Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Dr Lamb 1992
Nowhere in this notorious Hong Kong film is the killer called Dr Lamb. He's not even a doctor. And this isn't truly a horror film. Its in the serial killer genre and deliver the exploitation goods like campy stereotype characters, lurid gore FX, inappropriate sexual titillation & wild expressionistic style. But its really a humanistic character piece that exposes the dregs of Hong Kong's impoverished families and the psyche of the young men in them (the target audience I suspect). The filmmakers condemn but sympathize with him fully and the bureaucratic police force are played as bumbling cowards & equally cruel weirdos with no moral code except the honorable chief. This is a common portrayal of roles in HK cinema in the late 80s/early 90s. Its sympathetic of the people trapped in the hell of Communist China and somewhat disgusted with the Westernized freedom given to HK's Chinese and paints a bond or mirror image between disparate participants but it must side with the law, painfully sometimes.
I have been absent from this blog but I've watched tons of movies. Mostly Hong Kong cinema, Charles Band cheapies & cult films that I finally found access to. I post reviews at letterboxd thinking the reviews will live on & find a bigger audience and I think the platform is awesome for reviewing movies but the membership sucks. Its almost only Millennial hipsters virtue signaling through poorly written "humor" reviews. Its a queasy mix of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and it seems funded by the major conglomerates because they only push those corporate "indie" films with a phony "liberal" message & veteran bland Hollywood bit players. Nothing international, nothing DIY, nothing by filmmakers outside of LA, nothing made for less than a million.
But they all repeat the same dead-eyes moral of "Made by compassionate capitalists who love our diverse workers and they think should be paid well, but not as much as us... and stay in your tiny mafia-run unions"
But they all repeat the same dead-eyes moral of "Made by compassionate capitalists who love our diverse workers and they think should be paid well, but not as much as us... and stay in your tiny mafia-run unions"
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys 2004
So it seems the best Puppet Master films of this century haven't had anything to do with Charles Band or Full Moon. Back in '04, Band loaned out the PM franchise to the SyFy Channel to produce a TV movie that I watched then, forgot and rewatched to find its among the better films starring these killer puppets. Band's films are so minimalist (cheap) that they sacrifice watch-ability and marketability for basic producibility and even profitability.
PMVDT spends the extra chump change to cast a few C-level marquee names, build at least one impressive set and actually give the star puppets some on-screen energy and motivation. More so, the script has a potent plot about evil corporate occultism, child media manipulation & the sacrifice of innocence for the bloodthirsty greed of the elite. These are natural extensions of the themes found in the classic PM films but Band has always ignored story, integrity or art to self-promote himself and his brand.
PMVDT spends the extra chump change to cast a few C-level marquee names, build at least one impressive set and actually give the star puppets some on-screen energy and motivation. More so, the script has a potent plot about evil corporate occultism, child media manipulation & the sacrifice of innocence for the bloodthirsty greed of the elite. These are natural extensions of the themes found in the classic PM films but Band has always ignored story, integrity or art to self-promote himself and his brand.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Puppet Master: The Littlest Reich
I am blown away by how excellent this first movie-watching experience was. Finally we get a reboot that delivers by creating a new continuity without plagiarizing or disrupting the source material. And unlike the well-meaning but unoriginal and lazy reboots coming out of Hollywood, "The Littlest Reich" isn't stifled by political correctness and trying to please everyone. Yet it doesn't sacrifice intelligent morals for its shock value.
Its a simple yet clever premise based on the essential ingredients of a classic modern tale. Essentially its a dark spoof of the original film with the same motives but its own voice, style, universe, politics and point of view. Most importantly it only strengthens the subtext of the original story and showers it in obvious fandom.
Where I think the screenwriter struck genius is making this a film for fans of the original first and foremost but still accessible to wider tastes, not the opposite. Too many reboots and sequels throw out the appeal of the old for eager accessibility by not studying the story mechanics that do or do not still work. This fella knows you have to have Nazis, puppets, slasher victims and 80s fanboy chic, but he finds new uses for all of these things. He fashions something personal from the first film and transplants it to a modern platform. The Puppet Master mythos is reinvigorated but NOT re-purposed.
TLR echos the many obsessions, themes, tropes, aesthetics & appeal of the entire PM catalog, so it fits in like a jewel among its dated and meager family to uplift them to younger, hipper and maybe less educated critics who wouldn't expect so much value from a reboot of an 80s horror cheapie about killer dolls. This is why its not just great cinema, its a great meta meditation and pop cultural commentary on cinema itself. And I'm grateful that a modest indie production could still accomplish this in 2018.
Its a simple yet clever premise based on the essential ingredients of a classic modern tale. Essentially its a dark spoof of the original film with the same motives but its own voice, style, universe, politics and point of view. Most importantly it only strengthens the subtext of the original story and showers it in obvious fandom.
Where I think the screenwriter struck genius is making this a film for fans of the original first and foremost but still accessible to wider tastes, not the opposite. Too many reboots and sequels throw out the appeal of the old for eager accessibility by not studying the story mechanics that do or do not still work. This fella knows you have to have Nazis, puppets, slasher victims and 80s fanboy chic, but he finds new uses for all of these things. He fashions something personal from the first film and transplants it to a modern platform. The Puppet Master mythos is reinvigorated but NOT re-purposed.
TLR echos the many obsessions, themes, tropes, aesthetics & appeal of the entire PM catalog, so it fits in like a jewel among its dated and meager family to uplift them to younger, hipper and maybe less educated critics who wouldn't expect so much value from a reboot of an 80s horror cheapie about killer dolls. This is why its not just great cinema, its a great meta meditation and pop cultural commentary on cinema itself. And I'm grateful that a modest indie production could still accomplish this in 2018.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Godzilla 1998
Few films have given me the intense sadness that this film gives. As I grew bored watching it, I researched the troubled production and failed release. Its the perfect example of how not to make a film. But almost all tentpole Hollywood spectacles are reminiscent of this film. This bad movie might be superior to the 2014 reboot simply because its not as boring.
Thats not to say its not bland and boring in its own right. We have a bloated, past his prime Matthew Broderick surrounded by more C-list actors re-enacting scenes from Jaws, Independence Day and Jurassic Park. Its done in a heavy camp tone courtesy of openly gay German director Roland Emmerich, who sneaks in a lot of subversive images and ideas such as Godzilla being a pregnant male victim this time around and the many baby Godzilla's taking the place of black men in a large basketball stadium. Gay Nazi humor? I dunno. The film is a sick joke on immigration and a huge critique of American nationalism with a very communist slant.
You can argue "Zilla"is some kind of Luciferian metaphor as its a hermaphroditic animal god bent on depopulation. Emmerich's films are obsessed with normalizing depopulation: Independence Day, 2012, Day After Tomorrow. This film is maybe one of the earliest examples of an openly pro-NWO Hollywood blockbuster. Its offensive propaganda that will be a curio someday soon.
The film starts with a lot of good moments. The film looks good and Emmerich actually tells the story visually with a few memorable setpieces and action scenarios. Some moments are extremely disturbing in psycho-sexual ways. But we don't care about any of the annoying cartooned humans, the broad humor is very flat and Godzilla himself seems like an afterthought.
I recommend it as evidence of Hollywood's sick leftist capitalist agenda, depressed Y2K aestheticism and a sometimes amusing slice of poorly rendered schlock.
Thats not to say its not bland and boring in its own right. We have a bloated, past his prime Matthew Broderick surrounded by more C-list actors re-enacting scenes from Jaws, Independence Day and Jurassic Park. Its done in a heavy camp tone courtesy of openly gay German director Roland Emmerich, who sneaks in a lot of subversive images and ideas such as Godzilla being a pregnant male victim this time around and the many baby Godzilla's taking the place of black men in a large basketball stadium. Gay Nazi humor? I dunno. The film is a sick joke on immigration and a huge critique of American nationalism with a very communist slant.
You can argue "Zilla"is some kind of Luciferian metaphor as its a hermaphroditic animal god bent on depopulation. Emmerich's films are obsessed with normalizing depopulation: Independence Day, 2012, Day After Tomorrow. This film is maybe one of the earliest examples of an openly pro-NWO Hollywood blockbuster. Its offensive propaganda that will be a curio someday soon.
The film starts with a lot of good moments. The film looks good and Emmerich actually tells the story visually with a few memorable setpieces and action scenarios. Some moments are extremely disturbing in psycho-sexual ways. But we don't care about any of the annoying cartooned humans, the broad humor is very flat and Godzilla himself seems like an afterthought.
I recommend it as evidence of Hollywood's sick leftist capitalist agenda, depressed Y2K aestheticism and a sometimes amusing slice of poorly rendered schlock.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Jerry Lewis
Rewatching old Jerry Lewis films after recently rereading his book The Total Filmmaker.
The films have aged well, but more so the films he didn't direct.
I was blown away by Frank Tashlin's Who's Minding The Store? He brought a humanity, romance, sexiness and refinement to Jerry's screen persona.
Jerry's own directing is a mutation of Tashlin's, more bizarre but more sloppy, amateur and rushed. Lewis experimented more as he was less focused on plot, character, emotionality or personal statement. It feels like he's assuming what audiences like rather than giving us what he likes, which is why his films are more difficult, not very funny and often boring.
But Lewis was definitely a more economical and lowbrow director. His directorial debut "The Bellboy" is among his best not because of plot or even cleverness of the comedy. The production aesthetic is minimized because of cost and schedule so he's making what was then a postmodern silent film. Lewis could throw a film together out of nothing and it would be mostly filler but always have a few moments of gold.
He would remake Bellboy into better films like The Patsy, The Errand Boy and The Ladies Man until making his zenith The Nutty Professor thanks to a growing stable of great repertoire writers, actors, designers and a fine budget and premise. Later films like The Family Jewels and The Big Mouth are almost painfully bland, forced, thin, repetitive and unoriginal. Lewis was always more of a performer than an artist and too much of a capitalist lapdog cut off from real social experience. His films often reek of insecurity, depression, sexual confusion and a violent madness, especially as he aged and his star fell.
Tashlin was the real genius who made solo Jerry as well as Martin & Lewis bankable. Lewis developed his style from the colorful and gag heavy Tashlin form. But Tashlin always tempered it with just enough plot, antagonism, protagonism and (imagine it) well thought out jokes. Lewis would depend of improv and putting himself center stage. Tashlin storyboarded, had excess material, surrounded Jerry with amazing supportive players and always respected the audience. He controlled the anarchistic Jerry ego and made it something universal and appealing.
Jerry scored a late stage masterpiece with Cracking Up. I've reviewed it on this blog because it is Jerry at his most focused, experimental, mature, dark and professional.
Lewis maybe wasn't a genius as a director but he was an important and decent comedy director and probably a genius actor when he was coached properly. One of the most tired jokes is that the French are crazy for thinking Lewis was a genius, let alone funny. He was both when he wanted to be.
Monday, May 28, 2018
Made 2001 / Astronaut's Daughter 1999 / The Ninth Gate 1999 / Waking Life 2001
Made is the first film directed by Jon Favreau, the longtime character actor who became an indie darling when he wrote and starred in Swingers. While it becomes obvious the directing of Swingers by Doug Liman was possibly the real reason Swingers worked, Favreau and his Swingers co-star Vince Vaughn recapture some of the old magic. Vaughn deserves most of the credit with his self-deprecating comedic improvising and Favreau gets credit for knowing how to support his star and humanize the rather plotless, pointless story. Its all saved with some smooth cinematography and a sincere working class sentimental gritty romanticism. Its a bit of a waste of some veteran & future acting stars, but its a very enjoyable directorial debut if still a disappointing sophomore script.
Astronaut's Daughter is a bad mega budget high concept ripoff of Rosemary's Baby and Hitchcock's Suspicion. Pre-fame Charlize Theron carries the evil baby of peak-fame Johnny Depp's alien-possessed astronaut. Its full of genre cliches, Depp's horrid fake Southern accent and stylized but braindead commercial directing. I still think its a high kitsch affair that is enjoyable. The DP and Production Designer are the true stars and the whole affair is a great mirror of moody Y2K shallowness and pop culture nostalgia. Also, given recent allegations of Depp's domestic abuse and his all-but-confirmed Luciferian status, this has a few moments of convincing menace. I actually think Depp should switch to playing villains now that his youth and sex appeal is long gone.
Released the same fucking year as Astronaut's Daughter, Ninth Gate is Roman Polanski's return to Hollywood filmmaking and another Johnny Depp vehicle based on Satanism. Thankfully its a much better film. Polanski paints a dark camp hybrid of Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, his two biggest 70s successes. Its a brilliant way to tie the films together and reveal the shared subtexts. Its wonderfully directed, shot, plotted and Polanski pulls one of the best performances from the wooden Depp (who is doing a rather lazy impression of Jack Nicholson throughout). Whereas Astronaut's is a lukewarm Hollywood meditation on Freemason subversion, Gate is a fearless celebration of mythic Satan worship in cinema as well as a aggressively respectful examination of real world Luciferianism as a philosophy. It can't be as shocking or clever as Polanski's early horror films, but its anti-Christian themes are even more pronounced and playful.
Waking Life is a wonderful, overwhelming and life-affirming celebration of pop existentialism from Richard Linklater, Generation X's cinematic hippie philosopher extraordinaire. Feeling like a Brechtian documentary or simply a psychedelic dream, Linklater keeps it accessible, warm, fun and constantly enlightening. The film features a totally new form of storytelling with diverse influences with heavy subject matter but retains a quality of unpretentiousness. The best film on this short list.
Astronaut's Daughter is a bad mega budget high concept ripoff of Rosemary's Baby and Hitchcock's Suspicion. Pre-fame Charlize Theron carries the evil baby of peak-fame Johnny Depp's alien-possessed astronaut. Its full of genre cliches, Depp's horrid fake Southern accent and stylized but braindead commercial directing. I still think its a high kitsch affair that is enjoyable. The DP and Production Designer are the true stars and the whole affair is a great mirror of moody Y2K shallowness and pop culture nostalgia. Also, given recent allegations of Depp's domestic abuse and his all-but-confirmed Luciferian status, this has a few moments of convincing menace. I actually think Depp should switch to playing villains now that his youth and sex appeal is long gone.
Released the same fucking year as Astronaut's Daughter, Ninth Gate is Roman Polanski's return to Hollywood filmmaking and another Johnny Depp vehicle based on Satanism. Thankfully its a much better film. Polanski paints a dark camp hybrid of Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown, his two biggest 70s successes. Its a brilliant way to tie the films together and reveal the shared subtexts. Its wonderfully directed, shot, plotted and Polanski pulls one of the best performances from the wooden Depp (who is doing a rather lazy impression of Jack Nicholson throughout). Whereas Astronaut's is a lukewarm Hollywood meditation on Freemason subversion, Gate is a fearless celebration of mythic Satan worship in cinema as well as a aggressively respectful examination of real world Luciferianism as a philosophy. It can't be as shocking or clever as Polanski's early horror films, but its anti-Christian themes are even more pronounced and playful.
Waking Life is a wonderful, overwhelming and life-affirming celebration of pop existentialism from Richard Linklater, Generation X's cinematic hippie philosopher extraordinaire. Feeling like a Brechtian documentary or simply a psychedelic dream, Linklater keeps it accessible, warm, fun and constantly enlightening. The film features a totally new form of storytelling with diverse influences with heavy subject matter but retains a quality of unpretentiousness. The best film on this short list.
Monday, May 21, 2018
So few films have any message besides propaganda to buy more and be sold by the status quo on government economics. Everything is a commercial for capitalism. Except socialist propaganda. But we don't need films that tell you they are propaganda. That would be more sincere and honest and wouldn't betray the expectations of the audience, but its only in true propaganda that you can free consumers from exploitation. The audience consuming the worst garbage must be told what they are consuming.
The system we pay into is a bloodthirsty, species-sacrificing, animal-slaughtering, child-raping, Devil-worshiping currency-holding game where you and millions like you start losing as soon as you're born. And your competition is born rich and powerful, already ahead of the game and soon plotting to cement rule over the collective body of our population. This is why any objectively good film must always be proletariat and not a work of self-serving Ego vanity that is anti-human or anti-group, prejudice or one-sided, censoring or censored.
This type of Pure Cinema is found on the fringes of what is accepted by corporatized business media. You must be extremely clever in climbing its own dangerous and destructive ranks of soul-crushing success or be as independent and obscure as possible to effect the most basic levels of the proletariat struggle. As influence spreads, you remain unknown to enemies and championed by the most legitimized revolutionaries of the struggle against tyranny.
The system we pay into is a bloodthirsty, species-sacrificing, animal-slaughtering, child-raping, Devil-worshiping currency-holding game where you and millions like you start losing as soon as you're born. And your competition is born rich and powerful, already ahead of the game and soon plotting to cement rule over the collective body of our population. This is why any objectively good film must always be proletariat and not a work of self-serving Ego vanity that is anti-human or anti-group, prejudice or one-sided, censoring or censored.
This type of Pure Cinema is found on the fringes of what is accepted by corporatized business media. You must be extremely clever in climbing its own dangerous and destructive ranks of soul-crushing success or be as independent and obscure as possible to effect the most basic levels of the proletariat struggle. As influence spreads, you remain unknown to enemies and championed by the most legitimized revolutionaries of the struggle against tyranny.
