It's time to admit that Dario Argento's appeal escapes me
I went to a Q&A with Olivier Assayas in which he picked and discussed scenes from his favorite films, and the opening of Inferno- the ridiculously long sequence in which Rose discovers and explores the underwater ballroom- was one of them. What stuck out to him was the fact that the agonizing pace was happening for no other reason than the director’s decision to do so. He also went on to praise Argento for his ability to conjure up an atmosphere of a trance or dream, where things are beyond your control and can only happen to you. He found it even more impressive that this was all “pre-Lynch,” and even saw him as somewhat of an influence on him.
the bird with crystal plumage i remember is excellent :O)
I only know “Suspira” and also liked its trancelike pace and dreamlike atmosphere. It didn’t blow me away but it was unique and interesting. I’m curious to see other Argento films because of his reputation. One of those things where a lot of people I admire love his work.
“that except for Susperia for me Argento’s considerable visual style (cinematography, lighting, color, etc) doesn’t make up for the incoherence of his scripts and ill-advised metal score”
this.
I believe age is crucial when discovering Argento. It’s rare to meet people in their 30’s that have just discovered him and think he is completely brilliant. You could probably say the same for Carpenter too, i guess, but Carpenter pays attention to overall detail more than Argento, who tends to just concentrate on the visual aspect.
In short, i loved Argento in my late teens, until i got to the point where i was no longer willing or able to overlook the poor acting and shitty scripts.
IF you complain about those aspects, people will say ‘oh you are missing the point, it’s the visuals that count’, but to me, his visuals are much closer to kitsch than art anyway.
I love the way he incorporated his daughter and her grungy interests in his 80s films. These felt very modern and exciting. Personally, I think he was a master right out of the gate. Sometimes, his scripts are not up to snuff but he is great with casting, great with actors and has a tremendous sense of suspense and color, Do You LIke Hitchcock was as good as the real thing.
Clint,
Glad you brought that up. I love Inferno especially for those extended build up sequences.
Nope. If ever there was a case of acquired taste, Argento’s it. You just don’t dig him. A recent quote that struck me:
“Esthetic judgements are…involuntary; you can no more choose whether or not to like a work of art than you can choose to have sugar taste sweet or lemons sour.” -John Baldessari
Interesting thread…because while I’m a big fan of BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMMAGE & CAT-O-NINE TALES…I think SUSPIRIA (arguably his most famous work after …CRYSTAL PLUMMAGE) was a lot of glitz and little else. I have mixed feelings about him.
If you can, pick up the book DARIO ARGENTO (Mediane Libri)…great collection of stills from Argento’s work with a combination of Italian & English text.
“…doesn’t make up for the incoherence of his scripts and ill-advised metal scores.”
As regards incoherence, I’d also second the dream-trance approach and connection to Lynch, especially something as loose INLAND EMPIRE…that incoherence is what I immediately found intriguing in Argento. Maybe EYES WIDE SHUT too, in terms of colors, sets, compositions, camera movements, choreography and performance direction yielding a sensation of dream-logic. I’ve heard several people now point out the underwater sequence of INFERNO as inspiring and noteworthy and actually feel that INFERNO, while I initially wrote it off for quite a long time, actually is the peak of Argento’s phantasmagories. Too bad about the score.
I also like Argento’s take on modern cities. Just watched PLAYTIME in 70mm for the first time last weekend and thought about the similarities between Tati’s and Argento’s animistic universes…of course in Tati, all the everyday object Hulot blunders over acquire through sound effects a life of there own that is amusing and delightful while in Argento, well, they fucking KILL THE FUCKING SHIT OUT OF YOU. Like, REAL dead. Bad dead. Good examples would be the encroaching hedges in the park that seem to squash the housecleaner in FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET or the modern artwork inside the gallery in BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, boiling hot water and sharp, hard furniture corners in DEEP RED, a room inexplicably full of razor wire in SUSPIRIA. Oddly enough, framings of man’s relationship to architecture are similar too: Tati’s shooting of the lonely, nighttime drugstore exterior in PLAYTIME and Argento’s filming of the kind of ‘Nighthawks’ moment in the Roman plaza of DEEP RED are surprisingly reminiscent of each other.
But also, besides objects that actually kill, there are those that just menace or molest their inhabitants: pretty much every inch of the airport (especially those sliding doors) in the opening of SUSPIRIA or the news-room-typewriters/highway-traffic/espresso-machines (in)conveniently placed next to every telephone in DEEP RED that conspire into a running gag about the impossibility of any honest communication or connection in our world. Argento has a VERY weird, very funny, and genuinely silly sense of humor on display in this stuff. He also has a very meanspirited but undeniable sense of humor about the inevitable fading of corporeal beauty in his casting of older female roles in DEEP RED and SUSPIRIA that reminds me very much of the ‘vanitas’ tradition in artwork.
