Thursday, March 27, 2008
fashionably acerbic families: the savages and margot at the wedding
They say you can write a comedy about anything. It's a premise Woody Allen has been playing with in these later years: take a situation, any situation... It's funny or tragic depending on which elements you zoom in on and where it ends. Fade out on the kiss at the altar, it's a comedy; come back sixteen years later, maybe not. Allen explored tragic/comic perspective in the double-sided Melinda and Melinda then in the dyptych pictures Match Point and Scoop, which take a basic situation and examine it from opposing angles for opposing effects. The serious Match Point was a laudable success, and Scoop was to be its comedic flipside (except, as Sam says in "West Wing", someone forgot to bring the funny). No matter: point is, there's a theory that you could make a comedy about the Apocalypse work if you set your mind to it, and I guess Tamara Jenkins had that in mind when she wrote the Savages.
This one is about your old dad who treated you like hell then abandoned you, who's getting to an age at which he writes on the wall with his own crap, so he gets dumped on you to care for in his helpless dotage. It is a comedy in a classical sense, as the ending is redemptive, and those who emerge are fuller-souled humans than when they went in. In the broader sense, for those who might be harboring wacky expectations that a comedy be actually funny, this is not your blue-eyed boy. There are a few funny things in it, mostly inspired by Laura Linney's wonderfully expressive face, and, in fact, only about as many as you'd expect to find in a family drama. That is not to say it is not worth seeing. There's the acting, for starters: Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman and Philip Bosco in a moving turn as the fading and reluctant patriarch. Also, the characters are bold and unapologetic in their selfish and craven weaknesses, and that is refreshing.
Still, Margot at the Wedding is the one that roused my enthusiasm, doing Savages one better in the acerbic family business. Plus, it's funny.
I feel some guilt about reviewing Margot after a single sitting. I get a sense that there's more in it than I saw, and that repeated viewings are in order, which may always be the case with Noah Baumbach's films and those of his compadre Wes Anderson (with whom he cowrote the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and with whom he shares both unconventional takes on family life and a certain deadpan sensibility).
There's nothing light-hearted about this entertainment, and nothing cowardly, either. Baumbach never worries about what we'll think, or whether we'll follow; he just tells his dark truths from such an angle that they come up funny. Sometimes we make the leap with him, sometimes we get lost in the ambiguity of the extreme chiaroscuros making up his people. Still, in those rare moments when I can't follow one of his emotional choices or interactions, it feels like my own shortcoming, not his,--as if he's looked harder at life than I have and so the problem is in my lack of the proper reference point.
To make up for having seen it only once, I went back and re-watched Kicking and Screaming, Baumbach's debut, a very dry, very finely-shaped and frequently hilarious story about four young men flummoxed at the prospect of making the leap from college into the real world. Juno WISHES she was this funny. It's quick and smart without being precious, and it avoids that infamous Juno-pitfall in which everyone in the world talks the same clever-speak by pointing up that these four have spent entirely too much time together all through their formative years (more than once a girl will say, "You guys all talk the same," generally followed by a mortified silence). It's a great debut with a great young cast. Whatever happened to Chris Eigeman? He was the master of this kind of humor, here and in the Whit Stillman trilogy (Metropolitan, Barcelona, Last Days of Disco). He's got some classics in this one: ALL his exchanges with Carlos Jacott, first off, plus there's the unforgettable bowhunter bit. Of all Baumbach's films, this one is the warmest, I think, the most heart-centered, for all its biting wit.
In Margot, the characters are more introspective and don't always talk about what's going on. Nicole Kidman's Margot (a writer), particularly, seems to mistrust language. All sides of family-hood come under the microscope in this one: coupling and uncoupling, child-rearing, sibling rivalries. Secrets are its major focus: the keeping or telling of them, the use of confidences as currency in the power-struggles of a tight family unit. One of the things Baumbach does well that gives his characters some of their 3-D feel is to let them reference inside jokes and secret history without explaining them to us. Margot's husband (John Turturro) and son (Zane Pais) laugh over a one-armed man with two arms without bothering to let us in on it, and one of the most convincing sister-bonding moments ever happens when Pauline (Jennifer Jason-Leigh) and Margot are whinging about their childhood hardships and agree that a third sister had it worst, having been "raped by the horsemaster." Then, with perfect timing, they bust into hysterics, the kind of dark-edged laughter that only comrades-at-arms who've charged through the battle jointly can access.