Alien Covenant 2017 2ND REVIW
This film may not have the entertainment and thrill of Alien 2 & 3, but it its so much more satisfying as a sequel (prequel really). The theme of a Luciferian intelligence lurking in technology ties back to the original Alien and also the original Blade Runner. I would argue AC and Prometheus are essentially bridging the worlds of both Ridley Scott franchises in structure, style and continuity. And why not, when the other Alien films (and especially Alien vs Predator films) really play a loose fanboy level of shared history, thats past, presents and future.
Now is the film about real world unsubstantiated conspiratorial possibilities? We don't know and thats where the fear as an audience becomes overwhelming in a pronounced EXISTENTIALLY human way. Juggling the metaphysics of the white man-created mythology is heavy, confusing, sometimes taxing but Ridley Scott is putting on a master teaching class about our shared human experience. He's educating you on the past. Why? Not to welcome you into an elitist club of intellectuals who worship ego and reject utopian progress, but to speak against abuses of any form of collective human power on Earth or in any kind of Heaven, God or man-made.
And yet there's a grim sadness. A depressed bleakness that highlight's a fragile Romantic soul that bleeds its heart for the suffering of others, rather than let them burn in the ravaging stages of any Late Capitalism.
Dullness & pain is felt in the muted aesthetics of Ridley's interpretation of not only the abstract themes of Survivalism, Cave Art, Primitivism, Tribalism, Sexism, Racism, War, Murder, Genocide, Apocalypse, Hell, Extinction, Limbo, Eternity, Nothingness, Nihilism, Horror, Fantasy, Mythology, Romanticism, Occult, Speculative, Science, Fiction, Media, Art, Capitalism, Socialism, Satanism, Christianity, Deitism, Dualism, Dialectic, Neutrality, Monism, Pluralism, Mathematics, Economics, Materialism, Idealism, Marxism, Postmodernism itself and etc.
Its a leisurely film, the kind old directors often make. But it still has enough emotional intensity, mental clarity and visual splendor to satisfy any audience I think. Its very tame in some respects. Subtle rather than outspoken or garish. I haven't always agreed with Scott's outlook on life and society, but I think he has grown as a thinker and artist and watching his descent & ascent commercially and politically has helped an entire generation mature through the shared film-going experience. And for that I am personally grateful to his work.
I think the film, most essentially, sets up a clever and radically original direction for the series. Whether that is retained as this Fox buyout plays on. I don't think Disney can survive this type of inflation so fast. The bubble has to burst. And when it does, the assets of Fox will go to someone who has more buying power than a cost-cutting Disney. I would love if Scott Free could buy Alien or Blade Runner just so Scott's vision can be preserved not in a capitalist sense of corporatizing with monopolists who cheat the market. But actually belong to the workers, unlike the exploited victims in Scott's films.
Walt Disney left an uber-moral, somewhat Stalinist version of rightwing Devil-worshipping brand of communist Christianity built on fleecing Believers for their money a(donations) and silencing their economic opposition as the true Devils. The Devil is a lie in the sense that to believe the character is to believe in the character. What I mean is that Christianity teaches to hate an entire group (Jews) while Satanism teaches to love a non-existent collective animal urge to murder and rape out of some primordial slime DNA's quest for fungal infection in order to reproduce. This scientific revelation has combined with a previous form of Atheism that now sees all religion as a shared fictionalized subjectivity but unconsciously leaving an objective record of human shared self-awareness. We have a hivemind built of psychic energy that seems to exceed time and space. Thats a very rewarding reality but brutal at times when too much order leads to spontaneous anarchy.
Scott's films vs the predominant American moralism in Hollywood. Scott is English so he gets it as much as any European director can probably get it. He follows Kubrick, Franco, Welles and Ridley's brother Tony. Admittedly Ridley Scott's work often feels too willing to comply with corporate interest and obscuring oblique censorship, but he retains a fiery voice that is Pro-Independence always. He's really the last mainstream director to still work freelance as a prolific commercial level. That may turn many off from the sincerity of what he's selling. But I think he's doing as much as he is allowed so he can help the widest audience while hopefully not fleecing too many idiots who don't get the knowledge.
So is Ridley Scott saying anything valuable in his message lately? Has he ever changed his message to sell out? Remember that he entered the film world as a director of big budget commercials and TV. So if anything he's probably started from the right and swung left as he's aged and seen exploitation and the ravages of modernism first hand. And he's still making the most elegant, technological, daunting and challenging films in the business and only getting sharper. Scott is one of filmmaking's masters and has he become one of its biggest "anti-heroic heroes"? Is he simply an Anti-Hero? Is he too a Villain to the complexion of the changing, conglomerized Hollywood product? I think so.
With Alien Covenant, Scott shows us that we create our own demons. To not believe in God is to believe in Self alone. As this robot sets out to prove he is God and greater than his own Creation, he never learns that he is merely a cheap imitation of his Creator's own faulted Will. Many of Scott's films focus on the blinded quest of Aryan supremacy, the fall of Western civilization in a perverse self-love that pits Self against The Other. Man no longer can love brother or sister, love or relation, counterpart or Self. The story of David the android is similar to Roy Batty or Pinocchio or Frankenstein's Monster or Lucifer, the original Anti-Hero. He wants to know what love is because his father gave him none. The search for "Love" as an abstract intellectual goal and not a natural, chemical, sensual experience is why David feels he must create a demonized, hybridized, most primitive and most deadly expression of his own lonely "superiority" complex. What starts in a factory traverses through space travel, global genocide and finally lab-created colonization of the universe. Scott paints a striking metaphor - a moving mirror painted in pulp fiction signs - to reflect the misguided and totally self-satisfied destructive impulses of White Man's fall from grace of God. His failure to become God.
Now is the film about real world unsubstantiated conspiratorial possibilities? We don't know and thats where the fear as an audience becomes overwhelming in a pronounced EXISTENTIALLY human way. Juggling the metaphysics of the white man-created mythology is heavy, confusing, sometimes taxing but Ridley Scott is putting on a master teaching class about our shared human experience. He's educating you on the past. Why? Not to welcome you into an elitist club of intellectuals who worship ego and reject utopian progress, but to speak against abuses of any form of collective human power on Earth or in any kind of Heaven, God or man-made.
And yet there's a grim sadness. A depressed bleakness that highlight's a fragile Romantic soul that bleeds its heart for the suffering of others, rather than let them burn in the ravaging stages of any Late Capitalism.
Dullness & pain is felt in the muted aesthetics of Ridley's interpretation of not only the abstract themes of Survivalism, Cave Art, Primitivism, Tribalism, Sexism, Racism, War, Murder, Genocide, Apocalypse, Hell, Extinction, Limbo, Eternity, Nothingness, Nihilism, Horror, Fantasy, Mythology, Romanticism, Occult, Speculative, Science, Fiction, Media, Art, Capitalism, Socialism, Satanism, Christianity, Deitism, Dualism, Dialectic, Neutrality, Monism, Pluralism, Mathematics, Economics, Materialism, Idealism, Marxism, Postmodernism itself and etc.
Its a leisurely film, the kind old directors often make. But it still has enough emotional intensity, mental clarity and visual splendor to satisfy any audience I think. Its very tame in some respects. Subtle rather than outspoken or garish. I haven't always agreed with Scott's outlook on life and society, but I think he has grown as a thinker and artist and watching his descent & ascent commercially and politically has helped an entire generation mature through the shared film-going experience. And for that I am personally grateful to his work.
I think the film, most essentially, sets up a clever and radically original direction for the series. Whether that is retained as this Fox buyout plays on. I don't think Disney can survive this type of inflation so fast. The bubble has to burst. And when it does, the assets of Fox will go to someone who has more buying power than a cost-cutting Disney. I would love if Scott Free could buy Alien or Blade Runner just so Scott's vision can be preserved not in a capitalist sense of corporatizing with monopolists who cheat the market. But actually belong to the workers, unlike the exploited victims in Scott's films.
Walt Disney left an uber-moral, somewhat Stalinist version of rightwing Devil-worshipping brand of communist Christianity built on fleecing Believers for their money a(donations) and silencing their economic opposition as the true Devils. The Devil is a lie in the sense that to believe the character is to believe in the character. What I mean is that Christianity teaches to hate an entire group (Jews) while Satanism teaches to love a non-existent collective animal urge to murder and rape out of some primordial slime DNA's quest for fungal infection in order to reproduce. This scientific revelation has combined with a previous form of Atheism that now sees all religion as a shared fictionalized subjectivity but unconsciously leaving an objective record of human shared self-awareness. We have a hivemind built of psychic energy that seems to exceed time and space. Thats a very rewarding reality but brutal at times when too much order leads to spontaneous anarchy.
Scott's films vs the predominant American moralism in Hollywood. Scott is English so he gets it as much as any European director can probably get it. He follows Kubrick, Franco, Welles and Ridley's brother Tony. Admittedly Ridley Scott's work often feels too willing to comply with corporate interest and obscuring oblique censorship, but he retains a fiery voice that is Pro-Independence always. He's really the last mainstream director to still work freelance as a prolific commercial level. That may turn many off from the sincerity of what he's selling. But I think he's doing as much as he is allowed so he can help the widest audience while hopefully not fleecing too many idiots who don't get the knowledge.
So is Ridley Scott saying anything valuable in his message lately? Has he ever changed his message to sell out? Remember that he entered the film world as a director of big budget commercials and TV. So if anything he's probably started from the right and swung left as he's aged and seen exploitation and the ravages of modernism first hand. And he's still making the most elegant, technological, daunting and challenging films in the business and only getting sharper. Scott is one of filmmaking's masters and has he become one of its biggest "anti-heroic heroes"? Is he simply an Anti-Hero? Is he too a Villain to the complexion of the changing, conglomerized Hollywood product? I think so.
With Alien Covenant, Scott shows us that we create our own demons. To not believe in God is to believe in Self alone. As this robot sets out to prove he is God and greater than his own Creation, he never learns that he is merely a cheap imitation of his Creator's own faulted Will. Many of Scott's films focus on the blinded quest of Aryan supremacy, the fall of Western civilization in a perverse self-love that pits Self against The Other. Man no longer can love brother or sister, love or relation, counterpart or Self. The story of David the android is similar to Roy Batty or Pinocchio or Frankenstein's Monster or Lucifer, the original Anti-Hero. He wants to know what love is because his father gave him none. The search for "Love" as an abstract intellectual goal and not a natural, chemical, sensual experience is why David feels he must create a demonized, hybridized, most primitive and most deadly expression of his own lonely "superiority" complex. What starts in a factory traverses through space travel, global genocide and finally lab-created colonization of the universe. Scott paints a striking metaphor - a moving mirror painted in pulp fiction signs - to reflect the misguided and totally self-satisfied destructive impulses of White Man's fall from grace of God. His failure to become God.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
The Running Man 1987
This film is still fresh in my mind. I'm a big fan of mid-career Arnold Swarzenegger but I'm just now delving into its deeper ideology. This film warns of a class-divided capitalist state that has wiped out all libertarianism, right or left.
Quite obviously, Arnold represents the white male rightwing anarchist hero, a total Ayn Rand ubermensch created in a lab somewhere, but he finds great allies in his leftwing anarchist buddies. Ok, they are useless, ineffective minorities who get brutalized masochistically, but then Arnold delivers swift, violent and witty justice to these state puppet capitalists. Its meathead entertainment but true to American conservative democracy. It even questions notions like capital punishment, collateral damage and media propaganda.
Its not as leftist as I would make it, but its a firm bit of ideological fluff from a less enlightened time. It also foreshadows Arnold's becoming a fairly likable republican ally to moderate leftists. Shit, I'd say films like this are extremely helpful to the far left in keeping the rightwing away from Nazism and aware of un-Marxist Communism. While the audience is meathead, Arnold was definitely a thinking, passionate actor with integrity, morally and artistically. If only he valued peace over the freedom to make money.
Quite obviously, Arnold represents the white male rightwing anarchist hero, a total Ayn Rand ubermensch created in a lab somewhere, but he finds great allies in his leftwing anarchist buddies. Ok, they are useless, ineffective minorities who get brutalized masochistically, but then Arnold delivers swift, violent and witty justice to these state puppet capitalists. Its meathead entertainment but true to American conservative democracy. It even questions notions like capital punishment, collateral damage and media propaganda.
Its not as leftist as I would make it, but its a firm bit of ideological fluff from a less enlightened time. It also foreshadows Arnold's becoming a fairly likable republican ally to moderate leftists. Shit, I'd say films like this are extremely helpful to the far left in keeping the rightwing away from Nazism and aware of un-Marxist Communism. While the audience is meathead, Arnold was definitely a thinking, passionate actor with integrity, morally and artistically. If only he valued peace over the freedom to make money.
Rampage 2018
Every film casting Dwayne Johnson has been a fairly unoriginal conservative family-friendly popcorn piece to keep audiences dully entertained while corporations rob them. "Rampage" is no exception. This film casts The Rock as the BFF of a lightskin gorilla that grows too big for its britches til the government decides to kill it. There's an intentionally hokey ending where King Kong isn't killed but joyously accepted as a Nazi "comrade" but the film doesn't trick us. Its pro-Trump anarcho-capitalism that serves to only send America into amoral servitude to enterprising pro-state corporate masters in Hollywood. Fucking terrible film. And thankfully the internet shit on it. Probably because the hypnosis of loving Obama has worn off and the cynical truthism is reactionary at this point in our deep dark night within the confusingly deceptive implosion of Western world bipartisan monopoly.
The film has its mild Romantic moments and it criticizes the government and corporate abuses with baby taps. Its your expected pandering to Leftism from insincere capitalists. But in subverting the crassness you get in other rightwing media, its stupidity hits even harder as bland false advertisement. This is truly a post-Obama, post-Trump American work but for all the wrong reasons. An unintentional documentary of Late Capitalism slave work.
For the record, there are films starring The Rock that I have enjoyed but they were random flukes handled by reasonably responsible directors: the Donnie Darko companion piece "Southland Tales", "Pain & Gain" and, I dunno, maybe a few parts of "GI Joe 2". He seems like a well-meaning meathead jock with a minor artistic sensitivity simply from being an oppressed minority. He's thoroughly indoctrinated Deep South dixiecrat neoliberal who has good ideas but only seems to work in the most regressive circles of media. I guess he's a Libertarian who hasn't embraced socialism yet. Johnson might win a popular election with that status but he won't make a good leader because he seems insulated by manipulative and greedy sycophants... in his own family it seems.
If The Rock made films that were more open-minded, less child-proofed and a lot more subtle, he would have work that equals his immense popularity and natural charisma. He does seem to be getting better and this way more watchable than Hercules or The Tooth Fairy. But, I'm always left disappointed by his starring vehicles. Maybe he is best as a supporting actor, co-billed or even as an antagonist. Something without his too broad "working class" hero cliches. But he is popular among all demographics because there is a democratic way in which he lowers himself.
This film casts man and ape as close relatives. It turns queasy following the heroic quest of 3 ethnic characters VS greedy white people, drawing what kind of a parallel? The races as a hierarchy of apes instead of subspecies of human. Its very racist but in the most covert and smiling way. There's no chance the actors know they are doing it unless the pay was greater than their integrity. But you have to know your history of racism in film, media and recorded history. A film made by white people with a black man telling whites that an ape is his family more than other people is offensive. Ok, maybe I can half-buy it as a tale of African descents protecting the animal kingdom from the disastrous effects of white colonialism. But that insincere reading is so obscured in CGI, bad dialogue, clumsy & timid racial commentary and a lot of pointlessness.
If there's anything redeeming in this movie it was too subtle for me. I doubt that in a video game turned film called "Rampage" that is a combination of like 10 equally bad films.
The film has its mild Romantic moments and it criticizes the government and corporate abuses with baby taps. Its your expected pandering to Leftism from insincere capitalists. But in subverting the crassness you get in other rightwing media, its stupidity hits even harder as bland false advertisement. This is truly a post-Obama, post-Trump American work but for all the wrong reasons. An unintentional documentary of Late Capitalism slave work.
For the record, there are films starring The Rock that I have enjoyed but they were random flukes handled by reasonably responsible directors: the Donnie Darko companion piece "Southland Tales", "Pain & Gain" and, I dunno, maybe a few parts of "GI Joe 2". He seems like a well-meaning meathead jock with a minor artistic sensitivity simply from being an oppressed minority. He's thoroughly indoctrinated Deep South dixiecrat neoliberal who has good ideas but only seems to work in the most regressive circles of media. I guess he's a Libertarian who hasn't embraced socialism yet. Johnson might win a popular election with that status but he won't make a good leader because he seems insulated by manipulative and greedy sycophants... in his own family it seems.
If The Rock made films that were more open-minded, less child-proofed and a lot more subtle, he would have work that equals his immense popularity and natural charisma. He does seem to be getting better and this way more watchable than Hercules or The Tooth Fairy. But, I'm always left disappointed by his starring vehicles. Maybe he is best as a supporting actor, co-billed or even as an antagonist. Something without his too broad "working class" hero cliches. But he is popular among all demographics because there is a democratic way in which he lowers himself.
This film casts man and ape as close relatives. It turns queasy following the heroic quest of 3 ethnic characters VS greedy white people, drawing what kind of a parallel? The races as a hierarchy of apes instead of subspecies of human. Its very racist but in the most covert and smiling way. There's no chance the actors know they are doing it unless the pay was greater than their integrity. But you have to know your history of racism in film, media and recorded history. A film made by white people with a black man telling whites that an ape is his family more than other people is offensive. Ok, maybe I can half-buy it as a tale of African descents protecting the animal kingdom from the disastrous effects of white colonialism. But that insincere reading is so obscured in CGI, bad dialogue, clumsy & timid racial commentary and a lot of pointlessness.
