Showing posts with label 1920s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1920s. Show all posts

Friday, January 6, 2023

Double Dose / Horror Not Horror: Ti West in '22

 (Double Dose is two films from the same director, writer or star...or genre or theme...pretty simple.  Today: it's the first two entries of Ti West's X-Factor trilogy, both of which came out in 2022 to increasing acclaim....)

("Horror, Not Horror" movies are those that toe the line of being horror movies but don't quite comfortably fit the mold.  I'm not a big horror fan (Toast is the horror buff here), but I do quite like these line-skirting type movies, as we'll see.)

X - 2022, d. Ti West - AmazonPrime
Pearl - 2022, d. Ti West - Rental

Horror is supposed to make you uncomfortable. It's supposed to upset you in some way. It's supposed to be a view of the world in its darkest light, which I suppose in the end is there to make us feel, in some small way, better about where we are.  It's also supposed to excite, and, for a long time, titillate.

The marriage between sex and violence was firmly established in the 70's with exploitation films, but also in the news, with the very American phenomenon of serial killers targeting sex workers.  Exploitation, slasher and modern horror movies, it could be said, started as a reaction to the violence, and a fascination we as a society have with these crimes, and the criminals who perpetrate them.  Sometimes these films, like in a Peckinpah, Di Palma or Scorscse, the film is more interested in what makes the perpetrators tick, providing the audience a POV into the warped world, and some other times these film are just trying to bring the back-of-the-brain lingering sense of unease and dread out to the forefront.


Ti West's X is a step back from either of those lines of thinking towards an examination of an era, of a particular period in time, and ruminating on the marriage between sex and violence, but also reminding us  in the background that there's another key participant in this throuple, religion.

We open with a farmstead, and a lot of blood. A sheriff and his team both in awe and repulsed by the gory scene they're stepping through.  Cut back 24 hours.  It's 1979 (the date filling the screen with big, bold American flag stylized numbers, reminding us that this is AMERICA) where we meet Maxine (Mia Goth), a cocaine-fuelled stripper being promised the world by her exceptionally congenial, smooth-talking boyfriend Wayne (Martin Henderson, Torque) as they head out to the same old farmstead to shoot an adult movie.  Maxine is convinced she's going to be a superstar. In the van with them is easy-going porn starlet Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow, Christmas with the Campbells) -- who stylizes herself after Marilyn Monroe -- and her sometimes beau Jackson (Kid Cudi, Entergalactic) -- a Marine who served in 'Nam -- as well as cameraman RJ (Owen Campbell) - who thinks he's going to make "a movie" out of this trash -- and RJ's girlfriend he dragged along with him to do sound, Lorraine (Jenna Ortega, Wednesday), who is trying her damnedest not to freak out once she learns what kind of movie they're making.

They arrive at the somewhat dilapidated farmstead where they're renting the bunkhouse.  Wayne encounters the octogenarian owner, Howard (Stephen Ure, Mortal Engines) who greets them with a shotgun and suspicion before he recalls the arrangements he made.  He warns them to keep out of sight and to steer clear of his wife, as she gets confused and easily excited.  They quickly get busy with the production.  While Bobby-Lynne and Jackson are performing, Maxine tours the property, swimming in the nearby pond (which houses a croc, leading to the best shot of the film) and then spying Howard's wife, Pearl (also Mia Goth) who welcomes her inside with lemonade.  Pearl looks at Maxine intently, making her uncomfortable.  She downs her lemonade and goes to head back when Pearl start pointing out how pretty Maxine is, and how pretty she used to be, pointing at photos on the wall, where the resemblance between young Pearl and Maxine is uncanny.  There's some sourness in Pearl's wistfulness, and the whole situation unnerves Maxine, especially when Pearl starts stroking her flesh.  Maxine sneaks away when Howard returns from town, warned by Pearl of his jealousy.

Maxine shoots her sex scene in the barn, and Pearl sneaks out and watches, clearly curious about her new visitors, and titillated by what she sees.  She brushes her hair and puts on an older lady negligee and tries to seduce Howard, who pushes her away, telling her his heart can't take it.  Meanwhile, the evening sets and the crew sit around having a frank discussion about the nature of sex in cinema, the conversation mostly led by Lorraine, whose great trepidation about making a pornographic film, has turned into curiosity and she wants to be in the film.  RJ protests, and Wayne takes him outside to have a chat about the liberated woman.  RJ can't handle it.  He goes to leave everyone behind, when he encounters Pearl, who tries to seduce him, but he is repulsed and is brutally murdered for his response (though it was likely his fate either way).  Pearl, it seems, when not given what she desires, will take her pleasure in other forms.

