American Psycho Film and Book Analysis

The character of Patrick Bateman is a character who sulks in a deeply rooted hatred of himself. He hates himself because he knows exactly the kind of shallow, empty person that he’s become and he recognizes the kind of shallow empty society he is a part of. Bateman is depicted as the epitome of the soulless Yuppie from the 80’s, the kind that had money to burn, and things to buy, buy, buy! The kind that only cares about being in tune with the height of fashion, wearing the latest trends, the most expensive brands, the best of the best. 

Yuppie in deed!

This fantastic character was first presented in Bret Easton Ellis’ novel ‘American Psycho’ a novel that was equal times hated and equal times revered. The book presents us with a savage portrayal of a 27 year old man who makes his living working on Wall Street in a company called Pierce and Pierce. He’s into “merger’s and acquisitions”, though when he’s hitting on girls in clubs he tells them he’s into ‘murders and mutilations’, a comment that falls on depth ears because nobody really listens to themselves in this shallow society, they’re just going through the motions. The book is a wild satire, and when read with the right mindset can be seen as a hilarious commentary on consumerist society.

Bret Easton Ellis

Still, there’s no denying that this is essentially a book about a guy who goes around killing innocent people because he doesn’t agree with who they are. It’s a book about a guy who hates himself and the world he lives in so much, that he simply has to murder all those whom he considers a detriment to society. And when he kills people, the descriptions in the book are truly awful. I mean this guy really goes down on his chosen victims. Perhaps you’ve seen the film and know a bit of what I’m talking about, but the book is so much more graphic then the film ever was. There are certain differences from book to film; for example, in the film Bateman’s apartment is squeaky clean, in the book his apartment is filled with human parts all over the place, bodies decaying, blood splattered on the walls…on the film they minimized this in favor of augmenting the characters obsessive cleanliness. We do see a severed head inside of his refrigerator, and he does have a couple of bodies decaying at Paul Allen’s apartment, but it’s not like in the book where it’s Bateman’s apartment that is the center of all the mayhem. In fact, in the book he has an extra apartment in Hell’s Kitchen where he decomposes bodies in acid. I did like how in the film Bateman mentions the Hell’s Kitchen apartment, though it is never shown on the film, it kind of let us know that the filmmakers knew the book very well, they just couldn’t film everything.

Director Mary Heron and Christian Bale talk out a scene

In fact, fans of the book might get a kick at how even though the film doesn’t show ever single situation and murder committed in the book, at the very least they are referenced and alluded to all through out the film. For example in one scene Bateman mentions that he killed “some old fagot with a dog” which is one of the more graphic and controversial deaths in the book. When Jean, Bateman’s receptionist finds a notebook that Bateman scribbles and doodles on, if you freeze frame those scenes, you can see that the doodles Bateman’s made on his little notebook are doodles of the murders that actually happen in the book, but we don’t see on film. Obviously they were too horrible to appear in the film, and I get that. It’s true, some of the murders described in the book are way too graphic and over the top. After all, we are talking about a novel that’s been banned in many countries, never sold to anyone under 18 in others, and sold only in shrink wrap in others!  I don’t blame the people of Germany for considering this book to be “harmful to minors”; this my friends is a truly violent book!

But were not talking about a simple slasher film here that makes heroes out of the bad guys, this is a film that means to comment on real issues dealing with the world were living in. The book and the film never show Bateman’s behavior as being good or positive or as something to emulate or admire; in fact, it is made quite clear that he is loosing it, psychotic and dangerous to society and himself, this is not a happy man. On more than one occasion the character actually recognizes his psychotic behavior. During a pivotal scene of the film he admits to his lawyer that he is a “pretty sick guy”, and during another scene he tells someone “I like to dissect girls. Did you know I’m utterly insane?”  Bateman actually recognizes the fact that he is going insane, but it’s as if he could do nothing to stop it from happening. So it’s not like the film is making Bateman into some sort of a hero. What he is in my opinion, is a victim of the world he lives in. Society has created a monster, it’s driven him insane by its blatant consumerism, the racism that he’s been brought up in, the superficiality of society, the importance given to physical beauty as opposed to internal beauty; now that monster is loose on the streets of Manhattan and it wants payback for what he’s been turned into!Another way to look at this character is that he is judging society for what it has become. This is the kind of film where we don’t side with the protagonist; what we’re meant to do is watch him degenerate and descend into madness and then learn from the reasons that sent him there.

Going utterly insane!

