Like a House on Fire...

 In a previous post, I talked about Italian horror and giallo films, and I touched on Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci. I mentioned, in particular, Fulci's film 'The Beyond' from 1983. Fulci once argued against the criticism of The Beyond as being incoherent by saying that it was 'a film of images, which must be received without any reflection.' and that while any 'idiot' can understand the like of La Cage aux Folles or Escape from New York, because they have 'threads' (by which I assume he means a unified plot which matches story dialogue and explanations to the visuals on the screen, there were only two films which he considered 'absolute films'.... The Beyond, and Dario Argento's Inferno (1980).

Inferno is, if you will forgive the pun, the spiritual successor to Argento's Suspiria (1977). It is a grimier, more down to earth film than Suspiria however, and the dreamlike imagery that worked so well in the previous film here has taken on less of a dream-like quality, and more of a nightmarish texture. There are still peculiar and unexplained set pieces, their is still an old and crumbling edifice that holds bizarre secrets (In particular, both places have inexplicable rooms in them... the neon-lit room filled with razor wire in Suspiria, and in Inferno, a sealed Ballroom filled with water.), and of course, each holds one of the three great witch mothers, Mater Suspiriorum and Mater Tenebrarum respectively. But where the building in Suspiria is beautiful and dreamy in its presentation, the building in Inferno is run down and crumbling, and infested with various pests. Suspiria is alluded to in passing, with the dialogue mentioning that Mater Suspiriorum is living in a building in Freiburg, Germany.... which was the setting of the first film. Apparently word hadn't made it to New York about her death in the previous film, though.

Fulci has a point though, in that not everything is neatly explained in Inferno. You take your best guess at some of the events going on. The film opens with young poetess Rose, who lives in New York, reading about the Three Mothers, and apparently growing suspicious that Mater Tenebrarum is living in the neighborhood. This leads her to the basement of her building, where she accidentally drops her keys into a hole in the floor filled with water. She turns on the lights.... which also apparently turns on the lights in the room under the water, and then jumps in to go retrieve the keys. Here we find a couple of things... first is that Rose can apparently hold her breath for about 20 minutes at a time. And second, there are dead bodies in the water too...  WHY this room is filled with water is anyone's guess. There appear to be no entrances other than this hole in the ceiling of the room. Its very peculiar, and its presence, much like the room full of razor wire in Suspiria is NEVER explained.

Rose leaves, and rather than going immediately to the police and saying "Hey there are dead bodies here..." she decides to write a letter to her brother who is attending college in Rome. She outlines what she knows about the Three Mothers in the letter and asks him to visit. Her brother Mark, oddly, has the letter delivered to him by a classmate, during a Musicology lesson. This letter appears, partly, to have teleported to Rome in moments, by the way. Mark is distracted from both the letter AND the lesson by a beautiful woman sitting at one of the other desks, with a cat, who turns to stare at him, and mouths something to him that he can't hear. The windows all blow open and strong winds fill the room, and not one person notices. Who is this woman? Who knows? We never find out. She appears once more in the film, driving slowly by Mark in a taxi, and staring at him after he has found the bodies of a couple fellow students. He managed to lose the letter, (which is apparently why the other students are killed... they FOUND the letter.) and instead calls his sister, and tells her he'll come visit... and she tells him NOTHING MORE. Someone appears at her door, and she flees, leaving the phone off the hook, and is murdered in another room.

This is where space and time seem to make no sense. 

The previous scene, Rose is in the basement, she is followed by someone out of the basement, who stalks her for a bit. She takes the time to write this letter, mail it, it gets all the way to Rome, where it has various misadventures before Mark calls Rose, who is only NOW aware of someone following her, and runs off to get murdered. If we assume days have passed, what was Rose doing in the meantime? Why would she stay in the evil murder building where she suspects a centuries old witch to be living? 

It doesn't matter. Mark comes to New York, and goes to Rose's apartment, where he finds the phone off the hook. He thoughtfully replaces it, but again, doesn't bother to call the police and tell them that his sister vanished while on the phone with him. It gets worse. While he is doing this, he runs into a pretty young lady, who is, apparently, an ailing Countess who just HAPPENS to be staying in the run down building in New York City, and who wanders around barefoot... despite being, apparently, deathly ill. This lady happens to step on bloodstains from the attack on Rose... which are still wet. 

Really? When did this attack actually happen, anyway? Or does blood ever really dry in the universe of the Three Mothers? 

People in this film are continuously murdered, or disappear... but no one ever stops to call the police about any of it. Some of the deaths are downright bizarre too. The countess? She is attacked by dozens of housecats (which look like stage hands are standing just off camera and gently tossing at her. I laughed.) and is then stabbed to death. A disabled antique dealer is swarmed by rats.... and then a random hot dog vender RUNS at top speed across the park after hearing his cries for help, and DOES help him! By hacking off his head with a knife. Uh, huh? Who is this randomly murderous hot dog vendor? Well, it IS New York in 1980, I guess. Another woman panics and manages to set herself on fire.... this, weirdly, becomes a plot point, as she manages to set the whole building on fire in the process.

