Posts from the Film Promotion Category

Choose another category?

Bolt the Windows and Lock the Doors or Hiding from Halloween

As to be expected Freud and Jung took different psychological views regarding why humans enjoy scary entertainment. There will always be debates regarding psychoanalytic reasoning, but I think most would agree that we like horror movies for fairly obvious reasons: catharsis, adrenaline rush, emotional intensity, curiosity, and the sheer fun of forbidden excitement. The pleasure found in being scared is often contradictory to common sense. One thing is for sure — the popularity of horror films will never cease.

“The Night He came home…”
HALLOWEEN
John Carpenter, 1978

I was not yet a teenager when my father bought me a ticket to see John Carpenter’s iconic Halloween. I’m not sure if the movie scared me as much as what happened within the darkness of the cinema. It was a sold out theatre. I remember noting that I was the smallest person there. I opted to sit in a chair directly next to the wall. This was an old-school cinema that had been converted to include an additional screening room out of what had once been a balcony.

“It was the boogeyman…”
Laurie is almost certain she is being followed.
Jaime Lee Curtis
Halloween
John Carpenter, 1978
Cinematography | Dean Cundey

Halloween was playing in the main cinema. Even though a good portion of the movie theatre had been annexed into a separate space — the main room was still fairly big. Red curtains were draped over the entire space. That late afternoon the cinema seemed menacing to me. I slipped my hand toward the curtain. I pushed and pressed against the curtain covered wall.

“OK. Nothing hiding there,” I thought to myself.

This would turn out to be a big mistake. Most likely it was an older teenager who noticed me inspect the side wall to the right side of my seat.

John Carpenter’s movie started. It was fairly early into the film. The protagonist, Laurie, was looking out the window of her home. Was that a masked monster looking up at her?

Uh, oh…
Halloween
John Carpenter, 1978
Cinematography | Dean Cundey

Just as Michael Myers appeared between the flying bedsheets a man pushed through the red curtain and pushed me in the shoulder. “Boo!” he screamed. A cinema full of people jumped and laughed. I didn’t so much jump as imploded into myself. This little October scare literally horrified me. I remember being confused. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to scream, shout, cry or just run for my life. Instead I sunk deep into my seat. My small cup of soda had flown up into the air. The contents had landed all over me.

There was a grown-up sitting next to me. “This kid just spilled his Coke all over me!”

I could feel her eyes glaring at me. Upset, wet and cold I cringed in my over-sized chair and spent the remaining duration of the movie looking more to my right than on the screen. This was to be a cinematic experience I would never forget.

I hated Halloween. And I’m referring to the holiday. I disliked the holiday before my father had left me to see the same-named movie. It is impossible to over-stress the importance of childhood experiences. What we experience and live as children forms our identity almost more than genetics. I had already survived gruesome abuse by the time I was 8. Of course that has informed the way I manage through my life, but other things have as well. As a survivor I have spent a good deal of time thinking about Jung’s Archetypal psychoanalytic theories.

How much of what I enjoy in film or entertainment has been informed the abuse I survived? I think those experiences have had a profound impact on the stories that appeal to me. A film that focuses on dark human themes often seems to offer me relief and often abstract validation. It is as if I often find comfort in seeing situations that depict something more horrific than what I lived. I also suspect I enjoy discovering that I can find a “safe place” to experience extreme emotions that I have often fought to suppress. And these “safe places” found in cinemas have been able to confirm that I can experience horror without folding into myself. The stress of cinematic horror offers a decompression of my own internal fears and stressors.

But there are aspects of experience which take hold in a more sinister way. I do not really remember the following examples of human cruelty as much as I remember the resulting behaviors. This is a key component when I attempt to think out why I dislike Halloween and yet love horror movies.

From 1970 to 1973 Dean Corll AKA “Pied Piper” brutally tortured and murdered at least 28 children in southeast Texas…

I was aware that the horrible odor we had often encountered at the beach was caused by rotting human bodies. The devastating details of what I believe is often called The Pied Piper Killings were certainly not shared with me, but all of us who were kids at this time knew more about it than we should have. I knew that the victims had been kids. I knew that had died horrible deaths. This incident would serve as fodder to scare many of us into not speaking to strangers or enter stranger’s homes.

Looking back on this it seems almost mean that our parents and teachers used these real-life events to scare us away from the idea of talking with or taking candy from strangers. It seems to me that most children already know to be wary of strangers. I don’t think a child needs to be told a gruesome reality to prevent tragedy. However this real horror was used as a tool to reinforce that danger was ever lurking to kills us.

“What Wendy just saw them do will make you sick to your stomach if it doesn’t make you faint first!”
Devil Times Five
Sean MacGregor, 1974

But the real-life incident that forever warped my view of Halloween would take place a bit later and I knew exactly what had happened. It probably didn’t help that these Pied Piper Killings took place in the same area of Texas in which I lived, but it most certainly added to the impact of what happened when I was 7 years old. A Houston father decided to murder his children on October 31, 1974.

I was always told he was respected within his community so it was even more shocking that he would mix poison with the sugar powder contained within Pixy Sticks. I don’t think my friends or I fully understood how a father would get money for killing his son — but that is how I interpreted it at the time. He wanted to kill his children to make money. Obviously the goal was to collect on insurance. In order to protect himself from getting caught he tried to have other children to eat the poison Pixy Stick candy. Luckily, his other child and the other children to whom he gave the candy failed to eat it.

The headline that made urban legends seem all too real…

It is easy to understand why this horror would strike fear in parents. I had not been trick’d or treating much by the time this act of unspeakable filicide took place. At the time, the idea of dressing up and roaming about for candy seemed incredibly fun. But all of that changed shortly after the Halloween of 1974. As it turns out I loved Pixy Stick candy. I was no longer allowed to have it, though I never wanted it again anyway. It was also after this incident that new attention was given to the treats I secured. I was not allowed to keep or eat them. My Halloween loot was tossed and replaced with a candy bar my mother had bought. A candy bar is not the same as a bag of candy.

But the far deeper fear that lurked within my mind was actually not all that strange. After everyone from my Grandmother to my teachers had told me about the Houston father who had poisoned candy to kill his little boy — I became terrified that my own father was planning to kill me for money. Suddenly the idea of Trick-Or-Treating was not only not fun — it became a profoundly deep source of fear. I began to dread Halloween.

I am fairly certain it was around this time that me and my friends began to hear stories about razor blades being hidden in apples. I can remember coming up with the idea that of saying that biting into apples hurt my teeth. It would be years before I was comfortable with biting an apple. I still don’t like doing so. It was also around this time that I realized my fear of clowns was grounded. Somehow the lore of serial killer, John Wayne Gacy, had morphed into the identities of both the evil Houston father and the insane Pasadena Texas Pied Piper.

“I’m Pogo.”
Oh, shit. Creepy Clown painted by serial killing clown…
John Wayne Gacy

In my head — and the in the head of many of my friends — all three were Killer Clowns. Soon an image of the way Gacy painted clowns would emerge into our cultural consciousness. I’m Pogo The Clown would spark psychological insights and inward horrors. I was (and still am) terrified of clowns. Of course, I think many people are afraid of clowns. Coulrophobia is the official term for fear of clowns. But I really think much of my fear comes from the idea that a clown is somehow connected to these horrors.

Harmless ghost stories, tricks to scare and horror movies took on a strange power. I might have known that these things were fictional but there was always a lingering suspicion that maybe I was wrong. But the paradox of fear was and remains very much apart of my life. As a child I was terrified and simultaneously addicted to scary movies and stories. I was repulsively fascinated.

“The child was slender as fleeting hope.”
The Exorcist
William Peter Blatty, 1971

The cover of this book which resided in our home intrigued me. I would sneak it off the table and/or shelf to see if I could read it. I never had much luck, but the image on the cover seemed both endlessly cool and scary. But the movie was a mysterious source of curiosity. I saw the movie long before I should have. I didn’t really understand what was going down, but it freaked me out.

At some point I became aware that both were linked to reality. These were based on true stories. Suddenly the concept of a Devil became a source of anxiety. The trains that endlessly ran behind our home often made the house shake. I began to worry that the shaking was caused by a devil instead of a train.

No worries. It’s just a movie…
“In that room. In that bed…”
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973

The Exorcist film was particularly creepy. It didn’t seem like any horror movie I had ever seen. It looked like some grown-up movie that would bore me, but then something deeply disturbing would happen — and the characters on the screen and the people in the audience were reacting as if all was real.

Later I would finally read that book. I would worry that I could hear sounds in the attic. …truly odd as we didn’t have an attic.

But to be clear, The Exorcist was endlessly interesting to me. I was afraid, but felt compelled to explore any information I could gain.

“You May Be the Target… of the Next Phone Call…
I Saw What You Did
William Castle, 1965

One night a late movie was on that told the story of two girls making prank phone calls. Things take a very sinister turn when they make the error of dialing the number of a man who has just committed murder. It was all quite silly and over-the-top. I knew that as I watched it. It would be later that the conceit of the film would haunt me. A pretty lame movie quickly took on horrifying aspects within my mind.

“Every babysitter’s nightmare becomes real…”
When a Stranger Calls
Fred Walton, 1979

I was a 13 year old at the time When a Stranger Calls came out. Of course I saw it in the cinema. I remember the adrenaline rush when the babysitter is told that the scary calls she has been getting are coming from within the home she is sitting.

It was most definitely a potent moment. Sadly Fred Walton’s film slipped into a strangely dull second half. As I left the cinema and stepped into the sunshine outside I remember thinking that the whole movie was stupid. Later that night and for years to come that filmed situation in which a babysitter realizes that the creepy “prank” caller is actually upstairs with two dead children would become a deeply disturbing idea. Of course, I was not alone.

“Listen to me. We’ve traced the call. It’s coming from inside the house. Now a squad car’s coming over there right now, just get out of that house.”
Carol Kane
When a Stranger Calls
Fred Walton, 1979
Cinematography | Don Peterman

I was an adult by the time I finally saw Dario Argento’s pretty neon bloodbath, Suspiria. The special effects were fake. The actors’ voices often didn’t match their lips. Worst of all, the plot didn’t make much sense. All of that being said, the oddly masterful movie has never left my psyche. Some of the images and sounds that make me laugh when I watch it — often haunt my nightmares.

A snoring witch?
Suspiria
Dario Argento, 1977
Cinematography | Luciano Tovoli

The first time I saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was at a midnight movie. I was with some of my closest teenage friends. None of us were yet 17, but we had managed to get tickets. As Tobe Hooper’s horrifying movie unspooled we all pretended to make fun of what we were seeing. It was as if we were daring each other to not be afraid. But by the time the movie reached it’s final act none of us were joking around anymore. All of our eyes were clued to the screen in horror.

“The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths, in particular Sally Hardesty and her invalid brother, Franklin. It is all the more tragic in that they were young. But, had they lived very, very long lives, they could not have expected nor would they have wished to see as much of the mad and macabre as they were to see that day. For them an idyllic summer afternoon drive became a nightmare. The events of that day were to lead to the discovery of one of the most bizarre crimes in the annals of American history, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.”
Tobe Hooper, 1974
Cinematography | Daniel Pearl

The fact that we were all living and have grown up in southeast Texas where we were surrounded by suspicious looking BBQ shacks only added to the fear the film invoked. It was also alarming how much the whole movie felt like it was taking place within the surrounding counties of our homes. I do not think any of us knew the movie had actually been shot near Austin. We just knew the title by infamy. Gaining the understanding that it was very loosely based on true stories only added to the movie’s horror.

As I was entering my last year of high school I saw an old movie on videotape. It was called Let’s Scare Jessica to Death. A film so quiet we had to blast the volume to understand what the film’s protagonist was saying. The special effects were low-fi and not all that much happened in it that was scary. But this film has haunted me ever since. It still fascinates and horrifies me. The idea of a fragile person dealing with mental illness finding herself in situations which she not distinguish as reality or nightmare holds a repulsive fascination.

“Dreams or nightmares? Madness or sanity? I don’t know which is which.”
Let’s Scare Jessica to Death,
John D. Hancock, 1971
Cinematography | Robert M. Baldwin

I was a grown-up and functioning adult when I saw David Lynch’s experimental video nightmare, Inland Empire. An epic proportioned examination of identity becomes unhinged and often horrifying. Laura Dern plays her role(s) with realistic conviction. David Lynch paints the movie more than he films it. Inland Empire operates within various genres and plot themes so much that the viewer will either become enthralled or totally confused. Either way it is impossible to imagine that anyone could experience Inland Empire without falling into the sense of horrific doom.

An actor loses herself somewhere between reality, imagination and a director’s vision…
Laura Dern
Inland Empire
David Lynch, 2006

I always fought against my personal fears to participate in Halloween “fun.” However, by the time I was 30 I had decided that I would no longer take part. I lock the door and close the lights. I turn down all Halloween gatherings. I just find the idea of adults hiding their identities and roaming about drunk, stoned or just high on life creeps me out. On top of that, nearly all of it is used in ways to tap into our mutually shared fears. In the last two years many of our cultural and societal fears/paranoias have been manipulated into our realities.

As if our current shit show of an election were not amping up hostilities, rage and bullying enough — we have something new to worry about! People dressing up as Scary Clowns with intent to either cause harm or make us believe they are planning to do so. The idea of clown costumes and these new Scary Clowns mixing in the merriment of a San Francisco Halloween fills me with dread.

A time of surging terrorism, human cruelties, a nasty political election adds a new layer of threat: scary clowns roam about…

Of course I’ve allowed my paranoia to get the best of me, but Halloween remains a holiday I prefer to avoid. Paranoid or not, I do not enjoy it.

So why, then, do I love horror films? And make no mistake, I do love a well made horror flick!

While I might hide from Halloween the holiday, I will always take up the opportunity to see John Carpenter’s Halloween on a big screen. But please — do not hide and attack me as Michael Myers appears on the screen. I’m no longer a little kid and I’m likely to attack back!

Most of the things that can go bump in the night are imagined, but they are all somehow based upon truths that none of us want to believe. Some might actually really be bumping about. This is the spark that offers fun for most, but more than a little dread in some.

Matty Stanfield, 10.31.2016

” Demi, why you leave me, Demi?”
The Devil taps into the darkest corners of psyches.
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

Letters Crossed in the Mail Or Toxic Friendship in The Valley of the Dolls

“This blog wishes to state that any similarity between any persons, living or dead, and the shared correspondence you are about to see is purely coincidental and not intended.”

Inscribed on back:
“Friend for life!
XOXO,
Jen”
Jenny, Annie and Neely
New York City, 1967

FOUND CORRESPONDENCE DATED: November 4, 1978

Miss. Anne Welles
Former Super Model
Gillian Girl Cosmetics
NY, NY 10003

Hey Annie,

How’s it going, Toots?

Lyon told me about your little accident on the flight back from Switzerland. I’m so sorry, but why did you get those cockamamie implants? Come on, Kid! Your tiny knockers were fine! Anyway, I hope they patched up the leaks! I wanted to drop you a line to lend you support. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Annie, who needs ‘em? With your classy looks and taste, who gives a damn if your flat as a board? You know somethin’, Annie? I’m jealous! No, I am! I plan on sharing all of this with Merv next week! I’m booked on his show and I owe you a solid!

Lyon tells me that you’re going to give up the Gillian Girl gig to serve on the board of directors. I think that’s great! I really do! I also think it’s great that you’ve gone with the wrinkles over the curves! Who needs modeling jobs when you can sit on your skinny tail and get the money by whispering out your classy opinions!

Oh, Lyon just walked in! Thought he was in the shower, but I guess he was just lying in my bed! Oh, you know Lyon! It’s been a while since we talked. You know you are my true friend. You really are.

Gotta run, Kid-o! Fox wants me for some glossies! You bet, Neely’s back! New movie and a record coming out next week! RCA finally managed to pull me back into the studio to make an album. Annie, it’s a disco record. It’s really groovy, Annie! The kids know the moves and I got the voice! Don’t bite any wooden nickels!

Neely

ps If you see that old hag, Helen Lawson, give her my love! I’m really enjoyed her performance as the Granny with a gun! I got it at one of those 42nd Street holes.

Nice kid turned lush!
Neely O’Hara took the green dolls…

FOUND CORRESPONDENCE DATED: November 17, 1978

Neely O’Hara
c/o
ASS William Morris Adjacent, Inc.
666 East of Main Street, #Z
90013

Dearest Neely,

Just ripped through your note! It was lovely to hear from you! I’m not sure who told you I had undergone a breast enhancement procedure, but they are mistaken. I wonder if it has to do with my assisting Miss. Lawson when she had to have an emergency procedure. I had to give the poor dear a lift. Of course that was a dental issue.

Things could not be better! I just got back from an event at The Guggenheim. It was lovely. They have just debuted a new exhibit of Diane Arbus’ work. It is stunning! I saw an amazing portrait of an elderly woman lying on a stoop. I thought of you, Neely. I think of you often.

Hollywood Actress Barbara Parkins. (Photo by Photoshot/Getty Images)

I heard about your accident backstage at Merv’s studio. I am so sorry. I hope the floral arrangement arrived in time. I called Merv and he assured me that you would be fine. Neely, you really must take care when walking with a liquor bottle in your hand. I hope it was an unopened gift for Merv and that your are not drinking again. I eagerly await the release of your album! Isn’t disco simply marvelous! I’m afraid I’ve become a bit of a regular at this sweet little club here in the city. It’s called Studio 54! Have you heard of it?

Lyon? I’m not sure to whom you referred. Surely you do not mean Lyon Burke. Neely, Lyon passed away some time ago. It is essential that you stop blocking that horrid accident with Ted Casablanca. It wasn’t your fault, darling. And that was proven in court! How could you have known that Lyon was seeing Mr. Casablanca behind your back? I don’t care what Rona Barrett says! Speaking of scandals, have you heard from Jennifer? I’m worried for the dear. I’ve not heard from her in some time. Hope you are on the mend.

Regards,
Anne Welles

ps I think it best that you stop calling Liza. It’s not your fault. Liza is just trying to pursue a healthier path. XOXO, Annie

Sex symbol turned on too often!
Jennifer North took the blue dolls, but here she is purple.

FOUND CORRESPONDENCE DATED: December 11, 1978

Miss. Anne Welles
Fancy Pants CEO
Gillian Girl Cosmetics
NY, NY 10003

Cha-Cha Annie! Thanks for the pretty flowers. I decided they look best on the floor. If I tilt my head a certain way they look like wilted adoration. It’s been a difficult couple of weeks. The doc says I will be better than ever as soon as the stitches heal! I guess my new hip is made of the same cheap plastic that Jennifer wore as bracelets! Go figure!

Jennifer. Last time I saw her she wanted to know where she could get a hydroclonic. A hydroclonic. I was able to help her when she wanted an abortion, but I don’t even know what that is! She told me it’s when they shove a hose up your ass and empty out your colon. Jeez! And to think that she was the one who wanted a husband and kiddies. Now she doesn’t even want to take a shit. Sorry, Annie. I know how you feel about cuss words. It’s a good thing you didn’t pursue work as an actress. You’d never have cut it.

It’s tough, Annie. I work myself so far to the bone they have to replace my hip with plastic! My sponsor ~~therapist~~ tells me I crave mass attention. I don’t. I just want applause. Real applause! Not canned like that crap that Polar used on his sad variety show. Man! And I try, Annie. I really try.

Inscription on back of photo:
“To Annie! I didn’t have dough handed to me because of my good cheekbones, I had to work for it!”
Neely, ’67

I’m tired of the green dolls. I wanna try some of those red ones! I wake up, and take two green dollies ones so I can get out there! I take some off-color babies to keep up my glow, but then I have to take two yellow dolls just so I can sleep. It’s not easy having to sparkle.

Sparkle, Neely! Sparkle! Boobies all of ’em!

Lyon and Ted? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Who needs, em’? Right Annie? And those goes double for that bitch, Helen Lawson!

Right! Besides I got me a man! A real man! His name is Roddy! That’s right, babe. Roddy McDowall! And I know what you and everyone is saying! Well, not you! Not my sweet and sensible Annie! But, I swear he’s not a BRIT! And I’m just the dame to prove it! Besides he’s really connected and made a whole lotta money playing a monkey! Anyways, he got me a gig on a big deal TV show. It’s a big show, Annie. I get to be a judge with a mallet sort of thing! And I will be judging talent! I’m the ticket to judge talent! Watch out for falling bricks,
Neely

Off stage they hated her, but, on stage, they're madly in love with her! Plus, she plants her own tree. And. She. Will. Always. Make. It. Grow!

Helen Lawson doesn’t need dolls. She’s not like these other broads. She has a hard core. She rolls with the punches. And, believe her, in this business they come left, right below the belt. Off stage they hate her. But, on stage, they’re madly in love with her. That’s why she plants her own damned tree! And, baby, she makes it grow!

FOUND CORRESPONDENCE DATED: February 10, 1979

Neely O’Hara
c/o
Danvers State Mental Hospital
Ward C
450 Maple Street
Danvers, MA

Dearest Neely, I apologize for not being there when you wake from the sedatives. I tried to stay, but Yves Saint Laurent was in a real bind and I had to fly out to Paris. Luckily he was able to secure a private jet to pick me up. I worry that I not only let you down, but poor sweet Willy as well! I was to have met him back in Lawrenceville, but I had to cancel. As you know, potential fashion issues must take precedent. Poor Willy. Oh Neely, it all seems to long ago. Who knew when I headed to New York that I’d be leaving his life forever. As Yves’ jet was landing I thought about the brutal climb to reach the peak of my success and glory. It’s at moments like that I am relived that Momma and Aunt Amy invested me with solid New England heart! No time for tears!

Now about your current situation. I was worried when you mentioned Roddy, Miss Taylor and The Gong Show. So I decided to get myself to your side right away! After a brief visit to Rome and a quick meeting in Greece, I caught the first flight out to California! I was so worried! My innocent and awkward, Neely! I should chastise you for not giving me the correct address. I hope you were not embarrassed! I must confess, Skid Row doesn’t smell very nice, but it is quite colorful. It was brimming over with life! I just wish life had a better scent. After I paid Paolo, he took me to your dwelling.

Yes, America’s Gillian Girl has an excellent memory and she loves sherry.

Oh, Neely. After all these years you should known better than to mix those dolls with liquor! I was able to pull some strings and secure a spot for you at The Betty Ford Clinic, but I decided you would not want that sort of publicity. So I had my people locate the most discreet rehabilitation center in the country! Only the best for my Neely!

Now I can imagine what you’re thinking, but The Danvers Lunatic Asylum is actually a deeply respected hospital. I was particularly drawn to Ward C in which you will be free to roam about. And after my inspection, I realized the entire ward smelled a bit like your lovely room at that Union Rescue building. I felt that familiar smell of yours would make you feel comfortable.

Neely, you are such a clever one! I know that you will be fresh and ready to get back to work in no time! I put some feelers out and was able to secure a role for you in the US touring company of “Fidler on the Roof!” No need to thank me! Yes, you have the role of understudy! The tour doesn’t start for another couple of months so there is plenty of time for you to rest! I’ve left bus fare along with the phone number for Zero Mostel’s Press Agent with your assigned custodian. His office is in the basement. Take care traversing those stairs!

Best Wishes, Anne Welles

Inscription on back of photograph:
“I Can’t stop thinking about that audience tonight!”
Neely, ’67

FOUND CORRESPONDENCE DATED: September 2, 1979

Miss. Anne Welles
Queen Bitch
Gillian Girl Cosmetics
NY, NY 10003

Hi-ho, Annie! Sorry I didn’t write sooner but I decided best to wait until I had a writing tool other than my own shit! Can’t thank you enough for your help! With friends like you who needs MGM!?!? No worries. I’m tough. I looked at my stay in that loony bin as a vehicle for artistic experience. Actually, I was surprised at how quickly I was able to learn so many new tricks! ~~Turns out it really is in the breathing! You know, this really solved a couple of life’s challenges th~~ Sorry if this makes you sad, but I had a slight stroke of luck! One of Jennifer’s nudie movies was screening in the Lobotomy Ward. That’s Ward C, Annie!

Anyway something rattled my cage and I remembered Jen’s phone number. After I was able to knock a couple of heads and get to a phone — I called! That shrew Miriam Polar answered. It took some fancy talking but she called Jen for me. Jen sent some skinny French guy to get me out. Yeah, I’m out. I’m free. And, yes, I’ve got a whole new set of teeth!

Road tour understudy? For fucking Topol in the role of “Tevye”? Seriously, Anne? I don’t think so! I’ve got other plans! Oh, yes! I’m about to turn the tables on the whole frickin’ industry! I’m ready. I’m going to do it all by myself! That’s right! I’m pulling it together and doing my own one woman show! And, baby, I’m gonna blow all of you dopes to hell! It’s going to be big, Annie. And I’m taking no prisoners! I’m putting it all in the show! I’m not leaving anything out!

Slap a pony!
Neely O’Hara

ps They love me. They can’t help it. I’m Neely! Neely! Neely O’Hara!

“The motion picture that shows what America’s all time #1 best seller first put into words!”
Valley of the Dolls
Mark Robson, 1967

ALERT! PRESS RELEASE! BREAKING NEWS!

Neely O’Hara Forcibly Removed From Theatre Lobby After Attacking Two B’Way Superstars!
Eye On The Stars · 1/25/1980 12:13AM

We wouldn’t have believed it if we hadn’t seen it for ourselves! Imagine our surprise when Celebrity Icon and Beloved Dame of American Theatre, Helen Lawson, was attacked by washed-up and bloated singer/actress, Neely O’Hara.

