Reactions and Other Folderol Note: There may be spoilers
I was looking forward to this session, primarily for I Was a Teenage Werewolf. Though I'd never seen it, I'd heard about it many times. Not that I knew anything about the plot other than what can be gleaned from the title. Rather, I knew of its existence, and I knew that it starred Michael Landon, whose name I knew because of Little House on the Prairie and Bonanza.
I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting from the film—I suppose maybe I was expecting something campy or comedic, like Teen Wolf (a lightweight 1985 film starring Michael J. Fox as a teenaged werewolf in American suburbia. But I didn't get what I expect. I Was a Teenage Werewolf was much more straightforward. It was played much more seriously, and seemed very typical of 1950's sci-fi drive-in fare.
The followup (both in the class and in AIP's catalogue) was I Was a Teenage Frankenstein, a similarly low-budget sci-fi drive-in film. I thought it was a better film, though I thought the pathos of the titular monster talking in a very normal voice to Dr. Frankenstein (yes, the scientist was a Dr. Frankenstein, and the script described his connection to the European scientist who created the original monster). The existence of the alligator pond connected to the doctor's home didn't really make any sense, and the plot was helped along early by the most amazing coincidence. Still and all, it was a solid entertaining film. How to Make a Monster was too much of a gimmick to really be enjoyable, though I'll admit that it was a great way for the studio to recycle shit from the two I Was a Teenage... movies. It just felt cheap.
The odd man out for this session was the closer, Werewolf in a Girls' Dormitory. While the other three films were connected to each other, WiaGD was an Italian production that just didn't manage to impress me. It was slow-moving and there was nothing to latch onto.
The session: Getting Slaughtered by Tod Slaughter!
films starring the "Monster Man of Europe, the criminally underappreciated Tod Slaughter
The Movies and Grades:
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Necessary Warning -- there may be spoilers
The big question from this session is how Tod Slaughter has remained so unknown? Keith explained it away as his choosing to stay in England and return to the stage. At any rate, he could have been up there with horror film stars such as Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Instead, he seems to be little more than a footnote in cinema lore.
But what a footnote he is! With his rubber face and his expressions of feigned indignation, he is always interesting to watch, and entertaining. In these movies, he was, in many ways, the perfect villain. In his introduction, Keith noted that he was the prototype for the "Dastardly Dan" type character -- the guy who would tie a young damsel to a railroad track. And you can totally see it. He may not be literally twirling a mustache, but he should be.
These movies were not monster movies, unlike so many (but not all of) the films of Cushing and Lee. These were crime dramas. Tod Slaughter plays the villain, always willing to kill in order to make a buck. True to the Dastardly Dan persona, there's always a woman to serve as his innocent victim. And, of course, the villain has to get it in the end.
These films did seem a bit claustrophobic, and had the staging of plays. That's especially true of The Greed of William Hart, which is an adaptation of the Burke and Hare story. Keith, and others in the class, think that Burke and Hare was done better in The Flesh and The Fiends (1960), but I liked this version better.
These were fun stories told in an entertaining way. I went into this session with very low expectations, since Keith was featuring an actor I had never heard of, and showing code-era films. But I'm happy to say that this went way beyond all expectations.
Trailers (or, in their absence, other YouTube clips related to the films):
The session: Bring Your Own Movie Month In which everyone in the class takes a turn at presenting a movie
The movies: Dave: The Invisible Man (1933) directed by James Whale Joe: Dracula and Son (European version) (1976) directed by Edouard Molinaro Ethan: Possession (1981) directed by Andrzej Zulawski Me: They Live (1988) directed by John Carpenter Bob-O: Werewolf of London (1935) directed by Stuart Walker Joe redux: Dracula and Son (American version) (1976) directed by by Edouard Molinaro Christina: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) directed by Philip Kaufman
Grades:
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Necessary Warning -- there may be spoilers
For several reasons (that I won't address here), I have decided to stop writing a post for every movie we see at Keith's. Instead, I am going to try writing one post for each session. There are exceptions, but generally each session consists of four movies on a theme. Of course, Bring Your Own Movie Month is a particularly challenging session to make the switch. For starters, of all the sessions in the year it's the least coherent -- because there is now overarching theme to the movies. In addition, with five people in the class (+ Keith's wife, Christina), BYOMM usually consists of six movies. And this year, there were seven weeks. Joe's choice, Dracula and Son, was a French production, with significant differences between the European and American releases. Joe showed us the European version, but a few weeks later Keith showed us the American version so we could compare and contrast.
