Cinema Canada (Jun 1978)

film that doesn’t have much to offer in the way of interesting characters or compelling observations had better lay on the sensationalism (witness Brian de Palma’s current success with The Fury) so that filmgoers get something for their time and money. A common error in Canadian movies is that, not being Bergman, Antonioni or Fellini, our fantasist directors start out aiming at Art and end up looking silly, having given their shallow imaginations free reign to putter about in a cinematic sandbox. Surrealists have to be willing to probe their psyches deeply — boldly and crudely, at the very least, like Alexandro Jodorowsky, or with the consummate skill of Bunuel; otherwise it is a mode of filmmaking best left to the realms of 16mm where high-risk experiments don’t lead to financial disaster. With a few exceptions — David Cronenberg, Richard Benner, Murray Markowitz come immediately to mind — the redeeming importance of sensationalism is not much appreciated by Canadian filmmakers. Maybe, as I have argued elsewhere in “Inner Views”, there are too many conservative areas in Canadian society to create and support a vigorous filmculture; if true, that leaves us in the paradoxical position of trying to sell naive films to sophisticated markets. Two provinces have recently banned Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby — you have to be a cultural backwater (like Ireland, South Africa, Australia) to support the censorship practices of EnglishCanada. The question is, if we live in a place that prides itself on its conservative control of passion and imagination, what is there that the outside world should take an interest in? What is there to celebrate? More basically, what is there to sell? In The Third Walker writer-director Teri McLuhan seems only to have considered intermittently that movies are something that have to be marketed. It has a saleable cast — Colleen Dewhurst is especially good, William Shatner and Monique Mercure are fine in smaller roles — but the screenplay never develops the real issues at stake in the story. Mood alone (Cape Breton scenery, Paul Hoffert music) can’t sustain the film. Any ideas it has dissipate into whimsy. The story unravels like a knotted ball of yarn but this much is clear: sometime in the 1950s, twin brothers were born to a Scottish family and were accidentally separated at birth through an error by a maternity-ward nuse. One is sent home to a Frenchspeaking family, the other to his real family along with a “twin” who is not a blood-relation. Monique Mercure portrays the mother of the misplaced twin, Etienne; Colleen Dewhurst, the true mother of the twins, raised his brother, Andrew. The brothers (depicted by real twins, Tony and David Meyer, from the Royal Shakespearean Players in England) are in their early 20s when the film opens, and haven’t seen one another for about 15 years. We later learn that Dewhurst became suspicious of a possible error in the hospital when the boys go to school and are frequently mistaken for one another. She undertakes legal action and a court order for all three boys to have skin-graft tests to determine their parentage. The results prove, we are told (the court judgment is rendered by the voice of Marshall McLuhan) that Etienne and Andrew are truly twins while pseudo-brother James (Frank Moore) is of no fixed genetic address. The court further orders that Etienne and James should be swapped but Etienne’s mother apparently runs away with him to prevent this from happening. “Apparently,” because when the film opens, she lives in the same small community as everyone else, and (there’s no explanation why the brothers have never run into one another over the years) and the father of the twins (William Shatner) has no difficulty locating them both, just before -he dies. It’s at his funeral that the twins meet again, and The Third Walker is ready to begin. Phew. What we have next is a second wave of psychological complications set in the present. Etienne returns to his true mother’s household (the twins, in twin beds, have long talks at night. They do a lot of deep staring at one another.) Step-brother James (who looks to be about 30) decides it’s time to leave home. Andrew is torn between proceeding with plans to get married or investing all his money in a yacht and “cruising around the world” with his long-lost brother. As his relationship with Etienne deepens, his girl-friend (played by Andrée Pelletier) becomes FILM REVIEWS jealous, insecure and possessive. He asks her to decide what he should do with his life and gives her all the money he has saved over the years (about $6,000). He tells her to place all of it on a racetrack bet (Andrew is a jockey) so that he can double it by winning the next race and buy the boat he wants — if she thinks that granting him freedom is a wise course. Otherwise she is to keep the money and they’ll get married. She keeps the money, he wins the race. Then she realizes he will resent her for the rest of his life. Whereupon parting-brother James, in a gesture of largesse unmatched since the all-for-love sacrifices of Greta Garbo movies, gives her all the money he has, so that Andrew will think that she did trust him and placed the bet afterall. Then James goes to Andrew and apologizes for having nothing to give him for his wedding, and leaves with stoic heartburn. If a man had made this movie he would probably be accused of being anti-feminist — at least — if not furtively homosexual. None of the female characters are humanly appealing — Dewhurst is ruthless, reducing her husband to alcoholism, and _ rebuffing the affection of James while pursuing her obsession of getting Etienne; Pelletier portrays a possessive cow to whom “love” means total ownership; Mercure is required to do a shrewish number at the top of her voice. The boys alone are shown to be warm, generous, affectionate — and fascinated by one another. On the psychological level, the film doesn’t wash. On the political-symbolism level, it doesn’t make sense (assuming that the French-English division in the movie is supposed to make any comment at all). Yet, ‘occasionally, more in the resonance of the acting than anything .that is said, The Third Walker acquires a haunting quality. In the main, however, the film is a wistful mystery about imaginary lives that ultimately has nothing to say. McLuhan is either faking her real concerns, or else, perhaps, she hasn’t any. It’s astonishing, given the world we live in currently, that someone could come up with this shelteredlife fantasy. John Hofsess June 1978/ 39