PEARL – Review

So, it’s looking like 2022’s box office final returns will be dominated by a film that’s already nabbed a spot in the all-time “top ten” earners, that’s TOP GUN: MAVERICK of course. Ah, but will the year be mainly known for one big sequel? No, perhaps not since a prequel did very very well, the last Gru/Minions outing while another did, hmm…not so well (LIGHTYEAR). But we’re about to get another prequel that’s not animated and it’s from a flick that was released just six months ago. And since its focus is on a character from the earlier film, it could also be considered a “spin-off”. Oh, that March film was titled simply X. And I have not seen it. So this puts one of my staunchest movie beliefs to the test: you shouldn’t have to see the original to enjoy (or not) a follow-up. Naturally, I hold the same belief for novels, plays, and even old TV shows (never saw a single “ep” of “Downton Abbey”, but liked the first feature film). So I’ve got “fresh eyes’ to gaze upon the gleaming gem that )maybe) is PEARL.

The A24 logo fades into an idyllic Texas farm, bathed in, some might say, oversaturated colors, way back in 1918 (maybe the pseudo-Technicolor evokes nostalgia). Oh, but the gloom in the house offsets the rosy hues. Eighteen-year-old Pearl (Mia Goth) has dreams of worldwide fame and fortune, but for now, she has to deal with her “uber-stern” German-born mother Ruth (Tandi Wright) and tend to her near-comatose mute quadriplegic papa (Mathew Sunderland). She also has to tend to the animals in the barn that she’s named after movie actresses (the lamb is Mary, natch’). And there’s another animal she “provides” for, a ravenous alligator named Theda, who glides through the nearby pond in the woods. Luckily Pearl has one human friend that occasionally visits, her upbeat blonde sister-in-law Misty (Emma Jenkins-Purro). Yes, sister-in-law. Pearl’s married to her brother Howard who’s serving his country in the last months of WWI, while back home everyone’s in a panic, or pandemic, over the Spanish Flu outbreak. Yet somehow Ruth allows Pearl to bicycle into the nearby town to pick up medicine for papa. Of course, Pearl has to take in the newest “flicker” at the movie palace where she can dream of being one of the chorus girls on the screen. It’s there that she encounters the theatre projectionist (David Corenswet), whose matinee-idol smoldering looks inspire more fantasies. Soon, Misty tells Pearl of the auditions at a local church for a dance troupe that will tour the country. But when word of it reaches Ruth she forbids Pearl from trying out and promises to keep her locked in her bedroom. Oh, she doesn’t realize that nothing’s going to stand in the way of Pearl’s quest for stardom. Nothing and no one, so Pearl will take whatever steps, even….

Well, you can probably guess, even if you were in the dark like me. And that’s just one facet of the “go for broke” performance in the title role by Goth (what an apropos last name for someone doing horror flicks). In nearly every scene, her animated face nearly leaps off the screen (no 3D needed), so you can imagine that Pearl would be a silent screen siren. Her upbeat smile adds to the comic interludes while her tears elicit sympathy for the put-upon heroine. But then the light goes out of those eyes and Pearl switches into a relentless being of chaos and sends chills down our spines. Her energy is almost matched by Wright, who seems to spew Old World venom (much of her dialogue is in German) as she unleashes her anger over “the bug” and the hatred towards her birthplace on her daughter. Counter-balancing that intensity is the “laid-back” laconic delivery of Corenswet who tries to trap Pearl in a web of his lusty charms. His cool, yet creepy demeanor doesn’t result in the “love em’ and leave em'” scenario that may have worked in other tiny burgs. Jenkins-Purro is the light to Goth’s darkness, a kind soul who only wishes to offer a helping hand and is dragged into the mire instead. It seems there’s no room in this world for her warm glow. And several scenes work due to the restrained work of Sunderland who gives weight to the adage that “the eyes have it”. His widened moist glare says more than any histrionics.

Word is that director Ti West concocted the screenplay via Zoom with Goth during the making of the first flick, X. This enabled them to go right from the previous one to this in a matter of days, which is pretty unique. And I’m thinking that the “behind the scenes” story might make for a more compelling film. Despite my admiration for Goth’s emoting, the rest of the flick just seems “all over the place” in tone and style. It starts as “high camp” with Golden Age Movie titles superimposed over the candy color farm and enhanced by the overly-lush orchestral score by Tyler Bates and Tim Williams. Then there are the tragic dramatic elements of soul-draining family life as Ruth squelches the joy from Pearl’s spirit. It’s then a sharp turn into an erotic thriller as Pearl watches a real silent “stag film” while the projectionist looms over her to savor her reactions. This all builds up to a third act packed to the gills with patricide, “gross-out” imagery (that pig), and mean-spirited cruelty in lingering close-ups, proclaiming once more, that in the “edgy” modern horror flicks, evil must triumph and the good are punished for their compassion. And to nitpick a bit, what 1918 theatre had a synchronized record for their feature.?And why do the audition judges dress in old wild west costumes? To sum it up, Goth’s great didn’t need to see the original (if it’s streaming on a rainy day…maybe I’ll catch up), wildly uneven, though it’s got more style than most of these thrillers. It’s not unflawed, but there are a few sparkles found in PEARL

1 and a 1/2 Out of 4

PEARL is playing in theatres everywhere