As in past years, we each take turns bring a movie and presenting it.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1 (Joe): Forbidden Planet (1956) Directed by Fred M. Wilcox
My Level of Prior Knowledge Though I'd never seen this film before, I was aware of its reputation as one of the great sci-fi classics. I also knew that Anne Francis was in it -- because that fact is referenced in the theme song from The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Plot: A starship crew investigate a lost colony, and find a mysterious scientist, his daughter and a mystery.
Reaction and Other Folderol: It's important to acknowledge how influential Forbidden Planet was on other movies and TV shows. Though I hadn't seen it, I was aware of its place as a cultural influence. And, in case we didn't know, Joe was very clear in pointing out that fact -- both in his remarks before the movie and by sharing with us clips -- one from Lost in Space and one from another movie whose name I don't recall -- to demonstrate. For my part, I noted that the Star Trek episode, "Requiem for Methuselah" borrowed heavily on the premise. So much so that I was convinced that the daughter would turn out to be an android.
And it's because of that that I really wanted to like the movie more than I did, and why I came away disappointed by it. The special effects were, at times amazing (especially judged for its time). And the premise was kind of interesting. But there wasn't enough story to justify the movie's length. It was too ponderous, and there was too much emphasis paid to spectacle and visuals at the expense of storytelling.
Keith took us for a stroll down 42nd street and some exploitation flicks from the lenses of Milligan and company.
The Trailers:
Torture Dungeon
The Touch of Her Flesh
(sorry -- I couldn't find a trailer on Youtube)
Carnival of Blood
(technically, a trailer for a double feature)
Double Agent 73
Reaction and Other Folderol:
First, some bookkeeping: In the ratings section, I have been including "Bob-O." His real name is Bob, and I'm not sure why we call him Bob-O. At any rate, I have long regretted that I started fashioning his nickname as "Bob-O." I much prefer "Bobbo." So I have made the executive decision to switch.
In this session we got four very different types of movies -- a fairytale (Torture Dungeon), a stag film (The Touch of Her Flesh), a whodunit (Carnival of Blood) and a spy parody (Double Agent 73). But what they have in common is that they were all directed by big names in the world of tiny budgets. And their low budgets were reflected in their low-quality production values.
For the most part, I had a very difficult time appreciating what these films had to offer. The best of the lot was Carnival of Blood, which had an interesting plot, and some decent acting by the principles. Burt Young was really good in it. But the bad music and low production values made it very hard to enjoy. I really wanted to like it more than I did.
That's also true of Double Agent 73, which starred the inimitable Chesty Morgan. Chesty, who boasted a natural 73" bustline, played a spy in this James Bond parody. The key is that she had to take a photo of every enemy spy she killed -- using acamera implanted in her breast. So, throughout the film, she would kill someone, then remove her shirt and bra, and flick her breast. It was surreal. Also surreal, for me at least, was the fact that a lot of exteriors were filmed in Forest Hills -- a neighborhood that I visit frequently. So I kept saying things like "I used to swim in the pool in that building" and "I once dated a woman who lived in that building." That helped me enjoy what was otherwise a bizarrely bad movie.
The Touch of Her Flesh was, for the most part, a stag film featuring Angelique Pettyjohn (whom Star Trek fans will remember as Captain Kirk's drill thrall). If I want to be charitable, I can frame it as an interesting character study. But no amount of charity can frame Torture Dungeon as anything worthwhile.
I just had to keep reminding myself that these are movies I would never see otherwise...
Keith treated us to all three installments of The Fly franchise, as well as the remake of the original movie.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Writing in the book, Giant Bug Cinema, Joe said: "Sequels, by nature, are derivative but they must walk a fine line between 'being comfortably familiar' and 'being a superfluous duplicate of what has come before.'" He got it exacrtly right, and so did the sequels to 1958's The Fly. I would argue that, what Joe said about sequels can also be said about remakes. And the 1986 remake of The Fly also succeeded.*
The premise behind the original movie is simple: a scientist, experimenting with teleportation, gets merged with a fly. The two sequels stay true to that basic premise, but they each chart new territory while still staying faithful to the original idea. The first movie is pretty much a straight up 1950's-style sci-fi/horror film. The second is all that, but also manages to be a caper film with strong elements of film noir. And the third is in some ways a complete reinvention, extending the story out in unexpected ways -- unexpected but completely logical. And, importantly, the second and third films are set in the same universe -- extending the original story rather than reinventing it. The fact is, the first movie is definitely the best of the three -- featuring the haunting image of a fly with a human head plaintively crying "help me!" In the second, the producers tried to come up with an image to top that. And their attempt -- a rat with human hands -- is disturbing. But it doesn't measure up.
