Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 53

Mario Gauci · 08-19-2008, 04:55 PM

08/15/08: DELIRIUM [International Version] (Renato Polselli, 1972)

Though I had long toyed with the idea of acquiring this one on DVD (the recent Blue Underground re-issue being particularly cheap) – not least because it contained two different versions of the film – I was always dissuaded by the extremely mixed reaction it seemed to elicit from viewers. Now that I’ve watched it too, I can better understand this reasoning – indeed, I feel much the same myself. If anything, one has to admit the fact that rarely was a giallo better served by its lurid title: the last half-hour of this one is truly demented, folks! Besides, it has the guts to give away the identity of the serial killer from the outset: as played by Mickey Hargitay, actually, he’s not that much of a stretch from his trademark role of The Crimson Executioner in BLOODY PIT OF HORROR (1965) – which I also only recently watched for the first time.

So far, so good: for the first 75 minutes or so, we get a number of more or less traditional slayings and their ensuing police investigation (the latter are aided by psychiatrist Hargitay himself – playing a character hilariously named Lyutack!). However, at least, one eye-witness is able to connect the star to the first murder…and, here, comes the catch: Hargitay’s wife (luscious Rita Calderoni) is so blindly devoted to her hubby – despite his being a self-confessed “mad impotent”! – that, to draw the cops’ suspicion away from him, she notches up a trio of victims for herself while he’s in their company!! Having said that, the director throws in a lame red herring by placing a slick little car-park attendant (played by Tano Cimarosa and who has a tendency to break into English slang – his role actually grows in stature as the film goes along) at the time and place of at least one of these additional murders. Here, then, lies the film’s major fault: while it’s certainly unusual, thus interesting, Polselli’s treatment can perhaps best be described as hypnotically inept – anyone familiar with Jess Franco’s more idiosyncratic output from the 1970s will know what I mean!

However, nothing that had occurred until now (not even Calderoni’s occasional ‘nightmares’ of lesbian orgies in a dungeon, witnessed by an aroused but chained-up Hargitay!) could have prepared me for the denouement…which is so thoroughly off-the-wall that it’s rather hard doing it justice by way of mere description – it’s truly a climax that has to be seen to be believed! Much of this has to do with the utterly unhinged ravings of both Calderoni and Christa Barrymore (her character only really comes into play during this latter section: she’s Hargitay’s niece who, however, harbors an unhealthy affection for Auntie!). Calderoni goes off her rocker first, because she had earlier tortured and attempted to gas the maid who got wise to her murderous habits (of which even Hargitay is unaware)…but the scene was witnessed by Cimarosa (having suspected Hargitay all along, he breaks into the doctor’s home to search for possible clues), who saved her at the last minute and the maid has now confessed everything to the Police. Incidentally, the latter are a mostly ineffectual bunch: at one point, they even cause a female collaborator of theirs (she’s actually used as bait to lure the supposed killer into the open, Hargitay claiming to have arrived at the exact place and time of ‘his’ next strike by way of extensive metereopsychic[?!] research) – who, having found evidence that could incriminate Hargitay, unwisely decides to confide in Calderoni first – to drop from the eight floor of a building!!

Anyway, Calderoni is terrorized of being caught (somewhat sadistically, Barrymore plays a recording of an angry mob which Calderoni believes are at their front door – this is another element which is thrown in without any rhyme or reason, just like the subplot involving Hargitay’s trysts with a female student that prolong the film for no discernible reason). When Hargitay and then the Police appear on the scene, the doctor is willing to give himself up (he’s clearly lost his marbles, too, screaming repeatedly at his own reflection in a mirror and at the top of his lungs, “You’re a hyena!”) …but it’s Barrymore’s turn to go nuts and summarily beats Hargitay to a pulp with a ball and chain for having turned her beloved aunt into a murderess! Eventually, the Police are shown the way in by Cimarosa – where they’re greeted by a ghastly sight, as all three persons inside are dead: Barrymore having also strangled Calderoni but who, before perishing, had managed to drive a rake into the former’s neck!

Interestingly, composer Gianfranco Reverberi is given a prominent place in the credits – soon after the two leads i.e. before even the supporting cast!; that said, his contribution is significant and versatile (alternating between sleazy lounge and percussion-heavy rock). Equally odd is the fact that the picture concludes with a montage of some of its highlights – with the emphasis, unsurprisingly, on those bits involving sex and violence! For the record, I’d be interested in checking out the alternate and much shorter U.S. version (which inserts new characters and even makes Hargitay a shell-shocked Vietnam vet – a plot point which, apparently, the star came up with himself!) but not enough perhaps to buy a copy of the DVD. In the meantime, I’ll be following this with Polselli’s even more outrageous and nonsensical THE REINCARNATION OF ISABEL (1973) – in which virtually the entire cast and crew of DELIRIUM return for a second helping…

08/16/08: THE REINCARNATION OF ISABEL (Renato Polselli, 1973)

What I wrote about this one at the end of my review for the same director’s DELIRIUM (1972) turned out to be the height of understatement: this is one insanely incomprehensible and intensely incompetent film – which I brought myself to award a higher rating than BOMB only because of its undeniable entertainment value!

