Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Last House on the Left

    A billion years ago, back in 2018, I did a summer retrospective on Friday the 13th films, and I briefly discussed Sean S. Cunningham, who was a director and producer on the series. To recap, in the late 60's, he was a Broadway producer and manager who decided to go into independent film. With film censorship loosening at the time thanks to the advent of the MPAA rating system in 1968, many had started to go into hitherto taboo territory. Among the avenues for this were "white coaters", which were films that used a medical education cover (i.e. a guy in a white coat at the beginning explaining how the film you're about to watch is educational) to basically make porn. Cunningham would make his first "white coater" with The Art of Marriage in 1970. Impressed by this success was 31-year old Wes Craven, a former schoolteacher turned film editor. Craven and Cunningham would work together on another white coater, Together, as a result of a deal with Hallmark (not that one) Releasing and notorious genre distributor American International Pictures. That film was a success, and Hallmark/AIP offered the pair a chance to make a bigger horror film. Craven decided to draw upon Igmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring to write an incredibly dark script called Night of Vengeance, commenting on what Craven thought was how many films had glamorized or played down the impact of violence. After shooting began, however, the script was significantly toned down. Despite this, the filming proved upsetting enough for star Sandra Peabody to leave set temporarily, before they coaxed her back. Filmed "guerrilla style" in Cunningham's words, in New York and Connecticut, the film starred mostly D-List or first time actors. It would have significant problems with the MPAA. Craven constantly cut down the film, only for the dreaded "X" rating to come back. Finally, he just took a R rating stamp from a friend, and put it on the film. Craven assumed that the film would not be widely seen, much like many others he had edited under pseudonyms. However, the film would go on to have a wide release, and become extremely controversial due to its violence and dark themes. Many theaters would refuse to play the film, and critics (including future slasher opponent and guy who hung out at the Playboy Mansion apparently, Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel) lambasted the film and its violence. All of this is to say, it was a gigantic success, and would be considered a classic in retrospective. It would also (to his lifelong consternation) put Craven on the map as a horror director of note (in part because the film was so traumatic, they didn't want him to do anything else).

     On her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood (Sandra Peabody) is attending a concert with friend Phyllis Stone (Lucy Grantham), despite her parents (Eleanor Shaw and Richard Towers) concerns about her friend. As they drive, they hear a report that four prisoners (Krug Stillo (David Hess), his son Junior (Marc Sheffler), Weasel (Fred Lincoln), and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)) who have escaped. They are eventually tricked into going into their apartment, and I probably should stop it there. 

    This is a very fascinating commentary on the culture of late 60's and early 70's. Specifically, the culture war, without explicitly noting the whole "hippies/squares" conflict. The villains are coded as hippies, even though they don't necessarily have the signifiers typically given to them. At the same time, the "square" parents, while sympathetic, ultimately devolve to their level of violence once the depravity of their crimes is fully understood. Perhaps a bit "both sides", but it's a nice time capsule of that particular period. Onto a bit more tangible stuff, I definitely see Craven purposely ramping the violence to make a point. The violence in this film is extensive and brutal, but it's never framed as cool or fantastic. In fact, this film is honestly hard to watch because the violence (especially the sexual violence) is very heavy handed, and it's really uncomfortable to watch. It's a good commentary on being desensitized to violence, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War being broadcast nationwide. It's definitely a very intense viewing experience, especially with some scenes I couldn't stomach. 

     For stuff that didn't work, mostly the tone was all over the place. A lot of stern, extremely serious moments were followed by very weirdly light-hearted moments of comedy with the criminals. It's more than a little jarring, and after the bruality, I wasn't really sure what to make of these moments. Were they a satire? A light relief? Whatever they were, it didn't really work out for me, but these moments are few and far between.

     This was a difficult viewing experience. I had to stop the film a few times because of how intense it got, especially towards the middle. If you could stomach some really disgusting stuff, this does have some very interesting commentary on the times it was made in, and feels like a fresh look at how we view violence as a society. It is a hard film to sit through though, and I wouldn't be surprised if people just decided it wasn't something for them. 

