Eraserhead (1977) Directed by David Lynch

 As David Lynch's first feature, this introduces us to many of the ideas, obsessions, as well the visual and audio ticks that find themselves all through the director's multi-decade career. Best described as horror film, the images are strange and sometimes shocking with very little explanation as to why events happen or what their consequences are. 

The basic story can be boiled down to a guy who discoveres he is the father to a deformed child and has to take care of it. As in most of Lynch's films, this does not even come close to covering what the film transmits to the viewer. The plot is almost superfluous in this movie while the feelings of dread, loneliness, alienation and confusion take centre stage and lead the viewer from start to finish but with no answers to any questions that may have come up along the way. It sorts of drags you along with the protagonist who is as bewildered by what is going on as we are. 

Visually and sound-wise the film is a tour de force of weirdness. It plays with horror, particularly gothic horror tropes and presents them as a sort of no man's land, post apocalyptic world with no meaning left in it but all the horror remaining. It's film you have to watch to understand and come to your own conclusions about. 

The effects, particularly of the "baby" are haunting in their realism.

Mother: There’s a baby. It’s at the hospital. And you’re the father.

Henry: Well, well that’s impossible! It’s only been…

Daughter: Mother, they’re still not sure it is a baby!

Filmed over  period of years on American Institute's Centre for Advanced Film Studies campus and financed by grants and Sissy Spacek, Lynch took his time with the production and released it to a 25 person audience in a short run which led to midnight showings where the film found it's true audience and defined what cult movies are. The poster was a punk staple to people who had not even seen the film and its influence on Lynch's further work and the works of other director's has been felt since its release. 

How on earth his film has never been highlighted here in the Slammer by me or any of the previous inmates is beyond comprehension. It's a midnight movie classic made by someone whose filmography I imagine most of our readers know inside and out. 

Raspberry Reich (2004) directed by Bruce LaBruce

WARNING: Explicit subject matter! 

This film tells the story of a would be terrorist group who kidnaps the son of a rich businessman for blackmail purposes. However, the son has recently come out as gay and was disinherited which complicates their plans. The group is led by a woman named Gudrun who constantly and I do mean constantly, spouts off radical philosophy histories and slogans - going so far as yelling "Fuck me for the revolution" as her boyfriend fucks her off the bed, out of the apartment and into the elevator. As this is happening, Che (another main character) is preforming oral sex on various firearms and finally shoots his wad - and a gun - in unison. Gubdrun is, in effect the only woman in this film save for a neighbour in the elevator and the rest are all young, sexy boys (mostly gay porn stars) who spend much of the runtime fucking each other. This film has an "unedited version" but maybe that's the version I saw both in the cinema and on DVD because, honestly, nothing is hidden or cut away from sexually. Full on oral and anal sex, cum shots - it's all there. In the end the hostage escapes with a member of the the group who has become his boyfriend and they spend their days robbing banks owned by his father. The other members end up in gay bars and less revolutionary jobs while Che is hired by middle east terrorists to film practice kidnappings. Gundrun and her boyfriend have a kid, hoping he will continue the revolution when he grows up.

To be fair to Bruce LaBruce, this movie falls inline with his other films, falling squarely into comedy/parody territory and while it's not a good film in many ways, it is fun to watch. Sure the explicit sex isn't exactly a minus but the slogans and  dialog, though delivered in a wooden manner, is pretty funny. The boys are sexy and hung and the lead actress gives an over the top performance that is both annoying and somehow captivating. It looks like a 70's low budget exploitation film and sounds like one as well. That is likely 1) on purpose and 2) because LaBruce films are known for having very, very low budgets. The music is interesting at points, but can be annoying and doesn't always fit with the action on screen. The opening segment is far too long and drawn out with strobing title cards  creating an epileptic's nightmare. You could probably cut 20 minutes from the total time and have a much more tight and evenly paced movie.

Like I said, it isn't good, but it does stick with you. The slogans like "The revolution is my Boyfriend!" and dialog such as "homosexually must only be used for revolutionary purposes" might find themselves being used by you in everyday conversation. Well, if you have conversations like I do. You might also find yourself declaring what is  "counter-revolutionary" after seeing this. According to the film that would include things like: Madonna, hip hop, cornflakes and masturbations among other things.

This film is not everyone's cup of tea but it is honest about what it is and thanks you "watching this porn" in the end credits. Bruce LaBruce is a singular filmmaker and keeps on making the things he wants to make and he should be admired for that alone. Plus he is Canadian like me so I am maybe little biased in his direction.

