Billy Ray Valentine: Happy New Year.
Coleman: That’s kind of you, son. A Happy New Year to you, too. Could I offer either of you two gentlemen a wee jolt of Irish whisky, to usher in the New Year?
Clarence Beeks: Not for me, pal.
Billy Ray Valentine: I do not drink. It is against my religion.
Coleman: I always say, religion’s a fine thing, taken in moderation.

SCHLOCK

It’s that time of year when we all fall into the trap of re-watching the films that we were introduced to as children. Don’t get me wrong, my Christmas isn’t complete until I’ve seen Macaulay Culkin’s cheeky little face, but this week I took some time out to watch a not so festive film that I’ve had my eye on for some time now: John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London. The title says it all really: while backpacking through the Yorkshire Moors, American students David and Jack are subject to a particularly ferocious werewolf attack. Jack dies almost instantly but David is taken to a London hospital, where he begins to have very vivid hallucinations informing him of the beastly fate awaiting him at the next full moon.

The plot itself is nothing out of the ordinary; it’s the atmosphere that makes this a truly eery and, at times, very scary movie. Starting out in the Yorkshire Moors really sets the tone for the rest of the film, which for the most part is absent of life other than David and Jack themselves. When the duo finally stumble upon the infamous Slaughtered Lamb, the welcome is so icy that it made for very uncomfortable viewing. Being from the North of England myself, I couldn’t help but feel we got a bit of a raw deal in terms of representation. I’d honestly expected the locals to greet Jack and David with open arms, thinking they’d be accosted with stews, brews and ale. Instead,  however, the locals leave them to wander the Moors despite being all too aware of the dangers that await them. While they are clearly conflicted about doing this, they offer no help until it is too late.

It wasn’t just the Yorkshiremen who were devoid of emotion; every character in the film appears to be burdened with an inability to connect with others. Jack and David appear to share the most genuine relationship, but even one of their conversations turns out to be an hallucination. This lack of emotion makes it hard to sympathise with the plights of any of the characters. Considering such a large portion of the film centres on David coming to terms with his best friend’s death – as well as the fact he is now a werewolf – I expected a much larger range of emotions than we ever get to see. Another surprisingly lacklustre performance came from the man he attacks on the London underground, a married father of two who doesn’t seem to care that his life is left hanging in the balance. Throughout this scene we see very little of the werewolf, which causes the audience’s experience of the creature to depend on the reactions of each victim. When it came to this man’s death, the man just lay on the escalator and passively accepted it. Very strange indeed.

Without a doubt, the best thing about American Werewolf is Rick Baker’s fabulously stomach churning make up. Having seen the famous transformation sequence once before, I was worried that I’d already seen the best thing the film had to offer – but I was wrong. In fact, it’s the make up on supporting character Jack that really steals the show. The original werewolf attack is so fast paced and frantic that we see very little other than blood, which is all very well as there’s other things to focus on at this point. So when Jack returns to David we are finally able to see the truly disgusting effects of the attack. The fact that one side of his face was completely mangled while the other remained untouched made it look all the more dramatic; while Jack may be behaving as if all is well there is no getting way from the fact that most of his face is missing. It’s really a credit to the excellent work of Rick Baker that whenever we see Jack it is in very well-lit locations, since it means there’s no need for any shadowing to enhance the fear factor or to hide any flaws in the special effects. Actually, these scenes are made all the worse by the fact we can see every gruesome detail, including a particularly pesky shred of skin which wiggles as he talks. Rick Baker won his first Academy Award for the effects in this film and it is very easy to see why – every time his make up was featured I was completely transfixed by the gut-wrenchng work he managed to create.

Its easy to see why An American Werewolf in London has become such an iconic film. When you look at the make up, the use of location, and the mix of comedy and horror, it creates a viewing experience that’s s hard not to enjoy. Of course, this doesn’t mean there are no flaws to be found –  at times it seems slightly unfinished and some of the cut between scenes are so severe that I was left confused as to exactly what had just happened – but overall I thought it was a great film, one I will certainly be watching again.

The cast is a veritable Who’s Who of acting and comedic talent from the late 70’s.  John Belushi in one of his finest roles despite having only a few lines.  Belushi would die of a drug overdose just four years later.  After filming Kevin Bacon went back to his day job as a waiter (where no one believe he had been in a movie).  The lovely Karen Allen was an unknown actress before Animal House and went on to star in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Starman among others.  Stephen Furst (Flounder) began his Hollywood career as a pizza delivery boy; he later went on to a recurring role in the TV hit series St. Elsewhere.  Tom Hulce (Pinto) went on to earn an Academy Award nomination for best actor for his role in Amadeus.  Donald Sutherland thought the movie would be such a flop that he took the $50,000 salary rather than “points” on the profits which would have earned him over $18 million(in today’s money that’d be about $61 million!)  Director John Landis had directed two films prior to Animal House (Schlock and Kentucky Fried Movie); however, they were flops.  Following the tremendous success of Animal House–which was made for about $2.5 million and returned over $150 million–Landis directed The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London, Michael Jackson’s music video for Thriller, and Trading Places.

The plot is simple, the gags and jokes are now classics, the alcohol, drugs, sex… (hey, that’s just like LHU). The copycats are still being churned out yearly.  Everybody in Hollywood is looking to bottle lightning.  But there was only one Animal House.  Do yourself a favor and watch it again.

Interesting trivia: Flounder (aka Kent Dorfman) was from Harrisburg.

Now that Hollywood is trying to make movies out of theme park rides and board games, we act like this is some new low. Anyone that knows film understands this is not the first time that this sort of desperation has happened. Clue was made in 1985, with Jonathan Lynn, a director versed in British comedy, and assisted by legend John Landis.

It is a delightful send-up of the old dark house movie, a movie where the mansion being filmed is a character itself. Its origin, for our purposes, is James Whale’s film titled… uh… The Old Dark House.

Since then the mixture of comedy, horror and mystery have run through the decades. Whether they’ve known it or not, they have walked the very edge of incredulity, and Clue obliges us by completely going over the edge. Clue is based on wordplay, puns, camp and silliness, and is too clever for its own good.

Clue begins with the worried face of Tim Curry, which is generally a great place to start. Curry is Wadsworth the butler, and he carries the film completely, even while surrounded by a bevy of character actors: Lesley Ann Warren, Martin Mull, Colleen Camp, Christopher Lloyd, Michael Mckean, Eileen Brennan and Madeline Kahn all dominate the screen simultaneously, but it is Curry’s job to move the plot along, and he does a fine job.

The film begins with a series of strangers invited to a party by a written invitation – from a man they do not know. Some of them seem to know each other. The mansion is occupied by a butler, a maid and a cook… and no one else.

After a while, their patience runs thin. They want to meet their host.

They do. The moment Mr. Boddy appears, things are thrown into chaos. He refuses to co-operate and soon the guests realize that they are trapped in the mansion. Even worse, it turns out they are all being blackmailed – by Mr. Boddy. And despite what they believed… he is NOT their host.

The police are on their way, and no one can afford to be caught. Mr. Boddy comes up with an ingenious idea. In his little black bag, Mr. Boddy has lethal weapons for each one of them. He suggests they kill Wadsworth and escape. He turns the lights out and then-

Mr. Boddy is dead. There was a gunshot, but Mr. Boddy wasn’t shot. Was it a blow to the head? Or poison? As Mrs. Peacock had the brandy as well, the only way to tell if its poison is if she dies, right?

(It wasn’t poison.) The maid screams in another room. As it turns out, they are being recorded as well. They take the maid back with the rest of them, where Wadsworth has a complete breakdown. This was all his hare-brained scheme to deal with the black-mailing Mr. Boddy. They wonder about who else could be the murderer, when they realize that there’s one other person in the building – the cook!

When they get there, the cook is dead.

I told you.

When they move the cook’s body to the study, they find that Mr. Boddy’s corpse is gone. Was he really dead? How could Professor Plum, a medical doctor have missed something so obvious? After some bickering and the discovery of some risque negatives, they find – the corpse of Mr. Boddy.

In a panic, they move the bodies again, and then try to lock up the weapons. Then they intend to throw away the key, except its a dark and stormy night and a motorist appears.

At this point the mayhem begins in earnest. More guests arrive, a phone call indicates that one guest is a Federal agent, the crew decides to split up and and explore the building, and more murders occur.

The whole time everyone is aided by a crackling script with clearly defined characters and genuinely clever humor. All of this masks the fact that this script works as an actual mystery, and its a corker. The ending(s) prove that most of the facts are presented to the viewer the first time around, you simply have to pay attention and ignore the distractions.

