#also! i miss the split diopter shots :(

[watching-pictures-move]

Put On Your Raincoats | Wild Things (De Renzy, 1985)

Like I did with my review of Ball Busters, I present to you some stray observations in scattershot form, not unlike the vignette structure of the film being commented on:

I didn't watch this to make a "We have Wild Things at home!" joke, because I haven't seen Wild Things (1998) and this was released first. I'm innocent of all charges, your honor.

This is bookended by a pair of roughie-style scenes. I think the first one is better, in that the female aggressors make it stand out against the usual genre dynamics and the latter has John Leslie doing some weird bear growl noises I found a bit distracting. Both also have neat twists at the end that go a long way in alleviating the sleaze factor that normally comes with these things.

Between the organ music on the soundtrack, the pointed shot of the cross dangling Kimberly Carson's breasts, her desire to make love as a means of procreation and her devout nature ("I'm talking to God here"), the segment where Herschel Savage tries to impregnate Carson plays like a middle finger to the moral majority types, although one could argue it's a bit more subtle than the usual evangelical characters in more overt porno satires (Spitfire, Friday the 13th: A Nude Beginning). This is also the only time I can recall off the top of my head seeing Savage with a beard, and combined with the leather jacket he's introduced in, it's a pretty good look. (Much better than the Gene Shalit 'stache he had in Skin Flicks.)

As someone who's made that same awful sitcom double date joke in too many reviews, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Elle Rio for following through on it. You see, the problem is that "there is so many men and how you say, so little time", and maybe she "should get a little book or something", so she "accidentally date two guys at the same time!" (For the record, I love her accent and her mellifluous voice. I'm not making fun, I promise.) And rather than suffer any embarrassment, she takes charge and resolves things in the most elegant manner possible given the circumstances. (Hint: it rhymes with "free gum.") Apparently this was added after the fact (the breaking of the fourth wall feels more in line with Ball Busters) but is arguably a highlight, making this not unlike a Heaven's Gate situation where a later release is supposed to be the superior version. Or maybe like the Snyder Cut. Definitely not like Apocalypse Now: Redux, where the additional footage kills the pacing. Bonus points for Tom Byron's terrible mustache and his insistence on kicking rocks at Jon Martin's car. "A lot of men, they don't have the kind of sense of humour like we girls do."

Maybe I'm still high off a rewatch of Body Double, but there's one shot where the husband is masturbating in the foreground and the wife is masturbating in the background that looks a little bit like a composition from Mr. BDP himself. Now if you just switched out the rack focus for a split diopter, we'd be in business. (This scene also starts with the wife looking at magazine layout with *shudders* Ron Jeremy, and thankfully that's where he stays.) And before you think I'm giving the movie too much credit visually, there's some pretty nice use of lens flare and shadows throughout. This is not without a decent amount of style.

Lots of great music throughout, probably a little heavier on the rock side of things (psych rock jams, garage rock, funk rock, maybe a little doo wop), but my favourite bit of scoring has to be the fluttering synths in the first scene.

While I missed the knockoff Troy McClure shtick John Leslie was doing while hosting Ball Busters, Jill Ferrar is not without her charms and has some fun interplay with the crew. Also, unlike Leslie she doesn't try to push a heretofore unheard of definition of the title, so definitely wins some points there.

Now, as for whether this is any good: if you like the performers, I can report they are in fine form, and if you are not yet sold on any of them, a strong case is made for all. (MVP: Elle Rio, for the record.) There's enough variation in the premises of each segment, the energy level is consistently high, and the film is not without a good amount of humour (and doesn't feel mean spirited the way I've found De Renzy sometimes can be). I'm assuming Howard Hawks never saw this (because it was released after his passing, unless he came back a decade later like Bruce Lee was prophesied to in Ng See-Yuen's Bruce Lee: The Man, The Myth), but it meets his criteria for a good movie and then some.

[svankmajerbaby]

my very long winded thoughts on episode two of chucky season 2

summary: better than the first episode but still leaves me cold when comparing it to season 1. funnier moments interesting developments and new characters dont fully compensate for the weird pacing and things being mostly setup.

the biggest issue for me so far is definitely that the first season was such a solid 8, and this one is kind of like a weak 6

i thought we would have more of the new characters, at least to establish them better and have a feel of their personalities. but sister ruth (freddie lounds!!!!!!!) made me miss ms fairchild big time, and the detective looking for nica and his interactions with tiffany made me somehow miss gladys from season 1 (the funny "high as a kite" lady, the woman who chucky gave the razor apple to on halloween night and who later was the realtor who sold tiffany the old ray house). i think even the tied-up guy back at the hotel had more of an attitude than these new faces. i dunno if thats a casting thing or a writing thing tbh. the previous episode had ended with an interesting note regarding that boy trevor, but he was absolutely nothing in his only scene here. lexy keeps saying hes evil hes awful but we dont get anything specific (”life a living hell” this and that, i need details), so it feels even more like just talking and no real outcome

nadine is a sweetheart though. i really like her and how she is so drastically different to the other three main kids, even though putting a kid in a catholic boarding school for kleptomania (what a letdown of a backstory tbh) when theres others who were sent there for blowing up a kid with a homemade bomb feels.... a bit weird. but whatever, what do i know. i just hope she gets something to do besides hang around the main three, bc otherwise the feeling that she will only be around to be killed by chucky for some quick emotional impact is not going to go away.

i!! actually loved!!!! that one scene in class with the teacher talking about hieronymus bosch, along with that projection it gave me big hannibal in florence vibes and i loved seeing jake talking about art, even if it was just a quick thing. im really curious about the religious aspect of the season, beyond the aesthetics, which so far seem to be the only way it really impacts the story. i think it was a missed opportunity to not make any of the three kids catholic/religious, especially either jake or devon (not even super religious, just a mention of being baptized or having been raised in a christian household), since that would intersect very well with issues of guilt which feels like its going to be a running theme for jake in particular. having him feel guilty for everything that happened so far (which makes perfect sense and his two little breakdowns were very well done i think) and not really have anything to do with the religious environment feels like such a waste.... especially with how interesting it could be to acknowledge fully how devon sawa is once again portraying a sort of paternal authority figure, continuing with his authority role as logan and lucas. maybe its just too subtle for my thick skull, maybe its something they will build towards as the season goes on, who knows

i really really really hope devon gets more to do in the rest of the season. jake has his guilt, lexy has her drug addiction, and devon... he feels so lightweight compared to the other two. i love him so much, hes a sweetheart (and i think he would accomplish what i think?? nadines role is meant to fulfill) but having him just be the emotional rock for jake in this season is not enough, nor is it to keep the previous seasons tug of war with jake regarding their relationship and whether theyre good for one another. i was all episode hoping hed come up with some interesting info on the school and with charles lee rays childhood in it or something..... devon is a smart one, he made the important research and came up with the trap in season 1, and i wish the series remembered that, like it remembered that jake is an artist at heart

really dumb thought but im kinda glad that in the scene with nica and chucky talking inside her head we didnt get like a gollum/smeagol, david-hasselhoff-as-jekyll-and-hyde-the-musical thing (not that fiona dourif wouldnt be able to pull it off); i liked that it showed them as two separate entities even in her own body. probably not the intention but i always like to see nica in some way in control of herself and it makes absolute sense that in that discussion with him she would conceptualize him as a being apart from her. i do think we will eventually get a pretty hammy “shifting” scene and it will be probably a little bit cringe even if its fiona’s wonderful acting

i liked seeing nica trying to manipulate tiffany to leave her alone with her chiding her for wasting money, it was believable but also just clumsy enough of an effort to show shes really getting desperate and that tiffany is still smart enough to realize when shes trying to get her to do something. tiffany as a whole has been feeling just a little too.... dumb? in some way? especially with how little care she put into even properly lying to that detective. like i know its meant to be funny.... but i dont want the comedy to come from tiffany being clueless or dumb. shes ditzy and a bit naive but never dumb

and also i really didnt like the opening credits with the portraits. what the heck was that. i know its a detail and im petty but that was so lazy why didnt we get like crucifixes or sth else, even if it didn’t fit super well it made more sense than those silly production images of the doll and of fiona floating around...........

most of all i feel like stuff IS happening in each episode (here theres the interesting thing with the doll doing recon and taking those pictures?? for some reason???? and now chucky and nica working together to break free and get revenge) but its nowhere as tightly structured and well built up to as in the first season. im thinking of how every scene added a little more to the characters and the environment and the dynamics and how it juggled a whole bunch of plotlines masterfully, while here i think we might have. three. if we count devon and jake, and lexy and nadine as separates. and theres still this feeling of waiting for something else to happen, of building up to something, instead of a constant succession of impactful events. i hoped first episode was all setup even if it wasnt super well conveyed, and this episode too felt most of all like catching up and setting up possible threads. it got better after the halfway point but it still feels like a slow climb. thinking it will eventually get better isnt much of a comfort to me when i can easily remember how much better season one was

[maxbrodbeck]

Films at Uni so far...

I have been writing these with the intention of adding them to my blog for a long time, and I realised it would take me days to make 50 separate posts for each film, so I'm doing one massive one for now and will make an extra post for each film I watch from this point onwards. I haven't added the dates watched, but the top is the most recent watch going down chronologically.

La Grande Illision (Renoir, 1937)

It is clear as day why this is considered one of the greatest films ever made. 1937?! It is so deeply ahead of its time and even without the direct influence it had on most great cinema since its release, the way Renoir maintains a captivating narrative whilst filling every shot, line and cut with rich meaning is astonishing. In many ways, we haven’t supposed this. It should be studied forever.

Crimes and Misdemeanours (Allen, 1989)

It’s unclear from 1 viewing if there’s more to this film subtextual that I got, but I got very little outside of the story that was put in front of me, which is thoroughly enjoyable to sit through. I miss the wit of his early screenplays, and I disagree that it’s one of his best, but this film is great.

