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 2: De Sade (1969) Directed by Cy Endfield
My Impressions Going In: I had never heard of this.
Plot: The life of Marquis de Sade -- fictionalized and dramatized.
Reaction and Other Folderol: I had to miss this session. And I didn't get a chance to borrow Keith's copy of the disc (and for all I know it's a European format I can't play anyway), so I really can't comment. I'm providing a post about this movie just for the sake of completeness.
For what it's worth, I've read that this movie is majorly psychedelic. Also, I wasn't the only one who missed it -- Bob-O and Ethan did as well. Not that that really matters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1: The Brides of Dracula (1960) Directed by Terence Fisher
My Impressions Going In: I had never heard of this.
Plot: An idiot frees a vampire, exposing a whole town to terror. Idiot.
Reaction and Other Folderol: I have to acknowledge that Brides has elements that I like. It is, of course, a variation of your standard Dracula movie, but this time the vampire is imprisoned by his mother (until he gets set free), who somewhow got him vampirated. And there are hints of incest and other issues of sexuality. The plot is reasonably well-executed, even if it's not terribly original. As is par for the course with Hammer films, the visuals are great. Vivid color, great sets and really good camera angles.
So the movie delivers everything that's expected of it. And it is interesting. But the problem is that it's not particularly memorable. Sometimes I come out of these films thinking about them, and they stay on my mind. This one, nope.
Ratings Me: 7.5 Bob-O: 9.2 Christina: Somewhere in the 7s Dave: 9.6 Ethan: 8 Joe: 10
The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake" We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his associates.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 4: Doctor Gore (1972) Directed by J.G. Patterson
My Impressions Going In: I had never heard of this.
Plot: A mad scientist, having lost his wife, proceeds to build the ultimate woman -- out of parts taken from other women.
Reaction and Other Folderol: Doctor Gore is, primarily a mad scientist story. There's a lot of plot taking place in a lab, where Dr. Brandon (played badly by J.G. Patterson, who also directed) cuts body parts off a variety of women and sews them all together. He has a vat of acid for cleaning off bones, and of course there's the requisite hunchbacked assistant. The gore is handled very well. Body parts sit on operating tables, their ends covered in blood, as they await their use. We see the doctor preparing to cut -- and cutting -- as he performs his surgery. Blood, in and of itself, isn't necessarily the pinnacle of cinematic achievement. But, let's face it, the blood was the selling point for this film. And it was achieved well.
But one problem with the film is that it tries (too hard, and with little subtlety) to be a comedy. Communication between the doctor and his drooling assistant is marked by attempts humor. The hunchback wheezes and grunts his lines, and the audience is supposed to laugh. And the humor does sort of work at times. But it seems out of place. Sometimes humor and horror can be meshed well. But that's not the case here.
To make matters worse, the script throws in a tender love story. Once the doctor has built his ideal woman, ha has to romance her. She is, after all, a blank slate (as is made painfully clear), so she could easily come under the influence of some other man. So the audience is treated to multiple montages with soft focus and lighting, and music that sounds like a third rate Glen Campbell imitator. In some movies, this might work. But juxtaposed with the crude laboratory footage, it's jarring.
The plot itself is not rendered particularly well. Admittedly, we're not talking about anything particularly complex. But there are details that aren't really explained well. That was particularly true of the ending. It wasn't really clear what was going on, and Keith had to explain it to us.
I was annoyed by the sound editing. There were many sections with no incidental music, and no attempt to clean the ambient sound. So it kind of hurts the ears. But the incidental music, a tinny plinky version of "My Favorite Things," was itself painful to listen to. The songs that were used weren't bad in and of themselves. They were kind of lounge-lizardish country. The song played in a nightclub was entertaining, but it went on too long. Instead of a fifteen second clip, we were treated to a couple full minutes and, I think, a full song. It was a good song, I admit, but it shouldn't have gone on so long. Similarly, the songs played during the romantic montages were good. But they went on too long and were out of place.