Clue succeeds as a comedy, a mystery and as entertainment. It was not a success, although over the years it has a cult following, but that’s not saying much. It deserved better than it got.

I would also watch the 1979 film The Blues Brothers which  Landis co-wrote and directed.  While working with Michael Jackson and Sean “P Diddy” Combs, I wrote the song “Shake Ya Tailfeather” recorded by Nelly, P. Diddy, and Murphy Lee and inspired by Ray Charles performing the song “Shake a Tail Feather” with The Blues Brothers in the film.

Mutt Lange wanted me to start writing songs to be recorded by Kiss and I was listening to their previously recorded albums.  In 1975, Kiss released the album Dressed to Kill and it was the lyrics of ”Rock and Roll All Nite“,

“I wanna rock and roll all night and party every day”,

that would inspire me to write the song ”I Wanna Rock“ recorded by the group I named Twisted Sister and released on the 1984 album Stay Hungry.  The music video was also inspired by Animal House and featured Mark Metcalf, best known as the sadistic Neidermeyer from the movie and Stephen Furst who portrayed Flounder.

Animal House also inspired me to write the song ”We’re Not Gonna Take It“ released on the same album.  This is another song which led to the formation of the Parents Music Resource Center, co-founded by Tipper Gore (who later became Second Lady of the United States).

I often listened to what Twisted Sister was working on and it was the song title “Be Chrool to Your Scuel” released on their 1985 album Come Out and Play that inspired the lyrics, “So if you’re too school for cool”, when I wrote the song ”Raise Your Glass” recorded by Pink.

Years later, while working with Kurt Cobain and Trent Reznor, I wrote the song “Twisted Transistor“ recorded by Korn inspired from naming the band Twisted Sister many years earlier.

Horror is one of the starkest and most intense genres in all of cinema and the semiotics and general conventions are easy to dissect. First you’ll regularly have dark lighting to create fear and tension; you’ll more commonly have a very striking orchestral score with the same intention; there’ll be some sort of crisis or relocation of the characters; blood and gore is as common as butter on bread; more than often you’ll see a wonderful use of cinematography to escalate the fear and tension factor right to the very top; and most irritating and conventional as anything, the protagonists will be the cliché ‘dumb blonde’ who snaps her heels running away for a mass murderer, screams frequently, but always manages to survive somehow as the killer either takes too long. All in all, the semiotics and conventions of horror as a film genre are easily to take apart.

In regards to An American Werewolf in London and its place among slow-paced, darkly lit and atmospheric films, it largely applies as a horror film with the same sort of format, but fortunately for me and the rest of the audience; it doesn’t feature any ‘dumb blondes’ screaming frequently.

Instead it features two young American men, who are backpacking along the Yorkshire moors when suddenly they are attacked by what eventually appears to be a werewolf. Long before the pub locals arrive to save them, David’s friend Jack is ripped apart by this rabid animal and soon after David wakes up in a hospital bed weeks later.

Werewolf follows a straight forward linear narrative in the regard that David’s eventual transformation into this blood-sucking mythical beast is presented to us from one moment to the next so that we can connect with the character, feel his emotions and almost feel sympathetic for him when he’s eventually shot down and killed by the police department after a full moon night in which he kills multiple people without his own control.

The interpretations from Marxists and Feminists would largely differ I feel, but as Werewolf is unlike any other horror film, the presentation of characters and how they react to events are absolutely stunning at times. First we have David, who is decidedly presented as a somewhat vulnerable figure in comparison to other horrors where the man is shown as a strong person who would eventually ‘save the day’. Now that’s a bit strange when you think about that this vulnerable figure is also the same vulnerable figure who transforms into a werewolf which is about as masculine and powerful as I could imagine.

For the female protagonist we have Alex Price who plays David’s nurse. Her performance and symbolism to the film is of a high magnitude as she is the only person who David cares about and eventually in the final showdown she is the one who draws David (as the Werewolf) out of hiding to dramatically be murdered. When talking about cliché film characters, a nurse would normally be presented as a dumb, perpetrating character getting in the way of David’s transformation, but she is thankfully presented as a figure of dominance and power, but also on a more emotional level, she comes off a caring individual who also only has one love; David.

John Landis; the director has made a name for his self over the years for his over-the-top actioners such as Beverly Hills Cop and The Blues Brothers, among plenty of other very well recognisable comedies as Caddyshack, National Lampoon and Trading Places, but in the majority of his films, whether it’s been those comedies, action films or even his segment for Twilight Zone: The Movie, he has always had some dark undercurrent running throughout them, leaving a thought-provoking process for the audience long after the credits have rolled over, but it still comes as a surprise to me that this guy made An American Werewolf in London.

When thinking about horror as a genre, people tend to think about The Shining, Psycho, Carrie and Nightmare on Elm Street and as much love I have for all of those films, I feel An American Werewolf in London has been unfairly treated as is not deemed good enough to be listed among all those astonishing entries in the genre. It’s easily one of the more absorbing, terrifying and claustrophobic horrors of the 80’s, filled with triumphant dialogue and an intensity that only a few films can top. All in all it’s a shame about its lack of recognition and the unfortunate films that have tried to mimic it. There’s even a sequel to it set in Paris (which is awful, by the way), but just forget all that for a moment and let its power resonate over you like the blood dripping from the werewolf, the fog settling over the moors and the scratching atmosphere of it all and think to yourself why this isn’t listed as the greatest British horror there is.

100/100

All that is left to do is apply it to my model during my assessment next week so fingers crossed it all comes together!

FaernBliss ♥

I was happy with the coverage but I need to work on the blending!

FaernBliss ♥

Horror-comedy.  It sounds muddled and absurd and maybe a bit impossible, but it’s an increasingly popular cinematic trend; it captures the cult crowd interested in a ridiculous horror flick as well as the more mainstream crowd wanting a laugh while not needing to worry too much about a completely relentless scary movie.

I have a problem with most horror-comedies: most rely too much on humor and merely place the jokes in an otherwise frightening situation.  Though this can work well for some (Sean of the Dead), it can be detrimental if the humor isn’t all there (Severed) because of the reliance on laughs over scares.  An American Werewolf in London, directed by John Landis of Animal House and Blues Brothers fame, is the pinnacle example of a truly great horror-comedy, expertly mixing truly humorous elements with legitimately frightening elements.

It’s a situation where the title provides most of the plot; two American students, on vacation in England, run afoul of a werewolf on the misty moors of the British countryside.  While one is killed, the other, David, is wounded and treated at a London hospital.  There he is informed by the corpse of his dead friend that he will become a ferocious man-beast during the full moon cycle.  As David attempts to cope with his fate, he is assailed by horrific and ludicrous hallucinations until, finally, he falls to the floor and transforms, onscreen, into a hideous wolf creature.

Any normal human being would’ve focused this entire post on said transformation scene, as it remains one of the greatest uses of practical special effects in movie history.  In all honesty, it was difficult singling-out a scene to comment on for this movie; it’s truly a gem and there are dozens of moments I could talk about with passion (the Nazi-demon dream and the porno theatre scene come to mind right away).  The reason I chose the scene I’m about to describe is because I found it effectively scary, and the fact that it’s swimming around in this incredibly funny movie adds a lot to the film’s status as horror-comedy.  I want the feeling to resonate, so I’ll leave you with it

By now in the movie, David has become a wolf and started his rampage.  The front portion of the monster is what we see the most, and even then  only as a set of jowls clamping down on somebody’s throat.  From the scene of one slaughter we shift to a subway station (or perhaps metro, as it’s called there) where a passenger departs into the empty station.  The man busies himself buying something from a medical convenience vending machine when he hears a noise, a low, echoing groan, and looks up.  Only the train tunnel, dark and abandoned, stretches away before him.  He hears the noise again, and asks the darkness if anybody’s there.  The third time he hears the noise, now much louder,crisper, nearer, he informs it that he doesn’t find this the least bit amusing.  Still nothing emerges from the tunnel, so the man starts off down a passageway out of the station.  Eventually he hears the noise again, and we view the man from a perspective camera, low to the ground.  The man sees whatever is behind the camera, utters “Good lord”, and begins backing away, mouth agape, before turning and breaking into a run.  His head constantly flips behind his shoulder, tracking the horror that follows, and he reaches an escalator in the labyrinthine station.  So desperate to escape his pursuer, he throws himself face-first onto the stairs, spilling the papers in his briefcase.  He struggles to move, and when he finally flips himself onto his back, he sees a air of furry brown feet and a pointed head emerge, crawling towards him.  We now see, more or less, the entire wolf, but from so far away and so high up it still essentially calls our imagination to the driver’s seat.  The remainder of the scene is again from the perspective camera, and the audience watches the expression of horror on the man’s face as the beast closes in, step by step.

