I watched this because I heard so many favorable comparisons to Scorsese's After Hours. Its similar, almost too similar by the end, but its a great watch and I understand why it appeals more to some audiences, even if After Hours feels way more legit and artistic.
Like After Hours, Something Wild follows a New York yuppie who gets pulled into a wild weekend adventure by a crazy punk rock girl. Most prominently, the opening and closing scenes remind you of After Hours, as it comes full circle and ends how it begins with the characters having"walked on the wild side". But the whole production has similar features: hundreds of colorful bit players, a fun New Wave soundtrack and a focus on the disconnect between social classes and subcultures.Both are inspired by 80s NYC hipsterism, but while AH is a total NY experience about the surrealism and intensity of the city, SW is more about the emotional origins of these NY weirdos. Less the dark absurdist thriller that AH is, SW is a suspenseful screwball comedy loaded with optimism and small humanist laughs. SW is the Megaplex PG-13 version of AH.
Now SW walks a thin line between being cutesy/sentimental and tense/spunky without ever being too cloying or pretentious. I thought the story dragged at times, was too loaded with unbelievable fairytale moments and the climax tried too hard to be dramatic and poignant. Maybe its because the story is very predictable to modern eyes. I'm convinced Something Wild inspired the basic love triangle plotline of Edward Scissorhands and its funny how those two films and Back To The Future make a statement about the modern geeky 80s hero fighting for affection from the 1950s juvenile macho bully. There's really no difference between the villains in these movies, but Ray Liotta probably does the best job in Something Wild. Liotta is magnetic and scary here, full of manic energy and subtle menace. Its really his movie, even though Jeff Daniels and Melanie Griffith do charming jobs in the lead.
Jonathan Demme does a great job. He knows where to put the camera, how to direct professionals and amateurs and he fills the frame with lots of details and eye candy. The varying tones and balance of both would serve him in later films. The film feels more grand and expensive than it is, so its no surprise he would go on to a great career. You can feel the inspiration of Scorsese and the Corman class of directors as he takes a more mainstream and populist turn towards Spielberg and Zemeckis. I felt an appreciation for Godard as well, which explains why this film is so popular with the artsy crowd like Bret Easton Ellis and even has its own Criterion.
So this is a real 80s gem and a fantastic watch that demands to be rewatched. I don't think it makes any grand statements but it was ahead of its time and is a fun time capsule and an amazing showcase for some young talent who would become big in the 1990s.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Face/Off 1997
This is a seminal action film even if its not a very good one. It exemplifies the bizarre methods of Hollywood moneymaking/moviemaking in the 1990s - hiring John Woo to direct a Pulp Fiction style action film, casting Nic Cage and John Travolta both in dual roles and a ridiculous light scifi plot twist based on the film's double entendre title - while still retaining some kind of risk-taking approach to mass entertainment. A lot of the movie is cringeworthy, some of it is campy, some of it is brilliant but mostly its just brainless but inoffensive popcorn fare.
Now the story is compelling. Its about a rivalry between a detective and a gangster (very reminiscent of the much-better Michael Mann film Heat) set off by the murder of the cop's young son by the gangster. It escalates quickly to comic book levels (that most superhero films fail to reach) even before the major twist arrives: that they must trade faces surgically and identities metaphysically before they can finally "face off". The script is full of dated jokes and dialogue, the characters aren't very deep and none of the action sequences are believable or even well constructed. But the central gimmick allows for some surprising and original turns as the cop cleans up the life led by his enemy while the villain proves to be a more exciting father and husband than our boyscout protagonist and even hints a babyface turn a few times. The theme is duality and how the line between right and wrong is blurred. There's an interesting and touching scene where the villain mourns his dead brother which would never pop up in the common action shoot 'em up. And many unlawful and sociopathic bit characters are humanized too. There's a decided moral grayness that is naturally born out of film where the villain has to be quite likeable given that he shares half the screen time and is played by both star actors. And the hero is shown to be quite flawed; chiefly as a father and husband, only redeeming himself when he removes his wedding ring from the imposter self. I assume the whole film is designed around a moment where a two-sided mirror separates both men, who wear the other's face. Both characters are staring at themselves yet they are staring at their enemy. Its such a loaded and lyrical image that highlights the poetry of the concept and if John Woo didn't inject this idea, it surely inspired him to make the film.
John Woo does a very uneven job directing Face/Off. Maybe he's better suited to Chinese productions and casts, maybe Hollywood was unfair and abandoned his vision, I don't know. While the Woo touch is there - designer clothing, big staging, emotional relationships, cops and robbers, "bullet time" and the doves - it feels like such a rushjob or that he was in over his head. While the core of the story is pulled off well, the rest of it falls flat. The many "humorous" asides are lost in translation for the American audience. I recognize the fast and overly cutesy farce from Woo's kung fu days. And if there's one thing that John Woo does well, its action scenes. But not in this case. Each action scene is staged too simply, edited poorly and runs way too short. I can only guess the studios didn't have faith in Woo's style of action choreography, but why hire him then? I assume it was to cash-in on his name which was heavily promoted by Quentin Tarantino. There are bits where Woo seems to be reclaiming his style from his Xerox friendly fan Tarantino. But the film is also exploiting Tarantino in casting Travolta. You could easily see Bruce Willis in the Nic Cage role (Willis played a similar character in The Jackyl), but thankfully Woo is more of a Cage fan.
