304 The Man Who Fell to Earth

[subliminac]

Anyone know who he's talking about?

Philip K Dick?

[solaris72]

Philip K Dick?

I doubt it...Philip K. Dick didn't come to believe that aliens live among us, he came to believe that time doesn't exist. And he did write more than just "a couple of well-received novels," and some of the best of them came during his crazier period.
Also, he was a big fan of this movie.

[justeleblanc]

Can't he be the hope before he dies?

[richast2]

sorry, I was going from memory and I should have quoted the whole thing. Henry also says that he later met the guy in Paris, at which point he was nuts (the aliens thing). My initial thought was Dick as well, but I didn't think anyone had ever thought he was the savior of American letters.

I'd guess Pynchon, but I don't think he's nuts, just reclusive.

[Tony le Stephanois]

Robert Heinlein?

[manicsounds]

I ordered this DVD from DDD during their 20% off sale, and it still hasnt shipped to me, they saying it is still backordered.

Has anyone had trouble getting this title from anywhere else?

[cdnchris]

They have about 15 copies at a few of the Best Buys I've been to for about 28.99. Maybe one near you might have them as well if you want one immediately and fairly cheap.

[Narshty]

Even with the lush new presentation I still think, for the most part, this movie's a bit of a wet fish. Very little about it ever seems to get off the ground (perhaps appropriately). It actually has a surprising fidelity to the book, but only to certain scenes and moments, so ends up creating something pointlessly sprawling and incoherent out a very tightly plotted source, ruining character arcs and the logical progression of events. The half-arsed nature of some of the subplots (ie. the government's attempt to shut down World Enterprises) makes you seriously question why they incorporated it in the first place. The mysterious quality that the movie's striving for in place of narrative coherence just doesn't come off; it's too self-consciously showy for the most part. The continual montage interludes just look more and more like the last desperate wave of a drowning sailor as the film wears on. Unlike the instictive lyricism of Walkabout that pervades every frame of that film, too much of TMWFTO comes off as deliberately and clumsily experimental - too much filler, not enough killer. Roeg is too in love with most of his footage and seriously needed a producer to put his foot down and tell him not to come out with anything over two hours.

It's another overstuffed disc too - the commentary, stills, trailers and Paul Mayersberg interview were all great, but everything else seemed altogether a little shallow and arbitrary.

It's not a film you should actively ignore, but definitely try before you buy.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Constructive criticism still exists after all. About time someone had more to say about why they don't care for a movie. Good opinion, narshty.

[Lino]

You'll fell different on a second viewing. I know I have. Roeg builds his movies with layers upon layers and the more you watch them, the less you think they are about what they set out to be, if I am making myself clear, that is.

[Narshty]

I've seen it before, and decided to give it another run with the Criterion. I just don't think there's much there.

To compare it to its obvious companion piece in Roeg's filmography, Walkabout (both essentially detailing the step backward taken in modern civilisation), the earlier film was filled with wondrous, seemingly spontaneous moments that had you wondering how on earth they accomplished them. There isn't the real same sense of curiosity (beyond 'what the fuck?', anyway) in two people rubbing together while being covered in purple papier mache. Narrative is clearly low on Roeg's list of interests, so why he decided to go for Tevis' book, a model of concise storytelling, is baffling. My main problem is it doesn't seem like he's lifting the ideas in Tevis' book onto another plane through his physical filmmaking, it just comes across as spiralling out of control, or losing interest in the script, or both. Roeg's films are best when he sticks to little stories told in great detail.

[Lino]

Why do you keep comparing it to Walkabout and the book it was adapted from? Don't you think it stands as its own piece of work? Comparisons are always a bit unfair, IMHO. Maybe if you try listening to the audio commentary, it will give you a different perspective. Just a thought.