To begin with, the picture can’t seem to make up its mind whether the titular figure is a witch or a vampire (so that we’re treated to various occult rites and would-be feral attacks – if anything, both involve the consumption of fresh blood). Isabel’s reincarnation seemed possible via the sacrifice of seven virgins (though when they’re finally captured for this purpose, we don’t get so many – maybe the production ran out of extras, or else they simply thought the audience wouldn’t notice!); however, given that one of the girls is a dead ringer for the witch herself (both, in fact, are played by Rita Calderoni), why were the others even needed?! It goes without saying, then, that the various returning actors from DELIRIUM were far better served by their roles in that earlier outing (I seriously doubt how much of the script they understood this time around).

Incidentally, considering that very little characterization is even attempted, I couldn’t help whiling away the time in associating a number of the faces with celebrity music figures – so that Mickey Hargitay (who, unsurprisingly, would retire soon after!) resembles Mick Jagger, Raoul (the inspector from DELIRIUM is here the hostile landlord/head vampire who goes by the name of…drum roll, please…Dracula) looks like George Harrison, the hero Richard reminded me of John Entwistle, while the unhinged butler seemed like Mick Fleetwood (albeit with ‘undead’ make-up approximating that of Herk Harvey in CARNIVAL OF SOULS [1962])!! Having mentioned this singular musical association, there’s a scene in which the hero is shown trying to break the latch of the gateway to the dungeon where Calderoni has been trapped, a scene that is unaccountably introduced by an outburst of rock music (Giovanni Reverberi’s score does manage elsewhere a lovely theme befitting the generally Gothic mood) – not having had the time to realize just where Richard was and what he was doing, and coupled with the character’s visible wincing and the jutting of a piece of metal at the corner of the frame, both my brother and I were deceived into thinking he was strumming on some electric guitar (by this point, we honestly were ready to expect just about anything from the film)! Ironically, Polselli was reported as saying that what he intended all along was to depict the heightened perception of events by people in the throes of hysteria – except that, in our case, this alternative visualization was more the result of sheer bewilderment!

With this in mind, many scenes in the film have two or three different layers of reality to them – giving the whole an appropriately surreal vibe…but the treatment is so hopelessly clumsy (ranging from delirious editing to blatant day-for-night shooting) that it all goes for naught! At first, too, it seemed interesting that all the characters (which Polselli doesn’t bother to clearly define) were ‘present’ at the time of the witch-burning but, while it’s established that Raoul had himself been re-incarnated, there’s no explanation whatsoever about the physical likeness of all the others – again, it must be that extras were hard to come by! Even more baffling is the emphasis on a ditzy girl (the actress playing her had been the first victim in DELIRIUM [1972]) – providing deliberately(?) terrible acting, unfunny comedy relief (denoting her nymphomaniac personality, Polselli even chooses to end the film with a double entendre involving her!) and, worst of all, is involved in an extended and wholly gratuitous ménage-a`-trois with another (good-looking) girl and a fattish simpleton distinguished only by his facial tick (a scene that would have been deemed tasteless in even the most vulgar of low-brow Italian comedies then also in vogue!). Yet another head-scratching moment is the fact that, in one scene, the medieval(?) citizens are seen baying for the blood of two (of the proposed seven) sacrificial victims in particular – for no discernible reason other than to provide an excuse for a chase in which the girls (wearing just capes and one of whom is well endowed to boot) are finally cornered as if they were wild animals!

When all is said and done, I can only suggest the film for the unenviable position of the absolute nadir of the “Euro-Cult” style during its creative heyday – deposing, in fact, previous titleholder TRAGIC CEREMONY (1971)! This reminds me that I’ve got another obscure Gothic outing, Luigi Batzella’s THE DEVIL’S WEDDING NIGHT (1973), to watch as part of my ongoing marathon; for the record, the same director would later make NUDE FOR SATAN (1974) – also with Calderoni – and which, coincidentally, is regarded as ideal pairing (that is to say, is equally loony) for THE REINCARNATION OF ISABEL itself…

08/17/08: AN ANGEL FOR SATAN (Camillo Mastrocinque, 1966)

This was “Scream Queen” Barbara Steele’s last of nine Italian horror films (for the record, I’ve still got TERROR CREATURES FROM THE GRAVE [1965] and THE SHE-BEAST [1966] to catch up with) and the one that was hardest to come by until recently. With this in mind, the print on display still left a lot to be desired – panned & scanned, fuzzy picture quality and the audio filled with extraneous noise (particularly during the second half…where it seems that someone’s tapping on computer keys somehow got mixed in with the film’s soundtrack, recalling a similar incident found on the original DVD of SON OF DRACULA [1943]!).

