Comment On: 'Gothic'

I just re-watched Gothic for the first time since about 1988, and it was much better than I remembered.

The writing, design, lighting, and direction all were excellent in detail. Acting mostly good, apart from Julian Sands - who was less horrid here in this role than in many others. Mixed feelings about the soundtrack.

This is fairly angsty melodrama. IMO these more independent, low-budget (comparatively) 80s films were some of Russell's strongest, for the same reasons that he has often been decried for being indulgent. Because of the marketplace, most directors forget that movies are a visual medium, rather than a filmed play with clever framing. Unfortunately, movies and television as an exercise in telling a story by means of pictures are pushed into a fringe of arthouse categories. How many feature movies can you name which aren't narrative stories? Ken Russell strikes a fair balance between using human character driven narrative story and inspired visual symbolism and image composition. It is too coherent for the "far out stoner spectacle" label that many try to dismiss it with because Russell actually appears to be quite disciplined. His images might be weird to those not expecting them, but they are not random stuff, they are integral to telling - or rather, showing - the story. Also, his sensibilities are bit subversive, which has not helped his acceptance in the movie biz.

Having left the big studio racket behind in the 1980s has helped him to craft the movies which he chooses to do. I hope he learns also how to better distribute his work so that it can be more widely seen.