A noise comes from some dark hellish corner and the sandaled roughnecks keep quite. Medusa emerges from the shadows carrying her mighty bow, which seems a little overkill considering all die the moment they look into her eyes.

She quickly narrows the ranks until only Perseus is left. Just when all hope seems lost, using the back of his shield to see her reflection, he takes one single lethal swing with his sword and promptly decapitates the snake-haired demon.

…

This scene was immortalized in Desmond Davis’ Clash of the Titans (1981), and later updated in Louis Leterrier’s 2010 epic barring the same title. Upon watching both scenes, side-by-side*, one would be hard-pressed to call the earlier a more accomplished piece. Yet, here we are 32 years later still talking about it. Regarding the remake, I highly doubt anyone would be willing to wager that by 2042 cinephiles will even remember the Sam Worthington remake.

Some people might argue that the older movie is simply better then the new one, but truthfully neither was ever really consider particularly great. That being said, one would have a hard time defending the newer one, with the turban wearing humanoid blowing himself up, as anything more than irritating and even offensive at times.

However you regard them, the question remains: why are we still so fascinated by the effects of the old and so critical of the more refined modern one?

Titans, and special effects movies in general are there to entertain and “wow”. These movies are a showcase for effects; a magic show on a massive scale. Technology today allow filmmakers to put on screen images formed from ideas that where once impossible to recreate in the real world. New tools, such as 3D (when properly used) and IMAX cameras have help filmmakers transport viewers to worlds that are both alien and wholly tangible.

When the original Clash of the Titans (1981) premiered, still a decade away from the T-1000 liquid metal scene, the film was pushing the boundaries of what was possible with the technology available to it. Returning to the original scene of the Medusa, stop-motion animation had rarely ever looked so seamless up against the real thing.

Since the early 90s CG effects in films have regularly outdone one and other, from T2 to Jurassic Park to The Matrix. With the rapid advances in technology and continuous one-upmanship, year to year, viewers have become more critical and harder to please. Like judges at a talent show who have now seen it all, it takes a great deal more to “wow” then previously. This is why, when a film like Titans (2010) appears to be content with the status quo (and fails to impress on every other level), the public will be quick to dismiss it. Furthermore, today with the benchmarks achieved by the Lord of the Rings trilogy and more recently Avatar, the bar is set extraordinarily high.

This being said, there are examples that indicate that quality of the VFX alone is not enough.  The Jackson remake of King Kong (2005), released a hefty 72 years after the original (1933), not only surpassed the first film in almost every aspect (including run-time…) but also pushed at the boundaries of the available technology. Jackson picked up where he had left off (LOTR trilogy) in the way he implemented motion-capture technology. He used the performance of Andy Serkis, a man many consider one of the best actors today but whose actual face is too rarely present on screen, to infuse life into Kong. With this new technology, Jackson gave Kong a beady eyed soul, much the way as he had done with Gollum (also fuelled by Serkis’ performance). The point here is, despite his efforts, 8 years have passed since Jackson’s ape hit the screen and already it is rarely ever mentioned in conversations about King Kong. With this in mind, we can add that in today’s cinema, sometimes it is not enough to merely push the medium…

Immortalization, for films today, is much harder to achieve than it was for movies 30 or even 20 years ago. Films that desire to cast a spell over the audience with their CGI wizardry today must break the barriers and make us believe we are truly watching something new for the first time ever. Keyword being first.

Avatar (2009) broke records and “wowed” audiences worldwide, yet most critics will argue that other movies have since made better use of the newest 3D technology. Life of Pi (2012), for one, has widely been regarded by many to make the finest use of 3D, however that film was most probably a good 3 years behind immortality in history books.

Looking at the Medusa scenes, old and new, the following becomes clear: in film quality is no longer king and how important a movie is does not always go hand in hand with how well crafted the piece is. Today, as technology seems to rewrite history monthly, the majority of future films run the risk of becoming dispensable, reminding us of just how representative movies can be of our culture; dispensable films for a dispensable society.

