Entry tags:
I'll remember that now
In defiance of snowy weather and sleepless health, ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
spatch and I celebrated our seventh 'Thon together for President's Day. That means almost twenty-four hours of science fiction film during which we did not, in pleasant contrast to some previous years, at any point end up in an ER. I fell comprehensively over as soon as we got home and then I had a doctor's appointment and watched figure skating with my mother and consequently I am just getting around to writing things up, but it was worth it.
I am a little sorry that we missed the traditional opener of Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century (1953) just because it's fun to shout a countdown with several hundred other people and then eat Atomic Fireballs through seven minutes of mutually assured mayhem, but at least we made it in time for the majority of the first feature. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) was one of my grandmother's favorite movies. I don't what she loved about it any more than I know why she once wrote that Chandu the Magician was her favorite radio show, but the first and heretofore only time I had seen it was with her, upstairs on the scratchy autumn-colored fold-out couch in the TV room of the house in Maine that my grandfather sold the winter after her death, and so it didn't matter that I find Steven Spielberg's science fiction ineluctably schmaltzy or that I have all these questions now about why it is that Melinda Dillon's homing pilgrimage to Devils Tower ends with the recovery of her son while Richard Dreyfuss gets to desert his family for a merkabah-style assumption into the unknown that François Truffaut's professional ufologist envies, as soon as the lights and the tones started flickering between two worlds I choked up and stayed that way through the credits, where the combined imaginations of Douglas Trumbull and Ralph McQuarrie make the illuminated banks and spires of the mothership look like something fragile and luminous of the deep sea, turning on currents of stars. I remembered being frightened by much of the movie the first time around and it does get surprising mileage out of the uncanny, the uneasy spaces between horror and wonder and the human instinct to laugh nervously at both of these things: Dreyfuss obsessively playing with his mashed potatoes is funny ha-ha, but Dreyfuss turning his living room into an ten-foot topological map of a geological formation he's never seen while his terrified wife flees with the kids is funny mostly as in farm, and yet there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about the transcendence of the finale, even when it includes the U.S. government initiating a national conspiracy for patronizing but ultimately benevolent interstellar reasons. It may be the only first contact blockbuster of my experience that doesn't end with a firefight, even accidentally. I was pleased to see that my Lance Henriksen-detecting skills function just fine even when he's barely got lines in his face at all.
I had seen bits and pieces of George Pal's The Time Machine (1960) on television for years; I am not sure I had ever seen it all the way through. It is almost certainly unfair of me to compare it with Things to Come (1936), since H.G. Wells himself wrote the earlier film and it is therefore dense with his characteristic combination of big ideas and hopeless didacticism; Pal's film is basically a planetary romance with time instead of space travel. It's brightly colored, it has youthful stars—Yvette Mimieux as the doe-eyed Weena, Rod Taylor as the square-chinned H. George Wells—and its mix of stop-motion and time-lapse photography for the time travel sequences holds up as many practical effects do, because they look like the world out of joint. Shadows swing like hinges, the stars wheel about the pole and the sun dips faster and faster across the sky until it blurs like the frame rate of film; cracks plink and spider across hothouse glass, flowers breathe like anemones, the house itself is a ruin of boards and dead ivy and then it's a stone chamber for millennia in a mountain's heart, a petrified wave of lava escaped by a desperate leap forward in time. The screenplay wisely drops the idea of class differentiation between the Eloi and the Morlocks and makes them merely the descendants of two different philosophies of post-apocalyptic survival, which in context of nuclear and biological warfare still doesn't explain the Eloi's passive, incurious lack of empathy even for one another (not a feature of herd animals, FYI) but maybe handwaves the Morlocks' blue skin and heinous arm hair. I broke my rule of trying not to shout too loudly at the screen when George on discovering that the Eloi have no civilization to speak of—no fire, no literacy, books only as crumbling, neglected decorations and even futuristic voice-recordings as irrelevant toys—sighed colonially that he was "terribly sorry I was angry with your people. I had no right to be, no more than if I had visited the island of Bali in my own time." (Me, against a backdrop of similar outcry: "Bali had fire!") There are much better lines in the script. George's attention to women's changing fashions is an elbow in the ribs until he remarks after a couple of decades that he's grown quite attached to the shop-window mannequin "because, like me, she didn't age." I like the thought experiment the ending offers the audience, voiced by Alan Young's David Filby as he peruses the missing spaces in his once again vanished friend's bookcase: "Which three books would you have taken?"
I used the Alien Deflecting Helmet Device Contest to say hello to David the projectionist. I spent a lot of the interstitial time of this marathon running back and forth between the balcony of the Somerville Theatre and the concessions counter where the staff kindly put up with me asking for cup after cup of boiling hot water. I felt like Beyond the Fringe.
I am afraid I don't have much to say about Nathan H. Juran's The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) except that I always like Ray Harryhausen's creatures and I may not be the target audience for monster fights, because I feel that if a wicked magician has kept a dragon chained up as an unwilling security system in his cave, the heroes should not end up shooting the dragon with the giant crossbow they brought to the island to defend themselves against another monster entirely—especially if it just saved them from a cyclops—they should just free the dragon and let it eat the magician and live out its life unmolested, like the genie who becomes human and part of Sinbad's crew. It didn't ask to be weaponized. It had such a catlike, lashing tail. The brief, enchanted appearance of a nagini and the fight scene with a skeleton foreshadowing Jason and the Argonauts (1963) were very good and I did not feel as protectively toward either one of them. Kerwin Matthews as Sinbad kept looking just enough like Russ Tamblyn that I kept thinking how much more I would have enjoyed this movie with Russ Tamblyn. I would also have settled for Alexander Korda's The Thief of Bagdad (1940).
I can see why Corey Sevier's Haley (2016) was voted "Best of the Fest" in the shorts category: it compresses several subgenres and an entire movie's worth of history and action into twenty character-driven, often dialogue-sparse minutes and then goes one beat further than the expected resolution, chiming eerily but not unwelcomely with the ending of Close Encounters. The three acts are each like a fragment of a larger story, but they don't feel haphazard. I wouldn't have minded seeing some of its competitors, but I guess that's what the festival is for.
We took Harry O. Hoyt's The Lost World (1925) as our dinner break because it was not the German silent science fiction that we'd been promised and anyway there was no better space in the schedule; we got takeout from the affordable and delectable Kor Tor Mor, which furnished Rob with a variation on drunken noodles and me with a plate of hoi tod, and nipped back into the movie with blessedly minimal exposure to the blackface and plenty of time with Willis O'Brien's Brontosaurus, its sides breathing naturalistically as it rampaged through nighttime London. Especially after The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, I was pleased to see it make its escape into the water off Tower Bridge, where Wallace Beery looked sadly after its snaky wake and I hoped it became a fixture of local folklore, like the ravens at the Tower. So long as the dinosaur swims the Thames, England shall never be taken by sea. And its enemies shall be very confused. Jeff Rapsis accompanied, to deserved applause.
I loved and may have difficulty talking about Marjorie Prime (2017), adapted and directed by Michael Almereyda from Jordan Harrison's Pulitzer-nominated play of the same name. It is soft-spoken science fiction, gathering not so much to a slow burn as a haunting release; it's a classically elegant composition of variations on grief and memory, how people tell the stories of their lives and how others tell them in turn, spanning decades of screen time and encompassing events all but lost in family legend long before. Most of it takes place in a single house, its wide glass walls open to the light and the mists of rain or surf off the sea. There are four characters and none is exactly the same person (but who is?) from scene to scene. It's not cold at all. In a future only as far from our own as a transparent smartphone or commercial AI, it is still not possible to call back the dead, but their semblances can be restored in the form of a "prime," a hologram whose adaptable programming quickly takes a familiar face from uncanny valley to uncannier continuity, its quirks and faults and secrets filled in—or withheld—by the objective facts and subjective memories of the people who knew its original. Their major use seems to be as a kind of grief counseling, but the first prime we meet in the film has the intriguingly opposite task: he's supposed to give memory back. At eighty-five, Marjorie (the magnificent Lois Smith) is starting to suffer from dementia and knows it; she's just barely living alone, a stocky, still girlishly smiling former violinist with arthritis-thickened hands and dark-dyed hair she's finally letting grow out silver, but she has trouble organizing for the future or keeping track of the past, so that not only does this calm, dark, young likeness of her long-dead husband Walter (Jon Hamm) have to encourage her to eat, sometimes he has to remind her that he's talking about My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) because it was the movie they saw the night he proposed to her. As enigmatic as their interactions often sound from the outside, composed of mutual reminders and corrections shared in the poignant knowledge that all the while Walter is sharpening into the shape of his life, Marjorie is blurring away from hers, it's an easier relationship than the one she has with Tess (Geena Davis), the tensely obliging daughter who is not coping well with either the slow loss of a mother who was always graceful, infallible, intelligent, gorgeous or the sudden acquisition of a father younger than she ever knew him. Son-in-law Jon (Tim Robbins) talks readily enough to the prime, in effect serving as an informal programmer for its always absorbing algorithms, but there's something between Marjorie and Walter that grits at him like the unhappiness of the woman he married, who he never wants to have to sit across from and patiently remind of who she was when she was alive. Everything in the film will unfold from these initial conditions, as intimately and incompletely as one life meshes with another. I've seen three of Almereyda's films now and loved all of them; he doesn't play games with his audience, but he seems to enjoy inviting them into the play of ideas. There are ghosts in the machine in Marjorie Prime and ghosts in the more traditional sense—old wounds, family secrets, absences that become as huge and defining as presences, perhaps even more unwieldy. There's no mystery to be solved, but there are questions that may never be answered. Smith originated the role of Marjorie in Los Angeles in 2014 and reprised it off-Broadway in 2015 and it is tempting to think of her acting here as a kind of prime of those live performances, the meticulously tailored digital version for those of us who never had a chance to converse with the real thing. But a film is a real thing, too, isn't it? I'm talking with it right now. It told me things. "I see," one character says to another, gently in the middle of a difficult conversation. "You want to be more human, too."
Some years ago I described Hammer's The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) as "the get-it-right remake for everyone who couldn't figure out why James Whale kept wasting his time in Bride of Frankenstein (1935) with poor, redeemable, conscience-racked Henry when the gloriously immoral Dr. Pretorius was right there, smirking at God and aspiring to the Devil, the acid-tongued epitome of mad science at its most knowingly—even hampered by the Hays Code—decadent and depraved." I stand by this comparison, but I want to make it clear that Ernest Thesiger is not the only thing I love about Bride of Frankenstein, even though he is very high on the list. There's Una O'Connor screaming, Boris Karloff's aching loneliness, and both iconic faces of Elsa Lanchester, the demurely ghoulish Mary Shelley and the Monster's lightning-coiffed mate, slender bones in surgical mummy-wrap ticking her head at vigilant, raptorial angles, hissing like a swan as the Monster grasps the lever that will blow all of them (even the ghost of Colin Clive from an earlier cut) back to the dead. Kenneth Strickfaden's electro-alchemical laboratory equipment, fittingly resurrected for Young Frankenstein (1974). I still find Frankenstein an unsympathetic wet blanket, but blame it less on Clive now that I've seen him in roles where he's given more to do than wring his hands and succumb. But who wouldn't succumb to the irresistible Pretorius, corpse-stitching and bitching, merrily drinking with the dead? The queerness in this movie really does go to eleven, but I always forget the Christian imagery that comes and goes in the hunting of the Monster and his all too fragile respite of love in the hermit's hut. I wrote this movie a poem once, is what you need to know. It's a transformative work and it calls for response in kind. I might not have gone as full Weimar with it as she did, but I understand exactly why Elizabeth Hand wrote Pandora's Bride (2007). She doesn't belong dead.
Neither Rob nor I ever really wanted to see David Cronenberg's Shivers (1975) again in our lives, even if it was the sole print of the night, but fortunately some brilliant festival volunteer who didn't feel like watching venereal parasites either had counter-programmed Alex Proyas' Dark City (1998) in the microcinema, so we spent the same time slot rewardingly watching the neo-noir love child of Edward Hopper and Gnosticism instead. It's one of my favorite movies. I can't quite say that it wears its learning lightly, but it wears it joyously; with its obsessive motif of spirals and its existential shout-outs from Plato to PKD, Dark City remains one of the best pieces of metafiction I have ever seen that doesn't shrug into nihilism or disappear up its own self-consciousness. It is generous with its characters, because it knows they are all people; it watches them become aware of themselves as protagonists instead of moving parts, consistently transgressing the tropes of their lives however terrifying the alternatives. A serial killer, a straying wife, a dogged cop, a sinister scientist, they investigate instead of sexily expiring, refuse to kill just because circumstances say they should, hide the truth for safekeeping in headful of lies, and choose the wonder of knowing the world even if they die for it. All together, they break their story and they don't put it back together, because it was never theirs to begin with. The tragedy of the string-puller who finally steps onto the stage is that they confine themselves to a character, the pre-programmed fiction instead of the unpredictable reality. I was shown the film years ago by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
greygirlbeast and I always associate it with Michael Cisco, partly because it feels like one of his stories, partly because he was the first person to recommend me Daniel Paul Schreber's Memoirs of My Nervous Illness (1903), but perhaps most inevitably because Rufus Sewell really looks like him; it struck me this time around that Sewell as he races through his nameless nighttime city also looks not unlike Wittgenstein, which may be a coincidence of hair, intensity, and trenchcoat, but I can't rule it out. I mean, part of this plot is Bertrand Russell. The rest is Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Richard O'Brien, goldfish, architecture, stars. For all its expressionist style, it's neo-noir that knows the core of its genre: it is all about the unknown, unstable world.
I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) for the first time this past April at Lunacon, screened after midnight on 16 mm. It followed a condensed version of House of Frankenstein (1944); there was an introduction by Edward X. Young doing his best Zacherley and it played at first to the usual audience noise, but in the face of the low-budget, black-and-white, strangely intimate—like eavesdropping on someone else's nightmare, initially Barbra's, ultimately Ben's—horror flickering out onscreen, the audience fell silent and talked only during the reel changes, in hushed voices as if the "things" that scratched and butted against the barricaded windows of the farmhouse could hear us on the other side of a conference room door. The movie ended, the audience was stunned if they hadn't seen the ending before and stunned all over again if they had, and conversation only started to pick up when the lights were flipped on and somebody opened the door, reconnecting ghoul-gnawed, police-ridden 1968 to the contemporary, I want to write waking (but not so different) world. That was such a perfect cinematic experience that I did not feel like rewatching even an anniversary DCP at the 'Thon with people who might holler at the screen, so I went up to the projection booth and talked science fiction with David. I love the film, though. I hadn't expected to, but I hadn't known it was such outsider art—cast doubling as crew, ghouls performed by friends, neighbors, and various Pittsburghers whose financial or practical contributions to the production were repaid with the chance to shamble and moan and eat internal organs onscreen. The racial angle has really not become less relevant in the last fifty years at all.
"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (1963) is not my favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, but unlike the equally famous "Time Enough at Last" I don't want to kill it with fire. It has a tight script by Richard Matheson, matchingly taut direction by Richard Donner, and a performance by William Shatner that goes over the top and should, because the plot is one of the simplest and worst manifestations of the Twilight Zone: there is something wrong with the world and you're the only one who knows it. The gremlin is a goofy design, but it shouldn't be tearing up the wing of a plane—it shouldn't be on the wing of a plane at all—it shouldn't even exist—and that makes it scary, because to Shatner it looks like his mind giving way and his wife thinks the same thing when he tries to describe it and he's already had a breakdown once. It's terrible if it's real and it's terrible if it's not. That's the Twilight Zone.
The best thing I can say about Edward Bernds' World Without End (1956) is that it first paired Rod Taylor with time travel and I can now say that I've seen what a miniskirt would look like with fins. Otherwise it criminally wastes its B-pulp premise of four red-blooded American astronauts catapulted into a post-apocalyptic future where the human race is dying out for want of hunky men—when it does go for the id, what we get is the NRA dream of blowing away the savage hordes with bazookas and restoring the glories of humanity by teaching everyone English, an especially egregious piece of cultural imperialism since there is a grand total of two languages left on Earth at this point. As far as cheap but heartfelt effects go, I respect Taylor's willingness to wrestle with a mammoth, extremely fake "mutate" spider almost visibly dropped onto him by some offscreen stagehand. My emotional investment sadly went out with the bazooka.