By this point we're an hour into this 100-minute film when the first murder happens, and barring the ominous music that plays throughout, the tenor of the opening hour is not one of horror.  It's a more thoughtful and considerate examination of 70's attitudes towards sex, and sex on film.  As cited, films like Deep Throat and risquee European entries like Emmanuelle, were actually drawing mainstream crowds, as these types of adult films were being made with scripts and a strange air of respectability.  There was a small window of time, pre-Reagan, when attitudes towards sex were becoming increasingly liberal.  But throughout the background of X, there is, on every TV set we see, a televangelist preaching his sermon, demonizing the sins of the flesh.  This is the conflicting nature of America, founded by pilgrims who were escaping an increasingly liberal Europe for a new land where their puritanical nature could rule, but also creating a land where liberty and freedom to be left to do as one pleases are founding tenets.  There's inherent conflict between the religious puritanism and the rights and freedoms Americans should have (rights and freedoms for some, not for all).  We see this conflict in Pearl, as well as in Lorraine, both drawn to sexual liberty, but being constrained by their religious upbringings.  

t's a great looking film, with nearly every scene West shoots full of intention and purpose.  There are some interesting edits, some rapid cuts back-and-forth between different things happening simultaneously, sometimes showing a parallel, sometimes juxtaposing.  It's all quite clever without announcing itself as such.  Very little feels forced here, and despite being pretty predictable in the broadest sense it's a pretty surprising film.  I was expecting Texas Chainsaw Massacre but it's far more laid back than that.  

I think the first hour (and the film in general) would have worked better had it not had the ominous music.  There's a lightness to the crew making The Farmer's Daughter that is undercut by the score, and while there is a tension to Howard and Pearl's interactions with the younger players, it shouldn't be so heavily underlined that they're where the threat lies.  X is promoted as a horror movie, and yeah, once the killings start, it's less pleasant, but also maybe feeling inevitable.  But it's also not your typical slasher movie and it doesn't play your typical cat-and-mouse slasher movie games.  At least half the deaths are somewhat comedic in nature, whether it be the surprise, or just the after-gags.  The reality is Pearl and Howard are a rather frail 80+-year-old couple.  They're only a threat because they're not that threatening.

But is X horror. Yeah, it is, but a very different horror film

I enjoyed X a lot, but Pearl is another beast entirely.  We open on the farmstead we just left in X, except the house is being viewed from the barn, the barn doors creating a frame making the scene more of a 4:3 ratio rather than a widescreen.  The house is pristine, gorgeous, vibrant, like it's freshly painted, with the grass so green. The music kicks in and it's a grand, sweeping Gone With the Wind type orchestration, full of drama and glory.  The credits start popping up on screen and they're in a full-blown old-timey script, long and flowing looping letters.  As the camera pulls focus through the barn doors into true widescreen, it's a Technicolor daydream.  Every colour seems primary, and so, so vibrant.

Pearl (Mia Goth) is in her room admiring herself in a dress, twirling, dancing, joyfully, until her mother appears, stern-faced, disapproving, admonishing her in German for taking one of her dresses without permission, and that she has chores to do out in the barn. Pearl comes out the front door in her pigtails and overalls, a very Dorothy Gale look professing some sort of innocence, a stark contrast to Goth, naked under her overalls and insinuating sexuality in X.   Pearl dances around the barn as she pitches hay and talks sweetly to the animals, professing something more out of life.  You could swear she was about to bust into song.  In comedically waddles a goose, quacking away, and Pearl's eyes and expression change.  The pitchfork in her hands turns from dance companion to weapon (not forgetting how she wielded it in X), and she stabs the goose, and we see her take the pitched goose through the technicolor woods (looking SO much like a studio set, and yet it's not) to the docs where she feeds the goose to the gator in the pond.  

In a short span of time Pearl distinguishes itself tonally from X, but the connective threads are pretty much everywhere, sometimes overt, other times subtly.  Whats clear is these films are companion pieces, not independent works, though they both satisfyingly exist on their own.