What drives Bateman insane are various things. His hatred for homosexuals is very strong. Though this was ignored in the film, he murders a old gay guy who starts hitting on him while walking through Central Park, by the way, Bateman also kills the old mans dog by strangling it to death. Maybe Bateman would be happier if he’d been taught to co-exist with different kinds of people? He is portrayed as a hippy hater, always considering them to be less than him, the less fortunate are that way because they want to be, he has no sympathy at all for others. He makes fun of other ethnicities he considers lower than him. One moment in the book he goes into a club and starts making fun of a group of black people by trying to talk the way he thinks they talk; it’s safe to say that part of Batemans unhappiness comes from his blatant racism. Bateman hates the homeless for not doing something about their lives; again, no sympathy. He hates the fakeness of his co-workers who never call him by his real name, a common theme through out both the book and the movie. This is the kind of world in which people don’t really know people, so they never really know each others names! They keep confusing each other with other people, which gels perfectly well with the fact that Bateman feels he has no actual distinguishable personality. He has his mind filled with knowledge about entire discographies of artists like Huey Lewis and the News, Genesis and Whitney Houston (whole chapters of the book are dedicated to this knowledge) but he doesn’t know himself, he doesn’t who he is. He is physically fit, but not emotionally or psychologically mature.

He tries finding love in his life, but all he can achieve is sex, and he even manages to turn that into a sick twisted affair of the most aberrant kind. In the film Batemans sexual encounters are not as graphic because again what’s described in the book is waaay to graphic. Same as the violence, the sexual situations described in the book are totally out there and described in graphic detail. Bateman actually ends up having sex with a dismembered head if you can believe it! The film had to edit 18 seconds out of a threesome so it could get an ‘R’ rating instead of an ‘NC-17’, if they had actually filmed the sexual situations seen in the book, the film would have never seen the light of day. Reading those sequences was like watching a sick twisted porn flick where all those involved get dismembered in the end.  Hell, in the novel Bateman actually eats some of his victims! Again, the film only alludes to Batemans cannibalism, while on the book it is described in splendid detail.

What would this film be without Christian Bale? I mean, I don’t think a better actor could have been chosen. Do you think Di Caprio could have pulled this film off with as much vulnerability and rage and insanity as Bale did? I seriously doubt it. I mean, Bale really goes nuts in some scenes, my personal favorite is the one where he does his phone confession, he really talks and acts as if he was crazy. He also plays it with this sense of comedy, you kind of get the feeling that Bateman is actually making fun of people through out his life, mocking them, which in my opinion he is. Aside from Batemans stone cold performance, we have Willem Defoe playing a New York detective who has a hunch that Bateman might be the one behind all the killings. Defoes character was expanded for the film, he isn’t in the book as much. Chloe Sevigny plays Batemans innocent and naïve receptionist, she is so in love with Bateman that she doesn’t even see his dark side or she chooses to ignore it. The whole cast of young actors that make up Batemans body of co-workers is fantastic as well: Jared Leto, Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, all great in my book. They really captured that fake superficial lifestyle and attitude. Reese Witherspoon plays the gloriously ditzy air head of a girlfriend that Bateman has. She ignores that their relationship is non existent; instead she chooses to ignore the issue and plan the wedding.

All in all, I’d say the film captures very well the essence of the book. Though it does leave a lot of things out, it is completely understandable considering just how graphic the book can be. I mean, one moment in the book has Bateman actually capturing a kid in a zoo and killing him in the shadows! He later accepts that there is no joy in killing a child because the child has no history or life experiences to extinguish, which is the pleasure he gets from killing adults. But damn, even I say that moment was a bit too much! So the film is basically a more “controlled” version of the book that manages to say what the book has to say as well, it comments on the same issues, but it does so in a slightly more constrained manner. Still, the movie does have its extremely bloody, violent and sexual moments, just not as graphic as in Ellis’ novel. Director Mary Heron delivered a stylish and slick looking film, appropriately cold looking. She squeezed out a magnificent performance from Bale! And kudos to Heron, this is a woman directing a film about a guy who treats woman with complete disdain; it took guts for a woman to make this film. I also applaud Easton Ellis for writing such a great yet misunderstood book, the themes and issues commented on the book needed to be addressed and Ellis was not afraid to do it; here’s a writer with some true guts to say what has to be said about the kind of society we’ve turned into. Can we look at our collective fractured psyches and fix things up a bit?  

