THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE @ 55

Sam, an American in Rome, walks past a gallery on the way home one night to witness a masked figure attacking a woman inside. He runs to her aid, getting into the glassed off antechamber, inadvertently locking him self between two glass walls and watches powerlessly as the attack proceeds. Getting a passing stranger to call the cops, he pounds at the glass ineffectively. The assassin leaps away at the sound of the siren but the woman is on the floor with an abdominal wound.

Sam was about to decamp to New York with his Brit girlfriend but the detective who interviews him takes his passport. The case is so baffling that anyone could be involved. Sam has to clear his name but also is intrigued to play detective, himself, haunted by the notion that he saw something that the excitement erased. The killer is picking off women around the city. Sam is about to enter a labyrinth of intrigue, danger and after dark puzzles. Does he have the key?

The Giallo genre was about a decade old when Dario Argento entered the scene with this film. Argento had already been a film critic and had made a good start at screen writing, collaborating with the likes of Bertolucci and Leone (the tense opening of Once Upon a Time in the West has his stamp all over it). Italy had already shown its endless appetite for the violence and engaging mysteries of Giallo as dished up by the great Mario Bava among many others. These were shot for international markets and, as with all Italian film production at the time, made with the intention of dubbing the dialogue. Argento wrote his own adaptation of the novel The Screaming Mimi for his debut.

While the gallery attack scene is not the very opening it's the way the film is recalled opening, with a situation straight out of Hitchcock as a would be hero is prevented from helping and must watch an act of violence from a trap. It's a nightmare situation and won't be the last one this movie offers.

Actually, that's a point: Bird is so stuffed to the gills with Giallo quirks that it would be considered a postmodern parody if it had been made now. the cross-dressing lineup guy giving better than he gets, the Breughel style naive painting of the sexual assault, the ugly but funny comedy scene with the artist, the too-urbane detective, right down to the hit man in the bright yellow leather jacket (Giallo is Italian for yellow, Argento even made a later movie with that as the title) which has one of the best comic relief transitions before getting scary again. Argento isn't trying to send anything up, though, he is gleefully picking genre tropes off the shelf and setting them off as perfect plot bombs. Hitchcock himself dismissed the plot drivers of his films with the joke about the McGuffin (Google it) he much preferred the visual puns, social commentary and mechanics of suspense. See also everyone who made a Giallo except that Argento even more, outdoing the great Bava himself.

So, if anything, The Bird With the Crystal Plumage pays nothing but service to the genre it declares. That said, it is not a series of ticks on a checklist. Argento warms everything up with real humour and builds a nocturnal Rome that feels of its time but also darkly medieval. On board as cinematographer is Vittorio Storaro  who also lensed The Conformist, The Godfather and Apocalypse Now among many others, having a deadly sense of the effects of colour on the psyche. Bird still looks like a zillion dollars. And while we're talking collaborators, let's throw in the great Ennio Morricone who provides a score that mixes cute girl pop with avant orchestral noise motifs and electronica. This movie sounds scared.

As a sub-genre of crime fiction The Bird With the Crystal Plumage still delivers and in a much more insistent manner than most of them. Argento perfected the traditional Giallo with his next string of films, adding more peculiar style each time until Deep Red a few years on which all but rendered the genre impossible to top. After some extraordinary horror outings he then returned but to decreasing effect as some of the later entries could not outgrow the limitations of the Giallo's heyday. There are always exceptions (Opera, The Stendhal Syndrome) but the more recent films have felt like the first ones never did: routine. Before that, back in 1970, he climbed to the peak of his adopted genre on his first go. If you can find this, watch it.

Viewing notes: We watched Arrow's 4K presentation of this and it is stellar. In the convivium and sipping of bubbly stuff we all got a little lost. As these movies were never shot with direct sound and intended to be dubbed even in their native Italian it's not a big deal unless you really want ot hear actor's own voices (E.g. David Hemmings in Deep Red). The subtitles might prove a boon, here. I can't find it for purchase or rent on any streamer. If you are feeling adventurous you can get a physical copy from a few boutique labels. Maybe Shudder or Tubi in the future.

Review: 28 YEARS LATER

Decades after the initial outbreak of the rage virus Britain is a quarrantined area. Survivors band in various ways but the ones we follow have found an Island protected by a causeway that the tide renders impassable. Island life is primitive but homely. Young Spike is being prepared to accompany his father across to the mainland to join him in scavenging for the settlement. While Spike initially nails a few of the infected his fear and nerves during skirmishes see him making mistakes and he carries guilt back with him to the island. 

When his initiation party gets under way, his concerns make him follow his father who has himself followed a young woman out to where the shadows are private. Betrayed at the sight, Spike goes back home and chats to his grandfather about what happened and a curious distant fire he saw on the mainland. Grandad suggests that the flame was maintained by one of the few trained doctors in reach. Spike thinks of his bedridden mother upstairs whose erratic, hallucinatory behaviour is probably just something that needs medicine. He has a lot to prove and a chance to do something really good. He takes his mum across the causeway.

When I saw 28 Days Later as a new film I and my companion were treated to a very ill fellow cinephile who kept sneezing ballistically while watching the instantly transferrable bug lay the land waste with hoards of angry zombies. That wasn't entirely why I didn't love the movie. I did like about two thirds, though, the first act and build were wonderful but then it fell into over-contrivance with pat dialogue and what felt like a rushed conclusion. Along with other titles of its vintage (hello to The Descent and Eden Lake), it gained in cult adoration what it didn't in box office returns and largely left me cold. I had no interest in the sequel 28 Weeks Later. 

So why go to this one? It was deemed different.

Well, so it is, mostly. It plays like an old rustic tale like Kes or Whistle Down the Wind but with Zombies and adult themes. Spike leaves the safety of his small society, let down by his father and needing to make his mother better, and wanders the dangerlands, meeting fellow travellers also pursuing survival. The memento mori of the herds of infected, whether obese and crawling like outsized reptiles or knotty limbed and voracious, preventing all but the most fleeting senses of the kind of reset the land needs.

Danny Boyle was one of the '90s wunderkinder, a flashy auteur bursting with pop culture and an eye for irony that often broke into the screamingly cynical. His Shallow Grave and Trainspotting remain durable highlights but his output after them put him in the patchy file. The embarrassing Coens rip A Life Less Ordinary and the meh The Beach left him nowhere to go until 2002's 28 Days Later in which he reinvented zombies to a decent return. The problem for me with that one is that he didn't leave his smartarsed observations at the door and tried to shoehorn the kind of toughness of Trainspotting in. It meant that the resulting tonal tension made it feel more like cable tv than cinema. And then we get the ending. I won't spoil it but it reminded me of nothing else but the kind of rugpull cliffhangers that The Walking Dead would end its seasons with. 

That said, this one does feel like cinema. There is a theme of anger and a quest for betterment from Spike which works but perhaps works toward the already announced sequel. Alfie Williams is outstanding as Spike. The ever dependable Jodie Comer, Ralph Fiennes and Aaron Taylor Johnson provide the screen with solid presence. All of this works but I was still left waiting for the next season.

Viewing Notes. The timing of the session had me getting an overpriced ticket to one of Hoyts' Lux cinemas with the reclinas. These days I'm fine with these as they can be easily adjusted for comfort. We were also treated to a free popcorn and softdrink which was a pleasant surprise. Currently on general release.

Review: WARFARE

part of my subscriptionDo you remember Eric Prydz's 2000s hit Call On Me? No? Well, if you ever slunk home after a long Saturday night and chucked Rage on, you'll remember the video. A group of beautiful and fit young women compete for the attention of the hunky gym trainer. Gyrations and pelvic thrusts and Californian perfection in the hair, faces and bodies. All the reward is directed at the male who is standing in for those playing at home. Well, that's how this movie about military violence begins. After enough of the Prydz clip the reverse shot is of a wall of soldiers in action gear grinning and leering and cheering: bonding. You will remember this moment as the film continues. You will need to.

