Thứ Năm, 31 tháng 10, 2013

LAWYER, GUNS, AND MONEY

The primary characteristic of Cormac McCarthy's novels, it has seemed to me, is terseness. His plots and scenes come along bluntly and quickly, like a swift punch to the windpipe, his characters speak barely at all, and frequently only state absolutely essential facts when they do. So why, oh why, is The Counselor, McCarthy's first original screenplay at the pixieish age of 80, so bogged down with scenes packed with characters who Don't. Shut. The fuck. Up? Mournful prose poetry put into the mouths of characters delivering philosophical monologues are also characteristic of McCarthy, but only as flavoring, never as a main course. At times it feels like there's nothing else in this movie but philosophically dense, stylistically overwrought speeches, and this is the first and most dire symptom of a screenplay that proves most conclusively that being a tremendously great writer of narrative prose requires a different skill set than being a great, or even semi-competent, writer of movie scripts.

The content of The Counselor - using the word "plot" to describe it begs the question - follows an unnamed lawyer (Michael Fassbender) who needs some fast money, and so decides to go in for just this one deal! with a big-time drug smuggler, Reiner (Javier Bardem), and his business associate Westray (Brad Pitt). As this situation is going along nice and smoothly, one of the counselor's imprisoned clients, Ruth (Rosie Perez), asks him to bail out her son for a measly $400. What neither of them know is that her son (Richard Cabral) is obliquely connected with the cartel shipping the drugs that the counselor's money is attached to, and that he's being targeted in this capacity by a couple of henchmen hired by Reiner's girlfriend Malkina (Cameron Diaz) to steal the shipment. When this has been successfully done, the cartel bigwigs quickly discover the connection between the dead Mexican boy and the counselor, and immediately begin the process of exact vengeance upon him, Westray, and Reiner, endangering the life of the counselor's new fiancée Laura (Penélope Cruz).

When one puts it that way, it looks so neat! And so perfectly in-line with McCarthy's themes; objectively speaking, the counselor does none of the things that the cartel punishes him for, but it's the easiest thing in the world to read this as the wages of making that one decision to get involved in one drug deal: start off done an immoral road, and that's where you'll stay forever and always, suggests the story, with the author's characteristic nihilistic pessimism.

Good for the simple, neat version. In reality, The Counselor is a sprawling fantasia of narrative loops and spurious moments and big showstopper scenes that are of exactly zero use on a narrative or psychological level (that infamous scene everybody knows about where Cameron Diaz's character rubs her genitalia on a windshield? Cut it out and the movie would be functionally identical, if a bit less interesting to discuss). Scenes abut scenes in a freakishly modular way, leaving the film absolutely nothing that resembles "flow", just an assemblage of events that don't necessarily need to take place in the order in which they occur. It's jaw-dropping, messy, tedious. In its stripped-down version, the story of The Counselor is something that has been told in approximately this way dozens of times, so that there is nothing of novelty left to it. In its ungainly, inchoate form as it exists, it's as if the film is actively trying to compensate for this fact.

All of this could, I suspect, have been made delightfully kinetic and fucked-up and watchable; it would never be a good screenplay, but it good be an enthusiastically trashy, exciting movie anyway. Frankly, I think that its present director, Ridley Scott, could even have been the one to make that film, though it would have required a decisive break from his recent work and a return to the glitzier style of his now more than a decade-old Hannibal and Black Hawk Down. But that Ridley Scott didn't show up at all, and if I was able to get 600 words into a review of a movie by a major director without mentioning that director's name, it's for the most depressing reason imaginable: this is a very boringly-directed film. Sure, it's handsome enough, and Scott and the ever-reliable cinematographer Dariusz Wolski find a few really striking visuals (though it's probably telling that the absolute best images in the film, both in terms of their beauty and their creativity, are found in the film's somewhat spurious early detour to Amsterdam), though the ever-reliable editor Pietro Scalia appears to have little interest in joining the visuals in any inspired way. You would never say of The Counselor, "this was assembled by untalented people".

You might very well, however, say, "this was assembled by talented hacks", for the whole thing lacks much of anything that resembles aesthetic spark or vitality. It's certainly Scott's most overall anonymous work of directing since his ghastly career nadir of A Good Year, in 2006, in which he challenged himself by proving that you can make the French wine country look beautiful at sunset. In a film where the script is such a bent mess of half-formed ideas that it needed, urgently, a strong hand at the wheel to keep things alive, it's deadly that Scott's main decision seems to have stemmed from the believe that a depressing script needs to be treated somberly, and so the thing is just a grim-faced slog.

This is bad for the deranged, violent detours of the plot, but worst of all for the actors, not one of whom emerges with their dignity fully intact (Cruz is, by far, the healthiest survivor). Fassbender is completely lost in his accent, San Antonio by way of County Cork, and Diaz is hilariously awful and miscast as a sexually omnivorous femme fatale wearing the worst dresses I have seen in a movie in 2013; they both feel like they're children play-acting a druggy noir rather than professionals in a major film. Bardem (with yet another weirdo hairdo) and Pitt at least feel like humans, though humans who have a rough time managing McCarthy's florid dialogue, and in Pitt's case especially, the film's refusal to let be very amusing in any way.

It's such a miserable film, and not just because it is so punishingly severe about what it does to its characters (and with a fairly unmissable slice of misogyny to boot, stalled as it is in an unbelievably straightforward Madonna/Whore dichotomy with Laura and Malkina). It's miserable because it's so fucking uninspired and draggy and generic, no matter how much talent is involved in the cast and crew. I gather that it has become a much-hated film, and I almost wish I felt that way about it; as it stands, there's so much steely blandness that I can't even work up enough enthusiasm to loathe this. Boredom unfortunately, isn't active enough to engender that kind of passion.

4/10

TIM AT TFE: HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

This week's column: Three movies that suggest the spirit of "Halloween" to me the most. But not those with "Halloween" in the title, because there is such a thing as trying to be at least a little clever.

MASTERS OF ITALIAN HORROR: MICHELE SOAVI GOES TO CHURCH

Part of the Italian Horror Blogathon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies

Michele Soavi only made four horror films in a career that wasn't very long (he took many years off to care for his unwell son), which surely explains why his profile isn't higher. There's no good argument, certainly not one based on those of his films which I have seen (which does not include the third, The Sect from 1991), why he shouldn't be spoken of with every bit of the enthusiasm that horror fans toss at Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci. Especially considering that Soavi's work was all done in the '80s and '90s, when those men were at or heading towards their career nadirs.

There's no more vivid example of how much higher than the rest of the industry he was flying than The Church, produced by Argento (Soavi's mentor), who also contributed the story, and who intended for the film to serve as the third entry in the trilogy begun by Demons and Demons 2, also produced by Argento, and directed by Mario Bava's son Lamberto. I enjoy those movies more than most people, and certainly more than they deserve, but the titanic gulf in quality between them and The Church is almost impossible to quantify, and I think it's fair to regard the movie as Soavi's attempt to prove that you could take something as junky as the plot for Demons 3 and turn it into horror art on the level of anything produced in Italy's long and massively respectable tradition of fantastically visual genre films. Certainly, if you hold it at the right angle and squint, you can see exactly how this was meant to fit in with the first two ("demons in a movie theater", "demons in an apartment complex", and now "demons in church"; the general shape of the plot structure is even the same, with the demon outbreak happening shortly after the halfway point). And just as certainly, Soavi does everything in his power to keep the film from sinking to their level; there's only so much that can be done with a movie that has to include the questionable monster effects that pop up in the last 40 minutes of The Church, but within those limits, Soavi was able to make a gorgeous neo-Gothic horror film that, like his debut, StageFright: Aquarius, takes its cues from an established genre and style, but manages to be something far different and more personal than that genre would ordinarily permit (and, in fact, Soavi's efforts to push this film in new directions started a schism between Argento and himself).

That we're in the middle of something special is quite obvious from the very first scene, which should not work, and has not worked in many, many films: somewhere in the Middle Ages, a group of Teutonic Knights has concluded that a village has a Satanist problem, and they go about killing everyone and everything, dumping their bodies into a pit and covering it with a huge stone cross to seal in the evil. It's hokey as all fuck, and not helped by a vigorously synthetic piece of adventure music on the soundtrack (I'll have more to say about the score later), but the way Soavi shoots it is so haunting and poetic that it manages to work regardless of how much it acts like every cheap fantasy movie of the '80s or '90s. It's both dreamy and vivid, cut by editor Franco Fraticelli in a particularly implicit and elliptical way to give the whole thing a distinctly "off" feeling, and Soavi and his cinematographer, Renato Tafuri, find unique ways to stage the action to give it that much more of a detached, at times impressionistic quality. Say what you will about cheesy fantasy movies, not many of them would come up with such a striking image as the POV from a Knight's helmet, looking through the cross-shaped visor at his demon prey:

Cross imagery, as you'd expect from something called The Church and produced by a Catholic-majority country, is found throughout the film. Not usually in a specifically religious way (it's not a terribly Christian film, all things considered), but in a manner that beautifully ties the whole thing together visually - Soavi, in fact, finds a whole lot of different ways to tie the movie together, including the very deliberate use of blue lighting, center-framed images of horrible beings, and a certain similarity between all the film's wide shots of its various interior spaces that gives the whole thing a sense of structure and repetition that firstly, emphasises the ritualistic nature of what happens in the plot and clarifies that this is essentially a film about order versus chaos, and secondly, gives shape to a movie that is absolutely written as "stuff happens involving different people OH MY GOD DEMONS the end". I don't even quite know how to synopsise the plot: in the present day, there's a man, Evan (Thomas Arana) who's just been hired at the church built over the site of the Knightsl massacre as librarian. There's an art historian, Lisa (Barbara Cupisiti), working on restoring the heavily damaged art throughout the church. There is a little girl, Lotte (Asia Argento, all of 12 years old, which I assume would not have prevented her father from putting her in a nude scene, if he was directing), who looks exactly like the last of the Knights' victims, daughter of the church's characters, who likes to sneak around and see things she oughtn't. There are priests scuttling about, worrying about the oncoming evil that is always waiting to burst out of the church.

