Thoughts on the Current Political Climate
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Both the US Presidential election and the recent UK Brexit referendum are subjects that can be dissected from numerous angles and perspectives. Pundits, journalists and academics alike will be debating these “shock results” for months to come. As for the proverbial man in the street, let it suffice to say that these electoral outcomes have come as far less of a surprise. The divide between electorate and political classes has been clearly highlighted in 2016. However, it should be noted that the overall sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo is a very broad church and that the public are motivated by a wide variety of ideas, concerns and motivations. Analysis of both these political outcomes is complex and should not simply be dismissed with broad brushstrokes.
Sadly, therein lies the rub. Complex problems often require complex solutions. We live in an age where the public seems to have very little tolerance for “complex”, as well as experts and facts. As Otto von Bismark said “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Compromise doesn’t strike me as something that will go down with a lot of the electorate. Therefore, it is not outside the realms of possibility that both the US and UK electorate will be disappointed by their respective governments within a year or so. When you consider the inherent diversity of individual expectations, it seems to be almost inevitable that Brexit and making America “great” again are projects doomed to overall failure.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of these emergent social, cultural and political divides is the question of how to address them. Debate, interaction and conciliation appear to be currently off the table. How can there be any meaningful engagement when the media is reviled, facts are denied and binary positions are adhered to. There is no clear majority position at present therefore neither side can credibly discount the other. There are levelled headed individuals on both sides of the divide who will still want to engage in dialogue and counter arguments but I am doubtful as to how much success they will have. I have always thought that society, irrespective of its diversity of views and opinions, was at least founded upon some commonly held ideals. Perhaps that is no longer the case and that the rise of the “consumer” and individual over traditional notions of “belonging” to a wider society, no longer prevail.
It has been argued that one of the driving forces behind the ongoing political turmoil currently being seen in Western countries, is an inherent opposition to the established order. The electorate have reached a point where they simply wish to see change, irrespective as to whether it’s driven by a clear plan or not; change for change sake as the adage says. Naturally this comes with a degree of risk both economically and socially. Furthermore, the benefits of change are dependent on which side of the divide you are and whether you stand to gain or lose. As previously mentioned at present there is no majority opinion so there is scope for a very large number of people to find themselves in the “losing” group if significant change is achieved. Thus, we arrive at another factor that has been associated with both Brexit and the Presidential election; namely “fear”.
Politics across the US and Europe is currently very ugly. It has also been in the past so it’s not necessarily a unique situation but it’s been a while since things were so acrimonious and tribal. Legitimate subjects of debate such as immigration, economics and equality have developed a peripheral taint and are not always discussed calmly and logically. Because anti-establishment feeling has gathered momentum and proven successful at the polls, it has validated some of the more controversial views held by some. It also raises the question as to whether so-called “extremist views” are the prerogative of a few. Perhaps large sections of society in the US and the UK are not advocates of equality and do hold less inclusive views. After all morality and ethics are abstract concepts and not naturally occurring. A cursory look at world history shows that established schools of thought wax and wane and that democratic principles are not inherently our default setting.
At present, we find ourselves in a situation where a lot of people are genuinely worried that they will have their rights taken away or be vilified in some way. They feel that they will be relegated to a position of second class citizen or worse. There is genuine scope for social unrest and violence in both the US and UK at present. However, exactly how you feel about this climate of fear and the prospect of civil disturbances is dependent upon your politics or possibly more importantly whether is directly impacts upon you and yours. The social economic make up of your neighbourhood is a major factor. You may live in a flashpoint or removed from it all. Furthermore, riots usually tend to be contained by the authorities and thus those protesting tend to do the most harm to themselves. May be some of those that have pushed for change have done so knowing that they won’t directly bear the immediate consequences. Yet there are some types of fallout that cannot be avoided. Inflation, unemployment and the value of the Dollar or Pound in your pocket must be endured by all. As ever it’s the poorest who will potentially be hurt the most, which is ironic as statistics show they are the greatest advocate of these emerging movements.
There’s another group of people that’s worth considering. A very curious group that seems to be growing. Those who have chosen for whatever reason to opt out of the entire political and voting process. There are 241 million people of voting age in the United States but only approximately 200 million of those registered to vote. In the latest US election, only 46.6% of the electorate turned out to cast their ballot. Comparable percentages of voter apathy are rife in the UK and Europe. Why exactly such numbers of people have chosen to do this is perplexing. Utter exasperation, indifference, mental incompetence or independent wealth may all be factors. However, if this group ever become politically engaged at some point they certainly have sufficient numbers to impact upon the system. Sooner or later the most jaded or apathetic voter will find a reason to “get involved”. Sadly, this usually only happens when something truly bad is imminent.
So, where exactly does the current political landscape leave us? Some may say up a certain creek without a suitable mean of locomotion. Other may say en route to the promised land. The most likely outcome is somewhere between the two of these two views. There is political uncertainty ahead and that will have social and economic consequences. However, history shows us that many things are cyclical and if a period of economic prosperity can be achieved then political unrest usually subsides as all parties benefit from an improved status quo. However economic stability does not just occur by itself and requires intervention by third parties. We also must countenance the fact that maybe we as a species are not destined for a future such as that envisioned by Gene Roddenberry. May be the reason that we don’t “just all get along” is because we can’t. Perhaps we are an evolutionary cul-de-sac doomed to live in “interesting times”. Let us hope that the latter of these two prospect is not a forgone conclusion.
The Damned (1963)
The Damned starts as a delinquent youth drama (a popular theme at the time) and then over the proceeding ninety minutes morphs into a menacing sci-fi plot that climaxes in a full blown conspiracy. It's a most unusual and experimental film that cannot easily be pigeon-holed, yet the same could be said about many other movies by veteran film director Joseph Losey (Boom!, Figures in a Landscape). It proved to be somewhat too "different" for Hammer studios who commissioned the movie and they subsequently shelved The Damned for two years. It was finally released in a heavily edited form under the alternative title of These are the Damned.
The Damned starts as a delinquent youth drama (a popular theme at the time) and then over the proceeding ninety minutes morphs into a menacing sci-fi plot that climaxes in a full blown conspiracy. It's a most unusual and experimental film that cannot easily be pigeon-holed, yet the same could be said about many other movies by veteran film director Joseph Losey (Boom!, Figures in a Landscape). It proved to be somewhat too "different" for Hammer studios who commissioned the movie and they subsequently shelved The Damned for two years. It was finally released in a heavily edited form under the alternative title of These are the Damned.
Set on the Dorset coast an American tourist Simon Wells (Macdonald Carey) on a boating holiday along England’s south coast, is assaulted by a gang of hoodlums led by the charismatic King (Oliver Reed). King's sister Joan (Shirley Anne Field) tries to make amends with Wells but incurs the wrath of her Brother. Both Wells and Joan escape the gang and hide in a network of caves and bunkers on the coast. They discover a group of strange children who have been kept isolated from the world by the military, in what appears to be some sinister government experiment. It soon becomes clear that military are not going to allow them to leave and risk the security of their top secret operation.
The Damned runs at its own pace and which is somewhat sedyte. Yet the shift between storylines midway through the proceedings is bold and quite compelling. The film explores several themes that would later be the foundation for other more notable movies, such as Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971). The most outstanding facet of this film is its overall tone. Government conspiracies where not such a common place plot devices at the time and the notion of sacrificing children for an advantage in the Cold War, made the distributors uncomfortable. The bleak ending further muddied the waters. Such material is far from controversial today but at the time this was quite radical.
It should be noted that this film is not a third instalment in the cinematic adaptation of John Wyndham's The Midwich Cuckoo. The story is based on the novel Children of the Light by H L Lawrence. It is alleged that Losey completely rewrote the script and that as well as being a statement about the Cold War, it was also a veiled criticism of his Hollywood blacklisting. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. The Damned is mostly certainly an interesting curio with is wistful introspection and existential crisis. Dated in many respects (especially the opening song) it is still tonally a very experimental piece, especially if seen in its fully restored ninety seven minute running time.