The romantic angle is actually kind of creepy. As part of the medical process, the Doctor hypnotized his ideal woman to forget everything she knows. So, post surgery, he has to explain the world to her. She has an adult woman's body (or is it women's bodies?), but the mind of a child. Furthermore, the body parts are, in a way, dead. So this combines elements of pedophilia and necrophilia. Lovely.
The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake" We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his associates.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 3: Color Me Blood Red (1965) Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis
My Impressions Going In: I had never heard of this.
Plot: A crazy artist needs blood as the key pigment for his red paint.
Reaction and Other Folderol: The thing about Color is that the fundamental premise of the movie is very strong. Arguably, it has the strongest premise of any of the blood trilogy*. The problem is that it was done so poorly. The script doesn't do enough to make the plot clear (beyond the basic outline I summarized above). To go with the weak plot, there's very little character development, which makes it very difficult to care about any of the people in the film. No one really mattered.
The blood was plentiful, so the viewer who just wants a lot of that comically bright red blood, this will satisfy that urge.
I also note that the film was bookended by a prologue and an epilogue that did nothing to make it better. They should have left those off.
Ratings
Me: 3.5
Bob-O: 5.5
Christina: 4.7
Dave: 7
Ethan: 4
Joe: 9
________________________________________________
*The other movies in the trilogy being Blood Feast and Two Thousand Maniacs!
The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake" We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his associates.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 2: Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964) Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis
My Impressions Going In: I'd heard of this, primarily because of it's theme song "Robert E. Lee Broke His Musket on His Knee." I also had some familiarity with the plot, though not the finer points.
Plot: The residents of a Southern town lure Northern tourists to a centennial celebration. Unbeknownst to the Northerners, the celebration involves some brutal revenge killings.
Reaction and Other Folderol: In the interests of full disclosure, I need to acknowledge that I didn't see this movie with the rest of the class. Ethan and I were both unable to attend. As such, neither of us rated the film. I did watch the movie on my own (Thanks, Tubi!), and my comments are based on that viewing. But I still don't feel right about rating the film.
Maniacs is a surprisingly fun romp (assuming you have sufficient tolerance for gratuitous gore. There is a lot of red in there. But the deaths are cleverly done -- there's a barrel roll, a quartering, and of course a variation of an old carnival game. Of course, this is a movie from the 1960s. So the blood and gore, as graphic as it is, still has a cartoonish look. This isn't Saw. Rather, it's crude hicksploitation at its best.
After watching Blood Feast (and having seen The Gore Gore Girls a few years ago, I was skeptical of this. But this is superior to those in every way possible -- picture quality, sound quality, script, acting, premise. The humor was also a definite bonus. I'm not saying it's a great film, but it is definitely good. And its originality earns it some extra kudos.
The session: "Blood for Blood's Sake" We watch Herschell Gordon Lewis' blood trilogy as well as a film by one of his asscoiates.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: Blood Feast (1965) Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis
My Impressions Going In: Never heard of it.
Plot: Blood Feast, to put it gently, sucks. The low budget sets, the bad sound, the orange makeup...It was all ineptly made.
I give it points because I was amused by the final scene, and because the movie was, apparently, the first of its kind. Being an innovative groundbreaking film should count for something.
Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 6: Blue Sunshine (1978) (Christina's pick) Directed by Jeff Lieberman
My Impressions Going In: Never heard of it.
Plot People are losing their hair, their minds and their lives. And one man is trying to figure out why.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
I love the way Blue Sunshine opens alternating between action and shots of the moon (the latter accompanied by credits). It was a creative way of whetting the audience's appetite -- teasing and teasing some more. And that set the tone. The camera work was particularly strong, and helps to drive a sense of anxious anticipation.
I particularly like the gritty 1970s feel. And it was fun to see Mark Goddard in a more grown-up role than his Lost in Space turn, which is what I remember him from. That said, there were some ways that this felt like a small movie, and I wanted it to be bigger. There was so much to like, and I wanted to like it even more.
The ending was somewhat disappointing in its abruptness. As the action ends, text appears to let us know how things ultimately turned out. I have seen other movies do that, sometimes to good effect. But to make that work, it has to appear at a time when the story feels truly concluded. This didn't.
Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 5: Invaders from Mars (1953) (Bob-O's pick) Directed by William Cameron Menzies
My Impressions Going In: I'd heard of this movie and knew that it involved Martians invading (I mean, the title kind of gives that way). I also knew it's a classic. But I didn't know much in the way of specifics.
Plot: Martians have landed, and they're taking over the minds of Earthlings.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
This should have been nothing more than a cheesy little 1950's sci-fi thriller. But it exceeded expectations. It was spooky and scary. And really fun.
The movie had an odd mix of visual styles. The McLean family farmhouse looked like pure Americana. But the other sets, notably the police station seemed to summon German expressionism. It's eerily imposing as young Jimmy talks to the police. And eerily imposing is a good way to describe a lot of the visuals. The walls of the Martians' underground lair, the head Martian's disembodied head...the visuals were amazing.
One thing I didn't like about the film was the ending. It was one of those annoying ambiguous things that was supposed to be artsy. Joe reconciled himself to it by deciding that they had intended the audience to infer a space-time causality loop -- like the time Kelsey Grammar appeared on Star Trek: TNG. But I think that's giving the movie way too much credit. I think they just didn't know how to end it. Fortunately, the European release had a better ending, which I much preferred.
Ratings
Me: 9 Christina: 9.5 or 9.6, depending on which ending
Ethan: 9
Joe: 10 Keith: 9.5 or 9.6, depending on which ending
The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month" Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 4: Bone Tomahawk (2015) (Ethan's pick) Directed by S. Craig Zahler
My Impressions Going In: I had neither seen nor heard of this movie before Ethan started talking about bringing it to Keith's. Based on the way he talked about it as being brutally violent and the fact that he loves the Saw movies, I was figuring on unrelenting violence.
Plot: After three townsfolk (well, two townsfolk and a drifter) are kidnapped, a rescue party goes searching for them
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Based on the buildup from Ethan, I was expecting an evening of unremitting painfully violent imagery. I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong.
That said, BT is extremely violent. The mood is set quickly -- the first scene is of a violent ambush, shown up close and personal. And the whole sequence before the opening credits -- almost a prologue -- sets the tone with its tension and violence. But BT isnt simply one long gorefest. There isn't the feeling, as with the Saw movies, that this is violence for its own sake. The violence here is in service of telling the story. And it's actually used sparingly enough that I, the viewer, had a chance to catch my breath. And, for most of the movie, the suspense and sense of foreboding do a slow build, leading to a rewarding climax.
There were some comments about this movie being overlong. And I guess I can understand. It does clock in at over two hours. So it could have been trimmed without losing any crucial narrative. But I didn't mind the length. The suspense built in such a way that I was never thinking about time. The movie had an almost epic quality, driven by the wide open feel of the desert as portrayed for much of the story.
It's amazing to me that this movie flew under the radar.
The session: "Bring Your Own Movie Month" Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 3: three television episodes (Joe's pick)
Joe's big thing for Bring Your Own Movie Month is to make a whole program out of the evening. Whereas the rest of us each choose one movie to share, Joe has typically shown a movie along with a related episode or two from the realm of television. This year he left out the movie part and gave us three television episodes joined (he said) by a theme.
In "Werewolf" (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea --S3E2), a crewman is bitten by a werewolf and becomes infected. In "The Werewolf" (Kolchak: The Nightstalker -- S1E5), Kolchak finds himself on a cruise ship. Instead of interviewing singles as planned, he's chasing down a werewolf. In "Maria" (Alfred Hitchcock Presents -- S7E3), a circus performer buys a monkey who turns out to be more than he expected.
It was clear to me what the connection was between the first two episodes Joe showed us, as they both involved werewolves. The connection to the Alfred Hitchcock episode was a little less clear. It could be that it starred Nita Talbot, who also starred in the Kolchak episode. The other possibility I can think of is that the plot involved a woman in a chimpanzee costume* which, I guess, is sort of like a man turning into a wolf.
