22 June 2003
I was going to talk some more about tennis, and then add some about cricket and rugby. Perhaps even brag of my snooker- and tennis-playing exploits lately. But I’ve decided that instead of ‘doing stuff with ESF ’ or talking about sport, I’d rather talk about films. They are my favouritest things in the world, after all.
So, Looking Through Lillian . It’s an independent film, and it has a number of traits that give it away as such. The cast are mostly debutants, with one ‘name’ actor (Sam Bottoms, who played Lance in Apocalypse Now . You know, he was the surfer). It was co-written by the star and the director (it was also the director’s first film). The soundtrack draws from all sorts of genres, depending on the scene. And it’s short, which is something I always admire in a film because, let’s face it, unless you’re an absolute master of pacing there’s no way you can fill out three hours without a little slack.
Lillian is a spectacularly well-paid prostitute for Gene, a wealthy, married businessman. In return for being able to afford a flashy car, a nice airy house, and plenty of clothes, she has to cater to his particular sexual peccadillo when his busy schedule allows. As far as we’re told, she has no other income and her only interests are reading and her dog. That is, until she goes out with her friend Angela and meets Luke, a writer with whom she begins a relationship.
Whenever I come across a film like this, I become tempted to describe it in terms of slices of other film because I can’t just say ‘it’s like [film] but [with a conscience].’ Don’t believe the hype about it being truly original — the ending puts paid to that claim — but there’s no denying that it’s different. I can honestly, hand on heart, say that not only is it different in theme from most other films, but the feel of it is unlike any other film I’ve seen. One the one hand it portrays itself as ‘X-Rated’ and ‘edgy,’ but on the other it drifts through almost like a dream, never even making an attempt to shock. The plot frankly sags, even through the short running time, and there’s no real tension in it. All of that should then come through the characters; only problem is, the only characters that are even developed in a cursory manner Lillian and Gene. Luke, Andrea, and Mick are mere ciphers. The actors play them well enough, but the script gave them almost nothing to work with.
In fact, the script is plain ropey. It confuses being witty and intelligent with using long words, leading to the hilarious line ‘[what] constitutes right from wrong?’ The dialogue veers between pedestrian and pompously philosophical, and characters seem to be constantly trying to score points from each other in conversation.
As for the two leading performers, in keeping with the rest of the film they’re understated and smooth. This works in theory, but that makes everything just a bit pointless. There are only two points in this film where a character shows something approaching a genuine emotion rather than a filtered version of one. Both are Lillian’s, and of those, one is dangerously close to being screechily over-acted.
Right then, it’s not brilliant and it’s not terribly engaging on an emotional level. But everything I’ve said and am going to say has come through disappointment rather than genuinely believing that it’s not worth the time. It has plenty to recommend it, because like other films that are like nothing else, it’s worth seeing just to have seen it. It looks great, and the only complaints I’d have with the cinematography are more the fault of the script than anything else; it also sounds great, because although few of the eclectic mix of songs stood out, the mix worked superbly. And most remarkably, despite the plot sagging, I never checked my watch or even wanted to. Something in the steady, measured pacing gives the film hypnotic qualities that could easily be used to distract the unwary channel-hopper on television.
There’s always a temptation to read deeper levels into a film than are actually there. It always annoys me when people do this, because I’m one of those people that believes unless it’s really fucking good, a film is there to tell a story. It could be a story of events, of people, or of a place, but it has to be a story. There may be allegory or metaphor, but in the final analysis, the story must stand up. This has no real story, just loosely connected events and faint sketches of characters. If it’s trying to make me pontificate about my existence, then it’s failed. There are films that have managed that, but only when it’s not a central thesis but a side effect of greatness.
Therefore, against my better judgement, I have to wonder if this isn’t some kind of self-referential work. That the title should actually have been Looking Through Looking Through Lillian. That the film is supposed to glide past without ever really feeling, without ever getting close to real life, in a manner similar to its main character.
Others disagree, but for me, everything ran through the head. Nothing touched the heart (or even the groin). Everything in this film is calculated, but the makers got their sums a bit wrong. Just a bit, though. With more humanity and less self-importance, it could have been a gem. As it is, it’s intriguing and original, lingering in the mind long after viewing.