What have you watched recently? 3D!
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Straw Dogs (1971)
In a word: yikes. "Depiction does not equal endorsement" is all well and good, but callous disregard can also be its own tacit misdeed.
This was as stiflingly bleak and transgressive as advertised, a film whose lingering cultural identity centred around a scene that certainly lived up to its reputation. Yet rather than some isolated incident of shock like the parrot in Citizen Kane, designed to rouse you out of complacency, this was a feature where the most infamous moment was a horrible inevitability, another horror among the embedded sense of depravity or looming threat of sexual violence. Yet even then, that scene didn't function as some grotesque narrative pivot around which lessons were learned, opinions changed and villains met with cathartic violence. Ultimately this was a story of monsters, both those in a community and domestic ones and where Peckinpah's repeated and infamous use of violence as a thematic device came to something of a crescendo - but therein lay the film's strength and most significant weakness.
The crucial contextual lynchpin here that transcended the thing from any kind of Revenge Fantasy was that Dustin Hoffman's character was no saint. He was easily as contemptible as the feral Cornish locals that circled his and Amy's house - or indeed her person: Hoffman's David possessed the thinnest patina of smiling and vaguely smug civility, all masking what amounted to controlling and psychologically manipulative behaviour at home; this was a marriage teetering on collapse before the film began and David's obvious insecurities, pettiness and emotional abuse merely mutated into a physical form by the end (threatened if not actualised, but what's the difference?).
When the switch flipped in his head in the last act, it was less like a triumphant Death Wish adjacent release of potential - where the ostensibly weak were pushed too far - but of a man embracing his own repugnant nature to the fullest as he stubbornly sheltered a child molester of all things, common sense be damned. All repressed impulses that were clearly signposted from the off in David's treatment of the housecat. So there was something fascinating, if horrifying and vulgar, at play in all this, but therein lay the largest problem when modern perspectives clashed with the old: simply put, Peckinpah didn't have the language, nuance - or maybe base interest to be honest - to interrogate the themes from the female point of view. Both main female characters suffered horrendous fates at the hands of violent men, yet neither were given agency, sympathy or any promise of an escape hatch - they were kinda deployed as tragic objects for the sake of Peckinpah's critique of male violence.
The more obvious narrative structure that would have tempered the pulse of this thing was if the marriage was a truly loving, pacifistic one: where two urbane equals were suddenly trapped and out of their depth, beset by shotgun-wielding locals. It's a format of the "Folk Horror" genre well understood, completely clichéd without doubt - and probably hated by rural tourist boards across the world. It can be crude and primal, but it can work, especially if as I mentioned a female perspective is used to interrogate the themes. Going double if the person wielding the shotgun at the end is the woman.
Instead the violence was relentless and inescapable in the life of Susan George's Amy, buttressed and trapped from the get-go by male toxicity emanating from both the men of her hometown and a dismissive, emotionally abusive husband. She seemed smart, capable and self-aware but was never given a chance. Peckinpah's rush to show the depths of masculinity run amok forgot about the woman at the centre of it all, left violated then inexplicably second-place to a child molester as her husband mutated into his final form; again, the boilerplate exploitation angle would have been David's rage be born from learning of the rape - but here, he never does. His entire murderous rampage never born from even a scintilla of concern for Amy - indeed he merely threatened to break her neck as she pleaded to simply hand the molester to the locals.
I'm almost half curious to see the remake 'cos I can't imagine even half the execution transferred over to 2011 vehicle.
2 -
An interesting reading on 'Straw Dogs', but I think reducing David Warner's character down to mere "child molester" doesn't take into account that the character is severely mentally handicapped. I'm not so sure he's just a child molester in the sense that we would know it or that would be commonly used. It's more that he has the brain and development of a child himself. I don't think there's any real calculations going on in that character's head.
I'm also not too sure that Susan George's character is all sweetness and light either to be honest. She's clearly supposed to be a girl that's used to a more, shall we say, "manly" other half in a relationship and she was the one time girlfriend of one of her rapists who never abandoned his "claim" over her. Something she doesn't seem all that upset about. The caveat there is that she doesn't deserve to be subjected to what she is.
Dustin Hoffman's mathematician, David, is someone that she's clearly settled for, however. But there doesn't seem to be any real affection there. Hoffman's character is dull and a bit of a coward and she's accustomed to something else entirely. He's certainly more intelligent than her, but he's been the butt of "toxic masculinity" himself, and he's experiencing it again with the characters in the village intimidating him and Amy wants him to be more of a "man".
Unfortunately what "more of a man" means in this case is being violent to other men who are violent to you. In other words resorting to a primitive behaviour, with all parties abandoning reason. The resulting siege of Trenchard's farm then plays out with David's intelligent violence combatting the stupid and drunken violence of the men looking to break into their house and lynch Henry Niles and probably do a mischief to the Sumner's too. David says "I will not allow violence against this house" and then has to succumb to his own innate violent tendencies to prevent that reality. Clearly, by the conclusion of the film, he's enjoyed his victory a bit too much.
