(US, 1973) Dir: Terence Malick. Starring: Martin Sheen, Sissy Spacek
Okay. The plot in brief. 15 year old Holly Sargis (Sissy Spacek) lives a difficult life with her repressed father until drifter Kit Carruthers enters her life. They form a relationship, which her father resents. Kit kills the father whilst attempting to take Holly away from him. The couple are then forced to go on the run, at first hiding out in the countryside, and then travelling across America, killing randomly and seemingly without reason. Holly gradually discovers her dissatisfaction with Kit, leaving him at the end. Without an audience to witness his actions Kit gives in, and is caught by the police.
Badlands is, at times, comparable to Bonnie and Clyde. Both films present the audience with an attractive but violent couple on the run, who became almost iconic to their generation. Both films are based on true stories, yet it is only concerning plot that the films bear similarities, for in tone, look and the ideas and themes they suggest, they are very different. Malick’s vision of the couple on the run from the law is a much bleaker, darker vision, never satisfactorily explaining many of the questions that it raises, which some critics suggest, is exactly the point. Malick’s intention was to raise questions about the society that we live in, and to question why violent acts take place. Whilst this is hardly a new idea, it is in the variety of ways in which Malick presents violence, and it’s repercussions, that makes Badlands such an interesting, and important, film.
With only two characters shown in any real depth, the film relies on the performances of Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek to carry the film, and they do so superbly. Unlike most road movies it is the female who is strongest here, and Spacek’s vulnerable but surprisingly aware Holly carries the film. Despite initially blindly following Kit, she is not quite as passive as it first appears. Through the use of her mostly emotionless narrative, we are given insights in to her character that suggest how it is not Holly who needs Kit, but Kit who so desperately needs Holly. Indeed, Martin Sheen’s Kit Carruthers seems only to crave acknowledgement, from Sissy Spacek’s Holly Sargis, and from the society he lives in, and the only way he is able to do this is infamously, rather than famously. Modelling himself on James Dean, he clearly is desperate to be noticed, and his lack of morality enables him to murder without remorse. Sheen’s portrayal of Kit is excellent, at times as blank and passionless, but also possessing a darkly charming charisma that due to Holly’s frigid sexuality is never allowed to expand or be explored.
Perhaps the most revealing scene of the film comes at the end, after Kit has been captured and he enjoys the attentions of the police who caught him, finally able to enjoy his time in the limelight. Indeed the ending is a surprise. There is no classic Hollywood shoot out at the end, indeed it could be suggested that the characters get what they wish for - Kit attains fame and status, and Holly, in marrying the son of her defence lawyer, finally finds the stability that her father and Kit could never give her.
The killings, and what they suggest, vary. The father is shot in a moment of high tension for Kit as he sees his future plans threatened, yet it soon becomes clear he is little more than a cold blooded killer. When they build their pastoral paradise in the country he even resorts to shooting at fish rather than capturing them conventionally, and when bounty hunters interrupt their paradise, he shoots them in the back, mercilessly. His killing of his friend later on in the film is even more revealing, showing his distrust in others, yet also suggesting by this point that he has discovered a taste for murder. That he leaves the rich man and his maid alive is at first problematic, yet suggests that Kit does have some respect for human life, even if that respect is hopelessly mis-directed, suggesting that he values wealth and status over more admirable personal qualities.
The look and tone of the film mirror the passivity of the characters, and is heavily influenced by new wave cinema. Whilst Malick claims the movie is not influenced by other films but by literature, it is impossible to fail to notice the influence of Godard. Malick’s film was shot on a low budget which forced location shooting rather than constructed mise-en-scene, improvisational acting, awkward camera work, freeze frames and many of other elements found in new wave cinema. The contribution this makes to the film is very important, illustrating the blankness of Kit and Holly’s lives, and suggesting that nothing can be expected from the film, or the narrative, just experienced. The techniques for filming are unconventional, as our Holly and Kit’s actions. I have made much of interpreting Holly and Kit’s actions because their dialogue together is so strained, another example of their lack of connection to each other, but also representing their lack of character. The film suggests that it is the experiences they have lived through together which will help forge their characters, even if the experiences are negative rather than positive. Furthermore, negative experiences do not necessarily make a person more complicated or add depth to their character, indeed it can make them even more shallow then they were before.
Malick’s film is so memorable compared to many other road movies because of the strength of performances and intelligent script, but also because of the ideas and themes that it suggests through not only the two central characters but the varied camerawork, the choices of location, and it’s surprising, but undeniably realistic ending. But most importantly because Malick has made a film which provokes argument, and questions the ways of society, ideas and themes rarely seen in Hollywood movies.
Alex Finch
GC(uk) Email/Newsletter Advanced Site Search
 |
| Let Spyonit.com notify you when this page changes! |