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.
Showing posts with label 1974. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1974. Show all posts
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Monday, February 12, 2018
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.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Jack the Ripper 1976 / The Perverse Countess 1974
The Jess Franco train ride continues...
I'm back to reviewing that wonderful cult director who was the king of a few subtly influential genres. This time its a horror period piece and an S&M sexploitation piece.
There are Jess Franco films that are beautiful works of surrealist extravagance and moral radicalism. These two fit that effort. Jack the Ripper finds a lyrical tragedy and masochistic love of "grotesque monstrosity". Ofcourse its done in a camp heir of social satire and historical mirror that is tasteful and actually a blissful thrill. He codified a type of poetic means to producing proud, intelligent thought through the most raw excommunicated self-evolution on the bottom of the economic totem pole. He relates through his jazz and his cinema the pain of indigenous cultures that are colonized, reprogrammed and treated as self-hating cattle. Franco has grown to be one of my favorite humanistic directors and storytellers. I think his philosophy is mostly his own so I can't classify him neatly as anything but a Marxist. And he doesn't use his art for lucrative commerce or egomanicial statements (because he's far too shy and feeling to compete or hurt others). Franco is one of the pure souls in filmmaking who seems scary, craven or mad, but he was simply a genius who was so ghettoized that he looks insane to those who only sip the mainstream.
Whew! Thats all in these films but - ideology ignored - the technical aesthetics are fabulous. Some of the most emotionally directed films I've ever watched but it may lose viewers with his paper-thin plot details, totally faked "dream logic" and lack of fear for "the extreme". Franco revels in the fact that he is not castrated or forced to be timid. He makes his films his way and only the pure hearted such as him can hope to make art. Its commerce or propaganda without a soul's voice fighting to remain independent but unify the world. I think Franco identified as communist but that doesn't fully explain his brilliant viewpoint which seems shaped by a Napoleonic complex of stifled popularity and lust for respect. But he also grew up under the Nationalist leader Generalissimo Franco so he had no chance of reaching leadership or uncensored journalism, so he rejected Franco and adopted a stylized synthesis of both his namesakes - "Jesus Franco". He explores the dichonomy of Self, of man, of a Spaniard, or a beatnik, of a jazz musician, of a person of color. He purges the psyche of the world in each film for each moment of time during production and release, but most importantly prep.
His films always feel worked on in a blustery drug-assisted creative upheaval in his soul or vomit from his eyes... or Third Eye as he often acknowledged beliefs of Eastern mysticism. Often he highlights the creative properties of tribal music, jazz, classical music, African, Renaissance & Baroque painters. Like Picasso, he grew up in a Latin Europe that was still honest and not yet so colonialized, programmed or commercialized. He's a big art class whiz kid who suffers having to work to sell his art. Its the classic case. His work is evidence that it pays off. Imagine how his Earth would've lost such a pure voice of human honesty if he sold out for any master or group. He's a true independent, a true socialist and a true leader that influenced all of cinema from absolute obscurity. The rock band The Residents has a theory that this is the only way true world-changing art is made. Franco is one of those who creates his own story to change the world's story. There are similar and comparable artists but, at least in cinema, Jess Franco is my favorite.
I guess he saw himself a Jesus messiah to a Franconian satanism. In a sense, he sums up most perfectly the psychological "illness" of the modern Ego. He deconstructs and mythologizes The Bible while indulging in anti-pulpit politics and systemic exploitation, enslavement and monetary control. Researching his work in the first half of 2017 and then engaging in the learned ideologies helped me survive such a Hellish 2nd half of friends committing suicide, sinners repenting, injustices coming to light and balance violently taking control from fascist wars.
And as a cinephile I feel like I've come into my own finally finding a director I can unapologetically name as an influence. Thanks for inspiring me, Jess. I hope to spread more of your positive influence through filmmaking.
I'm back to reviewing that wonderful cult director who was the king of a few subtly influential genres. This time its a horror period piece and an S&M sexploitation piece.
