Shock Treatment.

Review #2582: Shock Treatment.

Cast:  

Jessica Harper (Janet Majors), Cliff DeYoung (Farley Flavors, Brad Majors), Richard O'Brien (Dr. Cosmo McKinley), Patricia Quinn (Dr. Nation McKinley), Ruby Wax (Betty Hapschatt), Charles Gray (Judge Oliver Wright), Barry Humphries (Bert Schnick), Manning Redwood (Harry Weiss), Darlene Johnson (Emily Weiss), Jeremy Newson (Ralph Hapschatt), Wendy Raebeck (Macy Struthers), Betsy Brantley (Neely Pritt), Christopher Malcolm (Vance Parker), Little Nell (Nurse Ansalong), Rik Mayall ("Rest Home" Ricky), Eugene Lipinski (Kirk), Barry Dennen (Irwin Lapsey), and Gary Shail (Oscar Drill) Directed by Jim Sharman (#1449 - The Rocky Horror Picture Show)

 

Review: 

Sure, why not? You may remember that The Rocky Horror Picture Show (released in 1975 as based on The Rocky Horror Show) was initially a flop, mainly because, well, some people do in fact want a supposed tribute and also parody to the "kitsch" science fiction/horror movies* of the old days to actually...be interesting besides a campy facade that did not sway me beyond the most average moments (even a double-bill campus re-release with Phantom of the Paradise [1974] didn't help). But let's be fair: an idea by a Fox executive to give a midnight run gave the movie lasting cult appeal, with a good chunk of screenings in later years being joined with a live performance by a cast of fans. Returning alongside producers Lou Adler & Michael White, Jim Sharman and Richard O'Brien collaborated with each other on the script (with Sharman as director) for what basically would be a spiritual (with most of the folks returning in different roles), although Susan Sarandon did not return due to wanting more money, Bostwick did not return due to being unavailable and Curry, well, he just said no. They wanted to film in Dallas and England but the Screen Actors Guild strike in summer 1980 scuttled those plans to where it ended up being filmed in England in the fall of 1980. Production designer Brian Thomson delivered a reworking of the story that saw the film shot in a giant studio that saw him get credited for "additional ideas" Trying to get in on how Rocky Horror got its cult appeal, Shock Treatment only played in limited engagements with midnight screenings that started around late October 1981...which flopped, but there is a small enough following (even with O'Brien once labeling it as an "abortion"). Sharman hasn't directed a theatrical film since, although he has done numerous productions in the theatre and last year was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia.

I admit to only knowing this movie because it was covered by The Cinema Snob many years ago. So it goes. An odd-looking town is now swallowed up by a TV network studio, complete with a medical facility, that's your starting point. I really did try to go with an open mind for the movie, complete with a 95 minute runtime. I suppose it is an attempt at a compliment to say the movie is roughly around the same level of curiosity of the Rocky Horror film, but I then realize that isn't saying much because good God, I still don't have a real favorite person to watch for either of these movies. For all of the singing and all of its attempts to curtail any idea of horror for straight musical comedy, I can't stand much of these bastard people and its incessant averageness. I will say it is amusing as hell that they really tried to aim at appealing to those who were already big on the Rocky Horror stuff (specifically the ones who know the stuff by heart for a midnight screening), complete with a tagline of not being a sequel or a prequel but instead an "equal"...that basically splatted right on the pavement. Harper tries her best in trying to give something to a role that is gripped in the swaying power of would-be fame, which is sometimes curious and sometimes neat, but I can't help in thinking she just had a better time with a fellow box office failure-turned-cult classic musical comedy horror with Phantom of the Paradise; it's not so much that she can't hold it together for an ensemble, it just feels like she needs a real person to actually bounce off as opposed to being in the bin with the loons. It's entirely possible I just don't have patience for certain musicals (incidentally, you could put the film and The Music Man [1962] on at the same time and have nearly enough time to see the former again). Humphries and DeYoung basically are trying to fill the hole left from no Curry to really hold the screen together in insidious elusiveness that just isn't as pronounced as you wish it was. It's middling spoof material that begs for more than being stuck in a fishbowl setting that might as well make you wish you could drill a hole in your head to escape. Some have said that it had a predictive hand at reality TV. Well, that is pretty silly, mainly because An American Family exists, complete with an eight-year headstart that even had its own spoof with Real Life [1979]; one of the people of the aforementioned Family show even once said "Television ate my family" (at any rate, if we are talking about movies with interesting perspectives on the blurring of reality and TV, The Truman Show [1998] humiliates Shock Treatment many, many, many times over*). "Influencer culture", well, argue that for yourself, and the style for certain moments within its cloying studio is sometimes interesting, but if I don't care for the scenario or the songs beyond "okay", then it doesn't really matter what "prescient" thing has been accomplished. I honestly can't get a grasp on the characters now played by DeYoung and Harper other than wanting to throw dangle them over a pit, or, alternatively, bashing my head in. I don't care about who is supposed to be the "emotional cripple" or who doesn't know what they really are with attention focused on them, but maybe you will. Maybe it becomes the movie you see again to really experience for what it really, really means in the soul. So it goes.

 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*For something that wants to be campy and fun, I found more fun in actually just watching 1950s horror movies. You get more out of something like I Married a Monster from Outer Space than Rocky Horror Picture Show in entertainment value, and I will die on that hill. Besides, the former doesn't go on the "cinematic experience" of catcalls and toilet-paper throwing to get its kicks. Are you fucking kidding me?

*Okay that last film was mentioned because O'Brien apparently argued that The Truman Show certainly had some inspiration from Shock Treatment (as stated here or here). I'm....trying not to laugh.

Incidentally, here's a quote from an LA Times article about An American Family in 2003 upon the airing of a look back on the family from two of the original film crew: 

The Raymonds, whose most recent work is the HBO documentary “Children in War,” find it a “mixed honor” to be credited, as they often are, with the creation of modern-day reality television. “We don’t do shows for MTV. I don’t care to take credit for ‘The Real World,’ ‘The Osbournes,’ or [the] ‘Anna Nicole [Show],’ ” said Alan Raymond. “They’re terrible.”

Or, alternatively, a 2011 New York Times article.

 Mr. Gilbert and the Raymonds do agree on at least one thing: that “An American Family” has been unfairly credited with — or blamed — for starting reality television. The immersive, leisurely rhythms of the series are a stark contrast from the artificial situations (lab-rat housemates, gladiatorial contests) that dominate today’s reality programs. With its grainy look and distanced camerawork, it resembles an art film more than any reality show.

Suspiria.

Review #2461: Suspiria.

Cast: 

Jessica Harper (Suzy Bannion), Stefania Casini (Sara Simms; Silvia Faver as the English voice), Flavio Bucci (Daniel; Gregory Snegoff as the English voice), Miguel Bosé (Mark; Gregory Snegoff as the English voice), Barbara Magnolfi (Olga Ivanova; Carolyn De Fonseca as the English voice), Susanna Javicoli (Sonia; Susan Spafford as the English voice), Eva Axén (Patricia "Pat" Hingle), Alida Valli (Miss Tanner), and Joan Bennett (Madame Blanc) Directed by Dario Argento.

Review: 

“It’s true, almost everyone is female in Suspiria, all the heroes and villains are women, and the few men are either blind, mute or useless. But I don’t know if it is feminist, people tell me it is… The truth is I like working with women, I have always been fascinated by them. When I was very young I went to a school close to my mother’s studio; she was a photographer, famous for her portraits of actresses in the 1940s and 50s. After school, I would run there and sit in the front room where the actresses would do their make-up and get changed into glamorous dresses, and I would see these marvellous women transform. I would watch how my mother lit their faces and bodies, and when I was shooting Suspiria I remembered this.”

Well, it did seem time to cover a Dario Argento movie, so why not just go with the obvious? The son of a film producer and photographer, Argento was a film critic and a columnist before he became a screenwriter, and one of those scripts that he did work for was Once Upon a Time in the West (1968). He became a director with The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970). Influenced by American movies of the 1950s and 1960s along with the works of producer Val Lewton, the movie apparently played for years in Milan, with the movie often being associated as among the big ones of the "giallo" genre (which basically combines some form of the slasher, thriller or psychology). Suspiria was the first of what ended up being three movies that took inspiration from the collection of essays Suspiria de Profundis by Thomas de Quincey (as first published in 1845). He was inspired by a trip he had done through various European cities and a particular spot where France, Germany, and Switzerland meet ("Magic Triangle") while being quite serious about the occult and witchcraft. Argento wrote the movie with his partner Daria Nicolodi that also took inspiration from fairy tales such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The imbibition process was utilized to make for more vivid color rendition that previously had been done for films such as The Wizard of Oz (1939); it was among that last movies to be processed in Technicolor. The movie ran 99 minutes in its native Italy but for the original American distributed release, 20th Century Fox cut some minutes out and even used a shell company to show the movie to audiences, which apparently was quite a hit there. The following two films in a so called "Three Mothers" trilogy were Inferno (1980) and Mother of Tears (2007). After years of attempts to do a remake of the film from American hands (most notably David Gordon Green), a "homage" was released in 2018 that was directed by Luca Guadagnino; Argento was quoted as personally being underwhelmed by what he saw in the film, save for the design. Argento directed a film as recently as 2022 with Dark Glasses. 

It may interest you to know that most of the dialogue in the movie is dubbed over by actors in post-production (save for, well...) because that is how it was for a good deal of Italian movies for the time. It does tend to fit the movie in a strange and unnerving way to look upon the flourishes of color and hear voices that aren't exactly the same as the people saying them. Argento aimed (in his eyes) to make color that would remind you of Snow White (along with early Westerns) what you get is a movie that seemingly comes right out of his mind like a dream - or a nightmare. The study by Argento and cinematographer Luciano Tovoli clearly was worth it in the soul. It goes hand in hand with the progressive rock score by Goblin, who did it collaboration with Argento before the movie was actually shot. The darkness within ourselves can be a powerful force, even for a movie that dances around its narrative like it was a ritual, not dwelling on its absurdity (apparently, the cast was meant to be inhabited by younger people before bowing to the hesitation of the producers). Apparently, Harper's performance in Phantom of the Paradise (1974) influenced Argento to cast her. Harper enjoyed the filming experience (four months in Rome, by the way), complete with getting mail every now and then about the movie and she even made an appearance in the 2018 Suspiria. She provides the vulnerability and grace required of a person who basically is thrust in a fairy tale nightmare, one that is delightful in her ballet from oblivion. The violence of the film looms over the movie with such stark execution that might as well be laughing at you in its defiance of what you might see coming. The logic of the movie is all about what you want it to be, at least when you don't consider some of the convenient exposition. But it all comes down in a great swoop for its climax that just burns down on you with its bouts of imagery and sound. The great terror isn't so much a coven of witches but the coven of one's doubt in their mind about what really is real beyond form and the blood of ourselves. It isn't so much a murder mystery or even a movie about what lurks beneath the coven but instead a movie all about the fear and strange things that lurk in us. The movie is exquisite to view in practically any scene for what you are seeing in its reds and blues that make for devastating effect with the gore in a way that you don't see nearly that often in movies, horror in particular. It is the kind of jagged movie that will leave an impression on its viewer more than just for its gore but for the things that it will inspire the next time one is left in the dark by themselves.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween. Get ready for Halloween: The Week After: The 7th Time

Phantom of the Paradise.

Review #2304: Phantom of the Paradise.

Cast: 

Paul Williams (Swan / singing voice of the Phantom), William Finley (Winslow Leach / the Phantom), George Memmoli (Arnold Philbin), Gerrit Graham (Beef; Raymond Louis Kennedy as singing voice), Jessica Harper (Phoenix), Mary Margaret Amato (Swan's groupie), Janis Eve Lynn (a groupie), Cheryl Smith (a groupie), with Archie Hahn, Jeffrey Comanor & Harold Oblong (the Juicy Fruits / the Beach Bums / the Undeads), and Rod Serling (the introductory voice) Written and Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface, #2139 - Sisters)

Review: 

"I've always thought rock and horror were very close stylistically. I felt I had a solution in combining two separate audiences. Obviously, I didn't."

In 1974, when Halloween night became November morning, a movie came out with elements borrowed from a variety of literary sources from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray to the famed Faust legend that was directed by Brian De Palma. You might remember that he had just scored a pretty decent hit with Sisters (1972), his sixth feature film but first with considerable attention. Interestingly, the root for making the film was De Palma hearing a Beatles song in an elevator played as "muzak" to go along with experiences trying to pitch material to indifferent executives and an idea from his friends (Mark Stone and John Weiser) about a "Phantom of the Fillmore"; De Palma wrote the film, although apparently Louisa Rose (his co-writer for the aforementioned Sisters film contributed, but the original screenplay just lists De Palma). Apparently, it was a chance meeting of De Palma with Williams at A&M Records while the former was trying to raise money for the film that led to the casting seen in the film because of his particular "look". This was the first major role for Paul Williams, who previously appeared in minor roles such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) while becoming a noted professional songwriter, most notably writing the lyrics to songs such as "We've Only Just Begun" to go along with being a regular on the TV circuit. The movie was independently financed (with funding from real estate guy Gustave Berne, who actually was a co-producer on Theatre of Blood), but it found a place at 20th Century Fox because of producer Edward Pressman, who sold the film to the one who happened to bid the highest. The movie was a flop at the time of release, even with such promising ideas from Fox to have costume parties held at its big-city premieres (it was apparently on Halloween night, after all; Pressman has stated that the promotions focused more on the music and specifically Williams were ineffective for the film and he later did his own promotion of the film as "horror phantasy"). However, viewers in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), they apparently loved it enough for the movie to be screened for several weeks (okay, Paris apparently was cool with the film, but Movie Night loves the city of Winnipeg far more than the country of France; besides, one came up with "Phantompalooza"). Well, there was one considerable influence the film had: music duo Daft Punk apparently cited the film as their foundation point as a favorite of theirs. The next film for De Palma would be Obsession (1976), which would end up as a decent hit before he made some film about teenage revenge.

Musical, comedy, horror, it's a delight depending on what genre you're looking for (for those questioning its place in the latter category, call it the horrors of selling one's soul and get back to me). If you appreciate films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975; emphasis on "you", because I sure didn't), it surely will have an electrifying effect for its viewer in enjoyable glam-like rock and acid-tongue humor for a particular industry that happens to have a game cast. De Palma really believed even in 1969 (as per production note research) that rock and horror were merging with the growing success of the Rolling Stones and Alice Cooper and thus a film should be done in the rock world beyond concert films, and I think I see where he was going with that vision for a movie that is delirious and rapid in execution. It is a broad movie where you feel every beat and every style; one critic called it an "elaborate disaster", and I fail to see how that was meant to be criticism; it's a movie about people sealing deals in blood, what do you expect?. True to form, Williams really does pull off the standout performance as both composer and actor for this film, managing to be conniving in the great double-act that can be both soul-sucking and darkly amusing. Finlay makes for a worthwhile tragic figure, robbed of his soul and his livelihood to the point where he is figuratively bound to a person with devastating results. Graham provides great amusement in his interpretation of glam rock (he may not get to provide his own vocals, but he sure moved like he did them) in great theatricality to go along with support from Memmoli and a young Harper. The film is electrifying and actually pretty funny in its look on the music industry and the exploitative horrors that come with art that is prey to big business (note the changing band played by the same people that starts and close the film), and that includes the women that are seen exploited in certain ways (take note of the auditions) as well. It is a demented and worthwhile film that may very well become even more interesting to look upon in rewatches, which is quite the compliment for the true mix of horror-comedy-musical you would hope for anytime and anywhere.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Now then, we enter a tradition that I enjoy making up so November can start off well, with the last five Novembers seeing: Dracula [1979] (2019), Revenge of the Creature (Part II, 2020), Halloween Kills (Part 3, 2021) The Cat and the Canary (4.0, 2022), and Lifeforce (Year Five, 2023). 

For Halloween: The Week After VI, let's go with Madhouse tomorrow night.

My Favorite Year.

Review #1024: My Favorite Year.

Cast: 
Peter O'Toole (Alan Swann), Mark Linn-Baker (Benjy Stone), Jessica Harper (K.C. Downing), Joseph Bologna (Stan "King" Kaiser), Bill Macy (Sy Benson), Ramon Sison (Rookie Carroca), Lainie Kazan (Belle Carroca), Lou Jacobi (Uncle Morty), Adolph Green (Leo Silver), and Anne De Salvo (Alice Miller) Directed by Richard Benjamin.

Review: 
Who doesn't like a movie with a larger-than-life character? Whether based in fact or in fiction, there is an appeal to seeing them interact with others, especially if the actor playing the part is one that can certainly do the job adequately enough. In any case, this is a movie that lives on how entertaining and dynamic O'Toole plays the role, which is reminiscent of Errol Flynn. He brings a certain amount of gravitas and charm that carry the movie at points where a lesser actor would've made it feel not as endurable. Ultimately, the movie is pretty good, having enough laughs and competence to make for a satisfying experience. Undeniably, the movie is at its best when it features O'Toole and his energy on screen, and he has fine chemistry with Linn-Baker (who doesn't have as much energy) when they share time together in the film. The other parts of the film are fairly amusing, with Bologna making his character (a representation of Sid Caesar) interesting to watch. Macy is also pretty good, keeping things together at a fine pace. The romance parts with Linn-Baker and Harper (who both are fine) aren't entirely as strong as the other parts of the film, but they are at the very least watchable, if not too particularly interesting. The film is also fairly good when it talks about the life of a movie star and what it particularly means, which goes a bit better than the parts revolving around making the show, although there aren't too many dull moments. The final sequence with the show is actually pretty amusing, inspiring a good number of laughs that ultimately make the movie worth it. It isn't anything too great, but O'Toole makes the film his own and makes it something worth watching at least once. Is it great? No, but it sure is fun to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.