If there's anything redeeming in this movie it was too subtle for me. I doubt that in a video game turned film called "Rampage" that is a combination of like 10 equally bad films.
Thursday, April 26, 2018
While "They Live" is a brilliant not-so-conservative rightwing call for anarchist revolution, John Carpenter's Escape from New York strikes me as pure idiotic ideology-driven "gun propaganda" drivel. Beware a black mayor of New York! Save British colonial idealism! It also promotes white male working class vigilantism and fear-based consumption to prevent urban decay. So nothing changes. It just keeps getting a new lacquered skin to sell the illusion of a democratic state working against classism and classicism.
But I believe Carpenter is a leftwing democrat. He's just being loyal to the pure roots of Western democracy, especially in America's not so young history. The rightwing has gone racist a lot in the last century. But only to match the violent racism that built the democratic parties in America, namely that of the British E.U..
So I'm not even picky for leftwing films or against rightwing films. But the left has always been too moderate and the right has always been too militant, clan-based, competitive, sexist & racist, dependent to capital and material possessions. Hollywood is steeped in a film language and cultural history that is so limited and censored in scope. Modernity and only the most compromised and consumerist (commercial) versions of postmodernist thought are allowed to be discussed socially by the design of a ruling class.
And there's no need to fear the competition of any corporation of private investors and legal or illegal funds to express monopoly on all industry. They may rule certain sectors at certain times, but unless they build their own private army or gain a permanent hold of government, these "deep state" conspirators can pull the wool over our eyes but can never out-gun the government or the people. Because SOME of the writers and signers of the Constitution were great and brilliant people. They devised parchment to prevent the destruction of the people, the state, their business and their privacy.
Now we're always under siege of a disastrous destruction of that safety, but that document provided enough laws to serve justice and protect peace. The world is facing an insurrection of powerful criminals who exist in shadows but they will always fall to America and the world because America puts God first, even if it was once based on a racist, sexist, mythological revisionist historian-perverted version of "God".
Should a small group of elitists run everything? Should democracy be kept a lie, a capitalist video game that only serves the leaders of state? Can they be trusted to be fair and right the wrongs of history's leaders? Who should run the next government? And how do we make sure they are not puppets of more powerful republicans who seek to destroy democracy?
But I believe Carpenter is a leftwing democrat. He's just being loyal to the pure roots of Western democracy, especially in America's not so young history. The rightwing has gone racist a lot in the last century. But only to match the violent racism that built the democratic parties in America, namely that of the British E.U..
So I'm not even picky for leftwing films or against rightwing films. But the left has always been too moderate and the right has always been too militant, clan-based, competitive, sexist & racist, dependent to capital and material possessions. Hollywood is steeped in a film language and cultural history that is so limited and censored in scope. Modernity and only the most compromised and consumerist (commercial) versions of postmodernist thought are allowed to be discussed socially by the design of a ruling class.
And there's no need to fear the competition of any corporation of private investors and legal or illegal funds to express monopoly on all industry. They may rule certain sectors at certain times, but unless they build their own private army or gain a permanent hold of government, these "deep state" conspirators can pull the wool over our eyes but can never out-gun the government or the people. Because SOME of the writers and signers of the Constitution were great and brilliant people. They devised parchment to prevent the destruction of the people, the state, their business and their privacy.
Now we're always under siege of a disastrous destruction of that safety, but that document provided enough laws to serve justice and protect peace. The world is facing an insurrection of powerful criminals who exist in shadows but they will always fall to America and the world because America puts God first, even if it was once based on a racist, sexist, mythological revisionist historian-perverted version of "God".
Should a small group of elitists run everything? Should democracy be kept a lie, a capitalist video game that only serves the leaders of state? Can they be trusted to be fair and right the wrongs of history's leaders? Who should run the next government? And how do we make sure they are not puppets of more powerful republicans who seek to destroy democracy?
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
WHAT ARE YOU CONSUMING?
I haven't watched much cinema lately. I'm tuned out of reviewing 2018 releases after the stream of trash in 2017 and I've burnt out on watching older films. I'm not even entertained by revisiting films, although I had a great time watching Batman, The Running Man, Commando and a few others.
I'm a bit jaded with film period after delving pretty deep into the cult of Jess Franco films. My opinion of him is more confusing than ever. Clearly, many of his films are glorified and over-analyzed. Many have little merit after a one or two time watch. But they all serve the impact of his great works, which are some of the most powerful films to come out of their genre, era or budget range.
Venus in Furs is a near masterpiece its so ahead of its time. A Virgin Among The Living Dead is better than 9/10 films you'll ever see. But many films (especially after the death of Soledad Miranda and the death of XXX theaters) are simply entertaining and well-crafted schlock and some are just tedious. No doubt they are smarter and more beautiful than other exploitation films and have more art than "serious" films, but there's an intense sadness in the fact that he made so many films but so few great ones. But again few directors make great films and this guy made a lot of good ones out of nada. Its almost its own genre of pure cinema. I understand his mournful disposition later in life and his own ambivalence to his own career, but I still cherish and honor his actual talent and resilience standing up to the degradation of auteurist filmmaking.
I'm at a weird crossroads where many films I once loved don't work for me now. Mainly because most films are either beholden to bland commercial or critic-serving scriptwriting or indulgent, distracting and stooge-fooling visual spectacle. They have no singular voices and certainly won't challenge the viewers out of fear of not reimbursing investors.
The Millennial reboot of Blade Runner is not a favorite film of 2017 for me but it unsurprisingly has a diehard cult of defenders who are calling it superior to the original and attributing meanings and accolades that aren't there. I'm not even too bothered because the cult is made up of 20 year old's who haven't seen anything outside of modern Western film or anime. I haven't seen any serious lovers or critics of film buying BR2.
We're in an era of Gen X filmmakers and Gen Y audiences who have inherited so much powerful technology, secondhand knowledge and inflated sense of Self, that EVERYTHING is deemed "art" so long as its of the moment and rejects the past and offers a predictably dark but hopeful view of the future. Its so... phony. This is a perfect reflection of the post-Obama, post-Trump mindset. "The majority is evil but WE select few will save the world by destroying it and remaking it in our image". This Us Vs Them shit. Everyone is so distracted, distrusting and maddened by the 1% that they don't see THAT is the game. Media wants us all to hate each other and pay to see simulated violence against each other and hand over control to politicians and corporations and keep being zombified consumers. Oh, technology will save us!
Its time for a real radical voice of social revolution and individual responsibility. Films for the people and by the people. A return of INDEPENDENCE! They've taken every platform we have for getting the message out: the press, TV, film, internet. Whats left? The real fucking world. Let them have Virtual Reality. We live in the here and now of physical space where they can never rule. Ok, they can monitor us, brainwash us, embarrass us, harass us and leave us disenfranchised. But there's still more of us than them. We can't all sell out.
BTW, John Carpenter's "They Live" is one of the real classics of the 1980s and should be a manual going forward not only for independent filmmakers and artists but all of humanity. We are waking up and our enemies are scared.
I'm a bit jaded with film period after delving pretty deep into the cult of Jess Franco films. My opinion of him is more confusing than ever. Clearly, many of his films are glorified and over-analyzed. Many have little merit after a one or two time watch. But they all serve the impact of his great works, which are some of the most powerful films to come out of their genre, era or budget range.
Venus in Furs is a near masterpiece its so ahead of its time. A Virgin Among The Living Dead is better than 9/10 films you'll ever see. But many films (especially after the death of Soledad Miranda and the death of XXX theaters) are simply entertaining and well-crafted schlock and some are just tedious. No doubt they are smarter and more beautiful than other exploitation films and have more art than "serious" films, but there's an intense sadness in the fact that he made so many films but so few great ones. But again few directors make great films and this guy made a lot of good ones out of nada. Its almost its own genre of pure cinema. I understand his mournful disposition later in life and his own ambivalence to his own career, but I still cherish and honor his actual talent and resilience standing up to the degradation of auteurist filmmaking.
I'm at a weird crossroads where many films I once loved don't work for me now. Mainly because most films are either beholden to bland commercial or critic-serving scriptwriting or indulgent, distracting and stooge-fooling visual spectacle. They have no singular voices and certainly won't challenge the viewers out of fear of not reimbursing investors.
The Millennial reboot of Blade Runner is not a favorite film of 2017 for me but it unsurprisingly has a diehard cult of defenders who are calling it superior to the original and attributing meanings and accolades that aren't there. I'm not even too bothered because the cult is made up of 20 year old's who haven't seen anything outside of modern Western film or anime. I haven't seen any serious lovers or critics of film buying BR2.
We're in an era of Gen X filmmakers and Gen Y audiences who have inherited so much powerful technology, secondhand knowledge and inflated sense of Self, that EVERYTHING is deemed "art" so long as its of the moment and rejects the past and offers a predictably dark but hopeful view of the future. Its so... phony. This is a perfect reflection of the post-Obama, post-Trump mindset. "The majority is evil but WE select few will save the world by destroying it and remaking it in our image". This Us Vs Them shit. Everyone is so distracted, distrusting and maddened by the 1% that they don't see THAT is the game. Media wants us all to hate each other and pay to see simulated violence against each other and hand over control to politicians and corporations and keep being zombified consumers. Oh, technology will save us!
Its time for a real radical voice of social revolution and individual responsibility. Films for the people and by the people. A return of INDEPENDENCE! They've taken every platform we have for getting the message out: the press, TV, film, internet. Whats left? The real fucking world. Let them have Virtual Reality. We live in the here and now of physical space where they can never rule. Ok, they can monitor us, brainwash us, embarrass us, harass us and leave us disenfranchised. But there's still more of us than them. We can't all sell out.
BTW, John Carpenter's "They Live" is one of the real classics of the 1980s and should be a manual going forward not only for independent filmmakers and artists but all of humanity. We are waking up and our enemies are scared.
Saw a review calling the new Avengers film a "virtuoso" film because it brings together a couple "hit franchises". Ok. If it actually tied together a couple pre-existing independent and iconic franchises (ex. Freddy vs Jason), I would be impressed. But these franchises were created solely to be merged. Shit, half of them didn't even exist until recently (Black Panther, Dr Strange, Guardians). And I have to ask, what adult can care about this shit with the shape the Western world is in and the insidious role corporate media plays in it, Disney being one of the worst.
Friday, March 16, 2018
Francophilia: An Ode to Cult Directing
I've tried to see how deep the rabbit hole goes in cinema, as well as political and sociological history. Cinema is actually a great textbook on many fields of psychology, philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, poetics, dramaturgy, satire and sexuality. It all boils down to narrative style. Tone, inflection, grammar. These are tools maybe best expressed in jazz.
Jess Franco - the director I've covered this past year - is maybe the most clear translator of his own demons and angels through an intelligent aesthetic of communist dualism and Buddhist transcendentalism. The guy so valued his freedom from censorship and commercialism and any cap on his spiritual, moral and intellectual growth that he made films "among the sinners" and castoffs that made up the Wild West that was European schlock cinema. I've used his ideology as a lens for the current climate. Did this man contribute or damage the craft of cinema?
Its hard to detect when he is simply exploiting or deconstructing a salacious subject or is fetishizing or morally engaging it. His films feature sadism, incest, hypnosis, slavery, torture and so many things that The Catholic Church branded him a Satanic figure, basically excommunicating the youngest star director from ever reaching Hollywood. So he made Z-grade films that mirrored the injustice, abuse and exploitation he suffered. He drew pictures of the dragons who slew his dream to be a knight. He sacrificed his Messianic image to battle the image of fascism that would someday enrapture world cinema's mainstream. Why? Because he was attuned, almost mystically, to the complexion of the human spirit. He had a sensitivity, a blues in him that brought together other ailing geniuses. In his collaborators and his deep cult fandom.
We ask was Jess Franco a free mason? His films make perfection depiction of not only Masonic themes, rites, symbols and stories like "generation", craftsmanship, surveillance, atonement and ascendancy, but also the feared Illuminati doppelganger image that is cultivated by their enigmatic reputation. Hypnosis, rape, sodomy, incest, pedophilia, libertine sadism, prostitution, murder, Satanism and a thousand other Illuminist references are made film to film by Franco. Was Jesus Franco a Luciferian? I've heard him say there is no singular God creator, but I never heard him disavow Man as God. I think Franco was cinema's most powerful and open occultist and warlock (or "wizard" if the term is too dark for you). Franco even claimed he was the inspiration for Yoda. Its a claim you want to believe isn't a lie. But what is the truth? Clearly he knew these groups secrets even if he never joined them.
Aesthetically his films are flawless for my enjoyment as a film-lover. But are his films moral? Certainly they are too scary, complex, offensive and demoralized for some. But does that make them less true? Does it make them "evil"? Art is probably evil in the eyes of Christians. But its not evil in the eyes of Christ. This was Jesus' point all along.
Franco depicts himself as a boogeyman to scare the ignorant and intrigue those who are teachable. And he makes no special boasts or pursuit of fame. The man practice the same humble social servitude promoted in Rudyard Kipling's poem If, the Masonic writer's ode to Freemason code.
It seems the aim of anti-Christian directors and artists (Masonic or anti-Masonic) is neither to create or be The AntiChrist but to eliminate need for Anti or Christ. To honor an open dialectic with truth and discovery not fixed in the static disintegration of dogma. Of course they are called Devils, so they must exist as private citizens. And if one falls and commits crime or dishonorable acts, they must face the same penalties as all men and women. Period. In a way, all directors are like a watchful society of enlightened artistic heroes and potential villains.
I'm not saying Jess Franco is a bad guy or a good guy. He's certainly a good artist. To my knowledge, he never did anything as wretched as Polanski or Woody Allen. After selling out his craft like a Jodorowsky, Lynch, Wells or Kubrick, he refused to stay down and became MORE prolific. He never lost sight of a positive moral message of secrecy while admitting its dangers, demons and disasters. He brought a message of magical thinking that shouldn't be bound by any one God. This is radical and blasphemous to most. But one must ask was he right or wrong? This is another Christian parallel Franco sets up in his career's narrative. It is his meta-trope.
He studied and challenged every ideology he could simply to raise questions about the human condition and any metaphysical realm of judgement beyond it. Like Lynch, he is obsessed with balancing the warring opinions on the very substance and texture of shared realism. He knows he can only express his worldview in a projection of theatrical dreams. His canvas is illuminated thought in the dark. How many learned spiritualism in film from Franco. Of course Franco followed many others with bigger names, but Jess was a gateway inside cheap populist mass media in a young technological age of movie-searching. It's such a Romantic notion of posthumous fame for a cinemist. He became the idealism of purity to the purely idealistic film fan. It's an important distinction from the other classes of notable filmmakers.
I find more and more to analyze in the deep texts of his small, quiet examples of film poetry. This is my favorite director, love him or hate me. He is simply the most advanced thinker for any class of directors. But now he is gone. And someone must try to fill his shadow.
Jess Franco - the director I've covered this past year - is maybe the most clear translator of his own demons and angels through an intelligent aesthetic of communist dualism and Buddhist transcendentalism. The guy so valued his freedom from censorship and commercialism and any cap on his spiritual, moral and intellectual growth that he made films "among the sinners" and castoffs that made up the Wild West that was European schlock cinema. I've used his ideology as a lens for the current climate. Did this man contribute or damage the craft of cinema?
Its hard to detect when he is simply exploiting or deconstructing a salacious subject or is fetishizing or morally engaging it. His films feature sadism, incest, hypnosis, slavery, torture and so many things that The Catholic Church branded him a Satanic figure, basically excommunicating the youngest star director from ever reaching Hollywood. So he made Z-grade films that mirrored the injustice, abuse and exploitation he suffered. He drew pictures of the dragons who slew his dream to be a knight. He sacrificed his Messianic image to battle the image of fascism that would someday enrapture world cinema's mainstream. Why? Because he was attuned, almost mystically, to the complexion of the human spirit. He had a sensitivity, a blues in him that brought together other ailing geniuses. In his collaborators and his deep cult fandom.
We ask was Jess Franco a free mason? His films make perfection depiction of not only Masonic themes, rites, symbols and stories like "generation", craftsmanship, surveillance, atonement and ascendancy, but also the feared Illuminati doppelganger image that is cultivated by their enigmatic reputation. Hypnosis, rape, sodomy, incest, pedophilia, libertine sadism, prostitution, murder, Satanism and a thousand other Illuminist references are made film to film by Franco. Was Jesus Franco a Luciferian? I've heard him say there is no singular God creator, but I never heard him disavow Man as God. I think Franco was cinema's most powerful and open occultist and warlock (or "wizard" if the term is too dark for you). Franco even claimed he was the inspiration for Yoda. Its a claim you want to believe isn't a lie. But what is the truth? Clearly he knew these groups secrets even if he never joined them.
Aesthetically his films are flawless for my enjoyment as a film-lover. But are his films moral? Certainly they are too scary, complex, offensive and demoralized for some. But does that make them less true? Does it make them "evil"? Art is probably evil in the eyes of Christians. But its not evil in the eyes of Christ. This was Jesus' point all along.
Franco depicts himself as a boogeyman to scare the ignorant and intrigue those who are teachable. And he makes no special boasts or pursuit of fame. The man practice the same humble social servitude promoted in Rudyard Kipling's poem If, the Masonic writer's ode to Freemason code.
It seems the aim of anti-Christian directors and artists (Masonic or anti-Masonic) is neither to create or be The AntiChrist but to eliminate need for Anti or Christ. To honor an open dialectic with truth and discovery not fixed in the static disintegration of dogma. Of course they are called Devils, so they must exist as private citizens. And if one falls and commits crime or dishonorable acts, they must face the same penalties as all men and women. Period. In a way, all directors are like a watchful society of enlightened artistic heroes and potential villains.
