June 9, 2016
Darling – UK, 1965
Everything about John Schlesinger’s Oscar-winning Darling screams, “Look at me! Look me what I can do! Look at what I can show! And it must be said, the film does indeed show
a lot – sex parties in which attendees strip and then put on another person’s
clothing, infidelity for infidelity’s sake, hints at bisexuality and the
sharing of sex partners. Even abortion makes a brief appearance. All of this in
a film from 1965, a fact that by itself is likely to pique many people’s
curiosity and have more than one of them proclaiming the film a masterpiece. If
only that were so. Instead, we get a dated and distasteful film about repugnant
people living during times that were so intriguing that they should have
produced a much more involving and complicated story.
The film tells the story of a young woman named Diana Scott,
played by Julie Christie, who won Best Actress for her work in the film. Diana
is a free spirit caught up in the early days of the sexual revolution, and she radiates
the kind of energy and spirit that suggests a love of adventure and non-conformity.
She is married, yet unhappy, her husband a bore who spends his time learning
Italian from audio tapes. We can tell she married him because that was what she
thought she was supposed to do at her age and at that time. I have no doubt that
many young women made similar decisions, only to realize too late that being
the safe choice did not necessarily mean being Mr. Right.
In an odd move, the film allows us to hear Diana narrate her
own story through an interview with an unnamed, unomnipotent voice. There I am, she tells us. Aren’t I adorable in the latest fashions?
She then cheerfully weaves a tale of such hurt and betrayal that it’s almost
impossible to imagine anyone willingly giving up such details. Then just as the
mind is trying to figure out what it all means, the device is dropped, as if
screenwriter Frederic Rafael suddenly realized he had no idea where to go with
it. Interestingly, Rafael was given an Oscar for his screenplay.
Throughout the first part of the film, we watch as Diana
meets, woos, and is wooed by a news reporter/writer named Robert Gold (Dirk
Bogarde), whom she eventually leaves for the sleazy underworld of modeling,
commercials, and all of the unscrupulous personalities that often go along with
those professions. Her journey is somewhat realistic, as the bright lights of
fame have lured many women into situations that they had not expected. Here,
though, Diana seems practically comfortable with the uncomfortable, and even
after moments of surprise soon finds herself laughing and taking part in the
revelry. What does it all mean? We’re never told. Throughout too many of these
scenes, the dialogue is pretentious and self-aware, as if every scene were
designed to titillate and push the boundaries of decency ever more slightly. I
rolled my eyes more than once. Eventually, Diana finds herself at a party where
people sleep with whomever they want – sometimes out of interest and other
times out of sheer boredom. In one scene, she and an industry insider named
Miles Brand (Laurence Harvey) are about to get into bed together when she tells
him that she still loves Robert. Miles’s response: “Why not?” and then they
sleep together. How clever.
In the film’s sole interesting subplot, we learn that Diana
has never enjoyed sex. In fact, the way she winces during particular moments of
intended intimacy is enough to send chills down one’s spine. This hints at
either tragedy or a pursuit that is going in all the wrong directions. However,
the film never truly explores either possibility, instead mistaking Diana’s
string of sexual escapades for both entertainment and a metaphor for
liberation. By the end of the film, Diana’s behavior is no closer to being
explained than it was in the beginning. In fact, the only thing we’re left with
at the end is a vague notion that revenge has been taken and that happiness is
elusive for all involved. Quite a somber note to end on.
Despite all this, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention my interest
in the film initially. I was particularly engrossed in Robert and Diana’s
budding attraction and their early attempts at normalcy. Yet as the film progressed
I found myself more frustrated than intrigued, and the film became more
standoffish than involving. It morphs into a mixture of intentionally odd
characters whose eccentricity does not serve a purpose other than to shock –
and it doesn’t even succeed at that. Too many motivations remain unclear, and
as the film progresses, the weirdness is heighted to such a level as to either
induce laughter or sighs of incredulity. Most often, I found myself doing the
latter.
In the end, the film is a train wreck, and train wrecks are
rarely fun to watch. Admittedly, they can be meaningful cinematically, yet here
it’s all wreck and no purpose, with jolts and rawness that neither shock nor
have anything of importance to say. Like Diana’s actions themselves, the film
has no purpose and no aim, and so it gets to a place few films want to – to one
of unearned complacency, a dubious distinction to say the least. (on Blu-ray
and DVD)
2 stars
*Director John Schlesinger went on to make – and win Best
Director for - the similarly-themed Midnight
Cowboy.
No comments:
Post a Comment