miércoles, 16 de enero de 2019

And Soon the Darkness (Robert Fuest, UK, 1970)




A good weekend option for some weekend thrills on the road. We associate road movies with cars or horses, but cycling across the French countryside is another option that, on the surface, sounds like a slow, idyllic adventure with no great action. That is not the experience of the two heroines of And Soon the Darkness, a low-key thriller that packs quite a punch. Nottingham nurses Jane (Pamela Franklin, who I loved in Hell House and watched this movie as the next movie to check out in her filmography) and Cathy (Michelle Dotrice) ride in their bicycles in rural France and come across a mysterious, handsome man wearing sunglasses (Sandor Éles). Cathy is interested in him, while Jane wants to continue with her trip. The adventurous Cathy remains behind, while the more cautious Jane continues, only to lose track of her friend and come across some strange people who make her feel really uneasy, especially when she finds out that this particular area has a dark history involving young female tourists.

The sense of dread and paranoia will become familiar to any person who has travelled to places that are unknown to them, especially where there is a lot of wooded areas where anything can happen, if one strays far off the road. When one takes into account the number of crimes against travelling women in the world today, then the fears of And Soon the Darkness become even more tangible. Shot in a very classical manner by Robert Fuest, the shocking moments are more jarring because of the contrast with this style, and while one might expect (I certainly did) that the movie will have slow parts, its handling of the minimalist story was effective. And Franklin is so real in every moment of fright and anxiety, holding the screen on her own for a long time, making us feel even more dread for whatever is around the corner. A good choice to watch on late summer/early autumn afternoons.

Eye of the Devil (J. Lee Thompson, UK, 1966)




I saw the trailer for "Eye of the Devil" on TMC many years ago and I was caught by how fetching Sharon Tate looked in it. Seeing that it also starred Donald Pleasance, I knew that I had to watched it. Many years passed and I watched "The Fearless Vampire Killers" way before I finally got around to watching "Eye of the Devil".

It's an interesting picture because it has that very moody, very clear-looking black-and-white 60s photography that really helps the film overall. It was directed by J. Lee Thompson, one of the more succesful, multi-genre British workman directors. He makes a lot of interesting choices editing-wise that signal that this is an artistic occult-thriller, not a run of the mill Sunday afternoon horror flick to scare the kiddies. For example, the beginning features a quick-fire montage of scenes from future scenes from the movie intersped with a character's journey in the subway. It's like the Mission Impossible movie credits sequences, picquing our interest in what's to come.

Alas, I found the movie to be very half-baked in its plotting, sequences and character development. David Niven and Deborah Kerr are the classy starring couple. He is the wealthy scion of a vineyard-owning family, she is his devoted wife. He is summoned back home by a sinister priest played by Pleasance and tells his wife that it is best if she remained home in Paris (all the characters are French, by the way) with their children. She doesn't listen, so she follows him to his vast, medieval estate, where she's eyed by suspicious peasants, treated with evasive aloofness by her husband's aunt and stalked by the DeCarayn siblings, Odile (Sharon Tate) and Christian (David Hemmings). She is a cool-as-ice witch all dressed in black, he is a super-gifted hunter with bow and arrow who wears a snazzy vest. If they hade me an Avengers movie in 1967, they both would've made awesome Scarlet Witch and Hawkeye versions.

David Niven is good, but his character is so reserved and haunted by an awful secret, so most of the time he actually looks really disinterested in what's going on. Kerr is great, but there's only so much that she can do with the two major emotions she displays: bewilderement and terror. Pleasance looks really creepy, but that's basically all he is given to do..."look" creepy and creepily look at people and things. The DeCaray siblings are the most interesting characters, especially Odile and her haunting, glacial looks and line readings (the camera loves Tate, and the close-up-shots of her face, sometimes zooming in or zooming back, are really bewitching...sorry). But like I said, nothing is really done effectively. Many characters appear and dissappear without much effect in what's going on. The mysterious secret harbored in the estate can be guessed by anyone who's seen a movie about pagan cults before.

From a genre and historical point of view, it's interesting to note that this movie was shot and shelved in 1966 and released in 67, six to five years before "The Wicker Man". This means "Eye of the Devil" was a pioneer in the "pagan cult" sub-genre that was part of the 70's wave of horror films. However, being the first sometimes does mean best, and this is a fine case of that. There's only so much that arthouse editing can do with such a barebones story with little to say about anything. I did enjoy parts of it, and recommend it to fans of any of the cast, which acquit themselves with what they have.

lunes, 17 de julio de 2017

RoboCop At 30: Fragmented Memories

Early childhood memories are fleeting specters. They appear in fragments and single images, and during adulthood we begin to question whether these memories are real or fabrications of the mind, a mishmash of different scenes and snippets from different years. 

