Vampyr (spine #437)

You know how in movies sometimes there's this hipster guy or gal that goes to film school and expresses his or her self through a black and white student film that seemingly has no real point or direction? I genuinely can't help but feel that "Vampyr" is the 1932 version of that premise. There are a few things, technically and visually speaking, that the movie really astounds in. Yet, as most modern cinema shows us, just because there is some new flash or camera wizardry, it does not necessarily a good movie make.

"Vampyr", from what I can tell, revolves around a young man named Allen Gray. Allen studies the supernatural and comes to an inn for some reason we are never given. He does see a man with a terribly menacing scythe, which i believe is "foreshadowing". One night, his room is broken into by an old man who says three or four words (the movie is almost literally silent, even relying on title cards to tell most of the story...kind of.) to him, writes a message on a package, leaves said package on Allen's desk, and immediately exits the room. The message on the package says that it should not be opened until the old man dies. The next day, Allen begins to witness shadows, completely on their own, all about the village. This is one of the more impressive aspects of the film, including Allen following a shadow as it walks across a field and into a building, climbs a ladder, and returns to a soldier to whom which the shadow belongs. Genuinely, quite an impressive sight, even though the movie had given you no idea what it all means, at least not yet.

Not long after, the old man, whom it has been revealed has two daughters, one very sick, dies, killed by the soldier's shadow. Allen then opens the package to reveal a handwritten novel on Vampires. The pages of the book itself are shown to us via title cards, but are at least written fancily as to at least be visually intriguing, if not sporadic and often near-nonsense. The rest of the movie is seriously a film fever dream. Allen walks around a lot, reads more of the book ever-so-slowly, stumbles upon what he might think is a vampire in the town's midst and then it just gets less and less coherent.

"Vampyr" may have some of the worst editing I have ever seen in a film, and I have seen some really bad films. Aside from the impressive visual effects, I can't understand why Criterion chose this film. I genuinely had to read other people's reviews of the film to understand what exactly was going on. While reading about the film, I found that it was released to almost overwhelmingly negative reviews and it wasn't until the advent of the modern film critic that people started to take a liking to it. I even read people applauding the director for breaking the standard narrative form of film, whereas Ed Wood was hated for doing the same things. It would be easy to just say that the movie was made in 1932 and that was how movies were. Seeing as how "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" came out the previous year, I beg to differ. Those films had incredible visuals for the time as well, but more importantly told compelling stories and featured solid acting. Besides a camera trick or two, I can't possibly see anything worthwhile about "Vampyr"

Repulsion (spine #483)

One of my favorite things about film is its ability to set an effecting mood so that the movie itself, and not just the actions on-screen, provides its own assault on the senses. "Repulsion" sets just such a mood and delivers a solid story, but it definitely requires extreme patience to get there. The movie follows Carol (Catherine Deneuve), a shy, young Belgian woman that lives with her sister, receives (and shuns) lots of male attention, and might just be borderline crazy. Carol, throughout the whole movie, almost never speaks. She sort of just looks at things and people as if she can't quite understand what's going on around her. This makes the beginning of the movie a bit of a struggle to get through, as you are not sure whether this is all character and nuanced-acting, or whether Denueve was really just a terrible actress. Thankfully, it's just a very long and drawn out way of establishing the rest of the film. There's a scene with Carol sitting on a bench looking at a crack in the sidewalk and something about this scene reassures that there is much more going on.

Soon after this, Carol's sister goes on a trip, leaving Carol at their apartment all on her own. This is where the film begins to take quite the surrealistic turn. Carol begins having fears and visions of a burglar breaking in and then raping her. Having seen Carol get upset and freak out over just the slightest bit of affection shown her, it makes this scene all the more powerful and damaging. The rape is far from graphic, but is shown in sporadic cuts with no sound except the ticking of a clock, adding to the ever-increasing tension. Yet, when Carol wakes up, she's all alone, the doors are still locked and it starts to become evident that the whole thing was in her mind.

