Showing posts with label 1960s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1960s. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2014

Biker Chick Double Feature: She-Devils on Wheels (1968) & Easy Wheels (1989)

Repost from 2011.


She-Devils on Wheels
Dir. Herschel Gordon Lewis || 1968 || USA

Despite some impressive visuals in the few films of his I've seen, I'm not exactly an H.G. Lewis fan. I sort of appreciate Lewis' use of bright colors in his films, even if I tend to like the artwork on the walls in his films more than the films themselves. With this in mind, I watched She-Devils on Wheels expecting the worst and actually ended up liking the film. Lewis made the film after criticism of how women were often treated in his other films. She-Devils on Wheels is about a female motorcycle gang called The Man-Eaters that often fights better than the male motorcycle gangs. The Man-Eaters race each other, and whomever wins gets first pick in "the stud line", a group a men that come to their house. The film makes an attempt to follow newer recruit Karen, but tends to pick up and drop her storyline as it pleases. Karen comes into play only after the gang beats up her favorite "stud" Bill, who they think she's in love with, which is against the gang's rules. She comes into play later in the film when her clean cut ex-boyfriend Ted warns her about the male motorcycle gang that has it out for the Man-Eaters. Ted often implores Karen to leave, but she refuses. I think Ted and Karen are supposed to be the moral center, acknowledging that being in any sort of gang probably is not good, but most of the film makes it seem kind of fun. However, the majority of the film is racing and the stud line parties. Lewis uses the shots of people driving away and parking way too much, but it's kind of a fun film when there is dialogue. The final scenes of the battle with the male motorcycle gangleader is bananas in the most perfect way possible.

Easy Wheels
Dir. David O'Malley || 1989 || USA

Easy Wheels is an odd and occasionally funny comedy with the pedigree of having been written by Ivan and Sam Raimi (Sam writing under the pseudonym Celia Abrams) and being produced by Robert Tapert and Bruce Campbell. Like She-Devils on Wheels, it concerns a rival male and female motorcycle gangs, but with added mythos behind each leader. She-Wolf (Eileen Davidson from The House on Sorority Row and the soap operas The Young and the Restless, Days of Our Lives, and The Bold and the Beautiful) is the leader of the gang The Women of the Wolf. They have been riding around the Midwest and stealing babies. They deposit the female babies to a park so that they can be raised by wolves and they leave the male babies with a baby broker who runs a sleazy bar. She-Wolf was raised by wolves herself and believes that she can create a new and more formidable society of women by stealing babies and having them also raised by wolves. They are tracked throughout the Midwest by The Bourne Losers, lead by Bruce, a Vietnam vet with a steel plate in his head that causes him to have visions. The gang's goals are to "find the evil, destroy the evil, and find a really great lite beer." So in real life, they would probably still be roaming around, twenty years later. Of course when they finally cross paths, She-Wolf and Bruce are immediately attracted to each other, causing She-Wolf to want to give up her abstinence (much to the dismay of her more devoted and/or lesbian gang members) so that she and the other members can bear children of free-spirited men. Bruce mostly remains in denial about She-Wolf being a babynapper.

Yeah, for a goofy little comedy, it kind of has a complicated plot. The ending gets a little confused in its message. Both gangs are laughable in their own ways, but I guess it is a given that babynapping is wrong, so The Bourne Losers are given more preference. Unlike The Man-Eaters in She-Devils on Wheels, The Women of the Wolf are a gang not only because they can fight and fight well, but because they are sick of being treated as second-class citizens. But it's hard to view them as "evil" when all they want is to remain independent and have a better society, either at a micro level or at a macro level.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Image Association: Deleuze and Films About Money

The Queen of Versailles (2012, Dir. Lauren Greenfield)

Wall Street (1987, Dir. Oliver Stone)
Danger: Diabolik (1968, Dir. Mario Bava)

"Money is the obverse of all the images that the cinema shows and sets in place, so that films about money are already, if implicitly, films within the film or about the film. This is the true 'state of things': it is not in a goal of cinema, as Wenders says, but rather, as he shows, in a constitutive relation between the film in process of being made and money as the totality of the film...What the film within the film expresses is this infernal circuit between image and money, this inflation which time puts into the exchange, this 'overwhelming rise'. The film is movement, but the film within the film is money, is time...And the film will be finished when there is no more money left."
-Cinema 2: The Time-Image by Gilles Deleuze, 1985

Monday, May 5, 2014

What I've been watching lately in four sentences or less

Repost from 2011.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fall of the House of Usher (1929 || Dir. Jean Epstein || France)
Not nearly as surrealist as some would have you believe.