AN ANGEL FOR SATAN – the title, by the way, is a misnomer – was also probably the last of the vintage Gothic Horror outings from this country to be shot in black-and-white (imbued with a touch of poetry not easily replicated by the more delirious color titles). Incidentally, I’d watched director Mastrocinque’s sole other foray (also in monochrome) in the genre – the “Carmilla” adaptation CRYPT OF THE VAMPIRE (1963), starring another horror icon in Christopher Lee – which I remember liking quite a bit, but whose recording (made off late-night Italian TV) I subsequently foolishly erased. To get back to Steele’s European output, a common thread running through most of them is that she plays a look-alike descendant of some diabolic ancestor (beginning with the very first, Mario Bava’s seminal BLACK SUNDAY [1960]) – and this one’s no exception though, in its case, she emerges to be more of a victim (which, I guess, is what the title is ultimately alluding to). Having mentioned Bava, while his one picture with Steele was the director’s official debut, his swansong – the fascinating (made-for-TV) THE VENUS OF ILLE (1978) – actually shares much of its plotline with AN ANGEL FOR SATAN! Indeed, here we also have the discovery of an ancient statue bringing a series of calamities upon a small community consumed by superstition – and where the blame is placed at the doorstep of newly-arrived Lady of the Manor Steele (since the figure was made in the image of her forebear).

An interesting (if unlikely) twist is that the woman of the past played by Marina Berti – who, jealous of Steele’s popularity with the menfolk, had tried to destroy the statue but tumbled down along with it into the river beneath – also has a like-minded i.e. vindictive descendant (her ultimate fate, then, emerges to be predictably ironic). That said, the narrative makes it seem at first as if the old Berti has taken possession of the new Steele…until hero Anthony Steffen (the sculptor entrusted with restoring the icon) uncovers the whole scheme which also sees Steele’s current guardian (Claudio Gora), enamored of Berti, involved (hypnotizing his charge into committing nefarious deeds so as to elicit the ire of the townspeople who, in getting rid of the girl, would make him legal proprietor of the estate!). Steele, in fact, is made to turn heads yet again – particularly those of the more gullible members of the community: village idiot, shy schoolteacher, his equally naïve girlfriend(!) and who also happens to be Steele’s own personal maid, and the town strong-man. She seduces all (often by casually taking off her clothes in their presence – though we see next to nothing, screen permissiveness having only just been broken with the likes of THE PAWNBROKER [1965] and BLOW-UP [1966]) and ‘causes’ them to act in extreme ways – the first becomes a serial rapist/killer (on whom the villagers eventually turn en masse), the second commits suicide (in the classroom of all places!) as a result of the maid breaking off her relationship with him and the fourth sets fire to his own home (with the rest of the family still inside!).

By now, of course, Steele was well-versed in this type of role – so, it’s no surprise that she turns in a typically multi-layered performance (with her striking looks intact). However, she’s matched by the brooding Steffen (later a regular of Spaghetti Westerns and Gialli) – and, equally impressive is Francesco De Masi’s evocative score (it’s pure happenstance that several titles I’ve been watching in my ongoing “Euro-Cult” marathon bear his signature!).

08/17/08: WHO CAN KILL A CHILD? (Narciso Ibanez Serrador, 1976)

I only became aware of this film when it was first released on DVD (not the R1 edition, which is how I eventually watched it); I got even more interested after being impressed with director Serrador’s only other feature film – the stylish Gothic horror THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED (1969). Actually, though I’ve had the disc for some time, I finally opted to watch it as a special birthday treat!

Anyway, the film emerged to be fully deserving of its considerable reputation – though not without its flaws (more on them later). While it’s usually ranked as horror (in view of the violence, I presume), I find it works just as well as science-fiction – in that the phenomenon that makes the entire kid population of the island community homicidal remains unexplained (not to mention the way the children are made to connect telepathically with each other or, for that matter, the heroine’s demise at the ‘hands’ of her unborn infant!). In this respect, it’s also similar to Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS (1963) – acknowledged as such by the cinematographer in one of two interesting accompanying interviews on the Dark Sky DVD (the other is with the director himself). We’ve had several films featuring ‘demonic’ children before and since, but few elicit as much power and sheer creepiness out of the casual savagery of their acts (that said, we were usually treated to an isolated case – even in THE EXORCIST [1973]); incidentally, the film’s ironic ending is virtually identical to the contemporaneous THE OMEN (1976) – followed by a coda which suggests an INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956)-type outbreak is in the offing!

The d.p. also comments on how he approached the genre in exactly the opposite manner that would have been expected of him – rather than fill the film with darkness and menacing shadows, much of the action takes place in broad daylight (indeed a torrid climate)…though he concedes that the isolated community was something of a cliché (and, in particular likened its besieged protagonists to those in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD [1968]). Having mentioned films that may have influenced this one, there’s the obvious link to VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960; in fact, one of the film’s alternate monikers is ISLAND OF THE DAMNED!) while the scene in which a little girl comes crying for her father, only to lure him to his death, smacks of “The Wurdalak” episode from Mario Bava’s compendium BLACK SABBATH (1963).

By the way, the fact that the two leads are English, it’s preferable to watch the film in this language – since the locals speak Spanish anyway (which is accompanied for our benefit by English subtitles); consequently, the fact that the heroes are strangers in a strange land – surely one of the key narrative elements – becomes that much more effective. Even so, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the performances of Lewis Fiander and Prunella Ransome – of course, their complete ordinariness worked for the plot but it was a bit of a strain to invest nearly two hours in their plight…especially since much of the surrounding events are tackled in a similarly low-key nature and, what’s more, at a deliberate pace! Some viewers may be shocked by the fact that a) children appear to indulge in senseless violence throughout, an experience they’re shown to treat as a game and b) the retaliation by the adults, when it arrives, is no less harshly depicted (particularly when one kid is shot in the head with a gun); however, the director treats both these aspects with great sensitivity (despite potentially offensive scenes such as the one where the children disrobe a teenage German tourist they’ve just killed and who had previously tried desperately to contact the protagonists) and aplomb (for instance, the subtle image of a body lying under the counter in a grocer shop and unseen by Fiander) – the film, ultimately, is more arty than exploitative.

Which brings us to the credit sequence, presenting a series of montages supplemented by a list of statistics about just how many children have been victimized by the myriad wars waged during the 20th century (rendered all the more chilling by a children’s ditty on the soundtrack – the score by Waldo de los Rios is also notable throughout); the film, therefore, is an allegory in which the kids are seen to pay the adults back for this constant mistreatment! However, I thought the ending (already mentioned) was a let-down – since this leaves the picture somewhat incomplete: shouldn’t it have been intimated that the history of mankind is, fundamentally, a vicious circle…so that these very children who are now rebelling against their elders will eventually grow up to take part in the next war that comes along, thus causing harm themselves to a future generation of kids! Mind you, I still opted for a higher rating because it’s undeniably one of the best horror films of its era from any country – intelligent, frightening and technically assured.

08/17/08: CEMETERY WITHOUT CROSSES (Robert Hossein, 1969)

The qualities inherent in this Spaghetti Western have more to do with its uniqueness rather than for any outstanding merit: the film, in fact, is a French-Italian co-production (albeit co-scripted by none other than Dario Argento!). Also unusual is the fact that the movie was helmed by its own leading man – incidentally, the two stars (Hossein and Michele Mercier) had just finished the 5-picture “Angelique” series, which is currently being re-proposed on Italian TV (I’ve recorded four of them so far but have yet to watch any). Of the remaining cast members, I was mainly familiar with Michel Lemoine (perhaps best-known for playing the Mephistophelean figure in Jess Franco’s SUCCUBUS [1967] and who would himself graduate to direction with the likes of SEVEN WOMEN FOR SATAN [1974]); though his character isn’t given any distinguishing features, the actor’s odd looks are enough to give an offbeat tone to the traditional Western garb and settings.

The plot – a running feud between two factions, with each of whom the laid-back and detached ex-gunfighter Hossein becomes involved – is quite typical and straightforward; actually, the hero had been Mercier’s flame but the latter eventually married another man, who turned out to be no good…though she’s determined that the perpetrators of his death be punished, which is why she now turns once more to Hossein (living a hermitic existence in a nearby ghost town!). In direct opposition to the “Angelique” films mentioned above – where the sensuality of Mercier, one of the loveliest starlets of her time, was given center-stage – here, she deliberately chose to be deglamorized (not only forced to bury her husband all by herself but being physically manhandled by the villains at the end). Anyway, Hossein joins the other side – ostensibly as a rustler – but subsequently kidnaps the patriarch’s daughter for purposes of ransom; on the other hand, they retaliate by beating up the two brothers (Lemoine among them) of Mercier’s husband. By the time it’s all over, unsurprisingly, there are bodies lying everywhere – even the stars get it (with Hossein giving himself a particularly ironic demise)!

Much of what’s admirable in the genre at its best is evident here as well: laconic dialogue, good action (ominously donning a glove before engaging in shoot-outs, Hossein’s gunplay is so quick as to border on the invisible!), terrific score (by the director’s father Andre`!) and an evocatively grubby look (the opening and closing moments, then, are given an added dimension by being presented in sepia); interestingly, Hossein dedicated the film to his friend (and undisputed master of the genre) Sergio Leone!

Martin Teller · 08-20-2008, 12:40 AM

Jean de Florette / Manon des sources - A very satisfying small-scale epic in two parts. As in The Two of Us, Berri seems particularly interested in exposing the close-mindedness and nastiness of a certain breed of rural hick (a man after my own heart!) while giving them a small amount of redemption. Things get a little goofy in the third hour (i.e., the first half of Manon) and Berri makes it far too easy to root for the heroes, but it's generally made up for by other aspects, particularly the plot construction, Depardieu's earnest but naive performance and the beautiful pastoral atmosphere. After watching these on letterboxed versions from the library, I was annoyed to discover that there's an anamorphic DVD with both films available on Netflix. D'oh. Rating: 8

PatW · 08-20-2008, 10:54 AM

Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)

Interesting story about a woman (Halle Berry) who tries to cope after the death of her husband. Though Halle Berry was adequate in her role, the one that really shines here is Benicio Del Toro as the heroin addicted best friend of her husband whose struggles with his addiction made this a powerful movie to watch. David Duchovny was also effective in the small role of the murdered husband.

