|
The author writes: An Introduction - and An Explanation
"Why did you agree to write a book about Jane Campion if you don't like any of her films?", was the series editor's question after reading my 30,000 word manuscript for the Pocket Essential Jane Campion.
Four hours earlier I had e-mailed him the book's introduction - to fit neatly in front of a chapter by chapter analysis of Jane Campion's films, starting from her earliest short film Tissues, through to her Oscar triumph with The Piano and ending with what little information I could gather on the highly secretive current project, In the Cut.
The time was 8.10 pm on a Friday evening and I was just checking my email before going to see High Fidelity at my local multiplex, but I couldn't leave without bashing off an urgent reply to the series of editor's questions, which went something like this …
"When I first agreed to write the book I said that I didn't like all her films. On first viewing they are beautiful films with wonderful cinematography and striking images, but after further viewing they become ugly, nasty films filled with shallow and cruel people. She makes films with disturbing and unpleasant subject matters. They are not films that one can enjoy, but I certainly admire them. I admire Jane Campion for what she has achieved and for being one of the few female film-makers working today that has been able to create a body of work, whilst maintaining her own unique vision of the world."
OK, it may have been more along the lines "I told you that I didn't like the films, and you said as long as they moved me that that was fine…". But the first was what I would have said had I been able to distance myself from the months of watching, reading and writing about Jane Campion, her family and her films.
Writing a book on someone else's achievements is a strange concept. It is often said that a 'critic' is a frustrated novelist, filmmaker or whatever, but I consider myself a researcher/compiler/analyst rather than a critic, which makes the Pocket Essential series of books such a joy to write. A Pocket Essential author gets to write about a filmmaker, genre, TV series or novelist that they admire or love, writing an overall introduction to their work, followed by a chapter on each of their films. This chapter is broken down once again into subsections: cast, crew, plot summary, background to the film, analysis of key themes that are ever present in the director's work, and the inevitable verdict. It is this last section that I had the most problems with.
Jane Campion has worked consistently over the last twenty years to build up a world-class reputation. For her, each film is labour of love. What right to I have to come along and in six months write a book where at times I am brutal about her films.
I loved her early films. Sweetie and An Angel at My Table, were fresh and original films which were both quirky and genuinely moving. Then it all went horribly askew. With the release of The Piano in 1993, Campion became an overnight sensation, the critics loved her, the public loved her and the Academy of Motion Pictures and Arts loved her – she could do no wrong.
At one point when writing the book, I had a serious crisis of conscience. Through my incredible skills of procrastination, I managed to keep myself away from my computer for days at time whilst I vacuumed the house, scrubbed the bath ... anything but get down and write. This self-doubt was brought about through peer pressure. Going through my huge file of research material, I read over and over again about how great The Piano, The Portrait of a Lady and Holy Smoke were. After ten years of film analysis, maybe I'd the lost the plot somewhere and that I was missing something in these films that for everyone else was obvious.
Then an email exchange convinced me that I shouldn't follow the herd and say only 'nice' things about her the films. I realised it was important to be true to what I believed, after all this was my book. And with his few words of condemnation of Holy Smoke I knew I was no longer alone in my view that the film is as mess. Since finishing the book, Holy Smoke has been released on video, the reviews surrounding its release have been much more realistic in their assessment than on its big screen release. It is not a great film, it is not even a good film, but it is certainly an interesting film and one I enjoyed watching, analysing and ripping to shreds. Holy Smoke purports to look at "empowerment, surrender, spirituality, ethics and the limits of human personality", but it's not.
Whilst Ruth (Kate Winslet) is travelling around India, she becomes transfixed by Baba, an Indian Guru. Back in Australia her parents are distraught and eventually trick Ruth into returning home, where they set her up with cult-exit counsellor, PJ (Harvey Keitel) who attempts to 'de-programme' her.
Although not terribly flattering, the role of PJ was written with Keitel in mind and as with his previous collaboration with Campion, The Piano, it turns Keitel's usual macho image of defiant masculinity on its head. This time the Campion sisters place him in demeaning and ridiculous situations, stripping away any shred of dignity he may have had. PJ is portrayed as vain - with his greased-back dyed-black hair, breath freshner spray, pressed jeans, built-up cowboy boots and dark shades. His first appearance at the airport, chewing gum, and spinning trollies to all the "ladies" to the accompaniment of Neil Diamond's I Am .... I Said, offers up a ridiculous image of a carnival barker, one more in keeping with the 70s porn star than a world-famous cult-buster.
With Ruth, Campion had to find a young actress who could convey both vulnerability and cruelty. When Jane and Anna met with Kate Winslet in Europe, Jane was certain Kate was the one but felt that an unknown Australian actress might be more appropriate. She considered several hundred girls (and many non-actors) from all over Australia before screen-testing Winslet with Keitel together.
Ruth is fully rounded character. At first she seems horrible, manipulative and cruel, but she is a lost character, a young girl on the verge of becoming a woman, shown as having both all faith and no faith, she rebels against everything, and is determined to win.
Ruth and PJ are sent to a hut in the Australian outback to carry out the three-day de-programming. Campion shows us an Australian landscape which is so bizarre that it can't help but transform those who venture into it. PJ transforms from a professional yet vain man into a ridiculous image of an old man in a red dress and lipstick seducing a young girl. Ruth doesn't fare much better and she's shown to be cruel and manipulative.
The film is based on the novel Jane co-wrote with her sister Anna and its seems to have suffered from having two strong women trying to create one vision, and failing. The conflicts between the spiritual and the exploration of male/female, old/young sexuality are never fully realised. The film loses its focus, and ultimately becomes pretentious as it tries to be more than it is.
With her next project, Campion has opted to work alone in adapting Susanna Moore's dark erotic thriller In the Cut to the screen. This film sees Campion reunited with Nicole Kidman, who plays a New York professor who begins an affair with a police detective investigating a series of nasty murders in her neighbourhood. Filming begins in February 2001, with a UK release the following year.
The beauty of analysing film is that there are no right or wrong answers. Everyone who watches a film, will see a different film. What I may see as bizarre or cruel behaviour may seem to another a perfectly natural reaction to a set of circumstances. You may agree entirely with what I've written about Jane Campion's films, but I hope that there are an equal number of people who violently disagree with every word.
Other titles by this author
 Buy now from:
Now available as an ebook:
|