There are Jess Franco films that are beautiful works of surrealist extravagance and moral radicalism. These two fit that effort. Jack the Ripper finds a lyrical tragedy and masochistic love of "grotesque monstrosity". Ofcourse its done in a camp heir of social satire and historical mirror that is tasteful and actually a blissful thrill. He codified a type of poetic means to producing proud, intelligent thought through the most raw excommunicated self-evolution on the bottom of the economic totem pole. He relates through his jazz and his cinema the pain of indigenous cultures that are colonized, reprogrammed and treated as self-hating cattle. Franco has grown to be one of my favorite humanistic directors and storytellers. I think his philosophy is mostly his own so I can't classify him neatly as anything but a Marxist. And he doesn't use his art for lucrative commerce or egomanicial statements (because he's far too shy and feeling to compete or hurt others). Franco is one of the pure souls in filmmaking who seems scary, craven or mad, but he was simply a genius who was so ghettoized that he looks insane to those who only sip the mainstream.
Whew! Thats all in these films but - ideology ignored - the technical aesthetics are fabulous. Some of the most emotionally directed films I've ever watched but it may lose viewers with his paper-thin plot details, totally faked "dream logic" and lack of fear for "the extreme". Franco revels in the fact that he is not castrated or forced to be timid. He makes his films his way and only the pure hearted such as him can hope to make art. Its commerce or propaganda without a soul's voice fighting to remain independent but unify the world. I think Franco identified as communist but that doesn't fully explain his brilliant viewpoint which seems shaped by a Napoleonic complex of stifled popularity and lust for respect. But he also grew up under the Nationalist leader Generalissimo Franco so he had no chance of reaching leadership or uncensored journalism, so he rejected Franco and adopted a stylized synthesis of both his namesakes - "Jesus Franco". He explores the dichonomy of Self, of man, of a Spaniard, or a beatnik, of a jazz musician, of a person of color. He purges the psyche of the world in each film for each moment of time during production and release, but most importantly prep.
His films always feel worked on in a blustery drug-assisted creative upheaval in his soul or vomit from his eyes... or Third Eye as he often acknowledged beliefs of Eastern mysticism. Often he highlights the creative properties of tribal music, jazz, classical music, African, Renaissance & Baroque painters. Like Picasso, he grew up in a Latin Europe that was still honest and not yet so colonialized, programmed or commercialized. He's a big art class whiz kid who suffers having to work to sell his art. Its the classic case. His work is evidence that it pays off. Imagine how his Earth would've lost such a pure voice of human honesty if he sold out for any master or group. He's a true independent, a true socialist and a true leader that influenced all of cinema from absolute obscurity. The rock band The Residents has a theory that this is the only way true world-changing art is made. Franco is one of those who creates his own story to change the world's story. There are similar and comparable artists but, at least in cinema, Jess Franco is my favorite.
I guess he saw himself a Jesus messiah to a Franconian satanism. In a sense, he sums up most perfectly the psychological "illness" of the modern Ego. He deconstructs and mythologizes The Bible while indulging in anti-pulpit politics and systemic exploitation, enslavement and monetary control. Researching his work in the first half of 2017 and then engaging in the learned ideologies helped me survive such a Hellish 2nd half of friends committing suicide, sinners repenting, injustices coming to light and balance violently taking control from fascist wars.
And as a cinephile I feel like I've come into my own finally finding a director I can unapologetically name as an influence. Thanks for inspiring me, Jess. I hope to spread more of your positive influence through filmmaking.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 1974
2017 ends and we say goodbye to Tobe Hooper, one of the most gifted but under-recognized directors of the 20th century. I'm a huge fan of the man and professed for years there are deep levels to his work that were overlooked as kooky paranoid drugginess until our current political hellstorm. Now that he's dead it seems the world is waking up and cinema is catching up to his vision.
The clearest example of this is Get Out, the critic's and audience's favorite this year. The American horror fandom's white male minority were quick to label it "liberal propaganda" and "too funny to be horror". Little do this backwards simpletons understand Get Out is a postmodern remake of their holy Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Because so many still don't realize TCM is a fierce, focused satire on rightwing politics in America.
While Get Out is a game-changing liberal-friendly attack on neoliberalism, TCM was the original. Hooper and screenwriter Kim Henkel were two jaded Texas radicals feeling the effects of the collective bad LSD trip that killed Flower Power and gave power to corrupt capitalist authoritarians. Henkel's script is a harsh Marxist criticism of hippies and their blissful ignorance and cooperation with conservatism, but Hooper directs it with a game self-deprecating empathy with these goofy hippie victims and a kind of morbid sympathy for the backwoods cannibal hillbillies who are tools of the bourgeoisie. This collaboration birthed the first Libertarian horror film; "Easy Rider" meets "Psycho".
