Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Virgin Witch (1972)


Sisters Christine (Ann Michelle) and Betty (Vicki Michelle) are hitching their way down to London, when they are picked up by the eternally grimacing Johnny (Keith Buckley), who I think has the appropriate surname of Dicks.  Latching onto Betty like the creep that he is, Johnny warns the girls about the predatory nature of many employers.  Heedless of this (or is she?), Christine takes an interview with talent agent and bald-faced lesbian Sybil Waite (Patricia Haines).  Sybil quickly offers Christine a job and whisks the siblings off to the country manse of Dr. Gerald Amberly (Neil Hallett).  What are the odds that everyone around the estate is in a coven with plans for the two young birds?  Better than you might think (unless you actually read the title of the film).

If the tactlessly salacious title and the blunt tagline (“She’ll blow your mind!”) don’t tell you everything you need to know about it, Ray Austin’s Virgin Witch (aka Lesbian Twins) has some of the most telling opening credits, possibly in the world.  I didn’t actually count (I’m horrible at multiplication), but I’m fairly confident that every single still frame used in them has at least one pair of naked breasts in it.  This, in and of itself, isn’t enough to make one think that what they are watching is single-minded (though it does make one hell of an argument).  No, for me at least, this comes from the facial expressions of the women in the credits.  They all appear to be having a right good time, basically glamour shots to kick off a film ostensibly about the supernatural.  So, even with its title and subject, it’s hammered home early that the entirety of this film’s conscious raison d’être is titillation (but as we all know, I’m a killjoy who can rarely enjoy these things only on a surface level).  Unfortunately, by the end credits, I was experiencing niedosyt.  

On the skin end of the spectrum, the filmmakers don’t simply throw it up on the screen despite their often brazen approach.  They want the audience to feel like they’re participants and maybe even feel a little sleazy for being so (unless, you know, that’s a turn-on for you).  As Peter (James Chase) takes photos of Christine in various states of undress, the film’s camera acts as a camera shutter, closing and opening an iris (the iris being a visual motif and transitional device going all the way back to the Silent Era of film).  While Gerald watches Betty take a bath through a peephole, a fisheye lens is employed (and frankly, something I’m surprised they didn’t use more of; the lens, not the voyeurism) as he and we ogle.  We get extreme closeups of female mouths talking to each other.  During a scene where Johnny makes a phonecall from Sybil’s office, we get odd-seeming cutaways to various beaver shots around the room (this does pay off, but they are edited with no indication of foreshadowing; something which is both frustrating and refreshing in its jarringness).  Austin’ s camera literally leers over every inch of feminine skin it can, dwelling on nipples and derrieres, as if no one has ever seen them before (maybe the teens who watched the film back in the day didn’t, but I’m pretty sure that these days most kids have seen hardcore porn by the age of five).  It’s Sexploitation, yes, but the intent feels aggressive toward its subjects making for some slight unpleasantness.  Consequently, after the first few onscreen nude bodies, they tend to lose much of their allure, partly because of the tone, partly because of their persistent presence.  It’s a bit like getting used to new wallpaper; after a while, it’s simply background.

I don’t know much about witchcraft (okay, outside of cinematic witchcraft, I know nothing), but Gerald’s coven is, at its core, a kyriarchy with the rituals being about some form of freedom on their surface only.  Nevertheless, the metaphorical sacrifices serve a dual purpose.  On the one hand, they are intended to release the inner sex drive and inculcate new recruits into the group.  This is why there are things like a hidden inner sanctum in the first place.  For the chaste, this is a symbol of their sexual awakening.  There is a value placed on virginity in the coven, though when everything is stripped away (pardon the pun), all of this is simply a way for flabby, old lechers to bang tight, young girls.  This reflects the other purpose of the rituals.  They are, in some sense, a corruption of the virginal (read: pure).  As the ceremony is carried out, the subject is put under a spell, and they cannot completely control their actions or what happens to them (there is some aspect of this that is playacting for the sake of the rite, to be sure).  Though they may have volunteered to join the coven initially, once things get to this point, it can be argued that it becomes tantamount to rape.  This is reinforced immediately after the film’s final rite in a scene between Johnny and Betty which feels disingenuously facile and outright perplexing in its conclusion.