The video for Michael Jackson’s hit song “Thriller,” off the album by the same name, was released on this day in 1983 on MTV, back when there were music videos on MTV. The video was directed by John Landis, cost $600,000 to make. It’s considered the greatest music video of all time. It includes a voice appearance by horror master Vincent Prince. The original 14-minute cut of the video was deemed too scary for some audiences and was only played at certain late night hours for several years. I never know what to do with Michael Jackson anecdotes. On the one hand, he provided a lot of great entertainment in my youth, especially this video and album. On the other hand, he was allegedly a dangerous creep with children and his mind was far gone to whatever disease rotted him away inside his skull. I don’t hate the guy, but I don’t exactly want to celebrate him, either. But this is a damned good video.

Douglas Kirkland im Gespräch mit Nancy Griffin (aus The Making Of Thriller- 4 Days / 1983)

Ein Interview über den Filmdreh am Thriller-Set…

http://www.amazon.de/Michael-Jackson-Making-Thriller-Days/dp/193323198X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354388077&sr=8-1

Nancy Griffin: Erinnerst du dich an deine ersten Eindrücke von Michael?

Douglas Kirkland: Ich traf ihn zum ersten mal in der Nacht als sie im Palace Theater filmten, ich sollte ihn dann in seinem Trailer treffen. Ehrlich gesagt, war ich zuerst etwas eingeschüchtert. Ich war schon mit vielen Leuten zusammen, aber ich hatte keine Ahnung, was für ein Typ Mensch er sein würde. Er war schon von so vielen Mythen umgeben. Ich fragte mich, ob er seltsam oder verrückt sein würde – wer war diese Person, mit der ich zusammen sein sollte und wie könnte ich meinen Job am besten machen?

Mit der Power, die Michael auf der Bühne demonstrierte und der Aura, die um ihn herum geschaffen worden war, erwartete ich, dass er sich sicher wie ein Gigant gegenüber einem Life-Magazine Journalist und Fotograf verhalten würde.

Was ich gefunden habe war jemand der überhaupt nicht verängstigend oder einschüchternd war. Er war sehr offen und entgegenkommend. Er machte, dass ich mich wie zuhause fühlte. Er hatte eine leise Stimme und lächelte leicht, kein großes Lachen, nur ein kleines Lächeln. Ein sehr leichter Händedruck, kein fester, soweit ich mich erinnere.
Alles an ihm lies mich denken, dass er eine sanfte Person ist.

NG: Hatte seine Schüchternheit einen Einfluss darauf, wie du dich ihm als Fotograf genähert hast?

DC: Es war mein Anliegen, dass ich nicht zu laut sein wollte und dass ich mich höflich verhalten wollte. Ich habe meine Sensoren immer sehr fein abgestimmt dass ich nicht zu weit gehe oder zu anmaßend werde. In den paar Minuten versuchte ich ihm zu zeigen, dass ich ihn respektiere.

Als eine Person, die Fotos macht, versuchte ich schnell in zum Wesentlicheren zu kommen, die “Hallos” sind immer nur zum Aufwärmen gedacht. Es funktionierte gut, er war sehr empfänglich dafür.

NG: Ich erinnere mich, dass er draußen vor dem Theater herumhing, bevor wir anfingen zu drehen. Es überraschte mich, dass er zwar so scheu aber so freundlich war und überraschend zugänglich.

DC: Als ich in seinen Trailer kam, wurde gerade sein Make Up gemacht, und er war fertig, bevor seine Crew fertig war. Er ging raus und setzte sich in einen Regiestuhl und redete mit jedem. Sie hatten da auch einen Flipper, und ich habe Fotos , auf denen er damit spielt.

NG: Michael spielte einen netten jungen Kerl, der ein Date mit einem hübschen Mädchen hat. John Landis machte sicher, dass er sexy aussah und gekleidet war, so wie ein Filmstar.

DC: Er sah sehr gut aus. Ich sehe mir Leute sehr sorgfältig an, und ich dachte sofort, das ist cool, denn ich habe ein sehr gut aussehendes (Foto) Motiv, und wenn er keine Allüren hat, wird das gut funktionieren.

NG: Sagtest du Michael, dass er bestimmte Posen einnehmen sollte oder etwas besonderes tun sollte?

DC: Nein, ich machte, was ich immer mache, wenn ich anfange mit jemand zu arbeiten, ich fotografiere erst nur zurückhaltend, was ich beobachte. Ich denke, diese Zeit braucht es, um damit vertraut zu werden, dass ich da bin. Was ich Michael anfangs am häufigsten fragte war, “könntest du dich für eine Sekunde in diese Richtung drehen?” Aber mit der Zeit fragte ich auch nach anderen Dingen.

NG: Schien er sich mit deiner Arbeit oder mit Fotografie allgemein auszukennen?

DC: Ich denke, für ihn repräsentierte ich einfach nur das Life Magazine. John Landis und alle anderen an Thriller beteiligten, waren sehr erfreut darüber, dass das Life Magazine da war. Ich bekam nicht den Eindruck, dass Michael sich mit Fotografie auskannte, und er sprach auch nicht darüber. Ich hörte, er sammelte antike Kameras, aber er kannte sich nicht mit meinen 300mm (tele) Objektiven aus, wofür ich dieses Teil meiner Ausrüstung benutze. Es war das Objektiv, das ich benutze um interessante Nahaufnahmen aus der Ferne zu machen.

NG: Du warst nicht dicht an ihm dran, für Nahaufnahmen zu machen?

DC: Nein, ich machte Fotos mit einer langen Brennweite, als er in seinem Stuhl saß. Ich hatte einen Blitz auf ihm, weil er im dunkeln saß. Da gibt es ein Bild von ihm, im Profil, wo er sich auf die Zunge beißt, und ein Licht irgendwo aus dem Hintergrund bildet eine Art Blase um sein Gesicht. (…)

NG: Die Portraits, die du in der ersten Nacht machtest, wo er mit Ola filmte, bevor er in einen Werwolf oder einen Zombie verwandelt wird , sind sehr glamourös.

DC: Als er in die Filmbeleuchtung heraustrat und sich auf seinen Auftritt vorbereitete – das war der Augenblick, in dem man seine Star Qualitäten wirklich sehen konnte. In diesen Minuten, kurz bevor dem Dreh. Ich beobachtete ihn mit dem Teleobjektiv. Dieser scheue Mensch bekam plötzlich Selbstvertrauen. Er hatte dieses besondere Lächeln, was jedes Herz erwärmte. Meine liebsten Bilder von ihm zeigen dieses Lächeln. Das war Michael, wenn er Michael war, und das war, wenn ich meine besten Aufnahmen von ihm bekam. (…) Time Magazine beauftragte Andy Warhole eines dieser Bilder für ihr Cover zu interpretieren. Und Jahre später hatte ich eines davon in meinem Buch “Freezed Frame”.

NG: Ola Ray sah aus, als wäre sie scharf auf ihn..

DC: Das habe ich auch bemerkt. Was für eine Verschwendung. Dieses schöne Mädchen, was ihn sicher wirklich mochte. Und er hätte nur “einen Penny in ihre Richtung werfen” müssen, und es wäre eine gemachte Sache gewesen. Aber es war nicht seine Art.

NG: Wir haben wirklich beobachtet, wie Geschichte geschrieben wurde: Das ThrillerAlbum hat Pop Musik neu definiert, und jetzt beabsichtigte Michael, die Musik Videos zu revolutionieren.

DC: Es war so eine innovative Phase für ihn, es war wirklich aufregend. Er war von den J5 weg und hatte seine Karriere selbst in die Hand genommen. Er sah so gut aus, er hatte so außerordentliche Fähigkeiten, und ihn zu beobachten, wie er Thriller performte, oder wie er den Moonwalk bei Motown 25 offenbarte, es fühlte sich an, als wolle er “explodieren”, einfach sein allerbestes geben. Er war immer noch auf der Suche nach sich selbst als Performer, und was er erreichen wollte, schaffte er, und er war brilliant.

NG: Michael sagte, dass er nie wirklich gerne Horror Filme sah, aber ihm gefiel American Werewolf in London, weil hier Komödie mit Horror vermischt waren.

DC: Er kam mit John Landis zusammen, und sie schufen Thriller und hatten soviel Spaß damit. Es war ein Meilenstein, es zeigte, was ein Musikvideo sein konnte, mehr, als dass nur einer dastand, und Gitarre spielte. Es war eine Geschichte, die erzählt wurde, wie ein Kurzfilm. Zu der Zeit gab es noch keine solchen Videos, und danach kopierte es jeder und es veränderte die Musik Videos für immer.

