Quantcast
Channel: Cult films and the people who make them
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live

Garuda

$
0
0
Director: Monthon Arayangkoon
Writer: Monthon Arayangkoon
Producers: Monthon Arayangkoon, Pawinee Wichayapongkul
Cast: Sornram Theappitak, Sara Legge, Daniel Bruce Fraser
Year of release: 2004
Country: Thailand
Reviewed from: Thai VCD

Wow! Just one viewing of Garuda has jumped this film right up into my list of ‘favourite movies ever’. This is how to do a monster film; it has deservedly been a massive domestic hit and should hopefully do well when distributed internationally.

Twenty-eight years ago, western archaeologist Dr Pierre Janvier (Ken Streutker) is excavating a cave in Thailand when he encounters what appears to be some strange creature entombed in the rock. His local guide warns him not to continue but Janvier ignores him, bringing down the rocks around them. Janvier survives and retrieves a claw from the animal.

Jump forward to 2005 and we find Janvier’s daughter Lena ('Leena' according to the end credits), played by German-Thai model Sara Legge - credited as ‘Sarah Leigh’ by some sources - making her acting debut. Lena works in a dinosaur museum alongside her colleague Tim (Canadian actor Daniel Bruce Fraser) whose appearance seems to have been modelled on Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park.

Lena and Tim are approached by a mysterious military figure who takes them to the excavations being carried out below Bangkok for a new underground railway. The drill, it seems, has hit something solid and the authorities believe that Lena and Tim might be able to help them because a weird fossilised skull has been retrieved from the tunnel. The two palaeontologists are intimidated by the gritty young soldiers who surround them, especially the moodily handsome Tan (played by the moodily handsome Sornram Theappitak, son of Choomporn Theappitak and voted Thailand’s favourite actor in several polls) who has experience of dealing with monsters (in a brief flashback we see that he once lost one of his squad to a giant water-snake).

At the tunnel’s end is a solid wall of rock. “This layer of rock must have collapsed about 80,000 years ago,” says Tim in one of his occasional lines of English. Lena and Tim want to proceed slowly and academically - but the soldiers attach a bunch of explosive charges to the rock face and blast their way through. Inside is a vast cavern containing petrified trees, within the branches of one of which can be glimpsed a very large scaly arm. Attempting to illuminate the cavern, the soldiers let a live electrical cable touch this arm - without their noticing - and next time we look, it’s gone.

We’re 42 minutes into this 109-minute movie before we get our first glimpse of the monster, and it is just a glimpse. Something at the far edge of the frame swoops down and removes a soldier in the background. Then we get a yellow-filtered POV shot as it attacks the mission commander.

What we have here, it seems, is a garuda. This is the legendary flying beast which served as the mount of Lord Vishnu; the primary religion of Thailand is Buddhism but it is coloured with elements of Hinduism and other faiths. The garuda is also known as the paksa wayu (‘wind bird’) - which is the Thai title of this film - and while not renowned as a flesh-eating monster, you could see how it might become one, especially when irritated.

Take a human torso on animal legs, not unlike Pan or a satyr. Add long arms like a gorilla but make them scaly with three savage claws on each hand, like an allosaurus. Give it a head like a cross between a harpy eagle and a triceratops, with a wicked looking beak, and add a pair of large, feathered wings. Now make the whole beast about twenty feet tall and thoroughly pissed off, and you have something that you do not want to meet in a confined space.

Director Monthon Arayangkoon, who learned his trade on pop videos, knows how to show - or not show - the monster, giving us quick glimpses in half-light, gradually revealing more and more but never dwelling at length on the beast. As long as we never get a really clear, long look at it - and frankly we never do - it remains a genuine horror. The monster itself is a skilful piece of computer animation, seamlessly blended into this, the first Thai film to be shot on high definition video (like the Star Wars prequels). What is especially wonderful is that, when it walks, it has the sort of slightly off-balance gait which characterised all the great stop-motion monsters. I don’t know whether this is animation or motion-capture, but somebody somewhere has watched Talos and the Ymir and other Ray Harryhausen creations and realised that they established the convention: this is how movie monsters walk.

The middle act sees Lena, Tim and the remaining soldiers running around in various combinations, gradually being picked off by the beast. There’s a terrific sequence where Tim has been locked in a store room for being a troublemaker: he hears crashes and screams from outside, then something huge batters against the metal walls and as he cowers three giant claws tear three gashes through the wall, stopping inches away from his head.

Eventually the cavern is flooded. Lena and Tan, who have grown to respect one another, survive - and find that Tim has too. They make their way back to the existing railway where they are harangued by an officious comedy relief guard whose come-uppance arrives swiftly when it transpires that something big and mean has survived the flood too and is now in the railway tunnels.

The station is surrounded, the army are called in, government ministers debate what to do. Suddenly, the ground outside the station caves in and two enormous wings, each about fifty feet in length, emerge, followed by one extremely ferocious garuda. Guns and rockets can’t stop it as it flies around the city, picking up people and cars. These scenes are reminiscent of Q: The Winged Serpent but that may just be coincidence and is certainly no bad thing as that is a very fine monster movie indeed.

It’s difficult to follow the details of the plot without subs (should have paid the extra few dollars for the DVD, but I was skint) and some points may have passed me by. For example, some English language publicity says that Lena wants to capture and study the garuda while the Thai soldiers want to leave it alone because its mythical status is essential to the country and would be destroyed if it turned out to be merely a prehistoric survivor. That doesn’t come across at all on the VCD and I’m only half-sure that the creature is trying to recover the claw which Lena was given by her father and now wears on a cord round her neck. Certainly the climax has the creature aiming specifically for Lena, who is trapped atop a skyscraper with Tan.

But when a monster movie is this good, you really don’t need the intricacies of the plot as well, at least not on first showing (I would like to see a subtitled version someday to find out what I’m missing). Monthon Arayangkoon directs with a sure hand and keeps the action flowing without turning the film into one of those ghastly non-stop things so beloved of Hollywood. We care about these characters - even if we don’t know what they’re saying - and we care about the monster. Kudos also to visual effects supervisors Surashet Thienbunlertrat and Atithan Sangarvut and a tip of the hat to Jiradech Samnangsanor's stunning HDV cinematography.

Made for 40 million Baht (just under one million US dollars) Garuda looks expensive by Thai standards - and indeed it is - but the money is there on screen. Much has been made about the innovative use of HD video, inviting comparisons to The Phantom Menace, and frankly this film is a million times better than that load of tat because everything here exists to serve the story and illuminate the characters, not to show off the effects budget. The special effects are not only excellently done but they are used sparingly which benefits the film. When we do see the garuda, it really is seamlessly integrated into the film and there are plenty of shots where I genuinely can’t work out whether I’m seeing computer animation, a man in a suit, a model or some combination of the three - and it frankly doesn’t matter. It should never matter how the monster was created, only whether it works as a believable monster, and this one certainly does.

MJS rating: A+
review originally posted 3rd January 2005

interview: Monthon Arayangkoon

$
0
0
I was so impressed with top Thai monster flick Garudathat I tracked down the director, Monthon Arayangkoon, and interviewed him by email in January 2005. A version of this interview was subsequently published in Fangoria.

Why have there been so many horror and fantasy films produced in Thailand in the past few years?
"Actually there have not been many recently, but before this kind of film could not find public favour because of poor computer graphics, especially fantasy types. In the past few years, technology and computer graphics have improved effectively, and many directors add these features bit by bit to their films. In the past two years, the Thai film industry has focussed more on fantasy and horror. Horror is so big around Thailand's film industry because of global trends and the increase in horror in Asia and Japan. When people say Thai film-makers are making more fantasy films I believe that is due to the development of technology which has convinced more audiences and investors. It is a new trend and worth the risk to expand the market."

Most Thai fantasy films are about ghosts so why did you decide to make a film about a monster?
"Because there were tons of ghost films in the Thai market, we sought to find a new trend. No-one had ever produced a film about a Thai monster and I personally liked the idea that, with the right marketing, this could be the first Thai monster film with its own character. With the development of new technology, a Thai monster film could reach new audiences. Above all, I really liked the idea of a new market trend. It's weird to talk about a monster film, not a ghost film."

What is the mythological/ religious significance of Garuda in Thailand?
"When people mention Garuda, the first thing that comes to mind would be a symbol of our King. Garuda is Narayana's steed. The legend is that Garuda belongs to Narayana, Garuda is the King's steed so it is widely used as a symbol of governors and on the King's flag."

Why did you cast western actors in two of the main roles?
"In the film, there is a conflict between belief and rationalism, treating the mythological animal as a scientific idea. It may be an extinct creature like a dinosaur. Ancient people would have seen it and absorbed the creature into Thai mythology. In Asian perception, these animals are more mythological than real - so we combined these two beliefs together. In the scientific or 'western' point of view, a serpent is understandable as a dinosaur or a giant snake, but in Thai culture we say no, that is definitely a Serpent (a mythological creature). There are two sides to this: westerners never believe in Garuda as a potent, mythological creature, it must be just a dinosaur or an animal. On the other hand, Thai people believe in mythology. Our actress seems to be western but actually she is a mixed race. We tried to tread a fine line between scientific and Thai belief - which lead us to have two main characters as westerners."

How did shooting on digital video help with the production of the film?
"A few year ago, the production of Garuda would have been limited by technology. We were shooting on film which required a lot of effects and computer graphics. The process of transferring film to digital wasted lot of materials and the quality of film is poor. The more CG content there was in a film, the lower quality we got. So we tried both film and digital. Today advanced equipment and new technology has arrived, so transferring film to digital can be done in high quality to international standards so perhaps there will be more Thai films with special effect. In the past we hardly used digital camera as the outcome was poor; a film camera gave a much softer look."

Did any other films influenced you when were writing and directing Garuda?
Nope, just some advertisements.

How has the special effects industry in Thailand developed over the past few years?
"The growth has been slow over the past few years. Special effects seem to be viewed negatively in the Thai film industry and nobody dared to invest. So there were just a small number of special effects in music videos or advertisements, and also there weren't the experienced skilled artists. Once Garuda had been produced, that showed that the Thai film industry was capable of using special effects - so now you see many new movies with special effects. There has also been more investment in new equipment such as motion capture facilities which is leading to further developments in special effects. When people are familiar with special effects, the work can be done on a larger scale. I believe that Thai people have the skills but without serious investors they don't have the chance."

I noticed that when the Garuda walks, it walks like the monster in films such as Jason and the Argonauts and 20 Million Miles to Earth, which were animated using stop motion models. Was this deliberate?
"Actually for these two films you mention, I like this kind of film and stop motion character movement, but this was unintentional. For Garuda, the character is 100% CG with many little mistakes so some scenes have smoothmovement but others look like stop motion. We did post production for one and a half years so the scenes we did earlier look more like stop motion. We tried during shooting to keep the movement as smooth as we could, we did a lot of home work."

What was the reaction of religious organisations in Thailand to your depiction of the Garuda as a dangerous monster?
When the teaser was released, some people resisted and criticised this idea but not aggressively. The thought we were being impolite to a symbol of the King. We clarified this: there is various kinds of Garuda that we respect, some are good and some are not. Once people had seen the full feature, there was much less criticism."

Apart from Thailand, where else has Garuda been shown? Do you have any distribution deals in the West?
"Italy, Russia and Germany."

Ghostkeeper

$
0
0
Director: Jim Makichuk
Writers: Jim Makichuk, Douglas MacLeod
Producer: Harold J Cole
Cast: Riva Spier, Murray Ord, Sherri McFadden
Country: Canada
Year of release: 1980
Reviewed from: UK VHS (Apex)


Good old Apex Video. They could always be relied on to pick some completely cool but utterly arbitrary piece of artwork and slap it on their sleeves. They were the company who released Al Adamson’s Dracula vs Frankenstein behind a painting of banner-waving armies attacking a futuristic superfortress. For Ghostkeeper (or Ghost Keeper as the sleeve has it) they gave us a hideous monster, composed in roughly equal parts of an eagle, a skeleton and a devil, lunging out of a blood-red sky above Aztec pyramids in a South American jungle.

Not bad for a film about a North American ghost monster which is set high in the Rockies.

Marty (Murray Ord), his girlfriend Jenny (Riva Spier: Rabid) and their friend Chrissy (Sherri McFadden) are exploring on a couple of Skidoos on New Year’s Eve, while the rest of their party, back at some rented lodge that we never see, is preparing for, well, a party. Jenny is serious, intense and brunette, dressed in a blue snowsuit with high waist and flared trousers; Chrissy is blonde, a bit more relaxed sexually and dressed in red. Frankly, they look like 50 per cent of an Abba tribute act. Marty, for his part, is a bit of an arse. Their characters are all established in an opening scene when they look round a remote general store, run by an old guy (played by Les Kimber, who is normally found behind the camera as production manager on pictures up to and including Superman).

Marty and Jenny’s relationship is a little tense, not helped by the way that Chrissy is flirting with him and the fact that he doesn’t seem to mind it. Just to add extra spice, Jenny is haunted by the fear that she has inherited her mother’s insanity.

Despite the storekeeper’s suggestion to turn back, they explore past a sign reading ‘Private property - keep out’ and find a huge, utterly remote hotel, the Deer Lodge. It seems to be deserted and the visitors book shows that no-one has stayed there for five years - so why is the heating working?

Bad weather and accidental damage to Chrissy’s Skidoo force them to stay the night and they discover they are not alone when Marty is attacked by an old woman (Georgie Collins) whose character is credited only as ‘Ghostkeeper’. She turns out to be living - and possibly working - in the hotel and strangely circumvents questions as to whether anyone else is around, making a mysterious reference to “my boy.”

She shows them to rooms that they can use, but while Chrissy is having a bath she is attacked by a guy with a beard and a woolly hat who is (we can safely presume) the old woman’s son. He drags her, naked, to a distant part of the hotel where she is thrown into a room with a wild-looking individual who may or may not be entirely human - after having her throat cut. The guy in the woolly hat is credited as ‘Danny’ and played by Billy Grove, the wild-looking guy is played by John MacMillan and credited as ‘Windigo’. Neither is ever referred to as such, although an opening caption has told us: “In the Indian Legends of North America, there exists a creature called Windigo... a ghost who lives on human flesh.”

In the morning, Marty finds Chrissy missing, her Skidoo vanished and his own vehicle deliberately tampered with. While he is busy looking for equipment to repair the machine, Jenny is given a drugged cup of tea by the old woman. She comes to in a different room where, instead of wondering where she is, she browses through a book about Native American legends and finds an old newspaper with the headline ‘Mutilated bodies found’. She then escapes chainsaw-wielding Danny, running up to the top of the hotel from where he falls to his death, impaled on railings below.

Jenny begs Marty to leave (through the waist-deep snow) but he seems to have gone bonkers, painting his face with grease and ranting about crazy stuff while holding her tighter than she would like. He then wanders off into the snow.

Returning to the main hotel, Jenny faces a showdown with the old lady who reveals something which explains why Jenny has been hearing faint voices calling her name since she got there, but which otherwise makes no sense. The ending is very weird, very bleak and yet strangely satisfying.

When I say ‘makes no sense’, in fact there is some sense to it. By the time that the 90-minute picture finishes it is fairly clear that Jenny has in fact gone completely loopy. However, much like the main character in Neil Marshall’s superb The Descent, made 25 years later, we are left wondering precisely when in the story what we were seeing stopped being real and started being the product of Jenny’s deranged mind. The implication is that she will take over from the old woman as the Windigo’s ‘ghostkeeper’ but since no-one ever talks about a Windigo we’re left wondering whether the locked-up hairy guy really is the creature of legend or just some mad bloke. Or does he exist at all?

For such an obscure film, Ghostkeeper is strangely satisfying, even on this barely watchable, full-screen video which is a dark transfer of an already dark film. There is nothing silly here, there are some bits of genuine horror (such as the throat slitting), there are no pat explanations or lame attempts at humour, the three main characters are believable, and the last 15-20 minutes is tense and horrific, treading the middle ground between psychological and supernatural horror. It kept me gripped, although I think the sleeve’s claim of ‘SUSPENSE, HORROR and DRAMA in the true Hitchcockian tradition’ may be pushing it a bit.

Given that this was filmed in Alberta I can only assume that the Inaccurate Movie Database has got its facts right for once and that the actor playing Marty is the same Murray Ord who went on to be President of the Alberta Film Commission, location manager for everything from Airwolf to Shoebox Zoo, and producer of Brokeback Mountain!

Writer/director Jim Makichuk is a former news cameraman whose short films earned him a Genie and an Oscar nomination. His subsequent career has mostly been on the writing side, where his credits include the 1999 sci-fi movie Roswell: The Aliens Attack, episodes of Highlander: The Series and the 2002 Gentle Ben telemovie! Co-writer Douglas MacLeod, who is also associate producer, went on to produce a bunch of stuff for Canadian TV. Someone called David Makichuk (brother? father? son?) gets a ‘story consultant’ credit here.

Cinematographer John Holbrook allegedly directed an ultra-obscure 1970s porn/horror picture with the unpronouncable title Sexcula. Mel Merrells gets the possibly unique credit ‘special effects/generator operator’; the ‘special effects’ amounts to one small Skidoo explosion so he would not have needed to leave the generator unattended for very long. Composer Paul Zaza has by far the longest filmography of anyone here, his credits including Murder By Decree, Porky’s, My Bloody Valentine, The Pink Chiquitas and all four Prom Nights.

Ghostkeeper is a decent little film, dating from the last days of independent 35mm theatrical releases (it was distributed in the States by New World) before the video explosion. It’s probably the lack of star names (and the fact that it’s Canadian) which has kept the film so obscure because there’s nothing really wrong with it. If it has a failing, it’s that the whole Windigo thing is so tangential as to be barely there. It makes one wonder whether that was tacked on after the fact because, apart from the opening caption and the closing credits, there is nothing to suggest any connection with ‘Indian Legends’ whatsoever. This is a Windigo movie which is almost entirely lacking in Windigos.

MJS rating: B
review originally posted 8th January 2006
[Unusually for one of my reviews, this one has a sequel over on the Devil's Porridge blog - MJS]

Ghost Month

$
0
0
Director: Danny Draven
Writer: Danny Draven
Producers: Danny Draven, Jojo Draven
Cast: Marina Resa, Shirley To, Rick Irvin
Country: USA
Year of release: 2007
Reviewed from: screener disc


Between 2001 and 2003 Danny Draven directed five features including Hell Asylum (which was pretty good) and DeathBed (which was great). Since his last film, Dark Walker, Danny has been working as an editor, mainly cutting films for David DeCoteau (Ring of Darkness, The Sisterhood, Witches of the Caribbean and House of Usher) and Charlie Band (Decadent Evil, The Gingerdead Man, Petrified and Evil Bong).
Well, now young Mr Draven is back behind the camera with Ghost Month (originally announced as Offerings), a genuinely creepy and slick-looking tale of Chinese ghosts in the hills of Nevada. It’s easy to see how he has progressed in the past four years as this is easily his most professional-looking picture so far. It’s also very spooky.

Marina Resa (Smuggler’s Ransom, One Day Like Rain) stars as Alyssa Barnes, newly employed as housekeeper to a Chinese lady named Miss Wu (Shirley To, who was in a UCLA student project to recreate scenes from Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046; she also play bass) who lives in a fabulous house way up in the hills with her non-English-speaking Aunt Chen (Akiko Shima: Letters from Iwo Jima). Without mobile or e-mail, Alyssa is cut off from the world which is how she wants it because she needs to be where her psycho ex-boyfriend Jacob (zoologist-turned-actor Jerod Edington: Alone, Run) can find her.

Alyssa is a lapsed Catholic but Miss Wu and her Aunt practise traditional Chinese religion and this includes making offerings during ‘ghost month’ to ward away spirits. An isolated location, employers who - though pleasant - converse in another language, strange night-time ceremonies: already we are off-guard, and so is Alyssa.

She finds mementoes of of Mei Ling (Anna Lee in flashbacks and photos), the previous housekeeper who disappeared without explanation. She also meets and befriends neighbour Blake (Rick Irvin, a Draven regular who was in Dark Walker, Cryptz, DeathBed and even the Bad Movie Police wraparounds that Danny DP-ed for JR Bookwalter) but then starts to doubt and distrust him. Above all, she starts having visions and hearing voices. Two scary ghosts - a woman with long hair and a guy with a skull-like face - appear separately to Alyssa, each apparition causing her to suddenly find herself trapped in an enclosed space. These dreams or hallucinations, whatever they are, don’t last long but they’re almost as scary for the audience as for the character. Draven directs - and, of course, edits - with a deft hand, letting us see just enough to know that we don’t want to see any more.

Gradually, as Alyssa investigates the house, she starts to unravel the truth about Mei Ling and eventually realises why Miss Wu and her aunt have good reason to ward off spirits.

Ghost Month is big on style, cinematographer Michael King making extensive use of coloured gels (and the properties of 35mm film!) to create artistic but unnerving images, full of shadows (sometimes a few too many shadows, to be honest). There is a constant threat that something will appear briefly in the background or from the edge of the screen and by about halfway through the viewer is barely concentrating on the actors because we’re keeping half an eye on the room behind them. Effective Chinese-influenced music by Danny’s Mrs, Jojo Draven - who shares producer credit with hubby - adds to the gradually building atmosphere of unease and paranoia.

As well as looking and sounding good, Ghost Month has a well-crafted script which brings the characters to life, assisted by uniformly impressive acting. This is a screenplay that has been rewritten and rewritten through multiple drafts until it’s as good as it possibly can be. Unusually for a film made by an editor, there are some deleted scenes (these weren’t on the screener, nor were the bloopers, trailer, commentary and DVD-ROM features, but they will be on the commercial release apparently), I say ‘unusually’ because most editor-turned-directors I know cut the film in their head beforehand and shoot only what they need. Nevertheless, Danny is to be commended for having the guts to remove stuff and keep in only what is needed to tell the story and develop the characters. At 100 minutes, the film is just the right length, with neither obvious gaps nor obvious dead wood.