I'm not saying Jess Franco is a bad guy or a good guy. He's certainly a good artist. To my knowledge, he never did anything as wretched as Polanski or Woody Allen. After selling out his craft like a Jodorowsky, Lynch, Wells or Kubrick, he refused to stay down and became MORE prolific. He never lost sight of a positive moral message of secrecy while admitting its dangers, demons and disasters. He brought a message of magical thinking that shouldn't be bound by any one God. This is radical and blasphemous to most. But one must ask was he right or wrong? This is another Christian parallel Franco sets up in his career's narrative. It is his meta-trope.
He studied and challenged every ideology he could simply to raise questions about the human condition and any metaphysical realm of judgement beyond it. Like Lynch, he is obsessed with balancing the warring opinions on the very substance and texture of shared realism. He knows he can only express his worldview in a projection of theatrical dreams. His canvas is illuminated thought in the dark. How many learned spiritualism in film from Franco. Of course Franco followed many others with bigger names, but Jess was a gateway inside cheap populist mass media in a young technological age of movie-searching. It's such a Romantic notion of posthumous fame for a cinemist. He became the idealism of purity to the purely idealistic film fan. It's an important distinction from the other classes of notable filmmakers.
I find more and more to analyze in the deep texts of his small, quiet examples of film poetry. This is my favorite director, love him or hate me. He is simply the most advanced thinker for any class of directors. But now he is gone. And someone must try to fill his shadow.
We live in a world of conspiracies and conspiracy theories; a "post truth" world full of illusions. Our mass media entertainment has become what Baudrillard called simulacra: copies of copies of copies which have lost resemblance to their origin. The Real is now so divorced from truth and swamped in daily rumors and corporatized presentations of reality that we've collectively (and conveniently) forgotten the most prevalent, scary and corroborated theories of conspiracy to Man.
We are distracted by trivial political affiliations as to forget the real villains. Liberals blame greedy republican business men. Conservatives blame Satanic government monopolists. Neither come together to face either of these theoretical menaces or try to piece together a coherent shared idea of the mutual enemy. So before constructing a meta-narrative, lets look at the damning evidence. Films can be the most obvious mirror to our demons.
Before there was "populist paranoia" about secret society agendas, there were historical documents in cinema of our nightmare horrors.
Study the work of Orson Welles, Jess Franco, Stanley Kubrick, D.W. Griffith, David Lynch, Zack Snyder, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and many more to find these portrayals of Masonic and Anti-Masonic propagandas. And how many of our narratives are true and how many are false? Is it a perfect balance or a terrible imbalance or an inspiring and beautiful surplus of justice and global victory? The last millennium and centuries were a long-fought battle against fascism, slavery, abuse, pedophilia, rape, evil, crime and moral savagery. Its defined us to this point and created mental illness and spiritual starvation.
ARTISTS ARE OUR WITCHDOCTORS
Freemasons, Illuminists, Satanists, Deists, Romans, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists and a billion other ideologists have expounded their views to create a diverse and chaotic disorder that must find its new order not in forced mastery but a natural discovery of its evolution. What is our future? We all choose. No group of "elite" should decide for us. Democratic socialism with no national, ethnic, social or even political biases should silence the individual voice.
What we see happening in this so-called postmodern "New World Order" so far is a corporatist dogfight for media control and social engineering. We are brainwashed, not talked to. There is no discourse when our banks run our lives. They make money on our money and even more on our poverty. There's too much money for any of it to have value anymore. And its tainted with the sins of so many capitalist exploitations of business. There is no free market because free markets don't work in systems with geographic inequality. This creates the problem of colonial attempts of "Enlightenment". We end up with Manifest Destiny religious communes run by warlords who rape the planet and its people. This is McDemocracy.
Now we need a world that actually works; Not as Disneyland but as a secure and honest voice of objective reason for subjective voices. We can't silence naysayers and dreamers for pushing the status quo. Nor can we war with suppressed and oppressed voices. We need structure for a post-Structuralist world that is wounded but unable to spiritually lick its social wounds. But we must protect the socially weak from spiritual predators. The world is full of metaphysical vampires who don't need physical strength. They feast on the fear and insecurity of the strong. The illuminated thinkers serve independently as superheroes who don't need a thanks but should receive deserved and earned penance in some way. Not money or extra freedoms. The will should not be allowed to rule in anarchy. We need laws, check and balances.
This should be the mission of all men, women and children without any sanction or guidance from any "ascended" order but by mandatory membership in a society. Society comes before class, race, government system, economics or what have you. And no mind lays claim over it for any reason. Not IQ, social status, bloodline, privilege or secret weapon. The rich are not allowed to have more value than the poor. The state is not allowed to have more power than the world government. The psychopaths and actors can't get away with fooling and victimizing the innocent and meek. Justice must be served. And Karma does not decide who wins and loses. It takes the shared wisdom, the altar of knowledge to find any semblance of what is true. And that starts with having every voice be heard and every case be measured fairly. The court of morality exists outside of Masonic parliament and Builderberg meetings or choreographed press.
What is the aim of filmmaking? What is its philosophical tenants? What function does it serve beyond crass enjoyment of spiritualist materialism? Filmmaking tells us who we are at any given moment. Cinema is a pinpoint of nature's physics and stitch in the time stream. We've soared high and fallen low before, all of us. Now to fly again.
The true artists are the independent artists. The best directors are the ones who don't slave or master their craft. They simply coexist peacefully. How? By dramatizing conflict as The Big Other. This can become real world mass hystics and delusional matrixes if we don't ground it in fiction. Small opinions based in big facts, (rather than huge opinions over mass-produced facsimiles called "facts"). Knowledge must be reevaluated like the sciences, laws and metrics within it. As our minds grow, so will our shared perception. For all and not just for some. Everyone is an equal participant and producer of positive abundance. There will always be negativity created by man and by nature and by the cosmos itself, but thats not a deterrent against life. Its what composes the passionate defense of living. This is man's eternal destiny. And whether we come from a God, communicate with a God, dream a God or convene as a God (or many Gods), we are all still free to live so long as we protect the lives of everyone else by not impinging or impending on rights. We all have basic human rights that can't be removed. This is the way not of one nation but of the galactic whole.
We must celebrate our universe by exploring, understanding and respecting it by not filling it with too much trash. What do I mean? The surplus of carbon emissions from industry, toxic pollution, farming deregulations and anything making our ozone hard to breathe. How to fight it? Producing good vibrations. Its as simple as that. Be loved. Be honest. Be inspiring. Be real. Be in the know. Be in the Now. Be You. Be a work of Art.
We are distracted by trivial political affiliations as to forget the real villains. Liberals blame greedy republican business men. Conservatives blame Satanic government monopolists. Neither come together to face either of these theoretical menaces or try to piece together a coherent shared idea of the mutual enemy. So before constructing a meta-narrative, lets look at the damning evidence. Films can be the most obvious mirror to our demons.
Before there was "populist paranoia" about secret society agendas, there were historical documents in cinema of our nightmare horrors.
Study the work of Orson Welles, Jess Franco, Stanley Kubrick, D.W. Griffith, David Lynch, Zack Snyder, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and many more to find these portrayals of Masonic and Anti-Masonic propagandas. And how many of our narratives are true and how many are false? Is it a perfect balance or a terrible imbalance or an inspiring and beautiful surplus of justice and global victory? The last millennium and centuries were a long-fought battle against fascism, slavery, abuse, pedophilia, rape, evil, crime and moral savagery. Its defined us to this point and created mental illness and spiritual starvation.
ARTISTS ARE OUR WITCHDOCTORS
Freemasons, Illuminists, Satanists, Deists, Romans, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists and a billion other ideologists have expounded their views to create a diverse and chaotic disorder that must find its new order not in forced mastery but a natural discovery of its evolution. What is our future? We all choose. No group of "elite" should decide for us. Democratic socialism with no national, ethnic, social or even political biases should silence the individual voice.
What we see happening in this so-called postmodern "New World Order" so far is a corporatist dogfight for media control and social engineering. We are brainwashed, not talked to. There is no discourse when our banks run our lives. They make money on our money and even more on our poverty. There's too much money for any of it to have value anymore. And its tainted with the sins of so many capitalist exploitations of business. There is no free market because free markets don't work in systems with geographic inequality. This creates the problem of colonial attempts of "Enlightenment". We end up with Manifest Destiny religious communes run by warlords who rape the planet and its people. This is McDemocracy.
Now we need a world that actually works; Not as Disneyland but as a secure and honest voice of objective reason for subjective voices. We can't silence naysayers and dreamers for pushing the status quo. Nor can we war with suppressed and oppressed voices. We need structure for a post-Structuralist world that is wounded but unable to spiritually lick its social wounds. But we must protect the socially weak from spiritual predators. The world is full of metaphysical vampires who don't need physical strength. They feast on the fear and insecurity of the strong. The illuminated thinkers serve independently as superheroes who don't need a thanks but should receive deserved and earned penance in some way. Not money or extra freedoms. The will should not be allowed to rule in anarchy. We need laws, check and balances.
This should be the mission of all men, women and children without any sanction or guidance from any "ascended" order but by mandatory membership in a society. Society comes before class, race, government system, economics or what have you. And no mind lays claim over it for any reason. Not IQ, social status, bloodline, privilege or secret weapon. The rich are not allowed to have more value than the poor. The state is not allowed to have more power than the world government. The psychopaths and actors can't get away with fooling and victimizing the innocent and meek. Justice must be served. And Karma does not decide who wins and loses. It takes the shared wisdom, the altar of knowledge to find any semblance of what is true. And that starts with having every voice be heard and every case be measured fairly. The court of morality exists outside of Masonic parliament and Builderberg meetings or choreographed press.
What is the aim of filmmaking? What is its philosophical tenants? What function does it serve beyond crass enjoyment of spiritualist materialism? Filmmaking tells us who we are at any given moment. Cinema is a pinpoint of nature's physics and stitch in the time stream. We've soared high and fallen low before, all of us. Now to fly again.
The true artists are the independent artists. The best directors are the ones who don't slave or master their craft. They simply coexist peacefully. How? By dramatizing conflict as The Big Other. This can become real world mass hystics and delusional matrixes if we don't ground it in fiction. Small opinions based in big facts, (rather than huge opinions over mass-produced facsimiles called "facts"). Knowledge must be reevaluated like the sciences, laws and metrics within it. As our minds grow, so will our shared perception. For all and not just for some. Everyone is an equal participant and producer of positive abundance. There will always be negativity created by man and by nature and by the cosmos itself, but thats not a deterrent against life. Its what composes the passionate defense of living. This is man's eternal destiny. And whether we come from a God, communicate with a God, dream a God or convene as a God (or many Gods), we are all still free to live so long as we protect the lives of everyone else by not impinging or impending on rights. We all have basic human rights that can't be removed. This is the way not of one nation but of the galactic whole.
We must celebrate our universe by exploring, understanding and respecting it by not filling it with too much trash. What do I mean? The surplus of carbon emissions from industry, toxic pollution, farming deregulations and anything making our ozone hard to breathe. How to fight it? Producing good vibrations. Its as simple as that. Be loved. Be honest. Be inspiring. Be real. Be in the know. Be in the Now. Be You. Be a work of Art.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Case for Zack Snyder
I watched half of Batman v Superman (the 3 hour director's cut) because I can't remember if Zack Snyder is a good director or not. He's a very wise stylist. One of the most visual directors, but the morals are weak. There isn't much method to his aesthetic and he hasn't grown all that much as a storyteller. He reminds me of Jess Franco if Franco sold out and became a millionaire marketing puppet and rightwing government propagandist.
I've found a few decent articles arguing that Snyder is a pro-fascist director. I think its quite the opposite. By applying a "Triumph of the Will"/"Fountainhead"/"Birth of a Nation" lens of disturbing nostalgic Americana, he calls attention to the problematic elements in his subjects, much like Franco used the fascism of Spain as villainy in his own films. The stilted melodramatic dialogue, unrealistic abstracted action and torturous tone of tragedy are intentional and meaningful. Snyder's films have been called "rightwing" merely for playing and analysing imagery and ideology and showing sympathy for modern working class paranoia in the post-9/11 West. His version of Watchmen and Dawn of the Dead exploit racism, Nazism, fascism sexism, etc. But he never condones it. Its exploitation for subversive and transgressive motives. His films are pro-America but not nationalist, white culturally but not white supremacist. He takes a very balanced, neutral, communist stance on nearly every level.
Now I know these Snyder attacks are totally Disney/Marvel propagandists who call themselves fans, so Snyder's work represents a mirror of our recent resistance to corporatist, colluding conspiracy for capitalist gain. "Batman is a vigilante, Superman is a messiah". Totally. This was set in stone before Snyder was even born. And correctly, Snyder honors the tradition of their origins by keeping them old school liberal champions who are pro-state but not of the state. Superman as a journalist seeks truth, justice, blah-de-blah. He lives a modest middle class life and polices THE WORLD equally. But Snyder recognizes the fascism and elitism inherent in Superman's totalitarian-level power. He even shows us Superman as the ultimate threat, a God-like ruler executing humanity's last hope, represented in Batman. Batman comes off like an obsessed, terrified, scarred, alienated sadist. Thats what the character would be in reality. But his hardcore moralism to use his bourgeois status to protect both classes makes him a powerful ally to Superman... and also a threat. Batman, working in his own jurisdiction, has too much power and not enough socialism. Batman is shown killing in dubious moments, falling victim to a crazy Lex Luthor-created conspiracy theory to kill Superman and basically coming up short in his quest to do what's right. Snyder clearly favors the working class alien pacifist Superman over the violent macho anarchist-capitalist extremism in Batman. Snyder is firmly a liberal director and spreading as liberal a message as you will find within mainstream Hollywood "high concept" franchise pictures.
So why was the media so against him? Why are fanboys and fangirls so anti-Snyder and pro-Marvel? I don't think they are. Since BVS, DC's comics have soared and fans have a newfound serious respect for the characters as mythic icons and political archetypes. The failure of BVS's sequel Justice League can't be a determiner of anything as it suffered from both a terrible distribution deal (certainly rigged by Marvel) and then forcing their spy Joss Whedon to replace Snyder as director. Its a blatant infowar. Disney is pushing a neo-conservative/neo-liberal corporate takeover of Hollywood and news media. Time-Warner is targeted heavily in this push towards the extinction of freedom of speech.
Warners knows why JL sucked and so does DC: because Snyder is being silenced by the Elite. Snyder seems canned from the DC franchise. Maybe not a bad thing. It was probably too conservative and not populist enough to really maximize his influence positively. I mean, half of previous Batman and Superman films were pretty lame. But he needed to make a strong run with these successful canons to cement a place in film history.
Zack Snyder is not at a level where I would call him one of the greatest directors ever, but he's certainly among the strongest of the last generation. As the most anti-Oscar and most "for the people", he can never earn the respect of elitist critics, fans and industry insiders. But no one can dispute the incendiary recognition or passionate debate over his name. And that is way more important to an individual film-goer than, I dunno, an IMDB rating (bleck!)
I've found a few decent articles arguing that Snyder is a pro-fascist director. I think its quite the opposite. By applying a "Triumph of the Will"/"Fountainhead"/"Birth of a Nation" lens of disturbing nostalgic Americana, he calls attention to the problematic elements in his subjects, much like Franco used the fascism of Spain as villainy in his own films. The stilted melodramatic dialogue, unrealistic abstracted action and torturous tone of tragedy are intentional and meaningful. Snyder's films have been called "rightwing" merely for playing and analysing imagery and ideology and showing sympathy for modern working class paranoia in the post-9/11 West. His version of Watchmen and Dawn of the Dead exploit racism, Nazism, fascism sexism, etc. But he never condones it. Its exploitation for subversive and transgressive motives. His films are pro-America but not nationalist, white culturally but not white supremacist. He takes a very balanced, neutral, communist stance on nearly every level.
Now I know these Snyder attacks are totally Disney/Marvel propagandists who call themselves fans, so Snyder's work represents a mirror of our recent resistance to corporatist, colluding conspiracy for capitalist gain. "Batman is a vigilante, Superman is a messiah". Totally. This was set in stone before Snyder was even born. And correctly, Snyder honors the tradition of their origins by keeping them old school liberal champions who are pro-state but not of the state. Superman as a journalist seeks truth, justice, blah-de-blah. He lives a modest middle class life and polices THE WORLD equally. But Snyder recognizes the fascism and elitism inherent in Superman's totalitarian-level power. He even shows us Superman as the ultimate threat, a God-like ruler executing humanity's last hope, represented in Batman. Batman comes off like an obsessed, terrified, scarred, alienated sadist. Thats what the character would be in reality. But his hardcore moralism to use his bourgeois status to protect both classes makes him a powerful ally to Superman... and also a threat. Batman, working in his own jurisdiction, has too much power and not enough socialism. Batman is shown killing in dubious moments, falling victim to a crazy Lex Luthor-created conspiracy theory to kill Superman and basically coming up short in his quest to do what's right. Snyder clearly favors the working class alien pacifist Superman over the violent macho anarchist-capitalist extremism in Batman. Snyder is firmly a liberal director and spreading as liberal a message as you will find within mainstream Hollywood "high concept" franchise pictures.
