Angel Heart (1987, Dir. Alan Parker)
Synopsis:
New York Private Detective, Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) is hired by the mysterious and wealthy Louis Cyphere (Robert De Niro) to track down singer Johnny Favorite, who has disappeared but owes Cyphere a debt. As Angel tries to track down Favorite, starting with the hospital where he was admitted after the war and continuing down in Louisiana, a pattern starts to emerge. Everyone who had any connection with Johnny or his disappearance ends up murdered in bizarre and grisly ways, shortly after Harry meets them. With the police beginning to suspect him for the murders, Harry becomes more and more uneasy with what he discovers about Johnny’s past and his connections with voodoo and the occult. Can he solve the mystery of what happened to Johnny and prove his innocence or will the trail lead to a truth so terrible, even Harry won’t want to discover it?
We continue our series on underrated disturbing films, with this — a film I was slightly obsessed with as a 13 year old. I had the amazing version of the film’s poster shown above (originally created for the European release of the film) on my bedroom wall and as I wasn’t old enough to see the film on video (U.K British Board of Film Classification having rated it an ‘18’, meaning no-one under that age was allowed into the cinema or able to rent it — this is quite different from the U.S. ‘R’ rating that states than persons under 16 have to be accompanied by an adult), I tracked down the novel upon which it was based: Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg. I can’t quite remember what had first piqued my interest: the cool poster, Robert De Niro (who’s work I was also a bit obsessed with as a teenager — his chameleon like screen presence suddenly made me interested in acting, and it seemed a million miles away from my parents’ stage performances), or how cool Mickey Rourke looked in his crumpled linen suit. I’d become interested in film noir by that time too, so there was a definite pull in terms of a story that mixed Chandler-esque detective work with voodoo horror (Stephen King aptly described the book as “if Raymond Chandler had written The Exorcist”).
The book completely absorbed and disturbed me (I think I read it in a day), which made me want to see the film even more. Eventually, it was shown on tv — heavily edited of course — and inevitably I was disappointed because it didn’t quite match the vision of the narrative I had in my head (Parker’s film makes a few subtle story changes) and I felt short changed slightly that the movie wasn’t as dark and as gory as I expected. It wouldn’t be until some years later, when I saw the full unedited version (by which time the novel had faded from my memory a little more) that I really began to appreciate it.
Whilst I still believe the novel is better, Parker was, for the most part, extremely faithful in his adaptation. In preparing for this post I came across a PDF of the working draft of Parker’s screenplay, which has a number of extended moments that were either jettisoned during the shoot or in the editing room — it explains why we see the dead body of an old lady in the film’s opening credits (which had previously never made sense to me), as the opening scene with Harry Angel in his office mentions that an old lady was murdered in the alley outside along with a cat, whose carcass had been dumped in front of Harry’s door. I’m guessing that the point of this scene was to set up the idea of murderous devil worshippers, without it, as with the scenes of Harry going back to the church in Harlem where he met Cyphre, it’s obtuse and if Parker’s adaptation has a failing it’s this. There was, it seems, a slightly clearer version of the narrative in the script and at some point Parker felt it was better to make these moments more enigmatic, which might be the reason the film garnered such a lukewarm reception on its initial release.
Interestingly, the screenplay draft doesn’t shed any light on several deleted scenes from the film that have surfaced via on set photographs over the years, namely an extended and far more gory death scene for the lawyer Winesap (there’s a brief flash of his terrified expression during the montage that takes place during the infamous sex scene) as well as the death in a fire of Harry’s journalist friend. Presumably, these were ideas that were decided upon during shooting that then were ultimately not used.
What has been left in the finished film, however, is still a brilliantly atmospheric detective thriller, with horror overtones, with enough disturbing moments and stylistic flourish to hold up to repeated viewing. It’s also notable for a number of great performances, but particularly in the case of Rourke. It worth remembering these days, after years of oddball roles in terrible movies and his own physical transformation through a combination of drug abuse, an abortive boxing career and reconstructive surgery, he was once not only an incredibly handsome man but a brilliant intuitive actor, who people talked about as the next James Dean, Marlon Brando or Robert De Niro. This film was really the pinnacle of his early career and I think that this and Rumblefish are probably his best roles ever. His Harry Angel can be vulnerable, smart, aggressive and funny. His scenes with Lisa Bonet feel incredibly natural and real and his final scene with De Niro, where his voice is physically cracking from fear and emotion is absolutely extraordinary. In an interview included on my copy of the DVD, Parker says that this was the last film Rourke did before his demons and destructive personality took over, his last great performance — in which he felt Rourke really was De Niro’s equal and with the benefit of hindsight, he’s right. In fact, looking at the film more than 30 years on, I’d even say he surpasses De Niro in this film. His work here is so subtle, so varied (Parker has said that Rourke would do something different every single take) that De Niro’s larger than life performance actually seems quite over the top in comparison.
It’s still a good performance from De Niro, however. As with Brazil (which we looked at earlier this year as part of this series of posts on disturbing films) and The Untouchables (which came out in the same year as this), the amount of screen time De Niro actually has means that the role is really a glorified cameo. However, he’s so good and his screen presence is so indelible that he becomes one of the most important parts of the film.
Lisa Bonet’s performance is also noteworthy here. At the time, she was best known for her role on The Cosby Show and this showed that she was capable of playing far more nuanced and adult roles. Her performance here is naturalistic and effective and she’s perfectly cast as young woman who has had to grow up fast because of her poverty and her upbringing, seeming much more mature than her youth would suggest. It’s a shame that Bonet initially returned to Tv after this rather than take on more film roles as her later performances in Enemy Of The State and High Fidelity have re-iterated what an interesting and unique actress she is and she could have easily had a more high profile career on the basis of her work here.
As well as the performances by the main trio of actors, there’s also the film’s incredible visual style, which has not diminished one iota in the intervening 30 + years since its release and has now been properly remastered to show it in all its glory. The cinematography by Parker’s regular collaborator Michael Serasin is superb and perfectly nails the story’s noir style and by using hard lighting and copious amounts of shadow the film manages to have the feel of a black and white movie, even though it’s in colour.
Trevor Jones’ score is one of my favorites of his. Created using a Synclavier plus saxophone solos by British jazz legend Courtney Pine, the score manages to seem both modern and period correct at the same time, and is incredibly atmospheric.
For me, this and Mississippi Burning (which Jones also scored and which, again, featured a southern U.S. setting) are the late Alan Parker’s finest work, where his blend of a sharp script and visual style really came together. Certainly, if like me, you were initially disappointed by this film, then it’s time for a revisit. The visuals are still as superb as they always were but it’s the performances, especially Rourke’s which really impress all these years later. Time to head back down south and partake in some more of this intoxicating movie’s “gumbo”.
