so, i have watched a few more films. five, look you see, to be somewhat specific. actually likely a few more, but these ones (the 5) are the only ones what i can specifically remember. with some time on my hands i am quite likely to watch some more, but comment on these shall do for now.
a thing what absolutely everyone loves is statistics. this is all the more true when such is (or are) presented via the medium of percentages. if you are one of them types of who(m) this is true, then get ready. from these five (5) films, a staggering 80% were ones i had not seen before. some overlap exists, but also it was so that 80% were watched on the vague promise of nudies. not too vague in one, for a film from that particular 80% was also the 20% what i had seen before. oddly 40% of the films were in that language what they comically use in France. and i think that's it for stats.
do i need to put, or is there a requirement for, one of them *** SPOILER WARNING *** things? well, i suppose such is done now. oh, another of those statistic things for you is that the BBFC, who are right miserable types and understand this century even less ("fewer") than what i do, have deemed 60% of these films are suitable only for those over the age of 18. which i am. so you may find that around 3 sets of comments here relate (or pertain) to mature adult themes and nudies.
righty ho, off we go, in no particular order........
for a fair while i deliberated watching the new (or most recent) take on Dune. i mean, i was (or am) vaguely aware of some television adaptation, but leaving that aside i wasn't sure if i felt the need to see a different interpretation, with the David Lynch version, flaws and all, being fine. often i had stood going, ok, should i get the new one or get a fancy video (disc) of the Lynch one, and then ended up with neither. but then my preferred tape (disc) seller down the market had it (new variation) for £3.
i appreciate this version has had loads (and loads) of good reviews. my take is not that it was bad, but it was decidedly "meh". one comment i saw again and again was that it was "visually stunning". no, it is not. the visuals are quite bland, really, and not as iconic as the Lynch version. also this is "part one", with the conclusion (so far as i am aware) coming March 2024. so this took longer than the entire story being presented in the Lynch version to give (roughly) one half of the story. and nothing within it gave any indication that the expanded amount of time provided any extra stuff of consequence, with the key scenes or moments remaining pretty much the same.
yes, the "ensemble" cast is quite the line up, but most of them just stand around looking poignant. only Javier Bardem (sp) seemed to get to act with any consequence, and even then it was little more than rehashing what he'd done in, say, No Country For Old Men or even Skyfall. certainly there was nothing like Sting in space underpants. it is likely i will rather just pick up the blu ray tape (disc) of the Lynch version and watch that again rather than rush to see part two of this.
on the subject of market finds, Maitresse next, then. an early 80s (i think) French film with an 18 certificate. it was on offer (in a blu ray and dvd set) for £2, so i went yeah, all right, there is likely to be some nudies in it. which there very much is, but alas (and this is the French for you) of a most decidedly male nature. thanks for that.
plot? quite breezy, best you go with the flow sort of stuff. a generally loathsome gent (played by that one famous French actor no one seems to like no more) forms an unlikely relationship with one of them mistress (hence the title) dominatrix types, with it starting via him (with a chum) breaking into her house and finding all sorts of unusual bondage, s&m stuff. it is peculiarly compulsive and compelling viewing, despite rarely showing anything sordid. it is at least true that the French would appear to make much better films than they do cars, or anything else.
the best way to consider this film, i suppose, is within the context of the time it was release. it would be very fair to say that the sexual proclivities on display (as it were) here were very much an underground thing and not in the mainstream so much as such is in this brave new world. a glance at a world of pleasure many would be unaware of as existing would have been a rare, unusual experience back when it came out, which i think was early 80s. that said, i am not sure how glad many (i wasn't) would have been with the bit where a chap gets his (ahem) private parts nailed to some wood (or similar). much of the extras on the disc seem to concern arguments with the bbfc about letting that scene stay in. one can undoubtedly see "worse" or more graphic things on that "internet" now, but few scenes of such made today would match the artistic skill or merit on display here. as an avant garde, symbolic sort of look at what makes a "strange relationship", whilst giving a glance at human nature, oddly i would find myself recommending this motion picture.
