cinema history class: the 7th voyage of sinbad (1958)

 The session: "Holiday-Premiered Fantasy Films—Get Your Ray Harryhausen On"

All four movies in this session are fantasy films that were released during the holiday season. In addition, the first three featured the stop-motion special effects of Ray Harryhausen.

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

Week 1: The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)
Directed by Nathan Juran

My Impressions Going In:

I remember seeing the trailer on TV when I was a kid, during one of its rereleases in the 1970s. I really wanted to see it, and my mom agreed to take me. Sadly, I don't think I ever saw it.

Plot:

En-route to Bagdad for their wedding, Sinbad and Princess Parisa encounter a series of deadly monsters.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Someone -- I don't remember who -- put it best when he said that Sinbad was the Indiana Jones of his day. The description isn't exactly right; unlike the Indiana Jones movies, this doesn't really involve some huge quest for a historical artifact. Sinbad just wants to get to Bagdad and get married. And there isn't any one arch villain. Instead there are several claymation monsters.

It's hard for me to assess how appropriate Sinbad7 was for children -- especially children of the 1950s. But it's clearly meant to be friendly to an audience including children. There was lots of violence -- even a person being roasted over a fire. But it was very tame in its portrayal. There was little blood, and the man being roasted didn't appear to suffer any burns. But the movie holds up really well for adults as a sort of fun romp.

The big thing about the movie is the claymation. I've seen lots some recent horror movies with lots of CGI. A Quiet Place Part II comes to mind. QPII had really good CGI monsters. Really scary and all. Yet somehow they didn't pack the visceral punch that they should have. The claymation monsters in Sinbad had a more obviously fake look, but they still seemed more real. I don't know the psychology or neurobiology of it, but CGI just can't match actual physical objects. At least not yet.

Regardless of the good and the bad in this film, I was left with one question in mind: "What does a cyclops need with gold?"

Ratings

Me: 8.5

Bob-O: 10

Christina: 10

Ethan: 8
Joe: 10

cinema history class: a clockwork orange (1972)

The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

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

Week 4: A Clockwork Orange (1972)
Directed by Stanley Kubrik

My Impressions Going In:

I saw this film many years ago. Long enough ago that I had only vague memories of it -- a few vague images, including someone singing "Singing In The Rain" while smacking others with an umbrella, and of someone having his eyes forcefully held open. That said, I did remember the basic premise.

Plot:

In exchange for having his sentence commuted, a violent criminal agrees to be the guinea pig for an experiment in behavior modification.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I'm not exactly a huge Kubrik fan. Not that I'm an expert. I have liked or loved most of his films that I've seen -- Especially Dr. Strangelove. On the other hand, I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is hugely overrated—It's visually stunning and the whole Hal thing is really interesting, but it seems too intent 0n getting the science right and stunning the viewer with that. As a result, the storytelling suffers. Keeping in mind that I didn't care for what is possibly Kubrik's most celebrated work and that, having seen Clockwork (albeit a long time ago) and didn't have much in the way of firm memories of it, I didn't have the highest of hopes for it.

But watching again, it floored me.

First, let's talk about the use of color. The use of vivid -- overly vivid color creates an uncomfortable feeling of dissonance. The colors themselves are beautiful, and yet the images are so jarring that their vividness makes them ugly. And it starts at the very beginning, with the opening screen I've seen this in other films, notably Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Shock Treatment (1981), but rarely does it achieve such a profound effect.

The imagery itself is also both disturbing and beautiful. The nude tables in the milk bar, the choreographed brutality of the rape, the penis sculpture used as a murder weapon...all of these visually stunning elements serve to make the viewer squirm. 

Along with the visuals, the choice of music did a superb job of driving the mood of this film. The beauty of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony juxtaposed with the vicious cruelty of Alex' (Malcolm McDowell) gang helped to strengthen the dissonance I discussed above. Of course, that dissonance is actually part of the story -- the cruel, violent sociopath is completely enamored of Beethoven's Ninth.

Even Alex' narration helped serve this conflict. Alex is clearly intelligent and clever. He even speaks of the events with a dose of jolly humor. He seems almost likeable, despite being such an obviously horrible person. For me, of course, that's a joy. I have, on numerous occasions noted that I love watching films or TV with antiheroes. Alex happens to be more"anti" and less "hero" than most, but he is undeniably interesting.

At one point I noted that Malcolm McDowell, starring as Alex, reminded me of Mick Jagger. I note this because Keith told us afterwards that at one pint the plan was to have Mick Jagger star as Alex and the rest of the Rolling Stones support him as his gang. It's an interesting thing to think about, and it might have worked, though I suspect it would have hurt the band's musical career.

