when I think of William Hurt, I think of the greatest horror film of all time. It came out in the early 80's and Reagonomics was the new ideology. A group of 60's hippies, gathered for a reunion and were now all well off middle or middle-upper class supporters. Of course I'm referring to The Big Chill and the horrification was that it was more true than not of the hippie---my---generation. William Hurt was the only one that still maintained the 60's ideals. They made him into a drug dealer though, as if to say only addled minds, or those profiting off addled minds could be idealistic. So I found it the most angrifying movie I ever saw as well. It angered me so much I pretty much discontinued watching any movies.
Not perhaps William Hurt's best role, but his character stands out in my mind.
Noah, missed your first iteration of the review, which is engagingly written and presented. I gotta take issue with Ken Russell's characterization as "brilliant" -- I found him to be kind of a forebear of Sam Raimi and Baz Luhrmann -- a ringmaster showcasing a circus of visual overindulgence, actor scenery-chewing (I like that you mentioned that), and generally hokey over-the-topness, but with neither Raimi's self-referencing humor and style, nor Luhrmann's discipline. Russell's stuff and style felt like a product of the Swingin' Sixties, a fuckyou to conventional filmmaking narrative and presentation, that grew old quite old for me by the early 80's. I avoided Russell's films after Altered States (although that film itself was a hoot, for sure, and I had a subsequent crush on Blair Brown and a boy-crush on William Hurt - but I'm trans-femme now, and not sure what to think about those). Also, I was disappointed by the way Altered States tried simultaneously to be a romance (which you address), a science fiction film, and a horror film (the latter two which were stressed in the trailers for the film of that time), with it winding up as neither for me (although it did imbed in pop culture that iconic moment in Aha's "Take On Me" video, which is kind of cool for those of us old enough to recognize it). Anyway, no question that Altered States was an important film in its own way, and was released at a time when some, to my mind, wonderful films were being produced, and a new crop of directors were flexing their muscles. And it did give us a crazily entertaining introduction to the enigmatic Hurt, who, in my opinion, trotted out in the film, and subsequently an array of acting tics to rival Christopher Walken and Jack Nicholson. Before Kevin Spacey's time in exile, he did an amazing impression of Hurt I've never seen attempted elsewhere.
Russell's oeuvre is very, very camp. I think a lot of people find that off-putting. Camp movies are some of my favorite films though, and I think Russell's one of the styles most brilliant exponents. Lair of the White Worm, The Devils, Altered States, and Salome are all among my absolute favorite films ever.
Just butting in here: Ken Russell strikes me like the very little girl with a very little curl — when she is good, she is very very good, and when she is bad, she is very very bad. Movies like TOMMY, ALTERED STATES, and LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM are among my favorite OTT films, while movies like CRIMES OF PASSION and THE DEVILS seem to revel in their repugnance.
While I can see what Russell was trying to say in both cases? It feels like he'd rather revel in the awfulness of sex and torture in THE DEVILS than tell the story—something he really seems to go for in CRIMES OF PASSION, an erotic thriller that tries to be...more, somehow, but ends up just coming off as sickening. (When my ex-wife and I saw CoP, she threw up outside the theater.)
Watching CoP, I started to wonder, "Is it that Ken Russell really doesn't like sex? And he just wants to gross us all out about it...?"
I'm not trying to kink-shame here, because I certainly have proclivities of my own (including one or two Russell might have shared), and if he was into all that and nobody was forced past their limits by it — then Go Forth, My Son! I'm not here to judge so long as you're practicing Risk-Aware Consensual Kink.
I just wonder if it's more that Ken Russell was doing the Filmmaker's version of "Wanna See My Chewed-Up Food?"
"Ewwww! No!"
PS: None of this excuses what William Hurt did to Marlee Matlin, Sandra Jennings, or any of his other partners...allegedly.
One of my favorite films. No coincidence that it contains some of the most memorable depictions of both Hell and academic midlife crisis.
