From the Archives: “Female Human Animal” – Embrace the Unknown

At the beginning of Female Human Animal the film’s protagonist, writer Chloe Aridjis, who first met the great artist and writer Leonora Carrington in early 1990s Mexico City through her family doctor, describes her late friend to an off-camera interviewer:

She didn’t accept the world she was given as a woman. She didn’t accept the world as it superficially appeared. I guess I too have been drawn to a sense of an enchanted world; something beyond our everyday reality and I suppose even people who seemed to offer something radically different.

Filmed on antique video (specifically, 1986 AG-450 VHS camera), Female Human Animal is part documentary, part fevered dream; a haunting, at times psycho-sexual, thrilling journey transgressing internal and external worlds. Based on a conversation between Aridjis and the film’s director Josh Appignanesi, the film follows Aridjis as she guest curates Tate Liverpool’s Carrington retrospective in 2015, circling around a chance encounter she experiences during this period of her life.

The film opens at the beginning of the exhibition, with the reveal of Carrington’s 1953 work ‘And Then We Saw the Daughter of the Minotaur’. The mythological creature, a favourite of the Surrealists, is painted in an autobiographical depiction of otherworldly domesticity. In art and life Carrington was a seer, capable of transcending worlds and places through her creativity. As the camera closes in on the seer’s face and we stare into their eyes, we understand that we too are about to embark on an unearthly adventure.

The focus on and repetition of certain paintings, including ‘The Giantess (The Guardian of the Egg)’ (1947), ‘Queria ser pajaro’ (1960) and ‘Minotaur’, are almost re-enacted, or alluded to, in moments of Aridjis’ everyday life. One example is Carrington’s close connection to the animal spirits and her great affection and affinity for animals, especially cats. Aridjis’ cat, Ludwig, while being an enigmatic co-star, reminds us of the mysticism the artist believed animals possessed, and, fundamentally, of their innate freedom. Ludwig serves as an intermediary between worlds: those we can see — those on the canvas — and those in our imagination. As Aridjis says of Carrington during an event at the London Review Bookshop: “She always identified with feral spirits and animals. And she didn’t ever want to be confined. Female, human, animal — and not always in that order.”

Carrington’s presence is never off the screen, and the bonds between both women are prevalent throughout. However, in spite of Aridjis’ professional and personal involvement with her late friend and the seeming abandonment of the present for something more interior and supernatural, she never relinquishes her sense of autonomy: steered by her friend’s presence rather than controlled or possessed. It aligns with the footage of Carrington taken in 2011, shortly before she died, by cousin and biographer Joanna Moorhead, where she tells her companion and the camera: “You have to own your soul for as long as it’s possible to own a soul or you let your soul own you. And to hand it over to some half-arsed male … I wouldn’t recommend it.”

Carrington may have been associated with the Surrealists but she was never defined by the movement; she created art that was very much her own

I would say ‘haunting’ is most appropriate as a description of the relationship between these two women: Aridjis senses Carrington, lets her friend lead the way, yet is still present enough to retain her own autonomy. This is evident when she meets and follows a mysterious man (Marc Hosemann), whose name we never learn. The scene plays out as a variant of hide and seek, or cat and mouse, and it is not quite clear who is the hunter and who the hunted. The pair have an instant, unusual rapport — an otherworldly, mysterious chemistry — and there is a vague familiarity about him. He says he is a time-traveller: a fitting description as he more than embodies Max Ernst, the love of Leonora’s life. Their rendezvous in London exhilarates Aridjis whose preoccupation with writer’s block has her retreating into herself. During their date, we see a moment of release, of freedom, yet a sinister act has us pondering his existence. Is he a figment of her imagination, a character to be written in her book? Aridjis appears to abide by her description of Carrington, telling an enchanted audience at the London Review Bookshop how the latter was “influenced by her times but not determined by them. Influenced by the men in her life but not determined by them. She always remained her own person.”

If Female Human Animal is intended as a treatise on Carrington as a woman whose life and work refused to be defined by categorisation, it is only fitting that the film itself cannot be neatly boxed away into one particular category. It is both nostalgic and avant garde, documentary and fiction — it could almost be lifted from one of Carrington’s short stories — providing an effective balance between ‘reality’ and Aridjis’ internal world. This is further enhanced by Andy Cooke, Yasmine Kittles and O.M.D.’s original soundtrack and, as the music’s speed increases in moments of turmoil and panic, they provide frenetic bursts of energy verging on the visceral. It reminds me of Aridjis’ earlier comment to an off-camera interviewer as she curates the exhibition at Tate Liverpool: “She was the sort of woman who never wanted to feel confined. So that did feed into her paintings.”

