Info

Art Opinions

Posts tagged Anti-Christ

A couple of weeks ago I became aware of something called CineSecrets. I was on Twitter and I saw a post from http://www.audienceseverywhere.net shouting out for individuals to freely share their CineSecrets as a celebration of Honesty Day. I really liked this idea, but the problem is I do not have secrets. I most especially do not have secrets regarding cinema and/or movies. I will freely admit that I am a total Movie Snob, but I also adore a good number of films that are often deeply bad. Quite seriously, I do love some really crap movies. I have no CineSecrets. I mentioned this to a friend who disagreed with me immediately. My friend pointed out that I have a great number of CineSecrets.

"I played with the Ween!' It's Pat Adam Bernstein, 1994

“I played with the Ween!’
It’s Pat
Adam Bernstein, 1994

She quickly listed a number of movies I deeply love which most of the world hates. But the thing is I make no secret of these profoundly bad films that I love. Sometimes a film can be so bad that it works its way around to being brilliant. Once again, she took exception with my comment. Apparently I do not share my joy/pleasure of these movies via my blog, http://letterboxd.com , Twitter, Facebook or even in conversation. Of course I did protest:

Wait a minute, I’ve written about The Eyes of Laura Mars and Mommie Dearest at length!

I was informed that these two movies do not count. I didn’t know it, but I guess these two movies are considered Classic Cool Bad Movies. Really? They are now considered cool? Soon I found myself in corner…

Have you ever written about your love of It’s Pat?

No. I haven’t. However in my defense, the only reason I haven’t written about it or a number of movies is because I have never thought anyone would want to read anything I might write about Julia Sweeney’s cineplex flop. A flop that I saw at a cineplex on the opening day. My eyes were glued to the screen and my mouth agape in confusion till the bitter end.

I do not even know how many times I’ve watched Adam Bernstein’s film version of Sweeney’s SNL character, Pat. The concept of Pat as a short late night skit was really funny. Well,  funny for at least 3 skits. The idea of stretching an old skit into a 77 minute movie was odd even in the early 1990’s. Yes, It’s Pat is 77 minutes long. I know the running time just as I know every line of the ill-fated movie by heart.

Kathy Griffin can't decide if her creepy neighbor is hitting on her or simply stalking her. Neither do we... Kathy Griffin and Julia Sweeney It's Pat Adam Bernstein, 1994 Cinematography | Jeff Jur

Kathy Griffin can’t decide if her creepy neighbor is hitting on her or simply stalking her. Neither do we…
Kathy Griffin and Julia Sweeney
It’s Pat
Adam Bernstein, 1994
Cinematography | Jeff Jur

It’s Pat was actually the 5th movie to be produced by SNL Films. It followed some very successful films including the two Wayne’s World movies. It’s Pat had a budget of $10,000,000.00 but just barely made $60,000.00 at the box office. It was a flop of epic proportions. One of the aspects that made it singularly unique among the SNL films is that it presented itself as something far smarter than it actually was. Sure there were plenty of gross-out jokes, but it featured a cast of truly talented comedic actors. It never feels like anyone on the screen isn’t thrilled to be there. Julia Sweeney’s androgynous character is intended for awkward moments and strange character quirks and noises. However, It’s Pat wears that thin within the first ten minutes.

The reason I found myself at the cineplex on that fateful Friday early afternoon was because I ended up having the day off. The reason I chose to see It’s Pat was because I had heard that one of my then favorite bands was featured in the film. If you were around in the early 1990’s and liked cool indie-rock you were aware of Gene and Dean Ween. Ween quickly eclipsed Bongwater as Kramer’s Shimmy Disc label’s premiere band. A profoundly strange band that brought forward Lo-Fi Psychedelic rock combined with a twisted stoner sense of humor. The thing about Ween was and remains that while the band never seems to take itself seriously, they are a great band.

featuring the hit single, "Pollo Asado" Ween POD Shimmy Disc, 1991

featuring the hit single, “Pollo Asado”
Ween
POD
Shimmy Disc, 1991

I had been won over by their 1991 second album, POD. The original Shimmy Disc release included songs like Strap On That Jammymac, Demon Sweat, Can U Smell The Waste?, Awesome Sound, She Fucks Me, Pork Roll Egg And Cheese and Molly! (a song in which Gene & Dean simply sing/speak the name “Molly” over and over. But the album’s “Hit Single” was Pollo Asado.

