Dust Devil (DVD)

...sure when I first saw Dust Devil except that it comes under that category of late one night I ended up watching some film, I know not why, and was amazed. Such is Dust Devil. Then, yesterday, I saw the DVD, and heedless of price I bought it, knowing that it is practically a 'lost' film, though it was only originally released in 1992. I didn't want to get home, search the internet for the cheapest price, only to find it out of stock, out of stock.
...after all, date badly. Dust Devil has dated slightly. It is clearly of the period. But it did not disappoint. It did not disappoint at all.

Though ostensibly a horror film, to call Dust Devil a horror movie is a mistake. Especially as a lot of low budget horror movies rely on guts, gore or grisliness. Dust Devil relies almost entirely on mood, tone and performance. There is a great deal of suspense but no chills, thrills or shocks ... more

I'm not sure when I first saw Dust Devil except that it comes under that category of late one night I ended up watching some film, I know not why, and was amazed. Such is Dust Devil. Then, yesterday, I saw the DVD, and heedless of price I bought it, knowing that it is practically a 'lost' film, though it was only originally released in 1992. I didn't want to get home, search the internet for the cheapest price, only to find it out of stock, out of stock.

The DVD is in fact a director's cut, or as the credits at the end note, the restored version. Miramax removed some portion of the film and I don't know what or why. There are deleted scenes on the DVD that you can understand the omission of. They don't feel right. Except, that is, for one scene regarding the ringing of telephones that links together several strands of the plot. But how Miramax could mangle such a film is beyond me.

Nevertheless, it seems the director Richard Stanley has painstakingly garnered money and assistance to generate his final restored version of the film. I, for one, am very glad he did. Admittedly, as I was placing the disc in my DVD player I had a foreboding of disappointment. Perhaps it wouldn't live up to my memories. Some films, after all, date badly. Dust Devil has dated slightly. It is clearly of the period. But it did not disappoint. It did not disappoint at all.

Though ostensibly a horror film, to call Dust Devil a horror movie is a mistake. Especially as a lot of low budget horror movies rely on guts, gore or grisliness. Dust Devil relies almost entirely on mood, tone and performance. There is a great deal of suspense but no chills, thrills or shocks exactly. There is only really one moment of particular gore. For this Stanley must be congratulated because the film has such potential for being a complete and utter gorefest. The problem would have been the guts, gore and blood would have destroyed the tone of the film, and probably ruined the pacing, so Stanley's restraint is admirable and probably very brave. After all, Dust Devil is a minor film and minor films normally need to sell themselves on something and gore is an easy lure.

But why could Dust Devil have been so bloody? The titular Dust Devil is Robert Burke, best none to some as the protagonist of two early Hal Hartley movies (both of which are excellent). Burke remains nameless and is a demon in human form, drawing towards him those who have lost interest in living: the unloved and the loveless. Thus, he murders them ritualistically, drawing on the walls in their blood images that bring him closer to returning to an existence as pure spirit. Drawn towards him is Wendy, a woman escaping her husband, driving from Johannesburg into the deserts of Namibia where the film is set. The third player in the triangle is a policeman, Ben Mukurob, whose dreams are haunted by his dead son and the wife that left him after his death. As our characters converge the film becomes shot through with loss and desperation. Even the spirit, the Dust Devil, being once of human form, is troubled by his killings and is capable of feeling loss and loneliness, whilst Wendy, if anything, becomes stronger as the Dust Devil threatens her life and she becomes physically more desperate, trekking through sandstorms in the desert.

Understandably, the desert plays an enormous part in the film. Ben Mukurob is a policeman in the town of Bethany, a town on the skids as the South Africans leave and gives Namibia back its freedom. You can feel the town collapsing, and it is this desperation and solitude that draws the Dust Devil to Bethany. There is a timelessness about the town, and the desert and we feel almost as if we could be in a Western. The Dust Devil himself dresses in a long duster and wide brimmed hat; his boots covered by layers of dust from his travelling - for the Dust Devil, as a shamanistic friend of Ben's informs us, must keep travelling, he cannot remain rooted to a single town or place - he travels places where, we are told, magic is still strong. And travel he does down red sanded roads; sand storms billow and swirl across the screen and Stanley is not afraid to have some sweeping shots of the extraordinary sparse and spare landscape. This heightens the sense of isolation, of being somewhere godforsaken (as preaching voices on innumerable radios inform us) and alone. Naturally, this adds to the tension that Stanley builds.