I think that what Peckinpah was trying to achieve, and in many respects achieved, was for people to be disgusted by the casual and shocking nature of violent actions that seemingly come out of nowhere, but are actually the result of minor and constant chipping away at a situation. Which, all too often, is the case. Tense situations that can be easily resolved can and do explode into violence, leaving many wondering what the hell happened.
I think 'Straw Dogs' is a great film, albeit a flawed one, just like every one of Peckinpah's movies. It's a tough watch, for sure, and it presents an uncomfortable viewing that few other pictures do.
As an aside, it's one of cinema's little ironies that that the cuts imposed on 'Straw Dogs' made the rape scene even more problematic than it was in the uncut version.
2 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
An interesting reading on 'Straw Dogs', but I think reducing David Warner's character down to mere "child molester" doesn't take into account that the character is severely mentally handicapped. I'm not so sure he's just a child molester in the sense that we would know it or that would be commonly used. It's more that he has the brain and development of a child himself. I don't think there's any real calculations going on in that character's head.
Yeah maybe that's a fair point: I haven't been left with such a shivering sense of distaste for a mainstream film in a long while. I hadn't really considered that angle at all and came at my own conclusions due to the young girl's own oddly ... sexual demeanour; first with DAvid, then with David Warner's character when she seemingly got nowhere with David. Certainly Warner's actions felt more "innocent" than an outright predator, even if the outcome seemed the same - and just appeared to be yet another awful little aspect of The Worst Village In England (The Wicker Man was set in Scotland, ha).
I'm also not too sure that Susan George's character is all sweetness and light either to be honest. She's clearly supposed to be a girl that's used to a more, shall we say, "manly" other half in a relationship and she was the one time girlfriend of one of her rapists who never abandoned his "claim" over her. Something she doesn't seem all that upset about. The caveat there is that she doesn't deserve to be subjected to what she is.
I certainly think she gave as good as she got, and did seem to be superficially charmed by her boyhood fling still being having an interest, a charm that stopped once things got way out of hand ... but by and large David was a gigantic, controlling asshóle to her in his own right, the scales in that marriage felt quite lopsided as he seemed utterly incapable of dealing with her as being her own person. David often talking down to her, infantilising her, and even trotting out the classic "well if you dressed like that, what do you expect?". While with his psychotic break at the end, as I said he just outright threatened her. Am curious how that remake treats all that, or if the David Warner character even exists.
I think that what Peckinpah was trying to achieve, and in many respects achieved, was for people to be disgusted by the casual and shocking nature of violent actions that seemingly come out of nowhere, but are actually the result of minor and constant chipping away at a situation. Which, all too often, is the case. Tense situations that can be easily resolved can and do explode into violence, leaving many wondering what the hell happened.
I think 'Straw Dogs' is a great film, albeit a flawed one, just like every one of Peckinpah's movies. It's a tough watch, for sure, and it presents an uncomfortable viewing that few other pictures do.
Oh 100% "Bloody Sam" rode a very fine line between "this violence is awesome" and "this violence is terrible". The film very definitely left a feeling of disgust, but I suppose my modern eyes couldn't help see the ways that the women were just these things left to stir the pot but given no sense of agency or purpose - except to drive the men crazy. And I don't think Peckinpah meant to be misogonistic - I know nothing of the man's personality either way, 'cept he was constantly drunk by the end & Cross of Iron - it's more that I think in a rush to despair at one half of the human condition, he kinda sacraficed the other half.
A fascinating film for sure either way, though in my growing list of "great films I never wanna watch again"; was gonna put on The Getaway next, another Peckinpah I'd been meaning to catch up on. Why hello, Ali McGraw.
As an aside, it's one of cinema's little ironies that that the cuts imposed on 'Straw Dogs' made the rape scene even more problematic than it was in the uncut version.
Uh, it rang a little abstracted without any edits, but would I be right in spitballing the cut version only made it seem even more like Amy was into it?
0 -
Yeah maybe that's a fair point: I haven't been left with such a shivering sense of distaste for a mainstream film in a long while. I hadn't really considered that angle at all and came at my own conclusions due to the young girl's own oddly ... sexual demeanour; first with DAvid, then with David Warner's character when she seemingly got nowhere with David. Certainly Warner's actions felt more "innocent" than an outright predator, even if the outcome seemed the same - and just appeared to be yet another awful little aspect of The Worst Village In England (The Wicker Man was set in Scotland, ha).
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I think there's hints that Henry Niles had done "something" to a young girl before and that the people of the village keep him away from the kids. In the book, he's a child killer who's killed three times, so there's gray area there at all. In the film, he's a mentally handicapped man who doesn't seem to be aware of any kind of boundaries or of normal behaviour and has to be managed, as it were, by the locals. This is made all the more difficult, of course, because Tom's teenage daughter Janice keeps flirting with him, perhaps because she's unaware of the exact nature of his past? Or maybe she believes he's a harmless "test subject" for her own ends. Either way it doesn't end well for her, but it's clear that Niles doesn't mean to actually kill her. With the teenage character of Janice, I think Peckinpah is trying to show the audience what Amy was like before she left for America. Perhaps Amy Sumner was the girl that Henry Niles did "something" to in the past. In any case, I think I'd rather head up to Summerisle than that village in Cornwall.