The film is loaded with themes of desire and, much more importantly, jealousy arising from same.  Every single major character (with the possible exception of Betty) is desirous of another one or what they have.  Johnny wants Betty.  Peter wants Christine.  Sybil also wants Christine.  Gerald wants anything he can get.  Sybil is jealous of Gerald, because he has sex with Christine.  She is also jealous of Peter, because Christine is attracted to him.  In her homosexuality, Sybil is somewhat outside the norm of the coven, even though there is no indication that they would be against Sapphic relations.  Sybil is never allowed to consummate with anyone (onscreen; there is the implication that she spent a night with Christine, but it’s also implied that she didn’t from the tentative way she acts the next morning).  Christine, on the other hand, is desirous only for power.  She does not conduct herself as being genuinely attracted to anyone sexually.  If anything, she is a master manipulator, playing the part of the innocent coquette.  Interestingly, this is played out in the relationship between the sisters.  Christine has the power of mind control, and this makes Betty uncomfortable.  Betty avoids her sister’s gaze, but she is still influenced by Christine because she is the younger of the two, and this is the natural order we expect.  Ultimately, Christine uses Betty to get exactly what she wants, and she doesn’t display even the slightest compunction about doing so, making her something of a sociopath.  What’s a real kick in the ass is that what she has been striving for throughout the film doesn’t feel worth the effort in the slightest.  Combined with its total lack of tension, conflict, or emotional involvement, it gives Virgin Witch the distinct air of “who gives a fuck?”  I know I didn’t.

MVT:  The Michelle sisters are charming for what they’re allowed to do.  It also doesn’t hurt that they’re easy on the eye.  But every second they are offscreen is a slog, and the time they are onscreen really isn’t much more of a picnic.

Make Or Break:  The second ceremony is skanky in the extreme, and how it finally plays out is - there’s no other word for it – dumb.  

Score:  4/10    

Friday, May 9, 2014

Episode #286: The Perfect Kid-Ler

Welcome back to the GGtMC!!!

This week filmmaker/actor/writer and all around tough guy Mike Malloy joins us for some film talk and he programmed a doozy of an episode. We cover The Perfect Killer (1977) starring Lee Van Cleef and Kid (1990) starring C. Thomas Howell!!! Always great to have Mike on, a true Gent through and through!!!

Direct download: ggtmc_286.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Adios!!!


Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Dirty O'Neil (1974)

Jimmy O’Neil (Morgan Paull, whom you may recall as the guy who gets blown away by Brion James at the start of Blade Runner) is a fresh-faced police officer in the sleepy California town of Newhall.  Not much happens there, and Jimmy is just fine with that.  This gives him lots of time to score with every single woman he comes across and to passively ignite the libidos of those out of his age range.  His older partner Lasser (Art Metrano), on the other hand, is dying to break out to the big city and some action.  But there is a trio of drifters circling Newhall like a school of sharks, just dying to make things interesting for everyone.

In her notes on Carnival In Flanders, the late, great Pauline Kael wrote that “movies with rough edges and bad spots are sometimes more exciting.”  While I don’t agree with her opinions all of the time, I agree enthusiastically with her in this sentiment.  Of course, I love the meticulousness of more technical filmmakers as well, but I think that verisimilitude can also be found in the more rough-hewn (not always, but sometimes).  Lewis Teague and Leon Capetanos (under the Howard Freen pseudonym) approach the structure of Dirty O’Neil (aka The Love Life Of A Cop) in the sort of freeform way of a Robert Altman film.  Obviously, there are vast differences in directorial styles, but the casual naturalism of most non-sex scenes stands out.  There is no real plot to the film.  There is only a series of events, and the vast majority of these events are in service of the endgame of Jimmy getting laid by a bevy of pretty girls (I’ll overlook the instances of female underarm hair, but if that’s your thing, more power to you).  This is, after all, a Sexploitation film, first and foremost.  But in between the sex scenes are these mini-episodes, and it’s from these the film garners its charm.  The actors have an easy rapport with each other, so even if the audience doesn’t believe the facility with which this guy can pick up chicks, the relationships between the characters is completely believable.  Contrasted with this are the scenes involving the drifters Lou (Raymond O’Keefe), Bennie (Tom Huff), and Al (Bob Potter).  These are despicable villains with the thinnest of characterizations, but their purpose is not solely to provide some sleaze and danger for the film.