Our hero (such as he is), manages to find his way to a whole series of secret rooms, where the Mother of Darkness reveals herself to him. What her plan is? Is never really made clear. There is one really cool sequence that is ruined at the last moment. Mater Tenebrarum vanishes from in front of Mark's eyes, and reappears inside the mirror in the room, where she continues her evil villain speech. She gets to a part where she says that collectively, she and her sisters are known as... DEATH! And with this pronouncement, she strikes to reverse of the mirror and emerges as it shatters as a grim visaged Grim Reaper! .... Or that was the theory at any rate. The problem with this sequence is not the shattering of the mirror, or the emerging from it, that looks great. The problem is, instead of an intimidating Grim Reaper costume, we get a cheap plastic skeleton the likes of which you'd find in one of those seasonal Halloween Stores that pop up in abandoned Circuit City locations.

I think wisely, Argento limits shots of this to quick cuts. However, Mark manages to escape the skeleton, and the blazing building, and watch from the outside with a crowd as the building falls in on the Mother of Darkness. Which.... is sort of a relief, because the blaze actually started some 20 minutes previously, and seemed to have absolutely no effect on any of the areas Mark was in. He not only has time to solve the final riddle of where to look for the witch, he also has time to explore the halls beneath the floors, find the secret room where the alchemist Varelli is hiding, have a conversation with him, fight with him, locate the place the witch is hiding, and have a long conversation with her.... and THEN the fire becomes an issue. Weirdly, Mater Tenebrarum seems to indicate, in her final rant, that she KNOWS the building is on fire, and she seems to have a plan for survival. But then she dies anyway, once Mark is safely outside.

There is so much that is unexplained over the course of this film. Why is there a sunken ballroom? Who are the dead bodies in it? Who is the woman with the cat in Rome? Who killed the other students in Rome? What is the time line here? Why is there a room full of feral cats? Why do the rats decide to attack the antique dealer? Why does the hot dog vender kill the antique dealer? Why are they bothering to kill everyone in the building OTHER than Mark? Why save Mark when he is helpless, but kill the Countess? 

Some of these things you can make a guess at. My guess, for example, is that the woman in Rome was either an agent of Mater Lachrymarum or the witch herself, and she's killing anyone researching the Three Mothers. She doesn't kill Mark because at that point, he hasn't even heard or read the name of the Three Mothers, let alone started looking into it. The animals and the hot dog vender? Ok, The Mother of Darkness controlled them to make life miserable for her victims I guess. Why save Mark when he's helpless? Well... if I understood her rant at the end, Mater Tenebrarum seemed to have some plans for him.

AS for the time line of events, you're on your own. I think you need to be Gallifreyan to understand how it worked.

But with all that said, despite all its problems, this is an eminently WATCHABLE movie. Its gothic sort of sensibilities seem almost an update of Hammer's style. Its intensely visual in its approach. A great deal of attention is paid to most of the production values. The costumes are stunning. The set dressing is top notch. Its that value that makes the appearance of the cheap skeleton at the end so glaring. 

But is it, as Fulci claimed, an 'Absolute Film'? 

No, not really. See, an 'Absolute' film is something entirely abstract. It was a film movement in 1920s Germany. The idea was that film didn't have to be combined to a narrative to be affecting. In its purest form, they were animated, abstract films.The problem is, Inferno has a very necessary narrative, and one that even ties in with a previous film's narrative, nor is it particularly abstract.

What it DOES do is pay homage to early surrealist cinema. There are shots that seem to be lifted wholesale from Luis Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929). The scene with the ants on the hand comes almost directly from Bunuel. The gore in Un Chien Andalou is actually almost MORE graphic than that in Inferno in one case, but in both there is gore and violence directed at eyeballs. 

Further, time seems only relative to the film itself.... so the blood spilled in the scene previous, which narratively must have been spilled days ago, is still wet, because within the confines of the film, it only was spilled a few minutes before. This is the same sort of narrative structure that Un Chien Andalou has, which makes jumps in time, forward and backward, without any impact on the characters. Inferno might be considered Un Chien Andalou with a bright color pallet. 

But where there is no real 'story' in Un Chien Andalou, there IS in Inferno, so it is not really an "absolute" film, as Fulci claimed. But it acknowledges the existence of absolute film and its French counterpart, Cinema Pur, and the Surrealist movement that spawned them.

The dreamlike imagery is in full evidence. The entire scene in the musicology class plays out like a surrealist  silent film. The musical score that the students listen to is the only sound really evident, just as you would have in a silent film. No one sees the woman with the cat other than our main character, and she is dressed completely out of place from the other students, nor is she wearing headphones like the rest of them. No one reacts to her, or the cat, and no one reacts to the windows of the room suddenly blowing open with game force winds... that don't seem to rustle the papers on the desks. When the woman turns, she looks directly at the camera and speaks, but we do not know what she said, which is staged much like early silent films. Once again, like a dream, the woman and the cat both vanish. 

Like all of Argento's films, the use of color is astonishing. In this case the colors almost feel hallucinogenic. When Mark finds his way to the secret rooms of the building, he moves from a room lit in bright neon reds and gold, down into a hidden world lit by soft green lights. It almost reminded me of Rose's descent into the sunken ballroom, which is done in brilliant aqua, like a swimming pool. 