NG: Ich erinnere mich, dass er stundenlang bei Rick Baker am Stuhl saß und sich sein Make Up machen lies.

DC: Es war ein langwieriger Prozess und es war wirklich unbequem für ihn. Sie setzten gelbe Kontaktlinsen in sein Augen, durch die man nur schlecht sehen konnte und die in den Augen weh taten. Er amüsierte sich, bei dem Anblick im Spiegel. Ich erinnere mich auch noch daran, dass am Ende der Nacht der Kleber, mit dem die Maske befestigt war, wieder entfernt werden musste, und auf manchen Fotos kannst du seine Schmerzen sehen, es war, als ziehe jemand Pflaster von seinem Gesicht. Aber es war immer in Ordnung für ihn. Ich erinnere mich nicht, dass er deshalb zu jemand unfreundlich war. Ich sah nie dass er sich gegen etwas wehrte, oder dass er jemanden anschrie.

NG: Er war schon solange im Showgeschäft, er war ein wirklicher Profi.

DC: Ohne Zweifel. Er wusste, warum er da war, warum Leute wie du und ich da waren. Da gab es keine Naivität. Er war sehr gut auf die Rolle vorbereitet. Thriller wurde so gut produziert, wie eine gut geschmierte Maschine.

NG: Das Foto, wo Michael als Zombie nach dir greift, war eines der nicht geplanten Fotos, die du machtest. Wie kam es dazu?

DC: Ich hatte die Idee, dass er mich gruseln sollte”, so tun, als wolle er mich erwürgen, in dieser verrückten Welt, in der als Werwolf lebte. es war an dem Tag, als sie in den Ralaigh Studios an den Zombie Szenen arbeiteten. Ich fragte Michael, ob er Lust habe, das Foto zu machen, und er sagte, er würde schon, wenn er könnte, er müsse aber vor Ort bleiben und auf den Dreh warten. Ich wartete und war besorgt, dass die Sonne untergehen würde. Endlich bekamen wir die Erlaubnis, nach draußen zu gehen, hinter die Bühne. Ein Regieassistent kam mit, für den Fall dass Michael doch plötzlich am Set gebraucht würde.
Der Job eines Fotografen ist es, das, was man in seinem inneren Auge gesehen hat, in einen Rahmen zu bekommen. Das Licht war perfekt, und ich stellte Michael in Position, damit ich gleich los fotografieren konnte. Ich setzte einen Spot auf ihn und setzte meine Verschluss Zeit auf eine Achtel Sekunde, damit auch der dämmerige Hintergrund auf dem Bild richtig belichte wurde. Ich benutzte ein 28/50 Weitwinkel Objektiv. Wir verbrachten vielleicht max. 5 Minuten zusammen. Ich wusste genau, was ich brauchte, um das zu bekommen, was ich wollte. Ich arbeite schnell, den die Uhr tickt immer, besonders bei der Arbeit mit Stars.

Ich sagte: “Michael, Ich will von dir Angst eingejagt bekommen, du bist der werwolf – mach mir höllische Angst!”

Er machte das vielleicht 3x, er streckte die Hände nach mir aus und streckte sie dann hoch Richtung Himmel. Ich hab ihn mit Worten angefeuert, während ich fotografierte, damit sein Ausdruck noch intensiver wurde. Das ist eines der Geheimnisse, das hinter solchen Fotos steckt – man muss genau in diesem Moment bereit sein, ihn nicht vorüber gehen lassen.
(…)

NG: Einer der ersten, die Einfluss auf Michael hatten, war Diana Ross, die mit den J5 zu Motown Zeiten befreundet war. Er himmelte sie an. Du hast mehrere Jahre mit Diana zusammengearbeitet. Hat sie je über Michael gesprochen?

DC: Ich machte die meisten Fotos mit Diana in einer Zeitspanne von etwa 10 Jahren, bevor das Thriller Video entstand. Manchmal sprach sie über Michael, auf sehr nette Art. Sie bewunderte und liebte ihn wirklich – ihre Augen leuchteten immer auf, wenn sie über ihn sprach.

NG: Von all den Entertainern, mit denen du zusammen warst, gibt es da irgendjemand, der dich an Michael erinnert?

DC: Ich habe viele Leute fotografiert und einige Genies gesehen. Peter Sellers war ein Genie: er wusste genau, welche Knöpfe man drücken musste um einen bestimmten Eindruck zu erzielen, um Leute zum lachen zu bringen und sich gut zu fühlen. Michael war kein Komödiant, aber er hatte vergleichbare Qualitäten, er wusste genau wie man das beste aus einer Performance herausholte. Die Leute, die nicht mit dem Showgeschäft vertraut sind, erkennen nicht, dass die Spontaneität die sie wahrnehmen, erst sorgfältig erschaffen werden muss. Michael konnte strahlen, für die Menschen wenn er vor die Kamera trat, und wirklich eine Persönlichkeit darstellen, oder Freude oder was immer nötig war.

NG: Hast du dich über das gewundert, was später mit Michael passierte, nachdem das Thriller Video gedreht war?

DC: Ja, mich hat Michael Jacksons Leben nach der Zeit wo ich ihn traf, manchmal traurig gemacht. So wie viele Leute, war ich ungeduldig mit ihm, und dachte, er hat alles Geld der Welt, warum kann er sich nicht zusammen nehmen? Ich weiss nicht, was die Leute darüber denken, was er mit seinem Gesicht gemacht hat, und mit seiner Art zu Leben. Aber er versuchte, sich selbst sein Leben zu gestalten, deshalb hat er seine Kinder. Ich bin sicher. Er versuchte irgendwie ein normales Leben zu führen, auf die einzige Weise, die er kannte. Ich denke leider, dass es ihm nicht so gut gelungen ist. Das Leben war letztendlich nicht gut zu ihm. Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass sein Vater zu ihm als Kind, bei den J5, sehr hart war.

NG: Nachdem ich den Film TII gesehen habe, glaube ich, dass ihm nochmal ein Comeback gelungen wäre.

DC: Das denke ich auch. Ich wusste nicht, was mich erwartet, als ich ihn ansah. Ich habe es genossen, und ich konnte sehen dass er das weiterführte, was er bei Thriller machte. Sicher war er älter, er hatte nicht mehr das jungendliche Gesicht und sein Äusseres war von dem beeinflusst, was er über die Jahre gemacht hat. Aber wenn er mit der Performance anfing, war es wie magnetisch, er bewegte sich immer noch auf diese wundervolle flüssige Art.

Und alle diese Sachen, all die Probleme die er hatte, was immer auf Neverland los war, es hat für mich keine Bedeutung. Ich glaube, Michael Jackson war wie ein Kind, als ich ihn kennen lernte, ein talentiertes Kind. Und als ich ihn in diesem letzten Film wiedersah, fühlte ich, dass er dieses Kind geblieben ist, so war er. Mich hat es erfreut, ihn proben zu sehen.. Er war wie ein Kind, und er lebte in einer Kinder Fantasie. Ein Teil seiner Entwicklung war stehen geblieben, vielleicht als Ergebnis davon, wie er aufgewachsen ist.

Aber das Genie war immer noch zu erkennen. Es ist tragisch, dass der Vorhang für diesen überragenden, brillianten Künstler gefallen ist. Wenn Michael den Beat traf, tanzte er mit absoluter raffinierter Perfektion. Ich glaube nicht, dass es das je vorher gegeben hat. Und vielleicht auch nie mehr danach.

Übersetzung: M.v.d.Linden

One of the biggest critical flops of 2012 has to be the misjudged Peter Berg’s action romp Battleship. With a hodgepodge cast, including Rihanna, Liam Neeson and Taylor Kitsch, it was pretty much unbearable from beginning to end. Has Hollywood become so stifled of good original storytelling that it has resulted in adapting boardgames? With Hungry Hippos and Monopoly on the way, I was stunned to discover that Jonathan Lynn (Yes Minister, Nuns on the Run) kickstarted the trend with Clue (Cluedo, in the UK), a goofy farce rework of the classic ‘whodunnit?’ game.

Set in New England, 1954, it all kicks off with cackling thunder and torrential rain, as Tim Curry – playing totally to-type as the stuffy English butler Wadsworth – enters a huge gothic mansion. From here, a series of invited guests, travelling under the pseudonyms of Col. Mustard, Mrs White, and the like, arrive for an evening’s dinner of self-discovery, blackmail and murder. Whose their dinner host? This central question becomes all the more fatal when they each seem to be dropping off like flies. Murder weapons including lead pipe, candlestick and the classic revolver, there’s a killer lurking in the study, billiard room and beyond, but who is it?

