What’s it about?
Cable channel executive James Woods goes out looking for the next big thing in television -- something that will break barriers and shock viewers into massive ratings. He thinks he’s found it when he stumbles across a pirate broadcast of a show called “Videodrome”. The program has no content except for depictions of torture, mutilations, and murders which all take place in the same featureless room.
Woods, believing the program to be staged, attempts to find the creators so he can offer them a broadcast deal. The trail leads him first to renowned television prophet and personality Brian O’Blivion, and then deeper into a shadowy underworld. Meanwhile, Woods begins having powerful and disturbing hallucinations, which he eventually learns have been triggered by signals hidden in the Videodrome broadcasts. By the time he realizes he’s caught up in a weird conspiracy, it seems too late for Woods to save himself.
Is it any good?
I’ve been avoiding writing about David Cronenberg movies because -- well, just because. I watched both THE BROOD (1979) and SCANNERS (1981) back when I was covering the years they were released in, but couldn’t work up the enthusiasm to say a whole lot about them. I got pretty close with THE BROOD, since I was interested in how it used a “soft” science like psychology as the springboard for sci-fi speculations instead of a harder science like robotics or physical medicine or computer science. I also mentioned THE BROOD in my entry about ALTERED STATES (1980) when I talked about the mind-over-matter themes of that latter movie.
After watching a couple more David Cronenberg movies, it certainly seems like he keeps obsessively returning to those mind-over-matter themes. SCANNERS is about warring factions of folks with telepathic powers -- including the ability to link in to other peoples’ bodies and affect their bodily functions (sometimes with explosive consequences). Likewise, VIDEODROME is at least partly interested in how hallucinations can change subjective (and possibly objective) reality.
There are really two sci-fi stories running in parallel in VIDEODROME, though they are unavoidably intertwined with each other. The first is Woods’s quest to find ever more shocking content for his cable channel. This leads him to seek out programs that feature sex, violence, gore, perversion, or (ideally) some combination of them all. To be honest, the sci-fi edge here is a distinction in degree rather than in kind -- and only by the slightest degree. The quest for shock value certainly isn’t new of itself, and the programs that Woods reviews don’t even necessarily seem more depraved than some that exist in the real world. In 1983, it wouldn’t have been so easy to distribute such things on a mainstream cable channel, but today the Internet has removed essentially all doubt that there’s an audience out there for even the most envelope-pushing or stomach-turning content.
The other sci-fi twist involves Videodrome’s ability to trigger hallucinations in those who watch it. If you look at that from a metaphorical point of view, it could be saying something about how watching violent or perverted content can warp a person’s view of reality. It also pretty clearly separates “those who watch” from “those who don’t” -- anybody who watches enough of the show will be easily recognizable by their raving insanity. When Woods finally meets the folks responsible for the shows, for instance, they ask him why on earth a person would want to watch a show like Videodrome. They’ve never seen it themselves -- if they had, they would have gone crazy too.
On a more surface level, the hallucinations are part of a plot to do something or other. To be honest, I’m not really clear what the makers of Videodrome were trying to accomplish. They don’t appear to be anarchists who are just intent on driving everyone crazy. Seemingly the hallucinations are controllable -- that is, the shadowy forces in control of Videodrome use Woods’s freak-outs to control his behavior, and at one point even get him to assassinate some people for them. (Though the logic behind the assassination is never clear either.) So potentially Videodrome could be a recruitment tool for insane assassins, but it’s such a blunt tool that it would be difficult to really manage the program. The movie doesn’t really spend much time developing that part of the plot either, which is probably just as well. As far as brainwashing assassins goes, I can’t really imagine that VIDEODROME would be able to top the audacity of similar plots in movies like THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962) and THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974).
David Cronenberg has a reputation as a guy who loves disturbing or gross images. I haven’t seen that many of his movies besides the ones I mentioned already, but I can see where folks might get that impression. THE BROOD isn’t particularly gross, but it does make use of some freaky child-like killers in creepy masks. They’re a bit too similar to the big gotcha from Nicholas Roeg’s DON’T LOOK NOW (1973) to be deeply disturbing, but there are a few frightening moments. These killers are also the physical manifestations of mental anguish, and one late scene where one is shown budding out of a woman’s body is pretty darn grotesque.
SCANNERS ups the gore considerably with its iconic exploding head. It’s an amazing special effect, and it still looks cool even when watching it happen frame by frame in slow motion. The climactic battle between the final two telepaths is a revolting splatterfest as well. When the fight’s over, we’ve seen ruptured blood vessels, burst eyeballs, and burning and melting flesh.