The Terror of the Tongs (1961)
In 1910, Hong Kong is in the grips of the powerful Red Dragon tong, a secret society that extorts revenue from merchant seamen, deals in both opium and slave trades and savagely slaughters all those who offer opposition. A merchant sailor, Captain Jackson (Geoffrey Toone), swears revenge on the nefarious clan after they brutally murder his first officer and daughter. Hammer's The Terror of the Tongs strives to offer a lurid period drama but falls somewhat short of the mark due to a clumsy script, an indifferent hero and a conspicuous lack of authentic Asian actors. Apart from Burt Kwouk, most of the cast are Europeans sporting rather poor prosthetics. Christopher Lee manages to bluff his way through his role as Tong leader Chung King, through the force of his acting skills. French actress Yvonne Monlaur (Brides of Dracula) is not as successful as a mixed raced serving girl.
In 1910, Hong Kong is in the grips of the powerful Red Dragon tong, a secret society that extorts revenue from merchant seamen, deals in both opium and slave trades and savagely slaughters all those who offer opposition. A merchant sailor, Captain Jackson (Geoffrey Toone), swears revenge on the nefarious clan after they brutally murder his first officer and daughter. Hammer's The Terror of the Tongs strives to offer a lurid period drama but falls somewhat short of the mark due to a clumsy script, an indifferent hero and a conspicuous lack of authentic Asian actors. Apart from Burt Kwouk, most of the cast are Europeans sporting rather poor prosthetics. Christopher Lee manages to bluff his way through his role as Tong leader Chung King, through the force of his acting skills. French actress Yvonne Monlaur (Brides of Dracula) is not as successful as a mixed raced serving girl.
However despite its shortcomings The Terror of the Tongs is still somewhat entertaining with its highly stylised view of the Chinese underworld. Frankly expecting anything like historical accuracy from such a studio as Hammer is a mistake. They were far more focused on shock, titillation and appealing to adult audiences baser needs. Thus we have a rather sixties interpretation of what an early twentieth century gambling den looks like. Also the violent activities of the Tongs are somewhat understated. Merchants have their fingers cut off with hatchets while others that cross the Red Dragon are stabbed but it is far from graphic. Indeed the infamous bone scraping torture scene in which Milton Reid uses long needles to inflict pain upon an incapacitated hero is very restrained, resulting mainly in reaction shots.
As ever with Hammer movies, The Terror of the Tongs benefits greatly from a set design that implies a far more lavish production. Despite being very studio bound, the movie has an engaging production design bolstered by a few robust matte paintings to make the dock sequences more credible. James Bernard's score is evocative as well as exciting and brings a degree of polish to the proceedings. Hammer continued to make several more of these historical dramas in parallel to their established horror franchises over the years and they often made for a welcome alternative to the restrictions of the Gothic Horror genre. The Terror of the Tongs is a somewhat workman like entry in Hammer's back catalogue and is more than likely of interest to the fans of the studio rather than casual viewers.
The Enigma of 2001: A Space Odyssey
"2001: A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick’s philosophically ambitious, technically innovative and visually stunning cinematic milestone". BFI November 2014.
You will often find this sort of language associated with Kubrick's work, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is considered by many to be his finest production and one of the greatest science fiction feature films ever made. In fact 2001: A Space Odyssey has become one of those cinematic sacred cows that regularly features in most film buffs top ten movies of all time. It's a curious thing because a little research will show that critical opinion was split right down the middle on its release in spring 1968. It is only over the course of the last five decades that the movie has grown in artistic stature and garnered the acclaim it now enjoys.
"2001: A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick’s philosophically ambitious, technically innovative and visually stunning cinematic milestone". BFI November 2014.
You will often find this sort of language associated with Kubrick's work, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is considered by many to be his finest production and one of the greatest science fiction feature films ever made. In fact 2001: A Space Odyssey has become one of those cinematic sacred cows that regularly features in most film buffs top ten movies of all time. It's a curious thing because a little research will show that critical opinion was split right down the middle on its release in spring 1968. It is only over the course of the last five decades that the movie has grown in artistic stature and garnered the acclaim it now enjoys.
When movies achieve such status, it becomes very difficult to objectively critique them. Many viewers feel obliged to add their voice to the consensus. "If everyone thinks this film is great then so must I" seems to be the prevailing mentality. There is also an erroneous assumption that if a film is truly great, it will automatically be accessible to all potential audiences. That is often not the case. For every person who watches 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time and comes away feeling profoundly inspired, there will be another who leaves confused, mislead or just plain bored. 2001: A Space Odyssey is ultimately an acquired taste and although I enjoy and admire the film for many reasons; I would not say that it is for everyone. In fact I would actually discourage some viewers from seeing it.
The first thing I would say to anyone intending to watch his movie for the first time is to be patient. It has a deliberately slow and measured pace. The lack of dialogue in the first act, which focuses on the "dawn of man", requires you to pay extra attention to the subtleties of the story and performances. As ever with Kubrick’s work there's a focus upon imagery and emphasis placed upon visual composition. In the second act the characters are somewhat cold and clinically defined. The production design and the technology is by far the larger player at this stage. The denouement with is allegorical content will be especially hard to digest by those viewers that like their narrative linear and presented in an easily digestible format. If you are not a fan of classical music then the movie’s soundtrack may also be a major stumbling block.
There is however, much to be praised about the movie. The visual effects still hold up well today and there is little technologically to date the proceedings. The computer graphic and GUIs that are depicted are still quite pertinent. Despite its somewhat somber tone the story is a very positive one. Perhaps mankind's future isn't as bleak as some would think. It may be that the movies greatest achievement is its ability to make you think and reflect. Due to the somewhat nebulous ending, viewers are encouraged to interpret matters for themselves. I have known 2001: A Space Odyssey to inspire debates about religion, determinism and many other philosophical concepts.
2001: A Space Odyssey is more than just a conventional piece of cinematic story telling. It is a conduit for ideas and concepts. It is far from just a passive experience and requires viewers to participate in the experience with an open and enquiring mind. Kubrick has fashioned a puzzle that you can either admired for what it is, or you can go a stage further and attempt to solve it. As long as you realise that there is no single correct solution. Ultimately viewing this movie is a very unique and personal experience; 2001: A Space Odyssey doesn't necessarily offer the same thing to everyone. Perhaps that is why some viewers do not enjoy watching it. However that doesn't prove that either they or Kubrick is somehow wrong. It simply demonstrates the subjective nature of art.
There is still an enigma associated with 2001: A Space Odyssey. It will never truly disappear because the themes that Kubrick explores are ultimately timeless. So if you are tempted to see this movie at any other point, take time to consider whether it really is for you. There has been so much written about it that you shouldn't have any difficulty making such a choice. If the answer is no then that is fine. Film cannot be everything to everyone and that is especially true of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is not always essential to join the consensus about a movie and it is perfectly acceptable to say that something is not to your liking due to differing taste. One should never feel obliged to like something because of the prevailing culture. That is something Kubrick himself would have eschewed.
Endeavour (2012-present)
The police procedural genre is one of the most flexible in existence. It has an innate quality that allows for continuous reinterpretation and reinvention. Thus it is a perennial mainstay of television drama and shows no sign of losing popularity with the public. Endeavour is a prime example of this, with three seasons under its belt and fourth in production; it’s a polished, intelligent and character driven production. Based upon Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse, Endeavour explores the detectives early years in the Oxford Police, set against the social and political changes of the sixties. The writing and performances are outstanding, elevating often formulaic stories to greater dramatic level. The use of classical music and the Oxford locations add a layer of sophistication and gravitas to the proceedings.
The police procedural genre is one of the most flexible in existence. It has an innate quality that allows for continuous reinterpretation and reinvention. Thus it is a perennial mainstay of television drama and shows no sign of losing popularity with the public. Endeavour is a prime example of this, with three seasons under its belt and fourth in production; it’s a polished, intelligent and character driven production. Based upon Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse, Endeavour explores the detective's early years in the Oxford Police, set against the social and political changes of the sixties. The writing and performances are outstanding, elevating often formulaic stories to a greater dramatic level. The use of classical music and the Oxford locations add a layer of sophistication and gravitas to the proceedings.