If the elaborate role reversal plot doesn't buy you, then the performances of Cage and Travolta might. The two stars each share the same two roles and have to adopt the other's mannerisms and speech patterns while creating unique characters from the script. I think they do a fair and rewarding job. Both excel as the evil and charismatic Castor Troy while being believable and sympathetic as the heroic Sean Archer. Now this was one of Travolta's last major gigs, but its one of his best. At around age 40, he's very cool and relaxed and having as much fun here as he ever had. Cage only gets a few moments to go crazy, but he further cemented himself as a unique Hollywood leading man and action star, surprisingly cool and multilayered. Its an odd pairing but that works for the story and its cool to see two very different talents on-screen together and carrying the film as co-captains. They're supported by the good, surreal cast of Joan Allen, Margaret Cho, Nick Cassavettes and the lovely Gina Gershon.
So its a bizarro movie that you could never remake successfully and yet it was a major commercial success and its now a cult classic. I recommend it. I had fun with it. Its a 20 year old, 2 hour long action movie about infidelity and schizophrenia. WHAT'S NOT TO LOVE?
Now the story is compelling. Its about a rivalry between a detective and a gangster (very reminiscent of the much-better Michael Mann film Heat) set off by the murder of the cop's young son by the gangster. It escalates quickly to comic book levels (that most superhero films fail to reach) even before the major twist arrives: that they must trade faces surgically and identities metaphysically before they can finally "face off". The script is full of dated jokes and dialogue, the characters aren't very deep and none of the action sequences are believable or even well constructed. But the central gimmick allows for some surprising and original turns as the cop cleans up the life led by his enemy while the villain proves to be a more exciting father and husband than our boyscout protagonist and even hints a babyface turn a few times. The theme is duality and how the line between right and wrong is blurred. There's an interesting and touching scene where the villain mourns his dead brother which would never pop up in the common action shoot 'em up. And many unlawful and sociopathic bit characters are humanized too. There's a decided moral grayness that is naturally born out of film where the villain has to be quite likeable given that he shares half the screen time and is played by both star actors. And the hero is shown to be quite flawed; chiefly as a father and husband, only redeeming himself when he removes his wedding ring from the imposter self. I assume the whole film is designed around a moment where a two-sided mirror separates both men, who wear the other's face. Both characters are staring at themselves yet they are staring at their enemy. Its such a loaded and lyrical image that highlights the poetry of the concept and if John Woo didn't inject this idea, it surely inspired him to make the film.
John Woo does a very uneven job directing Face/Off. Maybe he's better suited to Chinese productions and casts, maybe Hollywood was unfair and abandoned his vision, I don't know. While the Woo touch is there - designer clothing, big staging, emotional relationships, cops and robbers, "bullet time" and the doves - it feels like such a rushjob or that he was in over his head. While the core of the story is pulled off well, the rest of it falls flat. The many "humorous" asides are lost in translation for the American audience. I recognize the fast and overly cutesy farce from Woo's kung fu days. And if there's one thing that John Woo does well, its action scenes. But not in this case. Each action scene is staged too simply, edited poorly and runs way too short. I can only guess the studios didn't have faith in Woo's style of action choreography, but why hire him then? I assume it was to cash-in on his name which was heavily promoted by Quentin Tarantino. There are bits where Woo seems to be reclaiming his style from his Xerox friendly fan Tarantino. But the film is also exploiting Tarantino in casting Travolta. You could easily see Bruce Willis in the Nic Cage role (Willis played a similar character in The Jackyl), but thankfully Woo is more of a Cage fan.
If the elaborate role reversal plot doesn't buy you, then the performances of Cage and Travolta might. The two stars each share the same two roles and have to adopt the other's mannerisms and speech patterns while creating unique characters from the script. I think they do a fair and rewarding job. Both excel as the evil and charismatic Castor Troy while being believable and sympathetic as the heroic Sean Archer. Now this was one of Travolta's last major gigs, but its one of his best. At around age 40, he's very cool and relaxed and having as much fun here as he ever had. Cage only gets a few moments to go crazy, but he further cemented himself as a unique Hollywood leading man and action star, surprisingly cool and multilayered. Its an odd pairing but that works for the story and its cool to see two very different talents on-screen together and carrying the film as co-captains. They're supported by the good, surreal cast of Joan Allen, Margaret Cho, Nick Cassavettes and the lovely Gina Gershon.
So its a bizarro movie that you could never remake successfully and yet it was a major commercial success and its now a cult classic. I recommend it. I had fun with it. Its a 20 year old, 2 hour long action movie about infidelity and schizophrenia. WHAT'S NOT TO LOVE?
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Diamonds of Kilimanjaro 1983
More Jess Franco madness. This is less madness and more maddening. This was co-directed by someone, but 90% of it felt like Franco. There's very little that feels personal, or commercial for that matter. I don't know how anyone thought this would make a return investment. I guess it was an early example of these quick movies sold by an awesome VHS cover and title that overpromised. But it has interesting merits and its not totally unwatchable. This is near the bottom of the barrel for Franco but still has those qualities that make it preferable to a Pixar movie, in my humble opinion.
So the story focuses on a white jungle princess and her hilariously Scottish father who rule over a (voodoo?) tribe of black "savages". Her mother (a 70+ year old woman played by the 40ish Lina Romay) sends a thoroughly unlikable and uncharismatic team of people to find the jungle girl before the mom dies of illness. There's some subplot about diamond treasure that is given maybe 30 seconds of screen time. The film lack the mood or bizarro characterization of the usual Franco piece, but it does have some startling images and lots of hypnotic power. "Diamonds" is full of filler, stock footage, poor editing and lots of unnecessary dialogue, but there's a semi-good story buried in this. If you edited it down to 45 minutes, you would have something. But this was low budget commercial trash and Franco was too old to bother himself dressing it up or making any fun, pretentious experiments with this, which is a shame. Had he handled this in '73 we would've gotten something more memorable. But he squeezed a lot of blood out of this stone. The script, cast, budget, EVERYTHING is pitiful , but Franco can't not inject his genius in-between the seams. Amateur filmmakers should study his staging and use of lighting in films like this, where he had literally nothing else promoting the film.