VIDEODROME takes things in a different, but no less unnerving direction. We never see the worst of the torture on the Videodrome program -- it’s still unpleasant, but it’s very brief and never particularly graphic. James Woods’s hallucinations, however, are extremely graphic, and they seem to have a recurring theme of combining organic flesh and technology. In one recurring bit, Woods’s appendix scar splits open, allowing access to his innards so videotapes or guns can be deposited inside his body (or, later in the movie, retrieved for use). There’s not a lot of blood and gore necessarily, but Cronenberg seems to hone in instantly on what makes people say “yuck”. I’ve got at least THE FLY (1986) and NAKED LUNCH (1991) upcoming from him as well, so I expect to be saying “yuck” many more times.
Ultimately, I don’t think that any of the three Cronenberg movies I’ve seen so far are that great. They all start out with very interesting premises, but then end up in pretty standard patterns. THE BROOD turns into a slasher flick in the second half, and both SCANNERS and VIDEODROME end up as conspiracy thrillers. The conspiracy part of VIDEODROME is especially half-baked -- as I said, I’m still not clear on what the objective of the conspiracy is, and I have no clue whatsoever why the bad guys went to all the trouble they did to rope in Woods. (A half-hearted answer is given to that second question, but it doesn’t really make any sense.) VIDEODROME looks better than either of the other two, and the special effects on the hallucinations are worth seeing. It’s kind of unpleasant at times, but it’s also fairly unique (at least in the early going). And James Woods is a great actor for this role. Based on all this, I’m really looking forward to seeing Jeff Goldblum in THE FLY. I could easily see that being the magic combination that makes a really great movie.
Showing posts with label gory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gory. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
1981: HEAVY METAL
What’s it about?
An astronaut returns home from a space mission with a mysterious glowing green orb. Once at home, the power of the orb activates and menaces his young, innocent daughter. It shows her vignettes of its past existence, and how it has corrupted others. In the first, a young woman and a cab driver in a futuristic New York City get tangled up with double-crossing mobsters. In the second, a shrimpy boy is transformed by the power of the orb into a meathead and transported to a dangerous planet full of monsters and magic.
In the third vignette, a defense witness testifying on behalf of a space pirate turns into a Hulk-like monster and starts trashing the space station where the trial is taking place. Next, dead crewmembers on a WWII bomber are brought back to life as skeletal monsters as the plane flies on. Then a secretary is abducted by cocaine-snorting aliens and a randy robot. Finally, a gang of medieval cyborgs sets about exterminating a peace-loving race until a defender is called to help.
Is it any good?
HEAVY METAL is a cartoon anthology movie, which means it’s two things that I don’t know a whole lot about. Then throw in what I assume is meant to be some kind of connection to heavy metal music -- something else I know little about -- and I’m not sure that I’m really qualified to say anything about this movie at all. But I’ll try.
The only other anthology movie I’ve written about so far is THE ILLUSTRATED MAN (1969), in which the tattoos on Rod Steiger’s body come to life and play out short sci-fi vignettes. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) is maybe arguably an anthology movie but not probably not really. In fact, both of these movies hang together much more tightly than your typical anthology -- in addition to a unifying theme or story, they each have a single director and set of screenwriters who are in charge of all the pieces. In the case of THE ILLUSTRATED MAN, the frame story takes up a lot of screen time while the vignettes are brief and few. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the four vignettes are all clearly tied together in some way, even if the links aren’t totally obvious.
A typical anthology, on the other hand, puts the focus on the vignettes and the frame story (if there even is one) is usually extremely slight. It’s also common (but by no means always the case) that more than one director works on an anthology. For some reason, most anthologies seem to focus largely on horror, but sci-fi stories also sneak in fairly often. There’s ASYLUM (1972), in which a new doctor interviews the patients at an insane asylum and hears fantastic tales. And ALIEN ZONE (1978), in which a mortician tells gruesome stories about how the corpses in his funeral home met their demise. More famous examples are TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972), TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE (1983), and George Romero’s CREEPSHOW (1982). They still occasionally get produced today, though they don’t seem to be very popular anymore. But FEAR(S) OF THE DARK (2007) and TRICK ‘R TREAT (2008) are two recent horror anthologies -- and the first one, like HEAVY METAL, is even animated.
I haven’t actually seen most of the movies I just listed, since it’s hard for me to get excited about anthologies. They aren’t too demanding, since they skip along from short story to short story, but they also tend to be hit or miss. Even a (non-horror, non-sci-fi) anthology like PARIS JE T’AIME (2006) which features directors like the Coen brothers, Alexander Payne, Wes Craven, Gus van Sant and more still has lots of forgettable segments mixed in with the winners. So although I don’t really have anything against anthologies, they aren’t something I am very familiar with. (Though I have watched a couple more since seeing HEAVY METAL to try and get an idea of how they usually work.)
