Session: Get Your Freak On, Week 2 Movie: House of the Damned (1964) Directed by Maury Dexter
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
An architect and his wife visit a spooky old mansion after its last tenant move out. But they find the place is still -- how to put it? -- occupied. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction: House of the Damned started off very strong. The expository phone call at the beginning had the cadence of a classic film noir, and the whole feel was consistent with that. Then, as we, the viewers, are getting to know the titular house, there are some really nice spooky touches -- the door that creaks open, the unexpected shadow in the foyer, the warning signs on the road.
But the movie never really lives up to its potential. As it progresses, it seems to become duller and duller. Keith has often explained that horror films need to relieve the tension -- there have to be peaks and valleys. Well, this one had too much valley and not enough peak.
And the payoff itself just wasn't enough. The concept behind it -- that a group of sideshow freaks were living in the house, away from the rest of the world -- was reasonably clever. But in presentation it was anticlimactic. The reveal seemed sort of like a Scooby Doo episode on xanax, and that was followed by a scene that bizarrely reminded me of the Jews leaving Anatevka at the end of Fiddler on the Roof.
I really wanted to like this more than I did.
Ratings:
Me: 6
Dave: 8.5
Ethan: 6
Joe: 9.8
Sean: 1 out of 4
Former Boss' Reaction:
To let y'all know, someone who used to be my boss says he will not watch movies made before 1980 -- except for Star Wars. I try to touch base with him about the movies we saw in class, and ask if he'd be interested in seeing them.
His reaction to House of the Damned: "Nope."
Yesterday I found out that a colleague, Steve, had passed away the day before.
Steve was older than me by a few years -- exactly how many, I don't know. Some characterized his age as "60-ish," but I think he was younger than that. Either way, it's too young to die. I didn't know he was sick, though apparently he had been out on short-term disability for some time. Of course, in an environment where many people work from home half the time (or more), it's easy to not notice someone missing -- especially if your work and his rarely connect.
Occasionally at work there'll be spome function where people have to say how long they've been at the company. Sometimes, when someone reveals a tenure that would be considered long in most contexts (e.g., 20 years), I may smirk and say something like "newbie" in a faux-mocking tone. Steve was one of the ones who could call me a newbie.
In my first rotation as a fresh-faced actuarial student, I was in the unit that administered actuarial functions related to our defined benefit business. One task that I had to perform on occasion involved researching participants' transaction histories. These histories determined what benefits they were entitled to. This many years later, I don't remember the details, so I can't explain it better than that. At any rate, I had to go to microfiche files, look up their transactions, copy them down and then perform some calculations in order to determine what category they belonged to. It was a very tedious process and I hated it. Steve usually had the task of checking my work.
On one occasion I took a shortcut. After getting part of a person's history I was able to determine what category he would be in. I could prove mathematically that he couldn't possibly be in any of the other categories. So I stopped searching through the records, wrote up my results and handed it to Steve. He asked about the rest of the transactions. I pointed out that they didn't matter -- no matter what else I would find, the category wouldn't change. He was clearly amused, but he explained to me that the work could get audited, and the auditors would want a complete transactional history. A proof based on a partial history wouldn't cut it even if it was right. That was when I realized that I had left the world of mathematicians.
I never forgot that lesson that Steve taught me, and the patient way he taught it to me.
A long time ago I was the music editor of a college newspaper.* One of the perqs of that job was that I got first dibs on the record that were sent to the paper to be reviewed.** In some cases that meant hotly anticipated major-label releases, but other times it meant indie-label releases by unknown acts.
And so it was with Guilt by Association, the debut album by Suzy axon and the Anglos. I immediately fell in love with the album, likening it to the early new wave music that England's Stiff records had been putting out a few years earlier. As I did with bands that I liked, I kind of latched on, trying to promote them however I could -- probably with more gusto than their place in the pop world merited. Tommy Shaw from Styx is coming to campus? Meh. But Suzy Saxon & the Anglos? I reviewed the album. I arranged to interview the band. When they
played in Manhattan I reviewed the show. A few years later, writing for Tower Records' Pulse, I managed to get them to publish a short article previewing the Anglos' next release.