The whole movie seems to be a commentary and condemnation of the government -- a theme that, as far as I can tell, Kubrick revisited many times in his career. But aside from the heavy-handed message (which one may or may not like), it's a fascinating story and great to watch.

Ratings

Me: 10

Bob-O: 10

Ethan: 10

cinema history class: dracula a.d. 1972

 The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

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

Week 1: Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)
Directed by Alan Gibson

My Impressions Going In:

I vaguely recalled having heard of this film.

Plot:

Count Dracula is brought back to life in contemporary London by a hippie who wants immortality.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I started liking DAD72 early on -- in the extended party scene, where the band Stoneground made their appearance. I wasn't actually familiar with them, but their music was catchy and upbeat. The scene lasted longer than it really should have, but it was infused with humor and did a good job of introducing the hippies who played such a vital part in the film.

Ethan noted that this was a relatively small scale movie as Hammer productions go. In retrospect I realize he was right. And yet I didn't notice that fact while the film was playing. So somehow they managed to work around that.

I was actually disappointed in one aspect of the ending. I was kind of hoping for the movie to come full circle, and show some anonymous figure gathering Dracula's ashes. It would have been poetic, and been great for setting up a sequel. But, alas, weren't lucky enough for that.

All that said, this is a Hammer film starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. So it can't help but be really good. 

Ratings

Me: 9

Bob-O: 9.3

Christina: 9.2

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

to cloud or not to cloud

I'm trying to figure out what to do about data storage and preservation in the age of the cloud.

Until now I have pretty much eschewed cloud storage. It's not that I have any well-thought objections. It's just that I never got around to setting it up. Fearing that my computer can die and I would lose all my data, I have been making a half-hearted attempt at backing up on thumb drives. But I have made back-ups irregularly at best.

I started looking at the possibility of cloud storage. I have the accounts and the storage space available. But I haven't gotten around to figuring out what to do and how to do it. Fortunately for me, Sharon is pretty good with this and has friends who are better.

But after discussing this with her, I am still torn.

I have been storing all my data in one folder on my hard drive. I set things up that way on purpose, so that when I want to back things up it's relatively easy. I don't really care about backing up programs, since I can reinstall. But data? They can't be replaced as easily.

Until last night, I was under the impression that using cloud storage involved some kind of process of regularly syncing my computer to the cloud -- that I'd tell the software what folder(s) to back up and how frequently. Then, at some determined intervals a sync would happen. That's based on a paradigm that I witnessed for years. But after talking with Sharon, I learned that that's not the way this works anymore. The paradigm has shifted. Now, the cloud storage will show up in Windows Explorer as just another folder, and I'll be working with files that are stored somewhere else instead of in my computer.

This all makes me vaguely uncomfortable. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but the idea of my files not being on my computer makes me uncomfortable. Sharon pointed out some definite advantages to this scheme. Notably, with access to my ID and password, I can log into my cloud account on another computer elsewhere. There can be very useful. And storing things on the cloud can certainly make things safer than if I just keep backups on a thumb drive in my desk drawer. And yet...and yet...it still doesn't feel right.

I suspect that what I'll do is go to the cloud storage scheme as Sharon recommends, but periodically back up the cloud stuff on my hard-drive.

If anyone who sees this is tech-savvy and has thoughts on the matter, I'd be curious about what you think.

cinema history class: frenzy (1972)

 The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

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

Week 1: Frenzy (1972)
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

My Impressions Going In:

I was completely unfamiliar with this.

Plot:

Women in London are being strangled with neckties. And the police have the wrong man. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Quit laughing at me -- just because I hadn't heard of this Hitchcock classic. I attend this class to learn things I don't know -- not the things I do.

I have to hand it to Hitchcock. This had me on edge until the end. This was more thrilling than the other Hitchcock films I've seen. But that's probably a function of the fact that this was the early 1970s. I have a soft spot for movies from that era. And this is near the top. One of the interesting things about Hitchcock films  -- and I think it was Dave who made note of it -- is that they are mysteries where the audience knows exactly what is happening. The essence is that you know something that the characters don't.

Having said that, I did notice a couple of plot elements that didn't make sense. And they bothered me. But at least the ending was strong. The pith reminded me of the end of The Taking of Pelham 123, which is also a favorite.

What a fun ride!

Ratings

Me: 9.8

Bob-O: 9.9

Christina: 9.65

Dave: 9.9

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10