Puff Piece

I didn’t see PUFFBALL when it came out, put off by my lack of enthusiasm for the writer, and the reviews, which seemed to be straining not to be mean: the veteran director deserves some respect, even though the only obvious way to fashion a readable review out of such an unpromising movie would be to trash it… Then one evening, after an Edinburgh Film Festival whisky-tasting event, I put the DVD in, and was promptly seized by motion sickness — it was like my vertical hold had gone, the picture seemed to keep scrolling up before my eyeballs, unfixed in space. When I finally succeeded in watching the movie the next day, some of that residual nausea may have remained. Use that as an alibi for my underwhelmed response, if you like.

“A mistake,” is how a friend bluntly summed up Nic Roeg’s PUFFBALL, his latest and possibly last feature. And this friend was in general very sympathetic to Roeg’s vision and had been hoping he’d make another personal film (Roeg freely admits to spending years trading on his reputation, which at least explains monstrosities like his TV movie of SAMSON AND DELILAH with Liz Hurley). Apparently Roeg would have liked to spend twice as long in the cutting room on this one as he was allowed — naturally enough, he being Nic Roeg — and I do find it deplorable that none of the nine credited producers could find the money to pay for an Avid suite and an editor for a few more weeks. Or months. It’s Nic Roeg, FFS!

But very possibly the producers were not sufficiently impressed with the material they saw, and wanted to cut their losses. I can understand their attitude, looking at the “finished” movie, but still deplore their lack of faith — maybe there’s a better movie struggling to get out. Certainly ferocious pruning and intensification of the first act, of the kind Donald Cammell applied to PERFORMANCE, against Roeg’s wishes — inventing, in the process, the Nic Roeg signature style — might have helped. As it is, the movie lurches from plodding, on-the-nose dialogue scenes devoid of reaction shots or overlaps — Dragnet-style but without the verve, which lack even the rigour I’d expect from a rough-cut. Editor Tony Palmer has an association with Roeg dating back to 1970, but there’s no brilliant solo jobs on his CV — perhaps Roeg needed somebody to challenge and provoke him rather than make him comfortable?

Asides from the editing — Roeg’s old touch shows itself in flashes of inside-the-body images, floating fetuses and sperm nebulae, night-vision penetrations — but a freeze-frame dissolve from the heroine’s bloody crotch to a monolithic stone donut should’ve been squashed at birth — the movie’s big problem is its script. Like DON’T LOOK NOW (Donald Sutherland pops his head in for old time’s sake) this is a tale involving the supernatural, but it refuses to play by genre rules. But while DLN nevertheless ended up being scary and atmospheric as hell, even though the source of tension was often hard to pin down, this movie never lands anywhere so interesting — it’s not spooky, nor dramatically credible, nor tense.

I’m inclined to blame, unfairly, original author Fay Weldon, although her son Dan’s screenplay certainly compounds the problems. I haven’t read a single Weldon novel, but have always found her TV adaptations irksome, with improbable lectures shoehorned into the mouths of reluctant and threadbare characters. And I read her intro to a paperback of Dracula, where she got characters’ names wrong, which seems less than ideal. By chance, here she is in today’s (Saturday 3rd, as I type) Guardian, reviewing somebody else’s novel: “Writing a second novel is a nervy business for a writer,” — which seems to imply that the task would entail no trepidation for an orthodontist or longshoreman. So here’s my belief, for which I welcome rebuttals: Fay Weldon is quite a poor writer.

The first “act” of PUFFBALL is an interminable and passionless affair, dealing with architect Kelly Reilly’s attempts to restore a house in Ireland, while her strange neighbours, who include Miranda Richardson and Rita Tushingham, spy from the sidelines. A plot to reincarnate a dead child in a new baby is underway, and Reilly’s presence is thought to interfere with this, leading to a complicated pseudo-ROSEMARY’S BABY rigmarole of conspiracy and sorcery. But for the first half of the film (the first act seems to last this long), all we have happening is a bunch of stuff, some of it weird, none of it particularly dramatic. In the second half, the wavering plot threads attempt to weave together into a climax of some kind, but each potentially tense moment is frittered away to nought.

