Thursday, December 08, 2005
House of D'Oh!
Sorry for the sophomoric title, but I find it difficult to even begin to explain why I performed what is for me an almost unthinkable act: turning off a movie before it was over. Something must be terribly wrong in David Duchovny's writing-directing debut, House of D (2004), for me to do so; after all, since then I've sat through Takashi Miike's interminable bloodbath, Izo (2004), in which a nineteenth century assassin is captured by his enemies and crucified--but it doesn't take, it seems; instead, his death propels him through space and time to mow down everything in his path that even hints at corruption (including schoolchildren and Buddhist priests). And I finished I Drink Your Blood (1970), featuring Satanist-hippies who are fed rabid-dog-blood-injected meat pies and go on a more or less--more less, I suppose--Cronenbergian killing spree, infecting everyone they can bite. AND I left on until the end Alone in the Dark (2005)--admittedly napping through bits n pieces; poor Christian Slater, fighting uninteresting monsters from beyond. (I won't even discuss the Law and Order: SVU episode that I'd already seen but still finished.) Sometimes I wonder if I should rethink this movie-watching effort and become Your Humble Reader instead; aren't there a lot of terrible books I can stop reading in under two hours?
I checked to see if it was just me. First, Ebert: He delivers one of those reviews that are withering precisely because he avoids actually reviewing the movie for about half his text, then ends the review abruptly, like a Three Stooges short. The website Rotten Tomatoes, which gathers reviews and presents an average score, is even more telling: It gives the movie a 10%. Imagine your worst performance in your entire academic career, and I am certain you got more than 10%. So maybe I'm in good company here.
But that doesn't quite explain it. I checked in the category of "contemporary drama" that received between 10% and 20% on the "Tomatometer," and it includes movies I've made it through all the way, and kind of liked: Against the Ropes (13%, 2003), Cold Creek Manor (12%, 2003), and The Chamber (14%, 1996), to name a few. I think we're looking at a thin line here. I noticed that Suspect Zero (2004) received a 16%; I was quite taken with this one, a dark tale with a moral weight. Now, 16% is, what, a 60% better score than 10% (I think; this is why I am not Your Humble Calculator); but jeez-oh-pete, it's still 16%! Again, I'm unsure what happened to House of D. Other reviewers can't help me--much--and arithmetic certainly has let me down.
So I think it's me. No, I know it's me. Duchovny's character is seen in flashback. He's twelve going on thirteen in 1973. I myself was sixteen then. The character attends a boys' Catholic high school. So did I. He's in New York; I was in South Jersey. This is a close enough match, so I can assure you that twelve-year-old boys in the early '70s did not discuss the size of their balls to girls they had crushes on. This is only one small (ha, ha) detail of a movie I found so embarrassingly wrong-headed, so flagrantly selective in its memory, that it proved unwatchable. Case in point: This is a PG-13 movie, and I can attest that, sexual anxiety notwithstanding--oh, that I wish--Catholic school boys may have kissed their mothers with those mouths, but that didn't stop them from cursing like--what can I say in the burgeoning years of the 21st century? Rap stars? The Real World housemates? Their language may be a small matter, but if I couldn't accept the surface reality of the film's world, its emotional reality--and I think there was some of that going on--can only futilely resist the weight of that unbelievable top-layer.
After all this, I must admit I regret not having finished the movie. Given some--OK, many--of my other full screenings, I could have hunkered down and put up with it. Because I also must admit I'm a fan of David Duchovny. Every other weekend or so I watch a DVD-full of X-Files episodes--my son and I are consuming the series in order, little by little--and he is excellent in Return to Me (2000), and doesn't hurt anybody (I couldn't think of anything else to say) in Evolution (2001). I wanted House of D to work. The fact that it didn't doesn't simply tell me it's a bad movie; it reminds me once again how deeply autobiography and memory serve to shape our responses to movies. When I teach, I encourage--implore, exhort, cajole--my students to approach a text objectively--actually, to be honest, from the text's point-of-view, subjectively, then, but from the inside. We aren't Willy Loman or Hamlet or Ethan in The Searchers or Rick in Casablanca; they are. We have to see their worlds as they see them, not as we do, or would like to.
But that is a lie, because it is the self that does all this work; so if the job is immersion in the text, it is the self who immerses--and brings itself with itself, yes? Like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the act of measurement is not a passive, objective activity, but an intentional action that changes the thing being measured. And to this action great "texts"--and by now this means everything, from a book to a movie to a face on the night train to plate tectonics to the falling of a sparrow--bring one more beautiful, terrible change: in the measurers ourselves. So we change the movie, but the good movie also changes us. It's just that House of D had no power to do the latter.
Posted by Paul J. Marasa at 5:50 AM
Content copyright © 2005-2011 by Paul J. Marasa. No part of the written work displayed on this site may be reproduced, linked or distributed in any form without the author's express permission. All images, video, audio and other materials used are deliberately and solely for illustrative purposes connected with each article. Each accompanying element is intended as a research and reference tool with relation to each article. No challenge to pre-existing rights is implied. Aside from The Constant Viewer, the author claims no responsibility for websites which link to or from this website.