“...Let me start of with a basket of chips. Then move on to the pollo Asado taco. I would like two pollo assado tacos with one beef chimichanga.
On the chimichanga, I would like a side of sour cream. I would like tomatoes and onions on my casadia.
For the dessert I would like the… I would like extra cinnamon.
Do you make guacamole?
Yes, I do make guacamole.
Uh, I would like a side of guacamole on my Tostitos. I like to dip the Tositos in the guacamole.
Can I get a basket, I told you about a basket of chips. I would like a large iced-tea, 2, uh, 2 large iced-teas. Ok, that’ll be $16.07.
Out of $20? Ok, $16.07’s your change.” — Pollo Asado by Gene & Dean Ween, 1991

It must be heard to fully appreciate, but I felt confident that if Ween were involved — It’s Pat must have something to offer. From my perspective it offered far more than I had bargained for. The truth is I had figured it might make me laugh a couple of times. It’s Pat made and continues to make me laugh to this day. It is one of the most clunky and awkward movies I’ve ever seen. During my in cinema screening the other members of the audience were silent. Many left before the film’s mid-point. After the first ten minutes or so I began to chuckle at the impossibly silly line and scenarios. David Foley’s Chris becomes Pat‘s ideal love and soulmate. Of course we never know if one if male, the other female or possibly both of the same sex. This is intended to be the film’s main plot point — or lack thereof. The late Charlie Rocket plays Pat‘s neighbor who begins psychotically obsessed with the title character. He eats scenery like nobody’s business. Poor Kathy Najimy works her scenes well beyond what they are worth. She is a mass of panic and worry every time Pat enters her convenience store. Often murmuring comments like “I’m now in Hell.” or “Please just leave.” “Oh Sweet God!

David Foley's Chris and Sweeney's Pat find love... It's Pat Adam Bernstein, 1994 Cinematography | Jeff Jur

David Foley’s Chris and Sweeney’s Pat find love…
It’s Pat
Adam Bernstein, 1994
Cinematography | Jeff Jur

Ween are fully present and accounted for and offer the title character what appears to be a big musical break! Turns out Ween are not so interested in Pat‘s tuba playing skills as they are in, well, Pat. While on stage with Ween poor Pat ends up being raised up above the rockin‘ cool audience without clothing. We are treated to a back view and never know what they see. It is a confidently timed bit that falls flat on its face. And yet it makes me laugh.

By this time in 1994 Ween had actually managed to move into the mainstream. It’s hard to know if they lost their way due to the timing of the movie’s release. I doubt it. Like everyone else in the movie, Gene and Dean seem to be having a great time. This is the thing that I just have to love about It’s Pat: it is so clearly confident that everything happening and being said is hysterically funny. The bad jokes quickly turn themselves into a sort of Anti-Comedy that I find impossible to resist.

Julia Sweeney & Harvey Keitel Pulp Fiction Quentin Tarantino, 1994

Julia Sweeney & Harvey Keitel
Pulp Fiction
Quentin Tarantino, 1994

Ween are still rocking onwards. Adam Bernstein may have lost his bid to be a feature filmmaker but he has gone on to be a valued TV director. Julia Sweeney had an odd cinematic year in 1994. She co-wrote and starred in It’s Pat at almost the same time as appearing as Harvey Keitel’s cool girlfriend in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. Her life would take a tragic and challenging turn soon after, but she returned in victory with a brilliant one-woman show, God Said ‘Ha!’, that would also be turned into a feature film.

I can’t be alone in my love for It’s Pat. It is still available in DVD format and for VOD purchase / rental from iTunes. I stand by it. It’s Pat is so very bad it rises to ridiculous levels of off-kilter brilliance.

The “success” of Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 Epic re-working of Bram Stoker’s Dracula might be debatable in some quarters. It is my opinion that this highly stylized and largely self-financed movie is a beautiful mess of a movie. Critics were surprisingly kind and this odd movie somehow managed to pull in over 5 times what it cost to make. No way we look back at it, Coppola’s movie was a major box office hit. Very little is actually “right” about this movie, but when it is “correct” it is exceptional. Sadly, when it is bad — and, it is truly bad most of the time — it actually manages to be somehow audaciously interesting. There are more than a few painfully comical moments co-mingled with much that fails to even make much sense. For a movie that I didn’t really like — I sure enjoyed and continue to enjoy it.

"Beware!" Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, 1992

“Beware!”
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992

Coppola can’t seem decide if he wants to make a Gothic Horror Movie or an overtly silly supernatural romance. Winona Ryder is about as 19th Century as an iPhone. She seems lost most of the time. Her attempts at erotic desire feel about as heated as a mall girl who has found the perfect skirt. Yet there is a certain level of passion conveyed that sometimes starts to feel genuine. Anthony Hopkins seems to be on the verge of a heart attack throughout the movie. At times one suspects he might start chewing on his fellow actors. In many ways he seems the creepiest monster. Tom Waits shows up and eats insects like they were gin-filled chocolates. It is not he that is bad here, the film lets him down. Renfield is never actually explained or developed. He just sort of shows up and seems to be blessed with some sort of supernatural power — or is it just a telepathic connection to his Master? Hard to tell. But Waits has been filmed and edited for Mel Brooks instead of the majestic film he is in.

