Change Your Image
drjamesaustin
Reviews
Artemis 81 (1981)
A forerunner to Twin Peaks?
I'm not sure how to describe this bizarre, but beautiful movie.
First, it's long. Just one minute under three hours. And it's not exactly fast-paced either. If sci-fi for you means action, spaceships and interplanetary intrigue, give this one a miss. In fact, although the cover describes it as "The cult BBC Science Fiction film", I'd hesitate to call it science fiction; indeed, I'd hesitate to label it anything at all.
And it's definitely flawed. The dialogue is riddled with melodrama and pretentious poetry; the camera-work sophomoric, and the editing clumsy. And yet the effect shines through: the movie has an eerie, otherworldly quality, where trivial details (such as an old lady glaring at a noisy conversation in a library) seem to take on ominous significance.
And so, if you have the patience, you'll get sucked in to this movie. It's mysterious, and beautiful. But don't expect to come out satisfied. Although there is a plot, it is far from clear. The story moves from one surreal incident to another, each connected but seldom shedding any light on its predecessor; even at the end, when it appears that our protagonists have triumphed, it's far from clear what exactly they've triumphed over, and most loose ends are left firmly untied.
Hywel Bennett does a fine job as as the somewhat petulant author caught up in a situation that might have been co-written by Kafka and Philip K Dick. Dinah Stabb perhaps succumbs a little to her melodramatic script; Dan O'Herlihy brings an artistic gravitas to his role. A cameo from a very young Daniel Day-Lewis, and a supporting role by Sting, add a bit of celebrity interest.
Overall, Artemis '81 reminded me more than anything of Twin Peaks (which was made nearly a decade later, and, curiously, also featured Dan O'Herlihy) - the same sense of explanation hidden just around the corner, and another reality just half-glimpsed and poorly understood. I don't think everyone will enjoy this movie, but I certainly did.
Angyali üdvözlet (1984)
A challenge to Adam's descendants!
Every now and then I read a book or see a movie that leaves me increasingly puzzled, even frustrated - until suddenly, towards the end, everything comes together and it all makes sense (the first time I remember this was John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany"). This movie is just such a creation.
The plot idea is superb: Adam and Eve, having succumbed to Lucifer's temptation, are cast out of the garden of Eden. Adam holds Lucifer to his promise: "You said I would know everything!"; so Lucifer, in return, grants Adam a dream of the world to come. And what a bizarre dream: Adam becomes Miltiades in Athens; a knight called Tancred in Byzantium; Kepler in Prague; Danton in revolutionary Paris; and a nameless suitor in industrial London. All of the episodes end in tragedy, and all involve a man separated for ever from his true love.
Other critics have commented on how the episodes become increasingly surreal and confusing, and by three-quarters of the way through the movie I was as bewildered as anyone. But it is when Adam awakes, and Eve tells him that she is carrying his child, that it all starts to come together. Adam has seen his descendants create a world that spirals into madness; and he has also seen that in his misguided attempt to stay forever with Eve, he has condemned all his descendants to separation, whether by death, deceit, adultery, or even misguided piety. His heartfelt plea to God as he clutches his pregnant wife's abdomen - "Lord, shall my kind progress, or like cattle in the treadmill stay within the circle?" - is a challenge. Have we progressed, or have we fulfilled Lucifer's vision of a self-created Hell?
The movie is beautifully filmed, with little bizarre touches weaving a dream-like milieu. There are some fine performances, particularly from the eerily beautiful Lucifer. All-in-all a weird and thought-provoking movie.