In fact, the sister dynamic rings wildly true. A screaming match in which long withheld and fiercely hurtful things are voiced cuts to the two sisters with their kids staying in the same hotel room. Pieces of the argument get picked up and let go again but there's no hurt silence, no sense that relations might be broken. Blood and deep history and, finally, habit, outlast all animosities.
And the performances are good. Kidman manages a hard role well, and Jack Black and Jennifer Jason-Leigh are now one of my favorite screen couples. Black's (often delightful, sure) tendency toward hamminess gets reigned in by Baumbach's preference for the po-faced and wry to good ends, and Jason-Leigh gets exponentially better as she ages. The years have mellowed her lockjawed tenseness but that strong focus is still there, and her traditional forte, that quick-jump between vulnerability and cynicism, feels less jarring but no less on-target now that she is relaxed. She was always interesting to watch, sexy and intense; nowadays she's fun, too.
This is Baumbach's second film examining family, the Squid and the Whale being the first, and in both he says things on the subject that nobody else does. Or at least he says them without blunting the edges with cuteness, which is what generally drives me into fits of growling and hissing during indie-films-about-quirky-families. He ably sidesteps possible pretension in use of metaphor: a tree and a dog become symbols, but simple ones, animated into double-meaning in much the same almost automatic way we do it in real life. He uses background silence to great advantage, with little or no score to intrude on the action, and gives his performers room to maneuver with long, moving shots in which they can build up a head of mutual steam.
Too much comedy is unfunny because it depends on character types instead of characters. It's the commedia dell'arte thing: you set up a type, we all know what to expect from it, it either falls absurdly headfirst into our expectations or cheats them. Either way, we laugh if it's well performed and we don't if it's not. Baumbach isn't interested in that. His stuff is swarthy and rich with the complexities of human interaction. He doesn't shy from emotional brutality, but avoids romanticizing it, too. Even when his people do and say dastardly things, he manages to keep a good beating heart at the core of the film, avoiding jadedness and prolonged despair. I suspect there's no one else quite like him making films today. Certainly he avoids the slickness of surface-gliding which some complain earmarks Anderson in his worst moments.
In summary: these are not feel-good hits of the season. On those vulnerable nights when you want something easy and thoughtless, this particular shelf should be avoided. Save them, Baumbach in particular, for the strong nights when you feel like laughing in the face of the thunderstorm.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
wise new insights into your favorite directors
Welcome to my shameless plug for my friend Derek's new book!
Charlie Kaufman and Hollywood's Merry Band of Pranksters, Fabulists and Dreamers: an Excursion into the American New Wave, a minor masterwork by Derek Hill, is due out in May from the esteemed presses of Kamera Books. If you're American and don't want to order overseas, you can preorder yours here and get it in September.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
i'm not there and the sole drawback of being cate blanchett
The best movies are the ones that leave you filled with power. The ones you walk out of with a swagger, feeling like gods have been walking around you, or like you've been injected with a secret message and it's running in your veins. Everyone's list varies, and different power-films manifest in different ways. Years ago, when I emerged into the daylight after seeing Naked Lunch at the Varsity, I felt like I was on acid. Walking down a side-street there was a sudden and profuse scent of flowers, heavy and ubiquitous, but when I went to find the source it was all the way up the street, a typical flowering shrub, nothing fancy. My senses had been honed by the acid-trip movie I'd seen. On the other hand, I carry a short-list of movies (the first Star Wars, the first Matrix, and, believe it or not, the first Pirates of the Caribbean) that inspire serious spiritual experiences--consistently, too, with every viewing, but only in the theatre; the magic doesn't work on DVD. I'm guessing the secret catalyst is a specific balance of stimulating visual effects and archetypal themes, but that the most crucial element is aural, in the sound mixing, and that's why the sorcery gets left behind with the THX sound-system.
In any case, most power-experiences culled from film you wouldn't call numinous, necessarily. More often you walk out feeling like somebody else for a little while, which is a potent gift, not to be dismissed. If one of the paths to happiness is wearing your own ego a little more loosely, then power-films are not to be disregarded lightly. Usually when I get a powerstorm from a film it manifests in a long walk, a talk with the moon, and intense dreams when I sleep that night.
This all came up because I saw I'm Not There tonight, an odd and intrepid ode to Dylan by Todd Haynes. I can't imagine what it would be like to watch it if you knew nothing about Dylan, or if you'd never felt strongly about him. For those of us who can trace and organize whole periods of our lives by recalling whether INFIDELS or SLOW TRAIN COMING was playing when a particular event occurred, I'm Not There is an extraordinary experience. First off, despite his absolutely valid demurrals, there's something about the man himself which acts as an impetus, lends the sense that something bigger is happening than would seem to an objective observer. How else to explain the violent reactions to his hairpin-turns from folkie to electric or from hipster to Christian? I once had a life-changing satori at a Dylan concert in Sacramento, of all places, and the one time I mentioned it to someone they laughed and said, "How cliche," and I've kept it to myself since then. The satori wasn't especially connected to him or his songs or the way he performed; in fact, he was fairly lackluster by that time in his live shows; it was the late eighties and I suspect he was looking for a new direction. If anything, it was simply an energy about him, about Dylan The Charismatic, the way he approaches his life-work, the archetypes he manifests; he's a walking, breathing stimulant.
All those caveats and addenda about my long and winding Dylan-history taken into consideration, it's not much of a surprise that I left the theatre carrying a power-surge. Cate Blanchett's performance alone is enough to galvanize; she even got that skinny, peglegged spiderwalk down right. If I wasn't morally opposed to Oscar going home with every third actor who plays a musician, I'd say Cate should've seduced the little gold man away from Tilda last month. (That, by the way, is the solitary downside to being the luminous and unmatchable Cate Blanchett, as far as I can tell at a distance: you're so head-and-shoulders better than everyone else that Oscar gets coy, plays hard-to-get, doesn't want to look like he's playing favorites. But when you're busy being the luminous and unmatchable Cate Blanchett, who really gives a crap about Oscar?)
The other actors playing Dylan have been, critically speaking, resting invisibly in the shadow of Cate, but they all do creditable work (Marcus Carl Franklin, Ben Whishaw, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere). In all fairness, the era of Blanchett's Dylan was the best documented, and you can watch the honest-to-God Dylan speaking half her lines by watching Don't Look Back and No Direction Home. That doesn't strip the delight from her performance, but it's Christian Bale who pulls off a real coup in the comparatively thankless task of embodying the transition from early folkie to the glamorless, stern-faced and vaguely clownish Dylan of the Gospel years.
If nothing else, it'll remind you how lovely and varied Dylan's music has been across these decades, sometimes startlingly so, and how quietly innovative Todd Haynes is as a film-maker. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to retire to the CD player and listen to a little background music from Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
three of the boldest performances ever*
*in English-language films. I was tempted to put Isuzu Yamada on the list for her unsettling Lady MacBeth character in Kurosawa's 1957 Throne of Blood, but judging strangeness across cultures is more tangled a venture than I set out to accomplish, so I'll stick close to home for the moment...
NUMBER THREE. Benicio Del Torres, the Usual Suspects (dir: Bryan Singer, 1995)
It wasn't the first time I'd seen him, it turns out, but it was the first time I noticed him. How could I not? He walked onscreen like a thing from another world, with an undescribable manner and odd hair, speaking a language that didn't seem familiar at first, but by his last scene was not only comprehensible but somehow charming. Although the film doesn't hold up as well over the years as one might have hoped after its initial gangbusters impression, some things about it will always be great: Kujan's (Chazz Palmintieri) last, long moment of revelation is one, and Del Toro's strange and mumbling Fred Fenster is another.
NUMBER TWO. Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast (dir: Jonathan Glazer, 2000)
This is a brilliant movie from a hundred different angles, from the gun-toting lagomorph to the bold use of a boulder as both plot device and central metaphor, from Ray Winstone at his tender best to Ian McShane, mutated into an evil, plastic action-toy version of himself. It's Kingsley, though, as the terrifying Don Logan, a pitbull of a man, so tense his muscular shoulders ride next to his ears when he walks, who steals the film. This is one courageous performance: a character who barks like junkyard-dog and inspires panic not just in the other characters, but in us, the audience, just by sitting down to have a drink and a chat, or by a simple bulging of his neck-veins.
AND THE BOLDEST PERFORMANCE EVER IN AN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE FILM GOES TO:
NUMBER ONE. Christopher Plummer, Royal Hunt of the Sun (dir: Irving Lerner, 1970)
...as the Inca god-chief Atahualpa in a nutball little epic based on the nutball little epic play by Peter Shaffer (Amadeus). The first 45 minutes or so of the film are fairly unremarkable, with Robert Shaw as an ambitious, blue-collar, no-bullshit Francisco Pizarro struggling to get an expedition together to scour the new world for adventure and treasure. It's not until Atahualpa is carried into the frame that things really get going. Originated onstage by Robert Stephens, the role was first played on Broadway by David Carradine opposite Plummer himself as Pizarro. As far as I know, there are no video records of those performances, which is unfortunate, as I'm dying to know how much of Plummer's Atahualpa rose up spontaneously from him and how much might have been inspired by those previous interpretations.
In any case, the Atahualpa of the film is one of the strangest beings you'll ever see. It's as if Plummer systematically stripped away every attitude, gesture, habit and conditioning force rising from European culture and tradition, which is a vast sea of stuff to wade through and purge, then stripped away any gesture or habit which might rise from living an everyday human life. This fellow, after all, is not only from a culture entirely separate from and unknown to the Spanish invaders, but a god, as well, with nothing to be gained from appearing in the slightest bit human. What kind of recklessness and guts does it take to make choices this crazy and extreme? You either succeed magnificently or self-combust in utter humiliation, with no possibility in between. And I'm still not sure which one holds true: is it brilliant or embarrassing? I tend towards a judgment of brilliance. In his first onscreen moments, this Atahualpa seems cracked, effeminate, ineffectual, weak, and fascinating to watch as he sniffs then licks the Bible, beckons with his pinky, and utters continuous and disconcerting crooning sounds like the Chief Blue Meanie in Yellow Submarine. By the end, when he offers to die for Pizarro because he is a god and will rise up from the flames reborn, it makes sense that even the sturdy materialist Pizarro starts to believe him, because we nearly do, ourselves.
NUMBER THREE. Benicio Del Torres, the Usual Suspects (dir: Bryan Singer, 1995)
It wasn't the first time I'd seen him, it turns out, but it was the first time I noticed him. How could I not? He walked onscreen like a thing from another world, with an undescribable manner and odd hair, speaking a language that didn't seem familiar at first, but by his last scene was not only comprehensible but somehow charming. Although the film doesn't hold up as well over the years as one might have hoped after its initial gangbusters impression, some things about it will always be great: Kujan's (Chazz Palmintieri) last, long moment of revelation is one, and Del Toro's strange and mumbling Fred Fenster is another.
NUMBER TWO. Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast (dir: Jonathan Glazer, 2000)
This is a brilliant movie from a hundred different angles, from the gun-toting lagomorph to the bold use of a boulder as both plot device and central metaphor, from Ray Winstone at his tender best to Ian McShane, mutated into an evil, plastic action-toy version of himself. It's Kingsley, though, as the terrifying Don Logan, a pitbull of a man, so tense his muscular shoulders ride next to his ears when he walks, who steals the film. This is one courageous performance: a character who barks like junkyard-dog and inspires panic not just in the other characters, but in us, the audience, just by sitting down to have a drink and a chat, or by a simple bulging of his neck-veins.
