|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 6, 2022 12:00:12 GMT -5
Prompted by Scott McCloud's The Sculptor, I watched Carnival of souls for the first time.
The opening scenes with a very low-speed car race and a very improbable accident, coupled with poorly dubbed exterior scenes, made me fear for a minute that I was in for a Plan 9 From Outer Space level of shlock... but much to my delight, I found the film very good indeed! The ending was predictable, but that may be because similar twists have been used and reused a lot since 1962. I very much appreciated the lack of expository dialogue and the ongoing spooky ambience.
Having watched two episodes of Sandman yesterday, I must say that my own dreams (or nightmares, in this case) look a lot more like Carnival of Souls than like Morpheus's domain.
Technically, it's really amazing what one can do with a B&W camera and a little make-up. Brrrrr.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Aug 6, 2022 13:58:06 GMT -5
Prompted by Scott McCloud's The Sculptor, I watched Carnival of souls for the first time. The opening scenes with a very low-speed car race and a very improbable accident, coupled with poorly dubbed exterior scenes, made me fear for a minute that I was in for a Plan 9 From Outer Space level of shlock... but much to my delight, I found the film very good indeed! The ending was predictable, but that may be because similar twists have been used and reused a lot since 1962. I very much appreciated the lack of expository dialogue and the ongoing spooky ambience. Having watched two episodes of Sandman yesterday, I must say that my own dreams (or nightmares, in thus case) look a lot more like Carnival of Souls than like Morpheus's domain. Technically, it's really amazing what one can do with a B&W camera and a little make-up. Brrrrr.
Carnival of Souls is one of my all-time favorite low-budget b-flicks. Hard to believe that it was made on a budget of $30,000.00. I sprung for the Criterion deluxe blu-ray version several years ago, and the restored version looks great. The public domain version is a bit sketchy, and was transferred from an old videotape copy used primarily for TV distribution. Consequently, it's been edited a bit.
If you notice that there's a prominence of pipe organs and organ music in the film, there's a reason for that... one of the film's investors was the Reuter Organ Company of Lawrence, Kansas-- where the film was primarily shot. Even the indoor scenes supposedly set in Salt Lake City were shot in Kansas. However, the dance casino/pavilion shots were shot at the old Saltair entertainment complex located on the shores of the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Saltair has a long history dating back to the late 1800's, and was made over several times and suffered several fires, but it was still in operation until 1958. From 1958 until 1970, the complex stood derelict and abandoned, until it was destroyed by arson in 1970. In 1981, another facility referred to as "Saltair III" was built about a mile west of the original location. It also failed as a business several times, but the building is still there, and has been used as a concert venue for several years now.
I visited the site in 2010, and there isn't much left except random wooden pilings and miscellaneous flotsam scattered around the site. I have a couple of long retainer bolts that once held buildings to the pier pilings, but other than that, there's not much else that one could stow in a suitcase.
Here's a picture of Saltair in its waning days in the mid 1950's-- The Pavilion is on the right of the shot.
Another interesting fact about the film-- the director, Herk Harvey, worked for Centron, which was primarily a maker of educational and training films in the 1940's-1960's. Herk shot most of the film on his paid vacation time... yes, he continued to work at Centron even after the film was made. Also, the mysterious white-faced man who follows Mary around throughout the film is actually the director, Herk Harvey himself. Finally, the budget was so tight that Herk made the ghoulish makeup himself, mainly from egg whites and flour.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 6, 2022 15:41:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 6, 2022 18:12:56 GMT -5
I don't know how it would affect me today, but when I watched it on video in the late 80s or early 90s, I found it one of the spookiest movies I'd ever seen. Simple but oh, how effective.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Aug 6, 2022 23:50:42 GMT -5
I don't know how it would affect me today, but when I watched it on video in the late 80s or early 90s, I found it one of the spookiest movies I'd ever seen. Simple but oh, how effective.
I think that the eerie factor is enhanced by the bizarre pipe organ soundtrack interspersed throughout the film, combined with the guerilla-style filming, and the strategic use of shadowing, which was largely due to a tight lighting budget. The entire film was shot just inside of three weeks... that includes both film locations, Lawrence KS and Salt Lake City.
That's a lot of hustling to make a picture on a shoestring budget, especially considering that the distance between the two cities is a little over 1000 miles by road, and when the film was made, Interstate 70 in Kansas was only open as far west as Abilene; the rest of the travel would have been on the old US highway system.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2022 5:36:09 GMT -5
Masters of the Universe was released 35 years ago today: I have a real love/hate relationship with this film. On the one hand, it’s fun. It’s not boring. I doubt anyone could not enjoy this if they like this kind of movie. And I’m sure that it would be particularly enjoyed by anyone who was unfamiliar with the toyline and cartoon. But it sure has its problems. A *lot* of them… For starters, and I accept the limits of 1980s technology may be to blame, the lack of either Orko or Battle Cat detracts from the film. Orko might have been hard to do, but there are films which predate this that managed to use big cats. There’s no dynamic between Prince Adam and He-Man. The original cartoon saw an Adam torn between his royal duties (and playboy prince persona) and being a hero. We don’t get to see that here. In fact, we don’t get to learn much about Eternia at all. The film is a little derivative, as if they were producing some of it to cater to people still familiar with Star Wars. I’m not sure why the film had to create some new characters such as Blade and Saurod when there were SO MANY existing characters they could have used. Really, placing the characters on Earth, when you have not adequately established Eternia was a mistake. A better idea would have been two films: establish Eternia in the first movie, then have Eternia fall in the second film. Give us a reason to care about Eternia, rather than just sending people to Earth and having Eternia be something we don’t care that much about. This could and should have been better. It’s depressing to know that there hasn’t been a He-Man film since. Is the idea of a He-Man film trying to enter the Guinness Book of Records as the ‘film with the longest time spent in development hell’? The rumour mill starts up at least once every 2 years. It’s an enjoyable way to spend nearly 2 hours, but its flaws become more apparent as time goes on.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 7, 2022 11:18:56 GMT -5
Masters of the Universe was less an adaptation of the cartoon and more an homage to Jack Kirby, as the director explains, in the commentary. First, he was never going to have the budget to do it justice, as it was Cannon Films, which was as tight as they got. He needed to appeal to a broader audience and dipped into Kirby, to give it all more depth. Skeletor becomes Darkseid, which is most apparent when he turns up on Earth, with his massive platform thingy. He-Man is Orion, flying around on his little platform and destroying Darkseid's soldiers, until their final clash. Evil-Lyn is a mix of Desaad and Granny Goodness and you get elements of Kalibak with the other henchmen. The Sorceress becomes like Highfather.
The dimensional key is pretty much the Boom-Tube, though Guildor is a sort of Orko.
When you think of it in those terms, the story makes more sense than as a He-Man adaptation. The director talks about homaging the New Gods and Dr Doom, with other bits of Kirby. Really, given the budget he had, he does a better job with the 4th World than Snyder, in my opinion. He gets the dynamic of the characters better.
If this had had a real budget, it could have been a spectacular movie; but, Golan & Globus meant C-list actors (most from tv), cheap special effects and costumes and filming in some 3rd world @#$%hole (well, Australia, for this one, so better than Romania). The director, Gary Goddard, was also the founder of Landmark Entertainment and did the Captain Power tv series, which was actually pretty good, for a show designed to sell toys, thanks to writing from Joe Straczynski and some sincere performances by the actors. Goddard, along with Bryan Singer, was later accused of sexual assault and then other allegations came about, including one from Anthony Edwards, of ER and Top Gun (and Revenge of the Nerds) fame.
John Byrne, at the time, called it a New Gods Film and Goddard clarified, in a letter in Next Men, that his intent was an homage to Kirby's Dr Doom epics, in FF, with other stuff, from New Gods and Thor. He actually wanted Kirby to do production designs but Cannon wasn't going to spend for that and considered comics kid stuff.
Frank Langella did it because his 4 year-old son was a big fan of the cartoon and would run around the house yelling, "I have the power!" He gives it his all.