As a story, The Church doesn't even function, let alone function well, but as much as any Italian horror film I have ever seen, it's not about story but about how Soavi creates a total, apocalyptic sense of dread that never leaves even the most domestic moments of the film, or its handful of moments of comedy (a scene I deeply treasure: as Evan studies an ancient parchment of unlocking total evil, Lisa - the two are lovers by this point - watches him, bored, before picking up a Mickey Mouse comic). It helps that the church itself is such a threatening, brooding presence, a beautiful combination of a genuine old cathedral and terrific sets designed by Massimo Antonello Geleng, and even the most innocuous moments, and blandest set-ups looking through the inside of the sanctuary have been shot by Tafuri to look so dark and threatening. In the places where there's actually creepy stuff (like the weirdly terrifying statues of monks, their faces invisible beneath hoods), this same aesthetic pays off in moments that are far creepier than they have a right to be.

When it comes time to actually start paying off all this mood by showcasing the real demons and devils, Soavi is even better. The chances of The Church turning into tacky crap must have been high, to judge from the uniformly low quality of the monsters we see, but Soavi modulates this by showing them in what amount to freeze frame jump scares that manage to both situate the horror inside characters' minds (and thus make it more psychological than paranormal) and to make the weirdness of the props an asset (no such luck with a lengthy shot of his devil costume near the end, though by that point the film has built up enough mood that it plays as something strange and alien rather than as a wobbly movie effect). And he also spends the most time lingering on the single best effect, a pile of bodies rising from Hell itself that looks more like Bosch than anything out of Fulci or even Argento's more freely violent horror.

The effect of all this is a depiction of apocalyptic horror that's not exactly like anything else, no matter how many movies it has affinities with. It isn't as overwhelming as, say, The Beyond, but it's in the same ballpark: a film so full of inexplicable and terrifying moments that it feels like the whole world is crumbling. If I prefer that be done in the more cosmic structure that Fulci sets his own cinematic hellscapes, that's not to say that Soavi's isn't fantastic; indeed, by limiting himself to a single building that devours and destroys, he's able to make his film more specific and effective on a human scale, instead of simply plunging us into an endless nightmare.

And now, if I may close things out, the score: performed and composed by Keith Emerson and Argento's beloved Goblin, the music is generally good when it's not too audibly artificial, but the thing that really stands out is the use of several instantly-recognisable cues, motifs, and complete passages from Philip Glass's Koyaanisqatsi score. I'll freely admit that the first time I saw the movie, that's all I was able to think about, and it absolutely took me out of the experience: why is Goblin playing Philip Glass? All I can think of is highway traffic now! A second viewing hasn't convinced me that this is the best choice that could have been made, but I have to admit that absent my own immediate associations with some of the most instantly-recognisable music of the '80s, it works within the film: the driving, mechanical urgency of the music, given a savage electronic gloss by the artists performing it here, perfectly evokes the constant, pulsating tension that doesn't abandon the movie until beyond its final shot. Whatever else is true of the music, The Church would be a far less intense experience without it, and I would not want to change any element of this film for any reason.

Thứ Tư, 30 tháng 10, 2013

COCKY OLD MAN

Old man boners. Did you laugh? Because if you didn't laugh, I can't think of any reason at all to bother with Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa, a film for which "old man boners" is very largely the only joke it has up its sleeve. "Old man projectile shits", as well, but that's for just one scene, and like everything else in the movie, it disposes of that joke so quickly that it seems evident the filmmakers were ashamed of it.

Now, perhaps you did laugh at "old man boners", and I am not sorry if you did. The world would be less interesting if we all agreed on everything. And honesty compels me to acknowledge that as I left the theater where Bad Grandpa was playing, I distinctly heard a woman behind me gush, "That was so great". Honesty also compels me to mention that not once did that woman laugh during the movie, so perhaps when she called it "great", she was speaking to its depiction of the relationship between an old man and a young boy, finding in this one of the truest and most warming human stories of 2013. Again, the world would be less interesting if we all agreed on anything.

Bad Grandpa is, at any rate, an uncertain marriage of the hidden-camera extreme stunt comedy of the TV show Jackass and its three movie spin-offs (I have seen a couple bits from the show, nothing at all of the movies) with an improvised "embarrass the civilians" narrative generally modeled after Borat. Herein, octogenarian Irving Zisman (Jackass leading light Johnny Knoxville) is exuberant that his wife of more than forty years, Ellie (a model of Catherine Keener, whose actual scenes all ended up cut), has finally died, leaving him free to return to his days of tomcatting around. This unfortunately comes at the exact same moment that his daughter, Kimmie (Georgina Cates) is headed into prison on a drug charge, leaving Irving responsible for bringing his grandson, Billy (Jackson Nicoll) from Nebraska to North Carolina to be with the boy's wretched father Chuck (Greg Harris). The pair thus find themselves traveling across America, stopping off frequently for Irving to hit on the local women, and for some kind of violent mishap to occur to the undeniably game Knoxville.

There's an insurmountable taste issue here, which is that if you don't find the film's apparently inexhaustible well of genital-related jokes funny - I discovered how much I didn't by the end of the "elastic penis caught in a vending machine" routine that effectively opens the movie - there's not going to be much within Bad Grandpa's enthusiastically 92 minutes that will work on any level other than the sheer pleasure that comes from having moving images dance across your retinas. But it's not just taste, I suspect, that hobbles the film. It suffers mightily from repetition: most of the bits in the film that aren't jokes centered around the idea that an old man's privates are too ridiculous, gross, and funny for words are instead jokes centered around Zisman's insatiable lust, mostly realised in scenes of the old man hitting on women who, to their credit, are bemused by the whole thing for the most part. The problem is that there are only so many ways for a 40-year-old in latex (that doesn't look very convincing, but nobody in the movie seems to doubt him) to describe sex acts in an old man voice, and Bad Grandpa has run through them all by the time the characters leave Nebraska. There's one joke repeated all but verbatim in the outtakes running during the credits - that is how unabashedly one-note this routine is.

The other huge problem I had is in the execution of the concept: the selling point of the movie is to watch normal, unknowing Americans respond incredulously to this vile old man being awful in front of, and to, his grandson. Which is fine, but the film is edited in such a way to absolutely minimise the reactions of all the real-life extras except in a couple of scenes (and those moments are, uniformly, the best - a funeral gone wrong, a preteen beauty pageant that dominated the ad campaign and is thus much less funny in the actual film than it should be), and that's back to the thing I mentioned at the start, that the movie seems ashamed of itself; every bit lasts exactly as long as it has to, not a second longer, and there is no lingering over the passers-by being confused, horrified, amused, or outraged, if there's any way to avoid it.

That leaves dicks, basically. Dicks and acting in a way to make people uncomfortable. But not too uncomfortable, and after hearing second-hand accounts of the things the Jackass folks were up to, I expected more depravity, honestly. The only reason I won't say that Bad Grandpa isn't as shocking as it thinks itself to be, is because it's not really very clear that it even thinks that it's shocking. Penis humor isn't much of a cinematic taboo anymore, and old people sex hasn't been taboo for years, just an easy way of scoring gross-out points. After a little while, Bad Grandpa can't come up with anything else to get a rise out of the audience than put the words "fuck" and "shit" in the mouth of a little kid, and if that's not the last refuge of the hopelessly lazy...

But again, taste issue. If you find exploding poo funny, then it's funny. If you find the thought of a geriatric man performing cunnilingus to be in and of itself funny, then it's funny. Bad Grandpa doesn't present these things in an inventive, creative, or surprising way, but it does present them with zest, passion, and sincerity. Knoxville cannot, at any rate, be accused of giving less than every inch of himself, and Nicoll has a perfect, unlearned ability to hold the camera with his open, eager face. The sheer volume is, eventually, enough to gin up something like amusement, anyway, even without finding the constituent parts worthwhile, though "the comedy wore me down to the point where I didn't mind it" is by no means what we might construe as an enthusiastic rave.

3/10

MASTERS OF ITALIAN HORROR: LUCIO FULCI IS ALL SKIN AND BONES

Part of the Italian Horror Blogathon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies

There's an argument to be made that Lucio Fulci had the most varied career of any director in history. Certainly, among those filmmakers chiefly known for their contributions to the Italian genre machine, I can think of no-one who directed films in such wildly different styles and registers: sex comedies, Westerns, political satires, gory horror films, and more than a little bit of shading within those extremes (I believe he made at least one of every commercially viable subgenre of horror available during the span of his career except for an exorcism movie, for example). But his fandom rests on his great horror films, which he produced in two waves: four gialli dribbled out between Perversion Story AKA One on Top of the Other in 1969 and Murder to the Tune of Seven Black Notes AKA The Psychic in 1977, followed closely by a much more compact grouping of zombie-esque films from '79 to '81 (after this, he continued to crank out quite a lot of stuff, though I think that we can confidently assert the adjective "great" rarely to never needs to be brought up in discussing them).

Today, we are gathered to pay tribute to the second of his gialli, and perhaps the most exemplary among the four, A Lizard in a Woman's Skin AKA Schizoid. Though if anybody has used the latter title since American International first released a compromised cut of the film in the U.S. in 1973, I cannot imagine why, because it's fantastic. The film is something of a snapshot of the giallo as it existed in 1971: situated in the cultural hangover from the Swinging '60s, set (and shot) in a version of London that nevertheless feels unmistakably Italian in attitude and tenor, driven by sexual perversion and repression. And, too, it is snaspshot of Fulci's career as it had evolved by that point: enthusiastically sleazy with just enough outré imagery that you can't quite call it exploitation, fascinated by violence to a rare degree even for an Italian genre director, driven by sexual perversion and repression.

That A Lizard in a Woman's Skin is all about the id could not be any clearer from its very first scene: a brunette woman that we'll eventually learn is named Carol Hammond (Florinda Bolkan) is trapped in a writhing bisexual orgy, driven to the brink of outright madness by the ecstatic looks on the revelers all around her. It doesn't take more than a second or two to figure out that this is a nightmare, and it proves, indeed, to be a recurring one: Carol has even been seeing a psychotherapist, Dr. Kerr (George Rigaud) to find out why she's so obsessed with this setting, which she associates with another resident of her apartment complex, the libertine hostess Julia Durer (Anita Strindberg, probably the most prominent cast member, though that wasn't the case when she made this film, only her third, and the first under that name). You don't need that medical degree, or even to know the tropes of a giallo, to grasp that Carol is being torn into emotional pieces by her desire to be more sexually adventurous, or that her repression ends up being a primary force in the mystery to follow.

You can also guess, based on the title, that her sexuality is to a certain degree vilified, though I'm not absolutely certain how much that holds. There's never a real sense that the film thinks of the orgiastic free-for-all she sees in her mind's eye is healthy, and Julia (the film's embodiment of liberated female sexuality) is surely not presented as being an especially nice or sympathetic human being. Still, the problems in Carol's life all come from her denying her sexual appetites, and if she'd just own up to what she wants, there'd be far less to build a movie around. Probably, Fulci and his fellow writers weren't really thinking in those terms: to be a giallo in the early '70s was necessarily to be involved in corrupted sexuality, and that's not really what A Lizard in a Woman's Skin cares about.

If anything, the film's alternate U.S. title gives us the best clue what the film is really about: the perception of a disturbed, fragmentary mind. One night, Carol's dreams involve Julia's violent death, as a pair of dead-eyed hippies (Penny Brown and Mike Kennedy) watch; a few days later, Julia's body is found, having been dead for most of a week, and under the exact circumstances that Carol dreamed of. The head investigator from Scotland Yard, Inspector Corvin (Stanley Baker) immediately starts to put details together and concludes that Carol must be the primary suspect, though his attempts to prove this are stymied by her politician father, Edmond Brighton (Leo Genn) and her devoted teenage stepdaughter Joan (Ely Galleani) - Joan's father, Carol's husband Frank (Jean Sorel) is too busy having affairs to give a damn. Carol goes from "high strung" to "paranoid" in the blink of an eye, and spends the rest of the movie in something of a fugue state, seeing things that can't be there, experiencing places that can't exist, and having no idea if she's responsible for Julia's death or not, but sure as hell not wanting to take the fall for it.

There is one critical flaw with A Lizard in a Woman's Skin that's enough of a piece with the bulk of gialli (where sensation mattered a little bit more than narrative logic, though not to the degree of Fulci's later "Gate to Hell" movies) that it almost shouldn't matter: the ending doesn't work. It's the kind of thing that makes it openly impossible for most of the film up to that point to have actually taken place in the way we've seen it take place, given what certain people should know and thus how they should behave when we see them alone. I think that's vague enough to be meaningful without spoiling the 42-year-old genre classic.

Now, nobody needs to point out that gialli aren't particularly known for sticking the ending, or making anything that resembles coherent psychological sense. Is A Lizard in a Woman's Skin particularly obnoxious in this regard? Probably not. I think it's more that the first 85 minutes or so of the film are so terrifically above-par that for it to slide into stock genre nonsense at the end is a bit more disappointing than if the whole thing had just been an average giallo comme une autre. At no point does the film give Don't Torture a Duckling* a run for its money as Fulci's greatest work in the subgenre (though it is certainly more typical of the things the giallo does best), but at its best - where it frequently lives - this is one hell of a heady rush of terrifying imagery filtered through Carol's distressed mind. The dream sequences are obviously impressive, warping physical reality itself in a series of stagings that resemble dioramas of sex and murder (cinematographer Luigi Kuveiller, who wouldn't work with Fulci again until after his descent began, does some wonderful camera tricks to distort the image with genuinely dreamlike obscurity), but the way the film starts to break Carol's awake reality are even more impressive. The infamous scene of vivisected dogs (make-up artist Carlo Rambaldi had to demonstrate how he created the effect in court, to save Fulci from doing jail time for animal torture) is the most obvious example, but the later sequence of Carol running through the bizarrely industrial spaces of the Alexandra Palace is even better, depicting a nonstop stream of huge, hellishly abandoned rooms that spill into each other with only the vaguest sense of physical continuity.

Fulci was not, at this point, as invested in the conscious surrealism of Bava or Argento, and in particular his attention to gory effects, far above and beyond those men (he was easily the most bloodthirsty of the major Italian horror directors), grants A Lizard in a Woman's Skin a grounded, visceral realism that makes its psychedelic excesses far more punch than they might have had. Which is not to say that his approach is any better, only that it leaves the film fare grungier, and that gives it a hell of a lot of personality and impact. By making the film grounded in physical actuality and more lingering, disgusting gore, Fulci and Kuveiller and the rest of the filmmakers were able to make the moments of drug or psychosis-induced fantasy pop that much more, and somehow, having just a little insanity ends up making the whole film feel more deranged than if it always occupied that heightened place. For as long as it works, A Lizard in a Woman's Skin does as good a job of exploring what a mental breakdown might actually consist of as well as any giallo ever did, and given the genre's huge enthusiasm for psychiatry, that's one heck of an achievement.

NOVEMBER 2013 MOVIE PREVIEW

No matter what else happens, 2013's Prestigious Drama Season has already paid its dues, to a degree that is virtually unprecedented in recent years. The biggest question is whether anything for the rest of the year will be able to top the 1-2-3 punch of Gravity, Captain Phillips, and 12 Years a Slave, a trio hitting that rarest sweet spot of being terrific cinema that's also mainstream enough to win consensus approval. I rather doubt it; it's a treat to get just one movie in the heat of Oscar season that turns out that well, three is flat-out astonishing, and to hope for more would be greedy.

Besides, November seems to be, this year, a clearing ground for year-end popcorn movies, and the less exciting-on-paper awards hopefuls. Not all of which are equally unappealing, though it seems like a month heavier on question marks than sure things.


1.11.2013

A couple of things I am sure of, though: there are no gems hiding in plain sight to open the month. The wide releases are a dire lot, indeed: the best one, I imagine, is likely to be the decades-awaited YA sci-fi adaptation Ender's Game, and that's even if the thing ends up looking as glossy and plastic as the ads suggest. That's still enough to push it over Last Vegas, in which old men are wacky and horny and old, and the deeply unpleasant-looking Free Birds, an animated time travel comedy about turkeys sabotaging Thanksgiving, about which all available evidence suggests that "intolerable" will be a particularly generous evaluation.

Among the limited releases, we have at least Dallas Buyers Club, which has the unmistakable tang of being a Serious Film on Important Themes, but looks to have good acting on top of it; also Le Week-End, which I'll vouch for (it's getting one of those invisible Oscar-qualifying runs). The flipside is Diana, a biopic that was more or less laughed right out of England. Can't lie, that actually makes me more interested.


8.11.2013

A light weekend. About Time, an inordinately concept-heavy romantic comedy, goes wide after a single week in the platform release trenches; and then the elephantine Thor: The Dark World, which I gather people are looking forward to. Personally, the increasingly airbrushed Marvel house style has become sufficiently charmless to me that I wouldn't be anticipating this one even if it wasn't the sequel to my least-favorite entry in the Avengers universe thus far.

Glancing over the limited releases, none of them seem interesting. Move along.


15.11.2013

Making a sequel 14 years later is a sign of either madness or creative inspiration, certainly not of mercenary concerns, so on the face of it, I'm intrigued by The Best Man Holiday, and the fact that it's the only wide release of the weekend pretty much seals the deal.

Back among the awards-qualifying runs, Alexander Payne's Nebraska hits the States after receiving uncertain reviews and awards at Cannes, and I'm honestly not prepared to start liking him again after The Descendants, not just yet. Also: after two years, Aleksandr Sokurov's Faust finally tours North America! Which is a long damn delay, but for Sokurov, I will carry that torch.


22.11.2013

The Hunger Games was many wonderful things; exciting, vibrant cinema wasn't one of them. And it was based on the best book of its trilogy. So I am personally adopting a very defensive posture towards The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (shitty title, by the way), while admitting that Michael Arndt being involved with the screenplay seems like a good reason for something in the general wheelhouse of optimism (swapping the director of Seasbiscuit out for the director of Constantine seems like more of a push).

Also, a sperm donor feel-good comedy called Delivery Man. It's a remake of a Canadian film, during the trailer for which a friend and I snarkily predicted who would be the lead in a U.S. remake. I am pleased to say that we weren't craven enough to come up with Vince Vaughn, and are thus better people than the producers of Delivery Man.


27.11.2013

Ah, Thanksgiving Wednesday, when everything suddenly opens all at once and you go mad trying to keep on top of it. Speaking privately, I hold out the most hope for Black Nativity, owing to its apparent oddness and to lingering affection for director Kasi Lemmons, though of course the biggest deal around these parts is going to be Frozen, the 53rd feature from Walt Disney Animation Studios, and a film whose godawful trailers have not yet suggested that it isn't just Tangled in the Snow, on the level of plot, character, or aesthetic. On the other hand, Tangled itself was so vastly different than the ads promised, it's hard not to hold out hope.

Meanwhile, the year's most fascinating, counter-intuitive marriage of director and script finds Spike Lee remaking Oldboy. Lastly, Jason Statham and James Franco star in a home invasion thriller scripted by Sylvester Stallone, Homefront, and that's much too weird a collision of names for me to not at least be intrigued.


29.11.2013

The traditional home of quietly releasing films for Oscar purposes, Thanksgiving Friday this year witnesses the Judi Dench sad mama film Philomena, and urgently-titled biopic Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, possibly the only moment in all of history where you'll get me to acknowledge the possibility that Idris Elba might have been miscast in something.

Thứ Ba, 29 tháng 10, 2013

MASTERS OF ITALIAN HORROR: RICCARDO FREDA'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Part of the Italian Horror Blogathon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies

The phrase that I have chosen, "Masters of Italian horror", doesn't entirely describe the work of Riccardo Freda, surely not a name spoken of in the same breath as Mario Bava, Dario Argento, and Lucio Fulci. But his historical importance is such that he's worthy of elevation to the status of, if not Master, then at least Father. Freda, you see, was the director of the first Italian horror movie of the sound era, 1956's I vampiri (though his cinematographer, Mario Bava, took over at a certain point), and of the second, 1959's Caltiki, the Immortal Monster (though his cinematographer, Mario Bava... hey, wait a second), and we cannot help but assume that Freda thus had some measure of influence over how these films turned out, and the whole corpus of Italian horror that built upon those films' model.

Eventually, Freda even made horror movies all by himself without Bava having anything to do with them at all, of which the most prominent is easily The Horrible Secret of Dr. Hichcock, sometimes rendered in English more bluntly as The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, and always rendered with that distinctly "T"-less spelling that makes my fingers itch every time I type it. The horrible secret, we learn reasonably early, is indeed horrible, enough of a cinematic taboo in 2013 that I can't even imagine how it played in 1962, to say nothing of how the censors of any country in the world stayed asleep at the switch long enough for it to see release to paying audiences in the first place. I speak of necrophilia, though even that isn't quite as fucked up as what the film depicts: in its opening sequence, set in London in 1885, we meet the Hichcocks, notable surgeon Bernard (Robert Flemying) and his wife Margaretha (Maria Teresa Vianello), who like to have sex while she's drugged into a coma on his revolutionary new anesthesia. And I do very much mean they like it: the expectant grin she gives to her husband as he starts to pull out the equipment to give her a shot makes it absolutely clear that this is not the first time they've played this game, and it's very much consensual.

By this point, mind you, we've already seen that Dr. Hichcock's interests don't lie solely in pseudo-necrophiliac monogamy: the opening scene reveals him sneaking into a graveyard to fondle a corpse he finds there. This matters later.

The Hichcocks are aided in their kink by the housemaid Martha (Harriet Medin), whose own little smirk of pleasure when the doctor gives her the unstated command to hurry his wife up through the party she's hosting downstairs states just how much she's not offended by this arrangement. And presumably, things could be ever thus, with the married couple engaged in their weird, non-reciprocal pleasures, and Bernard sneaking off to play around with dead girls in the cemetery every now and then, except that one night, the doctor decides, quite consciously but for no obvious reason, to give his wife an extra-large dose of anesthesia. This triggers a frightening and unpleasant choking reaction from the terrified Margaretha, and Dr. Hichcock is unable to help her, despite his transparent horror at what's happening. He is so heartbroken that he decides to leave the house immediately after the funeral.

Twelve years later, a remarried Hichcock decides to try and resume his life, bringing his young bride Cynthia (Barbara Steele) back to his large London home. It takes all of one night for Cynthia to realise that things in the Hichcock home are severely fucked up: a screaming woman in an unseen room that Martha promises is her sister, people creeping around at night, and her husband revealing certain threatening predispositions that she doesn't know what to do with, all make for an unpleasant living situation that only gets worse as secrets begin spilling out, and Bernard decides to start practicing his old sexual habits again, whether his new wife is in on the game or not.

It is known of The Horrible Dr. Hichcock that Freda and writer Ernesto Gastaldi (both of them, incidentally, hiding under pseudonyms; the idea seems to have been to convince the Italian market that the film was an American or British import, as those were still bigger draws) had a lot more exposition and explaining ready to go, but the shoot went over schedule, and those bits were the first casualty, leaving us with a film where a lot of motivations and backstory doesn't exist except through implication. I will freely acknowledge that the film turned out better as a result. We don't need to know exactly how the Hichcocks' marriage worked, or every thought that crosses through Bernard Hichcock's mind; the only question that genuinely feels wanting to me is why Martha kept the secret of Margaretha's survival (which the film wants to pretend is a secret, but of course it's not) from Dr. Hichcock all those years. Everything else is communicated well enough through the film's visuals, and I suspect that everyone complaining that The Horrible Dr. Hichcock leaves a lot of things unclear is really just admitting that they don't like films that do important parts of storytelling exclusively through imagery.

But that is exactly what we like about Italian horror films, and I find that this particular movie strikes a splendid balance between being cryptic and weirdly-written after the fashion of so many later genre films from that country, and having all of its images grounded in explicating the plot and characters, rather than just being gorgeously baroque for the sake of it. The thing about Dr. Hichcock that's special even among Italian horror is how much of its effect is based in acting - traditionally the last thing you'd rush to praise in one of these movies - especially the acting done by Flemyng, who later claimed to hate the film, indicating that he'd done everything he could to sabotage it with his performance. Mission emphatically failed, if that was truly the case: the one constant throughout the whole film is that Flemyng's face, in just a handful of frames, communicates the inner workings of his character with a force and impact that would have taken pages and pages of screenplay to cover verbally. And since the film trades extensively on the massively fucked-up sexual peccadilloes that dominate Hichcock's life, having a quick means of communicating the shadings of his psychology to the audience is absolutely essential. There are other good bits of acting in the film - the only generally ineffective performance is that of Silvano Tranquilli as the colleague who starts to realise that Hichcock is up to No Good - although I wish that Steele had a bit more to do than recoil in horror; but the film lives and dies with Flemyng.

Of course, Freda does a lot to help the actors along. His aesthetic does not show noticeable influence from Bava (this film was shot by Raffaele Masciocchi, whose bread and butter appear to have been in the peplum, or sword & sandal epic): like early Bava, the emphasis is heavily Gothic, but the extreme phantasmagoria of Bava's films is nowhere in evidence, and Freda generally keeps his camera much closer to the thing he's depicting. The effect is something closer to naturalism, which is useful in two ways: one, because it allows the spikes of outright fantastic imagery to land with quite a bit of force (the way that a room suddenly explodes with red light when Hichcock spots a dead young woman to violate; a stunning shot of Cynthia pounding on the glass window in a coffin, trying to beg for help, and succeeding only in steaming up the glass with her breath). Two, because the creation of a fairly grounded visual normalcy means that the necrophilia material is much harder to escape than it would be in a more vividly imaginative horror setting; though obscured by many decades, the film is plainly depicting something like the real world, and this gives its kinky sexuality far more potency than I know what to do with, even 51 years on.

Ultimately, everything that is most fascinating about The Horrible Dr. Hichcock has to do with sex. It's a good horror film, mind, though the last ten minutes with their series of Shocking! reveals, and the gradual reduction of Cynthia to a screaming, running victim take a lot of the sting out. But it's even better as a film of psychological exploration - I will not even call it "psychological horror", since the film takes careful pains to never depict the sexual behavior of the Hichcocks as aberrant or immoral. It is simply a fact of their existence, and only once Dr. Hichcock has to look elsewhere to get his rocks off do the really terrifying behaviors start up. The film's vagueness about anything we don't directly see makes this a lot more unnerving than it might be, since we're never entirely clear what happens to Cynthia, or what happened between her and Hichcock before their arrival in London; we might have suspicions, but we don't know what he's been up to with corpses, or how those corpses get made; we surely don't have much sense at all what's going on in Margaretha and Martha's heads, and that leaves itself open for all kinds of interpretation.

It's possible to read the Hichcocks' marriage as the ultimate example of Victorian repression, or the ultimate violation of it; as something uniquely benign or especially unhealthy. The film's triumph is that it gives us just enough certain knowledge that we can start to make all kinds of alarming assumptions for ourselves, and it uses the striking visual contrast between the desperate Flemyng and the fragile Steele as a catalyst to make sure that those assumptions will all be unpleasant ones. It's quite a trick to have the driving force behind a plot be implication and innuendo, and while there's a lot to like about the film as pure Gothic horror (that coffin scene will stick with me for quite a while), it's at its very best when it's asking unresolved, uncomfortable questions about sexual behavior and power imbalances between men and women.

LET'S HAVE A BIG HAND FOR THE MUMMY

How would you suppose that a film titled Blood from the Mummy's Tomb would begin? Would you guess that it would be with resolutely generic sans-serif titles over a starfield, all space movie-like? If so, congratulations on your insight, and also, what the hell, because I, for one, was so thrown by the opening title that I fast-forwarded a bit to make sure the suspiciously generic DVD I got from Netflix wasn't just some lousy bootleg thing. But no, that's legitimately how the film opens - plain yellow titles on a starfield.

As it turns out, that's not even a completely random imagee: stars end up playing a significant role in Blood from the Mummy's Tomb. More significant, certainly, than mummies, of which there are none. Not as classically-defined, at least. There is a perfectly-preserved body found in an ancient Egyptian tomb, belonging to the witch queen Tara (Valerie Leon), but mummification has absolutely nothing to do with her preservation. There are absolutely none of the narrative touchstones common to mummy films (revenge for desecration, cultists as the villains), except for the modern woman who is a dead ringer for an ancient woman, and even that is played in a wholly different. The plot, adapted from Bram Stoker's novel Jewel of the Seven Stars, involves the ghost of the wicked queen attempting to force a team of archaeologists to stage a ritual resurrecting her in the body of one of the men's daughter, and while the whole "evil ghost wants to be reborn" detail is perhaps a bit tired and overdone as a scenario in its own right, you have to allow that it's not predictable from the onset.

The genre-savvy viewer, confronted with both the production company (Hammer Films) and the year of release (1971) will instantly realise that Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is one of the many products of the period when Hammer was starting to flail about horribly, looking for any way to stay fresh and vital in the marketplace it had basically invented at the end of the '50s. As has been discussed so often by so many writers, the loosening of standards in the late '60s was not kind at all to the studio whose Super Edgy plunges into sex and violence consisted of busty women with low-cut tops and a bit more stage blood than anybody had seen before. When extreme gore and full-on nudity entered the cinematic lexicon at the end of the decade, Hammer turned, in the blink of an eye, from the producer of particularly adult horror into a fusty, old-fashioned bunch of conservative Brits, out of touch and stalled in past glories. This was not a fate the company accepted blindly, but attempt to actively combat with many experiments both fascinating and humiliating in the early '70s.

In the particular case of Blood from the Mummy's Tomb, we have, first, the setting: though it's never completely insisted-upon by Christopher Wicking's script, the costumes and sets make it absolutely clear that this is a contemporary-set film, something that Hammer rarely dabbled in much, and never before their earnest attempts to retain young viewers kicked into high gear around this time. Second, we have a few shots of posterior nudity, performed by a body double, and a costume for the lifeless Tara that reveals as much boob as you can possibly show, from all different angles, and still claim that you've got the actress wearing "clothing", and this is not performed by a body double. Third, there is quite a lot of blood - nothing that registers as "graphic", three years after Night of the Living Dead, but the movie's title isn't messing around, what with the repeated image of Tara's right arm, terminating in a stump, dripping bright red blood for punctuation. Or, for that matter, the repeated image of Tara's hand, crawling around like a hellish little crab. Or the way that every person who dies has the same ripped-out throat effect that is, in truth, not very convincing. But it does speak to Hammer's desire to be more vicious and brutal as cinema generally moved in that direction.

Anyway, setting aside completely the matters of Valerie Leon's underboob or bloody stumps, it's all rather zesty and weird. It opens with Margaret Fuchs (Leon) having nightmares of Tara's execution, done with far more coherence-breaking editing than one would ever expect from a Hammer production, particularly one that was left to be finished by Michael Carreras, Hammer executive and largely unimaginative director, after the first director, Seth Holt, died during filmmaking. At no point does the film return to something as elliptically-assembled as this initial dream sequence, but there are quite a few points (mostly related to Margaret's personality being taken over by Tara's) where it at least manages to get good and weird, and the overall feeling of the movie is that it's far more unhinged as a piece of filmmaking than the stately, handsome Hammer films of yore.

And this is mostly reflected in the story, which is clear enough, as such things go, but fully commits to the somewhat random and inexplicable sense of things going badly wrong more typical of fiction from Stoker's era than from the film's own (I have not, I should admit, read Jewel of the Seven Stars). Tara's evil is never clarified or defined; it is wickedness at a cosmic level, not a personal one, and this applies even, in a degree, to the way she makes her evil manifest: Margaret's father, Julian (Andrew Keir), and his colleagues Corbeck (James Villiers) and Berrigan (George Coulouris) are all pawns in Tara's game, but how that happened, beyond "she spread her evil influence upon them" is left refreshingly unexplored. It's a story in which bad things just are, and the good characters try to resist them, weakly. Possibly my favorite aspect of the narrative is Margaret, who at times, for no reason, simply goes bad, with Leon (a Carry On... veteran presumably cast for her looks first) doing a surprisingly great job of blanking out her humanity at places, and suggesting in a creepy way that Margaret somewhat enjoys the feeling of being taken over by a merciless ghost witch. It's underplayed well by both the actress and her director(s), happening so inexplicably that it makes watching the film similar to being in it, at least to judge from how all of the good characters seem to keep getting blindsided by the terrible things happening to them (best moment: Rosalie Crutchley's spiritual medium having a flat-out panic attack in the moment she realises that she's about to die).

The whole thing ends up being far more of a psychological horror film than I'd have ever expected, heavily invested in the fear of losing one's mind to a malevolent force on the one hand, and the fear of not being sure who you're looking at when you stare into "friendly" eyes on the other (the film's final shot, something of a cheap joke on mummies, carries this latter them right up to the end). On the whole, it's not the most sophisticated thing Hammer ever made (it's a bit too bright, the makeup isn't very good, and there's a lot of repetition for just 93 minutes), and it's hard not to wish the same script had been made with a stronger overall cast, but it's moodier than it had reason to be, and brainier, too. Turns out that the only thing keeping mummy films from reaching their full potential as troubling stories of murder and psychosis were the mummies.

Reviews in this series
The Mummy (Fisher, 1959)
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (Carreras, 1964)
The Mummy's Shroud (Gilling, 1967)
Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (Holt and Carreras, 1971)

Thứ Hai, 28 tháng 10, 2013

MASTERS OF ITALIAN HORROR: MARIO BAVA, BEHIND THE MASK

Part of the Italian Horror Blogathon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies

I don't imagine that Black Sunday - to give the film its standard English title, though strictly speaking that name only appears on the version released by American International Pictures in the 1960s, now thoroughly superseded - needs any help from me in getting the word out, but as I have elected to spend some time investigating key works by the biggest names in Italian horror, it can hardly be denied its place in that conversation. For it's the official directorial debut of Mario Bava (who'd already directed huge portions of two movies credited to Riccardo Freda, on which Bava served as cinematographer), perhaps the preeminent name in the genre. It's also one of the very best genre films ever made in Italy, while being significantly different from most of the big-name films to follow it in enough ways that it stands out, more than half a century later, as one of the most unique films of its era - pulling inspiration from a number of different sources without directly replicating any of them. It's a Gothic horror film superficially resembling the work that Hammer Films was riding to such great success at the same time in the United Kingdom, with black-and-white imagery positively drowning in deep black shadows that go far beyond the Expressionism-influenced horror and noir in America over the preceding decades. There's an emphasis on the impact of imagery-over-narrative that's pure Bava, though at the same time it has a coherent, tight screenplay like nothing else in that director's career, nor those of his countrymen. For this reason, it probably serves as the best gateway drug for Italian horror that I've ever seen, fully justifying its traditional position as the effective starting point for the history of that genre after the embryonic I vampiri and Caltiki, the Immortal Monster.

In fine Gothic ghost story tradition, the movie's plot begins in the 17th Century, at a witch burning. The Moldavian princess Asa (Barbara Steele) has been found guilty of consorting with the agents of the devil, in the form of Javuto (Arturo Dominici), and the both of them are set to be burned to death, after having spiked masks nailed to their faces in the tradition of that region. The ritual is forestalled when a freak storm puts out the flames, but the witches are both dead enough thanks to the Mask of Satan that the locals bury them anyway, making extra-certain to keep Asa's body kept safely contained in the wake of her vow to come back to wreak revenge on the descendants of her brother, overseeing her execution.

Cut to: 200 years later, though not, quite at this second, to those descendants. First, we meet a pair of doctors, Thomas Kruvajan (Andrea Checchi) and Andre Gorobec (John Richardson), traveling through the countryside. Hoping to cut some time off their journey to a conference, Kruvajan demands that their coachman takes a little-used road through the woods, which of course leads to the coach being scuttled on a pothole; as they wait to get moving again, the doctors are taken by curiosity to investigate an ancient cemetery nearby. Here they find Asa's curiously-interred remains, and also Asa's very spitting image, Princess Katia Vajda (Steele), the youngest member of the dwindling royal family living in a decaying castle nearby. The doctors then head off to the local village to sleep the night, not at any point having realised that Kruvajan, in fending off a bat, accidentally managed to spill a few drops of blood into Asa's casket. And we all know what that means.

Black Sunday is hardly the most innovative story imaginable, though it tells its tale of revived vampire witches, beautiful young innocents being made the vessel of a malevolent ancestor, and terrified villagers speaking whispered rumors of local horrors with elegant simplicity and clarity; it's basically a folkloric story, and Bava and screenwriters Ennio De Concini and Mario Serandrei treat it with exactly the right amount of archetypal distance: the characters are simple stock figures, but not boring clichés, the situations familiar but sufficiently distinctive enough to be memorable (the Moravian setting takes care of that all by itself, bringing with it an ability for the Italian filmmakers to depict a presumably made-up form of Christian observance that reads as fantastically "other", and have it not seem stupid or impossible). It's a ghost story, above and beyond everything else, but a really good one, where even an ability to get ahead of the storytellers doesn't significantly affect how one responds to the crawling creepiness as the characters get tangled up in things.

What really makes Black Sunday a top-tier horror film and spooky campfire story, though, are the visuals, as you'd pretty much have to expect given that it was directed and shot by Bava, among the most visually distinctive filmmakers in the history of any country, and any genre. Black Sunday is especially unique in his career even in that regard, as one of the few black-and-white films he made (surely I'm not the only Bava fan whose first thoughts of his style are the florid colors in Blood and Black Lace and the like), and certainly the most phenomenally chiaroscuro-addicted of those I've seen. The cemetery, the rotting castle, the crypt, and so on - all of these are already richly-designed spaces, courtesy of Giorgio Giovannini, but it's the otherworldly lighting and gloom that makes them come to life as the best sort of place to host a ghost story, looking far more authentic than their obvious "movie set" qualities should allow for.

And it's not just lighting and sets - the images are throughout of the best, most elemental horror sort. Barbara Steele, one of my candidates for cinema's all-time most beautiful women, is used magnificently for her looks, radiating virginal delicacy as Katia and frozen cruelty as Asa, even aside from her acting, which is awfully good, allowing that the part doesn't really ask for anything in the neighborhood of "nuance". There is a neat make-up effect near the end where Bava takes advantage of Steele's looks by distorting them, creating an exceptionally weird and disturbing effect of dying flesh. And that's far from the only great bit of make-up in the film - the design of Asa's victims is pretty great as well.

The most vivid image in the film, though, is surely that of Asa's corpse, with the Mask removed - perfect flesh, empty eye sockets, and a disquieting pattern of deep holes where the nails were plunged, as scorpions crawl about. It's one of a small handful of scenes so enthusiastically unsparing that it seems impossible that censors anywhere in 1960 would have been okay with them (the most extreme effects - blood dripping when the Mask was applied chief among them - were cut from the early English-language prints). Intense gore also being part of the Italian horror experience, I take pleasure in thinking that this early masterpiece of the form would be, in its little way, intense enough that even after decades of increasingly explicit and imaginative bloodletting, Black Sunday still includes moments that can be genuinely unsettling. The hallmark of Bava's filmmaking is style, atmosphere, and alarming violence, and these things are all at their very best here, in his most approachable and perhaps even his most beautiful film. It's a tremendous start to what would end up being one of the most brilliant careers in all of horror, and one of the genres undeniable masterpieces.

Chủ Nhật, 27 tháng 10, 2013

BEYOND THE VEIL OF MUMMY

The Mummy's Shroud, Hammer Films' 1967 entry into their continuity-free mummy franchise, is typically regarded as pretty damn bad - or at least, pretty damn run-of-the-mill and boring, which is surely worse. I can't help but feel like that's a pretty unfair way of looking at it; if we want to compare to Hammer's earlier The Mummy, then no, it's patently inferior, but there are between 0 and 1 mummy films in all history better than Hammer's The Mummy. We might also compare it to the same company's The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, and The Mummy's Shroud is so much better than that, there's hardly anything to talk about at all. For all the talk of how mummy films are basically the same story, I find that The Mummy's Shroud is actually somewhat original, being structured rather unexpectedly on the And Then There Were None model of assembling victims in an enclosed environment and then watching them try to squirm out while being killed one by one. More importantly, after The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb, it's such a relief to have something that looks halfway decent on the level of production design and lighting that I'd probably give it an enthusiastic pass even if it had, demonstrably, the worst script in the history of mummy cinema. Hammer Films, after all, was all about the mise en scène, the creation of heavily artificial, spooky locations; with that in hand (and while The Mummy's Shroud is hardly the best-looking film Hammer ever made, it's a solid piece of work), the rest simply doesn't seem to matter as much.

At any rate, I could definitely feel myself relaxing at the point where director John Gilling (one of Hammer's unsung heroes - prior to this, he'd overseen The Pirates of Blood River and The Plague of the Zombies, a pair of absolutely essential Hammer B-sides) and cinematographer Arthur Grant elected to stage the pathways inside an ancient Egyptian tomb with almost hilariously over-the-top shadows and close, choking angles, by which point The Mummy's Curse had already wandered in both good and bad directions. The first of these bad directions is a lengthy prologue recounting how in Pharaonic times, the young son (Toolsie Persaud) of the Pharaoh (Bruno Barnabe) incited the ire of the king's brother, who arranged to have the child killed; the loyal guard Prem (Dickie Owen) was able to save the child from the coup, only to watch helplessly as he died in the desert. Wrapping the boy in a shroud and having the natural processes of the desert mummify him, Prem commits himself to eternal watchfulness. That's a whole lot of onscreen effort to get us to the standard-issue plot point of "killer mummy defending an ancient tomb from desecration", with the action being staged in a (perhaps deliberately) stilted, pantomimed way, and involving some of the absolute worst sets that Hammer ever tried to sell an audience.

On the other hand, we've also met the rather unusual cast of characters active this time around: in Cairo, in 1920, the wealthy industrialist Stanley Preston (John Phillips) and his awesomely passive-aggressive wife Barbara (Elizabeth Sellars) have come to Egypt to check on the efforts to find a missing archaeological expedition that Preston is paying for, and more to the point, to find their son Paul (David Buck), a member of that expedition. In this, Preston is aided by the appalling toady Longbarrow (Michael Ripper), who is unbelievably cowed by the other man's riches and prestige.

The expedition has been done in by a sandstorm, though its leader, Sir Basil Walden (André Morell) is convinced that they're practically on top of the tomb he's been hunting for. And of course that's exactly what turns out to be the case, and over the hysterical objections of local expert Hasmid (Roger Delgado), Sir Basil, Paul, and Claire de Sangre (Maggie Kimberly) enter the tomb and thus we arrive at that beautifully-lit stuff I was talking about, but only after being well-introduced to the eccentric sense of humor that pops up in unexpected places throughout the film, and to the weird character dynamics that will dominate the rest of the feature. The psychological balance of this film is downright perverse, next to all the other mummy films; unlike so many insane cultists before him, Hasmid (who in the natural order of things, is the one who uses an ancient scroll to raise the body of Prem as avenger against the despoilers of the prince's tomb) isn't really much of a presence in a film where the tensions between the bedraggled and distraught Sir Basil, suffering from a curse-induced snake bite, the avaricious, lying Preston, and the morally upright Paul are all much more the driving point of the plot, and whose most distinctive personality is surely Longbarrow, the role that gave Hammer stalwart Ripper his absolute best opportunity ever to show off in a more substantial, peculiar role than he normally got; and oh, how the actor took that opportunity and ran with it all the way. His Longbarrow is unlikably pathetic, but also too miserable not to feel sorry for; the perfect contrast to Preston, showing via reflection how the rich prig is as much an antagonist as the mummy is, the perfect embodiment of the future cliché of the snobby fuck who comes along just so we can root for his death.

In fact, one of the things that is oddest to me about The Mummy's Shroud (and perhaps explains its weak reputation) is that it's at its worst when the mummy is around. Played by stuntman Eddie Powell, the mummified Prem isn't necessarily bad as a threatening presence, and there are some fine moments of people being terrified to see him - there is a blood-red scene in a photography developing lab that works fantastically on entirely that basis, like something from a giallo of the same era - but the mummy himself is pretty damn bad. The facial prosthetic makes no attempt to look like anything but a mask (maybe another giallo touchstone? Assuming that any of this was happening deliberately), and not even a mummy mask, necessarily. There's a close-up of the mummy's eyes slowly opening that is simply appalling in its failure to resemble what it's nominally depicting in anything but the most abstract sense, and this is the worst moment in a strong of truly awful shots that cannot hide (though some of them try very hard) what a cheap piece of crap the monster is here. And yet his final destruction is just about the most striking thing in the whole film, for reasons entirely due to the special effects, so who knows.

More to the point, though, outside of the darkroom scene and a few individually striking shots, Gilling is plainly more interested in the human drama than the mummy horror at all points in the film. There simply isn't much variety or inspiration to the mummy attacks, which are kept to a bare minimum in the script, content instead to dole out plummy lines for actors who all give pretty fascinating, exaggerated performances that frequently verge on some kind of comedy that's more about being strange than being funny (outside of the young couple, because this is a Hammer production, and they were required to be milquetoast nothings). The human element of the film has a warped tone that makes the whole thing far more interesting than its mummy attacks would suggest; that said, anyone who requires good mummy attacks in a mummy film (this is a reasonable expectation) is probably not going to get much out of the film compared to someone who merely prefers good mummy attacks in a mummy film. Its strange pleasures are very real and pervasive, but they are almost directly opposed to its qualities as a horror picture, which on the whole I'd be inclined to describe as "good enough", outside of some awfully fine lighting. You can't have everything.

Reviews in this series
The Mummy (Fisher, 1959)
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (Carreras, 1964)
The Mummy's Shroud (Gilling, 1967)
Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (Holt and Carreras, 1971)

REVIEW ALL MONSTERS! - THE BIG G GETS YANKED AROUND

I do not know, and I doubt anyone could say for certain, when the first movie was recut for foreign distribution. Certainly, it is not a remotely new practice. The last twenty-odd years of Harvey Weinstein holding court and chopping movies apart frequently for no more apparent reason than to make sure everyone was talking about him have resulted in a lot of attention paid to this somewhat dubious practice, but the single best-known re-edit of a film is almost certainly Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, the 1956 reworking of 1954's Godzilla presented by Transworld Releasing Corp. It was overseen by editor Terry Morse, who also directed the large quantity of new scenes inserted due to Transworld's (unfortunately not insane) belief that Americans wouldn't want to see a film without an American protagonist, leading to a brand new plot featuring adventuresome Chicago reporter Steve Martin (Raymond Burr) happening to be in Japan visiting his friend who happens to be at the epicenter of a great crisis when the radioactive dinosaur Godzilla rises from the sea to demolish Tokyo.

It's easy and reflexive to dismiss King of the Monsters as total hackwork, both because it was born of such easygoing xenophobia, and because the original Godzilla is so damn close to perfection. But that's absolutely not fair. Virtually every single Godzilla film over the next half-century to receive U.S. theatrical distribution received at least some measure of massaging that subtly but distinctly changed the plot, pacing, or focus; King of the Monsters is neither the most extreme nor by any means the most damaging. In fact, Morse's treatment of the film is surprisingly sophisticated and effective, and while there's an easy argument to be made that he should never have been given the assignment in the first place, it's hard to imagine him having done a much better job, creating one of the few American-market Godzilla pictures that works almost entirely on its own cinematic merits.

And that really is the way it needs to be treated, for it's quite a different movie. It opens on the tracking shot of a devastated Tokyo that occurs deep into Godzilla, setting itself up as a flashback related by Martin after he's already experienced the brunt of the monster's attack; it arguably means that King of the Monsters ends up working better as a thriller than the original film did, given that it makes the stakes far clearer, far earlier. But we needn't keep chasing that rabbit.

Martin is in Japan to visit his scientist friend from college, Dr. Serizawa (Hirata Akihiko), but upon landing he gets involved in a police investigation; seems that his plane was traveling directly over the site of a marine disaster, in which an unknown force caused a ship to sink. This immediately gets Martin's reporter senses tingling, and with Serizawa temporarily indisposed anyway, he has a perfect chance to attach himself to the doctor's fiancée Emiko (Kōchi Momoko) and her father, the great scientist Yamane (Shimura Takashi), also investigating the occurrence. Along for the ride is a security officer, Tomo (Frank Iwanaga), who tends to serve as translator far more than he ever provides security.

Broadly, this plays out like a clarified, detail-light variation on Godzilla: the order of events is muddied up a bit, the attack on Tokyo is significantly shorter, and it takes less time to get the final mission to kill the monster up and running. All of which makes sense, given that King of the Monsters adds a good 20 minutes of footage and still has a running time that ends up more than fifteen minutes shorter. It's far less dramatic and obsessed with the imagery of death and destruction that make Godzilla so unnerving, regardless of the way it foregrounds the desolation of Tokyo, and depicting in almost its full length the prayer song that is one of the most moving scenes in the original (less moving when the words aren't translated, it turns out).

The biggest shift, of course, is that all of the material pertaining to post-nuclear trauma and Japan's search for identity following WWII is quite out; even if it would have been "interesting" to an American audience, producer Joseph Levine quite rightfully wondered how Americans just 11 years removed from the war where we beat the Japanese would feel about a film where nuclear bombs - and that nuclear bomb in particular - were so vocally criticised. All this means, inevitably, that King of the Monsters lacks any real depth or humanity, an issue compounded by the limitations in working the main character into conversations with anybody else. And this issue is itself made worse by how increasingly clear it is that Steve Martin isn't really filling any function, or justifying his presence.

Even so, it's quite impressive how much work Morse put into incorporating Burr into the original film in a way that flowed and made sense, relying heavily on the backs of extra's heads dressed to look like Kōchi and Hirata and Takarada Akira in the original. The results are a little stiff - plenty of conversations where it's conspicuous how we're not seeing the faces of people talking - but Morse squeezed every damn drop out of footage he had to work with, in addition to leaving much of the film in Japanese, sot that Martin has to rely on translations to understand what's happening. It's often set, with justification, that the distinction between translated scenes and dubbed scenes is almost entirely arbitrary, but I'm still glad that the translator was there. For one thing, it makes it a lot easier to believe that Martin would just stand doing nothing at the side of a room. For another, it adds to the sense of authenticity, and even gives the film a veneer of "stranger in a strange land" tension, with Martin arriving in a place where he doesn't understand anything right at the most dangerous time he could have ever gone there. For yet another, the dubbing isn't great - the woman voicing Emiko sounds 10 years too old compared to Kōchi's face and voice, and while the man doing Yamane is "fine", it's hugely distracting to see the wrong voice coming out of the mouth of someone as recognisable to even the casual fan of Japanese cinema as Shimura.

The film still largely relies on Ifukube Akira's terrific score, used in different places and with different emphasis, but still beautiful to hear; it still boasts outstanding suits and dubious puppetry. The handful of quintessentially Japanese moments (the sequence on the sea floor, readying to kill Godzilla; a horizontal wipe that got left in, perhaps by mistake) mix oddly with the overall American-ness of the pacing and storytelling, but not without adding some interesting measure of culture contrast. There are some things I miss - the beautiful character moment where Shimura wryly fixes his tie is a painful loss, especially - but the core of it is still there. This is still a great '50s horror movie about the Great Big Unknown Thing that can swoop down at any second and kill you dead, and if translating it to the language of a matinee thriller means that it lacks the profound resonance of the original version, the fact remains that even thus compromised, King of the Monsters is still one of the strongest giant creature features scene in the United States in the 1950s. It moves well, it's got some terrific effects work, and there's a real sense of loss and danger absent from almost all other monster movies - what's not to love? No reason to use it as replacement viewing for Godzilla, you understand, but this is not a film without its own value, even if it's mostly reduced by this point to the status of rewarding curiosity.

Thứ Bảy, 26 tháng 10, 2013

REVIEW ALL MONSTERS! - BAPTISED IN THE FIRE OF THE H-BOMB

There are many ways to begin speaking about 1954's Godzilla, the film that introduced one of the most iconic figures ever put to celluloid, but I shall chose to start the same way that the movie does: over black, with the sound of crashing noise and something that sounds like the scream of an elephant raping a lion. As the titles appear, this repetitious cacophony is replaced by a throbbing bass line, that ushers in the sawing, martial strings of one of the great piece of theme music ever written for the movies, composed by Ifukube Akira. It's unmistakably Japanese, but at the same time it's dramatic and urgent according to European standards: in a slightly menacing key, promising danger but also excitement. I do not know if Godzilla would be a great film without Ifukube; I only know that I can never think of it without hearing his theme marching through my ears, and I don't want to know what it would be like sapped of his influence. Even the mercenary American re-cut of the film released two years later, Godzilla, King of the Monsters! knew enough not to fuck with the music.

But we're not here to talk about that project, similar in so many ways and so fundamentally a different thing. The original Godzilla, unseen in the West in any sort of official capacity for nearly a half-century, is absolutely of a whole different order than what we native speakers of English, resident in the United States, are first inclined to think of when the name of the monster is brought up. From King of the Monsters all the way to the present, films with Godzilla in them are mostly though of as campy, trashy B-movies. Which is already unfair, I'm inclined to say: there are at least a couple that are pretty much no good at all, but most of the ones I've seen (and as I write these words, I should make it clear that I've only seen around half of the 28 Japanese Godzilla films) are utterly charming in a goofy but sincere way.

