Archive | classic

Random Movie: Repulsion (1965)

Posted on 15 June 2010 by peanutbutterfilthy

Repulsion is Roman Polanski’s first English language film. It is quite well done. Also, I am in love with Catherine Deneuve. Well, 1965 Catherine Deneuve.

Carole (played by Deneuve) lives with her sister Helen. Helen, has a boyfriend, Micheal, who is married, yet spends a lot of time at Carole and Helen’s apartment, much to Carole’s dismay. It is clear almost immediately, Carole doesn’t like Michael and possibly men in general. Later we find out that this is an understatement. Carole has a boyfriend, or is dating a man named Colin, but tends to shy away from him and sometimes doesn’t even show up for dates.  Carole goes so far as to throw away Michael’s razor and toothbrush because he puts them in her bathroom water glass. She doesn’t seem to have a hatred towards men so much as a dislike and even fear of them. This is indicated by actions such as vigorously wiping her mouth off as if it were dirty after being kissed and not letting Colin hold her arm. Helen and Michael go on vacation to Italy leaving Carole alone, and to unravel. Her phobia quickly becomes an extremely disturbing psychotic couple of weeks, and quite a satisfying movie.

This picture is a fine example of how suspense and even silence, can be just as effectively uncomfortable, if not more so, than violence and blood. The telephone and doorbell that constantly ring, the bells outside, the barking dog and the constantly cracking walls (that perhaps symbolize Carole’s ever deteriorating sanity) are all supremely employed to make the viewer quite agitated and feel somewhat overwhelmed. Contrary to that, there are long periods of silence that are also quite unnerving, especially when used during 3 hallucinatory rape scenes. I found the use of silence in these scenes particularly,  to be a brilliant choice. Yes, this is without a doubt one of the best directed films I have ever seen. Also, Deneuve, is simply superb playing Carole.  As Carole spends time alone in her apartment, she sits in the dark, lets food rot and just generally deconstructs. We can speculate that the reason for her madness is molestation; she constantly is wiping herself off suggesting that she feels unclean. She hallucinates that arms are coming out of the walls and grabbing her, once specifically on her breast. She also appears to have at least a slight desire to be with a man sexually, but at the same time is (cleverly) repulsed by it. Molestation is not directly addressed in the film, however. It is suggested, by a photograph of a clearly unhappy Carole as a child staring at a man (Father?), but nothing further to confirm this or any other reason.  It really is not relevant in my opinion and not knowing for sure just makes the film more eerie (as it may suggest the possibility that the fear is just plain irrational and has no basis in reality). At the very least, not confirming one way or the other is just a brilliant director’s choice to leave something open to interpretation. There is also a bit of violence as well, which I think was well placed to release the tension that was built up prior to those scenes. You would be hard pressed to find things not to like about this film.

I feel like a lot of people hear the name Polanski, and cannot remember a movie that he directed, with the exception of Rosemary’s Baby (or perhaps The Ninth Gate, unfortunately). I suggest starting with this film, and moving up his resume to get to know this filmmaker.

Comments (0)

Five Dollar Friday: The Thing from Another World (1951)

Posted on 05 March 2010 by Digger

The general consensus among horror movie fans is that John Carpenter’s 1982 film The Thing is awesome, and those fans would be right. It has a claustrophobic atmosphere, a haunting Ennio Morricone score, and many other fantastic factors that much more verbose critics have mentioned over and over again. But, one has to wonder if the movie would even exist without its Howard Hawks’ produced predecessor, The Thing from Another World.

I found this treasure of a DVD for $4.99 a while back at a sale that Circuit City was having right before it went out of business. I had seen the movie in my dad’s collection a long time ago but only had a few memories of watching it; mainly that it was black and white and had a big vegetable man stomping around in the snow. Upon a more recent viewing, I was able to appreciate the character archetypes and subtle nuances of the film. All of the classic sci-fi tropes are present and accounted for here. Kenneth Tobey plays the charismatic Captain Hendry who leads our military men, and an investigative journalist played by Douglas Spencer, to a research station at the north pole to investigate a downed aircraft reported by a group of scientists. Even though they loose the mysterious aircraft, the group does manage to recover its pilot, a huge alien played by James Arness, frozen in a block of ice. The plant based creature manages to escape from its frigid prison, however, and all hell breaks loose on the research station.

