#anglo-amalgamated pictures

[screamscenepodcast]

Take a peek into the "real life" Black Museum at Scotland Yard with HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (1959), from director Arthur Crabtree and starring Michael Gough!

Filmed in *hypnovista,* this unique British/American production showcases sadism and true crime instead of something supernatural.

Context setting 00:00; Synopsis 25:28; Discussion 39:23; Ranking 54:02

[360degreesasthecrowflies]

I’m afraid I’ve come more and more around to the opinion that Rowling is the kind of author who simply doesn’t think. So to look for an analytical interpretation of anything in the series is probably an exercise in frustration. She paints what is intended as impressive word pictures — essentially vignettes — mainly on the basis of how they are supposed to push your buttons and make you feel, without ever considering how they are supposed to fit together. This sometimes produces a considerable emotional impact, if you are at all sensitive to that kind of jerking around, but it doesn’t necessarily make sense. And sometimes they just plain backfire. Quite a few of these issues are still slowly coming into focus. And one of the sharpest is the awareness that the world Rowling assembled is simply a lot bigger than the narrow-focused, smug, anglo-centric view of it she gave us. Because when you come right down to it, it becomes clear that she never really intended to build a solid secondary world to put her story in. She simply didn’t do the groundwork. Instead, she has ended up with this weird amalgamation that she threw together — which is highly detailed in some areas, and only vaguely sketched in elsewhere with several great gaping holes where you least expect them, to fall right out of the story through. But, back when she first assembled this pretend world, she used the best possible materials available. She mined folklore, and classic (written) tales that have been pretty fully absorbed by the culture, as well as ancient myth, and symbolism that has been around for centuries, she mimicked the authentically traditional “tropes” of how stories are put together and how they work, and she did it with a free hand. But I’m no longer convinced that she did it all consciously. I think she slung a lot of them together because they just “felt” right together. Sure, sometimes she tweaked them before she deployed them, or renamed them, or trivialized the hell out of them, but she hardly ever invented anything new. Most of her elements already existed. The only thing in the Potterverse that is really original are some of her combinations. And, of course, the Dementors. Consequently, as I say, she ended up with something that is a lot bigger than she is. And which upon first encounter comes across as a lot more erudite than she probably really is too, because all of the elements she used to build it came already equipped with their own baggage, and a whole pre-existing collection of associations which all originally led someplace. And most of them are so widely known and/or so universal that even with a 2nd or 3rd-rate education, you are able to recognize them, and are at least somewhat aware of what those particular elements usually mean. And the components are all thoroughly documented, so you can readily find out what the original source meant if you are at all curious. But that doesn’t mean that she ever intended to use any of that material. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is certainly bigger than the shallow, petty, and mean-spirited viewpoint that she keeps pushing into the foreground and expecting us to use as a lens.

via Red Hen's restrospective review of Deathly Hallows, 2008

[barkingbonzo]

Julie Christie in Darling directed by John Schlesinger, 1965

Darling is a 1965 British romantic drama film directed by John Schlesinger from a screenplay written by Frederic Raphael. It stars Julie Christie as Diana Scott, a young successful model and actress in Swinging London, toying with the affections of two older men, played by Dirk Bogarde and Laurence Harvey. The film was shot on location in London, Paris and Rome and at Shepperton Studios by cinematographer Kenneth Higgins, with a musical score composed by Sir John Dankworth.

The film premiered at the 4th Moscow International Film Festival on July 16, 1965, and was released in cinemas in the United Kingdom on September 16 by Anglo-Amalgamated. It became a critical and commercial success, grossing $4.5 million, and received five nominations at the 38th Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and won in three categories: Best Actress (for Christie), Best Original Screenplay, and Best Costume Design. It also won four BAFTA Awards: Best British Actor (Bogarde), Best British Actress (Christie), Best British Screenplay and Best Art Direction (Black-and-White)

[djfreakfineman]

We here @macabrerecordsinc #atx are hard-core Svengooliegans @realsvengoolie Tonight Sven presents: Konga (1961) directed by John Lemont and starring Michael Gough, Margo Johns and Austin Trevor. It was shot at Merton Park Studios and in Croydon for Anglo Amalgamated, then distributed in the United States by American International Pictures (AIP) as a double feature with Master of the World. Konga was the basis for a comic book series published by Charlton Comics and initially drawn by Steve Ditko (prior to Ditko's co-creation of Spider-Man) in the 1960s. The film epitomises the B-movie in terms of illogical plot and shortcut special effects, such as a man in a gorilla suit replacing special effects. Shots of screaming people looking upwards invoke the idea that they are looking up to Konga and it is not explained how the serum changes species as well as size (chimp to gorilla). We are huge fans of All Things Sven and Totally Dig this Awesome Picture posted by the Awesome created by: @monstervision2017 and created by the Magnificent: http://www.collinsporthistoricalsociety.com and again, Please Support all Artists/ Illustrators / Profiles we Showcase and enjoy the Carnage! Everyone have a Sadistic Svengoolie Saturday and as always… Keep it Kreepy🎃🔪#freakfineman #macabrerecordsinc #horrorlife #sonofsvengoolie #svengooliesaturday #metv #monstervision2017 #konga (at U.S.A) https://www.instagram.com/p/Cp8gGtcOwAQ/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[ghostlyheart]

How did the polenta cake turn out? 🍋🍰

oh it was good!! it got eaten up so fast that i forgot to take pictures asjkdj

not sure where the original post i got it from was but here's the website. very yummy

