John
Boorman’s Leo the Last is at once a
parable (of the rich man who seeks to give away his wealth to the poor), an
attempt to bottle the revolutionary spirit of its times, and an exercise in
grand provocation, insisting on itself as art (to the extent of unseen
commentators wondering out loud what kind of movie we’re watching) but often feeling
as much like a semi-improvised accident. Marcello Mastroianni plays an exiled European
prince, moving after his father’s death into a mansion at the head of a
London cul-de-sac, surrounded by a staff of manipulative sycophants; working-class
slums stretching on either side, largely occupied by immigrants, otherwise by rapists and prostitutes. The class divide is strictly observed by all, until the unfulfilled Leo starts to fill his days by voyeuristically
watching the world outside, first
becoming fascinated with it as narrative, then as an opportunity for personal
action and meaning. Boorman’s simplistic juxtapositions skirt offensiveness at times: take his cut from the poor black family congregated around a (stolen) chicken as it's lowered into a pot, to the tooth-bared, face-smeared meat-gorging at a
gathering of the oblivious toffs (which, of course, later evolves/devolves into an orgy).
But he also digs deep into the community, finding camaraderie and song and belief, rooted in shared experience, to which Leo can never be more
than a visitor. In the end, the mini-revolution over, it seems Leo's happy with
the change he’s achieved, even if there’s little pretense that its impact can
be more far-reaching than, well, the impact of a film as whimsical as this one. Despite its extreme
otherness, the film is actually among the more sociologically grounded of
Boorman films (when not in thrall to stereotypes), but nothing in it has the
force of real diagnosis, or of lasting myth.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment