Bodie Tatum (Gene Evans) is a former gunman with an Indian wife; he is mortally mauled by a bear, and so his three estranged daughters descend on Dodge City to see him to his grave in Spearville, Kansas -- which is east of Dodge yet looks oddly like Tucson, Arizona, arid mountains and saguaro cacti included... Now, that's silly. There's nothing in Kansas which looks like that... A touching episode, though, with a heart-breakingly elegiacal score by the great Richard Shores.
Reviews
59 Reviews
A Man and a Woman
(1966)
Prototypical mid-'60s european moodpiece
17 February 2020
One long montage, essentially, the music and the visuals are the main thing here, evoking how we all imagine Europe --and France, specifically -- on the cusp of those two very different halves of the 1960s.
Not to be missed.
Not to be missed.
I Saw What You Did
(1965)
What a difference a cinematographer makes
31 May 2018
Clearly, William Castle was no great director, certainly no Hitchcock, but this silly little gem of a B-movie works better than most Castle movies because the camera man, Joe Biroc, gives the picture a macabre dignity mostly lacking in Castle's other work as a director... (Just imagine if Castle's first movie with Joan Crawford, STRAIT-JACKET, a film with obvious potential, had been photographed by Biroc and all its sloppy, slipshod flaws were obscured -- it would have wound up the masterpiece Castle had hoped it would be, instead of a tacky cult curio). I SAW WHAT YOU DID presents a cozily idyllic, B&W, semi-rural, claustrophobic alternative reality at midnight, what with the split-level house on a hill in the middle of a really cool farm, and Crawford and John Ireland competing in the Who's Creepiest sweepstakes... and William Castle even uses a very effective fog in the latter scenes which makes me wonder why none of the other grand dame guignol pictures ever did that, not even HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (which Biroc also shot). So ISWYD works on atmosphere and good-naturedness.
Dynasty
(2017–2022)
Worst of all the possible reboot options
13 October 2017
A sequel series featuring the original cast but focusing on the younger offspring might have been a good idea (as long as they didn't get the balance wrong like TNT's nuDALLAS reboot did). Even a MAD MEN-style prequel set in the '50s and '60s about Blake's and Alexis' backstory (which I know the creators wanted to do) might have been interesting and maybe even have worked
But a crass, silly remake set in Atlanta? It almost CAN'T work — which begs the question: who were the executives who signed off on this version of a follow-up series?? I know the Shapiros, who are almost 90, are defending this 2017 offering, but it isn't the show they'd wanted to do. I mean, it's not all that awful, and it's typical of today's programming, but talk about a missed opportunity!!
Falcon Crest
(1981–1990)
The first three seasons were great -- and then they fired the producer
18 March 2017
Executive producers Michael Filerman and creator Earl Hamner made the wise decision to make Robert McCullough the supervising producer and de facto show-runner by the end of the first season, and the result was three years of FALCON CREST which were near-brilliant -- a gently Gothic, slightly tongue-in-cheek entry in the DALLAS/DYNASTY era wealth-based nighttime soap genre which became so huge during the early-1980s.
Unfortunately, studio politics at Lorimar Productions resulted in a lunch-drinking executive demanding that McCullough be fired, even though the series was at its ratings peak, and FALCON CREST was never, ever the same again. Ever.
Once McCullough was gone, the show managed to maintain some momentum for a few months through most of its fourth season, but a CBS executive then demanded that the "offensive" nazi treasure plot line be dropped immediately, just ten episodes before the end of the season -- despite the fact that it was the year's main storyline. As a result, the remainder of the fourth seasons sees a bunch of side plots cobbled together and shoe-horned in just so they can finish off the year. But to me, the inertia of the program had been destroyed once and for all (even though its cushy post-DALLAS time slot kept it alive for several more years).
Season 5 was drab and cluttered. Season 6 seemed like it might be a renaissance for the show, but it turned too much towards excessive shlock by the end of that year and then Season 7 just became frenetically silly. The decision to turn the production design light and airy and '80s pastel, combined with Lorimar's new cheapy post-production process making the show look as if it had been shot on video, didn't help much either. A big ratings drop during Season 7 saw CBS demanding the show be fixed, but once they tried to get serious again for Season 8, they no longer seemed to know how to do it. And by Season 9, it just seemed like a different series entirely and ratings continued to spiral into the cellar.
Why do swollen executives think a show can make itself as long as you have a key star and a recognizable brand name title? Because it can't.
Shame, because the first three season, maybe even 3 1/2 seasons, were fabulous.
Unfortunately, studio politics at Lorimar Productions resulted in a lunch-drinking executive demanding that McCullough be fired, even though the series was at its ratings peak, and FALCON CREST was never, ever the same again. Ever.
Once McCullough was gone, the show managed to maintain some momentum for a few months through most of its fourth season, but a CBS executive then demanded that the "offensive" nazi treasure plot line be dropped immediately, just ten episodes before the end of the season -- despite the fact that it was the year's main storyline. As a result, the remainder of the fourth seasons sees a bunch of side plots cobbled together and shoe-horned in just so they can finish off the year. But to me, the inertia of the program had been destroyed once and for all (even though its cushy post-DALLAS time slot kept it alive for several more years).
Season 5 was drab and cluttered. Season 6 seemed like it might be a renaissance for the show, but it turned too much towards excessive shlock by the end of that year and then Season 7 just became frenetically silly. The decision to turn the production design light and airy and '80s pastel, combined with Lorimar's new cheapy post-production process making the show look as if it had been shot on video, didn't help much either. A big ratings drop during Season 7 saw CBS demanding the show be fixed, but once they tried to get serious again for Season 8, they no longer seemed to know how to do it. And by Season 9, it just seemed like a different series entirely and ratings continued to spiral into the cellar.
Why do swollen executives think a show can make itself as long as you have a key star and a recognizable brand name title? Because it can't.
Shame, because the first three season, maybe even 3 1/2 seasons, were fabulous.
Midnight in Savannah
(1997 TV Movie)
Surpasses Eastwood's movie by a Savannah mile
18 April 2016
John Berendt's 1993 book "Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil" may not have displayed the finest narrative skill, yet it was intriguing nonetheless.
But Clint Eastwood's attempt to film it was a disaster. A competent director, it was apparently just a vanity project for him, and one that missed the sleepy, macabre potential of the material completely --- even the scene for which the title was derived, the hoodoo moment in the cemetery, was botched.
On the other hand, this 1997 A&E doc "Midnight in Savannah" is everything the movie was not, and in some ways surpasses even the book.
But why isn't it out on DVD?? By 1997, they were already turning everything into DVDs! Why not this? --
But Clint Eastwood's attempt to film it was a disaster. A competent director, it was apparently just a vanity project for him, and one that missed the sleepy, macabre potential of the material completely --- even the scene for which the title was derived, the hoodoo moment in the cemetery, was botched.
On the other hand, this 1997 A&E doc "Midnight in Savannah" is everything the movie was not, and in some ways surpasses even the book.
But why isn't it out on DVD?? By 1997, they were already turning everything into DVDs! Why not this? --
Who Killed Teddy Bear
(1965)
Dark and remarkable time capsule -- a small, gritty film too little seen
9 February 2016
There is a 94 minute cut out there someplace....
Yet this is a remarkable film, and much better than I'd anticipated (I'd never seen it before until recently). Shot in the winter of 1964/65, it's ahead of its time and covers subject matter taboo even now, certainly for mid-'60s Hollywood... It's B&W photography is as haunted and moody as a PSYCHO-era horror film, but TEDDY BEAR has an organic quality about it most Hollywood movies don't have today and didn't have yesterday --- and it reminds those of us old enough to remember of how the cities, from the mid-'60s to the '70s, were beginning to fall apart in the wake of JFK's death and the rise of the incomprehensible Vietnam war (where all our tax dollars were going) -- when peep shows and adult "book stores", with their wares on display in the shop windows, popped up in even "nice" business districts beside Tiffany's, creating a tense and fascinating shabbiness that helped define the schism that was "the '60s".
So the cultural meltdown wasn't just about the hippies and their drugs and the acid rock and the protests which would soon follow this movie (not that there was much of a reaction to the film itself, as few people saw it then); for all the romanticizing of that decade (some of which is understandable), Walter Cronkite wasn't entirely wrong when he called the 1960s "a slum of a decade" and TEDDY BEAR hints at that better than most industry films of the time, and serves to remind us that the world of that era wasn't really all that innocent (even if it was a bit naive in other ways). Such was that echo chamber, filled with its cacophony of voices, that was the '60s -- where you had two decades seemingly shoved into one. And with this movie squarely on the cusp of both.
Good acting, taut direction, and a lot of layers going on at one time...
Yet this is a remarkable film, and much better than I'd anticipated (I'd never seen it before until recently). Shot in the winter of 1964/65, it's ahead of its time and covers subject matter taboo even now, certainly for mid-'60s Hollywood... It's B&W photography is as haunted and moody as a PSYCHO-era horror film, but TEDDY BEAR has an organic quality about it most Hollywood movies don't have today and didn't have yesterday --- and it reminds those of us old enough to remember of how the cities, from the mid-'60s to the '70s, were beginning to fall apart in the wake of JFK's death and the rise of the incomprehensible Vietnam war (where all our tax dollars were going) -- when peep shows and adult "book stores", with their wares on display in the shop windows, popped up in even "nice" business districts beside Tiffany's, creating a tense and fascinating shabbiness that helped define the schism that was "the '60s".
So the cultural meltdown wasn't just about the hippies and their drugs and the acid rock and the protests which would soon follow this movie (not that there was much of a reaction to the film itself, as few people saw it then); for all the romanticizing of that decade (some of which is understandable), Walter Cronkite wasn't entirely wrong when he called the 1960s "a slum of a decade" and TEDDY BEAR hints at that better than most industry films of the time, and serves to remind us that the world of that era wasn't really all that innocent (even if it was a bit naive in other ways). Such was that echo chamber, filled with its cacophony of voices, that was the '60s -- where you had two decades seemingly shoved into one. And with this movie squarely on the cusp of both.
Good acting, taut direction, and a lot of layers going on at one time...
The Dana Carvey Show
(1996)
Brilliant -- and too good to last
19 December 2015
I saw THE DANA CARVEY SHOW during its initial run, in a great time slot after ROSEANNE, and I said to myself: "it'll never last -- it's just too damned funny, and prime time TV won't permit that."
And it was, indeed, screamingly funny.
Sadly, I was right.
Its ratings were never the disappointment they claimed in order to justify their canceling it (and replacing it with yet another lame, safe sitcom).
One wonders what ABC thought THE DANA CARVEY SHOW would be.
Some people look at it today and wonder where the "controversy" in the show was. But it's not even that or the topicality.
It was just too funny. And that uniqueness is what got it noticed -- and then canned.
And it was, indeed, screamingly funny.
Sadly, I was right.
Its ratings were never the disappointment they claimed in order to justify their canceling it (and replacing it with yet another lame, safe sitcom).
One wonders what ABC thought THE DANA CARVEY SHOW would be.
Some people look at it today and wonder where the "controversy" in the show was. But it's not even that or the topicality.
It was just too funny. And that uniqueness is what got it noticed -- and then canned.
Four Days in November
(1964)
Affecting period piece
29 August 2014
You can't go by the IMDb vote of 6.3 because, if you check out the age/gender breakdown on the voters, its the women (sorry, ladies) who sink the average on this project -- probably giving it a low rating because "it's sad." The men give it a higher rating, presumably because they know it's supposed to be sad.
At any rate, it's a great period piece, a product of its immediate era.
While it's just a compilation of footage and doesn't address anything controversial (e.g., Oswald is presumed "guilty") it's a poignant time capsule, with its noble-tragic tone -- managing to be touchingly doom-riddled and yet somehow ice cold.
It couldn't be anything else.
At any rate, it's a great period piece, a product of its immediate era.
While it's just a compilation of footage and doesn't address anything controversial (e.g., Oswald is presumed "guilty") it's a poignant time capsule, with its noble-tragic tone -- managing to be touchingly doom-riddled and yet somehow ice cold.
It couldn't be anything else.
Three Days of the Condor
(1975)
Perhaps the best of the 1970s "paranoia" thrillers
22 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
So many resonant moments in this classic little picture.
References to "11:22" just before the killings, the creepily prognosticative use of the World Trade Center as the site of the CIA's offices, to say nothing of the plot to invade the middle east over oil.
Some viewers' complaints to the contrary, the soundtrack is, for my money, a great addition to the film. Yes, sure, there's a light, jazzy, slightly disco-y element to it, but its of a '70s melancholia which is completely inseparable from the film.
That '70s melancholia in the score taps into the disillusioned, romantic sadness of the era. And the film is right in the middle of that.
And then there's that love scene people cringe at. But one has to remember that from the early-'70s into the early-'80s, most dramatic films were virtually required to have one "explicit" -- and usually contrived -- sex scene, just because movies now could.
Sometimes they were quite nauseating and didn't fit.
I'm just grateful that Redford's and Dunaway's wasn't all that bad. And done a little more artfully than many were at that time.
Anyway...
These types of movies rarely get made anymore, and any discussion of conspiracy in the media is dismissed as "tin foil hat" lunacy.
But in the post-'60s disillusionment of the '70s, there was a brief period where you could, on occasion, bring this kind of material to the screen (a la THE PARALLAX VIEW or ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.). And while I'm not fond of Alex Jones-style bluster, anyone who knows anything about U.S. covert actions since the '40s realizes that "outrageous" movies with "ridiculous" plots like this are in some cases tame in comparison to reality.
As the old saying goes: Mankind is a little better than its reputation and a little bit worse.
In other words, the truth is often stranger -- and sometimes more horrendous -- than fiction.
References to "11:22" just before the killings, the creepily prognosticative use of the World Trade Center as the site of the CIA's offices, to say nothing of the plot to invade the middle east over oil.
Some viewers' complaints to the contrary, the soundtrack is, for my money, a great addition to the film. Yes, sure, there's a light, jazzy, slightly disco-y element to it, but its of a '70s melancholia which is completely inseparable from the film.
That '70s melancholia in the score taps into the disillusioned, romantic sadness of the era. And the film is right in the middle of that.
And then there's that love scene people cringe at. But one has to remember that from the early-'70s into the early-'80s, most dramatic films were virtually required to have one "explicit" -- and usually contrived -- sex scene, just because movies now could.
Sometimes they were quite nauseating and didn't fit.
I'm just grateful that Redford's and Dunaway's wasn't all that bad. And done a little more artfully than many were at that time.
Anyway...
These types of movies rarely get made anymore, and any discussion of conspiracy in the media is dismissed as "tin foil hat" lunacy.
But in the post-'60s disillusionment of the '70s, there was a brief period where you could, on occasion, bring this kind of material to the screen (a la THE PARALLAX VIEW or ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.). And while I'm not fond of Alex Jones-style bluster, anyone who knows anything about U.S. covert actions since the '40s realizes that "outrageous" movies with "ridiculous" plots like this are in some cases tame in comparison to reality.
As the old saying goes: Mankind is a little better than its reputation and a little bit worse.
In other words, the truth is often stranger -- and sometimes more horrendous -- than fiction.
The Parallax View
(1974)
Not so far-fetched
22 July 2013
The media is influenced, as we know, by big money -- it's essentially owned by small pockets of huge wealth. And, especially today, the news media and its "reporters" act as stenographers to the powerful, the Pentagon, etc.
If you don't play by those rules, you get the Michael Hastings treatment.
So these types of movies rarely get made anymore, and any discussion of conspiracy in the media is dismissed as "tin foil hat" lunacy.
Period.
But in the post-'60s disillusionment of the melancholy '70, there was a brief period where you could, on occasion, bring this kind of material to the screen (a la THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR or ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.) I'm not fond of Alex Jones-style bluster, but as anyone who knows anything about U.S. covert actions since the '40s realizes is that "outrageous" movies with "ridiculous" plots like this are in some cases tame in comparison to reality.
As the old saying goes: Mankind is a little better than its reputation and a little bit worse.
In other words, the truth is often stranger -- and sometimes more horrendous -- than fiction.
If you don't play by those rules, you get the Michael Hastings treatment.
So these types of movies rarely get made anymore, and any discussion of conspiracy in the media is dismissed as "tin foil hat" lunacy.
Period.
But in the post-'60s disillusionment of the melancholy '70, there was a brief period where you could, on occasion, bring this kind of material to the screen (a la THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR or ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, etc.) I'm not fond of Alex Jones-style bluster, but as anyone who knows anything about U.S. covert actions since the '40s realizes is that "outrageous" movies with "ridiculous" plots like this are in some cases tame in comparison to reality.
As the old saying goes: Mankind is a little better than its reputation and a little bit worse.
In other words, the truth is often stranger -- and sometimes more horrendous -- than fiction.
Night Watch
(1973)
Underrated, atmospheric Elizabeth Taylor thriller
6 July 2013
Just bought NIGHT WATCH and watched it tonight when it arrived. I don't think I've seen it since, say, I was a teenager and it was on the late show!
But it's a Taylor film no one talks about.
I actually think it's great, in its way (but, as with every Laurence Harvey movie he does with Taylor, I always want to re-cast him with James Mason).
Anyway, yes, I think it's a smidgen underrated. And has a nice, London-y, shrouded early-'70s melancholy flavor and that neo-Victorian early-'70s thing what with the dark wood and the plush velvet-y furniture and the Tiffany lamps and the overgrown plants and deep shadows and the sprinkling of harpsichord in the score and the occasional fish-eye lens.
Great twist ending, too!
But it's a Taylor film no one talks about.
I actually think it's great, in its way (but, as with every Laurence Harvey movie he does with Taylor, I always want to re-cast him with James Mason).
Anyway, yes, I think it's a smidgen underrated. And has a nice, London-y, shrouded early-'70s melancholy flavor and that neo-Victorian early-'70s thing what with the dark wood and the plush velvet-y furniture and the Tiffany lamps and the overgrown plants and deep shadows and the sprinkling of harpsichord in the score and the occasional fish-eye lens.
Great twist ending, too!
La Jetée
(1962)
Cinema at its most forlorn
25 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Straight out of the twilight zone era of the early-'60s when the world came it closest (many times, as it turns out) to apocalyptic destruction, and so many Hollywood thrillers -- both highbrow and down-market -- enjoyed a mournful creepiness that just worked, came this French short, only 28 minutes long, about a post-WW3 earth in which scientific experiments underneath the catacombs of Paris are being conducted into human memory in order to access it in some way to achieve contact of a kind with the future.
Comprised only of frozen freeze frames -- except for one brief, subtle yet heart-stopping moment -- LA JETEE offers up some of the most haunting cinema ever captured. With the museum sequence its timeless centerpiece.
The music score, the imagery, the face of eternity that was the '60s.
It must be said, however, that the original version of LA JETEE with french narration (and English subtitles) is the way to go. In recent years, however, a new version with English narration has circulated -- the problem being that the new narration is done very poorly, taking the picture out of the correct place and time somehow... This new version was probably done to make the film "more accessible" but does so to obtain a mainstream audience LA JETEE is never going to get anyway.
LA JETEE is a classic must-see.
...But, as is the case with anything -- or anyone -- who is truly special, the regiment out their who hate it are deeply committed to their hatred of it. And such is the case with LA JETEE.
Comprised only of frozen freeze frames -- except for one brief, subtle yet heart-stopping moment -- LA JETEE offers up some of the most haunting cinema ever captured. With the museum sequence its timeless centerpiece.
The music score, the imagery, the face of eternity that was the '60s.
It must be said, however, that the original version of LA JETEE with french narration (and English subtitles) is the way to go. In recent years, however, a new version with English narration has circulated -- the problem being that the new narration is done very poorly, taking the picture out of the correct place and time somehow... This new version was probably done to make the film "more accessible" but does so to obtain a mainstream audience LA JETEE is never going to get anyway.
LA JETEE is a classic must-see.
...But, as is the case with anything -- or anyone -- who is truly special, the regiment out their who hate it are deeply committed to their hatred of it. And such is the case with LA JETEE.
JFK
(1991)
One of the most important films ever produced
23 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
When Oliver Stone sat down to write and direct this picture, given that 95% of the data contained within was available in numerous books since the '60s and '70s, he must have expected the typically dismissive reaction those paperback treatises had largely received.
Instead, all Hell broke loose.
Not since the jaw-droppingly racist epic THE BIRTH OF A NATION seventy-six years earlier had a movie received such a startlingly prickly response or would become such a controversy.
Based rather loosely on New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of local businessman Clay Shaw regarding Shaw's alleged complicity in setting up Lee Harvey Oswald in the 1963 JFK assassination ("loosely" because the investigation and trial is used as a format for presenting data uncovered in some cases by other investigators and at a later date) the picture is a mesmerizingly rich montage of fact and educated theory, Stone's quick-cuts editing style then highly unusual (though now used incessantly in movies about absolutely nothing) and evocative. He does an impressive job of communicating a massive amount of information to the audience in only about three hours. But it's exactly Stone's cinematic skill which caused "JFK" to explode into reviled critical consciousness in a manner all those assassination books never would, could or did.
Any honest student of the assassination won't be stunned by the content. But the media and governmental over-reactive upsurge against the movie was almost more damning that the movie itself.
Even today, nearly two decades after the film was released, it's astounding how infamous it remains. Also astounding is how the LoneNut/Oswald-did-it mindset continues to hold on. If one checks out the numerous assassination Internet websites, for example, they are nearly all stalwart defenders of the Warren Commission, some surfacely affecting objectivity, some rabidly direct --- they are essentially the cyber version of Gerald Posner's 1993 "Case Closed", once called "the most dishonest book ever written" and a literary response to Stone's movie. "Case Closed" (and those websites) clearly know the data: they go into great, intricate detail in an effort to meticulously deconstruct all of the pro-conspiracy material.... only they deconstruct falsely. As anyone who knows the material will quickly realize. But, to the uninitiated, such sites' endless, 24/7 "debunking" (a favorite phrase by the fervent and on-message-beyond-belief LoneNut bloggers who haunt the Internet) of the conspiracy can appear quite convincing, just as these more casual audiences are so easily fooled by the authoritative yet selectively sloppy Untruths of Peter Jennings' 40th Anniversary Special for ABC in 2003 or (that other Stone's) "Oswald's Ghost." The eternal rationalizations, the endless manipulations from the pro-Warren Commission crowd. The unending assertions of, "Oh, I use to be a conspiracy believer, too, until I learned that.... ," and the ubiquitous world-weary faux tones of, "Let's just finally get this behind us, people. If you would read the superb and painstaking investigation by ...... then, you would know that this was all concretely disproved years ago when....." On and on and on.
Apparently, the only massive conspiracy this seething, vitriolic army of LoneNutters finds credible is that countless otherwise unconnected witnesses --- even those first-hand witnesses from Dealey Plaza! --- all somehow colluded in their shameless efforts to clear Oswald, frame the CIA, or just to frame faceless gunman in the trees behind the picket fence. All for money or attention or to achieve some other unspecified spineless agendum.
At this late date, however, with nearly all of the conspirators presumably long gone (and ~75% of the American public still convinced of the conspiracy, as they have been since the '60s) why is maintaining The Lie so important in some corners? As clearly it is. It has, after all, been nearly half a century since Kennedy died on the streets of Dallas.
Perhaps because the dynamic behind the assassination of the 35th president (or the dynamic behind misrepresenting it) is still essentially in place. 'The Secret State' is an awfully mysterious phrase, but it simply reflects large corporate business interests and those interests' determined defense of their rights to circumvent our democratic processes at every possible turn... Up until the recent near-Depressional economic downturn, the national news media (generally in bed with the same corporations) wouldn't even fleetingly address arguably the most pressing issue of our time: corporate corruption and Big Business's stranglehold on all levels of our government. And even now, such coverage is superficial and grudging at best.
So when famed Watergate burglar E Howard Hunt's 2004 handwritten and audio-taped confession of personal and CIA/LBJ involvement in JFK's murder can't even receive coverage in the national media decades after the event, where are we still? It seems there is no pro-conspiracy revelation, no matter how dramatic and credible, which can receive coverage. And no anti-conspiracy evidence, no matter how flimsy and contrived, which can't.
Many detractors have sneered that it's dreadful that millions of youngsters perceive the JFK assassination thru the "distorted lens" of Oliver Stone. But I say, "Thank goodness for Oliver."
Instead, all Hell broke loose.
Not since the jaw-droppingly racist epic THE BIRTH OF A NATION seventy-six years earlier had a movie received such a startlingly prickly response or would become such a controversy.
Based rather loosely on New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of local businessman Clay Shaw regarding Shaw's alleged complicity in setting up Lee Harvey Oswald in the 1963 JFK assassination ("loosely" because the investigation and trial is used as a format for presenting data uncovered in some cases by other investigators and at a later date) the picture is a mesmerizingly rich montage of fact and educated theory, Stone's quick-cuts editing style then highly unusual (though now used incessantly in movies about absolutely nothing) and evocative. He does an impressive job of communicating a massive amount of information to the audience in only about three hours. But it's exactly Stone's cinematic skill which caused "JFK" to explode into reviled critical consciousness in a manner all those assassination books never would, could or did.
Any honest student of the assassination won't be stunned by the content. But the media and governmental over-reactive upsurge against the movie was almost more damning that the movie itself.
Even today, nearly two decades after the film was released, it's astounding how infamous it remains. Also astounding is how the LoneNut/Oswald-did-it mindset continues to hold on. If one checks out the numerous assassination Internet websites, for example, they are nearly all stalwart defenders of the Warren Commission, some surfacely affecting objectivity, some rabidly direct --- they are essentially the cyber version of Gerald Posner's 1993 "Case Closed", once called "the most dishonest book ever written" and a literary response to Stone's movie. "Case Closed" (and those websites) clearly know the data: they go into great, intricate detail in an effort to meticulously deconstruct all of the pro-conspiracy material.... only they deconstruct falsely. As anyone who knows the material will quickly realize. But, to the uninitiated, such sites' endless, 24/7 "debunking" (a favorite phrase by the fervent and on-message-beyond-belief LoneNut bloggers who haunt the Internet) of the conspiracy can appear quite convincing, just as these more casual audiences are so easily fooled by the authoritative yet selectively sloppy Untruths of Peter Jennings' 40th Anniversary Special for ABC in 2003 or (that other Stone's) "Oswald's Ghost." The eternal rationalizations, the endless manipulations from the pro-Warren Commission crowd. The unending assertions of, "Oh, I use to be a conspiracy believer, too, until I learned that.... ," and the ubiquitous world-weary faux tones of, "Let's just finally get this behind us, people. If you would read the superb and painstaking investigation by ...... then, you would know that this was all concretely disproved years ago when....." On and on and on.
Apparently, the only massive conspiracy this seething, vitriolic army of LoneNutters finds credible is that countless otherwise unconnected witnesses --- even those first-hand witnesses from Dealey Plaza! --- all somehow colluded in their shameless efforts to clear Oswald, frame the CIA, or just to frame faceless gunman in the trees behind the picket fence. All for money or attention or to achieve some other unspecified spineless agendum.
At this late date, however, with nearly all of the conspirators presumably long gone (and ~75% of the American public still convinced of the conspiracy, as they have been since the '60s) why is maintaining The Lie so important in some corners? As clearly it is. It has, after all, been nearly half a century since Kennedy died on the streets of Dallas.
Perhaps because the dynamic behind the assassination of the 35th president (or the dynamic behind misrepresenting it) is still essentially in place. 'The Secret State' is an awfully mysterious phrase, but it simply reflects large corporate business interests and those interests' determined defense of their rights to circumvent our democratic processes at every possible turn... Up until the recent near-Depressional economic downturn, the national news media (generally in bed with the same corporations) wouldn't even fleetingly address arguably the most pressing issue of our time: corporate corruption and Big Business's stranglehold on all levels of our government. And even now, such coverage is superficial and grudging at best.
So when famed Watergate burglar E Howard Hunt's 2004 handwritten and audio-taped confession of personal and CIA/LBJ involvement in JFK's murder can't even receive coverage in the national media decades after the event, where are we still? It seems there is no pro-conspiracy revelation, no matter how dramatic and credible, which can receive coverage. And no anti-conspiracy evidence, no matter how flimsy and contrived, which can't.
Many detractors have sneered that it's dreadful that millions of youngsters perceive the JFK assassination thru the "distorted lens" of Oliver Stone. But I say, "Thank goodness for Oliver."
Carnival of Souls
(1962)
Undiluted creepiness from the beginning of time
23 June 2013
There was a brief period of time, now so long ago, which managed to feel like "a long time ago" just a couple of years after it was over.
Some today call it "the Mad Men era," that period just before the cultural meltdown of the late-'60s occurred and the world was never quite the same again.
It's that cozy JFK/TwilightZone/PSYCHO/ColdWar era end-of-the-world thing that seemed to crystallize somewhere near the close of the 1950s and ran through the first half of the '60s.
The early-'60s was the closest the world ever came to nuclear obliteration (several times, as we've learned over the years). And that bottomlessly hopeless axe hanging over the world's head created a strange and unparalleled haunted mood which (despite the optimistic rise of the American middle class in the '50s) hovered paranoically over everything.
And that mood also affected cinema. Any attempt to do "spooky" worked almost effortlessly, regardless of whether it was a high-class Hitchcock production (like PSYCHO or THE BIRDS) or a silly William Castle flick (like 13 GHOSTS or STRAIT-JACKET). Or, for TV, whether it was a profound morality play from Rod Serling (in the aptly-named "Twlight Zone") or something comedic like Opie losing his baseball in that haunted murder mansion on the edge of Mayberry.
It just worked. It's was like ground zero for All Things Creepy, the early-'60s.
It's when we all almost died.
And, movie-wise, a shoestring budget could just makes it all more effective, as CARNIVAL OF SOULS proves. (Or, if you've ever seen it, carnival-set THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED UP ZOMBIES, which manages to be both utterly stupid and utterly hypnotic).
Today, these film projects are about half a century into the past. But one might not realize that they quite literally felt that old merely five or six years after that era had ended. Seriously, by even 1969 or 1970, these early-'60s productions already seemed archaic (although in a good way, and still quite watchable) as if they'd come from the beginning of time. (The calendar just eventually caught up with that).
CARNIVAL OF SOULS is just one of the better down-market examples of all this: endlessly compelling, bottomlessly eerie, the uber-low budget and cartoonish flavor not damaging the spooky impact of the film whatsoever.
Just before the world changed.
Some today call it "the Mad Men era," that period just before the cultural meltdown of the late-'60s occurred and the world was never quite the same again.
It's that cozy JFK/TwilightZone/PSYCHO/ColdWar era end-of-the-world thing that seemed to crystallize somewhere near the close of the 1950s and ran through the first half of the '60s.
The early-'60s was the closest the world ever came to nuclear obliteration (several times, as we've learned over the years). And that bottomlessly hopeless axe hanging over the world's head created a strange and unparalleled haunted mood which (despite the optimistic rise of the American middle class in the '50s) hovered paranoically over everything.
And that mood also affected cinema. Any attempt to do "spooky" worked almost effortlessly, regardless of whether it was a high-class Hitchcock production (like PSYCHO or THE BIRDS) or a silly William Castle flick (like 13 GHOSTS or STRAIT-JACKET). Or, for TV, whether it was a profound morality play from Rod Serling (in the aptly-named "Twlight Zone") or something comedic like Opie losing his baseball in that haunted murder mansion on the edge of Mayberry.
It just worked. It's was like ground zero for All Things Creepy, the early-'60s.
It's when we all almost died.
And, movie-wise, a shoestring budget could just makes it all more effective, as CARNIVAL OF SOULS proves. (Or, if you've ever seen it, carnival-set THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED UP ZOMBIES, which manages to be both utterly stupid and utterly hypnotic).
Today, these film projects are about half a century into the past. But one might not realize that they quite literally felt that old merely five or six years after that era had ended. Seriously, by even 1969 or 1970, these early-'60s productions already seemed archaic (although in a good way, and still quite watchable) as if they'd come from the beginning of time. (The calendar just eventually caught up with that).
CARNIVAL OF SOULS is just one of the better down-market examples of all this: endlessly compelling, bottomlessly eerie, the uber-low budget and cartoonish flavor not damaging the spooky impact of the film whatsoever.
Just before the world changed.
The Innocents
(1961)
Hollywood's second or third greatest spook film
23 June 2013
There has been much discussion over the years as to whether this film or Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING (1963) qualify as Hollywood's greatest ghost movie.
I have to vote for THE HAUNTING.
Yes, THE INNOCENTS is a stylistic masterpiece, but somehow, every time I watch it, THE INNOCENTS seems to me a series of macabre vignettes brilliantly realized. But the narrative of THE HAUNTING seems to hold together better.
Jack Clayton's direction and Freddie Francis' camera-work for THE INNOCENTS are indeed stunning,and the kids are great. Yet I'm never compelled by the actual ectoplasmic motives and find myself irritated by Deborah Kerr's overly actress-y, stagey performance.
But, hey, it's an impressive film nonetheless.
I have to vote for THE HAUNTING.
Yes, THE INNOCENTS is a stylistic masterpiece, but somehow, every time I watch it, THE INNOCENTS seems to me a series of macabre vignettes brilliantly realized. But the narrative of THE HAUNTING seems to hold together better.
Jack Clayton's direction and Freddie Francis' camera-work for THE INNOCENTS are indeed stunning,and the kids are great. Yet I'm never compelled by the actual ectoplasmic motives and find myself irritated by Deborah Kerr's overly actress-y, stagey performance.
But, hey, it's an impressive film nonetheless.
BUtterfield 8
(1960)
"You haven't heard the worst of it yet --- I loved it..!"
22 June 2013
I love BUTTERFIELD 8 but agree it's more good than great -- or, as the phrase goes, "great trash".
I don't mind Eddie Fisher, but Harvey is too sleazy (and not in a good way) for my tastes in the role. I always recast him in my head with James Mason.
I also believe Taylor very much deserved her Oscar for this, even if she didn't think so (and her bitterness stems from the fact MGM forced her to do the movie after telling Mike Todd she wouldn't have to make anymore pictures she didn't like before her contract expired in 1960).
She's fabulous in this. Her "I loved it!" confessional scene is kind of jaw-dropping... And I can watch her to-period "tragic" car accident till I'm blue in the face from howling like a hyena. It's laugh-out-loud funny.
Part of why the picture almost works is of course the era, that fresh, haunted, end-of-the-world, early-early-'60s thing going for it, albeit in Ektachrome or whatever the hell they were using... Funny how the pastels of the late-'50s/early-'60s were so much more vibrant: I loved the soft blue phone and the soft pink phone set against the pink bathroom tile -- those sooooo bring back childhood memories... It's hard to describe the look that these had from that period; they were almost child's playhouse floating-on-a-cloud colors.
And the cars which were easter egg colors and even primary colors. Every car color has been so muted for decades now -- you never see a primary color for a car anymore.
Semi-great sudser, lifted to a level of art by a defiant Taylor.
I don't mind Eddie Fisher, but Harvey is too sleazy (and not in a good way) for my tastes in the role. I always recast him in my head with James Mason.
I also believe Taylor very much deserved her Oscar for this, even if she didn't think so (and her bitterness stems from the fact MGM forced her to do the movie after telling Mike Todd she wouldn't have to make anymore pictures she didn't like before her contract expired in 1960).
She's fabulous in this. Her "I loved it!" confessional scene is kind of jaw-dropping... And I can watch her to-period "tragic" car accident till I'm blue in the face from howling like a hyena. It's laugh-out-loud funny.
Part of why the picture almost works is of course the era, that fresh, haunted, end-of-the-world, early-early-'60s thing going for it, albeit in Ektachrome or whatever the hell they were using... Funny how the pastels of the late-'50s/early-'60s were so much more vibrant: I loved the soft blue phone and the soft pink phone set against the pink bathroom tile -- those sooooo bring back childhood memories... It's hard to describe the look that these had from that period; they were almost child's playhouse floating-on-a-cloud colors.
And the cars which were easter egg colors and even primary colors. Every car color has been so muted for decades now -- you never see a primary color for a car anymore.
Semi-great sudser, lifted to a level of art by a defiant Taylor.
The Night Walker
(1964)
I can't wake up!!
22 June 2013
Funny, it almost doesn't seem quite as bad as I remember it -- except for the ending and Stanwyck's usual overwroughtness in the wrong places.
Who made the creepy -- and downright good -- ghostly avant-garde prologue montage, narrated by Paul Frees? It's the best thing about the movie and it's pretty obvious that William Castle, no auteur he, was not responsible for it.
The eerie 1964 Cold War black-and-white photography with an equally eerie Vic "Addams Family" Mizzy score. And yet, after the first 16 or 17 minutes, it slips into TV sitcom crap. Only it's funny unintentionally.
I still say the whole thing would have been granted a little extra dignity if they had ended on Stanwyck awakening one more time, hearing men's voices down the hall, and her going to find her husband and the lawyer in the study, reliving completely the first scene in the study from the beginning of the movie, Stanwyck in the doorway of the study in terror, camera zooms up to her left eye. Movie ends.
She's still locked in the dream. She still can't wake up.
That would give the literal crime story wrap-up of the film the chance to be disavowed for its stupidness.
Who made the creepy -- and downright good -- ghostly avant-garde prologue montage, narrated by Paul Frees? It's the best thing about the movie and it's pretty obvious that William Castle, no auteur he, was not responsible for it.
The eerie 1964 Cold War black-and-white photography with an equally eerie Vic "Addams Family" Mizzy score. And yet, after the first 16 or 17 minutes, it slips into TV sitcom crap. Only it's funny unintentionally.
I still say the whole thing would have been granted a little extra dignity if they had ended on Stanwyck awakening one more time, hearing men's voices down the hall, and her going to find her husband and the lawyer in the study, reliving completely the first scene in the study from the beginning of the movie, Stanwyck in the doorway of the study in terror, camera zooms up to her left eye. Movie ends.
She's still locked in the dream. She still can't wake up.
That would give the literal crime story wrap-up of the film the chance to be disavowed for its stupidness.
Homicidal
(1961)
Psychette
22 June 2013
Funny about HOMICIDAL. For a Castle picture, it's at least a valid B-movie (while most of his stuff is C or D). But the irony in his obvious and unmitigated imitation of PSYCHO is that Hitchcock made PSYCHO to begin with because of William Castle! Hitch saw that Castle's movies were doing well at the box office, but weren't very good. So he wondered what a film like that might be like if someone good (i.e., himself) made it. Hence, PSYCHO... And then Castle sees PSYCHO and copies it with HOMICIDAL.
So you have the imitator imitating the imitation of the imitator: Castle copying Hitchcock copying Castle copying Hitchcock! But you can't really even call it a "rip-off" of PSYCHO; it's more of an homage, being so similar and coming out the very next year.
Of course, it's stupid, the film. But I rather "like" it. In an odd way, it's actually one of Castle's most polished -- well, comparatively -- films. And if anything, it's slightly creepier than PSYCHO, perhaps because of its downmarket elements.
So you have the imitator imitating the imitation of the imitator: Castle copying Hitchcock copying Castle copying Hitchcock! But you can't really even call it a "rip-off" of PSYCHO; it's more of an homage, being so similar and coming out the very next year.
Of course, it's stupid, the film. But I rather "like" it. In an odd way, it's actually one of Castle's most polished -- well, comparatively -- films. And if anything, it's slightly creepier than PSYCHO, perhaps because of its downmarket elements.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
(1967)
Nostalgia in the face of cultural upheaval
22 June 2013
One of the reasons GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER was so important and did so well at the time was because of its squeaky-clean, simplistic approach to the subject matter.
It was criticized then, and certainly since, for being so sanitized. But most Americans -- black and white -- saw interracial romance, let alone marriage, as being something completely off the charts in the mid-'60s (it was still illegal in many places). So doing such "threatening" material in such an nonthreatening way was probably why it worked as well as it did or could, given the standards of the time.
If they'd done the film in an edgier way, Hollywood wouldn't have green-lighted the project, and the audience who saw it would have either already agreed the film's message or turned even more against it.
That said, I kind of like the film. Yes, it's largely B.S. But it's late-'60s media B.S.: nostalgia in the face of cultural upheaval and change. And that's always been kind of nostalgic in itself. (And very '60s).
And Poitier is, in retrospect, a little tough on his dad.
It was criticized then, and certainly since, for being so sanitized. But most Americans -- black and white -- saw interracial romance, let alone marriage, as being something completely off the charts in the mid-'60s (it was still illegal in many places). So doing such "threatening" material in such an nonthreatening way was probably why it worked as well as it did or could, given the standards of the time.
If they'd done the film in an edgier way, Hollywood wouldn't have green-lighted the project, and the audience who saw it would have either already agreed the film's message or turned even more against it.
That said, I kind of like the film. Yes, it's largely B.S. But it's late-'60s media B.S.: nostalgia in the face of cultural upheaval and change. And that's always been kind of nostalgic in itself. (And very '60s).
And Poitier is, in retrospect, a little tough on his dad.
Dementia 13
(1963)
Fishy, fishy in the brook
22 June 2013
DEMENTIA 13, the first film from Francis Ford Coppola and a low-budget job he did for producer Roger Corman.
It's one of those early-'60s nursery-rhyme-and-child-trauma-drowning things you just can't look from, shuddery and bottomlessly macabre... Although also kind of bad and mostly stupid.
And why, if they all live in an Irish castle, does the matriarch appear to be Italian (the actress, Ethne Dunne, actually is Irish, but comes off more like Mama Pasta) and everybody else sound American? Only the grounds-keeper, the doctor, and the swampy poacher seem to actually be Irish. But not the family who lives in the castle.
It's a long way to Tipperary. Or, in this case, to THE GODFATHER.
But it's worth a peek.
It's one of those early-'60s nursery-rhyme-and-child-trauma-drowning things you just can't look from, shuddery and bottomlessly macabre... Although also kind of bad and mostly stupid.
And why, if they all live in an Irish castle, does the matriarch appear to be Italian (the actress, Ethne Dunne, actually is Irish, but comes off more like Mama Pasta) and everybody else sound American? Only the grounds-keeper, the doctor, and the swampy poacher seem to actually be Irish. But not the family who lives in the castle.
It's a long way to Tipperary. Or, in this case, to THE GODFATHER.
But it's worth a peek.
Circus of Horrors
(1960)
Look for a star.
22 June 2013
A cult classic with Anton Diffring, outrageous Donald Pleasance, and a weirdly sexy Kenneth Griffith. Oh, and a gaggle of scantily clad babes.
It's surprisingly lurid for 1959/60 -- and yet in a sanguine manner only a '60s films could achieve.
Diffring plays an excruciatingly unethical plastic surgeon on the run throughout Europe, hiding behind his traveling carnival of death as a front.
Oh, and that song! The movie is everything Joan Crawford's later BERSERK should have been. In fact, I tend to combine both movies in my head into one magnificently rococo, downmarket picture. Which totally works for me.
It's surprisingly lurid for 1959/60 -- and yet in a sanguine manner only a '60s films could achieve.
Diffring plays an excruciatingly unethical plastic surgeon on the run throughout Europe, hiding behind his traveling carnival of death as a front.