I could wax lyrical for many a paragraph regarding the lead performances. Both Shaun Evans and Roger Allam are compelling. I could also bang on about the handsome production design and the cunning use of low key digital effects that remove contemporary buildings and structures from the Oxford skyline. Then of course there are Russell Lewis’ superbly crafted screenplays for each feature length episode. The plots are often multi-layered and with each story we see both major and minor characters grow. Difficult issues are explored with intelligence and within the socio-political context of the time.
Yet there is one aspect of Endeavour that I’ve only recently discovered after watching all three seasons for a second time. Showrunner Russell Lewis is obviously a movie buff who likes to smuggle the occasional reference or homage into the proceedings. Classic dialogue is paraphrased or even used openly. Fictional characters are referenced as if they were real. It adds to the enjoyment of the show and I’m certain there may well be more than the ones that I’ve spotted so far. Here are a few examples.
From the episode Fugue (S01E03): When Morse discusses the serial killer with Dr. Daniel Cronyn, his response is very similar to that of the character Ash in the film Alien when he is quizzed about the Xenomorph. Both antagonists have a sneaking regard for their quarry and are thus accused of “admiring” them.
From episode Nocturne (S02E02): After the death of a specialist in heraldry and genealogy, Inspector Thursday and Morse seek the advice of Sir Hilary Bray at the London College of Arms. Sir Hilary is out of the country so his deputy deals with their enquiry. Bray is a character from the James Bond novel (and film adaptation) On Her Majesties Secret Service.
From the episode Prey (S03E03): The MacGuffin in this story is a Tiger that was kept illegally and has subsequently escaped into the Oxfordshire countryside. When a mauled body is pulled from a local river, large sections of the dialogue are taken directly from Jaws. Pathologist De Bryn is emphatic that “this is no boating accident”. Later in the episode when searching for the Tiger, Night of the Demon is referenced when a startled cast member states “"It's in the trees. It's coming”.
These homages that embellish Endeavour are just another example of the attention to detail and love that is lavished upon the production by those involved. They are yet another reason as to why you should watch the show. In an age of fast paced, strident police procedurals with their reliance on technology, it makes for a pleasant change to see a more measured approach to solving crime. A time when enquiries had to be done manually, painstakingly trawling through paper records and interviewing the public. Endeavour focuses on those involved in solving the crime rather than on the crime itself, although the plots are never dull. The period detail, locations and atmosphere are indeed characters in themselves. This is superior television and therefore I highly recommend it. Even more so now I’ve discovered the “hidden” movie references.
For the Love of Spock (2016)
Adam Nimoy doesn’t paint a rosy picture of family life in his documentary about his father. The novelty of fame and popular acclaim soon wore off with it’s never ending photoshoots and long working hours that kept his father from ever being home. Yet among the anecdotes in this greatly condensed biopic there evidence of a lot of love and professional respect. Far from being comprehensive For the Love of Spock focuses on the matters that interest fans the most. So the documentary explores Nimoy’s relationship with Gene Roddenberry, his subsequent casting in Star Trek, his post Trek stage career and his return to the fold with the big screen movies.
Adam Nimoy doesn’t paint a rosy picture of family life in his documentary about his father. The novelty of fame and popular acclaim soon wore off with it’s never ending photoshoots and long working hours that kept his father from ever being home. Yet among the anecdotes in this greatly condensed biopic there evidence of a lot of love and professional respect. Far from being comprehensive For the Love of Spock focuses on the matters that interest fans the most. So the documentary explores Nimoy’s relationship with Gene Roddenberry, his subsequent casting in Star Trek, his post Trek stage career and his return to the fold with the big screen movies.
Although the documentary references the autobiography I Am Not Spock, which explored Nimoy’s struggle with his own identify and his on screen persona, it is not especially thorough. The actor eventually wrote a second book titled, I Am Spock that revealed he’d reconciled both the man and the character, something the documentary is more interested in exploring. There is an allusion to conflict in later life between father and son, though the reasons for it are not elaborated on. Both struggled with substance abuse and Adam himself hints at the strain of being in his father’s formidable shadow. For the Love of Spock also acknowledges the existence of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins” but sees fit to delve no further.
Many stars of the original TV series are interviewed along the way, as well the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and the cast of J. J. Abrams’s cinematic reboot. Leonard’s profound contributions to Star Trek TOS are dissected such as the phrase “Live long and prosper”, its accompanying hand gesture and the iconic Vulcan nerve pinch. Time is also spent on Nimoy’s exploration of Spock ongoing battle with his half-human emotions and how he wanted the character to grow. Leonard’s stage career, as well as his film directing is also acknowledged. Time is also spent reflecting Nimoy’s dualistic relationship with Paramount studios and his legal battles with them.
For the Love of Spock treads a fairly even path through the career of one of the most iconic actors of the twentieth century. It does not shy away from the human flaws of both Nimoy senior and junior. One can’t help feeling that there is more to say but because the production is a family affair then it is natural that a degree of privacy is maintained. The documentary wisely ends on the immense legacy of Leornard Nimoy and the enduring nature of his alter ego Spock. There is a positive message in the final summation and it is handled with dignity and quiet reflection. In many ways these are the traits that make Nimoy and Spock so appealing.
Space: 1999 (1975-77)
In late 1975 I was faced with a very difficult choice. Should I watch Doctor Who on BBC1 or the new Gerry Anderson series, Space: 1999 on LWT? I opted for the latter, being seduced by the big budget production with its special effects that were (for the time) streets ahead of the competition. Now if memory serves me rightly, this was broadcast late afternoon or early evening. It was definitely a pre-watershed show by modern standards although there was no concept as such at the time. Yet like Doctor Who, this had me hiding in terror behind the proverbial sofa. Two particular episodes left a marked impression on me. This was because they were both creepy and punctuated by some rather frightening imagery. They were Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit.
In late 1975 I was faced with a very difficult choice. Should I watch Doctor Who on BBC1 or the new Gerry Anderson series, Space: 1999 on LWT? I opted for the latter, being seduced by the big budget production with its special effects that were (for the time) streets ahead of the competition. Now if memory serves me rightly, this was broadcast late afternoon or early evening. It was definitely a pre-watershed show by modern standards although there was no concept as such at the time. Yet like Doctor Who, this had me hiding in terror behind the proverbial sofa. Two particular episodes left a marked impression on me. This was because they were both creepy and punctuated by some rather frightening imagery. They were Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit.
I recently had an opportunity to revisit Space 1999. Both seasons of the show have been remastered and are available on Blu-ray. The picture quality is exceptionally good highlighting the fact that this was a big budget production for its time. However nostalgia can sometime cloud ones overall perception. Watching Space 1999 through the prism of my contemporary critical sensibilities proved to be subtly different experience from when I was eight. I found the show to have a far more varied narrative quality than I remember. Some episodes were better than others and a handful were extremely well made and atmospheric. Interestingly, both Dragon’s Domain and The Troubled Spirit were among these.
Dragon’s Domain focuses on discredited astronaut Tony Cellini, the sole survivor of the Ultra Probe Mission. He starts having nightmares about the creature that allegedly killed his crew five years previously. However the enquiry that investigated the probe disaster never found any evidence of such a creature and attributed the deaths to Cellini’s incompetence. When Commander Koenig ignores Cellini’s renewed claims that the creature is near, he steals an Eagle to hunt down his nemesis. Cellini arrives at a space graveyard full of derelict ships and finds the Ultra Probe among them. He docks with his former vessel and seeks out his foe. Koenig arrives in time to see Cellini fight and die at the hands of the creature he confronted years before. It falls to him to avenge his exonerated friend and slay the beast.
This is a very dark and atmospheric episode, punctuated by unpleasant deaths of the supporting cast. The so-called “dragon” has a nasty habit of dragging victims into its mouth and then spitting out a smouldering corpse a few seconds later. As a child this caused me many a sleepless night. The screenplay is tight and offers a modern twist on a traditional storyline. There are shades of Moby Dick and Saint George in the narrative. The ambience of this particular episode is further enhanced by the use of Tomaso Albinoni's "Adagio in G Minor". Although there is a definitive ending to this sad tale, it is very bleak. Tonally this made the show quite unusual for the times. US network television still felt obliged to offer upbeat endings and positive moral messages.
The Troubled Spirit begins with Hydroponics expert Dan Mateo holding a psychic experiment relating to plants. He theorises that human brainwaves may be able to have a positive effect upon plant growth. However something goes wrong and a burnt apparition subsequently appears and stalks Moonbase Alpha. After fatalities occur Commander Koenig decides to hold a second séance. It soon becomes apparent that the ghost is in fact that of Dan Mateo. Killed in an accident that has yet happened the vengeful spirit seeks to kill those he holds accountable for his own death. Doctor Bergman suggests neutralising the psychic powers that Mateo has gained by placing him in a containment field of reverse energy. During the experiment the ghost appears seeking retribution. Mateo wrestles with his dead self and breaks the containment field. Mateo is burnt and dies from his injuries. As he does, his defeated ghost vanishes.
This episode plays out very much in the style and idiom of seventies UK horror films. The editing, the suspense and the way the shocks are implemented are reminiscent of the work of such studios as Hammer, Amicus and Tyburn productions. The use of sitar music adds to the creepy ambience and the whole story is reminiscent of the film The Man who Haunted Himself. Forty one years on I’m still surprised that an episode of a mainstream television from that era could be so frightening. Although the murders of the crew are discrete the burnt apparition that perpetrates them is not. Again the story is very dour and has a plausible yet far from happy conclusion. The blending of the supernatural in a science fiction setting is also a bold juxtaposition of genres that works well.
Returning to a much cherished show can be a double edged sword. I’ve found that a lot of what I’ve watched and enjoyed in the past was dependent on the circumstances of the time. In the UK during the seventies there was less choice as far as channels. Therefore a lot of material was watched in default of anything else. The style of TV shows was different then. Stories were paced decidedly slower. It can also be argued that I was less discerning in my taste. Certainly less sophisticated. To a degree this has coloured my judgement of Space 1999.The two episodes I’ve referenced were above average and have held up remarkably well. There are other instalments from both seasons that are a lot more dated and weaker. Therefore I would only recommend a comprehensive re-watching of the show to fans. The more casual viewer may wish to cherry pick those episodes that have garnered specific acclaim.
Alligator (1980)
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
After the commercial success of Jaws in 1975, there followed a wealth of low budget creature features, hell bent on separating the viewing public from their hard earned cash. At one point every conceivable species of animal featured in a movie in which it went on the rampage and dined on B list actors and sundry extras. Many of these films left no lasting impression and vanished into obscurity (only to be resurrected a decade later during the eighties video boom). However even in this desert of cinematic mediocrity, a few examples stood out as an oasis of independent creativity. Alligator is one of these. It has stood the test of time because it’s smart and has a good pedigree.
Firstly, the screenplay written by genre luminary and indie film-maker John Sayles is witty and satirical. The characters are likeable, with amusing foibles. The story makes sly digs at the very formula of the genre, itself. The dialogue is smart and extremely quotable. Secondly, director Lewis Teague knows exactly how to handle the material. The film has a stark and grimy eighties feel to it. The protagonists are not “beautiful people” (as they would be if the film were remade) and the production design is realistic, reflecting the Reagan era. For the bulk of the movie, the giant alligator preys on the poor in a rough neighbourhood. The authorities don’t really care until the creature moves uptown.
The film has a solid cast of quality character actors. Robert Forster delivers a sympathetic performance as a world weary detective, living in bachelor squalor, fighting male pattern baldness and City Hall politics. Victor Gazzo plays his harassed boss and Henry Silva excels as a flamboyant, misogynist, Great White hunter. There is also a nice cameo by Bart Braverman (anyone remember that TV series Vegas?) as a sleazy tabloid journalist (is there any other kind?) who gets the scoop of his life at a hefty price. All characters are well defined and credible due to John Sayles’ intelligent and smart screenplay.
The story is fairly straight forward and starts with an unwanted pet Alligator being flushed down the toilet. After eating illegally dumped medical waste loaded with growth hormones, the reptile grows to an exceptional size and soon goes looking for a suitable food supply. However it is the quirky characters and subplots that make the film so enjoyable. Henry Silva's urban safari is particularly amusing. Dean Jagger plays the corrupt CEO of a pharmaceutical company who "owns" the local Mayor. Their exchanges of dialogue, especially at a fateful wedding party, are very well observed.
Now for a modest budget film, the special effects are quite good. The beastie of the title is kept suitably hidden for the first third of the film. Later, the attack scenes are carefully crafted to maximise shock and hide the short comings of the animatronic reptile. In wider shots a full size Alligator is used on scaled down sets, to good effect. The death scenes are fairly brutal but not excessive. Alligator also breaks the Hollywood mainstream taboo, of killing a child on camera. It even has the cheek to do it in an amusing way. Alligator has a broad streak of gallows humour running through its ninety odd minute running time.
Alligator is very much a product of its time, reflecting the best aspects of independent film making that came from the US during the late seventies. Its intelligence and humour make it more than just your average creature feature. It not only entertains but provides an interesting socio-economic snapshot of the times. The screenplay and casting once again prove that when you have a solid script and the right actors, you’ve won half the battle already. The minimalist special effects work to the film’s advantage and allow the viewers to immerse themselves in the story and performances. When the shocks come they have far more impact as you actually care about the central characters.
Leviathan (1989)
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
There was a glut of undersea action film in 1989. The only one that really had any credibility was James Cameron’s The Abyss. Although it was not a box office success, the film gained a following over time and was substantially improved by the release of the special edition in 1993. Leviathan conversely, is one of the forgotten titles from that aquatic sub-genre. The plot follows a team of undersea miners that find a sunken Russian vessel. A case of recovered vodka turns out to be a genetic mutagen, resulting in crew members mutating into an aquatic human hybrid. It’s all conspicuously derivative and the embodiment of the term formulaic. Yet despite these flaws it does have a few virtues that merit a viewing, if you’re feeling undemanding.
Competently directed by George Pan Cosmatos, the movie features a solid cast of support actors. Peter Weller, Richard Crenna, Daniel Stern, Hector Elizondo, Ernie Hudson and Meg Foster all do the best they can. The creature effects are handled by the Stan Winston Studios, the production design is convincing and the film looks far from cheap. So what went wrong? Well the whole enterprise reeks of studio interference; story re-writes and post production editing. Fangoria reported heavily on the animatronics for this film at the time of filming, yet precious little is visible in the final cut. Also one character dies off screen and is explained away with a few lines of dialogue.
These clues point to a major shift of direction somewhere in the films production. Perhaps the studio thought that suspense was a better option than a gorefest. But Leviathan is no Alien and simply doesn’t have a compelling enough narrative to pursue that angle. So what we are left with is a failed entry in an obscure sub-genre, which is still mildly entertaining. However any film with a Jerry Goldmsith score can’t be all bad. So if you set your expectations low, or feel like playing film cliché bingo, you may find this aquatic escapade an adequate way to fill one hour and forty minutes.
The Tower (2012)
Kim Ji-hoon's The Tower is an indirect remake of John Guillermin's 1974 disaster movie, The Towering Inferno. The plot centres on a fire that breaks out in a luxury skyscraper in central Seoul on Christmas Eve. However the director manages to put a very modern spin on the story while maintaining the human drama you would expect from such a genre movie. It’s also apparent that the events of 9/11 have had an influence on the narrative; something that some critics have taken umbrage at. Yet these parallels do not extend beyond the superficial and there is certainly no attempt at any wider commentary on that real life tragedy.