On the subject of Dracula and Son, that movie holds the distinction of being Christopher Lee's last film portrayal of Dracula. On the whole, the European release is an uneasy blend of comedy and horror. It doesn't fully commit to either one, and suffers for that. That said, it does have some good moments -- both comedic and horror. I also have to give it some credit for the creative element that vampires become human as a result of having sex with a human. I preferred the American version because it comitted more fully to being a comedy. There were three basic differences between the two versions: The dialogue (which was dubbed) was changed to include more jokes, there was a narrator (which was reminiscent of Rocky and Bullwinkle), and it was considerably shorter. Though my feelings weren't shared by everyone in the room, I definitely preferred the funnier approach.
The Invisible Man, which Dave chose is, without qualification, a classic. And classics get to be considered classics for a reason. Most noteworthy are the special effects which were far ahead of the time. Bob-O also went with an old movie, 1935's Werewolf of London. It had good effects, and snappy dialog -- especially between the two landladies. But, a few weeks later it has kind of faded from my memory, which is a bad sign.
Ethan chose Possession, which is a challenging cold war era movie to watch. There is so much left unexplained and it can be very confusing. The word "possession" can have many meanings, and it's a very appropriate title for the film, as it focuses on so many types of possession or possessiveness. There's the relationship between the protagonists Mark and Anna -- Anna wants a divorce, but Mark isn't willing to let her go. The relationships between Anna's lover and both Anna and Mark. There's the fact of Mark being possessed by the spy agency he works for, and fact of Anna being possessed by whatever is that thing growing inside of her. Though it's not a horror movie in the traditional sense of the word, it has many heart-stopping moments. Of course, there are also the WTF moments. The movie left me confused and exhausted.
I brought to the class 1988's They Live, a starring vehicle for professional wrestler, Rowdy Roddy Piper. I chose it because I kind of enjoyed professional wrestling back in the day and I definitely was a fan of Piper. In fact, in college I was a member of "Piper's Vipers," a Roddy Piper fan club on campus. The club didn;t do anything, but we got a lot of coverage in the campus media since all of our members were editors on the campus paper. They Live is, I think, an underappreciated commentary on then-contemporary politics. It actually pairs well with Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which was Christina's choice. I should note that Christina said she originally had another movie in mind, but switched to Invasion because she thought it would be a good complement to They Live. Both movies are ostensibly about space aliens taking over, but use the basic plot as a way to comment on contemporary issues. They Live was a critique of the Reagan era (though Piper, agreeing with Reagan, declined to talk about that aspect when on publicity tours), while Invasion was more about Communism. I tend to sympathize more with the latter than the former, though I think that what makes Invasion so impressive is that anyone of any political stripe can view it through his or her own lens and see it as an allegory against whatever political movement he or she doesn't like. You don't like Trump? You can see the movie as a takedown of MAGA. You don't like current progressive trends? You can similarly view it as a critique of wokeism.
The session: "Happy Birthday, Charles Laughton" In honor of Charles Laughton's Birthday, Keith presented an abbreviated (two-week) session of movies he starred in.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 2: The Strange Door (1951) Directed by Joseph Pevney
My Level of Prior Knowledge I had never heard of it.
Plot: A highborn madman, infuriated that his sweetheart threw him over for his brother takes elaborate revenge -- and plots even further and more elaborate revenge. Why can't family just get along?
Reaction and Other Folderol: So soon after I conclude that I just can't get into the movies set in medieval castles, Keith shows us this to prove me wrong. It may be sacrilige, but maybe I just am not into Vincent Price in medieval castles.
At any rate, the early sequence, in which de Beaulieu (did I spell that correctly?) gets snared by Maletroit's (that too?) plot seems to work too well. I'm not sure why that little bit annoyed me, but it did. Happily, things get more interesting and more suspenseful as the film progresses. And in the end, the final exciting sequence (involving the moving wall trap) was played perfectly. If only the plot were a little less convoluted.
The session: "Happy Birthday, Charles Laughton" In honor of Charles Laughton's Birthday, Keith presented an abbreviated (two-week) session of movies he starred in.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) Directed by William Dieterle
My Level of Prior Knowledge I hadn't heard of this. I mean, I am aware of the novel (though I never read it), but I hadn't heard of this particular adaptation.
Plot: A high-positioned man, enraged that the woman he wants is not interested in her, unleashes his anger on her and on the deformed man on whom she took pity.
Reaction and Other Folderol: There were ways that Hunchback felt like an epic, though I think a movie has to somehow have a broader scope to qualify for that term. Joe used the word "spectacle," and I think that's probably more appropriate. Charlie Laughton turned in the performance of a lifetime. How showed a tremendous range of emotions, which managed to show through the extensive makeup that was needed for his role as Quasimodo. There are scenes with thousands of extras, and amazing shots. The violence and torture pushed the envelope (for 1939). This was, overall, an amazing production.
If I had it to do over, I would have rated this a 10, but in class I said 9.5, so that's what I gave it.