[zirhlikuzgun]

A-ke.P.V. Industries Logo History - Part 1

(5) [1898-1902] {Gaumont-British}

(1) [1902-1903] {Gaumont-British}

(16) [1903-1919] {Gaumont-British}

(3) [1903-1906] {Gaumont-British}

(5) [1903-1908] {Gaumont-British}

(7) [1904-1910] {Loews Theatres}

(2) [1906-1908] {Gaumont-British}

(12) [1908-1920] {Gaumont-British}

(2) [1908-1910] {Gaumont-British}

(18) [1909-1926] {Hoyt’s Pictures}

(11) [1910-1921] {British Pathé}

(1) [1910-1911] {Gaumont-British}

(6) [1910-1916] {Loews Theatres}

(2) [1911-1913] {Loews Theatres}

(1) [1911-1912] {West’s Pictures}

(1) [1911-1912] {Spencer’s Pictures}

(1) [1911-1912] {Amalgamated Pictures}

(1) [1912-1913] {General Film Company}

(4) [1911-1915] {Gaumont-British}

(5) [1912-1916] {Famous Players Theatres}

(18) [1913-1931] {Union Theatres}

(2) [1913-1915] {Gaumont-British}

(4) [1914-1918] {Gaumont-British}

(2) [1915-1917] {Loews Theatres}

(8) [1916-1924] {British Pathé}

(5) [1916-1921] {Famous Players Theatres}

(1) [1916-1917] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1917-1921] {Loews Theatres}

(5) [1917-1922] {Loews Theatres}

(6) [1917-1923] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1918-1922] {British Pathé}

(3) [1918-1921] {Famous Players Theatres}

(6) [1918-1924] {Loews Theatres}

(1) [1918-1919] {Gaumont-British}

(11) [1919-1930] {Gaumont-British}

(16) [1919-1934] {Woolf & Freedman FIlm Service}

(20) [1920-1939} {Dubinsky Bros.}

(12) [1920-1931] {Dubinsky Bros.}

(0) [1920] [Loews Theatres}

(1) [1920-1921] {Famous Players Theatres}

(2) [1921-1923] {British Pathé}

(6) [1921-1927] {Famous Players Theatres}

(8) [1921-1929] {British Pathé}

(2) [1922-1924] {Loews Theatres}

(1) [1923-1924] {Loews Theatres}

(1) [1924-1925] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1924-1928] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1924-1928] {Loews Theatres}

(36) [1924-1960] {Loews Theatres}

(60) [1924-1984] {Loews Theatres}

(32) [1924-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(53) [1924-1976] {United Artists Theatres}

(54) [1926-1980] {Hoyts Theatres Limited}

(30) [1926-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(27) [1926-1953] {Loews Theatres}

(95) [1927-2021] {ABC Cinemas}

(91) [1927-2017] {ABC Cinemas}

(60) [1927-1986] {ABC Cinemas}

(11) [1927-1937] {British International Pictures}

(7) [1927-1933] {British International Pictures}

(1) [1927-1928] {Loews Theatres}

(3) [1927-1930] {Famous Players Theatres}

(69) [1928-1997] {Odeon Cinemas}

(28) [1928-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(25) [1928-1953] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1928-1932] {Loews Thatres}

(7) [1929-1936] {British Pathé}

(9) [1929-1938] {British Pathé}

(12) [1929-1941] {British Pathé}

(6) [1930-1936] {Famous Players Theatres}

(10) [1930-1940] {Gaumont-British}

(67) [1930-1997] {Odeon Cinemas}

(4) [1931-1935] {Gaumont-British}

(14) [1931-1945] {Greater Union Theatres}

(1) [1931-1932] {Publix-Dubinsky Bros.}

(7) [1932-1939] {Dubinsky Bros.}

(3) [1932-1935] {Loews Theatres}

(38) [1933-1971] {Associated British Picture Corporation}

(22) [1933-1955] {Associated British Picture Corporation}

(22) [1934-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(19) [1934-1953] {Loews Theatres}

(5) [1935-1939] {Midwest Drive-In Theatres}

(6) [1935-1941] {Gaumont-British}

(10) [1935-1944] {Pinewood Studios}

(9) [1935-1944] {General Film Distributors}

(20) [1935-1955] {General Film Distributors}

(62) [1935-1997] {General Film Distributors}

(51) [1936-1987] {Famous Players Theatres}

(19) [1937-1956] {Gaumont-British}

(7) [1937-1944] {General Film Distributors}

(18) [1937-1955] {General Film Distributors}

(60) [1937-1997] {General Film Distributors}

(41) [1938-1978] {Odeon Theatres (Canada)}

(21) [1939-1960] {Midwest Drive-In Theatres}

(17) [1939-1956] {British Pathé}

(0) [1939] {Loews Theatres}

(8) [1939-1947] {Durwood-Dubinsky Bros.}

(4) [1940-1944] {Gaumont-British}

(44) [1941-1984] {Syufy Luxury Theatres}

(2) [1941-1943] {British Pathé}

(14) [1941-1955] {Gaumont-British}

(39) [1941-1979] {Odeon Theatres (Canada)}

(5) [1942-1947] {Gaumont-British}

(22) [1942-1964] {Gaumont-British}

(18) [1943-1960] {Anglo-Amalgamated Films}

(0) [1943] {British Pathé}

(4) [1943-1947] {British Pathé}

(27) [1943-1970] {Gaumont-British}

(1) [1944-1945] {Gaumont-British}

(38) [1944-1982] {Pinewood Studios}

(29) [1944-1973] {J. Arthur Rank Enterprise}

(53) [1944-1997] {J. Arthur Rank Enterprise}

(13) [1945-1958] {Greater Union Theatres}

(3) [1945-1948] {British Pathé}

(2) [1945-1947] {Gaumont-British}

(15) [1945-1960] {Odeon Theatres (Canada)}

(0) [1946] {British Pathé}

(21) [1947-1968] {Durwood Theatres}

(16) [1950-1966] {Durwood Theatres}

(18) [1952-1970] {British Pathé}

(3) [1953-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(3) [1953-1956] {Loews Theatres}

