#peter atkins

[90smovies]

[80smovies]

[tenebrare]

:(

[duranduratulsa]

Up next on my 90's Fest Movie 🎬 🎞 🎥 🎦 📽 marathon...Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992) on glorious vintage VHS 📼! #Movie #movies #horror #hellraiser #hellraiser3 #hellraiseriiihellonearth #clivebarker #pinhead #cenobites #dougbradley #TerryFarrell #paulamarshall #kevinbernhardt #lawrencemortoff #PeterAtkins #ashleylaurence #aimeeleigh #armoredsaint #zachgalligan #vintage #VHS #90s #90sfest #durandurantulsas4thannual90sfest

[badmovieihave]

Bad movie I have Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 2008

[screamingeyepress]

What makes horror compelling? Check out this interview with horror screenwriter and author Peter Atkins, one of the minds behind Hellraiser and Wishmaster.

Peter Atkins was born in Liverpool, England on the second of November, 1955. He was a founding member of The Dog Company, a 1970s avant-garde theatre group, along with Clive Barker and Doug Bradley—with whom he would later work on the Hellraiser movies. As well as his movie and TV work, he is the author of the novels Morningstar (1992), Big Thunder (1997), and the collection Wishmaster and Other Stories (1999). He is married to Dana Middleton and lives in Los Angeles, California.

How did you come to work on Hellbound: Hellraiser II?

Clive Barker, Doug Bradley, and I were all members of The Dog Company (a 1970s theatre company in Liverpool and London) and were extremely close friends. When Chris Figg, the producer of Hellraiser, was putting a team together for the sequel, Clive was kind enough to recommend me. Read On https://www.screamingeyepress.com/interviews/peter-atkins/

[notmuchtoconceal]

Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 -- through a series of cast drop-outs and hasty script changes -- reformed itself from an artless cash grab which terminates in a soft Hollywood reset into the story of a young woman confronting the trauma which destroyed her family; a slow-build which erupted in a conflagration that destroyed her home overnight (though by the second, left the house standing so it contents could pour out.)

When you read Peter Atkin's original script, there is a stunning amount of additional detail which paints a fuller picture of the crude cardboard world of the film where trick photography and montage turns a collection of hallways and matte paintings into a sprawling cthonian maze.

Yet by the end, all catharsis is forfeit -- the father is revived, the evil vanquished, the damage undone. When you read the events depicted in the original script as a dream language which constitutes the organic regeneration of a myth, the fact that Frank and Larry are literally conjoined in their burning attic hell -- the topmost story of the home which didn't burn down -- and his confronting and absorbing his brother, the parasitic twin, is what ultimately allows him to get so pissed he punches the Freshly Cenobitten Gaslighting Head of the Asylum Who Traps Autistic Girls in Repetitive Puzzle Cubes After He Vivisects and Gases Their Mothers in the face before the snake-worm buzz-saw phallus which bores into his skull (not from an omniscient Platonic solid in this version, but a fleshy amorphous mass :-- no worship of the tetrahedron) turns him into his kinky brainwashed leather sex puppet and dangles him around his own hospital cracking Freddy Krueger one-liners as he murders his own crippled and infirm.

Figuratively, this is simply an expression of the Ba'al cycle in miniature (the Pagan origin of Christianity which is nature worship; cycles within cycles; seasonal, annual, generational, epochal, which through self-determined individual will can be overcome to build civilizations, histories, myths of higher-order artistry and expression) -- for Larry, as Clive Barker himself points out, is something of a soft-boy dominated by his wife who gets really into boxing because he's so timid.

Watch the original again. His wife who's fucking his brother who literally regenerated from his blood sacrifice (his hand nailed -- a Christic reference, though through the back of the palm -- as he moves the marriage bed, literally complicit in his own cuckoldry) arouses him in his state of television-induced blood lust to distract him from the corpse in the attic by appealing to his desire to protect her. She's stringing him along, he starts to fuck her, and while she's horny, she kinda realizes ... aw, fuck. I actually love my husband. I love my pussy husband who I also have contempt for. Holy Shit. Why am I fucking a blood-eating monster? Is my home life really that insipid? Could I get more attention in better ways, or do I really just live for the havoc I cause?

Larry has issues with his masculinity cause he's the good boy. Frank's corrupted his soul cause he's the bad boy. Julia's fucking them both. The love triangle is a the most stable shape in human psychology, as the triangle is the most stable shape in nature. Truthfully, I think everyone wants a third and you only earn one when you overcome base human passions, otherwise you're consumed and end up in hell.