    Alright, now onto another director who got their start in the 70's (two in fact) is Body Bags.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- God Told Me To.

    I've talked a bit before about Larry Cohen. A TV writer in the 60's, he would rise to feature film prominence through Blaxploitation films like Black Caesar and Hell in Harlem, before aping the Exorcist in It's Alive in 1974. He originally got the idea for this film from considering the vengeful God of the Old Testament, with a healthy dose of Chariots of the Gods. Originally, Robert Forster was cast as the lead, but because of personal conflicts with Cohen, he was fired and replaced by Tony Lo Blacno. Legendary composer Bernard Herrmann (who had scored It's Alive), was to initially score the film, but after viewing a rough cut, he died (not because the film was bad, to be clear). Ultimately, the Hermann like score was done by Frank Cordell, and the film is dedicated to Herrmann's memory. The film was released to negative reviews, but would come to be seen as a cult classic in later years. It's also notable as the first film appearance of a young Andy Kaufman, a year before Taxi

       A mysterious force is compelling people to commit mass murder in New York City. A shooter on a water tower. Someone during the Police parade on St. Patrick's Day. A mass stabbing. A family killing. Detective Peter Nichols (Tony Lo Blanco) is on the case, and he learns that all the participants only said "God Told Me To", when asked for their motives. His investigation would take him into... strange territories. 

    Starting from the very first scene, this film really sets its intensity atmosphere very high. A very disturbing mass shooting is depicted, followed by a series of other crimes. It only rachets up from there, culminating in a bizarre alien plot and a lot of naked people bathed in light. The score helps this immensely, giving the scenes a sense of scale and reverence that gives the campier features of the film an air of seriousness. Tony Lo Blanco is a sympathetic protagonist whose journeys show how he himself, while not motivated by the voices, can be driven to acts that he can't quite comprehend. The alien cult is handled well. There are a ton of naked people and genitals to enhance the weirdness. Andy Kaufman is also there, briefly, if you're interested. 

    The film feels sometimes, like a television episode. Very stock filming, very cheap, very procedural like. It definitely feels like what happens when a lot of TV writers eventually go into film, but can't quite shake off the TV-ness of the production. It's a great episode of an anthology series, but I have trouble seeing it as a feature film, except for the nudity and violence. It's also a bit confusing and I had trouble following parts of it, especially towards the end. 

     I enjoyed the film, but I'm not necessarily enamored of it. Perhaps other viewings, when my mind isn't as addled by anxiety, should eventually turn me more into a fan. For now, it's a good Halloween viewing, and a good example of religious and science fiction horror, and I recommend it as a good obscure pick for Halloween night. 

     Alright, tomorrow, we get into the mix with Wes Craven's first film, Last House on the Left.

Dailles and Nightlies- Beyond the Sea

       So, yeah, big global pandemic. Really distressing. Couldn't really do anything last month with the whole "country in shutdown" ordeal. Might as well look at a film by noted actor, sex predator, possible murderer Kevin Spacey. A film that he not only starred in, but he directed, produced, and co-wrote. Yes, this was his passion project, his magnum opus, his attempt to bring a unique vision to the screen. Watching this in light of Spacey's fall from grace, it becomes clear the film is little more than a vanity project by a narcissist who wants to show just how great he is and how much people love him. Oh, and also something about Bobby Darin. Maybe.

     So, the film chronicles the life of crooner Bobby Darin (Kevin Spacey, even when Darin is a young man, and yes, it's off-putting), from his childhood in the Bronx as Walden Robert Cossotto (William Ullrich, who Spacey spends a lot of time interacting with, and yes, it is incredibly creepy to watch now), encouraged by his former vaudvillian mother Polly (Brenda Blethyn), his sister Nina (Caroline Aaron) and Nina's husband Charlie (Bob Hoskins) to become a star on par with Frank Sinatra. He manages to do so in the late 50's, with the help of agent Stephen Blauner (John Goodman) , with hits like "Splish Splash" and "Mack the Knife". From there, he makes his mark on entertainment, headlining the famous Copacabana nightclub, starring in award-winning films, and romancing movie starlet Sandra Dee (Kate Bosworth). All the while, he feels his time is slowly diminishing, primarily because of a childhood disease he was not expected to survive.