Star Trek The Motion Picture (1979)

I guess you could call me a Trekker from way back. I was a kid when Star Trek originally played on TV. I was one of those that sent in a letter to save the show. I belonged to the fan club, and had numerous books devoted to Star Trek. I've been to conventions, well you know the drill. I mourned when the show was cancelled and was elated when the reruns were continually shown on tv. So you can imagine my delight that a movie was in the works ten years after the series had been cancelled.

Thirty years ago this movie would have been given a much higher rating. Back then anything Star Trek would have. It didn't matter that the movie was slow and ponderous with too many loving and longggg shots of the Enterprise and later V'ger. It didn't matter that the characters didn't seem like the Kirk, Spock and McCoy that I remembered from the series but were somehow their stilted twins. It didn't matter that the plot was intelligent but not terribly interesting. (For this movie chopping off 45 mins would have been an improvement.)

What was important was that this was the revitalization of Star Trek with an excellent follow-up in the Wrath of Khan with more movies to come, tv series set in the Star Trek world, tons of merchandise, books etc. To say that Star Trek has been a cash cow for Paramount would be an understatement. I just wish this first movie which had alot of promise had been much better.

The Naked Truth (2002)

Interesting documentary short about the real ladies behind the Calendar Girls movie.

Mario Gauci · 08-20-2008, 07:11 PM

Mike,

Re: Jean-Luc Godard

Sorry for the late reply but I kind of got caught up in Bunuelspeak with Martin (and it’s still an ongoing thing)!

Thanks for the kind words regarding my WEEK END (1967) post. I’m sure I’ve said this before but I also admire the early Godard films more than his later ones. In fact, just as I find that there is no equal in film history to Bunuel’s latter-day artistic maturity (between 1961-77), pretty much the same can be said about Godard’’s dazzlingly inventive 1960-67 output which comprise a staggering 14 features and 12 shorts. Out of these, I’d rate BREATHLESS (1960), CONTEMPT (1963), ALPHAVILLE (1965) and WEEK END as being great films; PIERROT LE FOU (1965) should, by most accounts, also be in their company but I was slightly underwhelmed by it when I rented the Fox Lorber DVD while I stayed in Hollywood two years ago. But, of course, I do intend to purchase Criterion’s 2-Discer eventually and give the film another chance.

I’m aware that out of the four ‘masterpieces’ I’ve mentioned you’ve only liked CONTEMPT so far and, in a way, it’s easy to see why because it’s Godard’s most sublime movie: with a frequently naked Brigitte Bardot, Jack Palance chewing the scenery observed by a bemused Fritz Lang, that extraordinary half-hour set-piece of marital quarrel and, above all perhaps, a haunting musical theme to die for (by Georges Delerue) – which Martin Scorsese unaccountably pinched for his own CASINO (1995)! BREATHLESS may still be Godard’s most authentic cinematic milestone but he has grown to loathe the film himself over the years; actually, the Optimum R2 disc of it was the very first DVD I ever purchased (in 2000, before I even had a DVD player) and when I watched it some time later, it struck me as being so audaciously (as opposed to boring) talky – as if Jean-Paul Belmondo’s character just wouldn’t keep his mouth shut! – for what was essentially a thriller. As you may recall, Belmondo’s hood idolized “Bogie” in the film and, guess what, when I last watched THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) at London’s National Film Theatre in January 2007 (as part of a 50th Anniversary Humphrey Bogart retrospective), it also struck me as being positively verbose!

I have to admit to being baffled by your outright hatred for ALPHAVILLE, though; I suppose we’ve already discussed the film when you posted about it originally (by the way, I’ve just re-read your IMDb comments…ouch!) but, in short, I would have expected you of all people – who has watched sci-fi flicks, thrillers and cult movies of every shape and form – to like this one (at the very least). We were talking about star ratings before so it might please you to know that Leslie Halliwell gives ALPHAVILLE a

, Leonard Maltin a

…but, for what it’s worth, I’ve also found at least one

review in a British magazine which made my ears prick up years before I watched the movie for myself. Besides, it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that I don’t buy into that “Godard hates sci-fi so he ‘sabotaged’ ALPHAVILLE on purpose” theory for a minute.

With regards to Godard’s post-1967 output, I only have a cursory familiarity with it myself, having seen 8 movies out of a dizzying 64 (he’s currently engaged on a new one entitled SOCIALISME)! Mind you, some of these – SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL (1968), LOTTE IN ITALIA (1971) and NOUVELLE VAGUE (1990) – did nothing for me either but the rest – TOUT VA BIEN (1972), SLOW MOTION (1980), FIRST NAME: CARMEN (1983), HAIL, MARY (1985) itself and DETECTIVE (1985) – were quite decent and interesting to watch, if nowhere near past glories in my opinion. Having said that, both SLOW MOTION (co-written by Bunuel regular Jean-Claude Carriere no less) and FIRST NAME: CARMEN were both very well received at the time of their original release, each eventually winning prestigious awards - including the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival for the latter…although, I guess, skeptics might say that this was due more as recognition of Godard’s return to narrative film-making (after 13 years in cinematic and political wilderness) than for the movies’ inherent qualities!