I had not seen the original, black-and-white, non-musical The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) since I was very small. It's delightful. Roger Corman legendarily shot it in two days on the leftover sets of his previous film; it has a budget like its cast and crew scrounged under the couch cushions and everyone appears to be half-improvising and having the time of their lives, Jonathan Haze incarnating nebbishkeit as the hapless Seymour, Mel Welles expostulating himself into an ulcer as Skid Row flower king Gravis Mushnick, Jackie Joseph's Audrey the world's most adorable head cold. Dick Miller wanders genially through the action, munching on carnations with a dash of salt ("I've got to get home—my wife's making gardenias for dinner"). Jack Nicholson's giggling dental masochist steals his scenes to the point that Rob overheard 'Thon-goers misremembering him as the protagonist. The plot is funny even without songs, ricocheting kookily from petulant carnivorous plants to hypochondriac domestic comedy to police procedural parody so deadpan it sneaks up behind seriousness and then kicks it in the knees. It has kind of a non-ending, but the musical never solved that problem, either. The chase scene with tires and toilets is sublimely stupid.
Somewhere around the midpoint of Yellow Submarine (1968), as the screen continued to fill with pop-art monsters and surrealist jokes, I said to Rob, "When I saw Across the Universe, I didn't realize that 'weirdest Beatles jukebox musical' was a competition." I don't think Taymor won, either. The animated film is one of the most psychedelic things I have ever seen. Terry Gilliam really owes art director Heinz Edelmann and his creative team. I got very attached to the furry, puttering Nowhere Man, which I suppose is not a shocking reaction to an impressively useless polymath: "Eminent physicist, polyglot classicist, prize-winning botanist, hard-biting satirist, talented pianist—good dentist, too" who explains his penchant for Gilbertian rhyme with the sheepish "If I spoke prose, you'd all find out I don't know what I talk about!" I am not sure I had heard all of the songs on the soundtrack before. Various bits of it have been rotating on and off in my head since.
We bailed on Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness (1992): it was eight in the morning, we had both seen it recently, and we needed to feed the cats. We got breakfast from Davis Square Donuts & Bagels and caught a bus home, blinking in the very bright sunlight. The cats set up a great protestation of abandonment. I listened some to the Beatles. We got back to the theater in time for the third-act rampage of Nathan H. Juran's 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957), in which the city is Rome and the creature is a sort of enormous fish-lizard designed and animated by Ray Harryhausen. I approved of the inclusion of an elephant, even if it wasn't actually representing Carthage.
And so we were in our seats and conscious for the final movie of the marathon, although it would probably have kicked us awake if we weren't. I have not yet seen The Last Jedi (2017), but on the strength of Rian Johnson's non-Star Wars work I feel confident saying that he likes intricately faceted mash-ups and tropes twisted for unexpected emotion and Looper (2012) is no exception. The plot is a stylishly brutal fusion of temporal paradox and splatterpunk with the deep structure of a Western, positing a decayed near future in which time travel has become the preserve of criminal combines who utilize it as a hands-free form of assassination: they have their victims whacked thirty years in the past, blown away at close range by a specialized class of contract killers known as "loopers" who take their payment in silver bars and live like the fast, cheap, flashy kings of their grimy city until the day a bound, hooded victim drops out of thin air loaded with a payoff in gold, signaling that the contract is up and it's time to "close the loop." This final hit is, of course, the looper's future self: a precaution against snitches. As Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Joe concedes, "This job doesn't tend to attract the most forward-thinking people." He should know, with his penchant for eyedropping drugs and getting sentimental over hookers. The best-laid plans of dystopian syndicates and meatheaded young hoods gang aft et cetera, and all too soon Joe's on the run from the cardinal sin of failing to X his older self. In his defense, his older self is played by Bruce Willis and has a punch like a kiss from a freight train. But he also has an idea—which, this being our future, he may well have gotten from watching The Terminator (1984)—about preventing the rise of the mysterious, devastating crime lord known as the Rainmaker with a well-aimed shot of infanticide, and while at first the younger Joe couldn't care less about saving kids or altering timelines just so long as he gets the chance to close his loop before his employer's "gatmen" find him, a fateful encounter in a cane field with shotgun-toting single mother Sara (Emily Blunt) and her troubled young son (Pierre Gagnon) starts to change him, several decades ahead of schedule but just as inexorably as older Joe warned when he told his story of "this woman who saved your worthless life." Maybe there's no surprise in where Looper ends, but it doesn't take every expected route to get there and it stops at some striking places along the way. Johnson's screenplay mines the sympathetic magic of the loop for both reflection and pathos (older Joe can remember anything younger Joe learns, which elides the need for infodumps but also begins to fog older Joe's memories of his lost wife in Shanghai with younger Joe's growing relationship with Sara) and stomach-clenching nightmare fuel (an escaped future looper is reduced to a pile of stumps and scars as his younger self is vivisected in the present day, the syndicate's visceral deterrent against double-cross), but it also plays fair with the psychodrama, making out neither Joe as villain or hero but two different ages, for better and worse, of the same man. Genre-wise, it pulls off a trick of narration that almost never works for me and gives what I can only describe as an extremely convoluted finger to the woman in the refrigerator. I don't know how many times I'd rewatch it, but it certainly sent the audience out on an adrenaline high.
Seven years makes a tradition. Every year is different. I regret that we did not manage our usual post-marathon lunch at Noor, but am delighted we avoided all major health issues. The cats curled up with us during the nap phase. I still have the Beatles stuck in my head. I think I just really like Michael Almereyda. This celebration brought to you by my perennial backers at Patreon.
spatch and I celebrated our seventh 'Thon together for President's Day. That means almost twenty-four hours of science fiction film during which we did not, in pleasant contrast to some previous years, at any point end up in an ER. I fell comprehensively over as soon as we got home and then I had a doctor's appointment and watched figure skating with my mother and consequently I am just getting around to writing things up, but it was worth it.I am a little sorry that we missed the traditional opener of Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century (1953) just because it's fun to shout a countdown with several hundred other people and then eat Atomic Fireballs through seven minutes of mutually assured mayhem, but at least we made it in time for the majority of the first feature. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) was one of my grandmother's favorite movies. I don't what she loved about it any more than I know why she once wrote that Chandu the Magician was her favorite radio show, but the first and heretofore only time I had seen it was with her, upstairs on the scratchy autumn-colored fold-out couch in the TV room of the house in Maine that my grandfather sold the winter after her death, and so it didn't matter that I find Steven Spielberg's science fiction ineluctably schmaltzy or that I have all these questions now about why it is that Melinda Dillon's homing pilgrimage to Devils Tower ends with the recovery of her son while Richard Dreyfuss gets to desert his family for a merkabah-style assumption into the unknown that François Truffaut's professional ufologist envies, as soon as the lights and the tones started flickering between two worlds I choked up and stayed that way through the credits, where the combined imaginations of Douglas Trumbull and Ralph McQuarrie make the illuminated banks and spires of the mothership look like something fragile and luminous of the deep sea, turning on currents of stars. I remembered being frightened by much of the movie the first time around and it does get surprising mileage out of the uncanny, the uneasy spaces between horror and wonder and the human instinct to laugh nervously at both of these things: Dreyfuss obsessively playing with his mashed potatoes is funny ha-ha, but Dreyfuss turning his living room into an ten-foot topological map of a geological formation he's never seen while his terrified wife flees with the kids is funny mostly as in farm, and yet there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about the transcendence of the finale, even when it includes the U.S. government initiating a national conspiracy for patronizing but ultimately benevolent interstellar reasons. It may be the only first contact blockbuster of my experience that doesn't end with a firefight, even accidentally. I was pleased to see that my Lance Henriksen-detecting skills function just fine even when he's barely got lines in his face at all.
