Monday, December 7, 2009

THE WICKER MAN



FINALLY!!!!! Not only is this the first of my suggestions that they've shown, it's also one of my favorite movies of all time! It's TOTALLY unique. It effortlessly transmutes between genres. It defies classification. It is masterfully crafted. There is no dull or wasted moment. It has awesome music. It has awesome boobs. It has CHRISTOPHER LEE, (who dug it so much he did it pro bono,) It explores the themes and ideas that I am most interested in. Now, I have so much to say about this movie, and I can't do it without spoiling the ending. The first time I saw it, I didn't see the ending coming, and it will so increase your film viewing experience if you can see it this way. So, I beg you, if you haven't seen it, please stop reading now. First off, I don't see it as a "horror" movie. My wife, however, does. The conversation went something like this:

"How is that a horror movie?"
"You didn't think it was horrifying when they were burning that poor man alive?"
"He was a DICK!"

Her interpretation was that he was a good, innocent person who was needlessly killed. My interpretation was that before seeing the film, one would be appalled by the idea of human sacrifice, but by the end, one would think, "Hmm. They may be on to something here." Observe how they cleverly killed two birds with one stone: they appeased the gods, and got rid of someone the world is better off without. I say this because Howie is every CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIAN. She thought he was "just trying to find that little girl", but look at his character. From the moment he arrives on the island, he rudely and arrogantly imposes his will and pushes people around. She interpreted this as his dedication to finding Rowan. I thought it was meant to illustrate that he was by nature a bully, and looking for the girl was just an excuse for him to bullyrag people. If he had gone about his business in a kind, respectful manner, I would have thought differently of him. He's the sort of person who thinks his opinions are the ONLY correct opinions, and anyone with different beliefs is "mad." This is why Lord Summerisle tells him he played "king for a day", and also why he wound up playing the fool. This narrow-minded hubristic intolerance is the worst sort of foolishness, it is because of these sorts of people that we have wars. And come on, how foolish is it to turn down the advances of naked dancing Britt Ekland? To unquestioningly cling to a set of beliefs that tell you everything natural and pleasurable is wrong, and require you to wait until you're dead to be happy? I, for one, prefer to hold sacred all the joy and beauty that surrounds and sustains us in this world. We also get a glimpse into his own religious life. He stands solemnly in a Church, boringly droning for a crowd of statue-still boring drones. Just a question: would you rather be sitting there listening to him, or frolicking naked in the sunshine? Just a question, but I know which I would pick, and where I would feel the divine presence.

Yes, I am through and through a Pagan, but that doesn't mean I'm literally in favor of human sacrifice. (I may be and anarchist, but I'm also a pacifist. Come on-it's just a movie!) Besides, most historians now doubt that the Celts really practiced it, mainly because the only accounts of it or evidence for it come from their enemies. Specifically, the Romans, who were the last people who had any business calling anyone else's treatment of human beings "barbaric". The direct successor of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, is far from blameless in the sphere of human atrocities. How many "witches" were burnt at the stake? How many "heretics" were tortured by the Inquisition? And this took place up until the Renaissance! Does the idea of burning a guy alive seem so extraordinary and savage now? It was also long assumed that the Druids used Stonehenge for human sacrifice, solely because there is a reddish stain on one of the stones. It has since been determined to have been caused by naturally occurring minerals in the rock. (Besides, how could a blood stain last after thousands of years of being rained on??) It is now generally accepted that if the Celts did practice human sacrifice, it was during very ancient times, when most of the world's cultures were doing it, including the ancient Hebrews. Remember, in the Bible, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abe doesn't seem to think that's a very unusual request. I was recently listening to a Native American friend talk about the old days, when the people made blood sacrifices. Then the Great Spirit told them all he wanted was an offering of tobacco. The idea is, nobody gets something for nothing. And, for whatever you take, you must put something back. Does our culture practice this? Would we be better off if we did?

My point is, because most of the world's population no longer practices indigenous nature worship, we are now experiencing the greatest mass extinction on Earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs. I do not believe that this was the intention of the early Christians, and certainly not of Jesus, but a side effect of the forced mass-conversion. When Europe was being converted, eventually on penalty of death, every belief from the Old Ways was labelled "wrong". Among them were the ideas that every living thing is worthy of respect, and that we are all connected and dependent upon one another in a great web of life. People were then free to exploit Nature as they pleased. The eventual result was industrialization. Industrialization made lots of people really, really rich. There is NO WAY of being industrialized without doing some damage to the planet. Any attack on industrialization is a threat to their money. It is in their best interests to suppress environmental ideas. Now, how can some people say environmentalists "care more about trees than people"? It is precisely because we care about people that we want to save the planet's biodiversity! How will people survive without healthy food and clean air and water? What they really mean is "environmentalists care more about trees than people who want to get really, really rich at the expense of every other living thing on the planet", and to that I concur.

So, that is why I share the beliefs of the inhabitants of Summerisle. And not just nature worship. Sex in public? Why not? Everyone likes sex, (It's the one's who DON'T that you have to worry about...) so why do we have to pretend we don't? And should it be discussed openly with children? Well, is it better that it be treated as something "dirty" and "sinful"? Is it better that they learn about it from porn, or worse yet child molesters? Sex is a very big part of being human, and it's when kids don't understand what's happening when their perfectly natural and healthy hormones kick in that they get into trouble. Often, many people have sexual issues their entire lives these days. This is because they have been taught that something every cell in their body is exhorted to do is wrong. This sets up feelings of shame, guilt, and self-loathing, which makes the person meek, neurotic, and easy to control, which is exactly what the Catholic Church had in mind. I know that teenage pregnancy, extra-marital affairs, etc. can cause a lot of problems for people. But these are problems of our modern society that a more open approach to sex can only help!

To the Pagan, by contrast, sex is another joyful blessing and proof that we are meant to enjoy ourselves in this world. PAGAN.
The word is still capable of sending chills down the spines of some people. To me, it's one of the most beautiful words in the world. It's only used once in the movie. Edward Woodward delivers it so brilliantly, Howie practically chokes on it. He invokes it with such disdain, it's the cruelest thing he can think of to call Lord Summerisle. The equally brilliant Christopher Lee reacts as if he's been honored. The word has been so demonized, and is still largely misunderstood by the majority of mainstream society. It is generally believed to mean a belief in many gods as opposed to one, but what most people don't realize is that these religions DO believe in a supreme universal spirit, and the "many gods" are aspects or manifestations of it. The Catholic Church has historically conveniently overlooked this fact. The role of the "gods" is analogous to that of the Judeo-Christian saints and angels. A more accurate term is Animism, which is that favored by modern anthropologists. It means a belief system in which everything in nature is believed to have life and a spirit. Now, if you believe something has a spirit, you are far less likely to wantonly destroy it, and are therefore far less likely to have an environmental catastrophe.

Yes, I was happy to see Howie go. I was cheering on the islanders. But not because he was a Christian, because he was THE MAN. The oppressive, repressive, intolerant, ignorant, inflexible hand of authority. The sort of person who has dedicated his life to telling other people what to do, and to make sure no one has any fun. One thing that makes this movie so fascinating, (and so disturbing to some people,) is that for once, the roles are reversed. "The hunted leading the hunter", as Lord Summerisle says. This was 1973. For the past few years everyone had been watching footage of cops bashing hippies, students, blacks, and just plain ordinary folks who didn't agree with the war. NOW the free thinkers were bashing the cop. After centuries of Christians burning "witches", now the Christian was going to the barbeque. How you react to this probably says a lot about the sort of person you are.

Another fascinating aspect of the movie is the way the islanders react to Howie. They aren't afraid of him. Even the children! They are neither afraid, intimidated, nor impressed. They play tricks on him and giggle. Why? Because their parents raised them that way! They were raised to be joyful, confident, and unashamed of who and what they are. They know their parents love them and will take care of them, and the adults know Lord Summerisle loves and will take care of them. Imagine it. A truly free society, united by a benevolent leader, who genuinely cares for his people's health, happiness, and well being. A society not afraid to stand together against that which seeks to oppress them. A society that sees oppression for what it really is, just a small-minded, cruel little fool. Think it's impossible? Well, it works on the small scale. In 1973 the counter-culture had fully bloomed, and its ideas and ideals were creeping and seeping into mainstream society. A lot of people were seriously concerned about the end of western imperial society as they knew it, and a lot of people truly believed that they were the last generation who would know the weight of the yoke of western imperialism.

So why didn't it happen? Well, it seems most people want to be told what to do, in one way or another. That said, wouldn't it be better if they were told what to do by someone like Lord Summerisle, who could guide the people in a SUSTAINABLE lifestyle? You're going to be hearing that word a lot in the near future, and you're going to have to accept the fact that unless we change our way of life there will simply be nothing left of us. Solar, wind, nuclear and all the other "alternatives" are not without their own consequences. There are people living on Pacific island who have been farming the same fields for 9000 years! BUT... they don't have TV, they don't have Dunkin' Donuts, they don't have cell phones... I think you see what I'm getting at. If not, don't worry about it, go back to sleep. What they do have is all of their basic needs provided for, and a simple, healthy, fulfilling life. These people have long been perceived as backward, ignorant, inferior, and in need of "civilization". I now ask you, you have one group of people who have been living in harmony with the world for 9000 years. You have another who have practically destroyed it in 200. Who has something to learn from whom?

So, do I expect the majority of the world's people to abandon the word's major religions? Of course not. If I did, I would be no better than Howie, and this whole article would be a huge hypocrisy. Howie winds up as the fool because he lacks tolerance, compassion, and respect. We must extend this to others even if they don't show it to us. (Umm...didn't Jesus say something about that?...) But, it is my most sincere belief that unless some sort of reverence, or at least respect, for nature and non-human living things is incorporated into the ethos of the majority, there is little hope for us. Modern science has shown us that as far as we know, this tiny speck in the incomprehensible vastness of space is the only place where LIFE can exist, and what are we doing? We're breaking it. If humans need religion, and they need authority, and it seems they do, the Animist belief systems evolved to allow us to live harmoniously and SUSTAINABLY with the world around us. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm not going to knock on your door with Pagan pamphlets, I'm just putting some ideas out there. A story from modern times may help to illustrate my point:

Remember that tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean a few years ago? The one that killed 230,000 people? Well, the indigenous islanders in the area survived quite unscathed. All except one tribe. This tribe was singular for another reason, it was the only one which had converted to Christianity. The beliefs and mythology of the traditional tribes contained the warning signs they needed to realize what was going to happen and head for high ground. When the missionaries converted the Christian tribe, they told them these belief and mythologies were wrong. They convinced them to abandon them in favor of the myths of some Semitic desert shepherds from 5000 years ago, which have been altered and edited for centuries to suit political whims. I have already stated the result. I'm not saying this to gloat over the deaths of these people, or to bash the Christian religion. I just think there is a very powerful and important message there. A culture's indigenous beliefs have evolved over eons to allow the culture to function in harmony with its environment. Because most people no longer practice their indigenous belief system, as an unintended consequence of conversion to "modern" religion, we are completely out of harmony with our planet, and are destroying it, which will eventually destroy us. And, once upon a time, Europe had its own indigenous beliefs, too. The people of Summerisle (and me,) think it's a good idea to revive them.

Which brings us back to what this was supposed to be, a movie review. Anyway, I really liked the movie.

And so, if we do survive, ages and ages hence, when Christianity is but a footnote in the history books, mankind will still need warmth, and we will still need to eat. And therefore, there will still be a God of the Sun, and a Goddess of the Orchards.

As a footnote, I feel I should mention the recent Nicolas Cage "remake." It is now considered an example of modern "so bad it's good" ridiculousness. I have seen it, and it is truly ridiculous. It has none of the good qualities of the original, and the always awful Nicolas Cage's performance is a tour-de-force of crap. Now, my secret shame is that I have a strange connection to this movie. My wife knew the director Neil LaBute when he was but a young student. She was a fan of the original movie, and she (or one of her friends, she can't remember exactly,) introduced it to him. The rest is history.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

MUMMY'S BOYS



I had never heard of "Wheeler and Woolsey", and now I can see why. Apparently, in the 30s, while The Three Stooges were making some of the greatest comedy ever known to man, these guys were churning out low-budget "comedies" for RKO. One of them (honestly, I couldn't be bothered to find out which is which,) plays the Moe/Groucho role, complete with glasses, cigar, and mop of black hair. The other one is Larry/Curly/Harpo. I feel blasphemous for having mentioned these fourth-rate hacks in the same sentences as those gods without inserting the phrase "are not worthy of smelling the flatulence of." The comedy is ABYSMALLY low, not low as in "in poor taste," low as in RETARDED. The sort of thing that maybe a four year old would laugh at. People falling down, or getting squirted with water. One of them can't remember what two plus two is. SERIOUSLY. This is what they're trying to pass off as comedy. It's not the sort of "bad" that you can have fun laughing at, it's not a quaint amusing relic from another time, it's just pathetic. I am fully aware that comedic tastes change very quickly and there can be wide generation gaps in this area, (if you don't believe me, watch Napoleon Dynamite with your parents,) but COME ON! The Three Stooges were working at the same time, and they have NEVER gone out of style! Same with the early cartoons from this period. One interesting note, that glamourous blonde bombshell is none other than Barbara Pepper, who you may know as the original Mrs. Ziffel from Green Acres! In fact, being reminded of Green Acres was the only moment of enjoyment in the half hour or so that I was able to endure this! Of historical interest, there is a black guy playing a stereotypical simpleton servant, a reminder of the racism still prevalent at this time. And one positive opinion: I love the poster! Nobody cartoons like that anymore! I have no idea if these guys have a fan base nowadays, and I don't feel like investing the time researching it. Maybe people who are really into the culture of the 30s will appreciate it on levels I can't. Sorry if you missed it, kids, it doesn't seem to be available on video.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