I certainly think she gave as good as she got, and did seem to be superficially charmed by her boyhood fling still being having an interest, a charm that stopped once things got way out of hand ... but by and large David was a gigantic, controlling asshóle to her in his own right, the scales in that marriage felt quite lopsided as he seemed utterly incapable of dealing with her as being her own person. David often talking down to her, infantilising her, and even trotting out the classic "well if you dressed like that, what do you expect?". While with his psychotic break at the end, as I said he just outright threatened her. Am curious how that remake treats all that, or if the David Warner character even exists.
Oh the scales of David and Amy's marriage are definitely "lopsided" alright. David's a maths geek who probably never dreamt he'd end up with a girl like Amy and probably looks down on her for choosing him in a number of ways. Or maybe he's realised long ago that she's merely settled for him and could have any man she liked, if she wished, which would further engender his insecurity in the relationship. So he has this controlling element in an effort to maintain equilibrium he feels is on dodgy ground. As for his threatening her during the climax of the story, I think that comes from David's state of uncertainty as to which side Amy's on, his or the folk of her former stomping ground. In fact Amy clearly states that she won't help him and she also tells Charlie, her ex boyfriend who was, at least, complicit in her rape earlier that she'll let him back in the house. She's kinda stupid and doesn't realise the peril that both her and her husband are in. It isn't beyond the realms of reason that they are both in mortal danger from the armed goons outside who might very well end up killing them as well as Henry Niles.
As to the remake, I saw it when it came out but I remember nothing of it today, other than it was one of those utterly redundant and insipid remakes of a controversial 70's film, like 'Last House on the Left' or 'I Spit on Your Grave' that ended up containing none of the impact that the original had, even if the original's impact was for dubious reasons. So I don't think your missing anything really.
Oh 100% "Bloody Sam" rode a very fine line between "this violence is awesome" and "this violence is terrible". The film very definitely left a feeling of disgust, but I suppose my modern eyes couldn't help see the ways that the women were just these things left to stir the pot but given no sense of agency or purpose - except to drive the men crazy. And I don't think Peckinpah meant to be misogonistic - I know nothing of the man's personality either way, 'cept he was constantly drunk by the end & Cross of Iron - it's more that I think in a rush to despair at one half of the human condition, he kinda sacraficed the other half.
A fascinating film for sure either way, though in my growing list of "great films I never wanna watch again"; was gonna put on The Getaway next, another Peckinpah I'd been meaning to catch up on. Why hello, Ali McGraw.
Peckinpah himself was a pretty violent individual and, yes, often drunk out of his mind. James Coburn tells the story that Peckinpah was so drunk on numerous occasions during the shoot of 'Cross of Iron' (his best film) that the actors ended up improvising scenes while he was passed out in the director's chair. The next day, during rushes, Sam wouldn't remember that he didn't shoot any of the scenes he was reviewing but claimed ownership anyway. On other occasions he'd burst into furious bouts of shouting over the most miniscule of reasons. He's a curious character, for sure, and I think one that was made more and more bitter by how the studios treated him and his pictures. They were (mostly) fine with him when he was making the likes of 'Ride the High Country' or 'Major Dundee', but by the time of his revisionist western 'The Wild Bunch', the rifts were showing. But because that film made some money, Warners were happy to shut up and give him another picture to direct, but he ended up moving to Fox, when 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue' barely made its money back and after a few films there bounced around burning bridges with other studios.
I think he had a fascination with the depiction of violence, while not exactly embracing it, and his lack of restraint in showing it garnered him a certain reputation that he was unable to shake off. Even Monty Python took the mickey out of him in their hilarious Sam Peckinpah's Salad Days sketch. But, to be honest, most of the violence shown in his pictures pale in comparison to what other directors show today. If you think the rape scene in 'Straw Dogs' is awful, stay away from 'Irreversible'.
But despite the fact that his movies were part and parcel of the cycle of debate around movie violence that pops up now and again (and during the 70's his output was, practically, public enemy No.1) he had no shortage of people willing to work with him. But after the reception by certain people to 'Straw Dogs' he mellowed quite a bit. 'Junior Bonner' and 'The Getaway' are nearly Disney films compared to some of his previous material.
Uh, it rang a little abstracted without any edits, but would I be right in spitballing the cut version only made it seem even more like Amy was into it?
The shortened version of the scene made it kinda look that, not only was Susan George's character "enjoying" being raped, but that it looked she was being sodomised too. I put enjoying in "" because even in the cut down version, I never viewed her character as enjoying her ordeal in any of the versions of 'Straw Dogs'. The uncut version makes things clearer though. Although the controversial part still remains in that Amy does, in fact, succumb to her ex boyfriend's advances and her initial resistance fades. Where the scene becomes uncomfortable further is when Charlie's friend comes in and, for want of a better phrase, has a go as well. But she obviously still has feelings for Charlie and, more than likely, would rather still be with him than David, whom she thinks is a coward.
2 -
Nimona. Nice little film 😊
I was a television version of a person with a broken heart...