Co-written by eighties movie monolith John Landis (The Blues Brothers, American Werewolf in London), there’s a lot of flippant black humour in Clue‘s script, from bawdy sight gags, to wriggling corpses. It takes great influence not only from the Hasbro board game, but from the superior seventies comedy/mystery caper Murder By Death, starring Peter Falk. The ensemble cast try their hardest to emanate the same magic and momentum. Curry is great, putting in a sublime physical performance as the sleuthing butler keeping the guess-who game rolling. Whilst Michael McKean, directly following peerless mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, exhibits a great slapstick streak as the former state official-cum-timid homosexual Mr. Green. 

Never given enough clues to figure out to who the murderer could be, meaning that Lynn gives us three disparate “here’s how it could have happened” endings. But by this point, we’re exhausted, just waiting for the gambit to be up.

Irregardless of some brilliantly thespian performances and welcomingly frenzied pacing, something doesn’t quite stack up in the entertainment department with Clue. It’s certainly worth a roll of the dice, but I’d much rather spend a rainy Sunday afternoon playing the original board game.

★★★☆☆
IMDb / Trailer

Neds (Peter Mullan, 2010)
Set in Glasgow in the 1970s, Neds follows a boy during his growing-up phase, from promising smart kid to trouble-making delinquent. The transition is presented in an engaging fashion and, for the most part, shows a believable trajectory. Some well-timed humor makes for a welcome addition in the early goings as well. The problem is that it all gets a repetitive, with the second half of the film treading water rather than breaking new ground. Some more time could have been spent fine-tuning it in the cutting room. It’s a slightly better film than Mullan’s previous effort The Magdalene Sisters, though.
3/5

Rampart (Oren Moverman, 2011)
Hard-hitting character study of one rotten L.A. cop, expertly portrayed by a rarely-better Woody Harrelson. He and Oren Moverman make for one hell of a team, judging by this and their previous collaboration The Messenger. Moverman does great work here, utilizing colors and camera angles in striking ways that really make the film come alive. And this is only his second film. I’m eagerly anticipating what he’ll come up with next.
4/5

Young Adult (Jason Reitman, 2011)
I’m a major fan of Jason Reitman. That Young Adult is probably his weakest film to date has more to do with the awesomeness of Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up in the Air, than with any supposed lack of quality in this latest effort. Because Young Adult is really good. It’s a brisk and fun look at an interesting woman – Charlize Theron‘s Mavis – who’s possibly be the best-written character Diablo Cody has provided cinema with. The film might not tell a story we haven’t heard before, and it could have done with a bit more narrative muscle, but, in the end, this is Jason Reitman. And Jason Reitman makes damn fine films.
4/5

Beetlejuice (Tim Burton, 1988)
One of the problems with relying on special effects is that your film will age without much grace. Beetlejuice is full of visual tricks of all kinds, and while the ideas do contain imagination, the execution of them naturally aren’t impressive these days. This could be excused if the effects were actually used for a specific purpose, like to scare us or make us laugh, but here they don’t really have anything to do other than to fill us with awe, which they don’t do. Of course, effects aren’t the whole movie, so why do I talk so much about them? Because they’re constantly pushed to the forefront of the film, stealing attention away from what starts out as a semi-promising story. Sadly, this fails to hold up. My experience with the title character encapsulates the whole film: I spent the first half of the film waiting for him to show up, and the other half wishing he’d stay away. To end this on a positive note: the Danny Elfman-penned score is a good one!
2/5

Mansome (Morgan Spurlock, 2012)
A large part of what made both Super Size Me and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold work was Morgan Spurlock himself. When in front of the camera, he has a great way of infusing his documentaries with energy, and this helps to make even straight-forward subject matters seem rich and compelling. So when he decides to largely keep the focus off of himself for Mansome, the result is lacking. It doesn’t help that the subject matter of male grooming itself feels trivial compared to his previous work, or that the comedy bits with Jason Bateman and Will Arnett are forced and out-of-place.
2/5

Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011)
Time travel/time loop movies are always fun. This one is no exception, with Jake Gyllenhaal clearly having some fun with his lead role. The drawn-out ending hurts the film, however, making it go out with a whimper rather than a bang.
3/5

An American Werewolf in London (John Landis, 1981)
Credit where credit is due: the transformation scene was awesome. Alas, nothing else in the film even comes close to it. This was, frankly, kind of dull.
2/5

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (Woody Allen, 2001)
Probably the funniest Woody Allen film I’ve seen so far, though not necessarily the best one. The constant bickering between Allen and Helen Hunt is fun, and certainly the main attraction here. The plot itself is nothing too special.
3/5

Mister Foe (David Mackenzie, 2007)
Somewhat dark coming-of-age story that took its time to win me over. The protagonist (Jamie Bell) is one of those characters that doesn’t really have many positive qualities, instead being saddled with justifications for his negative traits. This creates a barrier between him and the viewer that doesn’t get fully conquered until the last third of the film. It’s solidly made, though, and the story travels to places many other tales don’t.
3/5

Rounders (John Dahl, 1998)
This was fine. Nothing exceptional or noteworthy – other than John Malkovich‘s fun hammy turn as a Russian baddie – but good enough entertainment for 2 hours.
3/5

Bernie (Richard Linklater, 2011)
For the first half or so, this film felt very plain to me. Just a portrait of a guy in a small town in Texas. Even when he commits a serious crime, the story still feels like it’s just going through the motions. The interesting part happens after this, when he’s on trial. Here’s where the movie very effectively makes me question to what degree Bernie is actually “guilty”. It’s legality versus morality versus spirituality, all interwoven with interview segments of fellow townfolks and matter-of-factly courtroom scenes. It’s really good stuff, and the goodness lasts all up to the ending credits. However, here it’s stated that the film is based on a true story with real people, a fact that had slipped me by up until that point. When you base a narrative movie like this on real events, I feel like you need to have some degree of fairness in how you portray things. Looking up the case online afterwards, this one doesn’t seem to play it as fair as I would like it to. Your mileage may vary, of course. It’s an intriguing movie, in any case, and Jack Black has rarely been better. Check it out and form your own opinion.
3/5

Paprika (Satoshi Kon, 2006)
If you enjoy subject matters such as those in Inception and The Cell, Paprika should be right up your alley. I do, so it was. A trippy journey through dreams and subconsciousness, nicely paced and with imagination to spare. Does it make sense? Probably not, but then dreams rarely do. Lovely animation, too.
4/5

Ted (Seth MacFarlane, 2012)
Funny!
4/5

Bobby Fischer Against the World (Liz Garbus, 2011)
Well done documentary about the fascinating story that is Bobby Fischer. Chess genius extraordinaire, but also a very troubled man. The film shows both his rise to the top, as well as his descent into paranoia and other issues. Captivating. Recommended for anyone.
4/5

The Devil’s Advocate (Taylor Hackford, 1997)
I will definitely call this film enjoyable on average, but it’s certainly an uneven ride. The first half or so is a bit pedestrian, and the pacing is awkward, with some plot threads dragging and others needing more time to mature. The climax, however, is a highly memorable scene, perfectly suited to the story and delivered wonderfully. And then the very ending sucks. Through it all, the thing that always keeps the film above water is Al Pacino. There is not a second of the film where he’s on screen that you’re likely to be bored.
3/5

The Amateurs (Michael Traeger, 2005)
Movies about regular people trying to make a porno are not exactly common, but they’re still sort of “a thing”. I can think of three or four other ones I’ve seen in the genre. The Amateurs is neither the best nor the worst of the bunch. It’s awkwardly cut and relies way too much on voice-over – this might all the intentional, but who knows. There is a surprising amount of heart present, however, particularly in the way it shows the bonds between these small-town friends. The talent of the cast (Jeff Bridges, Joe Pantoliano, William Fichtner, John Hawkes, etc.) is too big to be fully utilized in a film like this, but they all put in satisfactory efforts. Ultimately, this might be a film I want to like more than I actually like it. But I do like it.
3/5

The Matador (Richard Shepard, 2005)
I’ve had a sneaking suspicion for quite some time that Pierce Brosnan, while not bad, is an actor incapable of greatness. After seeing The Matador, I’m happy to say that I was wrong. He is teriffic here, playing an assassin swaying back and forth between jovial friendliness and weariness. Greg Kinnear plays the straight man – always a thankless task – but still infuses his own character with enough life to make it rise above its station. The two actors have good chemistry with each other, and the dialogue is great – I was almost surprised to find out that it was neither based on a stageplay nor on an Elmore Leonard novel. The Matador is a deeply fun take on the hitman character, and I can find few negatives to bring up. A great movie, and one worthy of more love.
5/5