As for cartoons, it’s a lot harder for me to give a coherent explanation as to why I usually avoid them. It’s probably partly the usual western prejudice that cartoons are for kids, but none of the three animated movies I’ve written about so far (very much including this one) are appropriate for children. I also liked them all fine, and I don’t think they’d be any better if they were live action movies. I appreciated the unique artistic styles that went into FANTASTIC PLANET (1973) and WIZARDS (1977), and even HEAVY METAL has its own animated charms. (But it also has a lot of animated sex and gore, which is often less than charming. And overall it has far less visual imagination than those other two movies -- though it does have its inspired moments here and there.)
If I have any real grounding for my prejudice, I guess it would be that it’s harder for me to relate to animated protagonists, harder for me to be awed by animated vistas, to fear animated dangers, or to be moved by animated emotions. It’s not impossible, by any means. But in a cartoon world where literally almost anything can be shown, it seems to take more creativity and talent than usual to wow me. Wile E. Coyote spends a lot of time falling off of dramatic rock outcroppings more majestic than any in the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley -- yet I’ve never once felt any of the terror and amazement that such features should inspire. A cartoon is an extra (and very large) step away from reality, so it has to work a lot harder to overcome my suspension of disbelief and really involve me in what’s happening. That’s my opinion, anyway.
So what about HEAVY METAL? It’s okay. The frame story isn’t really that interesting -- supposedly this glowing green orb is the concentration of all the evil in the world, and it corrupts folks everywhere it goes. It’s planning to kill the little girl since she’s the one destined to subdue it in her generation or something. Anyway, the green orb figures one way or another in each of the vignettes, but in a few it barely makes any appearance at all and in others it doesn’t really seem to be evil. Frankly, the appearance of the orb in many of the stories only served to remind me that there wasn’t really any logical reason to throw these stories together, and it likely would have been less distracting if there were no frame story at all.
There’s a lot of mixing of fantasy and science fiction, and a little horror too. None of the vignettes except the last one are really long enough to make a big impression -- for the most part, they end just as they are getting interesting (or are just never that interesting). But the most memorable are probably the one where the cab driver in future New York tangles with alien mobsters and the one where WWII bomber crewmen are brought back to life as skeletons. The final vignette is a cut above even these highlights, however, and is far and away the best.
Most of the vignettes feature pretty explicit sex or gore, which I suppose were the kinds of things that the producers thought fans of heavy metal would like to see. What probably doesn’t appeal to fans of heavy metal, however, are bands like Journey and Devo, which overwhelmingly fill the soundtrack. So do expect lots of topless women with giant breasts, gruesome decapitations, alien monsters, and explosions. But don’t expect a real hard-rocking soundtrack. The London Philharmonic Orchestra makes a more prominent appearance in the music than actual metal.
Still, I enjoyed the flick. It’s juvenile in the extreme, but never really mean-spirited. It’s fun enough and never really boring, and does have occasional moments of wit and grandeur. (The funny bits are scattered throughout, but only the last vignette approaches any kind of visual majesty.) It’s not really the same caliber of movie as FANTASTIC PLANET or even WIZARDS, but it’s unpretentious and mindless entertainment if you don’t mind a lot of rough edges and teenaged fantasies. John Candy and Eugene Levy provide some of the voices, but honestly I didn’t even recognize them until I read the credits. Except for the lack of actual heavy metal, it’s pretty much everything you’d expect a cartoon movie called HEAVY METAL to be.
An astronaut returns home from a space mission with a mysterious glowing green orb. Once at home, the power of the orb activates and menaces his young, innocent daughter. It shows her vignettes of its past existence, and how it has corrupted others. In the first, a young woman and a cab driver in a futuristic New York City get tangled up with double-crossing mobsters. In the second, a shrimpy boy is transformed by the power of the orb into a meathead and transported to a dangerous planet full of monsters and magic.
In the third vignette, a defense witness testifying on behalf of a space pirate turns into a Hulk-like monster and starts trashing the space station where the trial is taking place. Next, dead crewmembers on a WWII bomber are brought back to life as skeletal monsters as the plane flies on. Then a secretary is abducted by cocaine-snorting aliens and a randy robot. Finally, a gang of medieval cyborgs sets about exterminating a peace-loving race until a defender is called to help.
Is it any good?
