Showing posts with label 1980 movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1980 movie. Show all posts

Saturday, December 13, 2025

2. The Little Boy—David Lynch’s two studio films

The two studio films David Lynch directed happen to be his most enjoyable. What at first might have appeared to be making concessions adhering to commercial practices catering to the moviegoing public thereby diminishing the artistry of Lynch’s esoteric inspiration on the contrary attain an alchemy of personal pop that works better than you might have realized.
     While The Elephant Man (1980, David Lynch) takes a prestige source’ high attributes and secretly conceals a moral whereby if you buy into it you’re the real monster freak Dune (1984, Lynch) on the other hand takes a vulgar pulpy source’ low attributes and secretly conceals a moral whereby being able to acknowledge there’s no way you could buy into it with a straight face becomes exhilarating. One is Lynch’s most quiet miniature model the other his loudest behemoth. They stand apart from his other films because each is in service of a conventional plot driven narrative with the ultimate aims of a life affirming inspirational heroic portrait of its protagonist. One sees the dignity in someone trampled over by the world the other sees the base forced phoniness of admiring the thought of someone trampling over the world and subjugating it. Light and its shadow.
     The Elephant Man and Dune are also Lynch’s only period films. The past = prestige. The future = popcorn.Why are these also the only two of Lynch’s films with the male protagonist so close to and so influenced by his mother? I don’t know if there is an answer or if that question’s even worth asking but I see them as stage two in the development of Lynch as cinema artist. The little boy. 
 
Trivia section. Both The Elephant Man and Dune feature small roles for the wife of the producer of each of them. And my latest indulgence in projecting. Take this as a joke. But seriously the end of The Elephant Man the final shot is of stars in the night sky backdrop against which the center of the frame is the face of John Merrick’s mother could very well act as a bridge to his next movie Dune opening with Princess Irulan facing into the lens narration with stars in the night sky behind her. 
     Somewhat more obscure trivia section. Michael Elphick in The Elephant Man is credited as NIGHT PORTER but one scene we hear another character address him as SONNY JIM which we all know is a name he shares in common with Dougie and Janey-E’s son in Twin Peaks (2017). And in The Elephant Man John Merrick’s room has a window that looks out to a brick wall in front of it just as the same can be said for Henry in Eraserhead (1977, Lynch).
 

Nothing beats finding your own personal reading or experience or perspective of a film. One that defies the mass agreed upon consensus. Dramatic irony is a stunner. How can I put this plainly? You know how in The Elephant Man there’s that proprietor who abuses John Merrick and subjugates him to chattel? That dude’s my favorite character in the movie. The one I empathize respect and am moved by. Love him. None of the other characters really do anything for me.
     I was like everyone else. The first few times in my life when I saw The Elephant Man I cried during the scenes when Merrick lays his head on the pillow. Or when he cradles the cane in dandy finery gesturing whimsically with his hand putting on airs with the confidence found he deserved but had heretofore been denied his whole life. Thought how ugly the world is that the poor people treat this deformed innocent soul so cruel. But then something changed. The upper-class people aren’t as kind as I had first thought. Revisiting the film again this year first I noticed Anthony Hopkins performance is offputting. There’s something not right about Treves. He feels lifeless. Dispassionate. The equivalent of one in that Kubrick fatigue-fugue wandering out of orbit sociopath. Yeah yeah I know what you’re saying but he invites Merrick for tea at his private residence to meet his wife. He sheds that tsunami of a tear in that tender friendship scene with Merrick. But I don’t think this film is saying what we think it’s saying anymore. I think that that stuff is there for the other ninety-nine percent. 
     Every character in The Elephant Man who’s kind to Merrick only does so as a performative act for their own ego. Look at me I’m charitable = I’m good. I now cry because I read this film’s ending as Treves crying because he used Merrick same as everyone else and that’s the moment he realized it. His atonement. I know you must think I’m insane. When Treves gets excited because Merrick can recite Psalm 23 by heart instead of by rote it’s really because he sees it as securing a permanent residence in the London Hospital for Merrick thereby earning Treves himself greater recognition. Who’s the real monster here?
     Mothershead (Wendy Hiller) full of contempt in defiance of any perceived obligation on her part to be kind to Merrick abandons her disdain for him why? Because he wins her over or because—like in society—it becomes the popular thing to do. What about Gielgud you say? Carr Gomm seems taken with Merrick? Nope. His motives are clearly the pride he indulges in over the Queen sending her congratulatory emissary to express her support of Merrick. And could one not infer that HRH only does so after the papers knight Merrick their darling? 
     Even that famous actress KENDAL is as fakeass an influencer as Jenner betrays her true colors when reading Shakespeare with Merrick. Literally the iteration of performative kindness. She isn’t interacting with Merrick she’s reciting dialogue with Romeo. It’s subtle. But there’s a huge difference. Merrick builds St. Philip’s church because nothing is real. The Elephant Man is about being lonely. Its final image tells us heaven is dying all alone without anyone except maybe one friend and the memory of a parent who loved you.
     And were I to sink to a crude inference I'd say it's even about incels. If that's not a masturbation joke when Treves is presenting Merrick lecturing to his colleagues when he says ninety-nine percent of his body is covered in tumors deformed but his genitals are in peferct working order and his left arm works great!
 