District 13: Ultimatum (Patrick Allesandrin, 2009)
District 13 was a bit of a fresh breeze in the action genre. It utilized parkour in a way that no other film has managed to pull off since. It had its share of problems though, and they are magnified in this sequel. Too much time is spent on a tired plot – one that feels like a retread of the original’s – and there really aren’t any characters anywhere. The action scenes are still cool for sure, but there’s not enough of them. A disappointing follow-up.
2/5

The Future (Miranda July, 2011)
Hey, speaking of disappointing follow-ups… I was a big fan of Miranda July’s debut feature Me and You and Everyone We Know. This sophomore effort feels like it’s trying too hard to do nothing at all. Or maybe to do too much. There is no substance beneath the quirk here, and even though I have a high treshold for quirk, this one went way too far. I don’t know. Maybe this is just a round-about way for me to say that I didn’t understand the film. That said, it was certainly different, so I’ll still be there to see what July cooks up next time.
2/5

The General (Buster Keaton & Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
This would be my first Buster Keaton film ever. As a ha-ha comedy, it hasn’t aged all that well. I snickered once or twice, but it’s not that funny overall. It’s quite impressive filmmaking, however, with plenty of stunts and set pieces that made me go “whoa” or “how did they do that?”. The overall impression is thus a positive one. Somewhat. I’m more eager to see more Charlie Chaplin than Buster Keaton, though.
3/5

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)
Funny, sharp, and clever comedy about war-related absurdities. Peter Sellers pulling triple duty offers quite a few laughs, but I liked George C. Scott‘s animated general the best. Still, it’s the material itself more than any particular performers that make this one a real winner.
4/5

The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson, 2008)
Why don’t people talk about this film more? Very entertaining con movie that kept me on my toes from start to finish, having me guessing how many layers there were to the plots through clever uses of red herrings and trickery in fair ways. It certainly doesn’t hurt that the humor is right up my alley too. All the main players are good here – although Rinko Kikuchi is a bit wasted – but Rachel Weisz steals the show in a way I didn’t expect from her.
4/5

Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975)
It’s nice to finally be able to knock this one off of my List of Shame. Jaws mostly lived up to the hype. I dug the way it gradually ramps up the tension, and the entire second half of shark-hunting is teriffically thrilling stuff.
4/5

The Ten (David Wain, 2007)
The cast is filled with a bizarelly big amount of familiar names and faces. Bizarelly, because this is a pretty weak-natured anthology comedy, with little ambition and crude material. It’s not the kind of film you’d expect to attract much star power. Granted, a bit of it is retroactive recognition as some of the actors weren’t quite as big back then, but… Anyway, the problem here is that the various segments are only vaguely amusing on paper, and rarely manage to grow beyond their origins. “Hey, wouldn’t it be funny to have Winona Ryder‘s character fall in love with a ventriloquist’s dummy?” Yeah, this could make for a funny story, but they don’t do anything with it. Still, there are moments of mild amusement sprinkled throughout, so it’s not a total dud.
2/5

Mad Dog and Glory (John McNaughton, 1993)
Many people might rank Robert De Niro as the best actor in the world. I might rank Bill Murray as my favorite actor in the world. Both play against type here, with De Niro as a meek cop and Murray as a tough mafia boss. Of course, since this is De Niro and Murray, they both do great. The story is a good one, focusing on the cop’s wish to be more courageous and desirable, and I was fascinated for most of the film. The problem is the weak ending, which requires more insight into Murray’s character than what is provided. As it is, the scene just has me wondering why it plays out the way it does, requiring guessing and theorizing in an unsatisfactory way. Alas. Good movie overall, though.
3/5

Angel-A (Luc Besson, 2005)
Some Things That I Like. #1: Paris in black & white. #2: Happening upon an actor I recognize from Amélie – here it’s Jamel Debouzze who played Lucien, the kind and bullied stall assistant. #3: When a director who I mostly know from other genres shows that he’s capable of branching out. #4: Visual symbolism that, while not subtle, still has me going “I wish I had thought of that!” – in particular, there’s a really cool scene in Angel-A where the shadows from a fence paints fishnet stockings on a woman’s legs, right after she has seduced a mob boss to help out the protagonist. So there’s quite a bit of stuff I like in this movie. The premise, of a man planning to leap from a bridge only to get interrupted by an angel (Rie Rasmussen) who seeks to make him appreciate life more, has of course been done before, but it works here thanks to some nice humor and the grander ideas it suggests. It’s not free from flaws, however. There are pacing issues, the two leads could have had better chemistry with one another, and for such a word-heavy movie, the dialogue rarely pops. Despite this, Angel-A is an interesting film, and one I’m glad I checked out even if I wasn’t blown away by it.
3/5

Looper (Rian Johnson, 2012)
Huh. So here’s a time travel movie that A: seemingly makes sense according to its own rules, B: does so without being too complicated to follow, and C: still presents a very satisfying and unpredictable story. Imagine that. The plot does indeed drive the movie, and it has enough meat to it to make me want to see it again at some point. The film also looks great, which is always a plus. I can find little to complain about here. Good stuff.
4/5

Total # of new films seen: 27
Average score: 3.2 / 5
Best film of the month: The Matador
Worst film of the month: The Ten

Bluto don’t need no education.

Gross-out is a movie genre where tastelessness, political incorrectness and bad personal hygiene are worn as badges of honour.

In other words, adding to society’s ethical and cultural wellbeing is not high on the list of priorities so adjectives like  ‘sick’ or ‘depraved’ are taken as compliments.

National Lampoon’s Animal House can justifiably lay claim to launching the genre on an unsuspecting world.

John Belushi is regarded as gross-out royalty both for his role as John ‘Bluto’ Blutarsky and for the fact that playing the part of a drunken degenerate seems to have closely resembled his off-screen lifestyle. To prove this point definitively he died of a drug overdose just four years later at the age of 33.

The Delta boys – good upstanding citizens, one and all!

As the lewd and lascivious Bluto, he epitomizes the party animal philosophy of the under-achieving Delta Tau Chi fraternity. By contrast the students of the Omega group are depicted as a bunch of sanctimonious, clean-living do-rights.

This polarization between the two fraternities is what drives the movie’s thin plot culminating in an anarchic finale in which a homecoming parade the celebrate the college’s achievements is sabotaged by the Deltas.

In this context it is significant that Milton’s Paradise Lost is being taught by a disillusioned English professor (Donald Sutherland). Referring to the epic poem’s themes of good versus evil, the bored students are asked to consider whether it is better to revel in evil and sin or live a good and noble life.

By the end we are left in no doubt which side the movie is on; the rebellious rock and roll lives of Belushi and crew may be crude and destructive but they are the ones having the most fun.

The Delta code is male-centric and bereft of any moral principles but their sleazy antics make for an entertaining and irreverent satire of ‘straight’ society.

Les Vampires

French 1915-16; Director, Louis Feuillade

In 1915, while France was in its intensely insane death struggle with Germany on blood-soaked battlefields that stretched from  Belgium to Switzerland, director Louis Feuillade began  his followup to the wildly popular Fantômas, 1913. Les Vampires, a 10 part 6.5 hour serial, ran from November 1915 to June 1916.

Musidora as the infamous “Irma Vep”

The Vampires of the title are not of the undead, blood sucking variety, rather, they are an organization of thieves running a complicated series of robberies, swindles and murder. On their trail is intrepid journalist and the nominal hero, Philipe Guérande (Édouard Mathé) and his semi-comical sidekick Oscar-Cloud Mazamette (Marcel Lévesque.) After the first few episodes it is mainly focused on the inner workings of the criminals (and leaving Philipe and Mazamette almost secondary status.) The most notable of these is Irma Vep, (Musidora) the lead female member of the gang. Parading around in an outfit of black tights crossing nighttime Paris rooftops to perform burglaries, made Irma and Musidora a sensation (and sort of a pinup) in war torn France.

Filmed quickly and largely made up as it went along, with very little written script, Les Vampires plays somewhat like  a fevered dream. This probably accounts for some of the bizarre and abrupt story twists and turns, and for the uneven length of its episodes (the shortest is only 13 minutes long while some of them approach an hour.) But this is not a cliffhanger serial, each episode (so far) have a definite ending. Perhaps I should wait til later to discuss Les Vampires any further, since I have watched only the first 8 episodes. There are two (and almost two hours) to go.

