What?
Written by Gérard Brach, Roman Polanski
Directed by Roman Polanski
Italy/France/Germany, 1972
Written by Gérard Brach, Roman Polanski
Directed by Roman Polanski
Italy/France/Germany, 1972
You can forgive Roman Polanski if he wanted to take things easy in 1972 and make a light-hearted, frivolous little movie. Less than two years removed from the grisly Manson family murders that took from the acclaimed filmmaker his wife and unborn child, Polanski first confronted his troubled demons with a suitably grim adaptation of Macbeth (1971). After that, apparently ready for solace of a livelier variety, he and a motley crew of friends and associates set sail for Carlo Ponti’s extravagant Italian villa. There they made the peculiarly disappointingWhat?, a raucous sex comedy without much sex and with very little comedy.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/783f0/783f019aebf2188f3b33d5addd512e18781d9d30" alt="What (3)"
The gathered assembly participate in a number of unfettered activities, sometimes together, sometimes alone. As more people are introduced and the potential for new storylines emerge—though seldom coalesce—the characters adopt a carefree go-along acceptance tinged with animosity. Some act as if they are in on a scheme together, while others appear to adopt a certain character or character type (Alex literally does this, donning costumes and playing various parts). Other than the mystery of why these individuals act the way they do and to what aim, there isn’t a whole lot to keep What? moving at a persistent, interesting pace. With so much going on, nothing really happens.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ffdfd/ffdfdfa711494ddd9f3e72ef82cbffcf61a51209" alt="What (1)"
Basically, What? is a loose hodge-podge of fitful antics. When Mosquito goes missing, some of the others check for him under the ping-pong table and in his hammock. When he still isn’t found, one resident declares the disappearance to be very strange; meanwhile, we’re left to wonder, exactly by what standard is something strange in this wonderland? Seeing Mastroianni on all fours, donning a tiger skin and growling as Rome feebly strikes him with a whip, one is simply at a loss for words.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9ffd/d9ffd4c30e89dca6c707eb5e5f884da65ef7eb08" alt="What (6)"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d9ffd/d9ffd4c30e89dca6c707eb5e5f884da65ef7eb08" alt="What (6)"
What?’s saving grace is undeniably its setting. As a showcase for Ponti’s stunning Mediterranean villa, the film rivals anything on the Travel Channel. This isn’t at all surprising given Polanski’s knack for creating potent atmosphere and utilizing setting as a vital character itself. Yet even this is somewhat ruined by the crudity of the occupants. Though it is a dwelling designed from obvious wealth and ostentatious style, the reckless residents trash the place like hedonistic rock stars.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2534/f2534d1d6da6971d5fda40c5880c594dd0a67c6a" alt="What (7)"
What? was a success in Italy, less so throughout the rest of Europe, and was a bomb in the United States. It failed to even garner much interest when it was re-cut, re-titled (Roman Polanski’s Diary of Forbidden Dreams), and re-released in an exploitative attempt to cash in on Polanski’s rape case. This goofy romp may have better production values and a better director than most of its kind, but there is little to distinguish it as something exceptional. If one tries hard enough, one could perhaps find Polanski parallels in the film’s initial situation of a stranger in a strange land (The Tenant, 1976) where a foreign language creates communication barriers (Frantic, 1988). Or, one could make the case that this singular setting serves the purpose of intimidating confinement (Repulsion, 1965, andRosemary’s Baby, 1968). But really, What? is simply not the type of film one expects from a director as talented as Roman Polanski. At best, it is for a curious few or a devoted Polanski completist (the only reason I’ve now seen it twice).
No comments:
Post a Comment