MovieChat Forums > Peeping Tom (1960) Discussion > I can see why this ruined the director's...

I can see why this ruined the director's career

posted 12 years ago by ObservationBlogger
26 replies | jump to latest

This movie nearly ruined me also. Oh my gawd it was terribly difficult to make it through this. I would only recommend it to my worst enemy.

The acting was so wooden and over dramatic that at times was bordering on comical. The scenes between the mother and the daughter in particular were woefully performed. None of the characters were likeable nor did I feel any connection to. The plot was one of the most predictable I have ever seen. The soundtrack detracted from any suspense which may have been achieved otherwise. The writing was so simplistic and corny that it seemed like it was written by a 19 year old film student in the 1960's.

The following line resonated as being particularly absurd and illogical, Mark Lewis: 'Do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? It's fear..'
What the?!

Most of the movies that people have recommended me, I have found to be between 'good' and 'exceptional' (exceptional in the case of the Bergman movies), but do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? Is to waste nearly 2 hours of my life on this movie.

This movie recommendation is without doubt the worst I have ever received. May be I was that person's worst enemy?

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

[–] Steve Crook 12 years ago

If you really wanted to know anything about this film, and didn't come here just to repeat what you'd heard about it, then I might suggest that you read http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Reviews/60_PT/TheMyths.html

The first myth being that Peeping Tom killed the career of director Michael Powell

Steve

[–] ObservationBlogger 12 years ago

I read the article you presented. Ironically, your article highlights just how this movie effectively ruined his career. For example:

"But did Peeping Tom destroy Michael Powell's career?
It's true that he wasn't able to direct any feature films in the UK after Peeping Tom was released and got those bad reviews. Well, not quite. He directed The Queen's Guards (1961) but that wasn't a huge hit (more of that later)."

and more.......

"So after quite a few failed projects, most of which failed due to lack of funding, Powell went to Australia where he made They're a Weird Mob and Age of Consent. ......... But he had essentially become a jobbing director, scrabbling around for work."

Let's read that bit again shall we?

" .....But he had essentially become a jobbing director, scrabbling around for work."

If I was a movie producer or a studio head and I saw 'Peeping Tom' I would make certain also that he never directed no movie of mine. And this is what happened in the UK.

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

[–] Steve Crook 12 years ago

He wasn't able to direct any major feature films after Peeping Tom, but it wasn't because of Peeping Tom, it was because of all the other reasons that I detailed

Steve

[–] Ryu_Darkwood 12 years ago

Whether or not it truly ruined his career is not important anymore. This movie was very influential to today´s artists and how they portray the darker aspects of humanity.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

Michael Powell wasn't Hitchcock(Psycho), Bergman(Hour of the Wolf), Polanski(Repulsion) and De Palma(Sisters)... that's for sure

No, he wasn't any of those people. But they all learnt from him

Steve

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

The big grin meant that I wasn't being entirely serious. No need to get personal

Steve

[–] OldYoJembo 11 years ago

Wasn't this film rescued/resurrected and restored by Coppola?

It's a lot easier being righteous than right.

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

More by Scorsese than Coppola, but they both admired Powell & his work. Powell was working with Coppola at the time, as Director in residence at Coppola's Zoetrope studio, where he made One From the Heart (1982)

Marty paid for a new print of Peeping Tom to be made and shown at the New York Film Festival in 1979

Steve

[–] OldYoJembo 11 years ago

Well, there you go, Peeping Tom was at least influential to the film-school generation of directors.

But regardless of whether one likes this film or not, MP has made many good, even great films which where financial successes and all directors in his "red shoes" get to make a couple of duds.

Yeah, I checked out your article... good work. I saw PT years ago, I think it was on SBS recently. I agree with your final assessment by the way.

I see Age of Consent every few years but have only seen a few seconds of They're a Weird Mob which I would dearly love to see myself having read the book.

It's a lot easier being righteous than right.

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

Where are you?
They're a Weird Mob is being screened at the Lincoln Film Center, NYC, on 26 January.

See http://www.filmlinc.com/films/on-sale/theyre-a-weird-mob

Steve

[–] OldYoJembo 11 years ago

Australia LOL

And I'm frankly amazed... the Lincoln Center, NYC? Crikey! But you know it calls to light that he may have got sick of England and it's stuffyness too... seriously. Spike Milligan, a British icon, moved out here for similar reasons. And there have been others...

That Scottish TV doco series "The Story of Film" (ep6 or 7) suggests that Britain in the early to mid 60's was not a great place to make movies for modernists anyway. Have you seen it?... great series.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/13176387690/The-Story-Of-Film-S1-Ep1
(it's absolutely above board btw)

Cheers.

It's a lot easier being righteous than right.

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

Yes, I saw "The Story of Film: An Odyssey", and Mark's right, the early to mid 1960s weren't a great time for film in Britain.

The main reason that Powell couldn't get films made here were, as I said in that article, everything had been taken over by the accountants and they had no time for an artistic adventurer like Powell. He needed entrepreneurs / moguls like Rank and Korda to back him. He got offered the chance to make They're a Weird Mob in Australia (after a few other people had tried to and failed) so he took them up on the offer. He got his old mate Emeric Pressburger to turn the book into a film - which he did under the alias Richard Imrie.

Micky went down under with his elder son, Kevin, who helped him on the films he made there and who then settled in Oz.