HEAVY METAL is a cartoon anthology movie, which means it’s two things that I don’t know a whole lot about. Then throw in what I assume is meant to be some kind of connection to heavy metal music -- something else I know little about -- and I’m not sure that I’m really qualified to say anything about this movie at all. But I’ll try.
The only other anthology movie I’ve written about so far is THE ILLUSTRATED MAN (1969), in which the tattoos on Rod Steiger’s body come to life and play out short sci-fi vignettes. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) is maybe arguably an anthology movie but not probably not really. In fact, both of these movies hang together much more tightly than your typical anthology -- in addition to a unifying theme or story, they each have a single director and set of screenwriters who are in charge of all the pieces. In the case of THE ILLUSTRATED MAN, the frame story takes up a lot of screen time while the vignettes are brief and few. In 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the four vignettes are all clearly tied together in some way, even if the links aren’t totally obvious.
A typical anthology, on the other hand, puts the focus on the vignettes and the frame story (if there even is one) is usually extremely slight. It’s also common (but by no means always the case) that more than one director works on an anthology. For some reason, most anthologies seem to focus largely on horror, but sci-fi stories also sneak in fairly often. There’s ASYLUM (1972), in which a new doctor interviews the patients at an insane asylum and hears fantastic tales. And ALIEN ZONE (1978), in which a mortician tells gruesome stories about how the corpses in his funeral home met their demise. More famous examples are TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972), TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE (1983), and George Romero’s CREEPSHOW (1982). They still occasionally get produced today, though they don’t seem to be very popular anymore. But FEAR(S) OF THE DARK (2007) and TRICK ‘R TREAT (2008) are two recent horror anthologies -- and the first one, like HEAVY METAL, is even animated.
I haven’t actually seen most of the movies I just listed, since it’s hard for me to get excited about anthologies. They aren’t too demanding, since they skip along from short story to short story, but they also tend to be hit or miss. Even a (non-horror, non-sci-fi) anthology like PARIS JE T’AIME (2006) which features directors like the Coen brothers, Alexander Payne, Wes Craven, Gus van Sant and more still has lots of forgettable segments mixed in with the winners. So although I don’t really have anything against anthologies, they aren’t something I am very familiar with. (Though I have watched a couple more since seeing HEAVY METAL to try and get an idea of how they usually work.)
As for cartoons, it’s a lot harder for me to give a coherent explanation as to why I usually avoid them. It’s probably partly the usual western prejudice that cartoons are for kids, but none of the three animated movies I’ve written about so far (very much including this one) are appropriate for children. I also liked them all fine, and I don’t think they’d be any better if they were live action movies. I appreciated the unique artistic styles that went into FANTASTIC PLANET (1973) and WIZARDS (1977), and even HEAVY METAL has its own animated charms. (But it also has a lot of animated sex and gore, which is often less than charming. And overall it has far less visual imagination than those other two movies -- though it does have its inspired moments here and there.)
If I have any real grounding for my prejudice, I guess it would be that it’s harder for me to relate to animated protagonists, harder for me to be awed by animated vistas, to fear animated dangers, or to be moved by animated emotions. It’s not impossible, by any means. But in a cartoon world where literally almost anything can be shown, it seems to take more creativity and talent than usual to wow me. Wile E. Coyote spends a lot of time falling off of dramatic rock outcroppings more majestic than any in the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley -- yet I’ve never once felt any of the terror and amazement that such features should inspire. A cartoon is an extra (and very large) step away from reality, so it has to work a lot harder to overcome my suspension of disbelief and really involve me in what’s happening. That’s my opinion, anyway.
So what about HEAVY METAL? It’s okay. The frame story isn’t really that interesting -- supposedly this glowing green orb is the concentration of all the evil in the world, and it corrupts folks everywhere it goes. It’s planning to kill the little girl since she’s the one destined to subdue it in her generation or something. Anyway, the green orb figures one way or another in each of the vignettes, but in a few it barely makes any appearance at all and in others it doesn’t really seem to be evil. Frankly, the appearance of the orb in many of the stories only served to remind me that there wasn’t really any logical reason to throw these stories together, and it likely would have been less distracting if there were no frame story at all.
There’s a lot of mixing of fantasy and science fiction, and a little horror too. None of the vignettes except the last one are really long enough to make a big impression -- for the most part, they end just as they are getting interesting (or are just never that interesting). But the most memorable are probably the one where the cab driver in future New York tangles with alien mobsters and the one where WWII bomber crewmen are brought back to life as skeletons. The final vignette is a cut above even these highlights, however, and is far and away the best.
