Tonight's movie was another documentary : "Good Times, Wonderful Times" (1964), again from Lionel Rogosin, the director behind "On The Bowery". It was included as a bonus feature on the same dvd, and IMDB described it as a noted anti-war film so I decided to give it a shot. Though I found "Bowery" depressing, there was no doubt about Rogosin's prowess as a filmmaker, which is amply demonstrated in "Good Times" from the opening scene. The camera pans across a table lined with liquor bottles, high grade stuff. The picture is black and white, high contrast but full grey scale and very crisp. Glasses clink and we hear early instrumental rock music, the kind of "jazzy" guitar rock that coexisted for a while with Merseybeat. You might remember hearing examples of it in episodes of "Gilligan's Island", and coincidentally the film's year of release was the same year that Gilligan went on the air and the year The Beatles broke out in America.
So, we see the bottles and hear the music, and then we see people dancing in a crowded living room. From the look of them, and the style of dance, this could only be the early 1960s and in fact it is. We are at a cocktail party in London, just as that city was becoming the pop cultural center of the world. "Swinging" London was all the rage at that time, and Rogosin uses it's "sophisticated" culture to frame the rest of what he is going to show us. At the party, a heavily mascaraed woman casually talks about her sexual conquests. The man to whom she is speaking is a witty chap, but silly, and he is only paying attention to her because.....well, you know why. She seems at least to have something resembling a brain, while he is obviously a lightweight, or possibly one of those people for whom serious conversation is difficult. The woman fidgets and picks at her hair. The man attempts joke after lame joke. Younger people dance in the background. One guy who looks like Peter Asher of the pop duo Peter and Gordon is particularly supple. I don't know if he's doing The Frug, The Jerk or The Hully Gully, but he's on top of it, he's got his moves down.
The party looks like fun, especially if you were in London and "making the scene" at the very time a paradigm shift was blowin' in the wind.
But as more alcohol is consumed, the talk becomes more serious. A young man is present who has been a mercenary in the Congo. The mascaraed woman asks him what it was like to kill people. Another youth speaks up against war. The discussion remains polite, no tempers flare - this is England, after all - but viewpoints that might've withheld are now expressed under the influence. Some of the partygoers see war as an inevitable, an eternal part of the human condition. "There will always be war", one woman says with authority. This idea sounds more like a repetition of something she heard elsewhere rather than a carefully thought out opinion of her own.
Rogosin will now show you what war is like. The party is one setting for the film, constituting half the movie. Scenes of war are the other half, and we are talking actual footage here, of the grisliest atrocities that can be imagined. Rogosin is saying, in a deliberately un-subtle manner : "Well, here we have all of these modern and oh-so-sophisticated people, glibly talking about war at a cocktail party, and - wait a minute while I splice this edit - over here, we have the Real Thing. What do you think about that"?
People talking about war while drinking and dancing vs. Actual war. Hmmm, let me think about that for a moment.
This is all he is really presenting us with, but it's more than enough. I don't think he's trying to demean the partygoers, but trying, rather, to show how far removed they are from the reality of what they are talking about. They have strong opinions, but with the exception of the mercenary and one other veteran, no one at the party has any actual wartime experience.
Rogosin cuts back and forth throughout the movie, and as the party discussions get heavier, so do the scenes of war. Folks, this is the rawest of raw footage. It's not for anyone but the most hardened viewers. I have often remarked on my own personal wonder that anyone survived World War Two, and I double down on that here. If there is any doubt that war is - literally - Hell, let it be dispelled with this film. The footage is like something out of a Bosch painting, only worse.
So that's all the film really consists of; the conversations at the party contrasted against the scenes of carnage. I don't know if the cocktail talk was scripted, another work of "docufiction" like "On The Bowery" , but I found "Good Times" more involving overall than that film, because - let's face it - you cannot fail to be shocked to your core by what you have seen.
Rogosin had a genius idea to use the party as a framework for the war footage. In doing so, he also captured a moment in time when Idealism was peaking around the world. The cynicism that would infect the later part of the 1960s was still far off, and kids in 1964 just wanted to dance the night away. It's ironic, given Rogosin's vision.
Two Enormous Thumbs Up for "Good Times, Wonderful Times", but again, a Triple Caveat about the war footage. It's not for the remotely squeamish. If you even think you won't be able to handle it, don't watch. /////
That's all for now. I'm gonna head down to the store and for a short CSUN walk. I'm off until Sunday morning, so maybe tomorrow we'll go for a hike. By "we" I mean you and me, of course. Until then, I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, November 8, 2019
Thursday, November 7, 2019
"On The Bowery" by filmmaker Lionel Rogosin
Tonight I watched another documentary, "On The Bowery" (1956), made by an independent filmmaker named Lionel Rogosin. I'd never heard of him until I saw this film on the rack at West Valley Libe. It looked interesting and the liner notes mentioned an Academy Award nomination, so I gave it a shot.
I'm sure you've heard of The Bowery, New York's version of "Skid Row". Hell, I shouldn't say "version" because The Bowery is the Skid Row by which all other Rows should be judged, or at least it was when the movie was filmed. Rogosin, a graduate of Yale but a self-taught filmmaker, went down there with his camera to capture the street life, and in doing so he cemented it for all time.
His movie was made before the concept of "homelessness" was put forth. In those days, the men you see stumbling around The Bowery would've been considered "bums", and in body they resemble their train hopping brethren known as "hobos". They look very beat up. Rogosin focuses on the faces of these men, and may the Good Lord help all such people, but you have never seen faces like these in all your life. They are the visages of the hardest of hard core alcoholics, men whose addictions have dragged them to the very bottom of society. These are faces shaped by booze and concrete. Rogosin shows the men laying on the hard sidewalks, sleeping off another night's drunk. When the morning comes they will do it all again, every day is the same.
Into the picture comes a new man. He is younger than most of the long-timers, about 40, and his gait suggests a degree of health. He appears to be strong and lean, not bent over and hobbled like the rest of the street dwellers. His name is Ray, and he is a real person playing himself. The movie is not a strict documentary because Rogosin wrote a story for his cast to enact. His own word for it was "docufiction". But it's a story that was close enough to the truth that the fiction makes no difference.
Ray, playing himself, is new to The Bowery. He's just arrived from New Jersey, where he spent the Summer working in a train yard. He's got a suitcase filled with clothes, and some money. Because he's an itinerant worker he has no permanent home, so when the trainyard gig was over he headed to NYC and The Bowery because he'd heard you could get "day work" there. But we can see right away that he's also a severe alcoholic. Maybe that's the real reason he came to The Bowery, because it was a place he could fit in.
Ray walks into one of the many gin mills on the street and introduces himself to some of the winos, who are all talking at once about insignificant things. Rogosin lingers on their interaction, again framing them in close ups, and in the introduction to the movie by Martin Scorcese, he says that John Cassavetes was hugely influenced by this film. If you've seen Cassavetes' "Faces", you will notice the influence. The textures of these faces, in both movies, tell a story all by themselves.
Ray becomes friends with an older gentleman named Gorman, another actual Bowery resident playing himself. In real life, Gorman had been a reporter for the Washington Times, with a nice home and a family until his extreme alcoholism brought him down. In the movie, his former profession is changed to surgeon, but the analogy is the same: The Bowery can happen to anyone.
Gorman is somewhat of a con man. His entire day revolves around cadging a drink from anyone with some dough. His line-at-the-ready is "I haven't got a plugged nickel, can ya help me out"? He talks a good game because he is educated, so he can always get somebody to front him. Ray buys him several rounds that first afternoon, and Gorman repays him by stealing Ray's suitcase, later that night after Ray has passed out on the sidewalk. Welcome to The Bowery, Ray; you can't trust anyone.
Ray wants to quit drinking, and he is not averse to work. Rogosin does not present a falsely sympathetic depiction of the residents. He shows them as they are, and in truth, most of them would not want to leave, because they have come to not only accept their lifestyle, but would be resistant to change it. Because they have become accustomed to living in the moment - and only looking toward their next drink - the hard truth is that most of them prefer living in The Bowery because it's better than having to go straight. Nowdays, we have programs in place to try and catch susceptible young people before they fall off the addiction cliff, but in 1956 (and the decades before), no one paid much attention to addicts unless it was the cops looking to lock them up. If a man wound up on the streets, it was because he was a bum. The bums eventually acquired their own neighborhoods, and ceased to care about living a normal life, and in some cases, especially that of the hobos, a transient lifestyle became the goal. Some of the the men of The Bowery, the more level-headed ones, do want a roof over their head. No one enjoys sleeping on the sidewalk, so when they have enough money, maybe from helping unload a vegetable truck, some of them will spend it on a "flop" (a room for the night) rather than on drinks. But even these men, the more able ones, are more or less stuck in The Bowery for life, and because they have more than enough to drink, and all of their friends are there, it appears in the film that they don't seem to mind it.
It looks pretty horrible though. Regarding the faces of the men, you find yourself thinking, "once they were all tiny babies". What the hell happened?
This is the problem, I think, with homelessness and addiction. While of course, it would be ideal for everyone on the street to at least have the basics - a room to live in, food and clothing, access to healthcare, the truth is that you can't force everyone to comply, and there are those who would rather live by their own wits - with no outside interference - than have to conform in any way to society's standards. This is especially true of addicts who are also mentally ill. Rogosin shows them as they are. Many seem fine with their lot. Others merely walk around in a stupor. It looks more like an open air asylum than a modern day homeless camp.
Ray continues to try and quit drinking, and at one point he decides to go to the local shelter to ask for help. He is told he can get a bed, and food and a shower, but he cannot consume alcohol and he must attend the church service. Do you think he will stick with this program? It's his only way out. He just wants to get sober so he can move on to Chicago. He's heard there is more trainyard work there.
"On The Bowery" was no doubt an important film when it was released, almost 65 years ago, and it still has an important point to make, even if that point is "some people are beyond help". The problem for a viewer in 2019 is that we know all this stuff by now, and so the message is no longer shocking, only depressing. Please note that I am not - definitely not - including all homeless people in that category. As I say, there are many reasons a person becomes homeless nowdays, and many if not most modern homeless would no doubt accept help, but the men of The Bowery are a different story. That's why it was such a notorious place. It was a place for men who wanted to be left alone to hit rock bottom, just as long as there was a bottle on hand. And there always was.
"On The Bowery" runs only 65 minutes, but about halfway through I asked myself "why am I watching this"? In this case, it wasn't because the movie was bad. It was very well made, and not dull. It's just that it was exceedingly depressing. I did stick it out, though, and watched for the duration, and I'm gonna give it Two Thumbs Up, but I'm afraid I can't recommend it.
It's been selected by the National Film Register, and most critics would consider it a classic. Martin Scorcese does, and there is no doubt it is one of the greatest documentaries ever made, even if only from a cinematic standpoint (because I did not find the story all that interesting, to be honest). And yes, you've never seen a place like The Bowery, and it's hard to believe such a place ever existed. But you wouldn't want to walk through there, so you might ask yourself before watching this movie if you want to spend an hour looking at it on your TV. //////
That's all for now. I'll see you later tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I'm sure you've heard of The Bowery, New York's version of "Skid Row". Hell, I shouldn't say "version" because The Bowery is the Skid Row by which all other Rows should be judged, or at least it was when the movie was filmed. Rogosin, a graduate of Yale but a self-taught filmmaker, went down there with his camera to capture the street life, and in doing so he cemented it for all time.
His movie was made before the concept of "homelessness" was put forth. In those days, the men you see stumbling around The Bowery would've been considered "bums", and in body they resemble their train hopping brethren known as "hobos". They look very beat up. Rogosin focuses on the faces of these men, and may the Good Lord help all such people, but you have never seen faces like these in all your life. They are the visages of the hardest of hard core alcoholics, men whose addictions have dragged them to the very bottom of society. These are faces shaped by booze and concrete. Rogosin shows the men laying on the hard sidewalks, sleeping off another night's drunk. When the morning comes they will do it all again, every day is the same.
Into the picture comes a new man. He is younger than most of the long-timers, about 40, and his gait suggests a degree of health. He appears to be strong and lean, not bent over and hobbled like the rest of the street dwellers. His name is Ray, and he is a real person playing himself. The movie is not a strict documentary because Rogosin wrote a story for his cast to enact. His own word for it was "docufiction". But it's a story that was close enough to the truth that the fiction makes no difference.
Ray, playing himself, is new to The Bowery. He's just arrived from New Jersey, where he spent the Summer working in a train yard. He's got a suitcase filled with clothes, and some money. Because he's an itinerant worker he has no permanent home, so when the trainyard gig was over he headed to NYC and The Bowery because he'd heard you could get "day work" there. But we can see right away that he's also a severe alcoholic. Maybe that's the real reason he came to The Bowery, because it was a place he could fit in.
Ray walks into one of the many gin mills on the street and introduces himself to some of the winos, who are all talking at once about insignificant things. Rogosin lingers on their interaction, again framing them in close ups, and in the introduction to the movie by Martin Scorcese, he says that John Cassavetes was hugely influenced by this film. If you've seen Cassavetes' "Faces", you will notice the influence. The textures of these faces, in both movies, tell a story all by themselves.
Ray becomes friends with an older gentleman named Gorman, another actual Bowery resident playing himself. In real life, Gorman had been a reporter for the Washington Times, with a nice home and a family until his extreme alcoholism brought him down. In the movie, his former profession is changed to surgeon, but the analogy is the same: The Bowery can happen to anyone.
Gorman is somewhat of a con man. His entire day revolves around cadging a drink from anyone with some dough. His line-at-the-ready is "I haven't got a plugged nickel, can ya help me out"? He talks a good game because he is educated, so he can always get somebody to front him. Ray buys him several rounds that first afternoon, and Gorman repays him by stealing Ray's suitcase, later that night after Ray has passed out on the sidewalk. Welcome to The Bowery, Ray; you can't trust anyone.
Ray wants to quit drinking, and he is not averse to work. Rogosin does not present a falsely sympathetic depiction of the residents. He shows them as they are, and in truth, most of them would not want to leave, because they have come to not only accept their lifestyle, but would be resistant to change it. Because they have become accustomed to living in the moment - and only looking toward their next drink - the hard truth is that most of them prefer living in The Bowery because it's better than having to go straight. Nowdays, we have programs in place to try and catch susceptible young people before they fall off the addiction cliff, but in 1956 (and the decades before), no one paid much attention to addicts unless it was the cops looking to lock them up. If a man wound up on the streets, it was because he was a bum. The bums eventually acquired their own neighborhoods, and ceased to care about living a normal life, and in some cases, especially that of the hobos, a transient lifestyle became the goal. Some of the the men of The Bowery, the more level-headed ones, do want a roof over their head. No one enjoys sleeping on the sidewalk, so when they have enough money, maybe from helping unload a vegetable truck, some of them will spend it on a "flop" (a room for the night) rather than on drinks. But even these men, the more able ones, are more or less stuck in The Bowery for life, and because they have more than enough to drink, and all of their friends are there, it appears in the film that they don't seem to mind it.
It looks pretty horrible though. Regarding the faces of the men, you find yourself thinking, "once they were all tiny babies". What the hell happened?
This is the problem, I think, with homelessness and addiction. While of course, it would be ideal for everyone on the street to at least have the basics - a room to live in, food and clothing, access to healthcare, the truth is that you can't force everyone to comply, and there are those who would rather live by their own wits - with no outside interference - than have to conform in any way to society's standards. This is especially true of addicts who are also mentally ill. Rogosin shows them as they are. Many seem fine with their lot. Others merely walk around in a stupor. It looks more like an open air asylum than a modern day homeless camp.
Ray continues to try and quit drinking, and at one point he decides to go to the local shelter to ask for help. He is told he can get a bed, and food and a shower, but he cannot consume alcohol and he must attend the church service. Do you think he will stick with this program? It's his only way out. He just wants to get sober so he can move on to Chicago. He's heard there is more trainyard work there.
"On The Bowery" was no doubt an important film when it was released, almost 65 years ago, and it still has an important point to make, even if that point is "some people are beyond help". The problem for a viewer in 2019 is that we know all this stuff by now, and so the message is no longer shocking, only depressing. Please note that I am not - definitely not - including all homeless people in that category. As I say, there are many reasons a person becomes homeless nowdays, and many if not most modern homeless would no doubt accept help, but the men of The Bowery are a different story. That's why it was such a notorious place. It was a place for men who wanted to be left alone to hit rock bottom, just as long as there was a bottle on hand. And there always was.
"On The Bowery" runs only 65 minutes, but about halfway through I asked myself "why am I watching this"? In this case, it wasn't because the movie was bad. It was very well made, and not dull. It's just that it was exceedingly depressing. I did stick it out, though, and watched for the duration, and I'm gonna give it Two Thumbs Up, but I'm afraid I can't recommend it.
It's been selected by the National Film Register, and most critics would consider it a classic. Martin Scorcese does, and there is no doubt it is one of the greatest documentaries ever made, even if only from a cinematic standpoint (because I did not find the story all that interesting, to be honest). And yes, you've never seen a place like The Bowery, and it's hard to believe such a place ever existed. But you wouldn't want to walk through there, so you might ask yourself before watching this movie if you want to spend an hour looking at it on your TV. //////
That's all for now. I'll see you later tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
"My Amityville Horror", the story of Danny Lutz
Tonight I watched a documentary called "My Amityville Horror" (2012), which I discovered while Googling about the Lutz family after watching the feature film last week. It's the story of Danny Lutz, who was ten years old at the time of the family's experience. By now (2012), he's in his late forties and has been dealing with the psychological fallout from Amityville for all of his life. When we first see him, he's shredding on guitar in his home studio, and he's damn good. But then the interviews begin, and we can tell right away that he's a troubled man. Who wouldn't be, given his situation? Danny relates some details from the day of the move in, and already our blood begins to chill because we can see in his eyes that he's telling the truth. The movie makes clear that he's never been a publicity seeker, and indeed, who's ever heard of Danny since the book came out in 1977?
But it's obvious he's got some issues. The question the movie poses is this : do they derive from his experience in the house, from some other source, or a combination of both? Danny openly admits that his relationship with his stepfather George Lutz was so hostile that he sought out every way possible to antagonize him. But then he explains that George Lutz was not the man he was made out to be in the bestselling book. George was portrayed then as a former Marine who had inherited a family surveying business and built it up to the point where he was well off, and therefore a good catch for Danny's Mom Kathleen, a recent divorcee. But as the adult Danny tells it, George was a nightmare stepdad, a short-tempered bastard with no parenting skills, and worse than that - he had a fascination with the occult.
