Sapore di donna

I saw this film for the first time last night and loved it! After reading so many mixed or out- right negative reviews of it over the years, I was truly surprised by how much I enjoyed it, how well it was made, how well the Tam Lin legend was updated to a relatively contemporary setting, and, ultimately, how enthralled I was by Gardner's Fairy Queen.

I have to admit the first 15-20 minutes or so did take some work. Not that they were poorly spent minutes, but adjusting to the 1970s milieu of swinging London took some time, though it was great fun watching a very young Joanna Lumley in a film that somewhat prophesied her role as Patsy Stone on ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS.

Now that I've seen this, I wish Roddy had made more films. This is how I like my spooky fairy tales told. May be it all comes down to you're either on the SHREK bus or the TAM LIN bus. I'm definitely taking another ride on the latter.

Based on Robert Burns' version of the Scottish folk tale "The Ballad of Tamlin," this modest but mesmerizing 1971 thriller concerns a young man, Tom Lynn ( Ian McShane), who becomes the romantic prisoner of an evil enchantress Michaela Cazaret ( Ava Gardner ). In a particularly arrestingly eerie and phantasmagorical set piece during which Tom, stoned out of his mind, is pursued by murderous acolytes of the bewitching Miss Cazaret, McDowall effectively punctuates the story's fairy tale quality with an entirely harmonious nightmarish and hallucinogenic tone that forever reflects the psychedelic sixties. McDowall's laudably creative panache as a filmmaker was embellished by a seductive performance from his star Ava Gardner. Though past her prime, she is nonetheless sultrily convincing as the irresistible, vampiric dominatrix insatiably commanding her hapless lovers to their eagerly desired doom.

Tam Lin (aka The Devil's Widow ) was also McDowall's solo directorial effort. Based on the splendid result (especially the aforementioned set piece), it was a great pity that Roddy did not pursue a career as a film director because - as with Charles Laughton, who blessed us with his only turn as a director, the superb "The Night of the Hunter" - he possessed a definite flair as a filmmaker. Produced in 1969, his film sat on the shelf for two years. In 1971, McDowall returned to his film to do some post-production work on it but 'twas all for naught because it was poorly distributed and sank into relative obscurity. In 1998 Republic Home Video, in collaboration with Martin Scorsese and McDowall, restored "Tam Lin" and rescued it from oblivion by releasing a stunningly superb widescreen print with an introduction by McDowall.

I highly recommend this stylishly directed and unjustly neglected gem to lovers of the macabre and mysterious. To all such, I strongly encourage you to seek it out.

I stopped this film 20 minutes in to look up the Scottish ballad the film was based on, "Ballad of Tam Lin", so I could make sense out of the film. Wikipedia has a thorough article on the song and the lyrics. Everything made much more sense after reading the article.

That said, this was one of Ava Gardner's few supernatural films, and was Roddy McDowell's only directorial effort. The screenplay sticks fairly close to the song's plot, with a look at "Swinging London" mod clothes, late 60's slang , and a so-so song overlaying all as an attempt at "relevance". Listen for the bits of ballad sung through the film .

Gardner gave an outstanding performance as the coven leader; the film lets the viewer decide if other fairy tale terms are applicable. Ian McShane is good as the Favored One, and Stephanie Beacham is good as his Human love.

AIP gave the film only a limited release. The misunderstanding arises from the fact that AIP promoted it as a horror film rather than as a poetic romance even reediting the film and retitiling it "The Devil's Widow" from the original "Ballad of Tam Lin" to try and achieve this effect. As a result, no one was happy, and the film sank without a trace, predictably losing money.

McDowell didn't direct another film, which is a real shame, because this one has startling photography, the music is interwoven to maximum effect, and McDowell did well by the actors.

This is one of Ava Gardner's least-seen, most underrated films. My opinion is that if you feel lost in the beginning, stay with the film anyways as it improves as it goes on.

The reputation of this one rests largely on the fact that it was the sole directorial effort of former child actor McDowall; for fantasy buffs, he had just appeared as Cornelius in PLANET OF THE APES (1968) and would feature in 4 of the movie sequels and even the spin-off TV series – indeed, he only missed out on BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970) because he was involved in making the film under review; his other genre efforts include IT! (1967), THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE (1973) and the two FRIGHT NIGHT pictures from the latter half of the 1980s.

Inspired by a Robert Burns poem, TAM-LIN (as it is better-known – another alternate title is the terminally silly THE DEVIL'S WIDOW!) deals with a Succubus-like wealthy woman called "Mickey" (played by Ava Gardner in pretty much her last leading role, which she naturally gives it her all and, even at 48, looks ravishing, apart from being decked-out in expensive clothes) who, as a means of preserving her own vitality surrounds herself by myriad youths in her vast country estate (this being the "Age Of Aquarius" these are hip, uninhibited – indulge in all sorts of charades to while away the time, including a fortune-telling bid which suddenly turns scary – but also aimless types, so that whenever she decides to let one of them go, they invariably plead with her to remain).

