I think subconsciously, one of my aims for this project was to explore the diversity of film culture that existed on a global scale. I really wanted to expand my notion of what a film is or what a film could be by witnessing a wide variety of different approaches, traditions and techniques. Thus I did not anticipate encountering cinematic elements that I would see over and over again, and yet I have run across a rather fatuous, random commonality that I can’t seem to avoid. Currently I have watched 5 films in this series that feature, at some during the picture, children who hang out on rooftops.
The more rational side of my brain might consider this to be simply the result of the same bland, lazy, unimaginative writing that just happens by chance to appear in multiple film cultures. Then there’s the more fanciful side of my brain that openly ponders whether or not rooftops possess a certain mystique or psychological hold that draws the children of the world towards them. Rooftops are interesting places in that, on one hand they can offer a unique view of one’s surroundings and yet also offer a place of sanctuary and relief from the troubles of the world. I would certainly argue that for the films in this series this is usually how rooftops are perceived. But aside from this, the fact that I can find points of similarity amongst seemingly disparate parts of the world suggests that diversity is something that requires a concerted effort to achieve. For the sake of broadening my horizons, I hope to avoid rooftops and/or children with my next selection.
The US rights to Dick Maas’ 1988 feature was acquired by a company called Vestron Pictures who managed to make some money during the nascent days of the home video market before ultimately going bankrupt in the early 1990s. During its heyday Vestron gave the film an ‘extremely limited’ run in theaters in the fall of 1988 and then released a VHS copy of the film the following spring. Despite the rights being purchased by Lionsgate following Vestron’s dissolution, a home media distribution company called Blue Underground reissued the film on Blue-Ray and DVD in 2017. I honestly couldn’t find much information about Blue Underground and I’m just going to assume that they secured the distribution/licensing rights from Lionsgate at some point in time. Despite the recent re-release of the film, this is a tough one to find. According to worldcat.org there was 1 public library in all of Illinois that was holding a copy of the Blue Underground release, and only 2 other holdings throughout the rest of the country. The VHS copy of the film was also being held at 2 libraries in all of the US. Streaming is going to be your best bet here. While the film’s available at most of the usual sites; Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, Vudu, and so forth, it’s also available at sites I’ve never heard of before like Shudder and Arrow, which subtlety hints at what I’m getting into here. I should also point out that some streams only offer an English dubbed version. Let’s just say that I’m no fan of dubbing and take great pains to avoid dubbed films whenever I can. The following critique was based off a version of the film with the original Dutch language audio.
Now here’s a film were the cinematography really enhanced the quality of the overall picture. The strength of this aspect can even be perceived during the credit sequence which featured establishing shots of Amsterdam taken from just above the surface of its canals. Not only did this offer an interesting perspective on the city, but such imagery was shot at dusk creating a haunting, foreboding aura that properly set the mood for the macabre elements to follow. Not long after this sequence, one saw a dissolve transition that transported the viewer from a canal to the bathtub of the main character suggesting that one was about to watch a film that possessed a certain creative flair in its cinematographic style. For the most part it lived up to this billing.
The framing and staging of the shots were often quite exquisite, even though early in the film the most striking thing about the camerawork was the tendency to cast panoramic views of the city as a backdrop to a scene. In the short scene between Eric Visser and his partner Vermeer at a cafeteria it’s the glimpse of the city staged between the characters that stood out the most. As the film progressed the quality of the framing became more apparent, whether it was the provocative perspective of the sunbather before she met her grizzly fate or the upward angled shot of the villain as he peered down from the sewer entrance. Since this latter shot showed the serial killer completely shrouded by their diving gear, it managed to capture an oddly alluring, sci-fi vibe. Shots of the police siren during a chaotic car chase and the practically symmetrical view of the police force taking aim on the drained dam lock also stood out amongst the film’s imagery. The film at times also deployed low angle shots, which in this case made some sense if the intent was to show the perspective of a killer who constantly attacked his victims from below the surface. One could argue that the low angled shot of the salvation army worker as she arrived at her bicycle was enough to foreshadow her fate, even without the more sinister perspective that followed this. This same upward perspective was used on Martin during the film’s climatic confrontation and this shot was equally as telling. Another interesting low angled shot came during the first car chase which exaggerated the vehicles’ short airborne hop over a hill. In general the film shot the action sequences really well, finding a nice balance between its quick jump cutting to highlight the frantic nature of the action and its modest use of camera movement which facilitated a more continuous feel to the exposition.