THE CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB



It's a Hammer film! That means it has that very cool distinctive "look", and a bit more gore than you get from American films of the same period. That's why I sat through the whole thing, and gave it two aliens. Unfortunately, it's not a good Hammer film. It has no interesting actors, (i.e. no Christopher Lee.) The story is totally lame and predictable, boring and uninspired. I don't usually like to give spoilers, but I think you'll thank me for this one, if you don't want to know stop reading now. Here it is: A bunch of archaeologists open a mummy's tomb and he comes to life and starts killing them. WOAH!! Who saw that coming?? In an attempt at a unique twist, one of them turns out to be the mummy's immortal brother, who is curiously of European descent. As with many films of the period, many of the "Egyptians" appear to be European, some in greasy brown makeup. And the flashbacks to ancient Egypt look like a bargain Ten Commandments. Other than that, there's no "so bad it's good" appeal, and no freaky, unique elements. It's just a dumb, cliche horror film from the 60s. Unless you're really a fan of Hammer films, or mummy movies, I would say you can safely skip this one and rest assured that you haven't missed anything.

Monday, November 30, 2009

THE ROBOT VS. THE AZTEC MUMMY



What could be worse than a micro-budgeted 50s sci-fi movie? How about a micro-budgeted 50s sci-fi movie from Mexico! Yes, Mexico, a land whose popular entertainment is known for a tasteful, sophisticated dignity, decided to show the world what it could do with sci-fi. They blended it with their own history, and so we learned that the Aztecs sang opera in their rituals. Seriously, this movie seems to have been written by a six year old boy, making it up as he went along, trying to jam in everything he thought was cool. My favorite part: The mummy is fighting the bad guys in a laboratory, (they have laboratories in Mexico?) and he throws one of them into a "pit of rattlers" (which were CLEARLY not rattlesnakes, but various large constrictors,) which happens to be handy. This demonstrates that the mummy, far from being a mindless killing machine, prefers to dispatch of his enemies with a flair for the dramatic reminiscent of a James Bond villain. Then the bad guy miraculously escapes unharmed. Those of us who enjoy the agony of watching these movies will be sufficiently entertained by the ineptitude of our friends south of the border. The movie is an agonizing failure in every possible way. The plot is mostly incomprehensible, not helped by the fact that most of it is told in flashbacks with narration. It seems the majority of this movie is made from pieces of the first two episodes of the trilogy. If I had to find one redeeming quality, I guess the mummy looks pretty cool. For added fun (and watchability), watch the Mystery Science Theater version. That's what I did. Yeah, I didn't endure it in its pure, unholy form. I'm a wuss.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

GREASER'S PALACE



In the early 70s, the Jesus story was being reinterpreted in such successful films as Jesus Christ, Superstar and Godspell. It seems Robert Downey Sr. decided to give the world his version too. The result may not have been as successful (or as good) as the aforementioned hits, but by god, it was stranger. His Jesus is an aimless wanderer, a stranger in a strange land, who arrives in the old west by parachute. I LOVE the anachronism. It works. Unfortunately, there isn't much else that works. There's an AWFUL lot of footage of people just walking through the desert. I don't know if he's trying to say we're all wanderers in a wasteland or something, but ok, whatever, once or twice would've been enough. The Christ metaphor is sometimes obvious, sometimes not. Some elements are recognizable, for instance I guess "Greaser" is meant to be Caesar, here represented as a brute who owns a saloon or something in the middle of nowhere, where he enjoys watching his daughter strip. (There's very little dialogue and it's pretty hard to follow the plot, so I may not be quite right on some things.) I don't know what else, if anything, is supposed to match up with what. I don't know what the deal is with the Native Americans, or the guy in the sheet, or why he included toilet humor, but I sure liked it! I think he was intending to get the gist of the story of Jesus, rather than simply retell it in a different setting. And, in some respect, I think he succeeded. Take when Jesse does his boogie-woogie song and dance at the saloon. At first, you may think it's just in there as a bit of silly anachronism. Note the response of the crowd. They stare blankly, stupefied. Also note the appearance of the crowd. They have long, dirty hair and beards. They barely speak. They are little better than neanderthals. When do they respond? When Jesse makes his hands bleed. Horrible violence! Now there's something they can understand! He had given them something happy and beautiful, and completely ahead of its time, yet this is what they respond to. So what did we learn? Jesus' message, which is the same as that of any other religion, (life would be a lot better for all of us if we'd make some effort to get along with each other) is STILL ahead of its time and beyond the ken of most humans. Then the ending of the movie made NO sense to me, it seemed to be thrown together with no rhyme or reason. Downey occasionally comes really close to making a profound art film, but ultimately it fails for me. So why did I give it such a high rating? Because it's WEIRD, SURREAL, and TRIPPY, and I LIKED it! I'm not quite sure why, despite the tedium, but I think this is a movie the student of bizarreness should see. It's a true unique vision. I imagine it was "condemned" by the Catholic Church.