So what about my boy BYTES? First of all I just love the actor Freddie Jones. More and more his performance every time I watch this. I don’t know what you’d call it? Maybe not quite gravitas. Maybe presence. But the dude is cool as all get out. And he’s the mythmaker. Without him this film—Merrick—would lack the art of it all. We know Merrick’s mother didn’t perish underfoot of an African elephant stampede while she was four months pregnant yet that becomes truth because it burns into our memory more savagely than truth. Compounded with Lynch opening the film with nightmare montage offspeed frame rate elephants and the unidentifiable sound design slowed underwater claustrophobic boring into our senses wailing her writhing in agony—also proof I’d like to submit to anyone brazen enough to say this isn’t really like Lynch’s other films.
     Bytes created Merrick. Then the hospital had the wherewithal to put him on the worldstage while robbing him of his livelihood. Feels like Hollywood allegory to me. And psycho me when Bytes flogs Merrick a scene that should be to everyone’s horror to me is more sincere than any other. When Bytes reprimands him where have you been what have you been doing that hits home with me with the pathos of true love desperation scorn the transitory delicate balance of it all. 
     When Bytes sneaks in with the Sonny Jim crowd he doesn’t compel those whores to taunt Merrick out of malice but as a diversionary tactic to subsequently spirit him away. And what we’re left with is the fading away of Bytes. Of a way of life. The freakshow circuit carny refuse aesthetically in Lynch’s hands is a dreamworld delight. His industrial age never better a fit for his industrial sound design. So much to enjoy. The sound design is everything from the grinding anguish ambience of elephant eardrum pounding growl to the rumbling churning alleys and hospital bowels boilers clock mechanisms all honed blended and painted by none other than you guessed it. Alan Splet. And Lynch himself. 
     Finally how visceral are the scenes incidental to the foreground plot like the machine accident victim’s skin peeled off being operated on. Or the two tarts in the hospital waiting room whose faces are torn off from clawing at each other amidst a wild mob seeming to feed off of it—as a distraction for my boy Bytes to sneak in. Man he really gravitates toward has a knack of finding the nasty. But alas light and dark. When Merrick goes to the theater that Dziga Vertov montage proves this kind of subjective childlike angel pure wonder Lynch bestows him can only come from one who knows the only answer is love. 
 



A cartoon with pustules. A maximalist space opera. Lucas went to Tunisia Lynch went to Mexico.
 Dune is a two hour and seventeen minute abridged condensed adaptation perhaps suitable for those who adore Lynch and don’t particularly care for Herbert Villeneuve or Timmy.
     The first seventy-five minutes are palace intrigue. World building. Again Alan Splet’s sound design is maybe the best work done in any movie ever made here. You don’t just watch Dune. You jam it. Wind roars. Sandworms roar. Mechanisms buzz and drone. Nightmares howl flames that sound like you’re right next to a flag flapping in a thousand mile an hour gale. 
     When Paul and Jessica land on Arrakis things get really fun. Plotwise there is zero conflict in Dune. Remember how Paul is torn upon hearing his father is going to die? And when his mother tells him his father is dead Paul says “I know.” And that’s it. A protagonist usually has to overcome something. Has to have skin in the game. Something to lose but why? Why not just play the Kwisatz Haderach’s ascension for all it's worth? Crush any ops. Paul doesn’t let anything get him down. That’s a hero. Specifically in movies I mean.
     Call me as sap but the Toto “Big Battle” anthem moves me to rapturous joy. Its rousing refrain gains momentum as we build to the film’s climax. Riding sandworms. Controlling the spice. Controlling the sandworms. Defeating the Harkonnens. Jackson-Tolkien energy for the art film crowd. When Alia perforates the bloated Baron and he spins out of control up and away through a hole from an explosion in the palace walls and she runs outside the look of ecstasy on her child face arms outstretched with that bloody dagger is the perfect close to this Atreides victory propaganda machine.
     Lynch doing huge battle scenes was this a dream? Lynch doing a movie where good triumphs over evil the hero saves the world and everyone lives happily ever after? Accept the mystery. Turn up the volume and immerse yourself in the deafening explosive tumultuous onslaught of all that is sandworm.
     These two movies are connected. Think about that scene in The Elephant Man that pans down that alley in London the camera motivated by tracking that English bulldog and ends on a bunch of dudes operating what I can only describe as thumpers? And how at the very beginning of Dune in that first shot in the Emperor's palace on Kaitain there's those dudes walking nine English bulldogs?



Monday, September 29, 2025

The Mount Everest of modern cinema


Can people change? Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980, Rainer Werner Fassbinder) is not only the crowning achievement of Fassbinder’s entire career but perhaps the crowning achievement of cinema itself. A fifteen hour film about an ex con who just finished a four year stretch making a sincere effort to straighten up. 
     FRANZ BIBERKOPF (Günter Lamprecht) was a pimp who beat his girlfriend IDA to death in their flat. The court gave him four years for manslaughter. On parole he vows to himself to keep clean. Yet what’s most profound and the reason we care about this epic drama is that despite convincing himself and us he’s gonna make it when we least expect it and furthermore are in no way equipped to comprehend he starts slowly inevitably on the path to his doom. Franz gets alot of ass. And when he finally falls in love with MEIZE (Barbara Sukowa) the romance feels so perfect that knowing Fassbinder it’s a bubble. And you know what happens to bubbles.
     Meize is a child in her temperament. Like Franz. She meets him at a pretty low point. He joined the crime syndicate he said he never would. With no conceivable reason to whatsoever making it hit even harder. And REINHOLD (Gottfried John) has to take Mieze from Franz because they’re so perfectly happy in love with each other. End of plot synopsis. Maybe the important thing I’ve left out is how much Fassbinder enjoys turning the screw.
 
Everytime I come back to Berlin Alexanderplatz its singular aesthetic character tone feel and vibe are so wellworn familiar instantly recognizable worthwhile magnificent it feels like I just got out of prison and have returned home to déjà vu all over again. Its ochre patina glistening like a glass of beer throughout the burnt umber drab shabby ratholes pubs and posh Berlin habitations exist in our minds because they’ve been swathed with so much care as to transcend reality. That pink blinking light through the window in Franz's flat. The 80s cross filter that causes the highlights to twinkle (and sometimes even Mieze’s eye) remains endearing. The low angle fixed POV looking heavenward above the tall building tops of Franz's newly appreciative inquisitive surveilling of his surroundings translates his wonder to our wonder. 
 
Franz sometimes comes off as simple. Touched in the head after his release. Overwhelmed. Ready at any second to crack under the culture shock pressure of life on the outside. Other times he’s a little kid. Others verbose. Poetic. Philosophical. Berlin Alexanderplatz is full of biblical references to ponder. The Sodom and Gomorrah red light district alley with the bald barker endlessly reciting his star attraction the Whore of Babylon mother of all abominations and atrocities drunk off the blood of the saints. Franz’s ultimate low after his first betrayal bender binge where he suffers as Job until Satan finally kicks him out and tells him he’s ready to go back out onto the streets after recovering. Livestock. Slaughter. Sacrifice. The old man slicing open the lamb’s throat in that dark room who looks like he’s of ancient times we are shown why? Oh no reason.
     Peddlers of smut pornography fruit vendors Communists gangsters and Nazis all eager to give Franz a shot at work in the vastly growing multitudes amidst Berlin’s unemployed. And the repetition of the scene of Franz murdering Ida hour after hour shown to us again and again along the way begging us to consider this aspect of Franz’s psyche so deep rooted as to relentlessly haunt us as it must haunt him for the rest of his days. 
     But okay anyway Meize is adorable. And the most earthly grounded universal relevance I still can’t quite shake. Rationalization of a cuck. The serpent tempting Franz and him letting himself be tempted. Mieze’s going to bring home the money because she loves her man. He asks if she’s going off with the rich married man without telling him for days at a time to prostitute herself what’s left? She tells him she loves him and he accepts and believes her. Heck I bought it.
     In the forest when Reinhold lures away Mieze is haunting chilling scrares me. There is a reaper whose name is Death with power from Almighty God. The serpent in the heart of the serpent. You don’t know him Franz. Reinhold is no good. Why is Mieze enticed by the serpent? Why does Franz let himself be tempted to go against what he said he knew better than to? Max tells him. Herbert tells him. He’s going to kill her and end up right back in prison. When Reinhold attempts to seduce Mieze is the most visceral scene to inflict emotional damage through art. He almost beats Mieze to death. Just as Franz did Ida. Just as Franz did Mieze. Like Franz Mieze is gullible trusting naïve. Mieze is lamb to the slaughter. Her doubt confusion reluctance lust desire revulsion repulsion masochism yearning to escape yearning to fall into the abyss trapped yet free good yet fooled into wickedness. Her paradox is that of Franz. That of mankind.
 
Lest I get off point none of that can prepare us for the ending. Fassbinder 14. There is a reaper whose name is Death with power from Almighty God. No cause for despair. The end of Fassbinder’s breadth of cinema. 14 is a maximalist expressionist how did anyone ever finance or and approve this colossal nightmare transcendent passage. 
     Franz has been arrested wanted along with Reinhold for the murder of Mieze. In prison he runs into Reinhold who's stolen someone else’s identity causing Franz to go into a catatonic stupor. 14 is a hundred minutes of Franz’s subconscious odyssey. With two angels as his guide. This freeform cinemascape is too vast to cover at length. But the Christian imagery and Salvation interludes are significant. When Franz is eating his own vomit off the floor covered in live rats is symbolic of him returning to his old ways. Hence the rats breaking through the brick wall where Franz finds Mieze riding Reinhold. Did this ever really happen? What’s important is he fears this in his soul and whether it did or didn’t is the murky place he chose to dwell in by pimping and getting passed out drunk all the time after he said he never would again. Mieze isn’t his salvation though he acted like she was. When Reinhold is wearing a crown of thorns and asking Franz how could you be blind and not see me this whole time is Jesus Christ reaching him. Next we see what could easily be mistaken for blasphemy but I don’t think is Mary and Joseph with Franz child and Franz crucified on the cross I take to be Christ dying for him as he sees in his mind. Because after it’s over the narrator (Fassbinder himself the whole time) says Franz is dead and in his bed is the body of another man entirely. Franz wakes back to life. The courts free him. If that isn’t blatantly referring to being born again through Christ I don’t know what else to tell ya. 
     Yet I also wouldn’t risk coming off like any of this is simple or at all easy to interpret. This obviously goes without saying is my take. But it’s complex. Fassbinder in 14 switches the actors so frequently it leads to asking myriad questions as to what it means. Who’s guilty innocent good evil? The most harrowing scream ever heard in a movie when Franz nearly beat Mieze to death in 14 is her's and is heard again but the angels say it’s Franz’s scream. We feel through Franz’ accountability that Christ has caused him to admit his weakness. His guilt. His sin. Franz couldn’t just go straight because he’s decent. That’s why Reinhold threw him out of the truck and the car ripped his arm off. Franz was haughty. Franz very well may have killed Ida. And complicity in a remote way Mieze. But 14 sees him repentant atoning for his sins. Franz is a new man. And walks out free. In real life Fassbinder would die not too long after finishing this. In 14 there’s a shot where for no reason explained Fassbinder is there in the shadows with the angels watching Franz’s being held accountable. Nothing more to say here.