Without doubting myself, I can recall a few memories from the first two or three years of my life. I remember sleeping in a cot between my parents, behind the grocery store that the newlyweds were beginning to run. We didn’t have a home until much later, but I still remember the darkness around us, the tight space that I had between mother and father, the piece of tarp that divided our living quarters from the store and its rows of iron shelves. That, I believe, is my earliest memory.

But there is another memory from that early age. I must’ve been three or four years old when I watched RoboCop for the first time.



A man is surrounded by other men. Bad men. He is on the ground, looking helpless, as they make fun of him. Then the boss…a bad guy with glasses…shoots him with a shotgun. His right hands is blown apart, a sea of blood springs forth from the stump. The man stands and screams in pain as he tries to walk away, holding his wounded arm, half crouching. The bad men keep laughing at him and then they start shooting with their shotguns. Despite the barrage of bullets that sink into his body, the man doesn’t fall to the ground or die. Rather, he stands up screaming in pain. It is a terrible sound. Smoke fills the screen, and the camera pans as the murderers keep firing with glee in their faces. Finally, they stop. The man with glasses takes out a pistol and shoots the man in the face. Blood and brains blast out of the back of the head. His eyes stare emptily into space. The finality of death.


I gape in horror, and most of the scene I cover my eyes either with my hands or a blanket. This is pure horror.

But I keep on watching. After it’s over, I take the tape from the VCR and I place it on the rewind machine. With time, I learn to measure the length of the tape on each side of the VHS, so I can tell where my favorite part starts. For 20 years I skip more than half of the movie. The murder of Alex Murphy terrified me so much and I couldn’t bear to witness it again. It feels like a bad nightmare.
But the scene where RoboCop busts through a factory and mows down an army of bad guys, who pirouette and fall down with balletic grace, and sends his own murderer crashing through several glass panels? I know it by heart because I rewound it several times in a row.


At such an early age, it was inevitable that the film’s astonishing images would sear themselves into my own memory. I don’t remember watching the film…that is, I don’t see myself looking at our television. Rather, the scenes became the memories themselves, playing off in my head as if I had stepped into the movie’s universe and had become a fascinated, sometimes horrified, witness of the happenings in Old Detroit. 
I didn’t really understand the story. For one, the characters spoke a language that’s foreign to me. On the other hand, so many concepts evaded me. Years will pass before I understand things like resurrection, cybernetics, robotics, corporations, drug trafficking, law enforcement and even everyday aspects of modern life, like clubbing or house hunting. And yet, this movie holds sway over me. I’m fascinated by every shot, every second. I don’t understand the details, but I understand the story. I understand that the man that was brutally killed is a hero and that he doesn’t die, even though he should’ve, after being hurt so badly (I do not understand death fully, or ballistics, but the kind of body damage that is inflicted in this movie is so brutal that it gets to point across to those who have blessed with ignorance of extreme violence in real life) he is built by other people as a robot.

RoboCop himself is such a sight to behold, and he keeps me glued to the screen. He drives in a car around a city that doesn’t look anything like my town. The buildings are gigantic and their shapes look like something out of this world. There are so many cars, and the streets and roads are so labyrinthine. It was a glimpse into that wondrous land known as the United States.

I recall the characters. RoboCop's friend and partner, Lewis; corrupt executive Dick Jones; tough as nails Sgt. Reed; Clarence Boddicker and his gang of killers, so delightfully contemptible (seeing Emil Antonowsky turn into a melting man that gets splattered by Clarence's car is another scene that I replay constantly) and dozens of others. One of RoboCop's greatest strengths is its cast of oddball, yet real characters, and the brilliant casting of the actors who give them life.
The humanity and melancholy that permeates throughout the film is an essential part of the film. For all the talk of violence, fascism and dehumanization, RoboCop has a beating heart that is best depicted during the touching scene where our hero walks through the abandoned suburb house that used to be his home, remembering snippets of a happiness lost forever. Basil Poledouris's brilliant score shines through.
Another of the elements that I enjoy the most as an adult is the meta-fictional components: the media breaks, gaudy commercials, the weird-looking Bixby Snyder's ridiculous tv show that makes everyone laugh in a pavlovian response to the catchphrase "I'll buy that for a dollar!" When I was a kid, I didn't understand these scenes. They seemed to be unrelated to the rest of the movie. Now that I understand their purpose, I chuckle in a similar manner to "unemployed person" Keva Rosenberg, who chortles the film's thesis during an interview segment:  "It's a free society - except there ain't nothin' free, because there's no guarantees, you know? You're on your own. It's the law of the jungle. Hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo!"