In a Glass Cage (Tras el cristal) 1986 written and directed by Agustí Villaronga

In a Glass Cage is a film, simply put, about Stockholm Syndrome on steroids. A former Nazi doctor (Klaus) is still practicing horrific experiments on children while in exile in a remote village in Catalonia. After he kills one of the boys and takes photos, one of his former victims who has escaped, sneaks in and steal the photos plus one of the doctor's journals. Thinking he is about to be discovered,  Klaus tries to kill himself but ends up in an iron lung unable to move and under the care of his wife and daughter. Years pass and they hire a male nurse to help out with his constant care. The nurse is the boy is stole the photographs and now wants to torture the doctor but also recreate his cruel deeds while he watches helplessly. The wife almost immediately realizes the young man (Angelo) is trouble but Klaus insists they keep him on. The reason why is not clear... does he think he deserves to be tortured, or does he relish in the idea that his escaped victim now wants to carry on his "work"? After Angelo jerks off on Klaus' face while the wife looks on and then tells her to "clean him up" - she tries to get out of there but Angelo kills her. Angelo also lures and kidnaps young boys back to the iron lung where he tortures and kills them. The daughter, who found her mother cruel and uncaring, never asks what happened to her but does manage to listen to her father's warning to get out and get help. Angelo stops her and then manages to take control of her by playing the role of a strict parent... something she has obviously been accustomed to her entire life. Angelo removes Klaus from the iron lung, killing him and then - in the ultimate manifestation of stockholm syndrome - gets into the machine himself and the daughter begins to take of him as she did with her father.

I have to admit,  I had to watch this film in two parts. The cruel killing of the children by Angelo was just too much for me (and my boyfriend at the time) to see in one sitting. After he has lured a young boy to sing for "his friend" in the iron lung - he slowly walks behind the boy, knife out... we know he going to cut his throat as his sings and it was more than I could deal with. After a day had passed I finished the movie. Why? Well because this film, as unpleasant and uncomfortable it is to see is brilliantly done. David Sust is so young handsome and innocent looking, in complete contrast to the monster he has become as a result of his previous torture from the former Nazi. It is hard not to have some sympathy for him and heartbreaking to see the result of the horrors he has experienced. You want to cry at the screen "You don't have to do this! You don't have to be this person!" but he is well beyond saving by the time we seem him as an adult being hired as the nurse.

To say this film was controversial is understatement at it's best, but it was selected in 2016 to be shown at the Berlin International Film Festival - so it has made an impact. I certainly did on me.

*quick note
The poster for this film was similar to a few other films I've seen over the years in that it uses pedophilia (and torture) as some sort of "allure" for promoting the movie. The VHS release had simple a photo of Sust's face which was a much better choice, in my opinion. While I do not think we should shy away from tough subjects in film - eroticizing child abuse and torture as a marketing tool is simply wrong. 

The Shout 1978 directed by Jerzy Skolimowski

It seems odd to me that this film never reached cult status considering it’s « cult » bonafides. For example it stars Alan Bates, Susannah York, John Hurt and Tim Curry! The film is certainly weird enough and interesting enough to have gained multiple viewing by motivated audiences.  maybe the recent death of John Hurt will bring it more into the public eye. 

The story is that of a drifter who arrives in a  small seaside town who is taken in by a young couple. Hurt plays a musician experimenting with all sorts of new ways to produce sounds, a profession that the lifter uses to his advantage by telling the musician that he was trained by an Aboriginal shaman to produce a sound, a shout, that will kill any living thing that hears it. 

The mysterious guest, played by Bates, slowly takes over the household including the wife (who has a really bizarre walking on all fours scene) played by York. When the time come to prove his ability… he does, accidentally killing a homeless person sleeping on the beach within range of the terrible shout. 

The film is book ended with shots from inside an asylum where the story is being told as the inmates, all of whom are are featured in the story as Bates narrates while keeping score. This story telling device keeps the viewer off guard as while most of the events are shown as a flashback, there seems to be jumps forward and other directions mixed with the dreamlike imagery of some of the shots.  

The film is not perfect and from a 2017 point of view, there are some problems with the white guy who can learn and master the powers of the aboriginals. Why would they teach him? Why not just hire an aboriginal actor? I wouldn’t accuse anyone involved with racism by any means, but I also had issues with the « Last Wave » (1977)  for similar reasons even though Richard Chamberlain’s roles was better explained than Bates’ was in « The Shout ». I suspect the casting was more a case of who was close and available for this very low budget production.

This film is somewhat hard to see now, no DVD version in North America I can find. Another site stated it was viable in full on YouTube but that seems to have been taken down. 

Can we bring back the midnight movie?

If anyone here at the slammer is too young to remember the midnight movie circuit, please go back in time thirty years to the Orson Welles Cinema in Cambridge Massachusetts and then continue reading. For the rest if you I pose the question, can we revive the midnight movie tradition in today's digital world? I say, yes we can!

