Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Face of Another

Cross posted from Wonders in the Dark, part of their fantastic science fiction countdown.



Science Fiction can come in many forms. There are the big world building SF stories imagining whole worlds different from ours, however rigorously they might work out how they got to be different. Think Metropolis, Star Trek, Brazil, Children of Men. There are smaller world building exercises, where something alien or some invented technology is dropped into the world, and we see how the world reacts: think The Thing from Another World, or Under the Skin, or Midnight Special. But there is another type that isn’t, really, about world building at all. In these stories, something is changed – technology, usually, something that doesn’t exist in fact – and it is used to tell an intimate story, about a small group of people, with no direct implications for the world at large. (Though with indirect implications, maybe.) The Face of Another, a 1966 film by Hiroshi Teshigahara, from a novel by Kobo Abe, is this kind of story. It is science fiction because of one detail – the face itself – a detail used to justify what is mainly a psychological study, with horror overtones.

The story is this: a man (Okuyama) is burned in an accident, his face ruined, forcing him to wear bandages the rest of his life. He broods, alienated from his wife, his co-workers, everyone. He has a doctor, a psychiatrist who dabbles in science (making prosthetics) who says he will make him a face that will look exactly like a real face. He does so, all the time speculating on how this different face will change Okuyama’s psyche. Okuyama puts it on, and starts establishing a second life – but his ultimate intention is to try to seduce his wife with the new face. He tries it and it works all too well – he is horrified at her unfaithfulness. (He has made himself jealous.) When he confronts her, though, she says she knew all along, and thought he knew – thought this was a shared masquerade, to get past the complications of his bandages. She thought he was being considerate of her. (He is not considerate of anyone.) After that, whatever claims he had to sanity are gone – he attacks a woman in the street, and when the doctor bails him out, put him out of his misery – and then? Good question. This story is intercut with another story, a young woman with a terrible scar on her face, probably from Nagasaki, though half of her face is beautiful. She suffers and becomes increasingly anxious about the coming of another war, until she pulls her hair back and walks into the sea.





This is presented more as a psychological thriller, or horror, than as science fiction. It’s themes are mainly from horror – bodily integrity (and its loss); questions of identity itself; the sense of the darkness inside us being given an external form, that turns on us. The Self and The Other is one of the great themes of horror, and the main theme of this film. Its precedents are familiar horror situations – doppelgängers and Faust type stories – doubles, tempters and tempted, the chance to become someone else. The science fiction here essentially replaces the supernatural or psychological motivations of classic horror – Okuyama doesn’t go mad (as in Dostoevsky’s The Double) or make a dealt with the devil (as in Faust) – he gets a prosthetic face. This is, in fact, a rich tradition within science fiction itself, especially early science fiction. Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Invisible Man, The Island of Dr. Moreau all tell stories that feel closer to gothic horror than to science fiction, and explore themes associated with horror, while using technologies as the justification for their marvels. All involve doubles, secret identities, divided selves, tempting, corrupting figures, bodily monstrosity and so on – as does The Face of Another.



It has all of it in fact – with the Doctor serving both as Okuyama’s doppelgänger and his Mephistopheles. It’s a double function (of course it’s a double function) that recalls the plot of The Student of Prague, where the devil takes the student’s mirror image for his own purposes, and foreshadows works like Bad Influence and Fight Club (though Fight Club resolves the double/tempter back into one character), and especially Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Doppelganger. (A film definitely influenced by this one.) The doctor enables Okuyama to live a double life; he urges him to take advantage of it, though he imagines the freedom as corrupting. He pushes Okuyama to act, and begins to seem to urge him to act out his (the doctor’s) desires. The doctor come off even more sinister than Okuyama – he is a Dr. Jekyll who is not willing to swallow the potion himself; he pushes Okuyama to act out his own darker urges, while keeping himself out of it, trying to eschew responsibility for what he pushes Okuyama to do. Though as doubles it’s hard to say who is corrupting whom – the doctor allows Okuyama to follow his worst instincts while telling himself the doctor put him up to it – as much as the reverse. But that constantly switching perspective is what the film is about.



Teshigahara is a stylist, and the film’s themes are given rigorous formal treatment. It is a film about masks and doubles, about reflections and reversals, about unstable identities, and it is made up of all those things. Doubles: Okuyama and the doctor; Okuyama and the scarred girl. Repetitions: scenes – Okuyama arriving at the apartment, first with his bandages, then with his Face, encountering the super’s daughter, then her father, in just the same way, touring the rooms in just the same way; situations – arriving at his boss’ office, scenes with his wife; shots – Okuyama facing the camera with his wife behind him, then his wife facing the camera with Okuyama behind her. Scenes, shots, situations repeat, reverse, reflect one another. This is most consistent and extreme in the relationship between Okuyama and the doctor, of course. Every device appears: the two as doubles of one another, as parts of one another, overlapping, as mirror images of one another, either specially or in color (one in white, the other black, which happens repeatedly); scenes are repeated – they go to the beer hall twice, where they talk and drink – while reversing their positions (right and left) and their suits (Okuyama wears dark, the doctor light the first time, they reverse it the second time) between visits.



They are the strongest pairing in the film, but not the only one. Okuyama is linked to the scarred girl; all the women – Okuyama’s wife, the doctor’s wife, his nurse, the boss’s secretary – form a series of displacements of one another, visually, structurally. They haunt the film – recognizing Okuyama, not recognizing Okuyama, flitting around the edge of the frame (the doctor’s wife tucked off in the back of the frame as he and the nurse talk and flirt), erupting, now and then, into something fully uncanny. No one is quite who they seem – or quite who they are. (Though some are more aware and accepting of this than others.)



Finally, all this style does one more thing – it makes the film look like science fiction. This is especially so in the doctor’s office, with its glass shelves and windows and reflections, its floating body parts and instruments, its shifting perspectives, its pristine futuristic strangeness.



But it extends the look to the rest of the film as well. Okuyama’s apartment, his office, the airport where they buy his face, the streets of Tokyo, all have a similar alienating modernity. It’s a look common in films of the 1960s – as if filmmakers discovered the modern (and modernist) city, and found it as surprising and foreign as any science fiction city. The idea of the contemporary city as a kind of science fiction setting appears in many ’60s films – sometimes explicitly, as in Alphaville or the shots of Tokyo in Solaris – sometimes implicitly, as in Antonioni’s city scapes, or Playtime, or any of a host of stylish thrillers. They emphasize the alienating modernity of the glass and steel city, making it as sterile and alien as the future everytown in Things to Come. The sense, which is very strong in this film, especially in the doctor’s office, is that actual science fiction would be almost redundant. The world itself is already science fiction – they don’t need complex world building to create an alien world: they just need to show the streets and offices and people as they are. (Maybe with some extra floating ears…)

This was, of course, especially true in Japan, in Tokyo, a city wiped off the map twice in the first half to the 20th century (by the 1922 earthquake and World War II), and rebuilt twice, more modern and ambitious than before. And a population rebuilt as well – remade after the war, a country and culture largely reimagined after the war. That sense of alienation runs through so much of post-war Japanese films and literature, giving it tremendous power. The nation itself had to confront who it was, what its identity was, what was real and what not – and find ways to enact the new selves it was supposed to inhabit. That tension – the sense of human beings as aliens – it embodied (very literally) by Tatsuya Nakadai’s performance as well. In the bandages, he has to act with his body and his eyes; with the mask, he has to perform both the performance of normality and the fact that it is a performance, that his face is a mask. The way he moves – his control of his face – the way he sits, while he is being fitted for the mask, is one of the most alienating physical performances on screen. He’s an alien, as off, in everything he does, as a robot or space man – he is fantastic.



And so, to end, with one more note, about one more bit of doubling. There are two stories in the film – and the second story, of the scarred girl and her brother, looks quite different from the strange modernism of Okuyama’s story. She moves along older looking streets, through older parts of the city. The psychiatric ward where she works is old and shabby, with none of the modernism of the Doctor’s rooms. When she and her brother leave the city, they go to the sea – they walk on the beach, they explore caves, they stay in a conventional looking seaside resort. They are contrasted with the new Japan of the doctor and Okuyama – but they hardly fare any better. She carries the scars of the wars, dreading the next war, losing herself and coming apart as surely as Okuyama does. There is no comfort in the old, any more than the new; no sense that authenticity will save you any more than masquerading will.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Halloween Quiz

HAving managed to answer Dennis Cozzalio's previous quiz, it is time to try his Halloween quiz - more precisely, PROFESSOR ABRAHAM SETRAKIAN'S VIRULENTLY VAMPIRIC, MALEVOLENTLY MONSTERIFFIC SUPER-STRAIN HALLOWEEN MOVIE QUIZ. In fact, he has another quiz up - a screen shot quiz - which - might be quiz too far for me... But this one - I can try. I do fear that as horror is not my favorite genre, this will not be the most enlightning set of answers... But one has to try:

1) Edwige Fenech or Barbara Bouchet?
A: This is what I mean - not being a particular fan of horror movies, I don't dig that far into the genre - so... even though I have heard of them, and probably seen them - how could I answer this?

2) The horror movie you will stand up for when no one else will
A: How about Stoker? It kind of got shrugged off when it came out - but it's actually pretty good.

3) Your favorite horror novel
A. Dracula, the original, Bram Stoker. With Let the Right One In as a more than honorable contender.

4) Lionel Atwill or George Zucco?
A: Lionel Atwill - he's generally worth a spark when he turns up in a film.

5) Name a horror film which you feel either goes "too far" or, conversely, might have been better had been bolder
A: I suppose there are a fair number of films where the gore or sex or sex an gore is ridiculous - and plenty I haven't bothered to see - no idea, frankly, whether The Human Centipede or Hostel "goes to far" - never expect to find out... but - I suppose I can answer - the Japanese film Organ struck me as being particularly unsuccessful mix of gratuitous grossout stuff and dimwitted filmmaking. So there.

6) Let the Right One In or Let Me In?
A: Let the Right One In (and the book is even better)

7) Favorite horror film released by American International Pictures
A: I see they released Black Sabbath - that'll do.

8) Veronica Carlson or Barbara Shelley
A: Another one I can't quite answer. (Comparing what I can answer - kind of points out that, for deeper genre cuts - I am a bit better off with the older stuff. That's accurate - I dabble in post-1950s horror, but not much, and what I've seen tends to be very auteurist - Bava and Argento, mainly, and some Japanese horror, like Kurosawa; my pre 1950 horror experiences are spotty, but there's a better chance I've seen a bit more variety...)

9) Name the pinnacle of slasher movie kills, based on either gore quotient, level of cleverness or shock value
A: A sub-genre I don't bother with much, and don't really remember when I do - I've seen some of those Freddy movies, and Halloween and the like, but I don't remember them. Gory specifics tend to be torture scenes - the end of Audition, the stuff in Funny Games - or - wild nonsense, like in Stuart Gordon's films ("more passion!"), or Dead Alive... So - screw it: Janet Leigh in the shower - has anyone topped that? no.

10) Dracula (1931; Tod Browning) or Dracula (1931; George Melford)?
A. Tod Browning - I used to come across lots of talk about how the Spanish version is better, but the facts do not bear this out. The Browning film, though uneven to an extreme, has elements that soar - Lugosi and Frye (especially Frye), some of the atmospherics - and most surprisingly, an admittedly intermittant and inconsistent, but none the less brilliant, sound design. You always hear Renfield before you see him. The Spanish version is smoother, missing some of thew weird jumpiness of Brownings version, but it's also duller (and longer, and somehow ever stagier.) even some of the problems with the English version - the weird continuity problems - help, giving it a creepier atmosphere, keeping you just a bit off balance.

11) Name a movie which may not strictly be thought of as a horror film which you think qualifies for inclusion in the category
A: Well - a recent one might be Martha Marcy May Marlene

12) The last horror movie you saw in a theater? On home video?
A. Last in a theater - I have been trying to see Crimson Peak for a ocuple weeks, and managed to miss it - even today (ironically, it was pre-empted today by a horror marathon). So that means the answer is Goodnight, Mommy - which is no slouch. On video - I have been watching a lot of Val Lewton this month, so when I started writing this, the answer was The Body Snatcher - then, it was Isle of the Dead - but I just watched Evil Dead II, so - there's your answer.

13) Can you think of a horror movie that works better as a home video experience than as a theatrical one?
A. This seems unlikely in general.

14) Brad Dourif or Robert Englund?
A. Brad Dourif, obviously, though outside of horror.

15) At what moment did you realize you were a horror fan? Or what caused you to realize that you weren't?
A. Not really relevant. I like horror films, but not in any special way.

16) The Thing with Two Heads or The Incredible Two-Headed Transplant?
A: I am innocent of both.

17) Favorite giallo or giallo moment
A. Suspiria is the best; moment? I am thinking the scene in Bird With the Crystal Plumage where the writer sees an attack in a glass gallery - it's been a long time since I have seen it, so I'm not sure I remember it, but it is something, isn't it?

18) Name a horror remake, either a character or an entire film, that you prefer over its original or more iconic incarnation. (Example: Frank Langella's Dracula/Dracula > Christopher Lee's Dracula/Dracula)
A: I suppose Evil Dead II sort of counts... the first ones tend to be the best, of the films I watch - assuming you could the iconic ones as the first one. Some, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, were made before the iconic one appeared - but still...

19) Your favorite director of horror films
A. James Whale? along with Bava and Argento, I suppose. (And Lewton, but he's not a director.)

20) Caroline Munro or Stephanie Beacham?
A: And again - I can't really help.

21) Best horror moment created specifically for TV
A: Well, The Kingdom was created for TV. The best moment in all that - oh, man, there are too many - Bondo and his liver, maybe?

22) The Stephen King adaptation that works better as a movie than a book
A: I don't know. The Shining probably counts - ahuge book about writers' block is just not something I intend to find out about.

23) Name the horror movie you most want to see but to this point never have
A: Abominable Dr. Phibes? could be.

24) Andre Morell or Laurence Naismith?
A: Nope.