John Lechago (director of Blood Gnome) provides some excellent visual effects and digital make-up. Also contributing to the sumptuous visual look of the film are costume designer Vivian Fitzgerald (who has made an unusual career progression since Dark Walker on which she was a foley artist!) and production designer Mike Brown (who frankly could be one, several or none of the many Mike Browns on the Inaccurate Movie Database).

Also in the cast are Erica Edd as the manager of the agency who sends Alyssa to Miss Wu, co-producer Buddy Barnett (also in The Vampire Hunter’s Club and The Low Budget Time Machine) as a taxi driver and Tam Albertson as a ghost. But the biggest star here as far as I’m concerned is Kierstin Cunnington as Alyssa’s best friend Nicole. Cunnington is the lady who was photographed, cut up and animated as ‘Debbie’ in the amazing video that the JibJab boys created for Weird Al’s song ‘Do I Creep You Out’. Has there ever been a cooler thing to have on your acting resume? I don’t think so.

Already a deserved hit at festivals, Ghost Month is terrific film, as stylish as it is spooky, and comes thoroughly recommended.

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 8th November 2007

The Ghost Train

$
0
0

Director: Walter Forde
Writers: Marriott Edgar, JOC Orton, Val Guest
Producer: Edward Black
Cast: Arthur Askey, Richard Murdoch, Carole Lynne
Year of release: 1941
Country: UK
Reviewed from: UK TV broadcast


The Ghost Train is basically the British equivalent of The Bat or The Cat and the Canary, a creepy story derived from a stage play, in which a group of people find themselves in a creepy location menaced by an unseen threat, possibly supernatural but ultimately revealed to be merely criminal. And just as Hollywood shoe-horned Bob Hope into The Cat and the Canary, Gainsborough Films stuck ‘Big-Hearted’ Arthur Askey into this version of The Ghost Train.

A group of rail passengers find themselves stranded in the waiting room of an isolated station, having missed their connection. When the station master is unable to persuade them to leave - it’s bucketing it down outside and the nearest village is miles away - he warns them of the local legend of the ghost train, and how all who see it perish. Later, a strange couple turn up out of the blue, the man claiming that his sister is an escaped lunatic while she protests her innocence and begs the disparate group to protect her from her brother.

Those waiting in the waiting room include drippy couple Herbert Perkins (Stuart Latham, who was in a 1939 TV version of The Tell-Tale Heart) and Edna Hookey (Betty Jardine), who are to be married the next day; teetotal spinster Miss Bourne (Kathleen Harrison: Mrs Huggett in the Huggetts films and radio series) and her pet parrot; booze-sozzled Doctor Sterling (Morland Graham: Whisky Galore!); arrogant cricketer Richard (RG) Winthrop (Peter Murray-Hill: Bell-Bottom George) and his charming cousin Jackie (Carole Lynne, who apparently made only one other film). Then there’s music hall comedian Tommy Gander (Askey) and suave Teddy Deakin (Richard ‘Stinker’ Murdoch), both of whom are enamoured of Miss Winthrop. Askey and Murdoch were huge stars in Britain at this time on the basis of Band Waggon, the first ever BBC comedy series. This was their fourth film together in two years.

It must be said that, much as I enjoy Arthur Askey’s comedy, he is spectacularly irritating in this part, but deliberately so. He is endlessly cracking weak jokes, his cheery face falling when he sees how little reaction he gets, and constantly dodging the entirely justifiable annoyance of Winthrop and Deakin. Still, there’s some good visual comedy, as when Askey/Gander tries to fill a tea-cup with water using a water tower pipe in a rainstorm. Essentially Askey is playing himself, slipping in some of his catchphrases (“Ay thangyew!”) and referring to himself as ‘Big-Hearted’ Tommy.

The Ghost Train was written by Arnold Ridley - yes, Private Godfrey from Dad’s Army, when he was a young man - and is packed with red herrings and diversions. Ridley’s original play script was adapted by Marriott Edgar, JOC Orton and Val Guest (later director of The Quatermass Xperiment, The Day the Earth Caught Fire etc.). All three had written the bulk of Will Hay’s classic comedies, including Oh Mr Porter! - which was loosely based on The Ghost Train. Orton later co-wrote the early SF comedy Time Flies. Director Walter Forde is one of the forgotten greats, a former silent comedian who in his time was a serious rival, as far as British audiences were concerned, to Chaplin and Keaton. He also directed the 1931 version of Ridley’s play, starring Jack Hulbert and Cicely Courtneidge, as well as a previous Askey/Murdoch comedy, Charlie’s Big-Hearted Aunt.

Interestingly, the dialogue actually pinpoints the exact night that the action takes place, 22nd January 1940 - 43 years to the day since Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee. In deference to wartime concerns, the ‘ghost train’ turns out to be a front not for smugglers but for Nazi-sympathising gun-runners.

The film was shot at a studio in Shepherd’s Bush in November and December 1941, when the London Blitz was at its height. Consequently, Askey and most of the cast lived permanently in their dressing rooms, within easy reach of the studio’s air raid shelters. So far as I can tell, the only surviving member of the cast is Carole Lynne, who subsequently packed in acting to become Lady Delfont! Askey went on to make a few more comic horrors on TV. His 1956-58 series Before Your Very Eyes featured a Frankenstein sketch in one episode (16th December 1957) and a spoof of House of Wax in another (23rd March 1956) using figures borrowed from Madame Tussaud’s. A 1960s series of comic playlets, Arthur’s Treasured Volumes also included a horror episode, entitled ‘The Curse of the Bellfoots’.

This big screen version of a periodically revived theatre classic is good fun for those of us who enjoy 1940s comedy, but will be of only academic interest to horror fans who lack a penchant for wartime whimsey. It only just scrapes into the horror genre by virtue of the ghostly legend behind which the smugglers/gun-runners hide their criminal activity. Finally, viewers are advised not to think about the plot too closely: with the revelation that almost the whole village is in on the nefarious goings-on, why go to all the trouble of staging disappearing dead bodies, etc. to frighten the passengers, when it would have been so much easier to simply find a bus or van and transport them away from the station?

MJS rating: B
review originally posted before November 2004

Finnigan's War

$
0
0
Director: Conor Timmis
Writer: Conor Timmis
Producer: Conor Timmis
Cast: Conor Timmis, Mark Hamill
Country: USA
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: screener
Website:
http://finniganswar.blogspot.co.uk

War is not beautiful. War is ugly. Every war ever fought, for whatever reason, in whatever way, between whichever sides, in whatever time and place, has been an ugly thing. That’s the nature of war.

War can be thrilling, war can be exciting: it wouldn’t make such a good subject for films if it wasn’t. War can be honourable, it can be righteous, it can be moral, it can be romantic, it can even be blackly comic. But it can never be beautiful.

So how has Conor Timmis, director of Kreating Karloff, managed to make a movie about war which, in searching for le mot juste, I can only describe as a beautiful little film?

It’s because, although ostensibly a documentary about the Korean War, Finnigan’s War isn’t actually about war. It’s about people. And people can be beautiful. The beauty of the people in this film - though some of them are undoubtedly good-looking old fellas for their age who probably drive the old gals wild on whist night - is the inner beauty of goodness and humanity. It is the great irony of war that while it is so inhuman on a grand scale, down at the individual level, it is full of some of the best that humanity can offer.

So here’s what we have. Conor’s grandfather, John Finnigan, was killed during the Korean War. In 2010, on the 60th anniversary of the start of that war, Conor set out to meet surviving veterans, and the families of those who died in the conflict, and learn their stories. Three years later, on the 60th anniversary of the war’s end, this personal quest has been turned into an hour-long film of which young Mr Timmis should be extremely proud.

This is a personal quest and a personal film. It starts with Conor’s grandad and progresses to another soldier from the same regiment whose sacrifice is commemorated in the name of a US Navy ship commanded by Conor’s uncle. Conor is there in the interview segments, not obtrusively but giving a human touch to the process of recording these memories. He meets an extraordinary cross-section of ethnic America: men from the only all-black Rangers regiment; the first Chinese-American US Army officer (remember - they were fighting the Chinese); Puerto Rican bikers who commemorate a Puerto Rican unit; the family of a Native American soldier; and a Hungarian-born Jew who survived a Nazi concentration camp, signed up to the US Army in gratitude and five years later found himself in a Chinese POW camp.

Extraordinary stories of ordinary men doing extraordinary things, all told sympathetically and with dignity. In still photos of Conor posing with these men, we can see a genuine admiration on the film-maker’s face, and also the pleasure of these old geezers in the interest that this young man is taking in their memories. There is a sincerity throughout this whole film which one so rarely encounters and which could so easily have disappeared if the picture had toppled into either cloying sentimentality of soulless objectivity.

One particularly noteworthy touch is the use of comic-book artwork, with limited animation, to accompany readings of individuals’ medal citations. Justin Case of gunmother.com supplied the artwork, Mark Hamill supplied the voice. It works brilliantly. Which is a surprise because one would think that comic book artwork - with its connotations of Sgt Rock, or Sgt Fury and His Howling Commandos (or, on this side of the Atlantic, Battle Picture Library and Commando Picture Library) - would cheapen the stories. But it doesn’t. One reason why it doesn’t is because these aren’t gung-ho tales of kicking the Commies’ butts, these are stories of men going above and beyond the call of duty, sometimes paying the ultimate sacrifice, to save their comrades in arms. Though these men took lives, they did so to save lives. That’s the nature of war. Kill or be killed. That’s why it’s ugly.

Two things are deliberately (and justifiably) absent from Finnigan’s War. One is any historical context. Conor calls this the story of “the forgotten heroes of an almost forgotten war” and he’s right. Really, to my shame, I know almost nothing about the Korean War. Coming as it did inbetween the morally unimpeachable global behemoth of World War II and the nation-dividing shameful shambles of Vietnam, Korea is overlooked by history. But men fought and died there, far from home. And it’s the men who are the subject of this film. Why they were there - the big story, the macro-tale - is not relevant here. There are plenty of books about the Korean War that will tell you why it started, what happened, and how and why it ended three years later. Conor did the right thing to ignore this: he could only have touched on the notions and ideas, never doing justice to them, and even then it would have bitten into the film’s 56-minute running time.

Also absent, or almost absent, as a result of the above, is any discussion of the enemy. They were Chinese Communists, that’s all we’re told. Only once does one of the veterans recall engaging directly with an enemy soldier, the two spotting each other at almost the same time with the GI quickest on the draw. The Chinese man was old for a frontline soldier, in his forties, and the American recalls asking his corpse “What are you doing here? Why aren’t you with your family?” It’s pretty much the film’s only moment of acknowledgement that every war has two sides, that Chinese men were being sent to fight the Yankees, just as US troops were being sent to fight the Commies. This is an important anecdote: without it, the film could have been justifiably accused of being too jingoistic.

Finnigan’s War is an American film, made with American sensibilities, but of course the perception of the US military - current and historical - is very different outside the States, in terms of both individuals and overall strategies. The flag-waving patriotism of Americans for everything their soldiers do sits awkwardly with the more cynical European view. But the simplicity, sincerity and underplayed, quiet dignity of Conor’s film cuts through any such cultural differences. This is a film which could play well at any film festival around the world and I hope that all programmers of documentary festivals will take a look and consider screening it.

Although this is very much Conor’s personal opus, it is still a collaborative project of course. Mention must be made of sympathetic editing by Gary Fiero (Pickman’s Model) who is also one of four credited cinematographers, and the excellent, subtle music by Scott Keever.

It doesn’t sound much, broken down into its constituent parts: some old guys recalling a war 60 years ago with a few semi-animated interludes. But Finnigan’s War is a beautiful piece of film-making and I am genuinely glad that I was given the opportunity to watch it and write about it.

MJS rating: A

The Gingerdead Man

$
0
0
Director: Charles Band
Writers: ‘Sylvia St Croix’ and August White
Producer: Charles Band
Cast: Gary Busey, Robin Sydney, Ryan Locke
Country: USA
Year of release: 2005
Reviewed from: R1 DVD (Full Moon)


This is what we’ve been waiting for. This is Charlie Band back up to speed. Decadent Evil had its moments but was, frankly, a bit disappointing; Doll Graveyard was fun. But The Gingerdead Man is a hoot.

The basic structure is off-the-shelf: a small cast, in a single location, threatened by something or somebody. But even before we get to the something or somebody, this movie scores points for originality. Come on, what was the last film that you saw which was set almost entirely inside a bakery?

In a prologue we see gun-toting psycho Millard Findlemeyer (Gary Busey) robbing a diner. He has already killed the waitress and proceeds to shoot two thirds of the lone family cowering under a table (dad Newell Alexander, who was Sam Beckett’s father in the pilot episode of Quantum Leap, and son James Snyder). The daughter, Sarah (Robin Sydney: The Lost), he only injures because he doesn’t want to shoot an unarmed girl but his mother always told him to finish what he started.

Sarah’s family runs Betty’s Bakery in Waco, a family business which just scrapes by. A couple of years on, Sarah is holding the business together helped by her alcoholic mother Betty (Margaret Blye: The Entity) and employees Julia (Daniela Melgoza) and Brick (Jonathan Chase: 7eventy 5ive) who has a sideline as an amateur wrestler and carries a torch for Sarah. But competition is looming in the form of a soon-to-open large bakery across the road, which is described as being part of a major chain although it seems to belong solely to stetson-wearing Jimmy Dean (Larry Cedar: Demonic Toys, Pinocchio’s Revenge) who wants to buy out the competition.

Dean dotes on his selfish, spoiled daughter Lorna (Alexia Aleman) who was recently voted Miss Pretty Face of Waco. Lorna sneaks into Betty’s Bakery at night, when Sarah is the only occupant, and releases a rat with the intention of having the establishment closed down on health grounds. Following her inside is her bit-of-rough, simple-but-honest boyfriend Amos (Ryan Locke: Supercross) who knows he’s being used and has some sympathy for Sarah and her family.

Now, here’s where it starts to get weird. In fact, Charles Band admits in his introduction to the Making Of featurette that this is possibly the weirdest ‘monster’ of any of his films - and that’s saying something, but he might actually be right. Sarah is baking a large gingerbread man as a test piece for some new gingerbread mixture - but unbeknownst to her that mixture contains the ashes of none other than Millard Findlemeyer who was recently executed in the electric chair; wardrobe supervisor E Dee Biddlecombe (The Phantom Eye, Dinocroc, Doll Graveyard) appears briefly as Findlemeyer’s mother who engineers her son’s supernatural revenge. Millard Findlemeyer, it transpires, is back to finish what he started by killing Sarah - and anyone else who gets in his way. And he is doing this through reincarnation as that gingerbread man.

We’ll give you this one, Mr B. Compared to all those killer puppets and flying disembodied heads, this is really, genuinely weird.

There follows a series of set pieces as Sarah, Lorna and Amos try to escape the homicidal cookie. Betty and Julia both return to the bakery and are attacked, the latter being turned into a human cake, smothered with dough (with prominent breasts and glacé cherries for nipples!) and left in the oven. When rescued, her all-white appearance and the way that her flour-streaked hair is sprayed out around her head makes her look a little like the Bride of Frankenstein although I’m not sure how deliberate that is.

Lorna’s father also returns although he doesn’t last long as he is run over by the killer biscuit (yes, he drives a car!). Eventually Brick turns up and defeats the threat by - well, how would you ‘kill’ a gingerbread man? Exactly! But this only leads to more trouble...

Throughout all this, Busey has a ball as the voice of the Gingerdead Man, who wisecracks his way through the various killings and attempted killings. The character is mostly represented by a series of puppets, built by industry veteran John Carl Buechler and operated by Mark Andrews. There is also a Buechler-built full-size suit (Kyle Lupo is the hapless soul inside) but to be honest I didn’t notice whether this was actually used. Certainly the revelation of the suit’s existence in the Making Of was a surprise to me as I assumed I had been looking at a puppet the whole way through.

The Gingerdead Man has ‘franchise’ written all over it and the title character has the potential to become a cult comedy-horror icon along the lines of Chucky or the Leprechaun. And how long can it be before we witness The Gingerdead Man vs Demonic Toys or Puppet Master vs the Gingerdead Man? Hmm?

The cast all acquit themselves well and Band keeps the tension going in the second half which is when the killer cookie is let loose. The only major ‘huh?’ moment is when Julia and Betty are being attacked; the bakery just doesn’t look a big enough establishment that the others would not be aware of this. But on the whole, the action and characterisation is fine.

The 18-minute Making Of (directed, as usual, by associate producer Jethro Rothe-Kushel) includes some footage from a test-reel for this project shot a few years ago by actor/effects man William Butler (actor in Ghoulies II, Friday the 13th Part VII, Buried Alive, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, Arena and the Tom Savini Night of the Living Dead remake; effects/make-up work on Eliminators, From Beyond, Curse IV and Cellar Dweller; director of various Power Rangers episodes). Butler’s version featured a fully CGI-ed Gingerdead Man who looked a little like the Pilsbury Doughboy but with bigger and sharper teeth.

A script seen briefly in the Making Of carries the credit (for those who bother to freeze frame and check) ‘written by William Butler, revised by August White’ which means that Butler has asked for his name to be taken off this and has opted instead for the pseudonym ‘Sylvia St Croix’ (the name of a talent agent character in the stage musical Ruthless, according to a quick Google). August White’s real identity is Domonic Muir, writer of Critters - which explains why one or two sources who got their info mixed up credited the Decadent Evil script to ‘Domonic White’.

Other crew who have worked with Band before include cinematographer Keith Duggan (Decadent Evil, Delta Delta Die!), editor Danny Draven, production designer Elvis Strange and make-up lady Crystal Blair (Decadent Evil, Bad Movie Police 1: Galaxy of the Dinosaurs). Hairstylist Cyndi Welch seems to have mostly worked on soft porn flicks with interchangeable titles like Dangerous Pleasures, Wicked Temptations, Sinful Desires and Erotic Obsessions. Busey, being a name star, had his own hair and make-up artist, Peggy Seagreen.

Busey must be one of the busiest men in Hollywood with eight other movies and a mini-series listed on the IMDB for 2005. Among his previous fantasy/horror credits are Frost: Portrait of a Vampire, A Crack in the Floor, Universal Soldier II, Predator 2 and Silver Bullet. He comes across in the Making Of as a nice guy and a professional jobbing actor.

The real star of the featurette however is Jonathan Chase who very obviously had an absolute blast on this movie and plays up to Rothe-Kushel’s behind-the-scenes camera for all he is worth. He may not be on-screen as much as some other cast members, but Brick is a cool role for any actor plus he gets to wear some groovy prosthetic make-up in the finale. Also briefly interviewed - and this must be a first, though it is undeniably appropriate - is caterer Joanne 'Trixie' Sullivan.

The DVD also has the usual plug for Full Moon toys, a few bloopers and the same selection of trailers that were on the Doll Graveyard disc. It goes without saying, by now, that the actual film runs only 60 minutes and is followed by eleven minutes of glacially slow credits.

MJS rating: B+
review originally published 22nd November 2005

GI Samurai

$
0
0
Director: Kosei Saito
Writer: Toshio Kamata
Producer: Takeshi Motomura
Cast: Sonny Chiba, Jun Eto, Hiroyuki Sanada
Country: Japan
Year of release: 1979
Reviewed from: UK VHS


Have you ever been watching a film and found yourself repeatedly saying “Holy moley, this is awesome!” as the movie just gets better and better? No? Well then presumably you’ve never seen GI Samurai. Even in what is very evidently a heavily cut-down version, this amazing, action-packed epic stands out as a strong contender for the title of greatest sci-fi/war movie of all time.

Also known as Time Slip: The Day of the Apocalypse (the full title is both on-screen and on the box of this British VHS release), Sengoku Jietai cost a fortune, features vast numbers of extras and packs a punch that combines science fiction and samurai films into a whole that is even greater than the sum of its parts. All this - and it stars Sonny Chiba too!

This is a time travel film and there are of course two sorts of time travel stories. Some, like Back to the Future, Retroactive or the marvellous East German comedy Tomorrow I’ll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea, play with the idea of time travel and the complications it can create. Others, ranging from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court to Life on Mars, simply use time travel as a device to set up a culture clash scenario. The Terminator is an unusual example of a film which falls into both camps.

GI Samurai is firmly in the Connecticut Yankee mould, with a very simple premise that is never explained because, frankly, it doesn’t need to be. A gaggle of military personnel from Japan’s Self Defence Force travel back in time about 400 years. Presumably they’re starting from what would be the present day - late 1970s - but there is no indication of what happened except that every soldier’s watch has stopped at 5.18. (Actually, there are some weird polarising effects and suchlike which presumably is the time slip itself but this is after everyone has spotted that their watches are kaput.)

There are about 20-30 troops all told and between them they have a jeep, a half-track armoured personnel carrier (both equipped with a heavy machine gun), a light tank, a lorry full of ammo, a helicopter and a motor patrol boat. They rendezvous on a beach somewhere; we’re not told where and we’re not told why. They’re clearly still in Japan (as will quickly become clear and in any case the SDF was not supposed to operate outside the country) but they seem to be on active service rather than just manoeuvres. I think it really doesn’t matter.

The point is that once the lorry, the chopper, the MPB and the convoy of jeep, tank and APC (initially introduced in darkness as part of a much larger convoy) have introduced themselves, they spot three samurai warriors on horseback who take a look then turn and ride off. Before you know it, a hail of arrows rains down on the soldiers from a row of medieval archers atop a nearby cliff and they have no defence except to cower behind their vehicles.

This is the crux of GI Samurai: 20th century weapons and techniques against those of the 16th century. It’s not as obviously one-sided as you might think.

The soldiers repel another attack but also establish an alliance with a rival lord who turns up to investigate what is going on. He realises that, with the assistance of these strangers and their amazing weapons he could defeat his enemies and rule the whole country.

