Info

Art Opinions

Posts tagged Rosemary’s Baby

 

Are you scared or bored? The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016

Are you scared or bored?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016

Ever since Robert Eggers’s The Witch screened at the 2015 Sundance word of mouth praises for the film have pushed expectations through the roof. A24 opted to wait over a year before releasing the movie to cinemas. This decision was no doubt to build up audience anticipation. Their plan seems to have worked, but was marketing The Witch as a horror movie might not have been the best strategy.

While a great many have been left spellbound (pun intended) — it would seem an almost equal number of people have left the movie disappointed. Some have even felt bored by the movie. I among those who consider this film as a cinematic gem and a great example of the Art Horror genre. In my opinion Robert Eggers is a much needed breath of creative air to the current world of cinematic art. So I scratch my head when I hear/read cinephiles bash The Witch. Why don’t they all love it? Why is The Witch failing to capture all imaginations? How can someone see this low-budget film and not be impressed?

Well, easily.

Has Mia Farrow been impregnated with the child of Satan or date raped by her husband? Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Has Mia Farrow been impregnated with the child of Satan or date raped by her husband?
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

What constitutes a great horror movie? A film that scares us on some level seems an essential requirement, but is there a way to make the definition of that word fit us all as a group? Of course not. We are all scared and disturbed by different things and styles. There are two horror films which can both be easily defended as cinematic masterworks: Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. Both of these films terrified audiences upon their initial releases.

What would happen if Roman Polanski were 35 years old in 2015 and Rosemary’s Baby had debuted at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival? Would it frighten audiences and be eagerly snapped up by A24? Let’s pretend it would. So it is February 2016 and you sit yourself down at a cineplex and watch it.

"All of them witches" Rosemary's Baby Roman Polanski, 1968 Cinematography | William A. Fraker

“All of them witches”
Rosemary’s Baby
Roman Polanski, 1968
Cinematography | William A. Fraker

Are you pleased with Rosemary’s Baby as a horror film or did it make you chuckle and feel resentful because the “pay-off” failed to make you jump or dumbfound you in awe?

Sure you might admire William A. Fraker’s cinematography, the eccentric performances and the ambiguity of what is actually happening on the screen — but would this movie disappoint as a horror film?

I have a knee-jerk reaction to this “what if” scenario. I want to dig my feet into the sand and answer, “Yes! It is provocative, entertaining, creepy, amusing and most certainly haunts my mind long after I see it!

However my knee-jerk might be a bit off.

"Your mother sucks cocks in Hell." Linda Blair The Exorcist William Friedkin, 1973 Cinematography | Owen Roizman

“Your mother sucks cocks in Hell.”
Linda Blair
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

Ideas of what constitutes a horror film have dramatically changed since 1968. This is no longer the 20th Century. We have become jaded to violence and horrific events depicted in film. Movies are no longer presented as “Events” and most audiences demand more than looming threat and ambiguities from horror films. A solid example of this is to revisit William Friedkin’s  The Exorcist. Upon this film’s release in late 1973/early 1974, it literally caused an international sensation. Reports of heart attacks, fainting and full-on panic attacks in cinemas filled the news. Lines to ticket counters wrapped blocks and an endless slew of cinematic rip-offs soon littered cinemas for years to come. Even back in the early 1970’s there were people who found the grim horror film funny, but it would seem to have been a small minority of the film’s audience.

"The power of Christ compels you!" The Exorcist William Friedkin, 1973 Cinematography | Owen Roizman

“The power of Christ compels you!”
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

In 2000 a new remastered and cut of the film was released into cinemas. This was The Exorcist: Version You’ve Never Seen. I was in the cinema to watch the movie with a sold-out audience. Parents with babies, sullen teens and eager fans of the 1970’s flick filled the theatre. Endless chattering throughout the on-screen commercials and previews led me to expect that I’d be watching the movie with children running around, teens giggling and older folks calling for silence. Instead something odd happened. The entire audience sat in silence once the jarring music of Krzysztof Penderecki met the film’s title card. I saw this film with 3 friends from my office. I didn’t care for the new ending, but was satisfied that The Exorcist had stood the test of time. Only minutes later as we exited the building I began to hear people talk about how comical the movie was. Yet why had there been no laughs during the screening? The 2000 release still brought in a significant amount of money for Warner Bros.

For those who would dismiss both Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist as dark or even unintended comedy, it is important to access both films within the appropriate and respective contexts. By the time Rosemary’s Baby was released the Hippie Movement had taken a dark turn toward addiction, homelessness and the horrific introduction to The Manson Family truly crushed ideas of peace and harmony for many. Theories regarding the corruption of government was starting to brew over the top of the cultural pot. The important growth of the Women’s Movement had started to challenge the cultural status quo. Roman Polanski’s film worked on both the straight-on horror of the story presented, but it also offered plenty of ambiguous subjectivity to allow viewers to see the film as hallucination or even as a metaphor. When The Exorcist was released filmmakers had already begun to push the cinematic envelope far beyond what was accustomed. However, no one had really pushed it as far as William Friedkin’s film.

The guilt that will not die. A demon takes the form of a deceased mother... The Exorcist William Friedkin, 1973 Cinematography | Owen Roizman

The guilt that will not die. A demon takes the form of a deceased mother…
The Exorcist
William Friedkin, 1973
Cinematography | Owen Roizman

Marketed as a horror film, The Exorcist presented horror in a whole new way. The Exorcist takes itself very seriously and the actors perform as if cast in a highly important work of dramatic cinema. This was horror movie gone the way of The Actors Studio with elevated production values. The Exorcist was missing most of the normal cinematic clues that it was a horror film. It also depicts the sadistic and perverse possession of an innocent little girl. In 1973 / 1974 no one had ever seen a child in such peril or scenes this shocking. This was a film of firsts.

And of course there is a whole other level of understanding at play in this iconic film — a reflection of its time. The government was letting us down from the Watergate Hotel to a meaningless war that continued to ravage despite overwhelming protest. The post Hippie Movement had evolved into the Sexual Revolution and Drug Culture was causing some serious cultural rifts. Parents no longer felt any control over their children. The Exorcist was a particularly incisive cut into the once communal ideas of cultural aspects once considered sacred. It expertly captured the Western World’s deepest fears into a manifestation of demonic possession of innocence that could no longer be protected.

No matter how you want to look at it, this was a whole different kind of world 48 / 43 years ago.

"The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths..." Title Card The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Tobe Hooper, 1974

“The film which you are about to see is an account of the tragedy which befell a group of five youths…”
Title Card
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Tobe Hooper, 1974

Horror films took a swift and dark turn that blended the fantastical with reality. What many might funny now, were visualizations of all too real horror for many in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s. Kobe Hooper’s drive-in movie was far more realistically articulated than anything that had arrived there with the possible exception of his earlier The Last House on the Left. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was really not all that graphic, but it sent audiences into a horror of a different order. These two films manifested horrors of parents as well as their children.