Carrington may have been associated with the Surrealists but she was never defined by the movement; she created art that was very much her own. This appears to be the film’s message as it breaks open a genre and emerges as something new. It is something that we cannot overthink, we should just let it happen. This is best described by Carrington herself in another scene towards the end of her life. In a noisy, crowded restaurant in Mexico City, the older artist, with the resoluteness of her younger self still very much in her eyes, firmly delivers the following potent message: “You’re trying, desperately, to intellectualise me. And you’re wasting your time.”

This essay was written for The F Word and first published 1 October 2018.

From the Archives: “Hollywoodland”

“An actor shot himself, the one who played Superman. Every kid on the block is upset.”

The death of actor George Reeves in the summer of 1959 remains one of the most speculated moments in Hollywood history. Reeves, most famous for portraying Clark Kent/Superman in the black-and-white, and later color, television series of the late fifties, was adored by legions of young fans who would rush home to watch The Adventures of Superman on their television sets. 

Reeves was found dead in his Laurel Canyon home, a bullet in his brain. While the Police determined Reeves death an open-and-shut case, the circumstances in which they occurred remain shocking and tragic, and the theories surrounding his death continue to endure. A gun was by Reeves’ side, and his blood spattered the ceiling and wall behind. It was a suicide in the eyes of the law. But his death was not that straightforward, compounded by police carelessness and unreliable testimony. Why was Reeves’ body washed before the autopsy? Why were there bruises on his face and his body, and why were there fresh bullet holes in the floor, covered by a rug? And if Reeves had intended suicide, why did he choose to die naked, and with no note?

The 2006 movie Hollywoodland explored the complexities of Reeves’ life and deathWritten by Paul Bernbaum and directed by Allen Coulter, Hollywoodland is both an engaging neo-noir and a smart, well-crafted true-crime mystery that chooses careful deduction and well-crafted logic over sensationalism. The film looks terrific, the dialogue is sharp, and the cast is superb. Ben Affleck is perfect as Reeves, the charming young actor who becomes television’s Man of Steel, struggling to maintain relevance with each passing decade. The role marked a critical and commercial comeback for Affleck who had suffered a couple of box office fails in the years before Hollywoodland’s release, and his striking portrayal of Reeves subsequently earned him a spate of award nominations, including a Golden Globe nomination. (In a strange twist, the role also makes Affleck the only actor to portray Daredevil, Superman, and most recently, Batman).

Hollywoodland dives into Reeves’s life in a story that alternates between the past and the present. Adrian Brody brings a mysterious yet incurable curiosity as Simo, the P.I. hired by Reeves mother to investigate her son’s death. Simo once worked for the Bureau, he was married with a child, but taking the fall for his partner cost him his job and subsequently his marriage. Operating out of his small, sparse apartment, and with pieces of scrap paper cluttering his pocket, some notes of cash, some receipts on which he has scribbled notes. Simo lacks status since going rogue, but he possesses confidence in his approach and a commitment to his work. In many ways, Simo and Reeves are not that dissimilar; both are searching for something that they once had but since lost. Simo’s life serves as both separate and companion piece to Reeves’ tale.

Instantly proactive, Simo bribes the coroner to view Reeves’ corpse, in the hope that there is some undocumented evidence. It’s a hunch that works because Simo notices unaccounted bruises on Reeves body. The bruises were a detail rooted in fact. In real life, unaccounted bruises covered Reeves body, and his corpse had been washed, losing all manner of evidence, before the autopsy. “Who were you?” Simo asks the corpse. 

Flashback to a bustling restaurant, Ciro’s in Los Angeles, a young Reeves and his friend eating and drinking. It’s a swinging scene, Rita Hayworth arrives to dine, but Reeves’ eyes lock with Toni Mannix, played by a sensational Diane Lane, the wife of MGM boss Eddie Mannix. Mannix’s nickname was “the fixer” — he was notorious for making stars problems go away, and an expert at concealing certain things in stars’ personal lives they may not have wanted the public to see or know. Mannix had power and a sense of authority.

