|
|
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Michael Powell crosses over the line with "Peeping Tom", 30 Dec 2003
"Peeping Tom" is a film whose place in cinematic history cannot help but outweigh the critical value of the film itself. When it was released in Great Britain in 1960 it was universally condemned by the critics and pulled from released the first week, effectively ending the career of director Michael Powell ("I Know Where I'm Going," "Black Narcissus," "The Red Shoes"). "Peeping Tom" is about a young man who not only murders women, but who films them as he kills them. What upset the critics was that Powell used the perspective of the camera to turn the viewing audience into voyeurs as well, and that he made the murderer into a sympathetic figure.Reducing "Peeping Tom" to the level of a slasher film misses the point, because this is much more of a psychological portrait of a troubled young man. Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) works as an assistant cameraman at a film studio and has trouble appreciating the difference between the real world and what he sees through the lens of a camera. Mark has another job, taking "views" of half naked women for the owner of the local news agent shope (Bartlett Mullins) to sell discretely to his customers. But Mark's voyeurism is ultimately not about sex, but rather about fear: provoking it and recording it. As Mark slowly opens up to Helen (Anna Massey), the girl who lives downstairs in his building who shows an interest in his work, we learn that his father was a psychologist who filmed his son in a series of disquieting experiments into the nature of fear. The boy is following in daddy's footsteps. Powell and screenwriter Leo Marks had wanted to do a film about the work of Sigmund Freud, but John Huston was working on "Freud" in Hollywood, so Marks suggest a story about a voyeuristic murderer as an alternative psychological thriller. Ultimately, the psychological dimensions of "Peeping Tom" outweigh the thriller elements and are what make this a noteworthy film. "Peeping Tom" came out before "Psycho," and the comparisons are inevitable, although they seem as much the work of different times as of different directors. Part of it is that Powell is working in technicolor, with rich colors which work against the horror elements in the film. But we also have to take into account that Powell is not dealing with suspense as a key part of the equation and that there is nothing in "Peeping Tom" anywhere near the level of the shower scene in "Psycho." The key scene is the opening sequences, where we see Mark approach a prostitute on the street, his camera becomes the point of view for the audience, and we see the terror on this face of his first victim before she dies. Then, during the opening credits, we see Mark watching the film he has just shot. The film's opening sets up the rules for the game in this film and no doubt outraged the London film credits before the director's name appeared (shown over Mark's projector no less). Add to this the fact that Powell and his son played Mark's father and Mark as a child, and that probably outraged them more than the half naked women lounging around in display positions. Powell's leading man was the son of a noted Austrian conductor and Boehm's slight German accent probably afforded the critics the small confort that this twisted individual was not a proper English lad. Since this is a Criterion Collection DVD the presentation of the film is done right, with a commentary track by film theorist Laura Mulvey who combines criticism of the film with the history of the film, cast, and crew. Serious film students will enjoy her insights and her comprehensive critique of the film as a true commentary on "Peeping Tom," and not the gay banter of actors and crew trying to come up with things to say that are so disappointing on so many commentary tracks. There is a theatrical trailer, whose tenor seems quite at odds with the film itself, a gallery of production stills, and a Channel 4 U.K. documentary "A Very British Psycho," which relates the controversy of the film and interviews screenwriter Leo Marks and the critics who bashed the film on its release in 1962. You cannot help but feel that while it was Michael Powell's directing career that was ended up this film, it was Marks who should have suffered more as the writer is at least as disturbing a personality as his fictional creation in the film.
|