Easy Rider (Hopper, 1969)

A rare, honest and entirely successful depiction of the lives and thought process of an entire generation of people. It is difficult to tell to what extent what this film masterfully symbolises is deliberate, and in what ways it is an inherent representation of its time. Either way, the editing is fascinating and it is a blast.

Manhattan (Allen, 1979)

There are no words that do this film justice. From the beautiful cinematography to the genius piece of screenwriting, there are few films that make me feel like this one. The opening moments of Allen’s sad poetry over Gershwin’s Rhapsody In Blue and some of the most beautiful shots of New York ever taken, cinema doesn’t get better than that.

Passing (Hall, 2021)

Let down by its digital image, Hall’s directorial debut carries a fake, yet unequivocally present beauty. The narrative and resolution left a lot to be desired, but it was an enjoyable watch from start to finish and all in all a very good film.

8 1/2 (Fellini, 1963)

This film has been studied for 60 years, and as a 20 year old who just watched it for the first time I am in no way qualified to comment on it. That being said, it is delightful and perfect and I have to imagine I return to it frequently throughout my lifetime.

The VVitch (Eggers, 2015)

One viewing doesn’t give me a fraction of what I’m sure I can get from this film. It’s both a coherent engaging story and also a treasure chest of subtext and metaphors. Eggers is one of the best working today and this film is worth returning to again and again.

All the President’s Men (Pakula, 1976)

What a film. Beautifully edited. Clinically blocked. Faithfully written. Perfect. It’s just so stylish, from the aquamarine gelled lights to Pakula’s intriguing uses of split diopters, it’s a shame these lenses have gone out of fashion in the cinema of today.

Double Indemnity (Wilder, 1944)

Super engaging story. A memorable screenplay and some brilliant performances. The true unsolved mystery of what the 2 central characters really think of each other keeps the film endlessly perplexing. Despite this, Double Indemnity definitely isn’t as special as the infinitely impressive highlights of Wilder’s later work, at least on first viewing.

Eternals (Zhao, 2021)

I was consistantly absorbed by this film throughout the bloated runtime, but for largely the wrong reasons. It’s just endlessly interesting watching a director try and fight the Marvel studio formula, ultimately to fail miserably. There are shimmers of a good film peaking from behind the CGI monsters, but it ended up an incoherent mess. Also listening to Pink Floyd’s Time through a Dolby cinema sound system was astonishing.

Sweeny Todd (Burton, 2007)

I’ve always loved the music in this film but had never seen Burton’s adaptation till now. It’s very good, but I don’t have a whole lot to say about it. I don’t like the grim blue colour but the performances and of course the music are great.

Rocky Horror Picture Show (Sharman, 1975)

This film is so much fun. The production design, performances and music are superb. Its dripping with new Hollywood freedom through and through, and despite how inventive and new it was, it is a clear product of its time and a piece of a larger movement of free expression.

Broadcast Signal Intrusion (Gentry, 2021)

My A Level film teacher, Phil Drinkwater, wrote this film. I’ve been excited to see it for years as he is a man I respect more than perhaps anyone in the world. He has been integral to anything from my love for cinema to my outlook on life and It was incredible to see the contents of his mind on screen. As biased as I clearly am, this film works weirdly well for me. It is not only an enjoyable thriller, but its packed with subtext as well as the history of the industry. It’s just cool to see a real film done by someone I know fairly well, not only that but one that’s shot on film, with Panavision lenses and known actors.

Dune (Villeneuve, 2021)

‘This is only the beginning’. It sure is. This is an incomplete piece of work, but is the first act of something which has the potential to be an unbelievably good series of films. The visuals are gorgeous, and I’ve always been a fan of Villeneuve’s films. Zimmer has created one of his greatest scores to date, and the most interesting piece of film music since Reznor, Ross & Baptiste’s Soul from last year.

The French Dispatch (Anderson, 2021)

The title of ‘the most Wes Anderson Wes Anderson film’ seems to be given to every new release he puts out. The dialogue is so far above me that I struggle to follow the narrative never mind look deeper for any meaning to the film, but every second of The French Dispatch is gas droopingly stunning. Masterfully created, I still don’t understand how everyone in the world is trying to copy Wes Anderson but not a single person is close to doing what he does.

Ocean’s Eleven (Soderbergh, 2001)

This film is as well executed as the heist its about. Outstanding editing. I can’t believe I’d not seen it till now, but I watched it twice in quick succession. Its wonderful.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (Serkis, 2021)

There is a distinct difference between films that are trying to be good but fail, and films that aren’t trying to be good and succeed. Venom: Let There Be Carnage is the latter. It’s really bad, but it isn’t taking itself seriously and you can tell that everyone involved in its production was just having a great time. My only question; why did Robert Richardson agree to work on this film and then choose to do absolutely nothing of value with it visually.

Saint Maud (Glass, 2019)

This isn’t my kind of film, but I feel like if it was the sort of thing I was into this could be my favourite film ever. It’s clearly a brilliant film I’m just not one for this kind of horror.

Sideways (Payne, 2004)

A very gentle film, It’s reassuring that films with this low scale can be as successful as Sideways. Great performances, Great narrative, a triumph. Far from a masterpiece, but I’m not confident it wants to be.

