Rlm R€Yi€Iur Robin Spry's Suzanne

RLm R€yi€iur Robin Spry's Suzanne Suzanne had its premiere screening at the Festival of Festivals in Toronto, and Marc Gervais was there to review it Since that screening, the production has re-cut the film and a shorter version is being used in its commercial release. Cinema Canada will publish a separate review of this second version of the film. d Robin Spry p. Robert Lantos, Stephen J. Roth sc. Robin Spry, Ronald Sutherland based on "Snowlark" novel by Ronald Sutherland assoc. p. Wendy Grean p. man. Ted Holliday d.o.p. Miklos Lente art d Vianney Gauthier, Claude Par6 (asst) cost design. Louise Jobin mus. comp. Francois Cousineau ed. Fima Noveck a.d. Lise Abas- tado (1st), Yvon Arsenault (2nd), Blair Roth (3rd) assist, cam. David Douglas (1st), Ma- thieu Dreary (2nd) sd. mix. Richard Light- stone boom Jim Thompson unit, loc. man. Lyse Lafontaine prop, master Ronald Fau teux props buyer Patrice Bengle set props Emmanuel Lcpin, Nathalie Moliavko- Vlsotzky (asst) p. account Manon Bougie- Boyer p. sec. Franf oise McNeil asst book keeper Ruth Wener key grip Johnny Daoust 2nd grip Pierre Charpentier gaf. Donald Sarri best boy Charles Hugues elec. Gerald Proulx make-up Michelc Dion, Normande Campeau (asst) hair Pierre David, Tom Booth (asst) asst cost, designer, dresser Johanne Prcgcnt asst. dresser Andree Jobin script superv. Monique Champagne casting Daniel Hausmann pub. David Novek unit pub. Lana Iny stills Attila Dory exec. asst. to p. Leila Basen asst. editor Sidonie Kerr p.a. Michel Turcot Susan Schneir, Gerald Laniel, Michel English add. cam. Al Smith, Jean-Charles Tremblay asst to cameraman Claude Simon Langlois l.p. Jennifer Dale, Winston Rekert Gabriel Arcand, Ken Pogue, Michelle Rossignol, Portrait of the radiant and the rugged: here, Kate Nelligan with Mr. Patman himself, James Coburn. Marianne Mclsaac, Michael Ironside, Gina photo: Phil Hersee Dick, Pierre Curzi, Gordon Thompson p.c. RSL Films Ltd (1979) coL 35mm running time 105 min. distrib. Viva Film Ltd. (Que.), indicate that he is rapidly losing his players, is that they can overcome it Ambassador Films Ltd. (English Canada). tenuous grip on reality. John Guillermin, the director, is one Thomas Hedley, author of the film's of those faceless technicians who made Like it or not certain films often find screenplay, is a good writer of scenes. his reputation doing mindless spectacles their way onto the public screens bur His dialogue, give or take a few clunkers for Irwin Allen and Dino DeLaurentiis, dened with an enormous weight of assigned to Kate Nelligan, tends to be His presence is negligible, and while he expectation. Poor Suzanne falls into excellent However, like most writers does nothing to damage the film, no this category. Or perhaps one should today he has no sense of how to cons where in it does one sense any direc say "fell." The moment of its premiere truct an original story, (When did you torial urgency, was ominously propifious. There we last see an American film with a truly Mr. Patman should be seen for its were in Toronto, jammed into the Elgin coherent script ? Manhattan, perhaps ?) cast and their performances. And for — one of the last of the posh old film Consequently, he Cuisinarts together one other reason. It does not insult the houses — on one of its gala nights, right an assortment of elements from minor viewer's intelligence: hardly a trivial in the middle of the Festival of Festivals, O'Casey, bad Snake-Plt-type films and consideration in a year which has seen with the Great Film Debate raging a few lesser films noirs. The proof is that he such releases as Bear Island, Happy streets up (cf the articles on Trade gives his hero a cat — a sure sign of Birthday, Gemini, Nothing Personal Forum'80, pages 13 to 16 in this issue). trying to pep up a script by giving the and Death Ship. Simple intelligence is All that was asked for, nay, demanded, hero a number of interesting character beginning to look like a major virtue. was that Suzanne be the Great Canadian quirks. The proof of Coburn's perfor Movie, the reconciling of genuine Can mance, and those of the supporting John G. Harkness adian Concern with boffo box office. 36/October-November 1980 Fim Rcyicuj/ The film community was intrigued, to concerns become trivialized by heavy, Suzanne, then, begins in exciting put it mildly, by the creative mating stock type melodramatizlng. So much fashion, and the audience is swept between a worid-respected director, so that by the end of the film we are along. But even at the beginning, the Robin Spry — who for years has been Immersed in a kind of turgid, ungenteel seeds of eventual loss of cinematic considered English Canada's most Haricquin Romance: will Suzanne mar grace are in evidence. The character socially involved feature film creator — ry the pure idealistic French Canadian metaphors are a bit much: Maman, the and RSL, the dynamic young produc (True Love) or the orgasmic Irish Cana vivacious French-Canadian whose joie tion team of Robert Lantos and Stephen dian lout (Lust Perhaps Redeemable by de vivre