So…maybe still give BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE a shot. You might find it quite different from the others you’ve already seen, but I don’t necessarily think it will change your opinion on Argento.
SUSPIRIA deeply disappointed me in a way I thought no film about ballerina witches could. I thought it was barely a step above crappy B-horror, although I did enjoy the gargoyle scene.
Argento is great
if you want to see bad Argento watch Black Swan
^^nah, watch any film of his since Trauma. esp Mother of Tears and Giallo. the very definition of bad cinema.
also, it’s undeniable that Dario has lost his visual flaire, his main drawcard. his last 5-6 films have looked like cheap straight to dvd crap.
Do You Like Hitchcock had no visual flair but was one of his very best.
Giallo was undone by Brody’s bad Stallone impression and Mother of Tears was okay.
TENEBRE! Why does this seem to be the Argento film most people overlook? IMO, it’s Argento’s best work (yes, better than Suspiria). I like Suspiria and Inferno and then parts of his other films, pretty inconsistent career but I’m always hopeful that he’ll churn out an unexpected masterpiece in his later career.
For me, Argento is a stylist, he emulates a particular style and ends up making a film based around it. His screenplays are notoriously bad (at least the ones he directed), the only outstanding feature usually is what he’s going to do visually. Don’t get me wrong though, I do like his style and he’s directed some truly inspired moments, so I tend to downplay the “mastery” angle of his persona, rather that he’s a visionary whose had moments of brilliance, that’s all (and that’s more than can be said of most).
Though, I thought Mother of Tears was somewhat interesting, but bland and Giallo was shite I gotta say. I really thought hard about it and that’s my conclusion; total misfire, terrible casting of Brody, horrible script.
All great replies.
This topic was inspired by watching Opera last night and my reaction to the last scene where the heroine gushes about her love for nature about 2 mins after watching someone die horribly and doing nothing to stop it was “whaaaaaat?!” Combined with the especially bad dubbing and baffling character motivation I though I might be done with Argento for good.
Then again, I will probably check out Bird with the Crystal Plumage and Tenebrae because his few moments of visual brilliance are sometimes transcendent. At this point I think his biggest contribution to cinema is being an inspiration to other more consistent and thoughtful filmmakers.
@Ben – the Tati/Argento comparison is pretty inspired!
“and ill-advised metal scores.”
No love at all for Goblin?
Yeah, I agree with Deckard that Tenebre might be his best film. It’s his most narratively coherent film (so if that’s your main problem with Argento, definitely check that one out).
“I like other giallo director and films like Bava”
Actually, Bava is the one Italian genre director whose appeal has always eluded me. I can see that he was historically important as one of the first giallo directors, but I don’t really like any of the films I’ve seen by him.
Hmm, if you’re a horror fan, Argento might not necessarily be for you. I’m personally not interested in Horror films, but I love Argento. The Films you list are some of the best of his work, and (usually) the key to his work. And if you like Fulci, you probably don’t have a problem with incoherence and “bad” acting, since Fulci has even more of those than Argento. And you like Martino and Bava also?
I belive this is a difficult case. Tenebrea is a flawless masterpice, but so are some of the others you mentioned. And I wouldn’t call Tenebrae narratively consistent (that would be Deep Red, but it obviously didn’t do it for you, either). Maybe it’s the rare case, where a specific director just isn’t your cup of tea?
As an advise, I’d suggest watching something like his Phantom of the Opera (which I love), or some of hi more recent films that are generally considered bad. If you find stuff that you like in them, folllow on that path.
I can also assure you, that i believ Argentos films to be some of the most rewardingly re-watchable features in film history. The more you think about his films and the more you watch them, the better they become.
Dennis Brian:
“Argento is great – if you want to see bad Argento watch Black Swan”
LOL Quote of the day. So true, and something that fightens me: Someone watching Black Swan and considering it great cinema, and watching Inferno and considering it a shameful mess, while if you really want to use those terms, it’s actually the other way around…
I’m never sure how to feel about Argento. I’m probably more conflicted over Suspiria than just about any other film I’ve watched. On the one hand the visuals are stunning, his usage of music is perfect and there are moments of sheer brilliance. And yet this is in spite of some terrible scripting and acting (I very rarely get bothered by bad performances, but in all three Argento’s I’ve seen the performances have irritated me) as well as very unsatisfying plotting.
I feel similarly, but to a less positive extent, about Tenebrae and Deep Red. Both have sublime moments in them, yet both kick me right out of the film frequently because of the bad acting and scripting…
I think a gateway to Argento lies in what some of the posters above mentioned: cinema as dream. Films as dreams, ways to extrapolate the unconcsious. As such, the “bad” dialogue" and illogical scripting take on a different meaning.