George Lutz was into ritual black magic, big time, and may have also had strong telekinetic skills. I should report as an aside that Stephen King deals with the subject of telekinesis in his latest novel "The Institute", and it is no joke. There are real telekinetics in the world. Danny Lutz says - looking straight into the camera - that before the family even moved to Amityville, he walked in on George in their garage one day, and George was in a self-induced trance. Danny says George moved a metal wrench across the width of the garage, from a toolbox to a workbench, with his mind.
He isn't kidding. You can see this plainly on his face.
The only question is do you believe him? And if not, why not? Simply using logic or psychology to explain Danny's stories may not work here. You may have to dig deeper. From his testimony, and that of others who knew George Lutz, we learn that George was not only a bad father but a pretty dark-minded guy who had a bookcase full of volumes on witchcraft, satanism and other sinister practices. A consensus is reached by psychic investigators, including Lorraine Warren of "The Conjuring" fame, that the elevated negative energy of George Lutz likely attracted whatever forces lurked within the house and brought them to life again. Just as Ronald deFeo's murderous intentions were reinforced by the demons inside the house, so were George Lutz's desires for dark psychic power. He moved his family into the house not in spite of the deFeo murders, but because of them. He wanted to attach to the power.
This can be seen in the same way with a jerk like Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who bought the Sharon Tate murder house on Cielo Drive so he could record his album in the living room and "connect with the vibe".
Black Magic is no joke, nor are dark forces, and yet many folks still think this kind of stuff is exciting and cool. Unfortunately, the documentary also trots out nitwits like "Professor" Elizabeth Loftus, who wrote a facetious book called "The Myth Of Repressed Memory" that gained a lot of traction in the 1990s. I'd love to debate her on national television, but I'll leave that alone for now except to say that the director does his film a disservice by trying to include all viewpoints, and though it is true that a documentary should do just that, in this case to include a ridiculous person like Loftus, whose only "credibilty" is a university degree, really detracts from getting to the bottom of a very serious situation.
With a case like Amityville, it's not enough to have dipshit academics who've never even examined the subject put their uninformed two cents in.
One could look at the physics of some of Danny's claims if one were inclined to quickly dismiss his story. He says, for instance, that on move-in day, he went upstairs and saw the room full of notorious flies. He then went downstairs to tell someone, but the adults were busy moving boxes. He says he then went back upstairs to look again, but all the flies were gone and the window had been closed the entire time. This reminds me of the researcher David Icke's claim that certain people in positions of world leadership are part of a Reptilian race. He claims, for instance, that the Queen of England is a Reptilian, and that a few people have actually seen her in that form. My problem is not so much with the story - after all, I have my own story that, while hard to believe, is 100% true - but with the physics. I would ask Icke, "how do the molecules in Queen Elizabeth's body change from human to lizard and back again? How does the change happen biologically"? If he could answer that question satisfactorily, I might say "okay". But I doubt he could. It is similar in Danny's case with the roomful of disappearing flies. If he had said he saw the flies and left it at that, it would be easier to believe. It's their sudden and complete disappearance that makes the issue difficult from a physical standpoint.
However, there is much, much more to his story than a roomful of flies, and a lot of it cannot be easily dismissed. Indeed, at one point a news team is interviewed. The anchor and his crew were the same people on the scene in 1975, when the Amityville story first broke. The anchor politely pooh-poohs the supernatural aspect, saying that he and his team had, in early 1976, spent a night in the house as an experiment. He says not one of them experienced anything out of the ordinary. However, and to me this is huge, they had a photographer on hand who snapped photos of the interior throughout the evening. Most show nothing but walls and furniture. But there is one photograph that has to be seen to be believed, and when you see it, you will believe it because it leaves no doubt.
It's a terrifying photo, and even the news team admit they cannot explain it. It's a bit of a shame that, near the end of the film, when all the pros and cons are being tallied, that the director does not return to that photograph when giving face time to idiots like Elizabeth Loftus.
Danny presents a problem for his own believability at the very end. I won't tell you what it is, but I don't think it negates his claims. There is zero doubt in my mind that something beyond comprehension happened to him in that house. Some of his examples sound physically impossible as noted, but overall I believe him. Apparently, so did the priests at the local parish. I won't tell you about their reaction to Danny, but you may have heard of it before.
If you read my recent blogs on the 1979 "Amityville" feature film, and you've been following the story so far, then you're definitely gonna want to see this documentary. "My Amityville Horror" is a genuinely frightening account of what happened in the house, from the kid (now a man) who experienced it. His story is riveting. Two Big Thumbs Up. /////
I'm gonna head out for a short walk and then to the produce market. Stay on the Good Side.
Tons of peace and love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
But it's obvious he's got some issues. The question the movie poses is this : do they derive from his experience in the house, from some other source, or a combination of both? Danny openly admits that his relationship with his stepfather George Lutz was so hostile that he sought out every way possible to antagonize him. But then he explains that George Lutz was not the man he was made out to be in the bestselling book. George was portrayed then as a former Marine who had inherited a family surveying business and built it up to the point where he was well off, and therefore a good catch for Danny's Mom Kathleen, a recent divorcee. But as the adult Danny tells it, George was a nightmare stepdad, a short-tempered bastard with no parenting skills, and worse than that - he had a fascination with the occult.
George Lutz was into ritual black magic, big time, and may have also had strong telekinetic skills. I should report as an aside that Stephen King deals with the subject of telekinesis in his latest novel "The Institute", and it is no joke. There are real telekinetics in the world. Danny Lutz says - looking straight into the camera - that before the family even moved to Amityville, he walked in on George in their garage one day, and George was in a self-induced trance. Danny says George moved a metal wrench across the width of the garage, from a toolbox to a workbench, with his mind.
He isn't kidding. You can see this plainly on his face.
The only question is do you believe him? And if not, why not? Simply using logic or psychology to explain Danny's stories may not work here. You may have to dig deeper. From his testimony, and that of others who knew George Lutz, we learn that George was not only a bad father but a pretty dark-minded guy who had a bookcase full of volumes on witchcraft, satanism and other sinister practices. A consensus is reached by psychic investigators, including Lorraine Warren of "The Conjuring" fame, that the elevated negative energy of George Lutz likely attracted whatever forces lurked within the house and brought them to life again. Just as Ronald deFeo's murderous intentions were reinforced by the demons inside the house, so were George Lutz's desires for dark psychic power. He moved his family into the house not in spite of the deFeo murders, but because of them. He wanted to attach to the power.
This can be seen in the same way with a jerk like Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, who bought the Sharon Tate murder house on Cielo Drive so he could record his album in the living room and "connect with the vibe".
Black Magic is no joke, nor are dark forces, and yet many folks still think this kind of stuff is exciting and cool. Unfortunately, the documentary also trots out nitwits like "Professor" Elizabeth Loftus, who wrote a facetious book called "The Myth Of Repressed Memory" that gained a lot of traction in the 1990s. I'd love to debate her on national television, but I'll leave that alone for now except to say that the director does his film a disservice by trying to include all viewpoints, and though it is true that a documentary should do just that, in this case to include a ridiculous person like Loftus, whose only "credibilty" is a university degree, really detracts from getting to the bottom of a very serious situation.
With a case like Amityville, it's not enough to have dipshit academics who've never even examined the subject put their uninformed two cents in.
One could look at the physics of some of Danny's claims if one were inclined to quickly dismiss his story. He says, for instance, that on move-in day, he went upstairs and saw the room full of notorious flies. He then went downstairs to tell someone, but the adults were busy moving boxes. He says he then went back upstairs to look again, but all the flies were gone and the window had been closed the entire time. This reminds me of the researcher David Icke's claim that certain people in positions of world leadership are part of a Reptilian race. He claims, for instance, that the Queen of England is a Reptilian, and that a few people have actually seen her in that form. My problem is not so much with the story - after all, I have my own story that, while hard to believe, is 100% true - but with the physics. I would ask Icke, "how do the molecules in Queen Elizabeth's body change from human to lizard and back again? How does the change happen biologically"? If he could answer that question satisfactorily, I might say "okay". But I doubt he could. It is similar in Danny's case with the roomful of disappearing flies. If he had said he saw the flies and left it at that, it would be easier to believe. It's their sudden and complete disappearance that makes the issue difficult from a physical standpoint.
However, there is much, much more to his story than a roomful of flies, and a lot of it cannot be easily dismissed. Indeed, at one point a news team is interviewed. The anchor and his crew were the same people on the scene in 1975, when the Amityville story first broke. The anchor politely pooh-poohs the supernatural aspect, saying that he and his team had, in early 1976, spent a night in the house as an experiment. He says not one of them experienced anything out of the ordinary. However, and to me this is huge, they had a photographer on hand who snapped photos of the interior throughout the evening. Most show nothing but walls and furniture. But there is one photograph that has to be seen to be believed, and when you see it, you will believe it because it leaves no doubt.
It's a terrifying photo, and even the news team admit they cannot explain it. It's a bit of a shame that, near the end of the film, when all the pros and cons are being tallied, that the director does not return to that photograph when giving face time to idiots like Elizabeth Loftus.
Danny presents a problem for his own believability at the very end. I won't tell you what it is, but I don't think it negates his claims. There is zero doubt in my mind that something beyond comprehension happened to him in that house. Some of his examples sound physically impossible as noted, but overall I believe him. Apparently, so did the priests at the local parish. I won't tell you about their reaction to Danny, but you may have heard of it before.