I had seen bits and pieces of George Pal's The Time Machine (1960) on television for years; I am not sure I had ever seen it all the way through. It is almost certainly unfair of me to compare it with Things to Come (1936), since H.G. Wells himself wrote the earlier film and it is therefore dense with his characteristic combination of big ideas and hopeless didacticism; Pal's film is basically a planetary romance with time instead of space travel. It's brightly colored, it has youthful stars—Yvette Mimieux as the doe-eyed Weena, Rod Taylor as the square-chinned H. George Wells—and its mix of stop-motion and time-lapse photography for the time travel sequences holds up as many practical effects do, because they look like the world out of joint. Shadows swing like hinges, the stars wheel about the pole and the sun dips faster and faster across the sky until it blurs like the frame rate of film; cracks plink and spider across hothouse glass, flowers breathe like anemones, the house itself is a ruin of boards and dead ivy and then it's a stone chamber for millennia in a mountain's heart, a petrified wave of lava escaped by a desperate leap forward in time. The screenplay wisely drops the idea of class differentiation between the Eloi and the Morlocks and makes them merely the descendants of two different philosophies of post-apocalyptic survival, which in context of nuclear and biological warfare still doesn't explain the Eloi's passive, incurious lack of empathy even for one another (not a feature of herd animals, FYI) but maybe handwaves the Morlocks' blue skin and heinous arm hair. I broke my rule of trying not to shout too loudly at the screen when George on discovering that the Eloi have no civilization to speak of—no fire, no literacy, books only as crumbling, neglected decorations and even futuristic voice-recordings as irrelevant toys—sighed colonially that he was "terribly sorry I was angry with your people. I had no right to be, no more than if I had visited the island of Bali in my own time." (Me, against a backdrop of similar outcry: "Bali had fire!") There are much better lines in the script. George's attention to women's changing fashions is an elbow in the ribs until he remarks after a couple of decades that he's grown quite attached to the shop-window mannequin "because, like me, she didn't age." I like the thought experiment the ending offers the audience, voiced by Alan Young's David Filby as he peruses the missing spaces in his once again vanished friend's bookcase: "Which three books would you have taken?"
I used the Alien Deflecting Helmet Device Contest to say hello to David the projectionist. I spent a lot of the interstitial time of this marathon running back and forth between the balcony of the Somerville Theatre and the concessions counter where the staff kindly put up with me asking for cup after cup of boiling hot water. I felt like Beyond the Fringe.
I am afraid I don't have much to say about Nathan H. Juran's The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) except that I always like Ray Harryhausen's creatures and I may not be the target audience for monster fights, because I feel that if a wicked magician has kept a dragon chained up as an unwilling security system in his cave, the heroes should not end up shooting the dragon with the giant crossbow they brought to the island to defend themselves against another monster entirely—especially if it just saved them from a cyclops—they should just free the dragon and let it eat the magician and live out its life unmolested, like the genie who becomes human and part of Sinbad's crew. It didn't ask to be weaponized. It had such a catlike, lashing tail. The brief, enchanted appearance of a nagini and the fight scene with a skeleton foreshadowing Jason and the Argonauts (1963) were very good and I did not feel as protectively toward either one of them. Kerwin Matthews as Sinbad kept looking just enough like Russ Tamblyn that I kept thinking how much more I would have enjoyed this movie with Russ Tamblyn. I would also have settled for Alexander Korda's The Thief of Bagdad (1940).
I can see why Corey Sevier's Haley (2016) was voted "Best of the Fest" in the shorts category: it compresses several subgenres and an entire movie's worth of history and action into twenty character-driven, often dialogue-sparse minutes and then goes one beat further than the expected resolution, chiming eerily but not unwelcomely with the ending of Close Encounters. The three acts are each like a fragment of a larger story, but they don't feel haphazard. I wouldn't have minded seeing some of its competitors, but I guess that's what the festival is for.
We took Harry O. Hoyt's The Lost World (1925) as our dinner break because it was not the German silent science fiction that we'd been promised and anyway there was no better space in the schedule; we got takeout from the affordable and delectable Kor Tor Mor, which furnished Rob with a variation on drunken noodles and me with a plate of hoi tod, and nipped back into the movie with blessedly minimal exposure to the blackface and plenty of time with Willis O'Brien's Brontosaurus, its sides breathing naturalistically as it rampaged through nighttime London. Especially after The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, I was pleased to see it make its escape into the water off Tower Bridge, where Wallace Beery looked sadly after its snaky wake and I hoped it became a fixture of local folklore, like the ravens at the Tower. So long as the dinosaur swims the Thames, England shall never be taken by sea. And its enemies shall be very confused. Jeff Rapsis accompanied, to deserved applause.
I loved and may have difficulty talking about Marjorie Prime (2017), adapted and directed by Michael Almereyda from Jordan Harrison's Pulitzer-nominated play of the same name. It is soft-spoken science fiction, gathering not so much to a slow burn as a haunting release; it's a classically elegant composition of variations on grief and memory, how people tell the stories of their lives and how others tell them in turn, spanning decades of screen time and encompassing events all but lost in family legend long before. Most of it takes place in a single house, its wide glass walls open to the light and the mists of rain or surf off the sea. There are four characters and none is exactly the same person (but who is?) from scene to scene. It's not cold at all. In a future only as far from our own as a transparent smartphone or commercial AI, it is still not possible to call back the dead, but their semblances can be restored in the form of a "prime," a hologram whose adaptable programming quickly takes a familiar face from uncanny valley to uncannier continuity, its quirks and faults and secrets filled in—or withheld—by the objective facts and subjective memories of the people who knew its original. Their major use seems to be as a kind of grief counseling, but the first prime we meet in the film has the intriguingly opposite task: he's supposed to give memory back. At eighty-five, Marjorie (the magnificent Lois Smith) is starting to suffer from dementia and knows it; she's just barely living alone, a stocky, still girlishly smiling former violinist with arthritis-thickened hands and dark-dyed hair she's finally letting grow out silver, but she has trouble organizing for the future or keeping track of the past, so that not only does this calm, dark, young likeness of her long-dead husband Walter (Jon Hamm) have to encourage her to eat, sometimes he has to remind her that he's talking about My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) because it was the movie they saw the night he proposed to her. As enigmatic as their interactions often sound from the outside, composed of mutual reminders and corrections shared in the poignant knowledge that all the while Walter is sharpening into the shape of his life, Marjorie is blurring away from hers, it's an easier relationship than the one she has with Tess (Geena Davis), the tensely obliging daughter who is not coping well with either the slow loss of a mother who was always graceful, infallible, intelligent, gorgeous or the sudden acquisition of a father younger than she ever knew him. Son-in-law Jon (Tim Robbins) talks readily enough to the prime, in effect serving as an informal programmer for its always absorbing algorithms, but there's something between Marjorie and Walter that grits at him like the unhappiness of the woman he married, who he never wants to have to sit across from and patiently remind of who she was when she was alive. Everything in the film will unfold from these initial conditions, as intimately and incompletely as one life meshes with another. I've seen three of Almereyda's films now and loved all of them; he doesn't play games with his audience, but he seems to enjoy inviting them into the play of ideas. There are ghosts in the machine in Marjorie Prime and ghosts in the more traditional sense—old wounds, family secrets, absences that become as huge and defining as presences, perhaps even more unwieldy. There's no mystery to be solved, but there are questions that may never be answered. Smith originated the role of Marjorie in Los Angeles in 2014 and reprised it off-Broadway in 2015 and it is tempting to think of her acting here as a kind of prime of those live performances, the meticulously tailored digital version for those of us who never had a chance to converse with the real thing. But a film is a real thing, too, isn't it? I'm talking with it right now. It told me things. "I see," one character says to another, gently in the middle of a difficult conversation. "You want to be more human, too."
Some years ago I described Hammer's The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) as "the get-it-right remake for everyone who couldn't figure out why James Whale kept wasting his time in Bride of Frankenstein (1935) with poor, redeemable, conscience-racked Henry when the gloriously immoral Dr. Pretorius was right there, smirking at God and aspiring to the Devil, the acid-tongued epitome of mad science at its most knowingly—even hampered by the Hays Code—decadent and depraved." I stand by this comparison, but I want to make it clear that Ernest Thesiger is not the only thing I love about Bride of Frankenstein, even though he is very high on the list. There's Una O'Connor screaming, Boris Karloff's aching loneliness, and both iconic faces of Elsa Lanchester, the demurely ghoulish Mary Shelley and the Monster's lightning-coiffed mate, slender bones in surgical mummy-wrap ticking her head at vigilant, raptorial angles, hissing like a swan as the Monster grasps the lever that will blow all of them (even the ghost of Colin Clive from an earlier cut) back to the dead. Kenneth Strickfaden's electro-alchemical laboratory equipment, fittingly resurrected for Young Frankenstein (1974). I still find Frankenstein an unsympathetic wet blanket, but blame it less on Clive now that I've seen him in roles where he's given more to do than wring his hands and succumb. But who wouldn't succumb to the irresistible Pretorius, corpse-stitching and bitching, merrily drinking with the dead? The queerness in this movie really does go to eleven, but I always forget the Christian imagery that comes and goes in the hunting of the Monster and his all too fragile respite of love in the hermit's hut. I wrote this movie a poem once, is what you need to know. It's a transformative work and it calls for response in kind. I might not have gone as full Weimar with it as she did, but I understand exactly why Elizabeth Hand wrote Pandora's Bride (2007). She doesn't belong dead.