(18) [1954-1971] {Village Theatres}

(4) [1954-1958] {Famous Players Theatres}

(14) [1955-1969] {Associated British Picture Corporation}

(16) [1955-1971] {Gaumont-British}

(14) [1956-1970] {British Pathé}

(14) [1956-1970] {Gaumont-British}

(3) [1956-1959] {Loews Theatres}

(2) [1956-1958] {Loews Theatres}

(30) [1957-1987] {Loews Theatres}

(29) [1957-1986] {Loews Theatres}

(7) [1958-1965] {Amalgamated Holdings Limited}

(19) [1958-1977] {Famous Players Theatres}

(5) [1959-1964] {Loews Theatres}

(4) [1960-1964] {General Drive-In Corporation}

(12) [1960-1971] {Roadshow Films}

(18) [1960-1978] {Odeon Theatres (Canada)}

(10) [1961-1971] {Anglo-Amalgamated Films}

(9) [1962-1971] {Anglo-Amalgamated Films}

(0) [1964] {Anglo-Amalgamated Films}

(2) [1964-1966] {General Cinema Corporation}

(6) [1964-1970] {Loews Theatres}

(10) [1965-1975] {Greater Union Organisation}

(48) [1965-2012] {Landmark Cinemas}

(20) [1966-1986] {General Cinema Corporation}

(1) [1966-1967] {General Cinema Corporation}

(17) [1967-1984] {General Cinema Corporation}

(28) [1967-1994] {Cannon Films}

(2) [1967-1969] {Anglo-Amalgamted Films}

(11) [1968-1979] {United Artists Theatres}

(1) [1967-1968] {Durwood Theatres}

(1) [1968-1969] {Durwood Theatres}

(1) [1968-1969] {American Royal Cinemas}

(1) [1969-1970] {Associated British Productions Corporation}

(1) [1969-1970] {EMI Film Productions}

(0) [1970] {EMI Film Productions}

(1) [1970-1971] {EMI Film Productions}

(1) [1970-1971] {Anglo-EMI Film Distributors Ltd.}

(11) [1969-1980] {American Multi Cinema}

(4) [1969-1973] {American Multi Cinema}

(5) [1969-1974] {American Multi Cinema}

(24) [1970-1994] {Cannon Films}

(22) [1970-1992] {British Pathé}

(15) [1970-1985] {British Pathé}

(10) [1970-1980] {Gaumont-British}

(21) [1970-1991] {Loews Theatres}

(15) [1970-1985] {Loews Theatres}

(9) [1970-1979] {Loews Theatres}

(14) [1971-1985] {Village Theatres}

(14) [1971-1985] {Roadshow Films}

(8) [1971-1979] {Roadshow Films}

(13) [1971-1984] {Cannon Films}

(3) [1971-1974] {Anglo-EMI Film Distributors Ltd.}

(2) [1971-1973] {Anglo-EMI Film Distributors Ltd.}

(9) [1971-1980] {Gaumont-British}

(4) [1973-1977] {American Multi Cinema}

(23) [1973-1996] {The Rank Organisation}

(4) [1974-1978] {EMI Film Distributors}

(3) [1974-1977] {EMI Film Distributors}

...

[yahziel]

Remember christmas has NOTHING to do with the Massiah but does have everything to do with pagan worship.

-------------------------------------

"The Christian Church appropriated quite a few Pagan festivals and Pagan activities," according to Sam Moorhead.

---------------------------------------

Canceling Saturnalia (known as christmas today) was unthinkable, so Christian Rome converted it to a Christian holy day instead.

-BBC Religion & Ethics

----------------------------------------------

By the time of Christian conversion it was running into and incorporating a number of festivals. These included the Opalia - the festival day for Saturn's consort Ops - on the 19 December and the Sigillaria- the day of present-giving - on the 23 December. The 25 December was dies natalis solis invicti - the birthday of the 'invincible' Roman sun-god Sol.

---------------------------------------

"The social need for a festival of some sort around that date [mid-winter] would have made Saturnalia or Christmas a powerful social institution, as it still is. Too popular and embedded to be easily done away with." explains Dr Nicholls.

As well as Roman traditions, rites and rituals from the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons have survived into our modern celebration. The tradition of kissing under the mistletoe is sometimes attributed to the Viking goddess of love and marriage - Frigg - whose legend is associated with the plant. The origin of the traditional Christmas tree may also linked to Pagan tree-worship.

While such traditions have been amalgamated into Christmas festivities the influence of the Romans, especially in terms of the festival calendar, is clear.