If you read my recent blogs on the 1979 "Amityville" feature film, and you've been following the story so far, then you're definitely gonna want to see this documentary. "My Amityville Horror" is a genuinely frightening account of what happened in the house, from the kid (now a man) who experienced it. His story is riveting. Two Big Thumbs Up. /////
I'm gonna head out for a short walk and then to the produce market. Stay on the Good Side.
Tons of peace and love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
"Creature From The Black Lagoon" + "America Before" by Graham Hancock
I've been reading a book called "America Before" by Graham Hancock. It's about the possibility that North and South America were inhabited by modern humans long before previously thought, perhaps up to 130,000 years ago, and that these people got here by means other than the traditionally attributed Siberian land bridge. It's a fascinating book, and right now I am in the middle of a chapter that deals with research in the Amazon River Basin. I never knew much about the Amazon, other than it's immense size and powerful flow, so it was mindboggling to learn that the land area of the River Basin is larger than China. Most of that area is rainforest, and even when deforestation is factored in, what's left of the Amazonian jungle is still gigantic, bigger than the subcontinent of India. The jungle is so thick that some parts are still impenetrable and remain unexplored.
I mention all of this because tonight I watched "Creature From The Black Lagoon", and coincidentally the setting was the Amazon. In his book, Graham Hancock has spent a lot of time examining the evidence for a lost civilisation in the River Basin, but so far he hasn't mentioned anything about The Creature or The Black Lagoon. Maybe I haven't gotten to that chapter yet, but if it's not in the book, I'll have to write to Mr. Hancock and inform him. The Creature was discovered in 1954, by Richard Carlson, Richard Denning and Julie Adams, with the assistance of Whit Bissell, who was along for the ride because his presence was required in all science fiction movies of the era.
Prior to their discovery, an archaeologist named Dr. Matos pried a fossil out of a rock in the same area, on the bank of a tributary deep in the jungle. The fossil was an intact arm of a long fingered.....hmmm, actually Dr. Matos isn't sure what it is. That's why he's contacted Richard Carlson, a marine biologist with expertise on exotic amphibians. But Carlson can't identify the fossil either. That's when they decide to undertake the expedition into the heart of the Amazon, where we'll continue our story in just a moment.
But first I have a question for ya. In reading about archaeological expeditions and the digging that goes on, I am interested in the subject of strata, the layers of sediment that are exposed in the course of a dig. What I want to know is this : why does strata form in demarcated layers? Why does it not just accumulate in one homogeneous and undifferentiated lump like dust?
Strata must form from an event, right? Something that starts, and deposits a layer, like a volcanic eruption or a massive flood? That would mean that strata would only be found in areas where such an enormous geological event has taken place. Am I right? In others areas of the world, where no such events have occurred, I would assume there would be no layers of strata, and if one were to dig, one would only find one undifferentiated thickness of earth, until perhaps one hit bedrock. So I guess my question is this, if a fossil were found deeply buried - say twenty feet down - in non-stratified earth, how would an archaeologist determine it's age?
Am I correct in my assumptions? Is there such a thing as non-stratified earth, and if so, have any fossils ever been found in such? Well, at any rate, let's get back to the story.
Richard Carlson may be the marine biologist, and he may be lucky enough to have Julie Adams swooning over him, but Richard Denning is paying for the expedition, so things are gonna be done his way. He's also got a thing for Julie and he lets her know it, which isn't gonna help matters. Denning is gung-ho, and once The Creature is spotted, he wants to immediately kill it and take it back to America for display. Denning has a big ego, needless to say. For him, the expedition is all about satisfying it.
Carlson, on the other hand, is a Man of Science who sees great promise in studying The Creature. He's of the opinion that it may be an evolutionary "bridge" between man and fish. After all, it can walk upright on land and breathe air. He wants The Creature taken alive.
The Creature doesn't give a toss what Denning or Carlson think. He's got his own ideas and they center on Julie Adams. You can't fault him on that score. Once he sees her in the water, he becomes fixated, and climbs aboard the boat to introduce himself. The only problem is that he's....er....how do I say this without being impolite?........well let's just say he's unconventional looking. Or how about non-traditionally handsome? In any case, his looks frighten the bejeezus out of the native guides, which for some reason makes The Creature want to strangle them. He always begins with a face palm before moving down to the throat.
So now, four guides are dead. Six members of the expedition remain. But after Whit Bissell is attacked, even Richard Carlson is having second thoughts about taking The Creature alive, because if you lose Whit Bissell, your movie is over.
The expedition has turned into a game of Ten Little Indians. Who will The Creature kill next? It won't be Julie Adams, that much is certain. So we have a Beauty & The Beast thing happening, too. The spear guns don't work against The Creature, he just pulls the spears out of his thick rubber hide and gets more pissed off than he was to begin with. Denning and Carlson decide that their only option is to flee. But wait! The Creature's taken a page from Wile E. Coyote. He's enough of an Evil Genius to block the boat's path by jamming up the river with tree branches. He wants Julie Adams, and he ain't leavin' till he gets her.
I can't say I blame him.
Look, you've seen the movie so you already know all of this. I was only recounting it because it happened to coincide with my reading of Hancock's book, and I was wondering if he had any current information on The Creature's whereabouts. He's probably still at The Black Lagoon, I'd imagine.
It goes without saying that "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a perfect film. It's become legendary over the years and is included as one of Universal's classic Monster Movies, right up there with "Dracula" and "Frankenstein". You could classify it as Horror or Sci-Fi. It has a tight script with no fat (meaning no unnecessary scenes), and expert direction by Jack Arnold, who also made "It Came From Outer Space" and "Tarantula", masterpieces both. Also he directed many episodes of "Gilligan's Island". But "Creature" is his greatest work, and it gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up from yours truly. ///
We're doin' about 85 degrees here on Tuesday Afternoon. As always, I trust you have The Moodies cued up. I'm gonna head over to the Libe to return some dvds, then back to Pearl's. I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I mention all of this because tonight I watched "Creature From The Black Lagoon", and coincidentally the setting was the Amazon. In his book, Graham Hancock has spent a lot of time examining the evidence for a lost civilisation in the River Basin, but so far he hasn't mentioned anything about The Creature or The Black Lagoon. Maybe I haven't gotten to that chapter yet, but if it's not in the book, I'll have to write to Mr. Hancock and inform him. The Creature was discovered in 1954, by Richard Carlson, Richard Denning and Julie Adams, with the assistance of Whit Bissell, who was along for the ride because his presence was required in all science fiction movies of the era.
Prior to their discovery, an archaeologist named Dr. Matos pried a fossil out of a rock in the same area, on the bank of a tributary deep in the jungle. The fossil was an intact arm of a long fingered.....hmmm, actually Dr. Matos isn't sure what it is. That's why he's contacted Richard Carlson, a marine biologist with expertise on exotic amphibians. But Carlson can't identify the fossil either. That's when they decide to undertake the expedition into the heart of the Amazon, where we'll continue our story in just a moment.
But first I have a question for ya. In reading about archaeological expeditions and the digging that goes on, I am interested in the subject of strata, the layers of sediment that are exposed in the course of a dig. What I want to know is this : why does strata form in demarcated layers? Why does it not just accumulate in one homogeneous and undifferentiated lump like dust?
Strata must form from an event, right? Something that starts, and deposits a layer, like a volcanic eruption or a massive flood? That would mean that strata would only be found in areas where such an enormous geological event has taken place. Am I right? In others areas of the world, where no such events have occurred, I would assume there would be no layers of strata, and if one were to dig, one would only find one undifferentiated thickness of earth, until perhaps one hit bedrock. So I guess my question is this, if a fossil were found deeply buried - say twenty feet down - in non-stratified earth, how would an archaeologist determine it's age?
Am I correct in my assumptions? Is there such a thing as non-stratified earth, and if so, have any fossils ever been found in such? Well, at any rate, let's get back to the story.
Richard Carlson may be the marine biologist, and he may be lucky enough to have Julie Adams swooning over him, but Richard Denning is paying for the expedition, so things are gonna be done his way. He's also got a thing for Julie and he lets her know it, which isn't gonna help matters. Denning is gung-ho, and once The Creature is spotted, he wants to immediately kill it and take it back to America for display. Denning has a big ego, needless to say. For him, the expedition is all about satisfying it.
Carlson, on the other hand, is a Man of Science who sees great promise in studying The Creature. He's of the opinion that it may be an evolutionary "bridge" between man and fish. After all, it can walk upright on land and breathe air. He wants The Creature taken alive.
The Creature doesn't give a toss what Denning or Carlson think. He's got his own ideas and they center on Julie Adams. You can't fault him on that score. Once he sees her in the water, he becomes fixated, and climbs aboard the boat to introduce himself. The only problem is that he's....er....how do I say this without being impolite?........well let's just say he's unconventional looking. Or how about non-traditionally handsome? In any case, his looks frighten the bejeezus out of the native guides, which for some reason makes The Creature want to strangle them. He always begins with a face palm before moving down to the throat.
So now, four guides are dead. Six members of the expedition remain. But after Whit Bissell is attacked, even Richard Carlson is having second thoughts about taking The Creature alive, because if you lose Whit Bissell, your movie is over.
The expedition has turned into a game of Ten Little Indians. Who will The Creature kill next? It won't be Julie Adams, that much is certain. So we have a Beauty & The Beast thing happening, too. The spear guns don't work against The Creature, he just pulls the spears out of his thick rubber hide and gets more pissed off than he was to begin with. Denning and Carlson decide that their only option is to flee. But wait! The Creature's taken a page from Wile E. Coyote. He's enough of an Evil Genius to block the boat's path by jamming up the river with tree branches. He wants Julie Adams, and he ain't leavin' till he gets her.