Friday, October 13, 2023

Camp Blood

When I go to the movie theater, I’m either seeing what I’d call cinema or popcorn—art or commercial. And when I leave not having felt like the experience gave me something that captivated me with its mastery of plot, genre, dialogue, character, setting or some emotional connection, then that’s the worst. The feeling I wasted my time.
     An exception to this criteria I’ve just mentioned is camp. Sometimes a movie can be awful, yet entertain me enough that I don’t feel it’s wasted my time. As I’m writing this I’m pretending that the Friday the 
13th movies are a trilogy. It’s also Friday the 13th today. The 80s is the best decade for horror movies. And of the franchises to come from that era like HalloweenNightmare on Elm Street, my favorite has always been Friday the 13th. It doesn’t have the auteur cred of the other two. It’s the product of a major studio. It doesn’t’ feel as original or inspired as the other two. It’s almost like a cartoon. Jason Vorhees doesn’t ask us to question the metaphysics of evil like The Shape or the psychological dreamscapes of Freddy. In Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981, Steve Miner) as one of the only characters to even try to profile him, GINNY describes Jason as “a frightened retard.”
     The Friday the 13th trilogy is one of the finest examples of setting. Along with many of the Disney cartoon short subjects of the 1940s-50s, the Friday the 13th trilogy appeals to me in how it embodies the camp setting. I’ve never been camping or even wanted to, but I’ve always loved a summer camp or a state park as a setting. And Friday the 13th is full of precautions to avoid attracting bears, grilling hot dogs, and American flags. And isn't there something a little surreal about a summer camp we never see the kids show up for?

 


The main reason I walked to my neighborhood theater earlier this rainy night is because they showed Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D (1982, Miner). In 2009 there was a period of a few years I was totally into 3D, starting with Avatar (2009, James Cameron). And I’d never seen a 3D movie in a theater before that. I’d never even really thought about it, but the only title I’d keep wishing I could have caught a screening of but never thought I would is Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D. 
     This movie had the audience in its hand. I can’t remember ever having this much fun in a movie theater (except for maybe seeing 35mm prints of John Waters’ films of the 70s). And the reason it had such an impact is because both the 3D (it’s the red and blue cellophane glasses) technology and the attitudes about sex and drugs are so dated. Yet I don’t consider this an example of camp. When you read about Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D you’ll find reports of the cast saying that due to all the focus the filmmakers were placing on getting the 3D right that they neglected the performances—and that’s what makes this movie so amazing. 
     The entire time 3D effects were used the audience all collectively as if they’d rehearsed it were this chorus of oooohs and whooooas whenever there were objects projecting out from the screen at us. At times the dialogue is bad. At many times the logic behind the characters’ motivations doesn’t make sense—but in the most fun and entertaining hilarious possible way. Also I love this scene where the girl in a bikini is seducing the guy and she’s all: wanna go somewhere alone where we can do whatever we want do you know what that’d be like, and the guy replies “disgusting.” It’s perfect. It doesn’t really make sense in that context but then of course it makes perfect sense. 
     I’ve seen 80s horror movies with groups who laugh in that ironic way. But this was different. Friday the 13th Part 3 in 3-D works as a horror movie. The peril is fun but it’s still scary at the same time. The two entries before this one in no way achieve this. Friday the 13th Part 3 also doesn’t mention Crystal Lake. So it’s a cabin in the woods setting, which I’m not thrilled about, but like the franchise itself, it’s kind of an oddity or doesn’t fit in with the other 80s horror franchises. And unlike the first two, it doesn’t have the same nudity and exploitative shots ogling the girl counselors. But it does introduce drugs into the mix, albeit maybe trying to get a little too much mileage out of Cheech and Chong type pot jokes.
     On a technical level, you could look at Friday the 13th Part 3 as a really great example of how several of its scares utilize taking a shot we buy as a closed frame to sneak in a character from offscreen to give us a jump scare, and not just a jump scare but often the (quintessential to this trilogy’s) brand of fake scare. The Friday the 
13th trilogy is really adept at utilizing the open frame, like blood dripping on a character’s forehead while they’re lying down—where’s that coming from? 