"...consciousness is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer." John Malkovich looks into a portal that leads to his own mind. Being John Malkovich Spike Jonze, 1999 Cinematography | Lance Acord

“…Consciousness is a terrible curse. I think. I feel. I suffer.”
John Malkovich looks into a portal that leads to his own mind.
Being John Malkovich
Spike Jonze, 1999
Cinematography | Lance Acord

The next film that comes to my mind will most likely lend a glimpse into what scares me. I saw Being John Malkovich on the afternoon it opened in Boston. I had heard nothing of it. I walked into that cinema free of any anticipation of what I was about to see. I wanted to see it because I quite like both John Cusack and Catherine Keener. While there was some very comical moments, this movie creeped me out. That night I met some friends at a bar and told them that Being John Malkovich was exceptional but quite disturbing. I think I actually called it a comical horror movie.

Dissatisfied, misunderstood and lonely. John Cusack contemplates falling into the consciousness of another... Being John Malkovich Spike Jonze, 1999 Cinematography | Lance Acord

Dissatisfied, misunderstood and lonely. John Cusack contemplates falling into the consciousness of another…
Being John Malkovich
Spike Jonze, 1999
Cinematography | Lance Acord

I would later get questions from my pals who found the movie awesome, but not at all disturbing or horrifying. But for me the idea of someone finding a way into my mind or even worse, me being stuck in the brain of another is an absolutely horrifying concept. Talk about an identity crisis from Hell. Being John Malkovich still freaks me out a bit. I usually have at least one nightmare after having seen it.

Perhaps the most polarizing horror film of my time is 1999’s The Blair Witch Project. Unlike with Spike Jonze’s movie, I was well aware of TBWP. We all were. And I saw it during its first weekend run. This film had created a whole new way to market a movie.

Heather Donahue turns the camera on herself as she panics and fears she is facing her end. The Blair Witch Project Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

Heather Donahue turns the camera on herself as she panics and fears she is facing her end.
The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

The cinema was sold out. A good number of the audience was frustrated by what they saw. For me it was a positive horror experience. I had not ever seen a film quite like it. As Heather Donahue slipped into hysteria, I felt her panic. I’m not a person who enjoys camping. The very idea is scary to me. So this film already offered something that I find creepy — nature after dark. I quite admired the lo-fi ingenuity of both Daniel Myrick Eduardo Sanchez. The online marketing blitz was fascinating. Please note that the Internet was still kind of new. The fake documentary that screened on television sporadically at the time was equally odd. It seemed to be a real documentary. The film really felt like found footage. All three characters seemed like people you might know. Their shared and respective fits of rage and panic felt like the real thing.

The movie made a ton of money and spawned an endless stream of found footage horror films continuing to this day. The difference is that other filmmakers would learn to avoid aspects of The Blair Witch Project that deeply annoyed audiences. If ever a horror movie arrived carrying strong word-of-mouth it was The Blair Witch Project.

To say that it fully satisfied audience expectations would not be correct. Many found the jittery camera movements nauseating. Others found the whole film to be tease for over an hour resulting in deliverance of a limp pay-off. But I was among those who was impressed by the movie. I was not so impressed from a technical standpoint, but the style matched the plot. I liked it, but I could understand the reservations of others.

A very clever use of TV and Internet marketing The Blair Witch Project Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

A very clever use of TV and Internet marketing
The Blair Witch Project
Daniel Myrick / Eduardo Sanchez, 1999

After wowing audiences at The Cannes Film Festival in 2014, David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows was released to limited cinemas and shortly after to VOD in 2015. The surreal and odd film received a great deal of red-hot press and strong word-of-mouth prior and just after it came out in the US. A meticulously crafted low-budget film that looks a great deal better than most low budget films, It Follows is far more than your average horror film. As praise mounted the movie became a painful example of falling victim to heightened expectations from horror movie fans. Even worse, Mitchell’s clever and disturbing little movie had sparked debate among Film Critics and cinephiles regarding its worth as Film Art.

How in the world do we define terms like “Horror Movie” and “Film Art” in a way to determine which films fit within each? More importantly, who has the right to set the terms?

I might detest movies like I, Frankenstein or Pixels, but to some these films are fantastic and should be considered “Film Art.” What gives me the right to argue their points down? No one or organization issues this right. Even if such a person or institution existed I would proudly rebel against it.

The subjectivity of art is what makes it great. And the freedom to voice opinions and evaluations is what makes being a cinephile fun, but lately differing opinions have really taken an ugly turn.

Is this where sex can lead? It Follows David Robert Mitchell, 2015 Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

Is this where sex can lead?
It Follows
David Robert Mitchell, 2015
Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

Our 24/7 connection in the 21st Century has created a platform on to which international magazines, paid Film Critics and every member of the Audience can have an equal voice. This provides an awesome potential for the individual. From blogs like this to the exceptional podcasts, people now have the power.

The downside to this is that more than a few have opted to use that platform to be cruel and mean-spirited.

Such is the sad way of human nature. But every once in a while great films get unfairly gut-punched by the meanest and loudest voices. The result is that many individuals who might have been open to evaluating a movie that has gotten some negative feedback are led to believe that doing so would be jump on the wrong bandwagon. In other words, people are afraid of being bullied or appear ignorant to take a chance on a particular film.  The loudest and often most cruel voices manage to force a hand in keeping others from making up their own minds.

It Follows is not for all members of the collective audience. Very few, if any, movies will entertain everyone, but the quality of a film should not be made to serve as a barometer by which individuals are judged and causally dismissed as if each were a movie themselves. A person should be comfortable in being able to state she/he enjoyed a movie without fear of being flamed by others on the platform.

David Robert Mitchell’s surreal film explores everything from fears associated with sex to sexually transmitted diseases and all the way around to ideas about potential dangers of friendship and meditations on death. It is also an outstanding example of how much can be done with a very limited budget. It Follows is a great looking film.

"Okay, like I told you, all you can do is pass it on to someone else." It Follows David Robert Mitchell, 2015 Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

“Okay, like I told you, all you can do is pass it on to someone else.”
It Follows
David Robert Mitchell, 2015
Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis

When I first saw It Follows I was blown away. I was invited to an advance screening. I had only read a couple of things about it at the time. I came out of the viewing experience disoriented and loved the film. I thought of it as Surrealism. I did not immediately identify the movie within the Horror Film genre. To be honest, my biggest concern was trying to determine if the movie had taken place in the not so distant past or present day.

The negative backlash against It Follows caused a number of folks to avoid the movie. I’ve noted a strong number who have seen it via DVD or streaming and loved it and wished they could have seen it on a big screen or sooner. Sadly I’ve also come across a rather large number of folks who loved it but avoid ever stating or sharing this fact for fear of being flamed by fellow bloggers, twitters and other Internet Communities. This really bums me out. It is all too easy to think these people are weak and need to assert themselves. For many the Internet which had once welcomed them has de-evolved to a High School-like experience in which they feel the need to conform.

