A Roughie With Lisa Marie: Scum of the Earth (dir. by Herschell Gordon Lewis)


If there’s any exploitation director that deserves a critical re-evaluation, it’s Herschell Gordon Lewis.  Over the course of two decades, Lewis dabbled in every genre of low-budget filmmaking and even invented one with his 1963 “gore” film Blood Feast.  Many film critics tends to dismiss Lewis as being one of the worst directors of all time.  I would argue that, far from being the worst, Lewis was a unique filmmaker who, working with low budgets and mainstream support, always managed to create movies that had their own unique cinematic aesthetic.  Much like the great French director Jean Rollin, Lewis made dream-like films that — though initially dismissed for their lack of slick production values — have managed to survive the test of time and remain as interesting and oddly watchable now as the day they were first released.  That certainly not the accomplishment of “the worst director of all time.”

(Add to that, the worst director of all time is Garry Marshall.  Seriously, New Year’s Eve will be forever tainted, thanks to Mr. Marshall.)

Though Lewis is best known for his “gore” films like Blood Feast and the Gruesome Twosome, he dabbled in just about every genre of film.  Last night, I watched one of his non-gore films,  Scum of the Earth.  Filmed in 6 days in 1963, Scum of the Earth was released at the same time as Lewis’s better-known Blood Feast.

“Only an alert society can protect itself from those who prey on the weak — the scum of the earth.” — Closing Narration of Scum of the Earth.

Like many of the classic grindhouse film, Scum of the Earth presents itself as a warning to mainstream society about the evil lurking just underneath the facade of normalcy.  In this case, that evil is the “dirty picture” underground and the film starts with a montage of various “teenagers” selling pictures of a topless woman.  I like to think that, with this little pre-credits sequence, Herschell Gordon Lewis establishes that Scum of the Earth is nothing less than a black-and-white, low-budget version of The Wire.

Much like The Wire and Traffic, Scum of the Earth goes from showing us how the product is distributed to showing us how and why the product comes into being in the first place.  Mr. Lang (Lawrence Wood) is a cheerful man who spends his time sitting in a small office and sending out his henchmen, evil Larry (Mal Arnold) and the moronic Ajax (Craig Maudsplay), to distribute explicit photos of the innocent victims that he lures into his sordid web. (Indeed, they are truly the scum of the earth…)  The pictures are taken by disillusioned artist Harmon (Thomas Kerwin) and most of them feature Sandy (played by Sandy Sinclair).  It’s quickly revealed that both Sandy and Harmon hate what they’ve become but they’re both being blackmailed by the jovial Mr. Lang.

However, Sandy’s pictures are no longer selling as well so Lang offers her a proposition.  Sandy can retire from the business if she recruits a replacement.  For the rest of the 72-minute film, we watch as Sandy and Harmon recruit innocent Kim (played all wide-eyed and breathless by Vicki Miles) who desperately needs 500 dollars to be able to pay her college tuition.  Oddly enough, that’s the same way I paid my college tuition which, incidentally, was a lot more than 500 dollars.

Anyway, Kim soon finds herself in over head because 1) she’s incredibly stupid and 2) she’s dealing with the scum of the earth.  If Kim stop posing for topless pictures, she knows that copies will be sent to her kindly but slow-witted father.  (“You’re the best father I ever had!” Kim tells her dad at one point.)  Even worse, Ajax and Larry want to take some pictures of their own with her.  Whatever is a girl to do!?

 As a director Herschell Gordon Lewis has always struck me as being a bit of American Jess Franco.  Much like Franco, he made film that can charitably be called terrible.  Between performances that ranged from histrionic to living dead and a filming technique that seemed to mostly consist of little more than turning on the camera, it’s easy to dismiss Lewis and his films.  It’s only on repeat viewings — after you’ve gotten a previous taste of the Lewis aesthetic — that you start to notice that quirky details and the occasionally inspired visuals that give evidence to the fact that Lewis does not deserve his reputation for being one of the worst directors of all time.  Even in an admittedly lesser work like Scum of the Earth, there’s enough intentional strangeness to hold your interest.  To cite one example, the villainous Mr. Lang appears to love toys and he gives quite a few of his evil speeches while looking down at two nodding bobble heads.  As static as the majority of the film is, the final chase (in which two police officers pursue the portly Mr. Lang through a rather slummy strip mall) is a lot of fun to watch.  The best visual in the film comes when Kim is posing topless for the first time and Lewis gives us a shot, from her point of view, of the oppressively bright lamps shining down on her and casting the rest of the studio into total darkness.  It’s a scene that is full of genuine menace.

The cast is full of actors who will be recognizable to anyone who has seen any of Lewis’s other films.  Out of the cast, William Kerwin comes the closest to giving an actual performance, bringing a real sense of sadness and regret to the role of Harmon the Photographer.   Kerwin also appeared in Blood Feast, playing the dedicated cop who pursues the evil Faud Ramses who was played by yet another Scum of the Earth alum, Mal Arnold. 

In Scum, Arnold plays Lang’s henchman, Larry.  In 1963, Arnold was 30 years old and he looked like he was 40.  However, he was cast here as a character who tells everyone that he meets that he’s under 17 and therefore, he doesn’t have to worry about going to prison for distributing dirty pictures.  Or, as Arnold puts it, “Not me, Daddy-O!  I’m a minor!”  What makes this especially amusing is that in Blood Feast (which was, again, released that same year), Arnold is playing a character who is 5,000 years old.  What also makes Arnold’s performance as Larry enjoyable to those of us who are familiar with Lewis’s cinematic career is that Arnold essentially gives the same over-the-top performance here that he would later give in Blood Feast.  I kept expecting him to ask Kim if she wanted an Egyptian feast.

However, the film truly belongs to Lawrence Wood, who plays Mr. Lang with such an insane joy that it’s impossible not to root for the sleazy old pornographer.  Whether he’s giggling as a toy monkey somersaults across his desk or he’s politely explaining why nothing is actually his fault, Wood appears to be having such a good time that it’s just infectious.  Wood’s best moment comes when Kim expresses some reluctance about modeling for more pictures and suddenly, Mr. Lang starts to shout at her about how she (and all the other kids) are hypocrites.  “You’re damaged merchandise and this is a fire sale!” he shouts as sweat streams down his face and Lewis zooms in for a close up of his mouth, “You’ll do what I tell ya!” Wood screams, “Do you hear!?”  It’s a scene of lunatic genius that, in the best tradition of both Herschell Gordon Lewis and the grindhouse in general, comes out of nowhere and is all the more effective because of it. 

For this scene alone, Scum of the Earth deserves to be seen.

Criterion Collection Viewing: Week 2


For those that might not have heard of the Criterion Collection, it is a DVD/Blu-Ray distribution company that acquires, restores and beautifully packages “classic”, “important”, foreign and American films with a focus on art-house and hard to find releases. I’ve been a fan for quite some time and recently had an urge to explore their collection more deeply. You can find my post for my first week of viewing here. 

—————————————————————-

“Le Feu follet” (‘The Fire Within’) is an introspective depiction of a man nearing the end of his rope. It is directed by Louis Malle (Zazie dans le metro) and stars Maurice Ronet as Alain Leroy, a depressed recovering alcoholic who spends his time in a clinic, even though his detox has long been over. He stays because he can’t bring himself to face the real world in fear of what he might become. On a large mirror within his room are the worlds July 23. Surrounding it are pictures of a beautiful woman. She is his wife, Dorothy, who couldn’t stand his drinking and lives in New York, where he had lived before his alcoholism. But life, love and his demons became too much so he returned to France to get treatment.

The film opens with him in bed with an old friend. He attempts to star into her eyes, to find a connection, a fleeting moment, that first gaze. But alas he finds nothing. She begs him to return to New York, but he can’t for he has other plans. Later in the day his therapist pleads with him to reach out to his wife, to re-enter the world. This too is a task that he finds hard to do. Bored, he hums to himself and walks around his room. He finally sits down at his desk, opens his briefcase and removes a gun. “Life…” he says as he holds it to his mouth “…flows too slowly in me. So I speed it up. I set it right…”…but not quite yet.  Moments later as he gets into bed he declares “I kill myself tomorrow.” Suddenly the date on the mirror gains new meaning. He plans to end his misery, and had been planning to for some time.

But before he does the next morning he takes one last trip to Paris. Whether it is to say one last good bye to those he knew or find reasons to go on he doesn’t seem too sure. Sadly he finds no answers among friends, they have changed or their actions seem more pointless, unremarkable or dull as ever. One has settled down, rooted himself with a wife and children and finds interest and solace in the mythology of civilizations long lost. Another lives carefree with poets and thinkers, but seems bored and has her regrets. The last bunch he visits, though wealthy and important, are also leading lives that contain little happiness and have relationships that are falling apart.

His misery continues to grow as the memories of the man he once was, a life he now sees as wasted, all flood back. Instead of reconnecting, the hole in his soul just grows larger as he feels less and less able to connect with or “touch” the world around him. It is truly a sad and thoughtful experience. The sort that makes you think and make your own self evaluations. All of this is supported by fantastic dialogue and a wonderful lead performance and I really loved every minute of it. Highly recommended.

“Vampyr” is a surreal and chilling film by Carl Theodor Dreyer, a director who also made one of my all-time favorite films “The Passion of Joan of Arc”. “Vampyr” is a turn in a very different direction stylistically compared to that film. Here is not only his first use of sound but also whereas ‘Passion’ is a serious and easy to follow depiction of the trail and execution of Joan of Arc, “Vampyr” is a haunting tale of vampires and ghosts that blends dream and reality.

Dreyer does a fantastic job in establishing a very eerie atmosphere right from the start and it only continues to grow stronger through his brilliant use of lighting and shadows. One scene in particular was as admirable as it was creepy where human shadows are seen walking along the walls, with no actual actors to be found on screen, to represent ghosts. These ghosts are the prisoners of a vampire, who is terrorizing a local family.

When watching one must remember that the perspective of the film is through that of a young man who visits the village, and winds up trying to help the family. The often hazy and dreamlike look of scenes bring into question the ‘sanity’ of this character, especially towards the end during a premature burial sequence that makes us question what is happening. Dreyer purposely shot the film very grainy and foggy to create this distortion.

The whole experience is absolutely hypnotic though challenging. Some might find the film to be a bore, or too art-house for their tastes. These complaints would be justified because it is a strange and enigmatic film. With that said, even those who can’t get over the lack of heavy dialogue, slow pacing and editing would be stupid not to admire the technical feats and just utter bizarreness of it all. Recommended.

“The Exterminating Angel” by Luis Bunuel is a unique and often surreal assault on the bourgeois that is truly hard to explain. Its plot involves a group of upper class socialites who attend a dinner party, but when it starts to get late and time for everyone to depart none of them can seem to exit the room. It is through this simple action, their imprisonment, that Bunuel begins to dissect human behavior in a society that places etiquette and status over humanity. Their inability to leave, as if on a subconscious level none wish to be the first to go, represents the importance they place on other opinions and not wanting to be rude over all else. This sets the stage for Bunuel’s grand experiment. Locked up together we watch how they slowly lose their sanity and we see their true savage nature emerge. They are helpless without their servants, who left without explanation before the party. The whole film is a truly interesting experience, at times slow but still entertaining. It is hard to know what to take away from the whole thing. Bunuel himself said there was no true explanation for the events in the film, but his social commentary is pretty clear at times.  Recommended to those interested, but not a must watch.

“Zazie dans le metro” was Louis Malle’s new wave “comedy”, and I use the term lightly, about a young girl’s journey through Paris while visiting her uncle.

Malle employs every possible comedic gag in the book which quickly grew tiring. It is all very sporadic and loony. If looked at as if the hijinks are nothing more than the overzealous perspective of Zazie, who views the adult world as a carnival, then maybe it makes sense and is even a brave and cynical farce. Sadly it is hard to see things that way and even harder to sit through because the shtick gets old so fast. It is just way too hectic and fractured to keep ones attention and never really funny or insightful enough to even recommend.

Malle directed one of my top ten favorite films, ‘Au revioir les enfants’, which is completely different in tone and style, so I was really let down. This is perhaps the first in the series that I strongly cannot recommend.

“The Phantom Carriage”, starred and directed by Victor Sjostrom, was a film that heavily influenced Ingmar Bergman. So much so that he would end up casting Victor as the lead in my all-time favorite film ‘Wild Strawberries’, something I did not know until after I saw this and totally blew my mind in the best possible way.

As for the film, well it is somewhat simple. At the end of every year, the soul of the last person to die must take the reins of the Phantom Carriage, becoming Death. For the next full year that soul must walk the Earth collecting the bodies of sinners. The film opens on New Year’s Eve as the main character gets into a fight which leads to his untimely death. He is unfortunately the last person to die. Before he has to take Death’s place he is forced to visit those he wronged and we view his past mistakes and sins, most of which were perpetrated under the influence of alcohol. It all leads to a somewhat predictable but uplifting finish that sort of turned my off.

Based on its story and acting alone I wouldn’t have been impressed with the end result but on a technical level the film is a marvel. Double exposure was used with multiple layers to allow ghosts and Death to walk in three dimensions, behind objects in the foreground yet seen as transparent in front of objects in the background.  For a film that came out in 1921 it truly is remarkable. For this alone I’d recommend it, but its eerie, though unremarkable, story and tone and influences on directors like Bergman make it a must watch.

“Elevator to the Gallows” was a competently directed crime thriller, and also Louis Malle’s first feature film. It stars Maurice Ronet (“The Fire Within”) as Julien Tavernier who is having an affair with his boss’s wife Florence, played by Jeanne Moreau. Together they plan to kill her husband and run away together. Julien manages to achieve this goal and make it look like a suicide. He seems to be in the clear and ready to leave but notices he left a piece of evidence that could be used to realize it was a murder. He runs back into the building and takes the elevator, but halfway up it shuts down. That is because the building is closed down, with no knowledge of him still being inside, and the power shut off. While he is stuck and trying to figure out a way to escape, a flower girl with knows Julien and her criminal boyfriend steal his car and under his name check into a hotel. The two end up getting into trouble that leads back to Julien, and as the police search for him he is still stuck inside the elevator. The result of it all is an at time suspenseful and well-acted thriller that just has some really stupid moments and takes more than a few missteps at the end which really hurt it. One of those missteps is by far one of the stupidest decisions and changes in attitude I’ve seen in two characters in a long time. Sadly it isn’t clever enough to be entertaining and make up for this. What is worse is that it could have been a lot better. Don’t recommend.

“Solaris” is a haunting and poetic exploration of our consciousness and human nature. An enigmatic, visually hypnotic and beautiful science fiction film that has been called Tarkovsky’s response to “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

In the film an oceanic planet was discover and named Solaris. A space station was sent into its orbit to study its unusual surface. When they can’t seem to find anything remarkable on the planet, and after a pilot dies flying over the surface, the agency running the research begins plans to pull the plug. But lately the transmissions they have been receiving from the three remaining cosmonauts stationed above Solaris have been mysterious and nonsensical. It is decided that Kris Kelvin, a scientist and psychologist, be sent to the station to evaluate the mental and emotional crises the men aboard the station seem to be experiencing; and report back on whether the progress being made over Solaris and the state of the crew is in a condition that warrants a continuation of the whole program. Before he goes he spends his last days at his fathers, which holds many memories of his childhood and wife, who committed suicide years before. While there Kris has trouble connecting with his father, even though by the time Kris returns his father will likely be dead, so he leaves with no real goodbye.

When he arrives on Solaris the crew is in worst shape than he expected. One of them, an old acquaintance of Kris, had killed himself sometime before Kris’s  arrival. The other two, Dr. Snaut and Dr. Sartorious, can’t seem to provide any logical answers. They speak of hallucinations that are all too real, and warn him to remember he is no longer on Earth. Kris does not know what to make of it all; that is until he experiences it firsthand. That night he awakes to find Hari, his ex-wife who killed herself years before, sitting in the chair in front of his bed. Shocked, but not willing to lose himself, Kris speaks with her. He is unsure if he is dreaming, if it is simply a hallucination or some sort of alien entity. His first instinct is to get it off the ship, so he tricks her into a spacecraft and blasts her off the station.

Snaut explains to him that his actions were of little use and on the next night Hari reappears. To his best knowledge Solaris seems to be a living entity with the ability to rematerialize memories. The results are not human, but possess some memory of who they were. Perhaps the most shocking fact about them is that they cannot be killed. Burn their blood and it regenerates itself, when Hari cuts her hand the wound vanishes minutes later. Sartorius believes the only way to rid themselves of these “guests” is by blasting Solaris with heavy radiation, though they agree that this option be a last resort.

Kris tries to keep control around Hari but the memories of her and the regrets he has that resurface, not being there for her or expressing his love when he had the chance, cause his mind to slip, putting more of himself into the recreation of Hari. This only makes it harder to decide whether they should continue to try communicating with Solaris or destroy it.