One of the thing I found interesting about the band was their knack for offbeat fundraising. Notably, they sold chocolate bars with their name on them. All of that was the brainchild of their producer, "Mad Dog." I won't post his real name here in case he wants to maintain some
anonymity. I have had ome poradic contact with him over the intervening years, so I will email him a link to this post, so if he want to out
himself, he can do so in the comments.
Anyway, the band put out two more records -- Scream To Be Heard and A Deal's A Deal. Then a CD called Downtime in Dogtown, which included remixes of some of their early recordings. I guess they broke up after that. In 2001 I got in touch with Suzy when I found a kip on my copy of Scream to Be Heard. he got back to me and promised to send another copy. That was in August, 2001. I never got the copy, but I also never followed up.
At any rate, the two standout tracks on the album were "Get Out of My Stomach" and "Boys in Dresses." I am haring the video of the latter because that's (to my knowledge) the only official video they ever did. Honestly, my favorite recording of theirs was a cover of Cat Stevens' "Wild World." I'm sorry that the audio and video aren't properly synced, but it's the best quality version of this song I could find.
*It was called Skyline, FWIW **Interestingly, there was some dispute over ome of the records that came in. Skyline wasn't the only new paper that year. It and the QC Quad had both risen from the ashes of The Phoenix, which had existed the year before. Packages addressed to Skyline went to Skyline, and packages addressed to The QC Quad went to The QC Quad. But there was some wrangling over what packages that were addressed to The Phoenix. Not that you care...
Session: Get Your Freak On, Week 1 Movie: Chained for Life (1952) Directed by Harry L. Fraser
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Life is turned upside down for conjoined twins, Dorothy and Vivian, when Dorothy decides she needs more than a life chained to her sister. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
When Keith started this class more than half a decade ago, the first movie he showed us was Freaks, Tod Browning's seminal 1932 film. Now Keith has decided to devote four classes to Freaks ripoffs. And he started with Chained for Life, a 1952 exploitation flick starring conjoined twins, Daisy and Violet Hilton (who, b the way, had appeared in Freaks) in the roles of conjoined twins, Dorothy and Vivian Hamilton, who are loosely based on them.
Chained is truly an exploitation film, as its advertising relied heavily on the curiosity factor -- seeing conjoined twins in a movie. I find this interesting because there was really no need -- beyond the exploitation factor -- to get true conjoined twins. Identical twins would have done fine. So would two unrelated women who look sufficiently similar (with judicious use of makeup). In fact, Dorothy's dream sequence would have been much easier to produce without the limitations caused by having conjoined twins.
But, hey, I guess producer George Moskov didn't want to cheat his audience.
At any rate, this actually had a pretty strong plot for an exploitation film, and it developed into an interesting legal conundrum. I spent most of the time wondering how the whole thing would play out. I will say that the judge's prologue and epilogue bookends were kind of hokey, but they didn't really harm the film.
The Hilton sisters did not perform well as actors; their deliveries were wooden. When I pointed that out, Keith noted that they never were really actors. They were singers and musicians. So I'm still kind of torn as to whether I think the movie would have worked better with others in those roles. But, as noted, a bug selling point was the use of real oddities and vaudeville performers. The vaudeville acts occupied a bit more of the movie than they should have -- they were, essentially, filler. I kind of liked them, but I would have preferred more story and less variety hour.
Chained isn't any kind of great masterwork, but it is an interesting little flick.
Blogger's Note: This is not meant to be financial advice and it should not be interpreted as such. I also don't swear that I am getting all the details right. I am writing this to bitch about something that annoyed me on a call with American Express. Do not use this post as the basis for your financial decisions. Doing so could lead to your doom! Or worse!!!
I was on the phone with American Express today. I had a question about an account. And the customer service rep did a fine job answering my question. Well, maybe not a fine job. Adequate is more accurate.
Whatever.