25) Second-favorite horror film made in the 1980s
A. This poses a problem - my favorits of that decade are the comedies - Raimi and Gordon - Evil Dead(s) and Reanimator/From Beyond. Are they horror films? I suppose so - but also comedies. If I tried to go with something closer to straight horror - I still get some oddball stuff. Possession would take top spot - #2 would be Chow Yun Fat and Brigitte Lin in Tonay Au's Dream Lovers - a hell of a film, too.

26) Tell us about your favorite TV horror host and the program showcasing horror classics over which he/she presided/presides
A: Never really watched those kinds of shows. I am glad Ghoulardi existed, fathering PT Anderson, and inspiring all those Ohio bands I love - Pere Ubu and Devo and the like. Though I suppose I could quite honestly say Count Floyd:



********************************************

Thursday, July 09, 2015

Let the Right One In

Published as part of the Childhood Films countdown at Wonders in the Dark.



Adolescence can be a terrible time. It can be very painful. It is a time when you lose yourself, lose what you have been, and become a new person in spite of yourself. For most of us, this happens surrounded by others going through the same thing at the same time - is it any wonder how horribly 12 and 13 year olds can treat one another? Let the Right One In is a vampire movie, and a bit of a social satire (if that’s the word) - but mostly, it is about that time when you stop being a child and start to become something else (not quite an adult - but not a child). It is about loss - the loss of childhood, of identity, though also other losses (losing connections with other people, through death or changes in you and them) - but also about what you become. Change is loss, but also gain - you lose who you were, you become someone new. It is about the effects of these changes on groups of kids - about their cruelty, their pain, about how they cope, and perhaps escape.

The main story is about Oskar, a 12 year old living in a particularly horrifying suburb of Stockholm in 1981 (a period promising transition itself - Brezhnev was on his last legs; Reagan was rattling sabers across the sea - the Cold War itself was starting to change, but it wasn't sure what it was going to change into, and Sweden was right there between the two of them). Oskar lives with his mother, who is seldom home; his father lives in the country and is something of a refuge for the boy (except when he's drinking). He goes to school, where he is too clever for his own good, with an excessive interest in police matters; his classmates torment him mercilessly, and he goes home and imagines bloody vengeance on them. There don't seem to be any other kids in his apartment complex; then one moves in - Eli, a strange girl about his age who doesn't seem to dress appropriately for the cold, who seems about as lonely and suspicious as Oskar. It doesn't take them long to become friends - they bond over a Rubik's cube, and they are soon very close.



But Eli has secrets of her own. The film doesn't waste a lot of time letting us in on them - she lives with a Hakan, an odd, quiet, older man, who murders and guts people in the woods to bring her blood. Or tries - when he is interrupted, she has to go out herself and find prey, for she is a vampire. She kills a middle aged drunk, touching off a sub plot involving a number of aging alcoholics, who may have seen her. Meanwhile, things escalate at the school - the kids bullying Oskar get worse, and when he fights back (at Eli's urging), he hurts one of them badly enough to cause further repercussions. The assorted plots build - rising trouble among the kids; the developing friendship and intimacy between Oskar and Eli; and the complications coming out of the killings. Hakan is caught in the act of trying to kill another kid, and leaves Eli alone; one of the friends of the man she killed finds her and tries to kill her while she sleeps, but Oskar warns her and she kills the man; then the boys at school try to get their ultimate vengeance on Oskar, but Eli saves him in a spectacularly gruesome fashion, and they leave together.



It delivers as a horror film, but it is much more concerned with the relationships. The film concentrates on Oskar and Eli - the novel it is based on develops a number of relationships in addition to theirs. It delves into the lives of the kids who torment Oskar; it details Eli and Hakan's relationship; it spends more time with the old drinkers; more time with Oskar and his family. But the broader scope of the book mainly expands and deepens the themes that are at the heart of Oskar and Eli's relationship - the sense of loss, loneliness, change, and their powerlessness against that change. In the book, we learn that the bullies are more like Oskar than not - they lose parents, families, they are going through the same changes he is - they take their troubles out on him, creating a chain of misery. The film retains hints of this - Oskar's main tormenter has an older brother, who is introduced in the film bullying the little brother (who will pass it on to Oskar); the film also retains the subplot with Ginia and Lacke, an older couple who are in the process of losing one another (and in the end, lose everything.) This is a world of pain; everyone is alone, everyone is isolated - and Eli is the epitome of all of their pain.