0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Too much to cover there but certainly an interesting perspective on Straw Dogs, appreciate the time taken to reply; not sure I entirely agree with the assessment but then that's maybe the enduring aspect of the film in the first place. That it's not entirely obvious, and whatever subtext exists is in some respects up to the viewer - which the best movies often have going for them. Nothing's spelled out to you, pieces are put forward and the rest is left to the viewer. I also wonder if cultural assessment might have been different if it was someone else behind the lens and not a man already quite infamous for violence. Who knows; hadn't twigged this was based on a book though.
Peckinpah himself was a pretty violent individual and, yes, often drunk out of his mind. James Coburn tells the story that Peckinpah was so drunk on numerous occasions during the shoot of 'Cross of Iron' (his best film) that the actors ended up improvising scenes while he was passed out in the director's chair. The next day, during rushes, Sam wouldn't remember that he didn't shoot any of the scenes he was reviewing but claimed ownership anyway. On other occasions he'd burst into furious bouts of shouting over the most miniscule of reasons. He's a curious character, for sure, and I think one that was made more and more bitter by how the studios treated him and his pictures. They were (mostly) fine with him when he was making the likes of 'Ride the High Country' or 'Major Dundee', but by the time of his revisionist western 'The Wild Bunch', the rifts were showing. But because that film made some money, Warners were happy to shut up and give him another picture to direct, but he ended up moving to Fox, when 'The Ballad of Cable Hogue' barely made its money back and after a few films there bounced around burning bridges with other studios.
Hmmm if you say he was himself a violent man, then I wonder how much of this obsession with violence as some primordial absolute was simply projection on his part. Seems like it can't be a coincidence; Tarantino was a modern director who took Peckinpah's violence and ran with it - but you'd not accuse Tarantino of being a violent man himself.
Am meaning to check out Cross of Iron again, it's in the list, interesting you reckon it's his best work though. I seem to vaguely recall the movie just ending, and because Peckinpah died before it was finished (too lazy to Google). SAid it before but you gotta love that era of filmmaking where for your WW2 you just went to Spain or Yugoslavia and you had access to both period equipment & hundreds of extras (from those armies) willing to be in your movie. Fascism had its uses in the end 😂
I think he had a fascination with the depiction of violence, while not exactly embracing it, and his lack of restraint in showing it garnered him a certain reputation that he was unable to shake off. Even Monty Python took the mickey out of him in their hilarious Sam Peckinpah's Salad Days sketch. But, to be honest, most of the violence shown in his pictures pale in comparison to what other directors show today. If you think the rape scene in 'Straw Dogs' is awful, stay away from 'Irreversible'.
That's certainly true, bar Straw Dogs there's little in a Peckinpah movie that you won't have seen many times over in modern movies - but then I suppose that's often the way with trailblazing directors or work: they laid the path for others to follow but ended up looking quite tame or derivative when retrospectively watched. Though in Peckinpah's case I'd say his work often carried a certain nihilism and cynicism that modern movies wouldn't have.
0 -
Too much to cover there but certainly an interesting perspective on Straw Dogs, appreciate the time taken to reply; not sure I entirely agree with the assessment but then that's maybe the enduring aspect of the film in the first place. That it's not entirely obvious, and whatever subtext exists is in some respects up to the viewer - which the best movies often have going for them. Nothing's spelled out to you, pieces are put forward and the rest is left to the viewer. I also wonder if cultural assessment might have been different if it was someone else behind the lens and not a man already quite infamous for violence. Who knows; hadn't twigged this was based on a book though.
The book is quite different and the author was outraged himself at the changes Peckinpah and the screenwriter made. Apparently Peckinpah thought the book was awful.
Hmmm if you say he was himself a violent man, then I wonder how much of this obsession with violence as some primordial absolute was simply projection on his part. Seems like it can't be a coincidence; Tarantino was a modern director who took Peckinpah's violence and ran with it - but you'd not accuse Tarantino of being a violent man himself.
Well, he was violent, as in prone to outbursts of rage. Whether that turned into fisticuffs or not is a different story and how much that had to do with his alcoholism is anyone's guess. But I think he was a deeply disturbed individual in a number of ways, the effects of which would often appear in a...um...temperamental manner. Here he is being interviewed by Barry Norman in 1976 and you can see from the get go that he's a difficult person, to say the least.
Am meaning to check out Cross of Iron again, it's in the list, interesting you reckon it's his best work though. I seem to vaguely recall the movie just ending, and because Peckinpah died before it was finished (too lazy to Google). SAid it before but you gotta love that era of filmmaking where for your WW2 you just went to Spain or Yugoslavia and you had access to both period equipment & hundreds of extras (from those armies) willing to be in your movie. Fascism had its uses in the end
'Cross of Iron' would be one of my favourite war movies, and that particular list would be quite short. Most war movies are junk and I have little time for them. As for its ending, it was more wound up than ended, but I've always thought that the ending was perfectly fine. It finalises the story of the two characters that conflict with each other throughout film and Coburn's laugh over the beginning of the end credits illustrates the absurdity of it all. The shoot was particularly tough, though, and there were a lot of fights between Peckinpah and the studio execs and in the end the money ran out and Peckinpah just went "to hell with it then, there's your film". He didn't die in 1977 though. In fact he went on to make another two films before he croaked in 1984.