Re: Film Guides/Criticism

I also wanted to illustrate better the point I made earlier about having a certain fondness and high expectations towards as-yet-unwatched films: when my father used to work as a postman, he happened to be in the company of several colleagues who were films buffs like him and, occasionally, he would bring home videotapes he borrowed from them. Well, once I found one such VHS in his pouch that was unmarked and unnamed. I immediately asked him what it was and he said, “Oh, that’s ours. We can keep that.” “Yes, but what is it?” I queried him again impatiently. And he answered, almost nonchalantly, “Oh, it’s BONNIE AND CLYDE”! If I had been a character in a Tex Avery cartoon at that moment, my jaw would have dropped, my eyes would have fallen off and I would have bashed my head against the nearest table a dozen times! I immediately grabbed the tape, ran upstairs with it to tell my twin brother and we inserted it into the VCR – not to watch the film in its entirety there and then, mind you, but just to watch those previously memorized stills from that two-page spread of the British magazine “The Movie” literally move!! I’m sure we’ve tackled gangster movies before – fairly recently, in fact, after Joe Karlosi’s viewing of SCARFACE (1932) – but I think this long-nurtured expectation for BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967) has a bearing on why I consider it the greatest modern gangster film – ahead of more quoted candidates like THE GODFATHER (1972), THE GODFATHER PART II (1974), ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984), GOODFELLAS (1990) and some might even fit in THE DEPARTED (2006) in such hallowed company. Likewise, to my regular exposure to SCARFACE on Italian TV as a kid can be attributed the fact that for me the Howard Hawks/Paul Muni original is the pinnacle of the early heyday of gangster movies – ahead of such contemporaries as LITTLE CAESAR (1930), THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931), “G” MEN (1935), ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES (1938) and THE ROARING TWENTIES (1939).

As for following film guides rigorously in choosing what to watch or to avoid, during my childhood days I too would watch as many movies that crossed my path to which the late film guide pioneer Leslie Halliwell had given

and upwards (he did not make use of half-stars) and, when Leonard Maltin came along, those films ‘they’ had rated

or higher. It was only when I picked up David Thomson’s thought-provoking tome, “A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema” a few years later that I started questioning their (i.e. Halliwell and Maltin) opinions. Even if I haven’t re-read him in years, I owe a lot to Thomson for the way in which my cinematic thinking progressed after I became familiar with his book: who else back then (the book was first published in 1975) would have dared to champion genre directors Joseph H. Lewis, Joseph Losey (he didn’t always direct arty movies, you know), Anthony Mann and Nicholas Ray over such distinguished, Oscar-winning directors like Frank Capra, John Ford, William Wyler and Fred Zinnemann? His put-downs of Capra and Ford are particularly scathing – ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) is the only ‘truly great film’ (my words) in Capra’s canon(!) or THE INFORMER (1935) is “risible”! Does anybody else think that THE UNFORGIVEN (1960) is John Huston’s best film or place both UNDER CAPRICORN (1949) and THE WRONG MAN (1957) among Hitch’s ten greatest achievements? I have to admit that my esteem for Capra, Ford, Billy Wilder (who also gets roughed up somewhat) and Wyler has diminished a notch or two since those revelatory readings and, for the record, foreign sacred cows like Kurosawa and Fellini also get mowed down by Thomson’s ink-pen! I didn’t need Thomson’s endorsement of Bunuel for him to become my favorite but it felt good to learn that he’s also one of Thomson’s Top Ten…but I do admit to being indebted to Thomson for making me see beyond the deceptive simplicity and apparent artlessness of Howard Hawks (who is his own favorite film-maker) or that I came to regard Kenji Mizoguchi, Jean Renoir and Roberto Rossellini as their respective countries’ greatest film-makers. Please bear in mind that all this brainwashing (for lack of a better word) activity occurred 15-20 years ago when I was in my teens which, I suppose, does make it a formative experience.

Re: TRIUMPH OF THE WILL (1936)

It’s not that I found this one “boring” but, on a narrative level, you certainly can’t call it compelling as it’s merely a historical document of a mass rally. I knew that going in so it’s not like I was surprised by its lack of story or whatever; it’s silly if one were to watch TRIUMPH OF THE WILL uninitiated (as it were) and then complain in reviewing the film about it being only about a group of self-satisfied Germans immaculately marching for the sheer pleasure of their hysterical leader! You just don’t watch something like this seeking entertainment value and then penalize it (rating-wise) because there isn’t any to be had. I’ve always been into history and that World War II period is, for better or worse, one of the most fascinating of the 20th Century and, therefore, seeing real-life footage of Hitler, Goebbels, Goerhing, etc. is remarkable in itself already...let alone coupled with Leni Riefenstahl’s masterful ability in capturing on film the whole event for posterity.