I would say Hooper is the Leftist Libertarian, as his sequel TCM2 is a trashing of yuppies and warning of neoliberalism and Reagan republicans. Henkel is the more Right Libertarian, not trusting the CIA at all and casting a young libertarian Matthew McConaughey in his TCM4. Both films are radical politically, just as feminist as the first Massacre but really work best in tandem aesthetically.
Where Henkel is ultraviolent, nihilistic, political, symbolic, mystical, minimalist, primal, politically incorrect, transgressive, Jungian and naturalistic, Hooper counters with a style that is "staged", ironic, operatic, stoned, satirical, logical, optmistic, technical, cartooned, perverse, expressionist, Freudian and romantic. Seperate one from the other and you get their respective sequels.
But where do they agree? The negative direction of our country. They each shift the blame more on the other but find both at fault. Hooper finds the rednecks the more absurd & dangerous threat and I suspect Henkel finds them a byproduct of the hippies' isolating classism. The film is a comedy that laughs at both sides of this family rivalry and illustrates a reflection and relation between Sally and Leatherface. They live right next door, both lose a brother (Vietnam reference) and are both getting screwed by "The Man". Its the pointlessness of their violence and separation that is tragic. What probably hatched as a white male's dark fantasy of torturing his little sister on-screen developed into a transcendent confession of an impossible union between Beauty and Beast. The story expresses the personal pain of these two scruffy Texan boys never being able to bring the rich blond girl home to "meet the family". Leatherface and The Hitchhiker are the yin and yang of the creators, the Id and SuperEgo. The Old Man is a crazed, shame-filled mixture of both, the Ego.
This confused moral grayness creates the transgressive use of black & white throughout the film. The "White House" turns out to be a slaughterhouse of teenage hippies. The white damsel is saved by a chubby black protector (as Get Out would play off of). Repeatedly, there is great horror shown in daylight The Sun is shown as an evil force.
And there is more meaning to the production design. Sally comes to the White House later for sanctuary only to find it full of dead bodies in the attic - a rejection of The Church. Immediately after, she tries The Gas Station that has no gas left. This could be a reference to concentration camps or the Middle East.
So much of the Normal gets subverted: family dinner, the kitchen, patriarchy, white men, meat-eating, capitalism, the South, victimhood, the very idea of hippies as useful, the binary. This is hardcore cynical Marxist stuff. The writers are out for blood and pissed off at everyone. This informs the now famous formula of Scare-Laugh-Scare-Laugh that this film popularized. It can't be overstated how archetypal this script has become. Every year it looks more and more tame because fan works like Get Out & True Detective spread its influence. But its most famous for spawning the basic slasher formula. Isn't Halloween just an unofficial sequel where Leatherface breaks out into suburbia? (the unintentional effect the TCM had on mainstream audiences that made it a frightening hit with teens) No one would argue that its not a horror film, but its creators maintain TCM was a dark satire first.
Here we are going into 2018. Tobe Hooper has passed on, the Leatherface franchise seems massacred after the latest installment and the most popular film of the year is a postmodernist retelling of this film. Is the TCM now a classic film and its more of a history lesson than a relevant commentary? No way. Get Out's evil family make sexual objects out of black people for business. Very topical. But TCM's evil family make food out of the poor and less fortunate for business. That message is more encompassing and even more pressing as its no longer the stupid hippies we must fear in political power but the evil cannibal white trash themselves. This explains the popularity of Leatherface during the George W Bush era and I hope TCM becomes a beacon for resistance to fascist tyranny again. With each film, Leatherface's world opens up more, exposing his insulated world of lawless slavery, inbred mania and capitalist brutality to new generations. The story has never been completed and its culmination might bring needed positive closure to the real world. Its become an American film institution, more than a franchise, with power to attack the highest criminals in our society.
I hear the film rights are back on the market. Maybe now we have artists worthy enough of doing Mr. Hooper & Mr. Henkel proud.
The clearest example of this is Get Out, the critic's and audience's favorite this year. The American horror fandom's white male minority were quick to label it "liberal propaganda" and "too funny to be horror". Little do this backwards simpletons understand Get Out is a postmodern remake of their holy Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Because so many still don't realize TCM is a fierce, focused satire on rightwing politics in America.