Oh, and that song! The movie is everything Joan Crawford's later BERSERK should have been. In fact, I tend to combine both movies in my head into one magnificently rococo, downmarket picture. Which totally works for me.
13 Ghosts
(1960)
A cozy Halloween party in which a lot of the pranks and games don't quite come off
21 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It's another delightfully dumb Castle picture, juvenile and amateurish yet an infinitely more professional production than, say, STRAIT-JACKET.
A middle-class family in economic straits has been evicted yet again from their home, their furniture re-possessed (all in that lighthearted '50s way), when they learn their mysterious Uncle Plato Zorba has left them a haunted mansion in Los Angeles. Naturally, they move in without hesitation.
The ghosts' enslavement is given minimal explanation, the threadbare plot makes little sense, and Martin Milner as the crooked lawyer needs a few more Stanislovski classes before his cruising down Route 66 or busting heads on the streets of L.A. will be convincing.
But as a vaguely pederastic shyster, he's the creepiest thing in the movie. He is, after all,the 13th ghost!
Strong points: The lovely music score and Joseph Biroc's B&W cinematography give the movie more dignity than it really warrants, Margaret Hamilton always gives good witch, and Charlie Herbert is a really cute kid in an obviously Capricornian David Archuleta kind of way and an excellent child actor; I want to take him home and burp him to stave off the 40 years of drug abuse that awaits him in real life... And how do you not love Rosemary DeCamp (who played everybody's mother in nearly every TV sitcom ever made)?
The movie's effectiveness is a result that eerily doomed early-'60s, JFK-era (give-or-take), end of the world, TWLIGHT-ZONE/PSYCHO, traumatized child, nursery rhyme thing. Nothing's "purer" in its innocent creepiness, even though the violence and gore are at a minimum. It's the poignance of post-war optimism mixed with utter doom, shuddery and forlornly macabre. Even when in the fumbling hands of a non-auteur like William Castle.
It's hard to believe that this silly movie was once spooky as hell (I defined it, as a child, as "the second scariest movie I've ever seen", both first and second on my list having been photographed by the aptly-named Mr Biroc, though of course I didn't know that then). But the high-pitched voices of the superimposed ghosts on screen once left an indelible impression on the more naive audiences of an earlier bygone period. For years, I used to get the meat cleaver murder at the hands of the ectoplasmic chef confused with the meat cleaver murder of Bruce Dern during the plantation prologue soirée of HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE.... I think it's the cook's toque.
Again, the era helps. It feels like a cozy Halloween party, one in which a lot of the pranks and games don't quite come off, but you had a good time anyway and you're glad you went.
But I've never viewed it thru the ghostly "Illusion-O" goggles.
The same house, by the way, is also seen in 1944's strange little gem, THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE.
I've also seen very little of the 13 GHOSTS remake from ~40 years later. Clearly, it's of a different sensibility.
A middle-class family in economic straits has been evicted yet again from their home, their furniture re-possessed (all in that lighthearted '50s way), when they learn their mysterious Uncle Plato Zorba has left them a haunted mansion in Los Angeles. Naturally, they move in without hesitation.
The ghosts' enslavement is given minimal explanation, the threadbare plot makes little sense, and Martin Milner as the crooked lawyer needs a few more Stanislovski classes before his cruising down Route 66 or busting heads on the streets of L.A. will be convincing.
But as a vaguely pederastic shyster, he's the creepiest thing in the movie. He is, after all,the 13th ghost!
Strong points: The lovely music score and Joseph Biroc's B&W cinematography give the movie more dignity than it really warrants, Margaret Hamilton always gives good witch, and Charlie Herbert is a really cute kid in an obviously Capricornian David Archuleta kind of way and an excellent child actor; I want to take him home and burp him to stave off the 40 years of drug abuse that awaits him in real life... And how do you not love Rosemary DeCamp (who played everybody's mother in nearly every TV sitcom ever made)?
The movie's effectiveness is a result that eerily doomed early-'60s, JFK-era (give-or-take), end of the world, TWLIGHT-ZONE/PSYCHO, traumatized child, nursery rhyme thing. Nothing's "purer" in its innocent creepiness, even though the violence and gore are at a minimum. It's the poignance of post-war optimism mixed with utter doom, shuddery and forlornly macabre. Even when in the fumbling hands of a non-auteur like William Castle.
It's hard to believe that this silly movie was once spooky as hell (I defined it, as a child, as "the second scariest movie I've ever seen", both first and second on my list having been photographed by the aptly-named Mr Biroc, though of course I didn't know that then). But the high-pitched voices of the superimposed ghosts on screen once left an indelible impression on the more naive audiences of an earlier bygone period. For years, I used to get the meat cleaver murder at the hands of the ectoplasmic chef confused with the meat cleaver murder of Bruce Dern during the plantation prologue soirée of HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE.... I think it's the cook's toque.
Again, the era helps. It feels like a cozy Halloween party, one in which a lot of the pranks and games don't quite come off, but you had a good time anyway and you're glad you went.
But I've never viewed it thru the ghostly "Illusion-O" goggles.
The same house, by the way, is also seen in 1944's strange little gem, THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE.
I've also seen very little of the 13 GHOSTS remake from ~40 years later. Clearly, it's of a different sensibility.
Dressed to Kill
(1980)
Summers of Sam
21 June 2013
Even in 1980, I heard people guffaw that DRESSED TO KILL "was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life."
The truth is, it's both really bad, with flashes of brilliance.
For one thing, DTK takes a satirical tone -- deliberately or not -- cheesily burlesquing the seedy sexual flavor of so many films from the late-'70s.
I'm not sure that it's possible for that to really work all that well cinematically, without the project being marred by the baseness it's portraying, as did all such projects at the time.
Even though I'm very fond of the 1970s (and it got a bad rap during the endless revisionism of the '80s) there was a definitively sleazy, gutter undertone to the latter half of the decade which worked its way into even mainstream movies. (CRUISING seems a prime example which, while not graphic by today's standards maybe, nonetheless tapped into the sordid, carnally apocalyptic tone of the day). Likewise, the period seemed the apex of real life serial killer zeitgeist somehow.
DTK struggles to parody and indulge in all of that simultaneously, and it achieves an uneven balance.
And yet the museum sequence, although silly at times as well, can't be ignored.
Still, believing Angie Dickinson can't get laid seems a stretch.
DTK one of those late-'70s (as I always say, 1980 was the last year of the '70s) urban sleaze kinds of films like LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR and CRUISING and CALIGULA and (my absolute favorite) EYES OF LAURA MARS where the period plays a key role in why they don't entirely work -- and yet why they do work.
The '70s had a melancholy, breezy, sexy thing going on which defined the decade, yet the last half of that decade also had an odd gutter-smarm undercurrent which is hard to describe but at the time was hard to miss... It wasn't the only era to give us real life serial sex murderers, but -- gee! -- no other era seemed to fit it so well.
Movies tapped into this vibe as well. And if it was going to do so effectively, you had to wind up getting a bit queasy during or after watching it. And that was these films' strengths as well as their vulnerability to partly-valid criticism.
Curiously, motion pictures can get much more explicit today, but few of them feel so utterly fetishistic as those from the late-'70s (or, technically, 1980).
These films were repellent in many ways, largely on purpose. But the sordid-beyond-belief flavor was absolutely part of the zeitgeist of the time.
