cinema history class: theatre of blood (1973)

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: 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!

cinema history class: cannibal holocaust (1980)

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.

cinema history class: the witch's mirror (1962)

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.

Bob-O: 9.5

______________________________________________________

*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.

cinema history class: supervixens (1975)

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."

cinema history class: vixen! (1968)

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 3: Vixen! (1968)
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:

Vixen Palmer, the wife of a tourism pilot in rural Canada, likes to seduce anyone and anything.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I suppose if I wanted to be charitable, I could give Vixen points for being groundbreaking. It was the first film to earn the MPAA's X rating for sexual content.* So Meyer was trying to break ground and innovate.

But there's just no way around the fact that Vixen! is not a good movie. The characters are unlikeable and uninteresting. Well, I suppose there are some interesting aspects to the title character, played by Erica Gavin. But even so, I just couldn't really care about her. That was combined with a weak plot. In fairness, the movie did develop something that could have been an interesting plot if it had been brought in earlier. That being the storyline about the Irish Communist who wants to fly to Cuba. If that had started earlier and had the movie devoted more time to it, things would have been better. But in the event, it was just a rompfest of Vixen screwing anyone she could -- including her brother.

Well, anyone except Niles (Harrison Page). She won't sleep with Niles (despite her brother's efforts to make that happen) because he's black. Instead, she continually heaps racist abuse at him, using almost every anti-black slue in the book (except, oddly, the most obvious one). And it would seem that the only reason for that angle is to turn the movie into some kind of anti-racist statement. Which is fine, though a bit ham-handed. But, combined with the sexual nature of the main plot, the antiracist message gives the movie a distinct split personality. On a related note, the anti-communist and anti-draft-dodger messages are treated clumsily and seem out of place.

Circling back, I'll note that Meyer's experimental idea of showing people seeing things that aren't there was kind of interesting. But like the rest of the film, it was clumsy.

Ratings

Me: 3.5

Christina: 4.8

Dave: 8.5

Ethan: 4

Joe: 8.5

____________________________________

*A bunch of websites seem to give that credit to Brian De Palma's Greetings (also from 1968). But I suspect that they're overlooking Vixen! because of its low-budget nature.