* ]]> http://www.cineclubfilmsociety.com/?feed=rss2&p=1818 0 http://www.cineclubfilmsociety.com/?p=1785&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lord-of-the-flies-and-the-beast-of-men http://www.cineclubfilmsociety.com/?p=1785#comments Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:19:25 +0000 Jorge Chaparro http://www.cineclubfilmsociety.com/?p=1785

Never blame the man: his hard-pressed
Ancestors formed him: the other anthropoid apes were safe
In the great southern rain-forest and hardly changed
In a million years: but the race of man was made
By shock and agony…
… a wound was made in the brain
When life became too hard, and has never healed.
It is there that they learned trembling religion and blood-
sacrifice,
It is there that they learned to butcher beasts and to slaughter
men,
And hate the world

 -Robinson Jeffers

The story of Lord of the Flies is, on the surface, one of nature versus nurture and what is inherently human as opposed to what is learned. A closer look however, will reveal a more specific question; why does violence come so naturally to the male, and order become so difficult to maintain?

Returning to the broader statement, Lord of the Files can be summed up as such: what separates us from the beast.

It is said that the only difference between men and animals are three meals a day. This saying holds true but shouldn’t be taken literally. Food is essential but what is meant by “three meals” here is not what is digestible, but the fashion in which we acquire it. “Three meals a day” is a social norm, and the difference between men and animals is the imaginary lines we all abide to called structure.

To pluck a person out of social structure is to free it of all its constraints, to open the cage so to speak. Societies, in a way, are like a zoos filled with neutered men. We are born into these asphalt barriers and are taught, from an early age, how to behave in order to fit-in and maintain the status quo. Babies and children are taught to play nice and to share instead of what a weak prey looks like and how to take it down. This is where Lord of the Flies comes in.

Young boys, all under the age of 13 (an important fact I will return to) are stripped of the structure that made up their society. Here they are, bared naked and as close to their natural form as they’ll ever be.

The storytellers (author and director) use three main characters to argue their points. Ralph, the tribe’s first leader, retains much of what he has been taught by society. He manages the group and separates them into functioning factions. His authority is challenged by Jack, the leader (and member) of the choirboys, this is a child for who violence comes more naturally. The third important character is Piggy, an intelligent boy who is the least fit (hence the nickname).

Ralph represents an ideal leader but one who is outsides his environment. This boy will someday make a terrific CEO or manager, however I doubt he’ll ever properly use a spear.

Jack is similar to Ralph in that he is a born leader rather than a follower, however this environment suits him better. He understands, although maybe not consciously, that survival demands for more than manners, and by “manners” I mean devices used to maintain structure in the societies these boys came from. This structure is perfectly represented by the conch shell, which Ralph first uses to summon all the marooned survivors.

The conch is later used during gatherings; only the boy holding the object may speak. Ralph, with this simple mechanism, is seen as attempting to create order is an un-orderly environment. Later, he also creates an important job; making sure a fire is constantly kept so that a rescue party may find them.

Ralph however, is not the most important character. He is there to embody what we believe to be “right” but in the end, his failure in the face of Jack’s more barbaric methods will highlight an unpleasant truth about our nature and it is therefore Jack, who truly carries forward the film’s theory.

Jack, along with the other choirboys, disrupts Ralph’s structure by letting the fire go out. This event creates a rupture and leads to the division of the group. Jack creates his own tribe, one without constraints or order, to which the large majority of the boys join. The message here is clear; it is easier to be barbaric than socialized. Furthermore, Jack is also the first to hint at the presence of a “beast” in the darkness, which plants a seed of fear into the young boys.

The fact that this group, who is responsible for the anarchy in the film, come from a strictly religious background, is anything but an accident. Many negative aspects attributed to organized religious groups, like fear mongering and colluding, are illustrated by the creation of the “Beast” and the “accidental” extinguishing of the fire, respectively. Furthermore, as the new leader, Jack creates a ritual of making an offering to the “Beast” which leads to the film’s first casualty. Again, coincidences are out the window here.

