[The below interview originally ran on Cut Print Film in October 2013 to celebrate Commando's thirtieth anniversary. It is reprinted here with only minor updates.]
Q: Let’s start at the beginning. How did you end up working on Commando?
Throughout his career, Alfred Hitchcock directed 55 feature films, along with numerous shorts and documentaries. That’s not a bad haul, nor a bad legacy to leave behind to the world. Having said that, even the most ardent film fan couldn’t possibly name you half of his films in total. In fact, if you look at his filmography starting from the beginning, it would take you seventeen films before arriving at 1935’s The 39 Steps, really the first film, chronologically, that still enjoys discussion to this day. I’m not picking on Hitchcock, though – this is more just a reminder of the reality. Not a single director has a flawless track record when it comes to output (and if the names Christopher Nolan or Quentin Tarantino just flashed in your mind as a challenge to that, I’m laughing at you). But by now, Hitchcock has reached legendary status, and not just from the strong crop of films he left behind: there’s his larger than life persona as a morbid spokesman for his work; there’s his reputation for being a hard-nosed director unwilling to compromise his vision; and there’s also his penchant for victimizing his cast for reasons both professional and personal.
Because of his infamy, he’s achieved mythic status, and as such, we assume everything he touched shocked audiences, changed cinema, and left an indelible mark. Not quite. If you asked that same film fan from before to name ten Hitchcock films, undoubtedly these four titles would be among them: Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds. They are sacrosanct, legendary, backbones of their respective genres, and sterling examples of a director fully in control of his talents and resources.
Photographer L.B. “Jeff” Jefferies (James Stewart) is in the
midst of recuperating from a broken ankle and is confined to a wheelchair in
his apartment. Sheer boredom leads him to watching his neighbors across his
apartment complex’s shared courtyard, keeping up to date on the various comings,
goings, and personal dramas unfolding in everyone’s tiny homes. It’s through
this passive observing that L.B. begins to suspect that one particular neighbor
across the way may have murdered his wife. With the assistance of his
“girlfriend” Lisa (Grace Kelly), who L.B. uses as a mobile quasi-avatar, they
investigate to see if L.B. really does live across the courtyard from a
murderer.
Like the other films in this set, Rear Window would inadvertently create an oft visited trope in
genre cinema going forward, either through presentation or in conception – in
this case, the idea of the voyeur, and of large open windows serving as movie
screens that depict the actions of those inside their own bubble, generally
unaware of their being watched…or sometimes being complicit in their
“performances.” John Carpenter would riff on this concept with a clever
reversal in his 1980 television movie Someone’sWatching Me! with Lauren Hutton and soon to be wife/ex-wife Adrienne
Barbeau. Australian filmmaker Richard Franklin, who would eventually helm the
extremely undervalued Psycho II,
would make a road-set homage with Road Games with Stacy Keach alongside a post-Halloween Jamie Lee Curtis (daughter of Psycho’s Janet Leigh). Finally, following his accident that left
him paralyzed and wheelchair-bound, Christopher Reeve would produce and star in
a Rear Window remake in the late
‘90s for ABC, with Daryl Hannah taking on the Grace Kelly role of the
adventurous troublemaker. It was…fine. Also like the other films in this set, Rear Window is one of many Hitchcock
films that sees a pretty blonde girl (Hitch’s fave) really going above and beyond to make an impotent or uninterested
man commit to her beyond mere petty flirtations and casual trysts. With L.B.
prone and imprisoned in his wheelchair, he’s powerless to stop Lisa as she
decides to take full control of the situation and break into the suspected
murderer’s apartment in order to validate L.B.’s beliefs – and this after the film opens with Lisa basically
nagging L.B. to marry her, which he declines with reasoning that makes the very
concept sound entirely objectionable despite the fact that he’s twenty years
older, has the physique of a snapped rubber band, and he’d be incredibly lucky
to have her.