Most of the characters are kids, most of them on the edge of puberty, about to change forever - and Eli is trapped forever at that very moment. Eli was made a vampire at age 12 - taken from his family, castrated, tortured to death, though not to actual death, then trapped forever at that point of transition and pain. Eli is locked forever in pre-pubescence, trapped between childhood and adulthood, between boy and girl, life and death, ageless and 12 years old, always in the middle. The film is extraordinary at capturing her strange condition - it shows her childishness, her sense of discovery of the world, of things like the Rubik's cube, her loneliness, her desire for contact, a connection, her willingness to try things - while never losing the sense that she is hundreds of years old, has been through this before, has suffered everything and more. And that she is a vampire, and must live on blood, is subject to a host of rules and conditions - she will catch fire in the sun; she cannot enter a place without being invited, without consequences, and so on. She is immensely powerful, but she can't get along without the help of others. We see it in her relationship with Oskar - she genuinely likes him, she longs for friendship, for communication - but she also sees that she can use him, that he can replace Hakan. She uses him - his anger and fear, his loneliness - while at the same time responding to him directly, as one lonely child to another. The film handles this with great care, we can see both; it is a superb balancing act.



And it is a superb film throughout. I've written before about its look, the cold spare spaces of Blackeberg, all square buildings and empty courtyards, a fair version of hell, but that excellence is everywhere in the film. It's beautiful, and it uses its look and feel to advance the themes. It is a film about the end of childhood, about transition - and plays that out, all the shots of doorways and windows and gates we see. The themes come from the book - the importance of those liminal spaces, the central metaphor of the vampire's inability to go in uninvited, with Eli as the ultimate liminal character, forever caught <i>between</i> - and the film finds the imagery to give them weight and power.



So we come back to adolescence, to the traumatic transition from a childhood to maturity, to the loss of oneself, and the discovery of a new self - and the importance of that part of the change. Oskar, at the end of the film, has lost everything - abandoned his family, his life, left a trail of devastation in his wake - he is moving into a very uncertain future, very possibly headed for a life of slavery to a vampire who needs him to kill for her, and certainly obliged to drag her around with him wherever he goes.... But he is on his way somewhere - moving, alive, sane, not locked in a trunk until sunset. He has put off the childish things, and become someone else, something no one else, not even Eli, can do.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Re-Animator

All right, it's Halloween, and I will never forgive myself if I go the whole month of October without a single post about horror movies. Though this will not be anything like the last couple years, where I actually put some work into it - and dealt with true masterpieces of the genre... I am eye deep in Ezra Pound (not to mention a hurricane, though that didn't do us much harm in Boston), and haven't spent much time on anything else - but still....

Instead - here is an old favorite - one of the high points of the comic-horror sex and gore mashups of the 80s, Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator. Which provided many a drunken evening of pleasure back in the day... There's not a huge amount that needs to be said about it - it's a mix of a Frankenstein remake and a zombie film (mashing up horror sub-genres as well as everything else) - and a success on almost every score. It is genuinely funny, full of oh so quotable lines ("trysting with a bubble headed co-ed - you're not even a second rate scientist!"), and very dark comedy... I wouldn't call it exactly frightening, but it is certainly creepy often enough... and if it isn't quite the meditation on the limits of man and science and knowledge and the boundary between life and death that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was, or even the fairly moving bildungsroman the Universal Frankensteins are - it is a not unintelligent examination of hubris and sexual passion and love and loss, in among the grue and the jokes.... A very fine film to celebrate the season with.















Sunday, October 30, 2011

Frankenstein

I have never posted anything here about the James Whale Frankenstein films - that’s odd. They are great films - they are also films I have spent a lot of time pondering. As it happens, I did not see them when I was a kid - unlike all my friends, who would talk about them every Halloween, arguing about whether the mob really killed the monster, or how he could keep turning up in more films... Not me, though, so I didn't really have any kind of primary shock of seeing them. I've mentioned this before - last year in fact, writing about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - 30s horror films seem to have been made for 2 audiences - for people who would see them once (for kids?) - and for people who would see them over and over. The first emphasizes the shocks, the spectacle - the second, the artistry, the characters and plots and themes - and many times, the half-submerged themes. Frankenstein is a prime example of that - the horror film (terrifying monster, battle against evil, etc.) is very effective - but under it - and not very far under it - is something else. A monster who comes off as much as a child, or maybe a shell shocked veteran, as monster... someone thrust into the world and abandoned, surrounded by people who are far more evil than he is. Though - even that breaks up in this film: the worst people are also by far the most interesting.



IN any case - the first one is the horror film - a tight, clean story, maybe the best story of the early Universal horror films - an economically told nightmare. The horror comes fairly straight, the shocks and spectacle played as shocks and spectacle, with far less of the operatic parody of the second one. Everything is to the point - though even here, a good part of the point is an ironic one. The monster - his first act is to reach of the light - he’s thwarted at every turn, hurt and abused, and blamed when he fights back or protects himself. Abandoned by his makers, set loose in the world, which he tragically misunderstands - that’s all there. Those elements get replayed in the second one, with a few more twists, and a lot more comedy - though the archness, the sense of the absurd, that animates the second one is present in the first as well. Technically, of course, is a triumph. The cast is superb - Karloff is miraculous, glorious looking and giving a stunning performance without saying a word.