Most of the science fiction films to come out of this decade are mediocre at the best of times, but this film is an exception. The quick dialogue, characterizations, and subtle sense of humor running throughout the script keep it moving and entertaining, and the second half is filled with some truly tense moments. This film belongs in the same category as classic horror fare like Universal’s Dracula and Frankenstein. It’s just that good.

Comments (2)

Random Movie: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

Posted on 21 December 2009 by Puck

In an effort to show that we at Movie Scum do not hate movies older than 30-ish, I sat down and watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the very first time. In my life, I have heard random mentions of the film and even seen it reside within the top 250 of the IMDb, but never really given much thought into watching it. Knowing very little about it other than what the title gives away, I sat down in front of my computer to watch this little ditty.

Watching this movie reminded me of my senior year government class. After taking this class and listening to lectures of the innerworkings of our government taught by a state delegate, I was politically invigorated. At the time, politics held such promise as a panacea for all that was wrong in the world. The year was 2000 and I voted in that year’s Presidential election and every other lesser election since then. It was only recently, a scant nine years after, that I became bitter about the American political system and all the shenanigans and tomfoolery that went on. Even though being made a good 43 years before I was even born, Mr. Smith’s journey through the political system embodies my feelings toward the institution as a whole. But then again, this blog is not about politics.

For those who haven’t had the pleasure to enjoy the film, the titular character is enlisted to take the place of a departed United States senator. While he arrives bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (where does that saying even come from?), Mr. Smith (played wonderfully by James Stewart) soon discovers that Washington is more about caressing the press and mincing words than standing up for freedom and values. After almost being discharged from his position due to uncovering a potential scandal, Mr. Smith takes up and performs a spectacle on the floor of the Senate until the film concludes with the right person admitting guilt and the hero redeemed.

The first thing that jumped out with this movie is how applicable it is today. An inexperienced man is thrust into a position of high power who stumbles without the help of more senior colleagues and aids and candidly states that he will not “disgrace the office.” Instead, from the onset, he seems to do just that with doctored articles from the corrupt press corp to blatantly false allegations from a fellow senator. In many ways, we can all relate to Smith as he begins a new position not knowing what to do, where to go, or whom to ask either of the previous questions. The awkwardness of his new job wears off however as he uncovers the real reason he was appointed to the position and his idealistic dream of helping his neighbors, his state, and his country are crushed at the will of 99 other men.

Mr. Smith is a great movie for many reasons, most of which involve the cast. Stewart is top-notch especially at his last ditch filibuster moment toward the close of the film. When the bundles of telegraphs are brought in to quiet the loquacious Senator, you feel desperation for the character although it never shows through Stewart’s performance. Also, frequent mention on MST3k Claude Rains excels at his portrayal of Paine, sort of a dark Jedi master whose powers could easily swap from good to evil.

Not being as well versed in black-and-white films, I was struck by how often shadows were used in the film, not only for shot design but also to highlight important pieces of information like newspaper headlines or relevant statements from the Gettysburg Address. While it was effective as a story-telling technique, it was rather jarring to see a glowing piece of text standing out at you in an otherwise tense dramatic scene. Also jarring were some of the filmmaking techniques like the “Vasoline on the lens” look when Saunders starts falling in love with Smith, the jarring cuts to the same shot in the same scene (as it were a really badly produced student film), and the wipes for transitions between scenes. Again, these may have been mainstay at the time, but over 60 years removed they are rather bothersome.

All in all though, the performances and the story of this movie are in excellent form. At the time it seemed to ruffle a lot of feathers with its portrayal of Washington politics so I am surprised that it hasn’t reached a new success with all of the jilted political goers such as myself. Even if that doesn’t happen, it is good to know that this is a film truly worthy of all the acclaim.

Comments (0)