Ms. O’Hara, wearing what appeared to be a filthy “Property of Danvers State Mental Hospital” sheet, entered The Winter Garden Theatre, head-butted super cute Broadway starlet, Andrea McArdle. It was only after kicking poor Miss. McArdle’s unconscious body that Ms. O’Hara was able to make her way to the great Helen Lawson.

Ms. Lawson seemed to be as afraid as confused as she scrambled to protect her hair. Witnesses confirm our own eyes and ears! Ms. Lawson was screaming, “Not my wig! Not my wig!” the instant she noticed O’Hara bludgeoning her way across the lobby!

Neely O’Hara, rumored to have been committed to an infamous mental hospital, proceeded to scream out unintelligible words at the terrified superstar. Neely O’Hara attempted to club Ms. Lawson with a platform boot, but security pulled the unhinged former hitmaker to the ground.

Neely O’Hara was restrained and placed in a police van. We distinctly heard her yelling something about homosexuality, fashion, dolls, sparkling and Mount Everest as the police vehicle sped away from the theater.

We can confirm that Annie’s young starlet is doing well and is expected to be released from Mount Sinai early tomorrow. Helen Lawson suffered only minor scratches. We have been asked to state that Ms. Lawson does not wear a wig.

We reached out to Neely O’Hara’s glamorous longtime pal, Anne Welles for comment:

“Ms. Welles can you comment on Neely O’Hara’s recent deviant behavior at The Winter Garden Theatre?“

“Neely who?“

End. Ready for Publication.

Restored and a proud member of The Criterion Collection…
Valley of the Dolls
Illustration | Phil Noto

Matty Stanfield, 10.11.2016

Brilliance on a Budget or Knife in the Water

How? Why?
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965

It didn’t quite make him a household name, but Roman Polanski’s low-budget psychological thriller, Repulsion, would spark a fracture in cinema that inspired countless film artists. Three years later he would permanently place himself in both popular and high art culture with the release of Rosemary’s Baby. But it was in 1962 that Polanski made a very deep mark with his razor sharp psychological thriller, Knife in the Water.

Armed with a some basic handheld cameras, a very small budget, one sailboat and three actors — Polanski and his cinematographer, Jerzy Lipman, managed to create an unforgettable film. Capturing characters, space, eroticism, tension and suspense in some of the most elegantly simplistic ways, Knife in the Water sears into the mind’s eye.

Playing at The Beekman!
Knife in the Water
Roman Polanski, 1962

*** These shots vary in quality as the newly remastered version has yet to be released to Blu-Ray, but it will be available in the near future.

Knife in the Water

Roman Polanski, 1962

Cinematography, Jerzy Lipman

“Give me back my knife.”

” So, you do know how to swim.”

“You’re just like him… only half his age, and twice as dumb.”

” Sailors get mast-headed for that…”

“You’ve drowned a boy.”

Matty Stanfield, 5.3.2016

Remove Your Shift or Robert Eggers’ The Witch as a Horror Film

Are you scared or bored?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016

Ever since Robert Eggers’s The Witch screened at the 2015 Sundance word of mouth praises for the film have pushed expectations through the roof. A24 opted to wait over a year before releasing the movie to cinemas. This decision was no doubt to build up audience anticipation. Their plan seems to have worked, but was marketing The Witch as a horror movie might not have been the best strategy.

While a great many have been left spellbound (pun intended) — it would seem an almost equal number of people have left the movie disappointed. Some have even felt bored by the movie. I among those who consider this film as a cinematic gem and a great example of the Art Horror genre. In my opinion Robert Eggers is a much needed breath of creative air to the current world of cinematic art. So I scratch my head when I hear/read cinephiles bash The Witch. Why don’t they all love it? Why is The Witch failing to capture all imaginations? How can someone see this low-budget film and not be impressed?

Well, easily.

Has Mia Farrow been impregnated with the child of Satan or date raped by her husband?
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

What constitutes a great horror movie? A film that scares us on some level seems an essential requirement, but is there a way to make the definition of that word fit us all as a group? Of course not. We are all scared and disturbed by different things and styles. There are two horror films which can both be easily defended as cinematic masterworks: Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. Both of these films terrified audiences upon their initial releases.

What would happen if Roman Polanski were 35 years old in 2015 and Rosemary’s Baby had debuted at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival? Would it frighten audiences and be eagerly snapped up by A24? Let’s pretend it would. So it is February 2016 and you sit yourself down at a cineplex and watch it.

“All of them witches”
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Are you pleased with Rosemary’s Baby as a horror film or did it make you chuckle and feel resentful because the “pay-off” failed to make you jump or dumbfound you in awe?

Sure you might admire William A. Fraker’s cinematography, the eccentric performances and the ambiguity of what is actually happening on the screen — but would this movie disappoint as a horror film?

I have a knee-jerk reaction to this “what if” scenario. I want to dig my feet into the sand and answer, “Yes! It is provocative, entertaining, creepy, amusing and most certainly haunts my mind long after I see it!”

However my knee-jerk might be a bit off.

“Your mother sucks cocks in Hell.”
Linda Blair
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

Ideas of what constitutes a horror film have dramatically changed since 1968. This is no longer the 20th Century. We have become jaded to violence and horrific events depicted in film. Movies are no longer presented as “Events” and most audiences demand more than looming threat and ambiguities from horror films. A solid example of this is to revisit William Friedkin’s The Exorcist. Upon this film’s release in late 1973/early 1974, it literally caused an international sensation. Reports of heart attacks, fainting and full-on panic attacks in cinemas filled the news. Lines to ticket counters wrapped blocks and an endless slew of cinematic rip-offs soon littered cinemas for years to come. Even back in the early 1970’s there were people who found the grim horror film funny, but it would seem to have been a small minority of the film’s audience.

“The power of Christ compels you!”
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

In 2000 a new remastered and cut of the film was released into cinemas. This was The Exorcist: Version You’ve Never Seen. I was in the cinema to watch the movie with a sold-out audience. Parents with babies, sullen teens and eager fans of the 1970’s flick filled the theatre. Endless chattering throughout the on-screen commercials and previews led me to expect that I’d be watching the movie with children running around, teens giggling and older folks calling for silence. Instead something odd happened. The entire audience sat in silence once the jarring music of Krzysztof Penderecki met the film’s title card. I saw this film with 3 friends from my office. I didn’t care for the new ending, but was satisfied that The Exorcist had stood the test of time. Only minutes later as we exited the building I began to hear people talk about how comical the movie was. Yet why had there been no laughs during the screening? The 2000 release still brought in a significant amount of money for Warner Bros.

For those who would dismiss both Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist as dark or even unintended comedy, it is important to access both films within the appropriate and respective contexts. By the time Rosemary’s Baby was released the Hippie Movement had taken a dark turn toward addiction, homelessness and the horrific introduction to The Manson Family truly crushed ideas of peace and harmony for many. Theories regarding the corruption of government was starting to brew over the top of the cultural pot. The important growth of the Women’s Movement had started to challenge the cultural status quo. Roman Polanski’s film worked on both the straight-on horror of the story presented, but it also offered plenty of ambiguous subjectivity to allow viewers to see the film as hallucination or even as a metaphor. When The Exorcist was released filmmakers had already begun to push the cinematic envelope far beyond what was accustomed. However, no one had really pushed it as far as William Friedkin’s film.

The guilt that will not die. A demon takes the form of a deceased mother…
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

Marketed as a horror film, The Exorcist presented horror in a whole new way. The Exorcist takes itself very seriously and the actors perform as if cast in a highly important work of dramatic cinema. This was horror movie gone the way of The Actors Studio with elevated production values. The Exorcist was missing most of the normal cinematic clues that it was a horror film. It also depicts the sadistic and perverse possession of an innocent little girl. In 1973 / 1974 no one had ever seen a child in such peril or scenes this shocking. This was a film of firsts.

And of course there is a whole other level of understanding at play in this iconic film — a reflection of its time. The government was letting us down from the Watergate Hotel to a meaningless war that continued to ravage despite overwhelming protest. The post Hippie Movement had evolved into the Sexual Revolution and Drug Culture was causing some serious cultural rifts. Parents no longer felt any control over their children. The Exorcist was a particularly incisive cut into the once communal ideas of cultural aspects once considered sacred. It expertly captured the Western World’s deepest fears into a manifestation of demonic possession of innocence that could no longer be protected.

No matter how you want to look at it, this was a whole different kind of world 48 / 43 years ago.

“The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths…”
Title Card
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Tobe Hooper, 1974

Horror films took a swift and dark turn that blended the fantastical with reality. What many might funny now, were visualizations of all too real horror for many in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s. Kobe Hooper’s drive-in movie was far more realistically articulated than anything that had arrived there with the possible exception of his earlier The Last House on the Left. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was really not all that graphic, but it sent audiences into a horror of a different order. These two films manifested horrors of parents as well as their children.

“…Consciousness is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer.”
John Malkovich looks into a portal that leads to his own mind.
Being John Malkovich
Spike Jonze, 1999
Cinematography | Lance Acord

The next film that comes to my mind will most likely lend a glimpse into what scares me. I saw Being John Malkovich on the afternoon it opened in Boston. I had heard nothing of it. I walked into that cinema free of any anticipation of what I was about to see. I wanted to see it because I quite like both John Cusack and Catherine Keener. While there was some very comical moments, this movie creeped me out. That night I met some friends at a bar and told them that Being John Malkovich was exceptional but quite disturbing. I think I actually called it a comical horror movie.

Dissatisfied, misunderstood and lonely. John Cusack contemplates falling into the consciousness of another…
Being John Malkovich
Spike Jonze, 1999
Cinematography | Lance Acord

I would later get questions from my pals who found the movie awesome, but not at all disturbing or horrifying. But for me the idea of someone finding a way into my mind or even worse, me being stuck in the brain of another is an absolutely horrifying concept. Talk about an identity crisis from Hell. Being John Malkovich still freaks me out a bit. I usually have at least one nightmare after having seen it.

Perhaps the most polarizing horror film of my time is 1999’s The Blair Witch Project. Unlike with Spike Jonze’s movie, I was well aware of TBWP. We all were. And I saw it during its first weekend run. This film had created a whole new way to market a movie.

Heather Donahue turns the camera on herself as she panics and fears she is facing her end.
The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

The cinema was sold out. A good number of the audience was frustrated by what they saw. For me it was a positive horror experience. I had not ever seen a film quite like it. As Heather Donahue slipped into hysteria, I felt her panic. I’m not a person who enjoys camping. The very idea is scary to me. So this film already offered something that I find creepy — nature after dark. I quite admired the lo-fi ingenuity of both Daniel Myrick Eduardo Sanchez. The online marketing blitz was fascinating. Please note that the Internet was still kind of new. The fake documentary that screened on television sporadically at the time was equally odd. It seemed to be a real documentary. The film really felt like found footage. All three characters seemed like people you might know. Their shared and respective fits of rage and panic felt like the real thing.

The movie made a ton of money and spawned an endless stream of found footage horror films continuing to this day. The difference is that other filmmakers would learn to avoid aspects of The Blair Witch Project that deeply annoyed audiences. If ever a horror movie arrived carrying strong word-of-mouth it was The Blair Witch Project.

To say that it fully satisfied audience expectations would not be correct. Many found the jittery camera movements nauseating. Others found the whole film to be tease for over an hour resulting in deliverance of a limp pay-off. But I was among those who was impressed by the movie. I was not so impressed from a technical standpoint, but the style matched the plot. I liked it, but I could understand the reservations of others.

A very clever use of TV and Internet marketing
The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

After wowing audiences at The Cannes Film Festival in 2014, David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows was released to limited cinemas and shortly after to VOD in 2015. The surreal and odd film received a great deal of red-hot press and strong word-of-mouth prior and just after it came out in the US. A meticulously crafted low-budget film that looks a great deal better than most low budget films, It Follows is far more than your average horror film. As praise mounted the movie became a painful example of falling victim to heightened expectations from horror movie fans. Even worse, Mitchell’s clever and disturbing little movie had sparked debate among Film Critics and cinephiles regarding its worth as Film Art.

How in the world do we define terms like “Horror Movie” and “Film Art” in a way to determine which films fit within each? More importantly, who has the right to set the terms?

I might detest movies like I, Frankenstein or Pixels, but to some these films are fantastic and should be considered “Film Art.” What gives me the right to argue their points down? No one or organization issues this right. Even if such a person or institution existed I would proudly rebel against it.

The subjectivity of art is what makes it great. And the freedom to voice opinions and evaluations is what makes being a cinephile fun, but lately differing opinions have really taken an ugly turn.