We don’t get to really know any of the soldiers, at least not in this cut-down version, apart from Lt Yoshiaki Iba, played by the legendary Chiba-san. Some small amount of characterisation is evident in scenes that they share with some of the non-combatant locals: a young woman, an old lady, some kids. There is probably much more of this in the full version. But the bulk of the film is two battles, one small one and one very big one.

Initially, Lt Iba’s men attack a castle and have little difficulty in beating the defenders, delighting their new-found samurai allies, but then they progress to a pitched battle against a very large samurai army and this long, thrilling, sometimes horrific sequence constitutes the bulk of the movie in this edit. It’s terrific, absolutely terrific.

Yes, the 20th century troops have automatic weapons, heavy machine guns, grenades and a damn great tank but they are outnumbered by several hundred to one. What use automatic firepower when you are facing literally thousands of warriors, highly trained and completely fearless, willing to lay down their life for their lord? The soldiers-vs-samurai theme is much, much more than just a high concept, it’s a fascinating examination of how different styles of warfare deal with each other, demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of each. Most war films, by their very nature, pitch against each other enemies who are roughly equivalent in terms of technology and tactics. GI Samurai is in some ways more like a western with Lt Iba’s men as the Seventh Cavalry and the samurai as the Cherokees, fighting by their own methods and on their own territory.

Two films jumped into my head as precedents while I watched this. One is my favourite film of all time, The Man Who Would Be King, in which two 19th century British soldiers successfully conquer an Indian mountain kingdom by supplying one local warlord with Martini-Henrys and the training to use them. But the comparison breaks down because although Iba allies himself with one of the local warlords, his men fight alone. A better comparison might be, well at first I thought Zulu but then I revised that to Zulu Dawn. The Japanese soldiers, like the British at Isandlwana, grossly underestimate the abilities and tactics of the local ‘savages’ and pay the price for their hubris in a terrifying and bloody confrontation.

But there is another film that stands comparison with GI Samurai and what makes it particularly interesting is that it was produced a few years later. That film is Return of the Jedi.

The Ewok attack on the Imperial forces in that film is remarkably similar to the samurai attack on the SDF forces in this one and when we consider that the Ewoks were originally going to be Wookiees, we can see an even closer comparison (there used to be fan art and fan fiction about ‘Samurai Wookiees’ back in the 1980s but I don’t know whether that had any direct derivation from canonical Star Wars material). The medieval army in GI Samurai use traps and knowledge of the terrain to the full extent just as the Ewoks would do four years later. Most specifically there is a sequence where they attack the vehicles by rolling logs down a steep incline. If you can watch that without thinking of Endor you’re a better man than I am.

It is well known that George Lucas is a long-time fan of Japanese movies. He has acknowledged the debt that Star Wars owes to Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress and Darth Vader’s helmet has clear Samurai origins. I would be genuinely surprised if Lucas had not seen GI Samurai before making Jedi (or if not Lucas, maybe Lawrence Kasdan or Richard Marquand). The comparison is obvious, this film was a major production promoted internationally and it would be a big coincidence if there was no direct influence.

What the samurai have that Ewoks don’t, of course, is spectacle. Many samurai movies concentrate on individuals or small groups so it is jaw-dropping to see hundreds of men, each with a tall, fluttering war banner sticking up from his back, charging across a hillside. You can feel the fear of the SDF soldiers, facing this enemy which charges so brazenly and so relentlessly. Like the Terminator, a samurai army “can’t be reasoned with, can’t be bargained with and it absolutely will not stop.”

There’s wave after wave of attack and gradually the soldiers lose one vehicle after another. Eventually only a handful of survivors make their way to a wooden building where they are met by the warlord whom they befriended earlier, and so the film culminates in a bleak and shocking ending.

There are some loose ends and obvious gaps in the non-battle parts of the plot, due to losing so much footage. The original version apparently runs 140 minutes but this VHS tape is only 88 minutes so the best part of an hour has been cut. That extra time may help the film by allowing us to know these soldiers as people or it may drag it down by spending too long on character and dialogue with no action. I’ll need to see the full length version to comment on whether or not it’s as good as this edit, but I’d love it to be even better.

The medieval soldiers have no idea what they’re fighting and they don’t care. There’s a great shot where one of them repeatedly jabs his sword down the barrel of the tank’s gun, believing that he is attacking it in some way. But what stands out among the carnage is Lt Iba and his decision to fight back against the samurai on their own terms, to which end he mounts a horse and grabs a sword, a bow and a bunch of arrows. The film constantly hammers home that one method or level of technology is not inherently superior to the other and that war is a brutal, cruel business however you do it.

GI Samurai is based on a novel by Ryo Hanmura but virtually the only information I can find anywhere on this author - apart from birth/death dates of 1933/2002 - is that he jointly won the Hayakawa SF Competition in 1960 and later won the Naoki Award for best popular literature by a young writer. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction cites one other title by Hanmura: Misaki Ichiro no Teiko. Toshio Kamata (Legend of Eight Samurai) wrote this film’s screenplay and it was directed by Kosei Saito who makes a much more exciting and coherent job of things than he managed with the awful Ninja Wars.

Sonny Chiba is probably best known to ‘the kids’ now for playing Hattori Hanzo in Kill Bill Vol.1 and Uncle Kanata in The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift but he started acting back in the late 1950s and by the time he made GI Samurai had already established a global reputation in The Street Fighter and its sequels (including one of my favourite films, Sister Street Fighter) as well as The Shogun’s Samurai, Message from Space, The Bodyguard and Gangster Cop. His other notable films include Battle Royale II, Sure Death Revenge, Samurai Reincarnation, Dragon Princess and, um, Aces: Iron Eagle III.

Other cast members here include Jun Eto (Godzilla X Mechagodzilla), Kenzo Kawarasaki (Parasite Eve and a 1997 TV version of Ring), Asao Koike (Baby Cart in Peril and a couple of Zatoichi pictures), Masao Kusakari (ESPY), Noboru Nakaya (Kwaidan, Lady Snowblood: Blizzard from the Netherworld), Miyuki Ono (Evil Dead Trap) and the legendary Hiroyuki Sanada (Ring and sequels). Executive producer Haruki Kadokawa (Samurai Reincarnation, Ninja Wars, Kinji Fukasaku’s Virus and heir to the Kadokawa publishing empire) gave himself a role too.

Info on the crew is harder to come by. The only credits on the English language version are a cast list (differentiated only into ‘soldiers’, ‘samurai’ and ‘others’) plus director Saito, musical director (Kadokawa giving himself an extra credit), fight director (Chiba) and, for some reason, sound recordist Fumio Hashimoto (Angel Guts: Red Classroom). If the IMDB is accurate, the art director was Hiroshi Ueda who also designed Incident at Blood Pass, Samurai Banners and The Birth of Japan, while the music was composed by Kentaro Haneda who scored a lot of anime including Barefoot Gen and Robotech: The Macross Saga.

Sengoku Jietai was remade in 2005 as Sengoku Jietai 1549, accompanied by a manga adaptation. This was directed by Masaaki Tezuka - fresh from three Godzilla pictures - and although it was quite widely publicised the film appears not to have had an English language release (although the comic was translated and published in the USA). Much less well known is a 2006 TV series based on the same story, Sengoku Jietai: Sekigahara no Tatakai directed by Kosei Saito again under his other name of Mitsumasa Saito.

The full 140 minute version of Time Slip is now available on DVD in the UK under the GI Samurai title from Optimum both singly (HMV has it for a fiver, as I type this!) and as part of the three-disc Sonny Chiba Collection Vol.2 (with Bullet Train and Golgo 13). The US DVD is deleted but a two-disc special edition is planned for April 2008 release. I’m sorely tempted to invest in one or other of these because I want to see the full version of this completely brilliant movie.

MJS rating: A
review originally posted 27th January 2008

Gnaw

$
0
0
Director: Gregory Mandry
Writers: Michael Bell, Max Waller
Producers: Rob Weston, Simon Sharp
Cast: Hiram Bleetman, Sara Dylan, Gary Faulkner
Country: UK
Year of release: 2009
Reviewed from: screener (4Digital Media)


I’m sure even the people who made Gnaw wouldn't deny that it is, at heart, yet another Texas Chainsaw Massacre clone, with the action transplanted to darkest Suffolk (although it was shot in Surrey).

Six young people go away for a weekend, staying on a farm where the friendly old farmer’s wife cooks them a whole range of delicious food. There’s no sign of the farmer, but there is somebody creeping around, watching them (though they’re unaware of this) who turns out to be the old lady’s hulking, silent son. And it’s his job to butcher visitors with assorted farmyard tools before stuffing them into the meatgrinder.

An opening montage of newspaper cuttings about missing people and a caption telling us how many missing person reports are filed each year provides a supposedly chilling context to the story and ultimately leads to an obvious sting about one minute into the seven-minute end credits (without which the film runs a commendably taught 70 minutes, though various sources list 85 or even 90). But really, none of that holds up, and in fact this is another one of those films, like The Scar Crow, where the supposedly unexplained disappearances would spark a massive police operation and murder enquiry.

A group of people going missing on the back roads of Texas is credible. Texas is a big, empty place and neither they nor anyone else knew precisely where they were. A group of friends who fail to return from a weekend away at a B&B in Suffolk, however far it is from the nearest village, would be very, very obvious. In fact, the dialogue makes it clear that at least one of the group has told his mum precisely where they’re going.

And the implication is that this happens on a regular basis, that a whole succession of holidaying young people have ended up in the meatgrinder. I don’t know the Suffolk Constabulary personally but I’m sure they’re not that dim: “Oo-ar, Conztable Robinzon, moy luv. That there be the zixth grooop uv them they townie kidz az haz been boooked into they Blackztock Farrrm and then dizappearrred. Oi don’t be knowin’ wutt to make uv it...”

The plot does depend in various places on people doing things which, even if they’re terrified, are pretty dumb. A prologue shows us a previous occupant of Blackstock Farm’s guest rooms (Jennifer Wren, who provided uncredited voices in WAZ and recently appeared on stage as Mary Shelley) trying to escape, running along a grassy country lane, clad only in a blood- and mud-caked white shift, while a landrover trundles along menacingly behind her. I’d certainly be interested to know if anyone has watched this without thinking - or possibly even shouting at the screen - “Run through the trees, you stupid bitch!”

Anyway, our principal sextet follow the usual rules of a happy couple, an unhappy couple and two singletons. Ed (Hiram Bleetman: Zombie Diaries I and II, Jack Said, Habeas Corpus) and Hannah (actress/model/ballet dancer/choreographer Julia Vandoorne) are the nauseatingly all-over-each-other couple, taking every possible opportunity for a quick shag, venturing into slightly kinky territory with blindfolds and so on. It’s a remarkably effective blindfold in that it somehow prevents Hannah from noticing when the ‘boyfriend’ she’s snogging is about a foot taller and about ten times more muscular with huge, calloused farm-worker’s hands and an unshaven chin (instead of a silly little goatee and moustache which suggests he’s uncertain whether to model himself on Captain Jack Sparrow or Jamiroquai and has hedged his bets).

Jack (New York-trained Nigel Croft Adams) and Jill (Rachel Mitchem, who trained as an opera singer and was in half-hour short Horrorshow and two episodes of EastEnders) have a more tense relationship, as rammed home unsubtly in a game where people have to describe each other. Jack is full of himself while Jill has something of a pole up her arse. They’re not actually at loggerheads but they would be if Jill ever discovers that Jack is carrying on behind her back with morose borderline-emo Lorrie (Sara Dylan: Peridot, Storm). Making up the numbers is slightly drippy Matt (Oliver Lee Squires, who started as a child actor in a Ken Russell film) who has a slight crush on Lorrie but stands no chance.

On the way to the farm, Ed and Hannah accidentally run over a cat which they somehow correctly deduce must belong to Blackstock Farm itself. Instead of simply slinging the corpse into a ditch or indeed just leaving it on the road for the crows and foxes to eat, they decide for some inexplicable reason to put it into a plastic carrier bag and take it with them, with the intention of somehow disposing of it the following day. Hannah actually says “Let’s put it in the boot” although they’re driving a pick-up truck so (a) the vehicle doesn’t have a boot and (b) the bag full of rotting, mangled cat corpse will be very obvious to anyone walking past the truck while it’s parked at the farm.

Interesting fact: if you run over and kill a dog, you are legally required to report it to the police. If you knock down a cat, no-one cares. Cats are everywhere, and feline life is cheap. Anyway, there are a couple of follow-ups later on which suggest that the farm family have found this dead cat, but it’s clearly not motivation because they were evidently planning to butcher the kids in any case.

Carrie Cohen (Hellbreeder) is Mrs Obadiah, landlady of Blackstock Farm, and looks like she’s having a whale of a time in the climactic moments when she goes into full-on, Sheila-Keith, insane old woman mode. Gary Faulkner nicely underplays her son, credited only as ‘The Slaughterman’ (although Faulkner’s CastingCallPro page gives the character’s name as ‘Judd’). Faulkner has subsequently appeared in several public sector corporate promos for Gnaw director Gregory Mandry and was also in a stage production directed by Jennifer Wren. There’s no sign or mention of Mr Obadiah; and I don’t think it’s unkind to assume that the two farm residents are not only mother and son but probably related in several other ways as well. This is Suffolk after all, a part of the country where a posh wedding is any one where the bride’s and groom’s relatives can be sufficiently distinguished to sit on different sides of the church.

There’s some misdirection early on with Matt’s suggestion that the spooky old farmhouse is haunted. There are some stupid practical jokes played by people on other people which are basically just cat-scares. There’s a ballet dancer music box which, in defiance of cliché, has not been left in the untouched bedroom of a dead child. And there’s an unwanted pregnancy subplot which may actually be something new and different in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre clone. But as I haven’t seen every single one I couldn’t swear to that. There is one genuinely effective and chilling moment when Hannah and Ed are so busy sticking their tongues down each other’s throats that neither notices the Slaughterman standing silently in the corner of the room, illuminated for the audience in occasional flashes of light.

Which brings me to my main gripe with Gnaw: the lighting, or lack thereof. This film is incredibly dark. I know a lot of it takes place at night but a lot of the time we just can’t see what is happening. Much of what looks like good production design is thrown away by the camera-work. The skill of night-time cinematography is letting the audience see just enough but Gnaw falls down just the other side of that fine line. I don’t think it’s atmosphere - well, obviously it’s partly about atmosphere - there really do seem to be things that we’re being shown but can’t actually see.

Most notably, the Slaughterman sometimes wears some sort of mask (in fact there’s one scene where he removes it in front of a terrified victim) but we never get a good enough look at it. Is it made of human skin? Is it made from a dead cat? Is he just wearing a hood. We should see this clearly at least once, otherwise it’s all a bit pointless.

For all its generic nature (genericity?) and minor flaws, Gnaw - which premiered at Frighfest 2008 and hit US shelves in 2009 but has taken three years to make it to UK DVD - is a confident and reasonably exciting slice of cannibalistic rural horror. The characters are believable and mostly likeable, even pompous, unfaithful Jack. The acting is generally very good apart from, oddly, occasional individual flat line-readings by various characters, which suggests to me that the problem might lie with Gregory Mandry’s direction rather than the cast, most of whom have very impressive stage-training backgrounds.

The script by Michael Bell and Max Waller gives the impression that this was intended as a black comedy but it hasn’t ended up that way and the occasional humorous line therefore sticks out like a chopped-off thumb rather than being part of a consistent whole. Bell was a production designer (including The Zombie Diaries) and award-winning pop video director while Waller produced operas(!) but they are now concentrating on their work as a scriptwriting partnership. The duo share story credit with producer Rob Weston (another Zombie Diaries alumnus - he was line producer). The other producer, Simon Sharp, was also 1st AD. Bell and Marc Seery (the Newcastle-based marketing guy?) are credited as executive producers.

Production designer Tony Noble has credits stretching right back to the early 1970s when he worked on infamous David Warbeck-starring thriller The Sex Thief and Monty Python’s And Now for Something Completely Different. He mostly designs commercials but his other features include Whoops Apocalypse and Moon. Hayley Nebauer (Doghouse, The Reeds, Rise of the Footsoldier) designed the costumes. Unfortunately, much of their work on Gnaw is obscured by Tom Jenkins’ cinematography, which is not helped by some irritatingly shaky handheld camera-work. (Jenkins gets a second credit as one of two camera operators.)

Hair and make-up is credited to Florence May Carter whose short film work includes Walker Stalker, Corpse and the probably brilliant Hands Solo, a comedy about a deaf guy who becomes an unwitting porn star, with Vickie Ellis listed as ‘key hair and make-up artist’. Editor Mark Towns also cut slick-but-boring martial arts picture Underground and something about six years ago called The Battersea Ripper aka Manilla Envelopes, starring Danny Dyer, which is completely absent from the IMDB for some reason. Sound recordist Simon Bysshe (boom operator on the Jack Black Gulliver’s Travels, the remake of Brideshead Revisited and The Hurt Locker) interestingly dates Gnaw to 2005 in his CV, suggesting that it was a long, fragmented shoot.

Backing up this theory is the fact that, as well as an actual ‘second unit’ (directed by Michael Bell, DPed by Rupe Whiteman: Charlie Noades RIP), the credits group the crew members together into three further units defined by location. The Eastbourne Unit shot at Pekes Manor, the Dorking Unit shot at Dunley Hill Farm (the postal address for Mandry’s Big Yellow Feet production company), while the Farnham/A30 unit shot at Frensham Manor, Pitt Farm and the Snack Wagon burger van - which gets its own location credit! The identity of the DP/camera operator on the Farnham/A30 unit is hidden behind the Discworld-inspired pseudonym ‘Samuel Inigo Vimes’; the busy Michael Bell was unit production designer while Leona Wilson handled hair and make-up. James Morgan was special effects assistant on the Eastbourne Unit.

And therein lies the biggest mystery of Gnaw. Despite the wide range of stabbings, hackings and other violent, bloody acts on show (including a tongue-removal) there is no credit for special effects supervisor. James Morgan is the only named FX person, although Leona Wilson is apparently a horror movie fan and so presumably contributed some of the gore. In the end credits (which are padded out with 109 individually listed ‘thank you’s!) there are five companies listed as having provided ‘SFX/prosthetics’. Animated Effects contributed to Alien Vs Predator, LD50, Resident Evil, Dust, Shadow of the Vampire, Highlander IV, Death Machine, Mary Reilly, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and oodles of other films. Breakaway Effects specialise, as the name suggests, in breakable props. I can’t find anything on Evolution Effects (unless it’s the US company of that name) and Model Supplies is likewise too generic a name to research. And SFX GB is the trading name of Neal Champion whose credits include Strange, Dead Set, Ashes to Ashes, the 2009 Day of the Triffids, Lesbian Vampire Killers, Nine Lives and Pandaemonium. But an actual FX supervisor credit? No sign of one. Does that mean whoever fulfilled that role asked for their name to be removed? Gnaw isn’t anywhere near being that bad.

One final note: composer Mark Hill scored several top ten hits in the late 1990s as The Artful Dodger and subsequently produced Craig David records, which is, it must be said, a more appalling and horrific thought than anything which crossed my mind while watching Gnaw.

[One final, final note. Selecting images for this I found two variant sleeves for the French DVD, retitled Cannibal Kitchen. One calls this 'Un film de Gregory Mandry' but a presumably earlier version has 'Un film de Frank Merle'. US director Merle did indeed make a film called Gnaw but it's a zombie short, not this one. The perils of marketing people relying on IMDB! - MJS]

MJS rating: B
review originally posted 13th February 2011

The Seasoning House

$
0
0
Director: Paul Hyett
Writers: Paul Hyett, Conal Palmer
Producer: Michael Riley
Cast: Rosie Day, Kevin Howarth, Sean Pertwee
Country: UK
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: preview screening
Website:
www.theseasoninghouse.com

Before you watch The Seasoning House, you should read this review. Or at least, read a review. This is not a movie which benefits from being seen without foreknowledge; you need to know what you’re letting yourself in for. So read a review. But not a review in the mainstream press, because most of those say it’s rubbish. And it’s not rubbish. But it’s a truism that mainstream film reviewers generally hate horror films and generally hate British films, reserving their most extreme knee-jerk reactions for any British horror film which crosses their path.

Unless it’s got a big star in it. The Seasoning House doesn’t have any really big stars. It has names which you, the discerning cult movies fan, will recognise. But not A-listers, and the mainstream press work on the principal that any film without A-listers, or any film which does not have a heavily marketed blanket theatrical release, must be a piece of crap, because otherwise it would attract top talent and open nationwide on 400 screens. Obviously.

So don’t look for reviews in mainstream film mags, and certainly don’t look for reviews in the increasingly anachronistic national papers. Bear in mind that all mainstream printed publications are, by their nature, conservative. They only survive by selling adspace; they can only sell adspace if they have a large, demographically defined readership; and they can only maintain a large, demographically defined readership by telling that readership what that readership already knows. Most people read magazines and newspapers in order to be told things which they already agree with, to confirm their prejudices, whether that’s ‘student loans cause global warming’ or ‘asylum seekers ate the housing market’ or indeed ‘modern British films are crap’.

Stick with the independent, online reviewers and bloggers, the folk whose judgement is not clouded by financial forces and narrow-minded editorial policies. Take a look at the reviews on the horror websites and the cult film websites. In fact, frankly, you might as well just stick with this review now (although I’ll give you fair warning, it’s a long’un).

Anyway: The Seasoning House. The title doesn’t tell you much, so let’s be clear. This is not a jolly romp. It’s not a heart-warming family drama. It’s certainly not a date movie. The Seasoning House is harrowing, disturbing, grim and bleak. It is also thought-provoking, socially relevant, morally fascinating and brilliantly directed, acted and designed. It’s maybe not an easy film to watch but it’s a film you absolutely must watch if you have any interest in 21st century British horror cinema. If nothing else, The Seasoning House is an important film.

