“Ænigma” (1987) dares ask: Can a lady in a coma avenge herself via a rebel-gal at a Catholic girls’ school? It’s the same rhetorical question posed on countless horror films (OK, not really), but here, it gets the European-oriented art-film treatment. And not in a bad way, either.
“Ænigma” was directed by the late great Lucio Fulci, the famed Italian director who conducted classics like “The House by the Cemetery” (1981) and “A Cat in the Brain” (1990). (That last title is not a typo; it’s not cat on the brain, it’s cat in the brain. And that’s a distinction worth noting.) Fulci is widely acknowledged as an atmospheric creator who shies away from neither gore nor Marxism. He likes both equally well. He also co-wrote the script for “Ænigma.”
Most reviewers of “Ænigma” obsess over the snail-death scene. It’s a doozy. It’s a whopper. But there’s more here than just snails.
“Ænigma” (1987)
Director: Lucio Fulci
Writers: Lucio Fulci, Giorgio Mariuzzo
Stars: Jared Martin, Lara Lamberti, Ulli Reinthaler
This film was modeled on “Carrie” (1976) and “Patrick” (1978). Those films (the former American, the latter Australian) consider the potentially sinister power of telekinesis, the ability to manipulate objects or people with thoughts alone. In “Carrie,” the heroine is sympathetic, although when she loses her temper, an excessive mayhem ensues. In “Patrick,” the telekinetic boy is comatose; the tagline is “Patrick is nearly dead … and still he kills!”
“Ænigma” mostly mimics “Patrick” but it also partakes of the character-driven protagonist-sympathies that Stephen King introduced in the plot of “Carrie.”
Unconvincing romances
Fulci manages to introduce some creative elements in his weird style. The stylistic weirdness commences immediately with a wildly discordant soundtrack and puzzling intro featuring an inexplicable trio involved in a photo shoot. Later, one of the three is teased mercilessly by her teen peers. Tearfully, she runs, forgetting to look both ways before she crosses the street.
The victim of the prank is Kathy (Milijana Zirojevic), a wide-eyed, dark-eyed subject with lashes as thick as picture frames. She’s distraught. Headlights illuminate her distress. Smack! She’s mostly extinguished by a car collision. She’s not extinguished entirely, though – she respirates with the aid of noisy mechanics under the watch of kinky-haired neurologist Dr. Robert (“Please don’t call me ‘Bob’”) Anderson (Jared Martin). And from the depths of a coma, Kathy plots her revenge.
The car crash creates an opening at the victim’s private school in Boston. Almost immediately, another pretty lass takes Kathy’s place in the girls’ dormitory at Saint Mary’s. It’s Eve (Lara Lamberti). As Eve ascends the steps to the school, she’s possessed by the vengeful spirit of Kathy. It’s troubling to find oneself possessed by a girl in a coma, so Eve seeks professional help.
Enter Dr. Anderson again. He agrees to treat the troubled co-ed and soon develops romantic feelings toward her. He disavows ever dating a patient, but now he’s unwittingly dating two – coma girl Kathy and coma girl’s host, Eve. Before the film ends, he’ll date Eve’s roommate as well. Dr. Bob’s self-imposed prohibitions are pretty flexible.
Should a film student ask “Where can I best view a lack of chemistry between romantically attracted characters?,” they would be well-advised to consult “Ænigma.” For when Dr. Bob cultivates his attraction for Eve, the romance is totally unconvincing. It’s wooden. It’s bad. I didn’t like it.
Gunning for meaning
There are a lot of strands that never really come together. An ambitious critic could probably make a case for asserting that the real nemesis behind all the dull romances, snail deaths and possession is none other than flyboy Pete “Maverick” Mitchell from the original “Top Gun” (1986).
Sure, this sounds ridiculous. It is. But the filmmaker returns again and again to a poster of Tom Cruise grinning from the center of a “Top Gun” poster – even to the point of suggesting that the alignment of malevolence might be traced back to the eyes hidden by aviator sunglasses. Is Tom Cruise the demon behind the curtain? Is “Mav” the Devil in disguise?! How else can we explain the director’s insistence that the “Top Gun” portrait holds the key to unlocking the machinations of the plot?
Those questions are unanswerable. A better question is: Is this film worth watching?
Si, per favore, divertiti!
And if one has an affection for escargot murders – or an insatiable curiosity for “Top Gun” demonology (assuming there is such a thing) – well then, so much the better.