There is also an alchemical subtext to the film as well. One of the central ideas is that the alchemist Varelli, who wrote the book on the three mothers, may have also designed their homes. We see elemental imagery through the film as well.... Opening with the sunken ballroom (Water), the wind blowing open the windows (Air), the descent in the the depths of the building, symbolically going underground (Earth), and finally ending in the Inferno of the title, (Fire). 

Argento has a great love of visual art, and this is not the first time we've seen that in an Argento film. Look at my previous mention in a previous post of the diner he put into Profundo Rosso. The diner intentionally invokes the Edward Hopper painting Nighthawks, but also recalls the isolation that you see in a Hopper painting. In the 25th Anniversary documentary about Suspiria, he says ""For Suspiria I was inspired by everything that German Expressionism means; dreams, provocations, unreality, and psychoanalysis." but additionally, he has said that the color pallet of Suspiria was inspired by Disney's Snow White.

He is far from the only director who has ever been inspired like this, but he is one of the most stylish about it. I could talk at some point about the artistic influences behind Hitchcock's Psycho (the house is a visual call out, again, to Edward Hopper, and his painting The House by the Railroad.) Hitchcock was more restrained and naturalist in his homages than Argento. But that is one of the nice things about this is that it IS such a distinctive visual style, and makes Argento a unique and beautiful director.

But Bunuel's intention in Un Chien Andalou was to shock 'polite' society... and in the words of film critic Ado Kyrou, he actively sought to 'alienate all potential spectators.' This seems an apt summation of Inferno as well. Argento made a career of shocking images. And moreso in Inferno, I think, where, there is much to alienate the viewer. Certainly his next films, Tenebrae, Phenomena, and Opera, have much more straightforward storylines, even if they still deal with violence, mystery, and gore.

For fans of the surreal, or giallo, or Italian Horror in general, or Dario Argento, Inferno is worth a look. It is not, in my opinion, his BEST work, but it is arguably his most complex work from the point of view of cinema. 

Slow Burn Ghosts and Demons...

 Lord of Tears (2013) is definitely an odd film and not one for everyone. You think its going to be a monster movie, but really what it is is a very slow burn ghost story. And its a lovely one, with some lovely performances... and a really odd, artificial looking monster. Spoilers ahead.

Ghost Stories in movies have always been a bit problematic for me. The big ones were always things like The Uninvited (1944) or The Haunting (1963), or The Legend of Hell House (1973). Or if you wanted to get whimsical, its things like The Canterville Ghost in its many filmed versions, or The Ghost and Mrs Muir (1947).

But.... what can ghosts really do, other than be spooky? There danger is rarely physical in the ordinary sense. They prey on the mind, and use that to put you in situations which are ALREADY dangerous, but easily avoidable if you are thinking straight. Thus, in The Haunting, we already KNOW the spiral staircase is dangerous, but the ghosts play with Eleanor's mind until she goes up that already dangerous staircase, or they trick Stella out onto the crumbling cliffs in The Uninvited. Its only when you get to things like The Legend of Hell House that you start getting more poltergeist and possession tricks being played, but even then I always felt that if people could only manage their fear, they could be protected in a large degree from ghosts.

Many MANY of the more recent 'ghost' movies play more on the idea that its a demon instead of a ghost... which is, to me, a far more boring concept. Demons are one note bad guys. You know if a demon shows up, they are going to be the bad guy. They are going to do bad things. Its LITERALLY all they ever do. And that makes them boring and predictable to me. A good recent "ghost' Movie would be Mama (2013) in which the creature DOES take on many of the more demonic characteristic, but which is definitely a GHOST, and which behaves as a ghost (in that it has very human motivations based on unresolved emotional issues) and is finally laid to rest as a ghost should be, by resolving its issues. 

And that, interestingly, brings us back to Lord of Tears. Because it IS a ghost story AND there is a demon involvement... but they are not interchangeable, and for a change, the demon is done in a really interesting way.

So, the film follows James Findlay (played Euan Douglas) who is a school teacher who is trying to settle his late mother's estate. He was estranged from his mother for many years, and is shocked to discover that his mother owns a second house... which is a large, remote manor house, which his mother left instructions he should never visit. However, being puzzled by this, that is EXACTLY what he does. He doesn't remember much of his childhood, but when he arrives there, he has vague memories of time spent at this house. He shortly meets his neighbor (who lives in the converted carriage house) Eve Turner (Lexy Hulme), an American. He also begins to realize he had a mental breakdown as a child, brought on by visions of an owl headed man. 

This does not sound like its a terribly involved plot when laid out like that. However, it is far more involved. As I said, its a slow burn. The romance between James and Eve grows as they uncover more of James' past, and discover that James' parents were involved in magic in order to maintain their fortunes, and Eve and James manage to discover that in particular, the parents worshipped Moloch.

Now here's the thing that confuses me. I'm not sure where they got the connection between Moloch and the Owl Man. As an occultist, I tend to critique these things probably more that I should. The image of the Owl Man looks like it comes straight out of Collin de Plancy's Dictionairre Infernal and in fact that is where I thought I had seen it. The problem is, I went back and checked, and in de Plancy, Moloch is depicted with the head of a calf, not an owl. There are several owl-headed demons in the book, the closest to this is probably Andras. I also think its a stretch to take Moloch, who was a Canaanite god to which sacrifices were made, into the god of ALL sacrifices. Admittedly, what has come down to us in history and archaeology about the historical worship of Moloch has largely only consisted of information about the sacrifices. It is also one of the few actual 'demons' actually mentioned in the Bible, and thus they were able to tie it in easily with information that is readily available to most people. They don't NEED to find a reason to have them find a copy of de Plancy, or other texts on demonology just lying around.