But why isn't They're a Weird Mob shown more often in Australia? Anyone would think that they're ashamed of that period in their history with it's tinges of Ocker culture.

Steve

[–] Onehughjazz69 11 years ago

The sad thing that most people who are critical of this movie don't get or understand is that had Psycho not come out at roughly the same time, there's a decent chance that Michael Powell may have been looked at and rewarded for this movie the same way Hitchcock was for Psycho. In fact you can almost say that the one bad thing about Psycho was that it was so good it overshadowed Peeping Tom.

[–] Steve Crook 11 years ago

Powell (& Pressburger) always had problems with the critics. For most of the films they made together the critics were often puzzled.

The British critics had decided that the only type of films that should be made in Britain were of the "Documentary style". After the success of documentary style dramas by Flaherty, Grierson and others the critics thought that this was a good niche that British films would do well in - and they thought that every British film should be like these.

So when P&P started to produce films that were obviously dramas, and even worse, were artistic, the critics started to sharpen their pencils if not their knives.

They were continually puzzled by the open-ended nature of films made by The Archers and were often quite hostile to things like the way the films made clear that not all Germans were Nazis during the war, the "continental" influences on many of the films,and various other aspects of their idea of how a British film should be.

Then, when they got Micky Powell on his own after he made Peeping Tom, they really let him have it. As Thelma Schoonmaker once said "Michael had often gone out on a limb. When he made Peeping Tom the critics gleefully sawed that limb off, and then beat him about the head with it."

But Micky was never bitter towards them. He was a bit disappointed that they didn't understand but he knew that enough of the public did, even with Peeping Tom, so he remained contented.

During the Archers' hey-day, all of the films that are now known and loved by millions around the world all got some strange reviews from the critics. But they were all very successful with the public. So Rank (and then Korda) kept on funding them.

Even Peeping Tom made back its costs on its first release. OK, so it was made very cheaply, and the public didn't exactly love it, but enough of them went to see it and they knew that there was something interesting going on.

It was only really in later years, from the mid 1970s onwards, that the interest in the films of Powell (with and without Pressburger) really started, and that interest is still growing

Steve

[–] KGGone 11 years ago

I first heard of this film in the book More Classics of the Horror Film. I did not bother to read the article on it and glad I didnt.
After watching it I would say it is a horror film if you regard the main character as a Frankenstein creation. He was created by his father--a scientist who like Frankenstein is seeking to find knowledge for the benefits of others(or just himself) --but to do so, he is exploiting his son--betraying his son. Also the blind mother mentions something about not following her instincts and trusting a man with an operation. There's definitely some patriarchal-matriarchal ideas in it as well as the technology and camera's eye elements.

I see nothing amiss with the acting-its very typical Shakespeare-trained British acting of the period--it has a bit of black humor like many horror films but the central relationships are certainly competent. Especially the lead.

I have to chuckle about that claim that the Uk was a bad place to make film in the early 60s.
The most influential indie studio at the time was Uk's Hammer. It was so successful it lifted Universal out of financial problems and helped get AIP and Roger Corman into the US indie film scene. And Hammer's classic films are as popular as ever. Check out Never Take Candy From a Stranger. Perhaps it was a bad place due to the censors and lack of native funding, but they still managed well enough.

Written by a 19 year old?
If you think that's an example of writing by a 19 year old I sure hope you think today's films were written by toddlers.
Movie writing has steadily become infantile since the 60s and 70s.

[–] Abe_Raman 11 years ago

The OP is a moron - take a look at his 100 bestest movies list for evidence of that. Straight out of the book with nary a leftfield choice to indicate independent thought, and the predictable glut of gangster films and post-1990 flotsam. There Will Be Blood my arse.

[–] Abe_Raman 11 years ago

Oh yeah, and he namechecks Bergman. There's your shibboleth for you.

[–] Abe_Raman 11 years ago

Nothing badly written about that 'most frightening thing is fear' line either - it very neatly conveys what the writer wanted.

A 'Top 100 Bestest Films' with only about 3 pre-1950 films in it - now there really would be some bad writing.

[–] ObservationBlogger 8 years ago

I have my downsides I won't disagree, but There Will Be Blood is ingenuous film- making on every level. Have you even seen it?

My 100 favorite movies http://www.imdb.com/list/Uvw_F2_GMx8/
What are your favorites?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mvksmall 10 years ago

"There is nothong to fear but fear itself"...Kind of corny too,eh?

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

The acting was so wooden ...

I would have thought someone like Carl Boehm gives a chillingly effective performance.

None of the characters were likeable ...

I found myself feeling rather sorry for Lewis. The guy didn't have the easiest and most nurturing of upbringings.

The soundtrack detracted from any suspense which may have been achieved otherwise.

Brian Easdale's score, containing Gordon Watson's solo piano contribution, I believe is one of the film's many attractions and certainly doesn't date the it in any way.

The plot was one of the most predictable I have ever seen.

This is a rather interesting comment, as I would have thought it was quite an unusual narrative, especially considering it is one designed to be told in 1960.

... waste nearly 2 hours of my life on this movie.

Time well spent for me.🐭

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

agree with OP, very silly movie

so many movies, so little time

[–] Stratego (29246) 2 years ago

It really wasn't a good film, like a cheap Hitchcock knock-off.