Word About Biehn

"How's things outside, boys? Am I still a war hero or a drain on th' taxpayer?" Willie and Joe visit a fellow WWII veteran still hospitalized with his injuries in Bill Mauldin's Army.

Of all of Michael Biehn's films, this is the one most likely to make fans uncomfortable. James Purdy, acclaimed as one of the best authors of our generation, authored the book upon which the film is based. The issues this 1977 film touches on-physical and emotional crippling, unrequited love, unrewarded heroism, homosexuality, desperation and loneliness-are purposefully designed to deliver a harsh punch of reality, which leaves most viewers saddened after the final scene. It's just not a typical Biehn film and, for that very reason, is a must see for every true Biehn fan.

The WW II conflict at Guadalcanal provides the initial backdrop for the story. This Pacific island saw some of the bloodiest fighting of the war, as Marines sought to hold ground against the advancing Japanese. The opening scene in which Garnet Montrose (Michael) is badly burned by a flame-thrower dropped by a fallen comrade is not only plausible but excruciatingly historically accurate.

As the main storyline begins, Garnet has survived his injuries and returned to the family home in Virginia. "Survived" is key here, for Michael's character has not, nor will he ever, completely recover physically, emotionally or spiritually. A handsome, wealthy and well educated man before the war, Garnet finds himself trapped in a world where he is no longer useful nor wanted. He's not living-just existing-hence the title In A Shallow Grave. That's why Garnet never opens his mail-dead men have no need to worry about tax bills and such.

Prior to the war, Garnet had been very much in love with a tall and lovely blonde-haired lady named Georgina (Maureen Mueller). After he left for the war, Georgina married, only to be widowed not once but twice. Left financially secure, but very much alone, Georgina lives a short distance down the road from Garnet. She isn't really living anymore either-just existing from one day to the next.

But things are about to change drastically in their lives with the arrival of Potter Daventry (Patrick Dempsey). Daventry is a man on the run from himself. Fleeing from Utah after a deadly encounter with two servicemen, Daventry is crossing Garnet's property when he meets him and ends up staying to help Quintus Pearch (Michael Beach) take care of Garnet and his property.

Besides, Garnet has plans for Daventry. Garnet is in need of an "applicant," a man to run letters back and forth between him and Georgina. Only later does the viewer begin to surmise that Garnet is, in fact, trying to find someone who will love Georgina as much as he does and take his place in her affections and life, so that at least one of them can be happy. Even so, Garnet feels the pains of unrequited love deeply, when his plan comes to fruition, and Georgina comes to ask Garnet for his blessing of her and Daventry's union.

Unfortunately, Daventry has come to love Garnet as much, or more, than he does Georgina. Matters come to a head between Garnet and Daventry in the deserted dance hall (which is the one place where Garnet can forget the present and live in his memories), as Daventry holds a sharp piece of glass to Garnet's throat while demanding Garnet dance with him. The emotion is raw. The scene riveting. The emotional storms the characters are encountering are then echoed in the furious storm that has been brewing outside, waiting to unleash itself with deadly consequences.

In A Shallow Grave is one of my favorite Biehn films. One of the main reasons I enjoy the film is that Michael cannot rely on his physical appeal to carry the role. He has to dig deeper within himself to bring the character to life. This is the type of meaty role which Michael is not given the opportunity to do often enough. However, I am not blind to several major flaws in the film. The first is based on the uneven direction and tempo which first-time director Kenneth Bowser gives to the film. Michael Biehn and Patrick Dempsey (both experienced and excellent craftsmen) are obviously struggling with how to portray their characters in some of the scenes, while in others (such as Garnet's encounter with the snobby tax-collector), they are wonderful. The only actor who seems totally comfortable in his role is Michael Beach (Quintus), who gives an excellent performance. My second complaint deals with Garnet's recurring references to the "Army" and how "they" owe him. This is a glaring historical mistake (even I picked up on it), since the United States Army during WW II was never at Guadalcanal-only the Navy and the Marines. The appropriate reference would have been to the "Marines" or the "country." While the film may not be at the top of your "buy" list, I recommend it for rental without hesitation. Enjoy this thoughtful Biehn performance!!

Brie's comments re In A Shallow Grave are well-considered and thought-provoking. I wish I could share her enthusiasm. Unfortunately, to me the film is muddled and not very likable. It is unremittingly depressing. Well, not quite, but when the only humorous moment comes after the hero falls out of a second story window, you know you're in trouble.

Garnet Montrose (Michael) is miserable throughout. Granted he has reason: he bears terrible scars from WWII; he's in poor health; his lady love apparently doesn't even want to look at him; his neighbors are disgusted by his appearance and have as little to do with him as possible; he's about to lose his home; and he has trouble holding onto help.

Now, into this cheery situation walks a mysterious and slightly sinister fellow called Daventry, who upon first seeing Garnet, screams and recoils in abject horror. However, he quickly (in maybe five minutes or so) overcomes his revulsion, enters Garnet's house to gently minister to his needs, and hires on to be Garnet's messenger to the widow Rance, for whom Garnet pines. Believable so far, huh?

Enter our heroine, a real winner. She's lovely, but underneath her looks lurks a heart of pure granite. From our hero's letters, we conclude she's not inclined to see him; hence his need for a messenger to deliver his missives. Lord knows why he writes them. It seems to me he has pain enough; why invite more by nursing an unrequited love? But he does, and guess what? The object of his affections becomes enamored with Daventry. This doesn't set too well with Garnet, who now must cope with jealousy. One gets the feeling that his heart is even more scarred than his body.

The plot continues to slog along in this unhappy fashion, raising questions about what, if anything, is going on between Daventry and the widow; about what Daventry is running from; about what the relationship really is between Garnet and Daventry. Along the way, we see Garnet visit the dance hall. It's his escape from an almost unbearable existence. In these moving moments, we watch him there, where all alone he remembers older and better times, where he plays music, dances, and lights candles to artificially illuminate the ever-oppressive darkness of his life.

The climax baffles me with the violence of Daventry toward the one he loves. But he has earlier expressed a fear of the vengeance of God, and the storm that envelops him is perhaps the instrument of that vengeance, preventing his violent destruction of yet another human being. In the unsatisfying conclusion, the widow suddenly finds it in her heart to dance with Garnet. She had rejected him, hurt him, chosen another in his stead; yet, he still accepts her. I'm sure we're supposed to see something else in this, but sadly all I see is a man who is the same at the end as he was at the beginning, still sick of heart, still escaping to his dance hall, still besotted with the woman. The only change seems to be in the woman herself, but why? I guess I don't know.

Michael's performance is an uneven one. At times, he perfectly portrays Garnet's emotional longing and loneliness, as when he watches his love from the distance or dances by himself over an empty dance floor. However, at other times, he's curiously subdued, playing Garnet not as a man angered by his fate but as one maddeningly defeated by and resigned to it. Throughout, I wanted him to show some fight, some spirit. But, except for occasional moments, that was frustratingly lacking. I had trouble with his dialogue, too; it was often hard to understand him. That may have been my copy, or it may have been that it was difficult for him to enunciate under all that makeup. Finally, that same makeup hampered his use of facial expression. Michael can convey a great deal of emotion with a look alone, but here, through no fault of his own, his features are frozen, a handicap that represents only one of many shortcomings of the film. I do appreciate Michael's effort to take on a part that was not dependent on his good looks. If only the vehicle for that attempt had been a worthier one.