Dude! Score!! Hot Vampyre Wives!!! Keanu Reeves Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, 1992 Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

Dude! Score!! Hot Vampyre Wives!!!
Keanu Reeves
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992
Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

But The Worst Performance of 1992 belongs to Keanu Reeves. It really doesn’t feel fair to be too hard on Mr. Reeves. Clearly miscast, he seems to be doing his best. His accent comes and goes, his hair is totally 1991 stylin’ and it inconsistently appears to be black and then suddenly gray the next. Keanu’s hair color is so inconsistent, it becomes consistent. Wooden and oddly overly excited all at the same time, he actually becomes the funnest player in the movie. The acting is all over the map here save two featured actors: Sadie Frost as Lucy Westenra and Gary Oldman as our Count Dracula. 

Sadie Frost gets everything perfect, but poor Miss. Westenra has never been quite this Satanic! Sadie Frost Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, 1992 Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

Sadie Frost gets everything perfect, but poor Miss. Westenra has never been quite this Satanic!
Sadie Frost
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992
Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

If Ryder seems to be at odds with the film’s eroticism, Sadie Frost is more than ready to fill in those erotica shoes. Frost’s performance is just about perfect. Her Miss. Westenra may not be much like what Stoker imagined, but her sexual desires are busting out all over! Her transformation from High Society Belle to Erotic Satanic Bride-From-Hell is about as dark as it can get. To her credit, Frost seems the most able to keep up with Coppola’s often schizophrenic script. This script changes tone and moods faster than sets (and there are a whole lotta sets going down!) — She perfectly matches her half of the film. If only the whole movie had been blessed with this sort of Erotic Nightmare quality! Sadly, Sadie Frost is the only actor who actually gets the opportunity to fully grasp the Full-On Goth Groove of this strange big movie.

Just offer me your sex. You know you want it... Gary Oldman Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, 1992 Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

Just offer me your sex. You know you want it…
Gary Oldman
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992
Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

As good as she is, Sadie Frost pales in comparison to the film’s most valuable player: Gary Oldman. Though for this film I almost feel like he should be referred to as Gary FUCKING Oldman. As is his talent, Oldman fully embodies the title character. The problem is that he is required to constantly shape-shift to suit Coppola’s confused vision. When he is meant to be vile and evil — he is. As the animalistic vampire roaming about the decaying mansion, he is perfectly goulish. Despite the odd wig choice, Oldman rises above it. He also is clearly going to have a bit of fun. His scary Dracula is dementedly sadistic but always with a bit of a wink. Keanu Reeves is like a limp piece of cheap wood when sharing the screen with Oldman in whatever style/costume he is given. Our vampire is soon a true dandy-boy — luxurious long hair, cool specs and a tightly tailored suit. It is hard to know if this version of Dracula belongs to Coppola’s world or to that of Prince video. And of course we also see Oldman as a blood hungry soldier. It doesn’t matter how silly it all gets, this is a truly brilliant performance from one of the most skilled actors of all time.

Despite running over 2 hours, this movie is fast paced. It is also incredibly well designed and Michael Ballhaus frames it all in a consistently stunning manner. Bram Stoker’s Dracula may not be very scary, sexy or even sensical, but it is absolutely beautiful to look at. What the film misses is made up for by the style in which it never manages to achieve anything it seems set to do. This movie is a gorgeous mistake. Sadly it is never fully satisfactory. What brings me back to it time and time again is the passionate way in which Coppola films his uneven take on Bram Stoker. There is nothing smart about this movie, but it is an oddly entertaining sort of cinematic train wreck.

Oh, he's just gotta get him some Keanu-blood! Keanu Reeves contemplates his accent as Gary Oldman licks the straight razor. Bram Stoker's Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, 1992 Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

Oh, he’s just gotta get him some Keanu-blood!
Keanu Reeves contemplates his accent as Gary Oldman licks the straight razor.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Francis Ford Coppola, 1992
Cinematography | Michael Ballhaus

I should add that some people really think this is a good movie. I can’t defend that assertion, but it is lovely and often unintentionally funny. A couple of years ago Sony actually remastered this film for blu-ray. I secured my copy as soon as possible. You should, too. Another of my favorite Cinematic Guilty Pleasures is a lot older and a lot worse! Sadly, I discovered this movie really late in the game of life — but once I found it, there was no going back. Never mind the fact that Diana Ross decided to follow-up her successful turn as Billie Holiday in Lady Sings The Blues with a glam take on success, her beauty, her taste as a fashion designer and Norman Bates in pants so tight it hurts to see him — but she did. Yes, Diana Ross followed up her Oscar nominated turn with Berry Gordy’s mind-blowing Mahogany!