Returning then to the film, what I found curious at first, which pays off massively at the end of the film, is the very sweet romance that develops between Eve and James. There is a bizarre scene, which seems out of place at first, but which is simultaneously beautiful, surreal, romantic, and erotic, and a little creepy. Eve and James have just shared a bright moment, and Eve delightedly says she wants to dance. James reveals he can't dance, and she promises to teach him... and then she proceeds to give a impromptu ballet recital for him, dancing around the room and around his seated form. This is a seduction, but it doesn't culminate the way you think would be obvious. Eve and James are not at that point in their relationship yet, but they are aware of each other. Again, the payoff for this is later, but on a meta level, it is just to showcase the fact that Lexy Hulme is a dancer.

The movie moves slowly again... and we start to discover that Eve has secrets of her own, and much like James, has holes in her memory. The Owl Man begins to appear more and more often.

Lets talk about The Owl Man. 

There is nothing else in this film that betrays its low budget quite like this. There is an artificiality to the owl man, and a cheapness to the costume that is apparent. They try to minimize this, wisely, with quick cuts and long, wide shots. However, as the influence of Moloch becomes more strongly felt, the Owl Man comes closer and closer, and the more obvious it becomes that this is a gigantic mask and creepy, unarticulated hand prosthetics. Its unfortunate effect is to suddenly make you aware that you are watching a movie. It mostly pulls you out of the narrative. On the other hand, the artificiality of it does lend a surreal air to the proceedings. Even if it IS something artificial, it is still a bizarre encounter to have.

The NICE thing about The Owl Man, or Moloch in this film, is the role it plays. Too often demons in film are depicted as slavering monsters who have an insatiable desire to kill. Why? Well, as I said before, thats what demons do. Except here. The demon here is a guide.. it offers cryptic advice and puzzling riddles. One gets the impression that if you can understand what its saying, you could actually profit from it. And indeed, James DOES learn the secret of how to lay the ghost to rest from listening to what the Owl Man says. But he ignored the other warnings that the demon gave him. And... it plays with the perception that James, as the protagonist of the film, is ALSO someone of interest to Moloch. Spoiler... he's not. Moloch's real target is someone else entirely. James is important to the film... he is NOT the center of the universe. This is his story... but its not the ONLY story taking place in the world. James is a bit part in someone else's drama. And that is something we so rarely see... a demon which seems more real mythologically, an entity which sees further than we do, and is playing a game that is wider than we realize. 

Demons in other films are one note monsters. Their motivations are nebulous. Their powers are vast, but also curiously limited. They pick on people seemingly for no reason whatsoever. And this is the case even in well done films, such as The Exorcist. And its taken to a ridiculous extreme in films like The Conjuring series, where demons just.... show up randomly, do minor things, and then are eventually chased off. They are, to me, incredibly boring. They are so random in those films. And in films where people actually call on demons? There is an odd sense where they give vast power with SO MANY strings attached, one has to question why someone would bother. Look, for example, back at my review of Night of the Demon. Karswell has tremendous powers, but he is TERRIFIED of them, and of the price he pays. So why bother? In this, Moloch offers very specific powers, for very specific prices. If you take him up on it? That's on YOU, not him. He's not MAKING you do ANYTHING. This humanizes evil, which is a fantastic take on it. 

So, the big twist... I sort of half expected, but they put it off so long, and put SO MUCH into building up what goes before it, that you largely convince yourself that it isn't going to happen. However, it is revealed that Moloch is guiding James to where he wants, with his agent, a ghost of a previous sacrifice, which turns out to be Eve. This turn it actually fascinating. 

When James finds the other half of the photo, and sees himself as a boy standing next to Eve, looking as Eve does now, and he flees back to the house with Moloch mocking him the whole way. But when he see's Eve waiting for him, she does not come off as evil. She is the SAME Eve he has fallen in love with, but both of them are now aware of her true nature.... and its as devastating for her as it is for him. And the change in her manner is NOT immediate. She takes him to the bathroom, draws him a bath, undresses him, and then strips down to her slip.... its an incredibly gentle scene. She is taking care of him now, as a lover, like she took care of him as a child, as his nanny. And its beautiful. And then when he is reduced to his most vulnerable... naked, and lying back in the bath... only then does Moloch seem to transform her into an agent of menace, and the transformation, while simple, is TERRIFYING. 

Movies don't generally scare me. Movies barely register on me when they try to scare. This? This was literally CHILLING. The effects were simple. Contact lenses. A filter. A creepy voice over. And the unnatural movements that Lexy Hulme brings to the character. And whats more... this is where the slow build up pays off. The audience has fallen in love with Eve along with James, which would not have been possible had they NOT taken their time. It would not have been remotely scary had they rushed this, or made the change to menace earlier. 