This film has a progress rather than an act structure. It is based on the collected memories of the soldiers who participated in the operation and, while an arc does become clear, what we are watching is military procedure without context beyond that of warfare itself. Ok, got it, roll credits.

Well, the rest of the film is a steady build from the crew establishing their base to starting operations to defending themselves against an elusive enemy. The point of their presence and commandeering the house becomes clear as they identify armed suspects appearing in the neighbouring buildings, the soldiers are drawing them out. When a grenade is tossed in through a window the operation changes from a clean-up job to a siege with increasingly traumatic and brutally violent effects on the men.

A multinational cast of young, intense performers gives us a thickening tension and at frequent intervals, we go back to that bonding sleazy pop video. When we're looking into the body of a soldier halved by an explosion with his internal organs exposed or another's legs hacked by weaponry, we recall the doof doof techno rhythm and the beautiful young things grinding around erotically and wish we were back there when the worst thing was what the men no so secretly wanted to do with those dancers. If that bonded the characters, it now bonds the audience to the movie.

The insistence on depicting the real time events highlights the apparent futility of the operation. What does it mean when a single act of aggression renders the soldiers into automatic motion drilled in by training? And where are we looking when we understand that almost all of what we are seeing is the force and equipment of an invading army? When they are threatened our empathy defaults to them. A poignant single shot before the end credits puts this into perspective.

I am gladdened that this wasn't a found footage movie as the real-time feature suggested. The presentation is the cleanest digital video and multiple setups every scene. About half way through I began to wonder when the point was due to arrive but as that mark drove by it became clear that this was the point: noise, danger, life and non life. While I was happy to emote-along the characters closest to my field of vision, I kept thinking of why they were there. I did not support the war in Iraq. This coloured everything I saw between the two credit sequences and I kept thinking of the ever darkening sleaze of the Eric Prydz video and feeling sick that the erotica and the ultraviolence became indistinguishable. A strong piece that yet must beg for indulgence lest its audience should wise up and walk out.

Viewing notes: I saw this as part of my subscription to Prime. It was a robust 4K presentation. It's available for rent at other sources.

FRIDAY THE 13th @ 45 (Spoliers!)

A young woman hitchhikes her way to her job as a cook at a summer camp. After being weirded out by a local preaching doom, warned off going to her destination because of murders that took place there, and then given the ick by the driver of her ride, she gets out and is pursued into the woods to her violent death. Meanwhile, the other young things assemble at Camp Crystal Lake to setup for the advent of the kids. They notice the persistent absence of the new cook (we already met her) and then they, too, start suffering the slings and arrows ... and javelins. Cinema has entered the 1980s.

Sean Cunningham's 1980 teen slasher from a screenplay by Victor Miller was intended as a cash-in after the success of John Carpenter's seminal Halloween from two years before. This is how the film is often dismissed but that really is a disservice. While the parent group is similarly absent, leaving the nascent adults to fend for themselves, the threat of the suburban jungle is replaced with the wilder environment of the forest at night. 

These teens, also, have cleared school, having even less anchor points to the social order. This is illustrated early with the snake. Anyone who has never seen this film needs the warning that it depicts the onscreen killing of a snake by a machete-wielding kid. It happens as part of a panic among the group which is solved by violence. I cannot apologise for it but I can see how it establishes a pragmatism that puts the young adults into preparedness. In the realm of the movie, it's a small crisis brought to a head. It might well haunt more recent views beyond the running time.

For all I prefer in Halloween, I have to admit that the internal politics are given more depth in Friday the 13th. Along with the effective Tom Savini gore of the kills, this cultural aspect is brought to the fore, providing the monster with the kind of grounding absent in Carpenter's shape. In this first outing of the franchise, we don't even catch sight of the killer until the last. At this point we also get the motivation and its twisted ugliness.