[Narshty]

Because by comparing it to another example of the director's work that covers broadly similar themes, and the source of the film's ideas and characters, it's easier to pinpoint the shortcomings of the finished product. Perhaps that's why you dislike my making them. Movies don't exist in an artistic and creative vacuum, however desirable an ideal that is.

I also find David Bowie a rather stiff and uncharismatic on-screen presence. He just doesn't seem to do much acting in this - he just talks and moves as David Bowie. Candy Clark is wonderful though - it's no mean feat to make an audience think you're genuinely thick, and she does so magnificently.

[Lino]

Movies don't exist in an artistic and creative vacuum

I never said they did. And I thought that Art was a source for both ideas and inspiration that keeps renewing itself over and over again, definitely not a void.

I guess we all have our favorite Roeg (I personally wish that I liked Don't Look Now more than I do, actually - which is not to say that I don't) and I do feel very strongly about this particular one. I think it must be a combination of David Bowie playing the lead, the theme being of alienation (which I've always felt very close to) and the exquisite photography on display. But in my guts, something that I cannot quite pinpoint tells me it's so much more. And in that lies the real genius of Roeg.

[Narshty]

Annie, it'd be great to get into an actual conversation over the film, but everything you say is so vague and wishy-washy, it's impossible to reply in any meaningful way without resorting to more generalities.

I'm aware that many people find something transcendent in the movie's stylistic overkill but what is it about it for you exactly? Give me something I can hang a hat on.

[montgomery]

I think the content of the film borders on idiotic (and I disliked the novel), but I'm a sucker for Roeg's disorienting style. His films always have a huge visceral impact on me, though the content is often shallow. I feel so depressed watching this film, although the plot has little to do with it. I absolutely love Don't Look Now, although that too has one of the most ridiculously stupid plots of any movie that I really like. To me, Roeg has always been style over substance, except that he actually attains substance through style alone. His films can be very emotionally engaging, and profound even when the material is second-rate.

[Lino]

You want something to hang a hat on? Ok.

Like I said before, I think it's mainly the theme of alienation that draws my attention to it even much more than the style and way Roeg tells the story. Maybe this is not something you can personally relate to and maybe that's one of the reasons why you feel the story is too thin to hang even a jacket on, so to speak.

People in this movie are either trying to make some sort of communication and failing or unawaringly receiving them. Therefore, for me the main theme of the film is "failure of communication", although I do know that that sounds a bit cliche. But it somehow works for me. Or Roeg makes it work for me, that would be a surer bet. The Bowie character is desperately trying to go back to his planet and ultimately failing in doing so. He longs to be with his family again and maybe that's one of the reasons why he lets himself be involved with the Candy Clark character - as a substitute. This character on the other hand, yearns for company and she seems to find it in the Bowie character but she deep down fully knows that he'll never be the way she wants him to be. But she keeps clinging on to him. So, in that sense you could also argue that this film is also about the difficulty of human relationships and how you somehow stay with a person out of conformism even if they are not the ones for you or the ones that will give you what you really want out of life. This happens a lot in real life.

Finally (and I'm writing this on the run, believe me) I think that every movie that encompasses a lifetime as portrayed on its characters (they all get old safe for Bowie - even in real life!!!) always manages to have an effect on me. I feel that I've also aged with them and learned something more from their own experiences and this is one of the reasons why I will always go back to certain films - to see how I will perceive them as time passes on. And this one in particular has stayed with me from the very beginning.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something else I wanted to tell you but it will get back to me later, hopefully.

[Lino]

Ok, I now know what it is. In fact, I have to thank you Narshty because in writing about this movie, I finally found out why I love it so much.

The thing that makes this one click for me is the theme of identity which is now for me at least, the main theme of the whole movie. How people are perceived by others and how one perceives them. Am I what you think I am, are you what I think you are, am I what I think I am, are you what you think are, may all be questions that will get answered on this film during its proverbial duration. Some will obviously be left unanswered or left for you to answer but in this lies the fun of it all: the questioning, the searching, or if you like, the quest and the search. And you can now add another cliche: the fun lies in the journey and not in the goal itself, but I'm straying from my answer.