The film is now fully invested in the ghost story. We know why Eve is haunting the house. THIS is the ghost story. Moloch is a demon, but he is not really the one haunting. He is the agency by which the haunting is taking place. Eve had been sacrificed by James' parents. And this is now a more traditional ghost story suddenly. James must locate Eve's skull on the hidden altar of Moloch, and reinter it, in order to lay her spirit to rest. The point that is nice though, to me, is that once he is aware of what has happened, it actually pretty easy to rectify. He goes to the hidden altar, finds the skull, buries it, and says a brief prayer of sorts, which is more of a gentle voiced hope for her to find rest. We are rewarded by a final look at Eve, finally leaving the grounds of the house and giving a final look back. 

But this is not the end of the film. This addresses the ghost in the film, but NOT the demon. 

One of the more inexplicable things going on are the constant images flashing to James' friend Allen using an axe to murder his ailing, elderly father. This seems quite odd, and its not really explained, until the end. James goes to see Allen after he has laid the ghost of Eve to rest, and is talking over the secrets of his parents with Allen. And this is where we find that James is NOT the one Moloch has been influencing this whole time. It was Allen. James becomes the victim now, and replaces Eve on the altar of Moloch in the film. 

The ending seems almost cruel, but it also makes a good deal of sense. It brings the story full circle, and it feels like a delayed child sacrifice, in that the boy who is spared sacrifice as a child is merely sacrificed as an adult instead. However, it also feels in many ways a positive ending for him. He just laid the spirit of his lover to rest, and now must take her place. I sort of have this feeling like he is going to experience the same things that she did, and that, once his skull is found and laid to rest, he will go on to join Eve in whatever afterlife they find. 

This was a nice little find. I have zero doubt in my mind that many people will actually HATE this film. They will complain its not scary, or two slow, or cheap. I would argue that these people are missing out. The story here is solid. The actors are fine. The cinematography is workmanlike, but again, perfectly acceptable. This is a lovely under-the-radar film.

There is a sequel to this film, that also involves the Owl Man. I think I've tracked that down on Tubi, so maybe I will offer a review of that soon.

Railway Terrors....

 

Horror Express (1972)

I don't recall seeing this film when I was young, but it is exactly the sort of movie I would have sought out on TV. Horror Express is a lot of fun in a horror movie sort of way. And how can you not love this film? It has Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, but it has an additional bonus of a fantastically overacting Telly Savalas. The story is a bit inspired by John W Campbell's 'Who Goes There?' which inspired both The Thing From Another World in 1951, and John Carpenter's The Thing in 1982, and the more poorly received prequel/remake also called The Thing in 2011. Its a bit inspired by Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. 

The basics of the story are, that, in 1906, Christopher Lee's character of Professor Sir Alexander Saxton has discovered a fossil 'missing link'' in a cave in Manchuria China, and he boxes it up to take back to London with him. In order to get back, he needs to board the Trans-Siberian Railroad back to Moscow (and presumably from there to London.) Lee encounters Peter Cushing's Dr. Wells at the station as well, which sets up a bit of a friendly rivalry between them. 

Over the course of the film, it becomes clear that the central protagonist is Lee, and Cushing, while given a number of amusing lines, is clearly a supporting character, and given only a few things to do. There is a reason for this, which is part of a touching behind the scenes story. 

Cushing had lost his wife some months before this film started filming. When he arrived in Spain for the film, he immediately told the producer he didn't feel up to performing, and was considering dropping out of the project. Lee actually called him up, and spoke to him kindly, and reminded him of all the fun they had on previous film shoots. He convinced Cushing to continue with the film... but it does seem that they understood and gave Cushing 'light duty' in the movie. His character, Dr Wells, is clearly as intelligent as Lee's Saxton, but is somewhat more underhanded than Saxton. The initial scene between the two of them sets up their differences. When the ticket agent refuses to give them berths on the train, Cushing merely turns on the charm and offers up a considerable bribe to the agent to secure his tickets. Lee looks on this somewhat disparagingly, and then goes his own route, which is pushing the ticket agents things off his desk and trying to intimidate him.... which ends up being backed up by local soldiers presenting themselves to him "to assist him in any way he needs." Wells is the slightly lazy, slightly underhanded sort, Saxton is the man of action. 

I have seen this film a number of times, but this viewing was on a remastered version making it the clearest version I have yet seen. And this viewing, I noticed something new. The story is tightly constructed, and I was amazed at the way they played with the side characters. No part is wasted, no part is a throwaway. Everyone introduced serves a purpose. The conductor. The Inspector. The Count and Countess. The Monk. The Engineer. The American Woman. The bacteriologist. The spy. The thief. The Baggage Clerk. ALL of them fill a role in the actual story, and not just window-dressing. 

The monster kills the thief and learns how to open locks. It kills the baggage man and learns the layout of the train. It kills the spy and learns about the experimental steel. It kills the engineer to learn about the technological capabilities of the human race. Each becomes a logical step. The bacteriologist is killed to reveal the witnesses to the images in the creature's eye. The random American woman at first is a dinner companion of the engineer, and then later is the witness to the engineer's death, and then finally become the woman who attracts the lascivious attentions of Telly Savalas's Captain Kazan. 