As for period equipment, that's a double edged sword. For example, the T-34's in 'Cross of Iron' are a different model (T34/85) than would have been around in the time frame the picture is set in (T34/76). But that would fly over most viewers heads and it doesn't let the film down in any case. What was great about it was the fact that Peckinpah only had access to two tanks for a day (I think) but made it look like many more with some clever editing.
That's certainly true, bar Straw Dogs there's little in a Peckinpah movie that you won't have seen many times over in modern movies - but then I suppose that's often the way with trailblazing directors or work: they laid the path for others to follow but ended up looking quite tame or derivative when retrospectively watched. Though in Peckinpah's case I'd say his work often carried a certain nihilism and cynicism that modern movies wouldn't have.
There's certainly a grittiness to his films that's lacking in a lot of "modern" movies and often his characters aren't people with whom you'd like to spend any time with, but that's one of the things I like about his stuff.
It's funny, I've just realised while writing all of this waffle that I actually own all of his movies and didn't know it. 🤣
Anyway, that's enough yap about Sam Peckinpah. Here he is from the documentary 'Hollywood Mavericks', which is well worth a watch.
1 -
Shiva Baby. This is one that popped up while looking about.
A Jewish woman about to finish college goes to a funeral with parents. While there, she's interrogated by friends and family about her studies, her employment prospects and her love life. Also there are her ex and her sugar daddy who's brought his successful wife and screeching baby.
There's some black comedy and farce but its a pretty serious film. Similar tales have been released in recent years about young women struggling with what's expected of them and fighting back so there needs to be something to stand out from the rest.
This has some great direction in it. There's brilliant tension building and the release is not exactly as expected. I think the setting represents the death of the protagonist's youth/innocence and that's the actual grieving she does. No big names here but some familiar background actors.
Worth the watch.
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
The Quiet Earth (1985)
Sometimes a hitherto unknown little gem impresses so much, my very first instinct after the credits rolled is to bustle off and figure out what else the director did; especially when born outside the Hollywood system, such as here with Geoff Murphy's Kiwi Sci-Fi flick, I'll fire up IMDB or letterboxd with an intent to chase whatever was made in the aftermath. So in this case, having demonstrated a clear talent to work a budget into something genuinely cinematic, Hollywood came calling and Murphy went onwards and upwards to direct ... ... oh, oh GOD. Under Siege 2, Freejack and Fortress 2. Tough break man. As while this film had a few flaws, and its intentionally hazy Mad Science plot might have frustrated a tad, the craft and obvious nous on display from Murphy belied the equally obvious small budget. This was a tidy little feature that was a surprisingly adept - if not occasionally standout - entry into the "Last Man on Earth" sub-genre.
No single moment was ever especially showy, but this contemplative little Sci-Fi cult classic demonstrated an uncanny knack of its director to take what must have been a tiny purse and apply a cinematic rigour in the execution that demanded praise in of itself. Sure, the concept guaranteed costs were reduced by dint of the extremely limited cast but there were dozens of ways a lumbering camera, flat compositions, crappy editing, or just a failure to extract the humanity from this story would have consigned it all to the bins beloved of YouTube "best of the worst" channels. Instead, Geoff Murphy showed a distinct eye for giving the empty streets of 1980s New Zealand a constant sense of properly cinematic desolation; exterior scenes shot naturally but always with the right seasoning of flourish to make it stand out, the smattering of action tightly edited and thrilling. I don't always stop and admire the mechanical craft of movies but when something was this well put together with sellotape and loose change down the sofa, I couldn't resist.
So yeah, purely on a technical level this became a bit of a pleasant surprise. As to the meat of the story itself, it was a deeply human and introspective number - which was kinda to be expected given the concept - and one that threaded the tricky thematic needle when it came to this highly-specific genre. If the essence of drama is conflict, then in removing every other human being from Earth can leave a difficult narrative vacuum that potentially hobbles the pacing, or force writers to try and work around the concept entirely; flashbacks to the Before Time maybe, or sudden mutation into an Action Movie in the last act (yes I am looking at you, I Am Legend).
Thus in the absence of money or some exciting plot convenience, the film's ponderous pace - one that skirted close but never tipped into outright lugubriousness - focused squarely on Bruno Lawrence's deeply mundane, sad-sack face and his increasingly manic performance to shoulder everything. And for the most part, it worked great with Lawrence's solo work often quite moving as his emotions pin-balled about; that said, the film started to wobble a little by the back half, before tipping into an occasionally cheesy love triangle. And depending on your personal storytelling tastes the ending might either engender praise for its ballsy mic-drop - or leave you imitating the Jackie Chan "What??" meme.
