The BAFTA awards

So. 'The King's Speech' won big.

And, uh, some other people won for ... er, other films and ...

Oh fuck it, this is what Jennifer Lawrence was wearing:

Read More

GIALLO SUNDAY: The New York Ripper

Early in Lucio Fulci’s censor-baiting controversy-magnet ‘The New York Ripper’ – that staple of the BBFC and DOP hit lists, a film that remains so infamous that even mentioning the title gets you filthy looks in most social situations (try it; five points for talking about it at work, ten at the kids’ playground, fifteen in front of your mother, twenty in church) – there’s a scene where pathologist Dr Jones (Giordano Falzoni) performs an autopsy on a young woman who has been brutally murdered by the eponymous nut job, and describes his findings to Detective Williams (Jack Hedley). The murder weapon: a fucking big knife. The application thereof: “He stuck it up her love trail.”

Allow me to repeat that, just in case you didn’t pick up on the subtleties and nuances on a first reading:

“He stuck it up her love trail.”

Ladies and gentlemen, abandon your sense of aesthetics, put your aspirations to classy entertainment in cold storage, mothball your morality and drape the dust covers over your finer feelings. We’re about to submerge ourselves in 93 minutes of sleaze, depravity and nastily sexualized violence. (Well, what else were you going to do on a Sunday afternoon?)

An old man out walking his dog finds the mutilated corpse of a young woman. Williams pegs it as the same modus operandi as the killing of a hooker some weeks earlier. A cyclist in hot pants has an altercation with a motorist and is brutally assaulted and killed on the Manhattan ferry shortly thereafter. Jane Lodge (Alexandra Delli Colli), the sexually provocative wife of respected academic Dr Lodge (Laurence Welles) attends a sex show after which one of the performers is murdered by way of a broken bottle applied to her nether regions. Jane’s taste for the seedier side of life brings her into the orbit of Mickey Scellenda (Howard Ross), a small time thug who might know more about the “Ripper” case than he’s letting on.

Meanwhile, troubled student Fay Majors (Alamanta Keller) has a narrow escape from a stalker on the subway. She’s the only witness Williams has, but with the taunting phone calls he’s receiving from the killer, and his somewhat seedy private life about to go public, can Williams hold it together, nail the “Ripper” and keep Fay out of danger? And does Fay herself have something to hide? Will her milquetoast boyfriend Peter Bunch (Andrew Painter) be able to defend her? And why does cynical psychologist Dr Paul Davis (Paolo Malco) so eagerly respond to Williams’s invitation to help profile the killer?

On the one hand, ‘The New York Ripper’ has all the elements of a clinically efficient giallo, ticking all the boxes as regards sleaze, nudity, protracted death scenes, cod-psychology and a pass-the-parcel red herrings game in which most of the major characters have good reason to invite suspicion at one time or another. Add to this the presence of Lucio Fulci – a man who, for all his notoriety, was a highly capable director who knew how to generate tension and keep a film’s narrative going, even when the script was no great shakes – and there ought to be enough here to mount a sterling defence of ‘The New York Ripper’ as a minor classic, undeservedly tainted by the smug, hyperbolic moralizing of the chattering classes.

But for one small problem.

It is fucking nasty. It is, in fact, one of the nastiest, seediest, grubbiest and downright unpleasant pieces of work I’ve seen. I’d make a case for the artistic integrity of ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ over ‘The New York Ripper’. ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ at least reserves its journey into the most joyless recesses of the human psyche for the last half hour or so – and delivers its catalogue of cruelties in the service of a statement about the manipulation of the medium and whether “civilized” man is actually more reprehensible in his actions than the so-called savage.

‘The New York Ripper’, however, presents an interminable succession of women being murdered and sexually objectified, usually at the same time. Even scene that don’t end in slaughter treat the female characters like so much meat. Case in point: the narratively redundant but gratuitously lingered-on moment (for “moment” read “about ten minutes”) when Jane wanders into a pool hall and gets frigged by a latino thug’s toe. (Which is not a sentence I imagined myself typing when I got up this morning.) It’s a scene that serves no discernible purpose (it’s already been established that Jane likes it kinky), yet Fulci’s camera gloats over it like a voyeur.