Maybe I'm used to other films of the era, which tend to use bit parts more cavalierly. Often, in say, Hammer films, the minor roles are there basically to react to the story. Michael Ripper's characters are there to tell you what you already know... that the creepy fellow that moved into the house is a foreigner who imports Egyptian antiques, or the the villagers never visit Dracula's castle, or that its foolish to go outside at night. There may be extras who are there for Dracula to kill in order to show how dangerous he is, or random villagers to cower in fear or act suspicious of whatever Baron Frankenstein is up to,,, but they never really have an impact of the story. At least, not in the way that they do here. Every one person who has a line of dialogue in Horror Express interacts organically with the story. They could easily have switched the American woman out and had three separate women in all those scenes, and in other films, they very much might have done that. This 'economy of supporting characters' works well with a scenario set on a train, where you SHOULD be limited in the number of available people.

The movie also plays with ideas of faith vs science, but in fairness, it never really gives faith a fair shake. The monk SHOULD represent Faith, but instead, very quickly flips from faith in God to faith what he perceives as the Devil. He is in the employ of the Count and Countess, who don't seem to value his input very much, and who delight in tormenting him by deliberately IGNORING his advice. The Countess even playfully asks not only her husband but the Monk which dress she should wear to impress Saxton (and it seems implied that she is wearing it in an attempt to seduce him to a degree... the husband is amused by this, and seems to treat it as a game... the monk is angered and horrified.) Later however, The Countess herself echoes a sentiment of faith when Saxton mentions Evolution, and she says "I've heard of evolution... it is immoral!" however, this is brushed aside easily by Saxton who just responds with "It is a fact, and facts are neither moral or immoral." There is a lot of this sort of dismissal that goes on in this film... later when the monk offers himself up to the Creature, who has thus far only been assimilating people useful to him, the creature itself dismisses him by saying essentially "You have nothing of value in your head, why would I want you?" 

The film is not without its problems and plot holes. How, for example, are people in the train sending messages outside the train about whats happening? Why does Moscow get involved and order the train derailed? (Which, in itself is an error, since the Capitol of Russia in 1906 was St Petersburg.) Why, when the creature transfers its mind into Inspector Mirov, does he acquire the hand of the creature as well? Why is Telly Savalas chewing the scenery like it is made of candy? Who cares.. its a tremendously fun ride.

Host and The Suicide Squad

 This week sees me viewing The Suicide Squad (2021) and Host (2020). SPOILERS AHEAD

Lets start with Host, shall we? This is a film that should be really called "Jump Scare: The Movie". Its a technique that's often criticized, but, when done correctly, it is EFFECTIVE. Host uses it both effectively and ineffectively. The final shot is predictable, telegraphed.... and you STILL jump at it. However, there are other scares over the course of the film that actually do jump scares in new ways, which is not only effective, but also startling and scary.

The other things about Host is that it cleverly uses the techniques of "found footage" and the isolation of the Covid-19 quarantines of the year to ratchet up the tension. The film is set in a video conference call, with each person in their own separate locations. When things start happening, all the other people can do is look on in horror. Because this is a video call, there is a REASON for things to keep filming, which makes a nice change from other found footage films, where you find yourself wondering why they feel the compulsive need to film every last thing constantly. 

The story is essentially, 6 friends, during the lockdown in Britain, arrange to have weekly video meetups. On this one, one of the girls has arranged to bring in a medium into the call, who will conduct a séance for them. They are warned to take it seriously, but one of the girls in the call decides to play a prank anyway. The medium is dropped from the call, and then.... all hell breaks loose. It seems the prank invited a hostile entity or demon into their midst, and it decides to take them all out. 

The acting is pretty effective, as the people react more like genuine people that find themselves under assault by some supernatural agency. People drop in and out of the call periodically, and in one instance, one of the girls says 'screw the lockdown', puts on her mask, and runs to the apartment of one of the other girls who lives close to her. It is the only time in the film when two of the main actors come together, and its a nice reminder of the fear of Covid, even amid the paranormal siege. When they see each other, their first reaction is to hug one another, but at the last second they pull back and instead bump elbows. They may be terrified by a demonic assault, but they are just as terrified by the pandemic. 

By the same token though, because everyone is disconnected in this way, it seems the demon is rather arbitrary in its decision to target all of them. Some of the deaths are simply not "earned." One character, for example, drops out of the call before the séance even begins. He rejoins later on, after the presence has manifested, and is almost immediately targeted and killed. What exactly did HE do to earn that? 

Still, its not something you notice immediately. Its a worthwhile way to spend some time.

On the other end of the spectrum is The Suicide Squad from director James Gunn. This is a big budget film, with big stars, and a big release, in a big franchise... you get the picture. It is a sequel/reboot of the previous Suicide Squad film, done by David Ayers. The original film, released in 2016, was... problematic, on a number or levels. The premise is more than a little promising. Super villains who are currently serving prison sentences are offered the opportunity to reduce the time left on their sentence if they agree to participate in Black-Ops missions for a shady government agency. Because they are criminals, they are completely expendable.

In the original film, the premise got a little lost in a sub plot about The Joker and Harley Quinn, and a non-sensical plot involving the ultra-powerful being known as The Enchantress. It made little sense, and it was carried mostly on the charisma of its two leads in Will Smith as Deadshot and Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. As far as the "suicide mission" angle goes... well... a couple people die, largely telegraphed ahead of time. Who is Slipknot? Who cares, he dies shortly after he is introduced. And then.... no one of importance dies until the climax. The body count for the first movie is.... 3. Slipknot, El Diablo, Enchantress. And a bunch of faceless minions and soldiers. It is grim and suffers from the biggest problem of the DCEU films... a gritty over-seriousness that really detracts from the colorful nature of the original comics. 