Rating for the Book: 5 out of 5

Rating for the Film: 5 out of 5  

Contempt (1963)

Title: Contempt (1963)

Director: Jean Luc Godard

Cast: Brigitte Bardot, Michel Picolli, Jack Palance, Fritz Lang

Review:

My first experience with a Godard film was a film called Week End (1967) and I’ll tell you right now it wasn’t the easiest movie to watch. For me, Week End was a very difficult film to follow, but I watched it all the way through because it was Godard, and he’s one of the greats. Truth be told Week End wasn’t exactly what I’d call an enjoyable experience, I mean I appreciated the films artistic sensibilities, but it just wasn’t for me, I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but there was a reason for Week End's unorthodox nature, it was part of the French New Wave of which Godard was a part of, and the French New Wave was all about breaking the rules of traditional filmmaking. I did know one thing though, I wanted to see more Godard! I knew there were other films in his repertoire that simply had to be watched, Breathless (1960) being one of them and Contempt being the other. Contempt is considered to be Godards most linear film, thought still attempting to play with the rules of filmmaking, it was his most linear film. How was it? 

Bardot (left) and Godard analyze a scene

   

Contempt was part of the ‘New Wave’ of French Cinema that emerged during the 50’s and 60’s. These were a bunch of new filmmakers who were influenced by Italian Neorealism; The Italian Neorealism from the 30’s and 40’s was a filmmaking movement which produced films made in real locations with natural lighting and real people, not classically trained actors, but real people acting out a role. One of the best examples of Italian Neorealism I can think of is The Bicycle Thieves (1948), a film shot in the streets of Italy, with real people. It tells the story of a working class hero and his son trying to survive in the middle of harsh economic times; a film that will no doubt pull your heart strings. So Godard comes from the New Wave of French filmmakers who were influenced by this Italian Neorealism and the classic Hollywood films of the 30’s and 40’s. What this New Wave of French filmmaking attempted to do was break with the rules of traditional filmmaking; they wanted to set new standards in filmmaking. This meant they broke with the traditional way of telling a story, the linear form, the three act structure. For filmmakers of this new wave, films had to be symbolic, non-linear, playing around with and changing as many film techniques as they could. It was as if cinema was stretching its muscles. For example, in Contempt the films credits are spoken, not shown on the screen! Little details like these let us know that these ‘New Wave’ filmmakers where really shooting for something different in cinema.

Contempt is a film that can be seen in two ways, on the one hand the film can be seen as an exploration of the nature of cinema, and on the other as a film about a deteriorating relationship. First, let’s analyze the cinematic themes explored in Contempt. As I watched this film, I couldn’t help and think that this was Godard’s answer to Fellini’s 8 ½ (1963) which strangely enough was being made around the same time as Contempt was. I did a little research and discovered that Fellini’s film was released a few months before this one, so I’m not entirely off when I say that what we had here were two masterful filmmakers tackling the same subject matter at the same time. Both films centered around filmmaking, in fact once you start seeing Contempt you know it’s about film because it starts with a camera, filming an actress as she walks down the road. The camera they are filming the actress suddenly turns to us, and looks at us with its giant Cycloptic eye, an image that quickly suggests “this movie is about film!” So right from the get go, Godard exposes this films metafictional nature. Same as with Fellini’s 8 ½, in Contempt a film is being produced, the filmmakers are attempting to adapt Homer’s The Odyssey. The problem comes when the producer isn’t happy with the film that the director is making, a common problem in Hollywood. The director of the film is none other than real life director Fritz Lang, who by the way plays himself in the film. Again, this is another attempt at breaking the rules of filmmaking; we have a real life personality intruding in the fiction of the film.

The Beauty of Bardot

Going further into analyzing the nature of filmmaking we meet Jack Palance who plays the character of Jeremy Prokosch, the producer behind the film they are attempting to make. This is the most villainous character I’ve ever seen Palance play, he is so acid, so full of himself, so self centered. It is quite obvious from the first moment we meet him that he is an imposing and intimidating figure who only cares about what he wants. He sees himself as a God, in fact, this is the sole reason why he wants to make The Odyssey because as he puts it he understands the gods and knows exactly how they feel. Was this character Godard’s way of personifying the typical Hollywood producer? Was this they way he saw them? By the way, Contempt was the first and only Godard film to be produced by American producers, so I guess that could say a thing or two about how he felt about them. The producers behind Contempt are the ones responsible for all the nudity in the film, they needed a selling point in a film they cared nothing for, in fact, the producers of Contempt actually hated the film! So Godard had to go back and shoot the opening sequences of Camille (Bardot) and Paul (Piccoli) talking naked on the bed. By the way, this might have been a scene which Godard was forced to film, but I have to give the guy credit for doing it in such a beautiful and artful way. Of course, Bardot’s blinding beauty adds a lot to this picture as well. She was such a bomb shell during her days! Wowzers! She shot straight to my ‘favorite bombshells ever’ list.

The difference between Fellini’s 8 ½ and Contempt is that while Fellini’s film tells it’s story from the point of view of a films director, Contempt tells it from the point of view of the films writer. In Contempt we meet Paul Javal, a writer of cheap crime novels. Prokosch, the egotistical producer calls upon Paul writing skills so that he re-works the script for the film. Prokosch feels cheated by the film that Lang has shot; so he hurls the film can across the theater like a Roman discus thrower, unhappy with the final results. In a desperate move he asks Paul to rewrite the script, according to him he wants to infuse the film with poetry and spectacle. Paul accepts, but only because he needs the money, not because he really wants to write it, which speaks volumes about how a lot of films get made. Paul accepts because he wants to finish paying for his little apartment, so he and his wife can be happy.

Which brings me to the other situation this film explores; the couple that is crumbling apart. The film starts with both of them promising undying love to each other, but one event starts setting them apart. The film goes into this extended sequence in which we follow the couple into their apartment, doing their every day chores, bathing, cooking, undressing, dressing, as they talk about what it is that is bringing them apart. Why is Camille suddenly so upset? Does she no longer love Paul? Why does she suddenly hold nothing but Contempt for him? This part of the film I found so very interesting because the dialog simply rings true. I’ve personally been through conversations exactly like the one that I saw on this film, so it was amazing to see Godard painting such real life situations on the screen, so truthfully, so vividly. It is said that this film was a love letter to Godard’s wife, which is kind of funny because 8 ½ can also be seen in the same way! Ultimately, and the heart of the film is Paul trying to find out why Camille has fallen out of love for him. It’s that kind of situation where a woman knows exactly why she no longer loves you, but she simply won’t tell you, many of us have been there haven’t we? The film portrays both sides of the tale, the male side and the female side, which is something that Godard loved to explore, both sides of the tale. He never really takes sides I think; to me the film simply shows us the mistakes they both make so we can see where they both failed.  

In the end, I loved this film not only because it explores the nature of filmmaking and relationships, but also because it is such a beautiful film to look at. Godard plays around with the colors a lot, and on top of that, the film was shot in such beautiful locations! Capri, Italy, Rome…the film has a breathtaking look to it, which kind of clashes with all the negative drama going around the characters. Contempt is definitely a must watch, a classic film you shouldn’t pass up, highest possible recommendation my friends, highest possible recommendation.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

   

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010)

Title: Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010)

Director: Jalmari Helander                    

Cast: Onni Tommila, Jorma Tommila, Rauno Juvonen

Review:

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is the kind of film that takes something that many hold sacred and holy and completely profanes it. It’s the kind of film that thrives on its weirdness which of course will probably result in an interesting watch for anyone out there looking for a film with an unusual vibe to it. Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a Finnish film that criticizes Christmas for all its fakeness and all its lies. I’ve always though that Christmas is simply a way to get us to start believing in all the rest of the lies that we’re going to be told through out our lives. Think about it, society gets kids to believe in a fat old man who’s got magical powers and he watches over you making sure you are being good through out the whole year? What’s next? Another magical man up in heaven who can make everything alright, who’s also watching over me making sure I don’t sin? Sure, I bought into the first lie, why not the next? Sad part about Christmas is that it’s aimed at capturing kids’ imaginations from a very young age; the old idea of “getting them while they’re young”, because if you get someone believing in something starting at a very young age, chances are they’ll believe that for the rest of their lives;  funny how that can be applied to religion and the idea of an all knowing all watchful God as well.

So it’s no surprise that Rare Exports tells it’s story from the point of view of a kid who still believes in Santa Claus. He’s this kind of kid who’s really into Christmas; he wears his Christmas sweater, he has his little calendar with which he counts down the days till Christmas. He definitely believes that Santa is coming to town. But same way it happened to many of us, the ideas and conceptions he had of Santa Claus are shot down when his friend lets him in on the whole lie about Father Christmas. That can be a cold day, when you first discover that Santa isnt real. It’s the day you realize you’ve been had all these years; and by your parents no less! I’m sure many of you out there know that the image of Santa Claus as we know him today was created by a marketing campaign funded by COCA COLA during the 1930’s? The idea of an old man who gave gifts to kids has been passed on from civilization to civilization, it's been around for a while now, but that image of the fat man dressed in white and red came from the guys at Coca Cola who paid a painter called Haddon Hubbard Sundblom to create a warm, human, friendly image of Santa Claus and so, the jolly, white bearded fat man dressed in red and white garments was born.

It's all part of the show

According to The Coca Cola Company Sundblom was inspired by Clement Clark Moore’s descriptions of Saint Nick in his poem ‘A Visit from St. Nicholas’ to do these paintings. So powerful is this image and so iconic, that Coca Cola still uses these paintings in their modern Christmas advertisements; in fact, they used Sundblom’s paintings again for last years ad campaigns. If I remember correctly, the campaign had Santa Claus (looking the way Sundblom’s paintings depicted him) as this God like being who controls the world and the way our lives go. In these ads, Planet earth was depicted as a snow globe which Mr. Claus moves around so humans end up together on Christmas Eve so they can drink their Coca Cola together. The song that appears in the commercial was a hit in radio waves during Christmas season and I’m sure a lot of Coca Cola was sold.

But this whole thing about Coca Cola using Santa Claus to sell their soft drinks is actually a good way of showing all of us what Christmas is really all about: selling shit to us, or rather, programming us to go buy stuff. Black Sunday, the day when humans turn into the zombies George Romero talked about in Dawn of the Dead (1979) is one of the darkest days humanity has ever known. I mean, every year, on this day, people trample over other people to buy things! Humans have died trampled on by other humans who want to buy their new HD television set! This is the best example of how the masses can be programmed to buy; I find this so nauseating, and as a human, it’s kind of embarrassing to be a part of a race of beings capable of doing something like that. I’ve never participated in it, but to me, it a truly low point in human history. So when a film that tries to show us this ugly side of Christmas, in a very symbolic way, I appreciate it. In Rare Exports, we meet little Pietari, a kid who loves Christmas but becomes disenchanted with it once he learns it’s all a farce.

This film depicts Santa as an infernal creature with giant horns who feeds on little children, which of course is referencing what the media targets Christmas at: children and the fact that by teaching them about Santa, your basically feeding them to the infernal monster known as consumerism. The kids are the ones who are being lied to from the very beginning of their lives; and don’t give me this excuse about wanting to give the kids this “beautiful illusion”, truth is you’re teaching your kids to lie. Films like Rare Exports do a hell of a lot to break that illusion, which is why an anti-Christmas film like this one will never get wide distribution in theaters and make it big in the United States. Every single film that attacks Christmas has gotten lambasted by critics, and producers and studios will simply not back films like these up, they wont invest the money to promote films like these. Same thing happened to films like David Steiman’s Santa’s Slay (2005) a pretty funny and amusing film that has Santa going around killing people in all sorts of amusing ways with Christmas ornaments cause get this: Santa was a demon before he was Santa and giving toys and happiness is his way of paying off a bet he made with an angel in the past! Same thing happened to Silent Night Deadly Night (1984), a decent enough slasher that was taken off theaters in less then two weeks because parents sent letters to the studio expressing their disgust with the fact that the killer in the film is dressed up as Santa Claus. What it all boils down to is this: society doesn’t like it when you mess with their cash cow. They don’t want the symbol of Santa tarnished, and so films like Rare Exports and many others have suffered the very same fate: they disappear into dvd obscurity and are seen by those who search for them. But does this mean they are bad films?

Hell no. I mean, Rare Exports is extremely far from being bad. In fact, it’s a very well constructed film. The mood it sets from the very beginning is extremely eerie, and it keeps it going all the way to the end. I like the fact that it takes place all the way out in the middle of nowhere, the isolation is not unlike the one felt in Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), in fact, same as The Thing, there’s no women anywhere to be seen on this film. It’s all about a bunch of bearded dudes dealing with a monster in the middle of a snowy nowhere. There’s this scene where they capture this naked old man whom they believe is Santa Claus that is extremely freaking eerie! Something about the music reminded me of the score for The Goonies (1985), which doesn’t surprise me since same as The Goonies, the main character in the film is a kid. It’s the kid who’s the star of the show; it’s the kid who saves the day! And I love that, kids take charge and decide to send Santa Claus to kingdom come. Basically, this film is a big screw you to Christmas! Yeah!

