Took me forever to get a copy of the Sony “The Films Of Michael Powell” double-feature DVD. Didn’t get the review copy, and Sony apparently didn’t initially manufacture enough to meet demand, which in a sense is good news. In any case, it is a lovely thing…but it seems that most of its reviewers are giving all the love to the first film of the set, the very long-awaited Region 1 disc debut of A Matter of Life And Death, the wartime classic from Powell and Pressburger a.k.a. The Archers. So it seems only fitting for me to pay tribute here to the Pressburger-less 1969 Age of Consent, shot on the Great Barrier Reef, and starring James Mason and—as a feisty young muse—Helen Mirren, she appearing on film for the first time. Despite its sometimes weak dramatic argumentation, very dated sexual humor, and male-fantasy ending (n.b., I personally fully allow for the fact that male fantasies often do come true, but I’m just saying), Consent is an almost ceaselessly beautiful, and eventually, in commenter Kent Jones’ word, moving film. If you feel that the top image of this set is NSFW, I strongly urge you to find another job—your office is WAY too uptight, not to mention philistine.
Bonus image: Say what you will about Powell, he only stole from the best, as witness this Consent rip from Black Narcissus.
I’m not sure this the best time to be quitting over a bum shot, but point taken.
Yes, it occurs to me that I’m being a little, um, hardcore here. As it happens, the theme of the human body as object of beauty versus the human body as object of prurient interest looms large in the picture itself.
Helen Mirren is pretty…
That the Powell set is selling better than Sony expected should also be good news for Martin Scorsese as he’s been working with Sony to get more films out on DVD, such as the Boetticher collection. I’m hoping that Sam Fuller’s Columbia films will be next.
Helen Mirren in O Lucky Man was my first boner.
This is way off topic, but I just heard that John Updike has passed away.
bill-
Not that far off-topic, as long as we’re still talking about beauty vs. prurience. But still sad.
Though I thought Kent Jones’ commentary was quite thoughtful I do think he’s a bit in denial when he avers that the nudity is never erotic and only about the beauty of the human form. I’d agree about that Mason-insisted-upon ending, though. I can just hear him saying to himself: “Yes, ‘Lolita’ without tears…”
I’ve only listened to part of Kent’s commentary thus far. But I think the nudity is, shall we say, a double-edged sword. Powell never shoots Mirren in a way that could get him called a “dirty old man,” as so many (idiots) said apropos Bertolucci’s view of Eva Green in “The Dreamers.” His perspective is straightforward, direct, frank, and very much in keeping with a perspective on “natural beauty.” But young Mirren and her character Cora absolutely emanate youthful sensuality, or, if you will, eroticism. One of the linchpins of the whole story, it seems to me, is Cora’s increasing frustration at the painter’s REFUSAL to see her in an erotic context. Hence, the erotic context has to be there.
Agreed, and I’d say sensuality is better word.
I could be wrong but it sorta seemed to me like Jones was (understandably) trying to defend Powell from any charges of dirty-old-manism to the point where he was avoiding seeing what was actually there.
Well, those dirty-old-man charges can really ruin a guy’s day.