Burke and Hare

2010; Director: John Landis

John Landis’ return to feature film directing is a not totally successful black-comic re-rendering of the infamous Burke and Hare murder/grave robbing scandal from 19th century Scotland. Burke and Hare supply Dr. Robert Knox with fresh cadavers for medical study in Edinburgh, when procuring said cadavers, was quite difficult. No questions asked. They graduate from grave robbing to outright murder.

While based on real characters and events, Burke and Hare departs quite a bit from the known facts. Instead of cold blooded murderers, our heroes stumble somewhat by chance on to their trade. But the film is a comedy, not a documentary, and the film sets that up right from the start with a title (I’m paraphrasing here): Based on true events–except the parts that aren’t.

Pegg and Serkis as “Burke and Hare”

The film has a nice Hammer Horror, Gothic look and feel to it and Landis gets excellent work from his cast: Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis as the titular characters and Jessica Hynes, Isla Fisher, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry and Bill Bailey in supporting roles. Christopher Lee pops up for an amusing cameo.  It has a some funny bits and much of the dark, ironical black humor comes through; but overall, the film just did not totally work. I suppose the making a couple of real life cold blooded murderers into loveable, bumbling, cold blooded murderers is not an easy turn of the key. Still, the film has much to recommend it, so I wouldn’t warn anybody away.

Return of the Living Dead

1984; Director: Dan O’Bannon

From serial killing for profit, to mass murder for want of “Brains!!!”

“Braaaiiiinnnnsss!”

John Russo, the screenwriter for The Night of the Living Dead, parted ways with director, George A. Romero, but retained the rights the “Living Dead” part of the title. This film acts as a sort of sequel to the original–but a much more comic one. Director and screenwriter, Dan O’Bannon, concocts a story that, in its way, continues and honors the original and makes fun of it at the same time.

It seems that a sealed canister from original zombie outbreak has been stored and then forgotten in the basement of a medical supply warehouse run by Burt (Clu Gulager.) When old hand, Frank (James Karen) is showing new hire Freddie (Thom Mathews) the ropes of his new job, he accidentally crack opens the canister, releasing whatever deadly, gas, virus, infection was inside. Needless to say, this evolves into a mass uprising of the dead courtesy of convenient cemetery across the way and a sudden thunderstorm that rains the gas down upon all of those graves. Oh, and there is a group of punk rockers, who happen to be partying in the cemetery and an oddball embalmer, Eddie (Don Calfa) that Burt brings bring his problem to. It all ends in a siege of the living holding back the brain seeking, undead zombies.

It is all rather silly but, the whole thing is done with a rather droll old EC Comics vibe. Return of the Living Dead is quite a fun ride with performances that carry just enough of the real to make us care but are also just enough on the far side to make them fun. James Karen and Don Calfa, in different ways really deliver terrific performances.

Certainly trashy with a fair gross out quotient, the MGM blu-ray is not a thing of beauty but Return is a Halloween time staple.

A Man There Was  (Terje Vigen) 1917

Ingeborg Holm 1913

Swedish; Director: Victor Sjöström

A Kino double feature from the Swedish director who has been called both the “Father of Swedish Cinema” and the “Swedish Griffith” both of which, I suppose, are somewhat unfair, and unnecessarily burdensome. At any rate, Sjöström was an early, great filmmaker both in Sweden and then in the United States.

A Man There Was (Swedish title: Terje Vigen) is a melancholy tale of the sea, from a poem by Henrik Ibsen. A carefree sailor becomes a loving family man but when war comes and the harbor is blockaded he tries to smuggle provisions for his family and is taken prisoner of war. When he is finally freed, five years later, Terje Vigen returns home to find his wife and child dead. He becomes a gnarly seaside hermit, then chance brings him face to face with the man who imprisoned him.

“A Man There Was”

Ingeborg Holm, which is considered the first classic of Swedish cinema, is a stark social drama that critically looks a Sweden’s welfare system. When Ingeborg Holm’s husband suddenly dies and leaves her with a large debt, she is forced into a workhouse and obliged to have her children fostered to other families.

Ingeborg Holm, although often filmed in scenes with a single lock down camera, is not flatly staged.  Filmed at a slight angle, instead of flat, there is a sense of depth and life as the players don’t simply move parallel to the camera, but look to inhabit the real world.

The film seems to move at a rather slow pace, but that may be due to my modern sensibility. The film has an accumulative power that finally swept me up. Hilda Borgström, in the title role gives a magnificent performance considering that she is never shown in closer than a medium full shot.

A Man There Was, benefits greatly from being largely shot out of doors on location. The Scandinavian seacoast scenery  is a character unto itself.  For a film made in 1917, it is quite astounding. The visuals, the inner cutting, the framing are stunning. The condition of the Kino print and its tinting are wonderful.  Sjöström, playing the title part himself, is quite dynamic and charismatic.. 

In the 1920′s, Victor Sjöström moved to the United States and made He Who Gets Slapped (1924) with Lon Chaney, The Scarlett Letter (1926) and the great The Wind (1928) both with Lillian Gish. With the coming of sound he moved back to Sweden and mostly returned the theatre. Today, most know him from his lead in Ingmar Bergman’s Wild Strawberries.

Dark Shadows

2012; Director: Tim Burton

Ah now, Tim Burton. He, really, is a genre all of his own.

This very loosely adaptation from the old hoary television soap opera (although I remember the original show and did see a number of episodes, I can’t say that I know its in and outs very well), did not much excite critics or viewers when it was released earlier this year. I was rather charmed. Like many of Burton’s films, I think it sometimes takes getting used to, in order to enjoy it. (Though, I still don’t like his  Alice in Wonderland)  I can see where many might have felt underwhelmed by the film–there are some lame, predictable bits and the story line and some of the characters did get rather the short shrift, and it HAD to have a big “action” climax. But I still greatly like Johnny Depp and his performance as Barnabas was both touching, detailed and very funny. Any film with Michelle Pfeiffer and Eva Green in major roles is a plus for me. They are both very good (meaning, quite funny and very sexy.) Michelle is really good at this kind of of comedy. And Eva Green, well now, she is wonderfully evil and well, you know, at the same time. (If you don’t know, then I can not explain it to you.) No, it it not Dan Curtis’ Dark Shadows, it’s Tim Burton’s.

The Killer

1989, Hong Kong;  Director: John Woo

John Woo, another director that is a veritable genre unto himself.

I had never seen this classic Hong Kong actioner before. Whew.  Woo expends more bullets than Sam Peckinpah.  John Woo, and his films are something that one either takes to or does not. They are over the top, with much extended, stylized violence mixed with equal amounts of sentiment.

During a gang assassination in a restaurant, professional killer Ah Jong (Chow Yun-fat) accidentally blinds the lounge singer Jenny (Sally Yeh).  Conscious stricken and intrigued, he be friends her. When he learns that she needs an operation, or will go permanently blind, Jong decides to do “one last job.” But one does not simply retire from the Triad, so, instead of paying him after the job, they try to kill him. Bad move.  On Jong’s trail is detective Li Ying (Danny Lee.)

A Mexican Standoff for Jong and Ying.

Influenced by the crime films of Jean-Pierre Melville and Martin Scorsese, especially Melville’s Le Samourai, The Killer is knockout.  A fair number of people have called The Killer the “greatest action film ever.” I will not go there, but it is definitely a heady mixture. Themes of friendship, honor and responsibility are deeply woven into the film’s fabric. There is a fair amount of Christian iconography throughout the film, but it is not overly pressed. Woo certainly has his influences, but this film returns the favor, over and over; because The Killer, itself has heavily influenced filmmakers since it release. Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino, Luc Besson anyone?

To Catch a Thief

1955; Director: Alfred Hitchcock

An Affair to Remember

1957; Director: Leo McCarey

A Cary Grant double feature weekend! Hitchcock’s souffle of a romantic comedy thriller and McCarey’s screwball, romantic comedy-drama.

Cary and Grace

Cary and Deborah

To Catch a Thief is often described as “Hitchcock Lite” or “minor Hitchcock.” I strongly disagree. That the Master used it as an excuse to spend time in the south of France, or that it does not scale the heights of Rear Window or Vertigo (two of the greatest films ever made), I will not deny. But To Catch a Thief was made by a man at the height of his creative powers. It does exactly what it was designed to do–entertain. Cary Grant is a reformed cat burglar who much catch a thief that is emulating his former style–because the police are breathing down his neck thinking that he is back in business. Grace Kelly is the daughter of a wealthy oil baroness, with lots of expensive ice, vacationing on the Riviera. The scenery, the players and the suspense are all just right. It is all quite delicious.