This film comes to us from Finnish director Jalmari Helander, this surprisingly enough was his first feature film! I thought it was an extremely well achieved film for a first timer. Helander had been playing around with the ideas presented in Rare Exports in two short films he’d made previously. The first one was called Rare Exports Inc. (2003) in which they showed these hunters going into the forest to hunt and capture Father Christmases as if Father Christmases lived in the wild, like animals, the whole thing is pretty funny and is presented as if it was a documentary shot for Animal Planet or something. In the short they capture a rabid, bearded, naked fat man (a wild Father Christmas) and  then they train it to become the Santa Claus’s you see in the malls putting children on their laps, this was a hilarious short that was viewed by many people that year. The sequel was inevitable and so a sequel short was produced called The Official Rare Exports Inc. Safety Instructions 2005 (2005) which was a short film that showed you how to behave if you ever came into close proximity of a wild Father Christmas; #1 don’t be naughty or you’ll get your head chomped off! By the way, I urge any of you out there to check out these fine short films before seeing the actual movie, they’ll get you in the right mindset to enjoy the film.  Rare Exports was a fun flick, with an eerie vibe and a mordant sense of humor that I really enjoyed. Highly recommend this fun anti-Christmas flick!

Rating: 4 out of 5

City of the Living Dead (1980)

Title: City of the Living Dead (1980)

Director: Lucio Fulci

Cast: Christopher George, Catriona MacColl

Review:

In typical sleazy Italian horror movie fashion, City of the Living Dead (a.k.a. The Gates of Hell) is a film that’s derivative in some ways of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978) which by the way was made two years before City of the Living Dead was. I guess the excitement behind Romero’s Dawn of the Dead fueled Lucio Fulci into making not just one, but two zombie films. Fulci’s first ode to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead came in the form of Zombie (1979), a film that was actually released in Italy as a sequel to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. City of the Living Dead was also an ode to Romero’s films, its original title was to be ‘Twilight of the Dead’, again, a cheap way of attempting to sound like a sequel to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. Actually, poster were made with the ‘Twilight of the Dead’ title on them but had to be recalled. A lawsuit made the Italians change the title, so they changed the films title to City of the Living Dead or The Gates of Hell, two awesome titles on their own right. But were Fulci’s films really ripping off Romero’s?

If you ask this Film Connoisseur, I would say he wasn’t. In reality, the ‘ripping off’ element really comes into play in the marketing. Apparently, the people trying to sell Fulci’s films tried very sleazily to associate themselves with Romero’s highly successful zombie films. Hence the similar sounding titles, but Fulci’s film themselves? In my opinion they are diametrically opposed to Romero’s films. Save for the zombie element, Fulci’s zombie films dealt with completely different scenarios and situations than Romero’s. While Romero’s films dealt more with social issues through its plot, Fulci seemed contempt with shocking and entertaining you, and scaring the crap out of you while at it. While in Romero’s films no one knows why zombies now roam the earth, in Fulci’s they are here because of a strange mix of voodoo and science; or for supernatural reasons. Fulci’s zombie films also had a level of originality to them. For example, only in a Fulci film will you see a zombie go up against a shark! And underwater no less! Only in a Fulci film will you see zombies that teleport! So yeah, Fulci did put an effort in presenting us with new ideas within the zombie genre. Also, grossing you out was a top priority and speaking of grossing you out, City of the Living Dead will do that for sure!

City of the Living Dead is the first of a trilogy of films directed by Lucio Fulci dealing with the living dead, this trilogy includes City of the Living Dead, The Beyond (1981) and finally, House by the Cemetery (1981). The trilogy is called “The Gates of Hell Trilogy” or the “Death Trilogy” by others. Point is they are all about mystical books that open gates to hell, according to these films there’s 7 gates of hell and various magical books to open and close the gates with. One of these books is ‘The Book of Enoch’, another is the ‘Book of Eibon’. The mention of these books in Fulci’s films was his way of paying homage to legendary horror author, H.P. Lovecraft who mentioned these mystical books in his stories as well. Actually, City of the Living Dead has a lot of Lovecraft in it, aside from the books, same as in Lovecraft’s stories, characters see things that are too horrible for our feeble human minds to comprehend as evidenced by the films opening sequence.

The film opens with a séance; four people are trying to contact the dead. Unfortunately, they end up contacting more than they can handle! Mary, one of the people participating in the séance sees the vision of a priest hanging himself from a tree in the cemetery of a spooky little town known as ‘Dunwich’, by the way, Dunwich is another nod to Lovecraft’s short story ‘The Dunwich Horror’. Why does this priest commit suicide? Who the hell knows! And Fulci isn’t telling you either! But this event causes one of the seven doors of hell to slam open; and if this door isn’t closed before ‘All Saints Day’ then the dead will rise from their graves and take over the earth! So it’s up to the good guys to destroy this evil priest and close the Gate to Hell. Will they get there in time?