"This may hurt a little." Perspectives go askew in more way than several. Seconds John Frankenheimer, 1966 Cinematography | James Wong Howe

“This may hurt a little.”
Perspectives go askew in more way than several.
Seconds
John Frankenheimer, 1966
Cinematography | James Wong Howe

The film genre of horror has always been a wide genre. It includes the silly and inane as well as well as the highly artistic and innovative. It can also bleed more easily into other genres than others. A good example of this is John Frankenheimer’s Seconds. This movie is usually considered a “thriller” or “drama” but it has also been read as “science fiction.”

I’ve always considered Seconds to be a horror film of the highest order, to which I assign the label “Art Horror.” Frankenheimer’s vision depicts what is perhaps one of humanity’s greatest fears: aging and mortality. Look just a bit deeper and you will notice the capture of committed relationship horror. Aging and life’s ultimate natural end is not for sissies. Nor is a relationship such as marriage. As we see in Seconds, love may spark passion but down the line that passion often slips away. If there is no love between life partners, facing the natural perils of life can be hard if not impossible. Seconds has enjoyed a re-evaluation thanks to the folks at The Criterion Collection. Label or genre it as you like, but this is a disturbing movie from all aspects. This is a generally accepted film. Sadly we are not so open to respect for a newer movie like It Follows.

Patrick Wilson about to get a fright... Insidious James Wan, 2010 Cinematography| Brewer / Lenenti

Patrick Wilson about to get a fright…
Insidious
James Wan, 2010
Cinematography|
Brewer / Lenenti

In 2007 yet another found footage movie found its way to cinemas. Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity made a good deal of money for very little financial investment. I paid to see it. It was most certainly a horror film, but it failed to interest me and it certainly failed to scare me. It has spawned a franchise that continues to make money from one idea. James Wan’s Insidious also enjoyed success and has spawned at least one sequel. I saw it as well. Once again, Insidious is most certainly a horror movie. It attempted to offer a bit more thought and ideas than Paranormal Activity and featured some decent acting. The idea of a child in a coma and his parents trying to bring him back does provide some interest, but this film was focused on making the audience jump.

No new ground here. Nothing wrong with that if it floats your boat. Movies like this do not even get my boat a foot from its pier.

Robert Egger’s The Witch is currently generating an oppositional mix of awed praise to condemnation. The core of this largely online battle seems to be annoyance that The Witch has been sold to audiences as a horror film. A great number of the audience are frustrated if not straight up angry that The Witch failed to be scary by their definitions. This is a debate that has left me more than a little confused. Had we all seen the same movie? I did think that many might be disappointed to not find themselves jumping in their seats or clinging to arm rests, but the whole Anti The Witch attitude against the film has caught me by surprise.

Peek-a-boo! Anya Taylor-Joy The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Peek-a-boo!
Anya Taylor-Joy
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

True enough A24 should have gotten The Witch out sooner. Almost a year worth of praise has most definitely put the movie in the uncomfortable position of living up to hype.

If you’ve not yet seen The Witch, there will be some spoilers to follow. Simply stop reading. If you are not sure you will see it then reading should not offer a problem.

Robert Eggers’ film has been carefully researched. Almost all of the film’s dialogue has been lifted from 17th Century records which transcribe reported events of suspected or assigned evil witchery. The movie is also closely aligned with this sort of folklore and fear of that time. The Witch captures the feeling / ambiance that matches my idea of what life must have looked and been like within the unsettled 17th Century America to which the Puritans and other settlers ventured. I could almost smell this world flowing out from the movie screen. Eggers may have only had a budget of $1.5 million, but this movie looks like it cost a great deal more. Carefully framed by Jarin Blaschke’s camera, The Witch manages to be both lush and rustically threatening all at once. The film works on two levels from beginning to end.***

 

 

Welcome to a New England folktale... The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Welcome to a New England folktale…
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

On the one hand the film can be viewed as a horror film based on ancient folklore regarding Satan and Satanic Ritual lensed as reality. The idea that what one perceives as little more than silly fairy tale is given life as something deeply menacing, horrible and real. The Witch is also smart enough to function on a less literal levels. What we see unfold could be a manifestations resulting from misunderstood happenings to the unimaginable struggles for survival in an unknown place. And within the metaphorical read of the movie, the confusions and frustrations of two children on the verge of adulthood struggle with both the urge to rebel against and fear the changes/longings they experience under the repression of a puritanical daily life.

A pious family is banished from their Puritan Settlement for being a too hardcore with Christian beliefs. This in of itself is more than a little telling. It seems that their fellow settlers who left England in pursuit of an even more repressed life now feel that this particular family has taken worship of Christ to an unacceptable level. The father’s fevered preachings of faith are so intolerant that his words seem to border on perversity. The father stands proud and happily accepts his family’s fate of banishment. We follow the family on their devout journey for a new home. When Father decides he has found the perfect clearing of land for their own settlement, all fall to their knees and pray for thanks and blessing. It is not clear how long it takes the family to construct a bone-bare basic home, a small barn, a fence and the beginnings of a small crop — but they have managed to do it. But problems are not far behind end everything begins to crumble around them in horrifying ways.

Ralph Ineson as the father leads his family in prayer before they begin to eat a very sparse dinner. The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Ralph Ineson as the father leads his family in prayer before they begin to eat a very sparse dinner.
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The mysterious loss of a child, a failing crop, lack of food and an approaching winter sends this family into a deep crisis.

Could this crisis be a test from God or the work of Satan? The first indication that something far sinister is gripping the family presents itself very early in the film. Eldest child and daughter, “Thomasin” played with searing naturalism by Anya Taylor-Joy is to keep an eye on her youngest sibling. A cute baby lies in front of Thomasin. She begins to play a game of “peek-a-boo” with the baby. After a couple of rounds she covers her eyes but when she removes her hands, the baby has simply vanished. We see that the baby has been magically stolen by a naked crone of a witch. It becomes apparent that this elder witch has butchered the baby, devoured the meat and spread the babe’s blood all over her body. Is Eggers camera meant to be taken literally or is this the POV of a young woman’s darkest fear? We really do not know.

What we do know is that the family has no choice but to assume the very logical worst. The baby must have been snapped up by a wolf. Thomasin never seems to make a big point of the fact that there could be no way a wolf could have taken the baby so quickly and without a sound. And if she feels guilt it would appear to be suppressed for fear of her parents wrath. The mother slips into depression and clearly holds her eldest child responsible. It should be noted that the style in which Eggers shoots the old witch is different to what we have seen displayed in the movie.

A witch's lair, perhaps? The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

A witch’s lair, perhaps?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

We soon discover that the eldest son has feelings for his beautiful sister that are not appropriate. He is aware of this, but does his best to hide it. While it is never fully articulated, there is a sense that Thomasin is aware of her brother’s interest. She does not encourage it, but there is a vague sense that she enjoys the attention. She passively finds ways to disguise her touches on her brother as innocent when their might be a shared desire at play in these touches. There are a pair of twins who are now the youngest of the clan. At first it would seem these two playful children are simply a bit spoiled, but their behavior is revealed to be far more sinister. They have taken to playing with the family’s black goat to which they have assigned the name Black Phillip. They claim to speak with him and that he has told them things. Most of which are more than a little worrying. The family’s misfortunes only continue. Eavesdropping, keeping secrets, lying, anger, hunger, depression and accusations soon engulf this family. Along the way we see horrific incidents that may or may not be actually happening. A goat appears to provide blood instead of milk. A seemingly ready to consume chicken’s egg is dropped to reveal a fully formed chick dead and bloody. An innocent rabbit appears to the father and his son but seems to serve as some sort of hiding beast of omen. Black Phillip does some very odd movements for the twins. The eldest boy stumbles upon what appears to be a witch’s lair. A beautiful woman emerges with an apple and gives the child an adult kiss. This woman soon appears to turn into an old crone. Thomasin takes to staring into the woods that border the newly created home land.