Occasionally, she even chooses a young man among them as her lover but holds the reins tightly on him, as if forever conscious of the volatile nature of the relationship; tending her affairs is waspish Richard Wattis (usually seen in comedies but perfectly cast here, especially effective when he provides details to Gardner's current partner about his predecessors' tragic deaths, subtly alluding to his own fate were he to break free of his mistress' clutches!). The latter (named Tom Lynn!) is played by Ian McShane and, needless to say, he falls for an outsider before long – minister Cyril Cusack's daughter Stephanie Beacham; though Gardner does not mind his attentions towards the latter initially – she is even protective of the girl when the latter pays them a visit and is taunted by the others (these include Cusack's real-life daughter Sinead, future film director Bruce Robinson, as well as Hammer starlets Joanna Lumley and Madeleine Smith, who demonstrates her immaturity by yearning for a puppy though she still gets to utter a line that perfectly encapsulates the predominant liberalism of the era, "I'll swallow anything as long as it's illegal"!) – but when things get serious, and Beacham becomes pregnant, she takes a different attitude altogether.

Consequently, Mickey becomes bored with her 'guests' and has them replaced – keeping only one young man who had most actively pursued McShane for his 'betrayal' – only these seem to be most receptive to her 'evil' nature. They kidnap the hero (just as he is about to elope with Beacham, whom he had even dissuaded from aborting her child), who is then let loose to literally be chased through the swamps; however, he has been drugged and he hallucinates himself at the center of a number of terrible predicaments: he is turned into a living teddy-bear(!), attacked by a giant snake and even engulfed in flames (unfortunately, the otherwise quite satisfactory widescreen VHS source is exceedingly dark during this sequence, so that one has to make an effort to discern just what is going on…though I wonder whether it was intentionally mystifying – again, shot by Billy Williams!). Anyway, with Beacham by his side, he manages to overcome these 'punishments', so that Gardner has no alternative but to give up and seek her 'life-affirming' kind of thrills elsewhere, with Wattis and the afore-mentioned hanger-on (who has effectively become McShane's replacement) in tow.

The pictorial Scottish setting and evocative folk score (by Stanley Myers and the group Pentangle – coincidentally, former band member Bert Jansch would pass away the very day after this viewing!) anticipate THE WICKER MAN (1973; whose co-star Diane Cilento, eerily enough, I have just learned died yesterday!); similarly, the depiction of a romantic idyll through a series of freeze-frames (a tell-tale sign of McDowall's passion for photography) look forward to the bloody murder set-piece in the recently-viewed WELCOME TO ARROW BEACH – released 4 years later and, as it happens, a film made by another actor-turned-director i.e. Laurence Harvey. By the way, THE BALLAD OF TAM LIN was originally released in the U.S. via a reportedly much-altered version that stressed the horror elements; this came to be because the company that financed it, Commonwealth, folded around this same time and the picture was subsequently bought and distributed by AIP! In the 1990s (the days of VHS and shortly before McDowall's death), the film was restored more or less to its original form by none other than Martin Scorsese – but, being currently unavailable on any official digital format, it remains an elusive beast...

It's an enticing premise. The filming locations are gorgeous, and the production design and art direction are lovely. The costume design, and hair and makeup, are quite fetching. Billy Williams' cinematography is outstanding; all the music in the film is charming and easy on the ears, and the subtle ways that the primary song varies over time is unexpectedly smart. All this is well and good. On the other hand, William Spier's script is filled too much with blithe rubbish of too little actual substance - pretty much the whole first half - and dialogue that often ranges from peculiar to dubious. Between Roddy McDowell's direction and John Victor-Smith's editing, I don't know which inspires greater skepticism. I assume it's owing to McDowell's direction that the acting similarly inspires a quizzical "What," but whatever the case may be, I routinely found myself asking what the cast is doing in a moment, and wondering if this isn't the worst thing they've ever done. Only occasionally does it seem like a performance is striking an appropriate chord.

'Tam Lin' does, in fact, fit within the category of "folk horror." The concept is derived from a folk tale, and brushes against earnest ideas of horror; the supremely understated tenor of the film is in keeping not just with modern folk horror like 'Midsommar' or 'Lamb,' but 1973's 'The wicker man,' which pointedly turns the wider genre on its head and initially presents with a peaceful, congenial facade. Once the feature arrives at the real thrust of the narrative we can see what terrific intelligence Spier put into his screenplay after all. The problem is that it takes an unusually long time to feel like the movie is starting to do anything more than spin its wheels, and all the while and even in the latter half, plot development is too often weak and questionable. This is extraordinarily bad at communicating its ideas.

I should note that it took me two attempts to watch this; in the first instance, I fell asleep in the first half and didn't see the purpose in continuing. Now that I've made the point of watching in full, I'm pleased to say that McDowell's lone directorial effort is kind of enjoyable after all. I see its value, most surely, and at length it deserves its genre labels. The fact remains that this is a title that makes viewers work for their entertainment - partly because it's awkwardly languid in its storytelling, even at its climax, and honestly longer than it should have been; partly because the construction is too often meager and unconvincing. Is it Spier's fault? Is it McDowell's? I'm not sure. Ultimately I can say that I do like 'Tam Lin,' much more than I expected to, and I think it's worth watching. For all its deficiencies, however, it's a picture that's surely recommendable only to the most patient and open-minded of viewers. This is the opposite of instant gratification, and while it does show its strength at long last, I can't for one moment blame those who try to earnestly engage with this film and can't bear it. Do watch this movie, but watch with recognition of how, exactly, it's constructed.