The camera loves you … Action Diana. Photograph: Centre of Attention
Last month, Ben Child went to Bute to watch the filming of Action Diana, a remake of John Schlesinger’s Darling, no more than starring random strangers, rather than Julie Christie and Dirk Bogarde. Here, he assesses the finished pellicle.
- Darling
- Production year: 1965
- Country: UK
- Runtime: 127 mins
- Directors: John Schlesinger
- Cast: Dirk Bogarde, Julie Christie
A dull hum, or maybe more of a hiss, emanates from the speakers. The images on screen are ofttimes punctuated by periods in which in that place is nonentity much visible at all, righteous a black space. When it was originally announced in July, Action Diana – Anglo-French art group The Centre of Attention’s new version of Darling, the 1966 drama in an opposite direction a young copy and social climber that won Julie Christie an Oscar – was touted as a shot-for-shot remake. But I do not remember a single more potholes in the visual narrative of John Schlesinger’session pellicle. Nor did it feature amateur camerawork, footage which is often hugely over-exposed, and editing that appears to have been carried out by a three-year-old wearing boxing gloves. The totality thing also comes in at just over an hour, where Schlesinger’s tale of swinging 60s London was in addition two.
And then there’s the deed. While the original Darling featured a fairly wooden turn from the famously strict Laurence Harvey in a supporting role, it was generally something of a tour de force, with Christie and Dirk Bogarde both turning in standout performances. By way of contrast, the 500-strong cast of the new version, named Action Diana for legal reasons, range from spectacularly hammy to apparently disinterested, with a side helping of extremely confused.
All of the above, of course, matters not a jot, in theory. For this is an art film, and therefore (arguably) not bound by the usual critical constraints. Furthermore, the whole lump of matter was put together for about a hundredth of the cost of the big screen we’re watching it adhering. Co-directors Gary O’Dwyer and Pierre Coinde, who together travel over up The Centre of Attention, worked with just one camera and members of the public in Merseyside, Vienna and Bute (doubling despite the original’s London, Monte Carlo and Capri) to put the project into junction. There were literally hundreds of Diana Scotts, the character played by Christie in the original, ranging from 10 to 82 in age. And very few of them had more than a not many moments to learn their lines.
The terminate is a hotchpotch of human essence, individual actors’ quirks and features highlighted, often mercilessly, occasionally kindly by the camera. An older lady, mumbling, confused but game, kicks off one scene, but is suddenly replaced by a younger, other thing certain player. The actors in some sections appear to have received meticulous prepping, while in others you get the impression they haven’t a clue what’s going on.
Eventually the viewer stops trying to follow the narrative (I felt particularly sorry for those at the debut screening here at the Abandon Normal Devices feast at FACT in Liverpool on Sunday death who had not even seen the type) and simply concentrates on the wonderful variety of not the same personalities on screen. We have mere seconds to evaluate the faces and voices before they shift. With some, it’s immediately irreproachable that the camera loves them; others, not so much.
Does the movie say anything useful about film-making, other than pass over it pretty unencumbered that there is a very good intuitional faculty why most films cost an awful lot of money to make and are put together by professionals who really know what they’re doing? I’m not sure. It certainly suggests that in the era of actuality TV and YouTube, the public has little fear of the camera, and we are all willing and ready during the term of our 15 minutes (OK, seconds) of fame at a moment’s notice. Most of those involved in Action Diana, to their credit, seem to have taken the whole process super-seriously. Some pass muster, others do not. It is often the latter who make for the more fascinating spectacle.
There is a particular section at the period of film reviews in Hollywood trade newspapers, such as Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, in which the critic passes judgement on a particular movie’s technical prowess. Action Diana would no doubt be to the purpose trashed. But for its humanity, its daring and its endeavour, it deserves a rather more positive reaction. If it is else important for art to mine new territory than to meet basic technical requirements, then this is a pecuniary penalty project that deserves your attention.
