Thứ Tư, 16 tháng 7, 2014

SUMMER OF BLOOD: READERS' CHOICE, REDUX!

Week 10 of the 2014 Summer of Blood is already breathing down our necks, and it's time for another Reader's Choice week. It went pretty well the first time, so I'm going to keep all the same rules, WITH ONE CHANGE, so be sure to look at #6 below

1. Only one title can be nominated per Google/Blogger profile.

2. In addition to the title, copy+paste the IMDb link, though I won't ask anyone to noodle with the HTML to actually make the link live.

3. Please, make sure I haven't already reviewed it. If you submit a nomination for a film that I've reviewed, I'll discard it.

4. I will also discard any title I have planned for a future poll in this year's Summer of Blood. Don't feel bad - it'll have a better chance of winning later rather than now.

5. I'm going to allow a fairly free definition of horror, not limited by any particular subgenre. That said, if anyone throws out a clear joke title, I'll probably discard that too.

6. THE NEW RULE You can't re-nominate the film you nominated for Week 5! You can nominate the film that somebody else nominated, but I want to have this be at least a tiny bit more interesting than just standing around waiting for the vote deadline before I officially announce that I'm reviewing The Thing.

You have 48 hours - until 11:00 AM Central Daylight Time (GMT -5:00) on Friday, 18 July. Use the comments to this post to make your nominations!

Thứ Ba, 15 tháng 7, 2014

APE-OCALYPSE NOW

Good sequels are rare; good sequels to prequels are rare enough that I can't remember the last one prior to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which isn't merely good, it's in some ways outright terrific. In fact, not only is it a more than worthy successor to 2011's surprisingly good Rise of the Planet of the Apes - and I think it's appropriate to point out, though I am not the first to do so, that there's more rising than dawning in the newest movie - it's pretty commandingly the best movie in the sprawling, disconnected franchise since the very first Planet of the Apes in 1968. It's all the more impressive given that Dawn is in a great many respects an uncredited remake of 1973's Battle for the Planet of the Apes, the worst of the now eight Apes films (yes, worse than than the deadening Tim Burton film from 2001, which at least had some great design and make-up).

Like that rather glum, under-budgeted affair, Dawn takes place many years after the event which caused the balance of power to shift away from a human-dominated Earth: the release of a lab-created biological agent called "simian flu" in the media, the exact beat upon which Rise ended, and upon which Dawn begins, with one of the very best "montage of news reports" exposition bursts that I have seen in many days, as fragments of talking head segments appear beneath a map of the earth showing the vectors by which the flu spread and also depicting the fading out of lights representing human civilisation, so that at end, when we arrive back where we started on the West Coast of the United States, it's all dark and empty and cold, as Michael Giacchino's score mournful taps out a few dying notes. You can't ask for a more atmospheric opening than that, nor one which more efficiently tells us everything we need to know (not least of the reasons that Dawn is such a terrific sequel is that it's so good at standing on its own two feet as a completely self-contained narrative).

And so we arrive, ten years after Rise, to find that the super-intelligent chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans created in that movie have built a primitive but very stable and literate society in the depths of Muir Woods, across the Golden Gate from San Francisco. Led by the first mutant ape, Caesar (Andy Serkis, in a performance that re-writes the rulebook on what you can achieve with motion capture), the apes have no desire to become the dominant species of anything, but simply to live in quiet contentment in their small corner of the world; this becomes untenable when a group of humans - thought extinct for two years now - stumble upon the ape village while in the woods on entirely unrelated business. One of them, Carver (Kirk Acevedo), panics and shoots the juvenile ape Ash (Doc Shaw), and from there on out, everything snowballs: Caesar and the leader of the human expedition, Malcolm (Jason Clarke) are able to put off immediate conflict between the two populations, and even strike a deal for the humans to continue their exploration to find and repair a hydroelectric dam in the woods, the last hope for keeping electricity flowing to San Francisco, which has already devolved into a dead, weed-choked collection of buildings with all the humans clustered into one unfinished skyscraper. But Caesar's apparent second-in-command Koba (Toby Kebbell) refuses to forgive or trust the humans, remembering their horrible treatment of him when he was still a lab animal, and Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), the leader of the human colony, responds to the discovery that the apes have formed a nascent human-like society by breaking out the stockpiled weapons to make sure they still work, and as is the case, when a population begins to ready for war, it has a tendency to make sure that war will break out.

Mordant stuff, but even at their very worst, the Planet of the Apes films have been more concerned with how to use a population of intelligent simians as a metaphor for how we humans structure our own societies, with all their warts and jerry-rigged alliances (though its vocabulary suggests otherwise, it's always seemed clear that the series is aware that humans are, after all, apes ourselves). And even with its rather bleak outlook on the hopes of peace between distrustful neighbors, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is about as rousing and involving as any summer movie ought to be, not because is packed full of heightened action, but because it makes its action count so much, by basing it so firmly in character rather than raw spectacle.

The film triumphs in making a rich, complex web of characters we admire and characters we despise, but who in both cases always seem to be acting out of an honest internal place rather than because the script needs "heroes", "villains", and "conflict", and this is even more impressive given that the best of them are CGI apes who communicate either with subtitled sign language or grunting, grammatically half-baked English. It is astonishingly nuanced for a big honking summertime movie, with Serkis and Kebbell in particular (along with the small army of technicians turning their performances into CGI characters with amazingly flexible facial expressions) creating such conflicted, ambivalent figures that even as the plot structure insists that Koba must be the Bad Guy and Caesar the Hero, there are shadings within those binaries that go far beyond that. Caesar is not a pacifist, but a realist; Koba is not a slavering maniac, but a deeply wounded, resentful figure. Both have many wonderful moments, a scene in which Koba distracts some gun-toting humans by acting like a daffy circus chimp is a beautifully sad and creepy moment, pure popcorn movie magic.