A near-death experience leaves former police detective John
Ferguson (a returning Stewart) with acrophobia, a debilitating fear of heights,
and very retired. An old acquittance, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore), hires him out
of the blue to follow his wife, Madeleine (Kim Novak), who believes that she’s
the reincarnation of another deceased woman named Carlotta. Being we’re in
Hitchcock territory, after Ferguson begins his reconnaissance, it doesn’t take
long for him to discover, whether or not Elster’s beliefs have any merit, that
he’s definitely not on a routine job. And he couldn’t possibly have anticipated
how obsessed with Madeleine he would become.
At 130 minutes, Vertigo
is one of Hitchcock’s longer features, and most of that running time is filled
with heavy exposition and twisting/turning developments that, at times, feel
almost more appropriate for a James Bond caper mixed with brooding noir.
Hitchcock once again reigns over his use of cinematography to deeply unsettle
his audience, using camera tricks and extreme points of view to take away our
balance and feeling of stability. The opening scene has Stewart’s Ferguson
hanging for dear life from the top of a very tall building as the gutter he’s
grasping slowly tears off the wall, and as a nearby officer reaches down to
help him, the poor schlub slips and plummets to his death – in just one
sequence, both Ferguson and the audience confront the ultimate fear: not just
impending death, but our front-row view of our only salvation being whisked
away.
Look, no one needs the plot breakdown of Psycho; considering it’s widely
considered Hitchcock’s crowning achievement as a director (these things are
subject to opinion, of course, but…it is),
Psycho is a masterclass in filmmaking
in just about every way – from expert casting (Martin Balsam!) to maximizing
low budget filmmaking (the crew was almost entirely comprised of Alfred Hitchcock Presents personnel) to
wrenching tension out of every scene through the use of slow-moving cinematography
and off-putting angles. Psycho should
be taught in film classes exclusively for its use of the camera. There’s the
slow opening push into Marion
and Sam’s hotel room window (which, while possibly
borrowed from 1955’s Dementia aka Daughter of Horror, is
still expertly crafted), and obviously there’s also that whole shower-scene thing, but
my favorite shot comes as the camera slowly pushes in on Norman standing by the
side of the swamp and listening in the dark as Sam calls out for him back at
the motel. It’s chilling and perfectly engineered. Honestly, I could go on and
on about the 1960 classic that inspired four sequels, a (failed) television
show, a remake, another successful
television show, the next generation of filmmakers (Brian De Palma, John
Carpenter, Richard Franklin, Brad Anderson), and a perpetual mark on the genre,
not to mention the permanent ruination of the sense of security one feels while
taking a shower in a motel room…but we all know this already. Adapted from the
novel of the same name by Robert Bloch, Hitchcock and screenwriter Joseph
Stefano improve the well written source material in every way. Stefano’s
screenplay changes Norman Bates from a monstrous killer to a sympathetic
figure, and Hitchcock had the forward-thinking idea of casting someone with
charming, boy-next-door features instead of someone who more closely matched
the unsightly, stocky, balding, and frustrated virgin present in the novel.
Even the shower scene is a complete rebuilding, in which Marion Crane’s demise
is limited to a few sentences: “Mary
started to scream, and then the curtains parted further and a hand appeared,
holding a butcher's knife. It was the knife that, a moment later, cut off her
scream. And her head.”
Loosely based on the 1952 short story by Daphne Du Maurier, Hitchcock’s adaption depicts a world being overtaken by angry hordes of birds, atypically flocking together in every species to wage an unexplained revenge against mankind – presumably for being the earth-raping assholes we always are. One of many folks caught in the swarm are Melanie (Tippi Hedren), who’s attempting to charm her way into the life of Mitch (Rod Taylor), who lives in an isolated coastal home. The attacks from the bloodthirsty birds increasingly mount until they find themselves trapped in Rod’s house and fending off the birds that manage to find their way in. Who will survive, and what will be pecked from them?
Truth be told, and in spite of its (deserved) reputation, The Birds is a mixed bag. As a youngin’
obsessed with JAWS and all the
animals-run-amok films that it introduced me to, I used to consider The Birds my favorite Hitchcock film,
but later viewings re-introduced me to a kind of silly film that’s actually at
its best when the birds aren’t on screen (school playground scene notwithstanding,
because that’s the kind of thing
Hitchcock did so well). However, once the opticals of marauding flocks are
overlain into the sky and birds both real and dummy are being thrown into Tippi
Hedren’s face, it all seems pretty nonsensical. It’s also hard to mentally dismiss
how much Hitchcock mistreated Hedren on set, which was the stuff of Hollywood legend
for years before HBO’s The Girl made
it mainstream knowledge in the earliest beginnings of the #MeToo movement.
Alfred Hitchcock is part of cinema history, taught in universities and film schools, still the subject of modern documentaries like the Psycho-deconstructing 78/52, and conjured in the modern descriptor “Hitchcockian.” The four films above are the top reasons why. Even if Hitchcock had directed four or four hundred films throughout his life, the merits alone of Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds would’ve been more than enough to secure his legacy.
If
David Cronenberg had a sense of humor, he would’ve made something like Dead Dicks. Pushing aside, of course,
the obvious connection that Dead Dicks
is a Canadian genre production, I’m actually focusing more on the large,
otherworldly, interdimensional vagina that’s growing out of the apartment wall modeled
after the opening that protrudes from James Woods in Cronenberg’s Videodrome, but which acts like Phantasm’s space gate. In the same way
that the Tall Man sees his comeuppance throughout the Phantasm series and a fresh copy of the Tall Man re-enters the
world through said space gate, removes his corpse, and takes over for him from
there, Richard (Heston Horwin) is caught in a never-ending cycle where he’s
desperate to end his own life inside his cramped apartment, but each time he
does, a fresh copy of him is borne from this giant vaginal opening in his
bedroom.
Written
and directed by first-time feature directors Chris Bavota and Lee Paula
Springer, Dead Dicks is a wild way
to break onto the scene, and that it’s being distributed by Philadelphia label
Artsploitation Films is both a minor victory for the filmmakers and a way of labeling
Dead Dicks as certainly outside the
norm. In case you’re unfamiliar with the label (and you should really dive deep
into their catalog if you are), Artsploitation Films releases uncompromising international
titles that defy genre conventions and will never be caught dead screening at
your local multiplex. While some of their titles veer way outside normality at
the expense of the story being told, their most successful titles are those
that play with strange and wild ideas while infusing their stories with real,
relatable, emotional backbones that make such wild ideas wholly approachable.
Germany’s Der Samurai, a previous
acquisition from the label, is a perfect example of this balance (and,
honestly, is a favorite of my own), and Dead
Dicks eagerly follows in its footsteps. A little bit horror, science
fiction, comedy, and drama, Dead Dicks
is obviously hard to categorize. What it very much is, however, is about something
– in this case, mental illness, depression, suicide, and how those things can
affect a family that’s not prepared to deal with it. Bearing the brunt of
Richie’s burden is his sister, Becca (Jillian Harris), who has spent her adult
life trying to offer support to her sullen brother but feels her patience
running out and wanting nothing more than to, for the first time, focus on her
own life. The giant vagina and an apartment filled with copies of Richie’s dead
body certainly puts the kibosh on that.
Based
on the collection of genres that it bandies about, it shouldn’t come as a
surprise that Dead Dicks’ tone gets
a little schizophrenic at times, exacerbated by inconsistencies with how
“serious” the characters are taking the very surreal events of the story during
certain times. Through a weakness in the writing or a strange choice to convey
Becca’s initial ambivalence over Richie’s shocking reveal, it’s hard to tell,
and harder still, whether or not to determine if this was intentional to
maintain the film’s point about a family’s failure to notice the warning signs
about suicidal behavior, but once we move beyond this initial point, the amount
of seriousness over the siblings’ surreal new reality begin to take centerstage,
which allows for moments of perfect humor to balance out the story’s darker
themes. Indeed, unlike most genre films, Dead
Dicks’ second act is the most effective in the film, allowing the audience
to settle into the film’s surreal concept and also allowing them to find humor
in the situation. (There’s a pretty great moment when Richie looks down at one
of his own dead bodies and laughs immaturely at how it looks – you’ll have to
see the film to understand why.)