Kim Ji-hoon's The Tower is an indirect remake of John Guillermin's 1974 disaster movie, The Towering Inferno. The plot centres on a fire that breaks out in a luxury skyscraper in central Seoul on Christmas Eve. However the director manages to put a very modern spin on the story while maintaining the human drama you would expect from such a genre movie. It’s also apparent that the events of 9/11 have had an influence on the narrative; something that some critics have taken umbrage at. Yet these parallels do not extend beyond the superficial and there is certainly no attempt at any wider commentary on that real life tragedy.
The cultural and social differences between US and South Korean cinema are very apparent in The Tower. The first act of the movie has a light and frivolous tone, as we meet the cast of characters. For example, Junior cook Young-cheol (Jeon Bae-soo) hides an engagement ring for his girlfriend within an ice cream, which is inadvertently eaten by his manager. Friction between one of the wealthy residents and the cleaner also highlight the rather rigid class divide within South Korean society. However despite these nominal cultural differences there are many universal themes in The Tower that make the film accessible to those with an open mind.
The Tower features some visually arresting set pieces and the physical and visual effects are of a high standard. The two burning towers are linked via a glass walkway that inevitably has to be crossed. This naturally occurs at a point when the structure is close to collapse, yet despite being a very contrived scene it is quite tense and well handled. The director also strikes the right balance between suspense and some of the more horrific aspects you would associate with a fire. Stuntmen and women are set alight and blasted through windows. Panicking staff are cooked alive in an elevator stuck in the lift shaft. Sundry extras are crushed or impaled by failing masonry. Yet none of this carnage is dwelt on excessively.
As with the The Towering Inferno, no cliché is left unturned and the scientific aspects of the plot are flawed and do not stand up to close scrutiny. The Mayor is mainly concerned about rescuing the building richest residents (I was surprised it wasn't an election year). The Director of the company that owns the tower is happy to take risks just to satisfy the shareholders. Captain Kang Young-ki (Sol Kyung-gu) of the Fire Department is estranged from his wife. Plus the most common solution to the various firefighting problems that arise is to simply blow something up. However it really wouldn't be a disaster movie without these melodramatic plot indulgences.
The Tower is by no means an outstanding movie but it is certainly entertaining. The South Korean perspective affords an interesting and alternative window onto familiar cinematic territory. The central characters although somewhat formulaic are likeable and the action scenes are enthralling. As long as you do not have an aversion to reading curiously translated subtitles or are an inherent xenophobe, then The Tower can offer two hours of spectacle and entertainment.
From Paris with Love (2010)
Some people have made the mistake of confusing From Paris with Love with the thriller and have subsequently criticised it for its failings within that genre. The thing is it’s patently not a thriller or a spy drama. It’s a textbook action film and a throwback to the 1980s. As such its merits are rather straight forward and easy to define. If you are looking for a slick, formulaic, shoot ‘em up set against the backdrop of Paris, complete with wise-ass dialogue and two personable lead actors then director Pierre Morel delivers in spades. The ludicrous premise, flagrant breaking of possibly every French law in existence and the sheer volume of carnage should not be over analysed. Action movies are not intended to stimulate debate or provoke deep thought. Their job is to entertain.
Some people have made the mistake of confusing From Paris with Love with the thriller and have subsequently criticised it for its failings within that genre. The thing is it’s patently not a thriller or a spy drama. It’s a textbook action film and a throwback to the 1980s. As such its merits are rather straight forward and easy to define. If you are looking for a slick, formulaic, shoot ‘em up set against the backdrop of Paris, complete with wise-ass dialogue and two personable lead actors then director Pierre Morel delivers in spades. The ludicrous premise, flagrant breaking of possibly every French law in existence and the sheer volume of carnage should not be over analysed. Action movies are not intended to stimulate debate or provoke deep thought. Their job is to entertain.
Diplomatic aide James Reese (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) gets the opportunity to ingratiate himself with the CIA and potentially further his career, by “facilitating” special agent Charlie Wax (John Travolta) operation in Paris. The chalk and cheese pair clash as they rampage through the city, decimating sundry drug dealers, terrorists and suicide bombers. Bodies pile up, quips are made, mirth and merriment abounds (within the parameters of the action movie genre). Xenophobia is also exalted, national stereotypes are trotted out and every bullet hit is a fatal through and through. There are even some Pulp Fiction references. Yet all of these points work within the scope of the movie. The entire film is very much a knowing wink to the audience.
From Paris with Love does not re-invent the genre. But what it does do during its ninety minute running time, it does well. The action scenes and fights are well choreographed, filmed and edited. The characters although totally implausible are quite likeable. The only deviation from the norm happens in the third act when an element of pathos is introduced that I was not expecting. Still, it doesn’t derail the proceedings. This not a human drama about the pressure of working in the intelligence community, nor is it a dissertation of the nature of terrorism. It’s an action movie pure and simple and it is not ashamed to be so.
Although not as good as Taken or District 13, the director’s previous work, From Paris with Love is a perfectly acceptable genre offering, delivering the goods in a competent fashion. It also benefits from the added bonus of the disconcertingly watchable Travolta and a very picturesque Gallic setting. It also eschews the contemporary penchant for PG-13 rated action. This is an R rated movie complete with bullet hits and blood splatter; usually all over the walls and the supporting cast. From Paris with Love is a Friday night entertainment for sure but a solid example of the genre. If you want a serious political thriller with similar international locations, then you may be better off with one of the various movie adaptations of John le Carré’s work.
Some People (1962)
Some People offers a rather interesting insight in to early sixties youth culture, as well as touching upon the class divide in post war Britain. It focuses on a group of working class youths (Ray Brooks, David Hemmings and David Andrews) who after being banned from driving, are somewhat at a loose end and heading for trouble. Their fortunes change when a local choirmaster (Kenneth Moore) gives them an opportunity to use the church hall for band practice. However this is not a rags to riches story by any means. In many ways it’s quite the opposite as the narrative has a sense of inevitability about the protagonist’s long term prospects and overall fate.
Some People offers a rather interesting insight in to early sixties youth culture, as well as touching upon the class divide in post war Britain. It focuses on a group of working class youths (Ray Brooks, David Hemmings and David Andrews) who after being banned from driving, are somewhat at a loose end and heading for trouble. Their fortunes change when a local choirmaster (Kenneth Moore) gives them an opportunity to use the church hall for band practice. However this is not a rags to riches story by any means. In many ways it’s quite the opposite as the narrative has a sense of inevitability about the protagonist’s long term prospects and overall fate.
It is easy to be side tracked by some of the superficial aspects of Some People. Obviously the beat music is very much a product of the time and the rebellious shenanigans of the cast are somewhat tame by contemporary standards. Yet the film clearly demonstrates the restrictive society of the post war era. Some of the comments made by the magistrates during the court scene reflect the prevailing socio-economic politics of era. Vicars, youth leaders and pretty much any other adult featured in the film are portrayed as authority figures desperate to maintain the status quo. There is also a rather melancholic plot theme about the generation gap. Ray Brook's father regrets not knowing his own son and realises that there's precious little he can do about it.
There's also a very liberal streak running through Some People. The great Kenneth Moore plays a progressive single parent who tries to offer the young people a way of defining themselves. The film strongly advocates the Duke of Edinburgh's Award as a means of doing this. Moore also takes a very modern attitude to his daughter’s involvement with Ray Brooks, trusting her to do the "right thing". There is a clear subtext that the class differential means that the relationship will not last. It’s implied that Moore's liberalism is a result of his academia, as he is an electrical engineer working in the aviation industry. Conversely, the most blinkered character with regard to politics and social mobility is shown to be Bill, one of the three lead young men. He maintains a “not for the likes of use” attitude which was still common at the time.
Some People is in some ways quite unique, being one of the first "Kitchen sink dramas" aimed at the youth market. Previous movies focusing on this demographic had a tendency to be American and although there was much common ground, they weren't fully applicable to a UK audience. Some People offered the genuine article for the British market. Overall it is a quite bold film for its time, considering that it was made in an era when scripts for UK productions were submitted to the BBFC in advance for approval. Director Clive Donner strayed into similar pop culture territory again with Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush but it lacked the earthy realism of Some People. Ironically five years later youth culture had evolved from a source of social concern into just a new commercial market.
Split Second (1992)
Split Second has great aspirations. Sadly they’re totally beyond the movies budget, the quality of screenplay and the ability of director Tony Maylam. The poster clearly demonstrates this with the rather bold tagline of "Blade Runner meets Alien". The reality is somewhat different. Furthermore Split Second seems to be from the wrong decade. Despite being a nineties sci-fi action movie it has all the hallmarks of one from ten years prior. The Director of Photography relies on a wealth of neon lighting to try and create a suitable atmosphere. The costume design is heavily based on leather clothing and outfits that accentuate the shoulders. There's also a drab and grating electronic score that was synonymous with this genre during the eighties. Overall Split Second certainly has a lot of strikes against it.
Split Second has great aspirations. Sadly they’re totally beyond the movies budget, the quality of screenplay and the ability of director Tony Maylam. The poster clearly demonstrates this with the rather bold tagline of "Blade Runner meets Alien". The reality is somewhat different. Furthermore Split Second seems to be from the wrong decade. Despite being a nineties sci-fi action movie it has all the hallmarks of one from ten years prior. The Director of Photography relies on a wealth of neon lighting to try and create a suitable atmosphere. The costume design is heavily based on leather clothing and outfits that accentuate the shoulders. There's also a drab and grating electronic score that was synonymous with this genre during the eighties. Overall Split Second certainly has a lot of strikes against it.
However the film has one trump card up its sleeve which it plays right from the get go; the presence of Dutch character actor and genre stalwart Rutger Hauer. He starts chewing the scenery immediately after the credits have finished and despite the movies many failings, manages to keep the film together. Hauer plays Harley Stone, a cop on the edge who’s become a loose cannon after losing his partner to a serial killer. He's the kind of guy who shoots first, asks questions later and swears profusely in his spare time. Writer Gary Scott Thompson obviously felt that a plethora of strong language could fill the gaps in the film's plot. Hauer even calls a dog a dickhead within the first five minutes of the film.
Split Second like so many other low budget genre movies seems to run on its own unique internal logic. Characters are ill defined and plot devices are often left underdeveloped. It's as if there was a production meeting and it was decided to throw in every possible cliché and trope in the hope that some of them would work. So we have an “Alien” style monster that has occult affiliations, prowling through a flooded London that has been brought about by global warming and pollution. Hearts are torn out, big guns are brandished and people swear copiously. The Police Chief shouts a lot and Hauer's new partner (Alistair Duncan) is a book worm who becomes gung-ho. Oh and there’s an obligatory and totally arbitrary love interest played by Kim Cattrall. The London locations and the finale set in an abandoned part of the Tube are convenient and cheap.
Now to the casual viewer this all adds up to a shoddy, poorly conceived movie with no redeeming features. However Split Second is not really the province of the causal viewer. Its core audience are viewers who love cheap and cheerful genre knock offs of this idiom. All the potential faults and flaws that I’ve catalogued are the very thing that fans enjoy. If you watch this movie on your own it may either raise a wry smile or annoy you. View it with a few like minded friends after a trip to the pub and its merit grows exponentially. See Split Second at a film festival with an audience of rabid B movie junkies and you'll have a totally different cinematic experience. It all comes down talent versus enthusiasm. Split Second is wanting in many respects but it has been made with a degree of love for the genre. Somehow that has managed to permeate the film and can be tapped into through shared viewing in the right circumstances.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
Edge of Tomorrow is based upon Hiroshi Sakurazaka book All You Need Is Kill, from 2004 and it's a shame that the movie did not retain that title. Edge of Tomorrow is a somewhat bland and generic moniker. Mercifully the film itself is a cut above your usual blockbuster Sci-fi release. The screenplay written by Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and Jez Butterworth (Jerusalem) offers a tight and gripping narrative which quickly establishes its premise and makes it continuously engaging. Dubbed "Groundhog D-Day" by certain pundits, the story of history repeating itself is presented in such a fashion as to be intriguing rather than repetitive.
Edge of Tomorrow is based upon Hiroshi Sakurazaka book All You Need Is Kill, from 2004 and it's a shame that the movie did not retain that title. Edge of Tomorrow is a somewhat bland and generic moniker. Mercifully the film itself is a cut above your usual blockbuster Sci-fi release. The screenplay written by Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and Jez Butterworth (Jerusalem) offers a tight and gripping narrative which quickly establishes its premise and makes it continuously engaging. Dubbed "Groundhog D-Day" by certain pundits, the story of history repeating itself is presented in such a fashion as to be intriguing rather than repetitive.
Tom Cruise plays a reluctant military officer William Cage who find himself leading a major offensive against a group of what appear to be bio-mechanical Cephalopoda, who are attacking worldwide. He is not a seasoned soldier, coming from a military PR background and subsequently dies in combat. However through a curious side effect of being exposed to the dead aliens precious bodily fluids, he find himself in a time loop in which he continuously repeats his final day. Furthermore he is cognisant of this temporal anomaly and tries to learn from his mistakes and change the outcome of the time line.
The first two thirds of Edge of Tomorrow are inventive and absorbing. The production design and overall ambience are well conceived. The battles look authentic as various global landmarks are reduced to rubble. It is also nice to see Tom Cruise play against type. He does not start the story as a generic hero and is in fact somewhat unlikeable. It is in the final act that the narrative becomes a little less logical and more contradictory. Prior to this point, Cage and his cohorts have persevered through meticulously learning from their prior mistakes. Suddenly their approach changes to one of greater improvisation, which does seem somewhat incongruous.
However director Doug Liman handles the film with sufficient originality making Edge of Tomorrow his best picture since The Bourne Identity (2002). The supporting cast featuring such quality character actors as Brendan Gleeson and Bill Paxton adds immensely to the proceedings. Furthermore Edge of Tomorrow is not just a cinematic vehicle for Tom Cruise. Emily Blunt more than holds her own in the role of Rita Vrataski, the seasoned veteran who he continuously learns from.
Overall Edge of Tomorrow is happy to be a smartly contrived Sci-fi action movie, that sticks to its own remit. Therefore viewers shouldn’t expect the wider social themes of films such a Minority Report and Starship Troopers. What you do get with Edge of Tomorrow is a surprisingly superior action movie featuring quality set pieces, good performances and an engaging narrative. Time travel can be a tricky plot device if poorly handled but that’s not a mistake that Edge of Tomorrow makes.
Vigilante (1985)
William Lustig, a director of low budget exploitation films, has a small but distinguished back catalogue. His 1983 foray into the revenge sub-genre is a curious beast but certainly not without merit. Far less sensational than The Exterminator or Death Wish II, it is still a stark and grimy look at urban crime and its impact on working class neighbourhoods. It is the minimalist style of Vigilante, along with parallel storylines and complete lack of moral judgement that makes it a surprisingly better film than it first appears. Considering the violent nature of the story the film is rather restrained, yet does includes a rather unpleasant child murder. Although not graphic, it is somewhat shocking. Such material would be handled a lot differently these days.
William Lustig, a director of low budget exploitation films, has a small but distinguished back catalogue. His 1983 foray into the revenge sub-genre is a curious beast but certainly not without merit. Far less sensational than The Exterminator or Death Wish II, it is still a stark and grimy look at urban crime and its impact on working class neighbourhoods. It is the minimalist style of Vigilante, along with parallel storylines and complete lack of moral judgement that makes it a surprisingly better film than it first appears. Considering the violent nature of the story the film is rather restrained, yet does includes a rather unpleasant child murder. Although not graphic, it is somewhat shocking. Such material would be handled a lot differently these days.