This is not the case with Godzilla. It's not a movie that you can twist around enough to claim that it's "good" and not feel like you're being fast and loose with aesthetic judgments; it's a very good movie all on its own, in ways that neither ironic camp nor B-movie charm can account for. I get the sense that this fact has been so quickly absorbed into the anglosphere since the 2004 reissue of the original Japanese version of the film that it's no longer controversial in the slightest; Godzilla being a terrific, drum-tight horror-thriller with deep and rich overtones of social panic is now received wisdom. One thinks with kind pity on the pre-2004 critics who ferreted out what they saw as a clever subtext about being the only nation ever on the receiving end of a nuclear attack, only to find that the original script makes it so clear that Godzilla is a commentary on the trauma of living in post-Hiroshima Japan, undergoing the painful struggles of rebranding itself as a Westernised industrial nation, that the word "subtext" is laughably insufficient.

Indeed, both the idea for the film and the plot itself started with inspiration from another nuclear run-in between Japan and the United States: early in 1954, the fishing boat Lucky Dragon 5 got a little too close to the atomic bomb tests on Bikini Atoll, and the crew suffered radiation poisoning as a result. Producer Tanaka Tomoyuki had the idea to combine this event with a monster movie to cash in on the success of the American import The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (the logic of film producers in any culture is a marvelous and cryptic thing), and so we get a story that opens with a fishing vessel, Eiko Maru, being mysteriously lost during the night, accompanied by lights that unpleasantly suggest some form of high-energy attack. The first demi-protagonist we'll meet in the film, Ogata Hideto (Takarada Akira), is called away from a night of high culture with his girlfriend, Yamane Emiko (Kōchi Momoko), to serve as leader of the salvage operation to find out what happened; this reveals nothing, though a rescue vessel perishes under the same circumstances as the first boat. That boat, the Bingo Maru, happens to have three survivors, one of whom remains conscious just long enough to blame a monster for what happened. This is received with some trepidation by the eldest villagers of Odo Island, where the survivors landed, who have a relic of a ritual meant to appease Godzilla, a sea demon that eats fish and keep fisherman starving; to them, this recent development (and, sure enough, a recent drought of fish) suggest that Godzilla has returned.

When a typhoon rolls in that night, their worries are born out: something levels a couple of houses, and we're able to see just enough to be sure that it wasn't the weather, but something big and fleshy. These new reports catch the eye of a certain Professor Yamane Kyohei (Shimura Takashi), who just so happens to be Emiko's father, and he heads straight to Odo to investigate, thus being the first to observe that the unusually radioactive pit created during the storm - an littered with extinct fauna - is in exactly the shape of a giant foot. It's only now that the pieces come together that the film finally tips its hand, and at the 22-minute mark, we get to see, over the crest of a hill, a large tyrannosauroid head, shrieking an unearthly, metallic bark. Ladies and gentlemen, Godzilla.

Now, the first thing you'll notice after all these decades is that our first-ever glimpse of Godzilla is performed by a hand puppet. Moreover, the hand puppet is of immensely low quality. I mean, you couldn't put together such a good one on your kitchen table in the next couple of hours, but the little arms flop about like rubber stick, and the face looks awfully like something more apt to pop up on Fraggle Rock than in the nightmares of a small Japanese child. Not, all in all, a very auspicious introduction, certainly not from the POV of history, and not even really within the context of a single movie, where so much rides on the constant terror of this giant beast, a towering 50 meters of cryptozoological menace. When he shows up later, to bash his way through impressive models of Tokyo (that are not, mind you, anywhere near the level of quality that Toho's models would eventually reach, but in '54, it was like virtually nothing else out there), played by the incredibly patient Nakajima Haruo in a suit made by technicians who had no experience yet, Godzilla is a commanding, dramatic presence, always shot in potent shadows that emphasis the bulk and weight of the monster, with Nakajima's deliberate movements creating a sense of implacability: he is an unstoppable force of destruction moving slowly enough for his inescapable menace to make itself known (this is amazingly well-expressed in what's certainly my favorite scene of the film, where a radio announcer describes in something almost like ecstasy the doom coming his way).

But when we first see him, and semi-regularly throughout, he looks like a fucking rubber hand puppet. I love low-fi practical effects, and I adore without a whisper of irony even the most feeble-looking suits in the franchise; but the puppet is a bridge too far.

Anyway, all that gives us more than enough to go on. The truly impressive thing about Godzilla is that it's two entirely different movies, and both of them are excellent: on the one hand, it's a really fantastic horror movie (a distinction it does not share with most of its sequels, nor with the bulk of daikaiju eiga, the genre of giant monster movies that Godzilla created out of thin air), with Ifukube's score leading the way for some genuine moments of shredded-nerve fear, as we watch people with absolutely no damn idea where this thing is going to show up or what it's going to do; director Honda Ishirō (whose career never left the genre ghetto to join the hallowed ranks of close friend Kurosawa Akira, though I think it's safe to call him an invaluable figure in the development of the kaiju films) handles the slow rise of tension punctuated by lengthy moments of chaotic violence so perfectly one could nearly weep simply out of how brutally effective the movie is at wrenching the viewer from place to place. Is it scary, in the least, to a modern viewer? ...no, of course it damn well isn't, but that merciless simmer, the sense of total inexplicable anarchy, they are still palpable and rich, and they make Godzilla easily the best of the many '50s giant monster movies, and probably the second-best giant monster movie of all time behind only the surely unbeatable 1933 King Kong. There are virtually none from anywhere in the world, of any epoch, in which the monster is so effortlessly demonstrated as a threat to everything and everyone, random and annihilating - a shot of a tail crushing a building, a few touches of otherworldly elements (the glowing dorsal spikes jump to mind), that roar!, and Honda is able to quickly sketch out exactly why Godzilla strikes such horror into his victims.

That's a fine way in to the other, equally brilliant film sitting inside Godzilla. There's absolutely no sport anymore in teasing out the "Godzilla is the H-bomb" connections, not with scenes like a woman on a train grousing "I barely escaped the bomb at Nagasaki - and now this!", or with scientists gasping lines that are literally some variation on "Godzilla is just as bad as the atom bomb". But still, the entire structure of the film is perfectly designed to drive that point home, from the opening reference to Lucky Dragon 5, to the discovery that Godzilla himself was a giant primitive monster released into the world by the energy of atomic explosions (best not to think about how that's meant to work - nor linger too long on the film's incredibly absurd paleontology about the dating of the Jurassic Period and trilobites - because it's all captial-S Symbolism anyway), this is all openly referencing the way that Japan was reeling even nine years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the totality of the devastation in those cities. Some of the most keen shots in the film are of rubble; a lateral tracking shot across what used to be Tokyo is unquestionably the most effective and unnerving model shot in the film, and the best parts of a surprisingly sophisticated visual film put together by Honda and his cinematographer, Tamai Masao, are those in which human pain is in the forefront of the image (though as is weirdly typical of even Japanese junk food cinema, the images are uniformly striking, especially on Odo Island; I like to think it's because the old-fashioned traditions on that island are being married to the angular, dramatic compositions of traditional Japanese art), making the actual cost of Godzilla's passage felt in ways that no American big monster movie has ever even daydreamed about (one of the other best moments is a slowed-down narrative pause to watch as a girls' choir sings a song of prayer for deliverance). As much as there is the movie horror of a big lizard, the film also trades on the social horror of being damaged by something huge and unstoppable and foreign.

Beyond that, Godzilla has quite a lot within about Japan in the first decade after World War II more generally, especially as embodied in the character of Dr. Serizawa (Hirata Akihiko), Emiko's fiancé before Ogata entered the picture, and the man whose creativity has led to the one device that might be able to stop Godzilla. Here's just the short catalogue of interesting thing about him: he lost his right eye during the war, he knows at least one German scientist to the degree that he is intensely anxious to clarify that he doesn't know any German scientists, he is the only person in the whole film ever depicted listening to Western music - and in a film with as distinctive a score as this, I can't take that as incidental - and he bemoans how he wishes he'd never pursued science to the place that a weapon resulted in language neatly echoing Einstein's declarations against his theories having been used to create atomic bombs. In a film with bits and pieces littered throughout that hint at Japanese anxiety around adopting Western habits (the very first fear ever voiced by any character about the effects of Godzilla's attacks is that it will embarrass Japan in the eyes of foreign governments), Serizawa is the most in-between character of all, burdened with the guilt of two cultures, and it's that makes him interesting both as the film's ultimate hero and most tragic figure, and and the most complex representative of national psychology found anywhere in the film.

That is, anyway, the pedant's version of Godzilla. There is, I need to emphasise this, an entirely brilliant genre movie right along side it, in which an unstoppable perversion of nature needs to be stopped, and it is thrilling, tense, and anchored by a couple of shockingly good performances from Hirata and Shimura. The latter is, okay, not remotely shocking for anyone with the most remote working knowledge of Japanese cinema. But's a hell of a lot of intriguing, well-built humanity for a rampaging monster movie, and that is, of course, why Godzilla is a masterpiece: even in its most generic elements, it's never just a monster movie, but a fantastic depiction of how humans survive and struggle. Trashy elements or not, this is exactly what great cinema looks like, in any country and any decade.