L'homme tatoué

Since most of this film consists of three independent tales it is not unlike watching The Twilight Zone or the Outer Limits on television, except that the source material is the very best possible, and Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom are two of the finest actors conceivable. And although this fragmentation causes the movie to lose the impact that a single feature length story might have had, all the tales, including the connecting story of the illustrated man himself, are bleak, despairing tales that have a cumulative quality. And that's what makes this movie so appealing and unusual. It has depth in directions that aren't often explored anymore and it does it with a simple elegance that you can't achieve with over-saturated special effects. "The Illustrated Man" isn't a masterpiece, or even great, but it is a film that is worth seeing. And in one instance it manages to improve on Bradbury. In his book he creates, then tosses away, the phrase "skin illustrations" with little effect. But a moment of Rod Steiger's rage found only in the movie will have you forever respecting those two words.

Rad Bradbury is perhaps one of the most notable names in Science Fiction. Throughout his long and illustrious career, his books have not only made him an icon in many circles, but have also made him a household word. One such book which is required reading in college and sets the stage for many a live play, is " The Illustrated Man." Interesting as it is to read, it rises quickly from the pages of the novel onto the silver screen with the great talents of Rod Steiger, Claire Bloom and Robert Drivas. These three and their fellow Thespians combine to illuminate each of the fascinating tales literally embedded into the skin of a traveling roustabout. While his only purpose is to seek out and kill the woman who decorated his entire body with incredible and fascinating skin illustrations, we are warned not to stare at them. Each illustration 'comes alive' when we look too long and thus we are sent into the future by them. The movie is laden heavy with tragedy, conflict, mystery and intrigue and we cannot help but sympathize with Carl as he travels in search of his victim. I believe Bradbury would agree this is an excellent film. ****

The power of a movie is how well it sticks with you. This one I saw at a drive-in back in 1970, and though I only considered it average at the time, one scene stuck with me through the years. The setting in rural depression-era United States helps set the mood of the meeting of a young drifter and a hardened hobo.

Recently I acquired a used VHS tape of it and watched it through, and I remember why it stuck with me so well and so long. Not always well done, but yet it has power. The character Carl, well portrayed by the acting of Rod Steiger, starts to tell stories, and they take the young Willie, portrayed by Robert Drivas, on a wild mental ride that changes both their lives. I recommend it highly, and hope one day it will be out on DVD.

Rod Steiger is 'Carl', the titular character whose dermal illustrations come to life and tell three of Ray Bradbury's fanciful science-fiction short stories ('The Veldt', 'The Long Rain', 'The Last Night of the World'). Between the stories, Carl recounts to Willie, another drifter (Robert Drivas) how he came to be illustrated and why he wants to kill the artist (Claire Bloom). The vignettes (which also star Steiger and Bloom) are typical Bradbury: poetic fantasy with a thin veneer of science. The 'look' of the future in the first somewhat cryptic story is very dated and there isn't really much to the third story. The second tale, in which stranded astronauts try to survive on a planet of incessant, torrential rain is one of my favorites of Bradbury's short stories and (IMO) by far best of the three presented in this film. Bradbury is one of my favourite science fiction writers, but much of the appeal of his stories comes from his poetically descriptive and evocative style, which does not translate well to film ('The Martian Chronicles" (1980) being another example of a failed attempt to render his vision). The interludes with overbearing Carl bullying Willie, his captive audience, are not particularly interesting and Steiger especially is given to overacting. The cryptic backstory about the mysterious illustrator from the future goes nowhere, again reflecting the difficulty in translating Bradbury's fanciful prose to film, a more explicit medium.

Perhaps I was just expecting too much a different movie. I simply expected a good old fashioned, straight-forward, science-fiction thriller and not a 'talking', art-house like movie with deeper meanings and metaphors to it all.

What I simply did not liked about the movie was the fact that it explains far too little. It would had been nice if the focused more on the audience as well that didn't read the book by Ray Bradbury, which this movie got based on. Guess that everything in this movie makes sense to those that have read the entire novel but those who only have seen the movie are being left mostly in the dark. It's a very confusing movie, not just because of its strange and unique concept but also due to its very disjointed story-telling. Basically you have one main plot-line and then also some small stories in them as well, that get told in flashbacks. It just doesn't really make the movie feel as one whole and makes the whole narrative confusing to follow. Add to that the fact that this movie explains very little about what's going on and you have one confusing movie.

But I just couldn't hate this movie either. I'll admit that I didn't liked the movie much at first but in its last few minutes some of the puzzle pieces fell to its place and I could appreciate the entire movie better for its style and approach.

Yes, it's an unique movie for sure, that obviously isn't just for everybody. I was quite surprised that this was an American production, since normally these type of quirky and original movies come from Britain, around that time.

It has a good visual approach to it all, which makes this movie somewhat of a science-fiction period piece, that at times is being set far in the future. It's visual style and atmosphere seem appropriate for the movie and the story that it tried to tell. Yes, you can definitely describe its visual style and approach as art-house like. But it's still really foremost its story and the way that it gets told which makes this movie definitely not an accessible one to just everyone. It's definitely a movie you have to read into deeper and think about, long after a scene has ended. There are numerous moments that you just have no idea what is going but do make some more sense a couple of minutes later, as the story progresses more.

It doesn't make this movie a much pleasant or great one to watch, at least not for me. I didn't hate this movie and I don't mind these type of movies either but the entire way this movie got handled and told didn't wanted me to watch it again, anytime soon.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/