     If the slimy, skeevy presence of Spacey is too much to bare, we are a character actor double punch of Bob Hoskins and John Goodman, who both manage to be the best parts of whatever scenes they're in. Hoskins especially has his usual charisma and energy popping out every time he's on screen. There's a nice sequence detailing the production of 1963's Come September in Italy, that looks far better than the rest of the film. Some of the renditions of the songs were alright.  Kate Bosworth is alright.

    Before I get into the meat of my criticisms, let me start with the fact that this movie looks terrible. Awful, cheap looking sets; a weird, distracting blue tint to the scenes that drains all the energy out of the scenes; bad production design for many of the musical sequences. It's not even so much bad as just weird. These large elaborate song sequences, set against these really cheap looking club sets and small feelings venues. Not helping is the fact that Kevin Spacey is way too old to play this role. He was 45 when he did this part. The real Bobby Darin died at age 37. Whenever he's in Darin's most iconic roles, it's jarring. He looks like a 40 year old being a teen idol, and yeah, hindsight is a big part of why this doesn't work, but he still couldn't pull off being a wide-eyed younger Darin trying to make his way through show-business. The film also has this bizarre framing device where they're filming Darin's life with Darin in the lead role, and it is so weird and confusing, and brings Spacey in proximity of that kid, and it's creepy as hell watching it. A lot of this film is just Spacey displaying his various skills, showing both light-acting, hard emotional acting, singing, dancing, impressions. Which might be forgiven for this, but in light of the revelations, comes across as the work of a massive narcissist who wants to show the world just how talented and awesome he is, and burying the fact that he's a manipulative rapist.

    I honestly don't know why I did this. We're all stuck at home, watching as governments and organization struggle with the fact that this pandemic is still ever-growing. I don't recommend watching this except maybe morbid curiosity. Spacey continues to pop up every Christmas like an anti-Santa Claus and remind us that the law hasn't caught up to him yet. Let's hope it does in the coming years. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Phantom of the Paradise

    This next film takes its inspiration from a variety of sources, including Gaston Leroux The Phantom of the Opera, Goethe's Faust, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey. Director Brian de Palma had already made a name in the industry by this time, primarily with small independent films (many of which starred a young up-and-comer named Robert De Niro), before garnering acclaim for Sisters in 1972. Singer-songwriter Paul Williams, who stars as the film's villain Swan, also scored the film. The film had a number of legal issues, including having to change the title from The Phantom to avoid confusion with the comic strip character of that name, and the inital name of the evil record company, Swan Song, due to Led Zeppelin's label having the same, which delay pre-production, such that it released in 1975, despite being completed in 1972 (Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling did narration for the film before his 1972 death). The film was a massive flop (except, oddly enough, in the city of Winnipeg in Manitoba, where it play continuous for 4 months), and was received with mixed reviews, though has gone through a critical reappraisal. After this film, De Palma was given the job of directing a film based on a bestseller from a new author. The author was Stephen King, and the book was Carrie.

     In search of a hot new thing to do in rock music to open his new extravagant music palace The Paradise, prolific producer Swan (Paul Williams) comes across a struggling singer-songwriter named Winslow Leach (William Finley) performing, and convinces his underling Philbin (George Memmoli) to sign Leach on, while secretly stealing his work from under him. So, Leach, while trying to talk to Swan, ends up getting kicked out of Death Records (owned by Swan), and tries to confront Swan at his house. There, he meets Phoenix (Jessica Harper), who, based on her lovely voice, he deems his muse. Ultimately, he attempts to crossdress to sneak, but it caught, and Swan frames him for drug dealing. He goes to prison and has his teeth removed and replaced with metal ones. He escapes in a delirious rage after learning his song is to open the Paradise. He breaks into Death Records, and tries to stop the printing of the record, but ends getting his face (and vocal cords) destroyed by the record press. He then jumps into the East River to avoid the police. Now donning a costume that looks vaguely like the Midnighter's costume from The Authority (ask your comic fan friend), he now seeks justice, but Swan convinces him to become resident songwriter, with his muse Phoenix even performing the songs. Of course, Swan has an agenda on his mind.

   The only other De Palma film I've seen is Scarface, and that showed his love of neon lights as a mood enhancer in full force. That particular aspect helps with providing a subtly alien atmosphere to the film. It is set in the bizarre, waywire world of the music industry, and the bright neon colors, from the sterile whites of Death Records' waiting room to the dark colors of the prison to the rainbow coloring of the Paradise, all help give the film a feeling of uneasiness much as the titular Phantom is experiencing as he navigates through a world hostile to him and what he represents. The more fantasy elements are well-handled. Very subtle with its Faust allusion and the depiction of the Devil. It gives the film its own distinct atmosphere, and makes it very memorable in terms of visuals. The music is very good. Going from 50's doo-wop to early 60's beach rock to 70's arena easily and with ease. Jessica Harper was a highlight, having an excellent voice and presence, and Paul Williams is a villain who relishes being evil and is having a great time. Finally, I do legitimately love the look of the Phantom. Just the way all the elements comes together really helps sell him as a victim of a capitalist machine uninterested in the authencity he brings to the table, but appropriating part of it.

    It took me a while to really get into this film, and that is primarily because of its tonal inconsistency. It goes from whimsical to comedic to scary back to whimsical in its first 40 minutes, and because of that, it's really hard to follow or keep up with. There's a lot of parodies and homages that tend to slow the film. Eventually, it stabilized, and that's when it started getting particularly good, but it really struggled to maintain that sort of interest for its first half.

     I think I kind of love this film. It took a bit while watching for it to click with me, but when it did, it was a fun, enthralling ride that keep me on my toes. If you like 70's music or Paul Williams, this is a must-watch. Really, it's a great musical, so I think most people will be able to get into it. Again, it takes a while to gain its footing, but when it does, it was a memorable experience.

    Next week, we return to the world of Ray Harryhausen with Earth vs. Flying Saucers

Current Film Review- Bohemian Rhapsody

        The main criteria for whether I review a film or not is "Is there enough for me to say on it?" and "Is there an interesting spin to it?" There are films I strongly like or dislike, but don't really write a review, because I can't really find anything to really say about the film in detail, or say something that hasn't already been said before. In the case of this film, it has gotten notoriety ... actually for most of its production history. With the conflicts between original actor Sasha Baron Cohen and the surviving members of Queen, to the further conflicts caused by the notorious instability and unreliability of director Bryan Singer, it was not really an easy transition to the screen. Not helped by the fact that early versions of the script downplayed Freddie Mercury's bisexuality and AIDS diagnosis (I'll get into that later.) With this extremely troubled production, it really is something of a surprise that this is as banal and unremarkable as it is.

       The film follows the life of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury (Rami Malek), from his origins as  Zanzibar-born Parsi immigrant Farrokh Bulsara joining a band named Smile with guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) in Imperial College (later joined by bassist John Deacon ( Joseph Mazzello), to their rise under the new name Queen, to the seminal album A Night at the Opera (or rather, just "Bohemian Rhapsody"), eventually ending at their iconic performance at Live Aid in 1985. All the while, Mercury deals with various relationships, both romantic, including Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton), Paul Prenter (Allen Leech), and Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), and professional, with the other band members dealing with his more ostentatious, volatile nature.

       The hype is true: Rami Malek is absolutely fantastic in this role. He manages to get the accent down, he gets the stage presence so perfectly, it's a tad unnerving, and manages to imbue his performance with both loud rocker style and the quiet, nervous presence Mercury was reported to have in private. The physical resemblance also helps. If there is one reason to see this film, it's for his performance alone, especially during the Live Aid segment. That segment is also probably the best scene in the film, a near perfect recreation of the event, where we actually get to focus on Malek's performance as a musician and Queen playing music ....

      Which brings me to my first problem: there isn't really a full Queen song until the end. They play some of their iconic songs, sure, but not in full or they're background music. You'd think they'd focus on the various innovative, memorable songs that are still played and remembered today, but the film basically rushes through them, going from one to the other without really exploring them or having the decency to play the whole song! Even the titular song (while its production is explored in full) isn't played in its entirety. Seriously, in a Queen biopic, you'd think they'd play more Queen in it. The point about how they rush through their discography is really emblematic of the film's central problem. It is so standard and by-the-numbers that one can predict how it'll go even with the bare bones synopsis I provided. Filmmakers ought to be screened Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story before they make music biopics, because they haven't really learned to go beyond the tropes and plot structure that film satirized very acutely. This film is very Walk Hard in how its plot is structured and how it portrays its lead figure. It doesn't help that the other band members are cyphers that just don't have personalities and largely exist to just react to Mercury's antics. John Deacon especially, who barely gets anything to do. (This might be because Brian May and Roger Taylor are producers, so the filmmakers might not have wanted to offend them). The script for this is really overcompensating for the controversy centering around it, to the point of changing the sequence of events to fit it all in. I understand the controversy around straight-washing his bisexuality (and, to the film's credit, it does explore his complicated sexuality, but since the characters aside from him aren't fleshed out, it still doesn't fully work), but, since his AIDS diagnosis came years after Live Aid and they were always planning on ending its there, it does make sense that they wouldn't really cover it except for an after epilogue text(unless they were planning on ignoring it entirely, which is pretty bad). Minor spoiler, but the film moves his diagnosis to before Live Aid, and portrays his performance as some last testament. Also, the band broke up years before and Mercury gravels to them to reunite and Live Aid is their big comeback (something that never happened, and Queen had toured regularly in the years prior.). I understand that liberties need to be taken in order to make an entertaining story, but this level of revision seems only to exist as to get another cliche "musician is too difficult, band breaks up, band makes up" moment that feels like a scene straight out of Walk Hard, and again, feels like it's overcompensating for not dealing with it in the original drafts.

    I'm a huge Queen fan, so this being as boring and cliched as it is is disappointing, given how versatile and ecletic Queen was and the massive influence they've had on music. Even if you just want to hear Queen songs, they don't play a full one until the end, and the film is two hours! Just stay home and play those songs online. Still, Rami Malek's performance is good enough that I kind of recommend it if you're interested in seeing that. However, the rest of the film is just mediocre and really doesn't deserve his performance or the great Live Aid scene towards the end.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Suspiria

