Tuesday, 14 November 2017

Why Haven't You Seen...? Anita (1973)

What’s It All About?
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. A nymphomaniac (in this case Anita, played by Christina Lindberg), finding herself isolated, takes shelter at the home of Erik, a psychiatry student played by Stellan Skarsgård. In flashback, she tells him about her many sexual encounters and how her compulsive sex drive has never made her happy. He, of course, falls in love as he’s trying to treat her.

Why Haven’t You Seen It?
Vintage Swedish sexploitation is, it’s fair to say, something of a niche interest. I discovered this film (and some others that we may cover in the future) because of Christina Lindberg, who I discovered in the brilliant and hugely influential Thriller: A Cruel Picture. Unless you’re an obsessive fan of exploitation cinema, Lindberg or Skarsgård I’d be surprised if Anita has ever come on your radar.

Why Should You See It?
Anita is an unusual exploitation film. It’s full of the basic ingredients you’d expect, chiefly the stunningly beautiful lead actress, the copious nudity and the one lesbian scene, thrown in purely for the enjoyment of the male audience. What sets Anita apart is tone. This is both a more serious and a more downbeat film than much seventies sexploitation (contrast it, for instance, with the lightness of Felicity). It’s not pretending to be anything other than sexploitation, but writer/director Torgny Wickman’s screenplay does at least aspire to offer some psychological depth to Anita and her compulsions, and the writing and visuals both have a certain grimy realism that sets the film apart.

Christina Lindberg is a good reason to watch just about anything. She is impossibly beautiful; a delicate face with huge eyes. She's well cast here, given her capacity to look like a confident, seductive woman one minute and an innocent who desperately needs protecting the next. A year after her brilliant mute performance in Thriller, she again excels at putting across what her character is going through purely with her face and body. One striking moment sees Anita pick up a man as he gets off a train at the local station. She takes him to an apartment and they have sex. Wickman portrays their encounter quite explicitly, but this isn’t a titillating scene as, in common with many of the other sex scenes, Lindberg’s body language here expresses need rather than desire, something only underlined when, after the brief sex is over, she turns over and cries. 

None of this is to say that Lindberg isn’t also very good in her dialogue scenes, indeed she holds her own with a young Stellan Skarsgård, who seems to bring his customary dedication to the part of Erik, you get the sense that he saw this was a richer piece of character writing than was typical in the genre and he plays Erik’s earnest dedication to helping Anita well, while also letting us see the desire that lies behind it. This is perhaps the best point to note the similarities to Lars Von Trier’s Nymphomaniac. Indeed if the ending were different it would be easy to suggest that Erik might actually be a young version of that film’s Seligman. At the very least one has to wonder whether Skarsgård reflected on this film, and his performance in it, before making Nymphomaniac. The similarities in plot and tone are certainly too marked to imagine that Von Trier wasn’t influenced by Anita and there’s a mischievous twist to the casting of Skarsgård if that’s the case.

The film takes a genuine interest in the psychology both of Anita’s nymphomania (though it defines it pretty broadly, as a reaction against the repressive parents who favour her younger sister, or as a quest for the orgasm she’s never had) and of the way that people react to her. The film definitely regards Anita as someone with an illness, but the people around her don’t and the script seems to posit that the abuse she gets, both verbal and, on occasion, physical, only strengthens her compulsion. There are definitely times at which Wickman is using this as a framework on which to hang the film’s sex and nudity, but he does at least have some serious intent, and it’s matched by Lindberg and Skarsgård's work.

For all its nudity (and there may be as much in 90 minutes here as there is in the 4 hours of Nymphomaniac), Anita is seldom conventionally exploitative. This, along with the lack of reaction from the other people in the room, is probably why Anita’s impromptu striptease at a party given by her parents feels so out of place in the film. The reactions are so muted that it almost seems like a fantasy, a story she’s made up for Erik. That’s emphasised, perhaps accidentally, by the tinny sound of the scenes at home. There may be a technical reason for this, and for why these scenes seem dubbed when the rest of the film is obviously using live sound, but it does give an edge of surrealism that could lead you to question how honest Anita is being about her relationship with her parents.

Visually, Torgny Wickman gives the film a gritty feel. Everything has a grimy look to it, from the shared student apartment Erik lives in to the roadside tent that Anita has a couple of her sexual encounters in. Only the scenes in Anita’s parents home feel clean and put together, another thing that sets them at a slight remove from the rest of the film.

Overall, Anita (best known under the title Anita: Swedish Nymphet, though the on screen title is Anita: The Story of a 17 Year Old Nymphomaniac), is a cut above for sexploitation. If you’re just in it for the sex and nudity then Christina Lindberg made lighter films that are probably more up your street (and also well worth watching), but here we get to see her deliver a strong performance in a film that at least aspires to have ideas and to be taken seriously. 

How Can You See It?
The UK release is in the Swedish Erotica boxset, which is a highly recommended set of six films, including two others with Christina Lindberg. Unfortunately the set is now out of print. The print is 4:3 and battered, but there’s something about the streaks and marks on the film that make it feel all the more authentic. I wouldn’t say no to a proper Blu Ray upgrade though, the film deserves it. There does seem to be an (out of print) Region 1 release on Amazon as well, but it doesn't look very official.

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Why Haven't You Seen...? Mr Vampire (1985)

What's it all about?
A hybrid of comedy, horror and martial arts, this franchise spawning Hong Kong classic is about a Taoist priest (Lam Ching Ying as Master Kau) and his two rather inept assistants Man-choi and Chau-sang (Ricky Hui and Chin Siu-ho) and their attempts to help contain and, if required, fight the undead. When they are asked by Mr Yam (Ha Huang) to arrange the re-burial of his father they discover that the body has become a vampire and that they must protect Mr Yam's 18 year old daughter Ting (Moon Lee).

Why haven't you seen it?
When talking to movie fans I find that they go one of two ways on martial arts cinema, either they love it and immerse themselves in the genre or they've seen Enter The Dragon and some of Jackie Chan's US films. Mr Vampire is a film I suspect won't have crossed over to that second group, but it should and could be an interesting gateway drug for them.

Why should you see it?
It's a comedy martial arts movie with hopping vampires. So, I'm done with this section, right?

In all seriousness, the challenge with any genre hybrid is getting the balance of elements right and this is one area in which Mr Vampire excels. Not only does it manage to balance the levels of action, comedy and horror but it combines them well in many of its setpieces. The opening is a good example of this. As well as establishing a creepy mood with its slowly but inexorably hopping vampires it shows us the kind of graceful slapstick kung fu that we'll be seeing throughout the film and introduces the different styles of the cast. It also gives us some laughs thanks to Chau-sang appearing dressed up as a vampire to scare Man-choi and gracefully introduces many of the elements of Taoism that will come into play during the film, without a massive exposition dump.

The directorial style of Ricky Lau shifts a little depending on what kind of scene he's doing. The martial arts scenes are clearly influenced by the kung fu comedy of producer Sammo Hung and by his opera brother Jackie Chan, but when the storyline of Chau-sang falling for a ghostly woman (Wong Siu-fung) the smoke filled and otherworldly atmosphere strikes closer to something like John Carpenter's The Fog, at least until the wire work begins.

Comedy can be very geographically specific and, with much of this film tied up with intricacies of Taoist belief that won't be familiar to most Western audiences you might expect that to be an issue, but slapstick needs little translation and, while it might be a bit broad for some tastes, the comedy translates. The martial arts aren't the most intricate in Hong Kong cinema history, but Chin Siu-ho's choreography is interesting for the way it mostly seeks to block or deflect rather than to attack (the priests often have to protect the undead as much as they do the living). One of the more ingenious moments comes from a bit of Chinese vampire lore, that they detect you by your breathing, so Man-choi and Ting, trapped in a wardrobe, use a bamboo pole to redirect their breath.

Lam Ching-ying is for me one of the great unsung kung fu movie stars; a charismatic and versatile actor as well as an incredibly gifted martial artist. He became iconic as Master Kau, reprising the role many times before his premature death, 20 years ago tomorrow. You can see why, it's an assured performance, the whole thing summed up in the tidy movements that his fighting style consists of, even when he's on the losing end of the battle. Lam radiates confidence, knowledge and authority, but he's also able to play the comedy of his frequent irritation with his hapless assistants in a way that feels in keeping with the character. Ricky Hui and Chin Siu-ho start out with essentially the same role; comic relief, but it's clear that the more classically handsome Chin is going to be the one who gets to expand from that. It's the right choice, the comedy is broad, but Hui plays up to it and gets laughs while Chin gets to show the prowess that allowed him to choreograph this and many other films. 