So, if you take the central relationship of this movie - Bowie and Candy - they are there to serve the purpose of the author to demonstrate what he is trying to convey to the reader/viewer: the former is perceived as an alien (a british man in America) which is a red herring in itself but also an indication of its real self; the latter is perceived as a strong, independent woman which she ultimately is not (she needs a male companion who is somehow sort of out of the ordinary, which she finds in Bowie. She even calls him a "freak", quickly adding that she likes freaks).

We then have this ongoing relationship with its inevitable highs and lows in which they try to find out more about one another (as in every human relationship) while at the same time masking their own true selves, for fear of letting the other one down and risk losing him/her. As it happens, this is what eventually occurs because you just cannot live behind masks indefinitely and so, true identities are disclosed for the better or for the worse. Candy finds out that her "alien" friend and lover is literally one and this causes her mask to also fall, "alienating" so to speak, Bowie's character. The worst did happen, after all. But maybe it was for the better.

I could go on and on about this but I think I've said the main things. You can hang your hat now, please.

(See, I did told you it was layers upon layers. You've barely scratched the surface yet. Watch it one more time, with the commentary on and hopefully you'll see things differently now)

[Narshty]

Ok, I now know what it is. In fact, I have to thank you Narshty because in writing about this movie, I finally found out why I love it so much.

Good! Your points about identity are very interesting - I think I'd enjoy the film a lot more if it stopped dipping its toe into other areas and just stuck to the life Bowie and Clark have made for themselves. It's an unwieldy film and I find the trippy montage interludes and conspiracy subplots entirely dispensable. It just gives it a very stop-start rhythm that keeps halting any narrative and emotional momentum. I was planning on giving the commentary a complete run-through at some point and hopefully it'll give me reason to reassess the film. I've certainly been swayed before by great commentaries.

[Matt]

I was planning on giving the commentary a complete run-through at some point and hopefully it'll give me reason to reassess the film. I've certainly been swayed before by great commentaries.

It may do that. I was pretty cool on the film the first time I watched it (and I'm a big Roeg and Bowie fan), but reading the novel (which illuminates much that is only hinted at in the film) and listening to the commentary really changed my opinion.

[souvenir]

On page 138 of the novel included in the Criterion set, it references Watergate which occurred in 1972, yet the novel was published in 1963. Someone obviously tinkered with the book after its original publication without mentioning it anywhere. My Google search wasn't helpful as to who or why inserted the Watergate reference, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention. There seems to be speculation that it could have been Tevis himself or possibly the publisher. Either way, it would've been nice to have included a notation somewhere in the book.

[Solaris]

I have a 1976 Pan publication of the novel. There is no reference to Watergate on page 138 of this edition; I don't have the Criterion edition, but I'm assuming they are different sizes and possibly different font sizes.
Page 138 of this edition is halfway through Chapter 7 of 1988: Rumplestilskin.
Tell what Chapter page 138 is in the Criterion edition and what is happening in that scene and I can try and find it in my edition and see if the reference is there.

[ellipsis7]

There is also a Sight & Sound freebie reprint of the novel, which I have somewhere...

[souvenir]

I have a 1976 Pan publication of the novel. There is no reference to Watergate on page 138 of this edition; I don't have the Criterion edition, but I'm assuming they are different sizes and possibly different font sizes.
Page 138 of this edition is halfway through Chapter 7 of 1988: Rumplestilskin.
Tell what Chapter page 138 is in the Criterion edition and what is happening in that scene and I can try and find it in my edition and see if the reference is there.

It's the last page of Chapter 8 of 1988: Rumplestiltskin. CIA director Van Brugh is telling Newton that 1988 is an election year and that he has it on good authority that the President uses the CIA to spy on the other party, that Watergate "changed nothing."

[Gordon]

Tevis updated the story three times over the years.