The tension, the tone and mood of the film is what keeps us captivated. Cleverly, the shamanistic assistance to Ben is also elaborated upon by the shaman being the narrator of the movie. Thus we are provided with the information we need to understand the plot, as it is shot through with the supernatural - the Dust Devil is, after all, an evil spirit, a violent blight on the landscape. The shaman, played convincingly, and appealingly, by John Matshikiza has the kind of voice that hypnotises, and thus as the film begins and we and introduced to the Dust Devil his voice sets the tone. Much of the dialogue, of which there is little, is delivered in a manner that captivates and rivets, as do the sweeping images and the subtly ambient soundtrack. So you can understand that introducing thrashing bloody violence into this hypnotic mix would have been inimical to the finished film. In fact one of the deleted scenes is one of the few where there is anything analogous to a 'shock'. Stanley draws us in, just as the Dust Devil draws in his prey, and we remain unable to move, captivated by the film that he unfurls before us. Stanley uses visual motifs strongly. Amongst the Dust Devil's bloody pictures upon his victims walls are spirals, spirals that are reflected in actual dust devils that sweep across the desert, in the rocky pattern the shaman constructs outside his place of work; even the camera work often mirrors this, swirling slowly round as the Dust Devil has one of his moments of curious humanity.

Why Dust Devil succeeds is because as well as never losing tone, or having unnecessary changes of pace, is because it manages never to descend into silliness, ludicrousness or shrieking idiocy - and I use the word shriek very intentionally. When Wendy, having slept with the Dust Devil, finds in his bag the severed fingers of his victims she doesn't clap her hands to her mouth and shriek shriek shriek, nor does she run into doors and walls in horrified desperation, nor does sudden 'terror' music shatter the silence, nor does she walk into the bathroom where the Dust Devil stands before the mirror and demand to know what these severed fingers mean. What Stanley does is continue with the tone of the film, he allows the internal verisimilitude of the narrative to take effect and the Dust Devil, being a creature of considerable sway over people holds sway over Wendy. It is a tenuous sway and we know that it is on the point of breaking but nevertheless he does and it is entirely in keeping with the feel of the film. That, again, is important, as if Stanley had slipped, if only for a moment, outside of the tone of the film, if he added anything out of keeping then the feel of the movie would have collapsed; the riveting visuals, speech and music would have shattered to nothing and as a viewer you would switch off. Such is the fine line Stanley treads and such is the success of the film that he doesn't.

Chelsea Fields as Wendy, Burke as the Dust Devil turn in good performances but it is Zake Mokaes as Ben and John Matshikiza as the shamanistic narrator who really steal the show, and their performances are as riveting as any other aspect of the film. They both have a quiet intensity about them that adds to their scenes, especially their scenes together, which often take on an esoterically spiritual and supernatural bent.

But kudus to Stanley for crafting an enormous amount from very little. The plot, based roughly on a true story (minus the supernatural element, naturally) is little different from any number of b-movie horror films but the potent combination of control over the narrative, the sense of the film having an overriding aesthetic, whether visual or in terms tone and internal logic means Stanley has generated a film that should have enormous cult standing. Though it is more literally a lost film than most 'lost films' it is quite possibly the sort of film that in decades to come will be heralded as a masterpiece. It has lasted fifteen years so far, a period of time usually enough to prove that an artistic artefact can transcend its mere ephemeral origins. Sadly, Stanley has made little since Dust Devil and then nothing that can be got hold of without importing it. It is a shame as Stanley shows such promise, such skill and control that you wonder what he might create if left alone and given the money to do so. Dust Devil, finally, enriches cinema by its very presence. It is the kind of film I search for and so rarely find: beautifully filmed, hypnotic and captivating, and with the ability to transcend any feeling of being part of a genre. Though it seems at times that it is a cross between a modern Western and a horror film (and the denouement takes place in an abandoned town, as we imagine Bethany will one day be, that looks almost like the abandoned set of a Western), Dust Devil is neither, just a very skilled, very watchable and ultimately a very impressive film.

The DVD, as well as containing the four deleted scenes also has an excellent director's commentary. Oddly, the Optimum website, who released the film, states that there is a documentary about voodoo in Haiti (I think a short film by Stanley) but it's not in evidence on my DVD, nor does it claim to contain it!!  

...less