A 1950s-set prologue has already given us a kind of standard setter and appears to speak for the film itself by punishing pre-marital sex. This, and a careful misreading of the ensuing movie bears out the common misconception that teen slashers are puritanical thunderbolts, warning the too-young away from the sins of the flesh. This falls apart immediately when you consider the target audiences were the same horny teens on screen who didn't once consider their desires to be preludes to murder. More centrally, it's the deranged monster with the machete that's doing this. As Alex West of The Faculty of Horror podcast once perfectly phrased it: the movie's rad, the killer's conservative.

A glimpse into the future will show how the F13 franchise developed this. The first four display an offroad freedom to the young adults' choices and, while sex is a generic given, they're also adventurous outside of that one. For now, back in 1980, the adults in the form of ludicrous cops and uptight veteran youth counsellors, and crazy Ralph the doomsayer, offer only a kind of dead skin as faces of authority. The result isn't an instant Lord of the Flies but an incursion by the big bad world lashing out from the dark.

It's taken me a while but I've come to appreciate Friday the 13th. When I first saw it during schoolies week in 1980 it was a tearing thrill ride before an eerie walk home though canal-ville on the Gold Coast to the flat I was staying at with other demographically threatened late teens. In a strangely prescient co-incidence, there was a serial criminal known first as the balaclava rapist and then balaclava killer on the loose along the Gold Coast. We were aware of that as we tried to navigate the then forbidding urban landscape of the strip.

This film also carries a surprise for anyone aware of the franchise iconography. It is not Jason who does the killing but his vengeful mother. Her dispatch with a machete to the neck appears to give a second birth to her wronged son whose grisly mutated form polarises out of the lake water and attacks the final girl in what might or might not be a dream. Than he's still out there? she asks the cops from her hospital bed. Yes he was, growing, getting nastier and uglier. But he was also developing and distinguishing himself from a decade of slasher clones who preferred F13's flamboyant gore over Halloween's suspense. And, of course, the Halloween sequels lay down and copied the copy. Jason got his hockey mask on the third go and its assumption was a comment on the society of his victims. Yes, of course, it's fun rather than philosophy but it's fun that got that tiny bit closer.

Viewing notes: I saw this on my birthday of Friday the 13th on Paramount's superb 4K transfer which enhances the always unexpected beauty of the cinematography. It was a birthday celebration and the viewing was ruled by peanut-gallery commentary, but we did take it in in spirit. It has been available as part of a boxset of the Paramount-owned franchise, and Stan used to stream it. Otherwise it's rentable online from a few outlets.

Review: UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE

A rowdy French class gets disciplined by its teacher who's at his wits' end. What threw him off was the myopic boy who claims his glasses were stolen by a turkey. Sir bundles them all in the bad closet and says he won't teach them again until the boy has glasses again. This begins an expansive weave of threads as we follow characters through the snowy town who are looking for solutions. 

Matthew Rankin's absurdist canvas contains a gentle but resonant rug-pull about three quarters of  the way through. When it's revelation is clear it changes this film from something I might begrudgingly like to a work of satisfying depth. 

Until that point, though, it ain't easy. Once you've lost count of scenes of children walking against screen filling walls and dialogue whose whimsy borders on painful you would be forgiven for thinking that this is one of those movies you pick on your MIFF pass because you like the venue. When you get to the character dressed as a Christmas tree, your memories of Roy Anderson movies (I don't mean Wes, Roy is Swedish and can be even worse) might come flooding back with the weight of bad exam days.

But there is, in this case, more. I had to begin by telling myself that these separate narratives were like folk tales and the city which is described as zones of colour like beige or grey depending on the brick work is lent a fabulous look by its endless walls and barely snatched images of the white winter sky. This is Canada but it is a Canada whose French component is complimented by Persian rather than English. Don't ask me.

Actually, you can ask me. The theme of the overall arc here is connection. Family, community, culture, generation and location and it is moved with the notion of fluidity (gender, personal identity and more). Rankin, as writer, director and character, wants us to consider the organism of our community and the flow of our lives. The children, in their wild goose quest for a means to free the high value banknote from the ice takes them across town and back from afternoon to night, encounter a cross section of the townsfolk, all of whom have a story or a folky tip to share. Matthew Rankin as character and creator (though this does not stumble into heavy handedness) seeks his familial roots but must intersect with the same kind of undeclared network, even to the extent of connecting with the guide of dowdy civic tours of liminal urban wastes. 

The connections appear and are deftly drawn. The characters are, once knowable as parts of the greater tale, warmly presented. This film wrested my resistance from me the way a grumbling shy kid can be collared into enjoying a party. I thought I would be writing something like Roberto Rossellini makes a Wes Anderson film. Instead, I can report that I was most pleasurably proven wrong.

Viewing notes; I saw this at the Kino in Melbourne on a cold and rainy morning. It felt perfect.

CRUISING @ 45

After a series of murders of gay men in New York, Steve, a uniform cop, gets offered an undercover assignment with the carrot of a promotion to detective dangling. Steve moves into a flat in the West Village and starts meeting the locals and hanging out at the gay bars in the neighbourhood. The job, taking him into an intense world, forces him to confront his own sexuality as he involves himself ever deeper in the scene. His straight relationship starts to come apart and as he gets closer to narrowing in on the killer, he might have to make some big decisions.

Friedkin and his star Al Pacino had both been around the thematic area of crime procedural and undercover work in The French Connection and Serpico respectively. Cruising came at the end of a decade of cinema which New Hollywood had rendered gritty and dangerous. The appeal of the story with an added controversial theme was enough to get this one done as yet another dark big city story.

This film cannot be discussed without mention of the protests around its production and release by New York's gay community whose concern was the effects of damaging stereotyping or worse that might embolden hate crime. With the bullshit of gayness as a lifestyle choice (as opposed to a natural state) embedded in mainstream culture, the concern held water. That the resulting film does not play on this outside of characters' attitudes is a triumph against the times of its conception. Cruising might be many things but it is not a gay bash.

While it might be tempting to view the sweaty, macho and emboldened scenes of the clublife as the last orgy before AIDS, I think it would be missing the point the same way that a film depicting the twin towers might suggest commerce when everything was free. To my mind the flaunting culture of the leather bars is more related to the past, to the obscurity of privileged societies and the supposed decadence of antiquity. The cop cosplay comes across as poignant in the light of scenes of corrupt cops (or just impostors) using their authority for sexual abuse. When Joe Spinell first appears as such a cop in a cruiser car and then, in civvies, in the clubs, Friedkin is extending what he's already started to do with the killers when he shows a number of very similar looking men as likely. This is a microculture as seen by a baffled observer.

Steve is so baffled that his haunted gaze into a mirror toward the end holds questions of his own sexuality and perhaps even culpability. This is why Cruising doesn't play at all like the serial killer movies that dominated crime cinema in the following decade; the deeper the cop goes the less clear the job becomes, the less cultural judgement he is permitted to use. The irresolution is not something that Silence of the Lambs and its copies could tolerate. If anything, Cruising more closely resembles the freaky ambiguity facing Deckard in Blade Runner than anything from exploitation cinema. Friedkin spent marathon hours removing a lot of verite footage from the film (forty minutes). Superficially, this was to evade a lethal X rating but it also improved the film by leanness.

Is the film itself sleazy? It is unavoidably the production of an outsider to the culture who is likely to add more than a dash of exotica but I think the scenes of domestic life around Steve's apartment, the crossdressing sex workers (who come across a lot less freaky than the cops who bail them up). If there is sleaze it gets closest in the depiction of potential psychopathy when the film switches viewpoints and invades the apartment of one of the suspects. Steve invades the apartment and goes through the letters written to the suspect's dead father which include some bizarre and troubling imagery (you want sleaze? I paused the rental VHS for five tape stressing minutes reading the text, back in the '90s!). 