-BBC Religion & Ethics

--------------------------------------------------

Christmas was celebrated by pagan sun-worshippers for thousands of years before the Messiah was even born. It all started during the building of the tower of Babel. Nimrod supervised the operation and was called the sun-god and worshipped as such. To end this worship, Nimrod's uncle Shem, Noah's eldest son, killed Nimrod and cut his body into small pieces then scattered his body parts across the land.

Ishtar or Easter, also known by her biblical name Semiramis was the widow of Nimrod. She was called the "Queen of heaven" and claimed to have been impregnated by Nimrod through the rays of the sun and later had a son by the name of Tammuz who had a miraculous birth on December 25th. Pagans believed that Nimrod was reincarnated as Tammuz and so Easter married her son Tammuz. Pagan sun-worshippers celebrated the birthday of the reincarnate sun-god on December 25th. Scripture is very clear that we are not to celebrate this particular holiday.

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven, and to pour out drink offerings to other deities, that they may provoke Me to anger. (HIM Jeremiah 7:18)

The passage above is obviously referring to making Christmas cookies and leaving those cookies and a glass of milk for Nimrod's widow Easter who was called the queen of heaven. The only difference is now those offerings are left for Santa (Satan) himself. Let's move on and read another passage from Scripture.

Thus says YaHuWaH, "Do not learn the way of the gentiles, and do not be dismayed at the signs of the heaven; for the gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are vanity; for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it not move. (HIM Jeremiah 10:2-4)

This passage is obviously referring to cutting down the Christmas tree, putting it on some sort of tree stand, and decorating it. Once you learn why it had become customary to use an erect evergreen tree that has a pointed end decorate it with big red balls you will realize the extent of the perversion in this holiday. The erect tree symbolizes Nimrod's erect masculinity. The tree was evergreen because evergreen trees are full of life year round, like Nimrod's penis. The tree was pointed at the end just like Nimrod's pecker. The big red balls that dangle off the tree, well you get the picture. This holiday is perversion at its best.

Every sun-god was born on December 25th. Amun-Ra, Horus, Mithra, Tammuz, and Zeus were born on December 25th. If there was one day that the Messiah was not born, it was December 25th. In fact the Scripture is quite clear that Messiah was born late September or early October on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

[docrotten]

HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (1959) – Episode 134 – Decades Of Horror: The Classic Era

“New sensation! Woman’s head cut off! Read all about it! New sensation!” And don’t forget… Hypno-Vista! Join this episode’s Grue-Crew – Chad Hunt, Daphne Monary-Ernsdorff, and Jeff Mohr, along with guest host Steven Turek – as they discuss the quirky Horrors of the Black Museum (1959).

Decades of Horror: The Classic Era Episode 134 – Horrors of the Black Museum (1959)

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

ANNOUNCEMENT Decades of Horror The Classic Era is partnering with THE CLASSIC SCI-FI MOVIE CHANNEL, THE CLASSIC HORROR MOVIE CHANNEL, and WICKED HORROR TV CHANNEL Which all now include video episodes of The Classic Era! Available on Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, Online Website. Across All OTT platforms, as well as mobile, tablet, and desktop. https://classicscifichannel.com/; https://classichorrorchannel.com/; https://wickedhorrortv.com/

Synopsois: A frustrated crime columnist and thriller writer wants accurate crimes for his next book so he hypnotizes his assistant to make him commit the required crimes

  Director: Arthur Crabtree

Writers: Herman Cohen, Aben Kandel

Selected Cast:

Michael Gough as Edmond Bancroft

June Cunningham as Joan Berkley

Graham Curnow as Rick

Shirley Anne Field as Angela Banks

Geoffrey Keen as Superintendent Graham

Gerald Andersen as Dr. Ballan

John Warwick as Inspector Lodge

Beatrice Varley as Aggie

Austin Trevor as Commissioner Wayne

Malou Pantera as Peggy

Howard Greene as Tom Rivers

Dorinda Stevens as Gail Dunlap

Stuart Saunders as Strength-Test Barker

Steven Turek of the DieCast Movie Podcast joins the Decades of Horror Classic Era Grue Crew for this episode and, in fact, picked the topic of discussion, Horrors of the Black Museum, an American-British production distributed by American International Pictures and Anglo-Amalgamated Film Distributors. As Steven points out, even though the film is blatantly billed in the U.S. as containing Hypno-Vista, there is nary an example of hypnosis in the story. For Steven, this Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde mashup is all about inventive kills with a few gadgets thrown in for good measure.

Daphne points out that Horrors of the Black Museum is part of what has been called Anglo-Amalgamated’s Sadian trilogy along with Circus of Horrors (1960) and Peeping Tom (1960). From her point of view, it’s a fun film and she most enjoys Michael Gough’s arrogant character and the incredible kills.

Michael Gough’s scenery-chewing performance is what stands out for Chad in Horrors of the Black Museum. It’s an example of good acting coupled with a zany story with seemingly arbitrary twists and insane kills. Jeff agrees with Chad’s appraisal of Gough’s performance. For him, Horrors of the Black Museum is not a great movie, but it sure is fun watching Michael Gough chewing accompanied by the unique kills, the first of which takes place within the first three minutes of the movie.

Now, about that HypnoVista thing. A thirteen-minute prologue was added to the U.S. release by the folks at AIP as a Castle-esque gimmick. It featured hypnotist Emile Franchele and obliquely introduces the HypnoVista concept. Most streaming sources do not include this prologue, but it can be viewed here: Hypno-Vista intro of Horrors of the Black Museum  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgU1lJHB4k 

At the time of this writing, Horrors of the Black Museum is available to stream from the Classic Horror Movie Channel, Wicked Horror TV, and Tubi.