AND THE BOLDEST PERFORMANCE EVER IN AN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE FILM GOES TO:
NUMBER ONE. Christopher Plummer, Royal Hunt of the Sun (dir: Irving Lerner, 1970)
...as the Inca god-chief Atahualpa in a nutball little epic based on the nutball little epic play by Peter Shaffer (Amadeus). The first 45 minutes or so of the film are fairly unremarkable, with Robert Shaw as an ambitious, blue-collar, no-bullshit Francisco Pizarro struggling to get an expedition together to scour the new world for adventure and treasure. It's not until Atahualpa is carried into the frame that things really get going. Originated onstage by Robert Stephens, the role was first played on Broadway by David Carradine opposite Plummer himself as Pizarro. As far as I know, there are no video records of those performances, which is unfortunate, as I'm dying to know how much of Plummer's Atahualpa rose up spontaneously from him and how much might have been inspired by those previous interpretations.
In any case, the Atahualpa of the film is one of the strangest beings you'll ever see. It's as if Plummer systematically stripped away every attitude, gesture, habit and conditioning force rising from European culture and tradition, which is a vast sea of stuff to wade through and purge, then stripped away any gesture or habit which might rise from living an everyday human life. This fellow, after all, is not only from a culture entirely separate from and unknown to the Spanish invaders, but a god, as well, with nothing to be gained from appearing in the slightest bit human. What kind of recklessness and guts does it take to make choices this crazy and extreme? You either succeed magnificently or self-combust in utter humiliation, with no possibility in between. And I'm still not sure which one holds true: is it brilliant or embarrassing? I tend towards a judgment of brilliance. In his first onscreen moments, this Atahualpa seems cracked, effeminate, ineffectual, weak, and fascinating to watch as he sniffs then licks the Bible, beckons with his pinky, and utters continuous and disconcerting crooning sounds like the Chief Blue Meanie in Yellow Submarine. By the end, when he offers to die for Pizarro because he is a god and will rise up from the flames reborn, it makes sense that even the sturdy materialist Pizarro starts to believe him, because we nearly do, ourselves.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
10 of my favorite horror films
I'm leaving out the obvious classics (Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary's Baby, etc). I'm also leaving out Exorcist III, which is one of my all-time favorites, but since I've never found anyone who agrees with me, it gets an entire post of its own later on.
Don't Look Now
(1973, dir: Nicholas Roeg): Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in a slow-building creepfest set mostly in Venice. Somewhat infamous for its realistic sex scene, the thing that electrified me as a kid was the premise that getting glimpses of the future might, in inspiring you to try and avoid it, actually lead you straight into the arms of your terrible fate, as if the visions were given by malevolent and playful gods. Its climax also has an image so creepy it burned itself into my pliable, childish mind and hunkers there, to this day, grinning and gibbering.
Ravenous
(1999, dir: Antonia Bird): This is the most exhilarating movie you'll ever see about cannibalism. There's not a weak performance in it, not a weak element: music, script, editing, pacing, story, all right on. Once you've seen it, TRY and forget Robert Carlyle's manic fit in the snow outside the cave or Jeremy Davies' anguished cry, "He was licking my wound!" Or the marvelous endgame, in which two men caught in a bear-trap play Whoever-Dies-First-Gets-Eaten.
the Blood on Satan's Claw
(1971, dir: Piers Haggard): I'm perplexed and confounded to see the director for this; I've thought all this time it was my favorite Michael Reeves film. In any case, I caught it on late-night TV when I was a kid and was entranced and repelled by the patches of fur and especially the witch-dunking scene, which fascinated me. The best non-Hammer horror outing of its period.
Company of Wolves
(1985, dir: Neil Jordan): A chick-flick among horror films, this is a reworking of Angela Carter's werewolf stories from the Bloody Chamber.It follows fever-dreams in the troubled sleep of a girl just tumbling off the edge of puberty. Everything in the film is symbolic, as in a dream. Sound awful? Weirdly, it's not, largely due to the world Jordan creates with meticulous care: a world of nightmarish fecundity in which nature is constantly encroaching and man constantly battling it back. It's filled with strange, good images (Terence Stamp as the Prince of Darkness, brooding on a memento mori in the back of a limousine driving through a village in the Dark Ages) and performances (Angela Lansbury as Red Riding Hood's very disturbing grandmother).
Prophecy
(1995, dir: Gregory Widen): Who wouldn't love to live in a Miltonian universe in which angels vie with men for the love of God, in which the heavens are perpetually rent by war between seraphim, where Christopher Walken is the ruthless archangel Gabriel and Viggo Mortensen, best of all, is Lucifer? For two hours and two sequels, you can! Revel in the Manichaean angst, and don't be afraid of the sequels: the first one, especially, is well worth the effort (look close for a cameo by Glenn Danzig).
Dead Zone
(1983, dir: David Cronenberg): Gripping and unpretentious rendering of the Stephen King classic. Christopher Walken gives a brilliantly low-key performance as a man who emerges from a coma with unnatural powers, and you'll never watch the West Wing easily once you've seen Martin Sheen's powermad senator Greg Stillson.
Night of the Demon
(1957, dir: Jacques Tourneur): The British cut of the great, atmospheric chiller based on an MR James story about rationalists caught in the grip of black magic. I never get tired of watching it.
Angel Heart
(1987, dir: Alan Parker): Some of us remember a time when Mickey Rourke was heralded as the De Niro of his generation, and this is his best work. It's after WWII and Rourke's unkempt, charming PI who has an inexplicable fear of chickens follows a missing persons case steeped in voodoo from New York to New Orleans. Under Parker's unfailingly deft hand the sense of dread grows to unbearable levels. Music, flashback and strange images weave a hypnotic spell, and if it weren't for two badly miscalculated elements (the glowing eyes and the obviousness of the name Louis Cyphre), this would be a perfect movie. The rumour at the time was that the sex scenes cost Lisa Bonet her career as a Cosby girl.
The Legend of Hell House
(1973, dir: John Hough): Richard Matheson adapted this one from his own source material; think of it as the Haunting of Hill House on steroids. Three psychic investigators and one spouse spend a week at Hell House to plumb the secrets of its apparent evil. The remarkable thing about this one is that through daring use of camera angles and a near-brilliant manipulation of ambient sound Hough brings the house to life, makes it a constant, lurking, and genuinely frightening character through whose eyes we see much of the action. Some overwrought acting (I'm looking at you, Roddy McDowell) and absurd plot points, but well worth it.
the Fool Killer
(1965, dir: Servando Gonzalez): Beautifully filmed in B&W, this is a good one to watch while feverish or sleep-deprived for the full, dream-like effect. Reminiscent of Charles Laughton's great Night of the Hunter, it follows a boy (Edward Albert) on his travels through post-Civil War America. He's on the run and he hardly knows from what, but whatever it is it's epitomized in his mind by the mythical demon of the title who may or may not be his mysterious travelling companion. The tent-revival scene is a surreal moment of genius, not to be missed. Out of print on VHS only, last time I checked.
Don't Look Now
(1973, dir: Nicholas Roeg): Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie in a slow-building creepfest set mostly in Venice. Somewhat infamous for its realistic sex scene, the thing that electrified me as a kid was the premise that getting glimpses of the future might, in inspiring you to try and avoid it, actually lead you straight into the arms of your terrible fate, as if the visions were given by malevolent and playful gods. Its climax also has an image so creepy it burned itself into my pliable, childish mind and hunkers there, to this day, grinning and gibbering.
Ravenous
(1999, dir: Antonia Bird): This is the most exhilarating movie you'll ever see about cannibalism. There's not a weak performance in it, not a weak element: music, script, editing, pacing, story, all right on. Once you've seen it, TRY and forget Robert Carlyle's manic fit in the snow outside the cave or Jeremy Davies' anguished cry, "He was licking my wound!" Or the marvelous endgame, in which two men caught in a bear-trap play Whoever-Dies-First-Gets-Eaten.
the Blood on Satan's Claw
(1971, dir: Piers Haggard): I'm perplexed and confounded to see the director for this; I've thought all this time it was my favorite Michael Reeves film. In any case, I caught it on late-night TV when I was a kid and was entranced and repelled by the patches of fur and especially the witch-dunking scene, which fascinated me. The best non-Hammer horror outing of its period.
Company of Wolves
(1985, dir: Neil Jordan): A chick-flick among horror films, this is a reworking of Angela Carter's werewolf stories from the Bloody Chamber.It follows fever-dreams in the troubled sleep of a girl just tumbling off the edge of puberty. Everything in the film is symbolic, as in a dream. Sound awful? Weirdly, it's not, largely due to the world Jordan creates with meticulous care: a world of nightmarish fecundity in which nature is constantly encroaching and man constantly battling it back. It's filled with strange, good images (Terence Stamp as the Prince of Darkness, brooding on a memento mori in the back of a limousine driving through a village in the Dark Ages) and performances (Angela Lansbury as Red Riding Hood's very disturbing grandmother).
Prophecy
(1995, dir: Gregory Widen): Who wouldn't love to live in a Miltonian universe in which angels vie with men for the love of God, in which the heavens are perpetually rent by war between seraphim, where Christopher Walken is the ruthless archangel Gabriel and Viggo Mortensen, best of all, is Lucifer? For two hours and two sequels, you can! Revel in the Manichaean angst, and don't be afraid of the sequels: the first one, especially, is well worth the effort (look close for a cameo by Glenn Danzig).
Dead Zone
(1983, dir: David Cronenberg): Gripping and unpretentious rendering of the Stephen King classic. Christopher Walken gives a brilliantly low-key performance as a man who emerges from a coma with unnatural powers, and you'll never watch the West Wing easily once you've seen Martin Sheen's powermad senator Greg Stillson.
Night of the Demon
(1957, dir: Jacques Tourneur): The British cut of the great, atmospheric chiller based on an MR James story about rationalists caught in the grip of black magic. I never get tired of watching it.
Angel Heart
(1987, dir: Alan Parker): Some of us remember a time when Mickey Rourke was heralded as the De Niro of his generation, and this is his best work. It's after WWII and Rourke's unkempt, charming PI who has an inexplicable fear of chickens follows a missing persons case steeped in voodoo from New York to New Orleans. Under Parker's unfailingly deft hand the sense of dread grows to unbearable levels. Music, flashback and strange images weave a hypnotic spell, and if it weren't for two badly miscalculated elements (the glowing eyes and the obviousness of the name Louis Cyphre), this would be a perfect movie. The rumour at the time was that the sex scenes cost Lisa Bonet her career as a Cosby girl.
The Legend of Hell House
(1973, dir: John Hough): Richard Matheson adapted this one from his own source material; think of it as the Haunting of Hill House on steroids. Three psychic investigators and one spouse spend a week at Hell House to plumb the secrets of its apparent evil. The remarkable thing about this one is that through daring use of camera angles and a near-brilliant manipulation of ambient sound Hough brings the house to life, makes it a constant, lurking, and genuinely frightening character through whose eyes we see much of the action. Some overwrought acting (I'm looking at you, Roddy McDowell) and absurd plot points, but well worth it.
the Fool Killer
(1965, dir: Servando Gonzalez): Beautifully filmed in B&W, this is a good one to watch while feverish or sleep-deprived for the full, dream-like effect. Reminiscent of Charles Laughton's great Night of the Hunter, it follows a boy (Edward Albert) on his travels through post-Civil War America. He's on the run and he hardly knows from what, but whatever it is it's epitomized in his mind by the mythical demon of the title who may or may not be his mysterious travelling companion. The tent-revival scene is a surreal moment of genius, not to be missed. Out of print on VHS only, last time I checked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)