Is this where sex can lead?
It Follows
David Robert Mitchell, 2015
Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

Our 24/7 connection in the 21st Century has created a platform on to which international magazines, paid Film Critics and every member of the Audience can have an equal voice. This provides an awesome potential for the individual. From blogs like this to the exceptional podcasts, people now have the power.

The downside to this is that more than a few have opted to use that platform to be cruel and mean-spirited.

Such is the sad way of human nature. But every once in a while great films get unfairly gut-punched by the meanest and loudest voices. The result is that many individuals who might have been open to evaluating a movie that has gotten some negative feedback are led to believe that doing so would be jump on the wrong bandwagon. In other words, people are afraid of being bullied or appear ignorant to take a chance on a particular film. The loudest and often most cruel voices manage to force a hand in keeping others from making up their own minds.

It Follows is not for all members of the collective audience. Very few, if any, movies will entertain everyone, but the quality of a film should not be made to serve as a barometer by which individuals are judged and causally dismissed as if each were a movie themselves. A person should be comfortable in being able to state she/he enjoyed a movie without fear of being flamed by others on the platform.

David Robert Mitchell’s surreal film explores everything from fears associated with sex to sexually transmitted diseases and all the way around to ideas about potential dangers of friendship and meditations on death. It is also an outstanding example of how much can be done with a very limited budget. It Follows is a great looking film.

“Okay, like I told you, all you can do is pass it on to someone else.”
It Follows
David Robert Mitchell, 2015
Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

When I first saw It Follows I was blown away. I was invited to an advance screening. I had only read a couple of things about it at the time. I came out of the viewing experience disoriented and loved the film. I thought of it as Surrealism. I did not immediately identify the movie within the Horror Film genre. To be honest, my biggest concern was trying to determine if the movie had taken place in the not so distant past or present day.

The negative backlash against It Follows caused a number of folks to avoid the movie. I’ve noted a strong number who have seen it via DVD or streaming and loved it and wished they could have seen it on a big screen or sooner. Sadly I’ve also come across a rather large number of folks who loved it but avoid ever stating or sharing this fact for fear of being flamed by fellow bloggers, twitters and other Internet Communities. This really bums me out. It is all too easy to think these people are weak and need to assert themselves. For many the Internet which had once welcomed them has de-evolved to a High School-like experience in which they feel the need to conform.

“This may hurt a little.”
Perspectives go askew in more way than several.
Seconds
John Frankenheimer, 1966
Cinematography | James Wong Howe

The film genre of horror has always been a wide genre. It includes the silly and inane as well as well as the highly artistic and innovative. It can also bleed more easily into other genres than others. A good example of this is John Frankenheimer’s Seconds. This movie is usually considered a “thriller” or “drama” but it has also been read as “science fiction.”

I’ve always considered Seconds to be a horror film of the highest order, to which I assign the label “Art Horror.” Frankenheimer’s vision depicts what is perhaps one of humanity’s greatest fears: aging and mortality. Look just a bit deeper and you will notice the capture of committed relationship horror. Aging and life’s ultimate natural end is not for sissies. Nor is a relationship such as marriage. As we see in Seconds, love may spark passion but down the line that passion often slips away. If there is no love between life partners, facing the natural perils of life can be hard if not impossible. Seconds has enjoyed a re-evaluation thanks to the folks at The Criterion Collection. Label or genre it as you like, but this is a disturbing movie from all aspects. This is a generally accepted film. Sadly we are not so open to respect for a newer movie like It Follows.

Patrick Wilson about to get a fright…
Insidious
James Wan, 2010
Cinematography|
Brewer / Lenenti

In 2007 yet another found footage movie found its way to cinemas. Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity made a good deal of money for very little financial investment. I paid to see it. It was most certainly a horror film, but it failed to interest me and it certainly failed to scare me. It has spawned a franchise that continues to make money from one idea. James Wan’s Insidious also enjoyed success and has spawned at least one sequel. I saw it as well. Once again, Insidious is most certainly a horror movie. It attempted to offer a bit more thought and ideas than Paranormal Activity and featured some decent acting. The idea of a child in a coma and his parents trying to bring him back does provide some interest, but this film was focused on making the audience jump.

No new ground here. Nothing wrong with that if it floats your boat. Movies like this do not even get my boat a foot from its pier.

Robert Egger’s The Witch is currently generating an oppositional mix of awed praise to condemnation. The core of this largely online battle seems to be annoyance that The Witch has been sold to audiences as a horror film. A great number of the audience are frustrated if not straight up angry that The Witch failed to be scary by their definitions. This is a debate that has left me more than a little confused. Had we all seen the same movie? I did think that many might be disappointed to not find themselves jumping in their seats or clinging to arm rests, but the whole Anti The Witch attitude against the film has caught me by surprise.

Peek-a-boo!
Anya Taylor-Joy
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

True enough A24 should have gotten The Witch out sooner. Almost a year worth of praise has most definitely put the movie in the uncomfortable position of living up to hype.

If you’ve not yet seen The Witch, there will be some spoilers to follow. Simply stop reading. If you are not sure you will see it then reading should not offer a problem.

Robert Eggers’ film has been carefully researched. Almost all of the film’s dialogue has been lifted from 17th Century records which transcribe reported events of suspected or assigned evil witchery. The movie is also closely aligned with this sort of folklore and fear of that time. The Witch captures the feeling / ambiance that matches my idea of what life must have looked and been like within the unsettled 17th Century America to which the Puritans and other settlers ventured. I could almost smell this world flowing out from the movie screen. Eggers may have only had a budget of $1.5 million, but this movie looks like it cost a great deal more. Carefully framed by Jarin Blaschke’s camera, The Witch manages to be both lush and rustically threatening all at once. The film works on two levels from beginning to end.***

Welcome to a New England folktale…
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

On the one hand the film can be viewed as a horror film based on ancient folklore regarding Satan and Satanic Ritual lensed as reality. The idea that what one perceives as little more than silly fairy tale is given life as something deeply menacing, horrible and real. The Witch is also smart enough to function on a less literal levels. What we see unfold could be a manifestations resulting from misunderstood happenings to the unimaginable struggles for survival in an unknown place. And within the metaphorical read of the movie, the confusions and frustrations of two children on the verge of adulthood struggle with both the urge to rebel against and fear the changes/longings they experience under the repression of a puritanical daily life.

A pious family is banished from their Puritan Settlement for being a too hardcore with Christian beliefs. This in of itself is more than a little telling. It seems that their fellow settlers who left England in pursuit of an even more repressed life now feel that this particular family has taken worship of Christ to an unacceptable level. The father’s fevered preachings of faith are so intolerant that his words seem to border on perversity. The father stands proud and happily accepts his family’s fate of banishment. We follow the family on their devout journey for a new home. When Father decides he has found the perfect clearing of land for their own settlement, all fall to their knees and pray for thanks and blessing. It is not clear how long it takes the family to construct a bone-bare basic home, a small barn, a fence and the beginnings of a small crop — but they have managed to do it. But problems are not far behind end everything begins to crumble around them in horrifying ways.

Ralph Ineson as the father leads his family in prayer before they begin to eat a very sparse dinner.
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The mysterious loss of a child, a failing crop, lack of food and an approaching winter sends this family into a deep crisis.

Could this crisis be a test from God or the work of Satan? The first indication that something far sinister is gripping the family presents itself very early in the film. Eldest child and daughter, “Thomasin” played with searing naturalism by Anya Taylor-Joy is to keep an eye on her youngest sibling. A cute baby lies in front of Thomasin. She begins to play a game of “peek-a-boo” with the baby. After a couple of rounds she covers her eyes but when she removes her hands, the baby has simply vanished. We see that the baby has been magically stolen by a naked crone of a witch. It becomes apparent that this elder witch has butchered the baby, devoured the meat and spread the babe’s blood all over her body. Is Eggers camera meant to be taken literally or is this the POV of a young woman’s darkest fear? We really do not know.

What we do know is that the family has no choice but to assume the very logical worst. The baby must have been snapped up by a wolf. Thomasin never seems to make a big point of the fact that there could be no way a wolf could have taken the baby so quickly and without a sound. And if she feels guilt it would appear to be suppressed for fear of her parents wrath. The mother slips into depression and clearly holds her eldest child responsible. It should be noted that the style in which Eggers shoots the old witch is different to what we have seen displayed in the movie.

A witch’s lair, perhaps?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

We soon discover that the eldest son has feelings for his beautiful sister that are not appropriate. He is aware of this, but does his best to hide it. While it is never fully articulated, there is a sense that Thomasin is aware of her brother’s interest. She does not encourage it, but there is a vague sense that she enjoys the attention. She passively finds ways to disguise her touches on her brother as innocent when their might be a shared desire at play in these touches. There are a pair of twins who are now the youngest of the clan. At first it would seem these two playful children are simply a bit spoiled, but their behavior is revealed to be far more sinister. They have taken to playing with the family’s black goat to which they have assigned the name Black Phillip. They claim to speak with him and that he has told them things. Most of which are more than a little worrying. The family’s misfortunes only continue. Eavesdropping, keeping secrets, lying, anger, hunger, depression and accusations soon engulf this family. Along the way we see horrific incidents that may or may not be actually happening. A goat appears to provide blood instead of milk. A seemingly ready to consume chicken’s egg is dropped to reveal a fully formed chick dead and bloody. An innocent rabbit appears to the father and his son but seems to serve as some sort of hiding beast of omen. Black Phillip does some very odd movements for the twins. The eldest boy stumbles upon what appears to be a witch’s lair. A beautiful woman emerges with an apple and gives the child an adult kiss. This woman soon appears to turn into an old crone. Thomasin takes to staring into the woods that border the newly created home land.

An odd plaything for an odd pair of twins… Meet Black Phillip.
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The father, expertly played by Ralph Ineson, has the look of a somehow perverse version of a stereotypical idea of Jesus. He seems to be the most conflicted by the events that are pushing the family beyond the edge of reason. Before long their eldest son falls prey to what appears to be witchcraft or black magic and dies. The mother slips further into hysteria. Ineson’s William is torn by accusations from the twins that Thomasin has been consorting with The Devil. Most especially due to the fact that they claim it is Black Phillip who has informed them of this as well as Thomasin herself.

But continuing events which he is unable to explain push him to put all three children into the small barn. He barricades it so they can’t leave, but the twins’ Black Phillip is sealed in with them. Disturbing visions come to the mother in her fevered night’s sleep. William emerges in the morning to discover that the barn has been essentially destroyed, the twins dead and Thomasin lies on the ground covered in the twins’ blood. Tragedy strikes yet again leaving Thomasin alone among the carnage. Exhausted and traumatized she makes her way into the hovel of a home, sits at the table and allows her head to fall.

Locked up in the barn with Black Phillip or The Devil?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Is Thomasin sleeping? It is not entirely clear but it would seem she is awoken by a male presence. Could it be the vile Black Phillip? It is. But then perhaps it isn’t.

Thomasin does not seem particularly surprised. Why should she? She has witnessed what can she can only attribute to Satan’s darkest magik destroy her family. She demands or rather “conjures” Black Phillip to speak with her. We do not see the goat speak but we hear a deep male voice respond. A conversation ensues in which he asks the young girl what she might want from life. The voice assures her she will live life “deliciously” if she will simply sign a book that has magically been sat before her. Thomasin hesitates, but is instructed to remove her shift and that he will guide her hand to sign her name in the book.

The last images we see are of a nude Thomasin walking toward a gathering of nude witches in the midst of a Satanic ritual. As the chanting reaches a pitch, the witches began to levitate and fly upward. A calming look comes over Thomasin’s face and she begins to levitate toward the sky.

And here is a bit of cinematic magic — in another director’s hands this moment in the film might have come across in another way. But under Robert Eggers steady direction, this young woman’s take to flight is not a moment of female freedom or rebirth. This is the film’s most chilling moment. We see a young woman ascend naked toward her destiny in celebration of her evilness. She embraces all that is evil and leaves all kindness behind. It is a nightmare awakening and is horrifying.

Ralph Ineson
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The Witch weaves a spell that takes on a slow burn within the mind. I was never afraid as I watched the movie unfold, but I was disturbed as much as I was fascinated. Hours after I saw The Witch, it began to haunt my thoughts. This is a movie that stays with you.

A24 has employed two tag lines to promote The Witch:

Evil takes many forms and A New-England Folktale — both makes sense for the film. Each expresses the two ways in which the film can be viewed.

Neither tag line makes any promises that the movie is unable to keep. The Witch may not make you jump in your seat or cling to your arm rests, but you very well might squirm. And it is highly likely that you will ponder what you have seen long after you have left the cinema.

A work of Art Horror that deserves praise. I think The Witch comes close to being a brilliant exercise in Art Horror. Make fun of me, flame me and dismiss me if you wish.

“Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?”
The Witch
Rober Eggers, 2016
Cinematography |

***There is a third “read” to be found while watching and evaluating The Witch. While this reading is more than a bit dark, there is correlation to be made between a metaphorical rejection of patriarchal ideas regarding the identity of women. A story which leads a young woman out of repression, oppression and up to the sky in a celebration of her own identity, sexuality and power. The thing is that most feminist thinkers are likely to take exception to using such actions as vivisection murder of male baby and ultimate violent destruction of a family unit. However, we are dealing in metaphors here.

Matty Stanfield, 2.25.2016

Thumbs at the Ready! Film Criticism Within Rotten Tomatoes Consensus Logic

It is always uncomfortable when you have a “connection” to a film artist and that person either creates or has applied skills into a film you do not like.

How does one navigate this? Carefully.

Some enjoy this game. I do not. If I have a connection, no matter how fragmented or casual, I usually opt to say / write nothing. This is most especially true of this blog. As I make no money for anything I write/do I am not under the sort of pressures to conform or restrain my opinions. I am just not comfortable writing negative feedback when I know someone connected to a project will read it here. I’ve even become cautious on my Letterboxd account. But some of the ratings and comments I’ve made on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes has come back to haunt me. When RT first came around, I didn’t really apply much thought into how the site was calculating film reviews and user ratings. I’ve been surprised at how harshly I’ve rated some films and how grandly I’ve rated others. …in comparison.

Yes. I’ve contributed to the dreaded Film Criticism by Consensus. This idea has been spreading throughout the Film Theory community for quite a while. It can most likely be traced back to that moment that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert sat down together. More or less, this is when the simplistic and problematic Film Judgement by Consensus started. In theory it seems like a valid approach. Sadly, in practice it is flawed, harmful and unfair. Even more so now that we can all be Film Critics and our ratings are tallied by a computer program. But the end-user ratings are not near as worrying when you really look into RT logic applied to paid Film Critics.

“It’s Terrific!” …and it remains so. It is without question a cinematic masterpiece that endures. But is it a perfect movie?
Citizen Kane
Orson Welles, 1941

When Movie Holics posted this clip, they summed up the issue with Film Ranking by Consensus with humor, intelligence and logic. Their topic is Josh Trank’s much maligned, Fantastic Four. Take a look:

I’m a fan of Movie Holics. Founded by Kyler Wilson and Monica Kocurek, this YouTube Channel provides encaging, entertaining and most importantly — insightful and valid Film Theory application. Kyler Wilson is a skilled and professional filmmaker. A working Film Actor, professional Crew Member and aspiring filmmaker, Kyler Wilson offers opinions that are solidly grounded in both arenas of Film Buff and Film Artist. Monica Kocurek also brings grounded logic and humor that fit in perfectly within his framework.

Movie Holics
YouTube
Brought to you by
Kyler Wilson & Monica Kocurek

Often a counter-perspective and love of movies that matches Wilson’s, she holds her own. Together and separately, these two self-admitted Movie Holics are knowledgeable and entertaining. These two individuals are clearly serious film buffs with a sense of humor. Always fun and filled with ideas, their postings are always of interest. It is also important to note that they are often focused on offering view-points into current and big-studio projects. If ever the major studios were confused, it is now.

Kyler Wilson and Monica Kocurek of Movie Holics
Reviewing, discussing and challenging the status quo of Mainstream Film Art
Movie Holics
You Tube Channel

And Kyler and Monica put forward logic which is desperately needed within the film industry.

If you are unaware of them, take a few minutes to check out the short episode linked below.

To those of you in the industry, please check Movie Holics out.

Yes, you. You know who you are.

https://youtu.be/tyo38IJQyEU

Another important side note regarding Movie Holics: Kyler Wilson often discusses the current mode of major studio film promotion. His critique of film trailers is of particular interest. Aside from being entertaining, he points out some on-going blunders that studio marketing continues to make. There are some very logical insights here that Major Film Studios are completely lacking.

Adding my own perspective regarding the current state of the Movie Preview: A trend which I first noted in the mid-1980’s is this seeming need to show us the entire film in one preview. This is a mistake. Let’s bring back a bit of mystery. An example of this problem is cited with the trailer / preview for Guillermo del Toro’s Crimson Peak. I had been quite curious to see this new film which boasts a very impressive cast including Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston and Mia Wasikowska. It also sounded like a sort of old-school bit of Gothica Horror. Sadly, the new trailer shows what appears to be the entire movie. Once again Chastain appears trapped in the role of “The Scary Bitch.” Mia Wasikowska is once again cast as some lame and fragile sort of costumed romantic ideal of 19th Century little girl lost.

Crimson Peak
Guillermo del Toro, 2015

Tom Hiddleston looks as if he has either been covered in a white sort of powder or digitally “enhanced” to serve as a living cartoon. Actually, Crimson Peak appears to be a movie filled with the sort of CGI effects to which I’ve grown increasing indifferent. I no longer plan on paying to see this film. I will wait till it shows up on Amazon Prime, Hulu or Netflix streaming. $20 to $30 is too much to spend on the movie that Legendary Pictures appears to be promoting. I feel as if I’ve already seen it and I was annoyed by what I saw. Could this just be poor marketing or is what we see what we will get?

The cost of a movie ticket, popcorn and parking is too high to risk.

But I digress — back on mark full-stop: Film Criticism.

Film Criticism took an uplift with a critic like Pauline Kael. Much to her annoyance, she ended up playing a role in turning the world of movies to Film Art. It took an even greater uplift when Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert starting giving “Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down.” This uplift brought Film Art to a more mainstream audience. But, it came with a price. Many began to adapt to the idea that a film can or even should be dismissed with a casual Thumbs Down or embraced by a Thumbs Up.

I remember a friend opting not to see Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven because Siskel gave the movie a Thumbs Down. I was unable to convince him otherwise. Earlier at the beginning of middle school, several friends avoided Sam Rami’s 1981’s classic Evil Dead because both celebrity critics gave it Two Thumbs Down. One will be surprised to discover many of the films that were given Thumbs Up. Roger Ebert saw fit to give Barbra Streisand’s schizophrenically-flawed 1996 film, The Mirror Has Two Faces, a Thumps Up.

Siskel said “Thumbs Down”
Unforgiven
Clint Eastwood, 1992
Cinematography | Jack N. Green

The problem with these short, witty and often troubling criticism notched down to a simple turn of a thumb is that it is tragically misleading.

Example: Eastwood’s Unforgiven is as much a crowd-pleasing bit of Old School Hollywood Epic Western, as it is also a dark and often subversive take on human cruelty and vengeance. While the lines between the Good and Bad Guys are clear, the identity of race, plight of women and the tragedy of violence is explored in a new sort of way. This was a true turning point for Clint Eastwood as a filmmaker. In my opinion this film works quite well and has actually aged even better. It has some flaws that often come when movie actors turn into film directors, but this is a solid work. To dismiss it with a Thumps Down is not even logical. Yet, Gene Siskel felt it deserved him to turn that thumb down. If you actually watch Siskel discuss this film, he does acknowledge what the film is attempting to do. He appears to even be impressed with many of the films’ scenes, performances and ideas.

The idea of the Western genre is a bit subverted and re-imagined... And RT gives it a solid 95% rating. Unforgiven Clint Eastwood, 1992 Cinematography | Jack N. Green

The idea of the Western genre is a bit subverted and re-imagined…
Unforgiven
Clint Eastwood, 1992
Cinematography | Jack N. Green

In the end, Siskel’s issue is that the film simply didn’t fully register for him as something as new and bold as what he anticipated. He questioned the need for one of the film’s characters. While Siskel’s review is far from a cheer for Eastwood’s success, it is also not a total slap-down. When Siskel opted to put his Thumb Down it doesn’t seem to be intended as strong as it implied. Years later, the late critic’s review still stands. It is one of the few bad reviews, yet it really isn’t “bad.”

Roger Ebert did not adore Barbra Streisand’s ill-fitting The Mirror Has Two Faces, but he did see some interesting ideas explored and an even more interesting bit of introspection from a powerful movie star about aging and cultural perceptions of beauty. He also saw a good deal of charisma and comic timing. He gave this film a Thumps Up. Ebert has some valid points, Streisand’s odd film does bring up some interesting ideas about beauty, aging, women and relationships between sisters, mother and men. She had also assembled a great cast of players.

“Thumbs Up!”
Comic Feminist ideology, aging, family, love and beauty quickly de-evolve into Female Movie Star Mid-Life Panic.
The Mirror Has Two Faces
Barbra Streisand, 1996

Paradoxically, this movie quickly takes an extreme turn away from the gentle comedy and idea it seemed to be forming. It was as if Streisand had a total Movie Superstar Mid-Life Break during filming. Just as the movie seems to be falling into an entertaining and interesting concept, it sputters and teeters. Streisand and her character lose all sense of humor. Suddenly she makes a non-sensical oppositional turn from the core idea of her movie. Without warning, the main character suddenly decides she needs to kick off every attractive aspect of herself to fit into some grim idea of womanhood. The character stops eating, joking, loses weight and transforms from an attractive hairstyle and clothing into some perverse idea of what Streisand must think is hot. Essentially, she morphs into a Mafia Housewife Gone to Seed. Worse yet, Jeff Bridges and every male character in the movie are suddenly falling all over themselves to sex her up. The film is not good. If one actually watches or reads Ebert’s review, it is surprising that it assigned a Thumps Up as the review is more one of puzzlement ends up forming a sort of cinematic peripheral interest.

Another film that Siskel & Ebert both gave two Thumps Down is 1986’s Short Circuit. This silly and innocent little film is not offensively bad. It is more than a bet “twee” but it does offer a harmless bit of entertainment. No great work of art, but hardly what one could call a “bad movie.” Like both of these legendary Film Critics, I’d be inclined to warn that John Badham’s film is approached in an entirely different manner than we would normally expect. This is no WarGames, but Short Circuit was never intended to be another WarGames. Instead, with Short Circuit John Badham was simply seeking to entertain. Most importantly, his target audience was children. Siskel & Ebert react almost like children themselves. They are upset that the director has stepped off an expected track and into family entertainment. Tragically, the movie’s promotion misleads one to think this could be an extension of WarGames.

A bit of light children’s entertainment. “Thumbs Down!”
Short Circuit
John Badham, 1986

In truth, the use of their thumbs do not fully jive with their full respective reviews. Gene Siskel has some legitimate issues with the final act of WarGames. For him, WarGames attempts to be more than it should. Yet, he gave the Thumbs Up for WarGames. When it comes to actually reading/listening to their opinions regarding Short Circuit, their Thumbs Down ratings don’t exactly match up. Roger Ebert was clearly entertained by a lot of the ideas of the robot as “character” and Siskel’s perspective is more limited to wanting the silly movie about a robot to be more than it is.

This idea of summing the artistic value of a film with such a simplistically limited value allowed movie studios to hype praise that really was not there. It also served to cause films to completely flop because so many followed those thumbs so closely.

Which brings us to Rotten Tomatoes.

I’ve always thought of Rotten Tomatoes as the more mannered and mature sister to The Internet Movie Database. IMDB is an excellent source of information related to just about every film ever made. But IMDB is a cyber hussy.

Anyone can join and scrawl their opinions on her walls. User Reviews on IMDB run the gamut from Would-Be-Cinephilles like myself to the lowest of the low. User Ratings on IMDB can offer great insight into the validity of a film as much as they are prone to offer profane rants about an actor’s physical anatomy to wishing death upon anyone who likes or hates the movie.

IMDB
I think of it as a great repository of media information. However, in some ways, it is the sleazy older sister to Rotten Tomatoes.

When one looks and sorts through information posted by her users, IMDB is turns into a deeply disturbing view of human stupidity. And pity the soul who attempts to write something of value, that person is likely to get flamed hard. However, if you want to know the date a movie came out or where it was filmed or who was in it — this cheap little tart is your girl! She is more than happy to give you all the information that her servers can hold.

Rotten Tomatoes is a great deal more refined. She sorts out “official” Film Critics, from independent/online Film Critics with some cred and then allows all of her users to rate and post their reviews. Rotten Tomatoes seems to attract less human profanity and cruelty. But here is the odd thing about RT, she employs an overall rounded-estimate based on a 5 Star System ranking. She has been doing this for quite a while. If a paid Film Critic is smart, they know to give a rating based on her 5 Star System or they have no choice but to accept her assessment of their words and her often questionable rating. Several critics still fail to offer a clear rating for poor RT to be able to tabulate. She has no choice but to assign it herself. And while Rotten Tomatoes may be more refined than IMDB, she is pretty limited.

Rotten Tomatoes
Welcome to the off-kilter world of Film Evaluation by Consensus. It is a dodgy tool at best…

A Film Critic who fails to add a 5 Star rating or at least an A-F grade will often see a generally “fair” review reduced to a 1.5 rating. Users have to enter a rating, but we users are a fickle bunch. Often worse than the film critics. And that is only fair. We have paid money to see these movies. But I can’t be alone in the struggle of deciding if a movie deserves 2 or 3 stars. Or maybe a 2.5. While only a year or so ago I might have rated a movie .5 or 1 star. But as I saw RT’s overall rating of user reviews form into one solid numerical assignment, my .5 rating was adding to confusing and unfair over-all assessments.

In the Rotten Tomatoes Universe, 1983’s WarGames sits pretty with a 93% rating. In a rare situation, the general user rating is actually more on mark with a 75% rating. If you look / listen to Siskel, I suspect his rating for WarGames is closer to a 70%.

Not really.

Short Circuit now sits with a rating of 57% compared to a user rating of 67%. I have to say that the result of the general user rating makes far more sense than 57%. Even more so, if users understood that Short Circuit was really aiming at the 10 to 14 year old audience, the rating would be higher.

Eastwood’s Unforgiven has managed to fair better under the rules and restrictive application of RT’s Film Consensus. However, I feel that Eastwood’s solid film is actually sitting with ratings that I feel are higher than deserved: Film Critic Rating: 95% User Rating: 94%. I would say that this film’s actual rating should be closer to 85%.

Oddly, Streisand’s The Mirror Has Two Faces seems to have been Film Critically panned over the years. This is the film that Ebert gave a Thumbs Up. Currently this film sits with a 53% rating compared to the users rating of 72%. I love Streisand. And I own it. I tend to be aware of her work, and I’m fairly certain that this film once carried a 65% rating. So somehow, over time, RT’s Film Critic rating has gone down for this film. Personally, I feel this cinematic mis-step merits the 53% rating. That being stated, this movie does offer a mis-guided level of entertainment value. There is a cultural and psychologically convulsive aspect to Streisand’s movie that almost requires a bit of a bump up. The Mirror Has Two Faces’ entertainment value (both intended and accidental) make this film more worthy of a 60% rating. In this case the user ratings are obviously fueled by the legion of Streisand fans who refuse to own up to their icon’s mistakes. I’m not sure when I logged my rating, but I gave this movie 2 stars.

If one looks even closer to Rotten Tomatoes Logic, there is a really discordant level of confusion that occurs. I don’t know, maybe this makes sense for an art form that is so subjective. Film Art also has a strange way of aging. All the same, some of these ratings are simply disturbingly strange.

Is Unforgiven The Godfather of the Western?

Or is Unforgiven the Citizen Kane of the Western genre?

Is Clint Eastwood’s Western better than John Ford’s masterful, The Searchers?

Because within RT logic, The Godfather carries a 99%/98% shared rating between Film Critics and Users. Citizen Kane sits with a combo of 100%/90%. So in theory, both The Godfather and Citizen Kane are true cinematic masterworks. One would be hard-pressed to argue that either film is not deserving of very high ratings. I can’t help but wonder, if we are serious about ranking films, is Unforgiven so good that it is only 4 % points below The Godfather?

Films really do not get much better than this. But in Rotten Tomatoes Logic, this film is only 4 % points higher than Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven.
The Godfather
Francis Ford Coppola, 1972

Further, as brilliant as this Orson Welles film is, can we say it is a “perfect film?” Maybe we can, though in all honesty, I feel that The Godfather Part II is a surprising one up on the original film. I’d also be very quick to point out that as great as Citizen Kane is, does it resonate both personally and artistically as deep as either of the first two Godfather films? I don’t think so.

I’d go so far to say that Hitchock’s Rear Window, David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, Goddard’s Breathless and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are all slightly better films than Citizen Kane. From my perspective, the magic of Citizen Kane ties to the innovations that Welles so masterfully put into play so ahead of the cinematic curve. A crucial film, but 100%? John Ford’s The Searches is also essential and very influential, but is it worthy of RT’s 100% rating?

I don’t really like either of these movies. But I would assign a 75% for WarGames and a 70% for Short Circuit. I do not need to “like” a movie to see the talent, skill, intellect, and clear appeal for others. I do not enjoy Terrance Malick’s Tree of Life, but I am unable to dismiss it’s skill and use of style.

“You talkin’ to me?”
This near-perfect film carries 98% / 93% RT Rating. So just 3 % points higher than Unforgiven. Really?
Taxi Driver
Martin Scorsese, 1976

Now welcome to the perplexing ideology of taking an individual’s rating and averaging it in with others.

If one were to look at my ratings you would most likely find that taken within context of the way I approach rating films, you would discover that a 70% means that I think there is enough of value in a film for some others to enjoy. If I enjoy a film it is going to go more into the range of 85% to 95%. Essentially, if I like a movie enough to see it more once, purchase a copy of it or assist in restoration effort — that film will gain a high rating from me. A movie has to be really bad to get a total Thumbs Down from me.

Something that one would think is obvious, is actually not actually so. I never review / rate a film I’ve not seen. Not even professionals always follow this essential rule. Sad but true. As blogging has already become somewhat of a tired concept, other on-line means of information is taking on the more potent place to seek out new ideas and film comment. While Movie Holics tends to adhere to current film releases and normally more mainstream films, there are many other outlets and vloggers out there.

Another on-line critique that ventures into more esoteric terrain, is Brian Kish. Lo-Fi with both humor and intelligence. Always fun and laid-back style that offers insight and comedic delivery. A sort of Post-Modern Film Critic, Mr. Kish is having fun but the viewer is fully aware that he knows of what he speaks.

Post-Modern Film Criticism that manages to be comical, informative and intellectual all at one time.
Brian Kish
Barrel Bottom Reviews
YouTube Channel

His taste in film is more aligned with my own. He is re-visiting Classic Cinema with the eyes of Intellectualism as well as those with a current 21st Century Perspective. It is within the world of podcasts and vlogs that one is likely to find some of the most engaging Film Art discussion. Brian Kish’s Barrel Bottom Reviews are always fun to watch.

I was unable to secure his permission to post this link, but I doubt he will mind. Here he discusses Louis Malle’s brilliant collaborative effort, My Dinner with Andre:

https://youtu.be/YRe0ymvs0sU

Check out his perspective. This view-point is especially important to those of us who care about Film Restoration and Re-distribution. His delivery is also very entertaining.

By the way, within the RT galaxy, My Dinner with Andre sits with a 91% Film Critic ranking and a general viewer rank of 86%.

Just for the hell of it, take a look at how these movies are currently rated on Rotten Tomatoes:

My demented and twisted father decided that he and I should see the “new” Bo Derek movie. I was 14. John Derek’s Tarzan: The Ape Man was one of the worst movies I had ever seen in a cinema. My father fell asleep. I kept wishing I could, but the movie was loud and Bo Derek was constantly winning, cooing and asking stupid questions to a jungle man who might have actually been dumber than her character appeared to be. This film currently holds a Film Critic Rating of 11% vs. User Rating of 21%.

Perhaps one of the all-time worst movies I have EVER seen in a cinema. My inappropriate father took me to see this mess. He fell asleep. Sadly, the cinematic torture would not allow me to sleep. Per Rotten Tomatoes, this mind-numbing badness rates 11%. That is still 2 % points higher than 2015’s Fantastic Four. Seriously?
Tarzan: The Ape Man
John Derek, 1981

I do not have to see The Fantastic Four to know that it is a better film than this horrifying film error that remains Tarzan: The Ape Man. Bo Derek frolicking in the jungle with Tarzan is pure cinematic torture. No, it is not erotic. Just to be sure I actually watched this film again. It is actually worse than I remembered it.

Oh, and let’s not forget the ill-advised American Idol-inspired film, From Justin to Kelly.

OK, come on. Do movies get any worse than this? And, no. It is not camp. It is just bad.

American Idol goes to the movies. RT currently ranks it at 10%. This might be a little bit harsh. It was better than Tarzan: The Ape Man.

From Justin to Kelly
Robert Iscove, 2003

So as Movie Holics pointed out, can any of us really agree that Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four really worse that the two movies listed above? Really? Is it that bad? 9%???? Mr. Trank’s film has clearly become some sort of odd Cinematic Whipping Boy.

This may be the lowest rated film to be green-lit for a sequel. Major Movie Studios are not always on target, but they clearly do not see this rating as “true” or “accurate.” If they did, Josh Trank would not be on the docket to direct the sequel. Fantastic Four is a classic example of what is wrong with Rotten Tomatoes.

Obviously, not a great or maybe not even a good movie. But is it deserving of RT’s 9% rating?!?!!?
Fantastic Four
Josh Trank, 2015

How in the world can this level of skewed ranking make any sense or inform viewers just how bad or how good a film is?

Matty Stanfield, 10.6.2015

Cinematic Candy or Entering The Criterion Closet or Approaching My Pitiable Criterion Bookshelves

The Criterion Collection has been kicking around for over 31 years. What began as LaserDisc format-grounded film restoration and distribution company has emerged as the pre-imminent Art Film Label. The simple icon carries more meaning and value than any major film studio. It has become the symbol for true Art Film validation. While this can be a bit problematic, it is still a sound statement. After the LaserDisc format died, Criterion remained solid thanks to a strong relationship and shared goal with Janus Films. An American film company established in the mid 1950’s, Janus Films has always been focused on bringing the finest in International Cinema to the US. Criterion took over home distribution for Janus long ago. It has been a dream-collaboration for both companies.

This logo has become the benchmark for Film Art — specifically the label of Cinematic Target Audience?
True Film Aficionados

As we move toward Criterion’s 32nd year of operation, they still offer the best and most diverse collection of Art House Cinema. With the advent of Blu-Ray, they are really the only trustworthy source from which we know only the best restoration and transfer will be provided. Sometimes Criterion’s commitment to the Filmmaker Vision requires an adjustment in expectation. Most recently, Criterion’s aspect ratio for Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby caused a slight ripple in the waters of FilmLuv. But it was a fleeting moment. Criterion had correctly re-adjusted Roman Polanski’s pitch-perfect film of horror, paranoia and the supernatural back to the ratio within which Polanski had intended. Once everyone knew this, grumbling about this ratio fell silent and the waters were calmed.

“Mother, they’re still not sure it is a baby! “
American Filmmaker, David Lynch, holds the first printed copy of Criterion’s re-stored “Eraserhead” blu-ray.
David Lynch, 2014

The very first film to receive The Criterion Collection treatment was Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. I’ve never seen the LaserDisc but have frequently heard it still surpasses the rather limited “job” Warner Brothers has issued to Blu-Ray. Sadly, this is usually always true. Criterion lost the licensing rights to Citizen Kane, but there hard work remains somewhere safe in that vault.

This film holds the distinction of being the first movie to ever receive “The Criterion Treatment” It was released in the short-lived Laser Disc format in 1984.
Citizen Kane
Orson Welles, 1941

It is at “the ready” whenever WB grows tired of “re-packaging” the same transfer over and over again. Restoration technology has zoomed forward since 1984. I’d love to see what they could do with Citizen Kane now. Many other important titles found their way to Criterion LaserDisc — Woody Allen’s Annie Hall, RKO’s King Kong, Federico Fellini’s La Strada, Michelangelo Antonioni’s classic Blow Up, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Ken Russell’s Tommy (now forever lost to the hands

The Criterion Collection’s highly prized LaserDisc of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

of Sony. I’ve seen the LaserDisc version. It is a whole other world from the Sony Blu-Ray. And sorry kids, The Devils never made it to Criterion. And it is not for lack of trying. WB is the sole reason this controversial and acclaimed Ken Russell remains a murky mess on bootlegs or Korean “edited” version DVD’s. The original Theatrical Cut has never been released. Never. Blame Warner Brothers. Numerous petitions and even the sad loss of Ken Russell has not moved Warner Brothers to let the film out. No reason has ever been given.

“The Devils is not a film for everyone . . .”
Vanessa Redgrave as Sister Jeanne
The Devils
Ken Russell, 1971
Cinematography | David Watkin

Maybe they are too embarrassed to admit that they lost or destroyed. But you see it doesn’t matter. Ken Russell’s family retains the original cut of The Devils in safe keeping and pristine. Warner Brothers still refuses.

Criterion also restored most of Stanley Kubrick’s films for LaserDisc that continue to rival anything Warners has released to Blu-Ray. Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride, Danny Boyle’s Trainspotting as well Mel Brook’s The Producers, Hal Ashby’s Shampoo, Barbra Streisand’s A Star Is Born and Prince of Tides, Jonathan Demme’s Silence of the Lambs, The Marx Bros’ A Night at the Opera, Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, The Wizard of Oz (now owned by Warner Brothers), Gene Kelly’s Singing in the Rain and David Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers all exist in exceptional LaserDisc transfers owned by Criterion.

“On every street in every city, there’s a nobody who dreams of being a somebody.”
Robert De Niro
Taxi Driver
Martin Scorsese, 1976

The titles were snatched back by the likes of WB and Sony. The one thing they will never be able to snatch back are the incredible transfers and often obscure special features Criterion secured. A close examination reveals Warner Brothers and Sony to be the most difficult studios with whom Criterion has had to deal. However, the oddest challenges come up when trying to secure the required licensing. Don’t even get me started on Shampoo. Please note the very poor Sony DVD transfer below. Wait. I’m pushing my luck.

“You wanna fuck?”
Well, yes, Mr. [insert name here] is “totally OK” to take Carrie Fisher up on her offer.
Shampoo
Hal Ashby, 1975
Cinematography | László Kovács

The sad fact that while you can secure most of these films on Blu-Ray, the quality is nearly always sub-par. Even a recent reissue of Taxi Driver proves minimal in impact. As for Woody Allen’s Annie Hall — in fact all of his early cinematic brilliance has yet to receive an appropriate restoration. The Annie Hall Blu-Ray is essential the cheap DVD transfer moved into the newer format. All the more tragic when one remembers that nearly all of the key Woody Allen films were shot by the late Gordon Willis.

Does anyone really believe that this is the best Warner Brothers can do?
That would be Rutger Hauer hidden in unintended shadow
Blade Runner
Ridley Scott, 1982

And seriously, Blade Runner. Warner Bros, what the fuck? I’d gladly give up my unicorn snow globe for a better transfer. And poor Wizard of Oz. Warner Brothers has issued/re-issued and re-packaged it so many times without ever increasing the quality of transfer. At least I can’t see or hear any improvements.

Recent years have seen Criterion step up its marketing. Last year saw the arrival of beautiful hard-backed book, Criterion Designs, filled with Criterion’s much admired approach to packaging. This book also offers a detailed listing of all the great films Criterion restored for LaserDisc during the early years. It is a stunningly beautiful book of art inspired by some of the greatest films of all time.

Anna Karina interviewed by Criterion.
Criterion, 2002

The folks at Criterion have really stepped up the innovation of packaging and design. It inspires all Film Aficionados. “Fake” Criterion art designs are to be found in all corners of the Cyber World. Some are truly brilliant. The point of these “fake” covers is that those designers who make them hope to stir Criterion to pursue certain films for “The Criterion Collection Treatment.”

Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands interviewed by Criterion.
Criterion, 2004

Sadly, it takes a whole lot more than some clever artwork, petitions and suggestion for Criterion to take on a new film. Rest assured, Criterion is working on securing a number of films to join the collection. And they do their very best to secure time and interviews with key players. Great surprises are revealed as iconic artists such Anna Karina, Peter Falk, Gena Rowlands and Isabelle Huppert lend insight into their roles and experiences.

Isabelle Huppert discusses Jean-Luc Godard with Criterion.
Criterion, 2014

In the last 5 years Criterion’s web site has been elevated to match the quality of the films they produce. A great On-Line Forum and access to film essays and clips are only a couple of the major adds to the site. For me, the most fun are the 3 Reasons vid-clips that quickly explain why a film has been chosen. Even more fun is when Film Artists are given “access” to The Criterion Closet.

Nicolas Winding Refn grabs Alex Cox’s “Repo Man” during his visit to The Criterion Closet.
Criterion, 2013

It is fun to watch and listen to filmmakers as each reacts to what is essentially a room filled with approximately 5-10 copies of all DVD/Blu-Rays Criterion has produced. It is kind of like entering a cinematic candy store. It reminds me a bit of that “rush” my 5 year-old heart experienced overtime I went into Sam Goody’s with my mom. I was not usually allowed to get anything, but I loved roaming through the record racks on the tip of my toes. Too short to ever really see the full album, it was still awesome. The Criterion Closet is like that. There are so many film artists I’d love see look through the closet. Would it not be cool to see The Great Carrie Fisher, Sissy Spacek, Kentucker Audley, Joe Swanberg, Lynn Shelton and Catherine Keener let loose in there?!?!? Send them into the tiny room in couples. Carrie Fisher and Catherine Keener would be fun duo to watch!

Korean Filmmaker, Joon-ho Bong visits The Criterion Closet.
Criterion, 2014

The website is full of these vid-clips.

British Filmmaker, Richard Ayoade visits The Criterion Closet.
Criterion, 2014

If you’ve never been given the opportunity to walk into the surprisingly little room and are curious, you can find the clips at the link below.

https://www.criterion.com

My only “complaint” is that there seems to be some odd sort of “Boy’s Club” mentality going down. Why have we not seen any female filmmakers explore The Criterion Closet?

Canadian actor, Michael Cera visits The Criterion Closet.
Criterion, 2015

The reason is not as “political” as you might think. There is no high-tech innovation when entering the closet. The lighting isn’t great. The absence of female actors is more linked to “publicist worry” than anything else. Sometimes the “official” trips are carefully planned, but most of the time these happen more or less “off the cuff.” Still, some effort needs to be made. Personally, I’d love to see Claire Denis raid The Criterion Closet. And, if she is in NYC — she would be more than “game” for it. And has anyone even asked Lena Dunham or Greta Gerwig? Neither of these very important female artists are worried about being ready for their “close-up.” Criterion? Can you hear me? Not everyone is Barbra Streisand or Goldie Hawn!

The late American Cinematographer, Harris Savides visits The Criterion Closet.
Criterion, 2012

Since the advent of The Criterion Collection Blu-Ray, I’ve slowly begun the process of forming my own version of The Criterion Collection. It is not very big, but I’m on a budget. And, truth be known, more than a few were given to me! Covert operating has it’s privileges! I call this ever-growing collection My Pitiable Criterion Bookshelves! I suppose my most valued “player” in my collection is Kar-wai Wong’s Chungking Express which is tragically out of print. And it it is not likely to return anytime soon. The most devastating loss? I used to own the coveted Criterion transfer of Nicolas Roeg’s The Man Who Fell To Earth. It is long lost. Don’t ask. By the way, if you do not already own it, you are well advised to purchase Jim Jarmusch’s Mystery Train fast while you still can. Just a suggestion.

Welcome to my Criterion Bookcase…

I was recently give the task of selecting six discs from my sad little Criterion Collection and offer a brief discussion of each. The methodology was simple. I sat in front of my bookcase in Lotus Position. Strained my Chakra System and sent my Film Loving aura’s energy upward and reached forward 6 times to pull a movie. Ok. I’m lying. I’ve no interest in Yoga or anything applied toward The New Age without irony.

Essentially, I just squatted in front of the case while my dodgy cat and nutty dog raced around me and blindly pulled 6 titles. I should add that this created quite a mess as over 16 titles fell over and out. These are in no particular order and I do not particularly love one of these films than the other. I selected these Blu-Rays accidentally. This seemed the best way to go. In the end I decided to make an executive decision and only offer my insights into 4 of my initial 6. I did this by closing my eyes and picking up 4. So here are my comments regarding 3 of my Pitiable Collection. Let the fun begin!

Paris, Texas
Wim Wenders, 1984
Cinematography | Robby Müller

I actually have a kind of interesting connection to Wim Wender’s Paris, Texas. I was just entering the deep end of the pool of drugs at the age of 14. I loved movies, but my knowledge was largely limited to the movies that played in my home town of Beaumont, Texas. Around this time I became enamored of Nastassja Kinski. Her images adorned my bedroom walls. I was lying on the floor of my bedroom when my crazy-ass father entered and whispered, “Would you like to meet Nastassja Kinski?”

Only partially annoyed I answered, “No. I would hate to meet Nastassja Kinski. I only have her all over my walls because she is of no interest to me.”

“Well, that’s too bad because of friend of mine has invited us over to a club where she is shooting a movie.”

I jolted up out of my weed-infused stupor, “Really? Are you kidding? Yes! Can I bring — ”

“No. And you have to promise me you don’t mention this to your mother. Never. Got it?”

“Ok.” My parents had re-entered their ill-advised marriage again. He told me to call in sick the following day. The Donut Shop where have to deal. I was gonna meet Nastassja Kinski! The next morning I joined my dad in his huge car and we were on our way. I should mention that my hometown of Beaumont, Texas is not an ideal place. When my insane father told me he was friends with both the owner, manager and some of the “girls” of a place called The Keyhole Klub located in Port Arthur. Yes, aside from the film crew — the first thing I noticed is that this was “club” with a “K.”

I don’t mean to cause offense, but if Beaumont is the “armpit” of Texas then Port Arthur would have to be the “perineum” of Texas. Port Arthur could be rough in a major way. At the time, this was the sort of town which you really needed to avoid. And The Keyhole Klub was more or less just off the battered old highway.

All that appears to remain of The Keyhole Klub. Apparently it was shut down some time ago. This sign is gone. The building still stands, but it is all boarded up.
Keyhole Klub,
Port Arthur, Texas, USA

I don’t think I was yet fully aware of “things” at this point in my life. I knew what a prostitute was and I understood most of the fundamentals of sex thanks to my father’s porn collection and observations hanging out with friends. But I’m not sure if I really understood that this “klub” was a “legalized” illegal operation. Of course this being my father — it all makes sense. He knew the owner because he had cut him a good deal on a shipment of guns. He had also trained several of “the girls” to shoot guns. These “girls” looked more like kind of overly made-up creepy old ladies to me. In reality they were probably barely 30. This is remembered from the eyes of a 14 year old stoner.

The movie crew looked both professional and confused. My father introduced me to the owner of the “klub” – think Willem Dafoe as “Bobby” from David Lynch’s Wild At Heart. This dude was seriously creepy. But to be honest “creepy” was not a new reality to me back then.

The owner told me that she hadn’t yet arrived. Or if she had he hadn’t noticed.

“Strange girl, that one. Puurty. But fuckin’ strange. You don’t look much like your Daddy.”

He and my father began to talk about some gun delivery he was still waiting “on.”

I asked, “So where is Nastassja Kinski and why would she be here?” Just then one of “the girls” walked up to the owner.

The owner told “the girl” to walk me around and keep me out of trouble. The film crew had full control of the “klub” for the day and into the early part of the night. “The girl” introduced me to Harry Dean Stanton. We shook hands. He asked what a kid like me was doing there. I think I just shrugged. Then she introduced me to the film’s director. He seemed hot and frustrated, but extended his hand and said hello in a friendly, thick accent of some sort. A sweaty guy with an even thicker accent walked up to talk to the director. She introduced me to him as well. This time I asked, “Lasso?” “No. Lazlow.” I had no clue of who they were. It did dawn on me that I had seen Stanton might have been in Coal Miner’s Daughter and The Rose, but I wasn’t sure. Nor was “the girl.”

She asked me if I wanted to go inside where there was air-conditioning and she’d get me a Coke. Would I possibly see Miss. Kinski? I entered the suspect looking building. I wish I could remember the name of “the girl” but I can’t. She took me through into this dark hallway. It was seemed dirty and smelled odd. A hall of one-way mirrors with tiny desks and phones placed in front of the mirrors. “The girl” told me that men liked to pay money to talk to them. I asked how and she let me inside one of the rooms. Suddenly I heard her voice and she told me she could see and hear me, but I couldn’t see her.

“He thought if she never got jealous of him that she didn’t really care about him. Jealousy was a sign of her love for him…”
Nastassja Kinski
Paris, Texas
Wim Wenders, 1984
Cinematography | Robby Müller

The room was in a state of half-construction. There was a stool, chairs, toys, sex toys and perfumes. She told me that every room was the same.

We returned to the cruel heat, humidity and sunlight. I found my father talking with a group of rednecks. One asked me if I liked to go “shootin‘” like my dad. I answered “no.”

This led to a spit and a new question, “You mean you don’t know how to shoot a gun, boy?”

My rebellion was in full-tilt, “Oh yeah. I can shoot a gun. And I shoot a gun well.”

My father offered his standard joke while his hand was firmly clutched around the back of my neck, “You have to excuse my son. If Jesus walked up he’d tell him to get a haircut!” …this was met with laughter and more Skoal spitting.

I sulked all the way back to Beaumont. It would be several years before I realized I had met The Harry Dean Stanton, The Laszlo Kovacs and The Great Wim Wenders. All of whom were very nice to me. I was an annoyed teenager hellbent on meeting a “real” star. It is ironic. Year later I would have the opportunity of meeting Mr. Wenders again. He was charming, easy-going and very open. I did not let him know we had met years before. The really interesting thing about my “connection” to the movie is that when I finally saw the film itself, one of if not the most important moments in Paris, Texas takes place within the walls of a gross Port Arthur sex club.

Nastassja Kinski / Harry Dean Stanton
Paris, Texas
Wim Wenders, 1984
Cinematography | Robby Müller

Somehow Kovacs and Wenders transformed that little room and one-way mirror into something interestingly beautiful. The true magic of filmmaking. Obviously, Ms. Kinski eventually showed up. And she is exceptional in the film. Every time I see this movie I wonder if they took out the sex toys before or after she entered the room. I think this might be Wim Winders’ greatest film. For me, it is most definitely a cinematic masterpiece. Harry Dean Stanton barely speaks at all, but he conveys all and more than you need to know or understand. He is practically mute until he enters the sex club. He sees his far-too young wife, but she can’t see him. Stanton reveals his character’s truth in one of the most beautifully sad cinematic moments.

Robby Müller’s cinematography has never been so fully utilized. (And that is saying a great deal) This is a cinematic poetry of “the ordinary.” Magically, Wenders’ gives this visual poem flight into “the extraordinary.” Bittersweet beauty. Brilliant.

While we are still in the 1980’s, let’s move to 1986 and Jim Jarmusch’s Down by Law.

“It’s not where you start – It’s where you start again.”
Down by Law
Jim Jarmusch, 1986
Cinematography | Robby Müller

Jim Jarmusch’s great movie has taken on a new level of importance in the past decade. Not that it wasn’t important upon it’s initial release. It was. I skipped a day of school and drove my beat-up old Buick to Houston to see an afternoon screening. It felt so vital and new. This was my first Jamusch movie. And what a movie it was! There is a great difference in seeing this movie through the eyes of an 17 year old and the eyes of a thirty-something. There is an even greater difference viewing it through the eyes of a fourty-something. Each viewing is rewarding, but age and the passing of time bring this simple, low-budget movie a far deeper level of meaning. Add in the aftermath of Katrina, this is an important portrait of a New Orleans long gone.

Jarmusch and his actors capture the cool and the conflict. Robby Müller’s brilliant cinematography captures glimpses of this city that have been forever changed. John Lurie, Tom Waits and Roberto Benigni (before I found him annoying) are perfectly cast as fictional versions of themselves. Ellen Barkin shows up as well. This is a young Barkin who is already far more talented than her age would suggest. I remember thinking it funny as she tossed our poor Zack’s possessions out the window of their grubby and yet impossibly cool apartment. In my thirties I was in pain for Tom Wait’s character. He only has a few things and what she tosses out that window are priceless.

” You don’t take care of me. You don’t want me…”
Ellen Barkin / Tom Waits
Down by Law
Jim Jarmusch, 1986
Cinematography | Robby Müller

I knew Tom Waits to be a cool singer/songwriter who was creating experimental twists on the blues and jazz. He had dumped Rickie Lee Jones and inspired her to create an entire iconic album. I didn’t know who John Lurie was, but he seemed cool. Benigni was a harmless clown. As these three “true” characters find themselves stuck in a jail cell the naturalistic charm and humor comes to full bloom. We follow them on a simple escape. Now fugitives, we see them argue, bond and joined together as outsiders. The film rambles it’s way to an ending that is as satisfying as it is kind of sad and unsure. Jim Jarmusch is an essential filmmaker. Over the years his eccentricities sometimes veer far deeply into his “hipster cool” — this, for me, remains his best cinematic moment. Somewhere in my mind, these three men are still sulking, joking and sliding through their lives. Lives that are far more meaningful that surface view allows.

“Life is like the surf, so give yourself away like the sea.”
Y Tu Mamá También
Alfonso Cuarón, 2001
Cinematography | Emmanuel Lubezki

Expectations were not that high as we took our seats to see this film. Alfonso Cuarón’s movie is framed as if a “documentary” which features a distant and dis-engaged narrator. It is an effective device. As we “meet” the 3 leading characters of the story, we are allowed to make “judgements” about each one. I stress the word “judgement” because that is what we do. It is as if Cuaron gives his audience permission to allow us to wedge each three “characters” into our own sense of stereotyping and passive viewpoints. As the movie progresses, the idea of documentary gives sway to leaving the audience as “flies on the walls.” Our pre-conceived ideas of each character proves incorrect. These characters do not fit into cultures’ restrictively simple “labels.”

Thanks to the skills of Maribel Verdú, Diego Luna and most especially Gael García Bernal — these characters very quickly become “people” filled with challenges and very real worries and concerns. The “older” woman is not really that much older than her male friends. She is barely a decade older. But as a woman and as an adult who has had a bit more experience, she is more forgiving of her friend’s limitations. It doesn’t mean she understands them. Julio and Tenoch have been raised in very different ways and within very contrasting social classes. It has not prevented a deep friendship, but as they grow older each is painfully aware of their own “judgements” and “prejudices.”

Maribel Verdú, Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal
Y Tu Mamá También
Alfonso Cuarón, 2001
Cinematography | Emmanuel Lubezki

What seems like a simple road trip and coming of age story is far more complex. At the time the film was released, Cuaron’s use of explicit sex went far beyond the range of the American R-rating. It was hit with the often damaging and unfair “NC-17” label. For younger people this film became an infamously erotic, bold and graphic look at sexuality. It would be unfair to not allow the film its eroticism. It is erotic. It is also a very intelligent examination of sexuality from both the limited perspectives of two only recently “legally” recognized young adult males as well as an adult female perspective. Sexuality is at the core of this beautiful film.

The road trip is not simple. It is filled with glimpses into The Mexican culture which is simultaneously beautiful, confused and horrifically economically corrupt tension. In addition, this “little” road trip reveals itself to be a realistic and troubling exploration of male bonding. When that bonding dips it’s toes into the deep waters of sexuality — this friendship can never return to it’s innocent fun and love. It is severed. It is damaged beyond repair. And our leading female character is dealing with life’s most challenging and horrifying realities. Beyond lonely, Luisa is trying desperately to find solace in a world that has refused it. These two kind young men represent a youth she has almost forgotten. And while she tries to help guide these two boys into a smarter sexual understanding she also pushes them too fast and too far.

Gael García Bernal and his friend are about to go deeper than their friendship can survive.
Gael García Bernal
Y Tu Mamá También
Alfonso Cuarón, 2001
Cinematography | Emmanuel Lubezki

She is unable to notice this because of an internal horror that she keep hidden. Not because she is afraid to share it — but because she is too afraid to allow herself to view it. Y Tu Mama También presents itself as a sexy coming of age movie that is actually a profound and tragically sad reality that comes with adulthood. Underneath that already complex achievement lies a societal-political of a Mexico that is about to explode onto other cultures and countries that I don’t I was even aware of at the the time. More than just an “important” work, this is stunning adult film that no one will want to miss.

“Fact, fantasy or memory?”
My Winnipeg
Guy Maddin, 2007
Cinematography | Jody Shapiro

If I were pushed, I’d have to admit that this is probably my favorite of the 4 movie from my Criterion Collection. Guy Maddin’s work is “tripy” and constantly shifts from “Horror” to “Dark Comedy.” But every film also offers an enticing beauty. The Saddest Music in the World would prove to be his most “accessible” movie. He emerged from the fringes of his earlier shorts and experimental films. Interestingly, as good as that film is — it is far from being one of his best. Following the Art House success of Saddest Music and the success of 2006’s Brand Upon The Brain, he created his most personal film.

I had the pleasure of seeing My Winnipeg before it was released to the film festival circuit and it’s all too-limited US release. While Brand Upon the Brain was a fascinating experimental re-visit to silent film, My Winnipeg takes the “form” of a documentary. This “formation” features re-enactments of Maddin’s “personal memory” and of Winnipeg’s eccentric “history.” Utilizing his standard devices of long ago abandoned cinematic tricks. This is not a documentary that can be accepted as “truth.” This is an artist’s re-invented collection of memories that he has bent, twisted and often self-created or imagined.

The late Roger Ebert wrote an incredible review of My Winnipeg that captured my own viewpoints far better than I could ever articulate. I still remember a very key comment Ebert gave in his review. I did’t remember it well enough to quote, but it was easy to find on-line.

Roger Ebert wrote, that Winnipeg’s “city fathers commissioned it [the film] as a documentary, to be made by “the mad poet of Manitoba,” as a Canadian magazine termed him. Maddin has never left his hometown, although judging by this film, it has left him.” This is an almost perfect summation of the movie. I highly encourage you seek Ebert’s review of this odd but effective film prior to seeing it. And if you have not seen it — you must check it out. Ebert’s one sentence frames Maddin’s incredible film perfectly.

We never doubt that Maddin loves and is proud of “his” Winnipeg, but we can’t really be sure that we can trust what he shows and tells us. He rejects the idea of creating the “documentary” for which he was commissioned. Instead he pursues an experimental and surreal glimpse back into what might be a collective feeling of a city long gone. He examines an idea of himself via what are very likely false childhood “memories.” I call these memories “false” because they are too absurd to be considered true.

Mother does not always stand for comfort..
Ann Savage casually chats her son out of suicide.
My Winnipeg
Guy Maddin, 2007
Cinematography | Jody Shapiro

His “mom” is more a symbol of Winnipeg than a maternal relation. In fact his entire “family” emerges more as metaphors or symbols of a city’s history long abandoned. It is partly from his own familial “experience” and the city’s “history” in sport and retail that Maddin once again returns to his familiar examination of sexuality. Maddin’s work has always found ways to root themselves into the ream of sex. He has never shied away from a conflicted view of sexuality. This includes a constant re-emerging study of repressed homosexuality. I do not mean to imply anything regarding Maddin’s real sexuality or identity, but his work continually pulls his audience to the attention of a vague interest related to “latent homosexuality.” It appears to be a source of conflict and humor. This is not a politically offensive “conflict” or “humor.” It is expressed as both a sort of longing, sadness and curiosity.

The role of women in Maddin’s work is also takes form in a mystical riddle. The female characters share maternal instincts as much as they offer sexual pleasure and danger. Once again, this is not misogyny. The idea of women is a source of conflict within Maddlin’s cinematic world. A conflict that is interestingly free of rage or objectification. Women seem to allude him. They are mysterious and powerful — and they enchant him. One senses that Maddin is truly encaged in what becomes a true magical mystery.

Marcel Dzama’s effective design for The Criterion Collection’s packaging.
My Winnipeg
Guy Maddin, 2007

My Winnipeg offers the perfect formation of Guy Maddin’s eccentric, dark, disturbing and often funny ideas and style. This is a fully formed world in which we are placed. It is logical that this formation takes place as Maddin is paying homage and also applying a sense of sadness toward the mysteries of childhood perspective and a time long ago. Winnipeg culture is tied to the filmmaker’s identity. This film is a rewarding experience. After the movie ends, I feel as if I need to re-adjust my vision. And the lonesome laments of Maddin’s brilliant film lingers. A poster for the film’s original release hangs in my dining room. Moments from this magical movie are forever in my own memory. My Winnipeg is a true Cinematic Masterpiece. It also that defies “genre.” Having the opportunity to speak with Maddin, and one does speak “with” him. He is a good a listener as speaker. You are able to connect this very grounded man to his films. Bizarre as they are, each is somehow grounded in a reality that is uniquely intellectual, beautiful and uniquely his own. Every shot, every character is different and sometimes even “evil” — but this filmmaker has love for each one.

Criterion has done an outstanding job at transferring this film. Fingers-crossed that they are soon able to do the same with Brand Upon The Brain! via blu-ray and a re-freshed VOD version. Criterion released BUTB to DVD which offers alternate audio narrations of the silent film. Isabella Rossellini provides the “official” narration to great effect, but it is interesting to hear other actors serve as narrators. Each narration delivery seems to change the film’s intentions and meanings. Technology has advanced a great deal since this film joined The Criterion Collection as a Blu-Ray. Let’s hope they will be able to re-master and re-issue to Blu-Ray and VOD soon!

” All things will happen again. And again.”
Brand Upon the Brain! A Remembrance in 12 Chapters
Guy Maddin, 2006
Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke

Meanwhile, we can dream… I particularly love the dreams of Designer and Design Firm, Variant. Variant is a boutique design agency specializing in key art for independent film. Beautiful work to be discovered there. I love their design for Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.

www.variantcreative.com

Fake Criterion Cover for Stanley Kubrick’s
The Shining
Designed by and courtesy
of © Variant
http://www.variantcreative.com

Another great site devoted to the art of design for “dream” Criterion Covers is far more subversive. However, I do think a case could be made for Adam Bernstein’s cinematic adaptation of Julia Sweeney’s iconic SNL parody of androgyny. It’s Pat was a bad film, but over time it has developed an odd sort of entertainment value. There is goofy but legitimate amount of fun in this strange little cinematic error. “I played with the Ween!” You can find and follow both via Tumblr and Twitter:

http://fakecriterions.tumblr.com

Fake Criterion Cover for
It’s Pat
Julia Sweeney
Adam Bernstein, 1994
Courtesy of
© FakeCriterions
http://fakecriterions.tumblr.com

In all honesty, FakeCriterion’s design for Shane Carruth’s brilliant Upstream Color erbp is far better than erbp Films’ official packaging design.

The power of Film Art is unlimited and subjective. This is a concept that is well understood by The Criterion Collection.

Matty Stanfield

7.30.2015