Watched: 06/19/2023
Format: Criterion
Viewing: First
Director: Niklos Nikloidas
Sometimes JAL pitches a movie and, knowing nothing about it, I say "sure. This will surely be different from my usual fare." And, indeed, such is the case with 1990's Singapore Sling, a Greek-made film in English and French, that was part of a movement I'd never heard of before, that being a Greek-based Shock Cinema. I am unsure this is a real movement, but this is maybe the second Greek film I've ever seen, and I know no one who is Greek, so, why not?
Firstly, I'm not sure I actually think you should watch this movie. It's a real YMMV bit of cinema that is intended to deliberately provoke and upset and make you laugh. In the US we'd call it exploitation cinema for lack of a better label, but I'd argue that label is on the wrong jar in this case.
In general, I don't ask the question: what is this movie for?
I'll ask "what is it about?" and "who is this for?" and "why was it made?", but I think all of those would point back to the utility of this movie in the creator's mind, that being writer/ director Niklos Nikloidas. And I don't know if the answers would be particularly useful. It's both a ridiculously pretentious bit of art-house pap and something engrossing and bizarre in non-trivial ways. No matter what, you likely aren't going to forget the *experience* of watching Singapore Sling. And that's no mean feat.
The basic plot is a would-be sequel to the 1944's film noir classic Laura. Kind of. Maybe. It certainly references the film and the events of the film as things that happened, placing Panos Thanassoulis (one of three people appearing in the movie) in the role of Dana Andrews' detective from Laura. The other players are a mother and daughter who have gone completely mad in their well-to-do country home. The movie states that after the events of the 1944 film, Laura had once again fled, and the detective, still in love with her - her absence no show stopper for his obsession - has pursued her to bring her back. Or at least find her.
However, years prior to the film, Laura came to this house and must have shared her story in detail, as the mother and daughter know the story well. But they made Laura their first murder victim of many.
I've only seen the movie the one time, but I *think* what it's trying to do is delve into the pairing of unbridled madness and obsession, and show the results on screen, and to hell with making anyone comfortable.
There's only the three characters: Mother, Daughter and the detective which the Daughter renames Singapore Sling. And we're introduced to Mother and Daughter as they first bury their chauffer and then engage in sex-play themed on the arrival of Laura, who came to them as a secretary.
Frankly, I kept waiting for the movie to tell me "this is not actually this woman's daughter, this is Laura, who went mad". I'm not sure it would have made the movie better or worse. I'm not sure, honestly, she wasn't Laura, at least metaphorically. Or had become her in some way. The age discrepancy between Mother and Daughter doesn't work, so, I have no idea.
Clearly the taboo of the mother/ daughter sexual partnership paired with multiple levels of BDSM play was intended to provide titillation and put taboos on screen that would have been exceedingly rare in 1990.* But it's paired with the monstrous behavior of torture and disembowelments. All shot in stark black and white in the confines of a single house and yard.
No explanation is given, this is not a 2020's film. We may learn that the daughter was raped by the father, and that he was a murderer, and depending on your reading, his mummified body is still in the house. We get the story of what has happened here in snippets, but the women are mad, and unreliable to the audience (whom they address from time to time), each other and themselves. Whether the detective arrived or not, madness was rampant.
Singapore Sling arrives at the house, a bullet in his shoulder from some prior misadventure, but still obsessed, still seeking Laura. In his weakened state, he's overcome and tortured, including electroshock. If he wasn't mad before, he soon drifts into sharing the madness of the women.
Is the movie vital and necessary? No. It may not even be very good. It's intended to live outside the bounds of good taste, but to what end? And what is the point? Well, you're on your own there. The movie will no doubt reflect back at the viewer what they bring to it, choosing any of a dozen vices on display to adhere meaning.
But that doesn't mean it's not fascinating viewing. The performances by all three are... absurd? Amazing? Brave? I mean, especially the two female actors are asked to do quite a bit that I won't go into here, but it could easily have been they figured out what they'd signed up for and decided to skip town rather than participate. But they also both play their madness both in the vein of hyperrealism of cinema and with hints of recognizable issues such as Tourette's.
It's unclear to me if Meredyth Herold (likely a stage name) is American or Canadian, but she seems to have *started* with this film and then kicked around Greece making movies the rest of the 1990's before disappearing, just as the internet would have been able to pick up her trail. Internet sleuthing provides no clue as to who she is or what became of her. Michele Valley continued acting and has credits into 2023.
It's unlikely I'd re-watch this film, but I am curious, still: what was Niklos Nikloidas up to? Because under all the shock, I detected no actual themes nor a particularly engaging story. Instead, it's about the ride and the experience. And that's okay. There's room for movies for existing for all sorts of reasons. But in my personal model of "stories exist as a simulation to make compelling points", I'm maybe not properly quipped to dissect this movie as well as others.
*I am pretty sure a quick perusal of PornHub will provide you with most of what you see here, just not all in one place
No comments:
Post a Comment