"Success is nothing without someone you love to share it with." And the World of 1970's Fashion would never be the same. Miss. Ross is MAHOGANY Berry Gordy, 1975

“Success is nothing without someone you love to share it with.”
And the World of 1970’s Fashion would never be the same.
Miss. Ross is
MAHOGANY
Berry Gordy, 1975

Yes, I intentionally uploaded a huge image of 1975’s movie poster for Berry Gordy’s Mahogany. I had no choice. This was and remains a big ass cinematic mess worthy of praise and love. Berry Gordy’s horrifyingly funny cinematic error offers poor Miss. Ross as an ambitious young would-be fashion designer who must climb the depraved, but totally glamorous, ladder as Super Model before she can achieve superstar success. We cringe as she is forced into awkward situations with Anthony Perkins. Playing a celebrated fashion photographer, Perkins is once again cast as Psycho with a very dangerous camera instead of a knife. Apparently sewn into his immaculately pressed jeans, he is obsessed with Mahogany. Well, but who wouldn’t be? Billy Dee Williams is present as a safer boy-toy. The problem is Williams’ is playing a slick brotha out to save the world via the upstanding and moral world of politics. …in Chicago.  He might be smooth in the sack, but he ain’t got no cool fashion soul! He simply is not cool enough for our soon-to-be-Super-Model! You know that Miss. Ross is destined for Model Success by the way she likes to spin around in front of cameras squealing “Weeeeee!

"Give it to me, baby!" Anthony Perkins / Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin “Give it to me, baby!” Anthony Perkins / Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin

“Give it to me, baby!” Anthony Perkins / Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin
“Give it to me, baby!”
Anthony Perkins / Diana Ross
Mahogany
Berry Gordy, 1975
Cinematography | David Watkin

But things take a quick and savage turn when Mahogany must fight against those who would steal her privacy and the meanies who allow her success to go to her head — which is only just barely supported by her painfully thin frame. Seriously, Miss. Ross actually goes topless for about 25 seconds. 1975 Michael Jackson had bigger breasts. She ends up getting a little too down at a depraved Fashion Party and begins to pour candle wax on her body. Later when poor Billy Dee tries to woo Mahogany back to his ethically correct world of Chicago politics, she readies herself for yet another close-up and screeches:

The men love me, the women love me, the children love me… You’re just jealous Brian ’cause no one loves you. I’m somebody! They love me! They want me! They want Mahogany!

"Must I do everything myself!?!?!" Yes. Diana Ross actually bites at air and writhes about in anger when people fail to get her stunning designs exactly as she sees them in her head. Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin “Give it to me, baby!” Anthony Perkins / Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin

“Must I do everything myself!?!?!”
Yes. Diana Ross actually bites at air and writhes about in anger when people fail to get her stunning designs exactly as she sees them in her head.
Diana Ross
Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin

Actually, I might have that quote a bit jumbled. I’m going off my memory. The bottomline is that I’ve yet to watch this movie when this scene doesn’t cause an entire room into laughter and gleeful applause. Perkins’ crazy photographer decides he wants to capture “fear” in a fashion shoot. This leads to a crazy scene in which Miss. Ross must model-mug furiously will trying to take control of the car which Perkins is driving with insane precession. Cut to our Mahogany covered in plaster and bandages. But fear not, she is in full make-up. She is lost. She knows not where she is going to…

Miss. Ross designed this dress herself! Weeeee! Everybody wants one! Diana Ross Mahogany Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin

Miss. Ross designed this dress herself! Weeeee! Everybody wants one!
Diana Ross
Mahogany
Berry Gordy, 1975 Cinematography | David Watkin

Equally uncomfortable is the fact that Diana Ross saw this movie as chance to show off her personal “fashion design” brilliance. Yes, she personally designs all of the fashion monstrosities that appear on the screen. This movie had a big hit song. It’s a nice song, but if you see this movie you will be ready to shoot anyone who tries to make you listen to it again. Millions of Mahogany fans were sent into a depression when Miss. Ross pulled a Super Diva and actually paid to hold on printed DVD’s of the movie hostage. Apparently Diana did not want this remastered DVD to find its way to release. Eventually she gave up and Paramount secured the warehouse of DVD’s and released them to the masses. Those of us who are smart grabbed our copies as soon as possible. I suggest you do the same. Mahogany is so profoundly bad it is exceptionally fun to watch!