An odd plaything for an odd pair of twins... Meet Black Phillip. The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

An odd plaything for an odd pair of twins… Meet Black Phillip.
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The father, expertly played by Ralph Ineson, has the look of a somehow perverse version of a stereotypical idea of Jesus. He seems to be the most conflicted by the events that are pushing the family beyond the edge of reason. Before long their eldest son falls prey to what appears to be witchcraft or black magic and dies. The mother slips further into hysteria. Ineson’s William is torn by accusations from the twins that Thomasin has been consorting with The Devil. Most especially due to the fact that they claim it is Black Phillip who has informed them of this as well as Thomasin herself.

But continuing events which he is unable to explain push him to put all three children into the small barn. He barricades it so they can’t leave, but the twins’ Black Phillip is sealed in with them. Disturbing visions come to the mother in her fevered night’s sleep. William emerges in the morning to discover that the barn has been essentially destroyed, the twins dead and Thomasin lies on the ground covered in the twins’ blood. Tragedy strikes yet again leaving Thomasin alone among the carnage. Exhausted and traumatized she makes her way into the hovel of a home, sits at the table and allows her head to fall.

Locked up in the barn with Black Phillip or The Devil? The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Locked up in the barn with Black Phillip or The Devil?
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Is Thomasin sleeping? It is not entirely clear but it would seem she is awoken by a male presence. Could it be the vile Black Phillip? It is. But then perhaps it isn’t.

Thomasin does not seem particularly surprised. Why should she? She has witnessed what can she can only attribute to Satan’s darkest magik destroy her family. She demands or rather “conjuresBlack Phillip to speak with her. We do not see the goat speak but we hear a deep male voice respond. A conversation ensues in which he asks the young girl what she might want from life. The voice assures her she will live life “deliciously” if she will simply sign a book that has magically been sat before her. Thomasin hesitates, but is instructed to remove her shift and that he will guide her hand to sign her name in the book.

The last images we see are of a nude Thomasin walking toward a gathering of nude witches in the midst of a Satanic ritual. As the chanting reaches a pitch, the witches began to levitate and fly upward. A calming look comes over Thomasin’s face and she begins to levitate toward the sky.

And here is a bit of cinematic magic — in another director’s hands this moment in the film might have come across in another way. But under Robert Eggers steady direction, this young woman’s take to flight is not a moment of female freedom or rebirth. This is the film’s most chilling moment. We see a young woman ascend naked toward her destiny in celebration of her evilness. She embraces all that is evil and leaves all kindness behind. It is a nightmare awakening and is horrifying.

Ralph Ineson The Witch Robert Eggers, 2016 Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

Ralph Ineson
The Witch
Robert Eggers, 2016
Cinematography | Jarin Blaschke

The Witch weaves a spell that takes on a slow burn within the mind. I was never afraid as I watched the movie unfold, but I was disturbed as much as I was fascinated. Hours after I saw The Witch, it began to haunt my thoughts. This is a movie that stays with you.

A24 has employed two tag lines to promote The Witch:

Evil takes many forms and A New-England Folktale  — both makes sense for the film. Each expresses the two ways in which the film can be viewed.

Neither tag line makes any promises that the movie is unable to keep. The Witch may not make you jump in your seat or cling to your arm rests, but you very well might squirm. And it is highly likely that you will ponder what you have seen long after you have left the cinema.

A work of Art Horror that deserves praise. I think The Witch comes close to being a brilliant exercise in Art Horror. Make fun of me, flame me and dismiss me if you wish.

"Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?" The Witch Rober Eggers, 2016 Cinematography |

“Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?”
The Witch
Rober Eggers, 2016
Cinematography |

***There is a third “read” to be found while watching and evaluating The Witch. While this reading is more than a bit dark, there is correlation to be made between a metaphorical rejection of patriarchal ideas regarding the identity of women. A story which leads a young woman out of repression, oppression and up to the sky in a celebration of her own identity, sexuality and power. The thing is that most feminist thinkers are likely to take exception to using such actions as vivisection murder of male baby and ultimate violent destruction of a family unit. However, we are dealing in metaphors here.

 

Matty Stanfield, 2.25.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Mike Nichols, 1966 Cinematography | Haskell Wexler

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Mike Nichols, 1966
Cinematography | Haskell Wexler

Cinema is many things, but it is a visual medium. The Cinematographer weaves magic of light, composition, perspective and frames which capture the vision of the film’s director. Here are a few of my favorite cinematography moments. There are other cinematic moments that are better and equally loved, but this are a few that came into my mind…

6349942082_07abe9e6b7_b

8½ Federico Fellini, 1963 Cinematography | Gianni Di Venanzo

“Fate is written in the face.”Federico Fellini

fellini-fregene-rope-sky-pull-down

8½ Federico Fellini, 1963 Cinematography | Gianni Di Venanzo

“Our job isn’t to recreate reality, our job is to represent reality.”Gordon Willis

0635

Klute Alan J. Pakula, 1971 Cinematography | Gordon Willis

 

0235

Manhattan Woody Allen, 1979 Cinematography | Gordon Willis

 

tumblr_n5t4sdV9Mq1r37w3co5_1280

September 30, 1955 James Bridges, 1977 Cinematography | Gordon Willis

 

“The idea is to find the space and then to light it in such a way that the actors can go wherever they like, and then to respond to what the actors have done. Only at that point are the final frames decided upon. So it can be very spontaneous.” Sean Bobbitt

 

ohh-shame

Shame Steve McQueen, 2011 Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

 

 

12years

12 Years A Slave Steve McQueen, 2013 Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

 

maxresdefault

Hunger Steve McQueen, 2008 Cinematography | Sean Bobbitt

” When we came to film Persona, we virtually discarded the medium shot. We went from wide shots to close-ups and vice versa. Ingmar had seen a certain resemblance between Liv Ullman and Bibi Andersson, and the idea had dawned of making a film about identification between two people who come close together and start to think the same thoughts. The film gave me the opportunity to explore my fascination with the face…” — Sven Nykvist

persona00002

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

 

tumblr_n1n05u1iAI1skdp4to2_1280

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

 

persona00004

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

 

persona-432

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

“For me, movies should be visual. If you want dialogue, you should read a book.”