Most of the vignettes feature pretty explicit sex or gore, which I suppose were the kinds of things that the producers thought fans of heavy metal would like to see. What probably doesn’t appeal to fans of heavy metal, however, are bands like Journey and Devo, which overwhelmingly fill the soundtrack. So do expect lots of topless women with giant breasts, gruesome decapitations, alien monsters, and explosions. But don’t expect a real hard-rocking soundtrack. The London Philharmonic Orchestra makes a more prominent appearance in the music than actual metal.
Still, I enjoyed the flick. It’s juvenile in the extreme, but never really mean-spirited. It’s fun enough and never really boring, and does have occasional moments of wit and grandeur. (The funny bits are scattered throughout, but only the last vignette approaches any kind of visual majesty.) It’s not really the same caliber of movie as FANTASTIC PLANET or even WIZARDS, but it’s unpretentious and mindless entertainment if you don’t mind a lot of rough edges and teenaged fantasies. John Candy and Eugene Levy provide some of the voices, but honestly I didn’t even recognize them until I read the credits. Except for the lack of actual heavy metal, it’s pretty much everything you’d expect a cartoon movie called HEAVY METAL to be.
Friday, May 29, 2009
BONUS BLOG -- 1968: NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
What’s it about?
While on a visit to their father’s grave, a brother and sister are suddenly attacked by a lurching but persistent assailant. The sister manages to escape, but after encountering several other seemingly crazed people, she seeks refuge in an empty farmhouse. Deep in shock and unable to defend herself, she’s saved by the arrival of a survival-minded stranger who immediately starts boarding up the house while more of the monsters congregate in the yard outside.
After the house is secured, the basement door opens and reveals two more couples and a child who have been hiding down there the entire time. Disagreements about the best way to survive the situation lead to several heated arguments among the men. Meanwhile, a steady trickle of information from the radio and television paint an increasingly grim picture of what is happening. Eventually it becomes clear that the recently deceased are returning to life with the apparently single-minded purpose of eating the living. When the location of a local disaster shelter is revealed, the people must decide whether to make a break for it through the hordes of living dead, or to wait out the attack and hope their defenses hold.
Is it any good?
I’ve seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD a couple times before, but this was the first time I noticed how much like a western it really is. Replace the living dead with cowboys or Apaches, and you’ve got a new version of STAGECOACH or RIO BRAVO. Westerns have always been about tiny flickering flames of civilization struggling to stay alight in vast dark wildernesses. And they’ve always been about stubborn, bull-headed people unwilling to compromise, even when it threatens their lives. Those are exactly two of the things that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about too.
The two original people in the house -- the sister, Barbra, and the stranger, Ben -- are more or less the main characters of the movie. The other folks who show up later mostly serve to add some uncertainty and danger to what might happen inside the house to complement the obvious dangers outside. But Barbra and Ben aren’t perfect heroes themselves. Barbra spends most of the movie completely useless -- sitting around in shock and probably guilt after watching her brother’s death. Ben alternates between trying to slap some sense back into her (another very western touch) and defending her from the criticism of the newcomers. Besides thinking nothing of slapping Barbra, Ben is also a quick-tempered hothead who feels entitled to be “the boss” because he’s the one who did most of the work securing the house. Eventually his desire for control leads him even as far as murder. And ironically, it’s the very survival plan that he was so strenuously rejecting (hiding in the cellar) that ends up saving his life from the living dead.
Now after having done my best to make in the interpersonal dynamics sound as interesting as possible, I should admit that in practice they are probably the least interesting part of the movie. The characters are all one-dimensional and they are sometimes given to irrational behavior. Most of the actors are also not nearly good enough to make even flat characters convincing, but what saves NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is that as long as something is happening, it’s always interesting -- and something is almost always happening.
For the first half hour or so, that something is Ben boarding up the house. The movie approaches this with admirable realism -- whatever little budget the movie had must have been largely spent in getting a house and furnishings that could be convincingly ripped apart. But even more interesting is what happens after the defenses are in place. First a radio and then a television set are discovered, and until the power goes out late in the movie one or the other is practically always playing in the background. Those broadcasts turn out to be the most relentlessly gripping part of the movie. Part of this is just that it’s easy to identify with frightened people trying to glean information from TV news broadcasts after a disaster, and part of it is the masterful way it’s handled. It’s telling that during the frequent moments when characters argue or talk over the broadcasts, I found myself always straining to tune out the people so I could hear what the TV was saying.