The sequel, told from his daughter's perspective, dispenses with this baggage entirely. Here, in the original draft, Larry overcomes Frank, who from Kirsty's perspective is a dark perversion of her father; an incestuous reflection who in the final film poses as him simply to lure her into hell and trap her with him in a Holocaust-style cremation-oven fuckbed of which he has several in the vast mausoleal chamber where he keeps his candle-lit fuckshrine to himself, presumably with his own lipstick on his photos as he's tortured by apparitions of bitches who tease him.

In other words, to show Frank and Larry conjoined literalizes what is left figurative in the final film, where he is the apparition of a delusion which functions as a lure; an embodiment of her guilt, shame, complicity, which she must recognize the falsity of to free herself. Only this self-insight gives her the courage she needs to navigate the maze of hell and overcome institutional gaslighting to rescue her mute Autistic other half from the asylum and begin their new life of lesbian sisterhood, which was so obvious it didn't need to be confirmed in the DVD commentary.

In the original draft, therefore -- we see a father figuratively revived, but presented in a literal way. It reframes the events of the previous film as such that Frank was only ever reborn to be overcome and destroyed. It reframes a family tragedy as a hero myth. Due to his daughter's tireless love, Larry becomes complete, and Kirsty seems to disregard Tiffany entirely with a crack about opening a game store.

Perhaps, to depict this myth so literally is repulsive, for it is too revealing.

The rational framework of psychological self-overcoming and self-integration might function as something of a gauze by which we may preserve the self-flattery of our pretensions to civilization.

Perhaps, to depict Kirsty as rescuing her father from hell (plot reasons where additionally cited for the removal of Larry; he spends much of act three unconscious after being rescued, so the feeling was Kirsty's story was over and Tiffany's was superfluous -- forgetting the incidental details of Kirsty needing to literally step-into her stepmother's skin, oh yes... becoming like the woman who fucked both her father and brother to help the new girl) in such a direct way reveals too uncomfortable a subtext.

If Kirsty becomes like Julia and Larry becomes like Frank, then now Father and Daughter are Truly One with Rebel and Whore.

The base contradiction at the heart of the Christian worldview is exposed. Beneath all our rational striving is a dark wonderland of flayed men and dancing incest and techno-bacchanalian revelry and deep stoic meditation in leather while highly aestheticized art objects are probed and fondled in the dark as our mechanical nature is subtly unfurled.

Dick itches just thinkin bout it, bro.

Best then we accept that daddy's dead and he's never coming back. Best we then accept that gay sex is a perfectly healthy expression of self-love which only toxic dumbasses could fuck up. Where now is the contradiction in our worldview? What do you suppose we're running from? A uterus is the source of all life, and in it is constant division. A uterus is a microcosm of the void of space as the dick is a microcosm of a shooting star or the sunbeam you yearn to strut across.

Birth is a form of death, as death is simply a form of metamorphosis.

The older I get, the more it makes sense that Clive Barker resents Hellraiser's success. It's a classic, and it's all most will ever know him for, when he's a contemporary renaissance man who is primarily a novelist, though also a painter -- he's really up there with Stephen King in terms of sheer output, and really... his horror phase was comparatively short, he mostly writing gay bizarre fantasy epics which would probably look great on screen, but I think Mr. Barker stopped making movies after three because he found them exhausting. Socially. Bureaucratically. Financially. Meanwhile, on the page, his imagination remains unrestrained and the only limit is the speed at which his fingers can clack and no man could ever tell him he needs an editor or that his work is indulgent.

Clive Barker's like chocolate mousse.

You crave the indulgence.

When he pares himself down to fit neatly into the Christian worldview, you absolutely feel it and know a tremendous loss, the same as you would see in a tree mutilated limbless by an overzealous surgeon.

[zippocreed501]

[dipnotski]

Peter Atkins – Evreni Kurmak (2023)

Evrenin olağanüstü karmaşıklığı, onun şeklini, ölçeğini ve yoğunluğunu belirleyen birkaç temel yasadan ve bir avuç temel sabitten kaynaklanır. Derinliklerinde yalın, zarif ve güzel olan bir yapıya sahiptir. Bu yasalar ve bu sabitler nereden gelir? Ayrıca bu yasalar neden matematik dilinde ifade edildiğinde böylesine verimlidir? Peter Atkins’in, Evreni yasalarıyla ve sabitleriyle donatmanın en az…

[forceuseralona]

WHITE COLLAR | 2.12 "What Happens in Burma"

[megalokiodinsonlove]

I created an account on Instagram to post White Collar edits, if you want to follow it's @burkecaffreywc ❤️

[90smovies]

[aragarna]

I'm not old enough to play Neal's father. - White Collar rewatch (140/?) 6x02 Return to Sender

[duranduratulsa]