Important because it marks the directorial debut of Paul Hyett. I first came across Paul’s work when I was on SFX in the late 1990s, writing about Andrew Parkinson’s I, Zombie: The Chronicles of Pain. The prosthetic effects in that tent-pole BHR title were provided by a teenager named Paul Hyett (or Hyatt - these things were harder to check in ancient times), and a quick look at his IMDB page will give you some idea of how his career has progressed: Lighthouse, An Angel for May, The Last Horror Movie, The Descent, Cold and Dark, Wilderness, WAZ, The Cottage, Doomsday, Mutant Chronicles, Eden Lake, The Children, Tormented, Heartless, Attack the Block, The Reverend, The Woman in Black... and a whole load more. When I compiled the online index for my book Urban Terrors: New British Horror Cinema, I was not overly surprised to find that Paul had more mentions than almost anybody else. Now finally he makes his directorial debut.

The Seasoning House is set in ‘The Balkans, 1996’, so not overly specific but not too vague either. The thing about the Balkan conflict was that it took place in a modern European setting amid comfortable, settled working/middle class families. Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia: we feel disconnected from these modern conflicts because the environment is so alien to us. Deserts and jungles and little mud-built villages and ramshackle Third World cities. Unless we have a loved one directly involved, or a personal connection to the country, it’s as difficult to relate to these war-zones as it is to Dresden or Passchendaele. They are somewhere or somewhen else.

But the part of the world formerly known as Yugoslavia is much closer to home, not just geographically but socially. Before the Iron Curtain fell it was the most accessible Warsaw Pact country. People went on holiday there; Bob and Thelma planned to go there in one episode of The Likely Lads. The Winter Olympics were held in Sarajevo.

So it was really, really difficult in the 1990s to get our western European heads around the idea that the disintegration of Yugoslavia had left the inhabitants shooting, bombing, torturing and mutilating each other with every modern weapon they could get their hands on. That’s what African warlords do, or Afghan tribal chiefs, not civilised white folk like us.

And although it’s not the main focus of the story, the domestic suburban reality of the Balkan conflict underpins The Seasoning House (which was entirely shot on an old RAF base near Uxbridge) and is a vital part of its success. This is not the empty, unpopulated east European wilderness of Outpost or Severance. The sequences away from the house of the title - some flashbacks, part of the third act - show us houses and factories where ordinary people are going about their ordinary lives as best they can except when the nightmare of brutal war smashes down the door, a nightmare that most of Europe reasonably confidently assumed had disappeared for ever in May 1945.

The titular building is a brothel of sorts, where young women are held captive and used as sex slaves for any passing militia. The always fascinating Kevin Howarth, in probably his biggest and best role since The Last Horror Movie, is Viktor, proprietor of this unpleasant, squalid establishment. With the help of his hulking colleague Dimitri (David Lemberg, also in vampire web serial Blood and Bone China, who somehow manages to make a sheepskin coat look threatening) Viktor keeps the girls in line and takes payment from clients through a facade of sickeningly fake bonhomie. Viktor is a complex character, with layers that are gradually peeled away. In fact, every character in this film is a rounded, complex person but at the same time our only understanding of them comes from what we see them do and hear them say. And that’s important too, because that is all that the other characters can use to underpin their own understandings of those around them.

And this is crucial because one of the two key themes of The Seasoning House is this: trust. Near the start of the film, Viktor explains How Things Work to a new group of girls, their shivering, terrified, tear-filled silence contrasting starkly with his oleaginous kindliness and congeniality in a scene where the subtext is a thousand kitchens that have echoed to the empty promise “I swear, babe, I’ll never hit you again. I’d never do that.” Viktor asks the girls to trust him, and demonstrates, with a graphic, sociopathic calm exactly how and why they should trust him.

Among this new intake is a petite deaf-mute teenager with a birthmark on her cheek. If anything, her disability is helping to shield her from the full horror around her: she can’t hear what Viktor says, she can’t speak out of turn. But Viktor doesn’t want to use her as one of his unwilling crack whores, instead he sets her to work administering the crack itself. Christening her ‘Angel’, he shows her how to inject the other girls, who spend their days and nights tied to rusting metal bed frames. Angel empties their slop buckets, Angel bathes the blood from their wounds, Angel applies eye-shadow and lipstick to each girl, a mockery of feminine beautification designed to satisfy the visiting men’s casual, callous self-deception that they are screwing real prostitutes, loose women with loose morals - and also to distract from the blood, bruises and scars left by the previous ‘customer’.

In assigning this work to Angel, Viktor places his trust in her. Or rather, misplaces his trust, because in doing so, he sows the seeds of his own downfall. Angel has the run of the house, as invisible and ignored as a Victorian servant. She knows what to do, has her routines and keeps mostly out of the way. Her lack of hearing and speech isolates her from the other girls, denying them - in their individual solitary confinement - one final, tantalising opportunity to interact with anyone who isn’t a violent, sadistic bastard.

Flashbacks show us a little of Angel’s earlier life in pebble-dashed Balkan suburbia. Anna Walton (Vampire Diary, Mutant Chronicles, Hellboy 2) plays her mother Violetta, raising ‘Angel’ (we never learn her real name) and her sister after their abusive father leaves, presumably to join the fighting. Again with the trust: Violetta must have once trusted her husband, but no longer.

The film’s other theme is this: responsibility. Violetta takes responsibility for both her daughters, and they trust her as every child trusts their mother, implicitly and without reservation. But circumstances beyond anything that they (or we) can imagine will find Violetta appallingly unable to honour that trust or fulfil that responsibility.

A group of camo-clad soldiers work their way down the street, 'ethnically cleansing' each house in turn, backed by a rumbling tank which makes it clear that there is a degree of twisted authority and legitimacy to their actions; they’re not just random psychos playing at dress-up. Violetta and her older daughter are casually executed before the younger girl is thrown into the back of a lorry. In a few moments, her entire life is destroyed. Home, family, education, friends, neighbours, hopes, dreams: all swept way by the tide of war. Every experience, every memory, now counting for nothing. The first day at school, the holiday by the beach, the pop stars she liked, the boys who liked her, the kindly teacher, the strict teacher, the dolls, the TV and radio and record player and books and dresses and days in the park and nights under the stars when she should have been home in bed.

Everything is gone. As Viktor explains when she and her companions arrive, by whatever circuitous route, at the seasoning house, their previous lives are gone and there is no world outside these walls.

No longer a person, each woman is now a slab of meat, a commodity to be sold, traded, stolen or bartered as casually as petrol, bullets or cigarettes. But petrol is used up when it powers an engine. A bullet can only be fired once. When a cigarette is smoked, it has gone forever. The women in that lorry will eventually find themselves in a situation where they will envy the finality of a used cigarette or a spent bullet.

“You will learn to show kindness to my customers,” Viktor tells them, entrusting them with a thankless, awful responsibility that none of the women would ever wish for. But Angel is given a different responsibility, a domestic responsibility, a position of trust.

In the manner of serial abusers, Viktor feels a responsibility towards his charges. It’s a self-serving responsibility: if a girl is unable to work, he loses money in clients unserved and eventually in the expense of buying another slab of meat. Though he presents himself as - perhaps even believes himself to be - some cross between an employer and a father-figure, he’s not of course. He’s a slave-owner. He doesn’t care what happens to these women as long as they stay alive enough to satisfy the men who pay him. Their lives can be nasty and brutish, just as long as they’re not too short. His treatment of them is the same as a peasant whipping and beating his under-nourished, overworked cow as it struggles to drag a plough through the dry, brittle soil. He will treat and mistreat the dumb animal to near its limits, but cannot afford to lose its essential services.

The narrative zero point, the moment which sets this tale in motion, comes when Angel discovers that one of the other girls in the house can sign. Until then, her injection and swabbing of the girls has been as mechanical as Viktor expects it to be, their pleas for help falling on literally deaf ears. But Vanya (Dominique Provost-Chalkley in her feature debut) can communicate with Angel and a secret friendship develops. Angel has two advantages in her favour about which Viktor knows nothing. One is that she is small enough to crawl through the ventilation holes in the walls, and through the wall cavities themselves. So she can visit Vanya in her room even after all the doors are locked.

And the other thing she has is chocolate. Who knows how she came by this? Perhaps it was left behind by a customer, perhaps one of the men gave it to her out of some misplaced concept of kindness or generosity. But she has it, keeping it hidden beneath her own filthy mattress. When she shares this with Vanya, it’s one of the most subtly powerful moments in the whole film, a tiny, insignificant, everyday act blown out of all proportion by its symbolic status as a residue of the world outside and the life once lived now gone. Vanya, like the other girls, lives only in the (often drug-hazed) moment. When Viktor said that their previous lives no longer existed, he was absolutely correct. But just the presence of one square of chocolate shows that he wasn’t, providing the slenderest of threads to that late 20th century reality somewhere close by. There is a world beyond the walls: a world where factories make chocolate, where shops sell chocolate, where people eat chocolate, where people do things which make themselves, and the people around them, happy. There is something other than the moment, other than the house, other than violent rape, forced crack addiction and shitting in a bucket.

Throughout all this, the clients who use Viktor’s amenities are faceless, nameless figures. But one day, Goran comes calling. Goran and Viktor know each other of old. They each know things that the other doesn’t want everyone to know. Neither is remotely trustworthy, yet their professional relationship rests solely on a very unsteady mutual trust. Goran is played by Sean Pertwee, no stranger to British horror or indeed to army uniform. With him are a handful of men under his command, including baby brother Josif (Alec Utgoff: Outpost 3). Goran has responsibility for his men - especially his brother - just as Viktor has responsibility for his girls. Goran’s men - especially his brother - trust their leader.

But Viktor is not the only person in the house who knows Goran. We have already seen Sean Pertwee in this film, in flashbacks, wiping out Angel’s family and neighbours. The man who killed her mother and sister is here. Just in case Angel had any doubts about seizing the moment for revenge, one of Goran’s men, Aleksander (man mountain Ryan Oliva) brutally rapes Vanya to death. It’s now or never. Angel emerges from the air vent, unnoticed by the rutting ogre and from that point on the film becomes a sequence of violent, bloody attacks, defences, hunts and chases, inside and later outside the house.

But let’s just pause for a moment to observe a startling visual image. Angel clambers head first from a tiny rectangle, as if pulling herself between worlds (in a sense, maybe she is). Long, dark hair falling over her face as she lowers her body towards the floor, walking her hands down the wall, emerging from a place where she should not exist in the first place - any horror movie fan is going to think of one word. And that word is Ring. I don’t know to what extent it’s an unavoidable coincidence (there are, after all, only so many ways you can climb out of a small, rectangular hole) and to what extent it’s a deliberate homage - or indeed whether Paul Hyett is consciously imbuing the action with added significance. But it’s there and it’s obvious (and I’m glad to say it doesn’t detract from the rest of the scene, except momentarily).

And so now we have a more conventional story in our third act, as Viktor, Goran and Goran’s remaining men try to find Angel. Goran sees this as a betrayal of his trust of Viktor, Viktor sees it as a betrayal of his trust of Angel. The two men’s mutual trust shatters. Actually, I have just realised something which I’m going to spoiler protect because it’s too specific:

At one point, unseen by anyone, Viktor casually shoots one of Goran’s men then says that Angel did it (she has got hold of a gun by then). This seemed extreme, even by Viktor’s standards, notwithstanding his professed love for Angel. But now I realise why he does it. After Aleksander and Vanya were both found dead, Goran angrily confronted Viktor: “I’ve lost one of my men!” “And I just lost a girl.” At which point Goran casually shoots another girl, making his point that to him they are utterly disposable and he cares for Viktor’s problems no more than he cares for the girls’. Viktor’s equally casual murder of a soldier is surely to even the score, a personal debt repaid to nobody’s satisfaction but his own. If he can’t resolve the situation, he can at least make sure that Goran suffers as much as he does. That’s his new responsibility.

As Angel makes her break for freedom, Goran and Viktor both give chase independently since neither trusts the other. Although we think this has become a story about Angel’s revenge, if we look closely we can see that in fact it’s not, beyond her initial attack on Aleksander. What we might expect, indeed what some of the crappier reviewers implied, is a game of cat and mouse, a simplistic rape-revenge saga along the lines of, say, Ms.45 or I Spit on Your Grave. But actually Angel’s goal is not to take revenge on Goran, or Viktor for that matter. Her goal is to escape the seasoning house. And something easy to miss among the gunshots, shouting and movement is that Angel gives no thought to the fate of any of the remaining girls. They’re not her responsibility. Not any more.

All the above will, I hope, have served to convince you that The Seasoning House is a powerful, disturbing film. It’s a film about misogyny (something which less attentive observers with personal agendas can often mistake for a misogynist film). It’s a film about violence so yes, it’s a violent film, but it’s a film about the effects of violence. It’s certainly a lot less violent than many Hollywood blockbusters nowadays and never, ever seeks to glorify or justify violence. Those critics who have dismissed it as sadistic or overly brutal or even (because they don’t know what the term means) ‘torture porn’ are probably the same ones who clapped and cheered during the third act of Man of Steel when thousands of off-screen people were killed in city-wide collateral damage from Superman’s battle with General Zod - and no-one gave a monkey’s. That’s the violence and casual sadism in cinema we should be worried about - wholesale casual slaughter with no consequence - not carefully plotted films exploring the dehumanisation of violence and slavery and its effects on both captive and captor. Man of Steel is the sickeningly exploitative film in these two almost simultaneous releases, and I certainly know which one I would be prepared to sit through again.

The Seasoning House has many strengths and few if any failings, with the obvious exception that its is definitely not for the squeamish. One of its strongest cards is the cast, every single one of whom is absolutely on top form. Kevin Howarth brings to Viktor the same ambiguous amorality which he brought to Max Parry. The character could have been a cartoon villain, but he’s not. He’s a businessman surviving in a world torn asunder by taking advantage of others, not just the girls but the soldiers who pay to use and abuse the girls. The seasoning house is a means to an end for Viktor, a way to make enough money to maybe one day not have to run the seasoning house.

The casting of Sean Pertwee was absolutely essential. He’s a recognisable face, a constant reminder that what we are watching, for all its horrific true-life inspiration and research, is fiction. Quite apart from turning in a typically masterful performance (if anything, more restrained than some of his BHR outings) in a costume which puts one inescapably in mind of Dog Soldiers, Pertwee provides a solid grounding to the film, a reassuring hand on the shoulder which says that this is a 21st century British horror film and we should acknowledge it as such, and view it in that context.

But of the three leads, the film absolutely stands or falls on the performance of Miss Rosie Day as Angel. What an incredible role for an actress. What a stunning performance in that role. Playing a deaf mute is always going to be a challenge for any actor: not just relying on expression and movement to convey every thought or feeling (a few lines of subtitled sign language notwithstanding) but also having to avoid responding in any way to auditory signals, remaining unaware of all speech unless the other person’s lips are visible. As an aside, Angel’s deafness, though never explored in any depth, gives extraordinary levels of tension to the third act. When creeping or running around, not only can she not hear her pursuers, she also has no idea how much noise she herself is making. If she leans on a creaky board or beam, others in the house will hear it - but Angel won’t. And as another aside, it’s remarkably how many deaf and/or mute women feature in revenge films, from Ms.45 to The Evil of Frankenstein. I’m sure there’s a thesis to be written there.

But I have been distracted from my praise of Rosie Day and I shouldn’t have been because she is absolutely fantastic. She just nails it, simple as that. Angel is vulnerable, but not overly so, confident but not overly so, frightened but not overly so, brave but not overly so... You get the picture. This is a complex character where many traits compete but none dominates. You could never sum up Angel in a few words, not even in a thousand. She is real, she is more than real. One thing we can pin down about her, possibly the only certainty in her world, is this: the only person she trusts is herself. And her only real responsibility is keeping herself alive.

Day may be a new face and name to most viewers, but she is very experienced, having been acting since she was five. As a child she was in episodes of Black Books, Hope and Glory and Family Affairs. She was Nicolette, nemesis of the title character in the last two series of CBBC fantasy series Bernard’s Watch; she was the voice of the older daughter in CBeebies elephant animation The Large Family; and she was the youngest actor to ever work with the Royal National Theatre. Only 17 when The Seasoning House began filming in January 2012, she was 18 by the time it premiered as the opening movie of that year’s Frightfest, meaning she could at least get served at the bar. Although I suspect she normally carries some form of ID because she looks much younger. We are never told Angel’s age, but she could conceivably be as young as 13 and certainly no older than 16. While The Seasoning House won’t make Rosie Day a household name, it is a gilt-edged calling card which ably demonstrated her phenomenal acting talent to any casting director who watches it.

Elsewhere in the uniformly strong cast we find Laurence Saunders (DeadTime, The Casebook of Eddie Brewer), Daniel Vivian (Apocalypse Z), Abigail Hamilton (Porcelain Presence, Steve Balderson’s Culture Shock), Adrian Bouchet (Alien vs Predator, Idol of Evil), Christopher Rithyin (Blood Army/Nephilim, Axed, Serial Kaller), Katie Allen (who used to be Ethel Hallow in The Worst Witch) and Sean Cronin (The Thompsons, and uncredited ‘high priest’ roles in The Mummy and its first sequel).

Behind the camera, we also find a bunch of talented folk working at the top of their game. I have long maintained that the three most important people on a film set are the cinematographer, the production designer and the 1st AD - even more so in the case of a debutante director. Adam Etherington is The Seasoning House’s DP, building on an extremely busy few years lighting shorts including a surprisingly large number of sci-fi quickies: Mono Ghose’s The 13th Mirror, Daniel Bugeja’s Interrogating Vivian, James Sharpe’s Notes and William McGregor’s Eradicate and No Escape, although his only previous horror credits seem to be Daniel Shea Zimbler’s Exit and Frank Rehder’s Taxi Rider. That said, The Seasoning House is not his first feature; he also worked on comedy mystery The Drummond Will and afterlife fantasy Lovelorn (and he was 2nd unit DP on Stalker and, for his sins, camera assistant on some of the Evil Calls pick-ups). Anyway, Etherington does a bang-up job, creating a bleak, washed-out world that varies in intensity, approaching a warm reality the further it gets from the house itself.

In this he has been aided by the work of production designer Caroline Story (Vampire Diary) who has excelled herself here. We have to absolutely believe that this is a working shit-hole sex-slave brothel in late 20th century eastern Europe: any clue that it’s not would tear a hole in the film and destroy all our empathies and understanding. Throughout the main building, and in those others that we see, and indeed in the relatively few external sequences, Story’s design is spot on every time. And a tip of the hat to hard-to-spell 1st AD Christiaan Faberij de Jonge (Deviation, Scar Tissue); people outside of the industry generally have no idea what a 1st does and just dismiss the job on the basis that it includes the word ‘assistant’. But it’s the 1st AD who basically runs the set, barks the orders, makes sure everything and everyone is where they should be, allowing the director to concentrate on the actors and (via the DP) the camera.

Agnieszka Liggett handled the very fine, sympathetic editing. John-Paul Frazer (Scar Tissue, Hollow, Airborne, My Name is Sarah Hayward) was the art director. Paul E Francis (The Colour of Magic) composed the score. Raquel Azevedo (Truth or Dare, Scar Tissue) designed the costumes; am I a bad person for really wanting a brown leather jacket like Viktor’s? Elle Baird (Harry Potter 8, Citadel, Tower Block) designed the hair and make-up. Kudos to all.

What is particularly interesting is that, contrary to my expectations, none of these people seem to have worked with Paul before (apart from possibly Elle Baird, whose IMDB page includes an uncredited gig on The Woman in Black). Other recognisable/notable names in the crew include prosthetics supervisor Robbie Drake (Beyond the Rave, Attack the Block, Evil Calls, Storage 24), storyboard artist Jaeson Finn (another Evil Calls alumnus, who once threw a hissy fit when I linked to his MySpace page), armourer Clive Shaw (Truth or Dare, The Reverend and yet another veteran of Scar Tissue) and visual effects co-ordinator Malin Persson (The Woman in Black, Iron Sky).

Robbie Drake’s credit notwithstanding, it’s not clear how much input Paul himself had into the prosthetic effects - I’ll get back to you on that one. They are, needless to say, excellent. But, crucially, they are never gratuitous or dwelt on unnecessarily. This is not a gore film. If you’re looking for a movie full of splatterific effects hanging on a wafer-thin story, look elsewhere. The effects in The Seasoning House serve the story, not the other way round. Which is very obviously exactly what Paul wanted.

Before moving onto Paul’s direction, a quick pause to mention the script which is primarily a collaboration between Paul and Conal Palmer, a regular colleague of Paul’s in the make-up departments of such titles as The Descent, The Cottage and Attack the Block (and with a number of notable non-Hyett credits too, including From Hell, Doctor Sleep and Storage 24). Helen Solomon, whose film career has included stints as a location scout, production assistant, camera assistant and stills photographer, and who wrote an unfilmed biopic of Fred and Rose West, came up with the original idea of a deaf-mute girl climbing around inside the walls of a brothel, so receives due story credit. And there is also a credit for a notorious gentleman named Adrian Rigelsford, who contributed to early drafts of the script.

I was very surprised the first time I saw Rigelsford’s name attached to this project, not least because it proved he was out of prison. Not quite on the Richard Driscoll level (actually there’s a credit Paul Hyett probably tries to forget: Kannibal), Rigelsford is nevertheless a serial fantasist whose career seems to have been largely based on being charming to people who don’t do quite enough research. His most notorious lie was a supposed 'final interview' with Stanley Kubrick which the TV Times published in good faith but which was exposed as pure fiction by Kubrick's assistant. In 2004 Rigelsford was sentenced to 18 months at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for stealing 56,000(!) photographs from the Associated Newspapers Library. Where he's been since then isn't clear. Odd bloke.