The 1986 remake manages to reboot the original film, staying true to the premise while updating it with a 1980's science fiction feel and 1980's movie aesthetics. I think that's why I liked it more -- the 1980's movie feel appeals to me more than does the 1950's. The film is grittier, and the depiction of the technology is more modern, high-tech and (to my eyes) believable. Of course, the human interactions are updated from the Hays Code era to the 1980s. There's also a rom-com element to the plot. Take all of that for what it's worth. If you like that stuff, great! If not, well, be advised. But most significant is the change in the depiction of the fly itself. In the original movie, Andre is the man-fly hybrid as soon as he leaves the teleportation booth. In the remake, Brundle comes out of the machine seemingly fine -- and a good bit of the movie is devoted to portraying his gradual transformation -- including the slow realization that something is wrong. And that illustrates an important point: it's more a modern adaptation** of the premise than a "remake" the original movie, and the story is definitely more complicated. One can argue, in the original's favor, that some of the human element of the plot has been replaced by computer/tech geekistry, though I still prefer the remake.
One thing that's important to note in comparing the two movies is that the remake never managed to come up with an iconic visual to rival the aforementioned human head on a fly body. That said, it did a good job, near the end, of coming up with a great sequence of unparallelled pathos. Brundle (fused with a fly and a machine) has been reduced to a bloody, revolting blob with eyes and arms. And he manages the most pitiful expression as he begs with his eyes for Ronnie to shoot him and end his misery. It's remarkable how good a job was done to get such a vile blob to look so sympathetic. It's a sequence rather than a momentary image, but it's worth noting.
This was among the best sessions we've had -- for two reasons. Most obvious is that these were four great movies that I had never seen. It's not really important to me to see great movies -- I can easily go to Google to find lists of great movies to watch. So, in a sense it's better to see movies that I otherwise wouldn't. However, if they are great, so much the better. The second reason that this was a great session is that it had more coherence than most. Most sessions are four movies with something in common -- something thematic, or stylistic. But this set of four movies held together more than most do.
The Trailers:
The Fly (1958)
Return of the Fly (1959)
Curse of the Fly (1965)
The Fly (1986)
*In fairness, I never saw The Fly II, which is the sequel to the remake. So I can't fairly comment on whether that succeeds. I think not, but that's based on hearsay. **Though it may be important to note that the remake is now older than the original was when the remake was made.
A childhood demon has been banished after 45 years.*
After my freshman year of high school, I spent part of the
summer at the Hebrew Theological College in Skokie, Illinois. As I was waiting
at the gate before my flight, airline personnel announced that the flight was
overbooked, and they were seeking volunteers to be get bumped and wait for
another flight a couple hours later. They were offering $100 (I think). According
to Google, that’s the equivalent of $359 today – not life changing money, but
nice. My parents, who were at the gate with me (yes, you could do that then)
talked it over, but decided against having me volunteer -- this was my first
time flying alone without anyone to meet me at the destination, and I was nervous
enough without a change in plan.
I remember thinking that it would have been great to get
that extra money for doing nothing other than waiting. I understood my parents’
logic, but part of me felt bad about missing out on the cash.** And I thought
that, if I ever had another opportunity, I would volunteer my spot in exchange
for cash. And in the decades since, I have never been in that situation again.
I have had delayed flights. And I have had canceled flights. But I have never
been bumped from a flight. And I have never been on a flight where they were
seeking volunteers to get bumped in exchange for cash. Not that I’ve lost sleep
over it, but I’ve thought about it every so often.
But a week ago, Blair had the experience. She had been in
Vermont for a relative’s graduation. On Monday morning, her flight was
oversold. And she volunteered to stay behind – in exchange for $1900, meal
vouchers and a hotel voucher for the night. Technically, the money went to
Blair and not to me. But it’s all the same, so I think of it as a victory for
both of us. And now the monkey’s off my back.
_______________ *In fairness, calling it a “demon” is too strong, as is
saying it’s been “banished.” But drama requires me to use such words. And
technically I wasn’t really a child. Stop being such a stickler.
**It’s worth noting that my parents would have likely kept the cash, since they
were paying for my airfare. But that’s beside the point.
In honor of Walpurgisnacht, the eve of May Day, Keith chose four films about demons, witches, werewolves and vampires.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
The third and fourth movies were much more to my liking than the first two. Demon Witch Child tells the story of a teenage girl possessed by a demon. It borrows heavily from The Exorcist and, if I recall correctly, Keith said that it has been called the Spanish Exorcist. The elements that it borrows are hard to miss. But, in some ways, it exceeds The Exorcist in that it's much more expansive. In Vampire's Night Orgy, stranded travelers are stuck in a little mystery town. Everything seems fine, at first, but eventually things turn south. It borrows heavily from Night of the Living Dead. The ending -- practically an epilogue -- reminded me of 2000 Maniacs! -- though Blair pointed out to me that that's a common trope. I guess I need to see more movies, since I don't recall seeing the device elsewhere. Damn, was it creepy!
The first two movies in this session were good films for what they are, but neither one really grabbed me. Strange Love of the Vampires had a lot of good elements, and it was a good, original take on the vampire legend. But it was another vampires-in-castles movie, and I've kind of had overload on those. Curse of the Devil stars Paul Naschy as a werewolf. Where have I seen that before? Others in the class love Paul Naschy, but I just haven't been able to get into him. These two were good movies, but just not my thing. And my ratings for them reflect that.
The Trailers:
Strange Love of the Vampires (1975)
Curse of the Devil (1973)
Demon Witch Child (1974)
Note: I don't think this is an actual trailer. But it's what I could find.