Vilmos Zsigmond

The-Rose-003

The Rose Mark Rydell, 1979 Cinematography | Vilmos Zsigmond

 

Mark Rydell told Zsigmond that The Rose should “look like an abdominal operation.” — Noel Murray of The Dissolve

 

The-Rose-675

The Rose Mark Rydell, 1979 Cinematography | Vilmos Zsigmond

 

dbfd8baecf6830a6337b9146fbee5abd

The Rose Mark Rydell, 1979 Cinematography | Vilmos Zsigmond

 

ROSE

The Rose Mark Rydell, 1979 Cinematography | Vilmos Zsigmond

 

tumblr_l8397xcIJF1qbd4g7o1_1280

Vivre Sa Vie Jean-Luc Godard, 1962 Cinematography | Raoul Coutard

“Photography is truth. The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second.”

Jean-Luc Godard

tumblr_ng9z56kqZO1rffxsno1_1280

Vivre Sa Vie Jean-Luc Godard, 1962 Cinematography | Raoul Coutard

“A film on prostitution about a pretty Paris shopgirl who sells her body but keeps her soul while going through a series of adventures that allow her to experience all possible deep human emotions, and that were filmed by Jean-Luc Godard and portrayed by Anna Karina. Vivre sa vie.”Jean-Luc Godard

 

vivresavie07

Vivre Sa Vie Jean-Luc Godard, 1962 Cinematography | Raoul Coutard

“The more one talks, the less the words mean.”Vivre Sa Vie

 

Invisible Waves Pen-Ek Ratanaruang, 2006 Cinematography | Christopher Doyle

Invisible Waves
Pen-Ek Ratanaruang, 2006
Cinematography | Christopher Doyle

 

“I think the point of cinematography, of what we do, is intimacy. Is intent, is the balance between the familiar and the dream, it is being subjective and objective, it is being engaged and yet standing back and noticing something that perhaps other people didn’t notice before, or celebrating something that you feel is beautiful or valid, or true or engaging in some way.” Christopher Doyle

 

Happy-Together-117

Happy Together Kar-wai Wong, 1997 Cinematography | Christopher Doyle

 

sam-gang-yi-w1280

Dumplings Fruit Chan, 2004 Cinematography | Christopher Doyle

 

“There’s always a shot or a moment you missed; it informs your work rather than takes from it.” Christopher Doyle

 

Away With Words Christopher Doyle, 1999

Away With Words
Christopher Doyle, 1999

 

woman-under-2

A Woman Under the Influence John Cassavetes, 1974 Cinematography | Al Ruban

 

“Mabel is not crazy, she’s unusual. She’s not crazy, so don’t say she’s crazy.”A Woman Under The Influence

 

06_bronson_blu-ray

Bronson Nicolas Winding Rein, 2008 Cinematography | Larry Smith

 

“I’m colorblind, I can’t see mid-colors. That’s why all my films are very contrasted, if it were anything else I couldn’t see it.”Nicolas Winding Refn

 

only-god-forgives-scott-thomas

Only God Forgives Nicolas Winding Rein, 2013 Cinematography | Larry Smith

 

calvary_film1

Calvary John Michael McDonagh, 2014 Cinematography | Larry Smith

 

“I shot much of the film with a handheld Arriflex with a very wide lens and a tiny tobacco tin on the front fitted with a wee bulb to add a bit of fill, just enough to see Catherine Deneuve’s skin in the shadows until I moved in close.”Gilbert Taylor

repulsion raor

Repulsion Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

 

0000222556

Repulsion Roman Polanski, 1965 Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor

 

“I believe the look of the picture is inherent in the material. The material will tell you what the picture should look like. Roman [Polanski] took the audience and led them by the nose to a point, then he left it up to you, and let the audience run with their imagination.” — William A. Fraker

 

Rosemary's Baby (1968) Blu-ray Screenshot

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

 

ruth

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

 

“Cinema should make you forget you are sitting in a theater.”
Roman Polanski

 

Screen-shot-2014-10-19-at-10.55.14-PM-1024x554

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

 

“I love my work. It’s a passion because otherwise you can’t do it.” — Benoît Debie

 

6326

Irreversible Gaspar Noé, 2002 Cinematography | Benoît Debie

 

“When you see a movie, it’s like you’re attending a show of magic in which the magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat.”
Gaspar Noe

 

281

Enter The Void Gaspar Noé, 2009 Cinematography | Benoît Debie

 

ZHFjoao

Spring Breakers Harmony Korine, 2012 Cinematography | Benoît Debie

 

gaspar-noe-love

Love Gaspar Noé, 2015 Cinematography | Benoît Debie

 

“You make the movie through the cinematography – it sounds quite a simple idea, but it was like a huge revelation to me.”
Nicolas Roeg

c16f90467b9b3249d5222838be0d3415

Don’t Look Now Nicolas Roeg, 1973 Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond

 

141

Don’t Look Now Nicolas Roeg, 1973 Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond

 

“I think a cinematographer’s job is to put a director’s vision on the screen. Nic is very clear in his vision and how he wants a movie to look, to feel, to smell.”Anthony B. Richmond

 

 

dont-look-now-1

Don’t Look Now Nicolas Roeg, 1973 Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond

 

“During the minutes or seconds that this fleeting image is on the screen, you have to enable the viewer to see and especially to experience that there is a very rapid emotional shock. So the lighting has to be designed in such a way that its form can pierce through the screen and travel like an arrow into the viewer’s mind.” — Henri Alekan

 

0319

Wings of Desire Wim Wenders, 1987 Cinematography | Henri Alekan

 

2319

Wings of Desire Wim Wenders, 1987 Cinematography | Henri Alekan

 

4019

Wings of Desire Wim Wenders, 1987 Cinematography | Henri Alekan

 

“The beautiful thing about Robby is that he starts the process by talking to you about what the film means, what the story is about, what the characters are about. He starts from the inside out, which is really, really such a great way.”Jim Jarmusch

 

1986TomWaitsDownByLaw01Screenshot110914.hero

Down By Law Jim Jarmusch, 1986 Cinematography | Robby Müller

 

tumblr_ly93ht5jdg1qjlaxio3_r1_1280

Paris Texas Wim Wenders, 1984 Cinematography | Robby Müller

 

Brealing-The-Waves-Full-Movie-HD-Free-Download

Breaking the Waves Lars von Trier, 1996 Cinematography | Robby Müller

 

” I’ve had glasses since I was six. Back then, I’d wake up in the morning and do things without my glasses on, and I’d be pretty blind. I’m very comfortable getting up close to things. There’s a sense of discovery that comes with that and it’s something I’m really interested in in my work.”  — Ashley Connor

 

496383196_1280

Butter on the Latch Josephine Decker, 2013 Cinematography | Ashley Connor

 

tumblr_nkcdhc2bky1twqqn9o4_1280

Butter on the Latch Josephine Decker, 2013 Cinematography | Ashley Connor

 

Thou_Wast_Mild_and_Lovely4

Thou Wast Mild and Lovely Josephine Decker, 2014 Cinematography | Ashley Connor

 

vlcsnap-2010-12-11-14h24m33s209

Barry Lyndon Stanley Kubrick, 1975 Cinematography | John Alcott

 

vlcsnap-2010-12-11-22h37m53s115

Barry Lyndon Stanley Kubrick, 1975 Cinematography | John Alcott

 