Horwin
and Harris are capable leads, with Horwin having to do much of the emotional work.
He proves himself highly capable of carrying such heaviness in his performance
even in the midst of the R-rated cartoon his life has become, while Harris
struggles at times to offer a consistent performance. I wouldn’t ever describe
her role as being poorly presented, but she seems more comfortable with the
smaller moments than the ones dependent on dramatic bravado. (Her comedic
timing, however, is perfect.) Still, being that we’re dealing with low budget
filmmaking, the ensemble is up to the task in ways you might not expect from
reading the plot synopsis, and that goes for every performer. In keeping with
the wackiness, the last few moments of Dead
Dicks are, to be honest, befuddling, and I’m not sure how the ending will
land with most viewers (I’m still working it around in my head), but one thing
is for sure: if the out-there breakdown of Dead
Dicks’ plot appeals to the part of you that’s become bored with mainstream
genre filmmaking, then you’re already the intended audience and likely more
willing to put the extra work into determining what it all means. If you can
and do, be sure to drop me a line and tell me because I’m still in the dark.
Dead Dicks is now on Blu-ray and DVD from Artsploitation Films.
Second
only to Dario Argento, Lucio Fulci is likely Italy’s most infamous and highly
regarded director of horror, murder, and the macabre. Though Fulci’s Don’t Torture a Duckling is considered
to be the director’s masterpiece, it never achieved the same amount of
adoration as Argento’s own masterpiece, Suspiria.
Having said that, the bulk of each director’s filmography has very different
goals. While Argento was more interested in sexualized murder-mysteries, Fulci,
though his earlier work explored similar material, eventually became indebted
to the “monster” sub-genre. Perhaps best known as having directed the famous
unofficial Dawn of the Dead sequel Zombie, he also helmed what’s known as
the unofficial “Gates of Hell” trilogy. Not quite
zombie movies, City of the Living Dead
aka The Gates of Hell (1980), The Beyond (1981), and House by the Cemetery (1981) tread
familiar ground about a remote or infamous location concealing a literal doorway
to hell that becomes inadvertently open, unleashing sentries of the dead to
kill in extremely gruesome ways. This theme and the presence of lead Catriona MacColl
in all three entries are the sole ties that bind them together, along with
Fulci’s unrelenting dedication to executing the goriest and most surreal deaths
you’re likely to see in Italian horror.
As
usual with “trilogies,” every fan has his or her own favorite (I’ve always been
partial to City of the Living Dead,
even with its hilariously nonsensical and unfinished ending), so I honestly
don’t know where House by the Cemetery
lands with fans. I do know that it’s among the director’s most unintentionally
amusing, mostly thanks to the character of Bob (Giovanni Frezza), an
unnaturally cherubic looking young child dubbed in post-production by what
sounds suspiciously like a grown woman putting on a “kid’s” voice. A line of
dialogue as simple as “My name is Bob” shouldn’t be as funny as it is, but it’s
part and parcel with how charmingly clumsy all of House by the Cemetery is. Each film in the trilogy isn’t known for
its concrete and fluid storytelling (The
Beyond is downright befuddling), and House
by the Cemetery continues the trend by presenting a story that somehow feels
both incomplete and overstuffed,
seemingly propelled by the movie operating by its own rules. Zombies, ghosts,
potential and otherworldly co-conspirators – Fulci is ready and willing to
throw them all against the wall to see what sticks – if it does: great, and if it doesn’t: whatever. This is and always
has been the Italian way: directors feeling more indebted to atmosphere and
style than presenting an air-tight story with every t crossed and i dotted; so
long as there is forward momentum that eventually leads the audience to the conclusion,
even if they stumble through the dark for most of their journey, then that’s good
enough.