There is a decent cast there, as Meg Foster is great and her pale green eyes add to the effect, Langella is always good, and most of the rest aren't bad, apart from Lundgren, who is better here than some of his other films. Too much is played for laughs and doesn't succeed and Cortney Cox is too lightweight, at the time (she had done the "Dancing in the Dark" video and Family Ties) Problem is Cannon only saw it as a Star Wars knockoff; but, as that, it's barely any improvement on Star Crash or Message From Space. If they had let the director go full on Kirby, they might have done better at the box office. As it is, they made their money back on home video sales and rentals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2022 11:31:48 GMT -5
The massive platform thingy? Don’t you want to use the correct term, which is…erm, I don’t know, either. Ah, yes, I remember the Next Men letter. Byrne mentioned it at his site once or twice. It’s an enjoyable film in its own right, but I wonder if it has given Hollywood cold feet over another adaptation. There’s a world to explore there, with She-Ra also part of it - and Etheria. Battle Cat could be featured nowadays, as could Orko. (Please, autocorrect, stop trying to change Orko to Oreo). I have a documentary about Cannon Films…which I still have not watched. And a book…which I need to read soon. Speaking of Gwildor, I know he showed up in a comic but I can’t find out which one. I think it might have been one featuring original material somewhere within continental Europe. Germany perhaps? Can’t seem to find it.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 7, 2022 12:29:31 GMT -5
Really, Skeletor is a mix of Dr Doom and Darkseid, He-Man is a little Orion and some Thor, Evil-Lyn has a bit of Loki going and then you have the Star Wars crap they grafted on. Tela and Man at Arms are kind of a Warriors 3 and a little Han Solo and Chewbacca.
I went and saw it in the theaters and was entertained enough to rent it, when it came out on video. It's a pleasant little film, if you keep your expectations low and go with the stupidity in it.
Certainly better than most of Cannon's @#$%.
I've seen the Cannon documentary, which is good, but could have used a sequel to get more depth into some of their crap and shenanigans.
The late 80s were an interesting time, for films. Corporations were or had mostly remade the studios into their image, meaning the days of impresarios were done and accoutants had more say than directors. Then you had guys like Cannon and Full Moon features, where low budget stuff was churned out and made most of its money in video rentals and sales, rather than theaters (though budgets were often low enough that a decent theater run made big profits, like the Chuck Norris schlock, at Cannon); and, then, at the other end, you had companies like Orion, who churned out bigger budget and highly entertaining films and even some fairly artistic things (until they put a lot of money in a picture that failed and messed up their cash flow) and some in between, like Carolco. The home video market changed the game, a lot, and you could get a good drama and a violent action film from the same production company. In fact, it became more about the production companies than it did about the studios, as they did more distribution than production.
I always liked anything I saw with an Orion Pictures banner, and a majority of Carolco; but, knew Cannon was going to be scholck, even more than deliberate schlock, like Troma or Full Moon (who mostly did direct-to-video). Morgan Creek meant serious drama and maybe a good visual stylist. Amblin meant family stuff and Spielberg. Tri-Star could be almost anything, from Look Who's Talking Now to a serious drama. Touchstone would be Disney's stuff for adults and Hollywood pictures would be the stuff that was rated R). New Line was horror. And so on....
