WHORE
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: In spite of a poor critical reception,
WHORE is one of Ken Russell's better films. It is one
realistic and degrading day in the life of a prostitute. The
film is often ugly and bitter, sometimes funny, and almost
never erotic. It is a far cry from Ken Russell's earlier
film about prostitution, CRIMES OF PASSION. Rating: +2 (-4
to +4).
When the subject of a film is sex, don't trust my opinion. Generally what the critics like, I don't. I thought SEX, LIES & VIDEOTAPE was dry and dull. The characters bored me. Yet the film was almost universally applauded by the critics. Generally I am not very impressed by films about sex. Also I am not keen on Ken Russell. Russell is more interested in putting strange images on the screen than he is in telling a story. With the exception of THE DEVILS and LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, ken Russell and I don't seem to agree on what makes a good film. WHORE is a Ken Russell film about sex and prostitution that has gotten a thumbs-down from most of the critics. That is three strikes against the film. Who knows what possessed me to see the film? Yet once the film started I was totally engrossed by what I was seeing. Admittedly it is cartoonish and some of the scenes do not work. Occasionally Theresa Russell out-and-out misreads lines. Yet there is an undeniable narrative vitality here. Theresa Russell is a frank and vulgar prostitute telling us about her profession as she sees it. If some of her stories seem contrived, it is because that is the way she remembers them.
The film covers a single day in the life of Liz, a prostitute. Initially the film seems nearly plotless. It appears to be just a portrait of the world of the streetwalker. The portrait is pieced together form unconnected incidents punctuated by Liz explaining to the audience what she is thinking and feeling. By the end of the film we are no longer sure that we have not crossed over into a story that Liz is telling herself. Much of the narrative is in Liz's mind and memory anyway. She speaks directly to the camera and it becomes her confidante throughout the day. She tells the camera her past: a horribly failed marriage, how she got into the business of prostitution, how she got a pimp--perhaps more accurately how he got her. And we see a cross-section of customers from gentle to vicious. Ken Russell does have an eye for the ugly!
WHORE seems to a sort of penance on the part of director Ken Russell. His 1984 CRIMES OF PASSION was probably the most positive view of prostitution since IRMA LA DOUCE. Kathleen Turner as China Blue found prostitution a creative and fulfilling art that blesses her that gives and him that gets. In the seven years since that film it looks as if someone has been talking to Russell. In WHORE prostitution is a living death of being manipulated, lied to, and beaten. Russell drags in every vulgar symbol of sexuality he can muster, yet avoids being erotic. This is a film well-suited to the NC-17 rating.
WHORE is an adaptation of a play by David Hines, an English taxi driver who patched together a play based on stories he'd heard from prostitutes who had been his customers. Even as third-hand stories, much of what we have seen is told with skill and ower. I give WHORE a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews