Hidden Gems: 10 Great Movies You've Likely Never Seen...And Should See!








You might call this post a gung-ho "recon" rescue operation. This article is a kind of addendum to a post I made a few weeks ago about the budget DVD market, which is a market comprised of a collection of mostly obscure titles. The films on this list are seldom-seen, seldom-discussed and seemingly never-screened works which, in my belief, if given the chance, could easily find their niches. Needless to say, if you have been a loyal reader of this blog, you will have realized by now that I am a lover of beneath-the-radar cinema. I am not widely crowned the King of Esoterica for nothing. My interest lies in the countless works throughout film history that have come and gone and, as a result of which, have been largely ignored. In fact, this atypical interest is a steady devotion that has kept me devoted since I was a pre-teenager, at that time itching to make movies of my own. These "beneath-the-radar" movies were, interestingly enough, the ones that inspired me and kept me going in my pursuit of a filmmaking career. You may say, "Won't that perhaps be prescient for your own career if you so admire movies that fell between the cracks?" I honestly hope not, but I can only dream of some guy like myself encountering a given "lost movie" of mine, even accidentally, and loving whatever it is I have to offer and doing his/her part to make it more known. In my quest for "hidden gems" and great filmmaking hidden amongst a rabble of other obscure and esoteric (and, yes, often poor) films I have witnessed, here are some noteworthy ones that stood apart from the rest as examples of good and just plain compelling filmmaking. Sometimes, it seems like finding these "hidden gems" is like picking the fly-shit out of the pepper. It is a daunting task, but in my book, these misunderstood works are masterpieces. Resurrection now!

PLEASE NOTE: No recent films (post-1990) will appear on this list. Those films need time to determine if they will ultimately find an audience or not, considering their initial reception. Also, no non-English language films will appear on the list. Foreign films are my forte, but I have many reasons for their exclusion from this list.






1. DEAR MR. WONDERFUL (1982, Peter Lilienthal) Starring Joe Pesci, Karen Ludwig, Evan Handler, Frank Vincent. A rather unpredictable #1 pick, ay? In terms of unpredictable, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Okay, so, to start with this title, I have mentioned this movie twice in two respective blog-posts (i.e. the New York-on-film entry and the budget-DVD entry). Why do I keep bringing it up? Simple...because everytime I see it, I am profoundly affected in every way: emotionally, intellectually and even spiritually, and without even a single sign of manipulation or pandering from the creators. Peter Lilienthal, one of the more low-key directors of the New German Cinema movement who helmed the highly regarded Holocaust film David (1979), is one of many mid-to-high profile European directors who came to the United States to direct a film about the American experience from an "outsider's perspective". Others who have attempted this include Wenders (with Paris, Texas), Herzog (with Stroszek), Antonioni (with Zabriskie Point) and Renoir (with The Southerner). What distinguishes this one from most of the others? Lilienthal, it would seem, is more of a humanist than a pedagogue or a weary romanticist, which were both traps many of the other directors had succumbed to. In effect, many of these "outsider films" ultimately become ponderous novelties and/or analytically specious.

Dear Mr. Wonderful is an exquisitely simple film, deliberately paced, more generous with thorough character development than most any other element, although Michael Ballhaus' camerawork, even in its shoddy video pan-and-scan, is certainly handsome. Pesci, in his first starring role after his success in Raging Bull, stars as Ruby Dennis, a Jewish working-class dreamer who owns a bowling alley where he croons Rat Pack-style songs in a lounge area adjacent to where people bowl. He writes and composes his own songs, then belts out old Sammy Cahn tunes with a drink in one hand and a cigarette he doesn't smoke in the other, and dreams of hitting the big-time as a Las Vegas headliner, which he seems to know down deep is a major pipe dream. Pesci's singing voice leaves something to be desired (that is certainly the point of it, however, although his songs are catchy and some like New York Times critic Janet Maslin have actually complemented Pesci's singing voice, so maybe I am the one who is off). It should be noted that Pesci, in real life, was a child singing star who released an album called "Little Joey Sings" (you can't make this stuff up). Ruby lives with his sister Paula (Karen Ludwig, who played Meryl Streep's partner in Manhattan) and her son Raymond (Evan Handler). He spends a great deal of screentime wooing a promising aspiring singer named Sharon (Ivy Ray Browning, who has a lovely voice). His bowling alley is in danger of closing. Credit is being withdrawn and equipment is being slowly taken away by loan sharks (led by Scorsese regular Frank Vincent) who have a very apparent distaste for the "singing kike" Ruby who is more consumed with his lounge-singing than concerned with running a business ("Tell them not to bowl in the outer lanes when I'm singing. Just tell them nicely, 'The man is singing.'") This is something else worthy of mention. Dear Mr. Wonderful has an unabashedly Jewish flavor, which is something to notice because of how refreshingly anomalous it seems, particularly in a day when explicitly Jewish voices were customarily being downplayed or downright eliminated in cinema here and abroad, lest there was a megastar involved or the Jewishness was the driving force or the subject of the given film. Here, in this film, it is part of a much broader canvas, a richer and more encompassing one. The film opens with a simultaneously good-humored and tense Passover seder sequence which rather immediately immerses and absorbs the viewer in the world of the movie. A fish swims around in a shallow bathtub and Pesci kills it with a baseball bat (offscreen) for dinner. In keeping with the alleged Jewish subtext, ultimately the film is also, unequivocally, a thoughtful, complex meditation on a Talmudic precept which states, "A rich man is he who is content with what he has" (which makes sense considering director Lilienthal's Orthodox Jewish background). This meditation is not simply on Ruby's character, but also on the character of Ruby's sister, who leaves her family behind to "save the world" through an underprivileged co-worker of hers, and through Ruby's nephew, who turns to snatching gold necklaces right off of the necks of ladies in the street. The film possesses that quiet kitchen-sink flavor, and the humor of the scenes always keeps you rooting for everyone, despite themselves. The New York City of the film, which I discuss in the respective blog entry, is one that is lost today (it should be noted that while there are plenty of NYC exteriors, a great deal of the interiors were shot in Germany).

One of the most heartbreaking movie scenes of the 1980's, in my opinion, and one where you can almost physically feel the character's humiliation, comes in Tony Martin's cameo. Real-life singer/actor Tony Martin comes to visit Ruby's Palace to listen to him sing, after his nephew Ray invites him via a letter earlier in the movie. I won't spoil the scene, but it's almost gut-wrenching, and the character's arc comes at such a moment of profound humiliation, followed by insult, followed by the most naked vulnerability. Every critic who reviewed the film mentions this scene as being among the most memorable of its era. And the film's ending...perfect understatement and a perfect open ending! I am not going to say any more about this film other than to see it and get back to me when you do. I have been dying to talk to someone about this one!







2. KINGS AND DESPERATE MEN (1981, Alexis Kanner) Starring Patrick McGoohan, Alexis Kanner, Andrea Marcovicci, Margaret Trudeau. Prisoner-fans take note, if you haven't already. This film reunites Prisoner star Patrick McGoohan with frequent Prisoner player Alexis Kanner. This undoubtedly started as one of those "concept movie projects". Get a load of this story: Charismatic, histrionic ex-actor turned Montreal radio talk-show host John Kingsley (Patrick McGoohan) is held hostage in his own private luxury radio-studio by a group of crusaders who want an on-the-air retrial of a man they feel was wrongly convicted and oversentenced at that, kidnapping the original judge who tried the first trial and detaining him elsewhere, then designating the listening audience as the phone-in jury. When I first read this description on the back of the video cover at a Pittsburgh flea-market circa 2001, I put down my two dollars because I was instantly hooked and intrigued. McGoohan's involvement certainly didn't hurt the prospect of my purchase...and, hey hey hey, it was obscure! Just my cup of tea! Ha ha! So, I popped the tape into the VCR and the movie underwent the customary Kremer Hidden-Gem Test (the KGMTs...funner than the SATs and GREs, and more efficient!). It passed in flying colors, but not in the way I would have ever predicted. Its execution was almost...otherworldly. The camera placement is sometimes highly unorthodox, the sound design highly experimental, the acting decidedly stylized, the editing complexly fragmentary and elliptical, the politics offbeat even in the left-wing sense of the word, the narrative progression delightfully perplexing. What an interesting, strange creature this film was to me...and still is!

This is one of those movies that, as a cinephile, I became obsessed with for years after first seeing, and it was a mighty quest to learn as much as I could about it inception, conception and reception. It plays out like an experimental film in some stretches, and renders its hook/reel-in of a plot summary a curiously distinctive thriller with a nearly inimitable sense of voice. By voice, I mean camera voice, montage voice, narrative voice and even soundscape voice. That's a lot of voices there, and a lot of films do not even have one type of those uniquenesses. This is a motion picture that is difficult to describe to the fullest using just words. Kings and Desperate Men is definitively a thriller, without question. It uses the conventions and the narrative traditions of genre (e.g. the unstable captor, periodic showdowns between captor and captive, etc) but uses a flamboyant, barbed cinema language and a twisting dialogic verbiage, courtesy mostly of McGoohan's purposefully melodramatic portrayal of the lead, and elaborate use of the filmmaking's "plastic" elements to deliver to its audience something completely in opposition to other offerings of its genre.

The film had a scattered release. It was shot in the winter of late 1977, was screened once in Montreal in late 1978, was widely released in its native Canada three years later in 1981 after its struggle to find additional completion funds, was later re-released only in Canada in 1983, premiered at the London Film Festival in 1985 and then finally hit the United States over a full decade later in 1989. That is quite a history. The film was met with accolades at the London Film Festival, but only The Los Angeles Times gave the film good reviews in the U.S. In point of fact, The Los Angeles Times gave it glowing reviews. Most critics obtusely complained of McGoohan's overacting, and every major U.S. review I read was facile, fast and artless. It definitely says something when a critic's dismissals are coy and mirthless. Vis a vis McGoohan's so-called "overacting," that's the point, folks! It's not hard to get! The story itself unfolds by sheer virtue of his character's history as an ex-actor and the writer-director's statement is made via McGoohan's character's titanic "emceeing" of the events at hand. Look at the art direction. Theater posters from the character's past are prominently on display. The film, when all is said and done, has a bold and (believe it or not) original message about media treatment of exploitable circumstance. I mean, the subject has been done before, but never like this. Again, all more I can really say is do your best to see it. This one is actually a little tougher to locate than Dear Mr. Wonderful because it is only on VHS, but if you still have your VCR (if you are a real film fan and ditched yours, you are doing yourself no favors), I recommend tracking it down. In a post scriptum, I gave my copy to a friend to borrow. He definitely joined the film's micro-cult after seeing it. Rise to the occasion and join us!










3. SIGNAL 7 (1986, Rob Nilsson) Starring a cast of unknowns and featuring an onscreen dedication to John Cassavetes, Signal 7 was a feature-film shot over a period of five consecutive nights on 3/4 VHS tape and then transferred to 16mm, and then to 35mm. The innovative and singularly unique image quality almost makes me want to go and do the same. Frankly, it looks gorgeous. The film follows a night in the life of cab-drivers who work out of the DeSoto Taxi Company in San Francisco. Many of the characters are actors who have taken to driving a taxi to make ends meet. The film's ostensibly improvisatory feeling is effectively juxtaposed with solid writing, solid structuring, solid acting and fluid camerawork and editing...thankfully without gas! Okay, that was cheesy, all in an effort to say that, contrary to other films of its type, this is not a bloated exercise that is an excuse for a film but a real working piece of cinema. In any case, describing a plot for this film beyond this premise is futile. Just check it out -- and you're not likely to find another film that looks like this. "You are the egg!"







4. COLD TURKEY (1971, Norman Lear) Starring Dick Van Dyke, Jean Stapleton, Vincent Gardenia, Bob Newhart. This is yet another premise movie: Eagle Rock, a small Midwestern town, will be given a large cash-prize reward if all its citizens quit smoking for thirty days and the local minister (Dick Van Dyke) whips the chain smokers into shape to take the gold. But on this foundation of the "premise project" is built an extremely funny film that is given a kind of strange immediacy and social importance by its grim, weighty and perversely poetic denouement (involving a clever visual trope). It also uses other jarring, if only periodic, visual techniques to sell it as "more than just a silly treacle of a comedy" (look at the film's lyrical opening title sequence). All the films on the list have, in different ways and using different methods, transcended conventional genre elements and do their own thing, and Cold Turkey is certainly no exception. Also, if you've ever smoked and strived oh so desperately to quit, this one may hit close to home, despite the humor. All in all, this is one of the best esoteric comedies out there -- and character actor Barnard Hughes' delirious "cold turkey" attempts at communication put me in stitches with every viewing ("The Dr. Proctor hoctor. The hospitoctor of Dr. Proctor..."). And then you could always watch the over-the-hill "Christopher Mott Society" hard at work. For fans of Randy Newman, the spiritually dirge-like opening title hymn "He Gives Us All His Love" (from Newman's album "Sail Away") is featured, and Newman also composes the film's original score...in perhaps one of the best opening title sequences I have seen heretofore. The sequence is inspiring and inspired in its poetic simplicity. Who knew the creator of "All in the Family" could be so poetic with his images? You can take a look at this title sequence below, courtesy of YouTube.










5. QUACKSER FORTUNE HAS A COUSIN IN THE BRONX (1970, Waris Hussein) Starring Gene Wilder, Margot Kidder. Gene Wilder, in his recent autobiography, remembers how none other than the legendary Jean Renoir was originally slated to direct this weird little comedy-drama. As many things go in Movieland, this plan did not pan out. Nonetheless, BBC director turned filmmaker Waris Hussein, an emigree from British colonial India, took over the directing reins and delivers a wonderfully eccentric study of a man who makes his living selling waste...in the most literal sense of the word. The film tells the story of a nonconformist horse-dung salesman who independently follows the horses-and-carts around Dublin selling their caca as fertilizer. Right around the time the horses are to be replaced by motor-carts, and it looks like Quackser is about to be deprived of his livelihood, he meets and falls for an American exchange student at Trinity College while figuring out what to do with the rest of his life after the doodoo disappears. Gene Wilder is as endearing as in any other film he has been in, even if the efficacy of his Irish accent is vexingly come-and-go. Dublin as a location, particularly in the hyper-industrialized, working-class milieu it depicts in the film, is as good of a shooting location as a filmmaker could ever find. It is a curious film -- maybe you could even call it a curiosity. However, it does what it sets out to do and functions as an excellent motion-picture exercise in originality for those looking for something a trifle more offbeat. And the film is not just original...it is highly original. The scene where Quackser sets the horses free from the slaughterhouse is a moment of exhilarating release. Nearly everything about this movie marches to the beat of a different drummer, even though it is nonetheless very traditionally (what's wrong with that?), however very competently, structured and shot (by Polanski regular Gilbert Taylor). Check out this blog entry at Moon in the Gutter.










6. GET TO KNOW YOUR RABBIT (1972, Brian De Palma) Starring Tom Smothers, John Astin, Katharine Ross, Orson Welles. If Quackser Fortune Has a Cousin in the Bronx blithely celebrates the spirit of nonconformity, the irreverent Get to Know Your Rabbit parodies it, while still upholding the validity of nonconformity within a tediously monotonous world. The making of Get to Know Your Rabbit sounds rather tumultuous, with Warner Brothers firing director Brian De Palma early on during the editing of the film (this was his first major studio film). Despite this, I consider it among De Palma's finest work -- although keep in mind, I much prefer the early Greetings!/Hi, Mom!/Phantom of the Paradise De Palma period to the Hitchcock-ripoff/campy-genre-film De Palma period. This comedy tells the story of a corporate ad executive who throws everything away, rejecting his materialistic bourgeois existence to fulfill his dream of becoming a tap-dancing magician. The film features appearances from a parade of great character actors (the incomparable Allen Garfield discusses "Mediterannean overtones" when feeling up a voluptuous kewpie doll's large melon breasts), and a number of hilariously absurdist, Pythonesque moments (one of the first scenes involves a random visit from a destitute piano-tuner who knocks on doors soliciting customers who do not own pianos). This is all without even mentioning the orotund presence of Orson Welles as the mysterious magic expert D'Alessandro who gravely intones "You're holding your rabbit...wrong!" to crestfallen wannabe tap-dancing magician Tom Smothers. This role actually came before F for Fake. The movie is brilliant, exquisite comedy, sometimes hysterically funny, and very much in the vein of anti-establishment movies of the time -- without ever once resorting to tiresome polemicism or dated, overt 60's American cinema sentiments, a la 'screw the system'. Ultimately though, De Palma's message is that everything eventually becomes commodified, even the ostensibly novel idea of escape from a world of commodity and commodification gets bought and sold like any other product. The film's ideology is very much in line with Downey's Putney Swope (1969). You have to love the acronymic cleverness in the closing act's revelation that a Tap Dancing Magician Corporation has been established (TDM, get it?). Check out this write-up at Reverse Shot.







7. CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER (1979, Joan Micklin Silver) Starring John Heard, Mary Beth Hurt, Peter Riegert, Griffin Dunne. What became of the children of the 60's after Woodstock when, at the end of the day, they felt compelled to find their other half and cash in their idealism for a shot at stability? At one point, a character exlaims, "What do you want from a child her age? She never even went to Woodstock!" Another character replies, "Well, neither did we." The first character retorts, "But we could have!" Adapted from Ann Beattie's novel of the same name, Chilly Scenes of Winter sports endlessly quotable dialogue ("Did you know that if you spread yogurt on your nipples it makes them pink?", "Gift-wrap the Turtle Wax" or "I'm an unemployed jacket salesman") and deeply felt direction ("con affetuoso" if you are content with applying musical terminology to film). This one is also something of a Kremer family favorite, thanks particularly to a scene involving a senile mother's forgetting to cook Thanksgiving dinner when her son and his friend have arrived to eat. In any case, the movie functions mostly as a character study of a hopelessly-in-love man's desperate attempts to win back his soul-mate from a bumpkin-y husband named Ox. On an ideological level, the film is fascinating too. Beneath the surface "simple love story" proceedings lies a deep-rooted, pervasive nostalgia for the youth the characters celebrated in the 60's (the lead character's obsession with Janis Joplin notwithstanding). The film has a devoted cult following, but still remains largely obscure. This is another one that is, for some unknown reason, still not on DVD, despite its loyal following. Turner Classic Movies shows it occasionally. I remember I was in a hotel room in Iowa for a film festival when I caught it on TCM. One day, kids, one day it will make it to DVD. And while I'm at it, I might just mention Ivan Passer's Cutter's Way (1981), which features another stunning performance from John Heard, is tied for this spot, although that film is slightly more known than this one is, so I am choosing not to include it officially.







8. THAT'S THE WAY OF THE WORLD (1975, Sig Shore) Starring Harvey Keitel and Earth, Wind & Fire. "Wow! Keitel starring with Earth, Wind & Fire?! That's chemistry, babe!" That's not even all, folks! Wholesome real-life "Miss America" singer Bert Parks plays a child molester and "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" singer Jimmy Boyd plays an obnoxious drug addict who dabbles in everything, whether it be needle, nose or smoke, throughout the film's length. But don't count your chickens yet because this one is not what it seems. From the creator of Superfly comes this scathing indictment of pop-culture, hegemonic influence and "selling cool," which was released on DVD for the first time not too long ago, complete with excellent liner notes by Roger Thompson, a professor of American Culture at VMI. What Network did for television That's the Way of the World just as scathingly does for the corrupt music industry. Keitel plays The Man with the Golden Ear, Coleman Buckmaster. He is a genius recording technician who, as the chintzy ads and trailers to the movie read, can "take the best and make them sound better or turn the worst into number one." Keitel must put aside recording the earthy, hopeful, vital, gritty sounds of The Group (Earth, Wind & Fire) to record with a naseatingly saccharine, all-American, mom's-apple-pie family group called The Pages whose hit-single-to-be would try to have you believe that everything is "joy, joy, joy." Just think of the bubble-gum music of the 70's popularized by such groups as The Carpenters. This movie has no illusions, no pretensions and no overriding, superficial need to please. It does so on its own, with an unusual sense of honesty. The extended sequence in which Keitel toils away in the studio trying to make the ghastly-sounding, grossly untalented Pages sound sterling is excruciatingly intricate. Brass is introduced, then strings, then percussion, etc. all the way down the line. The film shows in super-fine detail what goes into recording music in the professional world...or the way it was at the time. Director Sig Shore seems to take great pains to do so.

Amazingly enough, That's the Way of the World has a great deal to say about race and the role it plays in relation to corporate media hegemony, which is bold considering this is not just an underlying theme but one that is manifest throughout. The record company in the movie, the fictional A-Chord Records, is more than ambivalent about marketing an all-black group like "The Group" with a musical message that, while not downbeat or bleak, is a hell of a lot more practical and truthful vision of the world than the inane "joy, joy, joy"s of the opposing group. Keitel's character wants the musical acts he develops and ushers to the top of the charts to tell the truth, and is disgusted that his company has sold him out for such tripe. The ending is sweetly vindicating to the audience, while still retaining a kind of darkness, and without pandering or losing its sense of overriding honesty. All of this to examine how the people will buy whatever garbage is put in front of them and that everything in the world is bought and sold. That's the way of the world! All of this is without mentioning the classic, awesome Earth, Wind & Fire soundtrack which features "Shining Star," "Reasons" and the eponymous tune "That's the Way of the World". It should be mentioned that Earth, Wind & Fire are not in the movie very much as actual characters, so there are none of the customary embarrassments synonymous with music-movie enterprises where non-actor musicians must hone their acting chops up against much more skilled actors.







9. THE KING OF MARVIN GARDENS (1972, Bob Rafelson) Starring Jack Nicholson, Bruce Dern, Ellen Burstyn. Yep, this is the one where Jack Nicholson is cast against type...as a depressive, cerebral, anhedoniac, bespectacled nerd. Sounds like him, doesn't it? Of course I am kidding. On a personal note, my brother recently watched Five Easy Pieces for the first time, which was likewise directed by Bob Rafelson and stars Jack Nicholson. Overall, he seemed to dislike that film. I recommended that he see The King of Marvin Gardens before passing judgment on Five Easy Pieces because I see the two films as definite companion pieces. The movie, throughout its opening ten minutes, seems very mannered and almost courtly in its narrative progression. The first scene, which you can watch below via YouTube, is an extended 8-minute monologue, done in a single unbroken long-take, in close-up, as Nicholson discusses a vivid memory from childhood involving his brother and his grandfather. The writing here is baroque and descriptive in a prosey, novel-esque sense, but purposefully so. Nicholson's part is that of a radio-show host who, in lieu of playing records or discussing news items, engages his audience with long-winded autobiographical stories based in personal memory. The opening title sequence is pure 70's American arthouse, i.e. no musical accompaniment, careful framing (courtesy of the great Laszlo Kovacs), following a character on his way home through the night as muted wee-hour city sounds haunt the soundtrack. Soon, the constipated Nicholson is summoned from his uneventful life in Philadelphia to Atlantic City by his brother (played with yeoman bravado by Bruce Dern). It is there on the austerely picaresque boardwalks and beaches where he learns that his brother has plans to buy an island near Hawaii which he plans to develop into a resort, with the help of some pilfered funds. Considering how everything is set up early on, the film could have fulfilled an implicit promise of finally being pretentious and obstinate, but it thankfully does not uphold this promise. His brother's lover is played by Ellen Burstyn, and her performance is the consummate example of a performance that builds and builds and builds cumulatively, and it is perhaps the most fascinating (I use this word in a functional sense) and exploratory of her career.

The film is comprised of a great deal of set-pieces juxtaposed with less ambitious but still powerful "smaller" scenes. This delicate mix of scene-types is never contrapuntal and all the sequences work in surprisingly effective and logical confluence. For example, I automatically think of a scene in an empty amphitheater involving a fictional two-person Miss America competition, as well as a hilarious scene where Japanese businessmen, potential investors in the resort, are eating with Nicholson, Dern and Burstyn in a lobster restaurant. In the scene, all the characters wear these ridiculous bibs while Nicholson expounds on an idea involving humans fulfilling the sexual desires of dolphins as a potential tourist attraction on their island. Another scene involves a bonfire on a beach, which is one of Burstyn's finest moments in the film. The sequencing is astoundingly never fragile. Also, it is not just Burstyn but the film itself that builds and builds in a cumulative sense. It develops from something that is at first innocuously original to a final profound sense of dramatic urgency and crescendo that we cannot instantly perceive or realize in any sense, until the final devastating dramatic act has been committed. The audience's radar will have difficulty detecting much of anything until the impact hits them hard with the final fade-out. It's a wow-inducing moment, and one that leaves you speechless. In its final shot, the film is summed up by one incendiary, illuminating, encapsulating image -- and yet another example of how filmmaking can be poetic.









10. THE NIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING DAY (1968, Hubert Cornfield) Starring Marlon Brando, Richard Boone, Rita Moreno. Made officially during Brando's so-called pre-Godfather "slump period" when his very name was box-office poison, The Night of the Following Day is one of those films that casts a strong spell, at least over me. It's a hallucinatory, ethereal, eerie, paranoia-inducing, puzzle-like, even surrealist thriller. Stanley Myers' musical score is unnerving and experimental at times, giving the audience more of a sense of rigid unrest. It's a thriller about a kidnapping operation gone haywire that gradually falls apart at the seams. An heiress is abducted as she is leaving Orly Airport and is taken to a secluded beach-house in the south of France where the kidnappers await their ransom. Brando, doing the fluorescent blonde-hair thing, plays one of the stoical kidnappers who attempts to come to the rescue when he realizes that one of his compatriots in the extortion plot is a psychotic, violence-prone sadist who appears to making eyes towards their captive. Meanwhile, Rita Moreno, playing another one of the extortionists, habitually zonks out on heroin and starts getting paranoid about a fishing-happy policeman who conspicuously has asked her maybe too many "innocent" questions. Brando is, as usual, magnetic in the lead and Richard Boone is quite scary and imposing in the role of the sadist. This one is pretty easy to track down on DVD. Usually, I have to be in a very particular mood to see this because the film's aftertaste leaves you cloudy and distant in a way that is useless to describe, at least it does me. The so-called "surprise ending" is slightly irksome because it is something we have seen far too much before, but somehow it seems to suit the film's original objective. Once again, we have some beautiful camerawork, from Willy Kurant, on display. Kurant is the man Orson Welles called "my Rembrandt," and that is certainly true here. Many of Kurant's images are quite painterly. Note: If you are intrigued enough afterwards to listen to director Hubert Cornfield's audio commentary for the film, I would be curious to see how long you last. Cornfield has a gurgly voice-box following a bout with throat-cancer and the commentary is often trying to listen to. But you get to hear some funny stories about the unruly (and downright naughty) behavior of Brando on the set and about how Kubrick originally wanted to shoot the film as adapted from the Lionel White novel (he wound up adapting and directing White's The Killing instead).



HONORABLE MENTIONS (IN NO ORDER): The Ninth Configuration (William Peter Blatty, 1979), Without Reservations (Mervyn LeRoy, 1946), Law and Disorder (Ivan Passer, 1974), Born to Win (Ivan Passer, 1971), Undercurrent (Vincente Minnelli, 1946), Two Weeks in Another Town (Vincente Minnelli, 1962), Inserts (John Byrum, 1976), Forbidden Zone (Richard Elfman, 1980), Slade in Flame (Richard Loncraine, 1976), Out (Eli Hollander, 1982), Such Good Friends (Otto Preminger, 1971), Romance of a Horsethief (Abraham Polonsky, 1971), Adam at 6 A.M. (Robert Scheerer, 1970), Secret Ceremony (Joseph Losey, 1968), T.R. Baskin (Herbert Ross, 1971), Desperate Characters (Frank D. Gilroy, 1971), In MacArthur Park (Bruce Schwartz, 1977)

SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? SEE THESE MOVIES THEN LET'S CHAT!!!

Polemics on the Mountain-Top: A Brief History of Paramount's Risky Business

















This entry comes following, respectively, a screening event and a definitively earth-shattering movie-news item that will rock the world of cineastes and collectors. Take a deep breath, folks, before you have a look at this IMDb news item. It accounts how Warner Home Video is seeing to it that every single title in their back catalogue will be released and available to the public on DVD. These special back catalogue titles will be issued and sold per demand with custom-made designs, made to order in their original aspect ratios at www.warnerarchive.com. Now, my fellow cinemaniacs, if that doesn't have your jaw dropping to the floor in amazement, I don't know what could shock or delight you. A Hollywood studio is releasing its entire load of titles on video! Everything! In Warner's case, that is 6,800 previously unreleased titles! I just used three exclamation points for three consecutive sentences, but to me, this is absolutely astounding in every damn way. Will other studios take it upon themselves to follow in suit? My brain's mouth is watering. What an image, that.

Secondly, the other night, I was privileged to see Jules Dassin's commercially iffy and (inevitably) controversial 1968 film Up Tight!, a "black-power remake" of John Ford's The Informer (1935), at Film Forum. Truth be told, I own a bootleg of this film, from a broadcast which edited the 104-minute film down to just below 87 minutes, deleting (among other things) a hilariously and, intentionally, over-played, overstylized and downright campy scene in a carnival hall of mirrors. Amusingly enough, any explicit reference to Roscoe Lee Browne's character being homosexual has been removed in this bootleg. So, once again on this blog, I behold the wonders of the city of New York, a place where film enthusiasts can delight in repertory theaters which screen retrospectives much more off the beat and track than anywhere else in the United States. On the occasion of this recent screening of Up Tight!, which is part of Film Forum's Tribute to Jules Dassin, critic J. Hoberman writes in The Village Voice, "A real polarizer in its day, Jules Dassin's lone post-blacklist studio movie was also Hollywood's first expression of black power. Consistent in its inconsistency, it represents Dassin at his worst (stagy, talky, unsubtle) and his best (evocative location work, well-choreographed violence and a passionate identification with the underdog)." On another note, Roger Ebert writes in his February 1968 review, "It's remarkable that a major studio (Paramount) financed and released this film." This last quote I considered when mulling over the film's indescribable aftertaste.


















I exited the theater thinking about the film and its place in the Paramount Pictures history of the day. Granted, the film often lapses into laughably preachy segments and, at certain moments, prosthelytizes and moralizes shamelessly and tiresomely (e.g. "Violence breeds violence"), but the film's voice is nonetheless crystalline. Keep in mind that this is mainstream cinema's earliest depiction of the black-power movement, so it is even more remarkable to consider that the film was directed by a white man. The film possesses a distinctly black voice, and many other reviewers of the time commented on how the film felt refreshingly "with it" without ultimately seeming like an old fuddy-dud's vision of pervasive social/racial unrest. And in this way, Up Tight! feels very sophisticated. The bold choice of the Booker T and the MG's soundtrack also gives the story an extra on-the-fringe quality. In all honesty, the film (co-penned by Dassin and actress Ruby Dee) feels incredibly subversive for a "Hollywood production," not only in its choice of subject matter (when such a topic and its topicality were unfathomably atypical and anomalous within the mainstream), but also in its unfettered disregard for conventional sequencing and narrative progression. Towards the film's third act, there is a exquisitely staged climactic confession scene that left me speechless, but the director consciously travels a different road to get to that destination.

Up Tight!, by its very nature, is a polemical film. Opening with actual documentary footage (shot especially for the film) of the funeral march of Martin Luther King, Up Tight! places itself firmly into historical context, and remarkably at that, as if this opening were an attempt to prevent the film from dating in a traditional sense. The word for it is "wise". It also lends an additional weight to the proceedings. Dassin has enough foresight to realize, when other filmmakers were in a bubble naively ignoring the relative vision of the racial upheaval and its place in late 60's popular memory, that he can make his work in Up Tight survive as social document as opposed to just simply quaint sociological motion-picture time-capsule. In the Heat of the Night (1967), for instance, is fundamentally a good film, but it ultimately fails to take into account the times in which it was created. Up Tight! is also perhaps one of the first mentions of Welfare benefits in a major Hollywood motion picture. That's pretty substantial...and gutsy. The very release of the film inherently had political ramifications. As an afterthought, I also want to give a nod to Boris Kaufman's deliciously low-lit cinematography -- and at one point, his camera eye-poppingly defies gravity itself during a death scene.

So what's the point of all this analysis? Okay, here it is. Ebert, to reiterate, posed the question, "How was it that a major studio got behind a risky project like Up Tight!?" Now is my opportunity to pay tribute to Paramount as a studio that took risks more than most other studios in its day, i.e. the Gulf+Western acquisition of Paramount in 1967 and after. When a friend of mine fantasized about other studios following Warner Home Video's lead of releasing its entire back catalogue of titles, he brought up Fox. I immediately responded, "No, Fox was the most capitol-driven studio in Hollywood in every single era. Paramount is where it's at." Paramount established lasting relationships with directors and filmmakers (Roman Polanski and Otto Preminger were both under contract to Paramount as directors), whereas studios like Fox and MGM were intent on establishing lasting relationships simply with celebrity.













Here is another example of Paramount taking on risky material around the same time. Two years following Up Tight!, Paramount financed a film called WUSA (1970), starring Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward and Anthony Perkins. This is another film that is not available on home video, and I own a bootleg of this film as well. The film tells the story of drifter Paul Newman taking a job as a disk-jockey at ultra right-wing radio station WUSA. Anthony Perkins plays a Welfare social worker who gradually realizes WUSA's sinister intentions...to prevent recipients from receiving Welfare benefits. Hmm, sounds like a blockbuster, doesn't it, guys? This was a film made just on the cusp of Robert Evans' takeover of Paramount, but no doubt the viability of the project came directly from the star-power of Newman and Woodward and not the material itself. The movie tanked at the box-office, of course, but the project was nonetheless always a risky business. The first thing we see in both Up Tight! and WUSA is that mountain with the stars around it. This is not even to mention a Paramount film as politically inflamatory as Haskell Wexler's Medium Cool (1969). Even ostensibly more "commercial" films from Paramount in the late 60's had more of an overriding feeling of social critique and examined, in many ways, the socioeconomic divides that segmented the United States. Look at Goodbye, Columbus (1969), and watch how Richard Benjamin's "lower-class Jew" character navigates his way through a noveau riche Jewish family and their world of uber-suburban privilege, class indulgence and materialism, and eventually being somewhat seduced by it, only to "fall from grace" when the nouveau riche patriarch accidentally finds something he shouldn't have found. That film likewise examines something pervasive in the American tableau of the late 60's, albeit in a very delicate and discreet way.

In recent times, Paramount had the best arthouse subsidiary of the majors, Paramount Vantage, until it went belly-up amidst the economic crisis. Compare Paramount Vantage stock to Warner Independent or Focus stock. Since when are films like There Will Be Blood, Margot at the Wedding and Into the Wild bankable in eyes of Hollywood? Particularly in the case of Into the Wild and There Will Be Blood, these are films that could not have been made on-the-cheap, but carried the prestige of good directors working with fine casts. And what kind of studio finances and releases a film like Warren Beatty's Reds (1981), which is of course a Paramount picture? Of course, it being subsidized hinged upon superstar Warren Beatty's involvement, but nonetheless, a film about American socialists still must have been a risky venture.


















My mind boggles at the prospect of Paramount following in Warner's footsteps. There are so many titles in the Paramount vaults that have never been released on home video -- titles that are as equally risk-taking as Up Tight! and WUSA which are awaiting rediscovery. In the case of those two films, these are two pieces of historical document, with narratives appropriately "formatted" for such a function. There are many more such titles, believe it or not, that fester in Paramount's vaults. Legend Films, a DVD company which has been releasing some of Paramount's back catalogue titles, has been working its way around to some of its more obscure titles, so we will see what happens. In my opinion, United Artists during the "Arthur Krimm period" (Krimm was head of UA throughout most of the 70's) was also on par with Paramount's love of risk-taking.









Looking back at it, Paramount was the standard for studios in the 70's. It brought in the most capitol, thanks in part to Robert Evans' and Barry Diller's leadership, and still managed to release films that could have very well been poisonous for recouping their investments. So, in the wake of the news about Warner Home Video and the Film Forum screening of Up Tight!, I thought I'd write about it. My mind boggles thinking if any other studio would follow Warner's lead, let alone Paramount. But Paramount's back catalogue is the one I am most enthusiastic about.

The Jewels of Public Domain: A Tongue-in-Cheek "Tribute" to Unintentionally Funny Budget-DVD Peccadilloes










So okay, we've all seen them...the DVD super-bargain bins in Dollar Stores, Wal Marts, K-Marts, Marshalls and your local filling-stations. Some people, more than skeptical others, have found themselves at least marginally intrigued and befuddled by these obscure titles. You know the ones I am sure -- I am talking about the ones that cost one friggin' dollar to buy. How could you pass up a deal like that, right? "Alright, that's a hell of a bargain! What's the catch?" You get big-name stars on the cover, "catchy" titles, you buy them thinking that it's just gotta be good with (fill in the blank) starring in it, you eagerly plop the disc into your player...wait, where's (fill in the blank)? Hold on...is that him/her with the (fill in a physical feature the star does not currently possess)? Not only that, (fill in the blank) is in the movie for five lousy minutes, sometimes less. And...jeepers, this movie really sucks! The disc soon turns into a drink-coaster for your next cup of coffee, or (God forbid) a teething ring for your infant.

"public domain: a range of abstract materials — commonly referred to as intellectual property — which are not owned or controlled by anyone, indicating that these materials are therefore 'public property', and available for anyone to use for any purpose."

It's a game, folks, and it's easy to play. Not only that, but it's easy for video consumers to lose. This is how they play it: Find public domain titles that have fallen out of copyright and then check the cast-list to see if there are any recognizable names. If there are none, toss the title out the window because they're not going to put it out. If there are names, plaster a recent, flatly-lit, low-resolution image of the star on the front and bill him/her first. Hey, why not...make the actor's name bigger than the title text so they know you mean business. Like I said, people take these titles home thinking "With a star in it like this, it just has to be good because the star makes it good" and they all too quickly find out they have been winked in the hood (that's hoodwinked for those not acquainted with quasi-jive from bespectacled schlemeils). It's just one of the quandaries of a classically, traditionally star-driven American film market. The star sells the product. That is certainly how studios and film-financiers think, and it would be naive to believe that video companies think any differently, particularly these budget DVD companies. It is pretty simple to exploit the "star makes it" way of thinking. Here are a few notorious well-known budget-release companies for your records: Miracle, Digiview, Alpha Video (hey, at least they have cool cover-art), GoodTimes, United American Video/Sterling Entertainment, Platinum Disc Corporation, Westlake Entertainment Group and innumerable others. Needless to say, this sub-market is a whole world unto itself, so you have every right to be skeptical.

In some cases, the video distributor will completely retitle the film (without the permission of the filmmakers) to make their product more appealing to genre fans. There are many hilarious examples of this. I know of one case where a through-and-through no-holds-barred art film, a heady and surrealist experimental-film/comedy adapted from an avant-garde novel by Ronald Sukenick called Out (1982), inherited the generically lurid retitle Deadly Drifter. Not only that, but Danny Glover, who is featured in the film as a supporting player, is given first billing on the cover. I am friends with Out's director Eli Hollander, and he informed me that he considered suing to prevent his film from being released in this way. Here is another amusing example: the Peter Fonda-directed 1973 time-travel movie Idaho Transfer was oh-so-tastefully retitled Deranged for some budget releases. I guess the mention of Idaho doesn't have 'em lining up in droves. I wonder if Peter Fonda has sour potatoes about that retitle job. An Ernest Borgnine film originally titled Rain for a Dusty Summer (1971) was retitled Guns for the Revolution on video, even though there are really no guns and no revolution anywhere in sight within the movie itself. A well-known Sally Field TV film called Maybe I'll Come Home in the Spring (1970) was retitled Deadly Desires. The words "deadly," "seduction," "desire" and "danger" would seem to be a common thread for retitling, and are mixed and matched at will.















The other night, I had the incredible pleasure of seeing Ivan Passer's Born to Win (1971), starring George Segal, Paula Prentiss, Karen Black and a young pre-stardom Robert De Niro, on a new 35mm print at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. This screening made for the true highlight of my movie-viewing month. This is ironic considering that I mentioned this film just last week in my post about the cinematic evolution of post-1950's New York City. Seeing a film print of this movie (which uses the 1970's Times Square location of the time like no other work has ever done) comes after multiple viewings of the film on a myriad of budget DVDs and VHSs taken from a muddy, faded, heavily edited public domain video print. The show sold out and the house was packed solid. Shortly after the screening, I spoke with one of the film's stars, my friend Karen Black, on the phone about the experience of seeing the film in its original form, with new, pristine negative elements, excellent sound quality and the scenes absent from all existing video prints...and this brought back some great memories for her. She was ecstatic to hear that it had been screened and she was reminded of the "new scenes" I told her about, which she had forgotten since the film's original release. Before Born to Win was shown, Ivan Passer's 1974 film Law and Disorder (1974) was screened. MoMA organized a small-scale retrospective of Passer's work, with his Intimate Lighting screened just the day before.

I was floored at seeing the print of Born to Win...absolutely floored. How much was lost in all the sub-par video versions of the film! I remember speaking with Karen's husband, Stephen Eckelberry, about how there are no decent video versions of Born to Win, which we both lamented to an equal degree. Every budget company has had a go at distributing Born to Win and it is hard to know which one is the best bet. The covers would have you believe that Robert De Niro is in the film's lead. On the front, they will plaster an image of De Niro taken so obviously from Goodfellas, Cape Fear (see the cover at the very bottom of this article) or Heat. And the descriptions would lead you to believe that De Niro's policeman character, who takes up about ten minutes of screentime, is the story's main figure and that George Segal's heroin-addicted hairdresser, the real main character, is a villain figure...and a supporting one at that. Born to Win has been retitled Addict for some video releases.














Are there other good budget titles out there, you ask? Are there good films that these budget companies got their hands on and marketed? Yes, yes, yes...and again, yes. You would never know it by how cheaply manufactured the products sometimes look, but there are great public-domain "budget" titles which, often through unfortunate circumstances, fell out of copyright and into public domain purgatory. Look at Marlon Brando's One-Eyed Jacks (1961) as a classic example. This is one of the great epic Westerns in movie history and, next to Once Upon a Time in the West, The Searchers, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and My Darling Clementine, is certainly one of my favorite Westerns of all-time. You know, I actually feel like starting a scavenger hunt or something, the objective here being find as many public-domain budget DVD releases of One-Eyed Jacks as you possibly can. Trust me, there are literally tons and tons of them. How do you what the best one to purchase is? In this particular case, I can tell you that the DigiView release is the only letterbox DVD version I know of, but in most cases, short of buying all of them that are out there, you can never ever really be sure. Some titles in public domain I have bought copy after copy after copy of, in hopes that I'll find the best image and sound of a given title, only to be disappointed time after time. It's kind of a pastime of mine.

Another example of negligent budget-video-company conduct is a film I have grown to love. New German Cinema's Peter Lilienthal directed a 1982 film called Dear Mr. Wonderful, which was the first film that Joe Pesci made directly following his great success in Raging Bull. It is a quiet, intimate, deliberately paced drama -- a movie of heart that takes it time to tell a story with characters you really grow to care about. This is also a film I mentioned in my post last week about lost New York cinema. In a great deal of the cover art for the film, you will observe taglines that are so hackneyed, unimaginative and asinine that it's hard to know whether to buy the movie to watch it or to put its cover on the wall at a tongue-in-cheek exhibit about the undeveloped art of deceptive advertising. Take a look at these taglines and savor the schlock: "One man's dream...is another's NIGHTMARE!!!", "The mob wants his next act to be his last", "Life's a gamble" and numerous others. Needless to say, this is not a Mafia movie at all, nor do any Mafia members play major roles. They are simply background and the portrayal of any organized crime in the movie is strictly implicit. Oh, and just in case the consumer fears any boredom when viewing, the capitalized word "NIGHTMARE" is just as big as the damn movie-title text! Boy, is the purchaser going to be disappointed when they see the real film, which is about a Jewish family man, bowling-alley owner and would-be singer with pipe dreams of making the big time in Las Vegas, who ultimately must learn to live with what he has considering his lot in life. On some releases, the film has been retitled Ruby's Dream. One of my DVDs of this film, from Miracle, even has out-of-sync audio (out-of-sync by nearly five whole seconds). Taglines with budget companies are a funny business in and of themselves. For instance, a tagline for the aforementioned art film Out, a.k.a. Deadly Drifter, reads simply "An explosive plot against the government." Again, no "explosive plot" and no "government" in the film itself! The actual cover art featuring this tagline is below. This design is truly priceless.

Miracle's cover for Dear Mr. Wonderful features a photo of Pesci on the front clearly "borrowed" from Scorsese's Casino (a hard sell especially considering that Pesci sports a moustache in 1982's Dear Mr. Wonderful and does not have one at all in 1995's Casino). Also, consider the puzzling placement of a pixellated roulette wheel directly below Pesci's disembodied head. All of the pictoral elements look blended together by a myopic five-year-old honing his glaringly limited Photoshop skills. One of the covers of Dynamite Chicken (1971) features a grossly unflattering flashbulb image of Richard Pryor, blown up to such a degree of pixellization to reveal, up close and personal, a clearly MS-afflicted man with his mouth agape in what was undoubtedly a paparazzi capturing a candid photo of the comedian. Talk about unbecoming!

Okay, one more funny example, then I'll shut up. In 1969, an unknown Robert De Niro starred in an independent movie shot on Long Island called Sam's Song. The movie was never really released and fell between the cracks. In 1979, Cannon Films had a hot potato on their hands. They owned a film starring the then-unknown and now-megastar Robert De Niro. What do they do? They shoot banal, new, more action-driven material with piss-poor actors and use it to frame the old artsy-fartsy footage with De Niro. They retitle it The Swap, De Niro tries to sue Cannon to prevent the film from being released, but it gets out there anyway. That's not the end of the story. Budget video companies then retitile the retitle, naming it Line of Fire. This is an extreme case...a double-deception, if you will. And both version of the film (both the 1969 original and 1979 version of the film are available on budget releases) are pretty bad, with the 69 slightly bettering the 79. And then, of course, there are the priceless taglines: "De Niro is tough, cool...and an easy target for MURDER!!!" (again with the mega-capitalization, this time italicized, and the three exclamation points!!!), "Robert De Niro is murder on women, and they're murder on him!", "Never cheat the mob!" (again, using a would-be "Mafia hook" to sell a movie that has nothing to do with it), "Some answers are worth killing for..." and others. Please note that The Swap and Born to Win are often paired to make a "DVD Double Feature" package.










So what are some good titles from budget companies? There are a great deal of them, and ones that you will be shocked to discover have (or had) slipped into public domain. I'll name a few. Frank Capra's Meet John Doe (1940, which I used a clip of in my film A Trip to Swadades), Vittorio De Sica's Indiscretion of an American Wife (the 1953 Selznick recut of Terminal Station), Dennis Hopper's masterpiece Out of the Blue (1980), D.W. Griffith's Intolerance (1916) and Way Down East (1920), blacklisted writer-director Abraham Polonsky's unjustly neglected Romance of a Horsethief (1971), Harvey Hart's thriller The Pyx (1973), Jeremy Paul Kagan's Patty Hearst-inspired drama Katherine (1974, starring Sissy Spacek), the fascinatingly bad The Driver's Seat (1973) starring Liz Taylor and Andy Warhol, the film version of playwright Peter Shaffer's The Royal Hunt of the Sun (1969), Kinji Fukasaku's underrated all-star disaster movie Virus (1980, albeit often in painfully abridged versions), the Italian anti-war drama The Fifth Day of Peace (1969) starring Franco Nero, the 1970 spaghetti Western Death Rides a Horse (which has yet to see at least an adequate pan-and-scan of its 2.35 aspect ratio in America), the prescient sci-fi thriller Paper Man (1971), Tony Richardson's The Entertainer (1960) starring Laurence Olivier), the Barbara Stanwyck drama The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946), among countless others. At one point, even Capra's all-time classic It's a Wonderful Life spent its time wallowing in the public-domain cesspool, but the copyright of that film was renewed not too long ago. Nevertheless, there are a great deal of films out there on this esoteric market that are worth the dollar or two you would spend on it. There are occasionally even inexplicable budget titles, like John Sayles' The Brother from Another Planet (1984), about which you wonder "How did that wind up in the bargain bin?"

I propose a retrospective screening series that would screen prints of the "hidden gem" public domain titles in an effort to show cinephiles that some of these forgotten films ultimately warrant second consideration and possibly new lives. They should be seen on their original print sources, no matter how bruised the elements are. I, for one, would relish seeing the breadth and depth of now-beloved cinematographer Michael Ballhaus' full and original compositions in Dear Mr. Wonderful or even rewatching Born to Win on the print I saw the other night. I cannot get that experience out of my mind. Like I said, it was like seeing that film for the very first time. I was sitting there audibly saying things like "Yikes" and "Wow" when scenes deleted from the DVD were playing out before me, and observing Jack Priestley's and Richard Kratina's incredible cinematography in its original glory. The cinematography was actually rightly labelled as underlit and clumsy when video critics saw the muddy, faded and darkened video prints. That film's feeling for New York and the 42nd Street of its day shone through on the 35mm print. There is, after all, something irresistible and right about light passing through celluloid. It's how everything shot on the medium is meant to be seen. Viewing Born to Win with an audience was also fascinating, in an effort to gauge how well it has aged. I am going to do what I can to spearhead a PaDHaG Print Screening (that is, Public Domain Hidden Gem Screening) here in New York. Kudos to MoMA for resurrecting Born to Win! Let us start seeing more screenings like this. There is an audience for them, as the packed house at the screening the other night proved. People were exiting the theater marvelling at how MoMA's screening was a far cry from the various video versions they had seen. I was one of them...and then I just realized that many in the audience must have unsuspectingly picked up the movie for cheap on budget video in the bargain bin of their local convenience stores only to be surprised at the film's worth, despite being misled and deceived by the tactics of the Budgeteers.

Towards a More Proactive Viewership with Matthias Glasner's The Free Will













I picked up a copy of Matthias Glasner's The Free Will (2006) on almost a complete whim. I was intrigued by the seeming disproportion between the intimate-sounding, wholly character-driven subject matter and the epic running time, listed on the box as 163 minutes. An "intimate epic," if you will. Great, I thought. Why, you ask? Last year, I performed research for an advanced study of film kilometrique, a concept and a methodology chartered by early French filmmakers in 1917. It was called that because a film's length then was measured in footage and not time, thus the really long films ran for kilometers and kilometers. A great many of the kilometrique filmmakers were creators of French serials (e.g. Louis Feuillade and his 5½ hour Fantomas). The concept of film kilometrique (as opposed to the practice and method, which is a whole other ball of wax) involved the exploration of the film medium's practical techniques for storytelling and character-defining by using length, and often extreme length, to investigate the relatively "new-to-the-world" cinematic form of expression. "Uh huh," I hear you say, "what was the middle thing?" Okay, so basically, a lot of excessively lengthy movies were made by French filmmakers in the 1910's and 20's so that they could explore what meaning the length of their films had to the way they told stories -- and future filmmakers would capitalize on and continue this practice of making long movies to achieve the same results. Deep staging was often one of their most utilized tools. Often, running times of films and serials would be deliberately and often rather arbitrarily amped to accomodate their exploration(s).

I closely examined films made decades and decades after the inauguration of the film kilometrique experiment, like Chantal Akerman's masterpiece, and the undisputed textbook example of film kilometrique, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1978), various works by the "length-meister" himself Jacques Rivette (unfortunately I was of course unable to get my hands on a copy or a print of his legendary and rarely screened Out 1), various films from Warhol's "Empire period" and many others. Needless to say, this study took some definite time to execute in any real depth (hey, they're all pretty long movies, after all). So, when I saw that Glasner's The Free Will seemed to fit neatly into the "intimate epic" niche I had investigated in such depth, I decided to give the film a shot.

Within the first ten minutes, the most graphic, disturbing and unpleasant rape scene I have yet witnessed onscreen was playing out before me. Quite frankly, I was nearly traumatized by sitting there watching it and not doing anything. Hey, I know it's only a movie, but "proactivity" in this case is inevitable. I felt like I was being hit by an express train. It was followed, I might add, by the "scavenger" nearly mutilating his "prey". I was almost on the verge of turning the film off, because the filmmaker just seemed to be sadistically wallowing in the ugliness and the repulsiveness of the whole thing (and I never use the term "sadistically" lightly). And, in the great tradition of the good old kilometrique spirit, the scene is excruciatingly dragged out to considerable length. Eventually, the scene ended and, already weary and battle-scarred but still nonetheless intrigued as to what role the previous scene would ultimately assume in the film, I decided to press onward. It was soon after that I made the discovery. The filmmaker summons the audience to witness the horrible crime of a woman's rape and disfigurement, in gory detail, so that we the viewers must live with what we saw just as much as the character has to later live with what he has done to this chosen-at-random woman. To the casual viewer not ready to assume such a challenge, it becomes a question and a case of "Who the hell needs that? I got problems of my own!"














A great deal of people, for very good reason, would have (and have had) difficulty swallowing portrayals and depictions of such events on film. I honestly could not beg to differ. It is here that I make the assertion that it boils down to a question of audience responsibility to the material on display, which implies and entails a proactivity in our film-watching. The responsibility in the case of The Free Will, this "audience responsibility" to be proactive is every bit as equal to the filmmaker's responsibility to play such scenes as carefully and, most importantly, as motivatedly as is possible. So what of this question of audience responsibility? People most often do not like to work when they watch a movie. And on that note, The Free Will is decidedly not a film for everyone. You could most likely make that assumption from just reading my description of the rape scene.

Eventually, though, I did wind up greatly appreciating the experience of seeing the film, and can easily cite it as one of the most valid and vital recent examples of film kilometrique (all that jabber above in the first paragraph was not for naught, folks). We examine the rapist's incarceration and, upon his release, his latent deadly fear of the opposite sex...all in super-fine detail. The character is fleshed out and the filmmaker takes his time in sketching the issues, a patently strange sense of guilt for one, the character has developed following his own violent "acting out". Also, this is yet another example of a film shot on a shoestring, with gritty-feeling and often desaturated standard-def DV images. Quite anomalous, that...particularly in an age in which it seems that everything must look pretty, with supreme HD image-fidelity to boot. The cinematography, which certainly has its problems (i.e. my ongoing issue with underlighting which can be blamed on the facile exposure-latitude DV possesses), feels quite proportionate to the story being told. You see choices being made left and right, most of the time the right choices too, which stand as one of the film's great virtues.

In Jacques Rivette's Secret Defense (1998), which runs 170 minutes (for a story that would traditionally play out in just 90-100 minutes), Rivette uses the thriller genre as a foundation for exploring a character's evolution. In my opinion, Secret Defense is another cardinal work of film kilometrique. We follow the character, in real-time, on her way to murder someone. In one's surface estimation, nothing happens for the duration of fifteen minutes. No, instead, we are observing internal acting in the best sense of the term. Without words, the actor (and the filmmaker) are showing us what it is for an innocent to evolve into a not-so-innocent who has been cornered into committing a tremendous crime. Sandrine Bonnaire, who plays the lead in this film, takes us through the evolution as she switches from one Paris Metro train to another Paris Metro train and finally to a train en route to the country estate owned by her target. Just by the face and by Rivette's framing (toying with length and "dragging out scenes"), we gain a window into the character's internal landscape.

The Free Will does what Secret Defense does. In these finely observed moments, and often without words and with length and the long take as their friends, Glasner and Rivette respectively evoke the specificity of their characters' motivations and thoughts as they are happening...and we get to watch people in this cerebral netherplace. True, one might say that these films are at least occasionally mired in self-indulgence. I just do not choose to see it that way. Film kilometrique lives! So, all this boils down to responsibility. Are we willing to wager our comfortable film-watching m.o. for a more proactive form of media intake? What do you think? How blithely can you sacrifice your comfort-level to fully invest yourself in a filmmaker's chosen form, even if unpleasantries are part of the baggage?

Regional Filmmaking and Eagle Pennell's The Whole Shootin' Match














At one time in my life, throughout a nearly three-year time span, I governed and facilitated a university screening series called Film Fridays. Mostly rare and/or esoteric titles were shown. A film would be screened every week, most often on video formats as they were made available, and a presenter would discuss the film, why it was chosen and the meaning it had for them to screen it. At one of the weekly screenings, a friend of mine (a filmmaker himself) screened Steven Soderbergh's Bubble (2006) alongside Francis Ford Coppola's The Rain People (1969). The discussion that followed concerned the endless possibilities inherent in regional filmmaking, a topic about which the presenter, a native of Oklahoma City (who would soon after that screening move back to that part of the country), was quite passionate.

When I recently purchased by 3-disc set of independent filmmaker Eagle Pennell's recently re-released The Whole Shootin' Match (1978), I flashed back to the post-film discussion at this screening. After all, The Whole Shootin' Match was the film which allegedly inspired Robert Redford to spearhead the Sundance Institute. Shot on a shoestring budget in Austin, Texas in grainy, black-and-white, 16mm stock (and a fast film stock at that), this drama tells the simple story of two "loser" friends who are intent on finding a way to get on the dole and on their way to their big break.














While watching the film, I stopped midway to actively think about other regional filmmaking efforts I have witnessed in my film-watching heretofore, and their relationship(s) to The Whole Shootin' Match. I looked across the way to one of the many bookshelves in my apartment which house DVDs. On one particular bookshelf, I have arranged an American Independent section of the collection, featuring films like Barbara Loden's Wanda (1970), Bruce Schwartz's In MacArthur Park (1977), Joseph Strick's Road Movie (1972), Jon Jost's Last Chants for a Slow Dance (1977), Rob Nilsson's Northern Lights (1978) and others. I immediately, then, started thinking about the many efforts that have been made to not only get films made outside the Hollywood system on the independent circuit but to also get them made outside the bustling, "artistically fertile" urban environments which have, as if by default, assumed the role of an artist fusion...a mass, unofficial artists' commune. The individuality of independent cinema, particularly American independent cinema, rests in our collective interest in specialized regional filmmaking. I thought of a friend of mine, Mark Thimijan, and his recent successes in shooting independent films, a feature entitled Barstool Cowboy and a short entitled The Girl Who Could Run 600 Miles Per Hour in his native Nebraska.

I then continued watching The Whole Shootin' Match , confessedly an often technically ragged piece that uses the "charms" of a low budget to render what we are seeing a singularly and supremely emotional experience, one where investments are made and the heart and passion of the filmmaker is deeply felt. One is drawn in the strangest of ways to the wild, impulsive zooms, the rough pans, the super-directional lighting, inconsistent exposures and all the other inconsistencies in ways where we are shrugging and saying, "In any other film, I lose my patience...but with this, I am locked into it and, amazingly enough, gain a heightened appreciation from these 'distractionary elements'." Keeping in mind that this film was shot on an astounding $30,000 budget, it's all the more something to savor and a morale booster for those regional filmmakers looking towards the completion of their opus.














I was similarly delighted by Watchmaker Films' DVD release of this film. Great care has been taken in the transfer and a great deal of effort has been made in the supplements department. There are two commentary tracks for the film itself, a 46-page booklet detailing the film's creation, reception and legacy, as well as a soundtrack CD, an earlier 28-minute short film by Eagle Pennell (A Hell of a Note) and a full-length documentary about Pennell (The King of Texas).

There is a certain grainy black-and-white to be had here as well. For one who has shot a film where the "grain factor" on the black-and-white image was quite high (to the extent I had it manipulated in processing by pushing underexposed stock), the feeling of a homemade, but nonetheless presentable, feature-film was yet another irrestible element. The struggle of these two impetuous backwoods boys as they attempt one backward scheme after another (whether its polyurethane or flying squirrels) makes for a very endearing story, told the best way shoestringers know how: with a motto of "the rough-hewn is the best-hewn".

Every effort made in regional filmmaking most decidedly renders different results. For example, in Jost's Last Chants for a Slow Dance, which Time Out called "a scathing portrait of the American macho," a wildly improvisatory style that seems all too becoming of American independent cinema young and old is, here, aptly used to explore the actor's (and vicariously, the viewer's) conception of this archetype in American culture. The mystification cum demystification of the West can be grasped simply by observing how the actors on display choose to demonstrate their image of the archetype. Jost uses long (read LONG) takes to do so, and takes us on the road in a very regional-filmmaking way, in an effort to get us to witness how the actors delineation of the given archetype morphs from port to port, from encounter to encounter, in locations that feel (and are) very real to our image/conception of them as well as to the reality itself. It most importantly makes no concessions to any momentary quaintness, and uniformity not the least bit inherent in the stream of interactions.














The "word on the street" would lead you to believe that finely observed quotidian flourishes from moment to moment are always and forever the bread and butter of regional-filmmaking indie works. That would also seem to be the allure it has for cineastes. In Bruce Schwartz's little seen AFI-financed In MacArthur Park (1977), the lead character makes an unwilling exodus from the Indian reservation of his youth to the big city, resolved to support his family outside the community following a local tragedy involving the encroachment from outside of their land, including their entire food supply. Moving to L.A. for work to support his family, he mugs and accidentally murders a man in desperation in the eponymous Los Angeles park. The sometimes clunky acting, the technical inconsistencies and occasionally questionable editing cannot hold a candle to the tone Schwartz evokes with images of the reservation in its halcyon days. Schwartz described the film as "the story of a man who fell through the cracks -- a man lacking the skills one needs for survival in modern society." It also about the abyss that exists between where the man came from and where he has wound up. It is a simple film...pick up a camera and shoot it. The actors explore, in a similar way to that which we observe the actors doing in The Whole Shootin' Match. Wanda, directed by Elia Kazan's wife Barbara Loden, uses a similar construct. It relies on being wholly, totally 100% organic, without falling on the heels of contrivance or, daresay, tedium.

Rumor has it that Watchmaker Films is now restoring Pennell's second feature, Last Night at the Alamo (1983). One of the marvels of home theater...you can catch films that (inevitably) fell past the radar on the first go-round.