Skip to main content

Anti-CliMaXXXine

After X and Pearl released so closely after one another in 2022, I assumed the conclusion of this apparent trilogy, MaXXXine, would be closer around the corner- especially given the tease at the première of Pearl. Coming two years later, an ordinarily reasonable period for a sequel, makes it feel a bit belated next to the two that released back to back. It’s not quite that the moment has passed, but the steam those two movies had in 2022 has receded. That’s not at all the fault of anyone involved, but it means that MaXXXine has to do a little more to prove itself, function as an especially worthy finale to the narrative of these three movies.
But it is in all honesty a narrative that didn’t demand to continue. While making his throwback slasher film X, Ti West honed in on the character of Pearl -the film’s antagonist and parallel to protagonist Maxine (both played by Mia Goth), and decided impulsively to make a movie about her. It was presumably in that process that the trilogy idea took shape (because everyone loves a trilogy), and it seemed perfectly triangulated: with one film, go to the past to delve into Pearl’s character, with another jump to the future for the ultimate fate of Maxine. However, Pearl as enigmatic villain left a lot that could be built upon? Does Maxine?
If nothing else, MaXXXine gives West another chance to indulge himself in a temporal aesthetic -which seems to be what he likes to do best. The scene is mid-80s Los Angeles, with all of the touchstones that era and place evokes. It is the height of the slasher movie craze, the Night Stalker murders, and the associated cultural Satanic Panic, which creates an atmosphere of some eeriness hanging over Maxine Minx and her desperate attempt to break into mainstream Hollywood after nearly a decade in porn. Against the odds, she impresses at an audition for The Puritan II, a role that brings to the fore her trauma from the experiences of X six years prior, at the same time as a series of Night Stalker copycat murders occur in her vicinity, she herself potentially a target.
The scene is set quite well, and not just on that aesthetic level, but in the larger contexts of the environment at that time as it would pertain to Maxine: the effects of the home video market on her adult career felt clearly in the relative shabbiness of her situation -living above a video rental store and making money as a peep show girl. But by contrast there are the lucrative prospects of being in a horror movie at the cultural height of the genre -in one scene she has her friend run off the various A-listers who got their start in slasher films, envisioning herself in the same company.
One of the names not mentioned is Kevin Bacon, who comes into the story as a shady southern P.I. stalking Maxine in apparent connection to what went down in Texas. It's a fun ham showcase for Bacon, as he intimidates and endeavours to blackmail Maxine; while on the more professional side of detective work, a pair of police officers take an interest in her out of her connection to recent homicide victims. Played by Bobby Cannavale and Michelle Monaghan, they make for enjoyable characters too (especially Cannavale's cheesy actor-turned-cop). The effect of both of these tensions are to distract Maxine -from her targeted work on the film and the lingering psychological effects of the prior episode, threatening to upend her pathological need to be a star.
Rather than the killer, and the film's brief flashes to his presence and violence, this is where the horror is rooted in MaXXXine, in the uncertainty around her character and what may be the result of her boiling point. And perhaps that is why Maxine so resembles Pearl, in both personality and aspiration. It is frankly a weakness of the film that in likening Maxine to Pearl it so openly repeats the prequel as to the lead character's naivety and stubbornness. It's not so fresh this time, her attitude fairly tiring as the audience is encouraged to relate with her more than they were with Pearl. That's not to say though that Mia Goth is in any way a disappointment -on the contrary she is the glue across all three movies, and is impeccable here for what's required of her. She plays unhinged ferociously well, and for that irritable repetition, her Maxine is distinct from Pearl, specifically with regards to her foundation in reality -even if she can be suddenly capable of striking violence.
The interest West has in Maxine's character seems a touch shallow though, incurious about exploring her beyond the broad strokes of the world she was revealed to have come from at the end of X or the pervasiveness of her trauma -which when it is in focus results in one of the movie's best sequences where she imagines herself being touched and strangled by the elderly woman in the claustrophobic vulnerability of a moulding clay over her face (it nicely tracks back to that theme of age and beauty too, in the feel and appearance of that clay on her skin). There are a few good sequences like this -one of which quite starkly taking place at the Psycho house on the Universal lot. And West wrings some solid tension out of Maxine's aggressiveness and impulsiveness, to the point she’s a hair away from sabotaging her own big break -but he doesn’t penetrate much further, too preoccupied as he is with enthusiastically following through on his own big idea.
The mystery surrounding the murders is not difficult to figure out (it’s forecast in the first few minutes), and once by some contrivance Maxine does become the one to solve it, the story falls down a rabbit hole it can’t recover from. West’s intent in where he leads things, as in a great comedy movie he appears to be evoking, is clearly some sense of satire to buffet the horror; but it is so wild and comparatively unserious a development, it has the effect of evaporating all tension. The mood of the film which had been creepy enough, is all but abandoned as performances grow broad even for this series and the script becomes notably vitriolic and self-satisfied. There is an attempt at catharsis for Maxine that doesn’t seem much earned, given how intentionally the set-up for it is muted. And while there is a semi-curious note in the manner in which West chooses to end things, it still can’t help feeling anticlimactic …or even lame.
In all of this it’s easy to lose sight of the considerable talent involved here. In addition to Goth, the movie features Giancarlo Esposito and a strong turn from Elizabeth Debicki as the stern but visionary director. Bacon is very entertaining, the filmmaking is often engaging -especially how West cuts together some of the murders (even if the text of these scenes is almost silly in its bluntness). But it doesn’t stand so strong as its predecessors, even with Goth giving the same level of energy and conviction. MaXXXine, for its genuine strengths, does feel like it was produced out of obligation rather than the relative inspiration that drove X and even Pearl. An afterthought of a movie.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...