The film is rescued by a classic Franco ending that is both upsetting and appropriate, as the unlikeable greedy white people who dominate the story are killed, their black savage antagonists are triumphant and the white natives side with their jungle family. This is what takes the film from stupid jungle adventure territory into Franco's antifascist, darkly humanistic world. Its as if he made a film he hated with the bargain that he gets to tack on whatever ending he wanted. Before the last 5 minutes, I thought "Diamonds" was just a lowbrow, stupid, racist movie with zero morality. Then the ending comes and puts everything back into balance and puts Franco's mastery into focus. Shit, I actually want to rewatch it and see what I've missed. On further meditation, the lone white male protagonist who is killed half-way through for his having empathy might be some kind of placeholder for Jesus himself. And I mean the director and the maryr.
So this is only for the hardcore Franco fans or the really masochistic lovers of bad film. There's some treasure waiting to be unearthed here, but finding it isn't easy. Its funny how thematic messages like this are stated in the actual watching of Franco films and not plainly delivered within the text. So, as bad as it is, Diamonds of Kilimanjaro is as Franconian as can be.
So the story focuses on a white jungle princess and her hilariously Scottish father who rule over a (voodoo?) tribe of black "savages". Her mother (a 70+ year old woman played by the 40ish Lina Romay) sends a thoroughly unlikable and uncharismatic team of people to find the jungle girl before the mom dies of illness. There's some subplot about diamond treasure that is given maybe 30 seconds of screen time. The film lack the mood or bizarro characterization of the usual Franco piece, but it does have some startling images and lots of hypnotic power. "Diamonds" is full of filler, stock footage, poor editing and lots of unnecessary dialogue, but there's a semi-good story buried in this. If you edited it down to 45 minutes, you would have something. But this was low budget commercial trash and Franco was too old to bother himself dressing it up or making any fun, pretentious experiments with this, which is a shame. Had he handled this in '73 we would've gotten something more memorable. But he squeezed a lot of blood out of this stone. The script, cast, budget, EVERYTHING is pitiful , but Franco can't not inject his genius in-between the seams. Amateur filmmakers should study his staging and use of lighting in films like this, where he had literally nothing else promoting the film.
The film is rescued by a classic Franco ending that is both upsetting and appropriate, as the unlikeable greedy white people who dominate the story are killed, their black savage antagonists are triumphant and the white natives side with their jungle family. This is what takes the film from stupid jungle adventure territory into Franco's antifascist, darkly humanistic world. Its as if he made a film he hated with the bargain that he gets to tack on whatever ending he wanted. Before the last 5 minutes, I thought "Diamonds" was just a lowbrow, stupid, racist movie with zero morality. Then the ending comes and puts everything back into balance and puts Franco's mastery into focus. Shit, I actually want to rewatch it and see what I've missed. On further meditation, the lone white male protagonist who is killed half-way through for his having empathy might be some kind of placeholder for Jesus himself. And I mean the director and the maryr.
So this is only for the hardcore Franco fans or the really masochistic lovers of bad film. There's some treasure waiting to be unearthed here, but finding it isn't easy. Its funny how thematic messages like this are stated in the actual watching of Franco films and not plainly delivered within the text. So, as bad as it is, Diamonds of Kilimanjaro is as Franconian as can be.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
The Diabolical Dr. Z 1966
I'm having a hard time getting through the later 70s Franco, so I decided to reestablish my faith and revisit the movie that made me his fan, The Diabolical Dr. Z. I'm pleasantly surprised that its better than I remembered and there's a convincing argument that its his finest film in total. My memory of DDZ was a very murky, visual, classy old-school horror film in the Hammer film vein. Now, I sense the wildly disparate influences of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Coffin Joe movies, James Bond movies, Godard and Orson Welles. Franco worked so well under the financed but heavily censored Spanish film industry. That previous life under rule of Generalissimo Franco informs all of his creative work and the uncompromising, unrepressed, anti-collectivist attitude towards his own life. But under these constraints, his genius was more combustible, angry, subtle, very, very professional and not yet bitter, disillusioned or demoralized. Given just a little more leeway, like filmmakers in the States, Jess Franco could've become a massive director in the mainstream realm.
Diabolical Dr Z is that superior kind of horror film that is appealing in broad ways but owns an authentic strangeness and audacity. The plot centers not on Dr. Z but his daughter and how she has inherited his madness and a violent sexual repression from him. Cold, cerebral and beyond sexual relationships, "Irma Zimmerman" does love a male scientist who is in love with a jazz club burlesque dancer, who is in touch with her sexuality and femininity. Irma uses her dad's mad science to turn the stripper into a kind of sexy somnambulist killer to aid her in murdering the enemies of her late father. This is the most plot any Franco film has and, given its comic book logic, all of it makes sense and is played seriously. No other Franco film that I've seen has so much attention to character, plotting, pacing and a satisfying ending, which is still ambiguous in Franco fashion.
Maybe because Franco was still finding his lane, he injects so many different ideas, experiments and references. With a built-in wide audience, he pays more respect to the tastes and expectations of the average viewer. And with so many rules on content, Franco is way more clever and understated in his handling of violence, sex, social commentary and satire.
Besides being endlessly watchable, its important in understanding the context of later Franco films. The Other Side of The Mirror would resurrect the themes of frigid females and their oppressive fathers. The manipulation games, power struggles and use of guilt between women in the feminist movement would be visited often in his lesbian/vampire/women in prison films. And Dr. Z may represent Franco's ego best as an unpopular mad genius who is attacked and exiled by his contemporaries to live a life of solitary, vengeful experimentation of the minds, hearts and sex organs of those who wrongfully judged him.