Then, everyone started merging (if they hadn't gone bankrupt, on a bad money loser). Then it was media conglomerates and catering to foreign markets and focus groups and such. Film has always been a struggle between art and commerce; but, I feel like more art got done with the classic studio system, where the moguls were more willing to take chances or champion a certain amount of art, funded with stuff that was commercially oriented and the more it became a corporate environment, the more risk averse it became and the more bland and homogenized, with the odd outlier that turned out to be art. Kind of the same for other industries, where you went from craftsmanship and a brand name standing for a level of quality to it just being a marketing took and churn it out cheaply and quickly, to replace the crap that breaks in two years or less.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2022 12:43:41 GMT -5
Then, everyone started merging (if they hadn't gone bankrupt, on a bad money loser). Then it was media conglomerates and catering to foreign markets and focus groups and such. Film has always been a struggle between art and commerce; but, I feel like more art got done with the classic studio system, where the moguls were more willing to take chances or champion a certain amount of art, funded with stuff that was commercially oriented and the more it became a corporate environment, the more risk averse it became and the more bland and homogenized, with the odd outlier that turned out to be art. Kind of the same for other industries, where you went from craftsmanship and a brand name standing for a level of quality to it just being a marketing took and churn it out cheaply and quickly, to replace the crap that breaks in two years or less. Fascinating, although unsurprising. I don’t really know that much history about the studio system, just bits here and there. There was some history mentioned in one of Mark Kermode’s books, which reflects what you have posted, but it was only touched upon. In a not-entirely-unrelated ballpark, I did like how some 80s VHS covers featured commissioned artwork, even if some of the depictions didn’t take place within the actual film. It seems that nowadays we get the actors’ faces superimposed over a shot of, say, the moon or the sun. I mean, the VHS cover for RoboCop - where he almost appears gold - is great, but would we just get actor faces today? Embarrassingly stupid question: how did studios get involved more in distribution than production? When did production companies originate? Why wouldn’t studios want to be involved more in production than distribution? On a final note, can anyone recommend a book - or two, or three - about the history of film production, studios and all that within the United States?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2022 12:50:23 GMT -5
Kind of the same for other industries, where you went from craftsmanship and a brand name standing for a level of quality to it just being a marketing took and churn it out cheaply and quickly, to replace the crap that breaks in two years or less. Please, that is no way to describe a pub chain or two here in the UK. I know their food is cold (and probably warmed up in a microwave), but this is my country you’re insulting.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 7, 2022 14:29:48 GMT -5
The studio system is pretty much in force, through the 60s; but, it starts falling apart at the end of the 60s. You had smaller outfits, like Castle Films, who churned out junk for drive in theaters. Even in the Golden Age of Hollywood, you had the Poverty Row studios, who did cheap films, serials, a two-reelers (shorter films than feature films). Television changed the industry, quite a lot, as now there was competition to a night out at the movies. You also start to get stuff from foreign markets (you had a bit of that, in the 20s and 30s) and smaller film outfits, like American International Pictures, where they would bankroll a film with funding from a group of investors, for both the European and American markets. AIP did things like Roger Corman's Edgar Allen Poe adaptations and other sci-fi and horror genre films, as well as dramas and such. Some of those big Hollywood epics bankrupted or nearly bankrupted studios, like with Cleopatra. The economic turmoil of the 70s added to it, plus the rise of independent filmmakers and the "New Hollywood," that followed stuff like Easy Rider. Basically, the Baby Boom generation entering the field. Some businesses started buying up ailing studios to diversify their holdings, like Steve Ross' Kinney National Corporation. Kinney started out owning and operating parking lots, in New York City (which was a premium proposition, since parking was limited) and merged with the National Cleaning Company. They then bought National Periodical Publications (DC Comics) and then Warner-Seven Arts (the old Warner Bros studio) Warner was in rough shape, by the late 60s. They had even farmed out the cartoons to Dave Depatie and Friz Freleng's company (the cartoons from that period are dire). That became Warner Communications/Time-Warner, then merged with AOL and, now, Discovery.
Warner used to be, literally, the Warner Brothers, running their studio, with Jack L Warner the studio boss. They became synonymous with gangster films, in the 30s and stars like Humphrey Bogart and Jimmy Cagney, as well as the Looney Tunes cartoons (which were done by the Leon Schlessinger Studios, for Warner, before they bought Schlessinger out).
United Artists was kind of the early shot across the bow, for the studios, as prominent stars banded togetehr to create a studio and gain independence from studio contracts (Mary Pickford & Douglas Fairbanks, most notably). By the 60s, several actors had their own production companies to find properties to feature them, like Kirk Douglas' Bryna (named after his mother). He produced Spartacus through it, with United Artists handling distribution and part of the financing. Douglas had the say in things, including openly crediting the screenplay to Dalton Trumbo, who had been blacklisted in Hollywood, yet had won the Oscar for the screenplay for Roman Holiday, under a pseudonym (several blacklisted writers used false names and "fronts" to keep working, including Trumbo, as shown in the film, with Bryan Cranston). The 60s saw more and more of that, with companies like Mirisch, who did the Pink Panther films with and without Peter Sellers and Blake Edwards, and other groups. That grew into the 70s.