Just as the television is something that we all like to despise until a disaster reminds us how necessary it is, so too does the end of the movie make a similar case for rednecks and hicks. When the eastern third of the United States is overrun by flesh-eating living dead who can only be stopped by a bullet to the brain, who’s finally able to clean up the mess? Why, it’s the gun-loving, simple-living country folk who think nothing of some casual killing if it’s for a good cause. Honestly, I think this part of the movie gives me more of a surge of pride and appreciation than George Romero intended. After all, the very ending of the movie is bleak and depressing (and its all the fault of the rednecks). But ultimately I suppose I figure they’re no worse than our heroes in the house -- especially Ben who, when the chips were down, killed another human so he could keep being “the boss”. In any event, the continued possibility of zombie apocalypse is reason enough for me to agree that the right to bear arms is worth defending.
Note: I know I promised to do seven entries this week, but sadly I am not going to be able to get to anymore. So this will be the last one for a little while, since I am going on a pseudo-hiatus. I will keep updating, but probably not every week anymore. Anyway, thanks to everybody who has been reading so far. There is a lot more to come yet!
What else happened this year?
-- Daniel Keyes's novel FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON was adapted into the award-winning sci-fi drama CHARLY.
-- Charlton Heston and Roddy MacDowell starred in the truly awesome PLANET OF THE APES, which is the year's grungy, cynical counterpoint to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
-- Godzilla and all of his friends returned for DESTROY ALL MONSTERS.
-- Robert Altman made one of his first features (and one of his few sci-fi movies) with COUNTDOWN, the story of an American moonshot rushed into a dangerous launch to beat the Soviets.
-- And I can't quite tell whether Ingmar Bergman's SHAME counts as sci-fi. I've never seen it and every description makes it sound like an ordinary wartime drama, and yet there are hints that it might be post-apocalyptic somehow.
If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1968...
Oh man it has to be PLANET OF THE APES.
While on a visit to their father’s grave, a brother and sister are suddenly attacked by a lurching but persistent assailant. The sister manages to escape, but after encountering several other seemingly crazed people, she seeks refuge in an empty farmhouse. Deep in shock and unable to defend herself, she’s saved by the arrival of a survival-minded stranger who immediately starts boarding up the house while more of the monsters congregate in the yard outside.
After the house is secured, the basement door opens and reveals two more couples and a child who have been hiding down there the entire time. Disagreements about the best way to survive the situation lead to several heated arguments among the men. Meanwhile, a steady trickle of information from the radio and television paint an increasingly grim picture of what is happening. Eventually it becomes clear that the recently deceased are returning to life with the apparently single-minded purpose of eating the living. When the location of a local disaster shelter is revealed, the people must decide whether to make a break for it through the hordes of living dead, or to wait out the attack and hope their defenses hold.
 |  |
Is it any good?
I’ve seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD a couple times before, but this was the first time I noticed how much like a western it really is. Replace the living dead with cowboys or Apaches, and you’ve got a new version of STAGECOACH or RIO BRAVO. Westerns have always been about tiny flickering flames of civilization struggling to stay alight in vast dark wildernesses. And they’ve always been about stubborn, bull-headed people unwilling to compromise, even when it threatens their lives. Those are exactly two of the things that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about too.
The two original people in the house -- the sister, Barbra, and the stranger, Ben -- are more or less the main characters of the movie. The other folks who show up later mostly serve to add some uncertainty and danger to what might happen inside the house to complement the obvious dangers outside. But Barbra and Ben aren’t perfect heroes themselves. Barbra spends most of the movie completely useless -- sitting around in shock and probably guilt after watching her brother’s death. Ben alternates between trying to slap some sense back into her (another very western touch) and defending her from the criticism of the newcomers. Besides thinking nothing of slapping Barbra, Ben is also a quick-tempered hothead who feels entitled to be “the boss” because he’s the one who did most of the work securing the house. Eventually his desire for control leads him even as far as murder. And ironically, it’s the very survival plan that he was so strenuously rejecting (hiding in the cellar) that ends up saving his life from the living dead.
Now after having done my best to make in the interpersonal dynamics sound as interesting as possible, I should admit that in practice they are probably the least interesting part of the movie. The characters are all one-dimensional and they are sometimes given to irrational behavior. Most of the actors are also not nearly good enough to make even flat characters convincing, but what saves NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is that as long as something is happening, it’s always interesting -- and something is almost always happening.
 |  |
For the first half hour or so, that something is Ben boarding up the house. The movie approaches this with admirable realism -- whatever little budget the movie had must have been largely spent in getting a house and furnishings that could be convincingly ripped apart. But even more interesting is what happens after the defenses are in place. First a radio and then a television set are discovered, and until the power goes out late in the movie one or the other is practically always playing in the background. Those broadcasts turn out to be the most relentlessly gripping part of the movie. Part of this is just that it’s easy to identify with frightened people trying to glean information from TV news broadcasts after a disaster, and part of it is the masterful way it’s handled. It’s telling that during the frequent moments when characters argue or talk over the broadcasts, I found myself always straining to tune out the people so I could hear what the TV was saying.