And so, at last, we come to an evaluation of Paul Hyett’s direction. He’s not the first prosthetic effects artist to make the move to the folding chair. One thinks of Robert Kurtzman (the K in KNB), good old Bob Keen and indeed Tristan Versluis (who seems to have done make-up effects for all the other BHR titles, the ones that Paul didn’t work on). The thing about make-up effects is that, because no-one else really understands them, their creators often get to be a separate little unit, to some extent calling their own shots, yet at the same time having to collaborate closely with other departments heads like the costume designer and the DP. So it’s a good grounding for a young man (or woman) who wants to one day direct their own movie.

Hyett has worked with the best and it’s clear from The Seasoning House that he has learned from the best. He directs with absolute confidence, and is entirely justified in doing so. The camera lens and the actors and the script (by Hyett, as noted) come together under his watchful eye and skilful hands. He knows what he wants, he knows what works, and he knows his audience. It’s not that this panders to some clique or minority interest, but Paul knows enough about how and why people watch movies of this sort to understand what they look for and appreciate. And despite what the patronising idiots in the mainstream press say, that’s not cheap shocks and gratuitous gore. It’s character and story, relationships and narrative, events and developments.

Producer Michael Riley of Sterling Pictures previous made Vampire Diary (with Anna Walton) and has also recently produced Scar Tissue (hence presumably the number of crew from that film reteaming here) and Deviation (with Walton and Danny Dyer), as well as executive producing UK-filmed American vampire sequel The Thompsons. He and Hyett were originally going to collaborate on a project called The Black Site, for which a two minute trailer was shot that you can find on Vimeo with a quick google. This shares some elements with The Seasoning House, notably a modern conflict (in this case, Iraq), Anna Walton and a shockingly impressive throat-slitting effect that was clearly much too good to waste. Neil Jones (director of The Reverend, producer of The Feral Generation), who is a partner in Templeheart Films with Riley and Hyett, is one of three executive producers.

The Seasoning House is a fine directorial debut by any measure. But it’s more than that, it’s a magnificent piece of film-making. It makes a point, it says something and does something, but it never descends into propaganda or polemic, just as it never descends into cheap scares, gross-out grue or titillation. And, possibly most surprisingly of all, if you go in with an awareness and understanding of the film, so that you’re not shocked or caught by surprise, it is eminently watchable. It’s not something like, say, Eden Lake (with which it shares a narrative comparison at the very end) which, for all its undoubted excellence, is deeply upsetting and an absolute struggle to sit through (researching it my book, I only managed it in five-minute chunks).

No, The Seasoning House is a powerful, hard-hitting but ultimately very, very human drama. It’s about the human condition: what we can do to other people, what we can do to ourselves, what we can overcome. It’s about trust, and it’s about responsibility. It is one of the best films you will see this year. If you have any interest in what horror films can do and say, you owe it to yourself to find a copy and watch it.

MJS rating: A

interview: Paul Hyett (2013)

$
0
0
Sometimes it seems like I've spent most of my career writing about Paul Hyett's effects work, who has more mentions in Urban Terrors than anyone else. Back in 2008 I did a fairly lengthy interview with Paul for Fangoria about his work since The Descent. In June 2013 we finally met at the press screening for Paul's directorial debut, the fantastic The Seasoning House. The following week, Paul kindly answered a few questions by email.

Why was last year the right time for you to make the move into directing, and how long had you been working up to that?
"I had been wanting to direct for a good few years, probably about five years or so. I've been doing prosthetics and creature effects for over 18 years and really been wanting to direct for a while. Michael Riley and I had been friends since we did a film together about 15 years ago and over the last five years or so we had been talking about my directorial debut, and we started to seek out a project for me to direct. The first was to be The Black Site."

Why did you make The Seasoning House rather than The Black Site?
"With The Black Site, the budget had been circling the £1.5-£2 million mark (its quite an ambitious war movie) and we felt it really wasn't going to happen at that budget on a first time, unproven director. So we decided to make a smaller budgeted film, more contained, to show that I could handle a bigger, more ambitious film. We hope to tackle The Black Site at a later date."

I was surprised to see that many of your department heads hadn't worked with you before: how did you select them?
"Adam Etherington the DOP is at the same agency I'm on for prosthetics and we met up and he really got what I wanted to do with the film. The whole look, the way I wanted to shoot it, was crucial and Adam really understood the whole beautiful but nihilistic look to the film I wanted. Elle Baird the make-up designer had worked for me on a lot of films in the prosthetics department. Caroline Story the production designer, she had such an amazing feel for the seasoning house. She had a lot of ideas about the textures and colours. Raquel Acevedo the costume designer really worked miracles to be able to give all the characters their own identity and personality as well as populating an entire village. Both Caroline and Raquel were from Mike's last film and Christiaan Forbe De Jonge, the 1st AD, I had used on my trailer for The Black Site. Conal Palmer was the co-writer and prosthetics supervisor and Filmgate the VFX company I had worked with many, many times. And John Moolenshot the construction manager I had worked with in South Africa on Doomsday. I had worked with just under half of the crew before. I was really lucky to get such a good cast and crew."

Reviews have been very marmite: people love this film or hate it. Would you rather have had a positive but lukewarm response or does the polarisation of opinion mean you're doing something right?
"I was speaking to Mike about this the other day, he loves that opinions are so divided, that it really is such a love or hate reaction, and he feels that means you've made a more interesting film. As a director it's always hard when you get negative reviews, but you have to take the bad ones with the good ones. When you make a film so dark and harrowing, and about such a dark subject matter which people would rather not face, then you put yourself in the line of fire. Not everyone is going to like it."

How much involvement were you able to have with the make-up effects while you were directing?
"Well, the make-up effects were all made at my previous workshop, we were making them all on the side of other jobs that were happening at the time so I always had an eye on them, but Conal Palmer the prosthetics supervisor knew exactly how I wanted them as he's worked with me for many years on most the films I've done in the prosthetics departments. It was actually really easy for me as I knew exactly what I was getting and how to shoot them, and easy for Conal as I wasn't ever going to ask him for something he didn't have or ask for something impossible (as usually happens with directors)."

There was a mention at the screening of a trilogy: can you elaborate on that?
"Well The Seasoning House is part one of a war-themed horror trilogy Mike and I are planning. They are very different stories, different war zones, different conflicts with different characters and themes. But they all revolve around the horrors of war. And all are very different from each other. The Black Site is the next in the trilogy. It's very much a Jacob's Ladder/Manchurian Candidate type of psychological horror.

website: www.paulhyett.com

interview: Paul Hyett (2008)

$
0
0
You can’t be a fan of British horror and not know the work of top make-up effects artist Paul Hyett. From I, Zombie (when he was still in his teens!) through to The Descent, Mutant Chronicles and beyond, Paul has created some amazing effects. I did this interview by phone in January 2008 and an edited version was published in Fangoria. See also my 2013 interview with Paul about his directorial debut The Seasoning House.

Am I right in thinking that The Descent was a watershed for you in terms of moving on from low-budget films?
"Totally."

What immediate effect did it have on your career?
"It was the difference of being able to go into a meeting - and people had seen The Descent. The nice thing about Descent was I finished it and then, about two months after we actually finished shooting, it was out. So it was absolutely great. For the first year after that, I would go into interviews and: ‘Oh, you’ve done The Descent! Yeah, yeah.’ And suddenly, the things I was going for I tended to get. That was absolutely great."

What was the first thing you did after The Descent?
"Let’s see. I’m going to check my CV. I know that straight after The Descent we were looking at The Cottage but it didn’t happen. Sick House and Straightheads was one year after. It might have been Wilderness."

Would you say Wilderness was a horror film?
"It’s rat-kids borstal, in the woods. Yes, I’d call it a horror film because it is about people terrorised by psychopaths with dogs. I didn’t do prosthetics on Wilderness but I did all the dog effects. I got a call, right at the last moment. Basically the guy that was supposed to make the dogs had let them down and they said, ‘Please, please make these dogs.’ I was told that I had quite a bit of time but it turned out, once I’d started, there was hardly any time. So we rushed it all in and I think we made all the dog puppets in three weeks or even less than that."

When you say ‘we’, do you have a regular team?
"I’ve got a few people that I always, always use but they’re all freelancers so if I haven’t got any work on they go and work somewhere else."

But you’ve got a pool of people that you know you can call on and you know you can work well with them?
"Absolutely. To be honest, there’s some guys who’ve only worked with me for the past few years, from Descent. There’s probably a core two or three that I always use but it changes from film to film. Sometimes, like on The Descent, I’ll have up to ten people. But usually there’s a few guys milling around in my workshop."

The skills required to make a dog puppet, are they different from the skills required for prosthetic make-up?
"Basically, I’ll design exactly what I want it to look like, what I want it to do. I’ve got one person who comes in; she’s worked on absolutely loads and loads and loads of stuff. She’ll come in and be in charge of the sculpture and fabrication and then we’ll have a mechanical person coming in, I’ve got electronic people that I call in from time to time and fur people that I call in, guys that are really good at sculpting creatures. Part of my job is going to meetings, putting together the right team for such a big project, delegating it, all this sort of stuff."

Some time after that you did The Sick House, which comes out on US DVD in March. Did that ever have a UK release?
"As far as I know it only had an American release, I think. It had US theatrical distribution."

Were you making up the plague victims?
"Yes, that was an interesting one. The make-up artist was Jacqueline Fowler and I was prosthetics designer but she had a lot to do with it. We would make up all the prosthetics and she would apply them all. I don’t think I actually applied any plague victims."

Were you aiming for realism or, given that most people only have a vague idea what bubonic plague looks like, did you have a bit of creative license?
"Yes, absolutely. Sometimes it just has to look cool. Like on Doomsday, we looked through so many different things and I said to Neil, ‘What do you fancy? Does it have to look like anything in particular?’ and he said, ‘No, just make it look gross and cool.’ So we went with a real mix of sexual diseases and fungus and pretty much everything that was gross that we could think of."

Is it more fun, the more gross you can make it?
"Yes, he just wanted grossness: ‘Ah, let’s do something really, really nasty.’ I was like, ‘Okay...’ I showed him a few gross pictures and he was going, ‘That’s gross... that’s gross...’ There was one point where I put something on each side of their face and asked, ‘What do you like?’ He said, ‘I kind of like all of them.’ So I said, ‘Which should I use?’ and he said, ‘Use all of them, we’ll call it an ultra-virus.’ Fine, let’s do that."

Is there a danger, in trying to push the limits of extremely gross stuff, that you’ve then got to try and top it with the next picture?
"It’s kind of weird. I mean, take the work on WAZ for example. Me and Tom Shankland the director, we were thinking of the grossest things possible and we came up with a lot of gross things. It’s all been cut out of the theatrical version but it’s all going to be in the DVD version. But if you said to me, ‘You’ve got another torture sequence,’ I’d be like, ‘All right,’ and I’d just think of new stuff to do. To be honest with you, as a prosthetics guy you tend to think, ‘I wish I’d done this, I wish I’d done that.’ So there’s always somewhere to go."

WAZ hasn’t been released yet but the early press coverage suggests it falls into the ‘torture porn’ category.
"No. Basically, reading all the article about it, people may think it’s torture porn but it’s actually not. Everything is done for a reason. Everything is done because someone is going through a certain state of mind. If you look at Hostel 1 and 2, it’s pure torture porn: let’s get some kids, torture them, beat them. But with WAZ it’s all in the story. The torture scenes are secondary. It’s more about the story than it is about some cool gross stuff."

So what sort of stuff did you have to do for WAZ?
"We did flayings, cheek slicings, we saw a guy’s cheek sliced open with a scalpel and then fingered. We had a nipple being ripped off, we had bits of stomach being torn out, we had a whole leg flayed, we had scalpel slices. We had nails being hammered into people’s fingers. We had, I think... did we have a castration? We’d got a castration but we felt we didn’t need to show it. Oh, and his knee gets hammered until it’s pretty much completely smashed to pieces. So me and Tom really went mad. We were talking about all the gross things we could do: what about this? what about that? We shot loads - and also Selma Blair’s got the most horrible rape scene - and I remember saying to him, ‘There’s no way all this can get through, I’m sure.’ I watched it and, yes, they’ve taken it out. It’s still a great movie, it’s really good. Great reviews. But there’s always a part of you that goes, ‘It would be nice if...’ But like they said, it’s got great reviews, it’s a great movie, they’re going to stick it on DVD with all the extras. I saw them putting up an extra section when I was up at Vertigo last and it was pretty predetermined. So it’s a treat for all the gore fans."

With something like that, does the script accommodate what you can do? It sounds like you had a script that said ‘torture scene here’ and the director said ‘What can you do?’ and you said, ‘Oh, I can do a knee.’
"You know what, as I remember, it wasn’t that specific. Me and Tom pretty much worked it out. The writer of WAZ came on set and he went, ‘Oh, this is gross! This is gross! I didn’t think up that bit!’ The writer was actually quite squeamish and he wasn’t as full-on as you’d think. So basically, me and Tom had a talk and Tom was going on and on about flayings. I wasn’t sold on the flayings - ‘Is that going to look good?’ - I was thinking more about drilling knee-caps. I knew about inserting things whereas he was much more about the flaying. I said, ‘Okay, let’s try it’ so we did a quick test and I said, ‘You know, that’s actually quite gross.’ We also did, with the cheek flaying, instead of having huge chunks sliced out, I made it so that it was like the smallest sliver being cut away with a scalpel. As it was coming away from the cheek, it just looked, rather than a chunk, like a really thin slither. I think that made it look a hundred times worse."

Do you sometimes come up with ideas for things and keep them on file somewhere until you can find a use for them?
"Not so much. What tends to happen is that if I have ideas for a script and we don’t use them then those will be stored and that’s all cool. But I will hardly ever think of anything then right it down. It will always be connected to the script. I’ve got so many ideas about torture now that if I’m given a film with a torture scene I just go, ‘Oh my god, yes, there’s loads of torture things I’d like to do.’"

Do you prefer trying brand new stuff or perfecting new variations on things you’ve already done?
"I’m always trying to come up with new stuff, I’d say. A lot of people think ‘Oh, I wish I’d done it this way... If I get a chance to do it again I’d do this...’ But I’d rather try something new, just because it keeps me sane. To do the same thing wouldn’t really be interesting to me."

Straightheads is a film that completely passed me by. Is that a sort of Straw Dogs revenge-type movie?
"Yes, it’s kind of odd. It was out in the cinema a while ago. Huge posters."

Not in Leicester, there weren’t!
"Alan Jones was a big fan of it. It’s like a very dark revenge-for-rape movie. There’s one guy who gets a shotgun inserted into him. We did an eyeball puncture, all the stitching and the healing around eye wounds. We did a mechanical deer that they run over. There’s a whole thing of them trying to rescue a dead deer. They get it off the road and that’s when they’re attacked and she’s raped and he’s beaten up. We did a dead dog, loads of bits and pieces. There was an eye-gouge at one point but I think they cut that in the end, it was just too nasty."

Another one coming out soon is The Cottage. Does the fact that it’s a comedy affect how you do the effects?
"The gore’s in there but because it’s done in such comedic way, none of it’s scary. It’s all fun and gory. They still do the same things: some guy gets his foot chopped, you’ve got the farmer. The farmer’s make-up is not so much state of the art, more like what was done in the ‘80s and ‘90s. It was a cool, dirty old farmer with loads and loads of scars, so it was a scary make-up but also a funny one as well. Everything was done slightly tongue-in-cheek. Jennifer Ellison gets a spade through her mouth. She’s swearing at first - ‘You fucking...’ - and then the farmer just gets this spade, shoves it in her mouth and takes it all the way down so it chops the top of her head off. It’s hilarious, everyone laughs, but it’s one of those things where, if it was done in a serious way it would be horrible. Yet the actual effect doesn’t change. It’s just how they shoot it. Being a comedy doesn’t really affect you."

The last time we spoke was in 2006 on Mutant Chronicles, which is still in post. Do you know how it’s going?
"Last time I was up there they had about 400 effects shots to do. Poor Simon, it’s a three-year project for him so it’s quite full on. Apparently it’s looking great. It’s a green-screen movie and I haven’t seen much of it, maybe just a couple of minutes. It’s one film that I’m not quite sure about, really because it’s such a big ‘post’ thing. When we were shooting it, it was pretty hard to tell what it was going to be because you’re shooting loads of mutants on green screen and actors walking around. But Simon’s got a really great vision. You always hope that it’s going to be great and it has the potential to be amazing."

After The Descent you did a lot of violence and wounds but this was a return to designing fantasy creatures. Which do you prefer?
"To be honest with you, I wouldn’t want to do just one or the other - but I’d be happy doing just one or the other. It’s one of those things where sometimes it’s lovely to just go along and chop someone’s head off or slice someone up, but on the other hand it’s nice to do a full creature make-up like in The Descent or a full mutant make-up like in Mutant Chronicles. We had so much stuff to do: infection make-up, dead bodies, heads exploding, decapitations, squashed cows, people being run over and squashed by tanks. Every day was different on that film for me and it was great. With The Cottage, all I did was gore, with Mutants I did mutants. Also Gallowwalker was another fun one to do. We had skinless cowboys, lizard make-ups, flaying victims. Sometimes I get hired just to do gore and I’m totally fine with that. But I wouldn’t want to do gore all the time, I do like to have a few different things now and again."

Gallowwalker is another one that was film back in 2006. What’s the latest you’ve heard on that?
"It’s still in post. As far as I know, it’s 90 per cent cut and they’re just finishing it off. I’ve seen bits of it and I think it looks great, it really does look good. And that was a lovely film to work on. The director’s a lovely guy, the producers were lovely. It was a very rewarding film."

There are several directors who you’ve worked with more than once: Neil Marshall, Simon Hunter, Andrew Goth, Paul Andrew Williams? Are these relationships important to you?
"Yes, obviously. It’s a mix of they like my work and they like working with me. It’s a big thing. You can do the make-up and sit in a corner and wait for them to film it or you can actually get in there and make it a real collaborative thing. Some effects guys, they do the most beautiful make-up but they’re not very good on how they film it. I really try to get in there with a director, talk through the storyboards, talk about how they went to shoot in. Really work out not so much what they need from me but exactly what we need to make this scene work. It can be so many different things apart from your make-up: what shots they’re doing, how your effect fits into the telling of the scene. Rather than some guy who just goes ‘You want a head cut off? Okay’ and they just cut off a head.

"It’s all the other things within a scene, trying to make it work. I come along as a head of department and I’ll make sure everything’s in place, everyone knows what they’re doing, they know exactly what they’re going to get. Every single shot is what they need. Another one we’ve done - have you heard of Donkey Punch? Basically four kids on a boat and it goes horribly wrong. It’s a Warp X production shot in Cape Town and basically I came along and filled in all the blanks. They’d shot loads of stuff but they’d maybe not had enough time to shoot prosthetics or whatever. So they called me along, wanted to get me in. I came in, studied all the footage, worked out exactly what we needed to tell the story, all the different shots. We built it all and we worked out everything the director needed and we shot it all. Someone gets a piece of glass in them and they pull it out, it’s a horrible, wincy moment. Someone gets an outboard motor in their chest. Someone gets stabbed, they’re twisting the knife and pull it out. It’s one of those things where I had to study all the footage and work out exactly what we need - and them come along and shoot it.

"I’m working with Tom Shankland on his new movie, the last one being WAZ. That’s a film called The Day but I’m not sure how much I can tell you. It is a horror film [Eventually released as The Children - MJS]. Tom is absolutely lovely to work with. When I work with people like Neil Marshall and Tom Shankland, they very much have a vision and they’re very collaborative: 'What do you think? Where should we go?' It’s that whole collaborative thing where everyone brings their skills to the table and you’ll get a much better effect."

We haven’t yet discussed Eden Lake - I don’t know much about that.
"Basically lovely, young, good-looking couple, out having a little holiday. They get harassment from some horrible kids. Somehow, the character played by Michael Fassbender, he grabs a knife off them and the lead bully’s dog is stabbed and killed, so basically it becomes a hunt across the forest with all these ASBO kids trying to kill this couple. James Watkins was the director for Celador. I’m not sure how much I can tell you but there’s a lot of gore effects. I’m not sure how much I’m supposed to give away but believe me, it has some nasty moments. It pretty much is like a chase movie: nasty kids after lovely young couple."

Is there anything else we haven’t covered?
"I don’t think so. There’s loads of other stuff I work on like docudramas but nothing that would be of any interest to your readers. We just finished The Hunger which is the story of Bobby Sands."

Have you got any burning ambition? Do you want to direct?
"I’ll tell you about all my plans when it gets a bit closer. Some people really love doing old age, some people want to do more creatures but when I get a script, that’s when I get excited and then all my ideas start flowing. If you give me a script with a stabbing, I’ll come up with a different way of doing it. If you give me a script with infection make-up, I’ll come up with a different way of doing it. I pretty much get off on a script when somebody gives it to me and all the ideas will flow. I’d kind of like to do another torture scene but then, saying that, the uncut WAZ will come out. Truthfully, I wanted to do the strongest torture scene ever done on film - that’s what I’d like to do.

"A lot of people come to me because I’m seen as the guy to go to for gore but the nice thing about The Mutant Chronicles, Doomsday is they’re something different. Doomsday is going to be great because it’s such a big movie. It’s really, really good and it doesn’t disappoint in the gore. Me and Neil were talking about it, in fact I think we were actually out in Cape Town shooting it. The day before shooting, Neil was looking at this fake head which basically explodes and I said to him, ‘Neil, you know there’s more gore in this than in The Descent.’ ‘You sure?’ We went through the list and he was, ‘Yes, there is, isn’t there?’ But because in the movie there’s so much going on, the gore is secondary but when it hits you it’s full-on."