But then he went into a sales pitch. He wanted me to convert my "Blue Cash" card to a "Blue Everyday Cash" (or somesuch) account.
Like so many other credit cards, the Blue Cash card gives cash rebates. I don't remember all the specifics -- maybe I should -- but I do recall that it gives 5% back on some purchases: supermarkets, drugstores and gas stations, as I recall. The catch is that those high levels of rebates only kick in after I've met some minimum spend amount for the year. Until I reach that spend, the rebate rate is much lower. The Blue Everyday Cash card (or whatever it's called) has lower cash back rate, but they don't rely on my meeting a minimum spend level. So, if I switch, I'd only get 3% back on supermarket purchases. But I'd get it on all supermarket purchases.
So, of course, the phone rep emphasized the cash back, listing the different categories and rates. He elided the fact that those rebate levels are lower than what I get with the current card. And when I pointed out that fact, he pivoted to the fact that the new card's high rebate levels start at dollar one. "So it's win/win" he told me.
That's where I got annoyed. It's not win/win. And when I reminded him of that he confidently played down the effect of the rate being lower. Which really annoyed me.
Look, I'm not saying that the new card would be worse for me. It may in fact be better. I spend less on the Amex Blue Cash card than I used to, and its advantage over the newer card kicks in at higher levels of spending. I really can't know right now which card is better for me. I don't know why Amex is pushing this switch. It may have to do with customer loyalty. Or maybe they did some analysis that tells them I'll get less rebate if I switch. They could simply force me into the new arrangement by telling me there are "changes" to the rebate program. I assume they'd be within their rights to do so. Hell, they can eliminate the rebates altogether. But I guess they're better off talking me into enthusiastically making the switch than forcing it on me.
But don't insult my intelligence by implying that there's no downside to switching when there clearly is.
I don't blame the phone rep for any of this. He probably had to try selling me on the new card. And he probably was following a script that told him how to counter any of my objections.
But I don't like being lied to, or feeling like I'm being manipulated.
I may end up making the switch. But I will also probably use the Amex card less.
Session: Get Your Haunted House On, Week 4 Movie: The Woman in Black (1989) Directed by Herbert Wise
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
A lawyer travles to an old mansion to wrap of the affairs of its dead owner -- unaware that there's a murderous spirit haunting the place. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
I had a hard time figuring out how to rate this film; I saw the remake when it was in theaters, and that helped me to understand the story in a way I wouldn't have if I were going into this blind. As it is, I don't quite know the background that we, the viewers, are supposed to know. I do recall -- it's been years since I saw the remake, and there may be subtle differences in the backstory -- that somehow the ghost is of a woman whose child died, and she blames the town for his death. So she's been exacting her revenge by killing the townspeople's children. Knowing that was enough for me to make sense of what was happening.
But my ability to understand a movie shouldn't be dependent on having seen its remake. That represents a failure of exposition. In all fairness -- and this is part of why it's hard to know how to rate this -- I can't say for sure what I would or wouldn't have known without the remake. Maybe I would have picked up enough? It's difficult to say.
What's beyond dispute is the fact that some crucial background was either not presented or presented with great subtlety. And I do generally appreciate subtlety in story-telling. I do, however, think this was a bit too subtle, which is why I gave it a relatively low grade.
Joe, for his part, was more bothered than I was by the missing explanation. Of course, he didn't have the advantage of having seen the remake. Echoing the point I made above, he said that he shouldn't have to rely on a friend to explain such crucial matters. The thing he wants most in a movie is a story. It doesn't have to be a great story. But when he sits down for a movie he wants to be told a story. ANd felt that this movie failed to deliver -- hence the extremely low grade he gave this film.
I was actually kind of shocked by the grade Joe gave the movie. I knew he was unhappy; he had made that clear from the moment the movie ended. But I figured that meant he would give it a 9 -- under his grading system, science fiction and horror movies bottom out at 9 and grade below that are generally for things such as romantic comedies and foreign art films. So when he gave a horror film a 2, well, that was really making a statement.
