112 Age of Consent

Discuss releases by Indicator and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#26 Post by knives » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:21 pm

TBH I think it is one of their best.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#27 Post by MichaelB » Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:23 pm

I've seen it (and on the big screen courtesy of a 1993 revival), but I honestly don't remember much about it. Although I definitely wasn't thinking "one of their best".

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#28 Post by Tommaso » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:26 pm

I think "Rosalinda" is a quite charming, but minor film. And as an adaptation of Strauss' "Die Fledermaus" it doesn't have the vivid glamour that the 1945 version by Geza von Bolvary carries.

"The Queen's Guards", however, was a totally uninspired film that showed nothing of the old spark, which at least was somewhat rekindled with the Australian films (even though I'm not a big fan of these either). And it was a total flop. But it was made after "Peeping Tom", so I suppose the old legend that the scandal around "Peeping Tom" made it impossible for Powell to continue work in the UK is only a half-truth and "Guards" had a huge negative influence on Powell's career, too.

Like David, I of course also fuss about "Bluebeard's Castle", but does anyone know why nobody seems to be doing anything about "The Elusive Pimpernel"? Not their greatest effort, but nevertheless its P&P from their prime period and the Mont St. Michel scenes are truly impressive. This really deserves a release, restored or not. Rights issues?
Last edited by Tommaso on Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#29 Post by MichaelB » Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:31 pm

Tommaso wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:26 pm
"The Queen's Guards" was a totally uninspired film that showed nothing of the old spark, which at least was somewhat rekindled with the Australian films (even though I'm not a big fan of these either). And it was a total flop. But it was made after "Peeping Tom", so I suppose the old legend that the scandal around "Peeping Tom" made it impossible for Powell to continue work in the UK is only a half-truth and "Guards" had a huge negative influence on Powell's career, too.
I've always found the "Peeping Tom destroyed Powell's career" to be about as believable as "A Clockwork Orange killed off the Scala Cinema". There's a tiny grain of truth buried there, in that both were certainly contributing factors to the decline in question, but I suspect in both cases they were comparatively minor. The Queen's Guards was a considerably more expensive flop than Peeping Tom, and I don't believe that Powell had had a bona fide hit since The Battle of the River Plate in 1956, so even if he'd never made Peeping Tom he might have struggled to sustain his career into the Sixties. And in the case of the Scala, the main reason that the cinema closed when it did was because its twelve-year licence was coming up for renewal and the landlord seized the opportunity to triple the rent on the building - but that's less glamorous than "outlaw cinema shows banned film and suffers consequences".

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#30 Post by Finch » Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:51 pm

Not wanting to take the thread too far off-topic but what led to the ban of Dance of the Seven Veils? It goes to show how little I know of Russell outside of his most famous films, but I hadn't heard of it before. Count me among those who'd buy a release of the Bartok films if that ever becomes feasible.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#31 Post by swo17 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:56 pm

It's about as reverent to its subject as Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#32 Post by MichaelB » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:20 pm

It was shown once on television on 15 February 1970, the BBC having cleared the rights to Richard Strauss's music via his publishers Boosey and Hawkes - I gather they just waved through the permission without asking too many questions.

But because this permission was only granted for a single broadcast, the Strauss family made it very clear that it would never be granted again for as long as they had any say in the matter, a situation that continues until New Year's Day 2020 (because Strauss died in 1949, so he becomes public domain at the start of the full calendar year following the 70th anniversary of his death). And when Russell sought to use some of Strauss's opera Salome in his 1987 film Salome's Last Dance, as soon as the Strauss family found out who was directing it, the answer was a flat no - and this was clearly personal, as licensing Strauss works isn't usually that hard.

As to why the Strauss family disliked it... well, you don't need to delve too deeply into the synopsis that I wrote for BFI Screenonline to work out why! As Russell himself acknowledged at the time, it was:
a good example of the sort of film that could never be made outside the BBC, because the lawyers would be on to it in two seconds. I would have had to submit a script to the Strauss family and his publishers Boosey and Hawkes would have come into it, and it would never have happened. The great thing about the BBC is that the quickness of the hand deceives the eye. Before anyone can complain, the film is out. But the price you pay with a really controversial film is that it's usually only shown once.

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#33 Post by Calvin » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:44 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:03 am
The other major Russell from that period that’s currently MIA is the notorious Dance of the Seven Veils, effectively - and, to be fair, understandably - banned since 1970 by the Richard Strauss estate. But in this case the BFI is well aware that the copyright barrier will be lifted on New Year’s Day 2020 and also that they’re sitting on excellent materials, including Russell’s own personal print, so fingers crossed!
Here's hoping that the BFI restore it next year, ready for it to be made available on the BFI Player as soon as Jools finishes his Hootenanny.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#34 Post by Finch » Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:19 pm

Thank you for that informative read, Michael!