The character of Piggy, as previously stated, is also of great importane. He is, by far, the most domesticated of the boys. Later in the film, when the pendulum of power has swung over to Jack and social norms have been tossed to the wind, it is he who tries with all his might to maintain order. It is also important to note that Piggy, who is said to constantly be quoting his aunt, is also the only “feminine” voice of the narrative; his outcome speaks volumes as to where the film stands on this topic.

This brings us to the film’s gender representation, or lack thereof. The almost complete exclusion of feminine influence in this barbaric atmosphere is a strong enough statement on its own. Even though one could argue that a woman outside social structure would be as animal as a man, and therefore the film’s outcome would not be so different, the fact remains that women experience the world differently from men. They bare children and therefore must nurture them. Nurture therefore comes more naturally to women, at least more so then men. By extension, structured societies are less alien to women than men; the opposite would certainly be true if men bared children and not women. The lack of feminine influence is almost like the lack of reason among this young troop.

To conclude, this idea that the violent nature of men is tamed by women’s less violent natural selves, is perfectly captured in the lyrics of The Arcade Fire‘s song “The Suburbs”:

“… I want a daughter while I’m still young, wanna hold her hand and show her some beauty before this damage is done, but if it’s too much to ask, too much to ask… send me a son”

Sexuality (not gender), is not a topic of discussion in the film, and the narrative is very skillful in avoiding this. None of the boys are said to be over the age of 13, this is an important point seeing that 13 is the usual age at which boys hit puberty. The exclusion of puberty also eliminates sexual inhibitions from the equation.

Ultimately, we are only left to wonder on the subject. What would have been of these boys had their ages been from 16 to 19 and stranded on an island among other hungry and sexual beasts that were once boys.

Basic Instinct was released in 1992 and went on to gross over $117 million in domestic box office. Because of its wide appeal and its graphic sexuality, over twenty years later the film is still a topic of conversation.

Basic Instinct is infamous for its explicit sex, but that alone would never have brought in the kind of money Super Hero flicks cash-in today. Basic Instinct hit those kinds of numbers because it took something old, something audiences across North America recognized, and did it new. In 1992, Paul Verhoeven made the most daring film noir to come out of tinsel town.

Basic Instinct goes above and beyond to look and feel like a noir. Individuals, especially cops, always seem to be surrounded by smoke and booze. The streets always look like they’ve been rained on. Every window seems to have a set of tilted shades and somewhere in the city there was a 50% off on trench coats. Even the film’s director is European, which is also an established commonality in film noir.

However, the two most blatantly obvious examples of film noir-isms are, the modern day anti-hero and the femme fatal, and by blatantly obvious I do mean blatantly obvious. Lets just say that Paul Verhoeven has never been criticized for being too subtle.

Your typical antihero detective from Maltese Falcon

Our protagonist, Michael Douglas’ Nick Curran, is about as anti a hero as you’re bound to find. Off the bat, he is a detective (also pretty standard for noir protagonists) who has recently come off a period in his life filled with alcohol and cocaine. This apparently, did not help when he accidentally shoots an innocent tourist vacationing in San Fran. No further explanation to this event is ever given, and writer Joe Eszterhas (smut guru also responsible for Showgirls) does little to ever enhance Detective Curran’s nice-guy persona. If the point was not made clear enough yet, there is also the scene in which Curran has sex with his ex, Dr Beth Garner (Jeanne Tripplehorn). This scene is preceded by the infamous interrogation (more on that later) in which Mrs Tramell winds Curran up like an old Nutcracker. This sex scene ultimately comes off feeling uncomfortably close to rape; Nick yanks Beth’s cloths right off, ripping them in the process, and then forces himself onto her as her “no”s slowly become moans. Anti-hero indeed.

RitaHayworth as a femme fatale in Gilda.

Returning to our leading lady, Cathering Tramell not only cemented Stone as Hollywood’s sexiest 90s vixen but also redefined the term femme fatal. The first time the audience meets Catherine she is asked about her relationship to the intro’s victim and replies, “I wasn’t dating him. I was fucking him.” Her words are sharp, direct; she speaks about sex like men and is almost challenging about it. Also, the idea of this guy’s intravenous date with an icepick does little to nothing for her.