Just as the television is something that we all like to despise until a disaster reminds us how necessary it is, so too does the end of the movie make a similar case for rednecks and hicks. When the eastern third of the United States is overrun by flesh-eating living dead who can only be stopped by a bullet to the brain, who’s finally able to clean up the mess? Why, it’s the gun-loving, simple-living country folk who think nothing of some casual killing if it’s for a good cause. Honestly, I think this part of the movie gives me more of a surge of pride and appreciation than George Romero intended. After all, the very ending of the movie is bleak and depressing (and its all the fault of the rednecks). But ultimately I suppose I figure they’re no worse than our heroes in the house -- especially Ben who, when the chips were down, killed another human so he could keep being “the boss”. In any event, the continued possibility of zombie apocalypse is reason enough for me to agree that the right to bear arms is worth defending.
 |  |
Note: I know I promised to do seven entries this week, but sadly I am not going to be able to get to anymore. So this will be the last one for a little while, since I am going on a pseudo-hiatus. I will keep updating, but probably not every week anymore. Anyway, thanks to everybody who has been reading so far. There is a lot more to come yet!
What else happened this year?
-- Daniel Keyes's novel FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON was adapted into the award-winning sci-fi drama CHARLY.
-- Charlton Heston and Roddy MacDowell starred in the truly awesome PLANET OF THE APES, which is the year's grungy, cynical counterpoint to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
-- Godzilla and all of his friends returned for DESTROY ALL MONSTERS.
-- Robert Altman made one of his first features (and one of his few sci-fi movies) with COUNTDOWN, the story of an American moonshot rushed into a dangerous launch to beat the Soviets.
-- And I can't quite tell whether Ingmar Bergman's SHAME counts as sci-fi. I've never seen it and every description makes it sound like an ordinary wartime drama, and yet there are hints that it might be post-apocalyptic somehow.
If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1968...
Oh man it has to be PLANET OF THE APES.
Monday, March 16, 2009
1958: FIEND WITHOUT A FACE
What’s it about?
A U.S. air force outpost in Manitoba conducts experiments with atomic powered long-range radar, but can’t seem to generate enough power to keep their equipment working consistently. Meanwhile, mysterious deaths near the air base cause the locals (already suspicious of the Americans) to question whether they want the GIs there at all. Things only get weirder when autopsies of the victims reveal that their brains and spinal cords have been removed through tiny holes in the back of their necks.
Military investigators -- convinced that the atomic reactor can’t be the cause of the deaths -- begin to zero in on a local scientist who is researching telekinesis and other mental phenomena. After some hemming and hawing, the scientist breaks down and confesses that he siphoned power from the atomic reactor to aid him in experiments that he hoped would create physical manifestations from thought alone. It seems that one of these invisible manifestations is responsible for the spate of deaths, sucking out its victims’ brains and spinal cords in an attempt to reproduce itself. As the monsters grow more and more numerous, they take control of the power plant and jolt themselves with enough juice that they take a fully physical form and finally become visible. Meanwhile, a handful of desperate humans barricade themselves in a farmhouse surrounded by the brain monsters -- and then things get crazy.
Illustration copyright 2009 Dennis J. Reinmueller
Is it any good?
Let me put it this way: I cannot imagine anybody watching the last fifteen minutes of this movie and being disappointed. The first hour is a decent sci-fi procedural that alternates between invisible monster attacks, the official military investigation, and vigilante action by the angry Canadians. It’s pretty standard stuff, with its fair share of both neat moments and silly ones. But nothing in that part of the movie can prepare a person for the exuberant insanity of the last fifteen minutes. It starts with frightened people looking out the windows as disembodied brains and spinal cords menacingly climb the trees outside, and only gets crazier from there.
Why the monsters look like brains and spinal cords is never really satisfactorily explained. That’s what the scientist who was doing the thought-materialization experiment envisioned, and that’s what appeared. But as to why he decided to envision that -- well, who cares? The important thing is that everything about them is totally creepy. They are, after all, essentially motile internal organs with little eyestalks waving around on top. The way they inch along the ground is creepy. The way they sound as they approach is creepy. The way they fly through windows -- well, that’s hilarious actually.
