cinema history class: the poseidon adventure (1972)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
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 3 (Me): The Poseidon Adventure (1972)
Directed by Ronald Neame

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I was already very familiar with this movie -- as I should be, given that I chose it for Bring Your Own Movie Month

Plot:
After their cruise ship capsizes, a small group of passengers struggle stay ahead of the rising water and survive long enough to  

Reaction and Other Folderol:.
I generally have a difficult time choosing a movie for Bring Your Own Movie Month (BYOMM). I have a mental list of possible movies, though it's always changing. And I annoy Keith with texts and emails asking "what about XXX." This year, Poseidon was on my short list of several dozen possibilities. And, truth be told, it would not have been my final choice if not for the fact that its star, Gene Hackman, died in February. He was one of the greats of his generation, but he didn't do a lot of horror or sci-fi movies. But he did do Poseidon.

The first half of the 1970s was kind of a golden age for disaster films, and those were the horror movies that I was into as a kid. I nagged my mom to take me to see Earthquake, which gave me nightmares. I nagged her to take me to see Jaws, which gave me nightmares. Same with Tidal Wave. I still haven't seen The Towering Inferno, but that's another matter. Anyway, I didn't see The Poseidon Adventure when it came out -- I was just a little too young. But over the years I saw it in bits and pieces on TV, and I liked what I saw. I don't remember when I first saw it in its entirety, but it is a longtime favorite.

One of the cool things about BYOMM is that I sometimes come away with new insights about old favorites. That comes about in part because I get to hear everyone else's thoughts about the movie, but also because I am looking at the movie with a more critical eye. One thing I noticed this time is the way Poseidon seems to be draw some inspiration from the Bible. Gene Hackman's character, a rebellious pastor, is a Moses-like figure. He leads his little entourage away from the water, through the ship and toward their rescue. But, like Moses, he never gets to enter the promised land -- dying before they cross over. And it almost seems that his death is the price of his rebellious nature. I also realized for the first time how great this film is as a character study. Something else I had never thought about until Ethan mentioned it is the fact that the rising sea water is a stand-in for a menacing animal that might be the antagonist in a forest-set movie wherein people are trying to find their way to safety.

Now I just have to figure out what to bring for BYOMM next year.

cinema history class: dracula (1931)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"
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 2 (Dave): Dracula (1931)
Directed by Tod Browning

My Level of Prior Knowledge
I was aware of this movie's existence, and of much of the plot points. But had never seen it.

Plot:
A mysterious Transylvanian nobleman, Count Dracula, travels to England, where he begins to prey on the blood of young women and is pursued by Professor Van Helsing, who suspects his true identity. As Dracula’s influence spreads, Van Helsing races to stop the vampire before he claims more victims.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
This, the first Dracula talkie, set the model -- both for portrayals of the titular vampire and for Bela Lugosi characters. Lugosi's vampire is a well-dressed, well-groomed, polite man of manners. The consummate gentleman, if you'll forgive the whole neck-biting thing. And that has been the dominant portrayal of Dracula since then. As for Bela Lugosi, the Dracula role defined and typecast him. I'm thinking, for example, of his role in 1932's White Zombie. His character, Legendre, was very clearly influenced by Dracula. 

Related to that, one of the most interesting things about seeing this was comparing it to Nosferatu -- the 1922 silent film that was based on the same material. The vampire in the 1922 film couldn't have been presented more differently. He was gangly, and gaunt -- appearing barely human. He had sunken eyes, pointed ears and rat-like teeth. His arms and hands were evocative of spiders. It was a huge leap to the suave gentleman of Dracula. Some of the aspects of the early part of the story bear strong similarities to Nosferatu, though the resemblance is much weaker in the latter half of the film.

Produced at a time when the industry was still trying to figure out how to do talkies, the movie seemed like it was part of a transitional creature. For example, there was a lot of use of printed narration for exposition. And the staging made it feel like a play -- much of it taken directly from the stage version (which had also starred Lugosi). That, Keith explained, was a big reason for the movie seeming to slow during the second half.

 But this was a visually interesting film -- especially when judged for its time -- with an interesting story and a compelling protagonist. I gave it high marks for all of that.

cinema history class: forbidden planet (1956)

The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month"

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.

cinema history class: milligan and company

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...

cinema history class: the fly saga

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.