|
| Rampage
Year: 1992
Directed:
- William Friedkin
Actors/Actresses:
- Michael Biehn
- Alex McArthur
- Alex Mcarthur
More worthy for its intentions than its execution
William Friedkin's little seen "Rampage" is a disturbing film that doesn't quite work but still deserves some credit for being one of the few films to actually try to seriously examine the actual real life issues of evil, murder, and justice in this country. Alex McArthur plays a blank-faced serial killer that Friedkin apparently based on Richard Ramirez, the infamous night stalker. The always underappreciated Michael Beihn plays the district attorney who prosecutes McArthur and seeks the death penalty despite his own personal opposition. During the trial, Beihn is himself haunted by memories of the death of his own daughter who we learn was being kept alive by machines until Beihn ordered her to be taken off life support. If all of this sounds a bit heavy handed, well, it is. After years of making films that, at times, seemed to define "style over substance," Friedkin attempted to make a film that was all substance but stacks the deck so in favor of the death penalty that the film's attempts to provide a serious debate of the issue ends up falling somewhat flat. (I should note that I support the death penalty so I didn't have any trouble with the politics of the film. My objections, instead, rest with the heavy handed way those politics were presented.) However, that said, it should also be said that this is still a powerful, if flawed, film. Friedkin's direction is grimly realistic and, admirably, he tones down the hyper kinetic, "look-at-me-ma-I'm-an-auteur" flashiness that had marred most of his films since 1980's unfortunate Cruising. Uniquely and admirably amongst films of the serial killer genre, Alex McArthur's killer isn't turned into some sort of wanna-be Hannibal Lecter, dispatching nameless victims with a quirky one liner. This is the rare film that has more sympathy for the victims than the killer and as a result, the viewer never forgets the true horror that madmen like McArthur's killer bring ino the world. The film's initial murders are devastating and rather hard to stomach (as real-life murder is). This realistic quality, the feel of real life being played out before our eyes, was what made Friedkin's earlier films like the French Connection and the Exorcist so memorable. However, at the same time, he also fails to give us anything as captivating as Gene Hackman chasing the subway or Linda Blair's head doing a 180 degree turn and, as a result, Rampage at times gets a little too talky for its own good. (Even the one action/suspense sequence towards the end of the film feels rather tacked on as if Friedkin's heart wasn't really in it and he was simply making a sop to commercial conventions.) The two leads, who have never become stars though both have strong and loyal followings, also do wonderful work. With his pleasant but off-looks, McArthur is terrifying as the emotionless killer -- all the more so because both he and Friedkin never resort to any easy answers to explain his madness. Michael Biehn plays an essentially introspective role and manages to pull it off with a skill that bigger stars should envy. Wisely, Biehn plays up the very ordinary, almost bland qualities of his character, creating a human being as opposed to just another character in a film. Whatever depth that film's ethical debate carries belongs not to the heavy handed script but to Biehn's totally convincing performance. As well, though she doesn't get to do much, Deborah Van Valkenburgh (cursed to be remembered primarily as McLean Stevenson's brunette daughter in that most banal of all sitcoms, Hello Larry) is sympathetic and likeable as Biehn's wife. Most importantly, when this was first made in 1986, Rampage was one of the few films to actually attempt to intelligently examine the issues involving the death penalty. Certainly, its no where close to the standard for such films, Tim Robbins' Dead Man Walking, which, despite the fact that Robbins has always been far more outspoken politically than Friedkin ever was, managed to avoid this film's heavy handedness -- i.e., while it was obvious that Robbins didn't support the death penalty, his film still can be seen as a persuasive argument for both sides of the issue. One wishes that Rampage had managed to pull off the same trick because, when combined with the performances and Freidkin's direction, one can't help but feel the film could have then been truly great instead of just being a noble misfire. Rampage, itself, wasn't released until several years after it was first filmed. By that time, most of the country was firmly pro-death penalty and the film's attempts to spur debate seemed rather dated. Now, with Bill Clinton's 1992 execution of Ricky Ray Rector and the more recent spate of executions in Texas under then-Gov. Bush, the issue has come back and even supporters like myself have somewhat ambigous feelings towards the death penalty. As well, recent years have seen an increase of films like Natural Born Killers, Hannibal, and the whole slahser film genre; films that have created a cult of celebrity around the characters of brutal murderers and that often present brutality as the modern equivalent of slapstick comedy (all trends that Rampage very much did not embrace). Now is a perhaps a good time to rediscover Rampage, admired it's succesful moments, and regret it's noble failures.
Better Late Than Never
This film was panned by the reviewers when it was came out because it was released many years after the key subject matter had changed in the publics mind. The era in which this film was intended was a time when the options for sentencing a convicted murderer were limited to a life sentence, which would allow some killers to be back on the streets in as few as twelve years or the death penalty.
In that time period William Friedkin started researching material for a film that was supposed to show how the death penalty was too extreme for some cases. As he studied the case in which the filmscript was based he became convinced that the death penalty was needed and that some killers really deserved to die for their crimes. The tone of both the script and the film that would follow then started to change dramatically.
I suspect one of the reasons the film remained in the can (completed but not released) as long as it did in no small way had to do with Hollywood's political leaning away from the death penalty. It was also a time when Chief Justice Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court granted every death penalty appeal that went before her court.
Freidken's depiction of the killer in this film leaves the viewer with no doubt the world would be a better and safer place if the death penalty was applied. His story also gives the viewer some insight into how the outcome of the trial could be changed by some small details.
Now that the courts recognise the concept of a life sentence without posibility of parole some of the passions in opposition to the death penalty have cooled off because the juries now have the ability to keep a killer out of circulation forever. Just remember the characters in this film did not have that option. And it was not going to happen for at least another ten years.
It's Unique!
Reviewer is the author of NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY (which is also on Amazon.com).
Okay! Okay! THE EXORIST,it's not! It does, however, give a unique twist to an otherwise well-worn subject---The demented killer, and should he be executed, sent to prison or, perhaps, found to be Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity? Certainly, the theme at hand isn't pro-NGRI. But, isn't it good to get contrasting perspectives on this complex topic? Is he psychotic? Is he merely psychopathic? Or, perhaps, he's a mixture of these two "psycho-babble" DSM IV categories! Michael Biehn shines brightly as the relentless D.A. Perhaps, however, he could have played the BAD GUY all the better!
Buy Rampage at Amazon.com
Buy posters at Allposters.com
Jamster - the latest ringtones for your phone! | |
|