“Solaris” is one of those films that leaves the viewer with so many questions and it isn’t all easy to digest and yet remains unbelievable mesmerizing. In its exploration of love, conscious, reconciliation, science and regret it becomes a deliberately slow moving and meditative experience. For nearly three hours I could barely move, I was transfixed by the story and the questions it asked. Can we escape our irretrievable past? Are we trapped by our guilt and sins? It is fascinating how Tarkovsky explores this idea of how easily we lose our grip on who we are when faced with the presence of an unknown and superior force and begin to focus our attention inwards causing the unremarkableness and inconsequentiality of being human to become so apparent compared to the rest of the universe. It really is an interesting counter argument to Kubirck’s “2001:  A Space Odyssey” and its evolution of man even against a force superior to our own.

It could easily become a new favorite upon another viewing. With that said I can’t recommend it to everyone. It is exactly the sort of foreign art-house film that can easily polarize and be labeled pretentious. If you have any interest in it, or more specifically if you want to explore Tarkovsky’s filmography, I’d recommend starting here.

————————————————————

As always thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed the reviews. Please leave any comments (good or bad) below.

Review: The Hunger Games (dir. Gary Ross)


Quick heads up. Please also read Leonard Wilson’s thoughts over at his review, if you haven’t already. Also I apologize for the length of this review. It doesn’t really contain many spoilers but is a bit more in depth than I usually do.  But hopefully you have, and giving its box office performance I’m betting on it, seen it already.

“The Hunger Games”, the adaptation of Suzanne Collins’s young adult novel, is a thrilling, smart, visually unique and most importantly emotional dystopian drama/thriller directed by Gary Ross.

The film stars Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. She lives in the distance future in which after the destruction of the North American continent due to some unknown event a new nation called Panem was created, consisting of several districts ruled by a Capital city. The districts ended up rebelling against the rule of the Capital, resulting is a war that saw the total destruction of the 13th District with the Capital ending up being victorious. In order to help keep the Districts in line and avoid another rebellion, outside of the barriers and “peacekeepers” placed within each, an annual “gladiatorial” game is held. During this time, which has become essentially a reality show, two teenagers from each district (one male, one female) are chosen by random to be sent to an arena, the design of which changes each year, to fight to the death. They act as sacrifices for punishment, but also create a level of hope for those wanting to see their District succeed because the last one standing is labeled the “Victor” and their District is rewarded.

The film begins on the “reaping”, the day in which the tributes are picked. Katniss lives in District 12, which specializes in coal mining. It is surrounded by a lush forest that she illegally hunts in with her friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Today her name has been entered multiple times as it has in previous years, but her main worry this year is that her young sister Prim is of age to be eligible. Katniss has a very strong relationship with her. Both live alone with their mother, who has been emotionally inept since Katniss’s father died years before in a mine accident. When it comes time to select the tributes Katniss tries to reassure Prim that she will not be chosen but of course she is. Katniss, not willing to let her young sister enter the games, volunteers to take her place.  I must mention that the buildup to this, and many other scenes throughout the film, is done exceptionally well. Most people, even those that didn’t read the novel, know what happens during the reaping and yet with a dreary tone and at times haunting score my heart was still pounding and sunk when the names were called.

The male chosen is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a baker’s son, who Katniss has only ever interacted with once before, though it was a moment that has an important meaning to her. After a brief goodbye with their families both are shipped off to the capital, under the guidance of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), an eccentric and dolled up woman from the Capital, and their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a drunkard and past winner of the games from District 12.

The Capital is a shock to them because it is nothing like the rural world of District 12. Here there are huge builds and statues. The citizens wear colorful clothing and elaborate makeup. There is an abundance of food and usage of technology that helps them thrive over the Districts. It is ruled by President Snow, who is played by Donald Sutherland. He doesn’t get much screen time, though he appears more than he did in the first book, but he handles the character very well, ruthless but subtle.

Katniss’s time in the Capital before entering the arena is really for one thing only, that is to try making an impression to gain sponsorship from interested members of the capital who wish to support specific tributes. These impressions are made in two ways. The first are training courses in which all 24 tributes work out together in various stations (camouflage, archery, swords, plant identification, etc.). Due to her experience hunting Katniss is proficient with a bow, though she tries to down play it at first. This training area is the first time all of them really get to see what the others are made of, which is important so they know who the real threats are. In this case those threats are “career tributes”, which are tributes from more “well off” Districts where children are chosen to train specifically for the arena and then volunteer at age 18.

The other opportunity to make impressions involves a parade in front of a large crowd and later on interviews broadcasted throughout the Capital and Districts. During both it is important that Katniss look and act in a manner that will make people like her. The “looks” part isn’t much of a problem. She is a beautiful young woman and has the help of a stylist named Cinna, who Katniss quickly bonds with. This is because he is the only citizen of the Capital who seems to respect her and understand the situation she is in. He is played by Lenny Kravitz and I must say he does a great job. Cinna doesn’t get much screen time but when he does it truly feels like he empathizes with her, which is important. He truly wants to see her succeed and luckily he is damn good at his job. The outfit he designs for her and Peeta, black leather and flames, when they are displayed to the sponsors wows them all giving her the nickname “the girl on fire” which becomes very important later on in the series.

The real challenge comes when she is interviewed by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), a TV personality. Cinna tells her to be truthful, and so she does, expressing the love for her young sister. When it comes time for Peeta’s interview he easily wins the crowd over with his charm, but it is a lie that shocks them the most. He expresses his love for Katniss, who doesn’t take it lightly but Haymitch explains that he can easily sell “love birds” to the sponsors, so she reluctantly goes along with it.

It is this aspect of their relationship that really leads to any sort of love story. Many people who had not read the books went in thinking there would be some sort of cliché love triangle but that just isn’t the case. Katniss does have Gale back home, who seems to like her, but she views him only as a friend. The only reason she shows any feelings for Peeta is to sell the love angle, and although during the games she does begin to like him, you couldn’t call it love.

When the games start is when the action begins. All 24 tributes are placed inside a dome that’s designed to be a forest. Located in the middle of them all is a stack of weapons and bags full of supplies. When the timer goes off the blood begins to spill. Katniss doesn’t take many chances in getting a weapon; she instead grabs a bag close to her and runs off into the woods. Much of the rest of the film takes place within the arena in which Katniss struggles to survive against nature and her fellow tributes, especially the “careers” that have teamed up and are picking off everyone else.

This portion of the film is the focus of one complaint that keeps coming up. Many seem to dislike the fact that the violence is toned down a bit. This is something that I think works for the better. There is still a sense of death and blood but Ross didn’t want to glorify the brutality, which made sense. The viewer should be looking upon the film in the mindset of someone in the Districts, horrified by what they see but not wanting to be entertained by gore and there is just no need for it. When people say they needed to really see the deaths to make it have an impact in a way sort of worries me. If the death of a child, even if barely shown, doesn’t affect you; if instead you need to actually see a child’s neck slit open for it to rattle you then the problem is yours and not the films. How Ross handles the death, which is horrifying in itself, fit the tone of the film which should be enough.

Now I will avoid going any further into detail about the events that take place in the arena. I will say that there are some shocking and highly emotional moments. One in particular nearly brought me to tears, those who have seen it will know which one I’m speaking of. I was worried, since it is probably my favorite moment of the whole series, that it wouldn’t be handled well but it is handled damn near perfectly. The only thing I think they could have handled better within the arena is the interactions between Katniss and Peeta. You really need to be paying attention and make a few assumptions to understand that Katniss’s change of heart is for show, and it does get cheesy at times.

I want to do something, right here, right now, to shame them, to make them accountable, to show the Capitol that whatever they do or force us to do there is a par of every tribute they can’t own. That Rue was more than a piece in their Games. And so am I. A few steps into the woods grows a bank of wildflowers. Perhaps they are really weeds of some sort, but they have blossoms in beautiful shades of violet and yellow and white. I gather up an armful and come back to Rue’s side. Slowly, one stem at a time, I decorate her body in the flowers. Covering the ugly wound. Wreathing her face. Weaving her hair in bright colors. They’ll have to show it. Or, even if they choose to turn the cameras elsewhere at this moment, they’ll have to bring them back when they collect the bodies and everyone will see her then and know I did it. I step back and take one last look at Rue. She could really be asleep in that meadow after all. “Bye, Rue,” I whisper. I press the three middle fingers of my left hand against my lips and hold them out in her direction. Then I walk away without looking back.

But I couldn’t really hold it against the film. The biggest challenge Ross had to manage was the perspective. In the book it is first person, so much of the exposition and explanations of the world, games, and most importantly Katniss’s feelings are done within her head. The film could have gone with narration for much of this but I don’t think it would of fit. Instead it relies on the audience to put some of the pieces together. It also utilizes the “reality show” aspect of the games by having Caesar and another commentator appear as if they are telling viewers at home what they are seeing. For example there is a scene in which Katniss uses a beehive to her advantage and it cuts away briefly to have Caesar explain that these bees are deadly and cause hallucinations. These cutaways did seem a bit out of place but as I said if you consider that this is viewed as a reality show by most in the Capital then this sort of commentating makes sense.

I enjoyed the direction overall to be honest. I’ve read multiple complaints over the lack of establishing shots and shaky cam. I’ve personally never had a problem with the “shaky cam” technique; I think it adds to the intensity and chaos of many scenes. And I personally have no complaints about the editing. The performances were also very good. The stand out here is Jennifer Lawrence. She fully embodies Katniss and does such an amazing job at expressing her vulnerability while also making her a strong female character. Hutcherson was much better as Peeta than I thought he would be. Harrelson as Haymitch was damn near perfect and the same goes for Elizabeth Banks as Effie. The other tributes held their own. I didn’t expect much from them and so wasn’t disappointed when some had a few terrible moments. Oh, and the girl chosen to play Rue was amazing casting.

For those that haven’t read the book, the biggest differences that stood out to me was the lack of explanation for the Avoxs. Those are the servants in red you see in the background. They are individuals who have been punished; their tongues cut out and forced to be servants. In the book Katniss recognizes one of them from a while back in which she and Gale ran into people trying to escape another District.  Also the explanation on how she got the pin is different. In the book it is giving to here by a friend, the daughter of the District’s Mayor. It made sense to leave this out because the characters weren’t needed.

The most important changes I think was all the stuff happening outside of the District. All the interactions with Snow and the Gamemaker, or Haymitch working to help them both behind the scenes are new. We don’t get this in the book and it was nice to get an idea of what was happening outside of the arena and how those characters watching reacted to what takes place.

As for the comparisons to ‘Battle Royale’, I’m seriously getting sick of the two being mentioned together. Although I really liked ‘Battle Royale’ it wasn’t the first film to contain people battling to the death for show and doesn’t have a monopoly over the concept. Just because both contain young adults doesn’t mean one stole from the other or is any better or worse. It bothers me that people like to pick and choose when they can accept certain aspect of a film over others; like accepting films with concepts very close to another for different genres yet here it is all they can talk about. The same goes for the technology in the film. I’ve heard more than one complaint over the lack of deep explanation on stuff like the medicines used or the “mutated dogs” at the end that seem to pop up out of nowhere. Must I remind people that the events in the film take place many years in the future? And that although the surrounding districts are poor with little to no technology, the Capital is still thriving and have made many advances in certain areas that would make medicines that can heal burns efficiently possible. I mean audiences can easily accept the futuristic world of other sci-fi films, even when there is little to no explanation on how things work, yet here for some reason they can’t.

It really just boils down to the fact that it would have never truly satisfied some people no matter what it did. Many wanted more exposition, yet would have complained if it was longer. If it was shorter, then they would have complained even more about the lack of exposition and length. Then there are those who have read the book and are disappointed that things are left out. And finally there are those who went in wanting to hate it because they have this misconception that it is like the ‘Twilight’ books and pandering to teenage girls. Honestly, to truly enjoy it you have to take it for what it is which some just cannot seem to do.

Overall I really, really enjoyed the film. Upon another viewing my love for it might possibly grow. It has its flaws and many aspects of the story are handled better in the book but I felt Gary Ross and his cast did a wonderful and admirable job adapting Collin’s novel. They faced a lot of challenges, and a lot of hate, but the end result was still an entertaining, smart and emotional story with a fantastic lead performance. I eagerly await the sequels and hope it is Gary Ross behind the camera once again. Highly recommended.

Quick Review: The Hunger Games (dir. by Gary Ross)


The Hunger Games is something of an event film, which means that this may not be the only review for the movie. Especially since I haven’t seen Battle Royale, which many say The Hunger Games is very similar to, there’ll probably be a number of viewpoints to this movie.

Update: leon3duke has added his own in-depth review of The Hunger Games. Definitely worth reading.

I consider myself fortunate that I knew next to nothing about the movie adaptation to Suzanne Collins “The Hunger Games” or the novel itself. When I purchased my ticket for a midnight showing, there were only about 10 people around, many of them wearing T-Shirts with the logo. However, when the movie house started asking for the tickets, that 10 turned into 30. By the time the movie started, the 30 became about 50 or so. Not exactly a packed spectacle for where I reside, but I know the ones in Manhattan were.

If any comparisons can be made, I guess it could be to 1987’s The Running Man, with maybe a dash of The Truman Show, but The Hunger Games stands on it’s own because it’s protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, comes across as being in danger every step of the way. That’s enough to keep the audience enthralled. Arnold, not so much.

So, what are the Hunger Games? It’s overall a really great film with a strong female lead in Jennifer Lawrence.

In the future, the nation goes through a number of changes. Wars, famine and poverty ravage the land and eventually, a sense of peace is found. Panem, as the country is called, is divided into 12 Districts. Much like Joss Whedon’s Firefly, the land is broken between the rich who live in the Capitol and the Districts, which live off of a bartering system and are extremely poor. At one time, a 13th Division challenged the rule of the Capitol and had to be taken down. As punishment and to remind the other districts of how great the Capitol is, each District picks one boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to participate in a last one to the death event known as the Hunger Games.

Lawrence (X-Men First Class, Winter’s Bone) easily carries the film as Katniss Everdeen, a resident of District 12, who is great at Archery and uses her skills to hunt for food for her family. When her sister, Prim (Willow Shields) is chosen as a Hunger Games Tribute, she volunteers to take her place. Leaving behind her mother, sister and best friend (Liam Helmsworth), Katniss is taken to the Capitol to participate. Joining her is another member of her District, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson).

Katniss and Peeta are then introduced to their team, lead by Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), Effie Trinket (a nearly unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks), and Cinna (Lenny Kravitz). Harrelson pretty much nails every scene he’s in, something I’ve noticed lately with a lot of his roles. I found it interesting as well to see Lawrence play opposite Lenny, considering she only recently acted alongside his daughter Zoe in X-Men: First Class last year. He actually does well with the time he has on-screen.

That there is the core of the film. Can Katniss survive The Hunger Games? There’s much more to that, but in originally writing this, I ended up explaining most of the film.

The movie does get bloody. It doesn’t try to make light of any of the situations the characters are in, but being a PG-13 film, it doesn’t turn into anything on the lines of a Saw film (which makes me wonder how that would have turned out).

Can I take the kids to this one? 

You can, yes, but note that even though this based on a story written for young audiences, it does have its share of blood and violence. Then again, considering that you can get the same kind of violence from video games these days, I’d say only the really young may be bothered. If there’s any problem regarding kids, it could be a patience factor. Kids expecting non stop action may get a little bored, but if they already read the book, they probably won’t have any problems with it at all and know what to expect. In terms of sexual situations, there aren’t any.

How long is the film? Am I going to yawn? 

The Hunger Games clocks in at about 142 minutes (2 hours and 22 minutes). The first half of the film needs to set up for the second half (The Games themselves), and while it doesn’t move slow, it takes it’s time in letting the audience know what the stakes are for them and to show the contrasts between the districts and the Capitol. Think of it like Batman Begins. Before we get to see Batman, we had to be able to see Bruce Wayne go through his training. There’s not action all the way through the movie, which actually works in it’s favor. The same kind of applies for The Hunger Games. If that made you yawn, then that first half of this film may have the same effect. I loved it, myself, because a lot of that information felt necessary to me, but what works for me may not work for everyone else.

Overall, The Hunger Games was definitely worth it, at least for an initial viewing. I hope that if they go with a sequel (given the success of this one, that’s pretty much guaranteed), they expand more on Panem and some of the events that brought things to where they are now.

Grindhouse Classics : “The Gruesome Twosome”


Ask most people what their favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis flick is, and the common answers you’re likely to hear will be either Blood Feast, 2,000 Maniacs, or  The Gore-Gore Girls, with the occasional vote for The Wizard Of Gore simply because it was mentioned in Juno, they saw it due to the fact that Diablo Cody gave it her “certified cool” stamp of approval, and they then proceeded to go no further in the “Godfather of Gore”‘s cinematic ouevre than that.

Fair enough. But for this armchair critic’s money, Lewis’ most fun — and most deranged (they usually go hand-in-hand with HGL) — work is 1967’s The Gruesome Twosome. The premise is pure genius, the humor is right up there at the forefront, and it’s as subtle as a hammer-blow to the forehead. What more could you possibly ask for?

Old Mrs. Pringle (Elizabeth Davis) is an eccentric yet hopelessly entrepreneurial senior citizen who runs not one, but two home-based businesses — a wig shop downstairs primarily catering to co-eds from the local college (yes, there was once a day when wigs were considered very hip fashion accessories by the under-65-and-without-cancer set), and a boarding house  upstairs that pretty much rents rooms solely to — those same co-eds from the local college. It doesn’t take a seasoned exploitation viewer like myself or unobtainium13 vet Lisa Marie Bowman (who you can either thank, or blame, for getting me to start contributing to this site) to figure out at this point why Mrs. Pringle’s wigs have such fine-quality, completely-realistic-feeling hair, does it?

Well, okay, in case you’re slow on the uptake,the not-so-good Mrs. P.’s demented full-grown son, Rodney (Chris Martell), is taking the girls into the back room of the shop, scalping them, and then killing them — thus ensuring that their “room for rent” sign never has to come down, and that they never run out of wigs. And this is almost always shown in loving, close-up, excruciating, far-less-than-realistic detail. Truth be told, although Lewis had taken something of an extended hiatus from the gore genre he basically started single-handedly  before returning to it with this film, he hadn’t been away so long that he forgot we wouldn’t have it any other way and he knew that his job was simply to deliver the goods. Sure, there’s a “plot” here of sorts — college student Kathy Baker (Gretchen Wells), a self-appointed “female James Bond,” starts doing the cops’ job for them and investigating the disappearances of all her classmates when one of her fellow residents of the all-girls’ dormitory doesn’t come home one night, much to the chagrin of her boyfriend, but as with any Lewis film, the payoff here comes primarily in the form of the ingenious set-up and the resultant heavy doses of viscera said set-up inevitably gives rise to — the rest is all filler.

And it’s the quality of that filler that sets The Gruesome Twosome apart. Whether it’s the truly hysterical conversation between two styrofoam wig-form heads at the beginning of the film (a scenario Lewis had to improvise quickly on the fly to pad out the runtime to 70 minutes when the original opening scene was inadvertently destroyed, thus making it a genuine example of necessity being the accidental mother to genius), or the extended slapstick-style sequence where Kathy sics the cops on the poor German- immigrant gardener/handyman who works at the school who just likes to bury bones for his dog in his back yard, or Mrs. Pringle’s constant back-and-forth (in her mind, at any rate) dialogue with her stuffed bobcat, Napoleon, the downright clever nature of the padding in this film marks it as a cut above (pun only somewhat intended) its contemporaries.

As is the case with pretty much every Herschell Gordon Lewis flick, The Gruesome Twosome is available on DVD from Something Weird Video in a “special edition” that features a remastered (and quite nice-looking) full-frame transfer, remastered mono sound, a full-length, and very entertaining, commentary track from Lewis himself, and the ubiquituous-on-these-things “Gallery of Herschell Gordon Lewis exploitation artwork.” Definitely an essential purchase either on its own or as part of the HGL box set that also contains A Taste Of Blood, She-Devils On Wheels, Something Weird, The Wizard Of Gore and The Gore-Gore Girls. If you haven’t got it, get it — and if you’ve got it already, there’s no such thing as a bad time to watch it again. Have fun — and don’t touch my hair.

Film Review: Valley of the Dolls (dir. by Mark Robson)


(Photograph by Erin Nicole Bowman)

(Warning: This review contains spoilers.  A lot of them.)

Last week, I posted a poll and I asked you, the Shattered Lens readers, which film I should watch on March 20th and then subsequently review.  You voted and the winner was the classic 1967 trashfest, Valley of the Dolls.

Based on a best-selling (and trend-setting) novel by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls starts out with a disclaimer that informs us that the story we’re about to see is totally fictional and purely imaginative.  That disclaimer is probably the funniest part of the entire film as Valley of the Dolls is notorious for being one of the first films dedicated to showing middle America just how miserable and screwed up those famous show business types truly are.  As such, the main reason for watching a movie like this is so you can sit there and compare the cinematic troubles of a character like Neely O’Hara to the true-life troubles of an actress like Lindsay Lohan.  Valley of the Dolls tells the story of three aspiring stars who, as they find fame, also find themselves dealing with heartbreak, insanity, and dolls.  No, not the type of dolls that my mom used to collect.  These “dolls” are a bunch of red pills that do everything from keeping you thin to keeping you awake and focused.  (Though the pills are never actually called anything other than “dolls,” they appear to be the same pills that I take for my ADD.)   

The least interesting of our three heroines is Anne Welles (Barbara Parkins).  Unfortunately, Anne is also pretty much the center of the rather draggy first hour of the film.  Anne is a walking cliché, a naive girl from a small town in New England who moves to New York, gets a room at the Martha Washington Hotel for Women, and a job at a local theatrical agency.  “I want to have a marriage like mom and dad…but not yet!”  Anne breathlessly tells us.  Anne eventually ends up as the mistress of Lyon Burke (played by Paul Burke), a writer-turned-theatrical-agent who you know has to be a cad because his name is Lyon Burke and he takes Anne’s virginity but then refuses to marry her afterward.  Anne eventually becomes a model and finds fame as the face of Gilligan Hairspray but she soon finds herself forced to watch as her two best friends travel down a path of self-destruction.

Anne is the film’s token “good girl” and, as such, she’s rather bland and boring.  However, her character is interesting when considered as a symbol for the confused sexual politics of the time.  Valley of the Dolls was made in 1967, at a time when Hollywood was still trying to figure out how to deal with the emerging counter-culture.  The end result? A lot of rather old-fashioned films that were full of jarringly out-of-place counter-culture moments.  By the time Valley of the Dolls came out, it was allowable to acknowledge that a single girl might actually have sex but she still had to, at the very least, feel an unbelievable amount of angst about it.  That certainly is the case with Anne.  Watching the film today, it’s hard to understand just what exactly Anne’s feeling guilty about.  Lyon isn’t married.  Anne finds success even as she pursues her relationship with him.  Up until the final half of the film (at which point the morality of the time demands that both Anne and Lyon suddenly start acting totally out-of-character), Lyon treats her with about as much respect as you could probably expect to get from a man in the 1960s.  And yet, Anne can’t feel complete simply because Lyon is hesitant about marrying her.  When she and Lyon finally do make love, they do it with the lights off so the only thing the viewer sees are two shadowy figures holding each other.  Following the film’s logic, if the lights had been left on, the character of Anne would have had to have been punished later in the film for allowing the audience to see too much of her.

When Anne first comes to New York, she befriends two actresses.  The more tragic of the two is Jennifer North (played by Sharon Tate, who would be tragically murdered two years after this film came out), an insecure blonde who is valued more for her body than her talent.  Jennifer spends her spare time doing bust exercises (“To hell with them!” she declares at one point as she glares down at her chest, “Let ’em droop!”) and dealing with phone calls from her mother, demanding that Jennifer send her money.  Jennifer eventually ends up marrying a singer named Tony (played by Tony Scotti).  Tony is a well-meaning if simple-minded guy who is married to a creepily overprotective sister (played by Lee Grant).  Eventually, it turns out that Tony has a neurological disease and he’s eventually checked into a sanitorium.  Penniless, Jennifer goes France and makes “art films.”  (In one of Valley of the Dolls’ better moments, we’re shown a clip of this “art film” and it turns out to be a pitch perfect satire of every single pretentious soft-core film to ever come out of Europe.)  Upon returning to America, Jennifer discovers that she has breast cancer and, declaring “All I’ve got is my body,” she commits suicide.

Though Sharon Tate gets considerably less screen time than her co-stars, she probably gives the strongest performance in this film.  Certainly, her story is the most emotionally effective (even if it’s hard not to feel that, as is typical of the films of both the 60s and today, Jennifer is being punished for taking off her clothes on camera).  Tate perfectly captures the insecurity that comes from being continually told that you have nothing more to offer beyond how you look.  In her first appearance, she’s wearing an outrageously large headdress.  “I feel a little top-heavy,” she says.  “You are a little top-heavy,” some guy replies while leering at her breasts.  If you doubt that Sharon Tate was a good actress, just watch her reaction.  She perfectly captures a pain that I personally know far too well.  Her subsequent suicide scene, which has the potential to be the most tasteless part of this film, is actually the most powerful and again, it’s because Tate plays the role perfectly.

(It’s been nearly four years since I lost my mom to breast cancer and I have to admit, I had a hard time watching the scenes where Jennifer discusses her diagnosis.  Tate gave a great performance here and it’s a shame that she’s been permanently linked in the public imagination with Charles Manson and the later accusations against her husband, Roman Polanski.  She had real talent.)

As poignant of Sharon Tate was in her role, the film’s fame (and infamy) ultimately rests with our third heroine, Neely O’Hara (played by Patty Duke in a performance that suggests that she was literally possessed during the filming).  Neely is a scrappy, aspiring singer who is fired from a broadway show when her singing threatens to upstage aging star Helen Lawson (played by Susan Hayward, who was brought in to replace Judy Garland).  Neely, however, refuses to let anything keep her  down and soon, she’s singing at a Cystic Fibrosis telethon and becoming a big star.  She marries her boyfriend Mel (played by Martin Milner, who grits his teeth and spits out every line) and moves to California where she soon becomes a big star and then finds herself hooked on “booze and dolls.”  (“I need a doll!” she insists on several occasions.) 

One reason the film’s 2nd hour is so much more fun than the first is because the film’s focus shifts from boring Anne to out-of-control Neely.  Increasingly temperamental and unstable, Neely soon starts to spend all of her time with dress designer Ted Casablanca (a great name, if nothing else.)  “You’re spending more time than necessary with that fag Ted Casablanca,” Mel tells her to which Neely replies, “Ted Casablanca’s no fag and I’m the dame who can prove it.”  This, of course, leads to a divorce and soon Neely is living with Mr. Casablanca who informs her, after he gets caught cheating, “You made me feel as if I was queer…that little whore makes me feel 9 feet tall.”

When Lyon and Anne attempt to force Neely to enter a sanitorium, she responds to running off to San Francisco where she enters a bar and shouts, “I’M NEELY O’HARA!” before then wandering down a sleazy street and ranting, “Boobies, boobies!  Nothing but boobies!  Who needs them!?”  Needless to say, this leads to her eventually overdosing and ending up in that sanitorium where she has a huge freak-out before singing a duet with Tony and resolving to get her life back in order.  This, naturally, leads to her getting released, having an affair with Lyon, and then returning to Broadway where, in the film’s most deliriously odd moment, she steals Helen Lawson’s wig and flushes it down a toilet.

Valley of the Dolls is, admittedly, a terrible film but it’s also a lot of fun and that’s largely because of Patty Duke’s berserk performance as Neely O’Hara.  Earlier, I said that Duke’s performance appears to suggest that she may have been possessed but, honestly, that barely begins to describe it.  Whereas Tate managed to find some truth in the film’s melodrama and Parkins gives a performance that suggests that the script put her in a coma, Duke attacks every inch of melodramatic dialogue, barking out her dialogue with all the ferocity of a yapping little chiuaua.  Duke gives a performance that is so completely and totally over-the-top that it’s hard not to respect her commitment to capturing every overheated, melodramatic moment.

I have to admit that one reason why I love this film is because I’m hoping that someday some enterprising director will remake it and cast me as Neely O’Hara.  Everytime I watch this film, I find myself thinking about how much it would be to respond to every petty annoyance by screeching out, “I’m NEELY O’HARA!”  Seriously, just think about it.  As a character, Neely is a talented, ambitious, emotional, unstable, immature, demanding, bratty, spoiled, and determined.  Sound like anyone whose film reviews you might have been reading recently?  From my previous experience as a community theater ingenue, I can assure you that I can deliver melodramatic dialogue with the best of them and, unlike Patty Duke in this film, I can actually dance.  Unfortunately, I can’t carry a tune to save my life but I’m thinking maybe they could bring in Kelly Clarkson to serve as my singing voice.  (Or maybe Jessica Simpson.  Did I ever mention that we both went to the same high school?  Though not at the same time, of course.) After all, if Patty Duke could be obviously dubbed, why not me?  I can just see myself now, wandering down some sleazy city street, singing to myself and declaring at the top of my lungs, “Ted Casablanca’s no fag and I’m the dame who can prove it!”  I know that Lindsay Lohan will probably insist that this is the role she was born to play, but seriously, who needs Linsday when you’ve got a Lisa?

Beyond the so-bad-that-its-good appeal of the film, Valley of the Dolls is a fascinating cultural artifact for the reasons that I previously hinted at while talking about the character of Anne Welles.  Valley of the Dolls was made in 1967 and, as such, it’s a perfect exhibit of an unstable time when Hollywood was unsure about whether it should embrace the “new morality” or if it should continue to recycle the same sort of old-fashioned filmmaking that had nearly bankrupted the big studios.  The result was several films that felt oddly schizophrenic in their approach and that is certainly the case with Mark Robson’s direction of Valley of the Dolls.  Whether it’s the way the film continually hints at nudity and sex while carefully not revealing too much or the way that random psychedelic sequences seem to suddenly appear on-screen, this is a movie that perfectly captures an uncertain film industry trying to figure out where it stands in a scary new world.

As always, I enjoyed watching this undeniably bad but just as undeniably compelling film.  Our readers chose well!  Thank you to everyone who voted and I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this review almost as much I enjoyed writing it.

(Photograph by Erin Nicole Bowman)

Criterion Collection Viewing: Week 1


So I have not posted in a while. Mainly because I was without a laptop for about two months, but also because I have not watched anything recently worth reviewing or discussing. That was until last week when I decided to subscribe to Hulu Plus to access their large  selection of Criterion films. For those that might not have heard of the Criterion Collection, it is a DVD/Blu-Ray distribution company that acquires, restores and beautifully packages “classic”, “important”, foreign and American films with a focus on art-house and hard to find releases. I’ve been a fan for quite some time and recently had an urge to explore their collection more deeply, which has led to this post and hopefully more to come.

————————————————

“The Cranes Are Flying” is a visually dazzling, humane and emotional war drama about a girl struggling to survive during WWII as her boyfriend is on the front lines and communication with him is lost. This might sound like a story ripe for melodrama and clichés but instead it is very delicate and sincere. The development of the relationship between the young lady, Veronika, and her boyfriend, Boris, is handled so well and their chemistry so deep that when they are apart and when thing take a turn for the worst the pain and heartbreak feels all too real.

What truly made me fall in love with this film, beyond that touching and humane story, was just how exceptionally well crafted the film itself is. The visuals are at times stunning and the camera work, cinematography and crane movements are superb. It is one of those films that is the total package, delivering on an emotional, technical and storytelling level unlike most films made today. A definite must see.

“El Sur” is a lyrical and often haunting portrait of alienation, dislocation and the often un-remarkability of being human. Its story is seen through the eyes of a young girl named Estrella who is living with her family in northern Spain after the Spanish Civil War. We watch, in an almost mystical but utterly mesmerizing fashion as she begins to mature and realize truths about the world around her. The most shocking, and the one that plays the biggest role in her development has to do with her father who we learn comes from a deeply troubled past and is filled with pain. Like Victor Erice’s other film, “The Spirit of the Beehive” (one of my top fifteen favorite films of all time), it all plays out in a rather delicate manner and because the world we see is one through the eyes of a child it is often surreal and enigmatic. This is all handled with fantastic direction by Erice whose brilliant use of natural light and granulation adds a special touch to the visuals and tone. It definitely is a wonderful film and perhaps a new favorite.

*An interesting, albeit sad, fact about “El Sur” is that Erice had planned an additional 90 minutes to be added to the end of the story but the producers wouldn’t allow it. Luckily the final result was still near perfect and ends on a very fine note. The film is also apparently very hard to find, even Criterion has not released it but luckily was able to offer it for streaming. I do hope it gets a restored release sometime soon.

“Knife in the Water”, Roman Polanski’s first feature film, is a competently directed chamber piece about a couple who pick up a young hitch hiker and take him along as they go sailing out on a lake. Polanski seemed to have had some social themes he wished to address but personally I felt none of them really came through, and since their isn’t much in the way of thrills or humor the result was a rather boring affair that ended with no new insight or entertainment to be had. I guess I’d recommend it to those interested in seeing the first film of Polanski’s career, but other than that I doubt I’ll ever find myself considering watching it again.

“Umberto D.”, Vittorio De Sica’s neorealist tale of a pensioner struggling to get by, is an emotional depiction of the human condition, solitude and dignity. It stars Carlos Battisti, non-professional actor and university professor at the time, as Umberto Domenico Ferrari who after decades of civil service is left struggling to get by off of the small pension he receives. He has no family, and lives under the roof of a cruel landlady who wants him out. His only friend is his dog Flike, though he does have a good relationship with the landlady’s young maid.

The story begins as Umberto’s time in his apartment is nearing its end and unless he can pay his rent he will be evicted and left with no place to go. With a pension too small to make up for this debt he must sell his possessions for money and refuses to beg on the streets. When things do not seem to be going his way Umberto considers more drastic measures to escape his unhappiness and plight. It all builds up to a very sad, but also inspiring ending that nearly left me in tears.

Like De Sica’s other and perhaps more well known film “Bicycle Thieves”, the story appears rather simple on the surface but its examination of such universal and emotional themes is what makes it so profound. “Umberto D.” avoids melodrama and sentimentality in its portrayal of its protagonists struggle and instead handles it with a quiet sadness. I couldn’t recommend it more.

“Vivre Sa Vie” or ‘My Life to Live (It’s My Life)’ is the episodic telling of a period in time in the life of Nana, a mother and wife turned aspiring actress who turns to prostitution in search or happiness and money. In telling her story director Jean Luc Godard uses the camera as if it were the human eye, seeing at times the perspective of Nana viewing her surroundings; but is at its most interesting when it acts as an onlooker, mesmerized by her beauty and sadness, fixated on her flawless face. Often, like with “Breathless”, Godard’s overindulgence leads to excruciating viewing experiences, but because the camera and editing her serve some purpose it is not only bearable but escalates what on the surface appears to be a simple story. I found the whole thing to be rather fascinating and its ending stuck with my longer than I thought it would. Another high recommendation.

“Tokyo Drifter” and “Branded to Kill” by Japanese ‘B-movie’ director Seijun Suzuki can both best be describe, as one critic put it, like this “…Suzuki doesn’t do establishing shots and when he does, they don’t establish shit.” As true as that statement is, and the editing and fractured pacing (even more prevalent in ‘Tokyo Drifter’) are unusual and at times distracting, both still contain a level of uniqueness and visual splendor to make for satisfying and often amusing viewing experiences.

The first I watched was “Tokyo Drifter”, about a gangster trying to go legit though the world around him is trying to pull him back in or bump him off. It is definitely the most visually stunning of the two but contains a very fractured plot with at times hectic editing. Scenes often skip from one moment to the next which is at first hard to follow, especially considering how much story and how many characters are crammed into the short running time. And yet, its pop-art look, visuals and fresh and cool main character make it such a treat to watch that I just have to recommend it.

Next up was “Branded to Kill”, the more ‘conventional’ of the two, which had a much more fluid story and editing that wasn’t as chaotic. The story follows a hit man who after messing up a job struggles to survive as the organization that hired him tries to kill him. It honestly isn’t the most original or thrilling story. The most exciting parts come during a few surreal sequences when the main character seems to be losing his mind. Overall I wasn’t too impressed, though it still holds a visual uniqueness that makes it worth watching for those interested, and is perfect for a double feature alongside “Tokyo Drifter”.

“Summer Interlude” could be described as lesser Bergman, which isn’t surprising being that it is one of his earlier films, coming out before 1957 when he released “Wild Strawberries” and “The Seventh Seal” and his popularity and the quality of his films increased greatly. Still, it is a very good story about an unhappy ballet dancer who, when visiting a summer home, remembers her tragic past through flashbacks. The plot very much reminded me of “Wild Strawberries” (flashbacks/reevaluation of ones life) meets “Summer With Monika” (a summer fling on a beautiful island), which was a pleasant surprise considering this came out before both.

There honestly isn’t much more to say other than that the themes Bergman tackles here will be very familiar to those who enjoy his work.  Its only fault in my opinion would be an end revelation that comes a bit too abruptly. Overall it is a must watch for any Bergman fan, but an ultimately unremarkable motion picture.

*This is the 16th film I’ve seen from Ingmar Bergman (my favorite director by a large margin) and the first of many of Bergman’s early films that Criterion and Hulu Plus have available.

“Eyes Without a Face”, Georges Franju’s gothic horror tale of guilt, obsession and beauty, is an atmospheric, finely shot and haunting film. The story follows Dr. Genessier whose daughter Christiane, after a serious car accident, is left with a face scared and practically missing. Feeling the guilt of having caused the accident, and wanting badly to give his daughter back her beauty while also furthering advances in the field of transplantation, Dr. Genessier hatches out a gruesome plan. He and his assistant track down and kidnap women bearing a resemblance to Genessier’s daughter so that they can remove their faces and try to successfully transplant them onto Christiane.

What makes the story and film so effective is the atmosphere and imagery. The buildup to the first surgery is a slow one, but as the fate of the woman chosen for the graphic procedure becomes clear there is a level of dread that fills the story that would make anyone uncomfortable. Add onto that graphic imagery like the facial surgery, shown in full, and the mask Christiane wears to hide her scars (which is arguably one of the creepiest I have ever seen) and it becomes a chill inducing experience.

The film isn’t without its flaws. The biggest being the way in which it often jumps from one scene to another, in which the audience can easily assume what happened but still periods of times seem missing.  Luckily that is never really an issue and the end result is something I’d recommend to anyone, especially those with a preference for horror.

————————————————–

At the moment I still have 47 Criterion films in my queue to watch on Hulu Plus, and that is just those that I have a strong interest in. The size of the full collection to stream is around 130. I doubt I’ll make it through them all, but I hope to post another group of reviews like this every week.

I hope you enjoyed the reviews, and leave any comments (good or bad) below.

 

6 Trailers For The Day After St. Patrick’s Day


Hi!  I hope everyone had a good St. Patrick’s Day because I know that I had a great time honoring the Meehan side of my family.  I danced so much that I am quite literally hopping about this morning.  It was a lot of fun but now, it’s the day after St. Patrick’s Day.  And that can only mean that it’s time for another edition of Lisa Marie’s Favorite Grindhouse and Exploitation Film trailers!  Now, admittedly, these trailers might not seem to have much to do with the Irish but look closer and you’ll see that they do have at least one thing in common … they’re all totally awesome in their own unique and special way.

1) Playing For Keeps (1986)

“The new Hotel Majestic … FOR KIDS ONLY!”  You can tell this is a good movie just by the way that the title is introduced all Ten Commandments style.  Marisa Tomei is in this trailer for a split second.  The film itself was directed by future movie moguls Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

2) The Forbidden Dance Is Lambada (1990)

I just like this one because it’s not just about dancing but it’s about a forbidden dance!  Passion, by the way, has a rhythm all its own…

3) Lambada (1990)

In fact, the dance was so forbidden that apparently a totally separate movie was made about it at the exact same time as The Forbidden Dance Is Lambada.    This one looks a lot less fun, to be honest.  “This is the 90s, man, kids got a right to choose…”

4) The Chicken Chronicles (1977)

Judging from the previous trailers and the title of this film, you would be justified in expecting this trailer to be about a bunch of dancing chickens that open up their own hotel.  Sadly, this is not the case.  However, this trailer does continue the theme of “the right to choose” and a school divided.

5) Coach (1978)

Hmmmm…I wonder how this film ends…

6) The Sister-In-Law (1974)

Like Coach, the Sister-in-Law is available in a few of those cheap-but-oh-so-fun Mill Creek box sets.  Unlike Coach, the Sister-in-Law is actually a pretty good film.  By the way, I’m built for love and trouble…

Lisa Marie Bowman Does It At Casa de mi Padre (dir. by Matt Piedmont)


 

Having seen the new Spanish-language comedy Casa de mi Padre on Friday, I now know what I want for Christmas.  I want a big white tiger that can talk and sit in trees and laugh, just like the big white cat that shows up and serves as spirit guide to Will Ferrell.

Seriously, let’s make it happen!

As for Case de mi Padre, the film is a deliberately absurd homage to both telenovelas and the B-movies of the 70s.  Armando Alvarez (played by Will Ferrell) is a stupid but good-hearted Mexican rancher whose drug dealer brother (Diego Luna) is on the verge of marrying the niece (played by Genesis Rodriguez) of another drug dealer (Gael Garcia Bernal).  Ferrell, of course, falls in love with Rodriguez and this leads to a deliriously over-the-top wedding party massacre and … well, listen the plot isn’t important.  The plot makes no sense.  It’s not supposed to make sense.  It’s not only a Will Ferrell movie, it’s a Will Ferrell movie based on telenovelas.  In short, the film is deliberately designed not to make any sense and, on that count, it succeeds admirably.