The other bad movie I choose to love and honor is Kathryn Bigelow’s box office champion, Point Break! This 1991 movie is much loved. I love it. I watch it all the time. But it is terrible. Come on. You know that it is. I really have nothing further to say except: Back off Warchild, seriously.

"You want me so bad, its like acid in your mouth." Keanu Reeves & Patrick Swayze POINT BREAK Kathryn Bigelow, 1991

“You want me so bad, its like acid in your mouth.”
Keanu Reeves & Patrick Swayze
POINT BREAK
Kathryn Bigelow, 1991

 

 

 

Like being strapped into an amusement park ride, sitting in the darkness as a horror movie begins there is a mixture of giddy fun and an often embarrassing dread of what we are submitting ourselves to — will it be a fun rush of the senses or a stomach churning sort of emotional litmus test?

Is that a closet? Why was it blocked?  Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Is that a closet? Why was it blocked?
Rosemary’s Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Does the rollercoaster that tilts and sends on a loop turing us upside down at a high speed offer more fun than one limited to fast turns with slow accents followed by forced down hill trajectory offer more satisfaction?

The answer is subjective. There is no right or wrong.

But what is it about some horror films that not only frighten us, but linger long after the house lights come back up? Most horror films offer a quick intensity that leaves us fairly quickly. Sometimes, however, a horror film comes along that offers something a bit more jolting. The kind of jolt that leaves us entertained, afraid, shocked and unsettled. This is the sort of jolt that comes back to haunt us as we try to fall asleep or walk down a dark corridor.

"I don't like them there." Catherine Deneuve REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

“I don’t like them there.”
Catherine Deneuve
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

In 1965 Roman Polanski delivered a new sort of horror film. Repulsion shocked audiences upon initial release. It still upsets many. Why? Catherine Deneuve plays Carol. A beautiful but seemingly perpetual daydreamer who discovers that she is to be left all alone in the large apartment she shares with her older sister. What happens to Carol and those who venture into this apartment while the sister is out on a brief holiday is more than unexpected, it is lethal. Carol is not a daydreamer, she is clearly suffering with some sort of emotional problem. Is this an issue related to some form of sexual trauma? Is this mental illness? Is this some form of depressive exhaustion? What is wrong with Carol? 

Carol contemplates the dangers of the washroom as perspective continues to warp... REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Carol contemplates the dangers of the washroom as perspective continues to warp…
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Repulsion wastes no time in establishing something clearly: the camera’s perspective is simply off. We are following Carol through her mundane life as a beautician, then walking through the streets of London and finally at the apartment she shares with her sister. Roman Polanski and Cinematographer, Gilbert Taylor, carefully set each shot from strange angles. As the film progresses, the camera’s perceptions become more odd. We are seeing reality through Carol’s perception of it. As Deneuve’s character slips into reality filled with threat and menace, we are not entirely sure if what we are seeing can be trusted.

Catherine Deneuve in a moment of iconic cinema... REPULSION Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Catherine Deneuve in a moment of iconic cinema…
REPULSION
Roman Polanski, 1965
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

Surely those are not arms slipping out of the walls to grab and molest Carol. Right? Or have we just entered some twisted sort of paranormal horror? Before long the audience comes to understand that we are witnessing a psychotic break. A break that slips so far into the darkest corner of human psyche that no one is safe. Repulsion stays with the viewer.

But the threat filled menace of human perception would take on a far more ambiguous stance in Polanski’s 1968 horror masterpiece, Rosemary’s Baby.

"Pray for Rosemary's Baby." Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

“Pray for Rosemary’s Baby.”
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

At first glance or after an audiences’ first viewing, this would appear to be a full-on exorcise in Satanic horror at it’s most dire. An innocent woman has been set up to procreate with The Devil and deliver The Anti-Christ. As Rosemary’s life in her new home begins she is faced with a creepy basement laundry room, the death of a new friend and an uncomfortable forced friendship with nosey and eccentric neighbors.

Polanski and Cinematographer, William A. Fraker, begin to establish an interesting camera perspective almost as soon as Rosemary and her husband move into their new apartment. The use of cinematography is not immediately noticeable, but it is there from the beginning.