Enter James Gunn... and out of a total of 14 Squad members, 4 survive the story. 6 if you pay attention to the post credits scenes. But more importantly he brings humor and brightness back into play, making it for a far more engaging film than the first one. And by engaging, I mean FUN. Is it a good film? No, but it is an ENTERTAINING film. And in some ways, that's all you need.

Again, its not without its problems. Idris Elba's Bloodsport is almost identical in backstory to Will Smith's Deadshot. You could swap them back and forth and not miss any character beats. That said, I do prefer Idris Elba to Will Smith. He carries more gravitas in the role, which I think makes a nice contrast to John Cena's Peacemaker. 

Speaking of Peacemaker, John Cena cannot necessarily be considered a good actor, but he is well suited to the part of Peacemaker, and creates a great deal of humor. Peacemaker likes to think he's deep and intelligent and philosophical. He's not, and that, for me, is one of the funniest things in the film. He never seems to realize how shallow he really is, and in one particularly funny moment, even loses track of his own arguments. 

Peacemaker: If this whole beach was completely covered in dicks, and somebody said I had to eat every dick until the beach was clean for liberty, I would say "no problemo!"
Ratcatcher II: Why would someone put penises all over the beach?
Peacemaker: Who knows why madmen do what they do?

Peacemaker literally forgets that HE was the one who originally imagined this scenario, and can't give a good explanation as to why he came up with it. And that's Peacemaker in a nutshell. He just doesn't think too far ahead, or about what he's saying. 

But in comparing this film to its predecessor, I also keep coming back to Viola Davis' Amanda Waller and the other members of 'Mission Control' back at Task Force X. In the original film, Waller is both practical and evil, but in a weird way. Inexplicably, she guns down her own technicians in the first film.... for.... reasons that are never made clear. To show how evil she is? I don't know... its one of the many scenes in the first film that made no sense to me. In this film Waller is still utterly ruthless, but she has been humanized. She may not like her technicians, she may get angry with them, but in this film, you can't imagine her randomly gunning them down. And frankly, they give her far more reason to. 

And, they give her a sense of humor, which was sorely lacking in the first film. Her eyerolling response to the activities of her team, as they try (none too successfully) to hide the fact they are betting on who will survive the mission, or the fantastic side-eyed death glare she gives John Economos when it turns out Weasel can't swim are amazingly funny. She grumpily complains about her golf game, because she has to play with a senator the next day, and doesn't want to be embarrassed. She falls asleep in her chair while they are waiting for the communications to be re-established. She is HUMAN. She is a formidable human, but she is still, in the end, just a human. 

This is a bloody film, and intentionally so. If you are going to do The Suicide Squad, you NEED the stakes to be made clearer than a single person dying. The opening scene takes out nearly EVERYONE. And it is by far my favorite part of the film. It is extremely violent, and it is extremely funny. Harley's reaction to TDK's powers is utterly classic, as is Flagg's helpless "*I* didn't pick the team!" 

Also of note, since this is James Gunn film, is the soundtrack. There are two standout tracks, both at the beginning... the first is Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash which is what opens the film, playing over Savant sitting in the prison yard on his own. And the next is the main theme, which is People Who Died, by The Jim Carroll band.. which, quite frankly is a perfect choice. Morbid, and still upbeat, it matches the tone of the film perfectly.

Quick Looks:

The Last Shift (2014): A rookie police officer is left on her own as the last shift at a closing police station. However, the history of the place and one of its more horrific cases returns to haunt her. This is a pretty disturbing film, but I can't say its a good film. There are a lot of really creepy imagery. There is a lot of gore. Its essentially mind games. Its worth a look, but there isn't a lot here.

One Cut of the Dead (2017): This is a tremendously fun film, that tricks you multiple times, to great effect. It took me by surprise, and became a lot more meta than I expected, but it is a celebration of not just horror and zombie movies, but of low budget filmmaking. Its a love letter to the independent horror film auteur. And the One Cut of the title you see at the very beginning, and it is a fantastic technical achievement. Pay attention in this film, because its clever, and there are multiple stories going on, which you don't necessarily know at first, but as the layers begin being pulled back, you learn what those other stories are, and things which seem like mistakes early on are revealed, and even better, things that WORK really well turn out to be complete accidents.

Teddy (2020): A French werewolf horror movie, which is uncomfortable to watch. It tries, I think, to be a sort of male counterpart to Ginger Snaps, but it rather fails at that. We follow our 'hero' Teddy, who is a sullen, somewhat rebellious teenager who gets infected with lycanthropy and we see his slow transformation to full fledged werewolf. The problem is, Teddy is still not that interesting a character, and unlike the Fitzgerald sisters, he has little charisma and no humor. The movie proceeds at a rather dull pace, and finally culminates in a bloodbath of truly epic proportions.... which happens mostly off screen. 

After Midnight (2019): This is another odd, indy film, that seems to work. We meet Hank who seems to spend his days wandering around his empty house drinking and daydreaming about his early relationship with Abby, while spending his nights drinking and shooting at a mysterious monster that tries to gain entry to his house every night. We discover that Abby has left Hank, leaving behind only a vague note. Hanks friends can't draw him out, and don't believe him about the monster. The film is a really weird combination of romance and monster movie. And oddly, it works.