Moreover, there’s none of the visual brilliance of ‘The Beyond’, ‘A Lizard in a Woman’s Skin’, ‘Murder to the Tune of Seven Black Notes’ or ‘Don’t Torture a Duckling’. In fact, the only commonality with that straight-up giallo classic is the duck-like voice the killer adopts prior to offing another poor woman or making a “you can’t catch me” call to Williams. Subject of whom, for all that Hedley tries to imbue him with some world-weary characterization, there’s no backstory to the cop, no motivational factor, and no indication of why the “Ripper” targets him when he rings the cops to bait them about his latest atrocity. In fact, this entire element seems to have been included purely as parallel to the actual Jack the Ripper case, where JtR wrote provocative letters to the press, mocking the police’s inability to catch him.

I’m not sure whether Fulci took the decision from the outset to make the film as visually dreary as possible, but he certainly succeeds in painting one of the unloveliest cinematic pictures of New York.

So, with an arguably deliberate anti-aesthetic, little to no emotional investment in the characters, and the procedural aspects of the story purely an exercise in mechanics (even the race-against-time finale is blandly by-the-numbers), all that is left are the killings themselves. All of which of have an explicitly sexual imperative. When the defining shot of a film is a close-up of a straight razor being applied to a woman’s breast, that pretty much tells you all you need to know.

There’s a lot of hate for ‘The New York Ripper’ – and it’s been earned.

Read More

Christina Ricci

Once again, I’ve failed to prepare a review …

Once again, sheer unmitigated laziness has played its part …

Once again, I’m using the fact that it’s an extremely photogenic celebrity’s birthday to bail myself out.

So happy 31st to Christina Ricci.

Read More

BLACK VALENTINES: The Image

Remember that scene in Edgar Wright’s ‘Hot Fuzz’ where Nicholas (Simon Pegg) and Danny (Nick Frost) are discussing a woman of a certain standing in the community, and they touch upon her predilection for the mature male? The dialogue goes something like this:

DANNY: She was in my year at school. Always had a thing for her.
NICHOLAS: She clearly has a thing for older men.
DANNY: Hey, now you come to mention it, I too have reason to believe she favours the older gent.
NICHOLAS: Really? How so?
DANNY: Marcus Carter’s big brother said he’d fingered her up the duck pond.

You can take Danny’s little homily two ways: either the fingering occurred in the geographical location of a duck pond, or the “duck pond” (used as a metaphor for the, uh, map of Tasmania) was the biological location up which he fi— … well, you get the point.

Linguistic nuances notwithstanding, this scene sprang to mind twenty minutes into Radley Metzger’s ‘The Image’ when Anne (Rebecca Brooke) is taken to a place of horticultural interest and, not to put to fine a point on it, gets fingered up the rose garden.

(To those readers who still frequent these pages in the hope that one day I will again write intelligent reviews of classy films using non-colloquial language: please bear with me. To my mother, in the unlikely event that she ever buys a computer and gets internet access: sorry, ma!)

The point is, once I heard Nick Frost’s voice exclaiming “He fingered her up the rose garden”, I became increasingly unable to take the remaining hour or so of ‘The Image’ (a.k.a. ‘The Mistress and the Slave’, a.k.a. ‘The Punishment of Anne’) seriously. Which made it hopelessly funny, since Metzger’s approach to the material is so desperately, desperately serious.

While there’s no doubt that Metzger was both a pioneer of adult cinema (films like ‘Carmen, Baby’, ‘The Lickerish Quartet’ and the determinedly non-classical-music related ‘The Opening of Misty Beethoven’ helped take blue movies into the mainstream) and one its most accomplished practitioners, ‘The Image’ represents a strange and (it has to be said) semi-successful attempt to imbue a porno flick with the aesthetic of a European art movie.