Up next on my Spooktober Filmfest...Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth (1992) on glorious vintage VHS 📼! #movie #movies #horror #Hellraiser #hellraiser3 #hellraiseriiihellonearth #clivebarker #pinhead #cenobites #dougbradley #AshleyLaurence #kevinbernhardt #TerryFarrell #lawrencemortoff #PeterAtkins #paulamarshall #aimeeleigh #KenCarpenter #armoredsaint #zachgalligan #vintage #VHS #90s #spooktober #halloween #october

[pretty-little-fools]

[dannyreviews]

Let Him Have It (1991)

"Let Him Have It". Four simple words, but put in different contexts can mean completely different actions and motivations. Does it mean, take the officer out or give the gun to the officer? That would be the statement that could make or break the freedom and life of a mentally deficient 19 year old on trial for the murder of a cop. Peter Medak's 1991 film with the very appropriate title of "Let Him Have It" chronicles one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the English legal system and the weight that those four words have in the study of law and jurisprudence to this very day.

In 1953 England, 19 year old Derek Bentley (Christopher Eccleston) lives with his very supportive family that includes his parents William and Lillian (Tom Courtenay and Eileen Atkins) and sister Iris (Clare Holman). Derek has a history of petty crime which is caused by him being taken advantage of by local criminals. After being expelled from an Approved School, Derek is lonely and secludes himself from the outside world. That all changes when he crosses paths with the teenaged but more dominant Christopher Craig (Paul Reynolds). Christopher comes from a broken home that consists of a criminal older brother Nevin (Mark McGann). When Nevin is sent to prison for robbery, Christopher develops a hatred for all authority. That hatred culminates one night when Derek and Christopher break into private property and are confronted by police. Christopher kills one cop and wounds another while Derek utters the four words that becomes the center of the entire trial and sad aftermath.

"Let Him Have It" is a film where the viewer already knows the ending before the opening credits have rolled if they did research on the case before. Derek Bentley would be found guilty of murder, despite not being the one who fired the fatal shot, and would be sentenced to death by hanging. Christopher Craig, who was the actual murderer, was only 16 and therefore ineligible for the death penalty, instead receiving an indeterminate sentence. Craig was released after 10 years inside and by all accounts has since become a productive member of society. Bentley would sadly not live into old age and would die by hanging despite a huge campaign to free him.

Peter Medak's recreation of the era in which this crime occurred is impeccable. Everything from the working class atmosphere, to the organized crime underworlds and especially the rigidness of the Old Bailey courthouse. It's the latter of these three characteristics that is the most impressive. All the trial scenes are played straight, without the forced language or histrionics that one might find in a primetime show on one of the major networks. The performance by Michael Gough as the judge is one of natural authority, whose strict demeanor invokes tension one can cut with a knife. It's the smaller details like that which only heightens why "Let Him Have It" is a cut above the rest

Christopher Eccleston gives a breathtaking performance as Derek Bentley, completely filled with pathos and hubris. He does not ham up his character and finds the right underplayed tone. Tom Courtenay as William Bentley also finds that same tone to play a parent who is controlled and headstrong, while Eileen Atkins is the right counterpart as the more emotive parent. Clare Holman as Iris is a great combination of her parent's traits as she is the glue that holds the family together. The last scene when they huddle together and cry as the clock strikes to the minute of their son's execution is hauntingly scary and gives you goosebumps. Paul Reynolds as Christopher Craig is a standout and a once in a blue moon performance that hits all the right notes. He's a hoodlum that acts tough and fearless, but deep down is still a child with insecurities. To play those two types of people simultaneously is something that is underused in today's films. It's one of those performances that stays with you long after the film ends and especially one that the Academy Awards should have taken notice of at the time. It's a shame that he didn't become a bigger name in films and television like Eccleston, but he at least makes his mark in a great way.

"Let Him Have It" premiered at the 1991 Toronto Film Festival, the stepping stone of the Academy Awards season and unfortunately, that's as far as it got. My guess is that it was not promoted well like Medak's previous hit "The Krays" and possibly, audiences saw it as a carbon copy of that film. Awards aside, the best thing this film could have done was drum up more interest in the Derek Bentley case. The epilogue mentions how the fight to clear Derek's name was spearheaded by his parents until their deaths in the 1970s, in which Iris later took the reins. Her persistence paid off, albeit after her death, because in 1998, 45 years after his execution, the courts overturned Bentley's conviction, giving him the vindication that he should have gotten when he was alive. "Let Him Have It", is one the best true crime films about a miscarriage of justice and while it leave you angry that such damage could have been done, acknowledging these wrongs years later is better than sweeping it under the rug.

9/10