What’s especially impressive about the framing was its considerable quality despite the fact that Amsterdamned was essentially an action film that relied largely on long, continuous takes with gracefully executed camera movement. Early in the film one saw a 70 second take of Eric as he arrived at a crime scene and proceeded to interact with his colleagues who were in the midst of their initial investigation. Near the end of this take the camera managed to stage Eric and Vermeer perfectly so that the eye-witness was seen in the background. The interplay between the camera and the performers was often brilliant. Another moment that highlighted this was near the end of the film when Martin was seen stepping into the light of a near flawless close-up shot. This shot ultimately functioned as a well executed film noir touch that added some legitimate suspense to the sequence. As for the high quality of the camera movement this could be seen during the swift pan shots of the tour boat as the passengers reacted in horror to the hanging corpse. I also liked the quick zoom out shot of the first suspect while he was being interrogated, as well as the pull back shot of Laura and Martin at the conclusion of their clash. Granted a poorly timed jump cut in the latter scene ruined the reveal of a surprise twist. The only real complaint about the cinematography was the poor pacing, with some sequences dragging on for way too long. This was none more apparent than in the overheard shot of the city seen at the beginning of the film. Although the pacing issues were usually the result of the film’s lackluster narrative.
It’s bad enough that the premise would normally force the narrative to conform to a staid police procedural drama, but beyond this there was a distinct lack of focus on the actual investigation itself. Most of the breakthroughs in the case occurred off camera, meanwhile we got to see multiple scenes of lead detective Eric Visser commentating glumly at a police station that there was little he could do. I couldn’t think of a better sequence that exposed the issues with how the narrative was presented than the short scene of a patrol boat who found absolutely nothing while searching the canals at night, only to be followed by a jump cut to Eric’s team after they had just made a major breakthrough in their investigation. Granted the latter shot at least caught the characters as they were about to spring into action, which revealed the film’s true focus. The action sequences at least offered some excitement to the film. Although I was a bit underwhelmed by the speed boat chase, which I saw as only offering a modest twist on the standard chase sequence, complete with all the Hollywood clichés and absurdities that one could think of. At least the explosion at the end of this chase was beautifully framed. To me though the first chase sequence was more intriguing given the implicit danger and impracticality of having a car chase on some of the narrow passageways of Amsterdam. Not only that but this chase sequence only teased the viewer with its absurd notions before relenting to a touch of realism as a twist. The fact that this was not the film’s climatic chase sequence perhaps afforded it the ability to embrace these qualities. Still, this chase sequence ultimately lead the story towards a dead end which was a common occurrence. This film had its share of subplots that essentially did little more than pad the running time.
There was a lengthy sequence that established Willy’s psychic abilities to find the killer, only for this to never be mentioned ever again. There was also a scene involving the mayor of Amsterdam and his desire to replace Eric Visser on the investigation. Whatever conflict or dramatic intrigue that was established in this scene quickly died on the vine once a potential suspect was caught. Regardless of this meager threat, Eric spent a good portion of the film courting a female diver that he met, which by pure chance lead him to the killer. This made Eric come off as more lucky than good. I would prefer a detective who has to rely on their sharp cunning and remarkable perceptive abilities to piece together a case, similar to say a Sherlock Holmes or a Jules Maigret. Eric Visser came nowhere close to capturing this ideal. The film also overused the tactic of spending a disproportionate amount of time with the various murder victims. I’ll admit that early in the film this wasn’t much of a problem, but by the time the film got to the drunken sailor, it became painfully obvious that these characters were doomed. Granted I still thought there was some good work done with the dialogue. The writing avoided the cheesy one-liners that such genre films are usually noted for in favor of lines that possessed some decent thematic depth. Granted the performers didn’t necessarily take much advantage of this.
It was a shame then that the film didn’t put as much energy into the acting as it did the cinematography. The primary problem with the acting was Huub Stapel who delivered a bland, 2-bit performance as an action movie hero. Stapel so consistently portrayed a laid-back, nonchalant, and deceptively apathetic air that it made me question whether or not the character actually wanted to catch the killer. There was often a conspicuous lack of emotion and personality in Stapel’s performance. When the baker complained about him ruining one of his cakes, Stapel’s reaction was awkwardly impassive. When finding out that one of Eric’s colleagues had been killed, Stapel’s reaction was subdued to the point of feeling a bit cold. During the scene where his colleagues informed him about the lack of progress in the case, Stapel’s behavior was that of a man who was more mildly annoyed than truly angry. There was just nothing particularly exuberant or demonstrative about Stapel’s performance and in these types of films opportunities for dramatic intensity are going to occur.
Serge-Henri Valcke’s performance as Vermeer wasn’t much better, but I’ll give Valcke credit for making the character interesting. He did a great job of constantly making Vermeer seem a bit too nerdy for this profession, which gave the film a certain idiosyncratic flair and subtle humor that I could enjoy. Generally the other characters were better at bringing some modest personality into the film. In a scene between Eric and the police chief, Tanneke Hartzuiker did a better job of expressing the hopelessness and frustration at not having any viable leads to follow. Jules Croiset in the role of the mayor only appeared in one scene, but yet managed to stand out with his near manic, obsessive demands for progress in the case. Even Monique van de Ven as the obligatory love interest for our detective hero brought a legitimate charm and warmth to the film which was well contrasted against the other characters in the story.
Overall though this is a film I don’t have a strong opinion about in any direction. It’s not particularly good, but it’s not awful either. Once one gets beyond the excellent cinematography and the integration of Amsterdam’s unique canal infrastructure into the story, there existed at its heart just another formulaic, mediocre action thriller.