The Perfume of the Lady in Black

I decided on a shot in the dark and watched:

 

The Perfume of the Lady in Black (1974).

 

Directed by Francesco Barilli and starring Mimsey Farmer (Four Flies on Grey Velvet) as the main character Silvia Hackerman.

One could be forgiven for thinking this is a Giallo, but it really isn't. It is Italian and made in the 70's, but it is a thriller/horror movie. There are few to none of the classic Giallo tropes in Perfume.

Silvia is a successful young manager at a chemical plant with a nice boyfriend, Roberto. She does however have a lot of anxieties that sometimes make her hard to deal with. We learn that she had an unhappy childhood, with an absent father in the navy or merchant marine (I'm not sure which). Her relationship with her mother was not good until the mother died while Silvia was very young.

Silvia's life starts getting stranger and stranger and soon enough she starts hallucinating, seeing her mother and others in such vivid imagery that it drives her into a panic. And this is where the movie shines. One could perhaps say that The Perfume of the Lady in Black uses an unreliable narrator, but that would be wrong. An unreliable narrator lies to you, while Silvia herself doesn't know what is real and what isn't. The movie might be lying to us, but Sylvie herself isn't.

Weird things keep happening, with mysterious things appearing in her apartment when she is out. A vase in a shop window vanishes and the owner swears she has never had such an item, only for the vase to appear in her home gift wrapped. It reminded me of the psy-ops the East German secret police, Stasi, used to unnerve and break down people they were after.

Little by little, Sylvia starts to break down, and this paranoia is felt by the watcher every time a person greets her, smiling politely only to stare after her with inscrutable suspicious glances. Some things can only be hallucinations and other things must be real since there is no way Silvia could know about it, unless she imagines things. Ultimately it is very difficult to know what did or did not happen. It could be a story about a mentally ill young woman, or a story about a victim of a sinister conspiracy. The wonderful creepy almost non-musical soundtrack really helps and the actors all do a credible job to create a really strange and creepy atmosphere.

I won't of course spoil the ending but I did not see it coming. In a way, everything makes sense by the end but you could be forgiven for believing that none or almost none of what happened took place.

The Perfume of the Lady in Black is a confusing movie that takes slow burn to a new level, but it had to. In order to slowly ramp up all the mysterious happenings, it needs to show you what is normal first. Some have compared it to Rosemary's Baby, and I can see why, but that isn't totally accurate either. The Perfume of the Lady in Black is it's own thing and you have to deal with it as it is.

So, do I recommend The Perfume of the Lady in Black? Yes and no. I had a great time in the end, but there were several moments when I was asking myself “What am I watching?”. I think it was worth it, but you have to be prepared to watch a really slow, strange film. If you are, go for it, otherwise watch something else. 

 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

The Island of the Fishmen

It's time for some old school horror with;

The Island of the Fishmen (1979).

Fishmen is directed by Sergio Martino who's work has been featured on this blog before, most recently Torso (1973). It stars Barbara Bach, Claudio Cassinelli and Richard Johnson amongst others.

First off I need to point out the oddity of the US release which is the one I watched. It is called Screamers and was released under Roger Corman's New World Pictures. Corman added a new fifteen minute long beginning that has a hard time meshing with the rest of the movie.

So in the beginning we learn that the year is 1891 and a couple has come to the island to look for a legendary treasure. Soon the fishmen arrive and kill everyone in extremely gory ways. That's it.

Then the real movie begins. A small group of prisoners have survived a shipwreck together with the ship doctor. They wash up on the unnamed island where most die off quickly. The doctor and two prisoners soon meet the master of the island, Edmond Rackham (Johnson) who is very clearly the villain of the movie. He lives in a mansion tended to by a group of natives. We also meet Amanda Marvin (Bach) who takes a bit of a shine to the doctor. The relationship between Amanda and Rackham is a mystery at first but all is eventually explained. The eponymous fishmen lurk everywhere, killing where they can, and it is here we get the biggest disconnect between the new intro and the actual movie. I mentioned the heavy gore in the intro and that is nowhere to be found anywhere else. No one gets their head ripped off anymore, instead a light scratch across the face is enough to kill. I don't need the gore, but why add it in such a large amount if the movie isn't that bloody? Makes no sense to me.

Over all, The Island of the Fishmen is much more adventure than horror. Once you get to know more about what is going on, the horror essentially disappears and you are left with an old school adventure movie, and that is pretty awesome!

Unfortunately I can't explain anything more about the plot without ruining it, but this is an underrated gem of a movie. Yes, the effects are a bit cheesy, and the dialogue is a bit cheesy, in fact, it could be called The Island of the Cheesemen, but that is also the movie's biggest charm. It is a kind of innocent adventure movie with some pretty decent horror elements, sprinkled with a little bit of romance.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes I do. It works well within its budget, the effects are decent enough and the acting is fine. I found the movie on a list of Lovecraftian horror, and superficially it fits, but The Island of the Fishmen is its own thing and oozes with silly pulp action charm. If that is your cup of tea, then watch this movie.

That is that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

The Lighthouse is pretty heavy.

