David Bowie

  • Stardust (2020)

    Stardust (2020)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2021) There are a few entertainers whose public persona is so polished, so distinct, so otherworldly that it can be a shock to be reminded that they once were (and very well still may be) ordinary people struggling with self-doubt and how to create that self-assured image. David Bowie is one of those almost-alien concoctions that it’s hard to remind ourselves that he was once David Robert Jones, arguing with his publicists and journalists and audiences as to what, if anything, set him apart from other musicians. Much of Stardust takes place during Bowie’s first American tour, back in 1971, as he struggled with various personal issues to end up creating the Ziggie Stardust persona (and, along the way, the David Bowie persona as well). Multiple flashbacks take us to previous times in Jones’ life, providing a simplistic but still somewhat effective portrayal of how someone ends up creating themselves. Now, Stardust does have its share of issues — as a low-budget Canadian production that didn’t have the rights to use Bowie’s recordings (and apparently wasn’t fondly received by the singer’s family), you can sense writer-director Gabriel Range being limited by what he can afford to do. I’m also limited as a reviewer to comment too deeply on the factual accuracy of the film or its relationship to the character — I have a sympathetic but superficial understanding of Bowie’s career that prevents me from being all that insightful about it. Still, in between the occasional lulls and sheer weirdness to see a portrayal of Bowie at a formative stage, there’s quite a bit to like here. The atmosphere of a gruelling low-budget tour is not badly portrayed, and the film is often best seen as an origin story rather than a full-blown celebration of Bowie-Superstar. I have no doubt that such a film is coming up eventually, and maybe then Stardust will be best seen as a prequel.

  • Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence (1983)

    Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence (1983)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, December 2020) Don’t go around thinking that Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence is some kind of holiday movie, because it’s really weirder than that. It’s actually a Japanese-made WW2 drama starring David Bowie as an interpreter in a Prisoner of War camp where the strict commander of the camp develops a homoerotic fascination for him. Nothing less. Matters of honour and sacrifice weigh heavily in the dramatic arc of the film until the somewhat bittersweet conclusion. Writer-director Nagisa Ōshima credibly portrays the atmosphere of a WW2 POW camp, but the film’s subtle and meandering tone eventually takes its toll. In the end, I found Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence more intriguing as a concept than interesting to watch. At least it’s not another Hallmark Christmas special…

  • The Hunger (1983)

    The Hunger (1983)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2020) In director Tony Scott’s hands, The Hunger goes from potboiler vampire horror (adapted from a novel by—ugh—Whitley Streiber) to something far more stylish. Of course, having a trio of lead actors like Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie and Susan Sarandon helps a lot in elevating the material, but style is not to be underestimated when working with such thin material. The atmosphere holds everything together, even if there are notable storytelling flaws like the very last scene. Squarely drawing upon the vampiric symbolism of sex and death held together, The Hunger goes from high to low, portraying a high-class vampire couple that nonetheless is enslaved to violent and oft-sexual desires—once they draw in a third person into their arrangements, things quickly fly apart. Thanks to Scott, The Hunger has aged very, very well—the then-shocking bisexual content now seems in-tune with the times, and the stylistic insistence of the cinematography ensures that it will keep a place as a neo-gothic minor classic for a long time. Far more often than you think, maximalist execution of minimalist material is the best way to go.

  • The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)

    The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Criterion Streaming, August 2019) To seasoned Science Fiction fans, there’s a big difference between genre SF and SF that merely uses the tropes of the genre without knowledge of the various techniques developed through generations of SF writers to maximize their impact. Nicholas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth is certainly an example of the second type of SF: It features David Bowie as an alien (great casting!) but doesn’t really commit to anything startlingly original in SF terms. Our alien is a smart fish out of water (literally so, as the film somehow has him coming to Earth to save his world from drought), but the script treats him as a punching bag throughout—his romantic relationship predictably fails once he reveals his true form, the government experiments on him for what suggested to be decades, and he spectacularly fails at what he came here to do. Expect no triumphalism, no victory, not much humour either: it’s a typically mid-1970s dour piece of work, predating Star Wars’ SF renaissance by a year and what feels like irreconcilable differences. I certainly get why The Man Who Fell to Earth earned a spot in the coveted Criterion collection: it’s meditative, self-consciously artistic, “not like those other childish sci-fi movies” and dull. It spends most of its time in strikingly unspectacular sets: a living room of a small rural house, most notably. Even today, it feels like an oddball entry in the SF genre, not particularly as interested in what SF fans want than in what the director wants to convey. As such, it has amassed a considerable audience over the years. But I’ll count myself out of it: I think that it’s possible to make movies that are both great coherent Science Fiction, playing by the rules of the genre and yet also profound explorations of the human condition. The Man Who Fell to Earth insists on the artistic effect and completely fumbles the SF side, feeling rather silly in its depiction. There’s been much better movies in that vein.

  • Labyrinth (1986)

    Labyrinth (1986)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, May 2010) Watching this film today is, in many ways, an exercise in nostalgia: As big-budget pre-CGI fantasy filmmaking, it visibly shows its age and the presence of puppets as creatures is a conceit that probably wouldn’t be allowed to go forward given today’s special effects technology.  So watching Labyrinth is, apart from seeing a young Jennifer Connelly in a first starring role, also a game of effect-spotting.  Fortunately, the story is strong enough to sustain scrutiny on its creakiest effects: As a fairy tale, it’s still strong and interesting after nearly a quarter-century.  What doesn’t work as well is the unwieldy mixture of scares and thrills in a film aimed to the younger set, as well as a few musical numbers and comic set-pieces that drag down the story for a while.  Still, Labyrinth’s not such a bad viewing experience, and seeing David Bowie in full goblin-prince attire is enough to compensate for a whole lot of other issues.