Al Pacino himself might have seemed poor casting but the authenticity of his awkwardness is right there on the screen. It serves him through the rising chill of his relationship with his girlfriend. Karen Allen adds a lot of definition to a role that might have been left superficial. When she plays with his costume it is both an affirmation of Steve's old normality and a creepy absorption of the iconography. If Cruising is a big budget exploitation movie it is a self-aware one.  Of course, I'm writing all this from an Ikea ivory-look tower further away than even William Friedkin was from the culture the film depicts. My judgement for the defence must be read that way. But I can say that, on repeated views, Cruising is a story of self-estrangement delivered cold, a remote surgical procedure, but not a smirk.

Viewing notes: I watched my splendid Arrow Blu-Ray for this review. Cruising has not kept a high profile in Friedkin's output and things outside of The Exorcist or The French Connection are only really served by boutique labels. If you want it on physical media, you'll have to look overseas. Otherwise, it's on at least three streamers for rent or purchase. 

BRING HER BACK: Review

Step brother and sister, Andy and Piper, are fostered out after the death of their father. Andy is a few months shy of being able to apply for guardianship of Piper so they need to lump this development. Laura, at first, seems a little quirky and try hard but she has nerves, too. When the pair venture out and see the third foster child, a little boy with a shaven head, on the floor of the empty pool, worrying the cat, the ick springs up in both of them. It's Ollie, muted by trauma. He gets locked in his room. Laura's offness only gets worse and there are troubling flashbacks or snippets from the most terryfing home movies ever made that give us the ick when we see her, too. You know all this and the film is only about ten minutes old. Bring Her Back is not about a breakneck horror coaster, it's about grind and dread.

The brothers Philippou chose to follow up their breakout hit Talk To Me with something that, while still in the horror genre, could scarcely differ more. Talk To Me was like a classic pop song with some added depth. You can rewatch it frequently and never tire of it. Bring Her Back plunges its hand deep into the viscera of some dark and ugly themes and keeps it there, foraging around. There is none of the humour of the debut but there is also none of the context that might provide it. What warmth there is is kept solely between Andy and Piper. When the bad fires up it keeps on burning.

There will inevitably be grumps from the horror community that this is yet another A24 grief allegory posing as horror cinema. Well, that is a central theme but the concern widens out toward an exploration of family trauma. We have already seen in a prologue that Laura has turned to the occult to recover her dead daughter. The trailer makes a lot more of this than the film does. The tale on the screen is about the unlovely weave of a woman's driven obsession and the urban Hansel and Gretel she has chosen toward that end.

Sally Hawkins gives us a Laura who is easy with her professional counselling skills, susceptible to off-rail whimsy to grasp at the trust of her charges and prone to resorting to some nasty gaslighting. If you know the actor, you'll know her versatility from the pained optimism of Happy Go Lucky to the challenged Elisa in The Shape of Water. Hawkins delivers a figure steadfast in her aim but protean in her constant sense of threat. Her Australian accent is as subdued as her character is in the company of officialdom but breaks into a kind of grinning mew when approaching intimacy, she is flint voiced mother and snarling housecat. This, and at no time does the performance feel pushed. 

The Philippous' naturalism in their casts' performances extends into this more subdued tale and proves essential. This extends to the turns of the younger cast, Sora Wong, Billy Barrett, and John Wren Phillips. This means that our empathy is called upon to deal with graphic pain which is plastered over the screen for its running time. That's a lot in a cinema ticket.

I hope I'm wrong about this but I can't see this attaining the same success as Talk To Me. Without the hooks of that one (the hand prop and ritual, the youth and the energy just in the trailer) we are left with a slowburning grind whose trailer-worthy moments of solid horror promise colour but whose deeper moments keep the pace down and the mood grim. You can like Talk To Me for the fun of it and watch it later for the depth. This one, not so. I think it's commitment to the darkness of the tale that demands fluctuations in empathy and outright revulsion will keep it from mass appeal. However, it also feels like it needed to be made. When you know that its makers turned down much bigger returns to make this disturbingly sincere film, you'll treasure every frame. But to do that, you'll have to want to sit in front of it. What can I say but please do?