Horror and dark fantasy maestro Clive
Barker celebrated his 64th birthday this week, and
Halloween is right around the corner, so the time could not be more
perfect to take another look at one of his films. In fact, I will be
as bold as to say his best film. No, not Hellrasier;
what can be said about that iconic shocker that hasn't been said
already? And besides, I would not call that his best: while there are
things about it that are truly fantastic, it is also quite uneven,
and his skills as a director definitely improved as his career went
along. The distinction of being his finest work I would instead give
to his third (and so far, final) film as a director: 1995's
supernatural film noir Lord of Illusions.
It is easily his most consistently strong movie, and he directs with
a sure hand that allows him to juggle an ambitious mash-up of genre
elements. Rather than a straightforward horror movie, he has created
a dark and brooding detective story, with elements of the horrific
and otherworldly lurking in the shadows, waiting to creep in.
In
true film noir fashion, Lord of Illusions
follows the investigations of private eye Harry D'Amour (Scott
Bakula) as he is hired by the wife (Famke Janssen) of a secretive
celebrity magician (Kevin J. O'Connor), who fears that someone is
plotting to murder him. The case soon takes him in deep over his
head, into a world of very real magic and a Charles Manson-like cult
who will kill to protect it. With a combination of shadowy
pulp-detective style and visually-intense Gothic mysticism, Barker's
tale fulfills the demands of both genres very well. The narrative
device of the detective story allows the mystery to unfold in
surprising and compelling ways, and Barker does a good job of keeping
the audience as in-the-dark as the overwhelmed D'Amour, only
gradually revealing details as the sleuth uncovers them. The world of
dark magic that he creates is fascinating, both in its gloriously
stylized smoke and mirrors and in the tantalizingly mysterious hints
of otherworldly danger lurking underneath. As with (the director's
cut of) Nightbreed,
this world reflects the style of Barker's novels a bit more
accurately that Hellraiser:
less horror and more dark fantasy, less a descendent of Stephen King
and more a predecessor to Neil Gaiman.
This
feels like the film where Barker truly hits his stride as a director,
and is able to iron out the the inconsistencies of his previous work.
As much as I like the Hellraiser series
(well, the four theatrical films, anyway), that first film is pretty
uneven: the Lament Configuration/Cenobite story arc is truly
brilliant stuff, but the Frank/Julia/Larry arc is dragged down by
some very wooden acting and flat characterization. Nightbreed
(in its director's cut form) is a better film overall: wonderfully
ambitious in both story and visual style, and thematically rich at
its core (see my in-depth review/analysis of the film for more on
that). But it too has some tonal inconsistencies and moments of oddly
over-the-top characterization. The third time proved to be the charm
for Barker as a director. His direction clearly improved from each
film to the next, as he learned from the flaws of both, and Lord
of Illusions has a much more
self-assured, confident tone, with none of the unevenness of his
previous efforts. It may not have the menagerie of practical effects
or the depth of social themes that made Nightbreed so
unique, but it is a really, really well-crafted
dark-fantasy/thriller, and you can't ask for much more than that.
 |
| "We all float down here!" |
The
look of the film is pure Clive Barker, filtered through the aesthetic
of film noir. There's lots of deep shadows, dark alleys, and smoke,
like you'd expect from any hard-boiled detective tale, but it also
has the striking use of colors and outlandish otherworldly images
which not only filled his previous films, but are also evoked in his
writing. As with Nightbreed,
the higher budget allows him to create and control an entire world of
sets that are as beautiful as they are creepy, and his eye for style
and atmosphere is impeccable. Creating a society of magicians –
both real ones, and Vegas-style entertainers – Barker is like a kid
in a candy store, and he assembles some pretty spectacular
set-pieces, not the least of which is the awesomely over-the-top
stage show by the film's celebrity illusionist, Philip Swann. He
brings just as much visual panache to the horror aspects of the
story, blurring the line between reality and nightmares in some truly
hallucinatory scenes.
Unfortunately,
while the film looks great in most ways, the special effects are
really a mixed bag. The practical effects are great, as is always the
case in Clive Barker films, but he made the unfortunate choice to use
CGI for a few of the more ethereal visuals... and the early-90s
computer animation has aged very poorly. The ironic result of this is
that while Lord
of Illusions
was his most expensive film, it is also the one with the most flawed
effects work. This is just one of a couple ways in which the film
feels very much anchored in the first half of the 1990s (although
this is the only area in which that is not really a good thing). The
other very-90s thing about the movie is the character of Philip Swann
himself, who is unmistakably the sort of Vegas celebrity magician who
was huge in the first half of that decade, but faded from prominence
shortly thereafter, as the likes of David Blaine and Criss Angel
changed how the public viewed magic shows. This is not a bad thing,
though; it just means that the film feels very much a part of the
pop-culture landscape of its time. In a way, this '90s-ness is a
somewhat endearing quality, and aside from the dubious CGI it doesn't
stop the film from still holding up really well as a great genre
entry.
 |
| "...no, really - all of us." |
Lord
of Illusions
was intended to be the first in a series of paranormal detective
films featuring Bakula as Harry D'Amour, but alas, it was not to be.
Not only did it fail to get a sequel, it also proved to be the last
film (so far) that Clive Barker would direct. Perhaps it was the weak
box-office performance of this film, despite the certainty that it
would launch a franchise, that contributed to Barker leaving
directing. Perhaps it was because Lord
of Illusions
was his second film in a row to endure major changes at the hands of
the studio before its release (although unlike with Nightbreed,
Barker ensured that MGM would allow him to immediately debut a
director's cut on video), and perhaps this frustration was
exacerbated by the notorious studio mangling of Hellraiser:
Bloodline just
a year later. On the other hand, perhaps with all of those headaches
he simply decided that other forms of art, like his writing, were
more worth his energies, as they give him full creative control. Whatever
the reason, it is at once a shame that he stopped making films just
when he had really hit his stride, and a great thing that if he had
to end his directorial career, he at least got to end it on such a
high note. It may not have the iconic mythos and images of Hellraiser
or the social allegory of Nightbreed,
but in many ways Lord
of Illusions
is Clive Barker's best film, and certainly his most mature and
fine-tuned. It is also possibly the most successful of cinema's
several attempts to mash up film noir and horror. Don't miss it.
Score:
-
Christopher S. Jordan