Various elements make City of the Living Dead an awesome zombie film, one of them being how far Fulci will go to shock the hell out of you! This is the kind of film I like watching with my friends, just to see their faces when things happen. Ever wondered what a girl puking her innards out of her mouth looks like? Look no further! Ever wondered what a brain looks like when it’s being squished by a zombie’s hand? It’s all presented on this classic zombie without any kind of remorse. I love how these Old Italian horror films don’t hold anything back. I mean, where any other American film would have cut away, Italian horror just keeps on showing you stuff, I love that about them. City of the Living Dead delivers in this department. Also, I enjoyed the films atmosphere. This was something that Fulci paid lots of attention to in many of his films: the spooky town, the wind howling constantly, the lonely streets.

Ultimately, City of the Living Dead is a film filled with many memorable moments. Actually, there is a scene that Tarantino was obviously inspired by for Kill Bill  Vol. 2; I’m talking about the scene in which a woman is buried alive and screams at the top of her lungs for someone to try and save her. That scene is so suspenseful! Gots to hand it to Fulci there; he created a truly memorable scene there. I dare you not to feel some sort of desperation while watching it! On the down side, the film does drag a bit in certain areas, but it doesn’t happen often; and same as in many Fulci films, plot holes abound. Why did the priest kill himself? Why to these zombies teleport? Are they ghosts? Or are they physical beings? Ultimately, none of these hiccups matter, City of the Living Dead is a fine piece of ZombieZinema. The gross out scenes are really out there! We get teleporting zombies which is pretty original and we have some truly memorable scenes; so much so that this is my second favorite Fulci film, second only to The Beyond, which in my opinion remains Fulci’s masterpiece. Highly recommend this one for a night of good old fashion Italian style zombie fun.

Rating: 4 out of 5

     

Take Shelter (2011)

Title: Take Shelter (2012)

Director: Jeff Nichols

Cast: Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain, Tova Stewart

Review:

The final frames in the Coen Brother’s A Serious Man (2009) are composed of a young man wearing his headphones, listening to his music as he looks up at the stormy sky, at the unrelenting storm that is undoubtedly on its way. The symbolism attached to these scenes comment on how ugly times are awaiting humanity in the near future. That things are going to get a hell of a lot worse before they get better, and that its something palpable, something we can see coming with our own eyes, just ahead in the near future. Taking in consideration the political, social and economical climate that’s growing in the world, one can’t help but agree with the visual metaphors on A Serious Man. I sometimes feel like humanity is headed towards some kind of cataclysmic socio political event that will affect us all. Take Shelter takes that idea of “the coming storm” and explores it by focusing on the typical middle class American family; the middle class being one of the few things that’s presently under attack by the ever growing economical woes of our world. It seems we are headed towards a world in which you will either be rich or poor. There’s no space for in between. Will all things continue getting bleaker in the world? Is there a light at the end of this dark tunnel? Will the storm ever fade away?

The film focuses on Curtis; your every day common man. He has his job, a house in the country, a loving wife and a beautiful daughter, basically Curtis is living “the good life”. But Curtis is having these nightmares that he takes as premonitions, nightmares about the end of the world. In his dreams, storm clouds form, thunder cracks the skies violently, and everything seems dreadful, sad and ominous; an overall aura of dread is felt in his dreamscapes. Are his dreams going to become a reality? Curtis fears he is going crazy because his mother suffers from schizophrenia, but is he really going crazy? Or are things looking bleaker and bleaker in the world?

So this is the kind of filmmaking I love, the kind that speaks about the world we live in. The kind that speaks for us and materializes feelings that are often times left unspoken. I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that over the last decade or so we have seen the world shift violently. Suddenly, everything is three times more expensive, suddenly; it’s not so easy to live your life. Filling up the gas tank on your car used to be a 20 dollar affair, now it’s a 50 dollar one. And let’s not even go into medical bills! A trip to the pharmacy can be a nightmare if you have no medical insurance. I personally know some people who don’t bother going to the doctor even though they have serious physical illness just because they cant afford it! Is this the kind of world we are living in? I remember the day I noticed everything was going to the crapper. I was at the mall and this little girl walked up to me and asked me for some money to eat, her mother just a few feet away with her other two kids, who were probably hungry as well. Yeah the world has gone to hell…true, and Take Shelter is a film that captures that feeling perfectly, subtly. Curtis can’t visit a doctor because it’s too far and too expensive; when he goes to the pharmacy he is surprised at how much he has to pay for pills even though he is insured! I mean, these situations will feel all too familiar to anyone living in our modern world.  