Be sure to check out our very own Whitney Collazo and Daphne Monary-Ernsdorff as they join Steven and Alistair Hughes for a discussion of Hammer’s Vampire Lovers (1970) on Diecast Movie Podcast episode 125/Hammerama 7. Steve also conducts a very interesting interview of Whitney on episode 118.

Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror: The Classic Era records a new episode every two weeks. Up next in their very flexible schedule is one chosen by guest host and special effects artist Dirk Rogers: Matango (Attack of the Mushroom People, 1963). Get ready for some body horror from Toho and Ishirô Honda!

Please let them know how they’re doing! They want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans: leave them a message or leave a comment on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel, the site, or email the Decades of Horror: The Classic Era podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com

To each of you from each of them, “Thank you so much for listening!”

Check out this episode!

[moviesandmania]

Don't Read This! Movies that use 'Don't' in their title or tagline [updated]

Don’t Read This! Movies that use ‘Don’t’ in their title or tagline [updated]

The ‘don’t’ warnings began back in 1962 when potential British viewers of the witchcraft film Night of the Eagle were warned by Anglo Amalgamated Film Distributors: ‘Don’t see this picture unless you can stand the emotional shock of a lifetime!’ In 1964, Hammer Film’s psycho drama Fanatic – which was re-named for US distribution by Columbia as the more startling Die! Die! My Darling! – was being…

[monsterasia-zero]

The Cinema Film Of The Week - Konga

Directed By John Lemont

Story By Herman Cohen and Aben Kandel

Starring Michael Gough, Margo Johns, and Jess Conrad

Music By Gerard Schurmann

Distributed By Anglo Amalgamated and American International Pictures

Release Date May 03, 1961 (United States)

Country United Kingdom and United States

[filmstruck]

Reassessing the Critical Response to PEEPING TOM (‘60) by Kimberly Lindbergs

When you mention PEEPING TOM (’60) to classic film fans the response is typically “That’s the movie that ended Michael Powell’s career!” and a quick Google search will unearth countless critics and film historians repeating a similar refrain. While it is true that PEEPING TOM received a brutal lashing from the British critical establishment that deeply affected Powell, the facts surrounding the film’s distribution, reputation and impact on the director’s career are much more nuanced and complex.

Contrary to what you might have heard, Powell’s career did not come to a screeching halt after he made PEEPING TOM. In fact, Powell went on to make five more films including a magnificent production of Béla Balázs’s opera Bluebeard’s Castle, released as HERZOG BLAUBARTS BURG (’63), and the very successful Australian comedy AGE OF CONSENT (’69). He also went on to direct episodes of popular television shows such as THE DEFENDERS (’61-’65) and produced one of my favorite spy spoofs (SEBASTIAN [’68]) but the British film world was drastically changing in the 1960s. The Technicolor fantasies conjured up by Powell and his creative partner Emeric Pressburger in the 1940s were being replaced by gritty kitchen sink dramas. Film audiences that had once sought out escapist entertainment from the horrors of WWII were now eager to watch films that spoke to the very real problems they were facing at home. Powell, who prided himself on his imaginative set pieces and baroque vision, had no desire to make films in the kitchen sink mold. This disengagement with popular taste and trends undoubtedly made the director, who was nearly 60-years-old when PEEPING TOM was released, somewhat out of step with the times.

The first film Powell made after PEEPING TOM was THE QUEEN’S GUARDS (’61). I haven’t seen it myself but as critic Kim Newman pointedly observed in a recent review,

The story goes that Michael Powell was run out of the business after the controversy of Peeping Tom. . . but the film he made immediately after that hot potato was this eminently respectable picture, with a relatively high budget and tons of cooperation from the sort of Establishment bodies (including the army and, implicitly, the Royals) who wouldn’t have liked Peeping Tom.

Unfortunately, THE QUEEN’S GUARDS was a box office and critical flop. Powell himself referred to it as the worst film he ever made so it’s quite likely that its failure to win public approval had just as much of a negative effect on Powell’s career as PEEPING TOM did.

It's worth noting that Powell had plenty of previous problems getting his films made before he added PEEPING TOM to his oeuvre. He often went overbudget in an effort to bring his fanciful ideas to the screen and butted heads with producers on more than one occasion. THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP (’43) faced intense scrutiny from the British government with Winston Churchill leading the charge against its favorable depiction of Germans during wartime. And THE RED SHOES (’48) suffered extreme scrutiny from producers who couldn’t appreciate it and didn’t know how to market it while some critics complained it was “too long” and the characters “clichéd.” But there is no escaping the nasty tone of the reviews Powell received after making PEEPING TOM. British critics were appalled by the film, which was part of what film historian David Pirie has dubbed Anglo-Amalgamated’s “Sadian trilogy.” The two other films that make up the trilogy include Arthur Crabtree’s HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (’59) and Sidney Hayers’s CIRCUS OF HORROR (’60). Together with PEEPING TOM, this trinity of exceptional thrillers became some of the most reviled and influential horror pictures produced in Britain.

