Too often have I thought about writing some sort of article about Francis Ford Coppola. The infamous director has plagued my mind for nearly ten years, brought about through a research project I had to do in my third year of college. Our class was given a director each to research, and I landed the Godfather director, himself. Despite this extensive knowledge and unfounded respect I had for the legendary director, so few of his film have ever touched my soul. He is talented director, no doubt, but none of his films have ever fit into my favourite films of all time.
But with all of this knowledge floating around in my head, I knew I would get to him at some point (outside of my inclusion of the ’92 Dracula adaptation that I included in my Dark Decline of Dracula article. It was through a revisit to Coppola’s directorial debut that I felt inspired. There’s hardly anyone out there that is aware of this thriller-failure, outside of film buffs like myself. It’s fascinating to see a director that has created one of the most important films in cinema start with such a messy, disorganised attempt at capitalising on the new-founded Slasher genre that was brought about by Hitchcock’s Psycho. While there was some interference from outside of Coppola’s vision, the director’s cut, which released not long ago, still shows an awful sense of storytelling. I’m not here to absolutely rag on the old director, but I felt it important to revisit the film that kickstarted his iconic career, and to serve the admiration that many first-time directors deserve.
An important lesson to any aspiring director in perseverance, this is Francis Ford Coppola’s Dementia 13.
This grisly thriller starts off with the focus of Louise Haloran (Luana Anders), who witnesses, first hand, the demise of her husband. After a fatal heart attack, Louise dumps the body into a lake, and sets off to her mother-in-law’s house in an attempt to persuade her to write her into the will, should she die. Louise keeps her husband’s death a secret, and plays on the superstitions and dark secrets that the Haloran family has kept. Lady Haloran (Eithne Dunne) holds a tradition every year of mourning the loss of her youngest child, Kathleen, alongside her two other sons, Richard (William Campbell), who brings his fiancé, and Billy (Bart Patton), who carries with him the guilt of witnessing Kathleen’s death by drowning.
The family carries with it a history of death and mystery, and Louise is dead-set on exploiting this as best she can. Manipulating the elderly woman, she sprinkles “hints” of Kathleen’s spirit trying to communicate beyond the grave. But all of these little schemes are tainted by a mysterious axe-wielder, seemingly trying to bury the past. If that sudden inclusion of an axe-wielding maniac feels abrupt, you better prepare yourself for more diversions. Does the title mean anything? (as I claim it doesn’t) No. There’s no Dementia, and the 13 was added for the sake of legal issues.
Despite this film’s just-over-an-hour runtime, there’s a lot of different stories being rammed into it. This film came off the back of the Psycho hysteria, where imitations were countless, but very few lacked the same quality. Dementia 13 tries its hardest to capture the same shock and awe of Psycho, but it suffers from an overabundance of twists and turns, all with the writing quality of somebody who has never studied structure.
The initial setup sounds alluring; a psychological thriller about a woman who tries to take advantage of her husband’s death, keeping us attached to her at all times, but an effort is made to switch the perspective in a way that is not dissimilar from the slasher that inspired it. The problem becomes more evident when literally everything that was set up in the first half is thrown out the window, and we’re suddenly left with a very different film of axe-wielding murderers and psychotic family drama. You would think, on its own, that this story could carry its own weight, but it suffers from rushed intrusion and little establishment.
It severely disappoints that Coppola presents two promising stories, but manages to squander both in shocking execution. I was very attached to Louise’s coldness; a far cry from the Marion Crane that inspired her. Her crime is far more sociopathic and sinister. Perhaps the character was too cold, and Coppola would’ve understood that having the entire film centred around her would’ve made the audience uncomfortable, but the passage of time has lead to so many other films that carry with them flawed protagonists that it makes the modern audience yearn for it. Scorsese would later perfect this archetype, and even Coppola understood this same thing with later films like The Godfather part II and Rumble Fish, but this one falls back on the (even then) tired cliché characters of classic cinema.
This film suffers even more with an overabundance of sudden additions. It’s one thing to have this story about a woman trying to swindle money out of her mother-in-law, and to throw in an axe-wielding murderer. But we then venture into a family drama that carries with it some rather animated characters. Lady Haloran echoes the overly doting nature of Psycho‘s Mrs. Bates, but presents her plainly to the audience. I found this incredibly comical; an element of which is far removed from Coppola’s intention. Her son’s bring about their own eccentricities that are pushed to a point of intentional creepiness, but the strained attempts give way to the same unintentional humour.
