Review for The Guardian

The Guardian

Dir: William Friedkin (1990)


 

One of the most universally acclaimed horror movies of all time is unquestionably The Exorcist. Released in 1973, it stunned cinema-goers, provoking mass hysteria, and passionately argumentative critical assessments. While it was a fright flick that split opinion upon it's debut, it goes without saying that it's critical status has grown over the years, along with it's influence.

Director, William Friedkin's subsequent career however, would prove to be wildly uneven. Already an established Academy Award winning name thanks to his, The French Connection in 1971, his subsequent cinematic excursions would swing between critical dismay, and box office disappointment. Personally, I've found his output to be absolutely fascinating, with Cruising (1980) being a challenging, daring standout. At his best, efforts such as To Live and Die in LA (1985) proved to be thrilling successes, but even misfires such as Jade (1995) are individual and provocative enough to remain worthwhile. In recent times, Friedkin has underdone something of a resurgence with his critics, thanks to Bug (2006).

In 1990, Friedkin returned to the horror genre, following a less-than commercially consistent decade.

The Guardian is an adaptation of the novel "The Nanny" by Dan Greenburg, that went through numerous script alterations, resulting in something of a loose adaptation, but certainly one with a definite identity.

The film opens with a couple preparing for a weekend away, leaving their young children, including a newborn, in the care of their nanny- a figure shrouded in shadow. Naturally, within minutes of their departure, the dastardly carer has taken the baby, and nipped off to the woods for a spot of sacrifice. Meanwhile, young professionals, Phil (Dwier Brown) and Kate (Carey Lowell) move into their swanky new pad in LA, where they encounter the poorly played architect who designed the space Ned (Brad Hall) and settle into their lives of loafing about having dinner parties. Soon, they're pregnant with their first child, and need a live-in nanny. Enter Camilla (Jenny Seagrove), a nature-loving, apparently calming force. Unfortunately, it quickly transpires that she means to use the child for nefarious purposes. Cue thugs being attacked by trees, evil wolves, and characters behaving unbelievably stupidly, en route to an increasingly banal climax.

The Eighties-style score is ludicrous fun, though completely inappropriate. It surrounds the film with a pulpy Italian, straight-to-video aura, despite the comparatively po-faced direction and delivery. It would have made a much better accompaniment to a piece like Demons, or perhaps one of Lucio Fulci's latter day efforts. However, by the end, it's hard not to just enjoy the sounds, because everything else that's happening on screen is so silly and unrewarding.

During the climax, one particularly ineffective shot reveals the baby to be in fact, a doll. It's both sloppy, and coming at such a crucial time, entirely distracting. Such amateurishness is actually a recurring theme in the movie, which given Friedkin's experience, is extremely puzzling. The photography, and all-round production is abysmal.

On the other hand, Jenny Seagrove is fine in her role of Camilla, conveying an otherworldly, unsettling presence. Familiar face, Miguel Ferrer is wasted however, in his insubstantial role. He's always a welcome performer, but his character intrudes by appearing so early, appearing to offer the possibility of being a vital character, before ultimately proving to be irrelevant.

For me though, the brief cameo by Xander Berkeley is another strong plus. The actor always raises a smile in his small roles be it in Terminator 2 (1991), Candyman (1992), Heat (1995), or as a recurring character in the TV series, 24. Carey Lowell acquits herself well in an underwritten role, while the less said about our male lead, the better.

It's no surprise that The Guardian was not a success, it's a mess, and worse, the concept is extremely daft. "Man-eating Trees" and "Chainsaw Carnage", as touted on the press release, sound like cracking fun, but the film is too staunch and serious. Some of the scenes involving the killer foliage, may amuse the odd viewer, but it's too adequate, routine, and unstylish to truly fall into the "so bad it's good category". Instead it's just a bit dense, and completely unaware of its inherent ridiculousness.

The biggest problem is that it's wildly uneven, and Friedkin just was not the right man for the job. As the film unfolds, it actually unravels, relying too much on the dire horror cliché of characters failing to do what is logical and sensible in a threatening scenario, instead condemning themselves to death. By the end, it's hard not to just simply stare, rather than actually care about what is happening. It's hardly dull, but at the same time, The Guardian is a massively frustrating experience.

The extras on Second Sight's new DVD consist of three interview segments. During his interview, Friedkin exhibits the really irritating habit of trying to distinguish The Guardian as anything other than a horror film. He's talking nonsense, The Guardian is absolutely a horror film. More to the point, that's not a negative in itself, as "horror" should not be uttered in shushed tones for fear of being regarded as a dirty word. Friedkin's age-old fear of being categorised as perpetrating a work of horror makes The Guardian even harder to stomach. Here's a horror film, which the director snootily refuses to acknowledge as such, instead trying to peddle it as something else, to the exact audience whom he is undermining. Even worse, he "reluctantly accepts" that The Exorcist is maybe a horror film, but doesn't see it that way. C'mon now.

Co-Writer Stephen Volk on the other hand, contributes an excellent and illuminating chat, and makes it easy to see where the film spiralled in the wrong direction. He reveals it was conceived with Sam Raimi in mind, until the quirky creator balked in favour of Darkman, starring Liam Neeson. Of the two, I'd say he made a wise choice. On topic though: this is a great interview.

Rounding out the extras is another fine interview, with English villainess, Jenny Seagrove. Oddly though, the stories she conveys about Volk and Friedkin are at odds with Volk's. Seagrove also maintains that the film is "fun", and insists it's something that is being rediscovered, but this really isn't true. There's certainly a fan base out there that enjoy the film, and that's great, but it's hardly gathering momentum as a rediscovered classic. At the same time though, the actress reveals that she voiced her concerns about adopting a more serious concept, and human tone, and is probably right- the film would have done better as an evil nanny story. As it is, an evil-demon-woman-from-a-tree is the sort of silliness that perhaps only a filmmaker as zany as Sam Raimi is could have pulled off successfully.

While these are a more than adequate gathering of interviews, the extras would have really been rounded off nicely by including the alternative ending, originally broadcast on TV. While it certainly wasn't for everyone, the option to make one's own mind up about it would be very much welcomed. Nonetheless, it's a little harsh to be overly critical of the release. Second Sight have done an admirable job of looking back at a little-seen oddity, and collating what is here, after all, this is an obscure item, but hardly a hugely in-demand cult item. In that regard, the DVD is a noble effort to revive a forgotten film, but it's a shame that in retrospect, the film in question is so lacking.

William Friedkin's name will forever be etched into the minds of horror fans everywhere, but it certainly won't be because of The Guardian.