2 -
Really liked this movie too, it's very much a vibe (as the kids say). I was definitely in the camp of loving the ending myself... that visual alone is just such a captivating note to end on.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 33867
I realised about halfway through I actually had seen it before, years and years such that I only remembered little fragments of moments from it - including that completely head melting ending. Shame the director's career went nowhere. Was gonna see if I can dig out Utu next cos it looks like a grindhouse'y Maori Kiwi Western - which is like, such a great combo of words.
Post edited by pixelburp on0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10272
I remember reading about The Quiet Earth years ago (I think it was someone singing its praises around here), and when I finally watched it a year or two back I was blown away - it has its weaknesses, sure, but as far as confidently executing on its premise it shows up loads of later, higher-budget films. I know the very ending will alienate some viewers, but I thought it was great.
I didn't realise that it was likely the high point of the director's career - that's a real shame :(
1 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
I mean, I kinda liked Under Siege 2 as a tremendously large Guilty Pleasure, even if it was a massive step down from the first film & where like its predecessor, it offset Steven Seagal's almost criminal lack of talent with a magnetic villain - in this case Eric Bogosian of all people, chewing the scenery with aplomb.
But yeah, shame to see what was definitely a man with potential and talent, in the first years of New Zealand's increased footprint of cinema, never amount to much when he crossed the Pacific. Though like I said, Utu looks like a total blast & also appears to star Bruno Lawrence. It's possibly just that Kiwi accent that's pulling me in - man, it's such a good accent.
Post edited by pixelburp on1 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Predator (1987)
You know what? Remains a good fúcking movie. No notes.
Ha, bet y'all thought I'd write paragraphs about ... I dunno, Vietnam allegories or male toxicity or somesuch? 😂
6 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
The Getaway (1972)
Huh. A thought occurs about Bloody Sam: all that slow-motion action; tonnes of stylised violence; fetishised female characters; an obsession with masculinity? If I didn't know better, I'd swear Zack Synder's entire career has been built trying to emulate Peckinpah's own.
This was quite the tonic after the relentlessly bleak Straw Dogs; for sure it functioned a more boilerplate "one last job" crime caper than something bubbling with as much subtext as that previous & shocking film was - yet equally perhaps it was also a little too stripped back of its identity and trademark bristling anger that marked out Peckinpah's films. It wasn't a film entirely without merits but it also had the sense of something more trivial and ephemeral than other films in his CV. Mind you, I had heard Steve McQueen exercised a degree of control over the film's production and with that in the back of my head, it showed: while I might have felt repulsed by Straw Dogs' subtexts and set-pieces, at least I felt engaged in a film intentionally trying to provoke a reaction; here everything felt too neutered, the rougher edges sanded down into something more digestible - more ostensibly cool. Even if McQueen's Doc still displayed (a milder form of) that Peckinpah infusion of grit, impatience and barely tempered rage nipping at the edges of his behaviour, he also exuded distinct anti-heroic protagonist energy across the story. There was a gloss to it all that rendered Peckinpah's cynical edges somewhat inert - with the possible exception of the second romantic couple in the film; a twisted Stockholm Syndrome powered subplot and one played for comedy that quickly mutated and soured on a dime; the allure of falling for the charming outlaw lasting up to but not past the point he stopped finding one's schtick amusing.
Even the final, promised shootout felt a shade tempered by studio / actor interference, or maybe just lack of ambition: definitely bloody in the manner Peckinpah brought to the table but yet again, it felt one hand was tied behind the director's back throughout. Admittedly they can't all be like The Wild Bunch and massacre an entire army in glorious slow motion, so perhaps the fault lay more on my expectations of this smaller Road Movie than anything else.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10272
An interesting angle to view The Getaway through is as a precursor or prototypical version of No Country For Old Men. I think that comparison (and perhaps Hell or High Water) perhaps helps to foreground the things it does well.
Having read the book after seeing the film last year, I do think the film deserves credit for where it chooses to keep its focus - the parts of the book that take place beyond where the film ends were largely pretty poor and felt like they were there more to facilitate a bleaker conclusion than because they actually fit the story that had gone before.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Yeah, I can see how you'd get there from Getaway to those two films, though like I said the presence of McQueen was the wrong energy - and seems to have hobbled the production too; you could see Peckinpah's style sneaking through here and there but also, it all seemed too cool in places as well.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 10272
Yeah, I take your point about McQueen and Peckinpah being a mismatch - going by the book I can see what might have appealed to Peckinpah about the film project, but I suspect had he not been restrained/hampered by McQueen's presence (and presumed desire to not have to portray a character who comes off as a completely irredeemable arsehole), the result might have just been miserable and unpleasant. I should probably watch a couple of other Peckinpah films and then revisit The Getaway, see how it lands for me then.
The book has a much bleaker outlook (although beyond the events of the film it uses a fairly ludicrous device to enable its ending, which makes it unsatisfying rather than impactful), and the way that even Doc & Carol's relationship crumbles under the sustained force of the pressures put on them as they try to get away seems likely to have appealed to Peckinpah... but I don't know that it would necessarily work for the preceding story.