Pearl continues with its technicolor daydream from start to finish, with its score from Tyler Bates and Tim Williams staying with the sweeping orchestral, era specific sound, with only a hint of downtempo menace at very specific and apt timing.  Though so bright and colourful, it's not a happy film (it's a follow-up to a horror film after all, providing an origin story for X's chief antagonist), as Pearl is dealing with her severe (very German) mother, an infirm father, a husband who left her to go to war, and the strains of a pandemic (Spanish Flu), all of which are constraining her to the farmstead when she desires nothing more but to go out into the world and dance.

When she goes into town (primarily to retrieve father's medicine) she steals time to go to the moving pictures, loving the dancing movies the most.  She meets the projectionist (David Cornsweet), a dashing, handsome bohemian who flirts heavily with the pretty little lady.  She later fantasizes about him, while also being angry about it ("NO! I'm a married woman!" she yells, almost child-like to no one).  She learns from her sister-in-law that there's an audition in town for a role in a regional dance troupe, where they'll go from town-to-town across the state bringing joy to the townspeople and hospitalized.  Pearl knows Mama will never allow it, but she's doing it all the same.

She's constantly fighting with Mama, but at at one point her mother tells her about her reality, about the dreams she had that never came true.  Mama is pragmatic, a realist, despite wanting more, she can't even contemplate anything other than where she is, and she resents Pearl's youthful ambitions.  But also, Mama sees what Pearl does when she thinks no one is watching, she knows there's something wrong with her daughter and she fears what she might do out in the world.  Pearl steals away into the night to visit the Projectionist, who shows her a little film he picked up in Europe, which is an old-timey stag fillum, and he fills Pearls head with dreams of taking her to Europe and putting her up on the big screen in movies like that.  Pearl is not repulsed by the idea or the film, but mostly she just likes the idea of leaving and being a star.  Pearl puts every hope she has into the audition, she must get the part, and as the audience, even though we suspect (or know from X) what lies beneath, Pearl's aching desire is so emphatic we want it for her to.  And the audition is a spectacular moment in film,

In some ways Pearl is a coming-of-age story with fits of violence, where this young woman is faced not only with the crushing realities her mother has been trying to prepare her for, but also with the aching realities of self.  In the last 20 minutes of the film, Goth delivers a 5-minute monologue which lays out, plain as day, every truth Pearl knows about herself in devastating depth.  Yes, she's a psychopath, but she doesn't want to be, and she doesn't know how to deal with it.  It's just another part of her life that she's trying to escape.  

To answer the question, Is it horror? No, it really isn't. At all. It's a suspenseful drama, a character study, a stylistic exercise, and a piece of a larger puzzle all at once.  There are so many parallels between Pearl and Maxine that it would almost suggest something paranormal (except no such suggestion is ever made).  There are character traits, ambitions, and moment that resemble each other, and somehow in X, Pearl sensed that all in Maxine, she basically saw herself, and was horrified, more by who she no longer was than by what Maxine is.   There are such strong connective tissues between Pearl and X, big and small things that will likely more clearly reveal themselves when the third part of this trilogy is released, but the link of sex, violence, religion and Americana seems to be at the heart of it.  

The technicolor daydream of Pearl is so beautiful to watch, so inviting in a way that no other horror (or horror-adjacent) film that I can recall is.  Toasty has been following West's career on the blog and noted with his review of X that West kind of stepped away from horror filmmaking for a while.  X as a return to the genre posits that he clearly has something more on his mind, and Pearl quite confirms that he's out to reinvent if not the genre, than himself as a filmmaker.  I can't wait to see what MaxXxine has in store.

  

Sunday, December 26, 2021

New Year's Countdown...of Excellence: 10 - Battleship Potemkin (1920's selection)

Another year is coming to a close, and though it got off to a very rocky start, and such a bumpy middle, we can all agree it's ending in an unceremoniously shaky fashion.  A return to normalcy was attempted, and it failed to take, but it was nice while it lasted, though the nagging sensation of gloom never completely dissipated. Pop culture is still a steamroller that won't let anything get in its way. Any threat of a slowdown in content has since been met with an aggressive new wave (not to be confused with nu wave) of seemingly endless new content to keep us distracted and, if not happy, at least placated.  If you were into playing sports or outdoor recreation or big live events or travel, yeah, things are pretty different, but if you just liked retiring at home and chilling out with new books, comics, TV, movies, podcast, music...it's just like old times, if perhaps even more overwhelming. 
After spending the past two months of rolling around in the deep fryer of the made-for-TV holiday romance genre, it's time to cleanse the palette, partake in some arts and culture, and build some brain muscle rather than fattening it up.  It's time to travel through time, and around the world, partaking in some of the best cinema I've never seen.  10 movies, each a certified classic from some "best of" list or another, almost each from a different country, and one from each decade of the past 100 years of cinema.