Neither Rob nor I ever really wanted to see David Cronenberg's Shivers (1975) again in our lives, even if it was the sole print of the night, but fortunately some brilliant festival volunteer who didn't feel like watching venereal parasites either had counter-programmed Alex Proyas' Dark City (1998) in the microcinema, so we spent the same time slot rewardingly watching the neo-noir love child of Edward Hopper and Gnosticism instead. It's one of my favorite movies. I can't quite say that it wears its learning lightly, but it wears it joyously; with its obsessive motif of spirals and its existential shout-outs from Plato to PKD, Dark City remains one of the best pieces of metafiction I have ever seen that doesn't shrug into nihilism or disappear up its own self-consciousness. It is generous with its characters, because it knows they are all people; it watches them become aware of themselves as protagonists instead of moving parts, consistently transgressing the tropes of their lives however terrifying the alternatives. A serial killer, a straying wife, a dogged cop, a sinister scientist, they investigate instead of sexily expiring, refuse to kill just because circumstances say they should, hide the truth for safekeeping in headful of lies, and choose the wonder of knowing the world even if they die for it. All together, they break their story and they don't put it back together, because it was never theirs to begin with. The tragedy of the string-puller who finally steps onto the stage is that they confine themselves to a character, the pre-programmed fiction instead of the unpredictable reality. I was shown the film years ago by
greygirlbeast and I always associate it with Michael Cisco, partly because it feels like one of his stories, partly because he was the first person to recommend me Daniel Paul Schreber's Memoirs of My Nervous Illness (1903), but perhaps most inevitably because Rufus Sewell really looks like him; it struck me this time around that Sewell as he races through his nameless nighttime city also looks not unlike Wittgenstein, which may be a coincidence of hair, intensity, and trenchcoat, but I can't rule it out. I mean, part of this plot is Bertrand Russell. The rest is Sewell, Jennifer Connelly, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Richard O'Brien, goldfish, architecture, stars. For all its expressionist style, it's neo-noir that knows the core of its genre: it is all about the unknown, unstable world.I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) for the first time this past April at Lunacon, screened after midnight on 16 mm. It followed a condensed version of House of Frankenstein (1944); there was an introduction by Edward X. Young doing his best Zacherley and it played at first to the usual audience noise, but in the face of the low-budget, black-and-white, strangely intimate—like eavesdropping on someone else's nightmare, initially Barbra's, ultimately Ben's—horror flickering out onscreen, the audience fell silent and talked only during the reel changes, in hushed voices as if the "things" that scratched and butted against the barricaded windows of the farmhouse could hear us on the other side of a conference room door. The movie ended, the audience was stunned if they hadn't seen the ending before and stunned all over again if they had, and conversation only started to pick up when the lights were flipped on and somebody opened the door, reconnecting ghoul-gnawed, police-ridden 1968 to the contemporary, I want to write waking (but not so different) world. That was such a perfect cinematic experience that I did not feel like rewatching even an anniversary DCP at the 'Thon with people who might holler at the screen, so I went up to the projection booth and talked science fiction with David. I love the film, though. I hadn't expected to, but I hadn't known it was such outsider art—cast doubling as crew, ghouls performed by friends, neighbors, and various Pittsburghers whose financial or practical contributions to the production were repaid with the chance to shamble and moan and eat internal organs onscreen. The racial angle has really not become less relevant in the last fifty years at all.
"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (1963) is not my favorite episode of The Twilight Zone, but unlike the equally famous "Time Enough at Last" I don't want to kill it with fire. It has a tight script by Richard Matheson, matchingly taut direction by Richard Donner, and a performance by William Shatner that goes over the top and should, because the plot is one of the simplest and worst manifestations of the Twilight Zone: there is something wrong with the world and you're the only one who knows it. The gremlin is a goofy design, but it shouldn't be tearing up the wing of a plane—it shouldn't be on the wing of a plane at all—it shouldn't even exist—and that makes it scary, because to Shatner it looks like his mind giving way and his wife thinks the same thing when he tries to describe it and he's already had a breakdown once. It's terrible if it's real and it's terrible if it's not. That's the Twilight Zone.
The best thing I can say about Edward Bernds' World Without End (1956) is that it first paired Rod Taylor with time travel and I can now say that I've seen what a miniskirt would look like with fins. Otherwise it criminally wastes its B-pulp premise of four red-blooded American astronauts catapulted into a post-apocalyptic future where the human race is dying out for want of hunky men—when it does go for the id, what we get is the NRA dream of blowing away the savage hordes with bazookas and restoring the glories of humanity by teaching everyone English, an especially egregious piece of cultural imperialism since there is a grand total of two languages left on Earth at this point. As far as cheap but heartfelt effects go, I respect Taylor's willingness to wrestle with a mammoth, extremely fake "mutate" spider almost visibly dropped onto him by some offscreen stagehand. My emotional investment sadly went out with the bazooka.
I had not seen the original, black-and-white, non-musical The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) since I was very small. It's delightful. Roger Corman legendarily shot it in two days on the leftover sets of his previous film; it has a budget like its cast and crew scrounged under the couch cushions and everyone appears to be half-improvising and having the time of their lives, Jonathan Haze incarnating nebbishkeit as the hapless Seymour, Mel Welles expostulating himself into an ulcer as Skid Row flower king Gravis Mushnick, Jackie Joseph's Audrey the world's most adorable head cold. Dick Miller wanders genially through the action, munching on carnations with a dash of salt ("I've got to get home—my wife's making gardenias for dinner"). Jack Nicholson's giggling dental masochist steals his scenes to the point that Rob overheard 'Thon-goers misremembering him as the protagonist. The plot is funny even without songs, ricocheting kookily from petulant carnivorous plants to hypochondriac domestic comedy to police procedural parody so deadpan it sneaks up behind seriousness and then kicks it in the knees. It has kind of a non-ending, but the musical never solved that problem, either. The chase scene with tires and toilets is sublimely stupid.
Somewhere around the midpoint of Yellow Submarine (1968), as the screen continued to fill with pop-art monsters and surrealist jokes, I said to Rob, "When I saw Across the Universe, I didn't realize that 'weirdest Beatles jukebox musical' was a competition." I don't think Taymor won, either. The animated film is one of the most psychedelic things I have ever seen. Terry Gilliam really owes art director Heinz Edelmann and his creative team. I got very attached to the furry, puttering Nowhere Man, which I suppose is not a shocking reaction to an impressively useless polymath: "Eminent physicist, polyglot classicist, prize-winning botanist, hard-biting satirist, talented pianist—good dentist, too" who explains his penchant for Gilbertian rhyme with the sheepish "If I spoke prose, you'd all find out I don't know what I talk about!" I am not sure I had heard all of the songs on the soundtrack before. Various bits of it have been rotating on and off in my head since.
We bailed on Sam Raimi's Army of Darkness (1992): it was eight in the morning, we had both seen it recently, and we needed to feed the cats. We got breakfast from Davis Square Donuts & Bagels and caught a bus home, blinking in the very bright sunlight. The cats set up a great protestation of abandonment. I listened some to the Beatles. We got back to the theater in time for the third-act rampage of Nathan H. Juran's 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957), in which the city is Rome and the creature is a sort of enormous fish-lizard designed and animated by Ray Harryhausen. I approved of the inclusion of an elephant, even if it wasn't actually representing Carthage.