* Having new seen Franco's earlier The Awful Dr. Orloff, I can re-contextualize Diabolical Dr. Z as essentially a gender-swapping remake. DDZ is still a much better film but not the the originator of its plot. (But TADO wouldn't exist without Eyes Without A Face sooo...) Franco was one of the earliest post-modernists in film, combining plot elements into Frankenstein creatures. DDZ is a hybrid of Orloff and his already established franchise of feminist films.
Diabolical Dr Z is that superior kind of horror film that is appealing in broad ways but owns an authentic strangeness and audacity. The plot centers not on Dr. Z but his daughter and how she has inherited his madness and a violent sexual repression from him. Cold, cerebral and beyond sexual relationships, "Irma Zimmerman" does love a male scientist who is in love with a jazz club burlesque dancer, who is in touch with her sexuality and femininity. Irma uses her dad's mad science to turn the stripper into a kind of sexy somnambulist killer to aid her in murdering the enemies of her late father. This is the most plot any Franco film has and, given its comic book logic, all of it makes sense and is played seriously. No other Franco film that I've seen has so much attention to character, plotting, pacing and a satisfying ending, which is still ambiguous in Franco fashion.
Maybe because Franco was still finding his lane, he injects so many different ideas, experiments and references. With a built-in wide audience, he pays more respect to the tastes and expectations of the average viewer. And with so many rules on content, Franco is way more clever and understated in his handling of violence, sex, social commentary and satire.
Besides being endlessly watchable, its important in understanding the context of later Franco films. The Other Side of The Mirror would resurrect the themes of frigid females and their oppressive fathers. The manipulation games, power struggles and use of guilt between women in the feminist movement would be visited often in his lesbian/vampire/women in prison films. And Dr. Z may represent Franco's ego best as an unpopular mad genius who is attacked and exiled by his contemporaries to live a life of solitary, vengeful experimentation of the minds, hearts and sex organs of those who wrongfully judged him.
* Having new seen Franco's earlier The Awful Dr. Orloff, I can re-contextualize Diabolical Dr. Z as essentially a gender-swapping remake. DDZ is still a much better film but not the the originator of its plot. (But TADO wouldn't exist without Eyes Without A Face sooo...) Franco was one of the earliest post-modernists in film, combining plot elements into Frankenstein creatures. DDZ is a hybrid of Orloff and his already established franchise of feminist films.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Bloody Moon 1980
The 1980s was a very complicated decade for Jess Franco. He was at his creative peak and commercial low. Franco had finally learned how to produce tight and fast commercial pictures as well as anyone, but he was sort of ghettoized to the outskirts of international exploitation and sleaze as the genres had past their prime. The decade saw Roger Corman, Dick Randall and other B-movie producers losing ground in the international and US markets as Cannon Pictures swiftly dominated and then self-destructed as the first global alternative to Hollywood studios. Only a few entities like Troma and Full Moon survived the 1980s (and they're still going!), but you could add Franco to the list of great filmmakers like Argento, Fulci and Rollin who were edged out of the semi-semi-mainstream by big business and shrinking budgets.
Bloody Moon is then easily one of the last great works for Jess as it became a commercial success worldwide as a horror VHS staple and has actually attained a solid fanbase as one of the more interesting and effective slasher movies from the genre's golden age. Its sleazy, stupid, poorly acted, gratuitous and a little dry on action and character. So its right at home with classics like Pieces, Prom Night and The Prowler because the desired audience experience is simply to give them chills and cheap thrills, which Bloody Moon more than excels at.
Its a grim and anxious adventure set at a Spanish vacation spot where American girls are studying abroad (I don't understand why their school is a private resort, but it is). Unfortunately the girls don't realize there's a very disturbing subplot playing out involving an incestuous, scarfaced sociopath and his deeply fucked up family. Its a good concept even if its predictable and all too familiar to slasher fans. The genre has played with incest too many times (Psycho, Halloween, Bay of Blood, Maniac, Don't Go In The House), but this does add a few twists as Franco had worn out the subject himself. The main twist, again telegraphed way too soon, is still interesting and probably a Franco touch as it fits with his tradition of good-looking monsters and monstrous-looking victims. Overall, the script is pretty good by slasher standards and much better than Franco's usual plots. Its structured well, characters are plentiful and realistic, the dialogue is firm and there's enough mayhem to keep you engaged since the languid pacing can't be helped.
Franco's direction might turn off casual horror fans, but Bloody Moon will impress his devotees. Its one of his most gorgeous and, as a full-on horror film, you get lots of moody night shots and shadow-drenched visuals. It works well contrasted with the exotic and bright Spanish locales. Franco has a good budget here so the cast is attractive and talented enough, the camerawork is lively and the production is textured and even a bit stylish. Its a greasy, cheap production but Franco can hide and accentuate it into something resembling his best work. And while Jess wasn't a fan of Bloody Moon's soundtrack, I think it one of the most appropriate, trading jazz and ambient noise for synth and Goblin-style prog-rock. Its funny that mainstream filmgoers will appreciate the relative quickness of this Franco feature while he and his more obsessive fans may complain that its not slow and artificial enough. Its not his most oneiric film, but there is a thick dreamy quality that brings a nightmare tone to even the most silly moments.
I enjoyed Bloody Moon more than the fan-favorite Venus In Furs and I think its better than most 80s slashers. It has this strong film noir visual palette and the characters have chemistry. You can enjoy this as a piece of schlock or as a very artistic commercial film. It works better than Venus because Franco is aged and self-aware enough to inject much needed humor (that doesn't really work btw) and concedes to deliver the gore and flesh that audiences secretly don't mind mixed with their thrillers. At this point in his career, when Franco had to work with horror or dark subjects, he threw out his pretentious leanings and just dialed up the fun to 11 with comic book villains, nymphomaniac bimbos and self-consciously 1-dimensional throwaway characters and scenes. Its campy more than kitsch and a kind of post-modern slasher almost two DECADES before Wes Craven made Scream. Franco was a grumpy veteran at this point taking a cynical piss on this genre while making sure fans still got their money's worth. That makes Bloody Moon unique, smart and important to the horror genre.