I can't say I blame him.
Look, you've seen the movie so you already know all of this. I was only recounting it because it happened to coincide with my reading of Hancock's book, and I was wondering if he had any current information on The Creature's whereabouts. He's probably still at The Black Lagoon, I'd imagine.
It goes without saying that "Creature From The Black Lagoon" is a perfect film. It's become legendary over the years and is included as one of Universal's classic Monster Movies, right up there with "Dracula" and "Frankenstein". You could classify it as Horror or Sci-Fi. It has a tight script with no fat (meaning no unnecessary scenes), and expert direction by Jack Arnold, who also made "It Came From Outer Space" and "Tarantula", masterpieces both. Also he directed many episodes of "Gilligan's Island". But "Creature" is his greatest work, and it gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up from yours truly. ///
We're doin' about 85 degrees here on Tuesday Afternoon. As always, I trust you have The Moodies cued up. I'm gonna head over to the Libe to return some dvds, then back to Pearl's. I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, November 4, 2019
"Christmas In July" by Preston Sturges
Tonight I watched "Christmas In July" (1940), written and directed by the great Preston Sturges. What's that you're saying? "C'mon Ad, isn't it a bit early for Christmas movies"? Perhaps. Usually I wait until after Thanksgiving to start watching 'em, but when I was at Porter Ranch Libe the other day I saw this title on the rack, and I couldn't pass it by. We have come to love the films of Sturges, each one funnier than the last, or so it seems. He and Ernst Lubitsch were the masters of screwball comedy as far as I'm concerned. But you don't have to worry about the above-mentioned conundrum because "Christmas In July" isn't a Christmas movie after all.
Instead, it's the story of a young clerk (Dick Powell) who has entered a slogan contest for "Maxford House" Coffee. Their old slogan, "Grand To The Last Gulp", has been around a while and they are searching for a new one. As the movie opens, Powell is running his idea by his girlfriend Ellen Drew. As it happens, they both work for a rival company, Baxter's Coffee. Under the moonlight on the roof of their one room apartment, Powell tells Drew his idea. "It's perfect, honey! Get a load of this : "If you can't sleep at night, it's not the coffee - it's the bunk"!
Only Preston Sturges could come up with something so ridiculous. :)
Powell's theory is that coffee doesn't keep you awake, but puts you to sleep. Ellen Drew tries telling him he's got it backwards - everyone knows coffee is a stimulant - but he's in love with his slogan and the clever pun he's inserted ("it's the bunk"!). Mostly, he just wants to win the $25,000 Grand Prize so that he can marry Drew and move them into a nice house, among other things.
She can't talk him out of his dumb slogan, so he sends it off, and whattaya know......a few days later, he receives a telegram telling him he's won the contest! We know something Powell doesn't, but I'll leave you to discover what it is. Meanwhile, he's thrilled with the news, announcing his win to everyone in the office. Mr. Baxter, the owner of Baxter's Coffee, is impressed. He'd previously held a low opinion of Powell, but now figures him a genius. Maxford House is the biggest coffee company in the world; if Powell has won their contest, he must have some advertising talent after all. Soon Powell is given his own office as the top Ad Man for Baxter's Coffee, with Ellen Drew as his secretary. He immediately comes up with a slogan for Baxter's : "The Blue Blood Coffee - It's Bred In The Beans"! Mr. Baxter loves it, and all is right in the world.
Next the movie kicks into high gear with a major league shopping spree. This is where "Christmas In July" comes in, and as an aside, I am wondering if that is where the phrase comes from? Did Sturges coin it with his movie title, or did he just use it because it was already around? Well anyhow, Powell has been given his check by Dr. Maxford, the owner of Maxford House. He has 25 Grand at his disposal to buy whatever he wants (and of course that was a fortune in 1940, you could buy a big house, all the furnishings, two cars, and still have money left over).
Powell buys Drew a ring to begin with, then turns his attention to his family and friends. In addition, he wants to buy everyone in the tenement a present, especially all the children. This is where Sturges adds a dash of social commentary, as he does in many of his films, but again he does so without being heavy handed. He like to poke fun at Big Shots, but does it in a way that is hilarious and fun, rather than mean-spirited. The joke is on everyone in a Preston Sturges movie, and everyone can laugh at themselves.
There's been a mix-up back at Maxford House headquarters. Cranky old William Demarest, who played "Uncle Charlie" on "My Three Sons", was one of the judges on the contest panel. The winner had to be chosen unanimously, and Demarest had been the lone holdout. This angered Dr. Maxford, who wanted a new slogan asap, but now that Powell's been declared the winner, Maxford is willing to let the matter drop. Though Demarest is a pain in the butt, he's also a valuable employee. But where is he? Why isn't he back in his office? Dang blast that Demarest! The contest is over. He should be back at work!
Nobody but nobody can set up a farce like Preston Sturges. His scripts are like a finely tuned watch. You just wind them up and let the gears turn. They always mesh perfectly. Sturges consistently had the right actors matched to every film, and here he's got the "aw shucks" geniality of Dick Powell and the high-wattage sincerity of Ellen Drew, she of the Million Dollar Smile. They and the supporting cast run through the lightning fast one liners and double entendres without missing a beat. Sturges squeezes in so many references into some scenes, often by using funny nicknames ("Good afternoon, Mr. Heilhitler"!), that you have to hit "rewind" if you wanna catch them all. This is an almost 80 year old film, but you'll be laughing as hard as the opening night audience once did. It's the kind of comedy that never gets old because it's so full of energy.
If you have not already done so, I implore you to check out the films of Preston Sturges. You could start with "Christmas In July", which runs a compact 67 minutes. If you don't love it I'll give you triple your money back (in 1940 dollars of course!), but I'm not worried because I know you will.
Love it, that is.
Like every Sturges film (at least the six that I've seen), "Christmas In July" gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, and my highest recommendation. Movies simply don't get any better than this. /////
That's all for now. It's Monday afternoon. We had good singin' in church yesterday. The weather has been gorgeous the past few days and I'm still getting away with a t-shirt. Now I will head out for a short walk, then to Vons for supplies, then back to Pearl's. What's going on with the Impeachment? Are we ever gonna be rid of this guy? Let us pray. I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Instead, it's the story of a young clerk (Dick Powell) who has entered a slogan contest for "Maxford House" Coffee. Their old slogan, "Grand To The Last Gulp", has been around a while and they are searching for a new one. As the movie opens, Powell is running his idea by his girlfriend Ellen Drew. As it happens, they both work for a rival company, Baxter's Coffee. Under the moonlight on the roof of their one room apartment, Powell tells Drew his idea. "It's perfect, honey! Get a load of this : "If you can't sleep at night, it's not the coffee - it's the bunk"!
Only Preston Sturges could come up with something so ridiculous. :)
Powell's theory is that coffee doesn't keep you awake, but puts you to sleep. Ellen Drew tries telling him he's got it backwards - everyone knows coffee is a stimulant - but he's in love with his slogan and the clever pun he's inserted ("it's the bunk"!). Mostly, he just wants to win the $25,000 Grand Prize so that he can marry Drew and move them into a nice house, among other things.
She can't talk him out of his dumb slogan, so he sends it off, and whattaya know......a few days later, he receives a telegram telling him he's won the contest! We know something Powell doesn't, but I'll leave you to discover what it is. Meanwhile, he's thrilled with the news, announcing his win to everyone in the office. Mr. Baxter, the owner of Baxter's Coffee, is impressed. He'd previously held a low opinion of Powell, but now figures him a genius. Maxford House is the biggest coffee company in the world; if Powell has won their contest, he must have some advertising talent after all. Soon Powell is given his own office as the top Ad Man for Baxter's Coffee, with Ellen Drew as his secretary. He immediately comes up with a slogan for Baxter's : "The Blue Blood Coffee - It's Bred In The Beans"! Mr. Baxter loves it, and all is right in the world.
Next the movie kicks into high gear with a major league shopping spree. This is where "Christmas In July" comes in, and as an aside, I am wondering if that is where the phrase comes from? Did Sturges coin it with his movie title, or did he just use it because it was already around? Well anyhow, Powell has been given his check by Dr. Maxford, the owner of Maxford House. He has 25 Grand at his disposal to buy whatever he wants (and of course that was a fortune in 1940, you could buy a big house, all the furnishings, two cars, and still have money left over).
Powell buys Drew a ring to begin with, then turns his attention to his family and friends. In addition, he wants to buy everyone in the tenement a present, especially all the children. This is where Sturges adds a dash of social commentary, as he does in many of his films, but again he does so without being heavy handed. He like to poke fun at Big Shots, but does it in a way that is hilarious and fun, rather than mean-spirited. The joke is on everyone in a Preston Sturges movie, and everyone can laugh at themselves.
There's been a mix-up back at Maxford House headquarters. Cranky old William Demarest, who played "Uncle Charlie" on "My Three Sons", was one of the judges on the contest panel. The winner had to be chosen unanimously, and Demarest had been the lone holdout. This angered Dr. Maxford, who wanted a new slogan asap, but now that Powell's been declared the winner, Maxford is willing to let the matter drop. Though Demarest is a pain in the butt, he's also a valuable employee. But where is he? Why isn't he back in his office? Dang blast that Demarest! The contest is over. He should be back at work!