For years after the invention of video players, many of us have had movie nights with friends (in my case, bad movie nights) in a way to share our film obsessions and keep the social aspect of seeing a movie then discussing it afterwards, just like we did in the cinema lobbies and nearby cafés in days gone by. I don't know why this couldn't be expanded by local theatres, art galleries, coffee shops and bookstores to add a little income by showing films at midnight on Saturdays with discussions to follow.

I think enough time has past for the idea to be nostalgic and enough people are tired of Facebook interactions taking place of live ones to be very appealing. After establishing an audience with more known and more recent films would create buzz and interest to allow the revival of those important cult classics shown and themed min festivals. Imagine being able to see the latest Herzog doc with his Fata Morgana! Like the original midnight movie concept, it would take time, maybe a couple years even to make it a phenomena again, but not impossible.

The days of sold out Rocky Horror Picture Show presentations may be over, but we can still share our film history and obsessions as well as helping create a new crop of film buffs by giving them a way to see, explore, discover and discuss some of the most bizarre, controversial and interesting films of all time. I wonder if there will be fist fights after showings of the original Wicker Man over wether or not the cop deserves his fate, just like when I first saw at the Orson Welles. Let's hope so.

Coming on Blu-ray!

This showed up in my Amaazon.ca recommendations! Yeah!
In case you have no idea what I am talking about.... my write up.

"Quirky black comedy" is the new BAD!

I really don't have much to say about this film that hasn't been said in other movie blogs. There are sets and actors in this film. There is dialogue and some sex scenes. There is violence and melodrama. Apparently the director/writer/producer/leading actor, Tommy Wiseau, financed this himself to the tune of $6 million and filming took eight months. If that is true, about $5,999,964 is missing from the final product.

Les Amours Imaginaires

The new movie from young Québec film maker, Xavier Dolan (who writes, directs, stars and even has a hand in the costumes) is certainly an interesting second effort. Heavily influenced by the French New wave Cinema in style and lacking, on purpose, a complicated screenplay which lets you get more into the beautifully filmed and executed character interplay. All the performances are fantastic, even if the three main characters get upstaged a bit by the intercutting of people talking about their bad relationships documentary style, which is quite funny.

When pals Francis and Marie meet a somewhat mysteriously androgynous Nicholas at a party, they both get pulled under his spell. The film is a sort of love triangle, except the 3 people involved won’t even admit there is any romantic attraction until it has become apparent to the audience that the object of their affections is a self absorbed jerk, getting off on pitting two friends against each other. In the end both hearts get broken along with their friendship. Pretty boy of course goes off to find more people to worship him and plays dumb to the whole situation.

I love how the film is shot, at some points you’d swear the camera is only focused on the back of someone’s neck walking away in slow motion, or close ups of a sexy guy’s belly hairline, but it all works and draws you in. Marie’s obsession with looking like Audrey Hepburn is handled well and Francis’ pain when his object of desire coldly states , “What made you think I was gay?”, when he’s done nothing but give hints to that effect all through the film is truly heartbreaking to see.

My one problem is the film ends too late. After all is said and done, the friends slowly start to repair their relationship, shown in a brilliant rain scene where Marie’s umbrella slowly (because you are looking at the back of their necks walking away in slow motion of course) makes it’s way over Francis’s head and they share it’s protection. Everything afterward does nothing but make you lose respect for the two, who seemingly fall back into the same trap all over again as if the whole movie never happened.

That useless epilogue is almost a minor quibble compared to how successful this movie is overall, however. It invites discussion of all sorts and makes you think without being preachy or obvious. In many ways it really is a throw back in substance as well as style to the 60’s French New Wave or 70’s art house film idea of what film can be in the hands of a very talented young director.

Santa Sangre (1989)

Since Mr. Sophistication brought it up...

Santa Sangre (1989) Dir. Alejandro Jodorowsky

If you are looking for a film that explores the inner mind of a circus boy whose mother is the head of a bizzarre religious cult whose arms are cut off by his cheating father after she throws acid on his penis and escapes from an asylum years later only to find himself walking behind his mother who can control his arms as replacements for her own for the purpose of knitting and serial killing... then this is the film you’ve been waiting for! Throw in a village of starving people tearing apart and eating a dead elephant and you have «Santa Sangre».

This film has become harder to see than the director’s earlier effort «Topo», despite, believe it or not, being slightly more accessible to a general audience. Beautifullly filmed and well acted, this is truly a masterpiece of cult and off the wall cinema. The seemingly too bizzarrre to be believed plot points are actually quite well handled and, in the end moments, all is explained in a rational way. I think the alienation and life long trauma experienced by the young boy into adulthood is quite real and heartfelt. His life when his mom isn’t walking in front of him using her hands are her own, is spent dressed as the invisible man, underlying is seperation from the real world and we are given glimpses of his desperate desire to rejoin humanity... somehow.

Disturbing and weird, it’s impossible not to watch this film until the end.