As
far as generating genuine terror, there are moments that work as intended, and
sometimes, it would seem, in spite of the flick’s clumsiness. None of it ever
makes much sense, like young Mae (Silvia Collatina) hallucinating walking
nightmares of headless, bloody mannequins or the extended bat attack that goes
on forever. When Bob has his
final-act encounter with the walking terror that haunts his new country house,
the sequence goes on for so long that the action turns from suspense to tedium
before turning back to suspense again, and it’s because Fulci reinvents the
sequence with added horrific imagery during a chase scene that is already horrific
enough. (I’m just speculating, but this sequence seems to have informed how
James Wan directed one of the creepier scenes in The Conjuring, featuring Vera Farmiga’s Lorraine Warren cowering
from a hanging specter in a farmhouse cellar.) Also helping the scary agenda:
Italian horror has never shied away from not just gore, but from committing
on-screen taboos. Children aren’t safe from their film’s respective boogeyman
threats, and neither are the lead characters whom we are brainwashed to believe
that just because their names are first in the opening credits that they’ll
walk away terrified but relatively unscathed. Anyone can bite it at any time,
and when it comes to Fulci, everyone normally does.
Italian films, especially horror films, have their own look, feel, and complete disregard for a cogent story. Because of this, the style is upped significantly to at-times overbearing degrees. Characters rattle off more extraneous dialogue than is necessary; the camerawork, though fluid and beautiful even when capturing moments of the grotesque, can sometimes come off as excessive. Take that, add in all the aforementioned gore, and there you go: Italian horror. There’s nothing like it, and that’s both good and bad. House by the Cemetery, for better or worse, is the prime example of that.
House by the Cemetery is now available in beautiful 4K UHD and 3-Disc Blu-ray editions.
[Reprinted from Daily Grindhouse.]
[Contains minor spoilers.]
When I was a kid, I had an imaginary friend named Mr. Suit. I called him that because of the old looking clothes that hung from his tall and lanky body, completed by a matching bowler hat and a beard so thick that Grizzly Adams would’ve felt genetically deficient. I never told my parents about Mr. Suit, and I made sure never to “play” with or talk to him when they were around, because, by that time, I was already feeling a little ostracized by the other kids at school and I didn’t want to engage in any further behavior that might seem weird. You see, I somehow knew Mr. Suit was imaginary, and no one else could see or hear him, so why complicate my life even more? Still, he was my only friend, so I almost always did the things he’d tell me to – most of which were pranks, and fairly harmless. He used to make me pinch clothespins around the tail of a neighborhood cat that often wandered my small town’s backyards looking for food, or he told me to dig up large shrubs from the neighbor’s garden and plop them down in the middle of the busy road so cars would come along and plow into them in the dark. One night, very late, Mr. Suit told me to go stand next to my mother and stare at her as she slept; eventually, he said, I’d know what to do, because he would guide me. I did what he said, but after a while, no epiphany came, so I merely stood at her bedside and stared at her in the dark until she’d woken up on her own and, upon seeing me, let out a half scream of surprise. This was the most dramatic show of influence Mr. Suit ever perpetrated over me, and as time went by, he visited less and less until he never came again; I assumed he’d dismissed me as a disappointing protégé and moved onto a more promising kid. For a long time after, I questioned what Mr. Suit wanted from me until the day came when I finally understood that I was Mr. Suit, and I was the one telling myself to do these things. I wrote it off as childhood nonsense and eventually forgot about the whole thing. A few years ago, I was reading online about area serial killers and that was when I first learned about H.H. Holmes, known, infamously, as the first serial killer discovered in the United States and subject of the non-fiction book The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair That Changed America (the adaption of which is allegedly coming from Leonardo DiCaprio’s Appian Way production company and possibly director Martin Scorsese). Upon seeing the last photograph taken of this murderer of 27 people before he was hung in 1896 in Philadelphia, roughly fifteen minutes away from my childhood home, I would’ve told you, without a moment’s hesitation, that this H.H. Holmes had been my childhood friend, only his name back then was Mr. Suit, and he’d slept standing up behind the curtains in my room at night while softly laughing at the funny dreams I assumed he was having, or maybe at all the weird, dangerous things he was conjuring in his imagination for me to do.