0 -
Mind you, I had heard Steve McQueen exercised a degree of control over the film's production and with that in the back of my head, it showed
Well, that might be down to the fact that 'The Getaway' was McQueen's property and he also had final cut bolted onto his contract. It was he who bought the rights from Jim Thompson and was developing it for First Artists, the company he owned with Paul Newman and some others, which was a kind of riff on United Artists. McQueen had liked working with Peckinpah on 'Junior Bonner' and wanted him to direct, after Peter Bogdanovitch was shown the door, offering him nearly a quarter of a million and 10% of the profits. Not a bad deal in 1971.
However, much of the "cool" aspect had come from Walter Hill, who changed a lot of the feeling of Thompson's book (Thompson was actually fired from writing duties by McQueen). It was no longer a sleazy, dirty, story (one which Peckinpah could easily put his stamp on) and was instead transformed into a, somewhat, standard actioner in an effort to emulate 'Bullitt' and the usual Steve McQueen output of the period.
2 -
I'm re-watching Copland. Stallone really leaning into the big lunk role. It has such an amazing cast too. On Netflix at the mo.
0 -
Advertisement
-
When Evil Lurks (2023)
I'd heard alot of buzz about this towards the end of last year and following a bout of insomnia last night, I watched it.
Basically a supernatural horror from Argentina about demonic possession. Two brothers investigating gunshots come to an isolated shack and find one of the grossest characters I've seen since the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. The brothers and the unfortunate chaps family clock straight away that he is "a rotten" and that they were waiting for a cleaner to come and dispose of him.
A chain of events commences and the viewer gets treated to some very disturbing imagery throughout.
This is a highly original movie, taking a well worn trope and turning it on its head, there are some excellent performances from the main cast, some outstandingly gruesome practical special effects work, tension, an abundance of creepy kids and it leaves the viewer with multiple questions, but not in an annoying sense.
Highly recommended for jaded horror fans looking to check out something that is as fresh as it is disturbing.
8/10
4 -
Probably more for the television sub but it is film related. Watched the 4 part documentary called "RoboDoc". In-depth doesn't describe how much this mini series goes into the film RoboCop. Anyone that appeared in or had some role in back of house of this film is interviewed and every scene, visual, sound effect and anything else you can think of is covered here. It might not be for everybody but I loved it. Also, Peter Weller is mad.
The film came out just at the end of practical effects beginning to be replaced by computer aided effects so it's an amazing look at how certain tricks were created which may never be seen again.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Fury (2014)
A grimly handsome war epic with some standout set-pieces of beautiful carnage, but one which singularly failed to connect with me outside of its gore soaked battle scenes - and that came down a stark absence of anything close to a human heart at the centre.
Broadly speaking it certainly managed to sidestep the worse jingoistic impulses often found in war movies in general, instead possessing a sometimes borderline anarchic tone where war became something improvised if not an outright chaotic mess - especially as a conflict reached its end as it was here. The last days when energy and humanity had evaporated; leaving only a sullen and animalistic resolve to be the last one standing among the corpses, the strategic goal incidental as gains were measured in burned-out barns and crossroads. It had a touch of All Quiet Along Western Front, if Erich Remarque wrote a chapter set 6 months after the original end.
So therein lay something of an irredeemable flaw for me: tonally this failed to close that emotional distance between any attempted foxhole camaraderie in the central cast, and that behavioural regression in their hearts; these were nihilistic & downright repugnant creatures and it felt like Ayer still wanted me to feel a texture of kinship similar to that seen with Band of Brothers - yet we rarely saw the tank crew behaving in a manner close to relatable. Indeed, the constant fighting amongst themselves suggested they simply hated each other, pausing the animosity only when the fight required some syncopation and professionalism - or if Brad Pitt's dictator/commander bullied them into submission.
If there was any nuance in this otherwise sledgehammer film it was in Pitt's "Wardaddy", rather than the more obvious audience insert of Logan Lerman's character. His antagonistic attitude had the strongest pulse of a performance; a facade put on to bully his troops through the maelstrom, yet wore a wounded expression or fought back tears when nobody was watching. And both were present during the closet the film crept towards a subtler voice & sense of humanity: a discovery of a young woman hiding under the bed initially suggested a dark & terrible path, before a pitiable reveal of eggs showed a simple yearning for something else. Yet even that brief respite couldn't be allowed, detonated by Pitt's own crew who couldn't afford their boss a moment's peace; even Remarque let his victims relax for a spell.
The action was arresting in its own right though, putting the negatives aside. It wasn't as handheld as Spielberg's own WW2 epic but Ayer presented a similar vision of that war as focused bedlam, unbearably loud and unspeakably violent in a manner too fast for the eyes to linger - even if behind them, the brain processed the carnage. I know WW2 films can attract a class of armchair historian quite animated about the accuracy - or lack thereof - of the tiniest technical details but to these eyes, it all had an air of authenticity; tank combat something rarely seen in cinema in the first place, but portrayed here like some lumbering ballet as the machines circled around each other, their turrets sweeping about with an odd & dangerous grace. This was where the film excelled: as pure, terrible and arresting spectacle - it was just when the engines stopped there needed to be something more incisive and smarter on the bones of it all.