A gift or a curse?  Mia Farrow Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

A gift or a curse?
Mia Farrow
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Halls and doorways take on a suspicious and curious perspective. As Rosemary’s paranoia and fears begin to mount, the audience becomes pulled into a literal sort of maze of unanswered perspective. The first of Fraker’s shots that really grabs our attention is the use of Rosemary’s front door peephole. Ruth Gordon’s Minnie Castevet is truly iconic movie character. At first comical, then slightly annoying — and slowly she shifts to something altogether horrifying. When Rosemary looks out her peephole, we gain a distorted perception of Minnie that is warped and unsettling. She no longer looks like the kooky old bat next door. She looks suspicious and vaguely reminiscent of a clown. Not the kind of clown at whom you might laugh, the sort that would make you pull your child back and avoid at all costs.

large_rosemarys_baby_cesar-zamora-5

Rosemary and the audience get a whole new perspective on the eccentric woman next door. Ruth Gordon Rosemary’s Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

A building suicide, nosy people and a dear friend’s creepy stories related to the old building which contains her new apartment — Rosemary is understandably more than a little shaken. But after the wacky Minnie creates two cups of chocolate “mouse” for Rosemary and her husband, she finds the taste feature an unpleasant aftertaste. Her husband almost becomes angry that she doesn’t want to eat it. She only eats a bit. Soon she is feeling drugged. Once again slightly tilting the perspective, Rosemary passes out.

Blame it on Minnie's "chocolate mouse" or is it a symptom of something else? Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Blame it on Minnie’s “chocolate mouse” or is it a symptom of something else?
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

We are then brought into Rosemary’s dreams. We have already been here briefly before when she dreams of a childhood incident with a Catholic Nun yet hears the annoying banter of her odd neighbors, Minnie and Roman. Their voices take the place of the Nun’s. But this time Rosemary’s dream is far more articulated and disturbing. She dreams of a sort of sexual ritual wherein all of the old neighbors of her building are standing around her bed.

"Perhaps you'd better have your legs tied down in case of convulsions." Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

“Perhaps you’d better have your legs tied down in case of convulsions.”
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

They are nude. Suddenly a demonic animal is running it’s claws across her body. Rosemary is in dream state. She observes and follows instructions without objection. But suddenly, she is alarmed and seems to have awoken.

“This is no dream! This is really happening!”

But then she does wakes up and it is the next morning. She is nude and she has long scratches across her back. She quickly realizes that her husband has ravished her in what is an inappropriate sexual encounter. Filmed in 1967, while her character feels her husband has raped her, she pushes this feeling down. But we can tell Rosemary almost hopes it was all just a bad dream rather than face the fact that her husband had her while she was passed out ill. Alas, this is not an option for Rosemary. Her husband has violated her. Trauma much?

A sluggish Rosemary says, "I dreamed someone was raping me. I think it was someone inhuman." And her husband responds, "Thanks a lot."  Mia Farrow Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

A sluggish Rosemary says, “I dreamed someone was raping me. I think it was someone inhuman.”
And her husband responds, “Thanks a lot.”
Mia Farrow
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

William A. Fraker’s masterful camerawork continues to pull us back. Perceptions are never quite right again. in one of the cinema’s best shot scenes, Ruth Gordon’s Minnie rushes to Rosemary’s bedroom to phone Manhattan’s top Obstetricians. From a filmmaking perspective, this entire scene is one elegant and fascinating manipulation of the medium. Faker’s camera only allows us to see a bit of Minnie as she makes this call. I dare a viewer of this film on a big screen to successfully fight the urge to tilt his/her head to see what is going on in Rosemary’s bedroom.

Minnie makes a phone call and we all try to see what's really going on as she speaks into the phone... Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Minnie makes a phone call and we all try to see what’s really going on as she speaks into the phone…
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Masterful and perplexing: we are now officially and fully immersed in Rosemary’s paranoia.

The truly magical aspect that has helped Rosemary’s Baby to not only remain valid but alarmingly disturbing is the fact that perception of reality is so skewed that we are never fully certain that Rosemary’s paranoia is valid. Upon the first viewing of Polanski’s film, one is likely to walk away with a bit of a chuckle that Rosemary was quite right: She has given birth to The Anti-Christ. All we saw was true.

All of them were witches united to trick Rosemary into being fucked by Satan. 

The true reality solved by Scrabble? Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

The true reality solved by Scrabble?
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

If one watches Rosemary’s Baby again, and watches it a bit closer — something odd emerges.

This creeping idea is one of the reasons this film is a true cinematic masterpiece that refuses to go away from our subconscious. At no point in this horror film is the validity of Rosemary’s paranoia and fear fully confirmed. As the movie pulls us into the final act of the story, the question of whether or not what we are seeing is “correct” or “real” is brought into question. This could all be a fever dream of exhausted and terrified human psyche. Rosemary’s world has been rocked enough to understand how her perceptions of reality might be pushed into subversion.

