Sundance Review: Censor

Prano Bailey-Bond makes her feature debut with this meta-horror tribute to Video Nasties, a notorious list of films banned in Britain. The story follows Enid (Niamh Algar), a British censor, who reviews a film that is eerily similar to a traumatic event from her childhood. She sets about trying to solve a life-long mystery, while dealing with backlash for passing a film that the press blames for inspiring a crime. Baily-Bond explored Video Nasties before in her short, Nasty, some of which is used in this feature. Questions about the purpose of censorship and its impact are explored in a not too obvious manner.

Set in 1980s London, the film captures that aesthetic well, alternating a grindhouse neon palette with one that suggests a muted color scheme of Wes Anderson and Todd Haynes. Colorful, yet dreadful. Algar’s performance keeps things grounded, as the film becomes more and more horrific.  

As someone who has probably seen more than his fair share of Video Nasties, I found the portrayal of Enid and her fellow censors quite engaging. Being a horror fan, and against censorship in general, I always vilified these faceless people who decided what we could or could not see. The censors are shown as smart, reasonable people, not easily disgusted caricatures. Enid at one point makes the Carol Clover-esque observation that many of these nasties are a form of “Male-inadequacy-revenge catharsis,” and although that may be a little reductive, she is not wrong. I particularly liked a scene where the committee discusses letting a film keep a decapitation scene because it looked “ridiculous,” knowing that they don’t think audiences are stupid. And any film with dialogue such as “Consensus on Cannibal Carnage” will always win points from me.

The final act of the film has fantastic use of varying aspect ratio and video artifacts, evoking the Video Nasty feel, dread, and atmosphere. I’m not in love with the ending, and while I was watching it, I felt that Censor wasn’t quite sticking the landing. But once the credits were finished, that feeling changed. It isn’t a disappointing ending at all, it’s just felt a touch silly at first. Which is in-keeping with Video Nasties. I think it will grow on me in time. During the final act I couldn’t help but think of a famous line from Wes Craven’s Scream. I won’t directly quote it here, because I think that would spoil too much.

The films Censor mainly reminded me of were Berberian Sound Studio, Videodrome, Let’s Scare Jessica to Death, and Evil Dead. The latter two being perhaps more aesthetic than thematic reminders.  

If it hasn’t happened already, it will be interesting to see who picks it for distribution and if they alter the film at all. At 84 minutes, the duration of many 80s nasties, there isn’t much to remove. I don’t think it will need to cut anything for a rating, be it R or 15, but there are certain choices that could perhaps be cut for a stronger edit. Nevertheless, this is a strong feature debut, and it will be exciting to see what Bailey-Bond makes next.

Grade: B+

-Andrew

It Lives Up to its Name

2017 has already been a great year for horror with Get Out and Split. Even the new Annabelle movie was better than it had any right to be really. It is further strengthening this already strong year for the genre. I don’t think It is a better film than Get Out, but It is certainly a bigger film. In just about every way.

Based on the beloved Stephen King novel, It takes place in the small town of Derry, Maine. In the late 80s, children start to disappear and never return. A group of 7 kids calling themselves the Losers, determine that a monstrous clown is behind the disappearances. It, as the Losers call him, shape-shifts to whatever form will frighten a child the most. Fear makes them “tastier.” While grappling with the terrors of puberty, school bullies, and a town full of uncaring and disinterested adults, the Losers must fight It.

Like Get Out and really the best horror films, It is about more than just scaring the audience. The film wants you to think. It is about the horrors of childhood, growing up, mortality, and fear itself. Working with those themes, the film establishes a sense of existential dread that is often missing in horror films. “What was the irrational thing that scared me when I was a kid? How would It appear to me?” I kept asking myself. Not often does a film, of any genre, get to me like that.

Fans of the book will be glad to know that most of the films changes work for the better. At least for 2017. Moving the story to the 1980s from the 50s was a smart choice. Although there is that critique of the “innocent” 50s in the book, having it set in the 80s retains that “simpler time” quality while still updating. Changing some of It’s incarnations was also a good decision. As much as I enjoy the Rodan and Frankenstein stuff in the book, that wouldn’t work now. Though the film isn’t exactly faithful in the purest sense, the emotional tone and dread are 100%. Andy Muschietti and the screenwriters found 2017 equivalents that create that same sense of fear that King did in 1986. This film creeped me out as much as the book did, which is not an easy thing to adapt. In the book, the action alternates between the Losers as kids and as adults. We just get the kid part here and that serves the film quite well dramatically, if not at least practically. The sequel will feature the Losers as adults. Another change is It’s convoluted macroverse mythology is missing here. The only turtle we get in this is a Lego one, but that is probably for the best.

The production behind the film is well crafted, but it's the performances that really sell the story. An R-rated film about kids is hard to tell if the actors aren't exceptional. All the child actors hold their own here, particularly Sophia Lillis and Jeremy Ray Taylor as Beverly and Ben respectively. Finn Wolfhard as Richie almost steals the show, having worked before on the similarly themed Stranger Things. The Netflix show being something between Stephen King’s E.T and Steven Spielberg's It (no that isn’t a typo). Even if you find the whole “scary clown” trope trite by this point, Bill Skarsgård will still give you a bad case of the heebie-jeebies at least.

Despite all my gushing, the film is not perfect. The CG could be a little better and the script could be a more refined. Certain Easter eggs from the book will no doubt come off as strange to uninitiated viewers (the “Beep! Beep! Ritchie!" gag doesn’t quite work here). Also, I couldn’t help but feel that perhaps a little too much screen time was devoted to 13 year olds in their underwear. My major issues are hard to address without spoilers, so...

Here Beginth the Spoilers:

This might be some book bias, but I was disappointed by the damseling of Beverly and the handling of Mike Hanlon’s character.  In the film, It captures Beverly and takes her to his lair. In King's novel, the Losers head into the sewers to fight It because they have figured out how to kill It, or at least put It back to sleep. Having Beverly become something the boys have to “save” instead cheapens that act of heroism. What's more, Bev being awakened from a floating trance by Ben’s kiss comes off as silly. However that is better than her having sex with all the boys like in the book.

In the novel, much of It and Derry’s history is presented to us by Mike Hanlon. Most of that history is expressed by Ben Hanscom in the film, which seems a strange choice. These changes with Bev and Mike might not be as big a deal to other viewers. I will admit that Mike and Beverly are probably my favorite characters in the Losers because there is an extra layer of “outsider” in them. Beverly being a girl and Mike being black in a group of predominantly white boys. Though those specific changes are off-putting and disheartening, but I don’t think they ruin the film.

Here Endth the Spoilers.

The film is quite intense and will pobably resonate something in most viewers. I am not easy to scare, but even I found myself having to shout the f-word in my car to relieve the tension afterward. When I left the cinema, someone had tied a red balloon to a sign in the parking lot. That certainly added something to the experience.

Even with the film’s issues, I strongly encourage you to see this and to see it in the cinema. If you are on the fence about horror films, you may still enjoy the coming-of-age aspects. It is an ambitious adaptation that accomplishes nearly all its goals. The roller-coaster cliche that critics like to use certainly fits here and like all great roller-coasters you may find yourself wanting another ride. Grade: B+

                                      -Andrew

I assure you it makes sense why I added this song.

Sorting Through the Best Pictures: 1927-1939

 Being a film buff and a bit of an Oscar nerd (they are my Super Bowl), I spent 2016 watching and reviewing all the best picture winners. One does not watch 87 movies without noticing some things. What is considered the "best" from year to year is an interesting concept. Some were obvious, others… not so much. With this year's nominees being announced today, I figured it be a good time to sort through the lot. Most internet folks are into ranking, and when I started the project I thought about doing that too, but I instead found myself placing them in categories of quality: “Essential,” “Great,” “Good” and “Really? This is the Best?” So that is what I’m going to do here. Decade by Decade. Every Tuesday and Thursday until the Oscar ceremonies.

1927-1939

“Really? This was ‘the Best?’”

My “Really? This was the Best?” category has more entries in this era than in other decades. Some of that is due to the Academy's infancy, but really the early days of the Oscars were not that different from today. Some movies won out for what I can only assume are “just because” reasons, instead of actual merits of quality. That still happens, but this first period has a lot of egregious examples. Flicks in this category are generally not so great. However, in some cases, these won out over much more deserving films.

The Broadway Melody (1928/29)

  The second ever Best Picture winner and I can really only justify its winning with “best utilization of the medium of sound.” I guess it has interesting musical numbers, but it was quite hard to find it at all interesting in a 2010s mindset. Honestly, it’s a bit of snoozefest and the love story seems trite even for the 20s. A definite contender for the worst of “the best.” Grade: D+

Cimarron (1930/31)

This failed epic must have won due to its grand scope concerning westward expansion and such. It’s based off an Edna Farber book, which explains its aspirations, but this certainly has failed the test of time. It comes off as racist and kind of boring, especially when compared to later westerns. After watching, I felt that this was just a film that tried to be something bigger and did not. The Front Page (also nominated that year), is a better, if smaller film. Grade: D

Cavalcade (1932/33)

    Once again, I think this won for being the “biggest” movie of that year. Based on the Noel Coward play, which I read before viewing, the film is about the history of two families, the Bridges and the Marryots. We see major historical events (like the sinking of the Titanic) through their eyes. It's an interesting idea and is a fine adaptation of its source, but like its source, is extremely stagey and dull. I can’t help but feel that year's I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang or 42nd Street were better films. Grade C-

The Great Ziegfeld (1936)

    Another “big” movie that wasn’t the best. A bloated three-hour epic about the life of showbiz king Flo Ziegfeld. It’s a musical drama, showcasing a fair amount of talent of all involved. It was enjoyable to actually see Fanny Brice in something. William Powell does an admirable job, but I never felt like I was watching anything particularly special. It drags on and on, and perhaps were it only a two-hour affair it would be a more worthy film. But what really puts this in the “Really?” category is that this won over Capra’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town which excels above this in various ways. Grade: C

The Good

These two aren’t what I’d call “bad” films, but they just aren’t as “great” as they should be to be considered the “best.”

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

    The first “big deal” adaptation of the novel is a pretty decent film. Clark Gable puts in some of his best work and Charles Laughton delivers an iconic, if often parodied, performance. I don’t really have any major qualms with the film, just that when I finished watching it, I felt underwhelmed. Perhaps 1935 wasn’t a super amazing year. When looking at the nominees for that year, I think The Informer is a better film, but I can understand why this won instead. Grade: B-

The Life of Emile Zola (1937)

    Once again, this isn’t a bad flick. It’s actually pretty good and Paul Muni puts in a great performance. I was more interested than I expected. Strangely though, being about the life of Zola seems to hurt its focus. It could be a little tighter, focusing more on his trial and its origins, but it makes sense why the film shows so much. It seems to learn from the mistakes of Ziegfeld in that regard. Maybe A Star is Born or The Awful Truth were better films from 1937, but Zola is a well made biopic, and the Academy (even in its early days) loved it some biopics. Grade: B

The Great

These are films that are truly worth your time, but it isn’t the end of the world if you haven’t seen them.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1929/30)

    Possibly the sound era's first great war film and Universal’s first best picture. Most of us probably had to read the Remarque book at some point in our education and maybe you watched this, but you probably got the later remake with John Boy. This is the better film, though that might be a closer adaptation. Not the first “war is hell” movie, but this one really resonated with audiences. The butterfly on the helmet would become an iconic shot for years to come. Not the best war film, but pretty important, if not quite essential. Grade: B+

You Can’t Take it with You (1938)

    A truly delightful film based on the stage play. Frank Capra was at the top of his game here and it is one of the rare comedies to win best picture. It’s a good time. A perfect Sunday afternoon type flick. I like this film, but I feel that Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (even if it wasn’t Best Picture) is more essential Capra. Grade: A-

The Essential

These are films that stood the test of time in their importance and quality. None of these are gonna surprise you and if you are a film buff, these are (like the category says) essential viewing. Though, to be honest, a film doesn’t have to be great to be essential. More on that in a bit.

Wings (1927/28)

    A silent classic, yes, but is it one of the best silent films? Maybe not. The photography is amazing, the story and the drama are enthralling. It’s worth your time. I’m not sure it stands up to other silent classics of the era, such as Vidor’s The Crowd or Murnau’s Sunrise. Wings has more spectacle than those films, but it doesn’t quite have the artistry of other important silent films. Its position of being the first to win makes it essential, but it is also essential in it would set precedents on the kind of films the Oscars would favor. It is a great early example of the genre of ‘Academy Award.” Grade" B+

Grand Hotel (1931/32)

    I’ll admit, I’m a big fan of ensemble pics. I know they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, but this is one of the first “seemingly disconnected people in one location” film so it’s worth checking out. That alone makes it essential (at least to me), but the performances and the story are quite exemplary as well- even if it drags a bit. "I vant to be alone" would go down as one of the most quotable lines in film history. I like to think that Robert Altman spent most of his career perfecting Grand Hotel. Grade: B+

It Happened One Night  (1934)

    This is the film all Romantic Comedies aspire to be. If you haven’t seen it, you should remedy that. This won picture, writing, directing, actor, and actress. That didn't happen again until 1975. That's a pretty big deal. It's hilarious and moving, all the great stuff of Frank Capra without all the saccharine. Grade: A

Gone with the Wind (1939)

    Alright, there really isn’t anything I can say about this flick that hasn’t already been said. Is it a bit long? Yeah. Kinda racist? Oh yeah. Is it really that big a deal? I’d say probably so. It’s not a movie that you need to see more than once necessarily, but it’s worth your time if only because so much is derived from it. Also, it actually is a great movie. I don’t know if it is one of the best I’ve ever seen, but to me it is the apex of how great and huge a film can be. Grade: A-

Honorable mention/random note: There were technically two “best picture” winners at the first Oscars. These were “Outstanding” and “Unique and Artistic Picture.” Notice that neither of these are really the definition of the word “best.” “Outstanding” does not necessarily mean superlative, and “Unique and Artistic” means, well, just that. So the first “Best” picture winners were Wings and Sunrise (which is essential viewing by the way, an A+). “Unique and Artistic” only lasted the one year so “Outstanding” would become the “Best Picture” award. Sometimes, I wonder if the Academy would have been stirred a different way if Sunrise was retroactively considered the first winner instead of Wings. Not much of a “what if,” but I get the feeling that films like Citizen Kane and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? may have taken the top prize in their respective years.

Come back Thursday for the 40s!!

Green Room: A Tense Punk Rock Horror Flick Starring Star Trek Guys

I’ve mentioned my horror film credo before (is R-rated, not part of a franchise or remake, not “found footage”), so when I saw the Green Room trailer I obviously perked up. Not only does it check all the criteria, it’s also about a hardcore punk band from DC. Needless to say the horror loving Minor Threat fan in me NEEDED to see this film.

For some reason when I first saw the trailer I got the impression that it maybe took place in the 1980s (ya know, when hardcore was more relevant). It takes place now, but I can’t help but wonder if the first draft of the screenplay originally took place in the 80s, and perhaps it would’ve worked better as a “period piece,” but I don’t really think it matters. A claustrophobic situation, well directed and acted, will work not matter what the time period.

The trailer gives you a pretty good run down on how things unfold: Punks play a venue, see something they shouldn’t, bad things happen. Keeping the action mostly in the small room does heighten the tension, but also brings the film “closer” to our protagonists. This is often the mark of a horror film that is doing more than the bare minimum.  Green Room also deals with a problem horror films must contend with in this day and age: cell phones. The upside of having the plot take place in a skinhead venue- skinheads will break the phone as soon as stuff goes downhill. So that little issue is dealt with quickly, using the plot's own logic.        

The performances are what really make the film shine, though. Using actors the audience are familiar with adds more emotion. I liked all the people in this from other things. Alia Shawkat from Arrested Development and Whip It; Anton Yelchin from the bizarre little horror flicks that could Burying the Ex and Odd Thomas; and of course Patrick Stewart from being Patrick Stewart. This was my first exposure to Imogen Poots, an actress I think can go far.

The story doesn’t waste any time at about an hour and a half. Have I seen something like this before? Oh surely- the “stranger comes to town/town folk aren’t happy” concept is super old in horror (and plots in general), skinheads being the town folk here- but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t see this. Even if you aren’t a horror fan, I think you will have a pretty great time with this film. Buy the ticket, take the ride. Grade: B+

Additional thought:

I realized something about Patrick Stewart while watching. He doesn’t “Americanize” his voice at all. I don’t know if he ever did really. I mean, when he’s acting around other British actors, he fits in of course, but when he is around American actors his voice doesn’t seem out of place. He doesn’t have a British accent; he has a “Patrick Stewart” accent.