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

112 Age of Consent

#35 Post by MichaelB » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:07 am

david hare wrote:Meanwhile the time coded bootleg does quite well.
The colours are absolute shit, though. The BFI is sitting on Russell’s own personal copy, which looks far nicer.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#36 Post by MichaelB » Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:29 am

Anyway, just to get back on topic, here are full and final specs:

Image

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#37 Post by MichaelB » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:58 am


User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#38 Post by MichaelB » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:52 am

Indicator's response to a letter about Age of Consent from the film's editor that appeared in the current Sight & Sound:

Image

User avatar
Aunt Peg
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:30 am

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#39 Post by Aunt Peg » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:44 am

I saw Age of Consent years ago. So long in fact that I don't remember if it was at a repertory cinema or on TV or even what decade.

Given that I had a rather ho-hum view of the film I didn't rush to buy it when it was first released. It was sort of my radar as a maybe and whilst filling my cart whilst on-line shopping a few weeks ago I decided cave in and to include this and give it a second go. Very glad that I did as I throughly enjoyed it (naturally watched the director's cut) and the extras are stellar.

Another great Indicator release.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#40 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:55 pm

The sense of atmosphere really fleshes out the expansive and colorful space an artist must traverse to become inspired. Inversely, I’ve always taken this film to be an exhibition of the inescapability of such inspiration. One can hide away and attempt to isolate but any and all coexistent interaction with people or nature will present opportunities to rediscover and connect with oneself and the world.

The sexuality in this film is as natural as the fruit, leaves, and oceans; and the lovely irony is that although Mason captures this sexuality in art it isn’t exploitative but celebratory of nature, synonymous with beauty like the shells and reefs Mirren finds scuba diving beneath the sea. Mirren is tenderly attended to by Powell’s camera though not in an ogling gaze, for her mannerisms and contemplative facial expressions are given as much space as her body, all seemingly a way to grasp visual forms of expression to shape identity, and in some instances, watch that identity develop. Contrasting the early scene where she curiously explores her body with the late scene where she emerges as shy transferred to confident with a bit of authentic validation from a trusting person is something to behold, especially seeing her as both a stronger advocate and passionately humbled by the closing frames. Mason essentially feeds off of her growth for his own in some respects, which I loved considering he’s the older person, reflecting the nonlinear development of maturity and nondiscriminatory influence of age. We all have the capacity to fill the role of the affected and the one who affects, and any superficial hierarchy is expunged as reciprocity holds no bounds.

This is a very playful film about playful people hiding in shells of serious constraints, who inevitably brush up against their own barriers to accessing that freedom (defaulting monetary priorities, pretentious assessments), but the happy ending allows each to actualize themselves with humility and surrender. The bite is that this is selfish too at the expense of the dead but all growth is rooted in some selfishness (even mutual growth) which doesn’t need to be bad even if residing alongside a sad event, a fruitful message that rejects the interconnectedness of life in favor of exclusive rights to be content. How responsibility fits into the finish has subtly dark implications but defending one’s right to be happy isn’t completely disregarded, which is allowed to ruminate as its own ethical question without overshadowing the rest of the picture, thereby letting go of binary moral reasoning- especially as ranking over self-actualization.

Ultimately the feeling of people inspiring one another is priceless and Powell’s eye finds limitless dimensions by which we can and do achieve this inspiration, whether through art, glancing at the least sexy-but equally worthy- of body parts maneuvering around a shared space, or living through problems together and coming out with appreciation and enhanced gratitude for the simple pleasures and collective harmony. This is another film that I’ve seen probably three or four times now and only gets better each outing because of the large ideas and bursting flavor within an deceptively apparent small and mild meditation. It’s up there with the most optimistic of Powell’s career and that’s saying a lot.



I had never seen The Boy Who Turned Yellow and thought it was a well-made exercise in tempered phantasmagoria. This begins by functioning as a tighter, micro-La petite bande that acts as an anti-fable without any clear didactic purpose other than to engage in fantasy and visualize the 'other'-ing need of a child to be significant while also perhaps representing the ease of identity fluidity and loss when disconnected from a loving pet. Since there was initially no clarity in what the aim is of the stylized adventure other than to throw a bunch of kid-friendly ideas at the wall to see what sticks, I found myself admiring it within those constraints and letting the confusion seep in to the otherwise sublime potential. I usually find greater ease just releasing logic and conceding to what's offered but because this is dressed up like something with ideas driving it, the hazy nature of those ideas left me itching for more for the first half.