And this leads me to my main takeaway: Jess Franco was one of the earliest anti-sentimentalists in cinema. Most of his films feature totally plastic characters and intentionally flat performances. I always assumed this was just the training of a visual stylist who cared nothing about characterization or acting. But I've learned that Franco adored some actors and nurtured some beautiful performances out of them. In his interviews I realized Jesus Franco was a very dismissive, cynical but still passionate person with a bruised ego. He resented people who deemed him inferior and loved to chop them down to size intellectually. He had very little time for society, its biases and taboos. The lack of emotion, sentiment and humanization is so stark but not something you can easily define when you first discover his films. But you feel the contrast in his early work compared to the melodrama that was prevalent in ALL pre-70s cinema. This sociopathic tone hurt some of his commercial work (like the Fu Manchu films, which needed sympathetic protagonists), but his shallow view of humanity plays beautifully in stories featuring whores, vampires, psychos, abusers, damaged protagonists and outsider weirdos. Blood Moon has its villains being about as likable and broad as the victims. Franco liked to humanize so-called evil and dehumanize the so-called good. Its a very disturbing element to his work but it works because his best films were meant to be disturbing. The two crown jewels of his 80s work, Bloody Moon and Faceless, are perfect examples of Franco's cynical view of humanity, both ending on very sour notes. I will be writing about this more in future reviews now that it is so obviously a part of Franco's power and indistinguishable from his cinematic voice.
Bloody Moon is then easily one of the last great works for Jess as it became a commercial success worldwide as a horror VHS staple and has actually attained a solid fanbase as one of the more interesting and effective slasher movies from the genre's golden age. Its sleazy, stupid, poorly acted, gratuitous and a little dry on action and character. So its right at home with classics like Pieces, Prom Night and The Prowler because the desired audience experience is simply to give them chills and cheap thrills, which Bloody Moon more than excels at.
Its a grim and anxious adventure set at a Spanish vacation spot where American girls are studying abroad (I don't understand why their school is a private resort, but it is). Unfortunately the girls don't realize there's a very disturbing subplot playing out involving an incestuous, scarfaced sociopath and his deeply fucked up family. Its a good concept even if its predictable and all too familiar to slasher fans. The genre has played with incest too many times (Psycho, Halloween, Bay of Blood, Maniac, Don't Go In The House), but this does add a few twists as Franco had worn out the subject himself. The main twist, again telegraphed way too soon, is still interesting and probably a Franco touch as it fits with his tradition of good-looking monsters and monstrous-looking victims. Overall, the script is pretty good by slasher standards and much better than Franco's usual plots. Its structured well, characters are plentiful and realistic, the dialogue is firm and there's enough mayhem to keep you engaged since the languid pacing can't be helped.
Franco's direction might turn off casual horror fans, but Bloody Moon will impress his devotees. Its one of his most gorgeous and, as a full-on horror film, you get lots of moody night shots and shadow-drenched visuals. It works well contrasted with the exotic and bright Spanish locales. Franco has a good budget here so the cast is attractive and talented enough, the camerawork is lively and the production is textured and even a bit stylish. Its a greasy, cheap production but Franco can hide and accentuate it into something resembling his best work. And while Jess wasn't a fan of Bloody Moon's soundtrack, I think it one of the most appropriate, trading jazz and ambient noise for synth and Goblin-style prog-rock. Its funny that mainstream filmgoers will appreciate the relative quickness of this Franco feature while he and his more obsessive fans may complain that its not slow and artificial enough. Its not his most oneiric film, but there is a thick dreamy quality that brings a nightmare tone to even the most silly moments.
I enjoyed Bloody Moon more than the fan-favorite Venus In Furs and I think its better than most 80s slashers. It has this strong film noir visual palette and the characters have chemistry. You can enjoy this as a piece of schlock or as a very artistic commercial film. It works better than Venus because Franco is aged and self-aware enough to inject much needed humor (that doesn't really work btw) and concedes to deliver the gore and flesh that audiences secretly don't mind mixed with their thrillers. At this point in his career, when Franco had to work with horror or dark subjects, he threw out his pretentious leanings and just dialed up the fun to 11 with comic book villains, nymphomaniac bimbos and self-consciously 1-dimensional throwaway characters and scenes. Its campy more than kitsch and a kind of post-modern slasher almost two DECADES before Wes Craven made Scream. Franco was a grumpy veteran at this point taking a cynical piss on this genre while making sure fans still got their money's worth. That makes Bloody Moon unique, smart and important to the horror genre.
And this leads me to my main takeaway: Jess Franco was one of the earliest anti-sentimentalists in cinema. Most of his films feature totally plastic characters and intentionally flat performances. I always assumed this was just the training of a visual stylist who cared nothing about characterization or acting. But I've learned that Franco adored some actors and nurtured some beautiful performances out of them. In his interviews I realized Jesus Franco was a very dismissive, cynical but still passionate person with a bruised ego. He resented people who deemed him inferior and loved to chop them down to size intellectually. He had very little time for society, its biases and taboos. The lack of emotion, sentiment and humanization is so stark but not something you can easily define when you first discover his films. But you feel the contrast in his early work compared to the melodrama that was prevalent in ALL pre-70s cinema. This sociopathic tone hurt some of his commercial work (like the Fu Manchu films, which needed sympathetic protagonists), but his shallow view of humanity plays beautifully in stories featuring whores, vampires, psychos, abusers, damaged protagonists and outsider weirdos. Blood Moon has its villains being about as likable and broad as the victims. Franco liked to humanize so-called evil and dehumanize the so-called good. Its a very disturbing element to his work but it works because his best films were meant to be disturbing. The two crown jewels of his 80s work, Bloody Moon and Faceless, are perfect examples of Franco's cynical view of humanity, both ending on very sour notes. I will be writing about this more in future reviews now that it is so obviously a part of Franco's power and indistinguishable from his cinematic voice.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Venus in Furs 1969
A less than spectacular, but far from forgettable erotic horror film with lots of 60s camp, beautiful female flesh and Klaus Kinski.