This does illustrate an interesting (to me, anyway) point about the spook story, which this movie structurally resembles, at least somewhat: the first act of a ghost story is frequently without dramatic tension. THE INNOCENTS begins with pure exposition, coupled with a little character self-portrait, from Michael Redgrave. Only the credits sequence’s promise of chills and drama to come keep us engaged as the plot premise is laid out in the most flat and undecorated terms. Similarly THE SHINING, where the eeriness of Kubrick’s style, coupled with our familiarity with the genre, allow us to anticipate more excitement, even as we’re spoon-fed backstory and a boring job description. The actual events — a job interview — are potentially suspenseful, as we all know if we’ve ever applied for a job, but Kubrick seems intent on burying the potential drama of the scenes in front of us, the better to raise our expectations of what’s to come.

So PUFFBALL’s flat, draggy opening might have worked if it had gotten done with it faster, and if the pay-off had been any good.


Amid all the shagging and subterfuge, there are a number of bad sex moments, such as the green-tinged genital closeup (I presume either hardcore stand-ins or prosthetics were used: can’t see Miranda Richardson volunteering for movie coitus, although apparently Roeg has privately claimed that the celebrated DON’T LOOK NOW copulation IS real), a condom fitting in which the actor has to reach so far into his jeans that one assumes he’s either not “ready” or else must be hung like a cashew, and then the condom-cam money shot (see top) where a milky load splashes the lens like a Jackson Pollock tantrum in yogurt —  “It just made me think of Woody Allen,” complained my friend — but there’s one rough sex scene that’s actually pretty intense and “interesting,” made so by Kelly Reilly’s mean, sloe-eyed performance, rather than by any dubious directorial flourishes.

As William Wyler once told John Huston, “It’s the kind of movie that, when you make one, you ought to make another movie right away.” The sad thing is Roeg isn’t in a position to do so.

(Still: last movies and late movies have a way of rising in reputation: maybe the hidden merits of PUFFBALL will assert themselves at a later time. Stay tuned.)

14 Responses to “Puff Piece”

  1. Haven’t seen this one as yet. Not sure if it’s ever surfaced stateside.

    The pruning of the first act of Performance, acccomplished with the incomparable aide of editor Frank Mazzola (whose career begins as an actor in Rebel Without a Cause) was necessary to increase the impact of Acts 2 and 3. besides this was material Cammell knew and Roeg most certainly did not. Roeg come comes into his own with Don’t Look Now and The Man Who Fell to Earth. Afterwards things get spotty. I’d love to give the totally insane Eureka another go. Likewise Track 29. I met Roeg once by chance when he and Theresa Russell were sitting at another table at Musso & Frank’s where Meredith Brady, Jonathan Benair and a bunch of our friends were celebrating the birthday of Vadim’s then-girfriend Ann Biderman. Ann, then an aspiring screenwriter, scored a major triumph this season with her creation of the cop series Southland. MAN is it ever teriffic!

    Theresa, meanwhile, since splitting with Roeg has hooked up with Mike Melvoin (father of Wendy ) and is in the process of turning herself into a jazz singer.

    a suivre

  2. The existence of a meaningless US title: Puffball: The Devil’s Eyeball, suggests that a US release has been tried, and also that whoever is in charge of it is an idiot. Although I have no idea how you’d attempt to sell the film.

    With Performance, the studio wanted to get to Mick Jagger sooner — Cammell was happy to take that dumb, commercial note and use it to intensify act one even more. A textbook example of how to make creative use of executives’ notes.

    Of later Roeg, Insignificance is enjoyable and The Witches is terrific, although not terribly Roegian. And Bad Timing of course is a masterpiece.

  3. Theresa has a good voice for jazz, I would think. Smoky…

    I’d forgotten all about Wendy and Lisa!