Throughout, the question of whether or not Catherine is the killer drives the whole movie, and while the answer is ultimately provided, it does little to change anything about her. The fact is, Catherine Tramell could very well be an icepick welding cereal killer who would see you go out with a smile, or not. In the end, this detail would change absolutely nothing about the character, hence a perfectly written femme fatal. She could kill you or screw you or both and you would never know, and if she did, it wouldn’t even ruin her day. The character is further sexualized (and forever immortalized) in that single shot seen around the world. In 1992, panty-less up-skirts is something Hollywood did not do… How Verhoeven got that passed the MPAA is real movie magic.

In addition, Curran and Tramell’s relationship also lends itself to the tradition of classic film noir. Curran decides to “play” Catherine’s game, he is certain that she is the murderer and he plans to use himself as bait to catch her; genius I know. She indulges in this cat and mouse game and teases him relentlessly. Like the noir ladies of the past, Stone’s character uses her sexuality to weave a web of deceit for our protagonist to fly right into. However, the power she exudes is not just her sex, but more so her sexuality. Her sex appeal is such that, one never knows if she’s lying about telling the truth or telling the truth about lying. Even her alibi seems to scream out, “try me”. The fact is Catherine is so obviously the killer that she can’t be it, right? Maybe it’s so hard to tell because that smile seems to promises that, in the end, she’ll bonk you anyway so… sure I guess she’s innocent.

Speaking of bonking, the film’s central scene, its pièce de résistance, Nick and Catherine’s first sex scene, is the perfect example of how this film took something old and made it new. As the scene commences, the audience is still in the dark as to who the killer is; everyone watching is both enjoy the explicit sex and clenching their fist, preparing for what could potentially be, Curran’s bloody exit. As the choreographed heel knocking progresses, Catherine begins to replicate the events of the original murder; the addition of the white scarf, the arched back antics and then she slowly reaches behind her… The scene works on a suspenseful level, with the kind of paranoia found in the shadows of classic film noir, but portrayed differently by two very naked actors.

Looking beyond the film’s tangible aspects, Basic Instinct is also a noir by the way it interacts with its audience. This relationship, the film’s modus operandi, is in itself a tradition in noir and hence, a large reason for its success.

In Basic Instinct, it is not only the mold of the noir that is retained, but its purpose too; this movie was going to shock and excite audiences by given them something they hadn’t seen before. Like its predecessors, Basic Instinct was going to peel away some of the Hollywood fake glitz and show viewers an alternate, and more relatable version of something they thought they knew. In the 1940s, this was the seedy underbelly of big cities (usually L.A.) where paranoia reigned. In the 1990s, paranoia and backstabbing wasn’t going to cut it, audiences had already been exposed to too much since. The answer was raw, unapologetic sex. Since the days of The Maltese Falcon, America was far more sexually aware and was now indulging in it, a film noir for these audiences was going to have to do a little extra to push those buttons.

In the end, Basic Instinct was not the first, not even the first successful film to exhibit explicit sex; Fatal Attraction earned a cool $156 million domestically. However, Basic Instinct was sexier and far dirtier than its predecessors, but it managed to so and under a familiar a disguise. Audiences were able to recognize the genre, creating a comfort zone, and still get aroused. This, and the impeccable sense of timing, led to the movie becoming the cultural phenomenon it is today.

Our big event of this season is Buster Keaton’s THE GENERAL with live musicians in a magnificent gothic church and a special guest appearance by Gerald Potterton who worked with the comic legend back in 1966.

If you have yet to visit us at our downtown cinema location, don’t put it off any longer. We offer something that is increasingly rare in the city’s cultural landscape and can only survive with your attendance. Besides being a very affordable and relaxing way to top off your weekend, we have fun!

The innovative director took a bold risk in tackling William Golding’s famed novel with a cast of mostly amateur child actors on a remote exotic island but he succeeds beautifully in making this a powerful work by way of realist camera technique and measured pacing. Its visual beauty shimmers on the big screen like silver sand in b&w.