It's so good. I love Ken Russell; he's a really underrated director.
when I think of William Hurt, I think of the greatest horror film of all time. It came out in the early 80's and Reagonomics was the new ideology. A group of 60's hippies, gathered for a reunion and were now all well off middle or middle-upper class supporters. Of course I'm referring to The Big Chill and the horrification was that it was more true than not of the hippie---my---generation. William Hurt was the only one that still maintained the 60's ideals. They made him into a drug dealer though, as if to say only addled minds, or those profiting off addled minds could be idealistic. So I found it the most angrifying movie I ever saw as well. It angered me so much I pretty much discontinued watching any movies.
Not perhaps William Hurt's best role, but his character stands out in my mind.
I hate that movie as well; had forgotten william hurt was in it I think...
Noah, missed your first iteration of the review, which is engagingly written and presented. I gotta take issue with Ken Russell's characterization as "brilliant" -- I found him to be kind of a forebear of Sam Raimi and Baz Luhrmann -- a ringmaster showcasing a circus of visual overindulgence, actor scenery-chewing (I like that you mentioned that), and generally hokey over-the-topness, but with neither Raimi's self-referencing humor and style, nor Luhrmann's discipline. Russell's stuff and style felt like a product of the Swingin' Sixties, a fuckyou to conventional filmmaking narrative and presentation, that grew old quite old for me by the early 80's. I avoided Russell's films after Altered States (although that film itself was a hoot, for sure, and I had a subsequent crush on Blair Brown and a boy-crush on William Hurt - but I'm trans-femme now, and not sure what to think about those). Also, I was disappointed by the way Altered States tried simultaneously to be a romance (which you address), a science fiction film, and a horror film (the latter two which were stressed in the trailers for the film of that time), with it winding up as neither for me (although it did imbed in pop culture that iconic moment in Aha's "Take On Me" video, which is kind of cool for those of us old enough to recognize it). Anyway, no question that Altered States was an important film in its own way, and was released at a time when some, to my mind, wonderful films were being produced, and a new crop of directors were flexing their muscles. And it did give us a crazily entertaining introduction to the enigmatic Hurt, who, in my opinion, trotted out in the film, and subsequently an array of acting tics to rival Christopher Walken and Jack Nicholson. Before Kevin Spacey's time in exile, he did an amazing impression of Hurt I've never seen attempted elsewhere.
Russell's oeuvre is very, very camp. I think a lot of people find that off-putting. Camp movies are some of my favorite films though, and I think Russell's one of the styles most brilliant exponents. Lair of the White Worm, The Devils, Altered States, and Salome are all among my absolute favorite films ever.
Just butting in here: Ken Russell strikes me like the very little girl with a very little curl — when she is good, she is very very good, and when she is bad, she is very very bad. Movies like TOMMY, ALTERED STATES, and LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM are among my favorite OTT films, while movies like CRIMES OF PASSION and THE DEVILS seem to revel in their repugnance.
I don't think I"ve seen Crimes of Passion...I like the Devils a lot. There are other films of his that are more eh...
While I can see what Russell was trying to say in both cases? It feels like he'd rather revel in the awfulness of sex and torture in THE DEVILS than tell the story—something he really seems to go for in CRIMES OF PASSION, an erotic thriller that tries to be...more, somehow, but ends up just coming off as sickening. (When my ex-wife and I saw CoP, she threw up outside the theater.)
Watching CoP, I started to wonder, "Is it that Ken Russell really doesn't like sex? And he just wants to gross us all out about it...?"
I'm not trying to kink-shame here, because I certainly have proclivities of my own (including one or two Russell might have shared), and if he was into all that and nobody was forced past their limits by it — then Go Forth, My Son! I'm not here to judge so long as you're practicing Risk-Aware Consensual Kink.
I just wonder if it's more that Ken Russell was doing the Filmmaker's version of "Wanna See My Chewed-Up Food?"
"Ewwww! No!"
PS: None of this excuses what William Hurt did to Marlee Matlin, Sandra Jennings, or any of his other partners...allegedly.
Ken Russell really likes sex. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that.
Campy, without a doubt - full respect - he was highly skilled in that zone. All a matter of taste... 😁