  4. I know that I’m pretty much stepping in it here, but I thought the beginning of Full Body Massage was good. Mimi Rogers as a gallery owner; there was some funny tension between her and her assistant.

    The rest, well, needed some editing…

  5. I’ve heard odd, mixed things about that one. At least you could tell it was Roeg, was one comment. Others would have preferred it to be more anonymous, since it ultimately wasn’t very good…

  6. I remember having a long lunch with Dan Weldon during the pre-production of this film – I was pitching to make a ‘making-of’ documentary, simply to observe the working methods of this most mysterious of living British directors. The documentary idea was nixed (I think by Roeg) but Dan was courteous and very excited to be working with the great man, and the film was certainly a labour of love for all concerned. I’ve stayed well clear of it, having heard enough to know that I won’t enjoy it. It’s a sad end to an illustrious career, and I’ll second David E’s recommendation re Eureka (a film so hated by the studio that made it that they tried to contractually oblige Roeg to be present in the cinema EVERY time it was ever shown…).

  7. EMI tried to disown Bad Timing as well — Roeg has something of a history of these problems, beginning with Performance making one of the Warners execs’ wives physically sick at a screening.

    I remember seeing a televised NFT discussion with Roeg at the time of Eureka, and thinking it looked absolutely amazing. When I finally saw it on VHS I found those same scenes amazing, but hated the rest of it. By now I’ve more or less come around to the movie, though I still have some doubts about the courtroom conclusion.

    One of Puffball’s lesser problems is its shaky sense of place, with Kate Bush instrumentals drafted in to promote some idea of “Irishness”, perhaps to compensate for the lack of authentic actors in leading roles.

  8. Authenticity has never been Roeg’s strong suit.

    I’m especially fond of Insignificance particularly for it’s exploding finale whcih rather than Antonioni is most remindful of J.G. Ballard. I believe it inspired many aspects of Brett Easton Ellis’ “Glamorama” — which like Crash begs to be filmed by David Cronenberg.

  9. A Roeg-Ballard combo would have been an awe-inspiring match. But then, I thought that about Roeg and Potter, and Track 29 was a bit of a disappointment. Roeg’s best years actually see him colliding with a wide variety of clashing sensibilities, so it’s a little hard to know what would inspire him. I could never work out why he treated Heart of Darkness as a dull assignment — surely there’s potential to at least try SOMETHING with that one?

  10. Well it was a TV movie with a very limited budget. The only special effect was John Malkovich.

  11. The one area where younger directors tend to score over older ones is with unpromising assignments — a first-time director with Roeg’s talent would have jumped at the challenge. As would Raul Ruiz, I suspect, so I don’t think it’s ALL about age. Certainly, with Malkovich as Kurtz you’re halfway to something really interesting already…

  12. This sounds, unfortunately, terrible (that alternative title, Puffball : The Devil’s Eyeball, is amusing not what one would wish for in the Roegian swan song though). However, the presence of Kelly Reilly makes it tempting. I find her very appealing but much of what I’ve seen her in doesn’t do her justice (she’s also very lovely but uhm I’m aware that shouldn’t matter).
    Fay Weldon gets on my nerves though I’ve only read one of her novels, Growing Rich (adapted for television with Caroline Catz and, I think, either John Standing or Stride), which I didn’t appreciate much at all. The source of my antipathy, aside from her being annoying, probably really lies in what was, I think, an interview in which she pontificated that “rape wasn’t the worst thing that could happen to a woman” or something similar. I realize that, horribly, she was herself raped but it still seems a really dubious statement, as if rape was just one of those things. Ugh.

  13. “Depends on who you are and the circumstances it happens in,” would seem a reasonable addendum. Certainly giving an honest account of one’s own experience is commendable, and if she got over it then that might be good for someone to hear. But generalizing from one’s own experience (as most of us film critics will do) is very dangerous.

    Kelly Reilly’s charm is part of her actorly toolkit so I think it’s fine to appreciate it. If she were a poor actor then it would be irrelevant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: