aimless-46

Anybody can write a mystery story with an unexpected or impossible to guess ending. You just reveal so little that the viewer has nothing with which to piece together the puzzle. But a great mystery story plants enough clues so that at the end the viewer can look back and see that the clues were there but misdirection and the timing of certain revelations caused them to be missed or the dots to not be connected. "The Sixth Sense" (1999) is a good example.

Misdirection can be something as basic as playing to a viewer's tendency to make assumptions about stereotypical characters or plot lines. Or it can be simple chaf, timing a critical revelation or a plot hole at a point where there is so much action or information introduced that it gets lost in the confusion and is not the subject of critical analysis.

"Devious Nanny" works so well because Olesya Rulin is physically perfect for the role and a good enough actress to discretely develop the dimensionality of the Amber character. The viewer immediately buys into her as Lifetime's standard nymphet-like nanny. Her perky zest a clever facade which occasionally slips and reveals her flaws but only to viewers. The story relies on viewers compounding this misdirection by running with it into the world of stereotypes which they are soon applying to all the characters.

The well staged catfight is seen through the lens of viewer misconceptions. It is believable enough to be nicely erotic so that they last thing viewers are doing is applying focused brain power toward exposing plot holes or encouraging disbelief.

As a who-done-it, "Berserk" (1967) doesn't have much going for it. This is not one of those mystery stories that carefully drop clues until at the end you can look back and see how cleverly they accomplished a slow reveal. Instead you look back in irritation at the low brain wattage script. The same goes for any psychological horror - a viewer needs to expend considerable suspension of disbelief energy just to avoid cracking up at the lameness of the whole thing.

On the other hand it does offer film students an excellent example of how to assemble a low budget full length feature presentable enough to get a fairly wide distribution. You build it around an aging but high profile actress willing to chew the scenery enough to function as the central focus, and you set her up with both a female antagonist and a male love interest to play against.

Then you turn the second unit loose to capture a wide range of deverting footage of real-life circus acts, probably at a modest cost as it provides considerable promotional benefit to the circus. This footage provides almost half the film's running length and the stages and equipment about 90% of its production design. And they do a convincing job of inserting cuts of Joan Crawford and Ty Hardin into these sequences.

A final element is a waif-like young ingenue and it is here that the film kind of crashes and burns. While Judy Geeson was an inspired choice her utilization runs afoul of Joan Crawford's ego or presumed star status. Geeson has huge exploitation which is why Producer Herman Cohan and director Jim O'Connolly awkwardly insert her into the story late in the film, something they normally do quite well. But here, rather than lingering shots of her in showgirl costume she is seen mostly in wide master shots and fast cuts.