While The Woman in Black had its shortcomings, I think it deserved better than that. But, then, who am I to tell Joe what rating he should give a film?
I do have to acknowledge that I've been thinking about this movie a lot over the last couple days, which makes me wonder if I should bump up my rating.
Ratings:
Me: 7
Dave: 8.5
Ethan: 8
Joe: 2 (Update: In July, 2022, Joe retroactively changed his rating to 9).
Sean: 1 out of 4
Following up on Joe's sugestion that we each pick our favorite film from each session, I present our picks:
Me: Burnt Offerings
Dave: Anything but The Woman in Black
Ethan: Burnt Offerings
Joe: Burnt Offerings
Sean: Ineligible to vote, since he missed one of the films.
This past week I watched the final episode of The Americans. Per a discussion with a friend at work (whom I shall call Peter in the remainder of this post), I am sharing my thoughts about the show. Before I do, let me remind that there are spoilers here. I have a generic warning up top that any entry may contain spoilers. But it's easy not to notice that. This post has spoilers. If you plan to watch The Americans and want it unspoiled, don't read this. I also note that I assume the reader is familiar with the show and its characters. So I am not going to spend words on background exposition.
The Amazing Antiheroes
One of the things I really like about this show is the fact that the protagonists are antiheroes. They're Russian spies living in the U.S. and posing as Americans. And they do all sorts of spy stuff. Like killing people. And stealing state secrets. And killing people. And betraying trusts. And killing people. And ruining lives. And killing people. And yet, because the story is told from their point of view, I still root for them; I want them to succeed. Peter had a different feel about the show. He wanted the Jenningses to get caught and arrested. Peter likes to have heroes who are...heroic. Good and pure. I like my heroes flawed. Peter has speculated on why he and I have such differences in what we want in our heroes. It would be interesting to know what psychologists have to say about this.
Beeman the Good
I suppose Stan, the FBI agent neighbor is as close a thing this show has to a real hero. Meaning, a "good guy." And, as much as I wanted Philip and Elizabeth to get away with their shenanigans, I also wanted Stan to succeed -- even though they couldn't both come out on top. Of course, Stan isn't unadulterated good. He does cheat on his wife (who leaves him and gradually disappears from the show. He also considers betraying his country for the woman he's having the affair with. I kind of liked the fact that he had these flaws. Peter didn't. That, of course, is in keeping with the way he and I differ in what we want of our heroes.
The Breaking Bad Concept The Americans copied one important concept from Breaking Bad -- the proximity of its protagonist to the authorities who can ruin them. In Breaking Bad, Walter is a drug kingpin whose brother-in-law* works for the DEA. In The Americans, Philip and Elizabeth are Russian spies whose neighbor is an FBI agent working in counterintelligence. In both cases, it contributes to the drama and suspense (and occasionally the sense of irony).
The Lost Years
This is something that irked me. There is a gap of several years between the penultimate and final seasons. And there are several story lines that were ongoing as season 5 ended. For example, Philip and Elizabeth have to keep working their contacts in Kansas. And Oleg is suspected by the KGB of being a traitor -- a crime for which he could be executed. Sure, we kind of learn what the ultimate outcome was. But I wanted to see them play it out. I felt cheated that I didn't get to watch it. Boardwalk Empire, another favorite of mine, had the same flaw.
And in the End
The ending strained credulity. Stan has finally figured it all out, and has the Jenningses trapped in a garage at gunpoint. And somehow -- through sentimentality, I guess -- he decides to lower his gun and let them go. No. I don't buy it. And they just leave Henry behind? Maybe they think Stan will take him in? Come on. That said, I still found it to be a very powerful and moving climax. The last half hour brought out all the feels.
The Victims
So who is the biggest victim? I'd have to say Henry. He's totally innocent. And what happens to him? He's 17 or 18, away at boarding school. He gets a call from his folks and they sound a little off. But no biggie. He says goodbye and runs off to a ping pong tournament. Afterwards, he's gonna find out (from their neighbor) that his folks were spies, that they ran off to Russia, and he's never going to hear from them again. That's gonna have a big impact on his life.