here we are with the 20% of the films what i had already seen. predictably enough that would be the 80s film The Howling II. oddly it is one that i have wished to watch again for a while now, but a random advert on social media offering it for somewhere south of £10 on the fancy video (disc) format meant i went ahead and embraced the wish.
exactly why did i wish to watch this, which is trash by any standard measurement, again? let's go back to my teenage years. i first saw it probably out of a mix of loving horror films, in particular werewolf ones. there's also the presence of Christopher Lee, and it's worth noting (in terms of how bad the film actually is) he apologised for being in it. for good measure Jimmy Nail is in it too, and i was (quite) sure that Timothy Spall was too, but he isn't. must have been some other horror film. but why i would go back to the film is as simple as how much time in it Sybil Danning is in a state of undress, with particular (precise) emphasis on the infamous end credit scene, where they just loop (or repeat) the scene where she rips her shirt off.
which kind of leads on to how i came to, eventually (or at last) see the motion picture Slaughterhouse Five. this is a film i have wished to watch for around forty (!!) or so years, but never got the chance, or around to it. and why did i wish to watch it? because it's based on a classic of literature? due to it being relatively celebrated as a work of cinematic art? or because i saw a magazine article which gave every indication that Lex Luthor's girlfriend out of (proper) Superman had a nudies scene in it?
a chance trip to Fopp in that there London (innit) saw me see it for sale on fancy (video) disc for a most agreeable price. the standard video (disc) was even more agreeable, but on inspection it seemed that the fancy version had a slightly longer running time. which in my mind translated into every chance, or potential, for more nudies. yes, this is how my mind works.
quite an interesting film, and concept. perhaps (maybe) i should find a copy of the novel and read it, if only to find out exactly how many times the protagonist in it says "and so it goes", which i believe is a lot, despite the phrase not featuring in the film. the whole thing of the hero being "unstuck in time", with the vague notion of him really being either remembering places and fantasising things to escape the horrors of world war two, was intriguing enough. as for the actual, real and main (if not only) reason i got the film (and watched it) oh yes, very satisfactory to have such an itch scratched after so very long, thank you.
finally, then, and also off of Fopp, the second (of two) French films. i had not ever heard of this film before, but a quick glance at the cover of Benedetta said it was about the forbidden love of lesbian nuns in the seventeenth (possibly sixteenth) century, so it was sold. further inspection said it was made by him off of RoboCop and Starship Troopers (and Showgirls), Paul Verhoven, so yes please.
watched it expecting to get some exploitative titillation (ahem) dressed up as some obscure, avant garde kind of "social commentary" black comedy as is the case with just about all Paul Verhoven films. if i am indeed spelling his name proper. let me check oh should be Verhoeven. never mind. anyway, soon found myself quite gripped by this. films, or other forms of art, what tend to challenge preconceptions or notions surrounding faith, expressions of christianity and what have you do fascinate me. despite the usual Verhoeven elements here (the nuns just happen to be stunningly beautiful with shaved armpit and trimmed you know what) what nudity there was, and scenes of that sort of thing, were actually tasteful and entirely relevant to the story. just why Verhoeven has decided to be all mature and sophisticated is a mystery of sorts, unless he intended this to be a laugh.
i would, in a positive way, place this film alongside The Devils and The Last Temptation Of Christ as quite magnificent works destined to forever be controversial but at heart pushing confrontation and conversation around faith. should this subject be of interest then there's every chance you have already seen it, if not then Benedetta is very much worth seeking out. often disturbing watching, but stick with it.
right, that's that for this. who knew that i would ever (sort of) praise two French films? as i have said before, i am not entirely sure i understand this century, for i find myself forever doing things that i was reasonably sure that i would not. highly unlikely that any comments around any films here would be of a practical use, but thanks for reading anyway. so it goes.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment