Puffball

I was recently honoured to attend a screening of Nicolas Roeg's new film 'Puffball', at the Phoenix Cinema, East Finchley. 'Puffball' is Roeg's first major film in some years. Many of you will know his name and work via such classics as 'Don't Look Now', 'Performance', 'Walkabout' and 'The Man Who Fell to Earth'.

Nic Roeg 'enjoys' quite a reputation. In simplistic terms, he's considered something of a maverick; an occasionally wayward genius, a visionary director and a legendary cinematographer, he's responsible for some of the most striking, poetic and downright beautiful imagery committed to celluloid.

I'm sure he'd wince at the term 'style' when applied to his work but Roeg's films tend to be characterised by, among other things, a fluid, fractured, elastic, playful manipulation of time and space (largely achieved through some utterly idiosyncratic and unpredictable editing) and an uncommon, uncanny knack for revealing and dissecting hitherto 'hidden' connections and correspondences. They're often liberally peppered with literary and artistic allusion too...none more so than 'The Man Who Fell To Earth'.

Roeg's 'Puffball' is (reassuringly) utterly unsettling. To me, it seemed like a meditation upon thwarted desires...lust and betrayal, 'homicidal' jealousy, "green-eyed" rage and grief.

Kelly Reily plays a young architect who arrives in a beautiful but remote backwater of Ireland with a dream - to build a spectacular home upon the deserted ruins of a burnt-out cottage. But that cottage carries its own dark, secret history, and when Reilly falls pregnant, the envy of the superstitious, witchcraft-practising locals is aroused and old enmities are stirred. A confrontation, if not a conflagration, is in the offing...

The film re-unites Roeg with Donald Sutherland although his role is relatively minor, and the wonderful Miranda Richardson surpasses herself as an unhinged, tormented soul who craves a fourth child. Despite some dark themes and darker deeds, humour abounds and Roeg watchers will spot numerous in-jokes and allusions to other works. That said, there are some uncomfortably tense and gruesome scenes including one nightmarish flight of fancy which almost rivals the climax of 'Don't Look Now' for nerve-shredding tension. As always with Roeg, there are some startling and provocative visual surprises. OK, maybe I "haven't lived" but I've never witnessed an ejaculation from the "point of view" of a woman's cervix before!

The term "return to form" always strikes me as particularly cheap and meaningless. However, for my money, 'Puffball' is more engrossing and enthralling than any of Mr Roeg's works during the Eighties or Nineties. Highly recommended.

I'm afraid I cannot tell you when the film goes on general release in this country but I would urge you to make a "mental note" to see it when the time comes.

Andy p.s chastising people for minor spelling errors as this site does can only put us off posting. I actually find it annoying in the extreme. Site admin - you really should turn this irritating and patronising function off.

Loath it or love it, once you've seen Nicolas Roeg's latest offering - Puffball - you'll probably never be able to forget it. Roeg has delved into the psyche of the male animal and returned with disturbing images of life, death, religion and sex. Puffball is as haunting and memorable as the best he has done before.

Kelly Reilly plays an architect who is refurbishing a derelict house in the wilds. When she arrives with her lover she is watched by an old woman who is possibly a witch and means the visitors no good. This almost familiar opening does not lead down a predictable path – Puffball takes myriad twists and turns and surprises and manages to remain original and engrossing. Supported by stunning and atmospheric photography in rural Ireland the plot twists and meanders to an exciting and satisfying conclusions. It is how Roeg waves his spell that is so fascinating and unforgettable. There is little erotic content – sex is brutal and cruel and ultimately a woman's body is the receptacle for hopes and ambitions that surpass the male lust for immediate satisfaction.

The cast is excellent. Miranda Richardson is convincing as the woman who aches to give birth, Rita Tushingham is compelling as the sinister old lady who weaves her spells and incantations and the always excellent Donald Sutherland makes a brief but significant appearance.

Not a film for screen slouchers, Puffball demands attention and rewards with a haunting tale of rebirth and redemption. The Screenplay is by Dan Weldon adapted from Fay Weldon's novel. Puffball is disturbing but rewarding. Nic Roeg has given us another great film and for that we should be thankful.

I watched Puffball last night, as a huge Fay Weldon fan who read the book quite a few years ago. I was surprised to discover it was a 2007 film, as the subject matter, and the atmosphere of the pic, would have suggested something many years older.

Still, I thought it was quite faithful to the intent of the book, and is, despite some comments, very much a women's film. It deals with elemental forces, and the complexity of women's nature and women's power. The men are little more than sperm donors, penile life support systems to be acted on by women's emotions and a separate women's nature, almost echoing, (or prefiguring, more likely) some of Jane Campion's observations in The Piano, among others.

This has always been the heart of Fay Weldon's work, a poke in the eye of naivité, of the "Eyes Wide Shut" variety, about the nature of women. The film doesn't really add to this narrative, but it doesn't diminish it either, which is saying something for a film adaptation of a novel, made by an auteur to boot.

First of all this is about a 6.5 I gave a 10 because obviously some people arent to bright. This was worth the watch. I was hesitant at first to watch it but it was a slow 4 days off and I thought what the hell. I enjoyed this flick. I dont know that I will watch it a second time but I certainly didnt feel my time was wasted either. Give it a watch.

Tedg summed this film brilliantly. Objections feel as if some viewers didn't really 'get it", were expecting something else and certainly aren't readers of Fay Weldon (Life and Loves of a she devil) I'm not faulting your take but golly gosh do you know the director?