"Inferno" *** 1\2 (out of ****)I have now seen five films directed by the Italian horror master Dario Argento. As one might expect, the more films I see of his the more I learn. What I have learned so far is his earlier films are much better than his more recent work.
Some readers may contend that is usually the case. When a filmmaker is young and starting out their vision is fresh and bold. As the years go on they merely repeat themselves. Maybe this is true. It depends on the filmmaker. In the case of Argento however, it is not so much he repeats himself it is that he has taken his work in a new, disappointing, direction.
I have only seen two of Argento's early films. These movies were "horror" films in the traditional sense. But they were done with a visual style which in a weird way turned them into eye candy. They were suspenseful and provided some chills. His work of late is more camp then horror.
"Inferno" (1980) is the second part in Argento's "Three Mother" trilogy. The series began with "Suspiria" (1977), so far the best film I have seen by him, and concluded with "Mother of Tears" (2007). "Suspiria", which I reviewed on here, is a horror masterpiece. It is one of my favorite horror films. It belongs in a class with "The Exorcist" (1973) and "Rosemary's Baby" (1968). "Inferno" tries to follow in the same footsteps, but just doesn't quite compare.
This sequel takes place in New York, where a young woman, Rose Elliot (Irene Miracle) has discovered a book titled "The Three Mothers". She learns who the three mothers are and what they represent. There is the oldest, the mother of sighs (which is what "Suspiria" was about), the most beautiful, the mother of tears, and the cruelest, the mother of darkness, which is the subject of this film. Rose believes what she reads in the book and in a moment of fear writes to her brother, Mark (Leigh McCloskey), who is studying music in Rome.
One of the problems I have with "Inferno" is the film's structure. Everything I have just described takes place in the film's first few minutes. Everything is described to us in a voice-over while Rose reads the book. The reason I think this is a mistake is because it takes the mystery out of everything. These secrets should have been slowly discovered by Rose and her brother. This would allow the film to invite us into this world of witchcraft much like how "Suspiria" did. With "Inferno" Argento just seems to want to get the explanation out of the way and get to the killing. This isn't as effective. What "Inferno" becomes now is a collection of set pieces where we follow one character at a time until they meet their ultimate end. But there little holding the plot together.
Like "Suspiria", "Inferno" makes special use of colors. Notice the attention placed on the color blue in the beginning. "Suspiria" was the last film to use Technicolor, while "Inferno" can't achieve the exact same look it does a good job trying to capture it. It is visually arresting on its own.
The best sequence in the film is the beginning. It is an underwater sequence involving Rose as she tries to recover a key she has dropped. In this sequence Argento keeps the intensity pretty high. To be honest, he does for most of the film. We keep expecting something or someone to pop out of nowhere, as is usually the case with such films. Argento also puts in small touches of sexuality. Another staple of horror films.
Other good sequences involve Sarah (Eleonora Giorgi). She is a fellow music student and friend of Mark. She picks up the letter which Rose has sent to Mark, which he has left behind. She now becomes part of this puzzle. Her sequence is suspenseful as well.
And finally I liked the introduction of the Elise (Daria Nicolodi) character. A friend of Rose, who lives above her. Ms. Nicolodi was at one time romantically link to Mr. Argento. She supposedly is the one who came up with the idea of this series. She received writing credit for the first film but this time goes uncredited.
But not all of the horror sequences work. I didn't care for the scenes dealing with a book seller, Kazanian (Sacha Pitoeff). A cripple who sells Rose the book on the three mothers. His actions are bizarre. One scene seems to have been inspired by "Willard" (1971), the film where a man trains rats to kill. I can stand a lot in a movie. Blood and guts don't bother me. But there is something about seeing rats on-screen which makes me squeamish.
I also wondered about how did Argento come up with this film's title. Why did he call it "Inferno"? Why not "Mother of Darkness"? Or "Tenebrarum", the witch's name?
In an introduction on the DVD Agrento says says this about "Inferno", "it is one of my most sincere and purest films." In one sense I understand what he means and in another I completely disagree. It is his purest film in the sense the movie does not involve itself so much with a story. Argento is using cinematic devices, like cinematography or music, to create atmosphere. That leads me to appreciate certain elements of the film. But I disagree because the movie doesn't seem to be having much fun playing around with the genre.
"Inferno" could have used a more coherent plot and some edits. Near the end of the film it just seems to be lingering. The finale is slightly disappointing. Not much is uncovered because everything was explained in the beginning. And the music by Keith Emerson is too forceful at times. It suggest too much not to mention it is too loud.
But I've made it seem "Inferno" is a bad film. It was only disappointing to me because I kept comparing to it "Suspiria". But "Inferno" does put on a good show. It still lacks logic however but does have suspenseful moments. It is also much better than "Mother of Tears".
Posts