So why was the media so against him? Why are fanboys and fangirls so anti-Snyder and pro-Marvel? I don't think they are. Since BVS, DC's comics have soared and fans have a newfound serious respect for the characters as mythic icons and political archetypes. The failure of BVS's sequel Justice League can't be a determiner of anything as it suffered from both a terrible distribution deal (certainly rigged by Marvel) and then forcing their spy Joss Whedon to replace Snyder as director. Its a blatant infowar. Disney is pushing a neo-conservative/neo-liberal corporate takeover of Hollywood and news media. Time-Warner is targeted heavily in this push towards the extinction of freedom of speech.
Warners knows why JL sucked and so does DC: because Snyder is being silenced by the Elite. Snyder seems canned from the DC franchise. Maybe not a bad thing. It was probably too conservative and not populist enough to really maximize his influence positively. I mean, half of previous Batman and Superman films were pretty lame. But he needed to make a strong run with these successful canons to cement a place in film history.
Zack Snyder is not at a level where I would call him one of the greatest directors ever, but he's certainly among the strongest of the last generation. As the most anti-Oscar and most "for the people", he can never earn the respect of elitist critics, fans and industry insiders. But no one can dispute the incendiary recognition or passionate debate over his name. And that is way more important to an individual film-goer than, I dunno, an IMDB rating (bleck!)
Friday, March 2, 2018
Black Moon 1975 / The Strange Case if Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne 1981 / Messiah of Evil 1973 / Bloodsucking Freaks 1976 / The Devils 1971
"Black Moon" is a Dadaist dream about a young girl who is fleeing a war between men & women. She seeks solace in a dreary country farm occupied by an old woman who knows everything about her and an incestuous mute brother & sister. The film is full of abstract episodes that are probably clever statements on female sexual maturity a'la Alice in Wonderland, but I didn't recognize them. Overall, the experience is rather grating. Its studiously composed but the film feels pretentious with its abundance of cruelty to animal actors, boring metaphors and faux-educational exploitation of its extremely young actress' sexuality. Its worth a watch because it is so unique and its frequently entertaining, but its no lost gem. My impression of director Louis Malle is a wannabe Godard/Bunuel without much originality or talent.
Walerian Borowczyk is much more impressive with his loose adaptation of a classic horror novel. He brings so much voyeuristic intensity and expressive technique to what has to be a minuscule period piece production. The film is a rare accomplishment in balancing erotic and horror tension so well. This is truly one of the most sensual and glossy films of its period (or any period) but it has a grisly urgency. It walks that fine line between art and exploitation beautifully. Seek this movie out.
Messiah of Evil is a film by the couple who wrote Temple of Doom & Howard the Duck for George Lucas. Its a post-hippie horror "feature" about a young woman in a spooky seaside town of zombies. Its freakishly similar to Franco's Virgin Among the Living Dead but they were released the same year (but, Virgin was shot in '71). Its a decent snapshot of a time and generation but its not effective on scares or mood beyond some stylish lighting and minimalist staging. It feels like an arty cash-in on drive-in films without any respect for its audience. Its determined to show off its own intelligence, but there isn't much. To its credit, the film features production design by Jack Fisk, husband of Sissy Spacek and lifelong friend of David Lynch. There is actually a HUGE impression of Twin Peaks in the setting of this story, so its memorable and important for that.
Bloodsucking Freaks could be the best film Troma ever released, alongside The Toxic Avenger and maybe The Last Horror Film. Like those movies, it is a lurid portrait of NY independent filmmaking from a bygone era of sleaze, art and political dissidence. This is the most extreme of its kind, a satire about white slavery full of cannibalism, torture, murder and brainwashing. A decade ago, this film made me queasy to watch. Now I appreciate the immense intelligence and bravery in pulling off such a disturbing but complex little exploitation. A film like this is looking to make a statement more than a profit.
I finally watched Ken Russell's The Devils. Besides maybe a snippet of Tommy, this is my first film by popular British cult director. Wow. What a brilliant technical director and stylist he is. His camera is so alive and magnetized by every action on the screen. There isn't one lazy performance or dull scene or false moment in this classic story of religious persecution and moral corruption. The story itself is a great and bold attack on Catholicism, but it avoids tempting melodrama or bland tragedy by setting us up with so many laughs and spectacles. Russell's film has a broad irony that had to be a game-changer then. He really reflects the Mod sensibility of his generation and marries it with the most classic but unsuspecting narrative tropes. And its more than just a bunch of clever tricks. It moves you and haunts you.
Walerian Borowczyk is much more impressive with his loose adaptation of a classic horror novel. He brings so much voyeuristic intensity and expressive technique to what has to be a minuscule period piece production. The film is a rare accomplishment in balancing erotic and horror tension so well. This is truly one of the most sensual and glossy films of its period (or any period) but it has a grisly urgency. It walks that fine line between art and exploitation beautifully. Seek this movie out.
Messiah of Evil is a film by the couple who wrote Temple of Doom & Howard the Duck for George Lucas. Its a post-hippie horror "feature" about a young woman in a spooky seaside town of zombies. Its freakishly similar to Franco's Virgin Among the Living Dead but they were released the same year (but, Virgin was shot in '71). Its a decent snapshot of a time and generation but its not effective on scares or mood beyond some stylish lighting and minimalist staging. It feels like an arty cash-in on drive-in films without any respect for its audience. Its determined to show off its own intelligence, but there isn't much. To its credit, the film features production design by Jack Fisk, husband of Sissy Spacek and lifelong friend of David Lynch. There is actually a HUGE impression of Twin Peaks in the setting of this story, so its memorable and important for that.
Bloodsucking Freaks could be the best film Troma ever released, alongside The Toxic Avenger and maybe The Last Horror Film. Like those movies, it is a lurid portrait of NY independent filmmaking from a bygone era of sleaze, art and political dissidence. This is the most extreme of its kind, a satire about white slavery full of cannibalism, torture, murder and brainwashing. A decade ago, this film made me queasy to watch. Now I appreciate the immense intelligence and bravery in pulling off such a disturbing but complex little exploitation. A film like this is looking to make a statement more than a profit.
I finally watched Ken Russell's The Devils. Besides maybe a snippet of Tommy, this is my first film by popular British cult director. Wow. What a brilliant technical director and stylist he is. His camera is so alive and magnetized by every action on the screen. There isn't one lazy performance or dull scene or false moment in this classic story of religious persecution and moral corruption. The story itself is a great and bold attack on Catholicism, but it avoids tempting melodrama or bland tragedy by setting us up with so many laughs and spectacles. Russell's film has a broad irony that had to be a game-changer then. He really reflects the Mod sensibility of his generation and marries it with the most classic but unsuspecting narrative tropes. And its more than just a bunch of clever tricks. It moves you and haunts you.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Racial recasting is rarely interesting but it could be used to make important statements. Black Panther is basically African Bruce Wayne and that highlights some issues with black hero worship in the West. Shouldn't racial recasting have some purpose bigger than meeting "diversity demographics"? How about ironic racial casting to actually disassemble racism? Could America swallow a black Donald Trump? Doubtful. Thats a movie idea right there.
Sean Astin on Django Unchained
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Sgt Kabukiman NYPD 1990 / The Evil Dead 1981 / Monty Python & The Holy Grail 1975
Kabukiman is Lloyd Kaufman & Michael Herz' comeback film after the drizzling Toxic Avenger 3 and is their last directing collaboration to date (with Herz becoming the primary producer). Kabukiman tweaks the Troma formula by satirizing/exploiting a big budget film (Batman) and toning down the sex & violence. Its more of a return to the screwball comedies Troma produced pre-Toxic Avenger. The film is low on laughs and the action is amateurish, but its heavy on social commentary and low budget charm.
Troma films have this unique quality of mixing slapstick violence and realistic violence, which is very surreal and creates a meaningful conflict in style. At the same time, you can't take the drama seriously or the comedy lightly (perfectly realized in the fist two Toxic Avenger films and the original Class of Nuke 'Em High). I actually think this element works better in SK than in Toxie 3. Whereas that film had a moody aura that was actually missing humor, SKN is humor with a dash of realism. It plays as a very modern film because of this gritty slapstick and artificial realism. Let's face it: Guardians of the Galaxy movies are Troma films minus the political activism, risky jokes or modest production. Kabukiman is not one of Troma's best but its one of their most sincere and least offensive.
The Evil Dead is not a masterpiece in my eyes, but its one of the most impressive debuts of a director to date. The technical know-how, genre-savvy and inventive low-budget creativity is almost unparalleled. The plot is a more conservative, lowbrow, exploitative remix of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, the early work of Wes Craven, an obscure film called Equinox and a few others (the nod to Rosemary's Baby is almost groan-inducing). But the postmodern genre of "fan film" owes a lot to Evil Dead. Raimi takes what could've been absolutely absurd and kitsch and makes it absurdist and camp. The poor continuity, cheap FX and amateur performances work cohesively to create a Gonzo style. I've never found Evil Dead to be the emotionally intense or haunting commentary that truly great horror films are, but it has a claustrophobic mood and grim surrealism that perfectly bridges the 1970s to the 1980s. Its artistic entertainment, not entertaining art. Thats okay for such a small project and its still the best thing Raimi has ever done.
I grew up loving Holy Grail for its downbeat rhythm and strange, inexplicable laughs but only now do I recognize the intelligent design and commentary behind the carefully crafted surrealism. Holy Grail works as a series of deconstructionist sketches, each applying the group's shared Marxist philosophy to a different subject: monarchy, feminism, nationalism, militarism, homophobia, racism, generational transition, existentialism, nihilists etc. Cleverly the postmodernists tackle British modernism by starting at the source, the ridiculous legend of King Arthur and his insane, murderous, superstitious and literally criminal Knights of the Round Table. By today's standards, some of the humor might verge on insensitive, ex. the somewhat racist Black Knight skit is amended in Meaning of Life's Zulu skit. But overall its a witty, next-level and quite elementary guide to Western intellectualism.
Famously, Lorne Michaels and Chevy Chase met at a screening of Holy Grail and basically conceived SNL as the American "Flying Circus". Watching Holy Grail you find everything SNL lacked as a totally poser, hipster, neoliberal misreading of surrealist political satire. That show was more diverse, more populist and more upbeat, but not nearly as enlightened, dangerous or moralistic. I'm kind of tired of SNL being honored as such a groundbreaking institution of comedy when it never surpassed Python in the most important element: humor.
Troma films have this unique quality of mixing slapstick violence and realistic violence, which is very surreal and creates a meaningful conflict in style. At the same time, you can't take the drama seriously or the comedy lightly (perfectly realized in the fist two Toxic Avenger films and the original Class of Nuke 'Em High). I actually think this element works better in SK than in Toxie 3. Whereas that film had a moody aura that was actually missing humor, SKN is humor with a dash of realism. It plays as a very modern film because of this gritty slapstick and artificial realism. Let's face it: Guardians of the Galaxy movies are Troma films minus the political activism, risky jokes or modest production. Kabukiman is not one of Troma's best but its one of their most sincere and least offensive.
The Evil Dead is not a masterpiece in my eyes, but its one of the most impressive debuts of a director to date. The technical know-how, genre-savvy and inventive low-budget creativity is almost unparalleled. The plot is a more conservative, lowbrow, exploitative remix of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, the early work of Wes Craven, an obscure film called Equinox and a few others (the nod to Rosemary's Baby is almost groan-inducing). But the postmodern genre of "fan film" owes a lot to Evil Dead. Raimi takes what could've been absolutely absurd and kitsch and makes it absurdist and camp. The poor continuity, cheap FX and amateur performances work cohesively to create a Gonzo style. I've never found Evil Dead to be the emotionally intense or haunting commentary that truly great horror films are, but it has a claustrophobic mood and grim surrealism that perfectly bridges the 1970s to the 1980s. Its artistic entertainment, not entertaining art. Thats okay for such a small project and its still the best thing Raimi has ever done.
I grew up loving Holy Grail for its downbeat rhythm and strange, inexplicable laughs but only now do I recognize the intelligent design and commentary behind the carefully crafted surrealism. Holy Grail works as a series of deconstructionist sketches, each applying the group's shared Marxist philosophy to a different subject: monarchy, feminism, nationalism, militarism, homophobia, racism, generational transition, existentialism, nihilists etc. Cleverly the postmodernists tackle British modernism by starting at the source, the ridiculous legend of King Arthur and his insane, murderous, superstitious and literally criminal Knights of the Round Table. By today's standards, some of the humor might verge on insensitive, ex. the somewhat racist Black Knight skit is amended in Meaning of Life's Zulu skit. But overall its a witty, next-level and quite elementary guide to Western intellectualism.
Famously, Lorne Michaels and Chevy Chase met at a screening of Holy Grail and basically conceived SNL as the American "Flying Circus". Watching Holy Grail you find everything SNL lacked as a totally poser, hipster, neoliberal misreading of surrealist political satire. That show was more diverse, more populist and more upbeat, but not nearly as enlightened, dangerous or moralistic. I'm kind of tired of SNL being honored as such a groundbreaking institution of comedy when it never surpassed Python in the most important element: humor.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
rantin'
Ok, so some Russian hackers are indicted for attacking the Clinton campaign and a white supremacist teen shot up a school in Florida. Through the lens of filmmaking, I want to dissect these events and , maybe more importantly, the public's reaction to them. Also, I can work in the recent movie news about Black Panther being an unsurprising success. There is an intersectionality between these 3 things and its mired in chaotic, dishonest mainstream media politics.
I skimmed through some bad Hollywood films I planned to review, but couldn't bring myself to watch fully: Queen of the Damned, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Scott Pilgrim, Mr and Mrs Smith (which I watched & reviewed). I'm sickened by the false liberalism in these films. I'm deadened by giving time to their gross capitalist aberrations of reality to create a commercial dreamscape of comforting lies and smokescreen truth. This irresponsible mutation from public art to mass distributed propaganda has damned society. We have a generation who get their politics from bad TV & movies owned by news media companies that don't report the real news. The films put out by the so-called "Hollywood Left" have nothing to do with freedom, democratic choice, equality, multiculturalism or spiritual enlightenment. God forbid our art actually tell us to do more than consume and watch TV...
So I'm furious at how this recent shooting is being literally sold by the media as a bid for the same neoliberalism that hurt the Far Left. We are told to ignore weight of the reality of another deadly and violent outburst by a young citizen (always white, rightwing, male and white nationalist). The outburst of death, hate and evil is glossed over so we allign with news shows, argue on the same cattled social media sites and then vote for the same two deeply-connected and insidiously hypocritical parties of political careerists. Essentially the issue always turns to "how should the elite control the people better?" Maybe stop being the elite and share the wealth that we all have acquired in the name of duty & humanity.
I hate guns. I hate the gun-porn in movies. I hate gun-nuts in poor neighborhoods. And I most hate gun manufacturers and the NRA, two disgusting capitalist wings of the Aryan Brotherhood (since saying "white patriarchy" doesn't seem to annoy the right or mobilize the left). I'm all for taking money out of their hands to protect innocent people. Guns are a problem. I don't even think they should exist. But getting rid of the guns won't even phase the villains of society. These shootings are done by weakling soldiers in a bigger war. Their "alt-right" leaders are growing fascist regimes globally and have scary private power to prevent you from even becoming a threat. News propaganda, internet spying, brainwashing entertainment and bought and now CREATED politician puppets. The Republican party is run by scary thugs in secret societies who use business, religion and politics to poison the world and control its people to serve their pockets. And we have to stop relying on democrats, a party totally controlled by billionaire CIA agents from equally elitist, racist, sexist backgrounds. They work towards an almost identical end-goal: sitting on top of the pyramid while the world burns to ashes.
I accept that Trump is a foreign agent worse than Hitler ever was. He's not out to save white people. He's out to save wealthy libertine white dudes (as was Hitler, honestly). Hillary is a few shades less evil because liberals don't discriminate as they don't have the power to be discreet or have the popularity of white racism (anymore). Is he connected to the hacking? I dunno. It doesn't matter because he's done so many bad things and this avenue is not the best to catch him. What are some Russian hackers who are protected by Russia and probably KGB going to do? Trump's entire cabinet is full of slimy "soft criminals" and there have to be a zillion paper trails tying him to illegal action. The FBI & CIA seem determined to undermine him. Good. So maybe take focus off of Russia and look into Saudi Arabia, China, the Aryan Brotherhood, Fox News, even WWE. Every stinking enterprise that would give him a dollar and who he has repaid publicly. Its fucking madness that no news or public voices are following this REAL story. The population is lost in mindless, politically-stupid talks about Russia when we can't go to war with them. Cut off Putin's ties. Cut off Trump's allies.
And in the meantime, turn the page on liberalism. Black Panther is such a lame reflection of the last 8 years of propaganda. The concept of black capitalist nationalism is both absurd and toxic. It serves the neoliberal's side of the military-industrial complex's quest for capital and political power but not freedom and compensation for the working class. More Disney exploitation. The Marvel franchise has to DIE. Enough of these phony, braindead, overly emotional pleas for money to control our government. I mean, literally, Disney is one of the most dangerous and corrupt corporations in the world and have led the fight to cheat in business. They have helped elect every shitty president I've lived through with their conservative propaganda for children (and numerous child-brained adults). It seems particularly that rightwings and neoliberals just can't live without Disney, NFL, radio pop and all of the "American" institutions of excess and ignorance.