This authority, however, did not necessarily extend to Toni, who enjoyed an open, arrangement with her husband — in a later scene the husband and wife dine together with their significant others (Toni with Reeves, Mannix with his young Asian beauty). Reeves tells her he was in Gone With the Wind, but he’s “currently auditioning for numerous roles.” “There’s a lot of wanting. A lot of waiting. That’s your life” Reeves informs Maddox. He clings to his part in Gone with the Wind as a sign he is relevant and deserves more attention as an actor. Fixating on his past achievement is Reeves’ crutch, something that he brings up numerous times throughout the film, especially when he’s in a moment of crisis. It functions as a badge prestige that Reeves grips as a sign he’s made it in Hollywood.

Reeves relationship with Toni certainly enhances his career. In many ways, the relationship between Reeves and Toni mirrors Sunset Boulevard’s Gloria Swanson and Joe Gillis, albeit with a smaller age gap and less of the intense drama. Toni is not as unstable and reclusive silent movies star, but in Hollywoodland,her devotion to Reeves is undoubtedly one-sided. Toni buys him a house, finances his whims, and lavishes gifts upon him. One of these gifts being a gun. Toni is smart and knows the business, suggesting he stick to Superman despite his vocal disdain for the role. Reeves talks about a ‘job being a job’ but seems reluctant to pursue this ‘kids show’ that will make him a star. In one scene, he burns his Superman suit, something that Reeves would do to mark the completion of every season. We see this mirrored in a scene with Simo’s son, in which the distraught child burns his own Superman suit on his mother’s sofa after learning of the actor’s death. “You begged me for that suit,” a perplexed Simo tells his son, not realizing how much his child has been affected by the newspaper headlines screaming “SUICIDE” of his hero. 

What Hollywoodland does so well is the movie encourages the viewer to look beyond Reeves as the dashing Superman and see him as a charming albeit self-centered man hungry for fame and accolades. Reeves is not likeable at times, and neither is Simo, which is what makes him the perfect man to investigate the case. Both men are searching for something, but they are not sure what that is, or if it’s obtainable. Reeves has Toni, who’s married, yes, and older, but the open marriage and her riches gift Reeves all the material possessions he could ever want or desire, and he’s a hit on a popular television show. But the show’s cancellation, the passing of time, and ego can be a triple combination for a man once in his prime. His proposal to Lenore Lemmon, a younger woman who he meets during a two-week stay in New York, is because “she makes me feel young.” Reeves is a man determined to stay relevant. In Hollywoodland, we could even say Reeves’ callous dumping of Reeves lead to one interpretation of his untimely demise. 

Hollywoodland depicts three versions of Reeves’ death through Simo’s eyes, each prefixed with Reeves playing the guitar in his home and singing the song Aquellos Ojos Verdes, or Green Eyes. Each account bookmarks a significant point in Simo’s investigation. The P.I. functions as a cypher enabling the filmmakers both space and the platform to address the perplexities, theories, and negligence surrounding Reeves death as they interrogate the question: was Reeves murdered or was it, as the Police report stated, suicide?

In the first scenario, Reeves is arguing with Lemmon, who he’s due to marry—Lemmon says—in several days. Lemmon carelessly waves a gun, gesticulating around their bedroom until a trigger, accidentally, goes off. In the second, a contented Reeves goes upstairs only to find himself apprehended and shot when an anonymous intruder enters the bedroom, catching Reeves off-guard. The third and final version occurs near the films ending with Reeves goes upstairs, sits on his bed, and stairs into the distance. He looks bereft; the once-mighty Man of Steel now back to where he started, only this time older, and with a partner whose younger friends have no time or interest in him. He has lost the security of Toni’s money, and while comfortable, he does not know what’s next. The lack of fame and glory is his kryptonite, and Simo’s eyes, staring at his window, we see the bright of a gun’s explosion.

Some may say that Hollywoodland confirmed the suicide ruling of Reeves death, for other viewers it may provoke further questions about the final moments of the actor’s life. Nobody will ever know what occurred on that fateful evening, and Hollywoodland smartly conveys this in its final scene. Fundamentally, the film is a testimony and tribute to a complicated man who died tragically, and who was more than a moment in television and Hollywood history.  

This essay was written for CrimeReads and first published 7 January 2021.

