Salome's Last Dance

In the latter years of his career is was obvious that Ken Russell had to work under conditions and budgetary constraints that forced him to scale back on the wild style his exalted in with his previous films. But even a scaled down Ken Russell was oftentimes better than other directors are their best. However Salome's Last Dance is among his weakest films and you can literally feel the straitjacket limiting his creativity. Being set in a single setting as the play is performed for Oscar Wilde himself it feels very stilted and never allowed to grow. It was only recently that I discovered that the young actress playing Salome was stricken blind by an illness just before filming was to begin but Ken Russell kept her in the part. The first time I watched the film in '88 I felt that there was something peculiar about her eyes that I could not quite define. It is not a bad film by any means but within his filmography it might rank low among his best works. It has moments of silliness that cannot be mistaken for any other director. Those who are fans and familiar with his style will be more forgiving of these moments. Ken Russell is a fascinating character and, for good or ill, he made films his way and never conformed to any modern trends. He is missed.

Late on Guy Fawkes Day, 1892, Oscar Wilde arrives at a high-class brothel where a surprise awaits: a staging of his play "Salome," with parts played by prostitutes, Wilde's host, his lover Bosey, and Lady Alice.

The film was shot for $800,000 over a four-week period in London. Director Ken Russell had been signed by Vestron to a three picture deal after the success of "Gothic", of which this was the first. Imogen Millais-Scott went blind three weeks before filming after contracting glandular fever, but Russell insisted on still using her. This was the right choice.

This film met with modest critical acclaim. The review in the New York Times called it "a perfumed, comic stunt," but noted that "Russell forces one to attend to (and to discover the odd glory in) the Wilde language, which, on the printed page, works faster than Valium." And seriously, how can you go wrong with Jewish midgets, flatulence and Biblical sexuality?

I know that Ken Russel was put under fire so to speak from the critics for his scatological portrayal of the play "Salome", however, this is one version of the play that people just don't forget. With shocking yet theatrical effects, it captures the mysterious and intriguing mood of the play, pouring drama. I mean, I watched the Opera version of Salome...and...needless to say, it had me wishing I was watching the movie instead of the opera!

This film is actually an Oscar Wilde's stage play adaptation on film, so it won't appeal easily to ordinary film-buffs. This plus its controversial subject matter (commentary on religions, naughty humour, study of seducing, nudity), the old-fashioned style & dialogues will propably turn down many. Their loss. Ken Russel is for once more intelligent and even though a bit unreasonably obsessive with some key-phrases of Salome, his trademark visual style are still evident in this one as well.

So, this ain't only for Ken Russel's fans, but also to any lover of true cinema. In these years of Hollywood films, it's not violence or nudity itself that offends. It's the way they are presented. In a typical Hollywood flick nudity (female, of course) as well as violence is shown to make the viewer feel better. In 'Salome's last dance', this is not the case, because its way is not something you're used to.

There is never ending debate over the value of work by directors like Russell. He is almost universally written off by professional critics as a mostly sensationalist, tasteless crackpot who's real talent is questionable, yet he is passionately defended by other people and this deserves some comment. Russell's work is often described as "tasteless, vulgar, unrestrained, even misanthropic" and "employing the imagery of sexual excess." One might make a case for the idea that these adjectives describe many fans of Russell's work themselves, or at least that they enjoy these themes in film. The latter is admittedly the case of this author, and unlike many people I certainly feel these are often necessary qualities of good art. Many fans of Russell attempt useless claims that his work is really quite tasteful and not offensive or "over the top" at all, but that would be somewhat inaccurate and in this author's opinion completely missing the point of his work. Compared to normal standards, Russell's films ARE as many critics claim they are, and they will offend people who for the most part should not waste their time viewing his work, and no, offending people is NOT the point of his films, and yes- many nice, healthy, well adjusted people feel his work is fantastic, ingenious and rewarding. Rather than digress into some probably useless philosophical (or political?) arguments over whom is correct or whom is better qualified to comment, it's better that the author's perspective be made clear from the outset. In the end, it might be argued that all ideas about the comparative merits of film or art are pointless, pretentious exercises used to promote arbitrary opinion based on personal taste.

     When I saw this film (on DVD), I was under the impression that it was much older than 1988, for some reason. I have since found nothing online to confirm this, but I will always think of this film as something from the 1970's that was way ahead of it's time, and it has that feel to it. It included a copy of the entire film with live commentary by Russell himself that I found as interesting as the film itself. It is a simple, low budget film, almost deliberately retro in style. The work is Russell in a nutshell. What a man can do with a stage, almost no money, a camera, a few extraordinary friends (including a passionate costume designer), a love of irony and a profound sense of visual style. The elements are crude, simplistic devices- annoyingly, even deliberately so, like archetypal metaphors, and the results completely transcend the execution. That crucial departure is where many critics are simply left behind and forced to write off the work as plainly bad, manipulative sensationalism (unlike every Hollywood film? this film is NOT Hollywood in any way). I could not help thinking how easily this film could be adapted into a cultish, kinky and funny stage play.

     Examining the psychology of eroticism is a hallmark of Russell and is put to great use in this film. That is not some simple offensive device used in Russell's films, it is the whole genius of his work! Sex and eroticism is the driving debacle of social, moral and religious history and deserves a great deal of examination. People have a crying need for Russell's talent of recontextualizing erotica in order to create self-understanding and inspire it's positive aspects within themselves. In other words, if one ever happened to fantasize about any of the crude scenarios Russell presents in his films (though no one can admit it), one might then find it incredibly beneficial to see it presented in an intelligent, imaginative way by someone else. If these themes interest you, I recommend the film highly.

     "Salome's Last Dance" is spectacular only in terms of it's personalities, in no way is (and does not have to be) one of the "greatest" films, yet it is wondrously rare. It is uniquely stylish, and because of it's truly low budget and simple execution, I would say (in direct contradiction of many critics) it is amazingly unpretentious and humble, as well as beautiful.