10
Battleship Potemkin
1925, d. Sergei Eisenstein - Criterion Channel 


The Story (in two paragraphs or less)

Circa 1905 as Marxism is rising in esteem, the sailors on the Battleship Potemkin are not happy with the quality of food.  There's no such thing as refrigeration and the meat has gone rancid.  The chef is forced to cook borscht but the men refuse to eat it.  They are all called on deck by the Admiral, asked to self-identify who did and did not have issue with their meal, and the those that object are judges as insubordinate and threatened with hanging and being shot.  But an appeal to the men with guns turns the tide and a mutiny ensues.  Though victorious the leader of the mutiny is killed.  His body put on display in Odessa with a note: FOR A SPOONFUL OF BORSCHT.

Thousands descend on Odessa in support of the men who rose up against their aggressors, bringing food and love. The rising anti-autocratic sentiment turns ugly as the Cossack host arrives and begins firing on the crowd of people.  A child injured.  In appealing to the Cossacks for help, the mother is slain.  In retaliation, the crew of the Potemkin fire upon the opera house where the Cossack leaders are headquartered.  A fleet of warships are on their way to support the Tsarist infantry, and the outsized, outmatched Potemkin heads out to face them only to find they too have become brothers in the revolution.

What did I think I was in for?
I honestly knew nothing about Battleship Potemkin prior to constructing my list to watch for this year's countdown.  I didn't know it was made in the 1920s, or that it was black and white and silent.  I didn't know it was Russian.
Frankly, I thought it was a 1960's war movie, maybe with a harrowing escapade about the sailors escaping it sinking or something.  I didn't know it was basically a story of the first Russian Revolution, but, then again, I barely know anything about the Russian revolution

What did I get out of it?
A lot of questions about what, actually, was going on.  Clearly the time period (shot in the mid-1920's but noted early on it's set in 1905) had definite significance, so I had to look it up, and then poked around the wiki-wormhole for a while digging into a bit of Russian history.

I was also curious about what the impact of the film was.  Was this actually communist propaganda? A lot of the film seems very aggrandizing towards the usurpers and demonising of their Tsarist superiors.  It was actually a commissioned film to commemorate the 1905 revolution, and I imagine was fairly celebrated. 

I did find the scale of its production fairly impressive, there are scenes in Odessa with likely thousands of extras which was pretty awe inspiring.  The scenes aboard the ship have hundreds of players, and it's evident that most of them are not trained actors.  It's also clear, though, that Eisenstein had an eye for both scene composition and dramatic flair.  There are some absolutely stellar shots in this.

The fabricated massacre at Odessa is easily the highlight, the film at its most epic, and clearly familiar as its been aped across TV and cinema for decades, most notably in DiPalma's The Untouchables borrowing rather liberally the deal with the baby carriage.

Do I think it's a classic?
There's obviously something to it that, without research, I know I won't get.  Just from a cold viewing, I can tell it's influential, many aspects throughout I can see aped in subsequent pop cinema, but having not studied film per se, I can't say specifically what it is that makes it a classic.  (Eisenstein is known for his theories of montage, and how editing influences the audience, so without knowing intimately how storytelling progressed before this, it's hard for me to say its specific impact).

The idea of revolution, of the subjugated masses standing up against those who think themselves superior is powerful, and surprisingly underutilized storytelling.  The only real example of this that sticks in my head are Conquest of the Planet of the Apes but I know there are others  (is Bravehart one? Never saw it.)

Did I like watching this?
It certainly swept me up after a certain point, though I find silent films generally struggle to hold my attention throughout.  I liked it's five act structure, and the Edmund Meisel score does a lot of impressive heavy lifting. I took a 10 minute intermission around minute 50, and it felt like a long-ish slog that should be over already, but I was also committed to finishing it, with no thoughts of abandoning it.  I definitely want to read more about the time period, the revolution and the pre-Communist historical events that led to modern Russia.

So, to answer the question, sort of.

Would I watch it again?
Unlikely.