Blood and Roses (1960 || Dir. Roger Vadim || France)
A slightly more heteronormative-incestuous take on Carmilla, but still interesting.

Au Hasard Balthazar (1966 || Dir. Robert Bresson || France)
Poor donkey.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011 || Dir. Joe Johnston || USA)
The most watchable and fun out of the Marvel Studios films released this year. No daddy issues ('sup, Thor?), and it doesn't take itself too seriously ('sup, X-Men: First Class?). It honestly has Cap jumping a ramp on a motorcycle, away from an exploding Nazi camp. Cap runs away from explosions quite a few times in the film, so it almost cancels out the terrible creepiness of the first 30 minutes consisting of Chris Evans being made to appear shorter and skinnier through CGI.





The Awful Dr. Orloff (1962 || Dir. Jess Franco ||France-Spain)
Jess Franco's first film, a slightly sleazier retread on Eyes without a Face. It's not a very entertaining retread and the era it takes place in is indeterminable.

The Spirits of the Dead (1968 || Dirs. Roger Vadim, Louis Malle, Federico Fellini || France-Italy)
European artsy-sleazy takes on Poe stories with pretty people? Bet you didn't know Fellini could do head decapitations, did you? I would like to frame most of the shots in Fellini's segment "Toby Dammit" and put it on my wall because that man could do Technicolor. The anthology is pretty good, although Malle's story isn't that great except for being able to look at Alain Delon and a brunette Brigitte Bardot.

Faceless (1987 || Dir. Jess Franco || France-Spain)
Another retread of Eyes without a Face by Jess Franco, this one being better, if a bit repetitive and drawn out. There are nods to The Awful Dr. Orloff.

Flyboys (2006 || Dir. Tony Bill || USA)
A dull movie that takes itself too seriously, despite what the trailer would have you believe sometimes (i.e., guy running away from explosion on top of a zeppelin). I fast-forwarded through much of the last hour and was a better person for doing that. Someone should have told James Franco that there were no frosted hair tips during World War I.




Punisher: War Zone (2008 || Dir. Lexi Alexander || USA)
The most comic book out of all comic book movies - the colors, the over-the-top violence and characters (complete with bad NYC accents for the villains), the cinematography  - all comic book. Sometimes the film drags a little, but then there's another insane set piece. 

Don't Open 'Till Christmas (1984 || Dir. Edmund Purdom || UK)
I watched this because the guy who played the dean in Pieces stars and directed this movie. I guess if the idea of a serial killer killing people in Santa suits sounds good, check it out. Otherwise, I can't recommend it because that's really all the film is: killing Santas and some police procedural - it's as if the movie was being written as it was filmed. This movie makes Silent Night, Deadly Night look profound.

Burnt Offerings (1976 || Dir. Dan Curtis || USA)
Many of the daytime scenes were very washed out looking and I am not totally sure why. It's perhaps better than most haunted house movies, if a little slow sometimes (this is a high compliment from me, considering that I've never been one for haunted house films). The ending is quite good and dark.

C.H.U.D. (1984 || Dir. Douglas Cheek || USA)
Not a terribly bonkers horror film, but it has a good "future stars" cast, good special effects, and it fits in well with other early 1980s gritty NYC horror films.




Children of the Corn (1984 || Dir. Fritz Kiersch || USA)
While I haven't read the short story since I was probably 12, this is not a good movie. It's like a moralistic, somewhat dull, and ballsless version of Who Could Kill a Child?. The film also has this bizarre dichotomy of the two good, non-cult children being cute, while the majority of the children in the cult are either awkward-looking or ugly.

The Bride Wore Black (1968 || Dir. Francois Truffaut || France)
Bet you didn't know that Truffaut did semi-Hitchcockian revenge films, did you? This is not a bloody film, but quite clever.


Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Grad School Residue: Franco Citti wearing hats

In the fall of 2011, a class I TA'ed for basically spent a week-and-a-half watching The Godfather, and in the winter of 2012, I took a class that basically involved watching Pier Paolo Pasolini's entire filmography. So I spent a lengthy amount of time my first year of grad school watching Franco Citti wearing hats of varying degrees of weirdness.

Accattone, he and Pasolini's first film.


Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex
The Canterbury Tales

Not a hat, but crazy hair for Arabian Nights. I'm pretty sure he was the inspiration for Snarf on Thundercats.


The Godfather, as one of Michael's bodyguards.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Quick Notes on Representation and Who Are You, Polly Maggoo?


Who Are You, Polly Maggoo? (1966, Dir. William Klein) is centered around an American fashion model in Paris named Polly Maggoo, of course. The film never quite settles on what is fantasy and what is reality until the end of the film. It is also hard to say what type of P.O.V. the film is taking. Third person? A documentary of a TV documentary crew? Klein builds Polly as a construct from the beginning and Polly sees herself as a construct of sorts. The TV crew and especially the producer follow her around just because she is not being forthcoming enough, all the while constantly editing her piece in a positive, negative and almost irreverent fashion depending on their feelings towards her. One crew member is bent on depicting her as a Cinderella story while at the same time showing the darker version of the fairy tale and connecting it to the fashion industry.

The fantasy storyline concerns Prince Igor, a European prince who pines for Polly just based on her photos and apparently some Hollywood-based notion of what American women are like, mostly based in Classical Hollywood musicals (Shirley Temple, Ginger Rogers...although I have no idea where the brief shot of Polly chained to a wall wearing a leather bikini means or comes from in terms of Classical Hollywood musicals).

The TV producer, full of self-loathing (while directing some loathing towards Polly) performs some pop-psychology tests on her asking what type of plant she would be, etcetera, who she would rather have sex with (lists various historical figures), "reading" her face and walk. He seems no closer to understanding her, and she tells him so. He, and the rest of the documentary crew keep insisting that she does not know who she is - that is debatable because we rarely see Polly alone partially because of the crew that follows and stalks her.

The ending sets up Polly's fall, at least her "public" fall - the magazine editor sees her as a "Cinderella"-type, not a "rocket"-type (although Polly claims on her test that she would like to be a rocket) and hires a different model behind her back. Prince Igor arrives to Polly's apartment moments after she leaves, meets Polly's similar-looking neighbor and instantly falls in love with her. People on the street do not find Polly's pictures attractive. The TV producer stops hating himself, professes his love to Polly and turns into a prince, but that is not mentioned at the very end, where Polly is roaming the streets happily with the crowds who are awaiting the arrival/parade for Prince Igor. Titles at the end feature a sad song about Polly's end.

Again, this is her fall in the eyes of the public, while Polly is very happy with herself because she is not under scrutiny anymore. This film is bizarrely progressive in this matter.

PS - This film is available on Hulu+ under the Criterion Collection. And yes, the opening scene is referenced in the video for "No You Girls" by Franz Ferdinand.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Grad School Residue/Image Association: Godard meets Situationists (They probably met anyway).



"THE BREAKING UP of the dialectic of the human milieu in favor of automobiles (the projected freeways in Paris will entail the demolition of thousands of houses and apartments although the housing crisis is continually worsening) masks its irrationality under pseudopractical justifications. But it is practically necessary only in the context of a specific social set-up. Those who believe that the particulars of the problem are permanent want in fact to believe in the permanence of the present society." - Situationist Theses on Traffic, Guy Debord, Internationale Situationniste #3 (November 1959)/2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle (Godard, 1967)