And having done such a good job of building its characters (the non-human ones; though it's so clearly the "point" that the humans feel kind of undernourished and one-note that I tend to see it as a strength, not a flaw), the film then proceeds on to the business of setpieces and a generally grim and overly-sober worldview, but it feels earned here in a way that it hasn't since The Dark Knight, where the whole "summer movies have to be harsh and not fun" shtick first set up shot. There are sublime moments: the sight of a gas station in the woods coming to life and promising hope and a future; a shot from atop a tank gun turret spinning listlessly and bringing the camera with it, the kind of thing that might sound generically cool for most tentpoles, but is given great depth and drama thanks to the hard, colorless lighting and the moaning score (seriously, Giacchino is up to some great things with the music: looking back to the groundbreaking original, collating modern blockbuster music tropes, tugging at our heart in a most shameless way. I think he might be the single most important person in making the film what it is). Director Matt Reeves finds the exact right mixture here between grandiosity and visual storytelling here in a way that makes for fine, compelling epic filmmaking, and while this is one of the film's best single gestures, it is not the only place where the emotional needs of the moment and the desire to make broad, crowd-pleasing spectacle are satisfied simultaneously. It's a perfectly balanced film, one that escalates things steadily but not with a predictable rhythm, and one that has invested so much in the character drama that even though the climax is a simple one-on-one fight, it feels more visceral and important than all the exploding cities that recent years have thrown at us.

It is, basically a rich film; one of the richest that has come along on a giant studio budget into a prominent summer slot in a long time. I don't suppose that it's necessarily trying to break any new ground; it's more that it's doing extremely well things that are typically only done satisfactorily. But I had an easier time investing emotionally in the film's story, its characters, and its setting (designed, fucking brilliantly, by James Chinlund, and handsomely shot by Michael Seresin) than I've had with a movie of similar market position and aims in a very long time, and for a movie about that time that mutant apes took over the planet, that's an outstanding achievement.

9/10 8/10
I was flipping back and forth for three days before I wrote the review, it only seems right to keep on doing it now that it's published. It's the old conundrum: not as good as the 9/10 Edge of Tomorrow, better than the 8/10 Days of Future Past, and I hate decimal points.

BEST SHOT: BATMANIA!

The second half of the fifth season of Hit Me with Your Best Shot, the most glorious and playful audience participation event spearheaded by Nathaniel of the Film Experience, happen to arrive right in the middle of the month that DC has declared to be Batman's 75th birthday. Accordingly, Nathaniel chose a particularly wide-open Batman-themed subject. In short: there have been, between 1966 and 2012, nine feature films starring the Caped Crusader. Participants are to pick their favorite single shot from any one of those movies - or, I guess, from all nine of them, for anybody with that kind of death wish.

It will come as no surprise to my long-time readers, my newer readers, or people who only know my from my weekly column at Nathaniel's place, that of those nine films, the one shot that I most loved came from the animated movie, 1993's Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I'll get to why in a minute, but first I should mention that it's actually the third in a trio of closely-linked shots, of which the first two occur consecutively, and in fact the first dissolves into the second. I should like to show those to you now:

In the film, there's a good break before the third variant of that image, the one that's my actual pick for Best Shot, so we're going to go ahead and take that same break now, while I explain my reasoning. Basically, we have here an exceptionally pure example of the motion picture attempting to copy the visual vocabulary of a comic book, something that happens almost never at all in comic book movies, weirdly (or not weirdly at all, actually: Ang Lee tried to do it in Hulk, fucked up, and now everybody's scared of it). The use of images that echo one another is one of the most effective building blocks in the comic artist's toolbox - an entire issue of the medium-defining Watchmen was built on the principle, and I would have to imagine that it long predates Dave Gibbon's excellent work there.

I'm certainly not a comic expert, but I know a thing or two about how images in juxtaposition create meaning, and I think the reason this technique works is because it's a terrific way of guiding the eye and directing the reader's thought process. Take those two shots - even totally divorced from any knowledge about the tragic boyhood of Bruce Wayne, it's really clear that the first image is setting up a mournful tone (crushing blues and blacks, silhouettes, the man dwarfed by the painting of the people), that we're meant to continue reading into the second image, even though it's not remotely so gloomy. The mere fact of the graphic match clues us in to two things: one is that the people in the painting are the people below the marker, the other is that the man in mourning has a pervasive, ritualistic attachment to the grieving process - a shift of time and place has left him in exactly the same place relative to the people he has lost. He is visually defined by his place in the grieving process.

So keep that in mind as we head over to third iteration, my Best Shot.

The important bit first: this isn't a great image simply because it completes a trio, or because it is informed by the progression of the other shots. Certainly, that gives it a great deal of added impact, and if the color wasn't enough to give this an exhausting, mournful tone, the way it taps into the feeling of those early images would definitely push it over the edge.

But that's hardly all of it. Forming emotional connections between images is one thing, and it's a good thing, but what the repetition also does is to make us familiar with this composition. When it arrives for the third and most dramatic time, it feels like we've already seen it, because in a very real sense we have. And that - showing us something for the first time that triggers the feeling that we have seen it, that we have always been seeing it, that it is bigger than just this one moment - is what makes an image iconic, and iconic images are the very life's blood of superhero comics. It is not a subtle genre at all: it is heightened, self-mythologising pulp, and it needs to register with immediate, visceral impact. The superhero image lands all at once, imparting its meaning, its emotion, and its celebration of the larger-than-life figure within it on a level that the gut perceives before the mind can sort out what's going.

So what is immediately, essentially Batman? What one concept about this character must land with the most impact if his entire existence is to make any sense? He lost his parents and has spent his adult life dressed as a bat to punch the evil out of the world and expunge himself of his grief over that loss. So, Batman, standing in front of their grave, a black form even against grim storm clouds, his shadow falling over the marker above his parents and obscuring the family name - cue the old bit about how Superman is really Clark Kent, but Bruce Wayne is really Batman. His new identity blots out the old one; and this too is a reason to mourn.

So there it all is, the essential core of Batman in one single image - not just my favorite shot from any of the Batman features, but my favorite single image of that hero from anywhere in his entire 75 year career.

Thứ Hai, 14 tháng 7, 2014

BLOCKBUSTER HISTORY: THE APES WANT TO KILL US

Every week this summer, we'll be taking an historical tour of the Hollywood blockbuster by examining an older film that is in some way a spiritual precursor to one of the weekend's wide releases. This week: in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, we find a world in which humans have become the endangered species, and super-intelligent apes threaten to wipe the last of our species out of existence. Wait, "super-intelligent apes"? "You are the endangered species?" Sometimes, you make the choice, and sometimes the choice makes you. Hat tip to Z.V. for making this most excellent suggestion.

In 1993, Steven Spielberg directed a movie about CGI dinosaurs, called Jurassic Park. It was an exceptionally beguiling piece of matinee-movie magic, and the film industry being what it is, absolutely everyone wanted a piece of the same action. And so the rip-offs and copycats started to show up. Among the first and easily the most direct of these was 1995's Congo, which, like Jurassic Park, is based on a novel by Michael Crichton; was produced by Spielberg's reliable collaborator Kathleen Kennedy; was directed by Spielberg's other long-time producer buddy Frank Marshall; boasted creatures designed by the great Stan Winston; and starred an actress named Laura whose later career would prove her to be indescribably overqualified to play the role of a brassy scientist spouting inscrutable babble and reacting to special effects. Heck, Congo and Jurassic Park are basically the same movie! Except for the part where Jurassic Park is a bright, finely-tuned adventure combining the best of the old school and new technology, while Congo is like, the worst fucking thing.

And by "the worst fucking thing", I obviously mean "the best fucking thing". You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a movie that ticks more of the boxes for a perfect storm of So Bad It's Goddamn Perfect filmmaking in the last decade when such movies were still reasonably common: it has a big enough budget and ambition to make the failure of execution that much more impressive; it has a flawless blend of actors ranging from completely inert leads to supporting players who are obviously in on the joke, and it counts a conspicuous skeleton in at least one closet; the dialogue includes some absolute howlers of lines that are down around Ed Wood levels of unreadable weirdness; the effects are outrageously shitty in ways that only very expensive movies with very creative talent can manage to produce. It is a precious and rare jewel: most fun-bad movies are fun if you can get a few friends together to snark and probably drink your way through it, but Congo is absolutely hilarious even if you're watching it alone. Prior to this review, I hadn't watched it since it first came out on video, which isn't a mistake I'll make again, for it is magical. Of the small but personally resonant '90s subgenre "people fighting some kind of horrorbeasts in the jungle, and also a veteran actor is playing the bad guy with an indescribably unhinged accent", I find that I must rate Congo as my second-favorite behind only Anaconda, owing almost entirely to the fact that Jon Voight's performance in the latter film is literally my favorite thing in any bad movie from the entirety of the decade.

Congo, anyway, hinges on two hot new technological developments of the 1980s, when Crichton wrote the novel (which isn't all that great, but its incomparably superior to the film): laser-based communication and computers that translate sign language into speech. The latter of these has been attached to Amy, a gorilla trained by UC Berkeley primatologist Dr. Peter Elliott (Dylan Walsh), who has concluded based on her recent nightmares that Amy just wants to go home to the jungles of the Congo region (the movie came out before the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been so renamed from Zaire, but the film really takes place in Darkest Africa rather than any actual ecosystem or political entity you could identify on a map). This makes him invaluable to Dr. Karen Ross (Laura Linney), a communications scientist at TraviCom with her own need to get to the Congo, where she expects to find her possibly dead ex-fiancé Charles Travis (a cameoing Bruce Cambpell), and Charle's father, TraviCom C.E.O. R.B. Travis (Joe Don Baker), expects to find rare blue diamonds, the key incredient in his new space lasers. Hoping to piggyback on Peter's trip and save herself the hassle, or something - there is in fact no clear reason that the two expeditions need to combine, especially since TraviCom sends another one a few days later - Karen manages to buy her way onto the plane with the promise of paying for the tens of thousands of dollars in gas, once Peter's original backer, eccentric Romanian Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry), turns out to be a broke diamond hunter and not the industrialist he promised.

In Africa, the rag-tag crew meets up with suave mercenary Munro Kelly (Ernie Hudson, sporting a ripe British accent), and they head into the jungle, all H. Rider Haggard like. Civil war, mysterious natives, and cryptic clues to the doomed fate of the original TraviCom expedition all mark the path to the Lost City of Zinj, where the Bibilical King Solomon had all of his diamonds mined (aaallllll H. Rider Haggard like, I said), in the exact part of the jungle that Amy came from, and where Charles was attacked by what is revealed to be a race of stuntmen in the most fucking amazingly stupid White Gorilla costumes that the Stan Winston Studio at the height of its affluence could manage to perpetrate.

The plot is just about the best thing about Congo: it's hokey and stupid and probably racist (though it's amazing how much just the casting of Hudson - the most self-aware member of the cast, having even more obvious fun than Curry - manages to sand the nastiest edges off of the whole "Africa and Africans are weird, creepy, horrible, and exotic" implications of the scenario), but it makes for a giddy enough rip-off of King Solomon's Mines that presses all of the necessary B-movie buttons. Take the exact same script (by the distractingly overqualified John Patrick Shanley, plainly just grinding through as many clichés as he could hit on the way to cashing a paycheck), make it for a tenth of the same budget, and it's a right little classic of junk food cinema. And also, you could spend a tenth of the inconceivable $50 million - in 1995 dollars! - that was wasted on Congo and make something that didn't look appreciably more fake or down-rent. Congo, in addition to its utterly misguided gorillas, boasts some of the rinky-dinkiest jungle sets that you could ever hope to see, cutting together with the Costa Rican locations not at all. It's really just plain impossible to figure out where the money went: not on the cast, surely, which included nobody more prominent than Tim Curry, one of those actors who's kind of defined by how obviously inexpensive he is (the film beat the Dylan Walsh Era in pop culture by... well, let's see, it came out 19 years ago, so it beat that moment by at least 20 years). Hopefully not on the costumes, which are really fussy and really dumb - Amy, of whom we see a great deal, looks like a highly expressive and well-detailed version of an animal that roughly approximates the idea of a gorilla, as heard third- or fourth-hand. (The film was going to be done with CGI, till it was discovered - perhaps after about $20 million? - that hair-rendering programs weren't up to the task of CGI gorillas at that time).

My point, anyway, is that Congo is a junkshop movie in every respect other than the one where it somehow as an A-list, tentpole release in June of '95. I mean, look at that cast list again: Curry, Hudson, Campbell (who originally tried out for the role of Peter, and would have made a genuine B-classic out of it if he'd gotten the part - Walsh is a pathetic wet sock in the part), and Joe Don Baker as the shoutiest billionaire head of a multinational communications technology firm in cinema history. "I'll be human later!" he bellows at Linney in one scene, puffy and rampaging like no Evil Capitalist ever puffed or raged. It's Shakepeare the way it was meant to be played, and bless her, but for all that Linney actually seems to be trying to act in most of the movie (unlike Laura Dern in Jurassic Park, this was her first real showcase, and she was clearly determined to make the most of it), she is visibly confused about how to respond to any of what Baker gives her.

For all that Congo is a festively dim romp through set-bound jungles, with Hudson and Curry both rocking their accents hard, the movie didn't become a punching bag of such longevity because it plays like a moderately enjoyable adventure flick; it's because of the awesomely terrible spectacle of Amy the Talking Gorilla, played by Lorene Noh and Misty Rosas in the suit, both of them indescribably good sports (you can tell in every beat of body language and in the tortured approximation of ape-like movement that mostly resembles a game parent playing horsey for their children), with child actress Shayna Fox providing the gorilla's digital voice. Half-assed but amusing King Solomon's Mines variants are ten for a dollar: in any given 24-hour period, at least a half dozen are probably playing somewhere on cable. But movies of any genre that boast such a remarkably misguided character as Amy are rare and precious as the blue diamonds to power laser guns. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see that thing on set and realise exactly what kind of movie this was going to be: the kind with the most asshole, smug-looking face of any robot ape in the history or robot apes, and the most amazing lines of bad dialogue in a film where amazingly bad dialogue happens about once every thirty seconds. "AMY WANT GREEN DROP DRINK" says the gorilla, in demanding an in-flight martini - this is a movie in which a gorilla drinks a martini, and if you really need anything else to get you excited, I don't understand how you made it this far into the review - which she then drinks with a look of solipsistic contentment. "TICKLE ME TICKLE ME TICKLE ME" she demands of Peter with droning angry intensity, till Peter tickles her. Because this is also a movie in which the relationship between a man and a talking gorilla is pretty much unambiguously presented as a domestic partnership, leaving Laura Linney with nothing but a presumed-dead Bruce Campbell, though I think most of us would still pick that over a living Dylan Walsh.

All this is compounded by Marshall's directing, which is full of of mistakes and deeply unfortunate choices that tend to play up the "scary Africa!" elements of the film; the example that presents itself most obviously comes when Delroy Lindo's brutish Captain Wanda (who angrily makes people eat sesame cakes, and then even more angrily makes them stop) is filmed with just enough of a wide angle lens at just a near enough distance to make him look all terrifying and insane. Or the deeply unfortunate choices that are unfortunate for completely apolitical reasons, like having the white gorillas' attack on the heroes take place amidst blue lasers and purple smoke, as though just for one scene, they had to film Congo in a dance club from 1986. Allen Daviau, a talented cinematographer if ever there was a talented cinematographer in Hollywood in the '80s, rather stubbornly shoots around the terrible camera placement, terrible blocking, and terrible sets as though he was making a real movie, but even talent can only go so far in making things look attractive despite themselves.

It's all so truly special: all the money and resources a film could ever hope to receive somehow going wrong in every possible way, to create the platonic ideal of a glossy but chintzy pile of idiotic nonsense. It has the kind of truly glitzy tackiness that only money, time, and talented could have produced, with a script of the most pure, uncut inanity at every point, so much so that when the heroes escape on a balloon that just happens to be kicking around in the desert on their way to fly, probably, right into a war zone, it hardly even registers as a contrivance. Congo is an outlandish, incompetent disaster, but it seems so conspicuously aware of how terrible it is, and how it just keeps getting worse, that it ends up being a great deal more fun than many far, far better adventure movies with a more discipline but nowhere near as much magnetic derangement.

Chủ Nhật, 13 tháng 7, 2014

SUMMER OF BLOOD: ITALIAN SLASHERS

1982's The New York Ripper is a very, very, very special motion picture: it represents the exact moment at which the great Italian horror master Lucio Fulci transformed into the hacky Italian schlockmeister Lucio Fulci. The transition was achieved very cleanly: outside of two scenes which could stand along any giallo of the '70s for visual flair and psychologically bent terror, the film bears not a trace of the poetically gory hands of the man who just one year before had wrapped up his celebrated Gates of Hell trilogy with The Beyond and The House by the Cemetery.

We'll get back to that; in the meantime, let's ease into the thing. The New York Ripper opens with an elderly man (Sal Carollo) and his dog, the man shot in such disorientingly tight, pinched close-ups that I thought for certain that he was being set up as some demented figure who'd play a considerable role in the sick drama to follow, and not just a dude who would literally never appear again after the opening credits. All he's there for is to be part of a game of fetch gone wrong, when his dog brings back a rotting hand. This hand becomes the problem of NYPD officer Lt. Fred Williams (Jack Hedley), who you can tell just from looking at him is one of those world-weary sorts who has seen it all, and found all of it depraved and wanting. The kind who can reel off the statistic that eleven people are murdered in his jurisdiction every day, half of them women, and do so with the sort of bored, slumped posture that suggests he has no more emotional stake in that fact than he does in the Mets' current woes.

What Williams doesn't know is that he's just been given a serial killer case, or should I say he's been handed the case, because y'know, the fact that there was a hand, it's like a pun. In fact, New York is about to be plagued by a series of killings committed by a person whose only persistent identifiable characteristic is a tendency to speak in a voice like a psychopathic Donald Duck. A more psychopathic Donald Duck, anyway. After the next violently mutilated body shows up, of a woman (Cinzia de Ponti) slashed through the genitals, Williams calls in an expert on maniacs, Dr. Paul Davis (Paolo Malco) of Columbia University. The two of them begin to develop a plan to find and stop the killer, though Williams is so hard-boiled and resigned to a world of shit, and Davis so generally callous, that neither of them are trying very hard. Eventually, the case starts to break when one victim, Fay Majors (Almanta Keller) manages to survive wounds, and with her boyfriend Peter (Andrew Occhipinti, under the American market friendly name of Andrew Painter) begins to endure an entire series of failed attempts by the Quacking Ripper on her life. Though even this proves to be less use than it immediately seems; the man she's able to identify as her attacker, Mikis Kalenda (Howard Ross) is revealed rather soon after to us as merely the procurer for the actual Ripper, finding the kind of "dirty" or otherwise morally compromised women that the killer prefers.

In its bones, then, this is basically just a routine giallo, a nice urban murder mystery. It came out in the Slasher Era, which means that the focus is less on psychological discombobulation (the spine of all the very best gialli), and more on evocative, high-impact violence, but it's not like the gialli were exactly squeamish about such matters. Still, the quantity and degree of the violence in The New York Ripper is quite impressive: enough to get the film banned in Britain during the Video Nasties days, despite it not being on the Nasties list itself. In fact, the violence in the film is so prominent and so pronounced in its impact that it's kind of hard to talk about anything else. That is, in fact, the nugget of the argument of the faction that decries the film as lesser, if not indeed outright terrible Fulci (having developed a good-sized cult in the years after its toxic early reception, this remains the most divisive of the director's movies): that it is nothing but an exercise in watching brutal acts of highly creative and wicked acts of violence against women, a torture porn film years and years before anybody even thought of suggesting that was a genre. It's no fun to side with the prudes, but I absolutely have to, in this case: The New York Ripper is a squalid, joyless exercise in extreme gore, with a ridiculous fig leaf at the end when it reveals the killer and explains his motives in a way that could potentially serve as a sign that the movie is indicting acts of male violence against women, if only it didn't come after the specific 85 minutes of cinema preceding that reveal.

I am irresistibly drawn to compare the film to William Lustig's Maniac from two years earlier, for the two films resemble each other closely. Both are set in a version of New York that focuses on the shabbiest, filthiest corners of that city during one of the nastier periods in its history, and both depict acts of horrifying cruelty against women. Neither is a film that's much fun to watch in anyway, and anybody suggesting that it might be is probably worth avoiding in small group settings, but for all that it is a sick, slimy affair, Maniac at least feels like it has some depth and purpose. It's rubbing our faces in the worst of humanity with the exact point of making us feel degraded and awful about it; it comes from a place of thematic and sociological nihilism, but it has themes and sociology. The New York Ripper doesn't manage quite the same feat: it depicts more disgusting acts but with less visceral implication of the viewer. It presents torture for us to watch, it doesn't assault us with torture. And because of this, it's basically an empty exercise. Not that, God knows, I think that every good horror film needs to make us feel awful about death and violence, or anything like that. I am a huge, even starry-eyed fan of The Beyond, which has plenty of extreme and foul-minded scenes of violence, and it makes absolutely no claims to thematic depth at all. But it has artistry behind it: it imparts mood using its visuals about as well as any horror film I can name, and even if it's basically just spectacle, it's spectacle that's emotionally transporting. The New York Ripper is just a wallow in bad behavior, too wearying to even make one angry. It's not in the least scary, it's gross. Emphatically and unapologetically gross, and there's no art to that.

The gulf between The New York Ripper and Maniac, or The Beyond, or a hundred other, better violent horror movies, is typified by its sex show scene. By the mere fact that it has a sex show scene, in which a woman named Eva (Zora Kerova) and a man with no name at all (Urs Althaus) are onstage in one of the seediest adult theaters in the blighted hellhole of early-'80s Times Square, having sex for an audience that includes Kalenda, and a smartly-dressed woman we'll later learn is called Jane Lodge (Alexandra Delli Colli), the latter of whom masturbates while watching, the camera cutting from the sex act she's watching to extreme close-ups of her mouth twisting in pleasure. Which is, to be fair, the most classy, artful way to film a scene of a woman masturbating at a Times Square live sex show that you could possibly hope for.

But then, the question arises, is this actually a scene that a film like The New York Ripper requires? If so, is it a scene that needs to go on for as long as it does (notably, most of the censorship the film has undergone pertains to its sex, not its violence - which opens up a whole other conversation, but still)? Probably not and no, respectively. And even then, the scene is a masterpiece of narrative concision compared to the later scene in which Jane is foot-raped in a bar. These are lingering, sordid moments, ones where sex is glared at with a blank, disinterested focus by the filmmakers, and it feels more like something out of a Joe D'Amato picture than anything I'd associate with Fulci in his prime. Not a complimentary comparison, in case the name "Joe D'Amato" doesn't mean anything to you right off.

Having thus telegraphed its willingness to stomp around in the most gratuitous kind of sex and linger on sexual humiliation in what I think might be a scene played for comedy, the film thus gets that much ickier when the time comes to kill Jane off - this came as an unpleasant development to me, for her first handful of scenes, I was actually expecting her to turn out to be the real Ripper, since there was no obvious reason otherwise for her to take up so much screentime (and sure enough, she's absolutely not an important enough character for the energy the film takes in building her up) - and does so with a level of unblinking violence that outdoes anything else I have seen in Fulci. Including what might be the single most upsetting moment of eye violence in the filmography of a director who treated eye violence the way Spielberg treats shooting stars. It's immaculately staged, and brilliantly executed - on the level of craft, I'll cop to being in absolute awe of it - but it's so leering, so filthy, and so distasteful in the context of how the film views women and Jane in particular, it's not valuable or entertaining, it's just pitiless and rancid.

That the killer speaks like Donald Duck immediately connects The New York Ripper with 1972's Don't Torture a Duckling, whose Italian title contains a more explicit reference to the Disney character. That film is one Fulci's greatest works, though not because it kindly; where The New York Ripper is cruel, Don't Torture a Duckling is outright nihilistic. But that nihilism develops cleanly from the film's unrelenting social commentary, and I kept hoping, right up to the pretty much indefensible close-up of Jane's nipple being cut in half by a razor blade, that the link between the two films on the Donald level mean that The New York Ripper would eventually turn into something similar. It doesn't; there's the outline of a something about men wanting women to be impossibly perfect, but if I were inclined to defend the movie, it would be out of admiration that it pulls no punches and knows exactly what it is, not because it has any meaningful level of thematic depth or sophistication.

And there's another line of defense, I guess: unlike all of the later Fulci films I've seen, The New York Ripper is actually well-made. Even extremely well-made: it was the second and last film Fulci made (after a gap of eleven years!) with cinematographer Luigi Kuveiller, a great talent in the Italian film industry of the '70s, and his depiction of the squalor of New York and the nightmarish corners of it is fantastic; there's a brief scene in a subway with screaming red lights that is the most inspired part of the entire movie, almost solely through its lighting, and a weird sequence in a movie theater where the mood lighting is almost as important as Fulci's staging of the unseen film as a surrealist collage of sounds (I mentioned two great scenes in my opening paragraph: there you have them). So no matter what's going on, the film looks fantastic. And as a police procedural and mystery, Fulci and crew keep the film tight and tense, with Hedley doing excellent work as the bleak, weathered Williams (Malco's Davis - eventually revealed to be gay in a very bizarre and pointless scene that I think is meant to explain his amoral glossing over the dead women - is much less consistent or interesting). That the film eventually follows slasher rules rather than giallo rules in outing and disposing of its killer means that this angle on the film is a bit of a dead end, but it's pretty great while it lasts. Nothing else is, though; I could possibly attempt to overlook everything vile in the film if it was genuinely horrifying, but The New York Ripper is ultimately more rote and banal in its storytelling than it is repellent, and that's the worst kind of combination.

Body Count: 6, which is almost exactly the right number for a Ripper-based thriller. I am not counting the dead body at the very beginning of the movie, of which we see only a hand.

Thứ Bảy, 12 tháng 7, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1958: In which post-war psychological and social trauma is explored with more sophistication and ambivalence than had previously been possible

That are certain expectations that immediately present themselves in connection with a film made at MGM in 1958, starring Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, and directed by Vincente Minnelli, and not the least merit of Some Came Running is that it completely defies them. It's not a musical, for one thing, though that's a superficial way to start off. Many films - I daresay most films - are not musicals. Even a great many Minnelli films are not musicals, though his best work all is clustered in that genre.

But there's not-musical, and there's something as caustic and bitter in its not-musicality as Some Came Running, which I am tempted to call one of American cinema's first great masterpieces about the psychological dislocation of the war generation in the years following the war (it followed, by two years, an actual MGM musical on the same topic, the Comden & Green masterwork It's Always Fair Weather, directed by Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly); it is based on a massive novel by James Jones, the chronicler of wartime anomie whose books also found cinematic expression in From Here to Eternity (another Sinatra picture - the one he won his Oscar for, no less) and The Thin Red Line, and it is probably the brusquest, cruelest of those films. Which is no mean feat coming from a director whose better-known film from '58 is the romantic, if also distinctly, wearily worldly musical Gigi, and whose masterpiece is the nostalgic, and sharply melancholic Meet Me in St. Louis. So perhaps it's not that surprising, on the face of it.

Still, it's a bleak movie. Sinatra plays Dave Hirsh, a onetime promising writer who has taken his time about coming home after war - which war, and exactly how long ago it ended, is something the film rather conspicuously refuses to detail, and by the time it pins things down to 1948 deep in the second half, it's far too late for the film to end up feeling schematic or overtly sociological, thank God. And longer still it would have taken him, except that after a bender in Chicago, he was put on a bus to his hometown of Parkman (an American Everytown that is specified to Indiana the same time that 1948 is named), with a blackout drunk on, and a dimwitted party girl named Ginnie Moorehead (Shirley MacLaine) by his side, convinced that the meager attention the blazed Dave threw her way was proof of his deep affection for her.

Parkman is one of those '50s soap opera towns where everybody is in everybody else's business, and then is shocked, shocked, to find that everybody is in their business in return, and superficially, Some Came Running is a soap, though the sheer caustic energy of the film, particularly in the form of Sinatra's scorched-earth performance (it is the best work he ever gave on film) makes it hard if not completely impossible to file the film into the same generic box as the tawdry, heaving Peyton Place. And the subplots that remain from what I gather to be a much more sprawling, ensemble-based book certainly give the impression that a more typical soap is to be found somewhere in the material; I am pleased that screenwriters John Patrick & Arthur Sheekman, along with Minnelli, elected not to focus on that aspect of the story, because the most broadly melodramatic sequences are also by far the film's worst: the bits about Dave's brother Frank (Arthur Kennedy) having an affair and being found out by his daughter (Betty Lou Keim) stop the film dead in its tracks.

No, where the film lives most electrifyingly is in a battle of wits between Dave and the whole stinking, rotten world: the world of Nice People like Frank and his oh-so-prim wife Agnes (Leora Dana, absolutely terrific despite being a performer that you never, ever heard of), the kind who behave in shitty and hypocritical ways but understand the social codes that make it okay and even respectable to do so. But it's not a stock "lone truth-teller against the nasty suburban world" story, because for all that the film clearly looks down on Parkman and the kind of judgmental people who live there, it doesn't do much to sugarcoat Dave, either, seeing him as a brooding force of indiscriminate anger who has more or less lost the ability to function around people - his unrelentingly dismissive, sarcastic treatment of Ginnie (perhaps the only person in the cast that the film genuinely sympathises with, even as it paints her as an undereducated floozy) comes from a place of real bitterness and cruelty that, if it doesn't quite turn him out to be an anti-hero, sure as hell makes it problematic to see him as a valorous figure in the face of small town small-mindedness.

This is about as far outside of Minnelli's wheelhouse as I'm aware of him ever having gone (the only greater outlier is perhaps the romantic drama The Clock, mostly because it was made in black and white at a time when he'd graduated to color), which makes it incredibly fascinating as an auteur theory test case; and MGM's most florid stylist certainly managed to put a stamp on the film, though in some very odd ways. It's a visually-driven film, it hardly seems possibly to deny that: the set design and the placement of the camera within those sets is at least as important as the words and deeds performed by the characters in exploring the themes of the piece. It's in CinemaScope, as would certainly have been expected from a top-tier MGM production of that period, and it uses the expansive spread of that frame tremendously well, just about as well as any American film had up to that (point, nerdy aside: the film came out the same year as The Hidden Fortress, the first film by Kurosawa Akira in anamorphic widescreen - between the two of them, I think we have the first truly great works of the format). What jumps out, in looking at the compositions, is their frequent emptiness, and remove from the characters: while many directors, Minnelli among them, had been prone to treating CinemaScope as just a special case of normal filmmaking, with the same blend of shots that anybody had ever used, in Some Came Running, the director and cinematographer William H. Daniels exploit its capacity for making scenes into tableaux, stressing isolation and loneliness within spaces. The interiors, often as not, look like fish tanks, with far too few fish in them. And when combined with the unique blankness and monochromatic feel of Willam A. Horning and Urie McCleary's art direction, the result is a film that feels lifeless.

Minnelli was, above all things, a great director of color: all of his best musicals use the full range of Technicolor to create lush spectacle that doubles as marker of narrative and psychological development. In this regard, Some Came Running is an outlier, even a renunciation, for much of its running time: the first act especially is a tremendously, unrelentingly brown movie, with more than one scene of Dave, in his drab uniform, melding into the tastefully, soullessly beige walls of the town. The first real burst of color comes from a bar where he meets the hard drinking gambler Bama (Dean Martin), and where Ginnie re-enters the picture - MacLaine, throughout the film, is particularly draped in bright, contrasty color by costume designer Walter Plunkett - and throughout, there's a tension between neutral colors and bold splashes of color that obviously symbolises Dave's passions coming into conflict with the tamped-down mores of Parkman. But because it is obvious, does not mean it doesn't work, and the visual scheme of Some Came Running does absolutely splendid work of suggesting the mental imbalance of a man having conformity shouted at him from one side while liveliness and emotion beckon from the edges. I half wonder if the imagery isn't a bit more sophisticated than the script entirely deserves (it does have those drifting subplots, and some scenes that feel like they make their point a couple of times before finally ending), but that's obviously silly thinking. The result is pretty great, and who doesn't want great: an examination of how a man comes home from the War to find that he is unfixed and unable to position himself within the places he finds himself.

What this does tend to mean, and it's not really a problem although I can see where it would annoy plenty of people, is that Some Came Running isn't necessarily populated by characters, so much as personifications of ideas and attitudes: this is most evident, sadly, in the women, Ginnie and schoolteacher Gwen French (Martha Hyer), the latter being the woman Dave bullishly courts in an attempt to find himself an anchor. Ginnie is an especially rough job for MacLaine, who to her credit does amazing things to make the character's aching neediness feel like it speaks to an emotional void and not the male screenwriters' decision to over-write a shrill stock figure; while I can't imagine the character filling any other function in the movie than she does, and it's a function that needs to be filled, it's not remotely to modern tastes how much she serves as a facilitator for Dave's arc, rather than as an individual in her own right.

But this is really true of every single character in the film - it is, in fact, why I think the Frank subplot feels so off to me, it's predicated on a Frank who has a more autonomous personality than the one we necessarily get onscreen. For all its clear and deliberate lack of melodrama (though in a melodramatic genre) and tender emotion (though made by an especially tender filmmaker), both of which would apparently speak to its hard-boiled realism, Some Came Running isn't really realist. It's myth-making, really, the formation in real time of a myth of mid-century American life, and its mode is more expressionist than anything, though that expressionism is mostly of a peculiarly low-key and deceptively naturalist sort.

That, anyway, helps to explain the final sequence, the most visually potent in the film, in which Minnelli finally uncorks all his characteristic technique for a busy carnival that fills the wide frame to the point of bursting with lights and color and visual noise that all build up to something oppressive and horribly frenzied. It is the point where Dave's experiment in rejoining small-town life (what's more small-town than a carnival?) finally explodes, tragically, in the one scene of gentle, real emotions, with a dead body flopping like a bird that some kid couldn't save, and a bit too much music from Elmer Bernstein that tells us a bit too explicitly what we are meant to be Feeling. But one tiny misstep is a little thing in such a roundly impressive passage, in which Dave's mental state goes from being subtly intimated by the movie and suddenly threatens to devour it. In a decade that spent quite a lot of energy depicting people who didn't Fit In to the strongest culture of conformity that its country ever lived through, I can't name anything that depicts the failure to conform - the willful refusal to conform - with more impact, and though many films have done exemplary work in portraying the weariness and discomfort of post-WWII modernity, nearly all of them feel, to me, like they're working mostly within this one film's shadow.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1958
-Joshua Logan's heinous butchery of South Pacific does not prevent it from being the year's highest-grossing film
-Director/producer Stanley Kramer makes his first message picture, The Defiant Ones
-Orson Welles returns to America long enough to direct Touch of Evil, usually cited as the final film of the classic noir period

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1958
-Youssef Chahine's Cairo Station broadens the world's awareness of Egyptian cinema
-At Britain's Hammer Film Productions, Christopher Lee plays the vampire Count Dracula for the first time
-The three film producer Shaw brothers of Shanghai buy a Hong Kong-based studio and thereby form the basis for that territory's future action movie industry

Thứ Sáu, 11 tháng 7, 2014

LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION

In 2005 and 2006, a pair of movies were released, both broadly based on the same real-life story of Annaliese Michel, who died in 1976 at the age of 23, after an exorcism gone wrong. The latter film was Requiem, a German production that raised more questions than it answered, allowing for the possibility that its Annaliese-surrogate had truly been possessed but also that she was merely suffering from a mental disorder that was tragically misdiagnosed by overzealous religious types. The earlier film was The Exorcism of Emily Rose, an American film about how demonic possession is totally real and fuck science for saying otherwise. It was also the first theatrical feature in the highly disposable career of director Scott Derrickson, who has since failed his way up to getting named as the director of Marvel's upcoming Doctor Strange.

So Derrickson's newest film, Deliver Us from Evil, comes to us with an immaculately precise "inspired by" credit, and much like Emily Rose, that appears to have meant, in practice, "we are aware that reality exists, and it's entirely possible that some of it got into our movie by accident". It's not quite as much of a piece of pro-exorcism cheerleading, other than the genre-required bit where the protagonist starts out as an agnostic, until the power of Christ compels him, and this is at least something that is actually true to the life experience of Ralph Sarchie, a New York cop turned demonologist and namesake of the film's protagonist with whom he shares some biographical details and very little curriculum vitae (the biggie is that the film is entirely about an evil carried home from Iraq by soldiers in 2010, while Sarchie's career only barely overlapped with the Iraq War at all, and the book which primarily inspired the film was published before the invasion).

The film's Sgt. Sarchie, played by Eric Bana with a surprisingly good Bronx-adjacent accent, is introduced to us during one of his long nasty shifts at night in the worst of the worst Bronx neighborhoods, with his adrenaline junkie partner Butler (Joel McHale, surprisingly good at channeling his comic training into a twitchy, thuggish cop), who we know to be an adrenaline junkie because Deliver Us from Evil has the kind of script - by Derrickson and frequent collaborator Paul Harris Boardman - that feels overjoyed to include lines like "Well, you're the adrenaline junkie", even when it's not germane to the plot that anybody is an adrenaline junkie, least of all a side character who exists solely to provide an extra flashlight in some of the more aggressively underlit scenes.

Anyway, all snark aside, I actually did find the first 40-odd minutes of Deliver Us from Evil to be a largely interesting synthesis of two genres, mixing the plot structure of a police procedural into the incredibly convention-bound exorcism movie (incidentally, by the end of the film's 2010 prologue scene, set in an underground cave-temple in Iraq, it's becomes hauntingly clear that this shall be ripping off, not merely The Exorcist, but Exorcist: The Beginning also. And that is a sad thing to rip off). There's something oddly bracing about watching characters who genuinely don't know that they're in a horror movie, as opposed to characters who are merely marking time until the second-act shift into over horrorising, and it's legitimately disconcerting and interesting to watch Sarchie going about the business of being an NYPD officer in the midst of urban-rot production design and unrelentingly black night cinematographer that both keep jostling us in the ribs and promising "it's a horror film! check out all this spooky atmosphere".

That does, of course, mean that when the film makes the expected shift into Sarchie's attempt to fight Spiritual Evil instead of The Evil That Men Do with the help of a convenient exorcism expert, Father Mendoza (Édgar Ramírez, whose command of English has never been wobblier, but whose hunted, scarred expressions largely balance it out), it pitches everything that has made it good in any way to become Another Damn Exorcism Movie, complete with the exact same exorcism that filmmakers have been shooting from slightly different angles for over 40 years now. The last 30 minutes of the two hour film are, no contest, the absolute worst; the bit where it goes from marginally interesting and signficantly bad to 100% boring in every possible way.

Up till then, though, the movie's actually kind of entertaining, mostly because it's so gosh-darned campy, in an old-school way that not nearly enough modern horror films manage to be. The unrelentingly gloomy cinematography by Scott Kevan is where it starts, with the film almost playing a game with us to see just how long the movie can go without showing us more than the outline of a person's head (and, for good measure, it's some of the most digital-looking digital cinematography I've seen in a long time, so crisp and focused and sharp that it just about fries your eyeballs). Then there are the dipshit staging ideas, like a soundtrack that keeps amping up creepy fake audio to deafening levels, or shows a tragic flashback fading to blood red in a fashion that is infinitely more silly than creepy. The overdone makeup on the spooky man in a hoodie (Sean Harris) who seems to be the link between all of the creep inexplicable deaths Sarchie is investigating is certainly pretty goofy, but the undisputed winner of the film's most aggresively nonsensical High Camp villain is Jane (Olivia Horton), a crazy and/or possessed lady who scuttles on all fours and speaks like the First Runner-Up at a Gollum impersonator's convention. I can't do it in text, but the way she gargles the word "speeeecialisssssst" is, for real, the funniest thing I have seen in a movie theater all summer.

The film's delightfully stupid approach to the clichés of a demonic possession movie are flavored with just enough touches of actually good filmmaking - the Bronx Zoo at night is an inspired place to shoot a horror movie, turns out - that Deliver Us from Evil manages to actually kind of be watchable. Only, I think, for a dedicated follower of the exorcism subgenre, and such devotées have a lot of practice shoveling through some real shit, even more than most of us patient horror movie fans. And a lot of that watchability is entirely ironic in nature. But good red meat for bad movie lovers doesn't tend to show up in movie theaters all that often, and the gruff-faced, laughably intense, philosophically overburdened Deliver Us from Evil does a fine job of filling that void.

3/10