Where is the alternative? The independent voices? The Libertarian party in Europe was once a socialist federation that made the E.U. a luxury. But then they and American Libertarians turned to rightwing bullshit like sucking off corporations and selling out workers. They saw the injustice happening and decided to be on the greediest side of it. Because most Libertarians aren't Libertarian Socialist. They want the government to shrink so they can make as much money as possible. They believe capitalism is fair and will favor the workers. Has never happened. Americans live better than other nations just because we're on the winning side of capitalism. But we still trail capitalist AND socialist nations who aren't as rich. Why? Because money doesn't solve anything.
And money certainly doesn't make good movies. Its a resource. Thats all. Its a resource to get other resources, namely the commission of other people. The people are the real determiner of collective quality. Not selfish aims of the management or dumbass elitist egotism and bigoted self-interest. Its about the work. Doing good work for everyone and MAKING A LIVING doing it. Hollywood fat cats don't give much of a damn if the work is good. They ONLY care about their paychecks and residuals. Knobs.
I skimmed through some bad Hollywood films I planned to review, but couldn't bring myself to watch fully: Queen of the Damned, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Scott Pilgrim, Mr and Mrs Smith (which I watched & reviewed). I'm sickened by the false liberalism in these films. I'm deadened by giving time to their gross capitalist aberrations of reality to create a commercial dreamscape of comforting lies and smokescreen truth. This irresponsible mutation from public art to mass distributed propaganda has damned society. We have a generation who get their politics from bad TV & movies owned by news media companies that don't report the real news. The films put out by the so-called "Hollywood Left" have nothing to do with freedom, democratic choice, equality, multiculturalism or spiritual enlightenment. God forbid our art actually tell us to do more than consume and watch TV...
So I'm furious at how this recent shooting is being literally sold by the media as a bid for the same neoliberalism that hurt the Far Left. We are told to ignore weight of the reality of another deadly and violent outburst by a young citizen (always white, rightwing, male and white nationalist). The outburst of death, hate and evil is glossed over so we allign with news shows, argue on the same cattled social media sites and then vote for the same two deeply-connected and insidiously hypocritical parties of political careerists. Essentially the issue always turns to "how should the elite control the people better?" Maybe stop being the elite and share the wealth that we all have acquired in the name of duty & humanity.
I hate guns. I hate the gun-porn in movies. I hate gun-nuts in poor neighborhoods. And I most hate gun manufacturers and the NRA, two disgusting capitalist wings of the Aryan Brotherhood (since saying "white patriarchy" doesn't seem to annoy the right or mobilize the left). I'm all for taking money out of their hands to protect innocent people. Guns are a problem. I don't even think they should exist. But getting rid of the guns won't even phase the villains of society. These shootings are done by weakling soldiers in a bigger war. Their "alt-right" leaders are growing fascist regimes globally and have scary private power to prevent you from even becoming a threat. News propaganda, internet spying, brainwashing entertainment and bought and now CREATED politician puppets. The Republican party is run by scary thugs in secret societies who use business, religion and politics to poison the world and control its people to serve their pockets. And we have to stop relying on democrats, a party totally controlled by billionaire CIA agents from equally elitist, racist, sexist backgrounds. They work towards an almost identical end-goal: sitting on top of the pyramid while the world burns to ashes.
I accept that Trump is a foreign agent worse than Hitler ever was. He's not out to save white people. He's out to save wealthy libertine white dudes (as was Hitler, honestly). Hillary is a few shades less evil because liberals don't discriminate as they don't have the power to be discreet or have the popularity of white racism (anymore). Is he connected to the hacking? I dunno. It doesn't matter because he's done so many bad things and this avenue is not the best to catch him. What are some Russian hackers who are protected by Russia and probably KGB going to do? Trump's entire cabinet is full of slimy "soft criminals" and there have to be a zillion paper trails tying him to illegal action. The FBI & CIA seem determined to undermine him. Good. So maybe take focus off of Russia and look into Saudi Arabia, China, the Aryan Brotherhood, Fox News, even WWE. Every stinking enterprise that would give him a dollar and who he has repaid publicly. Its fucking madness that no news or public voices are following this REAL story. The population is lost in mindless, politically-stupid talks about Russia when we can't go to war with them. Cut off Putin's ties. Cut off Trump's allies.
And in the meantime, turn the page on liberalism. Black Panther is such a lame reflection of the last 8 years of propaganda. The concept of black capitalist nationalism is both absurd and toxic. It serves the neoliberal's side of the military-industrial complex's quest for capital and political power but not freedom and compensation for the working class. More Disney exploitation. The Marvel franchise has to DIE. Enough of these phony, braindead, overly emotional pleas for money to control our government. I mean, literally, Disney is one of the most dangerous and corrupt corporations in the world and have led the fight to cheat in business. They have helped elect every shitty president I've lived through with their conservative propaganda for children (and numerous child-brained adults). It seems particularly that rightwings and neoliberals just can't live without Disney, NFL, radio pop and all of the "American" institutions of excess and ignorance.
Where is the alternative? The independent voices? The Libertarian party in Europe was once a socialist federation that made the E.U. a luxury. But then they and American Libertarians turned to rightwing bullshit like sucking off corporations and selling out workers. They saw the injustice happening and decided to be on the greediest side of it. Because most Libertarians aren't Libertarian Socialist. They want the government to shrink so they can make as much money as possible. They believe capitalism is fair and will favor the workers. Has never happened. Americans live better than other nations just because we're on the winning side of capitalism. But we still trail capitalist AND socialist nations who aren't as rich. Why? Because money doesn't solve anything.
And money certainly doesn't make good movies. Its a resource. Thats all. Its a resource to get other resources, namely the commission of other people. The people are the real determiner of collective quality. Not selfish aims of the management or dumbass elitist egotism and bigoted self-interest. Its about the work. Doing good work for everyone and MAKING A LIVING doing it. Hollywood fat cats don't give much of a damn if the work is good. They ONLY care about their paychecks and residuals. Knobs.
The Bloody Judge 1969 / The Demons 1973 / Doriana Grey 1976 / Lorna the Exorcist 1974 / Sexy Sisters 1977 / Sinner - Diary of a Nyphomaniac 1973
I'm really in the last string of major Franco titles to review. These are particularly darker and more trying films from his more depressive and destitute days. I don't enjoy them as much, but they fit my current mood and reveal more of Franco's character and inner battles.
The Bloody Judge is some prime Franco. It could be the best work but maybe not the best film from his soaring commercial career in the late 1960s. Its just as disturbing yet alternately beautiful. Its smart and not at all exploitative. It feels sincere to its historical influences and you can measure it favorably to Hollywood of the period or this current age. Its plot-themes are very pressing: a psychotic conservative authoritarian and probable secret society member who is persecuting the impoverished population he presides over. Scary stuff. This and the other Franco roles are Christopher Lee at his most effective as an actor and a scary "horror movie" presence. Highly recommended!
The Demons follows the same vein but its made for a much sleazier producer with cheaper resources and questionable tastes. Robert de Nestle replaces Harry Allan Towers, which is not a totally skewed trade-off. Its so tawdry and lurid, you can't help but admire it. And a stoned Franco does a great job on damage control. I think this is probably the most tightly plotted and classically shot of de Nestle's time with Franco. It could be the most polished overall and its one of the most erotic and aren't Franco's film supposed to be erotic primarily? The film has some surreal, absurd, camp and kitsch treats as usual. Jess was really in a free-form mood with some impressive resources to bounce off of.
Doriana Grey fits the 70s definition of a porno. You can't quite interpret it the same as the traditional commercial narrative film or even the arthouse experiments or even the sleaziest softcore movies. But it can have the same value. Doriana Gray has the loosest of loose stories about twin Linda Romay's who are soul mates and need to make lesbian love... and maybe its all a dream. Its some heavy, artful, technically brilliant stuff to prop up a lot of graphic sex scenes. And it works. I wasn't thrilled by plot or character because thrills weren't the goal. I find the sex scenes alluring in concept and cathartic and beautifully staged. Pornographic cinema has always had its place and been an influential genre steeped in important cultural art. Franco channels something ancient in these erotic period pieces of the 1970s. I favor this to some more narrative but less erotic films.
Lorna the Exorcist came out earlier (another de Nestle film). Again, the plot is small and lifted essentially from merging Eugenie with other shit, Rumpelstiltskin perhaps (Faust is mentioned). This film sets the stage for following explicit sex films by Jesus Franco: hotels, long takes of scenery, extended love scenes and very obtuse but effective dialogue and minor action. Actually, Franco's Other Side of the Mirror led to this mini-genre in its X-rated cut. Lorna has a wonderfull psychedelic rock/electric jazz score and otherworldly photography and the performances are sharp. Its plot is more strange than anything that precedes it, but maybe more easy-to-follow than what follows it. This is not for everyone but Francophiles will rank it highly.
Sexy Sisters is one of many films where blonde actress Karine Gambier is masochistically tied up and abused mentally and physically by a brunette. I very much enjoy the film Franco made for producer Erwin Dietrich but apparently he stunted Franco's experimental camerawork. Their collaborations are always minimalist, polished and focused on erotica over statements or creativity. Thats fine. Sexy Sisters is one of the weaker of their films but it has decent dramatic plot, performances and great design on a dime.
Sinner is probably the biggest slam dunk out of this batch of reviews. It integrates an original story structure, haunting music, nightclub atmosphere, feminist romance and melodramatic tragedy. And it remains classy by rejecting the hardcore sex or sadism you might expect. This is more of a personal statement or responsible professional job. And it has that rare kind of Franco ending that is so open-ended that it drives you mad and forces you to meditate on the story's reality and its metaphors. I like when Franco's films are personal and still can easily convince the mainstream of his genius. I hope this film was a grindhouse smash because its one of the purest examples of drive-in aesthetics you can find. It might have been too sexy and unadulterated for most suburban drive-in's though.
The Bloody Judge is some prime Franco. It could be the best work but maybe not the best film from his soaring commercial career in the late 1960s. Its just as disturbing yet alternately beautiful. Its smart and not at all exploitative. It feels sincere to its historical influences and you can measure it favorably to Hollywood of the period or this current age. Its plot-themes are very pressing: a psychotic conservative authoritarian and probable secret society member who is persecuting the impoverished population he presides over. Scary stuff. This and the other Franco roles are Christopher Lee at his most effective as an actor and a scary "horror movie" presence. Highly recommended!
The Demons follows the same vein but its made for a much sleazier producer with cheaper resources and questionable tastes. Robert de Nestle replaces Harry Allan Towers, which is not a totally skewed trade-off. Its so tawdry and lurid, you can't help but admire it. And a stoned Franco does a great job on damage control. I think this is probably the most tightly plotted and classically shot of de Nestle's time with Franco. It could be the most polished overall and its one of the most erotic and aren't Franco's film supposed to be erotic primarily? The film has some surreal, absurd, camp and kitsch treats as usual. Jess was really in a free-form mood with some impressive resources to bounce off of.
Doriana Grey fits the 70s definition of a porno. You can't quite interpret it the same as the traditional commercial narrative film or even the arthouse experiments or even the sleaziest softcore movies. But it can have the same value. Doriana Gray has the loosest of loose stories about twin Linda Romay's who are soul mates and need to make lesbian love... and maybe its all a dream. Its some heavy, artful, technically brilliant stuff to prop up a lot of graphic sex scenes. And it works. I wasn't thrilled by plot or character because thrills weren't the goal. I find the sex scenes alluring in concept and cathartic and beautifully staged. Pornographic cinema has always had its place and been an influential genre steeped in important cultural art. Franco channels something ancient in these erotic period pieces of the 1970s. I favor this to some more narrative but less erotic films.
Lorna the Exorcist came out earlier (another de Nestle film). Again, the plot is small and lifted essentially from merging Eugenie with other shit, Rumpelstiltskin perhaps (Faust is mentioned). This film sets the stage for following explicit sex films by Jesus Franco: hotels, long takes of scenery, extended love scenes and very obtuse but effective dialogue and minor action. Actually, Franco's Other Side of the Mirror led to this mini-genre in its X-rated cut. Lorna has a wonderfull psychedelic rock/electric jazz score and otherworldly photography and the performances are sharp. Its plot is more strange than anything that precedes it, but maybe more easy-to-follow than what follows it. This is not for everyone but Francophiles will rank it highly.
Sexy Sisters is one of many films where blonde actress Karine Gambier is masochistically tied up and abused mentally and physically by a brunette. I very much enjoy the film Franco made for producer Erwin Dietrich but apparently he stunted Franco's experimental camerawork. Their collaborations are always minimalist, polished and focused on erotica over statements or creativity. Thats fine. Sexy Sisters is one of the weaker of their films but it has decent dramatic plot, performances and great design on a dime.
Sinner is probably the biggest slam dunk out of this batch of reviews. It integrates an original story structure, haunting music, nightclub atmosphere, feminist romance and melodramatic tragedy. And it remains classy by rejecting the hardcore sex or sadism you might expect. This is more of a personal statement or responsible professional job. And it has that rare kind of Franco ending that is so open-ended that it drives you mad and forces you to meditate on the story's reality and its metaphors. I like when Franco's films are personal and still can easily convince the mainstream of his genius. I hope this film was a grindhouse smash because its one of the purest examples of drive-in aesthetics you can find. It might have been too sexy and unadulterated for most suburban drive-in's though.
Friday, February 16, 2018
Love Camp / Tropical Inferno / Women Without Innocence / Kiss Me Monster / Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun
All of the Jess Franco films I'm reviewing have a feminist edge and the first 3 are all produced by Erwin Dietrich, a Swiss who focused his productions on political subtext, extreme sexual content and moody, lavish locations. He's possibly my favorite producer Franco had in the 1970s as all of their collaborations have been strong so far.
1977's Love Camp tells the story of women abducted to be concubines for a communist rebel army. Most of the girls don't really care but our protagonist becomes torn in her heart between her bourgeois husband at home and the brutish but idealistic freedom fighter who rapes her. The film, if taken literally, will offend feminists but its merely an ironic satire of 1970s political movements, especially feminist and communist hypocrisy. Its brisk but heavy and entertaining.
78's Tropical Inferno is another Women in Prison film, this being the most brutal. The plot is a reworking of 99 Women, Sadomania and other Franco WIP films, with innocents and political radicals being oppressed by a fascist couple (a lesbian & male surgeon, naturally). But Franco is unleashed in this newest rendition, sparing no detail of gory torture or sexual manipulation. This is one of the most serious Franco films I've seen. Zero humor and the performances are as human as the production level can allow.
From the same year comes Women Without Innocence. Its the strongest WIP film of the trio with a tight, unorthodox and detailed plot, plus a supremely impressive performance from Lina Romay (who is absent from the other films). She plays a mental patient being triggered to remember details of a murder she witnessed. There's lots of bizarre subplots and very gorgeous cinematography, even for Franco. Most surprising is the unrealistic Romantic ending that the film receives. With the other 2 films it creates a satisfying dialectic where Franco delivers 3 vastly different worldviews of the same basic narrative.
The more I watch his films, the more impressed I am with this idea of "syncopated cinema" (a term coined in Obsession: The Films of Jess Franco). He returns again and again to themes, plots, characters, even locations to play jazz with broken expectations and new, biographic detail. He's not just creating new work but commenting and critiquing his old work. Its deconstructionism, self-analysis and creating a totally personal grammar of cinema from taking as little outside influence as possible. Its so much more authentic emotionally than most so-called postmodernists like Tarantino or De Palma who crib from other actors but don't actually bring much to it but fanboy or film critic commentary. Thats how Franco started out as a maker of mainstream exploitation films, but he quickly outgrew that while proudly retaining or parodying his roots in cheap mimicry. He parodies the parody he once was.
Kiss Me Monster from 1969 is evidence of this. After directing a couple decent Bond-esque spy films, Franco returned to the more liberal, hipster, feminist films he started his career with. His 2nd film ever followed the Red Lips detective agency, two cute Spanish girls who are prototype Mary Sue's, but who are so flippant and self-aware that the film becomes cute satire. KMM resurrects these characters as more mature post-oo7 super spies with a mean sense of humor and enormous sexual identity. The plot is thin and convoluted so we can have early touches of minimalism, long takes, expressionist lighting, cartooned gags and nifty dialogue. A lot of it is lost in the bland English dub, unfortunately. Still this film is worth a watch and sets up much better films. The film doesn't shy away from exposing assassination, secret societies, corrupt government officials and institutional abuses of power by elites and bottom feeders.
8 years later, Jess releases Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun. Amazing how much less money he's allowed but how much more creative freedom and experience he attained. This is why you can't down this director for working on small projects so frequently. And while Nuns isn't a masterpiece, its high above the quality of most grindhouse of what was the golden age of B-movies. Barring some heavy nods to Ken Russell & Roman Polanski and the basic theme of his own films Justine and The Bloody Judge, Nuns is a beautiful, tasteful, non-exploitative and respectful study of victimhood. Franco takes serious meditation in showing the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and decosntructing the inherent Satanic qualities of Christianity, while condemning dark occultism and libertine sadism. This film too ends with a Romantic and implausible ending, but Franco intended to show his own spiritual beliefs in karma and justice prevailing.
Apparently, Love Letters is a remake of his film The Demons. Expect a review soon! As that is a Robert De Nestle production, I'm sure its heavier on Gothic design and horror tropes. Dietrich as a producer gives Nun a polish, a cold calculated design, a sincere parallelism with Nazism that gives the film undertones of high art. This wasn't just S&M porn for German audiences. This was anti-fascist propaganda and medicine to cure the hearts and minds of survivors of institutional terror. That brave assault on German white nationalism is why this period of Franco's oeuvre ring so loudly today. He was one of cinema's great moralists and, as a villain says in Faceless, a "deep sentimentalist" underneath his spooky, sex-loving mystique.