While Get Out is a game-changing liberal-friendly attack on neoliberalism, TCM was the original. Hooper and screenwriter Kim Henkel were two jaded Texas radicals feeling the effects of the collective bad LSD trip that killed Flower Power and gave power to corrupt capitalist authoritarians. Henkel's script is a harsh Marxist criticism of hippies and their blissful ignorance and cooperation with conservatism, but Hooper directs it with a game self-deprecating empathy with these goofy hippie victims and a kind of morbid sympathy for the backwoods cannibal hillbillies who are tools of the bourgeoisie. This collaboration birthed the first Libertarian horror film; "Easy Rider" meets "Psycho".
I would say Hooper is the Leftist Libertarian, as his sequel TCM2 is a trashing of yuppies and warning of neoliberalism and Reagan republicans. Henkel is the more Right Libertarian, not trusting the CIA at all and casting a young libertarian Matthew McConaughey in his TCM4. Both films are radical politically, just as feminist as the first Massacre but really work best in tandem aesthetically.
Where Henkel is ultraviolent, nihilistic, political, symbolic, mystical, minimalist, primal, politically incorrect, transgressive, Jungian and naturalistic, Hooper counters with a style that is "staged", ironic, operatic, stoned, satirical, logical, optmistic, technical, cartooned, perverse, expressionist, Freudian and romantic. Seperate one from the other and you get their respective sequels.
But where do they agree? The negative direction of our country. They each shift the blame more on the other but find both at fault. Hooper finds the rednecks the more absurd & dangerous threat and I suspect Henkel finds them a byproduct of the hippies' isolating classism. The film is a comedy that laughs at both sides of this family rivalry and illustrates a reflection and relation between Sally and Leatherface. They live right next door, both lose a brother (Vietnam reference) and are both getting screwed by "The Man". Its the pointlessness of their violence and separation that is tragic. What probably hatched as a white male's dark fantasy of torturing his little sister on-screen developed into a transcendent confession of an impossible union between Beauty and Beast. The story expresses the personal pain of these two scruffy Texan boys never being able to bring the rich blond girl home to "meet the family". Leatherface and The Hitchhiker are the yin and yang of the creators, the Id and SuperEgo. The Old Man is a crazed, shame-filled mixture of both, the Ego.
This confused moral grayness creates the transgressive use of black & white throughout the film. The "White House" turns out to be a slaughterhouse of teenage hippies. The white damsel is saved by a chubby black protector (as Get Out would play off of). Repeatedly, there is great horror shown in daylight The Sun is shown as an evil force.
And there is more meaning to the production design. Sally comes to the White House later for sanctuary only to find it full of dead bodies in the attic - a rejection of The Church. Immediately after, she tries The Gas Station that has no gas left. This could be a reference to concentration camps or the Middle East.
So much of the Normal gets subverted: family dinner, the kitchen, patriarchy, white men, meat-eating, capitalism, the South, victimhood, the very idea of hippies as useful, the binary. This is hardcore cynical Marxist stuff. The writers are out for blood and pissed off at everyone. This informs the now famous formula of Scare-Laugh-Scare-Laugh that this film popularized. It can't be overstated how archetypal this script has become. Every year it looks more and more tame because fan works like Get Out & True Detective spread its influence. But its most famous for spawning the basic slasher formula. Isn't Halloween just an unofficial sequel where Leatherface breaks out into suburbia? (the unintentional effect the TCM had on mainstream audiences that made it a frightening hit with teens) No one would argue that its not a horror film, but its creators maintain TCM was a dark satire first.
Here we are going into 2018. Tobe Hooper has passed on, the Leatherface franchise seems massacred after the latest installment and the most popular film of the year is a postmodernist retelling of this film. Is the TCM now a classic film and its more of a history lesson than a relevant commentary? No way. Get Out's evil family make sexual objects out of black people for business. Very topical. But TCM's evil family make food out of the poor and less fortunate for business. That message is more encompassing and even more pressing as its no longer the stupid hippies we must fear in political power but the evil cannibal white trash themselves. This explains the popularity of Leatherface during the George W Bush era and I hope TCM becomes a beacon for resistance to fascist tyranny again. With each film, Leatherface's world opens up more, exposing his insulated world of lawless slavery, inbred mania and capitalist brutality to new generations. The story has never been completed and its culmination might bring needed positive closure to the real world. Its become an American film institution, more than a franchise, with power to attack the highest criminals in our society.