Showing TV shows instead of a movie is, by definition, a risk. A movie, unless it's a sequel or an entry in an established franchise, is meant to be enjoyed on its own terms. With TV shows, the dynamic isn't the same; there are characters and context that are already established and not exposited. Which is not to say that TV episodes can't be enjoyed as self-contained units. These three shows were all from before the current age of arc-driven shows. You can't just sit and watch a random season 4 episode of Game of Thrones or Boardwalk Empire unless you have already seen all that leads up to it. By contrast, you can do that with Bewitched or The Six Million Dollar Man. You'll be missing some context, but those latter shows were written and presented for single-episode consumption. And so it was with the shows Joe showed us.
It's kind of hard for me to get into Voyage as a TV show. Perhaps if I had seen it as a kid I'd be into it -- sort of the way I'm into Star Trek** now. Or, maybe not. I saw Lost in Space (which, like Voyage, was an Irwin Allen vehicle) as a kid, and never really took to it. I could enjoy this episode for what it was, but not much more. Kolchak interested me more. As a miod-1970s series with cinema-like presentation, it fit into my comfort zone better. But my favorite of the three was clearly the the Hitchcock episode.
And I think that's because Hitchcock Presents was the most movie-like of the three. Hitchcock was primarily a movie director and that is reflected in his sensibilities. Further, Presents was an anthology show with no connection between episodes. So each episode was more like a mini-movie than a typical TV episode. I enjoyed that one episode to such a degree that I am tempted to buy the series on DVD. Maybe I'd just pay to stream it -- but if I did that, joe would feel a disturbance in the Force.
It was difficult to rate Joe's offerings. Perhaps I should have tried -- Joe even suggested that we could rate each of the three pieces or the whole. or both -- but I declined. Others went there and gave the everything very high marks. Sadly, I can't find the pad of paper on which I wrote the grades. Sorry.
_____________________________
*They keep saying "monkey," but it's clearly a chimpanzee costume **To be clear, I'm talking about the original series and, I guess the spinoffs through Enterprise.
In an album with lots of songs whose themes are variations of "please love me as much as I love you," this isa bit of a departure. It's pure appreciation of love without any expression of fear or doubt. I wrote it for Blair over the course of several years, more than fifteen years ago. I remember many drives between New York and Boston -- Blair's friend, Tall Judy, was still living there -- in which I passed the miles writing this in my head.
Blair didn't like the first iteration, as its message was a little off. I don't remember the lyrics anymore, but I do recall that the message could largely be summed up as "you help me to be a winner; you are my lucky charm." Her criticisms made sense -- the message was not as I had intended. I rewrote it to convey the message that "I am a winner as long as I have you; you are my prize." Neither of those paraphrases is entirely accurate, but they get at the idea. I liked the revised version better. Interestingly, that rewrite is something that likely wouldn't happen today. These days, my songs often get away from me and convey messages that I hadn't intended. But if I like the way a song sounds, I'll keep it even if it doesn;t say what I originally set out to say.
This is not the best-written of my songs, and its structure is a bit odd -- VCVCVBC. But I like it, and that's what matters.
Enjoy.
"Jackpot" Song by: Marc Whinston Lead vocal by Toby Wilson All instruments and backing vocals by Toby Wilson Arranged and Produced by Toby Wilson for Tobias Wilson Music, Ltd.
Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: Phantom of the Opera (1943) (Dave's pick) Directed by Arthur Lubin
My Impressions Going In: I saw this in a theater on Long Island last fall. I've also seen various other versions of Phantom. It's never been one of my favorite stories.
Plot:
The Paris Opera House is haunted, and no one is safe.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
I should note at the outset that I don't Opera. I've had to sit through Operas a few times over the years -- my aunt and uncle dragged me to La Boheme when I visited them in Austin in 1997, and in 2019 Ethan (who loves opera) wanted to experience the Prague Opera House during our vacation in 2019, so I saw a bunch of shows there. I can appreciate the visual spectacle, but I can't stand the music. And I have trouble following the story. So I end up sitting there glancing at my watch as often as I feel I can get away with.
I bring that because, I think, a good part of the charm of this movie is the opera that serves as a kind of show in the background of the show. There are lots of sequences that feature the players of the opera performing. And I can see how, if I were one who appreciates opera, it would help me enjoy the movie.