It really is a shame that this second part of the film wasn’t very strong. Family trauma, and the dark past that comes with it, are familiar themes in better Horror films. Had this film explored it in a more natural, psychoanalytical way, digging further in the backstories of the three main offenders much earlier, it could’ve set itself up for more suspense, letting us try to put the pieces together before Kathleen’s fate was revealed. The film suffers from virtually non-existent set-ups, causing the payoffs to feel underwhelming.
I have spoken about this family drama without even mentioning the cartoonish Dr. Caleb. The family psychiatrist, he is hoisted into this film without an introduction, he just simply turns up in the story and takes charge of the main plot. This character draws from the famed Dr. Van Helsing of Dracula lore (clearly an early sign of Coppola’s love for the story) but without any of the kindliness of the literary icon. He’s exaggerated to the point of turning this film into something that is far more sporadic than what was intended. Coppola tries to shoehorn Caleb into this leading role, carefully watching the three family members, and it leads to humorous moments of unfiltered insanity.
It is of no shock for me to acknowledge the constant comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho that I have made throughout this review. Though it is uncommon for famed directors to take inspiration from other so-famed film makers, there is fine line between tribute and imitation. Dementia 13 tries to find a footing within this new sub-genre of Horror, but it clings to the shadow of the very film that started it. I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge these small signs of genius within this collection of nonsensical plot threads. Coppola may have struggled to tell a coherent story, but you can see the early tropes that fascinated him so much.
Coppola was always intrigued by family. He has never shied away from mixing his work with his personal life, often casting and employing his family members in the films he made. Such things he valued reflecting in the likes of The Godfather or 2009’s Tetro. That closeness that is overshadowed by all the tension and darkness that surrounds our familiar abode is given life here as well, with sprinkles of potential that are squandered by excessiveness. The aim of the film seems to beg for shock, not for any sort of relationship analysis. Coppola asks us to strip away that devotion to family in favour of judging these people, but he also understands that familial background will always overshadow. It’s a good theme, but it’s ruined by obvious red herrings and awful expository dialogue.
The dark, sinister nature of the film could’ve worked so much better if it weren’t for this killer being added to the story. By that, I mean that such a character should’ve been more subdued, and not just a violent axe-murderer. Coppola would learn to understand the importance of subtlety in his later films, but there is some early sign of this. I think the psychology of the killer is nicely explored, even if the switch is a little too sudden. Coppola so rarely ever dabbled in Horror after this, but he would later perfect the feeling of dread and mystery in films like Apocalypse Now or even The Conversation.
The biggest takeaway from all of this is how ambitious Coppola was. I know I’ve come across as rather scathing in this review, but I do feel a sense of admiration for the film. Coppola had never really directed a true film before this, working from a place of sound design, and only experienced in film making through “nudie” films. His eye for film making is there, just in small waves. It’s shot with an excellence that could match his later films. He understands how to draw primal fears from people, and leave us with imagery that shocks our basic instincts. I may find myself irritated by the lack of structure and untapped potential, but I admired the effort of a man so clearly driven by his artform.
I cannot emphasise enough my appreciation for Coppola’s vision. I have never felt too attached to him the same way I might Scorsese or Wes Anderson, but I have learnt to look at his films with a hearth of admiration. I look upon this first film of his as an example of promise. The aspiring film makers out there will want their first film to be a hit; something they can be proud of. But it is often never the case, and that the most famous directors will only look at their first attempts with a sense of posterity. These films are important to who they are today, but they’re more like experiments in crafting an identity.
I am not a film maker myself, but I’ve seen enough “firsts” and “early attempts” to garner a rather distinct perspective. Looking back on directors’ early starts gives way to a sort of earth-shattering reality. We strive for success, to leave a footprint on this earth before we clamber down that hole in the ground, but it takes a stunning amount of effort and trial and error. I am at a point where I look upon my writing and wish to do more with it than a simple hobby. When I reflect on my own writing from 2019 (the year I started doing this regularly), it’s amazing to me how much it has changed. I remember, at the time, feeling as though my writing was far better than I had ever attempted, and now I see it as rather flawed. Films like Dementia 13 remind me of how much time and dedication can change a person’s abilities.
Dementia 13 is not a film worth raving about, but it’s one that all the dreamers can look at for a sense of clarity. The first “review” I ever did, back in college, was an analysis on The Godfather’s murder montage, and now I can look back with this full review in mind.
Written review by Conor Johnson.