The second one is even better. This film is different than the first of course - funnier - essentially a dark comedy all the way through. There is conventional comic relief in the first one - in the second one, the conventional comic relief (the very grating Una O’Conner) plays like comic relief from the much darker, and funnier, comedy of Pretorius. (Or is it the other way? Is Pretorius meant as a sophisticated, ironic, relief from the overplayed antics of the conventional clowns? Might be - O’Conner, particularly, is playing to the back of the hall - she’s very close to being a self-parody.) Though it is also a deeper, more serious work than the first one - the scene with the Hermit is meant to be taken straight (though it is seeded with jokes and ironies and what look like elaborate parodies of something); the ending - is almost heartbreaking. “We belong dead!” - the Bride’s hiss - the last shot of the monster’s tear - indeed....




Both films are masterfully made. They look great - deep spaces, fluid camera movement, imaginative editing. Whale wasn’t as extravagant as Rouben Mamoulian, but he was no slouch - both films contain numerous bits of bravura filmmaking. Showy angles; Whale’s favorite move of tracking through walls; neat compositional tricks, echoes and rhymes across the films:




- and a handful of magnificent editing sequences. The monster’s introduction is the most famous of these - jump cutting straight in - but there are several remarkable instances. The introduction of the secondary characters, Elizabeth and Victor, for example - a series of fast cuts from closeups of a picture of Henry to a maid announcing Victor's arrival to Victor (coming into the room) to Elizabeth standing from her couch. He seems to like that kind of trick, especially when he can play it against longer, often moving shots. And it's all in service of the film, sometimes to the point of symbolism - the monster's crucifixion, for example:



But there are equally significant bits of editing - this one at the end, Frankenstein and his monster looking through a mill wheel at one another, cut so they blend into one another:




It's one of the more obvious moments of doubling in the film - Henry becoming the monster - but hardly the only one. It's a theme picked up from the book - the ways the monster becomes Henry's (Victor's, in the book) double, the ways he supplements or replaces him. Replaces him in his bedroom on his wedding day - in film and book - in one of the more obvious cases:



These two films are very interesting as adaptations - there's no doubt that they abandon pretty much everything in the book except the title, some of the names (though even those are changed), and the Creature that Frankenstein made out of dead bodies. But at the same time, it gets back around to many of the book's themes - the doubling of monster and Frankenstein; the fraught relationships of fathers and sons; and a certain attention to the development of the monster - it is a book about education, and that is a major theme of the films, as well. In fact, the dominant theme of the second one - education and sexuality. The monster is a pretty clear figure of the Id - and frequently seems to spark sexual moments - taking Henry's place in his wedding bed in the first one - the whole plot, basically, of the second one. Though there, the emphasis has shifted from the idea of the monster as a kind of unleashed Id to the idea of the monster as a character in his own right - and specifically, as a young man coming of age. Karloff, I believe, later criticized the decision to make the monster speak in the second film - but I think that is central to the point of the film. It is about his education and development - and the failures of the people around him.






They are, these two films, both masterpieces - together especially. It is a sequel that picks up from the first and develops its most interesting elements - that takes the pathos hinted at in the first and works it out at length. And - as I said in those Jekyll and Hide posts - because they are horror films, because Frankenstein's monster is a monster - the filmmakers are free to take a much more challenging approach. Their heroes don't have to be heroic; it is possible for there to be unhappy endings. It's liberating. And the results, here, are among the best films ever made.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Halloween Quiz Time

I have been waiting for this, it's been a long time - Dennis Cozzalio is back, with a new quiz for Halloween!

DR. ANTON PHIBES’ ABOMINABLY ERUDITE, MUSICALLY MALIGNANT, CURSEDLY CLEVER HALLOWEEN HORROR MOVIE QUIZ

Let us away!
***********************************************

1) Favorite Vincent Price/American International Pictures release.

A. I am not sure how many I have seen - bits an pieces, yes, but start to finish? Saw a 16mm print of The Raven when I was in college, a double feature with House of Wax - rather neat, a way of seeing films that seems to have disappeared...

2) What horror classic (or non-classic) that has not yet been remade would you like to see upgraded for modern audiences?

A. While Vampire Lovers (and Vampiros Lesbos, for that matter) have their - let's call it charms - I think the world could use a more straightforward adaptation of Carmilla.

3) Jonathan Frid or Thayer David?

A. I watched a bit of the show, but I can't say it made much of an impression on me.... probably have to vote for Frid, though.

4) Name the one horror movie you need to see that has so far eluded you.

A. The answer is probably The Exorcist - that's about the most prominent horror film I have avoided...

5) Favorite film director most closely associated with the horror genre.

