in the beginning: The panning camera match-cuts to pans over different surfaces, until we end with the protagonists. And similarly inventive edits continue throughout the film. Lighting and cinematography are top notch.
The acting is also very well done and appears realistic. Frank Howard avoids having the actors over-acting, instead, their held-back style gives their performances a tense, quasi documentary character. There is a big hippie concert towards the beginning that - in my opinion - summarizes the film's style well: The concert itself appears to be either a real event or an incredibly well staged recreation. But the cinematography does not make it look like an 'improvised' documentary, because every shot seems pre-planned and thoroughly composed like in a stylized narrative film. An intriguing mix.
All in all, I believe this to be a very underrated film that deserves to be re-discovered by new audiences.