The Local Stigmatic

This short film (less than 60 minutes) of Heathcote Williams' play features a remarkably vibrant and physical performance from Pacino, that ranks with his career best. Filmed in the period where the actor was at a career low point (post-REVOLUTION/pre-SEA OF LOVE), Pacino is mesmerizing as Graham, a celebrity obsessed Cockney sociopath.

Because the film is faithful to the text of the play it can be difficult to watch. The dialogue is so structured and vague that it's easy for the viewer to get lost. However, subsequent viewings reveal the subtext underneath and once the film clicks in your head it becomes a disturbing and unforgettable experience.

In the world of movies, the term "passion project" generally comes with negative connotations. More disparagingly known as "vanity projects", they refer to films someone gets involved with out of love or obsession, rather than financial gain. While some, such as Clint Eastwood's masterful 'Unforgiven,' or Robert Duvall's 'The Apostle'- both of which took years to get made- are brilliant, more often than not the end result is underwhelming, if not downright awful.

Films like Michael Flatley's deluded attempt to be James Bond 'Blackbird,' or Francis Ford Coppola's recent misguided melodrama 'Megalopolis' exemplify how personal passion can sometimes cloud creative judgment. These projects can suffer from a lack of critical oversight, leading to indulgent storytelling, uneven pacing and a disconnect with audiences. The passion that drives these films can become their Achilles' heel, resulting in works that are often comically self-indulgent rather than impactful.

For Al Pacino, 'The Local Stigmatic' falls somewhere between both camps. While it doesn't mark the nadir of the great actor's career (there'll always be 'Jack And Jill' for that) it has serious issues. It is based on Heathcote Williams play of the same name, which Pacino first performed as a workshop during his time with The Actors' Studio in 1968. A year later, he performed it off-Broadway and, unsatisfied with the results, did it again in 1976 alongside friend and frequent co-star John Cazale.

Eight years after that, while in London, Pacino got the idea of filming Williams' play, to "learn a bit more about it from that angle." The result, directed by David F. Wheeler, makes for an interesting short film, that, in some regards, is a successful adaptation. The film follows two English friends, Graham and Ray, who spend their time indulging in violent, nihilistic behaviour, while reflecting on society's decay and their own disillusionment.

As with the source material, the film examines the nature of fame, as well as the personalities of two sociopathic sadists. Graham and Ray's interactions reflect their deep-seated resentment towards society, and their violent tendencies serve as a manifestation of their inner turmoil. The characters' philosophical conversations about fame and its impact on human behavior paints a grim picture of individuals who feel marginalized and disconnected from the world around them.

It is an odd, ambiguous story, following a most toxic duo. At the time Williams wrote the play, disillusionment and nihilism were prevailing themes in many plays and films. The influence of playwrights like Harold Pinter is evident in the film's dialogue and atmosphere, with its cryptic conversations and undercurrents of menace. This tradition of exploring existential angst and societal disintegration situates 'The Local Stigmatic' within a broader cultural context, reflecting the zeitgeist of its era.

However, while interesting, the film is not without its flaws. Ed Lachman's cinematography is uninspiring, lacking interesting stylizations or techniques that would make the venture feel suited for the cinema. Apparently, this was intentional, aiming to retain the stark, minimalistic feel of a stage play. While this approach may enhance the film's unsettling atmosphere, it also makes the visual experience somewhat monotonous.

Additionally, the pacing is laborious. The slow, dialogue-heavy scenes demand a great deal of patience, which might not appeal to those expecting a more traditional narrative flow. This deliberate pacing, while thought-provoking, risks losing audience engagement as the tension ebbs and flows inconsistently. Conversely, Howard Shore's muted score adds a sinister undercurrent of dread, drifting through the film like a cruel wind.

The main issue with the film, however, is the casting. Although Pacino is menacing and malevolent as Graham, he looks like a bad Liam Gallagher impersonator and his accent is patently ridiculous. His best attempts at a Cockney accent fall completely flat, leaving him sounding like a stroke-victim with marbles in his mouth. His co-star Paul Guilfoyle is no better, sounding like a Swede feebly attempting an impression of Paul Hogan. Their truly godawful accents actually detract from the narrative, making Sean Connery in 'The Hunt for Red October' sound like a native Russian.

It is a shame, as the story is intriguing and the dialogue strong. Pacino's love for the material is evident, though because he didn't cast someone else in the lead roles, or move the action to Brooklyn, the film suffers as a result. Conversely, Joseph Maher, who starred opposite Pacino in the 68' and 76' productions, does fine work; his impeccable accent coming as a relief to the ears from Pacino and Guilfoyle's embarrassing attempts at same.

In conclusion, Pacino's problematic passion project 'The Local Stigmatic' is a mixed-bag. It has some serious issues, namely its uninspiring cinematography, laborious pacing and central casting. Although Pacino and Guilfoyle aren't terrible, their accents are, detracting from Heathcote Williams' intriguing, sinister story and brilliant dialogue. Despite its shortcomings, however, 'The Local Stigmatic' is a testament to Pacino's passion for his craft and his willingness to take risks- even if his Cockney accent makes Dick Van Dyke in 'Mary Poppins' sound like Bob Hoskins.

"The Local Stigmatic" is a most unusual film. Clocking in at under an hour, it's based on a play by Heathcote Williams. Because of this, it plays like a play...and Al Pacino not only stars in it but directs it. Like his other film, "Chinese Coffee", it's obvious Pacino was not concerned with making a film to make him rich...it was obviously a labor of love.

When the film began, I was immediately taken aback by Al Pacino's incredibly bad accent. He was supposed to be Irish or British...but it sounded much more like a Brooklyn accent. While a very fine actor, he really was all wrong for the film....and I am sure I'm not the only one who could not get past this accent or those of his co-star. They just weren't appropriate to the characters they were portraying.

As far as the film itself goes,...well, it's a labor of love...but a labor OTHERS will have a hard time enjoying. The film is incredibly talky and violent. Overall, I cannot see the average viewer enjoying this or sticking with it for long. I know I really needed to struggle to watch.

I like Pacino a lot. I feel he is one of the last centuries' finest actors. But I believe something happened to him during the mid-80's which made him forget how to act, and instead immerse himself in craziness. We began to glimpse this bizarre, slivered transformation in the over-bloated, highly overrated SCARFACE. He had ceased to act and began to perform. The camera became the audience. Not the people constituting an audience. With the exception of a couple roles (GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS, THE INSIDER), poor Al has literally become one of his inventions (Big Boy Caprice of DICK TRACY springs to mind) and has come full circle in his transcendence...he has become a parody of his former self, and unlike some actors who embrace this fact and make a lucrative career (Christopher Walken, William Shatner), Pacino continues to blindly lampoon himself. It is a known fact that Al Pacino loves rehearsal, almost to the point of despising the performance aspect. This is highly interesting, and an extremely creative slant in any area of art...but the art is not in creation of art, but in the result. Some may argue this against me...but, if I can filter my point exclusively into the realm of cinema, indulge me please; unless a film calls for the fact a fourth wall is to be penetrated, who wants to see a camera cable, a boom microphone, or a reflection of a crew person? These mistakes cannot be made and the film to be considered an artistic work. Whatever...I am off the point somewhat. I guess what I'm trying to say is that where Pacino prefers to rehearse is marring his result. He has become too opaque...and when a viewer is left alienated by characters time and time again, the actor ceases to be validated, and instead violated. Pacino is violating his talent. Not all material calls for complete comprehension...I am aware of this fact. But THE LOCAL STIGMATIC is directed and performed NOT for an audience...but for the directors and performers. It is self-centered, self-involved, indulgent, and ultimately tiring. There is a reason this was Pacino's hidden child...one to show off only to friends and artists. Like his rehearsal style, this film is over rehearsed and under achieved. That is simply my view. I still like Pacino...and THE LOCAL STIGMATIC may be important in it's own way. It just struck me as very, very Al.

As an Englishman, the fake English accents really grate inside and distract from what otherwise might be a good film. The main characters would have been well served spending some time in London to learn the inflexions of a proper London accent - I might then have been able to have forgiven the extras for their errors if the main characters had actually done their homework. This definitely rates as one of the worst Al Pacino performances I have seen: All the pronunciations were wrong; Frost, Holborn & Cartland are just a few to give an example without even touching the swear words. It's a good job they didn't have something tricky to say that ended in 'shire' for example.

I would love to see someone redo this properly.