I hear the film rights are back on the market. Maybe now we have artists worthy enough of doing Mr. Hooper & Mr. Henkel proud.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
The Phantom of Liberty 1974
Bunuel is cinema's first official surrealist and so he has a head start on exploring the subgenre's parameters even if he is naturally its most dated example. But he also grew into a a powerful narrative director who could restrain himself to commercial and technical prowess to sell a message. Here he is in the twilight of his career (the man started in the 1920s!) and Phantom is a radical mixture of seemingly normal, bland TV style cinema and Luis' roots in dream logic and absurdist satire. This and Discreet Charm were immensely popular arthouse hits in France & America, so some of it is not expected but in keeping with the aesthetic trajectory we associate with the 70s, or at least its counterculture.
The film is a loose anthology of episodes tied together by characters and themes but not having a central plot. It may have been influenced by Monty Python's Flying Circus but Bunuel is an obvious influence on SNL's early years. Each sketch is hip, sexy, political and ironic, but not played for easy laughs. Bunuel doesn't care if you don't find it funny. Thats actually the point: to find this absurdity depressing and too real to be funny. Its an amazingly successful exercise to be as ridiculous or gross or awkward while still holding a mirror to the audience. Maybe the points will fly over the head of the layman but the keen veteran director lets the film still work on an infantile level as pure entertainment.
I've seen only 4 films from Bunuel and I can't think of a director with such a broad command of narrative. With Un Chien Andalou he captures the insanity of dream analysis with silent footage. With Viridiana he explores the dark psyche of the feminist condition. With Death in the Garden he presents a great American-style thriller with radical political implications and with Phantom he takes us on a mellow, formal experience of the immaterial & the unfathomable curiosities of human behavior and polite society. He's one of the true masters of the form.
The film is a loose anthology of episodes tied together by characters and themes but not having a central plot. It may have been influenced by Monty Python's Flying Circus but Bunuel is an obvious influence on SNL's early years. Each sketch is hip, sexy, political and ironic, but not played for easy laughs. Bunuel doesn't care if you don't find it funny. Thats actually the point: to find this absurdity depressing and too real to be funny. Its an amazingly successful exercise to be as ridiculous or gross or awkward while still holding a mirror to the audience. Maybe the points will fly over the head of the layman but the keen veteran director lets the film still work on an infantile level as pure entertainment.
I've seen only 4 films from Bunuel and I can't think of a director with such a broad command of narrative. With Un Chien Andalou he captures the insanity of dream analysis with silent footage. With Viridiana he explores the dark psyche of the feminist condition. With Death in the Garden he presents a great American-style thriller with radical political implications and with Phantom he takes us on a mellow, formal experience of the immaterial & the unfathomable curiosities of human behavior and polite society. He's one of the true masters of the form.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Novocaine 2001 / The Fearless Vampire Killers 1967 / The House on Skull Mountain 1974
After 3 glowing reviews for 3 fun watches, here are the less favorable reviews. But these were interesting enough to write about (and not painful to watch). I wasn't shocked these films weren't successful but I'm glad they have some cache value now.
Novocaine is a weird comedy from the same year as 9/11. It represents that cold, moody, protestant (in the political & religious sense) era where the flippant, firm-standing 1990s became the wary, depressive, chaotic first decade of the 21st century. Now it was probably filmed in 2000, a very celebratory, radically progressive & casual time. Bill Clinton was a popular & socially melding president for most people, but he faced a tough scandal and society was very jaded & shaken up again. It was a flashback to Nixon's discrepancies and a quieted minority saw the dark cloud forming in the Middle East, Russia, Asia and within powerful Western institutions. It was a gray period where there wasn't much unrest or commotion but there was smoke still in the air.
Novocaine brought all of the mystique back. Its in every level of the production and the 1st time director David Atkins (who also wrote the film) knows that this moment is important. He makes it as ephemeral as possible, presenting a cartooned vision of the Y2K era. Stylistically, it almost reaches the clean design of a work of futurism or an avant garde play. And that was the actual commercial style of TV & film at that time. Its European, independent, retro, experimental. MTV video techniques mixed with French New Wave references and slasher film tropes pureed with primetime sitcom cues. It was just a surreal time for audiences. It was a collected & shared enterprise globally where everyone was happy and putting out the content they wanted and audiences respected.