I remember sneering at DRESSED TO KILL in 1980 when I was a teenager, and (as I stated above) I heard people say, "that was the worst movie I ever saw in my life" and I understood their disdain for it (and, subjectively, I don't like seeing Angie slaughtered so meticulously) and found the score both effective and, in places, inappropriate... And yet the silent museum sequence grew on me with time and, like many of those late-'70s snuffy-sleaze pictures, I retained an interest in them without fully condoning them.
They're period pieces, essentially. And valuable for that reason.
And they sort of define that old, over-used idea that "it's so bad it's almost good."
The truth is, it's both really bad, with flashes of brilliance.
For one thing, DTK takes a satirical tone -- deliberately or not -- cheesily burlesquing the seedy sexual flavor of so many films from the late-'70s.
I'm not sure that it's possible for that to really work all that well cinematically, without the project being marred by the baseness it's portraying, as did all such projects at the time.
Even though I'm very fond of the 1970s (and it got a bad rap during the endless revisionism of the '80s) there was a definitively sleazy, gutter undertone to the latter half of the decade which worked its way into even mainstream movies. (CRUISING seems a prime example which, while not graphic by today's standards maybe, nonetheless tapped into the sordid, carnally apocalyptic tone of the day). Likewise, the period seemed the apex of real life serial killer zeitgeist somehow.
DTK struggles to parody and indulge in all of that simultaneously, and it achieves an uneven balance.
And yet the museum sequence, although silly at times as well, can't be ignored.
Still, believing Angie Dickinson can't get laid seems a stretch.
DTK one of those late-'70s (as I always say, 1980 was the last year of the '70s) urban sleaze kinds of films like LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR and CRUISING and CALIGULA and (my absolute favorite) EYES OF LAURA MARS where the period plays a key role in why they don't entirely work -- and yet why they do work.
The '70s had a melancholy, breezy, sexy thing going on which defined the decade, yet the last half of that decade also had an odd gutter-smarm undercurrent which is hard to describe but at the time was hard to miss... It wasn't the only era to give us real life serial sex murderers, but -- gee! -- no other era seemed to fit it so well.
Movies tapped into this vibe as well. And if it was going to do so effectively, you had to wind up getting a bit queasy during or after watching it. And that was these films' strengths as well as their vulnerability to partly-valid criticism.
Curiously, motion pictures can get much more explicit today, but few of them feel so utterly fetishistic as those from the late-'70s (or, technically, 1980).
These films were repellent in many ways, largely on purpose. But the sordid-beyond-belief flavor was absolutely part of the zeitgeist of the time.
I remember sneering at DRESSED TO KILL in 1980 when I was a teenager, and (as I stated above) I heard people say, "that was the worst movie I ever saw in my life" and I understood their disdain for it (and, subjectively, I don't like seeing Angie slaughtered so meticulously) and found the score both effective and, in places, inappropriate... And yet the silent museum sequence grew on me with time and, like many of those late-'70s snuffy-sleaze pictures, I retained an interest in them without fully condoning them.
They're period pieces, essentially. And valuable for that reason.
And they sort of define that old, over-used idea that "it's so bad it's almost good."
Eyes of Laura Mars
(1978)
Better thriller than its reputation
21 June 2013
This film has always been a bit of an anomaly.
When I first saw it as a kid I thought it was awful and wonderful. And today, it hits me exactly the same way.
Yes, it's got a crass, urban-sleaze vibe a la the late-'70s, which is both its weakness and its strength.
Even though I'm very fond of the 1970s (and it got a bad rap during the endless revisionism of the '80s) there was a definitively sleazy, gutter undertone to the latter half of the decade which worked its way into even mainstream movies. (CRUISING and DRESSED TO KILL and CALIGULA and LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR all seem prime examples which, while not graphic by today's standards maybe, nonetheless tapped into the sordid, carnally apocalyptic tone of the day). Likewise, the period seemed the apex of real life serial killer zeitgeist somehow.
And the period plays a key role in why they don't entirely work -- and yet why they DO work.
The '70s had a melancholy, breezy, sexy thing going on which defined the decade, yet the last half of that decade also had an odd gutter-smarm undercurrent which is hard to describe but at the time was hard to miss... It wasn't the only era to give us real life serial sex murderers, but -- gee! -- no other era seemed to fit it so well.
Movies tapped into this vibe as well. And if it was going to do so effectively, you had to wind up getting a bit queasy during or after watching it. And that was these films' strengths as well as their vulnerability to partly-valid criticism.
Curiously, motion pictures can get much more explicit today, but few of them feel so utterly fetishistic as those from the late-'70s. These pictures were repellent in many ways, largely on purpose. But their sordid-beyond-belief flavor was absolutely part of the zeitgeist of the time. And I retained an interest in them without fully condoning them.
They're period pieces, essentially. And valuable for that reason.
And they sort of define that old, over-used idea that "it's so bad it's good." Ultimately, despite the elements that don't entirely work, the overall film just does.
Film critic Janet Maslin said about it at the time, "...It's the cleverness of EYES that counts, cleverness that manifests itself in superlative casting, dryly controlled direction from Irvin Kershner, and spectacular settings that turn New York into the kind of eerie, lavish dreamland that could exist only in the idle noodlings of the very, very hip..." And George Lucas hired Irvin Kershner to direct THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK on the strength of EYES OF LAURA MARS.
When I first saw it as a kid I thought it was awful and wonderful. And today, it hits me exactly the same way.
Yes, it's got a crass, urban-sleaze vibe a la the late-'70s, which is both its weakness and its strength.
Even though I'm very fond of the 1970s (and it got a bad rap during the endless revisionism of the '80s) there was a definitively sleazy, gutter undertone to the latter half of the decade which worked its way into even mainstream movies. (CRUISING and DRESSED TO KILL and CALIGULA and LOOKING FOR MR GOODBAR all seem prime examples which, while not graphic by today's standards maybe, nonetheless tapped into the sordid, carnally apocalyptic tone of the day). Likewise, the period seemed the apex of real life serial killer zeitgeist somehow.
And the period plays a key role in why they don't entirely work -- and yet why they DO work.
The '70s had a melancholy, breezy, sexy thing going on which defined the decade, yet the last half of that decade also had an odd gutter-smarm undercurrent which is hard to describe but at the time was hard to miss... It wasn't the only era to give us real life serial sex murderers, but -- gee! -- no other era seemed to fit it so well.
Movies tapped into this vibe as well. And if it was going to do so effectively, you had to wind up getting a bit queasy during or after watching it. And that was these films' strengths as well as their vulnerability to partly-valid criticism.
Curiously, motion pictures can get much more explicit today, but few of them feel so utterly fetishistic as those from the late-'70s. These pictures were repellent in many ways, largely on purpose. But their sordid-beyond-belief flavor was absolutely part of the zeitgeist of the time. And I retained an interest in them without fully condoning them.
They're period pieces, essentially. And valuable for that reason.
And they sort of define that old, over-used idea that "it's so bad it's good." Ultimately, despite the elements that don't entirely work, the overall film just does.
Film critic Janet Maslin said about it at the time, "...It's the cleverness of EYES that counts, cleverness that manifests itself in superlative casting, dryly controlled direction from Irvin Kershner, and spectacular settings that turn New York into the kind of eerie, lavish dreamland that could exist only in the idle noodlings of the very, very hip..." And George Lucas hired Irvin Kershner to direct THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK on the strength of EYES OF LAURA MARS.
Tell Your Friends