Despite a lot of funny moments and Ferrell’s admirable commitment to the film, Casa de mi Padre ultimately works better as a concept than an actual film.  In the past, Ferrell’s comedies have worked because they’ve satirized pompous institutions and people who generally take themselves far too seriously, with the obvious example being Anchorman‘s cast of self-important television reporters.  However, the majority of telenovelas are already essentially satiric in their intent.  Casa de mi Padre finds itself in the odd position of satirizing satire and, as a result, it never feels as outrageous as an actual telenovela.  The end result is hardly perfect but it’s silly enough to be consistently amusing.

 

Casa de mi Padre is a pretty uneven film that’s never as funny as you want it to be but I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy watching it.  Will Ferrell’s strength as both a comedic and a dramatic actor is his willingness to totally commit to his performance.  No matter how ludicrous or silly things get, Ferrell gives 100% and that’s never been more obvious than in his performance here.  Not only does he deliver all of his dialogue in Spanish (apparently he learned his lines phonetically) but he also totally throws himself into the melodrama of it all. 

A similar commitment can be seen in just about every frame of the film.  For me, the film’s best moments come from the small details that the filmmakers take the time to get right.  It’s there in every scene from the film’s deliberately tacky sets to the way that the characters randomly break out into overdone laughter to the fact that every female character in the film down to even the maids who work for Ferrell’s father wander around showing off miles of cleavage.  Perhaps my favorite scene in the film is when Ferrell and Rodriguez go for a horse ride and it’s obvious from the way the scene is framed that neither one of them is actually sitting on a horse.  These are the type of details that will leave boring mainstream audiences scratching their heads but for those of us who speak B-movie, these are the details that make this film worth seeing.

Film Review: Joe (dir. by John G. Avildsen)


(Warning: This review contains some spoilers.)

On Monday night, my movie before bedtime was an old one from 1970, John G. Avildsen’s Joe.  Though Joe is an occasionally uneven and rather heavy-handed film, it’s also a brutally effective one that I haven’t been able to get out of my mind since watching it.

Joe opens with Melissa Compton (played by Susan Sarandon, in her film debut) and her boyfriend, Frank Russo (Patrick McDermott).  It is quickly established that Melissa is a “rich girl” who has dropped out of society while Frank is a drug dealer.  Frank, incidentally, is probably one of the least likable characters in the history of cinema.  When we first meet Frank, he’s taking a bath but it makes no difference as the character just seems to covered in a permanent layer of grime.  Both Frank and Melissa are also drug addicts.

Patrick McDermott (left) and Susan Sarandon

When Melissa has a drug overdose and ends up in the hospital, Frank doesn’t really care but her father, advertising executive Bill Compton (Dennis Patrick) does.  He promptly goes over to Frank’s apartment and after Frank taunts him by saying that Melissa “had a real hang-up about you,” Bill beats Frank to death in a fit of rage.  Shaken by his actions, Bill goes to a neighborhood bar where he runs into a factory worker named Joe Curran (Peter Boyle).   A drunken Joe rants about how much he would like to kill a hippie.  Bill replies, “I just did.”

This leads to an odd relationship between the two men.  While Bill originally fears that Joe wants to blackmail him, Joe appears to just want to be his friend.  Soon, Joe is introducing Bill to his bowling league and Bill introduces Joe to his colleagues at the advertising firm.  Bill and his wife even have a memorably awkward dinner with Joe and his wife.  Bill’s wife worries that Joe might be dangerous but Bill smugly assures her that he is Joe’s hero.

Meanwhile, Melissa is released from the hospital and moves back in with her parents.  One night, she hears them talking about how Bill killed Frank.  Melissa flees from the apartment and when Bill chases after her, she shouts at him, “Are you going to kill me too!?” before disappearing into the New York night.

Searching for Melissa, Bill and Joe go to various hippie hangouts in Manhattan.  Every hippie they meet tends to be dismissive of the suit-wearing Bill and the uneducated Joe.  However, once Bill reveals that his car is full of drugs that he stole from Frank, the hippies are suddenly a lot more friendly.  A group of hippies take Joe and Bill back to their apartment.  At Bill’s insistence, both of the men smoke weed for the first time and then have sex with two of the hippie girls.  While they’re busy doing it, the rest of the hippies steal their money and all of the drugs.

Suddenly, Joe takes charge of the situation, leaving Bill to watch helplessly as Joe repeatedly slaps one of the girls until she tells them where her friends have gone.  (I’ve seen a lot of movies and I like to think that there’s little I can’t handle watching but the scene where Joe interrogates the girl was genuinely disturbing and I actually had a hard time watching it.  This was largely due to the intensity of Boyle’s performance.)  Joe drags Bill to the commune where the hippies live.  Standing outside the house, as snow falls around them, Joe gets two hunting rifles out of his car and tosses one to Bill before the film reaches its inetivable conclusion. 

Joe With Friend

Like many films released in the early 70s, Joe is distinguished by a continually shifting tone. The film’s opening (which feature Susan Sarandon getting naked and then watching her disturbingly unhygienic boyfriend shooting up) feels almost like it’s composed of outtakes from some lost Andy Warhol Factory film while the scenes immediately following Melissa’s drug overdose feel like a melodramatic Lifetime special.  After Bill kills Frank, the film briefly becomes a Hitchcockian thriller just to then segue into heavy-handed social satire as we watch the development of Joe and Bill’s unlikely, hate-fueled friendship.  The awkward comedy continues for a while until, somewhat jarringly, Joe suddenly becomes a violent revenge film.  While many films have been doomed by the lack of a consistent tone, it actually works here.  Joe‘s odd mishmash of comedy, tragedy, and exploitation actually perfectly reflects the uncertain worldview and hidden fears of Bill Compton.  Much as the audience is often times left uncertain whether they’re watching a comedy or a tragedy, Bill is a man who is no longer sure how to react to the world around him.

And make no doubt about it, Joe may be the title character but the film is truly about Bill Compton.  It’s Bill’s repressed anger (and desire for his own daughter) that fuels the plot.  As played by Dennis Patrick, Bill Compton is the type of smugly complacent figure whose outward confidence hides the fact that he’s been rendered impotent by the world changing around him.  For the majority of the film, Bill looks down on both sides of the cultural divide, looking down on both his daughter’s hippie friends and his new blue-collar acquaintance Joe.  (He assures his wife that Joe would never attempt to blackmail him because Joe “looks up” to him.)  It’s only at the film’s conclusion that Bill realizes just how powerless he is to control anything.  In those final scenes, Dennis Patrick’s face reveals what the audience has already figured out.  By trying to place himself above it all, he’s left himself with nowhere to go. 

Dennis Patrick (left) and Peter Boyle

That said, the film truly is dominated by Peter Boyle’s demonic performance as Joe.  For much of the movie, Joe is a buffoonish figure (he even gets his own mocking theme song “Hey Joe” which plays as he wanders around his house and scratches his navel) and it’s sometimes hard not to feel like you’re watching a long-lost episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Frank Barone remembers the time that he killed a lot of hippies.  However, once Bill and Joe find themselves searching for Melissa among the hippies, Boyle slowly starts to pull back the layers and a new, far more threatening Joe emerges.  By the end of the film, Joe has become a nightmarish figure and we’re forced to reconsider everything that we’ve previously assumed.  By the film’s end, Joe almost seems to be a direct personification of Bill’s Id, a man who exists solely to force Bill to do what he’s always secretly wanted to do.*

When Joe was first released back in 1970, it apparently made a lot of money, generated a lot of controversy, and even managed to score an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay.  Oscar nomination aside, Joe is the epitome of a well-made and effective exploitation film.  While Joe and Bill are basically counter-culture nightmares of a murderous American establishment, the film’s hippies are portrayed as being so smug and so scummy that I’m not surprised to read that apparently audiences cheered once Joe and Bill started gunning them down.  (Peter Boyle, however, was apparently so shocked that he swore he would never make another film that “glamorized violence.”)  By embracing the best traditions of the grindhouse and attempting to appeal to both sides of the cultural divide in the crudest way possible, the filmmakers ended up making a film that, over 40 years later, somehow feels more honest than most of the other “generation gap” films of the 60s and 70s. 

As any film lover knows, any film made between 1966 and 1978 tends to age terribly, to the extent that often times they’re impossible to take seriously when watched today.  (And anyone who doubts me on this should track down films like R.P.M, Thank God It’s Friday, Skatetown  U.S.A.,  Getting Straight, and Zabriskie Point.)  However, watched today in our present age of Occupiers and Tea Partiers, Joe still feels relevent and, at times, downright prophetic.

—-

* In many ways, Joe Curran is a cruder, balder version of Tyler Durden.