What I loved about the film is how it explores the psyche of the “regular Joe” and how it is affected by the ever growing bleakness of the world. Curtis cant sleep, his performance at work is affected because he has all these worries on his mind. I take the bus to work everyday because I save a lot of money by doing so; I don’t have to worry about gas money or paying huge amounts of money to park my car. On my travels through the city, I see so many things that make me feel the same way Curtis feels on this film. Sad little tell tale sings, sad little details I see in everyday life accumulate, until finally, a dreadful aura is felt in everyday life. Suddenly you’re afraid, and you don’t know if “everything is going to be all right”.  This feeling of despair is what takes over Curtis’s mind until he feels he is going crazy. But is he? The idea in this film is that maybe he isn’t. Maybe the world is going to hell in a hand basket and we are not even remotely prepared for what is coming! It’s no surprise that a film dealing with this subject matter ends up being so frightening and bleak. The scariest movies are those that show us a future that might very well be. The feeling you get when you watch a film like Take Shelter is the same feeling you get when you watch films like 1984. Take Shelter will make you feel identified with many of the feelings and situations presented in it.

Michael Shannon proves once again that he is one of the finest actors of his generation. His intense performances have attracted some of the best directors in the field. Directors like Werner Herzog who used him in My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? (2006); a film that also focuses on the American family. Sam Mendez also used him on Revolutionary Road (2008), yet another film that explored family dynamics. On that one he portrayed an extremely anti-social character, which it seems is the kind of character Shannon excels at playing; the kind of character that freaks you out just by looking at you. A look into those eyes let’s you know something terrible is going on behind them!  The family showcased in Take Shelter is a middle class one, a family that lives with just enough money to survive and maybe escape once in a while on vacation, but for this family things are getting so bad that even their planned dream vacation is fading away. Shannon portrays a psychologically vulnerable and fragile man; tittering on the border of insanity. In reality all he cares about is the welfare and safety of his family. His wife, his daughter, these are the two things he truly cares about and the increasingly negative aura of his life is threatening their happiness, what’s the head of a family to do when his families happiness and safety is in peril? This is why I loved this film; at its heart it portrays a man who wants the best for his family. Jessica Chastain plays the supportive wife who is trying to cope as best as she can with her husbands troubled mind. Jessica Chastain continues to amass an impressive resume of films, like Shannon, she's also worked with some of the best directors in the field, most recently she was in Terrence Malicks masterpiece, and one of my favorite films of 2011, The Tree of Life (2011). 

For Curtis, the world outside is so scary that at one point he refuses to face it. There are some powerful symbolisms in this film; of course the impending storm that is perpetually coming in the film is the big symbolism for the growing problems in the world. The film adeptly identifies one of the main problems in the world: GREED. It is no surprise that in the film, the rain drops that fall from the sky look and feel like oil, like gasoline; this feels completely appropriate considering how we live in a society that depends so much on it. Have you ever stopped to think just how much oil is consumed in the United States on a daily basis? Let alone the world? Oil and gasoline have become scarce and the countries that have it are being invaded, hell, whole wars have been started simply because of it. I’m glad this film addresses this matter directly. There is a pivotal moment in which Curtis goes berserk and blows up telling everyone that they have no idea what awaits them, that no one is ready for what’s coming and I have to say that I agree. Like that young dude at the end of A Serious Man, everyone seems distracted by movies, music and video games. Take Shelter asks the following questions: does anyone realize the terrible things going on in the world? Does anyone realize how much worse it could get? Should we ignore the world situation? Make believe everything will improve on its own eventually without us taking charge and doing something about it?

This is a power house film that comes to us from a new voice in filmmaking, director Jeff Nichols and this was his sophomore effort. His first film is one called Shotgun Stories (2007), a film I intend on watching soon, it also starts Michael Shannon so Take Shelter actually marks their second collaboration.  I am looking forward to this directors future films and the themes he will tackle in them. If they are going to be as powerful and as relevant as Take Shelter is, then we’re talking about a very promising director here. Highly recommend this film, it speaks about us; now. Don’t miss it.

Rating: 5 out of 5