And so we were in our seats and conscious for the final movie of the marathon, although it would probably have kicked us awake if we weren't. I have not yet seen The Last Jedi (2017), but on the strength of Rian Johnson's non-Star Wars work I feel confident saying that he likes intricately faceted mash-ups and tropes twisted for unexpected emotion and Looper (2012) is no exception. The plot is a stylishly brutal fusion of temporal paradox and splatterpunk with the deep structure of a Western, positing a decayed near future in which time travel has become the preserve of criminal combines who utilize it as a hands-free form of assassination: they have their victims whacked thirty years in the past, blown away at close range by a specialized class of contract killers known as "loopers" who take their payment in silver bars and live like the fast, cheap, flashy kings of their grimy city until the day a bound, hooded victim drops out of thin air loaded with a payoff in gold, signaling that the contract is up and it's time to "close the loop." This final hit is, of course, the looper's future self: a precaution against snitches. As Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Joe concedes, "This job doesn't tend to attract the most forward-thinking people." He should know, with his penchant for eyedropping drugs and getting sentimental over hookers. The best-laid plans of dystopian syndicates and meatheaded young hoods gang aft et cetera, and all too soon Joe's on the run from the cardinal sin of failing to X his older self. In his defense, his older self is played by Bruce Willis and has a punch like a kiss from a freight train. But he also has an idea—which, this being our future, he may well have gotten from watching The Terminator (1984)—about preventing the rise of the mysterious, devastating crime lord known as the Rainmaker with a well-aimed shot of infanticide, and while at first the younger Joe couldn't care less about saving kids or altering timelines just so long as he gets the chance to close his loop before his employer's "gatmen" find him, a fateful encounter in a cane field with shotgun-toting single mother Sara (Emily Blunt) and her troubled young son (Pierre Gagnon) starts to change him, several decades ahead of schedule but just as inexorably as older Joe warned when he told his story of "this woman who saved your worthless life." Maybe there's no surprise in where Looper ends, but it doesn't take every expected route to get there and it stops at some striking places along the way. Johnson's screenplay mines the sympathetic magic of the loop for both reflection and pathos (older Joe can remember anything younger Joe learns, which elides the need for infodumps but also begins to fog older Joe's memories of his lost wife in Shanghai with younger Joe's growing relationship with Sara) and stomach-clenching nightmare fuel (an escaped future looper is reduced to a pile of stumps and scars as his younger self is vivisected in the present day, the syndicate's visceral deterrent against double-cross), but it also plays fair with the psychodrama, making out neither Joe as villain or hero but two different ages, for better and worse, of the same man. Genre-wise, it pulls off a trick of narration that almost never works for me and gives what I can only describe as an extremely convoluted finger to the woman in the refrigerator. I don't know how many times I'd rewatch it, but it certainly sent the audience out on an adrenaline high.
Seven years makes a tradition. Every year is different. I regret that we did not manage our usual post-marathon lunch at Noor, but am delighted we avoided all major health issues. The cats curled up with us during the nap phase. I still have the Beatles stuck in my head. I think I just really like Michael Almereyda. This celebration brought to you by my perennial backers at Patreon.
no subject
Many thanks for the dispatch.
Nine
no subject
You're welcome! I enjoy living in a city where movie marathons happen. Every year I see something I might not have seen otherwise that makes it worthwhile.
no subject
no subject
Thank you! I recognize it's a low bar, but I'm still glad to clear it.
no subject
Have you ever seen The Man Who Could Work Miracles?. Also scripted by Wells, and very much the sensibilities of Things to Come, though on a more intimate scale. Also Ernest Thesinger eventually shows up as a busybody.
flowers breathe like anemones
Speaking of Pal, Andrew put in The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao on the weekend, which should probably be shown sometime as a double-bill with Something Wicked This Way Comes, and ample warnings for Tony Randall in yellowface, albeit in the context of “Tony Randall plays a whole bunch of different characters and Dr. Lao is implied to be a shapeshifter; his accent certainly is.” The flowers conjured up by the aged Merlin (also Randall) are very much in the Time Machine stop-motion style.
still doesn't explain the Eloi's passive, incurious lack of empathy even for one another (not a feature of herd animals, FYI)
I always wonder who dresses them and cuts their hair, if they’re *that* incapable. Is there an atelier of Morlocks somewhere running up pastel-coloured smocks? Or do the Eloi actually have a bunch of craftspeople somewhere that the Traveller fails to notice because clothes are girl stuff?
the demurely ghoulish Mary Shelley
I don’t know why it took me to long to notice it, but last time I saw a gif of the bit in the prologue where Mary has pricked her finger embroidering and Shelley and Byron both leap up protectively on either side of her – Shelley holding her extended arm to examine her hand – it’s the *same* composition as the Bride taking her first steps, supported by Frankenstein and Praetorius.
The animated film is one of the most psychedelic things I have ever seen.
Andrew was not supposed to see it as a kid, because his father thought it might make him want to take drugs. I’ve never understood why anyone with access to this movie would *need* drugs.
He also discovered last weekend that someone had posted episodes of My Favourite Martian on Youtube. Apparently it’s a show he loved as a kid and hadn’t seen since, and it turned out not to have been visited by the suck fairy, so he’s been binge-watching the first season and his box set arrived yesterday. I prefer it in slightly smaller quantities, but will admit that it veers interestingly between standard-mid-sixties-sitcom and sensawunda-SF. It definitely has the structure of the former – everything must always be returned to status quo by the end of the half-hour – but a few scenes are quite spooky, like when “Uncle Marty” realizes one of the detectives investigating a robbery is the actual perpetrator, and reveals this in the form of a “confession” to said detective that gives the details of the crime just a little too accurately…..
no subject
No! I've heard of it, mostly because of Thesiger (and Ralph Richardson), but it hasn't come around on TCM since I became aware of it and I haven't made an effort to search it out. I take it I should? A more intimate Things to Come is an intriguing and somewhat counterintuitive idea.
Speaking of Pal, Andrew put in The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao on the weekend, which should probably be shown sometime as a double-bill with Something Wicked This Way Comes, and ample warnings for Tony Randall in yellowface, albeit in the context of “Tony Randall plays a whole bunch of different characters and Dr. Lao is implied to be a shapeshifter; his accent certainly is.”
I've never seen that, either. I read the original novel—Jack Finney's The Circus of Dr. Lao (1935)—growing up, but crucially after Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn (1968), so I permanently and perhaps unfairly associate Lao's circus of legendary beasts with Mommy Fortuna's Midnight Carnival. I'm glad to hear the movie works.
Is there an atelier of Morlocks somewhere running up pastel-coloured smocks? Or do the Eloi actually have a bunch of craftspeople somewhere that the Traveller fails to notice because clothes are girl stuff?
Seriously! We were especially struck by Weena going offscreen dripping and half-drowned and coming back a few minutes later with her hair in a perfect permanent wave.
The worldbuilding in The Time Machine really doesn't work at all. I understand we're not supposed to care, and I don't need it to be believable, but I want to feel someone at least thought about it.
the bit in the prologue where Mary has pricked her finger embroidering and Shelley and Byron both leap up protectively on either side of her – Shelley holding her extended arm to examine her hand – it’s the *same* composition as the Bride taking her first steps, supported by Frankenstein and Praetorius.
Yes! I'm glad they didn't go for full double-casting, but it's a wonderful touch. Shelley appears to be in the Henry position, poor sap. (Byron in the place of Dr. Pretorius should be so lucky.)
Andrew was not supposed to see it as a kid, because his father thought it might make him want to take drugs. I’ve never understood why anyone with access to this movie would *need* drugs.
I'm told it's fun in the same way that dropping acid during the "star gate" sequence of 2001 (also 1968—I sense a theme) is fun, but I agree that in both cases it's gilding the lily.
I prefer it in slightly smaller quantities, but will admit that it veers interestingly between standard-mid-sixties-sitcom and sensawunda-SF.
I'm glad to hear it holds up! It was not my first exposure to Ray Walston, because that was the 1958 film of Damn Yankees, but I saw a bunch of episodes as a kid and all of my memories are fond ones.
no subject
Well, Andrew likes it more than I do. Some superhuman-but-not-quite-god beings decide to try giving a random human the power to do almost anything – naturally the human they pick is a Wells stand-in (he even works in a draper’s shop), and naturally it doesn’t make him happy, but does raise all kinds of questions about ethics and sociology before the beings decide it’s gone far enough and reset everything.
I agree that in both cases it's gilding the lily.
Bruce Campbell once mentioned meeting a fan who enthusiastically told him that his favourite thing to do was to drop acid and watch Evil Dead II. “But wouldn’t that make it seem *normal?!*” asked Campbell.
no subject
no subject
Thank you! Enjoy! [edit] If you have bookmarked Dark City, make sure to watch the director's cut. The theatrical release suffered, in fine noir sf tradition, from a studio-imposed voiceover that wrecked both the pace of the worldbuilding and character reveal.