Nobody but nobody can set up a farce like Preston Sturges. His scripts are like a finely tuned watch. You just wind them up and let the gears turn. They always mesh perfectly. Sturges consistently had the right actors matched to every film, and here he's got the "aw shucks" geniality of Dick Powell and the high-wattage sincerity of Ellen Drew, she of the Million Dollar Smile. They and the supporting cast run through the lightning fast one liners and double entendres without missing a beat. Sturges squeezes in so many references into some scenes, often by using funny nicknames ("Good afternoon, Mr. Heilhitler"!), that you have to hit "rewind" if you wanna catch them all. This is an almost 80 year old film, but you'll be laughing as hard as the opening night audience once did. It's the kind of comedy that never gets old because it's so full of energy.
If you have not already done so, I implore you to check out the films of Preston Sturges. You could start with "Christmas In July", which runs a compact 67 minutes. If you don't love it I'll give you triple your money back (in 1940 dollars of course!), but I'm not worried because I know you will.
Love it, that is.
Like every Sturges film (at least the six that I've seen), "Christmas In July" gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, and my highest recommendation. Movies simply don't get any better than this. /////
That's all for now. It's Monday afternoon. We had good singin' in church yesterday. The weather has been gorgeous the past few days and I'm still getting away with a t-shirt. Now I will head out for a short walk, then to Vons for supplies, then back to Pearl's. What's going on with the Impeachment? Are we ever gonna be rid of this guy? Let us pray. I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, November 3, 2019
"Starship Troopers" by Paul Verhoeven (yikes!) & "The Revenge of Frankenstein" starring Peter Cushing (hooray!)
Back in August, I read a book called "Starship Troopers" by science fiction kingpin Robert Heinlein. I became a fan of his earlier this year after reading "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", my first ever Heinlein novel. "Starship Troopers" is the story of a future army from a one-world civilization whose main enemy is giant bugs from another planet. I'll leave it at that, but despite what my brief description may sound like, it's actually a very serious book. Heinlein was a brilliant writer who used the context of sci-fi to speculate/pontificate on all kinds of sociopolitical matters. The book is written in the first person, from the pov of a battle hardened enlistee who tells the story of his participation in The Bug War. Heinlein wrote the entire book in idiosyncratic military lingo, a type of slang that might sound strident and even off-putting to the casual reader, but in my case I loved it from page one. And, I was already a Heinlein fan, having read "Moon" a month or two earlier. That book was written in standard narrative.
Starship Troopers" is a legendary work. Years before I heard of the book or Robert Heinlein, I heard the equally great song of (almost) the same name by Yes. Their "Starship Trooper" is a musical masterpiece, and while the lyrics have nothing to do with the book, there is no doubt where Jon Anderson got the title. Simply stated, it is one hell of a story - mostly of interest to guys, I imagine - but if you like military sagas you can't do better than this one.
So today, when I went to Porter Ranch Libe to scour the dvd racks, I was mildly excited when I saw a copy of "Starship Troopers" the movie, which was directed by Paul Verhoeven and released in 1997. I use the qualifier "mildly" because this movie was roundly denounced by critics at the time. I realize that we've only just this week dismissed the importance of critical observations, and we will be sticking with that resolution, however : there are exceptions to every rule.
It was noted, far back, that Verhoeven was a schlockmeister of the first order. Yes, he was a skilled technician who could deliver big budget popcorn fare like "Robocop" or "Total Recall". He also made Sharon Stone a household name with "Basic Instinct", a taut if tawdry thriller with an infamous graphic scene. But he was also capable of making utter garbage like "Showgirls" (1995), which at the time was under consideration for The Worst Movie Ever Made (and I am not kidding).
As a sci-fi director, Verhoeven was never on the level of a Ridley Scott (who is not a great filmmaker himself but merely a good one), and he had a tendency to let his penchant for satire or mockery infiltrate his pictures. In other words, he got in the way of the stories he was trying to tell, by shoving his personal viewpoint of society down everyone's throat.
But you can't do that with a Robert Heinlein novel, because Heinlein already has his own viewpoint. It is a strong one that still resonates today, and it is delivered in a style of writing that I don't think will be equaled in the genre of science fiction. And to put it gently, as a social commentator Verhoeven is not in the same league as Robert Heinlein.
I wrote above that I was "mildly excited" to find the dvd at the Libe, excited because I loved the book, but only "mildly" because I remembered how shitty the movie was reported to be back in 1997.
I should never have put it in the player. From the opening scene it appeared to be a joke, as if Verhoeven was going to make fun of the book. The cast looked like well-scrubbed holdovers from "Saved By The Bell", and the sets were made of plastic and lit up like a game show. Verhoeven was given 100 Million Bucks to make this movie - a fortune even now, let alone in 1997 - but chose to use toy store-looking bugs for an early biology class scene, which wasn't in the book. Five minutes in and the picture was looking ridiculous. I kept thinking, "hang in there, Ad", because I loved the book. But then, as Denise Richards' hair glistened under the white lights and Casper Van Dien's teeth gleamed, and the dialogue got worse and worse, I noticed that Verhoeven was adding more scenes to the movie that weren't in the book, like a game of something that looked like Rollerball. This was not only sacrilege but also the last straw.
I remembered my recently-sworn oath to not wait for a bad movie to get better, because they never do. They only get worse.
The dvd was then ejected from the player within seconds. End of story on "Starship Troopers" by Paul Verhoeven. ////
Fortunately I had another motion picture at the ready : "The Revenge of Frankenstein" (1958), starring the trusty Peter Cushing and produced by Hammer Studios. You know without any worry that that's a winning combination. As it begins, Victor Frankenstein is being led to the guillotine for the death and destruction caused by his Monster. We see the blade fall, but then the camera cuts away. The next thing we see is a picturesque title card for the town of Carlsbruck, where a "Dr. Stein" has recently set up shop, His practice is already a success, however, this has not gone over well with the local Medical Council, who resent the newcomer for stealing their business. There is one Council member, though -Dr. Kleve - who secretly admires the Stein and comes to him asking to be his apprentice. This gives Dr. Stein enough cache to ward off the actions of the Council, at least for the time being.
Now that he has taken him under his wing, Dr. Stein shows Dr. Kleve what he's been working on. Besides his regular practice, which is so popular with the townspeople, he has an experimental project that he says will revolutionize not just medicine but the entire world.
"I fouled things up the first time by using a diseased brain"!, Stein confesses.
Dr. Kleve now suspects Stein's true identity. He asks for confirmation.
"Are you....."?
"Yes Kleve! I am Victor Frankenstein"!
"But I read you were sentenced to death, and that the sentence was carried out".
Dr. Stein then explains how he cheated the Executioner, with some help from his laboratory assistant Karl, an unfortunate chap with a crippled arm. He then shows Kleve a brand new body that awaits animation. This one appears to be all-of-a-piece instead of created from parts.
"All it needs is a brain"!, he declares. "This time I will use a living one"! Kleve cringes, but Dr. Stein reassures him : "No, I don't mean your brain, Kleve", he laughs. "I need you to keep it for our work! I intend to use Karl here. I promised him a new body in exchange for his help with my escape".
Now that Dr. Stein has told Kleve everything, he makes him swear allegience, which Kleve does. He so admires Dr. Stein that he would never report him to the authorities, and besides, he wants to be in on the revolutionary experiment! That night, they perform the operation. By morning, Stein pronounces it a success. The "new Karl"must be strapped down for a few days until he psychologically adjusts to his larger, stronger body. Drs. Stein and Kleve will observe and counsel him during this time.
Looking on from the sidelines is a janitor, a snide Cockney type who works upstairs in the poorhouse where Dr. Stein keeps his regular practice. He hears yelling through the basement door, the voice of the new Karl. He's also heard the complaints of many of the poorhouse patients, who claim that Stein has performed unnecessary amputations on them. Is this janitor gonna be trouble? He knows where a spare key is kept to an upstairs room, where the "new Karl" is recuperating. Hmmm, this is probably not a good situation, whattaya think?
There is also a surly grocer who lives next door. He too suspects that Stein is hiding something. Normally he'd do nothing about this because he profits from Stein's business. But he harbors strong jealousy toward both doctors, who are educated, handsome gentlemen where he is bellicose and uncouth.
What might he do, were he to discover the secrets of the lab?
Right off the bat, you know you're gonna love "The Revenge of Frankenstein". Why? Because it's got Brains in it, that's why! Any movie with Brains is automatically good, no matter any faults it may have. And not to worry, because "Revenge" has no faults. The story is very inventive, just like Victor Frankenstein! This is a great "take" on what might have happened after his castle burned down in the original movie. The Hammer production values are all in place - the fantastic color saturation, the "period" sets and costuming, the various London accents. And, the guy playing the Monster is excellent, a more human "Frankenstein" which I believe is how Shelly originally wrote him (I don't mean Mary Shelly but her friend, just plain old Shelly, a nice Jewish chick who was Mary's ghostwriter).
Two Very Big Thumbs Up for "The Revenge of Frankenstein", one of the best Hammer Horror flicks I've seen. Yeah, I know we're past Halloween now, but we can still watch horror. Can't we? :):)
We'll be switching back to all kinds of movies, though, which will make my Library Searches a bit easier. But yeah! Go, Dr. Frankenstein! (oops, I mean "Dr. Stein". He told me never to call him by his real name).
That's all for now. To the produce market I go. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Starship Troopers" is a legendary work. Years before I heard of the book or Robert Heinlein, I heard the equally great song of (almost) the same name by Yes. Their "Starship Trooper" is a musical masterpiece, and while the lyrics have nothing to do with the book, there is no doubt where Jon Anderson got the title. Simply stated, it is one hell of a story - mostly of interest to guys, I imagine - but if you like military sagas you can't do better than this one.
So today, when I went to Porter Ranch Libe to scour the dvd racks, I was mildly excited when I saw a copy of "Starship Troopers" the movie, which was directed by Paul Verhoeven and released in 1997. I use the qualifier "mildly" because this movie was roundly denounced by critics at the time. I realize that we've only just this week dismissed the importance of critical observations, and we will be sticking with that resolution, however : there are exceptions to every rule.
It was noted, far back, that Verhoeven was a schlockmeister of the first order. Yes, he was a skilled technician who could deliver big budget popcorn fare like "Robocop" or "Total Recall". He also made Sharon Stone a household name with "Basic Instinct", a taut if tawdry thriller with an infamous graphic scene. But he was also capable of making utter garbage like "Showgirls" (1995), which at the time was under consideration for The Worst Movie Ever Made (and I am not kidding).
As a sci-fi director, Verhoeven was never on the level of a Ridley Scott (who is not a great filmmaker himself but merely a good one), and he had a tendency to let his penchant for satire or mockery infiltrate his pictures. In other words, he got in the way of the stories he was trying to tell, by shoving his personal viewpoint of society down everyone's throat.
But you can't do that with a Robert Heinlein novel, because Heinlein already has his own viewpoint. It is a strong one that still resonates today, and it is delivered in a style of writing that I don't think will be equaled in the genre of science fiction. And to put it gently, as a social commentator Verhoeven is not in the same league as Robert Heinlein.
I wrote above that I was "mildly excited" to find the dvd at the Libe, excited because I loved the book, but only "mildly" because I remembered how shitty the movie was reported to be back in 1997.
I should never have put it in the player. From the opening scene it appeared to be a joke, as if Verhoeven was going to make fun of the book. The cast looked like well-scrubbed holdovers from "Saved By The Bell", and the sets were made of plastic and lit up like a game show. Verhoeven was given 100 Million Bucks to make this movie - a fortune even now, let alone in 1997 - but chose to use toy store-looking bugs for an early biology class scene, which wasn't in the book. Five minutes in and the picture was looking ridiculous. I kept thinking, "hang in there, Ad", because I loved the book. But then, as Denise Richards' hair glistened under the white lights and Casper Van Dien's teeth gleamed, and the dialogue got worse and worse, I noticed that Verhoeven was adding more scenes to the movie that weren't in the book, like a game of something that looked like Rollerball. This was not only sacrilege but also the last straw.
I remembered my recently-sworn oath to not wait for a bad movie to get better, because they never do. They only get worse.
The dvd was then ejected from the player within seconds. End of story on "Starship Troopers" by Paul Verhoeven. ////
Fortunately I had another motion picture at the ready : "The Revenge of Frankenstein" (1958), starring the trusty Peter Cushing and produced by Hammer Studios. You know without any worry that that's a winning combination. As it begins, Victor Frankenstein is being led to the guillotine for the death and destruction caused by his Monster. We see the blade fall, but then the camera cuts away. The next thing we see is a picturesque title card for the town of Carlsbruck, where a "Dr. Stein" has recently set up shop, His practice is already a success, however, this has not gone over well with the local Medical Council, who resent the newcomer for stealing their business. There is one Council member, though -Dr. Kleve - who secretly admires the Stein and comes to him asking to be his apprentice. This gives Dr. Stein enough cache to ward off the actions of the Council, at least for the time being.
Now that he has taken him under his wing, Dr. Stein shows Dr. Kleve what he's been working on. Besides his regular practice, which is so popular with the townspeople, he has an experimental project that he says will revolutionize not just medicine but the entire world.
"I fouled things up the first time by using a diseased brain"!, Stein confesses.
Dr. Kleve now suspects Stein's true identity. He asks for confirmation.
"Are you....."?
"Yes Kleve! I am Victor Frankenstein"!
"But I read you were sentenced to death, and that the sentence was carried out".
Dr. Stein then explains how he cheated the Executioner, with some help from his laboratory assistant Karl, an unfortunate chap with a crippled arm. He then shows Kleve a brand new body that awaits animation. This one appears to be all-of-a-piece instead of created from parts.
"All it needs is a brain"!, he declares. "This time I will use a living one"! Kleve cringes, but Dr. Stein reassures him : "No, I don't mean your brain, Kleve", he laughs. "I need you to keep it for our work! I intend to use Karl here. I promised him a new body in exchange for his help with my escape".
Now that Dr. Stein has told Kleve everything, he makes him swear allegience, which Kleve does. He so admires Dr. Stein that he would never report him to the authorities, and besides, he wants to be in on the revolutionary experiment! That night, they perform the operation. By morning, Stein pronounces it a success. The "new Karl"must be strapped down for a few days until he psychologically adjusts to his larger, stronger body. Drs. Stein and Kleve will observe and counsel him during this time.
Looking on from the sidelines is a janitor, a snide Cockney type who works upstairs in the poorhouse where Dr. Stein keeps his regular practice. He hears yelling through the basement door, the voice of the new Karl. He's also heard the complaints of many of the poorhouse patients, who claim that Stein has performed unnecessary amputations on them. Is this janitor gonna be trouble? He knows where a spare key is kept to an upstairs room, where the "new Karl" is recuperating. Hmmm, this is probably not a good situation, whattaya think?
There is also a surly grocer who lives next door. He too suspects that Stein is hiding something. Normally he'd do nothing about this because he profits from Stein's business. But he harbors strong jealousy toward both doctors, who are educated, handsome gentlemen where he is bellicose and uncouth.
What might he do, were he to discover the secrets of the lab?
Right off the bat, you know you're gonna love "The Revenge of Frankenstein". Why? Because it's got Brains in it, that's why! Any movie with Brains is automatically good, no matter any faults it may have. And not to worry, because "Revenge" has no faults. The story is very inventive, just like Victor Frankenstein! This is a great "take" on what might have happened after his castle burned down in the original movie. The Hammer production values are all in place - the fantastic color saturation, the "period" sets and costuming, the various London accents. And, the guy playing the Monster is excellent, a more human "Frankenstein" which I believe is how Shelly originally wrote him (I don't mean Mary Shelly but her friend, just plain old Shelly, a nice Jewish chick who was Mary's ghostwriter).
Two Very Big Thumbs Up for "The Revenge of Frankenstein", one of the best Hammer Horror flicks I've seen. Yeah, I know we're past Halloween now, but we can still watch horror. Can't we? :):)
We'll be switching back to all kinds of movies, though, which will make my Library Searches a bit easier. But yeah! Go, Dr. Frankenstein! (oops, I mean "Dr. Stein". He told me never to call him by his real name).
That's all for now. To the produce market I go. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, November 1, 2019
It Was A Fun Halloween + "The Amityville Horror" (part two)
We had a nice Halloween here at Pearl's. At first it was looking like it might be a bummer because of the wind, which was still blowing pretty hard at 4pm. We've been having what they call a "wind event" for the past three days, which I abhor because I hate wind. It's rare that we get a weather washout on Halloween here in the Valley, but when it does happen I get depressed. I recall about five years ago it rained, not hard but steadily enough so that we got no Trick-Or-Treaters. On Halloween, I'm like a little kid and I've gotta have my trick-or-treat! If I can't go myself (cause I'm almost 60, haha) then I'll hand out candy, but doggonnit I've gotta have a real Halloween or I'll have to throw a tantrum! I can't have it wiped out by weather, so thank goodness Mother Nature cooperated this evening.
Lo and behold the wind died down, almost on cue as the sky began to darken at 6pm. There was still a light breeze but it was tolerable, and - double lo and behold - as the wind stopped, the temperature seemed to rise a few degrees. The "wind chill" factor was negated, and wow!, suddenly it was t-shirt weather again, almost like magic.
The Trick-Or-Treaters started arriving at 6:30 and they continued til 9pm. We got about 30 kids, more or less the usual amount. The little ones are my favorites, the tiny Princesses and Spidermen. One little boy who couldn't have been more than three years old wore a full body "Jaws" costume. The teenagers came later, after 8pm, and we got two "Pennywise" in that bunch. The best moment of the evening came when a group of four kids, around five or six years old, came running up the driveway chanting the old Trick-Or-Treat theme song :
"Trick Or Treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat"!
I was taken aback for a second, because I hadn't heard that for years, and maybe decades. Kids from my generation were trained to say it by our teenaged elders, but it seemed to have died out sometime around the turn of the Millenium. What was so funny tonight was that it came completely out of left field. I was standing there, talking to the cat, when all of a sudden.......("smell my feet"!)
It was like no time had passed between 1965, when I learned the chant, and tonight as it was called out by a new generation. I could see their parents standing on the sidewalk, the likely suspects haha.... :):)
At 9pm, I shut things down at Pearl's, then went for my traditional Halloween Walk to check out the decorated houses. There were a lot of 'em up in Northridge. College kids were walking around in costume. I dunno if they were trick-or-treating, but I did until I was 20 years old, haha.