I crossed another movie of my to-watch list:

The Lighthouse (2019).

Written by Robert and Max Eggers and directed by Robert Eggers, this strange, weird, downright odd movie stars Willem Dafoe, Robert Pattison and Valeriia Karaman. The entire cast is ten entries and that includes Sully Seagull who actually is a seagull.

The Lighthouse is shot in black and white, on 35mm Double-X film that requires a lot more light than normal film. This creates some very vivid shadows and does wonders for the atmosphere. It is also shot on an aspect ration of 1.19:1 which is the same that was used in the early days of the talkies, and used by early directors like Fritz Lang and George Wilhelm Pabst. This was intentional to heighten the old-timey feel and to increase the claustrophobia.

The story is set in 1890 off the northeastern cost of the US. Two lighthouse keepers, veteran Thomas Wake (Dafoe) and newcomer Thomas Howard (Pattison), arrive to spend four weeks on a desolate rock in the cruel Atlantic. We quickly get a feeling that something is wrong, a feeling the only increases with every passing scene. Wake, as the senior is very demanding and assigns all the harsh physical labor to Howard. The one thing he insists on tending to is the light itself, turning very aggressive when Howard asks to go up to the top. A great part of the movie follows Howard as he struggles through his duties, becoming increasingly frustrated from day to day. Since Howard is the point of view character we practically sit on his shoulder as he suffers from day to day with his work, his sexual frustrations and what are probably hallucinations. I say probably, because we don't really know for sure. There is an element of unreliable narration, but not just against us. It also concerns the characters.

Most critics have labeled The Lighthouse a horror movie, and I don't disagree, but one critic stated that this movie is too odd to pigeonhole, and I absolutely agree with that. It is at times grim, brutal, gloomy, shocking and even funny. Time and time again I asked myself “what am I watching”, but at no time did I want to turn the movie off. It is absolutely brilliant, but as much a fever dream as it is a movie.

Robert Eggers has stated that "it's a movie where both Jung and Freud would be furiously eating their popcorn", and I can see why. I'm by no means a psychiatrist, but the psychology is clear for all to see. From the suggestive shape of the lighthouse to the complex relationship between the two men, I can absolutely believe that statement. Another huge influence on the movie is Greek mythology, mostly Oedipus and Prometheus. If this sounds extremely weird for a movie about two lighthouse keepers, or wickies, you would be right. It is odd, but it works!

The reason it works is two fold. On the one hand, The Lighthouse is incredibly well shot. Every scene is amazing in composition, shape and lighting. On the other hand these two actors act their hearts out. Both Dafoe and Pattison are incredible in this movie. Dafoe is often a bit odd in his roles but Pattison goes up to Daniel Day Lewis levels of acting and there were times when I had to remind myself who was actually on screen.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I really do, but not to everyone. You have to be able to sit through 1h49m of sheer insanity that not only gets worse and worse but almost drags you along with it until you aren't really sure what is up and what is down. If that is alright with you, than watch The Lighthouse as soon as possible.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week! Oh, and stay away from old lighthouses.

 

Finnish Humor.

Today I have a trio sampler of the Finnish comedian Ismo Leikola and his observations about the English language. This wasn't my original plan for this week, but time, like a cat, didn't want to cooperate. Oh well, at least these videos are pretty damn funny. They are in English as well, so no need to worry.

So without further ado, please enjoy and I'll see you next time. Until then, have a great and funny week!   

 

  

 

A Slightly Misleading Title

I needed a break from Italian 70's cinema so I sat down and watched:

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022).

This is not a remake of either Lewis Milestone's 1930 adaptation or Delbert Mann's 1979 version, but rather a direct adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 book of the same name.

I have not seen either of the earlier movies or indeed read the book, so I went in with as open a mind as one can have concerning such a famous work. I of course knew it is set in WWI from the German point of view and that it is staunchly anti war. Beyond that I knew nothing.

The movie starts with four students that naively volunteer for the army and proudly and with a belly full of propaganda march off to the western front. All their inflated dreams of honor and glory are immediately punctured upon arriving at the trench. Everything is downhill from there.

The movie can be broken up into four different elements.

1. Gruesome battle scenes.

2. Generals and politicians talking.

3. Soldiers having a conversation.

4. Amazing nature scenes.

First off, All Quiet on the Western Front is a cinematic masterpiece but only from a visual point. This visual point is however magnificent, no questions and no doubts. It is stupidly pretty. The battle scenes are horrific, brutal and really well done. The rest is meaningless and boring.

As stated, I knew the movie is anti war, and I have no problem with that. My problem lies in how it tries to convey that message. Yes, the slaughter is horrible, but we already know it is. The truth is that war is the ultimate horror humanity can orchestrate. The slaughter is senseless and tragic, and the only ones who want it are the ones who don't need to participate, I.E. generals and politicians. I get that the filmmakers probably didn't want to diverge from the original material too much, but beyond a basic “war is bad and awful” this movie has nothing to say.