Legally Blonde (Luketic, 2001)

A cult classic. I am for sure not a part of that cult, but this film is entertaining at the very least. It’s a good time and Luketic clearly isn’t going for anything more than that. It is no surprise it’s as successful as it is, and I enjoyed it all the way through, even on second viewing.

Following (Nolan, 1998)

Nolan’s early work received significantly less acclaim than his later stuff, and whilst I agree that Following’s narrative doesn’t flow as smoothly as other Nolan films, there is no Zimmer score, no A-list actors, no $100,000,000 practical effects, this film has something that I feel is lost behind the spectacle of all of that in his other work. It is genuinely really thematically interesting, and while I certainly prefer his other work, there are many ways this film is superior to anything he’s done since.

The Last Black Man in San Francisco (Talbot, 2019)

One of the most stylish, impressive films of the generation. To stand out as much as this film does in possibly the best recent year of cinema is all that needs to be said. It’s rich, emotional and thought provoking. Subtly written, and it feels like everyone behind this film seemed to align in creative vision, every piece fits together gorgeously, possibly to the credit of the writers.

Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994)

Yeah I have to have seen this film 40 times now, it doesn’t get old and is as fresh and special as the first time I watched it. There is a rare, genuine innovation to Tarantino’s screenplay, as well as a deep awareness of cinematic history, which very few filmmakers do like he does. His work doesn’t connect with me in the same way as it does for many people I know, but he is undoubtably a master of his craft and you can count the directors that have/will influence the course of cinema as much as Tarantino on your hands, at least nearly.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Gilliam & Jones, 1975)

This is one of the greatest achievements in comedy of all time. There is almost nothing else in the world that can make me laugh like this film can. I don’t understand how the jokes don’t get old, I’ve seen it countless times and unlike pretty much everything the genre has put out ever, I laugh just as much if not more so with each viewing. Even more than cinema itself, comedy is incredibly subjective, which makes it hard to comment on the film’s ‘objective’ quality. It just works for me.

Shiva Baby (Seligman, 2020)

This film has an incredibly low budget for 2020 cinema, but it. Doesn’t seem to hinder it in any way. Its a marvellous little screenplay, and doesn’t seem to need much else at all. I liked it quite a lot and it may be worth returning to, especially on the narrative and screenwriting front.

Philomena (Frears, 2013)

As Oscar-bait as this film is, It just works and deserves all the acclaim it inevitably recieved. What a beautifully subtle study of a platonic relationship, there aren’t enough films like this one, at least that I’ve seen. A great screenplay, and some wonderful lead performances.

Mission: Impossible (DePalma, 1996)

I have to confess that this is still the only DePalma film I’ve seen, his stuff has been on my watchlist for years now but I’ve just not gotten around to seeing any of it. Mission impossible is incredible. It works on a level that very few other movie franchises have reached, it is just so intense all the way through. Excellently edited, incredibly tense, and a historically significant score.

The Guilty (Fuqua, 2021)

I know there is only 1 location and minimal cast, but it is still impressive that this film was shot in 2 weeks. It is far from an amazing film, but Jake’s performance is superb and It was successful in making me feel tense throughout, due to a simple, well constructed screenplay and some good editing.

Scary Movie (Wayans, 2000)

The fact I hadn’t seen the 2 films that Scary Movie is a spoof of I’m sure took a lot out of the experience, but either way this isn’t a very good film, and I found little to no artistic merit. It was a good time to watch with friends but very little else.

Battle Royale (Fukasaku, 2000)

I was unaware that this film existed when I watched and read The Hunger Games franchise, and it for sure takes a lot of the value of the creative premise from that franchise. Battle Royale is very entertaining film, but definitely doesn’t do as much with its interesting concept as it could have done, and I see why its now been redone so many times.

Pig (Sarnoski, 2021)

For me, this is one of the best films of the year so far. Cage’s best performance in decades. A beautifully subtle, small story that reminds me of watching First Cow last year, although Pig is definitely an inch less successful. Beautifully slow, Pig left me in pieces.

No Time To Die (Fukunaga, 2021)

I’m not much of a Bond fan, and I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of the important early films in the franchise, But I liked the lack of emphasis on the action in this film. It was aware of what people go to see in a bond film, and delivered on it whilst also having something new. It is In no way a great film, but I enjoyed this one a lot more than I expected going in.

The Hunt (Vinterberg, 2012)

I’ve been meaning to watch this film for years, It is an absolute masterpiece and I’m not entirely sure why I’ve not heard more about it. The screenplay is unbelievable and Mickelson gives one of the best performances of the last 10 years. The topic of this film could so easily have been executed badly, but it is gorgeously handled, and deeply sad in a way which anyone can relate to, despite not having necessarily gone through a situation akin to the protagonist.

A Ghost Story (Lowery, 2017)

I know people who despise this film, but I knew nothing going in and came out feeling like I’d experienced something genuinely different from almost any film id seen before, which is something in of itself. It is for sure one of the most pretentious pieces of cinema of the past decade, but if you can get past that, there is something real and deeply touching about Lowery’s attitude to death, something he explores even deeper with his latest film.

