The Farmer's Daughter

Pearl (Ti West, 2022)

When director Ti West went the Joe D'Amato route by starting another film while already working on one, and decided to release them both in the same year, this blogger was a little concerned. Thankfully, Pearl isn't the Vincent to X's Julius, but it certainly does suffer from some very apparent faults which I can only attribute to the film being released way too soon.

Set in a much earlier period of the twentieth century, Pearl serves as an origin story to its predecessor's elderly and insane, titular antogonist. Numerous historical references are used to illustrate its 1918 setting: from the Spanish Influenza pandemic, which mirror more recent times; to the horrendous events in Europe with The Great War; and of course, the illuminating appeal of silent cinema. All of these play a profound part in Pearl's life; above all, though, is her desire for stardom. Her escapist fantasy to be famous becomes so important that woe betide anyone or anything that brings reality crashing down upon her.

Ti West mostly avoids the slasher path like he did with X, and instead focuses on Pearl having the  psychodrama treatment.This might irk some fans who expected more in a similar vein to its predecessor. Personally, I found the character study into Pearl's mental state the strongest aspect of the film. Pearl's origin elements are a little threadbare and contrived for my liking, but it's Goth's convincing performance that makes it so compelling. She puts so much into the film that she carries the weight of it on her back. Sharing co-writing credits with West, it's abundantly obvious how much Goth has invested into her character; replete with what appears to be an epic one-take monologue.

If only the rest of the film was on an equal par to Goth's performance. The supporting cast are a mixed bag, with only Tandi Wright, who served as an initimacy co-ordinator on X, delivering a credible performance as Pearl's oppressive and domineering German mother, Ruth. The chemistry between them is superb and you get some insight that Pearl's psychopathy is an inherited trait from her. Matthew Sunderland plays her infirmed father. Being severely disabled, there is little he can do other than offer reactionary eye acting and gasping. It's so morally disturbing seeing Pearl treat her invalid father like a beast of burden. That's the good actors out of the way, but what about the bad ones? Glad you asked, because the rest are a bunch of young actors who would be cringeworthy even on an episode of Hollyoaks. A Henry Cavill looking David Corenswet plays a local projectionist who introduces Pearl to both cinema and porn. He's a very two dimesional character who simply exists as a place marker between points A and B in Pearl's character arc; along with Emma Jenkins-Purro as Mitzy, Pearl's blank canvas of a sister-in-law, whose acting is nothing but a cartoonish do-gooder. These two characters feel very underwritten in the film.

Pearl has a general sparsness about it; which works to a certain degree with the isolation Pearl faces on a daily basis living and working on a remote rural farm, but the few scenes set in the local town and the crude special visual effects (particularly that one scene with the crocodile and the dance number) betray its very obvious low budget ($1M apparently). You could almost give it a free pass, but being a Ti West film, a director with a habit of capturing a historical periods effectively; examples of which, The House of the Devil (2009) and more recently with X, it feels a bit of a let down here. Couldn't help but get the sense that this was just one example of the film being a rushed production.

I partially get Martin Scorsese's appraisal for the film; certainly so for Mia Goth's performance, but I'm guessing it being the cause of his sleepless nights as pure hypebole, however. It's certainly a good film and better than a bunch of other horror films I've seen so far this year, but X offered more authenticity, variety and bottom line, didn't feel quite so one note. Also, for a prequel film, I walked away from it having more questions than its predecessor. Ironic that an origin film would pose more questions than answers. Based on the common consensus, my sentiments on Pearl come across as an unpopular opinion since it appears to have a more positive reception than X. Dada Debaser can only conclude that this is another example of recency bias in full effect. Hopefully, both West and Goth have had more time and effort afforded to them with the third outing, MaXXXine out next year. They're a good working team, with plenty of talent; hopefully they can manage their production time much better.