This brings me to point 3. We don't really get to know the characters at all. There is a handful of scenes where the soldiers are talking and they unfortunately don't really do anything for the narrative or character development. We learn that they yearn for home and their families, that they really don't want to be in the trenches and that they miss female company. Well so what? Sure these are valid feelings but every soldier feels this unless they are complete psychopaths. Any competent maker of thrillers know that they have to make you feel for the characters before the killer comes creeping or the tension is lost. In All Quiet on the Western Front there is no tension to speak of. Without the personal touch, the tragedy devolves into statistics. Sure, I did feel a little for the poor guys, but it could have been so much better. Their deaths could have meant something.

Point 2 is almost completely pointless and in my opinion does very little for the movie as a whole. This brings us to point 4. The movie is interspersed with the most beautiful shots of nature. Every shot is like a painting and could be the pride of any calendar. What I don't get is why they are there in the first place. Contrast to all the mud and blood? Maybe, I have no idea, but they are worth seeing just for their sheer beauty.

Otherwise, the movie is fine. The actors do a great job, the soundtrack is weird but good and as I said, the cinematography is A+.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes and no. I'm sure you noticed that I have a lot of harsh criticism and I stand by that. All Quiet on the Western Front is two hours and twenty eight minutes long, and despite that, I had no trouble sitting through it. I guess what it boils down to is that it could have been a masterpiece and instead we get a pretty snooze fest broken up by complete carnage. If you like war movies or if the subject matter has some other appeal, then by all means watch it, but otherwise I'd say give it a miss.

That is that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Why is it so creepy?

 Today I want to talk about J-Horror, or Japanese Horror. 

It's a style of horror that I'm passingly familiar with. Ringu (1998), The Grudge (2004), Ju-On: The Grudge 2, Dark Water (2002) and One Missed Call (2008) are all excellent examples of J-horror, and I enjoyed them a great deal. 

There is something special with these kinds of movies, but rather than repeat what others have said, and said better at that, I'm going to present you with two Youtube videos.

The first one is A Short History of Japanese Horror by the channel One Hundred Years of Cinema. I recommend you watch this first to get a good overview of horror in Japan. This video can't be embedded, so just follow the link.

Then watch The Grudge & Ringu: What Makes Japanese Horror Creepy? by Blulavasix.

Both videos have disturbing footage, so if you are sensitive, be careful. Then again, if you are sensitive, you probably aren't interested in Japanese Horror to begin with. Either way, you are warned and my conscience is clear.

 

So enjoy and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great and ghost free week!  

 

Torso

This week I watched:

Torso (1973).

This Giallo, directed by Sergio Martino, who also directed last week's entry, caused a bit of a stir upon its release. Some critics to this day speak of its “graphic carnal violence”. My reaction to that is, really?

The movie is set in Perugia, at the international university. We meet a group of art students, most of whom are lovely young ladies. One in particular, Daniela, is being courted, or should I say stalked, by one of the male students who doesn't know when to quit. Another likes to party with some pretty out there people. Pretty soon the first murders happen, putting everyone on edge. It becomes clear that some of the students harbour dark secrets, and the list of suspects grows steadily. The one lead the police have is a red and black scarf, but it is difficult to remember who was seen wearing it. Daniela gets a threatening phone call one evening, warning her to stop trying to remember who had the scarf. Her uncle suggests that she go to his villa in the country with her friends in order to feel safer. Naturally, the killer follows and we get a tense race to the finish.

First off, lets address the carnal violence aspect. There is quite a bit of carnal nudity in Torso, but the violence is mostly just glimpsed. A knife flashes and a bit of red is shown, a limb is severed but the camera cuts away so fast you have a hard time really seeing what was sliced off. I suppose the more hinted at violence can be more effective than lingering on the gore, but frankly I expected more from the supposed carnal violence. Luckily this doesn't actually matter. Maybe it was a cost cutting decision.

Like Martino's, Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key, Torso is nicely shot. Again, he doesn't seem to go for anything too dramatic for the shots and angles, but instead achieves a more gritty and realistic feel. Many Gialli have a dreamlike quality which can be good, but I appreciate Martino's style. The actors range from good to great, reinforcing the overall vibe. There are also several scenes of someone spying on the women through half drawn curtains, something that is common enough in Giallo, but Martino takes it to another level, by showing a group of men, from lecherous old geezers to young studs, openly commenting and drooling over the girls as they head up to the villa. This was a really uncomfortable scene, and I got the feeling that it somehow made me complicit in just watching the movie. I don't know if that was Martino's intent, but he almost forced me to be a part of the final part of the movie. I haven't experienced that before.

What is different is the unmasking of the killer. Typical for many Gialli is the investigative element, but in Torso it is more a question of survival. We do learn the killers identity and motives, but they are almost secondary. Torso also plays around a bit with viewpoint characters which can be a dangerous technique, but it is done with style and heightens the idea that you don't know who is going to survive.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Torso is a bit slow at first, but the final third is up there with the greats in pure tension. I would even say that you don't need to be a Giallo fan to enjoy it, as it works on many different levels. Due to the large amount of sexual content, I'd be choosy who I watch it with, but you do you. Overall, I enjoyed Torso, and any thriller fan could do so as well.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week!