This started very strong with excellent cinematography and action that hooks you in (don't all Franco films?) and while the wheels never fall off, it turns into more half-baked Franco funny business. Lots of pointlessly long takes, dry characterization, illogical and dimwitted plot construction and an ending that made no sense (in a charming way). I could say the same for the exhilarating and fun Faceless, but the better Franco films play against the shabbiness of the production by experimenting or injecting Franco's psyched out humor. "Venus" is very competently made and even lavish at times, but the whole thing is retarded from rising above mediocrity by its boring and predictable script. Actually, it has everything else going for it; from the cast to the soundtrack to the costumes to the locations to Jess Franco's directing. But let me vent on the frustrating script. This is the story of a man who watches a beautiful woman's murder by some evil bourgeoisie types only to find her returning for revenge and sex, sometimes at once. Its a fantastic setup even if it was common during the years of Barbara Steele curios and Corman's Poe movies. But any of those films would have believable storytelling and characters you invest in. Franco handled this script, so the fault lies in his lap.
There's no question Franco is an underrated and important director and a true auteur, but he was not a good screenwriter. He wrote because he needed work, not because he had much to say. But he could visualize his thin plots beautifully. All of the characters are insanely stupid and the twist ending, even though it makes zero sense and still able to illicit a "WTF!?", is still telegraphed too much. "Venus" is the type of cliche B-movie that you watch just to see will they actually commit to the obvious and played climax or surprise you with something better. While half of the movie is just Eurotrash that doesn't help Jess' reputation, the other half is quite effective. Its not as boring or dumb as other Franco films and it has Franco engaging in his excesses: jazz, young women, love-ins, melodramatic lovers, gorgeous exterior shots and extreme close ups of fantastically flawed faces. You just wish Franco found more producers who reigned him in from the overly long takes and robotic performances and commissioned better rewrites and editing. Perhaps he knew the story was weak so he glossed it with so much dream logic that he could write it off as surrealism. And it does work as a bizarre sensual dream. But its out of necessity and not out of any artistic merit. So this film is a great example of Franco as a craftsman.
I sound like I hated it, but I just saw more potential in this film as its a favorite for Francophiles. Its a cousin to movies like Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls and The Monkees' vehicle Head, but lacking the trippiness and genuine passion that those films have and Franco would unleash gloriously in the 1970s. Imagine how great this movie would've been with many, many minor tweaks. I guess "Venus" is best viewed as a transitional film or a campy crossover work, but nothing too major in his arsenal.
* My opinion has softened since I reviewed this. It has stuck with me: the soundtrack, the strong casting and the mix of horror with sunny exotic locales and jazzy interiors. I've come to expect that Franco's characters don't behave realistically and the plots are cliche. And this films allows the viewer to chalk it up to a literal dream logic and not shallow storytelling.
While "Venus" is weaker in these departments than other Franco films, it is special. It remains a unique experience but sets up the exotic jazzy horror of Vampyros Lesbos, Virgin Among the Living Dead, Other Side of the Mirror and the like. It could've benefited from some sex and explicit violence, but it was 1969. I'm really smitten with it because Maria Rohm is such a perfect Franco female and makes it all work.
This started very strong with excellent cinematography and action that hooks you in (don't all Franco films?) and while the wheels never fall off, it turns into more half-baked Franco funny business. Lots of pointlessly long takes, dry characterization, illogical and dimwitted plot construction and an ending that made no sense (in a charming way). I could say the same for the exhilarating and fun Faceless, but the better Franco films play against the shabbiness of the production by experimenting or injecting Franco's psyched out humor. "Venus" is very competently made and even lavish at times, but the whole thing is retarded from rising above mediocrity by its boring and predictable script. Actually, it has everything else going for it; from the cast to the soundtrack to the costumes to the locations to Jess Franco's directing. But let me vent on the frustrating script. This is the story of a man who watches a beautiful woman's murder by some evil bourgeoisie types only to find her returning for revenge and sex, sometimes at once. Its a fantastic setup even if it was common during the years of Barbara Steele curios and Corman's Poe movies. But any of those films would have believable storytelling and characters you invest in. Franco handled this script, so the fault lies in his lap.
There's no question Franco is an underrated and important director and a true auteur, but he was not a good screenwriter. He wrote because he needed work, not because he had much to say. But he could visualize his thin plots beautifully. All of the characters are insanely stupid and the twist ending, even though it makes zero sense and still able to illicit a "WTF!?", is still telegraphed too much. "Venus" is the type of cliche B-movie that you watch just to see will they actually commit to the obvious and played climax or surprise you with something better. While half of the movie is just Eurotrash that doesn't help Jess' reputation, the other half is quite effective. Its not as boring or dumb as other Franco films and it has Franco engaging in his excesses: jazz, young women, love-ins, melodramatic lovers, gorgeous exterior shots and extreme close ups of fantastically flawed faces. You just wish Franco found more producers who reigned him in from the overly long takes and robotic performances and commissioned better rewrites and editing. Perhaps he knew the story was weak so he glossed it with so much dream logic that he could write it off as surrealism. And it does work as a bizarre sensual dream. But its out of necessity and not out of any artistic merit. So this film is a great example of Franco as a craftsman.