When you’re working with actors you’ve worked before, is it easier because they’re relaxed and confident that you know what you’re doing?
"That’s definitely a part of it. Now and again I’ll work with an actor who’ll say, ‘I’ve done this but your stuff’s much better’ and that’s cool. There’s people I’ve worked with quite a few times. You get friendly and it’s easier. You know what they’re going to be like and you can go for a beer afterwards. It’s a lot easier if you know the people. More and more I’ve worked with the same directors and it’s lovely because you all know each other. Working with production designers like Simon Bowles who I’ve done Cold and Dark with, Straightheads, Doomsday. He’s an absolutely brilliant production designer and I love working with him because he’ll always have an idea and we’ll work stuff out together. Sam McCurdy, DP of Descent and Doomsday, he’s great as well. I know how he likes to shoot stuff, he knows what he’s going to get from me. Jacqueline Fowler, who’s a make-up designer, we’ve worked on maybe eight films together. It’s great because I know exactly what she’s going to do and she knows what the prosthetics are going to be like. I can give her some prosthetics to put on while I deal with the bigger stuff. So it’s always lovely working with the same team. Also it can be very rewarding working with people you haven’t worked with before. A new director will come in and have a chat and it’s a new vision, a new way of working."

Finally, you’ve established yourself in the UK but have you been tempted out to Hollywood?
"The whole thing with Hollywood is it’s so hard to work out there, just because their film industry is really suffering because all their films go abroad. For me to go out there, I wouldn’t be welcome because I haven’t got a green card. I’d have to be really requested. For me, I love shooting abroad, that’s my main thing. Last year, to have three months in Cape Town on Doomsday and four months in Namibia - I absolutely loved it. Yes, if Hollywood calls me to come out and do something I’d be out there like a shot but it’s hard for me to pursue projects in Hollywood."

Are you happy being a big fish in a small pond?
"I’ve never really thought about it. If a film in Hollywood called me I’d be straight out there in a second, don’t get me wrong. I’m not in any way saying that I wouldn’t want to work there, it’s just that the opportunity’s never come up."

They’re not short of effects people out there, are they?
"There’s so many great effects people. You’ve got the KNBs and the Stan Winstons and loads and loads of companies. I don’t know if I’d have to work on non-union pictures. I don’t know how it would work. If somebody I’d worked with before, like a director, suddenly gets this big job in Hollywood and wants to bring me out, I think that’s the way I would do it - and I would be out there in a second. But it’s hard for me to actually pursue a film I want to go for; if it’s in America I tend not to go for it just because I haven’t got a union card and I don’t know what I would need. To be honest with you, it’s just never come about. I haven’t crossed any of those bridges yet.”

website: www.paulhyett.com
interview originally posted 22nd January 2012

Goke - Bodysnatcher from Hell

$
0
0
Director: Hajime Sato
Writers: Susumu Tanaka, Kyuzo Kobayashi
Producer: Takashi Inomata
Cast: Teruo Yoshida, Hideo Ko, Tomomi Sato
Year of release: 1968
Country: Japan
Reviewed from: UK DVD (Artsmagic)


I’ve wanted to see this film for a long, long time so when the screener disc turned up from Artsmagic I was delighted (though not overly surprised as I had compiled the cast filmographies for the disc a few months earlier).

It’s great to see a completely serious vintage Japanese science fiction film. Though I adore all kaiju eiga, the introduction of extra-terrestrials is usually pretty poor in terms of both storyline and design. But Kyuketsuki Gokemidoro is a searing look at the human condition under extreme SF circumstances. It plays like a feature-length Twilight Zone episode and it’s great.

An internal commercial flight crashes in a remote part of Japan. Flying through a blood-red sky and scared by birds hurling themselves to death against the windows, the crew are alerted that there might be a bomb on board. A search of passengers’ luggage turns up no bomb but does reveal the presence of assassin Hirofumi Teraoka (Hideo Ko: Horror of a Deformed Man) who has just killed the British Ambassador. He forces the plane to divert so that when it crashes, they don’t know where they are. A radio report later reveals that rescuers can’t find them and have given up.

The ten crash survivors are: co-pilot Ei Sugisaka (Teruo Yoshida: Horror of a Deformed Man, Shogun’s Joy of Torture, Oxen Split Torturing); stewardess Kazumi Asakura (Tomomi Sato: Babycart in the Land of Demons); corrupt politician Gozo Mano (Eizo Kitamura: The Street Fighter’s Last Revenge); corrupt arms manufacturer Tokiyasu (Nobuo Kaneko) who is constantly toadying up to Mano; his wife Noriko (Yuko Kusunoki) who is having an affair with Mano; American widow Mrs Neil (Kathy Horan: The Green Slime, War of the Insects, Attack of the Monsters) whose husband was killed in Vietnam the previous week; psychiatrist Dr Momotake (Kazuo Kato: The Last Days of Planet Earth, Ran, Mishima); ‘space biologist’ - that’s handy! - Toshio Saga (Masaya Takahashi: Tidal Wave, GMK: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack); and would-be hijacker Matsumiya (Toshihiko Yamamoto: Door III, Ring TV series) who swiftly hides his home-made bomb. Plus Teraoka.

Just before the crash, Sugisaka and his pilot (Hiroyuki Nishimoto) saw a flying saucer. Teraoka now kidnaps Miss Asakura and drags her around the mountain where they discover the alien spaceship. In an iconic image, Teraoka’s head cracks open (Harry Potter has nothing on this forehead scar!) and something nasty oozes inside him. From then on the cluster of survivors gradually disintegrates as they are torn apart by internal squabbling and the outside force of Teraoka who is now some sort of space vampire.

In particular, unpleasant truths are revealed about Mano and Tokiyasu, with the politician coming out of the film as easily the most loathsome individual on the plane. But the construction and subsequent breakdown of the group dynamic is not done simply or obviously and unlikely allegiances are formed and broken at the drop of a hat. It’s a great script, and with the picture clocking in at not much over 80 minutes, a taut and tense one.

The whole film is essentially an anti-war movie, with several blood-red montages of Vietnam War atrocity photos driving home the point. In a twist on the peaceful intentions of Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still, the ‘Gokemidori’ aliens are here because of mankind’s propensity for violence, but to take advantage, not to warn or help. A bleak ending includes an image which will be familiar to all fans of Tim Burton movies,

Many of the crew also worked on another Hajime Sato movie, Golden Bat; the director’s other genre credits include Ghost of the Hunchback, Terror Beneath the Sea and obscure 1960s TV superhero series Captain Ultra (not part of the Ultraman franchise, despite the title). Writer Susumu Tanaka also wrote Golden Bat, War of the Insects and Fist of the Northstar as well as working on the TV series Inazuman Flash, Space Sheriff Gavan, Battle Fever J and Mazinger Z. Cinematographer Shizuo Hirase, who lights the interior of the plane with some evocative filters, also photographed War of the Insects and the delirious The X from Outer Space, while production designer Tadataka Yoshino‘s other work includes Sure Death.

Composer Shunsuke Kikuchi’s extraordinarily impressive list of credits includes music for Ghost of the Hunchback, Terror Beneath the Sea, Golden Bat, War of the Insects, Ghost Story of the Snake Woman, The Snake Girl and the Silver-Haired Witch, Sister Street Fighter, four Gamera films, one Ultraman movie and Sonny Chiba’s Dragon Princess plus the TV series Key Hunter, Kamen Rider, Iron King, Jumborg Ace, Grandizer, Message from Space and several thousand different versions of Dragonball Z.

Artsmagic have released a nice subtitled widescreen print on their Shadow Warrior label, complete with bio-filmographies and an unsubtitled trailer which includes some footage of the plane crash (typically excellent miniature effects) which is missing from the film itself. Goke - Bodysnatcher from Hell is an excellent, gripping, scary, thought-provoking movie which, not unexpectedly, belies its cheesy international title.

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 19th December 2004

A Gothic Tale

$
0
0
Director: Justin Paul Ritter
Writer: Justin Paul Ritter
Producer: Justin Paul Ritter
Cast: Roddy Piper, Marshall Hilton, Ryan McGivern
Country: USA
Year of release: 2009
Reviewed from: screener
Website:
www.agothictale.com

The second feature from Justin Paul Ritter (KatieBird *Certifiable Crazy Person) is one of those films which, though artistically marvellous and technically impressive, is narratively impenetrable. Looks fabulous, well crafted, makes not a lick of sense as far as I can see.

The thing is, when a film is this well made but still doesn’t have a clear, understandable narrative, you can reasonably assume that it’s deliberate. Ritter doesn’t want people to easily follow what’s going on here. This is more a stream of consciousness than a story. It has ‘personal passion’ stamped all over it like an anti-bootleg watermark. Ritter has put his soul into this film - and it shows. He doesn’t have to give us an easy ride, so don’t be disappointed when you don’t get one.

Ostensibly this is based on three classic short stories: ‘The Tell-Tale Heart’ by Edgar Allan Poe, ‘Markheim’ by Robert Louis Stevenson and ‘Dr Heidegger’s Experiment’’ by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Poe tale is the only one I’m familiar with but I checked synopses of the other two on Wikimaninapub so I would have some idea what to look out for. But to be honest, this is ‘inspired by’ rather than ‘based on’, the only obvious, direct connections with the source material being a character called Mark Heim (sic) and another called Dr Heidegger - who is conducting an experiment. Nevertheless, in conflating three unconnected literary sources into a single storyline, this joins The Shunned House in the micro-category of what I like to call an ‘unthology’.

Thomas Heidegger (CJ Baker: Devil Girl, Stupidman) is a solitary old guy working on some sort of reanimation or rejuvenation device (in the Hawthorne tale, his work involves water from the Fountain of Youth). He has a daughter Lillian (stage actress Jamey Hood making her feature film debut) and a protégé, Mark Heim (Marshall Hilton: Breakfast with the Colonel, Sorceress II, Beetleborgs) who is romantically linked with Lillian. Confidently defying chronological storytelling, the film contains numerous flashbacks to thirty years earlier when Lillian (Rena Enea) was a little girl and Mark (Randy Shelly: Beowulf) was a teenager who came to live with the Heideggers under mysterious circumstances. Young Thomas is played by Emrys Wright (who unfortunately doesn’t look that much like Baker) and his since-deceased wife Rose is played by Lake Sharp, who was in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Weaving in and out of both current and flashback scenes - and appearing identical in both time frames - is ‘The Stranger’ (Ryan McGivern, who was in the web series Bones: Skeleton Crew), whose smart suit and Van Dyke facial hair mark him out as some sort of demonic/satanic agent, possibly Old Nick himself. A similar character is the antagonist in the Stevenson tale. While never actually vanishing or appearing from nowhere on screen, The Stranger is in the habit of popping up in scenes without explanation or announcement when the characters are not necessarily expecting him. This supernaturally Machiavellian catalyst drives the complex story through his instructions and offers to the other three, yet he is clearly not as in control as he would like to be and in some scenes is restraining himself, barely controlling his anger or frustration.

In fact, all four main characters spend a great deal of the film with heightened blood pressure, muscles straining, veins bulging in their necks. This is a very intense film about intense, unhappy characters. Frankly, I can’t recall anyone smiling during the entire 104 minutes, with the possible exception of Rose Heidegger, comforting her daughter.

Mark is a drunken bum, a petty thief who can only rail “Fuck you!” ineffectually at the equally drunken street whore (the wonderfully pseudonymous Zenith Lovecraft) who steals his beer when he pushes her away from their grimy, alleyway embrace. Lillian has been taken in by a hostel run by a city pastor (Thom Michael Mulligan: Callous) where she is befriended by a young woman named Brenda (RADA-trained Nancy P Corbo: Rift) and put to work by the cook (Jeanne Mount: Dreamkiller). Thomas experiments with reviving wilted roses and then digs up a corpse which may be his wife, I think.

A steel briefcase is important although I wouldn’t say it was necessarily central enough to be considered a McGuffin. The Stranger was going to give it to Thomas a part of a deal but held onto it when Thomas broke some sort of rule. Later (in chronological time, but at the start of the film) Mark steals the briefcase from someone and then sells it to Thomas. I think. Mark’s parents (Derek Grauer: Haunted House; and Maria Olsen: Dragonquest, Sam Hell) also feature in flashbacks. Michael Villar, who plays a detective here, takes the title role in Ritter’s forthcoming zombie picture The Living Corpse, which also features several other Gothic Tale cast members.

Throughout the film (although to a lesser extent towards the end) we have the enigmatic narration of a street bum narrator, sometimes on screen, warming himself by a brazier, sometimes in voice-over. Underneath the woolly hat, rasping voice and scabrous make-up is none other than genre legend Roddy Pipper (They Live, Hell Comes to Frogtown) adding a whole extra level to this already multi-levelled enterprise.

Stylistically, A Gothic Tale really stands out in three ways. The first is that Ritter (or possibly his DP Josh Fong, who also lit KatieBird and gets a co-producer credit here) really likes to shoot up close. There are very few wide shots here, it’s all close-ups that are slightly too close-up for comfort: tops of heads are often deliberately cropped. It’s not extreme close-up - no mouths filling the screen - but it adds to the intensity of the script and the performances and imparts a sense of urban claustrophobia to the whole film. In addition, Ritter is fond of splitting the widescreen image to show us two scenes at once, or two aspects of the same scene. He also has a fondness for a slight solarisation with a blue sheen.

Sometimes all three techniques are combined. On top of the non-chronological jumping about between scenes (which is exacerbated by The Stranger looking identical in all of them, even to wearing the same tie), this just makes the film harder to follow - and yet, in some strange way, all the more rewarding.

Production designer Alex Cassun (director of Sunset in the Valley) has given the film an ambience which certainly allows it to live up to its title, yet there are no mist-shrouded castles here. This is an urban gothic, dark like an unlit alley, unnerving like an empty building. No cat scares here, it’s all atmosphere.

There is nothing to say where or when this is. America obviously but only from the accents. There seems to be little specific about the clothes apart from The Stranger’s suit and tie (and haircut) which suggests the cusp of the 1970s/1980s. In fact, it looks like the first week of June 1979 - but since he is a supernatural being who looks identical in scenes set three decades apart, this does not help us one iota. The point surely is that this is everywhere and nowhere, everywhen and nowhen, no more a pin in the map of reality than the House of Usher or the Castle of Otranto.

And yet, just to tease the audience, in among this timeless urban gothic milieu the characters have 21st century mobile phones (I honestly didn’t notice if these are in the flashbacks too).

For a personal project, there have been a surprising number of hands on the script, even if we discount Messrs. Stevenson, Hawthorne and Poe. Ryan Plato (Wishtaker) is credited as ‘co-writer’ while Ray Gower (Dark Corners) and Mike Lancaster (also associate producer and key grip!) were ‘script consultants’. Don Randles and Steven Hirsch (both Dark Wolf) were the executive producers.

The unbelievably busy James Lacey handled ‘make-up/FX’. Lacey has already worked on another nine films since A Gothic Tale; his many other credits include Automatons, All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos, Dismembered and a 2008 documentary about Jack PIerce for which he recreated the Mummy. The unpronounceable Daniel Iannantuono, who also scored KatieBird, provides the music once more. Ritter did his own editing.

A Gothic Tale is a deep, almost impenetrable film. No, I couldn’t follow what was going on (nor can I find any reviewer anywhere yet who has even attempted a synopsis) but that is not a negative in this case. It’s a film that make you think, a piece of art onto which one can project one’s own interpretation, while admitting that it will probably never quite chime with Justin Paul Ritter’s own intentions.

I can see this one dividing opinion sharply. I believe that’s a good thing.

MJS rating: A-
review originally posted 27th May 2009

The Graveyard

$
0
0
Director: Michael Feifer
Writer:
Michael Hurst
Producer: Michael Feifer
Cast: Christopher Stewart, Lindsay Ballew, Trish Coren
Country: US
Year of release: 2006
Reviewed from: screener


In the prologue of The Graveyard, when six identikit teenagers in their mid-twenties sneak into a cemetery for a game of hide and seek (which they call ‘run for your life’ in an attempt to make it sound less juvenile), the person who is ‘it’ is chosen by putting names into a hat.

One gets the feeling that the screenplay for The Graveyard was created in a not dissimilar way: that a bunch of horror movie clichés were put on bits of paper and drawn one by one from a hat, then stapled together in the order they were picked - and that was called ‘the script.’

Because this really is a rubbish film. Even in the genre of teen slasher films where, you know, standards are not high and most of the audience is fairly undiscriminating, this is still rubbish enough to raise howls of mystified disapproval from the fans.

Despite the title and that prologue, most of the film is set in a ‘camp’. Now, the whole concept of ‘camp’ is something that those of us on the other side of the Atlantic find alien. It’s one of those things, like ‘senior prom’, which we only know from cinema and TV because there is no direct equivalent over here. The cultural and social context and connotations of ‘camp’ are missing. This place has a bunch of... dorms? chalets?... with bunk beds. It appears to be a functioning camp from outside, kept quite clean and tidy, but there is a scene where a girl goes into a shower (in some sort of separate shower block?) and is grossed out by how disgusting this is. What does that mean? Does it play on a belief that camp showers are always disgusting or is it meant to indicate that this is a horrible, low quality camp (belied by other locations) or that this camp is in disrepair (which it apparently is not)?

Or it could be - and this seems more likely, given what the rest of the movie is like - that the director just wanted the scene to be like that and gave no thought as to whether it made any sense.

Let’s go back to, as Lurcio used to say: the prologue.

A guy called Eric is picked to count to twenty which, for some reason, he must do behind the closed-but-not-locked gates of a particular tomb/mausoleum. The others run off to hide behind various gravestones in this remarkably well-lit cemetery.

As Eric counts, a figure in a mask appears, unseen by him, further back inside the tomb. Then the same figure appears (impossibly) in front of the gates and waves a large knife at the terrified Eric but makes no attempt to open the gates. Then the figure disappears. Eric runs off and the figures reappears, chasing him, pausing only to stab one of the girls. Eric runs and runs and...

...runs straight into the cemetery gates where he impales himself on a couple of bent bars. Which is pretty difficult to do and unlikely to be instantly fatal. But it is. His friends gather round in disbelief, including the girl who was ‘stabbed’ and the masked maniac who was actually a seventh identikit twenty-something teenager. The whole thing was a prank, you see.

Oh... you guys!

Five years later, the teenagers are closer to the actors’ rather obvious real ages. The one who was dressed up is called Billy and he has spent the past five years in prison for manslaughter while all the rest apparently got off scott-free despite being just as culpable. Billy is granted either bail or parole; the terms are used interchangeably as if they are exact synonyms, which I don’t think they are.

Now, where would be the best place for Billy to go when he comes out of prison? That’s right: straight back to the place where he was accidentally responsible for the death of one of his friends. The girl who gets him out of clink and the other five have all agreed to go back to the camp where they were staying when Eric died. Because they were at a camp, apparently, even though this is not mentioned in the prologue. And this is one of those camps that has a large cemetery next to it. Again with the cultural context: is this normal?

Although the camp is quite large, there will only be the six of them staying there. except that one of the blokes has brought along his new girlfriend who is only distinguishable from the other female characters by virtue of having a strange accent. Perhaps she’s meant to be South American or something. There is also the young man who runs the place as cook/handyman, who is indistinguishable from any of the other male characters.

You see, there are two huge problems with The Graveyard. One is that the plot, despite being a stack of clichés, makes not a lick of sense and blatantly contradicts itself in places. The other is that the characters are completely characterless and utterly indistinguishable. All the blokes are arseholes or pricks to some degree and all the girls are sluts or prickteases. I honestly couldn’t even tell you what any of the character names are except for Billy and Eric - and one of them dies before the opening credits.

The male characters are slightly less indistinguishable than the girls because the one who brought his girlfriend along is constantly boasting about his sexual prowess. The other one - the one who isn’t Billy, isn’t the cook/handyman and doesn’t boast about sex - is described by some of the others as a nerd but exhibits no nerdlike characteristics whatsoever apart from owning a laptop computer.

The women - well, the blonde one seems to be more slutty than the others but seriously, that’s it. Oh, and the girlfriend has a funny accent. Other than that, it could be the same actress and occasional split-screen effects for all the difference there is between the characters. Whatever they’re called.

As well as the camp, with its chalets/dorms and some sort of communal dining hall/bar seen in one brief scene, there is also plenty of woodland and a slightly ramshackle (from the outside), clean and tidy (on the inside) ‘boathouse’ by a lake which is actually a sort of summerhouse with tables and chairs and certainly completely devoid of boats. Oh, and there’s that cemetery. We are given absolutely no clue as to the spatial relationship between any of these locations and I suspect that’s because the director has no clue about it either. We also don’t know where this camp is situated although quite late in the film we’re told it’s ten miles from the nearest town.

So they all pitch up in their big cars and the idea is that Billy will “find closure” and “confront his demons” or some such bollocks but really, why would the parole board (who are told the plan) release someone convicted of manslaughter, knowing that he was going to immediately return to the scene of the crime along with all his accomplices? In terms of narrative bollocks, this is right up there with Camp Blood 2 and its belief that a murderer would be let out of prison to go and make a film about their murders. The Graveyard reminded me very much of Camp Blood and its sequel. The production values are higher but the story is just as nonsensical.

Now, I’d like to tell you who gets killed and in what order but because I don’t know the characters’ names and I can’t even describe them to you in any way that would differentiate them, I can’t do this. I’m not even sure if all the ones who aren’t in the final scene do actually get killed, especially as some of the characters who are very definitely and obviously killed subsequently appear, miraculously healed. One of them ironically ends up impaled on exactly the same broken railings where Eric died (I can’t help thinking that something should have been done about those five years ago, given how dangerous they obviously were) but not only does he survive, he somehow extricates himself (off screen) and is then able to run and jump and fight just like any healthy young guy.

One thing that a film like this could have going for it, which might negate the need for memorable characters or a coherent plot, is plenty of gore. But The Graveyard skimps on the gore (it skimps on the graveyard too) and shows us very little. There is one scene during the first night at the camp - or at least, during the hours of darkness, as this film has a completely cavalier attitude to things like night and day - when a person we haven’t seen before is brutally (but not graphically) murdered. Tied to a chair and beaten by the maniac in the mask, his howls of pain are mistaken by two of the girls for the sound of a dangerous animal.