Re: Giallos

It’s hard to believe that there was once a time when I looked down (or even derided) the lesser-known exponents of the Giallo, the Peplum and the Spaghetti Westerns. I’ve always admired (albeit up to a certain extent) the major directors of these genres – Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Vittorio Cottafavi (again, thanks to David Thomson) and Sergio Leone – but all the rest were basically taboo. Nowadays, I’m well aware that these people might have been the most talented and influential of the lot but they hardly enjoyed a monopoly within their respective fields.

As for giallos not making a whole lot of sense, again, it’s something we’ve come to expect and accept: just look at DELIRIUM (1972) which I’ve just watched. If Mickey Hargitay (who plays an impotent shrink) can’t be cured of his ailment after witnessing (on numerous occasions, we presume) the lesbian shenanigans of the three women in his household – the wife, her niece and their maid – how does killing unaccompanied ladies in the night help his situation any? But if that hadn’t been the case, there would have been no movie…or perhaps even no genre!

Mario Gauci · 08-20-2008, 07:55 PM

08/15/08: NIGHT CHILD (James Kelly and, uncredited, Andrea Bianchi, 1972)

I’d always been intrigued by this controversial film, given its cast and subject matter; being an international production between Spain, Great British and Italy, it was released under various titles – DIABOLICA MALICIA in Spain, LA TUA PRESENZA NUDA in Italy and several more in English-speaking countries, but perhaps most popularly as the obscure NIGHT HAIR CHILD (which is how I knew it) and the lurid WHAT THE PEEPER SAW; the print I watched, then, omitted the middle word from the former and left it at that!

Anyway, the film is notorious for turning Mark Lester, the cute protagonist from the musical OLIVER! (1968), into a true nightmare of a child: liar, sadist, voyeur, lecher, murderer! As I said earlier, he’s surrounded by other notables: Britt Ekland (at the height of her beauty) is his bewildered stepmom; Hardy Kruger plays the boy’s clueless and over-protective father; and, also appearing in bit parts, are Harry Andrews as the headmaster of Lester’s school (who’s forced to expel him due to gross misconduct) and Lilli Palmer as a psychiatrist (intending to analyze the boy, she ends up checking in Ekland for treatment!).

The film is undeniably sleazy, as we get to see Ekland stripping in front of Lester (at his behest, but to which she acquiesces in order to get at the truth of his mother’s mysterious demise!) and even getting into bed with him stark naked (though this is presented as a mere hallucination on her part, witnessed by a cackling Kruger!); however, it’s lifted out of the exploitation rut by all-round credible performances and a typically nice score by Stelvio Cipriani. The scene, then, in which Lester imagines his mother’s corpse (whom he has callously killed in the film’s very opening scene) in the pool is effectively macabre; the finale, too, is worth waiting for: the boy almost coerces Ekland (no sooner has she been released from the asylum) into murdering Kruger and becoming his lover since he tells her she’s closer to his own age (Lester being 12 and Ekland 22, while Kruger’s 42!); she gives him the impression of agreeing with this latest scheme of his but, realizing the kid will never change, Ekland immediately provides herself with the opportunity to get rid of Lester once and for all…

Incidentally, co-director Bianchi would go on to make an even more explicit ‘monster child’ effort on his home turf with MALABIMBA – THE MALICIOUS WHORE (1979); as for Britisher Kelly, his only other film was the passable Tigon production THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR (1970). By the way, I have two more of Lester’s vintage films to check out – MELODY (1971) and another Italian-made “Grindhouse” flick, REDNECK (1973); while I’m at it, I should try to get my hands on EYEWITNESS (1970), the well-regarded Hitchcockian thriller he starred in that was entirely filmed in Malta.

08/16/08: THE RUTHLESS FOUR (Giorgio Capitani, 1968)

This is another good Spaghetti Western, one that even got a laudable appraisal in the “Leonard Maltin Film Guide”…not to mention the seal of approval of our own Michael Elliott! Actually, it’s a character-driven piece – with the action spread neatly throughout yet proficiently executed. Besides, it’s exceedingly well cast: ageing American star Van Heflin is excellent in one of his last roles; both Gilbert Roland (himself a Hollywood veteran) and especially George Hilton did their fair share of Spaghettis, but it’s safe to assume that they were never better than here; Klaus Kinski, then, has a typically enigmatic role for which he sports numerous eccentric ‘costumes’ (from preacher’s garb to shades to a raincoat over his head and even a makeshift turban!).

Unfortunately, as had been the case with THE SPECIALIST (1969), the copy I acquired (English-dubbed this time around) lapsed occasionally into a different language without the benefit of subtitles – but, whereas I could more or less make out what was being said in French with respect to the Sergio Corbucci film, here it‘s in German (even the print bears the title DAS GOLD VON SAM COOPER)! In any case, the narrative – bringing an old-fashioned situation up-to-date, stylistically speaking – deals with Heflin’s striking gold and his attempt to find suitable partners (his previous one had already tried to double-cross him!) that would help him extract the precious element: what he ends up with is an interesting bunch – Hilton, the miner’s former protégé (who’s not as clean-cut as Heflin seems to think); the young man’s domineering companion, Kinski (who’s actually quite subdued here); and Roland, another old-timer (who, bearing Heflin a personal grudge, will no doubt look out for him from being ‘jumped’ by the others[!] – though he’s ultimately revealed to have appointed a cowboy duo to shadow the ‘expedition’ before they think, erroneously, of cutting in on the deal). Carlo Rustichelli’s score is, again, more traditional than most genre efforts but robust nonetheless; that said, it breaks into a semi-lounge piece more suited to a German “Krimi” during the scene in which Kinski drops some gear while ascending a mountain and has to be tied in order to go back down and retrieve it (given that this is one of the scenes presented exclusively in German, could it be that the music was changed in that country?)!

