suspiria study - critic fortune

Critic Fortune

Dario Argento has never been liked by critics, especially the Italian ones. He is charged with the usual accusations: he portrays gratuitous violence, he is morbid, does not pay enough attention to the narrative and his poor skill at directing his actors. On the other hand, he is renowned for his great visual ability, and technical mastery, that allows him to experiment a lot. Suspiria is no exception. Among Argento’s films, maybe it is the most extreme, thus all the pros and cons are brought to the forefront.

In the Italian critic panorama Guido Fink writes what is probably the most stubborn negative review of Suspiria. He defines Argento as "a rash nightmares accountant" (p. 107), hardly criticising the "rational" intermezzo of the film, when Susy talks with Frank and with professor Milius (sequence no.6). Also Cozzi (1991; 79) notes this ‘let-up’ of tension. The sequence, indeed, is "extraneous" to the rest of the film: the lights are different, the colours are more natural.

However, this could be a way of underlining the only moment of rationality in an hour and forty minutes of frenzy. Fink himself recognises the peculiarity of the analysed sequence, the one in which Daniel dies, and defines it "the only good idea in the movie" (107), although, according to him, it is thrown away by the director. What Fink marginally notes, and is seen by many others, including Giovannini (1986; 101), as a thriller movie great essay, is the first sequence, its length and articulation: a kind of overture that presents all the elements of the story. There is a noteworthy observation made by Fink about the Academy: "it is no more an Usher House, a peculiar place for the horrors, a haunted palace (…): the terror is outside too" (106). It is not clear if Fink considers this as a link of the "mistakes chains" (106), thus a sort of violation of mad house genre rule, or if it is considered an innovation.

Moreover, the fact that "the terror is everywhere, on the screen and behind us" (106) is seen as something not fair or overbearing. And the fact that "Argento denies us also the ultimate right of crouching on our chair, of putting a metaphorical distance between us and the bloodied screen" (106) is seen almost as an offensive act by the director.

Argento has always denied this right to the viewer: to see an Argento work is always a sort of happening, in which the viewer is never left in peace to watch the film. He/she is obliged to go inside the film and assume uncomfortable and disagreeable points of view (for instance, the many subjective shots of the killer, typical of Argento’s touch). In a general way, the tone of Fink’s article is heavily negative: Suspiria is nothing but a "generalised and inefficient mess" (106).

Also Moravia (1977) writes about Suspiria: in a parallel article, reviewing it and Carrie (Brian de Palma, 1976). Moravia’s article is another negative critique, but with interesting notes, that recalls the archetypal universe I mentioned in my analysis. He writes that "Dario Argento has a childish idea of the evil, realised by repulsive and disgusting persons and insects; as well as by the profusion of blood, another traditional source of terror. This to say that Argento does not invent frightening situations; instead, he uses what usually frightens people" (83). It is an interesting observation, but it negatively denotes something that, in my view, does not need to be pointed out. Argento has never tried to find new ways to frighten, especially in this film (where for him it is enough to recall the most ancient fears, recalling mythic and traditional figures and atmospheres).

Argento experiments and searches for new ways to show fear. However, Moravia never considers the film too "graphic" (or, in the case of the first double murder, we’d better say "choreographic"). In both the movies Moravia notes a break in the rhythm structure: Carrie in the library and Susy talking to professor Milius, they find the "science", they need to prepare for the final clash.

At the end of the article, the two directors are praised for their choice of casting the two main actresses: it is good news for Argento, considering his lack of attention to casting choices, a fault often admitted (see, for example, Pugliese [1986; 6]). It seems that Argento made an exception in the case of Jessica Harper 8.

The foreign critics have always had a certain regard for Dario Argento. Suspiria has had great success all over the world: it is the biggest international blockbuster among all of Argento’s films 9.

Werb (1977) gives a balanced judgement of the film: he criticises the weakness of the dialogue and the poor performances of the actors (apart from Stefania Casini’s). Nevertheless, the director’s talent is wholly recognised in the long final sequence that "gets as close to cinematic hallucination as any film author has dared in the past". The pioneering feature of Argento’s cinema is a characteristic that has always been recognised by the international critics. In this film his experimentation is clear: the critic underlines the "uncanny camera angles" and the work put into the colour, that gives the movie a sort of psychedelic feel. Werb talks about the total abandoning of the narrative that Argento does. I think this is not total: a plot is kept, slender but essential.

Meek (1977) does not agree; moreover he notes how "Argento never summons the courage to abandon narrative completely, so the script is continually acting as a brake while the visuals are driving forward to the next set-piece" (216, my italics). He also notes that it is impossible to have a real acting performance in such a movie, having only "characters representing a single vice or virtue". This observation is meaningful: it is pointless to pretend that you can have well-depicted characters in a fairy tale. Moreover, in this article he positively reviews the soundtrack, unanimously disliked in Italy 10.

According to de la Fuente (1977), the sound and the lighting are the only good features of the film. Again he defines the lighting as psychedelic and notes a "rare quality" to the soundtrack. There are, of course, many negative points: first of all the genre clichés, repeated without any kind of innovation. Moreover he talks about "a vulgar and excessive sadism, much more sickening than disturbing" (105). Actually, in the film many scenes are really violent, and we can say that Suspiria is the most violent film ever made by Argento. On the other hand, the director has always tried to represent murder in the most aesthetic and choreographic way, and at the same time, as realistically as possible 11.

Maybe the review in "Ecran" (1977) is the one that really hits the mark: "the price comes precisely from this excess, thundering music, strong expressionistic lighting 12, a baroque scenery with very rococo interiors, disturbing characters, thunderstorms, blood and grand guignol" (73).

The strength of the film is in its excesses, and, I say, in the paucity of the narrative: trying to construct a psychological outline of one of the characters is ridiculous and out of place. Because the film is a fairy tale, you can expect from it exactly what you would from a fairy tale, a little horrific, if you want: the happy ending, the heroin who is safe and nothing but "the delicious pleasure of being scared without any risk" (73).

About the analysed sequence, very few reviews go beyond the simple noting of its originality: the critics, used to the camera virtuoso movements typical of Argento, do not venture further into the reason for these movements. It is undoubtedly true that you can find in them a good amount of "narcissism", but to reduce them to mere exercises of style is a mistake linked to a more general incomprehension.

Many critics note that Suspiria is actually a contemporary fairy tale: but this is not enough. Recognising the fiabesque atmosphere of the movie (moreover evident from the beginning, from the introduction of Argento’s voice over) should mean that you accept all the limitations involved, or moreover the genre features. But this happens few times: the facts that de la Fuente (1977) writes about "repeated clichés" and that Garris (1977) entitles his article "hackneyed in concept but experimental in form" are clues to only a partial comprehension of the film. This happens because in the film, even if recognising and praising the sound and visual style, they still search for a story, for a narrative development.

This is not doing justice to Suspiria: in it, we have to see and listen, and that is all. Argento states this well, in every frame. His ability at experimentation is applied to the fairy tale regime: Argento only considers what are the main basics of every fairytale, the battle between Good and Evil. And if he represents the Good with the character of Susy, he does not only represent the Evil. He shows us some aspects, some parts of it, but that is not enough: he makes us go into it.

But to do that is necessary to reach the state that Coleridge called "willing suspension of disbelief", essential to believe in fairy tales, even if for less than two hours.

[contents] [top of page]