      In my review of Dawn of the Dead, I mentioned Dario Argento, who had helped facilitate the creation of that film. Originally a film critic, Argento got his start in the Italian film industry when none other than Sergio Leone recruited him and fellow critic turned eventual director Bernardo Bertolucci to write the story to Once Upon a Time in the West. From there, he entered the giallo genre of Italian horror pioneered by directors like Mario Bava with The Bird with Crystal Plumage, starting off a prolific and influential career (many American slashers would take influence from the giallo genre from films like Bava's and Argento's). The particular idea for this film came from English writer Thomas de Quincey's 1845 collection of essays, Suspiria de Profundis, which included Levana and Our Ladies of Sorrow, an essay exploring the idea that there are three Sorrows (Tears, Sighs, and Darkness), much as there are three Fates. Argento took further influence from occult and witchcraft (notably the ideas of Rudolf Steiner) to construct the idea of Three "Mothers" that would embody these sorrows, and would write a trilogy exploring each, with Suspiria being about the Mother of Sighs. Argento's girlfriend Daria Nicolodi further helped with the development (eventually getting a co-screenwriter credit), both infusing influence from fairy tales like Snow White and her own personal stories (including her grandmother's experience at a music academy, and a dream which influenced the ending), which would create the setting of the film as a ballet academy in Germany. Argento originally intended for the film to star girls as young as 12 (to fit in with the fairy tale influences), but his father Salvatore, who produced the film, refused, feeling the violence, gory nature of the film would cause trouble with such young actresses. After the ages were increased, Daria was meant to play the lead, but again, the producers felt an American actress would help promote the film better. Thus, Jessica Harper was cast, based on her performance in Brian de Palma's Phantom of the Paradise. German and Italian actors rounded out the rest of the cast, including Udo Kier. Shot in De Paoli Studio in Rome, as well as additional shooting in Munich, most of the cast spoke in whatever their native language was, which was dubbed over in English or whatever language. Released in 1977, it would garner success critically and financially, both in the US and Italy. Argento would further explore the "Three Mothers" concept in two other films (Inferno and The Mother of Tears), which, with Suspiria, form the aptly named "Three Mothers" trilogy. And, of course, there is the remake coming up in a few weeks at the time of writing.

       Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper) comes to Freiburg to attend the prestigious Tanz Dance Academy. Unfortunately for her, she has to deal with a downpour, especially when she is briefly turned away from the Academy's door. She catches a glimpse of a girl (Eva Axen), however, as she flees. The girl, Patricia Hingle, runs through the woods, and finds herself at the home of her friend Sara (  Stefania Casini), where she appears to be paranoid about something. Sure enough, she is attacked, and killed in a spectacular, violent manner. This starts off a chain of events, which sees Suzy descend into the strangeness of the Academy itself...

       The one thing that immediately stood out for me in this film was the colors. This has very distinct lighting that bathes the characters in every scene in a strange aura, which precludes the events as they happen. The way that Argento uses Reds and Blues especially helps give the film both a distinct look, and helps with the atmosphere. It is just gorgeous to look at, and shows the images in a sheer, unfettered manner. In some ways, it contrasts the first film I did this month, Night of the Living Dead, which utilized black-and-white to its fullest potential. This emphasizes color films, and uses colors and shadows to create tension.  The style of this film helps with enticing the viewer and pulling them in, along with helping set the mood for the story. You noted the short synopsis, and I really don't want to give anything away. This is the kind of film that needs to be seen. It cannot be conveyed properly through words. Not only with the visuals, but with the story itself. It needs to be viewed with as little context as possible to get the full extent of it. I'm serious, I don't want to spoil any of it. It needs to be seen to be believed.

     The dubbing felt off. It gets distracting sometimes when the speaker is clearly ADR-ed in. It destroys the emersion that the silent moments so very carefully craft. I never felt that the characters weren't actually speaking to each other, but it always took me out of the film when a character's voice didn't match. There were also some confusing aspects to the film, particularly towards the beginning and end, that felt like more explanation or more time was needed to fully detail this.

      A couple days ago, I saw a Wired article that said something to the effect of "Don't watch the original Suspiria  before the remake." Of course, I disregarded this, given I've already replaced one of the planned films. Still, having not yet seen the remake, go watch this. Whether or not you are a horror fan, this is simply an excellently crafted, beautifully shot, and very shocking film that really stuns you in a very good way. This is an overall recommendation.

    So, that's it for this year. I hope you enjoyed this and the new Summer edition. I'm glad I'm back to choosing a diverse range of films to do, after doing more concentrated work for last year and the Summer of Terror. I really do enjoy watching these, and writing about these, and with the new Summer, I hope to watch more of the popular franchises that have come along over the years. Anyways, thanks for following all this month, and I don't know if I'll start November like this, but I'm planning on doing a "Dailles and Nightlies" on 2010, the sequel to 2001.