Claude Rains, visible in this role, is a nuanced, sympathetic phantom. This version has particular plot elements that are absent from the other versions I've seen, but that I enjoy. So it's a very good retelling of the story, but admittedly the story itself is not one of my favorites.
This song was actually my third attempt to use the title for a song. I don't remember the context, but I heard the phrase "changing rainbows" when I was in high school, and thought it would make a good song title.
My first try was a self-conscious attempt at a rewrite of Paul Simon's "59th Street Bridge Song" (often incorrectly referred to as "Feelin' Groovy." It was pretty awful. I won't cite the lyrics, though I do recall the entire first verse.
The second try was a bit better (low bar). Or, I should say it showed more promise since I never finished it. It was written from the perspective of a man asking a woman for a relationship. It kind of created the metaphor of relationships as rainbows. "You're always changing rainbows. / That's how it seems to be. / So try out the rainbow / That's me." It could have worked, though I am glad I never finished it. The album have plenty of songs that are based on a variation of "please love me (or care about me) as much as I love (or care about) you." It's good to have a different subject.
This, the third try, was just about relaxing with the rain. I have fond memories of rainy days at summer camp, where there wasn't much to do but hang out on the bunk's covered porch and watch the rain. As an adult, one of the things I wish my house had is a covered porch. When it's raining, I think about how nice it would be to just hang out on that porch and read.
This was the first recording that Toby Wilson made for me. I emailed him a lyric sheet with a message that we should talk. He naturally assumed that I needed a melody, and emailed back with some thoughts. So I had to clear up that I had a melody and just needed his services to record. If I had it to do again, I might have gone for a little more twangy guitar instead of the mandolin. But I still love the way it came out.
Enjoy.
"Changing Rainbows" Song by: Marc Whinston Lead vocal by Toby Wilson All instruments and backing vocals by Toby Wilson Arranged and Produced by Toby Wilson for Tobias Wilson Music, Ltd.
Our annual session in which each of us in the class takes a turn sharing a movie of his choice.
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: The Menu (2022) Directed by Mark Mylod
My Impressions Going In: Since I chose this movie for our annual BYOM, you might infer that I love this movie. You'd be right. More below.
Plot:
Diners assemble at a ritzy restaurant on a private island for a high-priced, high status meal. Little do they know that the chef /restauranteur has...special...plans for the night.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
I was a bit apprehensive about bringing The Menu. It's unusual for us to screen any movie made after 1980, and this is a 2022 film. As such, it was shot with a more contemporary style, which I wasn't sure would go over well with the guys -- other than Ethan I'm the youngest in the room. In addition, there was some CGI, which the guys aren't inclined to like. Fortunately, there's not a lot of CGI there.
At any rate, I chose to bring The Menu because it stuck with me. I saw it last fall with Ethan and a friend. And the next day I a\was still thinking about it. Mulling it over in my head. For comparison purposes, we saw M3gan about the same time. I enjoyed it. And then when it was over I stopped thinking about it. The Menu is relatively original; I had no sense of having seen the story before. Until the end, I constantly wondering where it was going.
The film is a study of celebrity culture and cults in the age of social media. Ralph Fiennes' character, Chef, reached has reached the pinnacle of his chosen career. His staff venerates him. His restaurant is an experience that celebrities and rich people can check off their lists. But he no longer experiences any joy in cooking.
And the guys all enjoyed it, which was a bit of a relief. I still recall the great Scott Pilgrim debacle of two years ago.
The four of us who have been in the class since the beginning (or nearly so) each pick a favorite to revisit
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: The Flesh and the Fiends (1960) (Ethan's pick) Directed by John Gilling
My Impressions Going In:
I remembered seeing it, and I am otherwise more or less familiar with the story of Burke and Hare. But I didn;t really remember much detail about this movie.