The Green Knight (Lowery, 2021)

I’d heard good things about this one, but I wasn’t expecting an experience I would be left thinking about every single day for literal months of my life. There are for sure issues with this film. The lighting is a little low, and the teal and orange is a bit much for my personal taste, and the fox could have been done in a better way. I’m also unsure why they would shoot something like this digitally, it definitely takes away from the experience a little. Despite that, this is one of the most beautifully shot films in years, the score is masterful, the editing is perfect, the production design is beautiful and Dev Patel gives one of the best performances I’ve seen from a film this year. Not only that, but the thematic intensity of The Green Knight left me in deep thought for a very long time, there are threads of metaphors which run deeper than almost any other film this year and I would encourage anyone who didn’t enjoy it to think a little harder and see if they can interpret the stupid amount of stuff this film has to say.

Sorry to Bother You (Riley, 2018)

Both overflowing with inspiration from all over cinema and also honestly inventive. Its light and bouncy like a lot of Wilder’s work, and is littered with Kaufman-esque narrative devices. Novel uses of editing and a fascinatingly unusual screenplay creates an experience which I would imagine brings the mind of any viewer to a place of active spectatorship.

Children of Men (Cuaron, 2006)

I’m a big fan of a lot of Cuaron’s recent work, and hadn’t seen children of men till now. The blatant metaphors for the end of our world through capitalist attitudes to global warming, as in your face as they are, carry an honest weight to them, and a lot is to be learnt from this film. Not only that, but what an experience! The tension is insane, I found it rather hard to watch in moments due to the crazy levels of intensity.

Candyman (DaCosta, 2021)

I’ve not seen the original, and hadn’t heard good things about the remake of Candyman, but I actually really liked this film. Its not perfect, but It was a good time at the cinema. I always love Peele’s screenplays, and I would say the film is successful in what I felt it was going for.

Summer of Soul (Questlove, 2021)

Best documentary film of the year so far. Incredibly edited. It’s just a dream to watch artists like Wonder, Simone & Sly and the Family Stone play live, a love letter to a bygone era of music history. I enjoyed every second of it and its fascinating what they can do purely with archival footage, I can’t wait too see what Jackson does with Get Back later this year.

CODA (Heder, 2021)

A very ordinary film, and the easy pick for this year’s Sundance Film Festival. As not special as this one is, Its really well made and its such an enjoyable watch. An impressively well executed coming of age story, that’s carried by its great piece of screen writing and some nice performances, especially from the father.

Respect (Tommy, 2021)

This is a film that’s clearly trying to be great but fails miserably. It completely misses in highlighting any significant aspects of Franklin’s historic legacy, and aside from being quite visually pretty and well acted, Respect is not a good film at all. As much as a lot of these artists are worth having films made about them, I’m getting really sick of the formulaic type of biopic we’re getting every single year. That being said, there’s only so bad a time I can have listening to Aretha Franklin music through Dolby cinema speakers, which is an experience in of itself.

The Many Saints of Newark (Taylor, 2021)

I have not seen enough of the sopranos to comment on the fan service and narrative subtleties, but this was an enjoyable film and although I’ve heard bad things about it visually, I actually really like the colour work and cinematography; you can tell by 30 seconds in that its the guy who worked on Inside Lewellyn Davis. I’m glad films like this are being made, as its rare in this time period that we get much of this kind of cinema, but I don’t think The Many Saints of Newarks is especially masterful.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (Hughes, 1986)

Another perfect depiction of the attitude and lifestyle of a generation of people, and in my opinion easily the most successful one at that. As good on 7th viewing as the 1st. It just doesn’t take itself too seriously and the filmmakers are seemingly having as much fun as the characters in the film that I am watching it.

Malignant (Wan, 2021)

Doesn’t seem to take itself too seriously, and it’s clearly aware of how dumb it is. It is for sure dumb tho.

The Suicide Squad (Gunn, 2021)

A pretty clear improvement on the first Suicide Squad film, which its a struggle to avoid comparing it to. Its a very fun time and not much else.

Zola (Bravo, 2021)

I’ve not seen everything A24 has put out, but they just don’t miss. This film is great. I had a brilliant time with it, I like the editing, I like the screenplay, I love the look of the 16mm film. It’s hard to say anything negative about Zola, but I don’t think it hit me like other films this year, its just very good.

Free Guy (Levy, 2021)

A mess of CGI and cliche, but pretty much always entertaining and a good time start to finish. Isn’t trying to be more than it is, which is a pretty mediocre, money making, fun, passive time at the cinema.

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (Cretton, 2021)

Another marvel film, for sure, but the CGI is actually rather pretty here, and the fight choreography is a step above the vast majority of the studio’s work. There is very little else to say as despite enjoying it a lot in the cinema I’ve forgotten half of the events of the film by this point.

Annette (Carax, 2021)

The first cinema experience of university. What a way to start. I’ve been desperate to see what Carax does next since I watched his 2012 masterpiece ‘Holy Motors’, and Annette was in many ways equally as astonishing. This film is clearly on an intellectual and thematic level which I am incapable of reaching myself, so I’m sure I missed a lot of its value, but I am in love with Carax’s inherently thought provoking narratives and visual storytelling. Also Adam Driver just doesn’t miss I swear this is one of the greatest actors of our generation.

[kkapre]

Suspiria, 2018 - Luca Guadagnino

This review is written by Jack Taylor.

10/10

Using split diopters, cross-fades and snap zooms are considered no longer ‘fashionable’ in film making but more and more filmmakers are using these effects in their films as stylish throwbacks to the 70’s and 80’s. Back then they were just practical ways to make films, but in the era of nostalgia the effects are used misguidedly in place of artistic flare and mistaken for actual creative substance. In a lot of cases it is the equivalent to slapping a ‘retro’ or ‘vintage’ filter on a photograph and calling it decent photography. The use of retro technology is being used to make mediocre films ‘good’. Very rarely is it actually used properly and a way to tell this is by imagining the film without these effects; is it still a good film? With ‘Suspiria’ the answer is yes. In this film the split diopter shots are used sparingly; the snap zooms have dramatic purpose and the crossfades add an eerie dreamlike quality. The effects support the film, but they do not make it. This in part is due to the grade and quality of the footage, which makes the film look like it was not only set in 1977 but also made then. This 70’s throwback is tasteful, accurate and is perhaps Luca Guadagnino’s tribute to Dario Argento’s 1977 original, which was set and made in this year. The similarities end however with the setting, the set-up and framework may be similar but the plot (especially the ending) is pretty different. And more importantly I think, aesthetically this film is the total opposite of its source material. Where Suspiria 1977 is full of vibrant, neon and saturated colours, Suspiria 2018 is mostly gritty and grey, beautifully reflecting the tone and atmosphere of post-cold war Berlin of which the film is set. Where in Argento’s original this theme is barely touched upon, in this rendition it provides an interesting sub-plot, and helps develops an entirely new character to the story, as well as giving us some interesting historical context.

Witches historically come from a man’s fear of strong women; women were deemed a witch if they were intelligent or strong willed. By women the term has been taken ownership of and witches now are a symbol of feminism, signifying strength and defiance of patriarchal oppression. The Markos dance company is both a front for, and is run by, a coven of witches. Posed as the staff for the institution they are a brilliant cast of strong matriarchs who do the term ‘witch’ justice, especially with the assigned weight the term now carries with its association to feminism. More so that the original, these characters seem so empowered and it is a lot to do with the performance and actors of these rolls. Tilda Swinton was amazing as Madame Blanc, she gave me Joni Mitchell vibes with her flowy dresses, long hair, and cigarettes. There were however two stand out performances for me and it was Angela Winkler as Miss Tanner and Ingrid Caven as Miss Vendegast. Two considerably more minor rolls compared to Swinton and Dakota Johnson as the titular Suzy who was also great in this film, but what Winkler and Caven did with what small rolls they had, was to me far more memorable. Ingrid Caven is a Cabaret singer, and brought to the role sass, fierceness and flourished movement, with scenes often lingering on her as they ended or began, with her dancing or singing. Not surprising as she was captivating. She played housemother to the young dancers at the institution and was one of the most endearing characters. Angela Winkler played colder character on the other hand Miss Tanner is harsher and scary, she is slightly more of an antagonist. She is a sort of ‘second in command’ and oversees the running of the institution. She captivated me with her striking dark bob and perfected cackle, she is a fearsome, commanding presence on screen. Both are different examples of what could be considered a witch, and both are examples of fully realised strong female characters.

Suspiria 2018 is a great example of when a group of talented artists come together to create something beautiful. Everything from Thom Yorke’s beautiful score, costume design by Giulia Piersanti, choreography by Damien Jalet, editing by Walter Fasano to the cinematography Sayombhu Mukdeeprom. And of course, Luca Guadagnino as director. This films sperate components and the way they are brought together is what makes this film a work of art. There is so much to talk about when it comes to this film it is difficult to encompass everything when discussing its merits.

[watching-pictures-move]

Put On Your Raincoats #17 | The Erotic Reveries of Rinse Dream

Cafe Flesh opens with a title card orienting us to its post-apocalyptic setting. After a calamitous apocalyptic event known as the "Nuclear Kiss", the world is made up of 99% "Sex Negatives", and 1% "Sex Positives". The Sex Negatives can't have sex and can only watch. The Sex Positives escaped such a fate, but are instead forced to perform for an audience of Positives for their vicarious enjoyment. There are many such venues but the one we spend the movie in is the Cafe Flesh of the title, a nightclub where the decor and patronage evoke a cross between punk rock and retro-futurist aesthetics and a hint of Rat Pack era cool. A smarmy comedian in a white tuxedo introduces the sex acts, which are elaborately staged performances that play almost as genre parody with their tongue-in-cheek choreography (plenty of costumed grinding, as with a performer in a rat costume early on, and mimed thrusting, as with another performer in a pencil costume in a later scene) until the turn into the real thing with the requisite close-ups. Futuristic jazz reminiscent of Angelo Badalamenti's music plays over the proceedings.

This serves as the background to a story about a woman who may or may not secretly be a Positive (played by scream queen Michelle Bauer and, in certain scenes, a body double) and the impending arrival of a legendary Positive performer known for his virility (a towering, square-jawed Kevin James, introduced in black sunglasses and an oversized blue suit). We also get a sense of the tensions in this nightclub ecosystem, particularly between the heroine and her boyfriend, a new performer, the comedian, the owner (who puts the comedian in his place in one scene by having him cruelly recite "the rhyme"). (The comedian is played by Andy Nichols and the owner by Tantala Ray, both of whom played interview subjects in Gregory Dark's Devil in Miss Jones two-parter, which leads me to believe the latter was influenced by this movie, as Nichols in particular doesn't have many screen credits.)

This movie apparently was a bit of a success in the midnight movie circuit, and it's not hard to see why, based on the strength of the mise en scene and the performances. The cool, smoky backgrounds of the reaction shots provide a nice counterpoint to the avant garde looking performances and give the highly stylized setting a nice evocative quality. There's also a level of genre commentary here, as the story ultimately is about the heroine's agency over her pleasure and the roles sex performers are forced into by greater society, ultimately imprisoned by their own abilities. Truth be told I found the performances got a little less enjoyable when they got down to business with the penetration and whatnot (it gets harder to pull off inspired choreography when one of your appendages is stuck in another person, or vice versa), but I also think it's necessary for those themes to resonate.

Cafe Flesh was directed by Stephen Sayadian, credited as Rinse Dream, and he'd previously used that pseudonym on Nightdreams, for which he co-wrote the screenplay. (The director was Francis Delia, who went on to a career of directing mostly music videos and television, while the other writer was Jerry Stahl, known for his memoir Permanent Midnight, as well as writing for shows such as ALF and movies such as Bad Boys II.) This movie similarly concerns agency over female pleasure and is about two doctors (Andy Nichols and Jennifer West) conducting experiments on a mentally ill young woman by inducing erotic dreams and monitoring her brainwaves. There's a dream involving a giant, monstrous jack-in-the-box. There's one with a pair of cowgirls and something other than a gun stored in a holster, with the cowgirls spouting stilted dialogues in robotic monotones, a Sayadian trademark of sorts. Wall of Voodoo's cover of "Ring of Fire" plays over the action (I'm not sure if they paid for the rights, but Delia and Sayadian did direct videos for the band). There's one with a group of bedouins sharing a hookah and then her. There's a giallo-esque scene involving a masked assailant, but this happens after an aborted nightmare about a shrieking man with a hollow chest from his pants emerges a shrivelled up, monstrous baby. Did David Lynch jack off to this? I wouldn't rule it out, folks.

There's a scene where she blows an anthropomorphic box of Cream of Wheat, while a jaunty cover of "Old Man River" plays on the soundtrack and a man dressed as giant piece of toast dances and plays saxopohone. An IMDb user review cites this scene for its cutting racial commentary, but I found this tonally jarring with the rest of the movie. After this, there's a trip to hell where a demon and his minions subject her to such horrific tortures as prodding her with a giant claw and then an even more fearsome double-pronged contraption. The scientists argue over fears that they gave her too much stimulation. ("This woman's on the brink of an orgasm. Let her enjoy it. She doesn't need interruption from a man." "You call it orgasm. I call it breakdown.") The movie then makes way to its final set piece, involving fog, a background of blue sky and pillars and soft piano music. The cinematography in this scene is in stark contrast to the mostly shadowy, intimate imagery of the previous scenes, with the camera pulled up to admire both their bodies and the scene continuing for some time after the climax. It almost brings to mind a certain scene in Jerry Lewis' The Ladies Man that I found disarming in its stylistic and tonal break from the rest of the movie. Without revealing too much, the film's coda sets the record straight.

It probably doesn't say anything flattering about me that I found most of this pretty hot. The movie has a tinge of horror running through it, giving many of the sex scenes (especially the one in hell) a real tension, while the scientific framing device gives it a cold, calculating quality reminiscent of David Cronenberg. (Alas, this doesn't predate some of his most influential films, but for all we know, David Cronenberg jacked off to it as well.) A few of the character names (Mrs. Van Houten, Mrs. Chalmers) make me suspect that Matt Groening might have seen (and jacked off to) it as well. This is pure speculation on my part, but as far as I'm aware, none of them have denied it either. The movie's distinct tone is grounded in an impressive lead performance by Dorothy LeMay. I wasn't all too impressed with her work in Taboo II, but here I think she skillfully evokes the heroine's derangement and "erotic trauma", in the words of the scientists.

Sayadian and Stahl collaborated again for Dr. Caligari, a relatively mainstream effort that also found some success as a midnight movie. I say "relatively" because it's still pretty fucking weird. The movie positions itself as a loose sequel to Robert Wiene's classic The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, this time about the granddaughter of the original Caligari conducting illegal experiments in an insane asylum. From the earlier film it pulls a German expressionist influence, but combines it with a campy, MTV-inflected style to present the asylum as a warped funhouse. The dimensions of the architecture are distorted and full of odd angles, decorated in a mixture of pitch black and gaudy day-glo colours (lots of yellow and pink costumes). This is not a pornographic movie, yet it's hardly less obsessed with sex, as the villain's plan concerns the weaponization of female pleasure. There's also the occasional grotesque sexually-charged image to spice things up, like the sight of a woman with giant, phallic-shaped breasts. Some of the imagery also gives it potency as horror, like an oozing sore or a cake full of intestines. There's a lot of strange, stilted dialogue, as in this exchange:

"Describe your life in three words or less."

"Un-ending torment."

"Elaborate, please."

"Blankety blank blank."

"Thank you for being specific."

This is matched by the angular body language of the villain, played by Madeline Reynal in a deadpan yet very physical performance. This movie also brings into focus a voyeuristic theme, which was present in those earlier movies but didn't seem quite as confrontational in its presentation. A character utters, basically to the audience: "I know you're watching me. I feel your eyes like wet fingers touching me in special places." (This is a line of dialogue that appeared in the next few films I'll talk about.) Truth be told, I was a little exhausted by the sensory overload of Sayadian's style here, and in retrospect appreciate the way the sex scenes act as a counterpoint to his more aggressive tendencies in his more explicit films. But at the same time, this is full of memorable imagery and has a weirdly compelling lead performance. I don't know if there's much else quite like it (or at least operating at this force), so it gets a recommendation.

Sayadian followed up Nightdreams with a few shot-on-video sequels. I skipped Nightdreams 2 as I could only find it in a heavily degraded transfer, but I did make time for Nightdreams 3, which has a self contained story that's essentially a more explicit if relaxed version of Dr. Caligari, once again concerning a doctor conducting sinister experiments at an insane asylum. (This time her experiments mostly involve just fucking her patients and other staff.) There's more of the stilted dialogue, even closer to non sequiturs than they were in the earlier film, with the music by Double Vision providing an off-kilter soundscape to match the weirdness of the dialogue. (Highlights include "My pussy's like an erotic assassin" and "I happen to know she has a thing for longshoremen. Just mention On the Waterfront and she gets randy pants.") The video imagery quite frankly is pretty ugly, with the green carpet and purple drapes that decorate the set looking especially ungainly, yet Sayadian seems aware of this, as when he uses video's flattening effect to create a crude facsimile of a split diopter shot. The video collage style he adopts meshes uneasily with the plot, as if to call out its meaninglessness, giving the whole thing a slight MST3K vibe, especially as characters speak directly to the camera.

Some of these tendencies are honed to a more pleasing form in the two-part Party Doll A Go-Go!, where we spend time with a number of attractive, shapely women in bright coloured lingerie as they spout '60s-inspired dialogue at the viewer in between scenes of copulation. (Not all the dialogue is '60s-tinged, however: "They're overcome with retro wordplay...Us modern girls prefer synthetic future".) Like many pornographic films, this is a collection of loosely related sex scenes, but Sayadian's construction turns those genre requirements into parody, having his characters offer colour commentary (albeit channeled through his campy prose) on their own scenes and even getting interrupted by the stars of subsequent and preceding scenes. The number of quotable lines is even greater than those earlier films, and I admit I was scrambling to write down the choicest ones as there were so many. The best lines go to Jeanna Fine, who also has the huskiest voice and the most penetrating stare, so she was easily my favourite. I certainly was not unmoved when she insisted that she's "never run around buck naked and bubbling for man-winky" or "never wrapped[her] lips around a throbbing johnny". (She does not, however, deny having ever interacted with beef bologna.) Or when she asked the audience "Was I a bad girl?" (said three times in rapid succession) or if we've "ever seen a double orgasm on videotape?" (She adds "Watch, pornhound" and "Calling all porndogs, watch me work, uh-huh.") And I definitely wasn't unmoved when she demonstrated her talents on a dildo dangled in front of her (which she refers to as an "artificial man-thing", a "chubby rubber fella" and a "flying princeton"). No, definitely not unmoved.

There isn't much of plot here, except in the latter half when one of the girls can't stop "the wiggle" and needs to be rescued with an emergency injection of "boy jerky". Sayadian, once again bringing voyeuristic concerns into focus (the characters all talk to the camera), seems to be satirizing the very idea of porn having premises and certain their lazy execution. Even the production design is transparent in its chintz (the movie is shot entirely on the same set, with the bare minimum in alterations to the set dressing to make it look even slightly different), while the video images, which feature lots of Dutch angles, zooms and whip pans, match the campiness of the whole affair. This is probably a little long at a combined 2+ hours, but at the same time, it settles into a nice groove and is full of really attractive and reasonably charismatic actresses delivering amusing dialogue and indulging in "girl homo" (sometimes "big time girl homo") or getting "boy jerky". I don't have much interest in delving into '90s pornography and shot-on-video productions strain the dignity one can feel while trying to watch pornographic films as actual movies, but I'm not gonna pretend I didn't have a good time with this.