finds expression in a strip-tease Roth — whose aim has always been to Love)? joint (!); and Father, Eng/ish-Canadian, "make if on the big money market and If this sounds like facile, cheap-shot and hence dour, Scottish Presbyterian, who are now "risking it" or "going caricaturing on my part, alas, the film and similar soul-withering things — so cultural," or whatever, with a really itself caricatures its own melodramatic much so, that even so fine an actor as Canadian Canadian Film. Everything in plot Melodrama is not necessarily bad, Ken Pogue seems vaguely uncomfort this production, from Ronald Suther however pejoratively the term may be able with the role. Is this writer Suther land's story right through to the actors used in the critic's arsenal of invective. land's doing, or is it Spry's ? (One mustn't and craftspeople (except maybe the Hollywood has a history of splendid forget that the same, false, self-serving final editor?) were the Genuine Cana melodramas. Think of Casablanca, Montreal cliche appeared more subtly dian Article. think of Hitchcock's work, think of the in another Spry television film — scripted Given the magnitude of the expecta many romantic stories featuring the by Carmel Dumas — Je me souviens, tions, Suzanne proved to be the Festi likes of Garbo, Gable, etc., not to men where Louise Marleau/Franco/chi chi val's major disappointment Predictably, tion all the westerns, and thrillers...The swlngin'/"cultural" Montreal is opposed some of the criticism has been vitriolic. point is that bad melodrama restricts to Len Cariou/Anglo/dull, gray, ugly/ One review especially had the ring of itself to simplistic plot values, stock soul-less business Toronto.) almost personal hatred about It — or situations and characters, oversimpli And Winston Rekert is excellent in was the writer merely aspiring to fied themes, and tired, crude, sentimen- his re-creation (of sorts) of James Dean; becoming the John Simon of Canada ? talizjpg, "proven" cliche effects, calcula butinthisl980 view of the fifties'type, a More importantly, Suzanne was used as ted to elicit easy, unreflective, uncritical certain mature distancing — call it at living justification for one of the Trade responses. Good melodramas play with least irony or wry awareness — has to be Forum theses (or should one say the their own conventions and cliches; they on the silver screen, otherwise the au anti-thesis?), to wit that the present are transformed, made meaningful or dience will laugh at the wrong moments entrepreneurial system is catastrophic, magical, in any number of ways, by their (as it did at the Toronto Festival launch giving all the control to a group of wit/charm/irony/delicacy/humour, or ing)- producers who are simply incapable of technical wizardry and wild baroque Whose were the final editing and making a decent film. "I mean, look at exploslveness: or by their sense of in mixing decisions in the making of what happened even to Robin Spry...". volvement vision, probing of mystery, Suzanne ? Who souped up the sound What is wrong with Suzanne is ob or what have you. track, magnifying — in the name of vious, and has been underiined by the Robin Spry's forte has never been, it dramatic Intensity ? — all sorts of noises, critics who have seen it The movie seems to me, a lightness of touch, nor overwhelming the various moments begins brilliantiy; and that too, has that sense of irony or humour. His very with blatant effect-music? (RSL seems been noted by some. Spry actually considerable strength lies in a passionate to have recurring sound-recording pro meets our (legitimate ?) Spry expecta understanding of, and concern for blems. Another of its features. Agency, tions, setting up the clash of cultures in a people, and what is going on around suffers from a dreadfully false conver pre-Quiet-Revolution Quebec. The him. Prologue, One Man, and Drying sational sound/tone,) One could go on, three protagonists, beautifully played Up the Streets — not to mention the dredging up the obvious use of certain by Gabriel Arcand, Winston Rekert documentary Action/Reaction couplet kinds of close-ups (now referred to by and especially Jennifer Dale, fairly ex — are among the strongest films yet some way as the Lantos CU),,. plode as screen presences. An early produced in Canada precisely because The final conclusion, alas, is that yes, dance sequence permits Spry to scale the essential thrust — nourished by Suzanne does fall into melodrama — the heights of bravura lyricism, with a Spry's power of social analysis, and vulgar melodrama, that is Far worse — sweeping, lilting, celebratory camera, above all, by his anger and his agonizing and this is probably why 1 use the term much more "Russian" in its feel than and questing spirit — has not been "vulgar" melodrama — Suzanne be "Canadian," and certainly something undermined by those plot needs and comes yet one more example of Cana •new for a director whose stylistic ap easy effects that are supposed to attract dian Crude, possibly the worst disease proach has been typed as predominantly mass audiences.

Load more