Mandy (Review)

Mandy is a peculiar flick. One that I’m going to have an attempt at reviewing although, the film does truly speak for itself. The main reason in my eyes that Mandy is “peculiar” is because it’s two films. A movie is often described as “by someone”. This often pertains to the director. But. Sometimes this can be an actor/ess. This occurs when an actor’s style is so focused and refined that their direction overshadows the directors.

To compare Nicolas Cage to the likes of Isabelle Huppert or Daniel Day-Lewis may seem shrewd to many, and yes, they do fall within different acting styles and aims. Huppert and DDL are trying to make artistic statements. Cage, on the other hand, is trying to add a dimension to the screen using farce exaggeration. No matter if you think Cage’s nuances lie in his over-the-top, grandiose expressions or that he is the definition of overacting. You can’t deny that almost every filmmaker he’s worked with has tried to use him to their advantage. When used correctly it’s thrilling to watch and when it isn’t you would think Cage doesn’t know the basics.

So yes. The first film in Mandy is the trip derived by the director Panos Cosmatos. The second arose by none other than Nicolas Cage, is both a guilty pleasure and a cinematic joy to gaze upon. Cage’s film is the epitome of both his acting talents and the internet sensation he has inadvertently become. It’s really only let down by one factor. There isn’t enough of him.

The first half of the film, where Cosmatos is the star, is a methodical mood piece where he pushes experimental, grind-house, and the avant-garde to their extremes all while weaving them together. The films of the 80s and the culture they embody are painstakingly spliced into the film but Cosmatos avoid treading old ground by bringing an art-house and experimental aesthetic. There are moments that channel your experimental film school teacher’s favourite films and even some that homage the ideas of Tarkovsky and co. in terms of what they thought the power of cinema is. This is not an Amblin Entertainment film from the 80s.

While Cage and his wife (Mandy) are the main characters of the film, the first half is all about a small satanic cult whose leader wants Mandy after driving past her one day. There’s a moment just before she’s captured, and we know it’s coming when Cage stands out on the balcony and looks into the distance. We see what he’s looking at but the camera slowly turns to him. The confusion in screen direction only adds to our angst as we wait for the inevitable. After being captured Mandy has been drugged and when she confronts the cult leader the images of their faces are superimposed onto each other. A shot-reverse shot rendition of the scene could never capture a connection the way it does here. It’s purposefully jarring and uncomfortable then you grow into it. It challenges you on a superficial level. One that doesn't aim for high art but one respects the power cinema has on an audience.

The Cage part of the film is comprised of the second half. Cage’s acting can be described as messy but he's not aiming for a delicate and balanced performance. He's not trying to make a James Ivory period piece but rather a Jackson Pollock painting. It’s uncompromising. If you go to the cinema with your own standards and expectations of what acting is, don’t. Cage is an actor who sets his own rules and you’re better off letting him do what he does best.

The essence of Cosmatos’s directing somewhat either lets itself down or contradicts itself occasionally throughout the movie. In the first half, there are scenes in which their purpose was questionable. I don’t know if it’s because it’s been several days since I’ve seen the film (which is how long it’s taken for this film to settle in my mind) but why does a member of the cult turn up at the convenience store? Cosmatos also gives the audience a chance to breathe throughout. There’s an excellent TV commercial at the halfway point and Cage’s antics in the second half while he’s on his quest are worth raising doubt about. I’ll admit I loved these moments but when the tension was uncomfortable in the first half, why throw it all down the drain in the second?

Mandy was also split into two films by its structure. The pay off in the latter half felt different to that that had been implied throughout the first. An alternative structure of Cage looking for the cult and the cult looking for Mandy happening side by side could’ve offered a journey that resembled the final product. Cosmatos and editor Brett W. Bachman could’ve played with the audience’s confusion being further impacted by a non-linear narrative. The two halves would’ve met the end and to see why Cage went on his rampage just before he achieves his final goal could have allowed for a more cathartic ending.

This film also marks the final film score from Icelandic composer Johann Johannsson. Thanks to in part of the score, Mandy has been labelled as a metal film. Even without the score, the film is filled with references to the metal sub-culture. However, the film is not a ‘metal’ film. It’s grungy and dirty and in your face but to correlate the two you will inherently find similarities. Like a Venn diagram, there is a crossover. I don’t know if it’s Punk, Communist or Hippy but I do know that Johannsson’s score is moody and grand on a level that only he could bring.

Mandy will go down as the quintessential Nicolas Cage film of the late 2000s and 2010s and for a good reason. The mixture of different underground and mainstream aesthetics is satisfying to see on the screen. Plenty of film students have tried to do what Cosmatos does here and failed. While Mandy isn’t perfect it’s still refreshing to see someone expand it into a feature-length film with success. Especially, in light of all the Marvel movies coming out at the moment. It deserves to be viewed at least once by everyone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think of Mandy?

IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6998518/