I sound like I hated it, but I just saw more potential in this film as its a favorite for Francophiles. Its a cousin to movies like Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls and The Monkees' vehicle Head, but lacking the trippiness and genuine passion that those films have and Franco would unleash gloriously in the 1970s. Imagine how great this movie would've been with many, many minor tweaks. I guess "Venus" is best viewed as a transitional film or a campy crossover work, but nothing too major in his arsenal.* My opinion has softened since I reviewed this. It has stuck with me: the soundtrack, the strong casting and the mix of horror with sunny exotic locales and jazzy interiors. I've come to expect that Franco's characters don't behave realistically and the plots are cliche. And this films allows the viewer to chalk it up to a literal dream logic and not shallow storytelling.
While "Venus" is weaker in these departments than other Franco films, it is special. It remains a unique experience but sets up the exotic jazzy horror of Vampyros Lesbos, Virgin Among the Living Dead, Other Side of the Mirror and the like. It could've benefited from some sex and explicit violence, but it was 1969. I'm really smitten with it because Maria Rohm is such a perfect Franco female and makes it all work.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
The Other Side Of The Mirror 1973
My Jesus Franco journey continues with a highly respected but seldom seen entry in his oeuvre.
"Ultimately The Other Side of the Mirror stands out as one of Jess Franco’s more complex films with is layered subtext and lyrical imagery." - 10kbullets.com
This film is very atypical of his indulgent works in that its a moody psychological study of a sexually tormented protagonist. Franco originally followed depraved, misogynistic mad scientists and historical sadists before switching to female whores and lusting she-vamps. TOSOM is a happy medium of both perspectives, focused on the perverse relationship between a domineering father (played by "Dr. Orloff" himself Howard Vernon) and his frustrated jazz singer daughter (played by Emma Cohen).
What this film has going for it, beyond the expected visual flair that comes with Franco's direction, is a very strong script. Its structure, pacing, dialogue and themes are among the most mature that Franco ever worked with. And Franco obviously had plenty of time to prepare and work out the mechanics of how to present this story properly. There are some indulgent and frankly boring jazz scenes that detract from the film (and they may only exist in the sex-less international cut), but Franco is very respectful and focused on making this a serious drama with heavily poetic and disturbing moments.
Emma Cohen is really wonderful as the lead despite being the anti-Franco actress: she's not especially shapely, she's not exotic and she is a very capable actress. Her committed performance anchors the film and Franco obviously soaks up everything she gives the camera. For once, he is more interested in slight dramatic mannerisms over jiggling flesh and statuesque poses. I believe this story and character effected Franco deeply and her inner demons reflect his own. The themes of loss, incestuous feelings, outsiderism, romantic impotence and sexual mania are concentrated here but exist in all of Franco's personal work. Could "Mirror" be his most personal from his most productive period?
I would not rank this as Franco's best. Its not the most entertaining or interesting or even artistic. But it has impressed the arthouse audience more than his other films. It resembles a serious psychological thriller enough and its competently made in a familiar mode for the time, evoking Godard and Dennis Hopper. You can recommend this one to the people who think Franco couldn't direct or only cared about lesbians and S&M. TOSOTM is a big jewel in his crown and I bet Franco was proud of this for the rest of his life.
"Ultimately The Other Side of the Mirror stands out as one of Jess Franco’s more complex films with is layered subtext and lyrical imagery." - 10kbullets.com
This film is very atypical of his indulgent works in that its a moody psychological study of a sexually tormented protagonist. Franco originally followed depraved, misogynistic mad scientists and historical sadists before switching to female whores and lusting she-vamps. TOSOM is a happy medium of both perspectives, focused on the perverse relationship between a domineering father (played by "Dr. Orloff" himself Howard Vernon) and his frustrated jazz singer daughter (played by Emma Cohen).
What this film has going for it, beyond the expected visual flair that comes with Franco's direction, is a very strong script. Its structure, pacing, dialogue and themes are among the most mature that Franco ever worked with. And Franco obviously had plenty of time to prepare and work out the mechanics of how to present this story properly. There are some indulgent and frankly boring jazz scenes that detract from the film (and they may only exist in the sex-less international cut), but Franco is very respectful and focused on making this a serious drama with heavily poetic and disturbing moments.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Nocturnal Animals 2016
I was infuriated by this movie. Not because of its quiet, anticlimactic ending nor the charges of misogyny or the pointless and distracting visual cues or the horribly amateur attempts at Southern accents or the 10th consistent performance by Amy Adams as a meek, tense, wide-eyed All-American girl gone awry. Its that all of that could've been forgiven if the movie had a sense of play or self-awareness. This was such a pretentious "Hollywood makes an art film" exercise. We're supposed to feel so much but neither the director or cast seems to give a shit about anything except "how cool this is going to look?" and "how serious are they going to take me?" I should've expected that given thats the M.O. for both Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal's careers, but I thought I might get a mature and modest drama in a 1970s vein and I guess I did, but it was so loaded with bad Millennial gimmicks and emo sentimentalism and an overall childishness. I really want to call this the worst movie of 2016 because its such a damning example of the excesses of mainstream entertainers but moreso because its a titanic waste of potential. I believe this same story and production concept could have delivered the most important and well-balanced film of 2016. Who would object to a glossy 21st century Andrei Tartokovsky flick? But it would take so much more talent than whats available right now in movies. Perhaps Nocturnal Animals will become a big curiosity or influence a generation to examine its influences, but as a singular work its just dreadful.
