Sirens (1994)

Hold the presses! Elle MacPherson can act! And so can Hugh Grant!I decided to give Grant another look in honor of his honorable role in exposing the phone hacking of celebrities by Rupert Murdoch's tabloids. I did not like Notting Hill because I couldn't shake the feeling Grant was just being Grant; Mickey Blue Eyes was better, but still marginal acting. I used to call him Hugh "One Grin" Grant because he only seemed to have two expressions: a wide grin and a deep frown. But perhaps part of the problem was the shallow material he had to act in. Or, more likely, I have not seen his best work. Sometimes actors do their most authentic work early on, and Sirens might qualify. But now I am curious what Grant will do next, presumably not for Fox Studios.With Sirens, Hugh Grant gets it right. He conveys a broader range of moods and emotions, though there are no histrionics. He relaxes out of his usual Hugh Grant persona, but not too much, as he is a British clergyman, though a relatively liberal one. He is confronted with a variety of unusual and embarrassing situations, where his reaction is key to the movie, and he gets it right. This time, it looks genuine. This time there is real chemistry with his co-star.I never would have guessed Elle MacPherson was a supermodel rather than an actress. There is none of the stiffness seen with some of the great beauties turned "actresses" of years past. Maybe she was just being herself, but whatever it is, I hope she keeps on doing it.The greatest actor of the cast is Sam Neill, though you might not guess it. Neill, who plays the real Norman Lindsay, provides the grounding for the story. He hardly says anything, but sometimes that is the performance that requires the most talent. And he is the one with the grin, though a subtle, sly one of understanding. (Mr. Grant, with all due respect, you don't need to flash a wide grin all the time. Look at Neill's more subtle grin which uses his eyes -- this could look good on you, too. Or you could just smile gently and sagely.)Tara Fitzgerald (not to be confused with Geena Davis) had by far the most challenging and central role, which she played to perfection. Doesn't exactly look like a vicar's wife, though. But neither does Grant. I also liked her in the delightful "Hear My Song."Music is by Rachel Portman, as fans of Chocolat might guess. The opening theme matches one in Chocolat. But most of the rest of the score is original and interesting. The shared musical theme is appropriate since the two movies share a sexual theme of repression and liberation. They both hark back to the Bacchae. Chocolat came later, and has the stronger score, but then it is a stronger movie. Sirens is more low-keyed. What is especially interesting about Sirens is not the plot, but the atmosphere of place and time it conveys, and the odd mood of the odd situation. This mood runs through the movie, and the music plays a role in sustaining that mood. There isn't so much of a plot as a situation, which is off-balanced and gives the story momentum. You naturally wonder how it will unfold, and that is what holds your interest.Some reviewers make a big deal about the similarity to a D.H. Lawrence novel, but I think Sirens is better, less dark and more willing to laugh at itself. And its actual source was a real painter, whose works appear in the film. It is fitting, under the circumstances, that Sirens is set in Australia, the home of Rupert Murdoch, who would have been born around the time of the movie, which is set in the 1930s. The impression of Australians, men at least, in this outback town is hardly favorable. They don't seem to set much store in manners or grooming. But then Neill's painter character doesn't place much store in pretension, either, unlike the British. I guess there can be something said for that. I wonder if we can find any of Murdoch's roots in these characters?Some people will watch Sirens for the beautiful women. But John Duigan - - director, writer and bit player -- has created a truly original, interesting movie, something you don't encounter every day.

Not a bad film when you can create controversy over the beauty of the female and male body. Fortunately for this film the casting of the females and male show good taste in the human form including facial good looks. An interesting film that displays a rich and beautiful cinematography of the Australian landscape and a cast that acts out its parts well. Hugh Grant is a bit of a joke as an actor but he does an adequate job here as a cleric on a mission of wrist slapping an artist, Norman Lindsay, in his graphic painting of a naked goddess on a cross which appears sacrilegious at first glance. This is a well presented film that explores female sexuality in a variety of forms that excites and titillates. A film about self-awareness of female sexuality, it does not preach but instead depicts clearly the conflict that comes into play when religion tries to regulate "morality" and artistic merit. Good film!

With a bacchanalian Australian artist's real life to draw from, SIRENS is the prudish version of what really exists. Which is odd given that the film tries lamely to deal with prudish hypocrisy and then depicts Norman Lindsay's ribald (free- sexual existence) in a prudish manner. SIRENS is boringly directed by the usually excellent John Duigan, but the original 1920s paintings are so lushly sexual, all fruity and nude and big breasted... (pirate women in nothing but huge thigh high boots etc) and what do we get: silly Hugh Grant minister and squeaky wife cowering about the villa. What a missed opportunity this really is: I have been to Lindsay's actually gallery- house in the mountains near Sydney and the reality was sadly not captured on film. The fault is the silly story and the boring English minister/wife characters. The three voluptuous actresses occasionally come close and the nudity is great but the whole production misses the tone and imagery of Norman Lindsay's works completely. There is still a great movie waiting about this artist and his bohemian lifestyle and his breathtaking sexual paintings. Think BILITIS meets ALICE IN WONDERLAND via HUSTLER MAGAZINE

Some would say that Sirens is not taken seriously because of the abundant nudity in the movie. And yes, it does seem at times that the movie exists only to display exactly why model (and here, wannabe actress) Elle Macpherson was nicknamed "The Body". But perhaps the reason the movie is not taken seriously is because it simply isn't any good. The movie drags and drags and then drags some more. The plot never seems to get going. It's a movie that has no energy to it, it just painfully slogs along in hopelessly dull fashion. The film is utterly predictable, you know where this is going right from the beginning but it sure does take its sweet time in getting to that inevitable conclusion. The movie sets itself up as a statement on organized religion's view on sex. But any kind of statement the filmmakers hoped to make is lost because the movie is simply too boring to hold anyones attention long enough to get their point across. The whole enterprise is not helped by some rather clumsy acting, most notably from Macpherson who certainly looks nice but struggles to deliver dialogue in a believable fashion. Hugh Grant and Tara Fitzgerald are reasonably decent in their roles but it's not enough to save this enterprise. Predictable, tedious, dull and at times rather laughable...that's Sirens in a nutshell.