 I must’ve been two or three years old, and I was already living in a house. It was a house built on the back of the building of the second grocery store that my parents had secured. We were living in Sonoyta, a border town in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. A wispy line drawn by cartographers separated us from Arizona. Tucson was only two and a half hours away. This was my father’s hometown, and this is where I spent my childhood. I enjoyed running around our generous backyard, for the lot upon the house-store was built had previously been the place of a mechanic shop. Two pits on the left side of the yard served as remnants of the lot’s previous existence. But if there was something more fun than gazing down the tremendous abyss of these pits (under the supervision of my parents or my mother’s young siblings who lived with us) it was watching television. During many years after my birth on October 19th, 1987, our TV’s channel reception only received two channels. Cartoons were scarce. I had to content myself with seeing grown-up movies or talking heads reading the news.
My parents regularly went on trips across the border to buy merchandise. Understanding my need for entertainment and the opportunity to get familiarized with the English language, my parents bought one or two VHSs every trip. Always. By the time I was eight, I had an enviable collection of videocassettes, mostly Disney and Don Bluth movies. But one of the first videos (if not the first) that my father brought home was unlike any of these gentle, vivid, animated stories for the whole family.

It’s funny, because my parents were not careless people nor did they care much for action films. My mother can’t stand them, and my father gets as emotionally upset, if not more so, by tragic or harsh scenes on film. But somehow, RoboCop passed below the radar. I guess my dad thought it was going to be a cartoon-like spectacle (something that movie executives believed eventually) and since he was unfamiliar with MPAA ratings, he bought the movie for me, thinking I would love it.

He was right.

Not only that, but we watched it together several times. Barring the scene where corporate hotshot Bob Morton snorts cocaine in the company of two escorts, there was nothing objectionable to the film, outside of the violence. But movie violence has a distancing effect that sex lacks. And movie violence like the one depicted in RoboCop, outside of the gruesome murder of Murphy, become an essential part of the film’s fabric, like the set design. 

He bought me the NES game (unbeatable), a tape of the cartoon show and an action figure of RoboCop whose helmet I ended up losing twice: once down the shower drain (I took it everywhere) and once under the heels of a group of soldiers standing at attention during a speech given by then president Salinas de Gortari at the Zocalo square, during a visit to Mexico City. If Dick Jones engendered a distrust of men in suits, this tragedy confirmed to me that they were up to no good.
To this day we talk about it. Like me, his favorite thing is Clarence Boddicker and Kurtwood’s Smith brilliant performance. He says he felt like beating the hell out of him, the mark of a true villain. He says I always looked forward to the scene where RoboCop drives his USB spike into Boddicker’s throat.

RoboCop…bonding people together since 1987.

To be continued (and developed)...

Welcome

Welcome to Film Without Borders. 

My name is Jorge Gamboa and I'm a film lover from the state of Sonora in northern Mexico. In this blog, I shall post film reviews of Mexican cinema, little-known American, European and Asian films, and the occasional well-known classic or recent release.

During this year, most of my posts will be chapters from two film books I am currently working on:

Robocop at 30: A film memoir, which details my relationship with the classic 1987 film, the first I recall seeing, and a movie whose influence and impact in my life continues to grow and evolve. RoboCop shares this birth year with me, so this is even more personal. I intend to write a full-film analyses as a companion piece later on.

Pedro & Ismael: To commemorate the centennial of Mexican film star Pedro Infante and director-screenwriter Ismael Rodríguez, I am working on a book that goes over their 17 film collaboration between 1943 and 1957, the most prolific, iconic and solid actor-director relationship in Mexico's history. I will also include reviews of other essential Infante and Rodríguez films, as well as biographical sketches on both men, legends in Mexico and most of Latin America, but sadly unknown to the rest of the world.

Without further ado, I hope you find my musings and reviews to be worthy of your time and engagement. My biggest ambition is for your curiosity to be piqued by the films that I love and that deserve an international audience.

Looking forward to your feedback.