cinema history class: marquis de sade: justine (1969)

The session: "Porno Month...Well, Sort of: de Sade Month"
We watch films inspired by the works of the Marquis de Sade.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Marquis de Sade: Justine (1969)
Directed by Jesus Franco

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
After being orphaned, poor Justine embarks on a series of adventures with strange lecherous men.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Justine is in many ways a fun, adventurous romp. In some ways it reminded me of Supervixens, a Russ Meyer flick that Keith showed us earlier this year. Here, the title character is going from place to place, accommodation to accommodation. Everywhere she goes, there's a lecherous man (or men) who want to rape her, and she barely escapes with her virginity intact.

There are, of course, differences -- this has better production values than Supervixens, and the sexes are reversed. And, of course, in SV, the main character does have sex with all the people he runs into. But there is still a similarity in that this feels like a series of disjointed adventures rather than one coherent story.

Another shortcoming is in the wasted talents of Jack Palance and Klaus Kinski. Kinski, as much as he can be deliciously psychotic, is wasted here, playing the part of a prisoner. He paces, he writes. But I don't recall if he even uttered one word. Palance's role isn't quite so minor, but again, very little is done with him. He plays the role of the head of a religious order that briefly takes her in. It's well that his character didn't get to do as much as he wanted, but Palance's limited role meant that the audience missed out.

Ratings
Me: 7
Bob-O: 8
Dave: 8.7
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10

cinema history class: blood from the mummy's tomb (1971)

The session: "Vamps, Gorgons and Reptiles -- The Wicked Women of Hammer!
We watch Hammer films featuring female monsters.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971)
Directed by Seth Holt

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
An ancient evil Egyptian queen is brought back to life in modern day London.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Once again, most of the details of this film escape my memory, since I am trying to write about it more than a month after seeing it. I really need to get back to writing these classes up in a more timely manner. But life is hectic. Of course, that speaks to my feeling of disconnectedness from the Hammer world.

I do recall that this had a more lush feel than most of the Hammer films I've seen. I also recall feeling that it would have been better served had Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Of course, that latter point was the subject of a good bit of classroom debate. I won't go into it, save to say that I was right.

I realize that this write-up isn't of much use. And I wouldn't even bother with it at this point, except that I want to keep this unofficial record of what Keith has shown us.

Sorry.

Ratings
Me: 7.75
Bob-O: 9.8
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the reptile (1968)

The session: "Vamps, Gorgons and Reptiles -- The Wicked Women of Hammer!
We watch Hammer films featuring female monsters.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 3: The Reptile (1966)
Directed by John Gilling

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
Captain Spalding (hooray for him!) inherits a cottage and arrives in town to find the locals are wary of him. And they're dying mysteriously.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Unfortunately, I had to miss this class due to car trouble. I subsequently watched it on the interwebs, but that experience isn't the same. As such, I don't  feel right joining in ratings this movie. That said, I think it's safe to say that the grade I would have given it would have brought the average down. At least a little.

The Reptile is a gripping little mystery that does a reasonable job of holding the viewer's attention. And it does a good job of holding back the revelations until near the end. I'm used to these Hammer period pieces, but this one seemed different to me. At times it felt like watching one of those Jane Austen adaptations that Blair is so fond of (and that I'm not). And yet, it was nicely atmospheric. I don't think it moved as fast as a lot of the other Hammer films, but that worked -- it gave the viewer more of a chance to keep up.

I especially got a kick out of Peter the town nut, but the fact is the characters were reasonably well developed.

Ratings
Bob-O: 9.6
Christina: 9.6
Dave: 9.8
Joe: 10

cinema history class: the gorgon (1964)

The session: "Vamps, Gorgons and Reptiles -- The Wicked Women of Hammer!"
We watch Hammer films featuring female monsters.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: The Gorgon (1964)
Directed by Terence Fisher

My Impressions Going In:
I had never heard of this.

Plot:
A gorgon is terrorizing a mountain town in Germany. The locals want it kept a secret to protect the tourist trade.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I have to confess here that I let too much time pass before trying to write about this movie -- life is hectic. As a results, I've kind of forgotten way too much about it. If not for the fact that I want this blog to maintain a record of what we've been seeing at Keith's, I would probably just skip this entry. I'll try to be more timely, but I make no promises. And, of course, I am still behind so there will be a few more thin posts.

But I suppose that is a good indication of my reaction. I enjoyed it, but it didn't really make a strong impression on me. There is one thing that stands out for me. In all other gorgon stories that I recall, the victim turns to stone pretty much immediately after looking into the gorgon's eyes. In this telling, there's kind of a delayed effect. So we get to hear one character describe what it feels like to be turning to stone. It kind of reminded me of a particularly compelling scene from 1932's The White Zombie, in which one character knows what is happening to him as he turns into a zombie. I always loved that element of the 1932 movie, and I loved it here.

But that one element aside, there's really not much from this movie that stayed with me.

Ratings
Me: 7
Bob-O: 9.5
Christina: 9.5
Dave: 9.8
Ethan: 8.5
Joe: 10

an insult to the beatles' legacy

 It's been a couple days since the release of "Now and Then," the Beatles' latest last song ever. Judging by what I am seeing on the intertubes, most people -- or at least most of the people who are stating their opinions -- love it. To be sure, there are some naysayers, but it appears that they are in the minority.

And I share that minority opinion.

I think the following may be helpful in case anyone wants context to help decide how seriously to take my opinion. First, I have to acknowledge the Beatles' greatness -- as among the most successful and influential bands in rock history. That said, they are not among my favorite bands, though I do love a lot of their music. I have a general familiarity with their body of work, though I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of it.

It may also be helpful to briefly review the history of the song -- in case there's anyone who's reading this and doesn't know the history. Thirty or so years ago, when preparations were being made for the Anthology albums, the three then-surviving Beatles took rough demos that John Lennon had been working on when he died, cleaned them up, added their own touches and created two fully-produced records. The results, "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" were released on Anthology 1 and Anthology 2. A third song, "Now and Then," wasn't completed at the time. The official reason is that the tape was in too poor condition to be usable. But now, with improved technology, they could isolate and clean up Lennon's vocals. So, in 2023, it has been revived and "completed" for inclusion on a rerelease of the old 1967-1970 compilation.

The biggest problem with "Now and Then" is that it doesn't really feel like a complete song. It's seems that John had an idea for a song and was playing around with it, but never really finished writing it. And whatever lyrics Paul added don't really flesh it out enough to make it feel finished. So, in the studio, the went and added all sorts of layered arrangements and strings onto this fragment. But there's no catchy hook or anything to grab the listener's attention. It's just a whiny little idea that never got completed. And the overdone arrangement doesn't even really sound like a Beatles song. I wasn't crazy about "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love," but they always sounded like they were legitimate Beatles songs.

And this makes me wonder why so my people love "Now and Then." I do realize that taste is an individual matter, and some people can like something that I don't. But I think there's something more at work here. There are a lot of people who are emotionally invested in the idea that the record is great -- a gift to Beatles fans who reasonably thought that there would never again be new material from the band. They want to love this. And so they do.

But I'm saddened by the whole thing. This is an insult to The Beatles' legacy.