The so-called “Sadian trilogy” share many similarities including sympathetic madmen that meet gruesome ends. They also encourage audience participation with an abundance of POV shots that ask viewers to experience the terrors they unleash through the eyes of victims and villains. And last but certainly not least, the films combine inventive modern set pieces with striking Eastman Color photography. Blood reds, putrid greens and pulsating purples swirl and shudder across the screen creating a fantastic miasma of horrors that left spectators, accustomed to monochrome thrillers aimed at a much younger audience, dazed and reeling. PEEPING TOM is the most admired and celebrated of the three, but all of these Anglo-Amalgamated productions combine violence with surprisingly adult themes into a potent cinematic cocktail that shocked and stunned audiences at the time.

To get a sense of what critics had to say about PEEPING TOM when it was unleashed into British theaters in the summer of 1960 I’ve compiled excerpts from a few of the angriest reviews:

I have carted my travel-stained carcass to (among other places) some of the filthiest and most festering slums in Asia. But nothing, nothing, nothing - neither the hopeless leper colonies of East Pakistan, the back streets of Bombay nor the gutters of Calcutta - has left me with such a feeling of nausea and depression as I got this week while sitting through a new British film called Peeping Tom. (Daily Express, 1960)

Obviously, Michael Powell made Peeping Tom in order to shock. In one sense he has succeeded. I was shocked to the core to find a director of his standing befouling the screen with such perverted nonsense. (Daily Worker, 1960)

The only really satisfactory way to dispose of Peeping Tom would be to shovel it up and flush it swiftly down the nearest sewer. Even then the stench would remain. (The Tribune, 1960)

Today these incensed responses appear isolated and extreme, but they were typical of British critics in the late 1950s and early 1960s who regularly attacked horror films and relished the opportunity to denounce them. The early color films produced by Hammer studios were similarly condemned such as Terence Fisher’s CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (’57), which The Tribune called “Depressing and degrading for anyone who loves the cinema.” And HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM, the first film in Anglo-Amalgamated’s “Sadian trilogy,” barely got past censors who responded to the script with “Throw it out and let there be no mercy!”

The critical beating PEEPING TOM received in Britain has led many to believe that it had a limited release and was never shown outside of the country, but nothing could be further from the truth. Powell’s film was actually considered a modest commercial success in the United Kingdom according to film historian and author Kevin Heffernan (Ghouls, Gimmicks, and Gold: Horror Films and the American Movie Business 1953-1968), which was largely due to its inclusion of a topless scene with popular pin-up model Pamela Green.

In France, Powell’s film found a receptive audience who appreciated the director’s surrealist tendencies and mature subject matter (I.Q. Hunter, British Trash Cinema). And when the film finally reached American theaters in 1962 it was accompanied by an extensive ad campaign and greeted with cautious applause by critics in Ohio, Alabama and Pennsylvania who repeatedly singled out Carl Boehm’s (aka Karlheinz Böhm) performance calling it “brilliant” and “superb.” They also described the film in glowing terms as “An exciting new drama” and “One of the most unusual psychological thrillers in years” (Standard-Speaker, ‘62).

Despite plenty of evidence suggesting that PEEPING TOM wasn’t exactly the critical disaster it has often been depicted as, there’s no doubt that Michael Powell was deeply wounded by the negative reviews he received. Critics in Britain went after him with self-righteous abandon, asserting their moral superiority as if they were personally being attacked by the film and maybe they were? PEEPING TOM is unabashedly vicious and extremely critical of our shared voyeuristic tendencies. It asks the audience to question their own motives and examine their participation as passive spectators. This must have rocked journalists to their core in 1960 and they responded by lashing out instead of looking inward and asking tough questions of themselves and the cinema.

In the years since its release PEEPING TOM has become a critical darling and a favorite among academics and film scholars. It is one of a handful of nontraditional horror films or thrillers (pick your poison) along with Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (’60) that is universally praised and singled out for its brilliant direction, provocative ideas and analytical depiction of filmmaking. So, did PEEPING TOM destroy Michael Powell’s career? I think that assertion is highly questionable, but it definitely helped to cement Powell’s reputation as one of Britain’s greatest filmmakers.

[screamscenepodcast]

AIP and Anglo-Amalgamated films were confronted with Hammer Films' success. Their response was CAT GIRL (1957)!

From director Alfred Shaughnessy and writer Lou Rusoff, this old fashioned CAT PEOPLE remake stars Barbara Shelley as the titular cat.

Context setting 00:00; Synopsis 20:23; Discussion 31:36; Ranking 48:45

[rioadeleintrotophotography]

A- Z Photography

 History of the alphabet

The first true alphabet was created roughly four thousand years ago in the land of Canaan. The alphabet, containing between 20-32 individual letters, didn’t contain any vowels so people had to guess what vowel sound followed each consonant based on what the word looked like. Despite this, the system worked and ended up replacing the complex system of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The new alphabet meant that people didn’t need to memorize thousands of different symbols, allowing more people to communicate through the written word. The Greeks added vowels to the alphabet, creating the first alphabet with a letter to represent every sound in a language. From there, the alphabet spread to Italy where it evolved into the Latin alphabet. The English alphabet evolved after the Romans took the Latin language to Anglo-Saxons England, who amalgamated the Latin and runic alphabet.

The history of Alphabet photography

The bizarre yet utterly creative idea behind alphabet photography was originated by Stephen T. Johnson in 1999. This is not to say that others did not try or produce this wonderful technique within their own photographs beforehand. Stephen had illustrated a children's book, that featured still life pictures of everyday objects that can be interpreted to letters of the alphabet. While some may assume it is just a traditional alphabet book; the creatively could inspire others to venture out and discover the alphabet in everyday objects for themselves.