“Our working relationship is close because we think exactly alike photographically. We really do see eye-to-eye photographically.” John Alcott

 

 

ACWO_CatLadyFight3-1

A Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick, 1971 Cinematography | John Alcott

 

 

“Style is something that’s extremely important, but it must grow naturally out of who and what you are and what the material calls for. It cannot be superimposed.”
William Friedkin

 

cl64xwjveaadyqo-jpg-large-1

The Exorcist William Friedkin, 1973 Cinematography | Owen Roizman

 

“The camera lies all the time — lies 24 times/second.”
Brian De Palma

 

B8_oKeZIMAEfA8A.jpg-large

Dressed to Kill Brian De Palma, 1980 Cinematography | Ralf D. Bode

 

large-screenshot3

Dressed to Kill Brian De Palma, 1980 Cinematography | Ralf D. Bode

 

Dressed to Kill Brian De Palma, 1980 Cinematography | Ralf D. Bode

Dressed to Kill
Brian De Palma, 1980
Cinematography | Ralf D. Bode

 

 

” It’s very pleasant to hear that because my conception of this job is to be a companion or a collaborator. It’s to complete something. It is also making the image as separate from the directing but to be part of the storytelling process. If you have some distance with the film you are watching, you’ll be just attracted. You’ll be swimming in it. Or enveloped, like music” Agnes Godard

 

Beau_Travail_good_work_denis

Beau Travail Claire Denis, 1999 Cinematography | Agnès Godard

 

film_conversationstrouble_780_440_90_s_c1

Trouble Every Day Claire Denis, 2001 Cinematography | Agnès Godard

 

intruder4

The Intruder Claire Denis, 2004 Cinematography | Agnès Godard

 

“Photographing Citizen Kane was indeed the most exciting professional adventure of my career.” Gregg Toland

 

08-ReachingforOrb

Citizen Kane Orson Welles, 1941 Cinematography | Gregg Toland

 

“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”
Orson Welles

 

citizen-kane3

Citizen Kane Orson Welles, 1941 Cinematography | Gregg Toland

 

“Film as dream, film as music. No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls.”
Ingmar Bergman

 

persona00001

Persona Ingmar Bergman, 1966 Cinematography | Sven Nykvist

Cinematic images are the things of magic.

Matty Stanfield, 1.6.2016

 

 

 

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

There are so many films out there that have been forgotten and or lost.

Carnal Knowledge Mike Nichols, 1971

Carnal Knowledge
Mike Nichols, 1971

As we enter the 21st Century, the choices applied by major studios and various production companies often appears to have no grounding in logic.

For instance, Mill Creek Entertainment has US/Canada home distribution rights for such major players as Sony, Universal, Warner Brothers and Buena Vista. These studios and major distributors have historic catalogs of cinema. Yet, Mill Creek is more interested in re-mastering such films as Barnet Kellman’s painful 1992 Straight Talking in which Dolly Parton is romanced by James Woods!

Miami Rhapsody  David Frankel, 1995

Miami Rhapsody
David Frankel, 1995

They also were very quick to get such “cinematic classics” as Another Stakeout, The Legend of Billie Jean, Old Gringo, Playing God, Color of Night and Miami Rhapsody.

Cruising William Friedkin, 1980

Cruising
William Friedkin, 1980

This isn’t some little “deal” that Mill Creek Entertainment has established, it is major. This company works with Sony and Warner Brothers who tend to be the cheapest and most difficult of the major studios when it comes to their respective back catalog. However, Mill Creek has never shown any sort of interest in distributing the films that many would like to see remastered and available.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Mike Nichols, 1966

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Mike Nichols, 1966

Were it not for smaller film distribution labels like Olive Films, Twilight Entertainment, Shout Factory and most importantly The Criterion Collection many an iconic film would still be sitting fading away in the shelf of some disorganized storage area.

Girlfriends Claudia Weill, 1978

Girlfriends
Claudia Weill, 1978

As it is, Twilight Entertainment has managed to get a foot in by agreeing to a limited printing. This means that less popular, but far more artistically valid films that Sony and Warners have denied other offers find a way to a limited restoration and release.

But when Twilight is limited to only 3,000 pressings, the cost jumps up to $30 retail.

Andy Warhol's Dracula  AKA Young Dracula or Blood for Dracula Paul Morrissey, 1974

Andy Warhol’s Dracula
AKA Young Dracula or Blood for Dracula
Paul Morrissey, 1974

And films like Woody Allen’s Love and Death, Purple Rose of Cairo and Crimes and Misdemeanors immediately push close to selling out. Same goes for Steel Magnolias or François Truffaut’s The Bride Wore Black or the iconic Sidney Pollack teaming of Streisand and Redford in The Way We Were. These films are sold for $30 for a few weeks before they start going for as high as $60 or more on Amazon from other sellers. Amazon does not sell Twilight directly.

Pink Floyd The Wall Alan Parker, 1982

Pink Floyd The Wall
Alan Parker, 1982

So, why does Mill Creek Entertainment prefer Mike Binder’s Holy Matrimony to The Bride Wore Black or The Way We Were? The knee-jerk answer is that Mill Creek can crank out 500,000 pressings of mediocre comedies to sell via Walmart, BestBuy or Amazon for as low as $5 to $10 a pop.

Apparently, when shoppers see a Blu-Ray featuring any movie star they recognize, they will pay $8 without a second thought. Easy profits. But that is not always the case.

Blowup Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966

Blowup
Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966d

Reasons can range from obscure licensing challenges for piece of music that Warners or Sony is not willing to negotiate and that Mill Creek doesn’t want to have to pay. Or, from time to time, there is often a more sinister element going on: Woody Allen, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Barbra Streisand and Jane Fondas’ movies will be even more profitable after each’s respective death.

And sometimes it amounts to insecurities about stirring up old wounds of the filmmakers themselves. These wounds can be gushing blood after decades or can be so minor it can be puzzling.

Shampoo Hal Ashby, 1975

Shampoo
Hal Ashby, 1975

But more often than not, the reason that films are forgotten or lost is because no one in positions of power ever think of them.

In recent years Warner Brothers has started their DVD-R printings of more obscure movies under their Warner Archive. This is cool, but limited. A vast number of Warner Brothers films remain unavailable — and many of the ones that are available by order are poorly re-mastered.

Nasty Habits Michael Lindsay-Hogg, 1977

Nasty Habits
Michael Lindsay-Hogg, 1977

Anyone curious to see the infamously failed film version of Portnoy’s Complaint will discover a muddy pint in which everything within the image has been stretched up/down so that Karen Black and Richard Benjamin are cartoon thin. The entire raunchy movie is there, but presented in a manner reminiscent of pre-cable late night shows when no one knew how to translate big screen films to fit onto TV screens. When Warners does take the time to press a few buttons and get the film to an acceptable aspect ratio, they do not bother to remaster.