Adrift in mental and emotional confusion.  Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Adrift in mental and emotional confusion.
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Her husband has essentially raped her while sick, this results in a pregnancy. Hormones surging and her choices and opinions constantly challenged — she soon finds herself in a great deal of pain. Everything in Rosemary’s reality has derailed. Death and darkness seem to envelope her. Her husband is distracted by new career opportunities and possibly some guilt. Whatever the cause he is distant.

Rosemary feels trapped. She must escape. She runs away to her original first choice Obstetrician. A very pregnant woman carrying a heavy suitcase on a record-setting hot Manhattan day arrives to this younger and far more modern doctor’s office. She insists he “save” her and her baby. She spouts a rant about Satanic witches and elaborate plans to harm both her and her baby. She pulls out an old book on the supernatural. The doctor calms her down. She finally relaxes and her official Minnie-hired Obstetrician arrives with her frustrated husband to take her home.

But, she did seem to slip into a dream prior to the “betrayal” of the young doctor.

As we enter the final act of the movie, how reliable is Rosemary’s perception? Every single thing is from her perspective?

Is Rosemary’s reality real? Is this a perspective we can believe and trust? 

Rosemary alone with pain, loss, hurt, rape and her thoughts... Mia Farrow in that doorway Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Rosemary alone with pain, loss, hurt, rape and her thoughts…
Mia Farrow in that doorway
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

There is no clear answer to be found in Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby. We will never know for sure if she has delivered The Anti-Christ “To 1966! The year One.

This level of unresolved tension doesn’t even need to fully register for the viewer to pick-up on it at some level. The truth of what we see is questionable. Rosemary’s perception (as well as our own) has been altered and put into a state of limited and distorted vision.

What is scarier? The reveal that human fear and paranoia is fully validated or the understanding that we are simply unsure. The fear and paranoia remain unresolved.

Reality or Delusion? Mia Farrow looking into Hell Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Reality or Delusion?
Mia Farrow looking into Hell
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

For years I used to debate this opinion with friends. Everyone seemed split down the middle. Some felt I, myself, was reading too much into the movie. Others agreed.

Finally I was validated when Roman Polanski himself stated that his goal was to present a depiction of human perception skewed to leave the audience wondering if Rosemary was seeing the “truth” or imagining some grand conspiracy.

Warning: TO AVOID ANY SPOILERS RE: TO THE FILM, LYLE, DO NOT READ FURTHER.

Which brings me to Stewart Thorndike’s 2014 but newly-released film, Lyle. As much a tribute to Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby as it is a low-fi re-working of the same sort of diabolical idea, Thorndike and her Cinematographer, Grant Greenberg, have created an intense psychological horror film. Or so we might think…

Gaby Hoffmann LYLE Stewart Thorndike, 2014 Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Gaby Hoffmann
LYLE
Stewart Thorndike, 2014
Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Greenberg’s camerawork is simple, yet carefully articulated. Like William A. Franker, he has paid close attention to perception. Doorways, large open-spaces, halls and angles are all designed to make us look closely. Visual information is provided in a suspect manner. More than a few times in this tightly-edited film, we want to see beyond the boundaries established by Greenberg.

Also of great credit to both he and the film’s director/writer, Stewart Thorndike, Lyle features the best use of a Skype-like call I have ever seen. Limiting the audience view to the shared computers’ perceptions is a brilliant device.

Leah and Lyle are left alone to unpack and fill their day... LYLE Stewart Thorndike, 2014 Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Leah and Lyle are left alone to unpack and fill their day…
LYLE
Stewart Thorndike, 2014
Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

As any sensible film-buff would expect, Gaby Hoffmann is brilliant in the film’s leading role. As the mother, Leah, Hoffmann delivers a perfectly nuanced and powerful turn toward hope, grief, fear, paranoia, panic, sheer horror, desperation and ultimately rage. Unlike Mia Farrow’s passive Rosemary, there is nothing oppressed about Gabby Hoffman’s Leah. A devoted wife and mother, she fully embraces her role in the family. She also places correct value to her identity and worth.

Yet she senses something “removed” or “distant” regarding her wife. Played by Ingrid Jungermann, June is appears to be the family provider. One gets the feeling that June is either ambivalent about parenting or is deeply upset that the newly pregnant Leah is carrying a girl child. June was clearly hoping for a little boy, but her frustration is both uncomfortable and suspicious.

Gaby Hoffmann LYLE Stewart Thorndike, 2014 Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Gaby Hoffmann
LYLE
Stewart Thorndike, 2014
Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Moving into a swank new Brooklyn apartment, Leah loves their new home. She does not love the new landlord. Rebecca Street is the only other actor in this film who can rival Hoffmann’s skills. Street is cast in a role that is somewhat similar to Ruth Gordon’s Minnie. Excepting that Street’s Karen is quite a bit younger. Younger, but not young. Leah is immediately concerned to discover that her landlady who she suspects is entering her 60’s claims to be trying to get pregnant. In fact, before long Leah (and the audience) catch limited glimpses of Karen pregnant and then not but expressing milk through her top.