When I encountered my first Argento as a Teen, I also thought the acting and the script were weak. Later, I changed my mind about that.
WBA
thanks, and I enjoyed Phantom quite a bit. My only problem with it was the Phantom seemed more like a hobo then a mysterious phantom
Hehe, yes but wasn’t that part of his outlandish appeal. From my impression Asia Argento’s character was also frequently repulsed by him (as well as his actions) even when she was attreacted to him and later loved him.
So that’s part of the fascination for me. I also love the many influences on that film (for example Méliès via the self-made(?) car that eats rats – fantastic!). But I’d also love to see Argento’s original uncut (about three hours, i’ve heard) vision of the material, and not the butchered 100 minute version widely available (which i nevertheless love).
“I think a gateway to Argento lies in what some of the posters above mentioned: cinema as dream. Films as dreams, ways to extrapolate the unconscious. As such, the “bad” dialogue” and illogical scripting take on a different meaning."
I guess part of the problem for me might be that all this “cinema as dream” stuff is placed in the framework of a fairly traditional genre film. With one of Lynch’s dream films. for example, I can completely engage with it – with the strange performances, odd dialogue, off-kilter plotting &c. – because that is in a way the film’s raison d’être. With Argento though you have a schlocky, campy horror film sitting right alongside stuff with pretensions to being dreamy and so I can’t really take the latter completely seriously. It doesn’t seem to be solely about cinema as dream, but also about some guy going round slashing people and some detective trying to hunt said guy down.
@Cecil
Well, if you can’t see beyond that, it’s really a loss. Every film can be approached from various perspectives, so…
For me Argento works similar as Lynch, and I think his films are even better than Lynchs when they are at their best (Inferno, Suspiria, Tenebrae).
Argento said, that he had initially intended to film Suspiria with children – so how about thinking of Argentos films like fairy-tales. Another possibility.
It depends on your perspective, if you find something schlocky and campy. Lynch or Hitchcock can easily be seen as schlocky and campy, but one can also try to get something different out of them. E.g. “Blue Velvet” being a badly acted incoherently scripted thriller, etc.
You need to look closer, imo.
“It doesn’t seem to be solely about cinema as dream, but also about some guy going round slashing people and some detective trying to hunt said guy down.”
It’s not, this is why Argento’s output is flawed. I like Argento’s work, but I think a lot of posters on here are really going out of their way to try and explain the inconsistencies in his work. This whole “dream” business sounds awfully convenient to me in relation to Argento’s work. Sure, some of his films are about dreams and dreaming, but this doesn’t excuse their lack of content. No one’s really tried to define why exactly his films are dream-like other than merely stating so, so it’s hard to say.
For me, Argento is a guilty pleasure. I think side-tracking ourselves with completely unsubstantiated excursions into wild supposition distracts from the real, existing virtues of his work. You can’t reasonably say that a badly written script is explained by it all being a dream … I mean, even a film that deals directly with dreams such as Phenomena has its rotten moments narrative-wise and some sketchy performances (though who can resist Donald Pleasance!).
Perhaps it’s misleading to compare Argento to Hitchcock because they have many differences (acting styles, approach to writing, etc.), but cinematography-wise it’s surprising how apt that comparison really is. Tenebre shows this in a wonderful way as does Inferno in parts and Suspiria in parts (and here and there in other films as well), but that’s where the comparison to Hitchcock ends … and it’s important to make that distinction I think.
“Someone watching Black Swan and considering it great cinema, and watching Inferno and considering it a shameful mess, while if you really want to use those terms, it’s actually the other way around…”
Why?
^
That’s a great GIF. Welles applauding Argento.
Very fitting, considering the unique visions both were trying to put on the screen. :-)
- and ill-advised metal scores -
What do you mean by this? Goblin and Morricone, 70’s soundtracks from italian b-movies? Those are some mankinds greatest achievements.
also i think he was the first postmodernist in cinema and a great inspiration for Lynch, De Palma and maybe also Greenaway. He crafted the deliberately kitschy and bad acted “self-confident” or “self-conscious” b-movie.
Post-Kyo
As a horror fan this feels like blasphemy but after watching Opera, Susperia, Deep Red, Mother of Tears, Phenomena and Inferno I can honestly say that except for Susperia for me Argento’s considerable visual style (cinematography, lighting, color, etc) doesn’t make up for the incoherence of his scripts and ill-advised metal scores. I kept giving his films a shot because I appreciate his psychosexual themes and his work has been a gold mine for feminist and queer film theorists, both approaches I value.
I like other giallo director and films like Bava, Martino and Fulci so it’s not the generic conventions I find distasteful either. Am I missing something crucial in Argento’s work? Is there a particular film of his that may change my mind?