It's also worth mentioning, though you don't see his face, Yuen Wah, famed as the bad guy with the staccato kung fu style in Dragons Forever and Eastern Condor, plays the main vampire. The other notable name, making her debut here, is Moon Lee. In this role Lee is cast as a demure beauty for Hui and Chin to fall for – something she does essentially effortlessly – but she would later carve out her own niche as a star in many of Hong Kong's 'girls with guns' action movies. It's interesting to see her in a different context here.

Mr Vampire is an ideal introduction to the wider world of kung fu cinema. It deliberately makes clear the more esoteric cultural references and it combines generic tropes to entertaining effect, all of it anchored by an underrated actor in his defining role. I urge you to give it a go.

How can you see it?
There is a US DVD, but the definitive edition is the UK DVD by Hong Kong Legends (which, happily, was one of the few titles re-released by Cine Asia). The picture quality is about as good as you could hope for, given the age of the film and the transfer, but it's the exceptional commentary by Bey Logan that makes it the only version worth owning.

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

78/52 By Alexandre O. Philippe

Reviewed By Andy Zachariason

In the current cultural climate of fandom, clickbait, and fan theories it feels like genuine film criticism and worthwhile analysis is being drowned out. Obsessions over plot and character theories and “what’s going to happen in the sequel?” feel misplaced and stray away from appreciation of art. The new documentary 78/52 is an hour and a half analysis and ode to the famous shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s seminal film, Psycho. The 78 and 52 refer to the number of setups and edits in the scene that took a week to film. It’s fanatical and analytical in a way that feels meaningful and offers a glimpse of what film analysis can and should be rather than the current superficial fandom fads.

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Why Haven't You Seen...? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 (1990)

What Are They All About?
Tobe Hooper’s belated sequel to his 1973 classic is a very different film to the original. Leatherface and his family now live under a disused theme park, where they make award winning chilli (the secret is it’s made of people). One night a DJ named Stretch (Caroline Williams) records a call from two college kids, which ends in their murder by the Sawyer clan. This leads to Stretch meeting up with Lefty Enright (Dennis Hopper), the uncle of Sally and Franklin from the original film, who has been pursuing his family’s murderers for years.

The third film goes back to basics, with a young couple (Kate Hodge and William Butler) ambushed by Leatherface and family. They fight to survive, with the help of a survivalist ‘Nam veteran (Ken Foree).

Thursday, 26 October 2017

Call Me By Your Name By Luca Guadagnino

Reviewed By Linda Marric

Adapted from Andre Aciman’s 2007 novel of the same name, Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name offers one of the most expertly crafted and beautifully told love stories of the last decade. With a masterful score and some genuinely impressive performances, the film manages to immerse its audience in its gently melancholic world from the offset, and when it’s over you will find yourself completely and utterly mesmerised by its protagonists and its beautifully ephemeral nature.

Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Why Haven't You Seen...? The Stepfather (1986) and Stepfather II (1989)

Posted by Sam Inglis

After a few weeks off to attend and then recover from the London Film Festival, Why Haven't You Seen...? is back and for the next couple of weeks I'll be featuring some Halloween double bills.

What Are They All About?

In The Stepfather, Jerry Blake (Terry O’Quinn) is in his late 30’s, he lives with his new wife Susan (Shelley Hack) and her troubled 17 year old daughter Stephanie (Jill Schoelen) in a middle class home in a safe neighbourhood. Jerry wants to create a perfect family life, in fact he’s so obsessed with this that  Stephanie begins to suspect that Jerry has a sinister secret and begins investigating his past.

The sequel performs some plot gymnastics to open with Jerry (O’Quinn again) in a mental hospital. He soon escapes, becoming Gene Clifford, a psychiatrist. He targets Carol (Meg Foster, a divorcee with a 12 year old son (Jonathan Brandis) and soon they’re engaged, but Carol’s friend Matty (Caroline Williams) has a bad feeling about Gene.

Friday, 20 October 2017

Marshall By Reginald Hudlin

Reviewed By Linda Marric

As courtroom dramas go, you can’t do much better than Reginald Hudlin's brilliantly understated new feature film Marshall. This mid-budget surprise hit is everything you would want from the genre and much more; and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it all the more gripping. Chartering an early case in legendary civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall’s career, the film does a commendable job in reacquainting those of us who were less familiar with the man and his tireless fight against institutional racism against black people in the American justice system.