I’m obviously kidding. My point is: imaginary friends are creepy, aren’t they? And in horror, they are typically one of two things: the devilish, dangerous side of a child’s personality, or a walking entity masquerading as childhood fancy. The imaginary friend is an under-explored concept in horror, generally utilized in haunted house movies (The Conjuring, The Grudge) where it ceases being referred to as such after the first act, because by then it’s revealed that said imaginary friend is actually a trapped spirit or something much worse. Rarely does the imaginary friend concept stick around for the duration; the closest exception I can drop is, hilariously, Drop Dead Fred.
And that’s what makes co-writer/director Brandon Christensen’s Z so refreshing. Elizabeth (Keegan Connor Tracy) is one of many parents in the world who accepts the fact that her son, Josh (Jett Klyne), has an imaginary friend, this one named “Z.” Over time, however, Elizabeth begins to realize that “Z” has an unhealthy hold over her son, and may be persuading him into doing increasingly dangerous things. “Z,” also, becomes much more than imaginary, in that she begins to see him in the flesh, and with everyone else in her life, including Josh’s father, Kevin (Sean Rogerson), not experiencing the same things she is, her battle against “Z” soon becomes one she has to fight on her own.
Z seems to have picked the bones of the last ten years of supernatural fright flicks, including Lights Out, Sinister, and especially Insidious, but that’s not necessarily a complaint. The horror genre has always been cannibalistic, perpetuating itself by living off previously explored ideas. Ironically, even Insidious is a perfect example, in that it’s story of ghostly events leading a scared family to obtain the services of mystics and paranormal investigators has been lovingly borrowed from Poltergeist. On the surface level, Z is familiar territory – the peculiarly acting child and his creepy drawings, the lone parent who begins to question her sanity – but as Z plays on, it begins to forge its own identity. There’s a genuine attempt at establishing histories for our characters, which not only help us to sympathize with them, but which also provide just enough personal trauma to make us wonder if the creepy goings-on are actually the result of our lead character’s psychological break with reality instead of a surface-level supernatural infestation.
The titular boogeyman is only spotted a handful of times, and only for a few frames. All told, “Z” appears on screen for less than three seconds across its entire running time, but what you see is genuinely unnerving. The golden rule in the haunted house sub-genre is the more you see the specter, the less effective it becomes. In that regard, Z presents its creepy figure in just the right way. (Resist all temptation to press pause on the figure, believe me.)
As a horror fan, I’m glad to see Keegan Connor Tracy enjoy a lead role, as she’s been a constant part of the genre since the 2000s, with turns in White Noise, the loony Final Destination 2, Bates Motel, and a handful of appearances on the CW’s never-ending Supernatural. (Amusingly, she was also in the direct-to-video sequel The Net 2.0, where she played a character named Z.Z.) As such, she’s well practiced as someone playing against a horrifying threat, which makes her turn as a beleaguered mother an easy and effective sell. Though she plays a familiar archetype, Z imbues Elizabeth with a history that moves the story into a more mythical and emotional direction, and thankfully, she doesn’t just play “the mother” or “the wife” – a bystander observing the action and offering a zero-hour nugget of advice that guides the hero to victory. She’s the hero, or at least she’s the only one who can vie for that role because she’s the only one who can, and when she descends into pure mania before film’s end, Tracy throws everything she has into the role with impressive dedication. That she spends the first act of the flick caring for a terminally ill mother alongside her sister, Jenna (Sara Canning), helps to both ground the movie’s wackier events and add an additional twist on the concept. In genre films, someone always dies, but in Z, someone is already in the process of dying, which helps it to feel different and poignant while basking in the cemetery of other films that came before it.
If you don’t expect a reinvention of the wheel, then give Z a fair chance. Though it makes a few of the same mistakes that its brethren often do, depending on visual effects it can’t quite afford, and with an ambiguous ending that borders on mean-spirited, Z still manages to offer a fair amount of creepy imagery, dense atmosphere, and a fresh twist on an old concept.
[Reprinted from Daily Grindhouse.]