I’m not even really sure what else to say about the movie because after you see the ending the rest of it just doesn’t matter anymore. The fiends are rendered in a combination of stop-motion and rubber prop effects, both of which are done fairly well. Although they are very squicky and creepy, they are not particularly scary and there were definitely moments during the climactic fight at the end where I couldn’t help but burst out laughing. So this is neither the tense claustrophobic horror of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968), nor is it the cruddy campiness of an Ed Wood movie. But it has its own brand of unabashed audaciousness that makes it both utterly indelible and completely unique. And even though this is far from the best movie of the decade, it is still absolutely something that every fan of 1950s sci-fi or horror should see for themselves.
What else happened this year?
-- Vincent Price gave his budding career as a horror icon a big boost by starring in THE FLY, one of my favorite movies of all time.
-- Meanwhile, Steve McQueen was fostering his own career by starring opposite a blob of purple silicon jelly in, well, THE BLOB.
-- ATTACK OF THE 50 FT WOMAN is one of the cheapest and worst sci-fi movies I have ever seen, but somehow it is still considered a camp classic.
-- I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE puts its own spin (and social commentary) on the bodysnatcher premise by swapping a bridegroom for an alien invader on the eve of his wedding.
If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1958...
It ought to be either THE BLOB or THE FLY.
A U.S. air force outpost in Manitoba conducts experiments with atomic powered long-range radar, but can’t seem to generate enough power to keep their equipment working consistently. Meanwhile, mysterious deaths near the air base cause the locals (already suspicious of the Americans) to question whether they want the GIs there at all. Things only get weirder when autopsies of the victims reveal that their brains and spinal cords have been removed through tiny holes in the back of their necks.
Military investigators -- convinced that the atomic reactor can’t be the cause of the deaths -- begin to zero in on a local scientist who is researching telekinesis and other mental phenomena. After some hemming and hawing, the scientist breaks down and confesses that he siphoned power from the atomic reactor to aid him in experiments that he hoped would create physical manifestations from thought alone. It seems that one of these invisible manifestations is responsible for the spate of deaths, sucking out its victims’ brains and spinal cords in an attempt to reproduce itself. As the monsters grow more and more numerous, they take control of the power plant and jolt themselves with enough juice that they take a fully physical form and finally become visible. Meanwhile, a handful of desperate humans barricade themselves in a farmhouse surrounded by the brain monsters -- and then things get crazy.
Illustration copyright 2009 Dennis J. Reinmueller
Is it any good?
Let me put it this way: I cannot imagine anybody watching the last fifteen minutes of this movie and being disappointed. The first hour is a decent sci-fi procedural that alternates between invisible monster attacks, the official military investigation, and vigilante action by the angry Canadians. It’s pretty standard stuff, with its fair share of both neat moments and silly ones. But nothing in that part of the movie can prepare a person for the exuberant insanity of the last fifteen minutes. It starts with frightened people looking out the windows as disembodied brains and spinal cords menacingly climb the trees outside, and only gets crazier from there.
Why the monsters look like brains and spinal cords is never really satisfactorily explained. That’s what the scientist who was doing the thought-materialization experiment envisioned, and that’s what appeared. But as to why he decided to envision that -- well, who cares? The important thing is that everything about them is totally creepy. They are, after all, essentially motile internal organs with little eyestalks waving around on top. The way they inch along the ground is creepy. The way they sound as they approach is creepy. The way they fly through windows -- well, that’s hilarious actually.
I’m not even really sure what else to say about the movie because after you see the ending the rest of it just doesn’t matter anymore. The fiends are rendered in a combination of stop-motion and rubber prop effects, both of which are done fairly well. Although they are very squicky and creepy, they are not particularly scary and there were definitely moments during the climactic fight at the end where I couldn’t help but burst out laughing. So this is neither the tense claustrophobic horror of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968), nor is it the cruddy campiness of an Ed Wood movie. But it has its own brand of unabashed audaciousness that makes it both utterly indelible and completely unique. And even though this is far from the best movie of the decade, it is still absolutely something that every fan of 1950s sci-fi or horror should see for themselves.
What else happened this year?
-- Vincent Price gave his budding career as a horror icon a big boost by starring in THE FLY, one of my favorite movies of all time.
-- Meanwhile, Steve McQueen was fostering his own career by starring opposite a blob of purple silicon jelly in, well, THE BLOB.
-- ATTACK OF THE 50 FT WOMAN is one of the cheapest and worst sci-fi movies I have ever seen, but somehow it is still considered a camp classic.
-- I MARRIED A MONSTER FROM OUTER SPACE puts its own spin (and social commentary) on the bodysnatcher premise by swapping a bridegroom for an alien invader on the eve of his wedding.
If you only watch one sci-fi movie from 1958...
It ought to be either THE BLOB or THE FLY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)