1977's Love Camp tells the story of women abducted to be concubines for a communist rebel army. Most of the girls don't really care but our protagonist becomes torn in her heart between her bourgeois husband at home and the brutish but idealistic freedom fighter who rapes her. The film, if taken literally, will offend feminists but its merely an ironic satire of 1970s political movements, especially feminist and communist hypocrisy. Its brisk but heavy and entertaining.
78's Tropical Inferno is another Women in Prison film, this being the most brutal. The plot is a reworking of 99 Women, Sadomania and other Franco WIP films, with innocents and political radicals being oppressed by a fascist couple (a lesbian & male surgeon, naturally). But Franco is unleashed in this newest rendition, sparing no detail of gory torture or sexual manipulation. This is one of the most serious Franco films I've seen. Zero humor and the performances are as human as the production level can allow.
From the same year comes Women Without Innocence. Its the strongest WIP film of the trio with a tight, unorthodox and detailed plot, plus a supremely impressive performance from Lina Romay (who is absent from the other films). She plays a mental patient being triggered to remember details of a murder she witnessed. There's lots of bizarre subplots and very gorgeous cinematography, even for Franco. Most surprising is the unrealistic Romantic ending that the film receives. With the other 2 films it creates a satisfying dialectic where Franco delivers 3 vastly different worldviews of the same basic narrative.
The more I watch his films, the more impressed I am with this idea of "syncopated cinema" (a term coined in Obsession: The Films of Jess Franco). He returns again and again to themes, plots, characters, even locations to play jazz with broken expectations and new, biographic detail. He's not just creating new work but commenting and critiquing his old work. Its deconstructionism, self-analysis and creating a totally personal grammar of cinema from taking as little outside influence as possible. Its so much more authentic emotionally than most so-called postmodernists like Tarantino or De Palma who crib from other actors but don't actually bring much to it but fanboy or film critic commentary. Thats how Franco started out as a maker of mainstream exploitation films, but he quickly outgrew that while proudly retaining or parodying his roots in cheap mimicry. He parodies the parody he once was.
Kiss Me Monster from 1969 is evidence of this. After directing a couple decent Bond-esque spy films, Franco returned to the more liberal, hipster, feminist films he started his career with. His 2nd film ever followed the Red Lips detective agency, two cute Spanish girls who are prototype Mary Sue's, but who are so flippant and self-aware that the film becomes cute satire. KMM resurrects these characters as more mature post-oo7 super spies with a mean sense of humor and enormous sexual identity. The plot is thin and convoluted so we can have early touches of minimalism, long takes, expressionist lighting, cartooned gags and nifty dialogue. A lot of it is lost in the bland English dub, unfortunately. Still this film is worth a watch and sets up much better films. The film doesn't shy away from exposing assassination, secret societies, corrupt government officials and institutional abuses of power by elites and bottom feeders.
8 years later, Jess releases Love Letters of a Portuguese Nun. Amazing how much less money he's allowed but how much more creative freedom and experience he attained. This is why you can't down this director for working on small projects so frequently. And while Nuns isn't a masterpiece, its high above the quality of most grindhouse of what was the golden age of B-movies. Barring some heavy nods to Ken Russell & Roman Polanski and the basic theme of his own films Justine and The Bloody Judge, Nuns is a beautiful, tasteful, non-exploitative and respectful study of victimhood. Franco takes serious meditation in showing the hypocrisy of the Catholic church and decosntructing the inherent Satanic qualities of Christianity, while condemning dark occultism and libertine sadism. This film too ends with a Romantic and implausible ending, but Franco intended to show his own spiritual beliefs in karma and justice prevailing.
Apparently, Love Letters is a remake of his film The Demons. Expect a review soon! As that is a Robert De Nestle production, I'm sure its heavier on Gothic design and horror tropes. Dietrich as a producer gives Nun a polish, a cold calculated design, a sincere parallelism with Nazism that gives the film undertones of high art. This wasn't just S&M porn for German audiences. This was anti-fascist propaganda and medicine to cure the hearts and minds of survivors of institutional terror. That brave assault on German white nationalism is why this period of Franco's oeuvre ring so loudly today. He was one of cinema's great moralists and, as a villain says in Faceless, a "deep sentimentalist" underneath his spooky, sex-loving mystique.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
"Budget, plot, continuity, suspense, action and drama are nonexistent.
Absurdity abounds, and only Franco’s staunchest admirers will think the
“comedy” is deliberate."
Thats from a review of a Franco b-movie. Dude, I think only a small handful of films weren't comedic. He worked in absurdism, deadpan, dark satire, spoof and slapstick from the very start of his career. He just learned to direct dramatically thanks to Welles. I would argue this is true of a lot of "serious" arthouse or cult directors. They are humorists.
Franco's running joke is similar to "The Aristocrats". He shows horror, immorality, insanity, transgression and personal themes of evil with the punchline that its always a mirror to society's collective Id. This he learned from Marquis de Sade and other bleak satirists like Voltaire and horror writers like Poe. Odd how so many decipher the lyrical quality of his films for biographical merit but don't see the obvious social commentary, philosophy and political-religious protest. These are the preoccupations of lifelong artists, so its beyond all critics.
Thats from a review of a Franco b-movie. Dude, I think only a small handful of films weren't comedic. He worked in absurdism, deadpan, dark satire, spoof and slapstick from the very start of his career. He just learned to direct dramatically thanks to Welles. I would argue this is true of a lot of "serious" arthouse or cult directors. They are humorists.
Franco's running joke is similar to "The Aristocrats". He shows horror, immorality, insanity, transgression and personal themes of evil with the punchline that its always a mirror to society's collective Id. This he learned from Marquis de Sade and other bleak satirists like Voltaire and horror writers like Poe. Odd how so many decipher the lyrical quality of his films for biographical merit but don't see the obvious social commentary, philosophy and political-religious protest. These are the preoccupations of lifelong artists, so its beyond all critics.
Exorcism 1975 / Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein 1972
2 solid mid-tier Franco films, both stronger than they are weak.
Exorcism is a very small, restrained effort from Franco. He made it for EuroCine's Marius LeSoeur, maybe his most cheap and gritty producer of the 1970s, so its heavy on sexuality and low on plot action or even visual style. But the film is notable for 2 things: its wonderfully satiric plot & Jess Franco playing the lead. Perhaps this film is one of his most ordinary visually because he's usually the cameraman. Its a decent trade off because he IS a great on-screen performer. Jess plays a sadistic priest who mistakes a faked black mass as a real one and feels compelled to murder the participants to save them. Its a fairly lyrical, personal and darkly hilarious spoof of the Catholic church who censored and persecuted Franco for his Marquis de Sade-inspired works. It words doubly as the classic interpretation of people who can't read de Sade properly, like the murderer of Pier Paulo Pasolini. So while a minor film, Exorcism is still meaningful and effective.
Dracula Conta Frankenstein kind of blew me away. Its a campy tribute to old Universal horror films, intentionally absurd and yet evocative of the great influence those monster movies had on Franco's cinema. What do I mean? The film is packed full of mood, grim images, violence, archetypal villains and sorcerors. But its rendered in a cartoon style. The film is almost completely a silent film. Franco admits that he was inspired by Eerie horror comics and stages everything in the same rigid but larger-than-life style. DCF has some of Franco's most inspired direction outside of his more personal work. This is pulpy commercialism obviously, but Franco is having fun and is a real fan of the genre he's mocking. I can't tell if I like this more than its sequels Daughter of Dracula & Erotic Rites of Frankenstein. Its a perfect synthesis of both. Its probably a much more lavish and cohesive film than both.
I have to say I was disappointed that both films showed animal cruelty. I would've hoped Franco was kinder than this, but he did come from a totally different time and place, so I won't judge given his other philosophical contributions, but its very sad and disturbing. Be warned.
Exorcism is a very small, restrained effort from Franco. He made it for EuroCine's Marius LeSoeur, maybe his most cheap and gritty producer of the 1970s, so its heavy on sexuality and low on plot action or even visual style. But the film is notable for 2 things: its wonderfully satiric plot & Jess Franco playing the lead. Perhaps this film is one of his most ordinary visually because he's usually the cameraman. Its a decent trade off because he IS a great on-screen performer. Jess plays a sadistic priest who mistakes a faked black mass as a real one and feels compelled to murder the participants to save them. Its a fairly lyrical, personal and darkly hilarious spoof of the Catholic church who censored and persecuted Franco for his Marquis de Sade-inspired works. It words doubly as the classic interpretation of people who can't read de Sade properly, like the murderer of Pier Paulo Pasolini. So while a minor film, Exorcism is still meaningful and effective.
Dracula Conta Frankenstein kind of blew me away. Its a campy tribute to old Universal horror films, intentionally absurd and yet evocative of the great influence those monster movies had on Franco's cinema. What do I mean? The film is packed full of mood, grim images, violence, archetypal villains and sorcerors. But its rendered in a cartoon style. The film is almost completely a silent film. Franco admits that he was inspired by Eerie horror comics and stages everything in the same rigid but larger-than-life style. DCF has some of Franco's most inspired direction outside of his more personal work. This is pulpy commercialism obviously, but Franco is having fun and is a real fan of the genre he's mocking. I can't tell if I like this more than its sequels Daughter of Dracula & Erotic Rites of Frankenstein. Its a perfect synthesis of both. Its probably a much more lavish and cohesive film than both.
I have to say I was disappointed that both films showed animal cruelty. I would've hoped Franco was kinder than this, but he did come from a totally different time and place, so I won't judge given his other philosophical contributions, but its very sad and disturbing. Be warned.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Broken Dolls 1999
Broken Dolls is maybe my favorite Franco film. It's his most personal, following the family of an incestual father who has damaged his aging family members sexually (a lesbian sadist mother, a whore wannabe-Aryan daughter, a transgender simpleton daughter and the passive voyeur of abuse and sex in... Franco's viewer) creating in the film's form a dark meditative erotic film that is only erotic in that it's not real, thanks to Jess' Id-developed "dream" aestheticism. But the subtext is so personal that it never turns pornographic but flows as a harsh analysis of the psychosexual and Hegelian dialectic, thus being a true work of Marxist rebellion to the white patriarchal binaries of Romanticism, religion, modernism, structuralism and all of the ruling empire moralities of hate, inequality and evil. In desecrating his father, Franco finds late in life catharsis to his original issues with women and intimacy.
This film, while professing a Jungian study of family archetypes, is one of the most Freudian works of cinema with Jess casting his own girlfriend as his mother. In this way, he draws scary parallels to his own father to address his conflicted relationship to him. The final scene is one of the most moving I've ever seen.
This film, while professing a Jungian study of family archetypes, is one of the most Freudian works of cinema with Jess casting his own girlfriend as his mother. In this way, he draws scary parallels to his own father to address his conflicted relationship to him. The final scene is one of the most moving I've ever seen.
Lighting makes the acting. Actors need something to play off and light or shadow is the freest choice a director can give their subjects. It also serves the vanity of actors and especially actresses to step out of themselves and reveal what is left out of their on-screen character. But it's best released with subtle cues and minimal directing.
Every Lina Romay film is an abstract remake of Female Vampire. And Jess Franco knew what he was starting when he chose her for the role because each lead actress or actor, he creates an original plot to suit his impression of them on film. He plays jazz with story as the baseline. It frees him to be as loose as the narrative expectations are rigid. He deconstructs and journalists his emotional and intellectual sound through the changing collage of imagery he chooses to create.
Movies still strike me as the most spiritual experience outside of active living. It's so passive yet alive with hyper realism. Empathetic transposition of a catalogued soul's impression of self through sheer meaningless materialism. Poetry. But how many auteurs are artists? Not just technical stylists who imitate innovations or spark recycled trends. How many masters of the craft? If Freemasonry was real, why aren't these new Illuminati films, ya know, good?
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Disney made some cool movies from time to time, but always by whitewashing some cultural history or painting some damaging untrue romanticized revisionist history. But Brave Little Toaster was my shit. And Honey I Shrunk the Kids. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is some surreal industrial materialism. Toy Story is good. These feel catering to the new left revolution, while transgressing and utilizing the empire studio's vast capitalist resources. But these good movies were usually brought to Disney and funded the really lame rightwing military mother nurse fantasy and cast rates men into anonymous plastic Ken dolls. There's some insidious practice in exploiting children for gross personal gain. The young consumer is uninformed and doesn't care about price and youre putting a price on their parents love. And to make a profit, the consumer can't purchase anything worth its value. So we have an indoctrination into libertarian capitalist materialism, which is nihilistic and not above buying the government for unfair monopoly of market control. This why Ayn Rand's system of objectivism is so dangerous. It passes blame onto the other to fix a shared system. Socialism is for the people and by the people when it's truly communistic.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Salo of the 120 Days of Sodom 1975
In a decade of such unspeakable evil and corruption and many films that tackled it head on, Salo stands apart. It doesn't name names or even have to point in the right direction of the elite oppressors. It simply holds up a mirror to evil and lets the audience figure out who the monsters are. Every scene of this film is part of a sober and academic study of the structure of government and capitalist abuse of power. The very psychology and methodology of exploitation and sadomasochism are laid out in a realist horror film, an anti-porno, a satire of the worst tragedies. And the result is a truly hilarious and moving work of beauty.
Whats scary is how much of Pasolini is in the film... and how much of everyone is in this film. We, as victims of the social game, all empathize with both sides of the madness, the victims and the predators. Because the evil protagonists of this film are the protected and aspired to leaders of our world throughout the course of human history. When its "dog eat dog", the puppy is a snack and the closest thing to a hero is the closest thing to a wolf.
Are the shocking events in this film to be taken as metaphor or as presumed realistic accounts? It doesn't matter. Because the ideas exist and the systems of society let them exist. Total freedom is not the same as total morality. Total power is not the same as total superiority. How can anyone find a fabricated film so offensive but be utterly apathetic to the reality that inspired it? Pasolini's murderer only confirmed that the truth won't just set you free. It might drive you mad. Welcome to the mad world.
Vixen 1968
For better and worse, Russ Meyer was the original Quentin Tarantino. He was a smooth talking hipster who made loud, funky movies that were immensely popular with a generation of young people because he embraced the sleaze and bad attitude they desired. But like Tarantino, Meyer didn't have much to say on anything. His films have no philosophical or political or even genuinely emotional or sexual wisdom to share. Cynically but cleverly disguised, their films are about pissing off the censors in hopes for shock value.
Vixen is incredibly well-produced and edited in an upbeat way that still plays easily. But its also a string of pointless (and dated) scenes of sex & violence with lame ass hipster lingo stitching it together. That makes its moronic and offensive kitsch seem like high, even arty camp when its not.
The plot of Vixen is that this spoiled, untamed, proud white trash republican chick has no sexual taboos. She cheats on her husband, has a lesbian fling and even seduces her brother, but she won't have sex with black people. Her racism is accepted and she doesn't really grow out of it or see error in it. Her enemy is the black boy her brother brings home. She insults, demeans and humiliates him throughout the film until he decides to sell her and all of his white "friends" to join the Communist Party. Racism is mean but communism would be evil. Russ Meyer has some ludicrous long dialogue where Cuba is modeled as a true picture of communism and only rich white men prosper because their fascism is somehow the same as Russia's?! Keep in mind that Meyer never once explains how capitalism is better and he foolishly identifies the opposite of socialism to be "democracy". The entire film comes from this embarrassing, delusional, dated rightwing macho patriotism that seeded today's so-called Libertarian Party in the United States. Most ironically is that Vixen only works as a film because of the furious editing techniques cribbed from Soviets.
I respect Russ Meyer for making some interesting, entertaining and sometimes insightful gems while on the outskirts of Hollywood, but he was a bigoted idiot just exploiting the hippie and feminist waves of filmmaking for pussy and dollars. Not my comrade.
Vixen is incredibly well-produced and edited in an upbeat way that still plays easily. But its also a string of pointless (and dated) scenes of sex & violence with lame ass hipster lingo stitching it together. That makes its moronic and offensive kitsch seem like high, even arty camp when its not.
The plot of Vixen is that this spoiled, untamed, proud white trash republican chick has no sexual taboos. She cheats on her husband, has a lesbian fling and even seduces her brother, but she won't have sex with black people. Her racism is accepted and she doesn't really grow out of it or see error in it. Her enemy is the black boy her brother brings home. She insults, demeans and humiliates him throughout the film until he decides to sell her and all of his white "friends" to join the Communist Party. Racism is mean but communism would be evil. Russ Meyer has some ludicrous long dialogue where Cuba is modeled as a true picture of communism and only rich white men prosper because their fascism is somehow the same as Russia's?! Keep in mind that Meyer never once explains how capitalism is better and he foolishly identifies the opposite of socialism to be "democracy". The entire film comes from this embarrassing, delusional, dated rightwing macho patriotism that seeded today's so-called Libertarian Party in the United States. Most ironically is that Vixen only works as a film because of the furious editing techniques cribbed from Soviets.
I respect Russ Meyer for making some interesting, entertaining and sometimes insightful gems while on the outskirts of Hollywood, but he was a bigoted idiot just exploiting the hippie and feminist waves of filmmaking for pussy and dollars. Not my comrade.