For this film's song pick I just went with Bad Brains’ entire first album.

-Andrew

A Horror Lover's Credo, The Witch, and the Other Side of the Door

I have this criteria of sorts when it comes to seeing a new horror film in the cinema.

1. The film is R-rated
2. The film is not part of a franchise or remake.
3. The film is not “found footage.”

If the film fits all of these, I at least buy the ticket. Even if I don’t want to take the ride (to borrow from Hunter S. Thompson), I’ll spend the money because it is the kind of horror film that needs support in this day and age. It has become this credo of mine. I’ll be honest though, I always take the ride.

This isn’t to say that these are automatically better films, nor does it say movies that don't fit this criteria are bad. I enjoy found footage flicks from time to time, the occasional sequel, and even PG-13 horror. It isn’t about quality, it’s about encouraging something new.

There’s a new horror flick out now called The Witch (or The VVitch if we want to follow the style). From the trailer I could tell this would fit all my criteria. I finally got around to seeing it the other night and I’m not going to surprise you, I enjoyed it.

The film is like Nick Cave adapting Nathanial Hawthorne. The story is set in puritanical times in New England. It is about an isolated family near the edge of the woods and “strange goings on.” It’s family horror, with a historical twist. Lots of distrust, paranoia, and religiosity. I felt the film did an amazing job with the language of the time. The language makes this more of an “adult” film. I don’t mean that in the Cinemax sort of way, but I think this film is better geared toward adults. Horror is a teenage genre for the most part, but I don’t see this being a big hit with the kiddos. When I was teaching English to freshmen this year, their biggest complaint about Shakespeare and Hawthorne was the language- so I could see this turning them off. Not that there aren’t teenagers that are into this sort of thing. We all knew those 4 or 5 kids who really dug Shakespeare in high school. Still, it’s nice to have a film for adults, regardless of genre.

I might be a little desensitized to horror, so take it with a grain of salt when I say that I wasn’t frightened by this very much. It did give me a good case of the “heebie jeebies,” for lack of a better phrase. No, it didn’t keep me up at night, but that isn’t a mark of its quality. The film is well made in every sense; very well acted, directed, and finely executed. So if you are on the fence about this, I say (to quote Hunter): Buy the ticket, take the ride. Grade: A-

Now sometimes my system doesn’t always pan out. To “walk the walk” this week I also saw The Other Side of the Door. It fits all the criteria, but as I said, those aren’t about quality.

The film is another family horror film or sorts, but with a different focus. An American family living in India lose their son in a car accident. The mother is so distraught she tries to kill herself. Their Indian house keeper tells her of a magic way she can speak to her son to say goodbye, but of course there are rules. The mother, as expected, breaks those rules. The family is then haunted by the dead son and “strange goings on” ensue.

We’ve seen this before, many many times. This “undead son trope” probably goes back before “The Monkey’s Paw.”  I think the film uses the trope effectively, but you can pretty much see what’s coming at any moment. I think horror films about grief are very interesting, so this intrigued me. OSotD owes a lot to Pet Semetary, and there are better films that explore grief in just the last couple of years (The Babadook and The Final Girls). I couldn't help but think of Bob Clark's Deathdream while sitting in the theater. The India setting is neat, but I can’t decide if it is really that important or is it just an excuse to be vaguely racist. I feel like this movie would have worked better if this was 1976.

Despite the flaws, there are things the film does right. We rarely see the undead son, there are a number of set-ups for cliché scares that they don’t follow through on, the mood is fairly spooky, and generally the acting doesn’t suck. Jeremy Sisto, who I’ve been a fan of since Six Feet Under, does a great job even if he seems underused. I’m not sure why this was rated R, though. The violence is no worse than the average AMC show, there is no nudity, and the language is pretty tame.

Basically, it is nothing amazing but I’m sure it will make for a good teenage sleepover viewing in the future. Perhaps not worth the ride, but it’s nice to see something trying to stand-alone. Grade: C-

Here are some songs that got stuck in my head while viewing these flicks:

The Witch

The Other Side of the Door

- Andrew