It is stated flat out in the film’s dialogue that part of the conflict of the film has to do with the fear of commitment.  This goes a long way in proffering a motivation for all the sex (not that this is especially needed for this genre, but it’s nice that one is given).  Of course, there has to be a sexual hold out in order to make this point, and that is Lisa (Pat Anderson), the nurse who Jimmy chases after, though never to the point that her elusiveness bothers him.  There are, as the film goes to great lengths (ahem) to display, plenty of fish in the sea (or at the absolute minimum, Newhall, California).  When Lisa tells Jimmy that she feels like she can open up to him, he has fallen asleep while she was baring her soul.  She coaches the girls basketball team (the Amazons) that plays against the team Jimmy coaches (the Butternut Kittens).  She describes herself as a “cold fish,” because she doesn’t rip off her clothes when Jimmy shows up, but somehow this is seen as a character flaw rather than as a sign of character, something for which she apologizes.  Nonetheless, this relationship and its complications don’t drive the movie.  They are just another series of vignettes, and their culmination is unsurprising and, I have to admit, a little bit of a letdown, all things considered.  But what can you do?  

Beyond the film’s commitment angle (and to my mind running alongside it) is a theme of isolation.  Lasser and Jimmy are the two sides of this coin.  Lasser wants to move to the big city (Los Angeles) and become a cop there.  He wants excitement that Newhall doesn’t offer (“it’s a dull town,” “you’ll get bored, too”).  He wants to be engaged with life.  To that end, he pines for local bartender Vera (Katie Saylor), and he reveals his feelings to her, because he craves a lasting relationship.  After returning from Vietnam, Jimmy wants to retreat from life.  At the film’s start, he enjoys that nothing happens in his town (“you can get killed out there if things get too exciting”).  He enjoys that his sexual liaisons are fast and easy.  He enjoys not being invested in anything other than what’s in front of him at any given moment.  The drifters, then, are the real world from which Jimmy (and by extension everyone) cannot escape.  They mercilessly antagonize him in public, and while they clearly do get under his skin, he doesn’t rise to the bait at first.  If he keeps his head in the sand, eventually they will have to move on.  The drifters also represent what Jimmy may turn into if he remains an outsider to life.  They are the ultimate remove from life and the ultimate personification of ids unchecked, and consequently, they are removed from humanity.  If Jimmy continues down his superficial path, he will become inured to any emotional core he may have once had.  And when the women he nets so easily stop responding to his diminishing allure, like the drifters he will likely resort to taking what he wants.  And it will mean as much to him as it does to them.  Obviously, Jimmy has to confront them in order to confront this part of himself, and once he recognizes this, he suddenly begins taking his job more seriously.  With that said, the film makes something of a misstep (hint: it’s the same scene referred to above with Lisa), because after what Jimmy has gone through, we are left with the distinct impression that he only did it in order to continue getting his nuts off.  This is nailed (no pun intended) with the repeated piece of dialogue, “A cop is usually overworked, underpaid, and misunderstood.  But he should never be horny.”  After the trouble the filmmakers took to give the film a streak of seriousness (and the shifts of tone work reasonably well, all things being equal), it comes off as fairly crass.  I’m sure the filmmakers went this way so they could have an “up” ending, but it rings slightly false to my ears. 

MVT:  The acting is solid from just about everyone.  Granted, there are a few amateurs who don’t rein it in as much as they should.  But I have to say, overall I was impressed.