While Novocaine isn't the best film of that year, its unique & full of ideas. It seems amateur by standards now and thats whats refreshing. This film is evidence that Hollywood can abandon the cookie cutter formula of glossy factory "product" and let movie-lovers make love movies for movie-lovers. Novocaine has its warts, but it doesn't offend the audience's intelligence ever. It might be a bit drab compared to fratboy comedies or too highfalutin for families. Its a tad derivative but its wide influences are a nice salad of Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wilder & Coen Bros. "Crime comedy" was kind of a saturated genre then, but at least Atkins nails the noir tones & gives his characters life. Watching the film in 2017, I'm reminded of most television now by the serio-comic aspects, the Euro-techno-Goth visuals. Its interesting how mediocrity from some years will stand up to the best work of other years, at least in films.
With all of the sexual abuse claims in Hollywood, I dared myself to review films from some controversial names this past month (strangely, TV was more than game to show these films despite the ostracization of current stars by Hollywood & streaming). I'm hesitant to cast out Woody Allen and I don't think Victor Salva is a threat to worry about, but Roman Polanski is a much scarier name now. He is a confirmed criminal who took illegal advantage of a VERY underage prostitute. But he is also a special case with uniquely tragic & unrepeatable circumstances. To complicate matters, he's regarded as one of the most important stylists and voices in Hollywood's modern golden age.
Now I've never been the biggest fan of him. I can dissect the brilliant economy and freshly gritty subtext of "Repulsion" but despite its towering influence, I think some parts of it are backwards and maybe offensive or toxic in their wrongness. Polanski injects his films with a sadistic, cynical, pessimistic & somewhat abusive philosophy. It wouldn't bother me too much but you can't divorce his films from the tragedy that derailed his career & the resulting crimes he committed.
FVK is a great snapshot of an enthusiastic, educated and subversive young talent. The film itself is a cynical exercise in deconstructing the vampire genre without much blood or brains beyond tricky technical shots and stunning, sometimes sexually perverse eye candy. Its a lot of surface without much substance. Really Polanski doesn't seem in love with the material, just using it as a stepping stone or calling card. It reminds me of newer directors like Denis Villeneuve and Damien Chazelle who think being stylish and sour is all it takes to be compared to Kubrick or even a David Fincher. And an ignorant film public fell for it n 1967. To be fair, Polanski deserves high esteem for Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown. Polanski could make enlightened, important works of art when he was at his peak. But this isn't peak. Just a warm up for a star who burned out too soon.
The House on Skull Mountain is like so many blaxploitation films not made by black filmmakers or fans of the genre. Its conservative, pandering, backhanded & a brainless exploitation for profit. But sometimes these hired filmmakers found inspiration in the totally radicalized and relieved black talent of the post-Civil Rights era. Skull is taken with its subject matter of black lives, culture, religion and spirituality. Mostly the sexuality and heathen/dangerous persona inherited from white racism. Racism is never addressed here which may generalize it for some but legitimizes it for its target audience.
So few "black films" were allowed to embrace the honesty & grit of the Neorealists films that inspired the world at that time. Black films had to be gratuitous, simple and commercial by not shaking things up and usually playing to the status quo of white patrons. Skull Mountain would be remembered fondly if it had some of the black ideals that made 70s black culture so influential. The film cops out but its a fun disaster. Its kitschy, dated, too obtuse and half-baked. But there is an elevated air about it. The cast especially give 110% and you wonder why it didn't lead to better work for the cast, D.P., production design & special effects. But the answer is obvious when you consider the bland director, writer and producer probably got their positions from privilege and not talent or dedication.
Novocaine is a weird comedy from the same year as 9/11. It represents that cold, moody, protestant (in the political & religious sense) era where the flippant, firm-standing 1990s became the wary, depressive, chaotic first decade of the 21st century. Now it was probably filmed in 2000, a very celebratory, radically progressive & casual time. Bill Clinton was a popular & socially melding president for most people, but he faced a tough scandal and society was very jaded & shaken up again. It was a flashback to Nixon's discrepancies and a quieted minority saw the dark cloud forming in the Middle East, Russia, Asia and within powerful Western institutions. It was a gray period where there wasn't much unrest or commotion but there was smoke still in the air.