A. This is James Whale, easily.

6) Ingrid Pitt or Barbara Steele?

A. Barbara Steele

7) Favorite 50’s sci-fi/horror creature.

A. Gojira - probably not really close, unless I can count Tor Johnson.

8) Favorite/best sequel to an established horror classic.

A. There are a couple possible answers, I suppose. Bride of Frankenstein is obvious, almost too simple - and I am inclined sometimes to look at it as more a continuation than a sequel (though I know better.) Dracula's Daughter is a very interesting variation on the theme...

9) Name a sequel in a horror series which clearly signaled that the once-vital franchise had run out of gas.

A. For whatever reasons, I find that series' I like I never got to the bad ones - and ridiculous sequels I've seen have tended to be of series' I don't care much about - Hellraiser III? why would I have seen that? Another kind of answer might be Bride of Reanimator - pointless and not very interesting sequel to a great film...

10) John Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.?

A. John Carradine, though I suppose this goes well beyond horror movies.

11) What was the last horror movie you saw in a theater? On DVD or Blu-ray?

A. Restless is a ghost story and it was pretty horrible - does that count? Take Shelter might be a slightly better answer... DVD - Thirst, watched it for this post - though the Frankensteins will end up in this position.

12) Best foreign-language fiend/monster.

A. I suppose the obvious answer is Count Orlock - I don't know if silent films count, but if not, Kinski works as well as Shrek. Though I'm thinking a good contender might be either the two kids or the television in Funny Games.

13) Favorite Mario Bava movie.

A. Tough, but I'd say Black Sabbath (Three Faces of Fear) - the Verdulak section especially is one of the greatest horror films of all time.

14) Favorite horror actor and actress.

A. Karloff, easily.... And - Brigitte Lin? a case can be made, a good one...

15) Name a great horror director’s least effective movie.

A. I'm not really an obsessive horror fan, so haven't gone looking for a lot of lame films by great directors here - though - Dario Argento's Mother of Tears might count - silly, boring story, though even here, boy, it looks good...

16) Grayson Hall or Joan Bennett?

A. Joan Bennett - I mean, she was Fritz Lang's go to actress for a while! I think more or less any of his films are, in fact, scarier and more disturbing than just about anything labelled horror...

17) When did you realize that you were a fan of the horror genre? And if you’re not, when did you realize you weren’t?

A. I'm not, in any special sense. I enjoy horror films, find the genre interesting enough - but no more so than any other genre, and I don't tend to enjoy horror films because they're horror films as much as, oh - I will watch even a bad western or martial arts film just because it is a western or martial arts film. On the other hand, I suppose I do find the horror genre more interesting to talk about, as a genre, than westerns, noir, martial arts films... it does seem to have a metaphorical interest that I find fascinating...

18) Favorite Bert I. Gordon (B.I.G.) movie.

A. I wish I could answer this, but I don't think I can. If I've seen any of his films, I don't remember them, and I think if I had seen them, I would remember them.

19) Name an obscure horror favorite that you wish more people knew about.

A. Let's go with Dream Lovers - Brigitte Lin and Chow Yun-fat as contemporary characters who start dreaming about one another, and about ancient terracotta figures - they meet, they fall in love of course, there are other people involved who suffer, 8 years or 2000 years, it's still love... shares a lot with the Mummy - plot elements, and a tone of infinite romantic sorrow. Great little film that's not much talked about.

20) The Human Centipede-- yes or no?

A. I suppose I have no inherent objection to it, but I have no interest in seeing it.

21) And while we’re in the neighborhood, is there a horror film you can think of that you felt “went too far”?

A. I am not inclined to think of any film in those terms - art shows what it shows... that is somewhat different from saying that a film fails - or becomes less effective or interesting because it tries to gross people out or shock them - going for cheap effects or whatever the problem is. Something like Organ comes to mind - because it's kind of a dull, underwhelming film (or so I remember it), that tries to make up for its flaws by being grosser than its competition. I suppose by that criteria, Passion of the Christ would qualify... quite well, actually.

22) Name a film that is technically outside the horror genre that you might still feel comfortable describing as a horror film.

A. Being probably more fond of the theory of horror films than actual horror films - I suppose I do this rather a lot. I've done it a couple times already in this quiz - Passion of the Christ - the great mass of Fritz Lang films. My pet theory is that the major theme of horror is the instability of the self - how the self is threatened by forces outside it, that turn out to be somehow inside it - the themes of the Other who is a Double; themes of invasion, especially - loss of bodily integrity, loss of self.... Given that - lots of films, not horror, become very close to horror - from stuff that is, really horror, like Lost Highway - to things like, oh - L'Humanite... Bigger than Life.... Showboat....

23) Lara Parker or Kathryn Leigh Scott?