An Unusual Aside....

 While I primarily focus on films in this blog, every once and a while something in another form comes up that I find interesting and relevant to the topics discussed here, so I'll throw those in. That is the case in this weeks entry. 

In 1962, one of the most popular TV Series in the United States was Route 66. Now, this is not the typical show you'd be expecting to see in a blog like this. It followed the adventures of Tod Styles (Martin Milner) and Buzz Murdock (George Maharis) as they travel the country in a Chevy Corvette and get into various misadventures along the way. It was an early anthology series, where each story was stand alone, with only Buzz and Tod as the connecting feature. This afforded them the ability to do any sort of story they wanted, provided that they could fit the two principle characters into it. In many ways, it almost mimics the more modern series Supernatural, but without the horror elements.

The third season's sixth episode brings them to Chicago in the story titled 'Lizard's Leg and Owlet's Wing.'

Readers may note that title is a phrase used by the three witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth. This is deliberate, and we find out why even before the main characters appear on screen. It opened with a hunchback, reaching out apparently to menace a young boy sleeping in bed. Very quickly you find out however, that there is no menace here. It is none other that Lon Chaney Jr, in full hunchback makeup (no doubt an homage to one of his late father's most famous roles.) and he is visiting his grandson, who is enthusiastic about the makeup. Their scene is interrupted when Chaney is reminded that he has a teleconference he is late for. 

I was amused by this early reference to telecommuting. Even 50 years ago, working remotely was becoming an accepted thing. 

His meeting turns out to be with two other horror greats, Peter Lorre and Boris Karloff. Lorre and Chaney are trying to engage Karloff in a new film project, but Karloff is resistant. He believes 'the old ways' of horror are now passé, and thinks they should update and become more modern. Lorre and Chaney argue that the old ways are just as effective as ever. They agree to meet in Chicago to argue out the details in person, but Karloff insists they do so anonymously so as not to draw attention to themselves. He suggests book rooms at the hotel in the name of some benevolent society and use assumed names.. (not very CLEVER names, it must be noted.... Peter Lorre becomes 'Mr. Retep', Karloff becomes 'Mr. Sirob', and Chaney is 'Mr. Nol.') 

Then we switch to Chicago where Tod and Buzz have just been given jobs as 'Liaison executives' for various convention groups at the hotel. Buzz is thrilled to be assigned as liaison to a convention of young Executive Secretaries that are meeting there, while a less thrilled Tod is given to 'The Society for the Preservation of the Gerenuk"... which he doesn't realize yet, but is the fictional society the horror actors have created to meet under.

The show has some truly cringeworthy examples of early 60s sexism, while curiously, at the same time, giving voice to genuine women's issues at the time. There is actual discussion of the disparity in pay, and an early call for 'Equal pay for equal work.' On the downside, most of the women are treated like they are all sort of superficial and shallow, and faint at the slightest provocation, and there is one subplot of one particular secretary who is in love with her boss and heartbroken at his inattention which is especially annoying.

However, any scene in which the horror icons appear is a delight, and Peter Lorre in particular is given some hilariously deadpan scenes which shouldn't, by rights, be funny, but actually are because of of his wonderful delivery. I couldn't help but laugh as he earnestly explains to Tod what a 'gerenuk' is and why its so important to preserve them. (A gerenuk, incidentally, is a kind of African antelope which was on the verge of extinction. Lorre gives the grave warning 'If it can happen to the gerenuk, it can happen to US!") 

Lon Chaney (having dropped the Jr.) gets to have a great deal of fun dressing in various elaborate costumes throughout the episode, rarely appearing when NOT in a disguise. It nice to see him back in action as the hunchback, the mummy, and the wolf man again. He seems to be having a ball through the whole episode, running around scaring secretaries until they faint. He meets his match in the lovesick secretary however, who doesn't appear to notice his wolfman makeup at all, and even gives him a kiss on the cheek... which causes him such despair he starts sobbing. 

Karloff, on the other hand, maintains great dignity, as befits horror royalty such as himself. He very quickly solves the lovelorn secretary's problems, as soon as he becomes aware of them, and gently disapproves of the antics of Lorre and Chaney for much of the time. So great is his screen presence that he doesn't really HAVE to act to command the screen, he just has to stand there and you instantly pay attention to him. Only at the very end, he dons a version of his famous Frankenstein's monster makeup... its a version more simplified than the Universal films version, but its rather nice to see him in costume again. 

There are some extremely funny moments in the episode. Peter Lorre clinically analyzing the reactions of the secretaries to Chaney in wolfman makeup while Tod furiously takes notes is particularly noteworthy, especially his indignation when one of the women faints after seeing HIM sans any makeup at at. "I'm a little insulted...." he sulks in the way only Peter Lorre can. 

As an additional note for horror fans... The lawyer Karloff insists be present at the meeting, Mrs. Baxter, is played by Martita Hunt. who was just coming off her own horror performance as Baroness Meinster in Hammer's The Brides of Dracula in 1960. She has less to do, but she does get to be very unimpressed by Lon Chaney's theatrics and is almost as deadpan in her delivery as Peter Lorre.

All in all, a great deal of fun for horror fans.