The film was co-scripted by Fernando Di Leo (a Spaghetti Western regular during this time but who never actually contributed to the genre after graduating to director!) and Augusto Caminito (who, as a film-maker in his own right, would make a couple of pictures with Kinski towards the end of the actor’s life – including the little-seen GRANDI CACCIATORI [1988], which I have in my “To Watch” pile of obscure “Euro-Cult” titles recorded off Italian TV!). Curiously enough, co-producer Luciano Ercoli would also subsequently get to be a director – proving a notable exponent of the Giallo form.

08/18/08: FLESH AND FANTASY (Jose` Benazeraf, 1967)

I first heard the name of director Benazeraf in the featurette accompanying Michel Lemoine’s SEVEN WOMEN FOR SATAN (1974) on that film’s Mondo Macabro DVD; his output, orientated towards Erotica, seemed to be in the vein of the work of Spanish exploitationer par excellence Jess Franco (with whom Lemoine also collaborated as an actor) – and, for this reason, I became interested in checking him out. Incidentally, looking at his filmography on IMDB, I noticed that one of his efforts bears the dubious moniker VOIR MALTE ET MOURIR (1974) i.e. SEE MALTA AND DIE!; personally, I find a lot of truth in that title…but surely not for the same reasons that Benazeraf intended!

Anyway, some months back, the film under review turned up on late-night Italian TV (thankfully, constantly proving itself a fount of obscure “Euro-Cult” outings which seem to have fallen through the cracks of time) and, naturally, I opted to give it a look. Well, it turned out not to be all that worthwhile – though, of course, I can’t pass judgment on the director’s skill solely by this one picture (God knows the prolific Franco is the working definition of the term “erratic”!). The plot would best be described as a pseudo-thriller (with, obviously, erotic undertones – still, despite being given the alternate title of THE SUBJECT IS SEX, it’s all rather chaste…but, then, the movie does feel choppy throughout, since it runs a very meager 76 minutes!): a trio of soldiers are sent in the Congo with a mission to eliminate some eminent physician; one of them is caught and imprisoned, while the others return home to France. Another is himself a medical specialist and harbors ambitions to own a private clinic; besides, he seems unusually possessive of the absent companion’s sultry wife (Valerie Lagrange with hair bleached platinum blonde) – despite having married the attractive nurse who assists him.

The rot sets in when Lagrange falls hard for a young seafaring lad; the doctor, who had demonstrated a vicious streak even in the Congo, determines to put a stop to the relationship. Ironically, he sees a way out when Lagrange’s husband turns up – having escaped detention; needless to say, the latter’s disillusioned by what he learns about his wife (the hero’s former pal even readily admits his own affair!). Another complication arises when it transpires that Lagrange’s husband and the doctor’s wife had themselves been lovers at one time: considering how both are being treated by their respective spouses, it’s small wonder that the two are drawn together anew. In any case, Lagrange’s new lover soon ends up dead (though not at the hands of the hero) and she confronts the doctor – who has no choice but to kill her as well! Her husband, then, is duty-bound to avenge her (bafflingly, the two barely exchange a look from the time of his return!) and has to flee the country…but history repeats itself, and the man’s once again arrested at the airport (the culprit, this time around being none other than the doctor’s wife – who, in this way, inherits both his clinic and the rest of the fortune the soldiers had amassed in the Congo!).

However, such ironic touches are few and far between: much of the first half is devoted to Lagrange’s dreary romantic interludes and the even less enthusing pool-side antics of her ‘crowd’ (later on, we’re treated to a gratuitous and energetic dance-floor routine from the girl which is the film’s undeniable highlight of unintended hilarity!); that said, even in those passages where it’s meant to be suspenseful, the thing comes across as mechanical – thus providing all-round tedium! One thing I should mention is that, just as the score for the recently-viewed YOUR TURN TO DIE (1967) was partly borrowed from another film, the music heard during a sequence towards the middle of this one would turn up as the main theme of the Spaghetti Western DEATH SENTENCE (1968): the thing is that, while Gianni Ferrio was the composer on the latter, there’s no such credit on Benazeraf’s picture (then again, odder things have happened with respect to soundtracks – suffice it to say that Stanley Myers’ celebrated piece “Cavatina”, now inextricably linked with the Oscar-winning THE DEER HUNTER [1978], had actually been composed for the very minor and little-known THE WALKING STICK [1970]!)...