But who is this guy? As the characters are so interchangeable, I couldn’t work out who he was and when all four men turned up together in a subsequent scene, I was thoroughly confused. Surely it must be one of them.

Well, it turns out no. This is the real cook/handyman at the camp being murdered by the maniac who subsequently impersonates him (who turns out to be Eric’s brother, who didn’t die in a house fire with their parents as believed - oh yes, like that really spoils this crappy movie for you). But when a by-the-book sheriff turns up later, he talks about a body found a couple of days previously in the woods, missing its hands and head. This is later identified as being the cook/handyman and Billy, who has been arrested, is freed because a call to the prison confirms that he was still incarcerated two days ago.

But wait, how could this cook who was murdered before anyone arrived at the camp also be the cook whose screams scared the girls after they arrived at the camp? This is just one of many logical and temporal inconsistencies. There are some comments on the Inaccurate Movie Database from people who say that there are scenes where Eric’s brother is in one place pretending to be the cook and in another place being the masked maniac at the same time. That may well be true but wild horses wouldn’t make me sit through this film again to check. The whole thing is so riddled with arbitrary ideas that contradict other parts of the film that one more or less really doesn’t matter.

Billy, who has been brooding and intense, turns into another arsehole halfway through, revealing that the whole intense thing was an act designed to lead up to pretending to be a knife-wielding maniac in a practical joke on one of the other guys. Wait, hang on. Wasn’t that exactly the sort of behaviour that led to the unpleasant death of one of your friends and got you banged up inside for five years? Have you learned nothing?

The first death is the girlfriend with the weird accent, strangled in the showers (despite the maniac’s proclivity for carrying a large knife) but when she goes missing there is no indication of how anyone knows she’s missing. It’s just stated that She Is Missing and they immediately split into two groups to search the (surprisingly well-lit) woods. Nobody actually searches any of the numerous buildings.

While in the woods, another woman turns up who is not one of the ones we’ve already seen but we only know this from the dialogue because she looks and acts the same. She says that one of the other women is actually a lesbian and she is her jealous girlfriend. This sexual revelation has no relevance whatsoever and the new girl then wanders off and gets killed, making her possibly the most redundant character I’ve seen in a horror film this year. It’s also not clear why bonkers Eric’s brother kills her or the weird-accent girlfriend as neither had any connection with his brother’s death.

A couple of the women visit Eric’s grave which is, incredibly, in that very same cemetery. They find that it is... open! But not open like a grave that has been dug up so somebody can steal the body. It’s actually a really neat, rectangular hole so it’s a grave that never had a body or coffin in it. That’s what happens when you employ a production designer who doesn’t know the difference between an ‘open grave’ and an ‘empty grave’ (or simply hasn’t read the script). Later, Eric’s brother is shot and falls into this grave (oh the irony) but subsequent dialogue indicates that the body has not been found. Given that Billy ‘died’ on the broken railings but later walked and talked and the sheriff was clearly killed but is fine in the final scene, we must presume that Eric’s brother also simply got up and walked away.

I’ve seen zombie movies with fewer walking dead people than this.

The Graveyard is just awful. It’s staggeringly dull and boring because it’s basically a bunch of identical young people we neither know nor care about doing random, clichéed things for no obvious reason without any lasting effect. At one point a character actually says the line, “Cliché cliché cliché!” and I think that’s a coded message from the scriptwriter, crying for help and letting us know that this isn’t really his fault.

Because this is a Michael Hurst script and I know for a fact that Mike Hurst could write something better than this in his sleep. There must be some other factor: perhaps he had to write the whole thing in an afternoon or perhaps he had to do a second draft based on nonsensical notes from the director or maybe he handed in a workable script and the whole thing was ruined during production. Yet Mike has kept his name on the thing (unlike the considerably superior Are You Scared) and that’s odd because he’s a jobbing writer-director and I wouldn’t have thought that being visibly attached to crap like this would help his career.

Who else has this film on their CV as a guilty secret? The cast includes Christopher Stewart, Lindsay Ballew, Trish Coren (Boo, Headless Horseman), Eva Derrek (Jacqueline Hyde, The Slaughter, Live Evil), Brett Donowho, James Gallinger, Sam Bologna (Unidentified, Terminal Island), Patrick Scott Lewis (Zodiac, Voodoo Curse: The Giddeh), Leif Lillehagen, Erin Lokitz (Robert Kurtzman’s Buried Alive), Markus Potter, Mark Salling (Children of the Corn IV) and Natalie Denise Sperl (Succubus: Hell Bent). I’ve listed them all because I’ve no idea who plays whom.

To be fair, it dawned on me halfway through that this film, despite appearing on the surface to be the most appallingly banal and unoriginal movie imaginable, actually offered something unique and different. Which is: there is no Token Black Guy. Every character is completely white. It doesn’t really mean anything but TBGs are the industry standard and this is such an off-the-shelf plot with absolutely nothing new or clever or original or interesting to say that it seems bizarre when it doesn’t follow this convention.

Even the killer isn’t memorable. He wears a sort of coverall with a hood tied round his face - Christ, it looks like a kagool - and his mask, when seen in occasional close-up, seems to be made from pieces of skin sewn together but that’s not relevant or alluded to in any way.

Released in the States in 2006 but only surfacing in the UK two years later, The Graveyard was the second feature directed by Michael Feifer, whose extensive experience as a producer of low-budget DTV pictures includes Witchcraft V, VI, VII, VIII and IX. From 2000’s A Crack in the Floor onwards he started doubling up as 1st AD and his directorial debut was Lethal Eviction, a thriller written by Leeches scripter Gary Barkin. In the couple of years since he made The Graveyard, Feifer has directed eight films including three based on infamous true-life serial killers, a non-horror comedy about a blogger, Grim Reaper (also written by Mike Hurst) and most recently an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s 'Dracula’s Guest' starring Andrew Bryniarski from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. I haven’t seen any of these - I sincerely hope he’s got better at making films as he goes along.

What I can’t understand is why the normally reliable Revolver would pick up this piece of junk - unless it came as some sort of package with their two other Feifer-Hurst collaborations, Are You Scared (directed by Mike’s brother Andy) and The Butcher (directed by Mike himself). Since they started sending me screeners, I have been consistently impressed with Revolver’s choice of titles, from Kiltro to The Killing Floor. Some, like The Last Winter, were truly magnificent; some, like Wrestlemaniac, were great fun. The Graveyard is just lousy and I really can’t see how even the most undiscriminating slasher fan (a breed of movie fanatic not exactly renowned for their critical values) could enjoy this film.

Cinematographer Hank Baumert Jr lit this and several of Feifer’s other pictures while editor Christopher Roth has a hefty CV which includes Wizards of the Demon Sword, Steel and Lace, Return of the Living Dead 3, Leprechaun 1 and 2, The Dentist 1 and 2, Hatchet and Ghouls. Richard Redlefsen, who supplied the prosthetic make-up effects, has worked on the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Indiana Jones 4 and various CSI episodes and is now doing stuff on the Star Trek prequel.

I don’t know who is to blame for The Graveyard turning out the way it has done but this is so boring, so full of holes and generally so unwatchable that one of two things seems certain. Either somebody with no idea about film-making exercised complete control over this or several people with genuine ideas about film-making pulled it in different directions. Whichever, the result is a mess which can’t be recommended in any way for anyone.

One final note which I think perfectly encapsulates everything that’s wrong with The Graveyard: despite all the night-time scenes being well-lit, there are some cutaways to a crescent Moon. I mean, you could at least try and justify the brightness with a full Moon, but no...

MJS rating: D
review originally posted 5th May 2008

Occupying Ed

$
0
0
Director: Steve Balderson
Writer: Jim Lair Beard
Producer: Steve Balderson
Cast: Christopher Sams, Holly Hinton, John Werskey
Country: USA
Year of release: 2013
Reviewed from: online screener
Website:
www.dikenga.com

After making The Casserole Club, Steve Balderson directed two lightweight capers about Americans abroad getting mixed up in international crime shenanigans. Culture Shock was shot guerilla-style on the streets of London, The Far Flung Star likewise in Hong Kong. These two films represented a radical departure for Balderson and I would be lying if I said that I thought either really works. However, I can fully understand the catharsis that Steve needed after the intensity of Watch Out, Stuck! and The Casserole Club and hence his decision to indulge himself with a couple of ‘movies’ as opposed to his previous ‘films’.

Well, now Steve Balderson is back with Occupying Ed, a return to (a) form and (b) his home town of Wamego, Kansas. Steve’s body of work is notable for its diversity but his strength has always been in his exploration of characters and relationships. Stuck! and The Casserole Club - and indeed Firecracker and even Pep Squad - explored the relationships between a group of characters in a clearly defined environment (prison, suburbia, travelling carnival, high school). The anomaly in his filmography is Watch Out in which he explores one individual’s internal relationships, collapsing the environment into a single character.

Occupying Ed is something new from Steve Balderson: a romance. Just two characters, one relationship and an anonymous American small town as backdrop. The girl is a free-spirited English chick working as a waitress in a cafe that serves ‘vegan lasagne’. The boy is an uptight tax accountant. It’s an off-the-shelf set-up that is almost iconic of contemporary US indie cinema and this may very well prove to be Steve’s most accessible film since Pep Squad.

Except...

Nothing is ever simple in Wamego. There is a love triangle in this film. Okay, so: three characters, three relationships. That’s fine. That’s been the basis of many, many movies. No problem.

Except...

I told you: nothing is ever simple. This is a love triangle where we never see one of the characters, never see one of relationships, and where two of the characters are the same person. Like all - well, most - Steve Balderson films, Occupying Ed is much more than the sum of its parts. It is something special, something magical, something unique. I loved it.

Christopher Sams (also in The Far Flung Star) stars as Ed: mild-mannered, single, thin, clean, white guy. British actress Holly Hinton (also in Culture Shock) is Nicole, the mysterious woman who seems to be stalking him and who possibly has some connection with Ed’s occasional black-outs. Ed is losing days at a time, yet he is apparently still functioning during these black-outs, even still going to work.

What we gradually discover, as indeed does Ed, is that he has an alter ego, Helena. During those black-outs, Helena takes over Ed’s body. And Nicole is her girlfriend. So there’s our offbeat love triangle. Nicole is in love with Helena, Helena is in love with Nicole, but Nicole shares a body with Ed, whose relationship with both Helena and Nicole forms the focus of this unique love story.

In our first act, at least, there is a glorious ambiguity to this set-up as we - and Ed - try to work out what precisely is going on. Is Ed possessed by someone else’s spirit? Is Helena just a psychological artefact of some sort of mental health problem. Or is Helena the real person and perhaps Ed is the ‘other personality’? Curiously, the story this most reminded me of was Jekyll, Stephen Moffat’s six-part BBC TV updated retelling of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic. As in that series, there are two personalities sharing a single body who never meet but are aware of each other’s existence through third parties and through the situations they find themselves in whenever control of the corpus returns to their id.

The other comparison that sprang to mind while watching Occupying Ed is the most most famous two-sided love triangle of all: Lois Lane, Clark Kent and Superman. So there are precedents. Sort of.

Whether or not we ever meet Helena on screen is something I want to gloss over, but certainly for the first two acts she’s completely absent and everything we - and Ed - find out comes from Nicole and their two social circles. Helena, like Nicole, works in a cafe managed by June (the ubiquitous Pleasant Gehman) - but she is also able to take on Ed’s work at the tax office where his practical-joke-loving boss Bruce (Chris Pudio) says he doesn’t care what Ed wears to work.

In fact, everyone seems very accepting of Helena - she’s clever, funny, good with kids, hard-working - which doesn’t exactly do wonders for Ed’s self-confidence. In opposition to this liberal view is Ed’s older brother Troy (a nicely balanced performance by John Werskey: The Far Flung Star, Bite Marks) who, while certainly not a right-wing redneck nutjob, nevertheless finds it difficult to come to terms with the sight of his brother out in public in a dress. (Not showing us this is a sound move: this is a film which actually benefits from tell, don’t show.)

Of course, the nature of the film demands that Ed and Nicole gradually fall into and out of love. It’s that old, old story: boy meets girl (who is the lesbian lover of his transvestite alter ego), boy loses girl (who is the lesbian lover of his transvestite alter ego), boy gets girl (who is the lesbian lover of his transvestite alter ego) back. In fact, there is a complexity to Ed and Nicole’s rocky relationship (possibly because the relationship is, let’s face it, complex) which makes the narrative here seem less like a three-act structure and more like a 23-act structure. But the ups and downs flow naturally and lead to a satisfying conclusion.

What no-one ever comments on - the elephant in the room - is the, er, physicality of all this. To put it bluntly, Helena has a hairy, flat chest and a dick - which is pretty butch, even for a lesbian. But as with so much else, the glossing over of such details adds to our enjoyment of the storytelling - and to Ed’s bewilderment.

While not exactly a romcom, Occupying Ed is played with a light, indie touch that makes the whole 90 minutes a delight (Steve calls it a ‘romantic dramedy’). Supporting the two outstanding lead performances are a cast of well-rounded minor characters including postman Hank (Dwight Tolar), psychiatrist Dr Frank (Melissa Atchison), her gay secretary Lonnie (Ben Windholz) and waitress Lucy (Amanda Deibert, producer of popular YouTube musical LucasFilm/Disney mash-up Bonjour Star Wars!). Balderson regular Garrett Swann - one of the few actors in both of the overseas caper movies - possibly the plays the local pastor.

With legislation around same-sex marriage currently being debated on both sides of the Atlantic, Occupying Ed couldn’t be more topical if it came with a free 2014 wall-planner. It’s a film which will play equally well to both ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ audiences (in the sense that those might be defined audience sectors, as I’m not sure either exists in real life). This is exactly the sort of convoluted relationship tale that film festival programmers love and I suspect critics will love it to. It’s a real pleasure to spend half an hour in the company of Ed and Nicole (and Helena) and afterwards there is a great deal to think about. Steve’s films always leave one with a great deal to think about but not since Pep Squad has he made a film which could really be described as ‘enjoyable’ (and even that was a black comedy based around jealousy and violence).

The script for Occupying Ed (originally entitled Part-time Waitress) was written by actor/blogger Jim Lair Beard - and a finely crafted piece of writing it is indeed, perfectly suited to Steve’s directorial style. With an easy-on-the-ear soundtrack of contemporary US folk tunes and expert cinematography by Daniel G Stephens (The Far Flung Star, Anatomy of the Tide), Occupying Ed ticks all the boxes that we expect from a Steve Balderson joint.

Could this be an indicator of where Steve is heading? Perhaps we can see those previous, intense films as thesis, the brace of on-the-run comedies as antithesis, and this as the ensuing synthesis. Perhaps, Steve still being a young man, he is embarking here into the next period of his career, effectively combining his defiantly unique style and approach with the expectations and requirements of cinema-going America (and the world).

From Firecracker to The Casserole Club, Steve has ploughed his own furrow, effectively flipping the bird to established ideas of how you make films and (as the second Wamego documentary made clear) how you distribute films. But something extraordinary has happened. Steve’s iconoclastic individualism has become mainstream, not because Steve has sold out but because, incredibly, the world of film-making has come to him. Years ago he said: I don’t need a distributor for Firecracker, I’ll distribute it myself - and that was seen as a brave move. But now that’s what indie film-makers do as a matter of routine. Not by roadshowing a print, admittedly, but by distributing online. We are all Steve Baldersons now.

Occupying Ed, meanwhile, is a delightful film, carried by wonderful acting, beautifully sympathetic direction, a word-perfect script and most of all a brilliant conceit. By exploring an idea which (like so much of Steve’s work) is just half a step beyond reality, Occupying Ed broadens its unique subject matter to a whole world of ideas. This isn’t a film about split personalities, it’s not a film about inadvertent transvestism, it’s not a film about part-time waitresses or small-town America. It’s a film about life and love and sexuality and gender and identity and acceptance. Big issues but not presented in any simplistic or didactic way.

Following his brief diversion to England and China, it’s great to have Steve Balderson back in Kansas, working at the top of his game, making what could conceivably be his best film so far. He has been on an awfully big adventure, but there’s no place like home.

MJS rating: A

interview: Debbie Rochon

$
0
0
After years of watching and reviewing Debbie Rochon movies, I finally got around to asking Debbie for an interview after watching Ivan Zuccon'sWrath of the Crows. Debbie kindly answered these questions by email in July 2013.

How did you come to first work with Ivan Zuccon on Colour from the Dark?
"Ivan had contacted me to play Lucia in Colour. At the time I hadn't heard of him so I watched his previous films and was really impressed with his style and vision. It was pretty easy to say yes to working with Ivan after seeing his work. He has the understanding that film is a visual medium and tells his stories with such a unique style. Sounds pretty obvious but many film makers do not tell a story with visuals and don't have such a deep understanding of cinema as Ivan does. Plus the script was really amazing. This was a character that I was so excited to play. I am forever grateful I had the opportunity. I'm very proud of the final outcome."

What were your expectations when you flew out to Italy to make Colour, and how closely did they match what you found?
"I had very high expectations, because, as I said, I knew I was walking into a situation where I would be working with a very talented director and crew. The cast was extraordinary as well. But working one on one with Ivan I have to say it surpassed my expectations. His only concern while making the movie was the movie itself. There is no ego on his sets. There is no worrying about how he will go about selling it. While shooting he is only functioning as a pure artist and he enjoys every part of it. This makes for a perfect situation for any actor. He knows what he wants and knows what is best and loves collaborating. It was one of the highlights of my acting career."

As an actor, what are the contrasting challenges and opportunities of something serious and quite powerful like Ivan's films vs the broad comedy of, say, Troma films?
"I have made a lot of serious films but often they are not as widely seen as they should be. That being said, I do enjoy comedy quite a bit. Comedy allows you to make very big choices and really have fun with them. Like absurdist theatre. I have always loved working with Lloyd Kaufman because he also allows for a lot of collaboration. Not only is it fun working with Lloyd but some of my lifelong friendships are because of Troma. Tiffany Shepis, Trent Haaga, Doug Sakmann, Gabe Friedman, Jamie Greco and more including Lloyd himself. Ivan and his family, crew and Italian cast are much the same in the sense that they become family. You admire them, trust them and sincerely love them. The seriousness of Ivan's films is just as engaging. His sets are perfectly run so that you have the ability to really do your work and the work is what's respected and nurtured. I love working on the subject matter that he chooses. Very demanding in a great way and very gratifying when it all comes together."

What is your take on the allegorical/metaphysical nature of Wrath of the Crows, and what ideas were you able to bring to the character of Debbie?
"You could describe Wrath as a combination of Anagogic and Topological interpretations of the story Ivan is telling. Set in a visceral, violent, horror-friendly setting it has a pretty powerful punch and is equally beautiful as it is brutal to watch. In my opinion it gives a wider variety of people the ability to enjoy a film like this. It completely delivers in a visual capacity as it does in a 'film that has something to say' capacity. This is exactly the type of film I enjoy as a viewer. I hope it finds the great audience and distribution it really deserves. I also think with these qualities going for it, it will be the type of film that will stand the test of time as the subject matter is timeless itself. The role was written for me, and that's a pretty big compliment in itself. After reading the script I felt that, for my role to forward the film and to represent a female very different from the others, I needed to focus on the anger that comes from betrayal, which is where my character first turns the corner that leads her down the path where we find her."

How has Ivan progressed as a film-maker in the five years between Colour and Wrath?
"He has always had the most incredible eye for film. I think he is growing into a film maker that can't be denied. You can look at his first films and see incredible talent, this is very rare. But with time and certainly his most recent film he is tackling not just subject matter but creative visual story telling to a true masters level. To me his is a true master of cinema. One of the greats of this time."

You worked with several of your Wrath co-stars on your directorial debut Model Hunger: what can you tell me about this - and when will we get to see it?
"Model Hunger was written and produced by James Morgart. We completed principle photography and the film is almost hitting the picture lock stage of post-production. It's a great tale of what becomes of a woman who was rejected many years ago by the modeling and acting business because of her body shape - she is not a size zero (Twiggy-like). Lynn Lowry plays the lead Ginny to perfection, a vengeful woman who has taken to 'evening the playing ground' by torturing and devouring young women who idolise and attempt to personify this unattainable idea of beauty. Tiffany Shepis plays her new neighbour who has a lot of psychological problems of her own but is convinced something evil is happening next door at Ginny's. Tiffany is really incredible in her role. Wrath star Brian Fortune, who plays Colin in the film, is also brilliant. I couldn't be happier with the entire cast - every character is played perfectly in my opinion. I am so proud of this cast. I can't wait for people to see all of them in this movie."

website: www.DebbieRochon.com (also: www.ModelHunger.com)

The Great Bear Scare

$
0
0
Director: Hal Mason
Writer: John Barrett
Producer: Mary Roscoe
Cast: Ted E Bear and Friends
Country: USA
Year of release: 1983
Reviewed from: UK VHS


Big disappointment, this one. It takes a lot to be disappointed by a 23-year-old, 22-minute cartoon about a teddy bear because, well, expectations are naturally low, but let me explain.

Back in 1992, when I moved to Stoke-on-Trent, I spotted this tape in a video store. There on the cover was ‘Ted E Bear’ - blue hat, blue waistcoat, green bow tie - and ranged around him were Dracula, a werewolf, a witch and a Karloffian Frankenstein monster. The sleeve blurb about ‘monsters’ naturally led me to believe that this was some sort of House of Frankenstein-style monsterfest. And I love monsterfests!

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, The Monster Squad, Mad Monster Party, Mad Mad Mad Monsters. Heck, I even enjoyed Van Helsing (dumb, but fun). Any time you cram a bunch of classic monsters together in one film, you can count on at least one person in the audience. I included The Great Bear Scare in a list of Frankenstein films that I was compiling in those days, when the nascent internet was not yet a feature of film research and you had to plough through books and magazines and, well, browse video stores. But I never watched the video. Had no time, had no money.

Now here it is in Help the Aged for 50p. Now, I get to watch it. And you know what? There’s no Frankenstein monster in this film! Nor is there a werewolf! I’ve been had.

