Though his latter-day films have their admirers, few would argue that the 1990s marked a real turning point for Dario Argento. Throughout the 70s he redefined genre boundaries through an astonishing series of films that masterfully melded Hitchcock-esque suspense thrills with horror conventions and baroque, jaw-droppingly inventive scenes of violence. The 80s saw him consolidate this work, creating a hugely enjoyable run of movies that translated his directorial genius onto wilder and more outlandish scenarios. He began the 90s well enough, with a taut and enjoyable contribution to the George Romero collaboration Two Evil Eyes, but the difficult experience of making his first and only American feature, 1993′s patchy Trauma, seemed to cause Argento to lose his nerve, and by the end of the decade he was seemingly in terminal decline, going on to turn out dreck like 2004′s The Card Player and 2009′s universally panned Giallo.
At the heart of this nosedive is 1996′s The Stendhal Syndrome, which remains probably his most divisive film. It’s certainly his most frustrating, a rag-tag mess of a film that contains that at times feels like it’s up there with his best work and at others feels plodding, inept and workmanlike.
Let’s start with the good stuff. The setup is an absolute killer. Argento’s daughter Asia stars as Italian cop Anna Manni, who suffers a rare (real-life) affliction called Stendhal Syndrome which causes her to become overwhelmed by works of art. Her pursuit of Alfredo Grossi, a serial rapist and murderer (played The Pianist’s Thomas Kretschmann), leads her to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence where she falls into a trance and collapses, leaving her in Grossi’s clutches. The opening twenty minutes is absolutely first rate; Argento’s oppressive direction of the Uffizi sequence effectively and economically conveys the impact of Anna’s unusual condition, and the dreamlike shots of her falling in and out of the various paintings are up there with his best visual gimmicks. Anna’s subsequent, traumatised attempts to both overcome her ordeal and rid herself of her affliction through painting are also well handled and visually striking.
Unfortunately Argento seems to lose interest in the Stendhal Syndrome itself less than an hour into the film – which is baffling, seeing as it is by far and away the most fascinating element. By the halfway point Anna is cured, Grossi is killed and the film seems to turn into a possession film, with Anna’s tormentor continuing to haunt her seemingly from beyond the grave. The ‘twist’ conclusion is blindingly obvious – I won’t spoil it here, but Anna’s sudden decision to wear a blonde wig and the unsubtle HIV test scene signpost it so far in advance that if you don’t work it out yourself you’re probably watching the wrong movie. The second half of the film is not only thunderingly inept, it’s thoroughly boring as well – the whole film clocks in at 118 minutes, which is really half an hour too long, especially given that Argento’s can’t sustain the initial premise for the full length of the film.
The lost potential of the setup is also reflected in Argento’s handling of Grossi himself. The director’s trademark is his suspenseful use of concealed, motif-based killers, yet Grossi’s identity is never in doubt and we see him raping and maiming his victims from the start. Not only is this uncharacteristically unsubtle and route-one for Argento (particularly unpleasant when his own daughter is playing the victim!) but it’s also a hugely missed opportunity; there’s surely much mileage in the idea of an art-obsessed psychopath exploiting a Stendhal Syndrome sufferer, but aside from a passing attempt to mirror Grossi’s smearing of his victims’ blood with Anna’s painting of herself to rid herself of her condition, he ignores this potentially profitable angle, to the film’s detriment.
Asia Argento herself has come in for some criticism over the years, but her performance is fairly serviceable, and she’s particularly effective in both the Syndrome scenes and as the terrified victim. She’s far less engaging in the second half, but given how the script unsubtly calls for her to become an enigmatic mad woman for no real reason until the end, there’s probably not much more she could have done with the material. She is, however, miscast; aged 20 at the time of filming, she looks even younger, which makes the police department’s decision to send her – solo – to another city in pursuit of a serial rapist and murderer even less believable. An older actress with greater presence might have been able to paper over some of the inconsistencies in the script, but instead she leaves the film’s flaws open for all to see.
Technically, the film ranges from good to unremarkable. The much-criticised use of CGI (it was apparently the first Italian film to do so) is indeed wretched, but is thankfully only restricted to a couple of brief shots. Argento continues his move into more naturalistic (i.e. boring) colours and composition, but some of his angles are interesting, particularly in the aforementioned Uffizi sequence, Marie’s murder in the gallery and the bizarre evocation of Alice in Wonderland as a blonde Anna runs around her apartment in a blue dress at the end (this may have been unintentional). Ennio Morricone’s score is pretty good too, wrapped around a looping motif that sounds by turns sinister and comforting depending on the context.
Argento has since claimed that The Stendhal Syndrome has an anti-censorship message, and that it was designed as a riposte to his critics: just as many of his films were cut because of the corrupting influence of their images, so Anna is overwhelmed by pictures on a wall. By a weird coincidence, in the same year Wes Craven, a director who early films were frequently cut to bits by censors, released Scream, a metatextual horror in which the killer has been depraved by horror films. But whereas this self-reflection is evident throughout Scream, it’s nowhere to be found here, and one suspects Argento made this up post-facto. The most maddening aspect of The Stendhal Syndrome is not that it’s simply bad, but that in patches it’s really good. But for the first time, Argento, once the king of leitmotif horror, can’t retain a handle on the fascinating ideas and images he sets up at the start of the film, and once he steps away from the art theme he never once offers anything interesting or developed to replace it, instead offering half-baked twists and tedious procedural drama. Sadly, The Stendhal Syndrome marks a turning point for Argento; after the halfway point he’d never make another good film again. A partially interesting failure, the film stands as both as his last gasp of greatness and the start of the terminal mediocrity that was to follow.