Novocaine brought all of the mystique back. Its in every level of the production and the 1st time director David Atkins (who also wrote the film) knows that this moment is important. He makes it as ephemeral as possible, presenting a cartooned vision of the Y2K era. Stylistically, it almost reaches the clean design of a work of futurism or an avant garde play. And that was the actual commercial style of TV & film at that time. Its European, independent, retro, experimental. MTV video techniques mixed with French New Wave references and slasher film tropes pureed with primetime sitcom cues. It was just a surreal time for audiences. It was a collected & shared enterprise globally where everyone was happy and putting out the content they wanted and audiences respected.
While Novocaine isn't the best film of that year, its unique & full of ideas. It seems amateur by standards now and thats whats refreshing. This film is evidence that Hollywood can abandon the cookie cutter formula of glossy factory "product" and let movie-lovers make love movies for movie-lovers. Novocaine has its warts, but it doesn't offend the audience's intelligence ever. It might be a bit drab compared to fratboy comedies or too highfalutin for families. Its a tad derivative but its wide influences are a nice salad of Hitchcock, Tarantino, Wilder & Coen Bros. "Crime comedy" was kind of a saturated genre then, but at least Atkins nails the noir tones & gives his characters life. Watching the film in 2017, I'm reminded of most television now by the serio-comic aspects, the Euro-techno-Goth visuals. Its interesting how mediocrity from some years will stand up to the best work of other years, at least in films.
With all of the sexual abuse claims in Hollywood, I dared myself to review films from some controversial names this past month (strangely, TV was more than game to show these films despite the ostracization of current stars by Hollywood & streaming). I'm hesitant to cast out Woody Allen and I don't think Victor Salva is a threat to worry about, but Roman Polanski is a much scarier name now. He is a confirmed criminal who took illegal advantage of a VERY underage prostitute. But he is also a special case with uniquely tragic & unrepeatable circumstances. To complicate matters, he's regarded as one of the most important stylists and voices in Hollywood's modern golden age.
Now I've never been the biggest fan of him. I can dissect the brilliant economy and freshly gritty subtext of "Repulsion" but despite its towering influence, I think some parts of it are backwards and maybe offensive or toxic in their wrongness. Polanski injects his films with a sadistic, cynical, pessimistic & somewhat abusive philosophy. It wouldn't bother me too much but you can't divorce his films from the tragedy that derailed his career & the resulting crimes he committed.
FVK is a great snapshot of an enthusiastic, educated and subversive young talent. The film itself is a cynical exercise in deconstructing the vampire genre without much blood or brains beyond tricky technical shots and stunning, sometimes sexually perverse eye candy. Its a lot of surface without much substance. Really Polanski doesn't seem in love with the material, just using it as a stepping stone or calling card. It reminds me of newer directors like Denis Villeneuve and Damien Chazelle who think being stylish and sour is all it takes to be compared to Kubrick or even a David Fincher. And an ignorant film public fell for it n 1967. To be fair, Polanski deserves high esteem for Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown. Polanski could make enlightened, important works of art when he was at his peak. But this isn't peak. Just a warm up for a star who burned out too soon.
The House on Skull Mountain is like so many blaxploitation films not made by black filmmakers or fans of the genre. Its conservative, pandering, backhanded & a brainless exploitation for profit. But sometimes these hired filmmakers found inspiration in the totally radicalized and relieved black talent of the post-Civil Rights era. Skull is taken with its subject matter of black lives, culture, religion and spirituality. Mostly the sexuality and heathen/dangerous persona inherited from white racism. Racism is never addressed here which may generalize it for some but legitimizes it for its target audience.
So few "black films" were allowed to embrace the honesty & grit of the Neorealists films that inspired the world at that time. Black films had to be gratuitous, simple and commercial by not shaking things up and usually playing to the status quo of white patrons. Skull Mountain would be remembered fondly if it had some of the black ideals that made 70s black culture so influential. The film cops out but its a fun disaster. Its kitschy, dated, too obtuse and half-baked. But there is an elevated air about it. The cast especially give 110% and you wonder why it didn't lead to better work for the cast, D.P., production design & special effects. But the answer is obvious when you consider the bland director, writer and producer probably got their positions from privilege and not talent or dedication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)