The 70s saw a lot of other corporations start buying the studios, often as a tax write off for their more profitable businesses. Paramount was once owned by Gulf & Western, an oil company. Coca-Cola bought Columbia Pictures, in 1982. The Reagan Administration was very friendly to corporate mergers and that activity dramatically increased in the 80s, in all fields. The entertainment and media companies started merging left and right. It happened in the music industry, television, movie studios and publishing. It continued into the 90s and the internet was added.
Europe started a bit earlier, as European studios often had to get more financing partners involved. When some of those producers started moving into the American film industry, they brought along those types of financing partners and deals that split various rights, like film distribution and tv.
The 60s is where you really start to see different producers and production companies make deals with the studios, for a project, rather than the studio initiating it. Also, many European studios start having severe financial problems in the 60s and you start to see more independents there, renting production space. It increases in the 70s. In the 50s, the UK, France and Italy all had thriving, large studios, which rebuilt, after the war, or got back to larger scale production, with an influx of cash. Some were even aided by governmental aid, like the German industry, with US money (and control) which helped create Arthur Braunner's company, that got Fritz Lang to return to the Mabuse films and launched a new series of them.
So, a lot of change comes across the 60s and 70s and then the 80s adds the home video revolution and the 90s the internet. Studio bosses die or retire and the studios have mixed results and end up needing financial partners or selling off the business completely. The studios even sold off assets. 20th Century Fox sells much of its backlot, for commercial development, which becomes Century City. British film studios shut down production and end up providing technical services and soundstages for other productions (like Eon, shooting the Bond films at Pinewood). Economic forces and a younger generation change the industry and new technology adds to thing, as well as new competition.
Still, even in the silent era you had large and small studios, quality and cheap entertainment, new audiences and new technology. If you live long enough you witness a lot of change, good and bad. They still had cartoon shorts, with films, when I was a little kid, but they were mostly gone, by the time I was in school. The types of films made changes too, as new voices come in and new experiences are explored.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 7, 2022 17:51:58 GMT -5
I don't know how it would affect me today, but when I watched it on video in the late 80s or early 90s, I found it one of the spookiest movies I'd ever seen. Simple but oh, how effective.
I think that the eerie factor is enhanced by the bizarre pipe organ soundtrack interspersed throughout the film, combined with the guerilla-style filming, and the strategic use of shadowing, which was largely due to a tight lighting budget. The entire film was shot just inside of three weeks... that includes both film locations, Lawrence KS and Salt Lake City.
That's a lot of hustling to make a picture on a shoestring budget, especially considering that the distance between the two cities is a little over 1000 miles by road, and when the film was made, Interstate 70 in Kansas was only open as far west as Abilene; the rest of the travel would have been on the old US highway system.
The music was certainly a major element in creating that overall effect - and from memory, I have a vague idea that one of the scariest or most disturbing individual scenes involved the organ being played by someone ... does that sound right? It's been so long now, details are hazy and I remember more about how I felt watching it than what specifically was happening at any given time in the movie to make me feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2022 9:01:25 GMT -5
Friday the 13th Part III was released 40 years ago today (in 3-D).
I did watch all of these on VHS years ago - and on DVD. They are very formulaic, aren’t they? In fact, I quite like it when they did something different, such as with the fifth and eighth movies. Even the seventh movie was slightly different, given one of the protagonists had psychokinetic powers that she could use against Jason.
I do wonder why anyone even ventured to Camp Crystal Lake at times…
I am told that there are legal issues preventing another movie (there hasn’t been once since 2009), something about ownership of characters/concepts. It would be nice to see a new movie, especially if they did something fresh with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2022 12:15:35 GMT -5
Released 35 years ago today: One of my favourite films. Like how it utilises certain tropes, it’s fun throughout, it mixes horror and comedy well, and there are even a few scary moments. As a kid, I wanted a sequel, but as an adult, I know that it stands alone as a great film because it’s not a franchise. Didn’t realise until years later that the guy who played Dracula also played Charles in V: The Series.
|
|