A. No, I'm well out of my depths now.

24) If you’re a horror fan, at some point in your past your dad, grandmother, teacher or some other disgusted figure of authority probably wagged her/his finger at you and said, “Why do you insist on reading/watching all this morbid monster/horror junk?” How did you reply? And if that reply fell short somehow, how would you have liked to have replied?

A. Well - no, it's never happened. For this sort of thing, you would have to ask me about either the music I listen to, or about people wondering why I watch so many cheap Hong Kong police thrillers - I have had that question...

25) Name the critic or Web site you most enjoy reading on the subject of the horror genre.

A. Siegfried Kracauer? getting there first is a big thing sometimes...

26) Most frightening image you’ve ever taken away from a horror movie.

A. This is a great question - this is the one that justifies the quiz. I don't know the answer though - unless it's that reel-long shot in Funny Games after the first set of abuse... I think, rather seriously, that Funny Games was the most disturbing horror film I have ever seen, and that the most excruciating moment in it.

27) Your favorite memory associated with watching a horror movie.

A. Another interesting one - seeing the whole 9 hours of The Kingdom over 2 nights was certainly up there

28) What would you say is the most important/significant horror movie of the past 20 years (1992-2012)? Why?

A. Significant or best? The best, when push comes to shove, probably comes down to either The Kingdom or Thirst - The Kingdom wins if you count the whole series, I think, parts 1 & 2. Thirst probably wins otherwise... Significant? MIght be something like the Ring films, popularizing Asian horror, touching off a host of American imitators... or Buffy the Vampire Slayer - which seem to be one of the places vampires made a jump into a new realm of pop culture. Though a big part of that jump is out of the horror genre...

29) Favorite Dr. Phibes curse (from either film).

A. Alas, etc.

30) You are programming an all-night Halloween horror-thon for your favorite old movie palace. What five movies make up your schedule?

A. Another great question - all right - going on the themes, Invasions - dissolution of self/other - tragic monsters - doubles - how about this:

Student of Prague
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde (Mamoulian)
Vertigo
Lost Highway
Doppelganger

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Thirst

I guess I will continue this month's vampire theme with what is, I think, the best horror film of the century so far - Park Chan-wook's Thirst.





Combining, as it does, two 19th century texts - Stoker and Zola - from two great traditions, that don't necessarily seem to go together - but it works, mixing the mundane....





... and mordantly comic....





... with the gorgeous style of classic vampire films - in the same shot, sometimes (has anyone ever looked better going out a tiny bathroom window than Song Kang-ho?) - but always, hitting it's high points in style - the cool blue lighting alternating with murky darkness, the perfectly posed and shot scenes and decor...







- and - at least one character who knows how to act like a vampire...



Sunday, October 16, 2011

Let the Right One In

This week's screen shots come from Let the Right One In - one of the handful of outstanding vampire films in the 21st century (a decade of which has brought up more vampire films than you can shake a sharpened stake at.) It is a fine film, though one of it's unusual characteristics, among vampire books and films, is that the book is, in fact, even better than the movie. Stoker's Dracula is top shelf, and there are so many derived films, that a good number of them don't measure up - but Nosferatu is better (that actually true for either Murnau's or Herzog's version) - with lesser vampire books (which are legion), this is almost universal. I mean - even the Twilight movie - the first one anyway, the only one I have had to watch (and read) - is almost a decent film, at least to a point.... This goes pretty far - last year, in the vampire class I mentioned a couple times, the subject was broached from time to time - why (after Dracula, and with a few exceptions here and there along the way), are these books so bad? why are there no (or very few) vampire books that are really good? Unspoken in this question, though it certain occurred to me, is the corollary - why are there so few serious and ambitious vampire books - and so many serious ambitious vampire films? Murnau, Dreyer, Herzog, Denis, Park, Maddin, etc.? And why are the schlocky vampire books so bad, and even run of the mill vampire films seem to have a spark? I don't know if I have an answer - except that vampires look so good on screen - or that vampires are, like films, shadows on the wall - or maybe that filmmakers have to create striking imagery to be frightening, and books - I don't know...

But that aside - this time, the book Let the Right One In is better than the film - the book is simply outstanding. But the film is no slouch -handsome and understated, with a subtle touch for glorious horror imagery, tucking things into the backs and corners of the frame, like Eli climbing the wall in the back of this shot....



But one of it's best features is the use of spaces - the empty, stark, cold spaces of Blackeberg, a vision of Swedish hell, swallowing its inhabitants whole. The book (more than the movie, though some of this survives) seems to be explicitly about the return of a violent, pagan, past to the sterile, domesticated present - nature red in tooth and claw coming back to get its own. Though if Eli is a kind of hell visited on the modern world, the modern world is a kind of hell for her - and Tomas Alfredson shoots the suburb to make it look as horrifying as anything Eli might do.