 

10/13/2023 Plaza Theatre

Atlanta, GA

Anaglyph DCP

Friday, December 17, 2021

Subvert Normality


Out of the Blue (1980, Dennis Hopper) is a punk Sirkian melodrama with the kind of vitality that’s found in so very few films. It grips you by the shoulders and knees you in the groin. It’s the uh stuff that independent is made of—a work of art baring its anguished soul with attitude.

     But more than anything, Out of the Blue gives focus to the performances of its actors. Mostly Linda Manz. What do you think of when you think of independent film? I would dare to anticipate your answer is based on an attitude. Something that defies mainstream. Out of Blue got me thinking about where independent cinema started again. This wouldn’t be the first time. For me the first independent movie is Othello (1952, Orson Welles). Many or most people say Cassavetes was the first. A commonality through Welles, Cassavetes, and Hopper is they started out as actors. And anyone can see the performances in their best work as directors is astonishing. Like Cassavetes, the authenticity in the performances of Manz and Hopper in Out of the Blue are dynamically from the gut, defy the formality of coming off as scripted or rehearsed, and exhibit a volatile mix of vulnerability and vitriol. My awestruck attention went from jawdropping to cringing to euphoria to nauseating to congratulatory for their courage.

     What struck me about Out of the Blue is that as a youth picture it captures so well the restless wandering reality of what it’s like to go out looking for something like fun or excitement and the random encounters you find. From dangerous to depraved. And so much of it fueled on alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and junk food. But it paints such a vividly realistic sense of the streets. And it’s some of these scenes, the ones that don’t serve the plot, that stand out as most effective. Like the quick bit where the Linda Manz character is walking the streets in the daytime and there’s the middleaged guy with bad teeth garbling something indecipherable portable karaoke with a dwarf woman on crutches hanging out with him. 

     So much of its art is in the spontaneously compelling. Like the scene where Hopper’s character is hitting the bottle at the dump and running around messing with the seagulls, which moves to his daughter, the Manz character hanging out there we see, in his convertible. When he goes up to her the first thing she says is “I just bit a penny in half.” 

 

But as far as dramatic truth goes, there’s nothing light or casual about Out of the Blue. Of course, the Neil Young lyrics it gets its title from’s full line is “…and into the black.” I took it as the alcoholic father and heroin-addict mother are in the blue: melancholy; but their daughter is in the black, nihilism. Or in other words out of the blue and into the black can mean the departure from depression to death. 

     Out of the Blue is the pure stuff I search for and spend the rest of the year watching the other 99%. It reinvigorated my love of cinema. It restored my faith in independent film. As a work of art it’s given me something new to engage with and begin my attempts to express what it is to me. It’s also one of the few lost films I’ve had the opportunity to see—and in this case impossible to understand how it ever went missing. 

 

12/16/2001 Plaza Theatre

Atlanta, GA

35mm print of 4K restoration (2019) by Chloë Sevigny and Natasha Lyonne