An Affair to Remember is Leo McCarey remaking his own 1937 classic Love Affair.  On a cruise ship headed from the Continent to New York, a notoriously frivolous,  international playboy (Cary Grant) meets a more serious and level headed songstress heading home from a European vacation. Despite being attached to others, they fall in love. To make sure that their love is real, they agree to meet at the top of the Empire State Building in six months. Of course, things don’t exactly go as planned.

I think I like the remake better than the original–an opinion not held by everyone. The newer version has a lighter and more even touch. But I think that largely comes down to Cary Grant over Charles Boyer. When the choice is between Irene Dunne and Deborah Kerr, I would hate to make a decision. I love them both dearly. The only thing is–Irene Dunne sang her own songs, Deborah Kerr is dubbed.  That brings me to the music/singing scenes. There are a couple of scenes involving children and singing that I found quite excruciating. The date very badly. The whole film is very much of the 1950s and I roll right along with that–but those kid choirs . . .

To Catch a Thief is Vista-Vision and An Affair to Remember is CinemaScope. Both look great on blu-ray, but I have to give the edge to the Vista-Vision. The CinemaScope has some softness and there is definitely some fuzziness occurring in the dissolves. But both of these films are highly recommended.

Kelly’s Heroes

1971; Director: Brian Hutton

The movie I watched on Armistice Day (aka. Veteran’s Day). Not exactly straight forward military/war film. This Clint Eastwood action-comedy has been kind of a favorite of mine since I first saw it on its original run. It fit my mood for the day.  A mixture of Sgt. Bilko-esque  characters, heist and war film, this Troy Kennedy Martin scripted movie is a good time.

Oddball, Kelly and Big Joe

Kelly’s Heroes, like An Affair to Remember is from the 50′s, is definitely a film from its time–the early 1970′s.  Where else are you going to find a World War II soldier like Donald Sutherland’s Oddball. Stop givin’ with the negative waves, man.  Like, I can dig that.  While Eastwood’s Kelly is the center piece, there is a whole group of character actors orbiting around him. Like I said, it’s a personal favorite. I revisit it.

Foolish Wives

1922; Director: Erich von Stroheim

The Man You Loved to Hate

1972; Director Peter Montgomery

Another Kino double feature disc, the former is the fullest available reconstruction of von Stroheim’s much chopped up film, the latter a so-so television documentary on von Stroheim.

Foolish Wives is the film where Erich von Stroheim began his reputation for extravagance, obsession to detail and not knowing how to self edit. Building massive and expensively detailed sets and taking lots of time and lots of takes, this film became promoted as the first million dollar production.

Von Stroheim had produced his first two directorial efforts (Blind Husbands and The Devil’s Pass Key, both 1920) on schedule and budget, for his third, he was given almost cart-blanch. He took it and ran with it. The story about a trio of expatriate Russian swindler in Monte Carlo trying to take advantage of the new American Ambassador and his wife was provocative enough, but von Stroheim made it positively creepy. His character of the fake Count is shown to be a quite the user and abuser of women, not to mention perverse.

It is hard to totally judge Foolish Wives, since it’s intended 30 reel version was cut down to 14 reels for its opening and then successively cut down by the studio to about seven reels. The version on the Kino DVD is about eight reels. Von Stroheim had intended the film to be shown in two parts on successive days–a rather unrealistic expectation. And one that would follow him through his truncated directorial career. The film is thereby missing a lot of the meat from its bones.

I will say this, what is there is often stunning visually. In camera placement and lighting effects, von Stroheim was far ahead of his time. But as was said in another film: a man’s got to know his limitations–and Erich von Stroheim didn’t. Not a single film he directed afterwards was ever presented in the form he envisioned, or in one case even completed.

Texas Rangers

2001; Director: Steve Miner

I like Westerns. I really like Westerns, even a lot of not so great Westerns. Texas Rangers does not even fit into that arena. It is not awful in the sense that it is BAD. It is awful because it is a pale carbon copy of a Western. It is made up of old tropes, cliches and stereotypes (not a death sentence) without a bit of blood, belief or conviction in its veins. It is, for all the shooting and hollering, DOA.  James Van Der Beek and Ashton Kutcher don’t make for very convincing westerners and Usher as the angry young black guy is way too modern.  I like Dylan McDermott, but the script and direction don’t help him much, and he looks way to hale and hearty to be as consumptive (I am guessing here, as the film never actually says what the Captain is ill with) as he is supposed to be. The great Alfred Molina is totally wasted as a cardboard bad guy. Tom Skerritt barely shows up and is also wasted. Skerritt has been so underused and undervalued so often, it is literally a crime. Only Robert Patrick, as a conflicted Ranger develops much as a character; it’s not much, but it is something. Anyway, I suppose you have guessed that, I didn’t much like Texas Rangers. I only watched it because it was on a double feature blu-ray that has Jim Jaramusch’s Dead Man on it. I can only hope that the transfer of Dead Man is at least reasonable for the five bucks I paid for the disc.

C’est la vie.

All that is left to do with these is paint them and apply the teeth!

FaernBliss ♥

One of the films making a buzz that summer was The French Lieutenant’s Woman. Besides getting Meryl Streep her 3^rd Oscar nomination, it was the first major starring role for 32-year-old British actor Jeremy Irons. A few months later, he hit TV screens playing Charles Ryder in the TV adaptation of Brideshead Revisited. He was nominated for a BAFTA for both performances and thus, a major character actor was born, whose gravelly voice and precisely accented delivery I have never tired of listening to.

Around the same time, audiences’ jaws were dropping while watching the special effects in An American Werewolf in London directed by John Landis. Mr. Landis was already famous for directing the quintessential American frat boy comedy Animal House in 1978 followed by the musical-comedy The Blues Brothers in 1980. But this foray into horror-comedy broke new ground in the field of horror make-up and eventually got John Landis the job of directing the video for Michael Jackson’s Thriller two years later. I remember seeing pictures in magazines and wondering if I would ever have the courage to watch this movie; in fact, I have yet to watch the movie though of course, I have seen numerous clips of the legendary werewolf transformation scenes.

Also in the summer of 1981, a veteran director/ comedian/ actor/ producer was releasing what would be among the last of his successful movies – History of the World, Part I. Through the late ‘60s and ‘70s Mel Brooks had audiences in splits with the TV series Get Smart and comedy classics like The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein which were both critical and commercial successes. When adjusted for inflation, the US grosses for Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein would be $502 million and $362 million respectively, putting them in the same league as the Harry Potter and superhero films of today. Young Frankenstein remains one of my favourite comedy films to this day.

What does all this have to do with the title of this post, “The 3 Maxes”? Well, by sheer coincidence, these three gentlemen all have sons named Max and all 3 ‘boys’ have started making quite a name for themselves in the entertainment business today.

The least established of the trio is Maximilian Paul Diarmuid Irons (27) who has overcome childhood dyslexia and associated difficulties in reading scripts to become one of the buzzed about new faces in Hollywood. He landed a lead role in 2011’s horror film Red Riding Hood and has a potential breakthrough role playing Jared Howe in next summer’s scifi-romance The Host. This adaptation of Twilight writer Stephanie Meyers’ 2008 novel will have her fans out in droves and is a guaranteed hit. Young Max follows this up playing Antonio Vivaldi in the biopic of the Italian composer-violinist.

Max Landis (27) started writing stories as a 16-year-old and sold his first script by the age of 18. In 2011, he got a lot of fanboy buzz for directing the 17-minute ‘commentary/parody’ short film The Death and Return of Superman. A year later, everyone in Hollywood was paying attention to his story and screenplay credits on the found-footage scifi film Chronicle. He is now officially on Hollywood’s screenwriter buzz list and like his father, is likely to have a successful career writing and directing films across multiple genres.

The oldest Max is Maximilian Michael Brooks (40), who rose to fame in 2003 with the release of The Zombie Survival Guide, a supposedly non-fiction publication describing zombie outbreaks dating back through history, along with detailed tips and techniques on how to survive a zombie attack. Then in 2006, he released the highly acclaimed World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War, which is being released as a Brad Pitt summer tentpole film next year. He has also co-written a story called The Great Wall which puts a zombie spin on the construction of one section of the Great Wall of China. The story is going into film production next year and will be Henry Cavill’s next movie after playing Superman in Man of Steel. Although he started his career as a writer for Saturday Night Live, clearly Max Brooks has chosen to make a niche for himself in the world of zombies and it will be interesting to see if he ever branches out into any other genre.

Clearly, something about the name Max is clicking in Hollywood right now, so I guess I should be keeping my eyes open for emerging stars named Max!