And what about Paige? She got off the train and stayed in the US. She may have started out innocent, but she spied for Russia. And she did it when she was an adult. She can't stay in the safe house with that bottle of vodka forever. Maybe she can claim that it was all under duress and get some sympathy from the court.
Martha's another victim. Like Paige, she's not completely innocent, since she continued working with Philip even after she knew he was a spy. But the saddest part of the show (other than the end) was the sequence when she was in the safe house, with Philip/Clark. He's telling her about what will happen once she's in Russia. She asks about when he'll join her, and he tells her he won't. And still, somehow, it doesn't sink in that he was just using him. As a viewer, I csan take some comfort in the thought that maybe in Russia she adopts that little orphan girl. She needs someone in her life.
Oleg Burov, last seen under arrest in America, is another victim. He's one of the more decent characters, and doesn't deserve his fate.
Oh, hell, let's just acknowledge it. Everyone is a loser.
Location, Location, Location
The show is supposed to be set in Washington, but they did a lot of filming in New York. So the architecture and the street signs all look like New York. I suppose I wouldn't notice it if I lived in Des Moines and had not grown up in New York. But I live in New York City (albeit one of the more suburban parts of the city), in the neighborhood I grew up in. There are many places where I recognize the part of the city that something is set in. In fact, there was a scene in the fourth episode that was filmed down the block from me. Of course I recognized that. And in the last episode (or maybe second to last) there's a scene on the Washington Metro. But as a New Yorker, I recognized the subway car as one of ours. It was an R-44 or R-46. Of course, all this concern over location is unimportant. It didn't really detract from the show.
For a little over a week now, several dozen teams of mushers have been racing across Alaska in the annual Iditarod. Blair is a big fan, and spends a lot of energy looking at race updates. And talking about it. I'm not really into mushing, but I do find her observations interesting.
This year's topics of discussion included:
Why Nic Petit's dogs went on strike. According to some, he has been pushing them too hard and too far. This goes against the conventional wisdom that he's very gentle with them.
Lev Shvarts, who may be the only Jewish musher in this year's race, scratched.
Actually, a lot of mushers have scratched near the end when they likely could have finished. They did it for the dogs.
Yotam Haber, a pianist and composer from the University of New Orleans, severed a finger participating in the ceremonial opening. It's been reattached, and he has started therapy. But, geez, if you make your living playing music with your hands, you shouldn't go mushing.
Anyway, I have a couple albums by Hobo Jim. This is, by far his best-known song.
Session: Get Your Haunted House On, Week 3 Movie: Burnt Offerings (1976) Directed by Dan Curtis
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Looking to get away for the summer, a family rents a huge, isolated old mansion. They get more than they bargained for.Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
First I note that this was the first time that everyone in the class gave the movie a 10.* I should also point out that this wasn't the best movie we've seen in this class. Night of the Living Dead is arguably a better movie. And so is Freaks -- if you grade it on a curve that acknowledges when it was made and the state of film at the time. But the fact that we all gave it a ten, despite the differences in how we each judge these movies is indicative of how good a film it is.
The thing with BO is that the tension starts out in a subtle way. But it builds. And it builds and it builds. At first, you're simply noticing things and thinking, "Huh...that's odd." But by the end you're on the edge of your seat in rapt fascination, wondering what the fuck is going to happen next.
One thing that I really enjoyed was the way the characters were portrayed as aging prematurely. AT first it's almost imperceptible. You wonder if you're imagining it. But as it goes on, they age more and more, until you're forced to realize it. This is most obvious with the old eccentric aunt played by Bette Davis. At first, she's energetic and irascible. But by the end of the summer she's old and decrepit.
Worth noting is the scene (part of which is shown in the trailer above) in which the trees on the grounds stop the family's escape. This is something that could have been unintentionally comical, and yet it was handled well enough that it worked.
