Review: PEARL (2022)
Mama Mia Goth!
Go Ti West, young man, and check out these pearls of wisdom:
An X-cellent third act doesn’t quite make up for an X-ceedingly tedious first act and un-X-ceptional second act.
Worth seeing, but there’s more oyster than pearl here!
Sometimes it’s hard to suppress one’s inner Gene Shalit. Thank you for indulging me. Now we can move on to an actual review…
Although, if you are able to wade through the tortured word play and puntastic references, that above review is essentially how I feel about Ti West’s prequel to (this year’s) X.
Taking place approximately 60 years before the adult film slasher events of the previous film, the movie concerns Pearl (Goth), a young woman who dreams of escaping her mundane existence on a drab farm with her controlling German mother (Tandi Wright) and her father (Matthew Sunderland), rendered an invalid by the ravages of influenza. Her husband (Alistair Sewell) is fighting in World War I while Pearl has her eyes on becoming a famous dancer like the women she sees at the movie theater. Stoked on by a projectionist (David Corensweet), Pearl joins her sister-in-law (Emma Jenkins-Purro) to audition for a dance troupe, over the objections of her mother.
First thing is first: Mia Goth acts with her full heart in this movie. While there are multiple issues with PEARL, the performance of its titular character is not one of them. Far from it. Each third of the film feels like a separate movie in tone and approach, but Goth is the unifying force of a plaintive woman who sees herself as a technicolor heroine stuck in the bland background of nowhere. That malevolent confidence manifests as murderous impulses, escapist fantasy, oddly sincere naïveté, and more that makes Pearl such a terrifying and sad character who is both wholly unique and all too familiar (well, maybe with less barnyard killings). And none of this would be as powerful in the hands of another actor. When Goth is called upon to deliver a truly intense monologue that probably lasts over 15 minutes, it is a chilling moment that reveals a star is born.
Unfortunately, the rest of PEARL cannot live up to the standard that the co-writer/lead actor sets. The biggest issue is that the story doesn’t feel like it’s building up to something even though it narratively is set to move towards crescendo. There’s no sense that, despite everything we see, there is no increase in emotional stakes or change in the world. This is because each act feels tonally different from each other. Tone is a really hard thing to define, and often a default ambiguous word when critics have issues with a movie. But I would argue that PEARL is a masterclass in mismanagement of tone as each third of this movie is starkly different from the other two. To be charitable, this is probably meant to reflect the multitudes of Pearl’s personality, but comes off as choppy and disconnected instead.
The first act is all set-up, establishing the harsh mother who is actually fairly reasonable in her demands given the circumstances of the time. Pearl bristles under the teutonic discipline, often escaping into her own fantasy world. West creates a visual motif in these opening moments that carries through the rest of the film: Pearl is always the most vivid person in a frame. Her technicolor blue outfit radiates in contrast to the dried husks of corn in autumn. Her beaming red dress calls out like a beacon to any watching as she moves down dirt paths or stands against the washed out whites of a church. It’s a smart detail that, combined with Goth’s powerhouse performance, ensures that this character is always pulling focus, just as many folks seeking the spotlight do in the real world.
The second act is much more of campy pitch with Pearl’s wrath unfurling and grip on reality increasingly faltering, leaving behind more victims in her wake. There’s not nearly enough mayhem and carnage to make this campy intermission work. Each action is shocking but fleeting, ultimately fading into the drab background with everything else on the farm. And lastly is the desolation of the home stretch where all illusions are ripped bare, Goth delivers that gut-wrenching speech, and the fluff of the first act and gleeful slayings of the second comes into starker focus and feels like different movies from each other.
The third act is clearly meant as the payoff for everything. And I tend to argue that sticking the landing is of vital importance as that’s the vibe the audience will carry with them as they exit the theater. But such an intense focus on one aspect clearly meant a detriment to others. Performances are great and those descents into madness and the macabre are fascinating, but it feels like a more coherent film would almost immediately be a classic.
A bit of backstory to explain how this entry in a burgeoning series was made so quickly: While the cast and crew were in quarantine in New Zealand making X, lead Mia Goth and West started fleshing out the character Pearl, ultimately finding enough material for her own movie.
They essentially shot the two films back-to-back, hence the barely six month time frame between installments. PEARL was essentially already finished when X came out; so much so that a trailer was added to the end of the credits when West’s film played 2022’s SXSW. It’s an immense testament of the talent and vision of Goth and West that PEARL, while narratively and thematically connected to its predecessor, is its own beast with its own aesthetic and a very different performance than what the lead actor turned in (in her dual roles) in X.
Despite these changes between the two installments, it is fair to say that if you enjoyed the first movie, then you will like its prequel.
Yes, the porno in a sweltering ‘70s swamp vibe is gone, but it maintains that same gruesomeness (albeit with a smaller body count) and a story of a desperate search for fame that is equal parts frightening and tragic. I found X somehow lacking in a way that I still can’t articulate half a year later. Perhaps it was the fact that the cast was too attractive for ‘70s-set porn film shoot or that things felt too antiseptic instead of the more dangerous vibe of, say, Tobe Hooper’s EATEN ALIVE, where the sweat was palpable and the carnal yearning was sewn into every frame. Perhaps it was that there weren’t enough intricate killings, though there are a few truly gruesome ones. That rings true in PEARL as well as most of the violence is fairly muted. Whatever it is, something feels sadly restrained in X and PEARL, like a pulled punch that could’ve hit with far greater impact. I’d still recommend people check out the latest collaboration between Goth and West—especially if you really dug X—but there’s a sense that this could’ve been great instead of just good with an asterisk.
And yes, burgeoning series as the third entry, MAXXXINE, was just announced with a teaser revealing the leading lady from X has made it to Hollywood where she continues to strive to be a star. Probably at any cost.