Luis Bunuel Although this is “enfant terrible” Bunuel’s most accessible work, it still retains his sharp critical view of social class. The lovely Jeanne Moreau plays Celestine, a chambermaid hired by the rather bizarre and wealthy Monteil family. Celestine confronts skirt-chasers, frigidity, fetishism and murder in a world where sexuality and mystery intertwine. ‘ For your added viewing pleasure, we offer a beautiful cinemascope print. Also see the most notorious short film ever; UN CHIEN ANDALOU by Bunuel and Salvador Dali.

Fifty years after its release, this film is still the best argument for stop motion effects surpassing modern digital trickery for the sheer wonder of its craftsmanship. It contains some of the most imitated scenes in fantasy-cinema history including the terrifying skeleton sword-fight. An absolute must for fans of the genre and fans of quality animation as only Ray Harryhausen can deliver. Also screened will be early short works by the stop-motion master.

Our guest speaker Erik Goulet has worked for Academy-award winning 3-D effects company Softimage (Jurassic Park, Titanic), now teaches animation at Concordia University and is the director of the ever-growing Montreal Stop-Motion Festival that takes place in October.  He is naturally a big fan of Ray Harryhausen and can’t wait to tell you all about the magic of this wonderful art form!

Dusan Makavejev The power of orgasms, sexual liberation in communist Yugoslavia of the 1970s and the works of psycho-philosopher Wilhelm Reich will collide and explode in Dušan Makavejev hallucinogenic, free-form, episodic collage-like oddity, W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism – a subversive counter-culture masterpiece in the truest of senses, blending documentary, fiction, sex and politics into a provocative whole, initially banned in its home country and soon-to-be presented in an uncut film print at your favourite Film Society.

GUEST: Originally from the former Yugoslavia, Dejan Krajalcic is a film scholar, writer, critic, filmmaker and co-founder of a popular international comic book festival in Belgrade, Serbia.

The Magic Box is the story of the British inventor William Friese-Greene (Robert Donat), the alleged inventor of the motion picture camera and projector. It is about his lifelong struggle to develop a “moving picture camera” –– a single-minded pursuit that leads to a life of poverty and crushing personal conflicts. The film, in part, inspired Martin Scorsese’s 2011 award winning film “Hugo”. During his cameo in “Hugo”, Scorsese pays homage to this film. When asked, “Can you remember the first time you sat in the cinema and were really inspired by a film”, Scorsese replied “the film that I think created the biggest impression on me about film and about filmmaking – the one that prompted me to say ‘maybe you could do this yourself’ – was The Magic Box”. For those who are interested in the origins of cinema, and its earliest experiments, this is a “must see” film. Historical footage is brilliantly incorporated into the story. Master cinematographer Jack Cardiff creates beautiful images of the era including old wood and brass magic lanterns and early movie equipment. There are many wonderful re-enactments, such as the Victorian photo studio where customers have to stand absolutely still for 30 seconds or more to get their photo taken! The cast stars just about every major British star of the time. The most famous cameo is by Sir Laurence Olivier, as the astonished policeman who witnesses Friese-Greene’s first triumph, the first projection of moving images of Hyde Park on an improvised sheet screen. Screened will be a very rare genuine Technicolor print along with a display of antique movie projectors from the C/FS collection.

Buster Keaton L`eglise Westmount Park United Church, 4695 deMaisonneueve O. (métro Vendome) Keaton’s comic masterpiece never fails to get an audience laughing from the beginning and applauding by the end. To help recreate a 1920s night at the movies, the film will be accompanied by live musicians and every attendee will receive a vintage-style souvenir program.

Our very special guest is Gerald Potterton who directed the Hollywood legend in THE RAILRODDER (1966). He also worked on YELLOW SUBMARINE(1968) and directed the animated cult film HEAVY METAL (1980). The whole event takes place in a magnificent gothic church and is definitely not to be missed! (adm.:$12, $9 for students and 65+)