0 -
Bull (2021)
The always watchable but utterly typecast Neil Maskell stars as the titular character about a wronged gangster on a quest for revenge. Similar in vein to the likes of Payback, Dead Man's Shoes or John Wick, it has a decidedly meaner streak than the latter. Enjoyable enough and at just under 90 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome.
6/10
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Exorcist III (1990)
An evocative police procedural that was so saddled with oppressive atmospheric dread and a soured view of humanity, it felt like something of a deep genetic ancestor to Seven. A story of a detective who trudged on regardless, even as the world around him presented as irredeemably awful and almost beyond saving. This was a film that completely took me by surprise, exceeding my expectations and while its blatantly studio-enforced finale almost dropped the ball in the most spectacular gear-change imaginable, the very final moments of that Grand Guignol redeemed it all with a fabulous character motivated flourish. Honest to god I think this film can stand with the original as something of a peer: a sterling example of a sequel that ignored the urge to go bigger and louder, or even rehash the hits of the first film; instead William Peter Blatty (he wot wrote The Exorcist novel in the first place) fashioned a story about grief, depression and psychological torment as the main weapons of horror. No wonder the studio hated the original cut, but in an odd case of studio interference the completely overblown finale had the net result of something cathartic above all else. Like a terrible crescendo after a constant creeping murmur.
All the performances here were great, especially Brad Dourif and Jason Miller, but in one of his last film roles George C. Scott arguably pitched a late contender for one of his best appearances: as mentioned this was a film about grief and depression and Scott's Lt. Kinderman tapped his latent irascibility to play play the cop as a simmering pot about to boil over into a nervous breakdown; constantly angry & irritated in the fashion of a man incapable of processing the world around him and the unresolved decade-plus of his friend's death by suicide; and if that sounded like a miserable base for a story it was counterbalanced by Blatty's writing as some fabulous dialogue buttressed the misery - in particular the pithy banter between Scott & Ed Flanders' Father Dyer, a tonic of genuine wit and rapid-fire exchanges that could have sustained a whole movie - had it instead centred around two morbidly depressed men going to the movies & shooting the shít for a couple of hours. And when that finale hit its emotional beats it hit with a collapse of the Lieutenant's final defences, with a despairing monologue about the human sourced pestilence of the world - no demons required.
Perhaps if the film does have a lasting legacy, and it's worth highlighting simply because it remains so masterfully done, it's for the Greatest Jump Scare of all Time. A scare that took its time and mocked modernity as it was 4 sphincter tightening minutes of precision engineered tension - plus a fake-out scare halfway through - before it released in a couple of seconds of what was a rare moment of loud suddenness in this otherwise sedate feature; indeed, the hidden genius of it was perhaps how the tension was elongated so far past tolerance I grew a little impatient, the movie perhaps encouraging the viewer to drop their guard just enough to accentuate the scare when it came.
Some of his choices were a little too televisual, but for such an obviously inexperienced director Blatty really showed a degree of nous and creativity with his directing choices. His unconventional editing through distinct visual or aural cuts were used to apply a constant sense of unease (a great example being a chilling set-piece in a confessional booth and the aftermath), but I kept thinking about how his scenes in the film's predominant location, the hospital, had a touch of the Liminal about it; "liminal spaces" are something of a modern affectation beloved of the "creepypasta" era of ghost stories, but here Blatty shot mundanity with enough of an off-kilter sensibility that it all informed that simmering creepiness engrained in the film's DNA. The aforementioned Jump Scare was the best and most creative use of this with composition & framing that left a simple hospital corridor feeling haunted without a single spectre ever going "boo".
Gotta focus on that ending for a tick: it shouldn't have worked. In fact it should have ruined the whole bloody thing in an instant - and yet. It somehow felt rewarding - emotionally anyway if not tonally - and having seen the original "director's cut" ending honestly it was the better finale. I read after the fact that having seen the work print, the studio realised there was no actual exorcism in this film called "The Exorcist", forcing reshoots and an absurdly loud, violent and operatic climax that revolved around a priest who had no prior involvement in the "A" plot. All the quiet gestating dread and uncanny spaces were jettisoned in favour of gory FX, animatronic snakes and just as my brain decided all was lost, a moment of violent emotional closure capped off the journey.
0 -
I might give the non director's cut a go. The sudden jumps to atrocious VHS quality made the director's cut very hard to appreciate IMHO. It was like seeing a sample or something.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Can't speak to the rest of the cut but the ending was a big downgrade IMO: compared with the theatrical cut's crazy excess, yet one that still contained important character resolutions,
The director's cut ends with Kinderman just walking into the cell and shooting Father Karras / the Gemini Killer - cut to black.
1 -
Been nosing around Denis Villeneuves back Catalog.
Polytechnic
An account of a mass shooting in a Montreal College , nicely put together.
Incenedies
Wow , some story , I liked it. I'd be afraid to say more in case I'd ruin it but a smasher.
Hard to believe these are from the guy who would go on to be director of Dune , Arrival and Blade Runner.I don't detect a style signature. The only common thread with his early stuff is just that they are all good.
3 -
Incendies is one of my favourite films, nothing quite like watching it for the 1st time.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Adrift was the last
0