What is alphabet photography and why is it popular?  

Alphabet photography, in short, is the compilation of photos of everyday objects that resemble letters to spell out a word, initials, or just a single letter for monograms. The objects could consist of shells, entryways, alphabet soup, or just about anything else. The letters are often split up into different collections, including by season, food, destination, and other categories. Alphabet photography could be considered popular due to having such a variety of options for alphabet pictures, you can customize the images to the decor of a room or the occasion for which they are being considered.  

[momma-fif-photos]

A-Z of Photography

Introduction

Within this project I am going to capture everyday objects (such as toys, cooking utensils etc) and attempt to form them into letters to create the alphabet.

By concentrating on unusual yet familiar subjects, I’m hoping to build up an interesting and varied typographic library. (Typography is the art and technique of arranging type to make written language legible, readable, and appealing when displayed. ... The term typography is also applied to the style, arrangement, and appearance of the letters, numbers, and symbols created by the process).

Some history of the alphabet

The first true alphabet was created roughly four thousand years ago in the land of Canaan. The alphabet, containing between 20-32 individual letters, didn’t contain any vowels so people had to guess what vowel sound followed each consonant based on what the word looked like. Despite this, the system worked and ended up replacing the complex system of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The new alphabet meant that people didn’t need to memorize thousands of different symbols, allowing more people to communicate through the written word. The Greeks added vowels to the alphabet – creating the first alphabet with a letter to represent every sound in a language. From there, the alphabet spread to Italy where it evolved into the Latin alphabet. The English alphabet evolved after the Romans took the Latin language to Anglo-Saxons England, who amalgamated the Latin and runic alphabet.

What was required:

One of the great things I enjoyed about this project was that it did not require any special equipment.

All I needed was my phone and I was good to go. You can simply grab your camera and you are good to go!

One of the great things about this project is that it doesn’t require any special equipment. However, in order to make it a little more manageable, I did require my pencil and paper to keep tally of the letters I had taken pictures of. This was not something I did at the start of the project and found myself scrolling through my camera to see what letters I had already acquired.

Looking for letters:

Like many subjects, once you start looking for something, you become attuned to the sight of it. This honing-in on detail is an invaluable skill for photographers, who often have to decipher both the detail and greater landscape simultaneously.

The idea for my chosen alphabet came from every day objects I come across as a mother. I’ve used nature from when out walking with the children, to pasta I was using when cooking, to the children’s toys I’m forever clearing up, I even managed to incorporate a few of my children in this project from just sitting and watching them move, observing how their body parts formed letters.

Conclusion:

This was the first ever photography project I have done, whilst for others it was simple for me it was difficult balancing my time as well as learning how to use my new Cannon 4000D camera which in the end I decided to use my IPhone. This was because my phone is an every day object and I always have it to hand which made it easier to locate and use, plus I’m familiar with it. Non of my photos have been edited as I am not familiar with editing so what you see is everything in original format. I would love to have been able to have used photo shop or added a boarder or background to my project, however I was just happy to have been able to produce a piece of work. Over time I expect my knowledge of my camera to become second nature and my photos to become a lot clearer and sharper.

[anhed-nia]

BLOGTOBER 10/28/17: THE BELIEVERS

The first time I ever saw THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW in a theater, I was 12 years old. My family took my little brother and me on a short vacation to New York City, and indulged my burgeoning obsession by agreeing to take me to the still-thriving cult’s home base at the Waverly Theater. While I had almost nothing on my mind other than this opportunity to commune with the original cultists, and practice with them in their hallowed chapel, I was already ensconced in a real world of faith and ritual that I had much less ability to address. We stayed in the apartment of my parents’ friend Phyllis Galembo, a noted photographer of religious practice and folk conventions in Haiti, Brazil, Cuba, Jamaica, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Berkina-Faso, Zambia, South Afica, Egungun and Gelede Benin. I had met Phyllis a few times; I remembered her as warm, energetic, and fairly hilarious. I was curious about her work in my childish manner, without having developed a shred of the intellectual wherewithal to think usefully about these other cultures. In spite of what I knew, I was completely startled by her apartment. It was fairly tiny, as per Manhattan standards, and it thrummed with music that I could only identify as “foreign”. Her walls were covered from floor to ceiling with masks, photographs, costume pieces and art objects from her travels. The effect was overpoweringly fascinating. I followed her around the place for a little bit while she prepared to vacate, and then, like a complete asshole, I asked, because it was my only point of reference for my surroundings: “Have you ever seen THE BELIEVERS?” She tersely spat something about it being “racist trash”, putting the topic straight to bed.

THE BELIEVERS was a movie that I had seen quite a few times on Fox’s weekend horror matinee, my rare and treasured opportunity to watch scary movies, edited for television, with my nose pressed to the screen of our tiny black and white set. This 1987 John Schlesinger thriller concerned a recently widowed police psychiatrist who finds himself embroiled in the grim doings of a deadly Santeria cult. I loved it. Martin Sheen is the traumatized lead, who is trying to juggle a new love with monitoring his young son’s mental health, as a series of apparent human sacrifices arises in New York City. The inimitable, and here, white-eyed Malick Bowens plays a Pied Piper character who makes bloodthirsty acolytes out of rich white socialites who can never have too much money or power. An attenuated dread underlies the film’s seductive, overcast sleepiness, which blankets its intimate images of the New York that is not pictured on postcards. The pensive uncertainty that pervades THE BELIEVERS is punctuated, rarely and unpredictably, with gamey gore, or live bodies erupting with pestilence. While it never achieves the profundity of something like THE EXORCIST, it is not without moments of pathos, like the mourning process of losing one’s mind that a young Jimmy Smitts must undergo. THE BELIEVERS may not be deep, but it is strong.

This is all, of course, without mentioning the issue of race. When the movie came out in 1987, it may still have been possible for many audiences to ignore the movie’s essential xenophobia–that is, more possible than it is now, when discussions of racism make the news with much greater frequency detail, even if the vast majority of us are still struggling to address it properly. Viewers who were primed to condemn negative imagery related to slaves or “savages” were not as often enabled to, for instance, recognize distorted messaging about Afro-Carribean religions that developed under colonial duress. THE BELIEVERS attempts to exonerate itself by taking the popular tack of sorting ethnic characters into “good guys” and “bad guys”. It presents various intelligent, complex, and well-intentioned non-white professionals, often in beautifully photographed Black and Brown neighborhoods where Santeria is commonplace, who wind up serving as a counterpoint to the literally-dark and mysterious interlopers whose activities point to the profoundly evil potential of their shared religion. We still do this today, with this same thematic material, since now we have the option of assigning the locus of evil to Palo Mayombe, a religion whose public image has been permanently and popularly tainted by the real-life murder cult of Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo. Many people seem to get a false sense of progress from the fact that shows like Criminal Minds now pompously explain to viewers that Santeria is a nice “one of the good ones” religion without blood sacrifice, unlike that nasty Palo business. THE BELIEVERS had no such contemporary convenience, and has to settle for glibly parsing Santeria from “brujeria”. If the movie is unclear about the nature of Santeria in general, other than some suggestions that it is normal and typically benign, it is not exactly helpful to add to this hazy mix a blacker-than-black witch doctor who has come to America to chew up little boys like some fairy tale ogre.

Does it help that rich white people are the majority doers of evil in THE BELIEVERS? I think the answer is, not totally, but somewhat. There’s something to the notion that the serial child murderers that Martin Sheen encounters are only happening because the greedy desires of Manhattan’s elite insist upon them. And it isn’t only the posh, grown-up ski school villain types, either; Sheen will soon find among the guilty his own ostensibly liberal pals, whose multi-culti home decor serves as a pushy declaration of the owners’ worldliness. Indeed, in spite of their apparent desperation to be perceived as leaping over cultural boundaries, these dashiki-clad white folks are only truly interested in non-anglo cultures when there exists the promise of supernatural power that may beget even greater material wealth. It’s actually a very good allegory for the diluted, cherry-picked amalgam spirituality that festers in the corners of headshops and new age bookstores, where aimless Americans browse for artifacts that will help them “manifest” more love, sex, or money, or reflect negative energies back upon those who have allegedly cursed them–all without having to spend so much as a minute learning about what an orisha is or where dream catchers come from. It is difficult to get past the cartoonish positioning of Malick Bowens as a sort of antichrist, and the way that this real-life religion is depicted as a tool to drown “civilized” society in its own blood. But, at least the movie more than flirts with the option of accusing our white upperclass of polluting and perverting other cultures for the furtherance of their white upperclass endeavors. At its best, THE BELIEVERS seems to say that if this Afro-Carribean religion serves evil, then it is white Americans who make it so.

I was a little nervous about watching THE BELIEVERS as an adult, but I found that I still like it a lot, as a moody, finely crafted piece of entertainment. It was probably my first exposure to Robert Loggia, and it’s impossible to throw that away. For better or worse, it is also impossible to avoid the arguments it raises, in spite of itself, about how to treat the subconsciously malign motivations of good movies. In this context, it’s probably best for me to just say that the number of movies I’ve reviewed here that involve something like naked ladies being chased around with knives, should tell you how I ultimately feel about this level of moralizing about art. So, I’ll just adjourn lightheartedly by offering up to anyone who is reading this, who wants to know who I thought was the most ludicrous celebrity “regular” at the mixed-witchcraft shop up the street from where I used to work, that I’ll happily tell you over DM.

[myhollywoodnews-blog]

MARVEL'S IRON FIST New Official Trailer (2017) Superhero, Netflix

Carl Fredricksen - Movie Trailers - My Hollywood News

MARVEL'S IRON FIST New Official Trailer (2017) Superhero, Netflix

2929 Productions, ACT 2 CAM, Anglo-Amalgamated Productions Ltd., Bavaria Film, Elstree Studios, Entertainment One Films Canada, Famous Players Film Company, Film Booking Offices of America, First Look Studios, Hallmark Productions, Hannover House, Hollywood Movie Trailer 2017, IFC Films, Image Entertainment, Kids Movies 2019, Leda Serene Films, Marv Films, Marvel Studios, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Movie Trailers 2016 Youtube, Movie Trailers 2017, MTV Films, New And Upcoming Movies, New Movie Trailers Youtube, Pacific International Enterprises, Paramount Animation, Paramount Motion Pictures Group, Paramount Pictures, Rogue Pictures, Rolfe Photoplays, Shaftesbury Films, Silver Pictures, Solax Studios, SPWA, Suneeva, Thanhouser Company, The Bridge Studios, Through A Glass Productions, Trailer Movie, Turner Pictures, Tyler Perry Studios, Universum Film AG (UFA), Upcoming Movies 2019 List, Wild Bunch, WWE Studios