Based on a novel by Catherine Robbe-Grillet (writer, sometime actress and wife of ‘Last Year in Marienbad’ director Alain Robbe-Grillet), ‘The Image’ is narrated by Jean (Carl Parker), a writer – although if his novels are as ponderous as his voiceover, he probably makes Marcel Proust look like Raymond Chandler – who attends a soiree at which blandly pretentious people flit about saying blandly pretentious things and is quite bored by the whole thing until he bumps into an old flame, Claire (Marilyn Roberts). Claire is in the company of a stunningly attractive but curiously reserved young woman, Anne.

Jean quickly discovers that Claire and Anne’s relationship is defined by a dynamic of power and subjugation, the sexual element of which is characterized by – … oh, fuck it. Let’s not prettify things. Anne is Claire’s slave. Claire gets off on dominating, humiliating and controlling Anne. Correctly intuiting that Jean would quite like the opportunity to do the same, Claire essentially pimps out her bee-yatch (in a manner of speaking) to the furtherment of Jean’s carnal desires.


The novelistic origins of the material are explicit in the ten chapter titles which intersperse the loosely delineated narrative arc. The first chapter is called “An Evening at the X...’s”, the banality of the phrase counterpointed by the suggestiveness of the “X” and its accompanying ellipsis. The title of the final chapter – “Everything Resolves Itself” – could almost suggest a light romantic comedy, the lovers glibly paired off, the obstacles removed and the audience applauding as the good-natured laughter subsides.

Which brings me back the unintentional humour. The po-faced solemnity with which Metzger gets his arty European funk on is funny in and of itself, and that’s before you get to the portentous screeds of waffle that Jean intones in voiceover, for all the world as if he were reciting a shopping list. This is probably a good thing, since there is precious little in the parade of explicit set-pieces – which range from whippings to urination to enforced acts of fellatio – to inspire much merriment.

But, as I said earlier, the odd juxtaposition of pornography and arty stylizations is at least semi-successful. For the most part, the film has an elegant look to it (this slips a little in the fellatio scenes, but if there’s a way of making a penis look even remotely elegant on screen, then I sure as hell don’t know about it). The main set-pieces are driven by character dynamics and Metzger certainly goes some way towards exploring the nature of dominance and submission and how these interlinked polarities (if that isn’t a contradiction in terms!) are incorporated into a relationship. It’s a bloody sight more successful than Just Jaekin’s ‘The Story of O’ in this regard.

And then there’s Rebecca Brooke. A beguiling and enigmatic actress with a background in theatre, she’s about as far removed as possible from what you’d imagine an actress in an adult movie to conform to. Given little dialogue, for the most part naked and used for Claire and Jean’s pleasure, her characterization of Anne is imbued with a fragile yet resilient humanity. Like Christina Lindberg in ‘Thriller – A Cruel Picture’, she single-handedly bootstraps an essentially cynical (albeit well-made) piece of exploitation and redefines it, purely by the strength of her performance, as something iconic.

Read More

Elizabeth Banks

Because I've been damn lazy and not prepared a film review this evening ...

Because I'm about to head down the pub ...

And because it's the gorgeous, talented and funny Elizabeth Banks's 37th birthday ...

Read More

BLACK VALENTINES: Love Exposure

Ever watched a movie that’s kept you waiting fifteen or twenty minutes for the opening title credit? To the point where you figure they may as well not have bothered.

Sono Sion’s demented epic ‘Love Exposure’ flashes its title up onscreen after 58 minutes.

True, ‘Love Exposure’ clocks in at an evening-consuming four hours (though I’ll wager it’s one of the zippiest four hour movies you’ll ever see; ‘La Belle Noiseuse’ moved nowhere near this fast), but it does give the impression of that first hour being something of an introduction. A curtain-raiser before the main business of the film gets underway.

This is both a stroke of legerdemain and mildly frustrating, since that first hour delivers a smorgasbord of inventive satire, lowbrow humour, inspired set-pieces and demented iconography. Although things get deeper, edgier and even more irreverent as the remaining 180 minutes unfold, it’s this first section that remains the most entertaining.

