"ROSEMARY’S BABY" A GOOD PLACE TO START REVISITING CINEMATIC HISTORY

I have been in a bit of a wilderness as far as catching up with cinematic history goes. Oh I know. It’s an impossible endeavour – or very close to being so anyway. But the simple fact is, I have not watched nowhere near as many of the classics as I would have liked to have by now. That’s why I have decided to really make it a priority. There is a certain place in my head that I would really like to reach, now I don’t know how realistic it is, but we shall see. And I mean, you lot get quite a lot of film reviews out of it so… Not such a bad thing, is it?

Now having a rather active imagination that really enjoyed taking slightly bizarre angles on even everyday life (To give but one example, as a young child I was adamant that when you got into an elevator, the elevator stood still and the building moved…  As you can imagine my Mother was subjected to a whole series of very bizarre questions as I grew up) I was fascinated by horror films and yet tried to avoid them. Knowing that my watching even one would mean nightmares for weeks and a whole new universe of bizarre questions, Mom was incredibly strict about my not watching anything even vaguely horror. Understandably. This is probably why I got a weird sensation of guilty excitement when I came across Rosemary’s Baby the other day. I had to watch it. It was like, I don’t know… That “forbidden pleasure” kind of excitement. I mean obviously Mom doesn’t have a say in what I watch any more (although she shudders at the very mention of Quentin Tarantino – she gets faint at the mere idea of blood you see, much less large quantities of it on her TV screen) but still. You know. It’s that kind of film. It has the reputation. It led to people firmly believing Polanski was into spells and witchcraft himself (How else could he have known? Asked people, momentarily forgetting this little thing called research). Anyway, at 30 years of age I just about felt ready for the experience. I dived (dove?) right in…

So Rosemary (Mia Farrow) and Guy, a newlywed couple move into their brand new home. Guy is an actor looking for his big break, Rosemary is a homemaker and they are madly in love. And although the new flat seems like a dream home to the young couple, soon the peculiar occurrences begin. Rosemary initially explains it all away. Their neighbours are a bit eccentric but they seem ok – if a little nosey. But surely this is to be expected from an old couple with no children of their own? Things take on a slightly sinister turn when Rosemary finds herself pregnant. As her pregnancy advances Rosemary gets more and more sure that her unborn child’s life is in danger… But with Guy seemingly in cahoots with the neighbours who can she trust?

If there is one thing that annoys me above all others when it comes to horror films, it is over-reliance on monsters and jump-scares. A good jump-scare from time to time is a fine thing, however, it should NOT form the backbone of a horror film. A film is not a film if it isn’t playing with your mind. As is the want of Mr Polanski, in this film he DEFINITELY plays with your mind. In fact mind games – with you and poor Rosemary – is mainly what the film is all about. Every filmmaker has a “thing” you may have noticed. In fact I think this is true of books as well, this thing can be a theme, a place, a character, just something that every single one of their artworks share. For some it’s more obvious, for others less so. For Mr Polanski, it’s very clearly flats. In many of his works the flat itself becomes the enemy, turning on its inhabitant. You would have thought with various different films along the same theme, “one more” wouldn’t be anything too special. But this one is. This film is the granddaddy of all the films that came after it, irrespective of the genre, that built themselves up on that feeling of eyes constantly on you, a sense of constantly mounting dread and the complete inability to find a place to turn.     It starts small and slowly grows into an all-engulfing monster which is the heart of this cinematic classic. In fact I believe this film should be watched if only JUST to see how that sense of being completely surrounded, constantly watched and engulfed SHOULD be done on film. And as I write these lines it has only just occurred to me that one of the main reasons Mr Polanski is so good at it has to be his own experience of the feeling.  It is an opportune moment to remember that Mr Polanski is a Holocaust survivor. Couple this fact with Rosemary in the latter part of the film with her shortly cropped hair… Oh I’m not saying it’s an allegory or anything but I think the feeling, the emotion portrayed must surely have its roots in that particular historical moment. I mean yes, her haircut is purportedly Vidal Sassoon but is the prison-style close crop not there to give a message? At the very least it tells us that Rosemary is the prisoner of her circumstances, the house and everyone that surrounds her.

I defy anyone to watch this film and then be able to instantly shrug off the sense of dread it fills you with. These are the kinds of monsters that do not melt away in the sunlight. I know horror is not everyone’s thing… But if monsters do float your boat… This is one film NOT to be missed… 

HORROR - AND A LITTLE EXTRA : "AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON"

John Landis’s classic horror / comedy film is a cult film in its own right. But it must be remembered at this point that it is originally a throwback from a true early classic of the horror genre, The Wolfman, filmed in 1946 and directed by George Waggner. Over the years the basic story of The Wolfman has been taken, hashed and re-hashed and re-presented, the latest incarnation being in 2010 starring Anthony Hopkins and Benicio del Toro. If we are just a tad sick of werewolf films in our modern times, An American Werewolf in London is a treat to watch, if only because it did something brave and original with the storyline and combined comedy in horror so successfully.
Jack and David are two American backpackers trekking across the Yorkshire moors. Nightfall brings them to a little Yorkshire village and they head to the local pub, The Slaughtered Lamb. The welcome they get is quite strange, the villagers are surly, they evidently don’t like strangers and the pub is “decorated” with animal heads and pentacles. Feeling uneasy the two friends head back out in to the night, only to be attacked by a mysterious creature. David is caught; Jack tries to run away at first but then turns back to rescue him. Not only does he fail to save his friend who dies, but is also attacked by the creature. This seems all very well and good, however there is a small catch even Jack himself has a bit of trouble getting his head around. The creature that attacked them was the local werewolf. And well, we all know what happens to people who get attacked by werewolves… Will Jack be able to come to terms with his fate – and convince the people around him in the modern world of 1970’s London that he is, in fact a werewolf? You will have to watch and see…
In an interview in the extras of the version I own of the DVD, director John Landis remembers with a smile how much difficulty he had actually getting the film funded. Horror-comedies as a genre are not that rare in themselves but the “problem” with this script is that it is a very, very successful combination. Horror-comedies will inevitably tend to be either one or the other really; most often they will end up being comedy films with integrated monsters. Landis however, doesn’t spare the horses as far as the horror goes. In fact we see Jack’s transformation into a werewolf a couple of times with no “hints” or cutaways, just full on special effects made to look as realistic and painful as possible. The same goes for the killings that inevitably take place all through the film. At the same time we have the character of Jack, who is really a very normal and nice teenager just getting along with his life having to battle this “curse” he never even knew existed just because he tried to save his friend. Then, there is a TON of comedy tropes that I will not disclose as yet, but they involve a ton of very successful special-effects and imaginative twists to the original story. So, ladies and gents you will literally be laughing out loud one minute and screaming with terror the next. It’s a real rollercoaster ride and a classic for a reason…

PERIOD PIECES : A BIT OF A CHILL - "THE TURNING OF THE SCREW"

Ok so moving on. Period pieces are very well and good but they do come in different shapes and sizes, a point I want to illustrate now. The turning of the screw is a tale by Henry James scary enough to chill the marrow of your bones. In these enlightened days of modern science and such like, ghost stories have sort of lost a bit of their popularity. But still, if you believe that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than can be seen with a telescope or microscope (and I do), and if you have a particularly good yarn to chew on, I feel that you won’t be able to help feeling well… Just a tad chilly. Especially if the screen adaptation is of BBC quality… Oh yes, this is one to be watched during the day…
Ann is particularly excited as she starts her new job as a governess in Bly manor. The master of the house is handsome, charming, and charismatic and cannot be persuaded to leave London for an instant. This being the case his two young nephews, orphans of whom he is now in charge Miles and Flora, are confided to boarding school and the massive country estate respectively. Now, like every young woman of breeding Flora must have a governess. The problem however, seems to be with getting the governesses to stay. Ann cannot think why as the days at Bly begin by being pure bliss. Ann still can’t help noticing strange flickers of light and whispers around the house. The servants seem slightly surly and quiet, but it’s nothing that cannot be explained away. Then, young Miles is sent home from his boarding school that refuses to have anything further to do with him. The more Ann tries to figure out why, the more she comes up against the memories of Miss Jessel, the children’s previous governess, and her lover Peter Quint. Both appear to have died on the estate and neither was well liked. Both spent a lot of time with the children. And the more Ann looks into things the more convinced she becomes that Jessel and Quint may be dead but they are far from gone. And they refuse to leave their former charges, Miles and Flora alone. Or behind. The thing is will Ann get the people around her to believe her? Or, as they say, are her nerves and imagination actually getting the better of her?
The story may not seem all that original at first; that I grant you. But the atmosphere of the film is such that you get sucked in straight away. It actually has quite a Hitchcock-esque feeling about it, have you ever watched his classic Rebecca? Well, it’s a similar theme in a sense (without the super-natural. Oh you’ll know what I mean if you’ve watched it). And there is a similar feeling of eeriness. The only difference is of course that in this case the strange fears and imaginings that nip at your ankles and whisper over your shoulder late at night actually come to pass. I felt the adaptation was all in all very well done (well that’s the BBC for you!) and there were some rather wily editing tricks at the beginning. I was quite disappointed to see they didn’t continue actually, probably so they didn’t attract attention to themselves. I finally feel the need to add that naturally ghost stories and horror are quite often an acquired taste. But this is a good quality adaptation of a classical tale, and unless you are completely “anti horror” of any kind I doubt you could find much wrong with it…

p.s as there are many adaptations of this classic tale I feel duty bound to tell you that he one I watched was the BBC adaptation and they have gone mighty thin on acting - directing credits... I will check them out and add them in the weeks to come, promise!

A WORD TO BRING FEAR INTO ALL YOUR HEARTS: "NOSFERATU"

Ok, update on the personal front. I have started working even further back into film history. Having got my hands on some truly historic (from a cinematic point of view) works, I have been watching them eagerly and with fascination. Now, by historic I mean the firsts in cinema. And old. As in 1920’s silent films that constituted the various firsts of their kind. Now, these, I must warn you, are not the kind of films you would watch for ordinary cinematic entertainment – don’t expect to be swept up in the storyline or anything. Our generation, whose expectations from a film have become very much the same as those we have of a theme park, will be sorely disappointed by Nosferatu. You may even find F.W. Murnau’s film dating from 1922 comical. In which case, I strongly recommend you go watch a Mr. Bean film or an American Pie film (in my very humble opinion one of the silliest franchises invented by the way, but there you go), it will serve the same purpose and you won’t be being disrespectful. If, however, you are curious as to how we got to Avatar… If, for example you are a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – or indeed any sort of horror film and are curious to see their great great grandfather… I strongly recommend you watch Nosferatu, which is a true work of art and piece of history, as it is the first horror film ever to be made…
The story is easily told, it is adapted from Braham Stoker’s Dracula. In the small town of Wisburg, lives Thomas Hutter and his beloved wife Ellen. One day, a letter arrives from Transylvania. Count Orlok has decided to buy a house in their small village and Mr. Knock the real-estate agent wants Hutter to go to his castle and get the count to sign the papers… Hutter, eager at the prospect of a windfall money-wise, sets off at once. But the small village close to Orlok’s castle is dark and trembling with fear and the castle is dark and foreboding… I wonder what adventures await Hutter within?
Now, needless to say, from many points of view, the film is very, VERY primitive… Number one, this is a silent, black and white film, so the acting is accordingly over-done in a way nothing our modern experiences have prepared us for. The characters and the storyline are simplistic (and sometimes hard to follow because of the deterioration in the quality of film!) and they openly show the prejudices of the day. For example, a book Thomas Hutter finds in the inn near the castle and takes with him, the “book of vampires”, states that “beasts sometime feel dangers men do not”. This is coupled by scenes of skittish looking animals, horses etc Hutter sees from his window but later,by his wife back in Wisburg hallucinating and feeling Hutter is in danger… Please remember that these were the days (or just after them anyway) when women were considered only a little better than animals in some quarters and very openly “inferior” to men… At the most optimistic, this can be interpreted as women being “emotional as opposed to intellectual, thus more open to feelings than thoughts” but still… As a woman, I didn’t find it pleasant. In the day though, it appears to have been considered normal…
Then, there is the technical side of it. First of all, camera movements had not been invented yet. The camera neither tracks, nor pans, nor rolls. It stands. We cut from one scene to the next. Closeups were also not invented yet. The closest we get to the actors is from the shoulders up, with the slight exception where Hutter discovers a bite on his neck (and assumes it’s mosquitoes – although the film had deteriorated so much I only figured this out later as he wrote a letter to his wife) and even that is not very close. Framing? Yes well, there is a bit of that but the angles and composition are so odd… One example – I couldn’t help giggling – was when Nosferatu (a vampire as you probably gathered) rises from his coffin. He is tall and imposing and… Half his head doesn’t fit into the frame… Yep, the frame cuts half his head off, something that would NEVER pass today but it possibly made the vampire seem more gigantic and scary in the 20’s… Not to mention shots seemingly from miles away with the character running from one weird point to another of the screen. What else? Well, you will have heard of filming a subject from a lower point to make it look imposing but there are bits this is taken to a fault (the camera, for all intents and purposes seems to be filming from the bottom of a well). The editing is positively sluggish in places with tons of footage we would consider completely superfluous today. ..
However, it is also a fascinating film. It is the starting point, what films started off as. Just watch the film and try and spot what is different from films today on a technical level and you will have greatly advanced your technical knowledge of films and editing. It puts everything into perspective. And, despite all of this, Max Shreck’s performance of Nosferatu is terrifying (for all that was lacking they knew a thing or two about costumes and make-up back then, he looks “positively evil !” as Mom put it) and for all their naïveté while in character Gustave von Wangenheim and Greta Schröder (Thomas Hutter and Ellen) along with the direction of Herr Murnau seem to be doing something right because you can’t help but get excited as you watch the film (not scared though). All you need is a little imagination, don’t expect to be spoon-fed the way we are today; back in those days people read a good deal more and could use their imaginations to get “into” movies with a good deal less then what we’re used to… Just as long as you read books as a kid, you should be ok…

THE BEAST WITHIN WEEK 2 : "GRINDHOUSE / PLANET TERROR"

Ok, part two from the dastardly duo… Now, I have to admit that I may not have been able to enjoy this film in as “in depth” a way as possible. But, see above, after two hours with Mr. Tarantino my “violence meter” was already pretty severely bashed up and then Mr. Rodriguez comes along. Same filming techniques and same “line of thinking” as far as the film is concerned… Let’s get to the story you’ll see what I mean…
And this, dear friends, is a zombie movie. A small group of randomly gathered people (a one legged stripper, the owner of the best barbecue in Texas, the sheriff, his deputy, Wray – the mysterious outlaw and a doctor whose hands are momentarily paralyzed after a small “accident” with her husband among other people) in a small town in Texas is having, well, quite a night… A mysterious force is turning the rest of the residents into zombies. Whatever it is is spreading fast, the zombies are getting hungry and violent and the rather discordant little group must work together to survive , find a way out of the town and save the planet if they possibly can…
Well, the storyline is kinda short but that is simply because you all know this storyline by now. This is hardly the point of the movie… I must say though, I am impressed with both Mr. Rodriguez’s style and his sense of humor. A tad darker than Quentin Tarantino and more… Organized. You don’t have that sense of chaos you have in Tarantino movies but well calculated bazooka strikes: bam, bam, BAM! So, a word for those of sensitive stomachs : being a zombie movie there is GUNK. Gunk is in capital letters because there are liters of the stuff. And blood. But I seriously doubt you will be adversely affected by the blood – it is such a bright red in color and there is such a profusion of it, it defies anyone’s imagination to actually take it seriously… My recommendation? Save it for the end of a tiring work day when you have nothing to do and some pent up aggression to get rid of. I was just thinking actually, maybe this is why people react so badly to Tarantino and the like. Legitimizing violence – well it’s a point but maybe people find it scary because the films actually can be sorta cathartic… I mean, people watch these films because it helps them “externalize” if you will, the aggression and violence inside them… I guess realizing they sort of find the films “cathartic” sets people on edge. I can see that. And of course I agree that such films should be kept WELL away from the young and impressionable. But I reckon, once we have reached the stage in our lives where we know that, for example, attacking our boss with a stapler is not a good way to work through issues at the office, a little dose of Tarantino / Rodriguez / whatever your poison is can’t hurt.

FEAR IN THE "TRIANGLE"

You may or may not have picked up on the fact that I am not a fan of horror movies. (the complete and persistent absence of the genre two months into the blog may have been a clue ). However, my job brought me face to face with Triangle – by Christopher Smith, the director of Creep and Severance - and I have to admit it is a cut above the rest.

Jess (Melissa George) and her friends have decided to go yacht sailing. The weather is perfect and all seems to be going well, but Jess cannot seem to relax and enjoy the trip. Her fears seem to be founded as well, because a freak storm completely destroys the yacht. Luckily, the group manages to climb on a large cruise ship as it passes…. Jess explores the ship with her friends accompanied by an increasing unease and strange feeling of déjà-vu… The strange thing is that the ship seems completely abandoned and running on its own… But they soon realize there is someone on the ship. And that someone seems intent on killing them all…

Now, of course this is a post for the fans of the genre mainly. There are many of the horror movie clichés we all snigger about. The most awkward looking one is the first to go, long dark corridors (ALOT of long dark corridors – it’s a cruise ship from the ‘30s), the abandoned ship itself, oh and the yacht is called “Triangle”. And for the first half of the film I didn’t really see what the fuss was about. But then as things progress and the “explanation” part of the film comes round, things certainly move up a notch. Because even though the events themselves may be slightly cliché the explanation for them most definitely is not… I would go as far as saying it is a distant cousin of the classic “Donnie Darko”. (A seriously distant cousin, but related all the same).Another good thing (I thought) was that the film is not a gore-fest (not that much blood ) nor does it try to make you jump with sound effects and the like. In fact, the main aim of the film as far as I could see was to make you feel creeped out and disturbed more than anything else. It is seriously successful in doing so. I do not particularly enjoy this sensation on a regular basis, but if you do, this is definitely one for you…