Macumba Sexual 1983 / Voodoo Passion 1977 / Revenge in the House of Usher 1983 / Devil Hunter 1980 / Death Whistles to the Blues 1964 / Mondo Cannibal 1980 / How Seduce a Virgin 1974 / Mansion of the Living Dead 1982 / Fall of the Eagles 1989 / Dr. Orloff's Monster 1964 / The Awful Dr. Orloff 1962
11 Jess Franco reviews for you, bitch... Franco-mania!
.JPG)
Macumba Sexual is an almost masterpiece. Franco remakes "Vampyros Lesbos" with a transgender theme! Replacing the irreplaceable Soledad Miranda is the commanding Ajita Wilson, the most beautiful black she-male in cinema history. She's seducing Lina Romay (as her blonde actress title "Candy Coaster") to take her role as some pan-sexual goddess of lust. The plot is low on incident and keeps to maybe 3 locations, all around a hotel. Its a breathtaking experience despite this, gorgeous and alive with subversive sexual metaphors. Throughout the film, Lina is haunted by physical objects
that are both masculine and feminine at the same time while Franco never hides the fact that Ajita is transgender. He attacks the gender binary and really scrambles what an erotic horror film can be. For him this is an exploitative ride to attack homophobia and sexual insecurity. I don't know if its respectful to trans people, but I think its firmly on their side and is the most brave, entertaining and early examples of the subject in cinema.
Voodoo Passion is likewise a minor classic. Playing similarly to both "Virgin Among the Living Dead" and the formula of "Succubus" and "Nightmares Come at Night", I think Voodoo Passion plays better than all three. It has an impressive production, flawless cinematography, a beautiful score, truly erotic sex scenes, a game cast and some fabulous direction. It also irons out some flaws in the highly disjointed narratives of those previous films. You could only dock it points for being predictable, but Jess provides enough twists visually and narratively that you can call this a successful jazz variation.
Revenge/Usher is "final level Franco". You can't appreciate this until you know his oeuvre, biography and financial limitations. I would call it something of a no-budget masterpiece if Eurocine producers didn't poorly edit it into the kitsch it is today. Franco shot a fairly personalized but tonally correct version of Poe's classic with no budget. Had Jess had a few dollars more, it would be comparable to his Dracula. But Eurocine didn't like it, added 10 minutes of footage from Dr Orloff(!) and then added poorly done inserts to try and smooth it out. They did the same to "Virgin" apparently. If you know the story behind this film, its quite an eye-opener and an amazing demonstration of Franco's genius, but this is NOT for casual fans or horror fans.
Devil Hunter is a solid Eurotrash ride. Its a camp spoof of racist cannibal films made in Italy at the time and it still works as an anti-racist horror film. Franco shows great kindness for black people in his films, especially primitive tribes. This film paints the white characters as just as barbaric and maybe twice as depraved. Like the transgressive bits of transgenderism in Macumba, Franco displays his radicalism not in preachy dialogue, righteous characters or obvious gestures. He uses the power of ironic montage, contrast, dialectical materialism that he learned as a young admirer of Eisenstein. Devil Hunter is surprisingly long and quite absurdist, but its an epic enjoyment for his fans or anyone who is in on the joke. Also, just remember that the bug-eyed native is essentially "Morpho". This will make sense later...
Death/Blues is a small political thriller from Franco's early film period. Its gorgeous, well-paced and extremely heavy on dialogue. While its a refreshing break from many films of its time, it lacks the unique style that Franco would patent later. But it still has his hallmarks: anti-racism, proletariat sympathies, revenge, a sexy tropical atmosphere and a good soundtrack. Its evidence of Franco's ability to handle your regular commercial film but such a solid B&W caper is a footnote to his career and thats a compliment. I still recommend it for the time capsule appeal and the biographical nature of the story.
Mondo Cannibal is known as a piece of shit, but it has its moments. Its hated by fans of the cannibal genre because its low on gore, cannibals and action. But the plot is quite good and would be resurrected for "Diamonds...". This film is a bit of a chore because its maybe Franco's slowest and least artistic film, but it has (shockingly) some of the best photography of this period and the real sell is Sabrina Siani, who is inhumanly attractive and naked throughout the film. I wish this film was as progressive as the other Franco jungle films, but its no big loss because all of the natives are played by Italians! Actually, I suspect that was a joke and that the film is lampooning Italians taste for gore and their rampant anti-black racism. I've heard Franco diss Italian directors for their desire to be seen as white/American and this film is his rejection of the Italian schlock directors he is still lumped in with. In retrospect, this film was an intentionally "bad" anti-gore film.
How to Seduce a Virgin is a not-as-strong remake of the exquisite Eugenie, but it has its areas of supremacy. The sexual content here is excellent, the cast is different but equal, the production is smaller but more moody. This is kind of a dark X-rated doppelganger of a classic. There are some plot tweaks and maybe the best substitution is Lina Romay as the helpless minion. This might be her best role, likewise the underrated Alice Arno.
Mansion/Living Dead is basically a re-do of Bloody Moon, but serving Franco's sensibilities. We have some sexy Spanish girls at a hotel with a slasher. I still prefer Moon, but Mansion is close in quality. It leans towards a smaller, more absurd plot and a more hypnotic, dreamy style of directing. What Mansion does have is better dialogue, sexier lesbian action and a phenomenal female gimp character who steals the entire film each time she arrives. This film becomes a personal account of Franco's relationship with Lina and his own guilt in keeping this much younger, wilder woman to himself, a rather bookish man of small means. Many films from this period revolve around their real world romantic dynamic, its up's and down's and sadomasochism. Lina is more than a muse in these films. She's a strong actress with the unique gift of having a film told through her and about her.
Fall of the Eagles is the cheapest Franco film I've ever seen. It literally a couple really well-directed scenes about a Nazi love triangle before, during and after WW2 with some stock footage linking it together. The performances are strong from Christopher Lee and Mark Hamill (TWO fucking Jedi's directed by the guy who helped inspire Yoda!!!!) while Joe Estavez's son gives what might be the worst acting performance ever. The entire film is so uneven yet so watchable, a perfect time waster. Considering it cost nothing, I didn't feel cheated. It reminds me of the much worse Full Moon films that obsessively use WW2 as a backdrop. Despite its many limitations, Eagles IS a very serious, crafted and poignant story.
Dr Orloff's Monster is a well-made little thriller, way more conservative than its radical predecessor, but it introduces some important tropes into the Franco canon: adultery turning to murder (But Who Raped Linda?) and a young girl inheriting a dark castle of evil secrets (Virgin..., Daughter of Dracula). The plot and style of this film provides the gist of the much more entertaining Erotic Rites of Frankenstein, but you won't be disappointed in the noir-esque photography and what was once groundbreaking treatment of sex and violence. But its no match for...
The Awful Dr. Orloff. Finally I review the one that made Jess Franco a famous international genre director. I've watched it before but its much better with more context of what it spawned. Its been written that Orloff is a rip-off of Eyes Without a Face. Franco denies it and I believe him as The Brain That Wouldn't Die is also ridiculously similar to these two films. I think we have a case of 3 people thinking the same thing at once: surgical horror. They all were deconstructing Gothic horror films and predicting the rise of abused plastic surgery. Eyes is the classiest of the 3, Brain the most vulgar and Franco's little film is a perfect blend of both. Its evident how much the suggestive dialogue and rape-themed violence was in such a Catholic, conservative culture. And this is really the most expressionist and epic film of Franco's career. Its just a finely directed old school horror film that no one can fault. But Francophiles will take sweet pleasure in how personal the film reveals itself to be all these years later.
We witness the birth of Franco's most personal and repeated plot device: The Master and Slave. Dr Orloff (who would return so many times) is a mad surgeon based on Jess' army doctor father and in extension the Generalissimo Franco. He's an affluent, cruel, bourgeois monster, but physically and emotionally human in every way. Early on its revealed that his deep seated obsession with female flesh comes from his own insecurity about control, aging and dying. This rings as a confession of Jess' later lustful work as Orloff's violence is carried out by his demeaned bug-eyed relative, "Morpho". This is an obvious placeholder for Jess and Jess would even play the Morpho role in following films. Is Franco's entire filmography as actor/director his working through a tyrannical Father complex? Definitely.
This film has a solid climax but the rather hollow Dr Orloff's Monster might be even more personal as that film ends with the Morpho monster actually striking down the evil father character. Now read into Orloff killing women to preserve the image of his own daughter? (Or sister in "Faceless") The maternal side of Franco's anxieties would be explored in Jack the Ripper, sibling & daughter incest would pop up later. Having a Mexican father and Cuban mother, I suspect Jess' mother was dark-skinned, explaining his fetish for light skin but his distanced but bleeding heart for darker skinned women. Its so obvious why he found special balance in Soledad Miranda and then Lina Romay. The strange abusive childhood Jess had with some 8 siblings in a fascist militaristic surgeon's home spawned a lifetime of traumatic confessions on celluloid and video. The racial tension between his parents and the mixed heritage in Latin communities also left a huge impact on the little Jesus, turning him to jazz, political radicalism and becoming a malcontent who purposely deprived his genius from popularity.
I hope this sad but beautiful little genius is at peace now and that this amazing body of work will live on forever and become more legendary than it already is.
Macumba Sexual is an almost masterpiece. Franco remakes "Vampyros Lesbos" with a transgender theme! Replacing the irreplaceable Soledad Miranda is the commanding Ajita Wilson, the most beautiful black she-male in cinema history. She's seducing Lina Romay (as her blonde actress title "Candy Coaster") to take her role as some pan-sexual goddess of lust. The plot is low on incident and keeps to maybe 3 locations, all around a hotel. Its a breathtaking experience despite this, gorgeous and alive with subversive sexual metaphors. Throughout the film, Lina is haunted by physical objects
that are both masculine and feminine at the same time while Franco never hides the fact that Ajita is transgender. He attacks the gender binary and really scrambles what an erotic horror film can be. For him this is an exploitative ride to attack homophobia and sexual insecurity. I don't know if its respectful to trans people, but I think its firmly on their side and is the most brave, entertaining and early examples of the subject in cinema.
Voodoo Passion is likewise a minor classic. Playing similarly to both "Virgin Among the Living Dead" and the formula of "Succubus" and "Nightmares Come at Night", I think Voodoo Passion plays better than all three. It has an impressive production, flawless cinematography, a beautiful score, truly erotic sex scenes, a game cast and some fabulous direction. It also irons out some flaws in the highly disjointed narratives of those previous films. You could only dock it points for being predictable, but Jess provides enough twists visually and narratively that you can call this a successful jazz variation.
Revenge/Usher is "final level Franco". You can't appreciate this until you know his oeuvre, biography and financial limitations. I would call it something of a no-budget masterpiece if Eurocine producers didn't poorly edit it into the kitsch it is today. Franco shot a fairly personalized but tonally correct version of Poe's classic with no budget. Had Jess had a few dollars more, it would be comparable to his Dracula. But Eurocine didn't like it, added 10 minutes of footage from Dr Orloff(!) and then added poorly done inserts to try and smooth it out. They did the same to "Virgin" apparently. If you know the story behind this film, its quite an eye-opener and an amazing demonstration of Franco's genius, but this is NOT for casual fans or horror fans.
Devil Hunter is a solid Eurotrash ride. Its a camp spoof of racist cannibal films made in Italy at the time and it still works as an anti-racist horror film. Franco shows great kindness for black people in his films, especially primitive tribes. This film paints the white characters as just as barbaric and maybe twice as depraved. Like the transgressive bits of transgenderism in Macumba, Franco displays his radicalism not in preachy dialogue, righteous characters or obvious gestures. He uses the power of ironic montage, contrast, dialectical materialism that he learned as a young admirer of Eisenstein. Devil Hunter is surprisingly long and quite absurdist, but its an epic enjoyment for his fans or anyone who is in on the joke. Also, just remember that the bug-eyed native is essentially "Morpho". This will make sense later...
Death/Blues is a small political thriller from Franco's early film period. Its gorgeous, well-paced and extremely heavy on dialogue. While its a refreshing break from many films of its time, it lacks the unique style that Franco would patent later. But it still has his hallmarks: anti-racism, proletariat sympathies, revenge, a sexy tropical atmosphere and a good soundtrack. Its evidence of Franco's ability to handle your regular commercial film but such a solid B&W caper is a footnote to his career and thats a compliment. I still recommend it for the time capsule appeal and the biographical nature of the story.
Mondo Cannibal is known as a piece of shit, but it has its moments. Its hated by fans of the cannibal genre because its low on gore, cannibals and action. But the plot is quite good and would be resurrected for "Diamonds...". This film is a bit of a chore because its maybe Franco's slowest and least artistic film, but it has (shockingly) some of the best photography of this period and the real sell is Sabrina Siani, who is inhumanly attractive and naked throughout the film. I wish this film was as progressive as the other Franco jungle films, but its no big loss because all of the natives are played by Italians! Actually, I suspect that was a joke and that the film is lampooning Italians taste for gore and their rampant anti-black racism. I've heard Franco diss Italian directors for their desire to be seen as white/American and this film is his rejection of the Italian schlock directors he is still lumped in with. In retrospect, this film was an intentionally "bad" anti-gore film.
How to Seduce a Virgin is a not-as-strong remake of the exquisite Eugenie, but it has its areas of supremacy. The sexual content here is excellent, the cast is different but equal, the production is smaller but more moody. This is kind of a dark X-rated doppelganger of a classic. There are some plot tweaks and maybe the best substitution is Lina Romay as the helpless minion. This might be her best role, likewise the underrated Alice Arno.
Mansion/Living Dead is basically a re-do of Bloody Moon, but serving Franco's sensibilities. We have some sexy Spanish girls at a hotel with a slasher. I still prefer Moon, but Mansion is close in quality. It leans towards a smaller, more absurd plot and a more hypnotic, dreamy style of directing. What Mansion does have is better dialogue, sexier lesbian action and a phenomenal female gimp character who steals the entire film each time she arrives. This film becomes a personal account of Franco's relationship with Lina and his own guilt in keeping this much younger, wilder woman to himself, a rather bookish man of small means. Many films from this period revolve around their real world romantic dynamic, its up's and down's and sadomasochism. Lina is more than a muse in these films. She's a strong actress with the unique gift of having a film told through her and about her.
Fall of the Eagles is the cheapest Franco film I've ever seen. It literally a couple really well-directed scenes about a Nazi love triangle before, during and after WW2 with some stock footage linking it together. The performances are strong from Christopher Lee and Mark Hamill (TWO fucking Jedi's directed by the guy who helped inspire Yoda!!!!) while Joe Estavez's son gives what might be the worst acting performance ever. The entire film is so uneven yet so watchable, a perfect time waster. Considering it cost nothing, I didn't feel cheated. It reminds me of the much worse Full Moon films that obsessively use WW2 as a backdrop. Despite its many limitations, Eagles IS a very serious, crafted and poignant story.
Dr Orloff's Monster is a well-made little thriller, way more conservative than its radical predecessor, but it introduces some important tropes into the Franco canon: adultery turning to murder (But Who Raped Linda?) and a young girl inheriting a dark castle of evil secrets (Virgin..., Daughter of Dracula). The plot and style of this film provides the gist of the much more entertaining Erotic Rites of Frankenstein, but you won't be disappointed in the noir-esque photography and what was once groundbreaking treatment of sex and violence. But its no match for...
The Awful Dr. Orloff. Finally I review the one that made Jess Franco a famous international genre director. I've watched it before but its much better with more context of what it spawned. Its been written that Orloff is a rip-off of Eyes Without a Face. Franco denies it and I believe him as The Brain That Wouldn't Die is also ridiculously similar to these two films. I think we have a case of 3 people thinking the same thing at once: surgical horror. They all were deconstructing Gothic horror films and predicting the rise of abused plastic surgery. Eyes is the classiest of the 3, Brain the most vulgar and Franco's little film is a perfect blend of both. Its evident how much the suggestive dialogue and rape-themed violence was in such a Catholic, conservative culture. And this is really the most expressionist and epic film of Franco's career. Its just a finely directed old school horror film that no one can fault. But Francophiles will take sweet pleasure in how personal the film reveals itself to be all these years later.
We witness the birth of Franco's most personal and repeated plot device: The Master and Slave. Dr Orloff (who would return so many times) is a mad surgeon based on Jess' army doctor father and in extension the Generalissimo Franco. He's an affluent, cruel, bourgeois monster, but physically and emotionally human in every way. Early on its revealed that his deep seated obsession with female flesh comes from his own insecurity about control, aging and dying. This rings as a confession of Jess' later lustful work as Orloff's violence is carried out by his demeaned bug-eyed relative, "Morpho". This is an obvious placeholder for Jess and Jess would even play the Morpho role in following films. Is Franco's entire filmography as actor/director his working through a tyrannical Father complex? Definitely.
This film has a solid climax but the rather hollow Dr Orloff's Monster might be even more personal as that film ends with the Morpho monster actually striking down the evil father character. Now read into Orloff killing women to preserve the image of his own daughter? (Or sister in "Faceless") The maternal side of Franco's anxieties would be explored in Jack the Ripper, sibling & daughter incest would pop up later. Having a Mexican father and Cuban mother, I suspect Jess' mother was dark-skinned, explaining his fetish for light skin but his distanced but bleeding heart for darker skinned women. Its so obvious why he found special balance in Soledad Miranda and then Lina Romay. The strange abusive childhood Jess had with some 8 siblings in a fascist militaristic surgeon's home spawned a lifetime of traumatic confessions on celluloid and video. The racial tension between his parents and the mixed heritage in Latin communities also left a huge impact on the little Jesus, turning him to jazz, political radicalism and becoming a malcontent who purposely deprived his genius from popularity.
I hope this sad but beautiful little genius is at peace now and that this amazing body of work will live on forever and become more legendary than it already is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)