Up The Sandbox Irvin Kershner, 1972

Up The Sandbox
Irvin Kershner, 1972

A classic example of Warner Brothers Archive Collection logic is found in the recent release of Tony Scott’s iconic and Cult Film Classic, The Hunger. A movie that features the likes of David Bowie, Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon as well as sleekly applied style and some great music from Bauhaus and Iggy Pop has been transferred to Blu-Ray using an even lesser quality transfer than MGM used for the initial DVD release.

Lisztomania Ken Russell, 1975

Lisztomania
Ken Russell, 1975

Don’t be fooled, Warner Archive did not bother to get the aspect ratio correct. You are not seeing the full picture. And I’m not certain, but I don’t think there has even been a 2K restoration here. The picture quality is not bad, but it is far from great. Worse yet, the audio is lousy. The old MGM DVD sounded better. Of course my DVD died several years back. I was stuck with the Warner released DVD which was actually a bit better than their new Blu-Ray.

They did a similar job with Nicolas Roeg’s co-directing debut, Performance. Yet, for reasons unknown they did actually bother to do a 2K restore for John Schlesinger’s Far From The Madding Crowd to Blu-Ray. It has yet to sell as well as either Performance or The Hunger. 

Women In Love Ken Russell, 1969

Women In Love
Ken Russell, 1969

Despite all sorts of grass-roots pushes and a an uncountable number of Film Historians, Film Production/Distribution companies and the request of an entire nation — Yes, Great Britain and the highly valued and respected British Film Institute reached out — Warner Brothers continues to refuse the release of Ken Russell’s original cut of The Devils.

No reason has ever been given.

Britain and the BFI fared best, however they were presented with an inferior quality and edited version of the film which they were only allowed to release in a UK region restricted limited pressing. While Warners did give BFI the choice to issue to Blu-Ray, BFI declined and limited the release to DVD as the quality of what Warner Brothers gave them was too poor to merit the Blu-Ray treatment.

The Devils Ken Russell, 1971

The Devils
Ken Russell, 1971

As The Devils is an historic part of British Film History and an important work of art, BFI wanted to have a full copy of the film secured in their registry.

However, the print that Warners gave had to be returned.

So BFI now has a restored copy of a copy of an edited version of The Devils.

"Birdshit!" Brewster McCloud Robert Altman, 1970

“Birdshit!”
Brewster McCloud
Robert Altman, 1970

In the upcoming several months a number of films are being re-evaluated for restoration and re-distribution. Who knows if any of this which is largely connected to the Film Festival Circuit will have any impact. However if one of these film matters to you, the best thing to do is review the film on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB.

Oddly, sales from the Warner Archive do not seem to have much if any bearing on whether or not a movie will be restored. But folks who sign up for Amazon.com wait lists have initiated restorations. This was how Warner Brothers came to issue The Hunger to Blu-Ray and the two factors that have made Twilight Time embark on films like The Way We Were and Yentl.

Petulia  Richard Lester, 1968

Petulia
Richard Lester, 1968

A not so great transfer of Roeg’s odd cult film, Track 29 staring a young Gary Oldman, sold very well. This has caused a current “re-visit” of this infamous cinematic error as a possible film for restoration. Yet, the inferior region-free DVD’s of Ken Russell’s The Devils constantly sell out. Warner Brothers does not budge.

Another mystery with Warner Brothers is the poor quality and refusal to restore and re-distribute KLUTE. A film that has a large following, remains valid and of interest. Something similar was going down with Blowup, but that issue might have finally been resolved. Fingers-crossed. Another very popular film which is in theory no longer in print would be Richard Lester’s Petulia. As well as John Schlesinger’s Darling which shot Julie Christie to fame.

Both remain unrestored.

Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon Otto Preminger, 1970

Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon
Otto Preminger, 1970

And, then there is the interest in Otto Preminger’s ill-advised 1970’s Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon which features a young Liza Minnelli facing deformity and trying to find a place among those whom society has labeled misfits. The film is flawed, but there are many a film fan who wants to own this odd cult film. Yet, no restoration or distribution is in sight. But Preminger’s far worse movie, Skidoo, was restored and issued to Blu-Ray. So who knows?

Track 29  Nicolas Roeg, 1988

Track 29
Nicolas Roeg, 1988

But it would appear the most valued currency for film consensus may be moving over to Letterboxd. Register. Review and “Like” reviews of the film or films you want to see restored. Register and make comments on The Criterion Forum.

The Criterion Forum Org

Believe it or not, this information is monitored. All of this might seem futile, but it isn’t.

Welcome To L.A. Alan Rudolph, 1976

Welcome To L.A.
Alan Rudolph, 1976

Alan Rudolph’s early work is being “re-visited.”

This is how we got Rosemary’s Baby, Moonrise Kingdom, The American Dreamer, Cat People, The Werner Herzog Collection, Safe, Black Moon, The Night Porter, Pillow Book, Audition, The Telephone Book, Seconds, Dressed To Kill, The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, Two-Lane Blacktop, Harold & Maud, The Rose and All That Jazz restored and re-distributed to Blu-Ray and HD.

Often Paramount and Fox are easier for boutique labels to secure deals because the licensing with these studios tends to be a bit less restrictive. A great number of their films were actually independent films that were picked up for distribution. As an example, Paramount had the rights for distribution for Rosemary’s Baby, but it was limited. The film technically belongs to Robert Evans and Roman Polanski.

KLUTE Alan J. Pakula, 1971

KLUTE
Alan J. Pakula, 1971

And of course there is the very much available for restoration and re-distribution film of legend, BOOM!, just waiting for Shout Factory or Vinegar Syndrome.

Keep the faith.

Matty Stanfield, 9.22.15

I thought I would supply my answers to the following questions:

Chabrol photographed by Pierre-Olivier

What is your all-time favorite movie?
It would have to come down to the following films:
Belle de Jour
Breathless (1960)
The Exorcist/Rosemary’s Baby
Nashville
Manhattan

Belle de Jour

The Exorcist

Robert Altman’s NASHVILLE

Rosemary’s Baby

Jean-Luc Goddard’s Breathless

Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN

Blue Velvet

Blue Velvet

In The Mood For Love/2046
OldBoy (Korean Version)
Hesher/Bellflower
The Big Lebowski
Dogtooth
Weekend
3 Iron

OldBoy

HESHER

DOGTOOTH

In The Mood For Love

Weekend

Kim Ki-duk’s 3 Iron

What is your all-time top best movies list?

Belle de Jour
Nashville
Manhattan
Blue Velvet

The Wizard of Oz

Harold and Maude

The Godfather

Don’t Look Now

The Wizard of Oz

Harold and Maude

The Godfather Parts I and II
Don’t Look Now
In The Mood For Love
O Brother Where Art Thou?

O Brother Where Art Thou?

Fellini’s 8½
3 Iron

3 Iron — weightless love…

Rosemary’s Baby
The Exorcist
Oldboy

Fellini’s 8½

What is your personal favorite movie?
Only ONE?!?!?  I could never limit to only one:
Tommy/OldBoy/A Star Is Born (1976)/The Wizard of Oz/Ma Mere/3 Iron/Wild At Heart/For Pete’s Sake/Survive Style 5+

Ken Russell’s TOMMY

A STAR IS BORN

SURVIVE STYLE 5+

David Lynch’s WILD AT HEART

Diane Ladd in WILD AT HEART

Laura Dern as Lula in David Lynch’s WILD AT HEART

Who are the 5 top most important film makers thus far?