(I don't know that Spielberg thought of Close Encounters in terms of merkabah mysticism, but I thought of you.)
no subject
no subject
Absolutely. It sounds like a splendid tradition to me.
no subject
re: Looper - back when I watched it I was surprised how unlike what the trailer had made me expect the film to be it was. (Which was a good thing.) Especially in its old Joe and young Joe characterisations. Otoh it took me a while to realise that the Rian Johnson who directed it was the same Rian J. who directed some of the most memorable Breaking Bad episodes.
no subject
I really enjoyed it! Some of the musical numbers are just totally cromulent music videos.
re: Looper - back when I watched it I was surprised how unlike what the trailer had made me expect the film to be it was. (Which was a good thing.)
I don't have a television and I don't see that many new movies in theaters, so I see very few movie trailers—the first Captain America was a notable exception—and I really feel that I dodge a lot of bullets this way. I shall go read your post.
Otoh it took me a while to realise that the Rian Johnson who directed it was the same Rian J. who directed some of the most memorable Breaking Bad episodes.
Does his style carry over to TV or is he different when directing his own material? I've seen all three of his non-Jedi movies now, but I've seen none of Breaking Bad.
no subject
His three episodes: "The Fly" in season 3, "51" and "Ozymandias" in season 5 were all outstanding character episodes, and the last one counts as one of the best episodes of tv in any genre that I've ever seen.
The Fly is a bottle episode, i.e. it takes place in mostly one location, with our two main characters trapped in it, and not much outward action other than the main character becoming obsessed with hunting down the fly of the title (in a clear case of projecting, this is as it turns out the last episode where our main character, Walter White, whose trajectory as pitched by Vince Gilligan when the show started was "Crocker-Harris turns into Scarface" has his conscience catching up with him, or trying to), so making this visually interesting must have been a great challenge. He manages regardless. (And of course the actors are superb.)
51 is a key turning point for Skyler, our main character's wife, and her relationship with him. Two sequences in particular are burned into my memory. Location background: the Whites have the archetypical suburban bungalow with small swimmingpool. While the pool has been used in s2 quite effectively for a visual shocker foreshadowing what happens in the s2 finale, in all five seasons no character ever went into it. Until 51. Walt, Skyler, Skyler's sister Marie and her husband Hank are having a birthday dinner for Walt (which the title relates to, he turns 51) next to the pool. Marie and Hank are blissfully unaware that a) Walt's a meth-dealing supervillain by now, and b) the "difficulties" Skyler and Walt have been having which they supposedly have overcome now were very much about this. (Hank's working for the D.E.A. for added irony.) They think they were about Skyler having an affair (which is what Walt has told Marie), and about the aftermath of Walt's cancer treatment.
The scene: Walt goes on about how supportive Skyler has been and how he wouldn't have been able to cope with the cancer or made it to this birthday without her. (Subtext for everyone: she cheated on me, and even kicked me out for a time, but I have forgiven her.) Hank and Marie are misty-eyed. Skyler abruptly stands up and goes, dressed as she is, into the pool.
How Johnson directs this: Walt's voice during his speech and Hank's and Marie's brief murmurings become a sound collage threatening to drown us and Skyler. When Skyler enters the water surface, the camera is with her from below. (Anna Gunn, the actress, was not stunt-doubled for this scene, she got her oxygen between takes.) We see everything through the water and the whole distortion is a gut-wrenching visual metaphor for what Skyler's marriage and home has become. But the voices are gone, and remain so until Skyler is pulled out by the other characters of the pool. The blue of the water, the various colors from Skyler's hair and clothes onwards, it's just incredible.
Later, once they are alone again, Skyler and Walt are having an argument. It's the long delayed argument about what each of them has done until this point, the excuses they had for themselves, all blown apart. It's visceral, and when I first watched it, it reminded me of the Kay and Michael argument from "Godfather II", one of the most emotionally brutal scenes I've ever seen. (So I was thrilled when the audio commentary on the dvd a year later revealed that this was indeed what the creative team was going for, down to the two actors watching the Michael and Kay scene in preparation.) And again, the way Johnson directs this, the way he uses mirrors and details - that's where the icon image is from, and money, of course, is a key factor in what Walt did, and why Skyler for a time went along with it - it's outstanding.
no subject
Did you know the Bride was a redhead?
I had not seen the original, black-and-white, non-musical The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) since I was very small.
When I was in summer camp some time in the 1970s, a camp counselor (who may or may not have been a Danish prince on wanderjahr) recounted the plot of Little Shop to us. It didn't sound like a possible movie.
Later, in college, taking a course on the history of musical theatre, I did a term paper with a detailed compare-and-contrast of all three versions of the story. Got an A :-)
no subject
I knew Lanchester was; I didn't know the Bride was considered to be! Nice.
I really like Elsa Lanchester. I'm still looking for a good biography of her, if you have one to recommend; Simon Callow hated her so much when he wrote his biography of Charles Laughton that I couldn't believe anything he reported, unless it was an independently verifiable fact like a birthdate and even then I found myself double-checking.
a camp counselor (who may or may not have been a Danish prince on wanderjahr)
How was this in question?
Later, in college, taking a course on the history of musical theatre, I did a term paper with a detailed compare-and-contrast of all three versions of the story. Got an A
I once wrote a paper comparing Seneca's Medea and Sondheim's Sweeney Todd. I approve.
(Do you have a favorite version, or do you like them all for different reasons?)
no subject
no subject
That's fair, and I've seen the outtakes you're referring to. I think her marriage to Laughton was complicated and I'm not sure either of them was great about it. I just don't think she was the Devil, which appeared to be Callow's stance.
no subject
no subject
Which I have also not seen, due to missing the below-mentioned '90's rom-com boom. [edit] Hey, it's got John Hannah. Has it got anything else I would like? My track record with Richard Curtis is a solid yes on Blackadder and about two and a half plotlines of Love Actually and I bounced off Bridget Jones' Diary near-completely.
no subject
no subject
I think Kestrell scanned her autobiography. Would you like me to enquire?
How was this in question?
A) I may have confused two different counselors.
B) At the time, I was even worse than I am now at knowing when an adult with an astounding-but-possible claim was lying.
I once wrote a paper comparing Seneca's Medea and Sondheim's Sweeney Todd.
Excellent!
(Do you have a favorite version, or do you like them all for different reasons?)
The first two, I love for largely different reasons. The Moranis film is not *bad*, but I find it inferior to the stage play.
no subject
Sure, although I'm also looking for an actual biography. I can't imagine one hasn't been written.
A) I may have confused two different counselors.
B) At the time, I was even worse than I am now at knowing when an adult with an astounding-but-possible claim was lying.
Thanks. The answer could have been "Everyone said he was and he didn't say either way," I just couldn't tell from context.
The first two, I love for largely different reasons. The Moranis film is not *bad*, but I find it inferior to the stage play.
I saw the stage version of the musical long after the film, so the film is still my formative version. In any case, it enabled me to see Ellen Greene as the definitive Audrey. I'd like to hear your reasons.
no subject
my formative version
I've never actually seen it on stage, but the cast soundtrack is burned into my memory, and I've read the script multiple times. (Annoyingly I cannot locate it at the moment. I wanted to quote the marvelous final stage direction. It's along the lines of "Vines descend from the ceiling, engulfing the audience and then the world." Obviously impossible for an actual theater crew to pull off literally, but inspirational!)
I'd like to hear your reasons.
It's been many years, so the details are lacking. IIRC, I thought the director was trying too hard to add complex visual techniques (and gags) to make it not be a filmed play. *Some* of that is certainly called for in any such adaptation, but I feel he over-egged the pudding. Worse, I felt that the directorial tone was somewhat at cross-purposes to the text. The director keeps (implicitly) saying "Look how funny this is!", whereas I think the story and humor are both better served by playing things as straight-faced as possible.
no subject
no subject
I love stage directions like that. Sarah Kane has one in Cleansed that has always made me want to see the play, just to see what the director does with it: "The rats cary Carl's feet away."
I would love a copy of the Lanchester bio scan (that sounds medical), thank you! Please tell Kestrell thanks as well.
no subject
Child accidentally saw some Twilight Zone episodes in which the dialogue, having been lost to mishap, had had to be ADR'd, so that Scout Finch's voice was dubbed by ... I dunno, somebody approximately 20 years old. Uncanny Valley in the bad way.
no subject
Thank you! We are trying very hard here. Have you survived your trip or are you still in the land of Presbyterians?
so that Scout Finch's voice was dubbed by ... I dunno, somebody approximately 20 years old. Uncanny Valley in the bad way.
Aaaaaaaaagh.
no subject
I am paralytically afraid I'm about to disappoint everyone I know, so LIFE CONTINUES APACE IN THE MIDST OF DEATH.
In other news, have you seen Black Panther? I am DY. ING. to get your take on it. Spouse says it pulls no punches in its racial analysis or its superhero gadgetry.
no subject
For the record, I sincerely doubt you are about to disappoint everyone you know. Strength to your arm.
In other news, have you seen Black Panther? I am DY. ING. to get your take on it. Spouse says it pulls no punches in its racial analysis or its superhero gadgetry.
I have not yet seen it! I really want to! I am out of town this weekend (cat-sitting for friends in Providence) and am hoping to catch a showing of Black Panther once I get back. It should not vanish from theaters.
no subject
no subject
no subject
If I see it, I will let you know. I missed almost all of the famous '90's rom-coms except for a couple I was unavoidably dragged to and a couple which went by on TV over the years. This one never looked like something I wanted to track down on my own time, although I see it was directed by P.J. Hogan, whom I like.
no subject
no subject
I think Rod Taylor is at his smuggest in The Time Machine, although he is often smug.
I'd never thought of Frankenstein as a wet blanket in Bride, but it's true he's a shadow of his former self compared to the 1931 Frankenstein.
Yellow Submarine is one of the first movies I ever saw. I'm pretty sure the first time I saw it was in the auditorium of my sister's high school when I was maybe five years old, before I even knew the word psychedelic.
Why do you want to kill "Time Enough at Last" with fire?
no subject
Thank you!
I think Rod Taylor is at his smuggest in The Time Machine, although he is often smug.
I enjoyed him in World Without End, but I suspect that was mostly due to the unembarrassed silliness of wrestling with a giant fake spider. He really sold it. I had completely forgotten I'd seen him in The Birds (1963).
I'd never thought of Frankenstein as a wet blanket in Bride, but it's true he's a shadow of his former self compared to the 1931 Frankenstein.
For whatever reason, I saw Bride of Frankenstein long before I saw Frankenstein itself, so Clive's Henry has always registered first and foremost as Dr. Pretorius' sadly conventional foil. I agree that he's much better in Frankenstein, where he gets to be mad in his own right.
Yellow Submarine is one of the first movies I ever saw.
That's wonderful. I knew people in college who'd seen it first as kids; I just never did. I discovered Ringo Starr with Shining Time Station. (I also discovered George Carlin with Shining Time Station, but he didn't stick. There was one authentic Mr. Conductor and that was Ringo.)
Why do you want to kill "Time Enough at Last" with fire?
It's so overengineered! It is constructed solely to punch the audience with the irony of Burgess Meredith's broken glasses. The first time I saw the episode, I thought it would end with Meredith's glasses just fine and all the books in the world there for his reading and the slowly settling horror of absolute loneliness rather than just being left alone: in a classic cautionary twist, he's gotten what he always dreamed of and it's the worst thing in the world. Someday he'll run out of books and no one will ever write any new ones and there will never be anyone for him to read to, the way he wanted to do with his wife. Instead, sorry, sucks to be a bespectacled nerd. The hell?
[edit] To be clear, I don't have a problem with stories engineered precisely toward a goal when the payoff is worth it. A number of short stories I like function this way and even a number of movies. The payoff of "Time Enough at Last" is not worth it to me because it's not meaningful irony, it's just a jeering twist that doesn't even reflect back on the preceding plot. It's a punch line with no setup. I've never been quite sure why it's so famous.
no subject
no subject
Headcanon accepted.
no subject
I thought I'd seen Looper, but maybe not--and maybe I'll have to! Yellow Submarine is one of my favorites; I remember seeing it at our town library when I was a kid.
no subject
Thank you!
I thought I'd seen Looper, but maybe not--and maybe I'll have to!
Yellow Submarine is one of my favorites; I remember seeing it at our town library when I was a kid.
I would not necessarily have counted it as science fiction rather than surrealism or psychedelica or just plain fantasy, but I really enjoyed it. I loved the incredibly laconic reactions of the Fab Four to the weirdness around them. "What kind of a sea is this?"–"The Sea of Science."–"Oh, yeah."
no subject
It was Roger Ebert's pick that year for a thing he did at some film festival, where he would choose a film and review/discuss it frame-by-frame with a small audience. I have always wanted to recreate that experience.
Marjorie Prime - I should remember to watch this when it's available for streaming. We saw the play version at Central Square Theater last year and I was frustrated with it in several ways. I felt that the character of Walter (who appeared only in Act I) was massively underused and the character of Tess wildly over-inflated. This may have had something to do with my not finding the actor playing Tess particularly interesting and I'd very much like to see what Geena Davis does with it. Having been through the whole mother-disappearing-into-dementia thing very recently at that point, I felt like the play was trying to be about too many things, when there was so much more depth to plumb on that subject. I would have made Act I most of the play and eliminated the iterations of Primes. There was also a suddenly appearing side-thread about the "girl" who came to clean that bothered me because it seemed anachronistic and simply inserted so that the playwright could have a little anti-religion rant. It was one of those shows that I wanted to like more than I did and I'd like to see if the movie managed to fix some of the things I disliked, or if increasing distance from my mother's decline would change my reception of it.
Thanks, as always, for the rundown!
no subject
That sounds perfect.
This may have had something to do with my not finding the actor playing Tess particularly interesting and I'd very much like to see what Geena Davis does with it.
It was the first I had seen of Geena Davis in a number of years and I thought she was great. Tess feels to me like a tricky part, because she's the least conventionally sympathetic of the four protagonists—the sharpest, the angriest, the most wounded and wounding—so I'm not surprised to hear that she was the part of the production you saw that worked the least well. Done wrong, she would feel like the antagonist, or she would just be tiresome.
I would have made Act I most of the play and eliminated the iterations of Primes.
I agree the first act has enough for an entire play in itself and I would have happily watched it, but I liked the generational aspect of the primes. It felt like a much less expected place to go with the story.
There was also a suddenly appearing side-thread about the "girl" who came to clean that bothered me because it seemed anachronistic and simply inserted so that the playwright could have a little anti-religion rant.
Julie (played by Stephanie Andujar) exists in the film, where she's more of a caretaker than a housecleaner and has a couple interactions of her own with Walter; her scenes felt integrated to me. The conversation where Tess flips out over Julie having lent Marjorie a Bible passed without comment from me because my staunchly atheist grandfather became interested in the religious and ritual aspects of Judaism toward the end of his life, when he was also having memory and cognition issues, and it was a little weird for everyone. Tess got more accusing about it than anyone in my family, but the fact of her emotional reaction did not feel shoehorned to me. There's something that's always been true of her mother and now it's gone—worse than gone, it's reversed.
Does Julie exist as a character in the original play, or is she just referred to? There are a handful of ancillary parts in the film of Marjorie Prime, but I assumed its original form had been a four-character play. I didn't realize it had come through the Central Square Theater!
Thanks, as always, for the rundown!
You're welcome!
no subject
CST's last season was really interesting, very focused on women and science. I'm bummed at how uninteresting this year's offerings are and hoping next year's will be better. I'd also really like them to stop casting their Artistic Directors so often--I'm a little sensitive on that topic :)
no subject
Almereyda wrote the screenplay and he must have noticed the logic hole, because Julie's role in the film is much les about maintenance and much more about being a physical person for Marjorie—Walter can interact and draw her out and remind her to eat, but he cannot, say, pick her up after a fall. Tess still resents and worries about her, but Tess resents and worries about anyone doing anything different to take care of her mother than she would, even when she hates doing it in the first place.
CST's last season was really interesting, very focused on women and science.
I'm sorry I missed it! I have missed most things these last couple of years.
no subject
Here's to making it to and through many things in the future!
no subject
Works better thematically, too. Memory is vivid, but intangible.
Here's to making it to and through many things in the future!
Thank you!