Make Or Break:  The scene with the Drifters and a certain woman is an extended exercise in sleaze.  It also manages to be gripping and hateful simultaneously, and it shockingly doesn’t go for titillation, which I appreciated.

Score:  6.5/10

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Instant Action: Death Wish (1974)



To wish for death, or not to wish for death, that is the question!

Screenplay By: Wendell Mayes
Directed By: Michael Winner

There are a couple of very important elements at play in Death Wish. Firstly, Paul Kersey is not on a revenge fueled ride from the get-go. The film takes its time to get him to the point where he is willing to fight back, and more specifically to pull the trigger on someone's life. We spend time with Paul, we get to know what makes him tick and how much the changes in his life are effecting him. This all leads to the most important moment of the film, when Paul finally fights back against a thug. He commits the act of pulling the trigger and what follows is different from most revenge films. Paul feels remorse, maybe not for the person he has killed but for the person he is becoming. Paul returns to his house and throws up, he's so torn up over what he has done that his own body is rebelling against him.

The two elements discussed above aren't the only elements that pull Death Wish away from the revenge pack. I was very impressed with the fact that the thugs who accosted Kersey's daughter and killed his wife are never seen again in the film. Were Death Wish made today chances are that the film would have ended with Kersey finally confronting the thugs who set him on his murderous path. Death Wish isn't the story of those thugs, it's the story of Paul Kersey and that's why it's important that he not meet up with those thugs again. Sure, Death Wish is a fantasy, but it's not the happy ending where everything is tied into a neat bow type of fantasy. Had Paul met up with the men who changed his life that would have created too neat of an ending and taken away from the wonderfully ambiguous nature of the film.

Charles Bronson is especially worth talking about when it comes to Death Wish. I've never pegged Mr. Bronson as a terrific actor, and I'm still not sure if he has the most range. However, range is not what is needed for the role of Paul Kersey. Mr. Bronson plays the role super quiet, and that makes sense as he is the representation of the silenced and humiliated everyman versus the loud thugs. I don't know what more anyone could want from Mr. Bronson as an actor, his performance as Paul Kersey is pitch perfect. He may not be the world's greatest thespian, but after Death Wish I'm much more convinced that Charles Bronson is an actor who knows how to play to his strengths.

It's tempting to call Death Wish a satisfying film. While such a label would fit I'm not sure if it's actually an apt description. Yes, there is some joy to be had in watching thugs be gunned down. There's plenty of joy to be taken from the filmmaking craft on display from Michael Winner. That being said, Death Wish isn't the sort of revenge tale that is about good versus evil. Paul resorts to evil to fight evil, a decision that makes sense but is still troublesome. Death Wish is gloriously ambiguous in the way it handles the social problem of vigilantism. It's easy to make a case for Paul's actions being justified, but it's just as easy to make a case for Paul's actions being over the line.

I wasn't sure what to expect going into Death Wish. I'm happy to report that the film was a smashing success. Mr. Winner's film gave me plenty to think about and plenty of filmic elements to rejoice over. Death Wish finds the right middle ground between drama and revenge tale. Most importantly Death Wish never rushes, it takes the time to establish its characters and its world. The tempo and the tone of Death Wish is spot on throughout, and that's why it remains a fine piece of action cinema all these years later.

Rating:

9/10

Cheers,
Bill Thompson

Midnite Ride #27: Bone

Welcome to another Midnite Ride!!!

Karl Brezdin and Mattsuzaka bring you coverage of Bone (1972) directed by Larry Cohen!!!

Direct download: MidniteRide_Bone.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Adios!!!

 

Episode #285: Streets of War

Welcome everyone to another glorious episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week the Gents are joined by David Allcock, our dear friend from the UK, for a couple of films he wanted us to discuss and we were more than happy to have hime on the show once again!!!

This week we cover Streets of Fire (1984) directed by Walter Hill and Private Wars (1993) starring Steve Railsback!!! We had a great time discussing these two films which is just insane to think are only 9 years apart...cinema certainly changed in those 9 years.

Direct download: ggtmc_285.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Adios!!!