A virtually impossible question to answer as art is so subjective. I am unable to limit it to only five filmmakers
Claude Chabrol
Jean-Luc Goddard
Luis Buñuel
Orson Welles
John Huston
Kim Ki-duk

Kim Ki-duk’s DREAM

Federico Fellini
Robert Altman
Hal Ashby
Roman Polanski
The Coen Bros
Bernardo Bertolucci
Alfred Hitchcock
Wim Wenders

Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire

Woody Allen
Pedro Almodóvar
David Lynch
Wong Kar-Wai
Paul Thomas Anderson

PT Anderson’s Magnolia – this sometimes happens…

Steven Spielberg
Martin Scorsese
Park Chan-Wook
Lynne Ramsay
Wes Anderson
Wes Anderson's The Royal Tenenbaums
Takashi Miike
Lars von Trier
David Fincher
And, although I am not a fan of his work I think one must list George Lucas as a key film director

Star Wars

Who are the 6 most interesting/talented film actors – male and female?
Male: Brando/Fassbender/DeNiro/Newman/Hardy/Choi Min-sik/Asano
Female: Streep/Theron/Morton/M Williams/Huppert/B. Davis/Hepburn
Which emerging filmmakers interest you?
Evan Glodell
Yorgos Lanthimos
Lena Dunham
Andrew Haigh
Spencer Susser

Evan Glodell’s BELLFLOWER

Which actors gave the most powerful film performances?
Brando: Last Tango
Huppert: The Piano Teacher/Merci Pour le Chocolate/Ma Mere

Isabelle Huppert in Ma Mere

Theron: Monster/Young Adult
Ryan Gosling/Michelle Williams: Blue Valentine
Fassbender: Hunger/Shame
Jean-Paul Belmondo: Breathless

Jean Belmondo in Breathless

Hepburn: Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner
Julianne Moore: Safe
DeNiro: Taxi Driver/The King of Comedy
Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver
Bette Davis: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?/Now Voyager/The Little Foxes
Ruth Gordon: Rosemary’s Baby
Choi Min-sik: OldBoy
Shelley Duvall: 3 Women

Shelley Duvall as one of Robert Altman’s 3 Women

Malcom MacDowell: A Clock Work Orange
Tom Hardy: Bronson

Tom Hardy as Bronson

Dennis Hopper: Blue Velvet
Vivien Leigh: A Streetcar Named Desire
Jeff Bridges: The Big Lebowski
Laura Dern: Wild At Heart/Citizen Ruth/Inland Empire

Laura Dern transforms – this time in David Lynch’s INLAND EMPIRE

Jessica Lange: Real Men Don’t Leave
Peter Sellers: Being There
Jennifer Jason-Leigh: Georgia
Gary Oldman/Chloe Webb: Sid & Nancy

Chloe Webb & Gary Oldman as SID & NANCY

Madeline Kahn: What’s Up Doc?/Young Frankenstein
Tony Leung: In The Mood For Love/2046
What is the most important factor regarding the making of a movie?
Editing
Do you read film reviews prior to seeing a movie or after seeing it?
Only the first and last two lines of a film review — and, only then if I am on the fence about whether or not I want to see it. Those 4 lines from a solid film critic will either make me want to pay to see it or skip it.
What are the biggest omissions by the Oscars?
A rather stupid question and there are far too many to list, but…
Gary Oldman/Chloe Webb: Sid & Nancy
Jack Nicholson/Shelley Duvall: The Shining

Jack Nicholson with too much work in Stanley Kubrick’s THE SHINING

Holly Hunter: Raising Arizona/Broadcast News/Crash
Tom Hardy: Bronson
Michael Fassbender: Shame

Fassbender/Mulligan: SHAME

Charlize Theron: Young Adult
Ryan Gosling/Michelle Williams: Blue Valentine
Piper Laurie: The Hustler/Carrie/Hesher
Jared Leto/Marlon Wayans: Requiem for a Dream
Ellen Burstyn: The Exorcist/Requiem for a Dream

Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream

Jim Carrey: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Julianne Moore: Safe/Magnolia
Mickey Rourke: Barfly/The Wrestler
Ruth Gordon: Harold and Maude
Vanessa Redgrave: The Devils

Vanessa Redgrave in Ken Russell’s THE DEVILS

Bette Davis: What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Peter Sellers: Being There/Glenn Close: Fatal Attraction
Faye Dunaway: Momie Dearest/Sandy Dennis: Come Back to the Five & Dime, Jimmy Dean Jimmy Dean
Elizabeth Olsen: Martha Macy May Marlen
Laura Dern: Citizen Ruth
Jeff Bridges: The Big Lebowski

The dude abides. Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski

Klaus Kinski: Aguirre, the Wrath of God
Kathleen Turner: Crimes of Passion
Jessica Lange: Men Don’t Leave/Titus
Bill Murray: Lost In Translation

Bill Murray in Lost In Translation

Kim Cattrall: Meet Monica Velour
Tony Leung: In The Mood For Love
Angie Dickinson: Dressed To Kill
Ewan McGregor: Trainspotting

Ewan McGregor in TRAINSPOTTING

Chris New: Weekend
Tilda Swinton: We Need to Talk About Kevin
Tilda Swinton in We Need To Talk About Kevin
Joseph Gordon-Levitt: Mysterious Skin
Michael Fassbender: Hunger/Shame
Nicolas Cage: Wild At Heart
Carrie Mulligan: Never Let Me Go/Shame
Burt Reynolds: Starting Over/Semi-Tough/The Longest Yard
Jennifer Jason-Leigh: Georgia

Jennifer Jason-Leigh in Georgia

Is there any movie you’ve not seen that you would like to see more than any other?
There are two:
Health by Robert Altman

Robert Altman’s H.E.A.L.T.H.

Welcome to LA by Alan Rudolph

Welcome to LA

What are the most interesting cinematic mistakes?
Lisztomania
Valley of the Dolls
Mommie Dearest
Moment by Moment

Lily Tomlin and John Travolta are passionate lovers in Moment By Moment. Viewers are still in recovery…

Blade Runner (brilliantly filmed and hypnotic, but ultimately it never quite works)
Repo! The Genetic Opera
Synecdoche New York
Watchmen

Ken Russell’s Lisztomania

The Tenant
Possession
La Luna

Bertolucci’s Luna …fascinating cinematic mistake.

Fellini Cassanova
Mahogany
Diana Ross as MAHOGANY...
Roller Boogie
Crash (1996)
Funky Forest: First Contact

Funky Forrest: First Contact

What movie most surprised you in 2012 and which movie most disappointed you?
Surprised: THE Paperboy
Disappointed: The Master

Lee Daniel’s The Paperboy

Macy Gray in Lee Daniel’s THE PAPERBOY