PUTNEY SWOPE



A 1969 film which is oddly appropriate for our times. A black guy suddenly and unexpectedly finds himself in charge of a large corporation. This is a true indy film, with all the advantages and disadvantages that go along with that. On the plus side, it's totally unique. It looks fantastic. It illustrates a unique point of view unabashedly. And you couldn't ask for a better movie poster! If that poster doesn't make you want to watch the movie, go away. On the minus side, "art" is very difficult to make, and I don't think Robert Downey Sr. was up to the task. It gets slow and strange, (not in a good way,) and there's a lot of unnecessary stuff that just doesn't make sense. Sometimes his points are clear, sometimes it doesn't look like even he knows what he wants to say. And, the lead actor's voice is very obviously dubbed, by Downey himself. He doesn't even sound like a black guy, he sounds like a mobster or something. I guess he liked the way the guy looked, but not how he sounded. This is EXTREMELY distracting. But, it's worth putting up with because this movie has a very cool premise. It's about everything that was going on in the late 60s, "The Man's" worst nightmare. I'm not just talking about black people organizing and taking over, I'm talking about the free thinkers, hippies, and anarchists taking over. The people who value personal integrity and inner peace over money taking over. The next generation rejecting the evil empire of their forbearers. The whole capitalist system being ripped wide open, picked up and body-slammed into the dust. The Great and Powerful Oz revealed to be an old man pulling levers behind a curtain. I LOVE the line "I'm not gonna rock the boat, I'm gonna SINK it!" Yes, this is what was supposed to happen, but alas, to use the movie's metaphor, black people, being only people, and thus fatally flawed, made just as big a mess of things as the white people had. And in real life, things did change, (but not nearly enough for my hippie tastes...) Also of interest are the parody commercials, a few years before Saturday Night Live. I found them really funny, they mark a very early step toward the type of humor I grew up with, satire, shock, and absurdism. The ending made absolutely no sense to me. I have no idea what was supposed to have happened. So, despite it's flaws, I definitely recommend this movie as an example of true "underground" film, and a good counterculture film at that. Now, if only Barack were able to rock the boat, but it seems like it's too big, and its immensity can only cause it to sink with all hands...

Thursday, November 5, 2009

SWAMP THING



Based on the occasionally popular "serious" comic book, and directed by Wes Craven, I was thinking it might be good. Alas, it was just another goofy rubber suit monster movie. It is a strange phenomenon that a monster can look so cool drawn in a comic book, yet laugh-out-loud ridiculous walking around on the big screen. Wes, what went wrong? Were you trying to experiment with a different style? Did you think you had "matured" past those fantastic, unique, disturbing horror films Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes? Did you want to make a lame, cliche movie? At least you came to your senses, got back to what you do best and gave us A Nightmare on Elm Street. Really, this movie is a slab of pure B-movie cheese. The character was created in 1971, in the horror comics, a direct extension of the classic mid-century low-budget sci-fi. Even the concept is staggeringly simple and overdone--a scientist has an accident and turns into a monster. Sound familiar? I think poor Wes was trying to make it into a lot more than it is. Particularly pathetic are the attempts at eliciting pathos. For some reason, the angst of a drawing of a monster strikes a cord in the adolescent male psyche, (maybe it has something to do with the fact that that's when we're beginning to develop adult emotions, but we can't quite handle them yet, and coming from a familiar childhood medium, what is essentially an advanced cartoon character, makes them more relatable to us?) but an actor in a rubber suit attempting to convey it is just plain silly. The overused stock music doesn't help, either. You also get an over-acting villain of indeterminate European ethnicity. Hilights include an excellent WTF? moment, as a mutated dwarf creature leaps onto a table, (I was waiting for him to start the "One of us" chant...) and a very silly monster battle. And don't forget the real stars of this movie, Adrienne Barbeau's boobs! In fact, they are so important that one of them is fatally wounded, and Swamp thing has to revive it by laying his hand on it! Apparently a remake is in the works. I wonder if they will attempt a "serious" adaptation. If so, they will not have learned, and it will be silly.