The plot focuses upon blue collar workers Robert Forster and Fred Williamson as they struggle to earn a living and support their families. Crime in the neighbourhood is on the increase and Mr Williamson pro-actively advocates "doing something about it". His friend Robert Forster takes a contrary view. When his family falls victim to a home invasion, he puts his faith in the court system and eschews offers of personal justice. However corrupt lawyers and plea bargaining sees his family’s killers set free and our hero facing thirty days in prison for contempt of court. After a reality check from veteran con Woody Strode, Robert Forster seeks the help of his friends to even the score.
Director William Lustig varies the standard genre formula and manages to avoid some of the more obvious clichés. Despite being a tale of revenge our protagonist finds no absolution. At the end of the movie his life and marriage are in ruins. His wife leaves him unable to cope with the death of their child. The film also avoids any strong moral stance and simply shows you the events and their consequences. The strong cast of genre stalwarts give honest performances and there is little or no histrionics. Vigilante also reflects the bleak environment of New York at the time of filming. It’s harsh and unforgiving. Perhaps the weakest aspect of the film is the street gang which seems somewhat derivative of Street Thunder from Assault on Precinct 13. There is no major attempt to explain their history or excessively violent nature.
Vigilante has an intriguing narrative style, showing Fred Williamson's small scale urban justice in parallel with his work colleagues tragedy and legal battle. For the first act of the film, it’s difficult to determine who the central protagonist is. The scale of the events also lends credibility to the proceedings, showing local people taking on local pimps and dealers, rather than single-handedly shutting down international cartels. The shortcoming of a legal system that actively seeks deals and plea bargains is explored quite well. Also the police are not so much depicted as incompetent but simply overwhelmed and demoralised. When a gang member is killed by the local vigilantes, it is the police who suffer the consequences.
Vigilante is certainly worth seeing for fans of seventies and eighties revenge movies. It is very much a product of its time and may certainly not appeal to those raised on the glossy contemporary equivalents such as Law Abiding Citizen. Yet it has an honesty that you see in low budget indie picture from this time. The subject of personal justice is a perennial favourite of the film industry and has been the basis for many a good movie. Vigilante is far from a great film, with some clumsy dialogue, logical omissions and plot inconsistencies but it still manages to tackle a thorny issue in quite an effective way. Its lack of any socio-political agenda is also worth noting. Rather than lecture viewers, Vigilante simply shows things as they were at the time and lets the audience reflect upon them.
Death Wish 3 (1985)
Michael Winner’s Death Wish (1974) was a gritty urban vigilante tale about how every-man Paul Kersey, took on the rising tide of crime that swept New York at the time. Despite its sensationalist style the film struck a topical nerve upon release and fared well at the box office. Featuring a strong central performance by Charles Bronson, Death Wish improved the standing of both its director and star. Death Wish II (1982) was a far more exploitative sequel, choosing to dwell on the violence rather than ponder the nature of vigilanteism. Its lurid rape scenes remain controversial to this day.
Michael Winner’s Death Wish (1974) was a gritty urban vigilante tale about how every-man Paul Kersey, took on the rising tide of crime that swept New York at the time. Despite its sensationalist style the film struck a topical nerve upon release and fared well at the box office. Featuring a strong central performance by Charles Bronson, Death Wish improved the standing of both its director and star. Death Wish II (1982) was a far more exploitative sequel, choosing to dwell on the violence rather than ponder the nature of vigilanteism. Its lurid rape scenes remain controversial to this day.
In 1985 Director Michael Winner returned to the franchise for a third outing. This time round any semblance of credibility was abandoned and replaced with mindless, near cartoon style action. The third instalment sees an ageing Bronson eliminating an entire New York street gang with an array of weapons and booby traps. It is by far the least plausible of the series, yet it in some ways the most enjoyable. The film’s modest budget meant that only a minimal amount of footage was shot on location in New York. The majority of the film along with the second unit direction was filmed in the UK around Lambeth and Brixton. Allegedly one tenth of the films entire budget was spent of Charles Bronson’s fee.
I recently revisited Death Wish 3 on Blu-ray and reacquainted myself with this high octane eighties action movie with its stereotypical and stylised street gang. This time round I noticed far more of the footage that was shot in the UK for budgetary reasons. The set designs and props, as well as Mr. Winners love of the zoom lens means that it's quite well disguised most of the time but the British architecture and street layouts betray the change in location. Yet this is just one of the factors that makes this movie so entertaining. Then there's Gavin O'Herlihy's reverse Mohican and early performances by Alex Winter and Marina Sirtis. Death Wish 3 also features a ridiculously high bodycount as well as the amusing plot device of pensioners with stock piles of WWII weapons. Plus it should be remembered that Charles Bronson was 64 at the time. Death Wish 3 is a bit of a dog’s dinner, yet somehow it still has a curious charm about it. It’s a quality that many Cannon movies have for some reason.
The improved picture quality of the Blu-ray release allows for a closer examination of the movie and affords some interesting details. For example, I noticed the following immediately after the Cuban (Ricco Ross) kills a rival gang member for being off his turf. As the crowd of gang members disperses, they can be seen carrying an array of weapons from knives, chains to baseball bats. One enterprising individual stoops and picks up a sink plunger and strides off sporting it in a threatening manner. With such deadly weapons falling into criminals hands, it’s hardly surprising that Mr. Bronson is forced to break out the .30 caliber M1919 Browning machine gun.
It is very easy to look at a movie such as Death Wish 3 with scathing, postmodern sensibilities. Yet to do so is rather foolish, as it misses the whole point of the film, which is to simply entertain. Death Wish 3 is not supposed to be an accurate portrayal of New York street crime in the mid-eighties. Nor is it supposed to be a cerebral critique of the judicial system. Michael Winner simply aimed to create a piece of escapist entertainment with its tongue firmly in its cheek. If the ever increasing bodycount of the films denouement along with the use of deadly sink plungers doesn’t convince you then you’re probably not the films target audience.
Dracula (1958)
Following the 2012 restored release of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer, Icon Film Distribution and Lionsgate jointly produced a Blu-ray restoration of another British classic. This time it was the 1958 version of Dracula directed by Terence Fisher. This is one of Hammer's finest films and not only gets a superb High Definition transfer but also sees the restoration of two lost scenes. Dracula literally re-invented the horror genre and the depiction of vampires in film. It also established the studio as a key player within the industry and made international stars of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. This new restoration finally does justice to the source material presenting it as it deserves to be seen.
Following the 2012 restored release of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer, Icon Film Distribution and Lionsgate jointly produced a Blu-ray restoration of another British classic. This time it was the 1958 version of Dracula directed by Terence Fisher. This is one of Hammer's finest films and not only gets a superb High Definition transfer but also sees the restoration of two lost scenes. Dracula literally re-invented the horror genre and the depiction of vampires in film. It also established the studio as a key player within the industry and made international stars of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. This new restoration finally does justice to the source material presenting it as it deserves to be seen.
The release contains two versions of the film, both of which can be accessed via seamless branching on the Blu-ray disc. There is the 2007 BFI restoration plus the new 2012 Hammer restoration, which adds additional footage that has been unavailable for decades, as well as the original UK title card. The additional footage comprises two of the scenes that were originally censored by the BBFC in 1958. The material was restored to the film from the infamous “Japanese reels” validating the long-held notion that more explicit prints existed for the far eastern market. The scenes depict Dracula’s seduction of Mina, which was considered too overtly sexual for the times. Then there is the infamous face clawing scene from Dracula’s final demise.
The film also boasts an outstanding commentary track from Hammer historian Marcus Hearn and author and critic Jonathan Rigby. For those who have an interest in Hammer Studios or cinema in general this is an extremely informative and enjoyable narrative. Both speakers have a wealth of interesting and relevant anecdotes. They offer a keen insight into the British film industry of the time and its relationship with the BBFC and the press. There is also an excellent discussion of each actors respective acting techniques. As a result I learned of Peter Cushing's famous finger acting; the repeated gesture of raising his index finger to emphasise an important point. I will always look out for it now.
Dracula is a vibrant, beautifully constructed movie with intelligent performances and a literate screenplay. The production design is outstanding as is the lush cinematography. The proceedings are further embellished by James Bernard's dramatic score which compliments the tense atmosphere and bouts of horror. It should be noted that what was once considered to be a pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable within the confines of a "X" certificate, now merits a more sedate "12" rating from the BBFC. Certainly Dracula will strike some people as being somewhat tame by today's standards. However if it viewed with an appropriate sense of historical context, Dracula is a fine example of British cinema at its best.
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
The 2012 Blu-ray release of Hammer Studio's The Curse of Frankenstein is a visual delight. The use of Eastman colour and the outstanding cinematography by Jack Asher are sumptuous and the new restoration does the film justice. This unique British horror movie introduced a new visceral style and brooding quality to the genre back in 1957. Despite a modest budget the creative production design evokes a truly Gothic horror atmosphere. The studio also introduced graphic violence along with a strong undercurrent of sexuality. These lurid aspects of the film proved particularly successful with the post war audience and became an integral part of the marketing campaign.
The 2012 Blu-ray release of Hammer Studio's The Curse of Frankenstein is a visual delight. The use of Eastman colour and the outstanding cinematography by Jack Asher are sumptuous and the new restoration does the film justice. This unique British horror movie introduced a new visceral style and brooding quality to the genre back in 1957. Despite a modest budget the creative production design evokes a truly Gothic horror atmosphere. The studio also introduced graphic violence along with a strong undercurrent of sexuality. These lurid aspects of the film proved particularly successful with the post war audience and became an integral part of the marketing campaign.
Previous versions of Frankenstein have tended to depict the Baron as misguided and ultimately overwhelmed with the magnitude his endeavours. Peter Cushing’s charming, obsessed and menacing Victor Frankenstein is an unusual and far more interesting exploration of the role. He seduces the maid, betrays his wife and blackmails his best friend Paul Krempe (Richard Urquhart). He is a far from a sympathetic character yet despite all this, Cushing still manages to make the audience pity him at the end. There is also an extraordinary performance from Christopher Lee, as the “monster”. Despite having no dialogue and little character development he still manages to convey an air of despair and confusion.
Some aspects of The Curse of Frankenstein have nominally dated. There is a tendency towards melodrama and the pace is somewhat leisurely but it’s still a potent and morally ambiguous film. It has a dour and morbid tone to it, which is reflected in the way it handles scenes of horror. The removal and disposal of a head in acid, along with the purchase of human eyeballs from morgue are depicted in a somewhat clinical and ghoulish manner rather than sensational. What The Curse of Frankenstein ultimately achieved was establish a clear blue print for future Hammer horror movies. They may well have become more explicit and lurid overtime but they always managed to maintain a degree of class. It was a winning formula that changed the genre permanently.
Fire in the Sky (1993)
After recently watching Communion, I decided to explore the alien abduction genre a little further. There are a lot of movies based on these phenomena but most are very poor. Then I remembered Fire in the Sky from 1993; a movie that got quite a lot of publicity at the time of its release and gained a reputation for being a quality drama rather than a low budget cash-in. So I dutifully watched it to see if it warranted the minor cult status it seems to have acquired. I was pleasantly surprised to find an interesting movie with good performances that took the material in a direction I hadn't entirely expected.
After recently watching Communion, I decided to explore the alien abduction genre a little further. There are a lot of movies based on these phenomena but most are very poor. Then I remembered Fire in the Sky from 1993; a movie that got quite a lot of publicity at the time of its release and gained a reputation for being a quality drama rather than a low budget cash-in. So I dutifully watched it to see if it warranted the minor cult status it seems to have acquired. I was pleasantly surprised to find an interesting movie with good performances that took the material in a direction I hadn't entirely expected.
Fire in the Sky is a dramatisation of Travis Walton's book "The Walton Experience". The abduction itself is not the focal point of the story until the last act. The film primarily focuses on the friendship between Travis Walton (D. B. Sweeney) and Mike Rogers (Robert Patrick) who were part of a logging crew contracted by the government. The drama arises after Walton goes missing and his friends report his "abduction" to the authorities. They instantly become the subject to a police investigation and fall under suspicion by the rest of the town. The doubt and ridicule, as well as loss of employment cause, immense strain on Rogers and his colleagues. His marriage starts to crumble as a result. However polygraph tests show that he is not lying.
Robert Patrick dominates the picture with an extremely good performance. D.B. Sweeney surprisingly has less to do despite top billing. The movie has steady direction from Robert Lieberman who maintains a level headed tone. It also captures the mid seventies surprisingly well. Veteran actor James Garner also turns in a solid performance as Lieutenant Frank Watters, who is tasked with solving the case. The production is mainly location based and gives a good sense of what it's like to live in a small town. The UFO encounter at the beginning of the film is minimalist and purposely ambiguous. It is not until the third act when Travis Walton returns after five days, that the tone of the story changes.
D.B Sweeney offers a credible interpretation of a returned abductee, playing the role like a veteran suffering from shell shock. The movie culminates with a flash back to the interior of the alleged spaceship and a subsequent examination of Walton by EBEs. These scenes are very professionally done and very creative (they also have little resemblance to what was written in Walton's book, but hey that's Hollywood for you). This sequence is genuinely shocking with a variety of metal probes and instruments being driven in to Walton's head. In some respects it feels a little out of place with the proceeding tone of the movie. However it serves to illustrate why Walton returns in such a state.
Fire in the Sky is a solid movie that does not fall in to needless sensationalism about its subject matter. The acting and script are sound, preferring to deal with the human fallout of the incident rather than wallow in the excesses of the extraterrestrial elements of the plot. It certainly doesn't attempt to answer any major questions, preferring to explore the nature of friendship under extreme circumstances. As a result it is a far better movie than you'd expect, proving that good actors with a decent script is always preferable to VFXs, bluster and noise.
Communion (1989)
Ambiguous is a very good word to describe the movie Communion. As are nebulous, circumspect, vague, inconclusive and confusing. However that is the entire point of the film. It doesn't provide a definitive answer because to this day, author Whitley Strieber, who's personal experiences the movie is based on, doesn't have one. Was he abducted? If so by whom and for what reason? Who can say? Communion is not so much a study of the abduction phenomenon but more of an exploration of coming to terms with an unquantifiable experience. There is a strong religious subtext to the proceedings as the title implies. Strieber did not automatically assume that the "visitors" were extraterrestrial and has been very careful to use neutral terms to describe them.
Ambiguous is a very good word to describe the movie Communion. As are nebulous, circumspect, vague, inconclusive and confusing. However that is the entire point of the film. It doesn't provide a definitive answer because to this day, author Whitley Strieber, who's personal experiences the movie is based on, doesn't have one. Was he abducted? If so by whom and for what reason? Who can say? Communion is not so much a study of the abduction phenomenon but more of an exploration of coming to terms with an unquantifiable experience. There is a strong religious subtext to the proceedings as the title implies. Strieber did not automatically assume that the "visitors" were extraterrestrial and has been very careful to use neutral terms to describe them.
Communion is defined and driven by the performance of Christopher Walken. As ever he is both eccentric and compelling. He seems determined to paint Whitley Strieber as a New York Bohemian. In reality the author looks more like an accountant. However the film works best when depicting Walken's mental collapse and the strain it put's upon his family. The abduction and subsequent flash backs are purposely stylised, giving them a dreamlike quality. The special effects are not supposed to show us living, breathing entities but caricatures. We do not see them for what they are but as how Strieber's mind interprets them. The "visitors" are wearing masks, hiding their true identities, which is a recurring theme within the narrative.
Does Communion work as a movie? Yes, although it stumbles along the way and revels a little too much in its own ambiguity. It does however tackle some very interesting questions and highlights that abduction experiences are not as black and white as some people on both sides of the debate seem to think. If you watch this movie expecting a traditional abduction account then you may be better off watching Fire in the Sky. Communion is a far more philosophical undertaking. It raises far more questions than it answers but that is Whitley Strieber's entire point. Sometimes it's not about getting answers but how we deal with the fact that there may not be any satisfactory one. The movies conclusion seems to be that agnosticism is by far the wisest default position.