It details the travails of goody-two-shoes Yu (Takahiro Nishijima), beginning with the death of his devout Christian mother. As a coping mechanism, his father devotes his life to the church and is eventually ordained a priest. Even priests can be tempted though, and he falls prey to the flighty, demanding and provocatively dressed Keiko (Yuko Genkaku). Yu distrusts her and is right to. She eventually leaves him for a younger man. Yu’s father employs a different coping mechanism this time: he projects onto his son, bullying him into endlessly making confession.


One problem: the well-mannered and resolutely virginal Yu has no sins to confess. To appease his father, however, he pleads guilty to stepping on ants, not kicking some kids’ ball back to them when asked and refusing to help a little old lady across the road. All lies, incidentally. Out of frustration and the desire to communicate with his old man even through the weird medium of a confessional, Yu decides to sin. He gets involved with a street gang, commits minor acts of vandalism, does a bit of shoplifting and gets in fights. He discovers his truly calling, however, by stalking girls in mini-skirts and snapping them with his digital camera. Specifically, employing an aesthetic approach which might best be termed “upskirt shots”.

The scenes where he trains in the surreptitious art of the, ahem, upskirt shot – and, later, takes to the streets like a whirling dervish, pouncing, darting, back-flipping and sliding as his camera clicks away and his portfolio of panty pictures proliferates – are way way way funnier than they have any right to be. In fact, scenes of a teenage lad attaching a camera to a bungee so that he can whip it under the micro-skirt of a sailor-suited oriental nymphet and photograph her strawberry-patterned underwear with neither her knowledge or permission ought by any reasonable standards to fall somewhere between creepily objectionable and desperately sad.

But snap my man-muff with an instamatic if Sion doesn’t turn this stretch of the film into one of the funniest extended sequences I’ve seen in quite some time.


Yu quickly styles himself “king of the perverts” and gets quite the following. He happily goes to confession and gets slapped around the head by his dear old pa. Yu’s delighted; they haven’t been this close for ages. He redoubles his efforts. But one unavoidable fact begins to wear him down: for all the panties he takes snaps of, he never gets turned on. Then one day, dressed in a wig and a women’s trouser suit (long story) he meets the coquettish Yoko (Hikari Mitsushima) and it’s love at first boner. Yup: a single glance of her in her sailor suit, about to kick seven kinds of shit out of a bunch of guys in a street brawl (even longer story) and Yu experiences the first raging woody of his misspent life.

Unfortunately with the fight over, and Yu too mortified to remove his disguise (he acts the part of a woman, calling himself “Miss Scorpion”), Yoko skips away head over heels in love with Miss Scorpion and decides that she’s a lesbian. Oh, Yoko’s also the stepdaughter of Keiko and she’s at war with every man on the planet on account how her dad used to … well, yeah, you can probably guess the rest of that one.

The brawl, it turns out, was both orchestrated and observed by the manipulative (but no less comely in a short skirt) Aya (Sakura Ando), a dangerously seductive type who recruits followers for a religious cult called The Zero Church. And Aya has just decided that a fallen priest “redeemed” by their “faith” will be just the thing to boost their profile and attract more recruits.

‘Love Exposure’ is, first and foremost, a treatise on the arbitrary nature of sin and the dangers of religious cults. It’s also about sexual confusion, the awkwardness of first love, tranvestitism, friendship, the peculiar dynamics of the family unit, voyeurism, deceit, rivalry, pornography (one particular plot twist has Yu working for an adult film production company called Bukkake-Sha) and rebellion against establishments, be they religious, quasi-religious, social, educational or institutional.


There are a few lapses into melodrama, particularly in the final hour, and digital cinematography often has the flat, unlovely look of a home movie. But none of that detracts from the fact that ‘Love Exposure’ is a unique, often exhilarating and unexpectedly poignant piece of work, directed with supreme confidence and boasting full throttle performances from its mainly young cast. The soundtrack is great, alternating between infectious J-pop and classical. Yu’s duck-to-a-water induction into the art of the upskirt is scored to the best use of Ravel’s ‘Bolero’ since Torville and Dean laced up the ice skates, while the slow movement of Beethoven’s 7th provides a heartfelt accompaniment to the deeper moments.