Interestingly, BO started life as a made-for-TV movie, but was rejected by the networks for being too intense. So it ended up in the theatres. Despite it being too intense, it isn't simply one big extended adrenaline rush. It has the ups and downs that a good horror film needs. And, despite having those ups and downs, it was never slow.
Ratings:
Me: 10
Dave: 10
Ethan: 10
Joe: 10
*Sean, who rates movies on a scale of 1-4, was absent. He probably would have scored this 3 out of 4. Hah! Just kidding. Sean would have given this either 3 or 4 out of 4.
I have no idea who these women are, and I don't know exactly how it came to be that they jammed like this. Heck, I'm guessing that they don't even know each other. But I just love this joyful musical moment.
In my last post I talked about how Ethan's cat, Red, was stressed out by having to take pills.
It reminds me of a cat I used to have. Speck was an unhappy boy. I had gotten him and his litter mate, Bungee, at a shelter and they were both neurotic. Bungee was OK as long as long as I let her sit on my lap. Anytime I'd sit down she would jump on my lap. If I pushed her off, she'd jump back on. Over and over.
Speck wasn't quite as affectionate. He was more like a regular cat. He did show affection -- headbutting me every morning, for example. Well, maybe he just wanted food. Anyway, he had some behavioral issues which concerned me. I won't go into detail here, since there's no need.* I had an animal behaviorist come over to observe Speck and the apartment and assess the situation. She prescribed antidepressants. And this is where the problem came in.
I couldn't give him pills like we did with Red. Speck would bite and scratch if I tried to catch him to give him a pill. As much as I loved him, I wasn't about to submit to that. The behaviorist suggested I try mashing up pills into his food. Now, this meant that I had to start giving him canned food. Have I ever mentioned that I think canned cat food is disgusting. I go with dry. All. The. Time. But, OK, if my cat's emotional well-being was at stake, well, desperate times and all that hooey.
So I got him canned cat food, and gave it to him. At first I didn't adulterate it with the pill because I wanted to make sure he was happy with it. He was. After a couple days, I tried mashing up a pill into the food. Other than that step, I did everything the same. When I put the food bowl down on the floor, Speck came in to eat. He stopped and stared at the bowl. He sniffed it. Several times. I ended up with wet cat food all over the kitchen walls, and a grumpy cat. Bungee ended up eating the food -- she wasn't nearly as discerning as Speck.
Some time ago, Ethan's cat, Red was diagnosed with arthritis. At first, it was very mild -- hardly noticeable (by us at least). But it has gotten worse. We often see it when he walks. Even more so when he climbs stairs. Sometimes he looks more like he's hopping, rabbit-like, to avoid pain.
Our vet recommended something called Cosequin. I don't know if that's a generic name or a brand name, but it's a "joint health supplement" for cats. It contains glucosamine, chondroitin and manganese. So, every morning, Blair would give Red one of these pills. Suffice to say he didn't like them. Fortuntaely, he's a red male Maine Coon. And he's 11 years old. So, while he would struggle and resist the pill, he never bit or scratched. We'd been seeing some progress. He seemed to be more comfortable on the stairs. But, who knows -- maybe we were imagining it.
But we stopped this week.
We'd been starting to wonder if the benefits of the pill (which we couldn't be sure were real) were outweighed by the stress that they were clearly causing. Until we started this regimen, Red was always friendly in the morning. He was always on someone's bed, and was happy to be held and pet when people started getting up. But after we started giving him pills, he started spending his nights downstairs. I'd go down in the morning and find him on the sofa, eyeing me suspiciously. And if I went to pick him up, he'd try to get away. Now, it's easy to say that he doesn't know what's good for him and we should just force him -- having less pain will improve his quality of life. While that last point is true, constant stress is bad for his quality of life. And he was clearly stressed out. And, of course, we don't relish the idea of repeatedly dealing with cat pee in the bed.
So, for now, Red doesn't get pills. And we've embarked on the slow process of getting him to accept that.
Now, I see on Amazon that there's a chewable version of the pills. Maybe they're formulated to taste good. I think we'll try those and see what happens.