Plot:
William Burke and William Hare get paid to provide corpses to Dr. Robert Knox. Knox, in turn, is using the corpses to teach medical school.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
This was a pleasant surprise. Since we originally saw this years ago, I had forgotten how clever the dialogue is. It was also fun to contemplate who got off worse -- Burke who was executed by hanging, or Hare who faced the wrath of an angry mob. This was, all around, a fun movie to watch -- and I hadn't remembered that fact.
Ratings
Oops. I forget what Bob-O rated this. I think he gave it a 9-point-something.
The four of us who have been in the class since the beginning (or nearly so) each pick a favorite to revisit
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: Theatre of Blood (1973) (Dave's pick) Directed by Douglass Hickox
My Impressions Going In:
I remember this well, since we saw it just fourteen months ago.
Plot:
Stung by the bad reviews he's gotten, a Shakespearian actor takes elaborate revenge on the critics.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Despite the overall sentiment in the class, I am not a huge Vincent Price fan. He acts campy more than I'd like. But this is probably my favorite Vincent Price film (which is not to say that I've seen them all -- or even most of them).
Many of Price's movies are gothic horrors, set in castles and filmed in the late 1950's through the 1960s. And I'm just not into the feel of those movies. ToB was different. It was set and filmed in 1970s London, telling a story that was contemporary when the movie was made. So, instead of a prince or king from the 1700's, Price is playing a modern man in a modern city. It had that gritty 1970s feel that I've come to love so well, and...well, I just enjoyed it. Price's performance was as campy as ever, but somehow it fit in this movie.
As Ethan noted, ToB played like a gialo, although it's worth noting that there really wasn't any mystery. I seem to recall that giali usually leave the audience in the dark until the end. In this, the audience knows what's going on, and the thrill is in seeing the characters figure it out. And it's played with lots of humor. It wasn't subtle, but it was fun.
As a side note, Keith told us that the working title was Much Ado About Murder. I like that better than the actual title.
Ratings
Because we all saw this a year or so ago, we decided not to rerate it. That includes Bob-O who was in the class by the time Keith showed it to us. But he missed this session anyway. Feel better, Bob-O!
The session: "Ten-Year Anniversary Celebration" The four of us who have been in the class since the beginning (or nearly so) each pick a favorite to revisit
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: Cannibal Holocaust (1980) (my pick) Directed by Rugerro Deodato
My Impressions Going In:
I have vivid memories of this movie from our 2017 screening of this film. This time I knew exactly what to expect. But, since it was my pick, that makes sense.
Plot:
After a crew of documentarians disappears in the Amazon rainforest, an anthropologist goes in search of clues. And what he finds makes his skin crawl.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
We first saw CH in 2017 when Scott (who has since left the class) chose it for Bring Your Own Movie Month. At the time, I found it deeply disturbing. Its graphic depiction of violence and cruelty was well beyond what I was used to seeing. It says something that director, Rugerro Deodato, was arrested for the murder of his cast, and only acquitted when he was able to produce them, still alive, for the courts.
But that doesn't explain why I chose the film as the one I want to revisit.
I wanted to bring a movie that I considered to be a legitimately great film. Cannibal Holocaust can be criticized for its disturbing nature -- and I'll be the first to admit that it's not for everybody. But it accomplished what it set out to do, and in that sense it's a great movie.
I also wanted something that was unique. To explain, let me cite Burnt Offerings, which we saw in 2019. Everyone in the room gave it a 10, and we agreed that it was a great movie. But when it comes down to it, it was just another haunted house movie. CH was something more. It was groundbreaking, essentially inventing the found footage genre.*
Finally, I wanted to bring in a film that spoke to me. Freaks from 1932 (the first movie Keith showed us) was a great movie and it was groundbreaking. But it didn't speak to me the say CH did. CH, made in 1980, has the style that I grew up with and grew comfortable with. So I can immediately warm up to it in a way that I can't warm up to movies -- even great movies -- from other eras.
It's important to note that I didn't immediately love CH. The first time we saw it it grossed me out. I recognized its greatness (even gave it a perfect 10) while still being disturbed by it and wanting a shower. But I couldn't stop thinking about it afterwards. And I revisited it. I'd watch the trailer, and assorted clips. I read about the production. I found the complete film on the interwebs. I even watched it with Sharon on a Saturday morning during the pandemic -- when we couldn't have our usual Saturday breakfast at a diner. And, as much as I find it disturbing, I adore this film.