‘Love Exposure’ comes on like an hallucinatory hybrid of ‘Holy Smoke’, ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, ‘Cyrano’ and a bizarre Japanese version of ‘Fight Club’ (except with panty-peeping instead of bare-knuckle smack-downs) as if co-directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky and the guy who made ‘Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl’ while out of their skulls on a fat line of coke cut with icing sugar and ground up communion wafers.

And if that doesn’t give you some idea of the film, ponder on this: I wrote that last paragraph stone cold sober but high as dragon-shaped kite, riding the pure buzz of a film that reminded me why I fell in love with movies in the first place.

Read More

Lock up your sons!

The late, great Bill Hicks famously wound up a routine on personal freedom by asking the can’t-argue-with-it question, “About alchohol, about drugs, about pornography...what business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet? And for those of you having a little moral dilemma on how to answer this, I'll answer for you: none of your fucking business! Take that to the bank, cash it and go on a vacation outta my fucking life.”

Then, with the deadpan, world-weary frustration at the state of the world that was his stock-in-trade, he reflected: “But here’s their answer, every time: we have to protect the children, we have to protect the children. Let me tell you something, kids are a lot smarter than you think. You wanna know how I know? I don’t know a single kid with a full-time job and kids!”

I mention this in light of another storm-in-a-teacup over ‘Glee’. A show that I don’t even watch and that I’ve now freakin’ blogged about twice! The first time was in November last year, after Dianna Agron diplomatically attempted to diffuse the furore over her photoshoot with fellow cast member Lea Michele in GQ, a photoshoot which saw her expose a few inches of midriff and show a big of leg and frankly not much else. A photoshoot that the Parents’ Television Council, in all its small-minded and lower ‘c’ conservative “wisdom”, decided to decry as “bordering on paedophilia”. Quite how a 24-year old actress baring her belly-button can be considered paedophilia is something the PTC never explained. Nor did the salivating gutter press call them on it, instead reprinting their groundless hyperbole ad naseum.

Less than three months later, here we go again. Lea Michele posed for Cosmopolitan in a supposedly racy cover shot.

The result? More tabloid hyperbole, more outraged moralizing, more column inches, more bullshit. How deep is the bullshit this time round? By way of an answer here’s one Kim Trefcer, described by the media as a “New York mom”:

“I think Lea Michele is sending the wrong message. She plays such a ‘good girl’ on Glee and a lot of kids look up to her persona. Then she poses very provocatively on two magazine covers which makes my almost-13-year-old son very confused and offended. I find it frustrating as a parent who is trying to teach right from wrong to their kids and then you have things like this happen which is showing middle schoolers things like sex sells and all that goes along with that.”

I have a few questions for Ms Trefcer:

1) Are you the same Kim Trefcer who is associated with the Unitarian Universalist Congregration (a wishy-washy outfit so concerned with being all-inclusive that they manage to be a spiritual organization who don’t actually hold to the tenets of any single religion)? If so, is this just a recruiting drive?

2) If not, are you actually Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi in drag?

3) “My almost 13-year old son”. Why don’t you just say he’s 12?

4) “A parent who is trying to teach right from wrong.” Your kid’s on the cusp of his teenage years and you’re still “trying” to teach right from wrong – WTF?!?!

4b) If you want to teach your kid right from wrong, here’s a suggestion: nudity goooood, drugs baaaaaad. Masturbation gooooood, guns baaaaaad. Sex gooooood, stealing cars baaaaaad. You see, it’s all about perspective.

5) Honestly: if your 12 year old son’s “confused and offended” by that magazine cover, is Lea Michele’s décolletage really what you’re worried about?

6) Lady, do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA how much shit your poor kid’s going to have to take at school this week just so you get your name in the papers?

Seriously. Won’t anyone think of the children?




POSTSCRIPT:

For the record, these are racy covers:

Read More