However, as the narrative progressed the rapport between the yellow boy and alien developed into an affinity that clicked so well that this became the message, and a great one at that. The rest of the plot's objectives were therefore revealed to be a ruse for that contemplation on humanism and universal empathy, perhaps regarding alien status and color, but any specifics are a stretch. I like that reading even if it is broad, and in part because of its vague essence that is sly revolving invisibly around empty expectations of a parable. Either way, Pressburger coming back to produce gives this a wonderful spectacle, and his script's radical nature for a children's film was most welcome. I have a feeling that a revisit will be much more consistently stimulating, now knowing how things play out. The elements that worked really worked for me here, and this is overall a very exciting bonus feature on an already stacked release.

moreorless
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:34 am

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#41 Post by moreorless » Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:33 am

Watching it again for the first time in many years seeing a decent HD master does definitely make it a lot more effective given how much the film depends on the beauty/mood of the natural environment.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:55 pm
This is a very playful film about playful people hiding in shells of serious constraints, who inevitably brush up against their own barriers to accessing that freedom (defaulting monetary priorities, pretentious assessments), but the happy ending allows each to actualize themselves with humility and surrender. The bite is that this is selfish too at the expense of the dead but all growth is rooted in some selfishness (even mutual growth) which doesn’t need to be bad even if residing alongside a sad event, a fruitful message that rejects the interconnectedness of life in favor of exclusive rights to be content. How responsibility fits into the finish has subtly dark implications but defending one’s right to be happy isn’t completely disregarded, which is allowed to ruminate as its own ethical question without overshadowing the rest of the picture, thereby letting go of binary moral reasoning- especially as ranking over self-actualization.

Ultimately the feeling of people inspiring one another is priceless and Powell’s eye finds limitless dimensions by which we can and do achieve this inspiration, whether through art, glancing at the least sexy-but equally worthy- of body parts maneuvering around a shared space, or living through problems together and coming out with appreciation and enhanced gratitude for the simple pleasures and collective harmony. This is another film that I’ve seen probably three or four times now and only gets better each outing because of the large ideas and bursting flavor within an deceptively apparent small and mild meditation. It’s up there with the most optimistic of Powell’s career and that’s saying a lot.
Honestly whilst as you say its quite a playful film I find Mirren's role has dated far better than a lot of female characters of that era which did seem to push towards hippie waifs who existed mostly to push male characters stories along. I do wonder whether he having to wait until the early 80's to really break into larger roles was partly due to not conforming to that more passive role, being too forceful to fit into the background of male focused cinema unless you had a very passive lead such as Oh Lucky Man.

As mentioned on the commentary I do think some of the art used is a little weak, the beach house, sand sculpture and the sketches are well done but the actual paintings don't really stand up as something that would represent great work by a significant artist. I don't consider that enough to significantly damage the film though given that its the artsists view(whether from his own or Mirren's perspective) rather than his work thats more of a focus.

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Michael Powell

#42 Post by RIP Film » Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:34 pm

I finally caught Age of Consent the other night on Tubi and what an odd duck this one is, though I kind of liked it. No surprise Criterion hasn’t picked it up yet as its sex politics wouldn’t go over well today. From the outset James Mason’s painter uses young Helen Mirren as a muse, whose age in the film is never revealed, only that she is “underage” according to her Grandma. There’s also more than one occasion where rape or the prospect of it is used for comedic effect. And it is in fact the films insistence on being a comedy that makes it so jarring at times, including slapdash editing to piece together “funny” bits with the dog, etc. If you can forgive all this it’s light and airy and has some of that unmistakable Powell charm, in addition to being interesting roles for Mason and Mirren.

But I found it hard to form a reading or even know what to think of it. There seemed to be an effort to make everyone who isn’t the two leads come off as detestable, and for most of the film I read this as an interesting turning of the tables— with Mason’s painter pursuing a creative breakthrough using Cora (Mirren) purely as his model, but the appearance of it as such raises eyebrows to everyone made aware, even his friend who can’t stop eyeballing her. It seemed to me a surprising meditation on the profanities outside the world of the artist trying to invade and defile the whole venture. And this continues until the very last scene with
SpoilerShow
Cora herself, who decries Mason, ‘you only wanted me for your pictures!”. Of course it ends with them frolicking around in the ocean, another weird question mark (though it’s not revealed how Mason takes her advances.)
With a different commitment to tone this could have been classic Powell, filmed along the Great Barrier Reef it’s beautiful to look at it, with a buoyant, jaunty score. But as it stands it’s too relaxed and at ease with itself given all its juggling. A curiosity.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#43 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:20 pm

I wasn't sure what to make of this when I first saw it, but I've come around to really appreciating it on revisits. I offered a reading a couple posts upthread, which I realize is far more optimistic and charitable to the characters and their motivations than the film seems to deserve at first glance! But that's where I believe the odd tone works to feed a kind of deeper reframe of content that triggers us into making snap-judgments on its surface

RIP Film
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: 112 Age of Consent

#44 Post by RIP Film » Sun Nov 20, 2022 2:15 am

Yes yours is a much more nuanced response, but I’m glad to have my wires shorted from time to time. With a better viewing experience I could see myself coming around to it more appreciably. This would be an interesting double bill with Peeping Tom, which I haven’t seen in years, but as the film that destroyed his career I wonder how it feeds into AoC’s surface invitation for snap-judgements, as you say. That late period is marked by a more introspective awareness of the camera and the gaze/fixation of the audience, and Powell seems to delight in testing the boundaries between the two— something I could have been more cognizant of while watching it.

Post Reply