Film Intro: “Shock Treatment” [02/11/2024, MAC Birmingham]

Directed by Jim Sharman, and with a script and lyrics by Richard O’Brien, Shock Treatment is 1981’s non-canon parallel film to the events of 1975’s immensely popular The Rocky Horror Picture Show born of two scrapped productions: Rocky Horror Shows His Heels and The Brad and Janet Show.

Following the unexpected and overwhelming success of Rocky Horror, especially on the midnight film circuit, Richard O’Brien approached producer Michael White with the idea of filming a sequel. In 1978, O’Brien started working on a script. Titled Rocky Horror Shows His Heels, it featured a resurrected Frank and Rocky, Brad and Dr. Scott now lovers, and Janet pregnant with Frank’s baby. However, Sharman was reluctant to revisit the material, and Tim Curry had no desire to reprise his scene-stealing turn of Dr Frank ‘N Furter. Yet because O’Brien had put considerable time and work into the songs, he retained the musical content and reworked the film’s premise.

The second script was titled The Brad and Janet Show—which was closer to what became Shock Treatment—but was plagued by problems during preproduction. Dr. Scott was included in this script version, but once again, reconvening the original cast proved problematic, with Jonathan Adams refusing to reprise his role as the Narrator. Then, in 1980, a problem arose that we have been familiar with in recent years: filmmakers intended to shoot on location in Denton, Texas, but the Screen Actors Guild went on strike, so all production ground to a halt.

However, the strikes revealed a silver lining: with cast and crew availability reduced, the filmmakers had to get creative with their resources. Television already featured heavily in the script, so production designer Brian Thomson had the idea to rework the story and set it in a giant TV studio. Utilising a film studio in the UK cut $1 million from the budget and gave the filmmakers a smaller, more controlled environment. In the final version of the script, all locations were changed to television shows, and the role of Dr. Scott evolved into game show host Bert Schnick. As O’Brien said of the changes, “I was frightened the strike was going to finish too soon and we’d have to go back to our original conception.”

In Shock Treatment, Brad and Janet Majors (Cliff De Young and Jessica Harper, the former who was ironically Sharman’s original choice for Rocky Horror but scheduling saw the role go to Barry Bostwick, and the latter succeeding a now unaffordable Susan Sarandon) are now married and living in Denton, USA. However, the town is controlled by a television network whose citizens are all part of the shows on the DTV network. It’s the original The Truman Show, because the audience members—as well as Brad and Janet—are all part of a television show. At first, they go on the game show Marriage Maze, hosted by the eccentric Bert Schnick (the fantastic Barry Humphries), who determines Brad is both an emotional cripple and mentally ill, and institutionalised in Dentonvale hospital as a “prize”. The treatment is administered by quasi-incestuous sibling doctors Cosmo and Nation McKinley (Richard O’Brien and Patricia Quinn), who are not real doctors at all but hosts of Dentonvale, the reality show.

Janet, meanwhile, has caught the eye of Farley Flavors (DeYoung in a dual role), the new owner/sponsor of DTV and the new show Faith Factory, who encourages her to pursue superstardom with the added caveat that her newfound celebrity will “cure” Brad. As a fun bit of trivia, DeYoung modeled his performance of Brad after David Eisenhower and based Farley on Jack Nicholson.

Shock Treatment never received a full general theatrical release, and due to both this and its inflated budget, the film was an even bigger financial flop than Rocky Horror’s original general release in 1975. The critic Roger Ebert felt Rocky Horror fans would reject a movie targeted specifically for them. As Ebert remarked, “cult film audiences want to feel that they have seen the genius of something that everybody else hates. They discovered this film, they know it’s good, everyone else thinks it’s garbage.”

This turned out to have a kernel of truth: Rocky Horror fans quickly labeled Shock Treatment as garbage, primarily due to Tim Curry’s absence and O’Brien infamously stating,” It’s not a sequel… it’s not a prequel… it’s an equal.” O’Brien later retracted his remarks but frequently criticized his own project. Gradually, however, Shock Treatment has built up a steady cult following all its own, away from Rocky Horror for what it is, something Ebert echoed: a film ahead of its time and a prescient satire of reality television.

And even Shock Treatment knows this is so. In one exchange of dialogue between Nation (Nic Lamont) and Cosmo (Adam Rhys-Davies), Nation says, “This could be worse than the old series.” “In the old series,” Cosmo replies, “we never had a convertible.”