When I think back on the ten years in Keith's basement and the hundreds of movies we've seen, and try to focus on movies that stood out and that stuck with me, there really wasn't any choice that came close to Cannibal Holocaust.
Ratings
Because we all saw this years ago, we decided not to rerate it. Since Bob-O wasn't around when Keith first showed it to us, he gets to rate it now.
Bob-O: 6.5
________________________________
*As a side note, during this past semester, the professor in Sharon's 2-D design class asked if anyone had seen or heard of CH. Sharon was the only one who had, The professor asked her what it's famous for, stylistically. She said that it's known for its early use of found footage.
The session: "Ten-Year Anniversary Celebration" The four of us who have been in the class since the beginning (or nearly so) each pick a favorite to revisit
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 1: The Witch's Mirror (1962) (Joe's pick) Directed by Chano Urueta
My Impressions Going In:
I didn't really remember this one.
Plot:
After murdering his wife, a man remarries. But his first wife wants revenge
Reaction and Other Folderol:
Joe opened this special session with a heartfelt speech about what the class has meant to him. He touched on Keith's devotion and dedication, and how it has enriched his appreciation of old horror movies. I had been expecting Joe to choose Night of the Living Dead or Freaks because I know how much those two iconic horror films mean to him. But he had other plans. He chose The Witch's Mirror, the 1962 Mexican horror film. For me, it's one of many films that blended together.* But it was the third movie Keith showed us and, for Joe, that was the movie that convinced him the class could work.
In many ways WM played like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone (which kind of makes sense given the timeframe of when it was created), but there are also a lot of elements of Poe thrown in. At points it was interesting, and there were some good elements, but I found it to be very slow-moving.
Ratings
Because we all saw this years ago, we decided not to rerate it (though admittedly when we originally saw it we hadn't been giving ratings). Since Bob-O wasn't around when Keith first showed it to us, he gets to rate it now.
*No disrespect intended, but we have screened 50 or so movies a year for ten years. There are certainly a lot of standouts, but many of the films have kind of blended together in my mind.
The session: "Spring! When a Young Man's Thoughts Turn to Russ Meyer" This month we pay tribute to director Russ Meyer
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.
Week 4: Supervixens (1975) Directed by Russ Meyer
My Impressions Going In:
I may have been vaguely aware of the film's existence. But I'm not sure.
Plot:
A mild-mannered gas station attendant goes from sexual romp to sexual romp while trying to escape the evil cop who framed him for his wife's murder.
Reaction and Other Folderol:
After Vixen! the prior week, I was coming in to Supervixens (no, it's not a sequel) with low expectations. And, like the predecessor, SV isn't a good movie. But it's not as bad.
The biggest problem with SV is the disjointed nature of the plot. Clint's adventures with various women seem more like separate episodes than parts of a coherent whole. And the dialogue itself is often silly.
That said, there's a way that the film can be enjoyable if you put your brain on neutral. And most of the credit for that goes to Charles Napier who did a great job as the psychotic cop, Harry Sledge. He may have been a two-dimensional cartoon character, but he was so damn demented that it was fun to watch him. That said, Charles Pitt (Clint) also deserves some credit. Clint was the only really likeable character in the film, and gave the whole project a bit of feeling.
As with his other movies, Meyer seems to throw in odd bits of schtick that make no real sense. For example, Clint's boss is named Martin Bormann, and a running theme in the movie is that he seems to actually be the Martin Bormann. It seems like some kind of elaborate inside joke.* Some might fault the movie for this, but I actually find it amusing.
Ratings
Me: 6
Bob-O: 7.5
Dave: 8.5
Ethan: 8
Joe: 10
________________________________________
*Or maybe it was a not-so-elaborate inside joke. Maybe Meyer simply thought "Gee, wouldn't it be funny if one of the characters is an actual Nazi war criminal? And maybe we just kind of reference it matter-of-factly."