Like Rosemary, Leah is constantly having to re-evaluate her perception of reality. After suffering the loss of her firstborn child, she is aware that the loss of Lyle has caused an understandably confused and disoriented emotional chain of reactions. As the circumstances around Lyle’s accidental death grow more suspicious to her and as she discovers increasingly worrying information about her home and the people who live in and near it — Leah becomes more than a little paranoid. To Stewart Thorndike’s credit, this film packs a great deal of suspense and tension.

"Help me!" Gaby Hoffmann LYLE Stewart Thorndike, 2014 Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

“Help me!”
Gaby Hoffmann
LYLE
Stewart Thorndike, 2014
Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Running just a little over an hour in length, Lyle does not let the audience down. The film is encaging, disturbing, creepy and solidly entertaining. The only issue I noted with this sinister little movie is the director’s decision to fully resolve the paranoia and fears of the lead character. At the moment we discover the validity of the mother’s fears and the fact that she has not been paranoid, the horror of Lyle becomes mutedly blunt. All answers are resolved and Leah is left to do what she must in an attempt to save her child. While Lyle is a potent little film, it loses his grip by giving us too much.

To what point has Grant Greenberg’s cinematography served? Do we feel relieved or all the more dire that Leah’s darkest fears turn out to be true? Lyle leaves the audience with an uncertain future for Leah, but there is no articulated logic to the dark pact with Evil for career success. It isn’t clear.

The aspects of the paranoia that are not fully revealed or explained leave a sort of emotional hole where a cinematic “pay-off” should have been. The intention is unclear, but not the human perspective. In what felt like the shaping of horror reveals itself to be more aligned with a taught thriller minus logic.

Gaby Hoffmann LYLE Stewart Thorndike, 2014 Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Gaby Hoffmann
LYLE
Stewart Thorndike, 2014
Cinematography | Grant Greenberg

Unlike Polanski and Frakers’ manipulation of paranoia and character perspective, Lyle has teased the audience. And the emotional result is one of frustration. Lyle is not likely to scare the audience. Instead it plunges us further into darkness without any room for ambiguity. Stewart Thorndike is a flimmaker with a a strong future ahead of her. She has a great deal of skill in telling her story. But the question for me remains, is it more effective to bring a story of paranoia and human fear to fully articulated explanation or better to limit the audiences’ ability to fully know? From my perspective, Lyle gives an unsatisfying ending.

David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows is an example of a horror film that leaves the audience unsure. Alex R. Johnson’s Two Step fits more toward Thorndike’s Lyle. However, Alex R. Johnson’s film is not intended as a horror film as much as a modulated thriller that escalates far beyond audience anticipation. Within that mode of operation, a fully resolved ending makes sense.

Perhaps the best example of current cinema that illustrates the idea of ambiguity is Alex Ross Perry’s polarizing examination of identity and insanity, Queen of Earth.

Where does reality end and insanity begin? Welcome to Surrealism... Katherine Waterston & Elisabeth Moss Queen of Earth Alex Ross Perry, 2015 Cinematography | Sean Price Williams

Where does reality end and insanity begin? Welcome to Surrealism…
Katherine Waterston & Elisabeth Moss
Queen of Earth
Alex Ross Perry, 2015
Cinematography | Sean Price Williams

While this film may not be a straight-up horror film, it does depict the most horrific aspect of being human: Insanity. The idea of not knowing when what is perceived is “reality” or “delusion” is oddly effective. Much like Mia Farrow’s Rosemary, Elisabeth Moss and Katherine Waterston will be forever stuck in a sort of nightmarish mire of rage, distrust and warped perspective.

We do not have all the pieces of their puzzles.

It fascinates.

It pulls us further into the ideas of the films.

Most of all, these stories of human frailty, fear and possibly insanity stick with us. The ambivalence sears into our shared subconscious. 

Mia Farrow Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Mia Farrow
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Life is a mystery and is forever full of “WTF” moments. It is in those moments where we are least sure and are forced to go into “full alert” that the uncertainty of our realities become the most worrying.

In a strange way, Roman Polanski’s Art Horror remind us of life.

At the ready to attack, but still unsure... Mia Farrow Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

At the ready to attack, but still unsure…
Mia Farrow
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

They jolt us into the present of our mind. And we are forever a bit unsure.

Matty Stanfield, 10.1.15