+ All Categories
Home > Entertainment & Humor > Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac (1966)

Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac (1966)

Date post: 09-Feb-2017
Category:
Upload: kenneth-anderson
View: 10 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
9
Transcript
Page 1: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)
Page 2: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

CUL-DE-SAC 1966lecinemadreams.blogspot.com/2013/01/cul-de-sac-1966.html

Ask me the name of my absolute, #1 all-time favorite film director and I’ll say Roman Polanski without hesitation orequivocation. From the time I was old enough to know what a director was, Polanski has always been a filmmakerwhose work I both related to and respected. In the trifecta of most-admired directors that form my own personal, sub-Freudian model of personality and attraction: Ken Russell speaks most eloquently to my passionate, sensual tastes;Robert Altman I love for the absurd humor he finds in the human condition; and Polanski, more than anydirector I've ever I known, gives voice and vision to those subtle nightmares that hide out in the darker corners of mypsyche. The ones so scary that you either have to laugh or scream.

No One Does It to You Like Roman Polanski

Cul-de-Sac, his 3rd feature film and a true artifact of the - “Now what was that all about?” - era of college campuscinema of the '60s, is Polanski at his quirky best. And while it's a masterfully shot confirmation of Polanski’s skill as avisual storyteller, actually describing just what kind of film Cul-de-Sac is is another matter. Take one of thosegangster-takes-strangers-hostage American noir thrillers like The Petrified Forest (1936), He Ran All the Way(1951), or The Desperate Hours (1955); cross it with a French nouvelle vague art film about marital discord and theinability to communicate, à la Jean Luc Godard’s Contempt (1963); then top it off with a dose of Theater of theAbsurd tragicomedy (the film’s original title, When Katelbach Comes, being an obvious homage to Samuel Becket’sWaiting for Godot, and a less obvious borrowing of the name of an actor from one of Polanski’s early short films) -and you have some idea of what Cul-de-Sac is. Or isn't.

1/8

Page 3: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

Polanski's trademark skill at utilizing locations as though they are integralcharacters in the story is atmospherically evoked by the remote 11th-centurycastle that serves as the fortress/prison in Cul-de-Sac. Situated high atop a

craggy hill on the British peninsula of Holy Island, a major plot point has it thatthe access road to the castle is obliterated twice daily by high tides (a similardevice that was used to good effect in the 2012 Daniel Radcliffe thriller, The

Woman in Black).

In 1966 neither audiences nor critics were particularly responsive to trying to sort the whole thing out, so Cul-de-Sac’s subsequent failure at the boxoffice threatened to sink Polanski's newfound reputation as quickly as Knife inthe Water (1962) and Repulsion (1965) had established it. But in the famous words of John Huston’s Noah Cross inPolanski’s 1974 masterpiece Chinatown: “Politicians, old buildings and whores all get respectable if they last longenough.” And indeed, Cul-de-Sac has enjoyed a major revival over the years. Embraced by fans and Polanskihimself as one of his best and most cinematic films, it's hailed by contemporary film enthusiasts for many of the thevery things it was reviled for back in the day.

Donald Pleasance as George

2/8

Page 4: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

Francoise Dorleac as Teresa

Lionel Stander as Richard (Dickie)

Jack MacGowran as Albert (Albie)

Dickie and Albie, gangsters wounded during a botched “job” of an undisclosed nature, take refuge at the secludedretreat of retired businessman George, and his much younger wife, Teresa. Seeking nothing but a place to hidewhile awaiting rescue by the mysterious, Mr. Katelbach, the fugitive pair hold the newlyweds hostage, setting off abizarre chain of power struggles, game-playing, and revelatory disclosures which ultimately lead each character totheir personal cul-de-sac.

3/8

Page 5: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

The brainchild of Roman Polanski and longtime collaborator Gerard Brach (The Tenant, The Fearless VampireKillers, Tess, Frantic) Cul-de-Sac represents the specific cinematic aesthetics, sensibilities, and humor of the pair.“When we were writing this script, we simply wanted to create a movie that would reflect our taste in cinema,” saidPolanski to biographer, Denis Meikle, stressing a point difficult to contest. Similar in tone to many of Polanski’s shortfilms, Cul-de-Sac has the look and feel of an extremely accomplished film-school thesis project and is the nearestPolanski has come to making the kind of '60s New Wave art film he spent a large part of his early careerideologically distancing himself from.

Forsaken by whom? Katelbach? God? Godot?

WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THIS FILMOne of the biggest thrills to be had in watching Cul-de-Sac is to once again see a motion picture that demandsattentiveness. The economics of filmmaking today (to be profitable, movies have to appeal to as broad ademographic as possible) has resulted in an uptrend in cinematic obviousness. Movies today can’t afford to bemisunderstood. Everything is spelled-out, underlined, and explained with such pedantic literalness, a kind ofpassive, dull-wittedness has replaced active engagement on the part of the moviegoing experience.(An irksome side effect of this distrust of ambiguity can be seen on Internet movie sites like IMDB. The commentsections of these sites, meant to promote discussion, have been taken over by a combative fanboy/fangirl mentalityand a zero-tolerance for differences of opinion, conflicting points of view, or multiple-interpretations when it comesto sacred cows…I mean favorite films.)

4/8

Page 6: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

In one of Cul-de-Sac's many allusions to identity and role-playing, straight-laced George reacts to his sexually mischievous wife dressing him in her

peignoir and applying makeup. The gown worn by Pleasence recalls that ofCatherine Deneuve (Dorleac's real-life younger sister) in Polanski's Repulsion

Movies that explain every detail do audiences no great service. In fact, I think they rob viewers of a marvelousopportunity to “experience” a film instead of merely trying to “understand” it or figure it out. Cul-de-Sac is a textbookcase on how a film can be entertaining, suspenseful, touching, dramatic, and tragic (and at the same time entirelycoherent) and still leave considerable aspects of the plot open to individual interpretation.

Things left vague or unexplained in Cul-de-Sac:George and Teresa’s relationship.The circumstances behind the dissolution of George’s first marriage to the unseen Agnes.Why the couple chose to live in such a remote location.The particulars of what actually brings Dickie and Albie to the castle for shelter.The interrelationships of the uninvited guests (specifically Jacqueline and Cecil).The motivation behind almost all of Teresa’s actions.Katelbach himself.

Confining oneself exclusively to what is disclosed in the film, Cul-de-Sac supports myriad interpretations. Andtherein lies both its genius and its fun. It’s a film people can talk about afterward, sharing impressions andcomparing notes. No two individuals are likely to see Cul-de-Sac in exactly the same way. And beware the literal-minded who insist on one "correct" understanding of the film. These are the kind of folks who can't tell you what they

5/8

Page 7: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

feel about a painting until they've read the museum card.

I'm crazy about the composition of this shot. It kicks off a virtuoso 7-minutesequence shot in one take.

PERFORMANCESAnyone familiar with Donald Pleasence’s somnambulistic performances in the Halloween horror film franchise willbe properly thunderstruck by what an expressive and animated actor he can be in the right role. With his shavedhead a burlesque of the hundreds of eggs on display throughout the film (the shaved head was Pleasence's ideaand came as a big surprise to control-freak Polanski). Pleasence is all repressed agitation and pent-up passion. Hisunfocused feverishness (he never quite knows where to channel it, and when he does, it comes out all wrong) is metin equal doses by the icy assurance of Francoise Dorleac. Playing a paradoxical female with plenty of yin and yangto spare, Dorleac is the impulsive catalyst in this combustible mix of characters. Some critics have decried what theysee as yet another misogynist Polanski fantasy in the character of Teresa, but I found it interesting that she isportrayed as not only fearless, but also the strongest and most resourceful character in the film. Self-servingly so,perhaps, but better that than one of those helpless, always in need of rescue types that proliferated in moviesthroughout the '60s and '70s.

Does Teresa feel a kinship with the survivalist gangster, Dickie?

Blacklisted veteran actor Lionel Stander, all gravel-voiced and possessed of old-Hollywood bearing, is an inspiredchoice for a film that derives a great deal of its tension (and absurdist comedy) from the oil/vinegar chemistry of itscharacters. He’s like a gangster from an old Warner Bros. movie who somehow got himself teleported into a '60s artfilm. There's a comical lack of complexity to this man (although there's a lovely moment when he's shown gently

6/8

Page 8: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

looking over the belongings of his friend) as he struggles to get his neurotic hostages to just shut up and do what hesays.

THE STUFF OF FANTASYA terrific storyteller with a taste for the idiosyncratic, Polanski is unsurpassed in mining the tension and gallowshumor to be found in disparate characters forced into interaction under claustrophobic circumstances. As he doesexplicitly in Carnage, Death and the Maiden, Bitter Moon, and Knife in the Water, and more subtly in Rosemary’sBaby, The Tenant, and Frantic; Polanski likes to have fun with the idea that anybody actually knows anything aboutanyone—least of all themselves.

Typical Polanski/absurdist humor: In the midst of a deadly hostagesituation...uninvited guests! That's a very young Jacqueline Bisset back there

radiating reams of '60s sang-froid behind those shades.

THE STUFF OF DREAMSBy all accounts an extremely difficult and unpleasant film to make, Cul-de-Sac was nevertheless a labor of love forPolanski, and that fact, above all, really shines through when watching it. Even without it confirmed (as it is in theCriterion Collection DVD interview with Polanski) one can sense from Cul-de-Sac that it is a film made with littlethought given towards commercial concerns, and all energies trained on making the kind of film that inspiredPolanski to want to be a filmmaker in the first place. It's a story about character and consequence told almostentirely through image and atmosphere. Pure cinema, as Polanski would call it.

Superficially speaking, Cul-de-Sac is just one spectacular-looking film. Every exquisitely-composed shot bears thestamp of having been labored over and lit to perfection. But it's also a marvelously layered film of the sort that keeps

7/8

Page 9: Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For: Cul-De-Sac  (1966)

feeding you more information the more you see it. It's in this realm that Polanski's legendarily persnickety nature andeye for detail pays huge dividends, providing a rewarding cinema experience of the kind that grows increasinglyrare. For fans of Roman Polanski, Cul-de-Sac is a must-see. What am I saying? It's a must-see for anyone wholoves film!

Existential Despair

Copyright © Ken Anderson

8/8


Recommended