I'd still do it if they'd let me! :)
Anyway, to get back to what I was saying about "The Amityville Horror", the important thing is that the movie had a veteran director, a Hollywood craftsman from the old school who knew the ingredients of a good picture. He had a two hour running time at his disposal, and he chose to concentrate on developing the story, building the suspense, and then bringing out the major horror in the final act. It's an unsettling film. The House has an evil influence, but it acts gradually on George Lutz. He doesn't become a horror caricature like Jack Nicholson, who was also influenced by a building in "The Shining". James Brolin was never considered a great thespian, but he does a more than capable job here as a man succumbing to whatever it is that is trying to possess him. He doesn't realise what is happening, isn't aware of the change in himself. We don't know for sure if he is hearing the voices Ronald deFeo claimed to hear, but he is changing so much in personality that he is not only becoming aggressive, he is actually beginning to resemble deFeo. The patrons at a local bar tell him the likeness is remarkable : "You're a dead ringer for him, buddy". Now he is beginning to frighten his own family.
It's a psychological film, and Margot Kidder was an excellent choice to play Kathleen Lutz, who cannot understand what is happening to her husband. She copes the best she can because their marriage is a recent one and they've only just bought the house. She doesn't want to lose her husband or their new home, but it's clear there is something wrong with the house and their move has coincided with her husband's breakdown. Kidder was a very good actress. She had a vulnerable quality that plays well in this movie. Director Rosenberg uses "everyday" instances to ratchet up the tension the house is creating - a window is shown repeatedly open, even after George or Kathleen have closed it. A doll belonging to their daughter sits in a chair, after being missing all day. Money for a brother's wedding gets lost in the furniture, never to be found. These are the kinds of things that could happen in real life, to anyone, and so it creeps us out when there is no explanation for any of it. And of course, the toilets back up repulsively, and flies crowd the bathroom, but you already know that if you've read the book (and you've probably seen the movie, too, for that matter).
So as I was saying, it's more than a horror movie - it's a good movie by any standard. It feels like it could happen to anybody, which makes it even scarier. The opening sequence of the deFeo murders is horrific, and again real life steps in : that was an actual murder case, as gruesome as they come, and you have to wonder what would make a family want to live in such a house after a thing like that had happened. In the case of the Lutz's, it was the discount price. They only lasted 21 days before fleeing.
Rosenberg gets the supernatural aspect just right. He doesn't overplay the "ghosts" on hand, or the infamous "Jodie" character. I won't tell you any more about them. One thing he does skip over that I wish he'd have explored a little more was the issue with the boathouse. In the book, it was a pretty big deal if I recall correctly. There was something very scary in the boathouse. Rosenberg doesn't really go there, but then he already had a lot to cover. There is also a subtheme involving the local priest (Rod Steiger) who has come to bless the house at Kathleen's request. He definitely hears the voices, as does a nun who's an aunt of Kathleen's. The house will have a major effect on Steiger, but I'll leave you to see it for yourself. His reaction will alarm the clergy at his parish, who - like Father Karras at first in "The Exorcist" - have relegated haunts and demons to the dustbin of superstition. Speaking of "The Exorcist", there is also a Detective Kinderman type in "Amityville". A cigar-chomping cop hangs around outside the house, sitting in his car and staring. He was the lead investigator in the deFeo case, he witnessed it's aftermath, and while he believes only in the facts, he knows the house ain't right.
The cinematography is by turns beautiful and nightmarish. Rosenberg uses gorgeous reverse-color effects to show us the house in daylight. The upstairs windows - the house's "evil eyes" - are overlit like glowing plasma. It's a great looking movie.
I loved "The Amityville Horror", and I am gonna go so far as to give it Two Gigantic Thumbs Up. It's in the tradition of the best supernatural movies, or haunted house movies, and - like "The Exorcist" - it's a film that will stand up to repeat viewings. I'll certainly be watching it again. ////
That's all for now. Tonight I'll be going to the annual Dia de Los Muertos celebration over at CSUN's Chicano House, so I don't know if I'll have time for a movie, but stay tuned and I'll see you back here at the Usual Time. Have a great day!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Lo and behold the wind died down, almost on cue as the sky began to darken at 6pm. There was still a light breeze but it was tolerable, and - double lo and behold - as the wind stopped, the temperature seemed to rise a few degrees. The "wind chill" factor was negated, and wow!, suddenly it was t-shirt weather again, almost like magic.
The Trick-Or-Treaters started arriving at 6:30 and they continued til 9pm. We got about 30 kids, more or less the usual amount. The little ones are my favorites, the tiny Princesses and Spidermen. One little boy who couldn't have been more than three years old wore a full body "Jaws" costume. The teenagers came later, after 8pm, and we got two "Pennywise" in that bunch. The best moment of the evening came when a group of four kids, around five or six years old, came running up the driveway chanting the old Trick-Or-Treat theme song :
"Trick Or Treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat"!
I was taken aback for a second, because I hadn't heard that for years, and maybe decades. Kids from my generation were trained to say it by our teenaged elders, but it seemed to have died out sometime around the turn of the Millenium. What was so funny tonight was that it came completely out of left field. I was standing there, talking to the cat, when all of a sudden.......("smell my feet"!)
It was like no time had passed between 1965, when I learned the chant, and tonight as it was called out by a new generation. I could see their parents standing on the sidewalk, the likely suspects haha.... :):)
At 9pm, I shut things down at Pearl's, then went for my traditional Halloween Walk to check out the decorated houses. There were a lot of 'em up in Northridge. College kids were walking around in costume. I dunno if they were trick-or-treating, but I did until I was 20 years old, haha.
I'd still do it if they'd let me! :)
Anyway, to get back to what I was saying about "The Amityville Horror", the important thing is that the movie had a veteran director, a Hollywood craftsman from the old school who knew the ingredients of a good picture. He had a two hour running time at his disposal, and he chose to concentrate on developing the story, building the suspense, and then bringing out the major horror in the final act. It's an unsettling film. The House has an evil influence, but it acts gradually on George Lutz. He doesn't become a horror caricature like Jack Nicholson, who was also influenced by a building in "The Shining". James Brolin was never considered a great thespian, but he does a more than capable job here as a man succumbing to whatever it is that is trying to possess him. He doesn't realise what is happening, isn't aware of the change in himself. We don't know for sure if he is hearing the voices Ronald deFeo claimed to hear, but he is changing so much in personality that he is not only becoming aggressive, he is actually beginning to resemble deFeo. The patrons at a local bar tell him the likeness is remarkable : "You're a dead ringer for him, buddy". Now he is beginning to frighten his own family.
It's a psychological film, and Margot Kidder was an excellent choice to play Kathleen Lutz, who cannot understand what is happening to her husband. She copes the best she can because their marriage is a recent one and they've only just bought the house. She doesn't want to lose her husband or their new home, but it's clear there is something wrong with the house and their move has coincided with her husband's breakdown. Kidder was a very good actress. She had a vulnerable quality that plays well in this movie. Director Rosenberg uses "everyday" instances to ratchet up the tension the house is creating - a window is shown repeatedly open, even after George or Kathleen have closed it. A doll belonging to their daughter sits in a chair, after being missing all day. Money for a brother's wedding gets lost in the furniture, never to be found. These are the kinds of things that could happen in real life, to anyone, and so it creeps us out when there is no explanation for any of it. And of course, the toilets back up repulsively, and flies crowd the bathroom, but you already know that if you've read the book (and you've probably seen the movie, too, for that matter).
So as I was saying, it's more than a horror movie - it's a good movie by any standard. It feels like it could happen to anybody, which makes it even scarier. The opening sequence of the deFeo murders is horrific, and again real life steps in : that was an actual murder case, as gruesome as they come, and you have to wonder what would make a family want to live in such a house after a thing like that had happened. In the case of the Lutz's, it was the discount price. They only lasted 21 days before fleeing.
Rosenberg gets the supernatural aspect just right. He doesn't overplay the "ghosts" on hand, or the infamous "Jodie" character. I won't tell you any more about them. One thing he does skip over that I wish he'd have explored a little more was the issue with the boathouse. In the book, it was a pretty big deal if I recall correctly. There was something very scary in the boathouse. Rosenberg doesn't really go there, but then he already had a lot to cover. There is also a subtheme involving the local priest (Rod Steiger) who has come to bless the house at Kathleen's request. He definitely hears the voices, as does a nun who's an aunt of Kathleen's. The house will have a major effect on Steiger, but I'll leave you to see it for yourself. His reaction will alarm the clergy at his parish, who - like Father Karras at first in "The Exorcist" - have relegated haunts and demons to the dustbin of superstition. Speaking of "The Exorcist", there is also a Detective Kinderman type in "Amityville". A cigar-chomping cop hangs around outside the house, sitting in his car and staring. He was the lead investigator in the deFeo case, he witnessed it's aftermath, and while he believes only in the facts, he knows the house ain't right.
The cinematography is by turns beautiful and nightmarish. Rosenberg uses gorgeous reverse-color effects to show us the house in daylight. The upstairs windows - the house's "evil eyes" - are overlit like glowing plasma. It's a great looking movie.
I loved "The Amityville Horror", and I am gonna go so far as to give it Two Gigantic Thumbs Up. It's in the tradition of the best supernatural movies, or haunted house movies, and - like "The Exorcist" - it's a film that will stand up to repeat viewings. I'll certainly be watching it again. ////
That's all for now. Tonight I'll be going to the annual Dia de Los Muertos celebration over at CSUN's Chicano House, so I don't know if I'll have time for a movie, but stay tuned and I'll see you back here at the Usual Time. Have a great day!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)