Time begins to pass, expressed in the film by different forms of food that have been left out, and their gradual rot. As the loneliness and mental instability creep in more and more, so do the sexual dreams Carol has, sometimes as rape, sometimes as groping hands emerging from the apartment walls. Like the crack she saw earlier in the movie, Carol begins seeing cracks all over the apartment, all the while as she is dwindling more and more into madness, eventually escalating from her raw desires to violence and murder.

The movie, directed by Roman Polanski, has quite a bit of visual flair, especially for its time period (1965), and is filled with some truly intriguing effects that I won't spoil for you but are definitely impressive. Having no previous knowledge of the film before watching it, I was quite surprised and pleased to see it be an engaging thriller with some terrific horror elements with it. The movie itself totally relies on Deneuve's performance, which ends up being quite astounding, doing so much with so very little. Definitely a patient, slow-paced film, but one that I felt rewarded with having seen.

Withnail and I (spine # 119)

Even before I had decided to begin this daunting task of conquering the entire Criterion Collection, this movie was well on my radar for two reasons. Firstly, Zach Galifianakis, in an interview with Rolling Stone, noted "Withnail and I" as being the funniest movie he's ever seen. Seeing as how I personally hold every single nuance of Zach as comedic gold, how could I not take his word on it? The second thing that hooked me in was the cover art done by none other than Ralph Steadman, best friend of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson as well as the visual half of the Dr.'s "Gonzo" literature. Between the Zach's recommendation and Steadman's involvement, I couldn't have wanted to see this movie harder. Then, I saw it.

That's not to say that I hated the film. Far from it, actually. I just can't resoundingly say that I am for it, either. The movie takes place in the late 60's with two out of work actors, Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and "I" [Paul Mcgann(and yes, his characer is "I". look in the credits)]*, who are barely scraping by, spending what little they have on booze, and are desperately in need of a change of scenery. As luck would have it, Withnail has a very flamboyant uncle named Monty, portrayed by Richard Griffiths (whom you may know better as Harry Potter's muggle Uncle Vernon. A lot of "uncle" work, this guy),who happens to own a small cottage out in some countryside. So they go, and this is pretty much where the movie actually goes nowhere.

"Seinfeld" was constantly labled a show about nothing, when in actuality there were multitudes of things going on. In the case of "Withnail and I", it really is about absolutely nothing. They get to the cottage, get shitfaced for a bit, Uncle Monty eventually arrives unannounced and makes advances at "I" as he sleeps, "I" gets fed up and wants to return home and manages to get an acting gig along the way. The movie feels like there should be something going on, some bit of soul searching or redemption, anything really. It comes off as merely just a glimpse of two people that have given up on life, one of which still hanging to a thread of hope. It's not really much in the way of a comedy at all, although there are a few choice lines here and there, my favorite being, "I'm preparing myself to forgive you."

I feel like maybe the movie relies on a deeper knowledge of England at that time period so as to be more affecting. Some reviews I have read lend it a comparison to "Fear and Loathing...". with two guys at the end of a swinging time period trying to pick up the pieces and start anew. It does help the film to look at it with those sort of eyes, but I find it not enough for resounding praise. The movie does have a very odd, yet interesting ending involving Hamlet and a pack of wolves, which leaves you feeling like there was more to what you just saw, but not enough to make a return trip. As I often say, though, this is completely my take. The film did decent box office and is apparently quite the cult hit among many, so I would recommend seeing it. I just can't guarantee you'll feel any different than I.

*interesting nerd fact: Both primary actors, Grant and Mcgann, have spent time in the beloved shoes of "Doctor Who". McGann portrayed the 8th doctor in a Doctor Who TV movie in 1996, and retained the moniker up until 2005 when BBC relaunched the series with ninth doctor, Christopher Eccleston. Grant, on the other hand, made some animated web adventures as the ninth doctor in 2003, apparently preparing him to take over as the ninth doctor when the new series began. However once production began, he was not asked to continue on. As such, he is officially known as the "unofficial doctor". If you got all that, you are as hopeless a nerd as I am for writing it.

SALO, or the 120 Days of Sodom (spine #17)

To kick off this most daunting of endeavors, I figured I would start off with one of the movies I have been most curious and interested in wanting to see. "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" reigns as being, at least in conversation, one of the most controversial movies of all time. Based on the eighteenth century writings of the Marquis De Sade, the story is adapted to Italy, 1944 and ripe with Fascism.

The film focuses on four men of varying status; The Duke, The Magistrate, The President, and The Bishop. One of the first lines uttered in the film, by The Bishop, is, "All's good if it's excessive." and that phrase alone completely sums up the plot of the film. These four men specifically choose eighteen young people, 9 boys and 9 girls,and bring them to a seemingly secluded palace,along with maids and soldiers, for four months of perversion, humiliation, and eventual execution. They are joined by 4 middle aged women, 3 of which share stories of their excessive lifestyles and experience while the fourth plays piano interludes along with the stories. Each story told entails a different primary theme, each of which gets specifically explored. These stories mirror, in their own perverse way,Dante's Inferno; The Anteinferno, The Circle of Manias, The Circle of Shit, and The Circle of Blood.

Each story is told in a large common area, with the captive young people in various states of dress and undress, with each of the older women telling stories meant to arouse the four gentlemen, as they have the young ones at their complete disposal, sometimes taking them into rooms on the side, often making them participate in acts right there with the group. As the days wear on, the mental states of the boys and girls seems to be somewhere between denial, survival, and absolute breaking point. There is a lot in the movie that makes it so controversial, but I feel most of that is in idea rather than execution. Personally, things of a sexual nature don't bother me as it seems to bother most. I feel like, especially with Americans, sex is still such a taboo thing that we also constantly are bombarded with, that anytime it can be used in a way to provoke thought or any other feeling than the norm, I am compelled to say, "job well done." The sex depicted is never graphic itself, but the filming of the movie, made in 1975, lends a bit of realism that most movies nowadays could never pull off, just on picture quality alone.

With the other stories comes the introduction of shit as food and aphrodisiac,including a scene that the new cover (photo shown) is taken from. Ultimately, violence,torture, and death arrive for all those that broke the rules (yes, there were rules!) or refused to participate in the acts as they went on. At the same time as these horrible acts are occurring, watching the movie itself reveals it to be quite visually compelling in the way it was filmed. Nearly every shot filled with symmetry, looking almost "Kubrick-like" at time and the whole film feeling like its been washed in the color gray adds depth to the horrors your subjected to. The director, Pier Paolo Pasolini, cited the film as being a political statement and also metaphorical in its depictions. The director himself was murdered before being able to supervise a finalized version of the film. The nature and content of the film being so controversial and appalling to most found the film to be banned in many countries, even still to this day. Luckily, you can get it in America.

Personally, I came away liking the film. Many people told me to prepare myself for the worst, and with years of having read various reviews and stories, I may have had the movie on too high a pedestal for what I was expecting. The thing I always try and keep in mind with movies is the time period they were made. Thinking about this coming out in 1975 makes the subject matter and depictions that much more profound then they would seem in cinema today. The other wonderful thing about movies of that era, specifically the horror movies of the seventies, is that the violence and other atrocities aren't glorified as they are in modern cinema. Yes, those things are assuredly why people watch "Salo", but whereas with "Saw" or "Hostel" where audiences hoot and holler for the kill scenes, "Salo" depicts these acts as the perverse, vile things they are. You don't feel happy seeing them. You feel bothered and uncomfortable, as you should. On this level, the movie shines. It spends the whole movie pushing the freedom of excess while at the same time painting it in such a dark, filthy light. Definitely not a film for the faint of heart, the weak stomached, or the close-minded. "Salo" is an experience all its own if you are willing to take the ride.