"Faceless" 1988, directed by Jesus Franco
One of my 2017 resolutions is watching every Jess Franco film made available in my country. This is an undertaking I've wanted to take since discovering his work in high school. The gloomy box art, the grainy sensual photography, the alien styles of acting and the overall "fuck the system" vibe of this little Spanish genius formed a package that attracted me like a magnet. But I put off the job when I realized how rare his films were (and still are) and that he made something like 120+ films. I think the guy made 10 films in one year and every film was a modest commercial success. Between illegal web rips, bootleg Euro DVDs and some recent home releases, I count about 50 or 60 movies I can watch this year from the king of Euro-schlock. But diving into such a vast ocean is still daunting.
To start the year off right, I finally watched "Faceless", which is a favorite of both lovers and haters of the Franco universe. I expected a very sexy, silky arthouse film miming a Hollywood thriller a'la "Dressed To Kill". If so many people like it, it must be Franco selling out and directing "seriously", I thought. I was wrong! This film has so much of what I and Franco fanatics champion in his work. Its a totally commercial, exploitative and unpretentious bit of horror fanservice, no doubt. He's hitting a quota of hot bodies and cold corpses. But no director, not Argento or Carpenter or Fulci or Romero, could have gotten so much mileage out of a concept so small. He fills in so much between the lines. Thats why I regard him so highly, if not higher, than the genre directors of the period.
I believe that the script is the most important part of any movie. How tight or loose it is determines how much creativity and personal vision the director can implement. And while film has the unique power to transplant one perspective to another, to create a shared dreamstate, all movies are still basic storytelling devices. A film with spectacular cinematography and powerful acting and technically-sound directing will still suck if the story isn't anything memorable or effecting. This plot is intoxicating, unsettling, ludicrous and still a beautiful dream realized.
Faceless is a very classic horror story full of tropes familiar to Franco fans and your typical 80s horror buffs. Inspired by "Eyes Without A Face", the story revolves around a diabolical surgeon, his wicked nurse, a mute rapist Igor type henchman and a Nazi who can transplant faces all working together to maim and slaughter pretty women of all ages with the "sentimental" mission of replacing the scarred face of said evil surgeon's demented sister. The storytelling is brutal and very forward. There's little subtlety to the clever script or any attempts to humanize or moralize anyone. The pitch black slapstick and ironic comedy of manners are obvious, but still overlooked by anyone too nauseated or confused by the idiosyncratic Franco lens. Its a cynical take on the slasher genre and 80s Reagan identity politics. The victims are vapid vessels who only exist to be ogled, inside and outside of the film. Brilliantly, "Faceless" mutilates the heart of nihilism, materialism and the crass commercialization of sex, things that Jess has been accused of promoting. These things fire up Jess to pull some stellar performances and cinematography from the affair and perhaps atone for the sleazier works he performed when he was more desperate.
Some have said that this movie is merely Franco slumming and that his direction is serviceable but too tamed. I argue that he's giving an uncharacteristically restrained masterclass on how to direct a B-movie. Franco pioneered this style of Gothic sex satire in the 1960s, got lost in a treasure trove of erotic psycho-thrillers during the 1970s and spent much of the 80s slumming in forgettable cash-in's (granted, with many glaring exceptions). Faceless was Franco's return to form as he was allowed stars, a budget and a competent story to remind himself how much of a visionary stylist he was from the beginning. The man's style wasn't just out of focus titty shots and wooden Frankenstein actors. Some forget Orson Welles chose him as his assistant based on his skills and on his own he would help establish or inspire the giallo, the erotic vampire movie and the arthouse thriller. With Faceless, that wealth of experience is in full display as he pulls from a treasure trove of exploitation styles to paint with. Jess Franco stages every scene fabulously and inserting at least one memorable touch of strangeness to every single scene. There's no question that this movie is directed by a man from cut his teeth in softcore, suspenseful 60s B-features, but that works for Faceless and not against it. And this created aesthetic of 60s meets 80s is just as appropriate here as it is in flicks like They Live or Back To The Future. We're just in the deep end of the splatter genre.
Much of the credit goes to writer/producer Rene Chateau for hiring and trusting Franco to do what he does best and arranging a very luxurious but unpretentious production. He has an awesome sense for that underlying evil and horror in the shadows of old Europe. The film is haunted by the past, obsessed with the same historical sins that motivated Franco's classic work and contrasts that with the vapid, then-futuristic 80s glamour. And there is a strong parallel to the decadent "Me Me 80s" and the days of Marquis de Sade and The Spanish Inquisition. Chateau assembles an awesome cast of unsung legends like Brigitte Lahaie (who stars in my favorite Jean Rollin movie "Night Of The Hunted"), scream queen/Bond girl Caroline Munro, the beautifully cold Anton Diffring ("Farenheit 451") and the insidious leading man Helmut Berger, all seeming anachronistic to their time and better suited to a Grand Guignol. The best symbol for the movie is a cameo made by Telly Savalas in his displaced but ever resonating glory, his final role. Fitting that he delivers the final line in the very controversial ending to a very bold movie that closed off the most professional period of Jess Franco's career.
Its not as whacked out, deliciously indulgent or moody as Franco's other triumphs and it might turn off modern horror fans with its mature flair, sly pace and understated storytelling, but Faceless is the most balanced and well-aged movie in a very diverse and entertaining canon. But then again I've only seen the tip of the iceberg that is Jess Franco.
https://soundcloud.com/andrew-14-1/01-just-imagination?in=andrew-14-1/sets/faceless
* Having finally watched its prototype The Awful Dr. Orloff, I now know Faceless was the final of many remakes Franco did of his most famous film. You must credit Franco for always putting an extremely new twist on the story each time, even if it didn't always land. (Damn you, Revenge of the House of Usher!) So even more praise must be heaped on Rene Chateua for providing Franco his most lavish and commercial go at his classic creation but also re-writing it to avoid Franco's many weaknesses as a screenwriter. Truth be told, its fairly amateurish in parts and nowhere as great as The Diabolical Dr. Z, but Faceless is still the best popcorn entertainment Franco ever released.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)