Here’s the plot. Rumours are circulating in “beautiful downtown Bearbank” that tomorrow night all the monsters are going to emerge from nearby Monster Mountain and take over the world, starting with Bearbank itself. Ted E Bear bravely volunteers to go and investigate the mountain, a news story which is covered by Patti Bear on K-BEAR news (the cartoon actually opens with a ‘we interrupt this programme for breaking news’ caption).

Dracula and a witch named Miss Witch see this news report and Drac decides to fly down to Bearbank and check the place out. Unfortunately his magical spell of ‘Lumpkin pumpkin, make me a bat!’ doesn’t work very well so although he flies there he has to walk back, accepting a lift on the way from Ted E Bear (who doesn’t recognise him).

Ted discovers that inside the mountain is a whole city populated by monsters, but these are generic big, ugly monsters, plus assorted witches and ghosts. There is a mummy glimpsed briefly in one shot but there are no werewolves and there’s no Frankenstein. I want my 50p back!

Ted has been told that “bears are afraid of nothing” so he reasons that if bears are afraid of monsters, then monsters are really nothing. The monsters chase him around the monster city (which includes locations such as Madison Scare Garden and the Vampire State Building) before he escapes and is picked up by Patti Bear in her news blimp. He broadcasts a message back to Bearbank that the bears should not be afraid of the monsters so that, when the invasion starts, the ghouls are easily routed by bears who do little more than shout boo and occasionally pour pots of honey on them.

I’m sure there must be a moral in here somewhere but it’s hopelessly confused. Is it that we shouldn’t be afraid of monsters, or that monsters don’t exist, or that we shouldn’t be afraid of anything, or... what? Like most people, I get annoyed when moral messages are spelled out simplistically, but in this instance it’s all very muddled. It’s like there are several bits of different morals all bolted together in the hope that one general moral will emerge.

Then there’s the animation, which is among the cheapest I have ever seen. Most movements are done as a simple dissolve from one character position to another, so while the movement isn’t jerky, it’s very limited and there’s no real inbetweening. The exceptions to this are facial movements, which are properly animated, and anything moving in a straight line without changing shape, such as Ted’s car or Patti’s airship.

The Great Bear Scare is a sort of sequel to The Bear Who Slept Through Christmas, a 1973 DePatie-Freleng production although the only shared credits are Tom Smothers as the voice of Ted E Bear and ‘ghost writer’ (as he is credited here - ho ho, very satirical) John Barrett, who in ‘73 shared writing duties with Larry Spiegel. Both animated specials are based on books by Barrett who also wrote Ted E Bear books on Thanksgiving and Easter, although neither of those seems to have been animated.

Smothers, of course, was half of the comedy folk act the Smothers Brothers. Largely unknown here in the UK, I used to have half a dozen LPs by them which were unfailingly hysterical. Over the years he has made numerous appearances on TV, and occasionally in films, usually with his brother Dick. The rest of the voice cast are Louis Nye (a frequent stooge for Steve Allen who was in Larry Cohen’s Full Moon High) as Dracula, Lucille Bliss (The Secret of NIMH, Robots) as Miss Witch, jazz singer Sue Raney as Patti Bear, Hal Smith (hundreds of 1960s, 1970s and 1980s cartoons including Owl in many Pooh animations) as town mayor C Emory Bear and Hans Conried (Captain Hook in Disney’s Peter Pan) as ursine scientist Professor Werner von Bear. That last name is a gag on rocket scientist Werner Von Braun, of course.

Director Hal Mason was a well-known animator who worked with Walter Lantz on characters such as Woody Woodpecker and Oswald Rabbit. His most famous creation was the Pillsbury Doughboy. The Inaccurate Movie Database confuses him with another Hal Mason who was production supervisor on many classic Ealing comedies. He directed a Chipmunks Christmas Special in 1982 and this appears to have been his follow-up project although I can find no other actual directing credits for him. He passed away in 1986.

Producer Mary Roscoe had worked on various Warner Brothers properties in the 1970s including Duck Dodgers and the Return of the 24 1/2th Century. She was also responsible for the Americanisation of the Japanese Voltron cartoon series. The Great Bear Scare appears to be the only credit fo any sort for either production company DimenMark International Inc or executive producer Thomas A Mayfield.

Music on the cartoon is credited to Thomas Loose and Edward Yelin. Loose was a prolific composer of stock music tracks which have been used in Night of the Living Dead, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, a whole bunch of Russ Meyer pictures, Trader Hornee, The Adult Version of Jekyll and Hide and many other movies far, far removed from animated teddy bears.

The Great Bear Scare has a few very weak gags, paper-thin characters, a plot that makes little sense, an unclear moral message, limited animation and no Frankenstein or werewolf, despite what the sleeve promises. It’s pretty rubbish all round, to be honest.

MJS rating: D
review originally posted 18th November 2006

interview: Harold Gasnier

$
0
0
I interviewed actor/director Harold Gasnier by e-mail in August 2008 after reviewing his film The Demon Within.

What did you set out to achieve with The Demon Within and to what extent did you feel you achieved that?
“I set out to achieve the look and feel of an ‘80s-style horror. Something that made you think, more than just a slasher picture. I feel this was achieved, but primarily I wanted the movie to look good. Great photography, good looking cast and above average performances.”

How did you gather cast and crew together?
“The cast were picked initially from various casting notices placed on a few good sites. This was shortlisted to about forty after the initial CV and photo session. The shortlisted ones were invited to live auditions and from the taped auditions the final cast selected. I was looking for fresh new faces that worked together.

“The crew was a different matter. I have worked in the past with the DOP and he could interpret my ideas - but more than that I could trust him. The rest of the crew were either word-of-mouth or once again crewing notices placed on the web. Nearness to the locations and availability on the four-week shoot were paramount, as being low budget our greatest expense was accommodation and excellent food. Keeping them all well fed and watered meant it was the most joyful of movies I have worked on.”

What aspects of your experience directing your previous films were you able to use on The Demon Within?
“In a nutshell, planning. As much as you can plan a movie, especially when there are a lot of outdoor locations, that is vital. Especially as the weather before the first day of photography had been dreadful, just weeks of constant rain. On the first day, as if by magic, it cleared up. A good schedule, reasonable hours and a good night’s sleep are also high on the list.”

How does being an actor help (or hinder) you as a director - and vice versa?
“Being an actor helps you know what the cast are thinking and helps you working with them to conquer their inexperience. Explaining to them why you are doing something instead of being left in the dark. After all we are, in a form, training the actors of tomorrow. Going into technical overdrive alienates them; bring them on your side and you can show them what you want and get it. I don't feel being an actor hinders the production but I did make one concession as an actor: rehearsal. Rehearsal before first day of photography commenced. This is an expense that low budget films often can't take, but believe me, if we all know what we are doing before the first day of shooting it speeds up the process much more. Have your DOP there and work out those angles and that lighting.”

Geek Alert: what parts did you play in Doctor Who and Blake’s 7?
“I am surprised at the attention Doctor Who and Blake’s 7 still attract after all this time. At the time I didn't think it was going to be a cult sort of thing. In Doctor Who I played a Parliamentarian in ‘The Awakening’ and another character in ‘Destiny of the Daleks’ but for the life of me can't think who it was. Both with Peter Davidson. Blake’s 7 was again two episodes in which I played Zordon, a Mecronian with the lovely Glynis Barber in a catsuit - very nice behind had Soo Lin.”

What are your plans for your next project?
“What next? Hmm, where do I start? First off an anthology with three other directors. No title as yet but set in a brothel. Casting early September, shooting mid to end, ready for AFM in November. Then I have a script being optioned and three others in development, plus I am midway through a Summer Season as an actor. Life is never dull, I wouldn't have it any other way.”

Website: www.24carrotfilms.co.uk
interview originally posted 11th August 2008

interview: Richard Gordon

$
0
0
I interviewed producer Richard Gordon three and a half times. First, in his hotel room at the 1997 Festival of Fantastic Films (Richard flew over to Manchester from New York for the FFF every year while he was still fit enough to do so). In 1999 I submitted this on spec to Tim Lucas at Video Watchdog who said he had been thinking for sometime of a career piece on Richard and asked me to expand the feature with questions about some of the more esoteric aspects of Richard Gordon’s career. This second interview was done over the phone, with some additional material faxed over afterwards.

The combined interview ran to 14,000 words and is the longest magazine piece I ever had published. It ran over 20 pages of VW55 in January 2000. One year later I did another phone interview with Richard specifically about his memories of Bela Lugosi and an edited version of this was published in that year’s SFX Vampire Special. What you see here is the full transcript of this third intervew.

Richard Gordon passed away on Halloween 2011 at the age of 85. He was a sweet, fascinating, enthusiastic, delightful, warm, supportive, busy, loyal gentleman and I never heard a bad word said about him. He spent his life doing what he loved, and who can ask for more than that? RIP, dear friend.

Before you met Bela Lugosi, what was your image of him?
"I thought he would probably be a rather difficult person to get to know, not only from his image on the screen but also because one read interviews and articles that said he was a very private person and that he didn’t mix much with people during the productions. And also he had a language problem, particularly early in his career. In fact it’s always been maintained by many people that when he was doing Dracula on the stage on Broadway he didn’t have full command of the English language and spoke much of his lines phonetically. So I thought that was the sort of person that we were going to meet."

How different was he when you met him?
"He was completely different. He was very warm, he was very friendly. He immediately expressed his appreciation that we had come to see him and that we were going to do an interview, particularly for an English publication. He extended himself in the friendliest possible manner. We went backstage to see him and within minutes he suggested that he and his wife would like to take us out to dinner, and he whisked us off to a rather posh restaurant in the area - the kind of restaurant which certainly at that time in our lives Alex and I would never have come to on our own! And he spent a whole evening with us."

How did you approach him in the first place?
"We saw the advertising in the newspapers that he was coming to the theatre. We telephoned him at the theatre, a day or two before the production was due to open, leaving a message explaining our interest and what we would like to do. And we got a call back - I think it was from his wife - suggesting that we come by on that evening and come backstage to see him."

You did a full interview with him?
"Over the course of the evening, yes."

Were you able to sell that to a British magazine?
"We sent it to a British magazine. There were several British magazines - not the well-known ones like Picturegoer and Picture Show and those - but monthly magazines dealing with films, that were being published right after the war. We had some experience with them in England. Honestly I have to admit that I don’t remember the names. They suggested that we could do some interviews and articles and send them back to London for publication - they would pay us and they would be happy to consider them on a freelance basis."

Presumably this was just after Bela had made Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein?
"I think it must have been. You know, it’s a long time ago!"

Was he still a popular figure who could draw a crowd?
"Yes, he was. Not only to a production like Arsenic and Old Lace but also to the Monogram pictures and serials and old films of his that were still playing around. Because after the Frankenstein/Dracula revival success he, like Boris, had come back into the limelight."

Did he discuss the films he had done for Monogram, which were very cheap?
"He expressed some regret that during a certain period in time those were the only films that were being offered to him. But at the same time, he was grateful to be working and he did his best in all of them. He didn’t brush them off and sleepwalk through them or telephone in his roles. He was one of those people, being the professional that he was since his early days on the stage - and in this respect he was very similar to Boris Karloff - that once he accepted to do something, he went at it with the same enthusiasm and the same care as if it were a major production. He never sloughed off anything he was doing."

A lot of critics say the only good thing in most of the Monograms is Bela.
"Exactly. He realised that by giving it his all he could make something more out of the pictures than just another Monogram film because naturally they would trade on his name and it was his presence in the films that made them more successful than the run of the mill Monogram product."

Was he a bit of an extrovert and a showman, especially regarding the Dracula persona?
"He was really always on stage, and he loved it. Even when we went to a restaurant. Over a period of a couple of years we spent a lot of time with him in New York. He was always Bela Lugosi, if you know what I mean - and I mean that in a good sense, not a derogatory sense. He was maintaining his image. He was enjoying it. He felt that was what the public expected from him and he was going to live up to their expectations."

He would have been in his sixties. Was he still good-looking and distinguished?
"He was very distinguished looking. For a man of his age, he was also still very impressive and handsome. The women all went for him and young girls were also extremely attracted to him. He was aware of that and he capitalised on that!"

How good was his command of English?
"By that time, when we met him, he spoke English very well. He had the strong accent which he had till the day he died but he was fully fluent in the English language by then."

Did he consider himself Hungarian or a naturalised American?
"He considered himself a naturalised American. He was very pro-America and felt that was where his career really came to a head and that was his home."

At that point, he was at retirement age. Did he intend to ever retire, or did he expect something big to be around the corner?
"It was a combination of factors. He didn’t want to retire because acting was his life. We felt he couldn’t afford to retire because he’d been through some pretty tough times. When he was doing well he lived very lavishly; I don’t think he ever thought much of the future. He was married quite a few times. I don’t think he could afford to retire and also I don’t think he had the desire to retire. He enjoyed the spotlight and he was determined to get back into the spotlight.

“The thing that triggered our representation, you might say, was that right from the start he talked about doing a revival tour of Dracula on the stage. He felt and he thought that if it could be set up in England this might be an entry back to Broadway, because if he went to England and did it on the stage in London and it was a success, there was every possibility that it would then be brought to Broadway and he would come to full circle. I think that from the beginning, his interest in Alex and me - and again I don’t mean this in a derogatory sense - was that, being that we were from England and had connections in England, he saw possibilities that we might be able to accomplish something that the other people around him couldn’t do.

“He didn’t have an agent at the time. He had a manager, a young man we met who was also at Seacliff, who was always around him. The manager wasn’t able to do very much for him, in particular not with regard to anything like setting up a tour overseas, and that’s what prompted Bela at a certain point to suggest to us that if we would take over, so to speak, the management of his career while he was in New York, we might be able to accomplish something."

He had been to England twice before, to make The Mystery of the Marie Celeste and Dark Eyes of London. Did he have fond memories of those?
"He had very fond memories of working in England, particularly Dark Eyes of London which he felt was one of the best things he had done. It had offered him a very good dual role and of course the picture was very well regarded at the time. The Mystery of the Marie Celeste was a bit of a disappointment for him because before he went over there and started making the film, they had promised a much grander production which in the end it wasn’t. But he enjoyed being in England. He was always very well received there, very well liked there, and he felt very comfortable working in England."

What was Lilian Lugosi like?
"She was completely devoted to him, certainly at the time that we spent with him. She looked after him in every possible way, she never left his side. She protected him from and against any kind of criticism and hostility and problems which could arise otherwise. She also acted, in some respects, as a nurse, looking after him with his illnesses and his health problems and everything else."

What was his health like at that time?
"His health was good but he suffered from these pains that came from, I think originally, his injuries in the First World War. At least he always maintained that was where it started, He would have attacks of pain which would make it extremely difficult for him to function and she would take care of him with medication and injections and so on."

Were there areas of his life that he wouldn’t talk about?
"Not that I recollect, no."

What were his favourite topics to talk about?
"About his success as a romantic leading man in Hungary and all the great roles he had played there. He did Hamlet, he did Romeo. He was really a highly regarded classical actor. Then he had some success in Germany too, both in films and on the stage, before he came to America. He talked a lot about his years overseas."

You set up two TV shows at this time, Suspense and The Milton Berle Show. How did those come about?
"Those were actually people who approached Bela and wanted him. We helped to negotiate the terms."

So people were actively seeking him out?
"People were seeking him out, particularly while he was living in New York, because of which he wasn’t so much in demand in Hollywood. They knew he was available in the East."

Was he approached about any other work?
"He did a couple of plays with the hope that they might come into New York, but nothing happened like that. He did some personal appearance tours in movie theatres along with showings of his films. Generally he was busy but not doing anything really important which is what he was looking for."

What did Bela think of Boris Karloff and what did Boris think of Bela?
"I have always said - and it’s a fact - that this rivalry between Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi and the feud between them was a myth that was perpetrated by Universal in order to promote the films in which they appeared together, like The Raven and The Black Cat. They didn’t have much in common so they didn’t socialise, but they were on perfectly friendly terms when they worked together. Boris actually felt sorry for Bela that Bela’s career had gone downhill the way it did, and felt that a lot of it was Bela’s own fault because he didn’t make the effort to learn the English language and reduce his accent sufficiently to be thought of in Hollywood as an actor who could play other kinds of roles.

“He was sorry that Bela had not had the success that, after playing in Dracula, he should have enjoyed. He often asked about Bela and said, ‘Poor Bela, I’m sorry that things went wrong for him the way they did.’ Bela was a little envious of Karloff’s success but not in a hostile way because although he didn’t talk about it much later, the fact is that, as you know, he was asked to do the Frankenstein film but he turned it down. So sometimes he would say, ‘If it was not for me there would be no Boris Karloff,’ but of course that’s not an accurate appraisal of the situation."

You set up the British tour of Dracula which was long regarded as a disaster but is now known to have played successfully in 22 venues. There was a book about it.
"I contributed to the book and collaborated on the book."

To what extent was it a success or failure?
"It was a failure because it didn’t accomplish what the grand plan was, which was for it to come into London and have a West End production. The whole idea of doing the tour was to create interest and hopefully establish that it was a money-making proposition and enable it to come into London where, if it had a successful run in the West End, one could then have tried to revive it in New York. When I have said in the past that it was a flop, in the overall scheme of things, that’s what it was.

“It was very hard on Bela, travelling the way he had to, doing the performances the way he had to, the conditions under which he had to work. At that stage of his life and at that stage of his health. He persevered with it. It made money in some locations and flopped in others. Overall, we considered it a failure."

Did you use the Hamilton Deane script that Bela performed in 1927?
"Yes."

Did it have to be updated?
"No, it wasn’t updated. It was played in period and as it was originally."

Did you come over and see it?
"I was still in America at that point, when it opened in Brighton. I did not actually see it during the tour, no."

Did you ever see the Broadway revival with Frank Langella in the late 1970s?
"Yes I did. It was a completely different version of Dracula, just like some of the films that have been made since. As far as I’m concerned, Dracula was Bela Lugosi and Dracula was the film that Universal made. All the other variations of it I don’t have that much respect or feeling for."

Why didn’t Dracula make it into the West End?
"I think what was wrong was the management was under-financed and had agreed to do this whole thing in the belief that all they had to do was put Bela Lugosi’s name in front of the theatre and that’s all that was necessary. But there was nothing to back it up. From all accounts I’ve heard, and from the many letters I got from Lillian at the time, it was very second-rate. The whole production was done on the cheap and it just didn’t back up Lugosi’s performance."

Was there much press interest in Lugosi’s visit to England?
"There was considerable interest when he arrived and there was considerable interest when the production opened, but - except for the local papers of course - the press didn’t follow it around."

When it finished...
"It wasn’t really that it was finished. It was that the management ran out of money and decided they couldn’t continue with it. Nothing had happened with regard to a West End production up to that point - and they just shut it down."

How did that lead into Mother Riley Meets the Vampire?
"It left Bela stranded in England with very little money and no plans for the future because it was unexpected. It was at that point that I came to London and tried to do something to help him financially and also to get him back to the United States. George Minter was doing the Mother Riley series; I was representing George Minter and Renown Pictures in America at the time, on the distribution of his pictures. George and I reached an agreement to do this film, which was almost ready to go anyway, although it wasn’t quite the picture that it became when Lugosi joined it. But it was a film that was very close to starting production, so it was a great opportunity for Bela to get some work immediately, and also to use the money to return to the United States."

What did the backers of the film think when the idea of Bela being in it was raised?
"There was really only George Minter who had to make the decision, although he must have discussed it with Arthur Lucan at the time. George had the rights to the Mother Riley series. He had already made two or three of the pictures, and I don’t think he had to consult anybody else."

How did Bela and Arthur Lucan get on together?
"They really never understood each other! Arthur Lucan was always Old Mother Riley - on stage or off - and always behaved accordingly. You never saw him at the studios when he was working except in the Old Mother Riley get-up. He used to arrive at the studio already fully dressed and made-up and he would leave the studio the same way. They came from two such totally different backgrounds and two totally different personalities and never quite understood each other.

“The biggest problem was that Bela, with his stage training and years of experience, would take a script and very quickly learn it until he knew it off by heart and stick to it absolutely during the filming; and Lucan was used to ad-libbing and going off the script and doing all kinds of things when shooting started that weren’t in the original screenplay. This was something that Bela found very hard to cope with. This was the problem when he was on the Milton Berle television show - that Berle started ad-libbing and Bela couldn’t follow it. He wasn’t prepared for it."

Ad-libbing aside, did Bela enjoy doing comedy?
"Yes, he did. He enjoyed it very much. For instance, he was very pleased with his role in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, which was after all a take-off on his own characterisation. I think he would gladly have done more comedy if it had been offered to him. But he couldn’t really cope with Lucan."

That was his first film for three or four years - was he glad to be in front of a camera again?
"I think he was glad to be working. Let’s put it that way."

Did he prefer stage or film work?
"He preferred stage work, if he could get something worthwhile."

Did he go back to America after Mother Riley?
"He went straight back to America as soon as the shooting was finished and the studio released him. He immediately went back to America and he went directly back to Hollywood. He didn’t stay in New York any longer. At that point, my brother took over the taking care of him and I was really sent out of the picture. That was the last time I saw him."

Did you follow the last few years of his life?
"I followed it from a distance. But I was then busy in New York with my own production plans and we drifted apart."

How do you think Bela wanted to be remembered?
"He never really talked about anything like that in those terms, but I’m sure he wanted to be remembered as the star of Dracula."

What’s your most abiding memory of Bela?
"My most abiding memory of him is the extreme loyalty he had towards anybody who either did something for him or was making a genuine effort to try and do something for him. He was a very generous man, very warm-hearted. I think as a result of that a lot of people tried to take advantage of him also, and that’s where Lillian came in and tried to keep a very strict control over things. But he was a very warm and outgoing personality.”

interview originally posted 3rd November 2011
Viewing all 770 articles
Browse latest View live