There should be no trouble guessing ahead of time which review is my roundtable entry; it’s the one you’ve heard of.
The Black Torment (1964), in which Brits rip off Italians ripping off Brits whose cultural ancestors pretended to be Italians…
Deep Red (1975), in which I am a contrary bastard…
The Ghost of Rashmon Hall (1947), in which we discover that some fool actually made a movie of a Bulwer-Lytton story…
A Place of One’s Own (1945), in which James Mason is awesome, and everything else sadly isn’t…
and…
The Rocking Horse Winner (1949), in which we see a whole new side of D. H. Lawrence.
#1 by Blake on August 30, 2009 - 8:50 pm
Quote
I liked “Deep Red”, although mainly for the main theme and a few scenes (the wall in the house, the doll, the final death sequence). It’s the only Argento film I’ve seen.
So, El Santo, you actually [i]owe[/i] Danish porn to one of your readers? How does that happen?
#2 by KeithA on August 30, 2009 - 9:38 pm
Quote
Everything you cite as a flaw with Deep Red is hard to argue with. I like the movie, but mostly as an exercise in style. As a mystery, it’s a failure. I’m much happier with Suspiria and Phenomena than I am with Argento’s straighter giallo, Deep Red included.
The first time I saw it, I couldn’t even remember if we’d met Carlo’s mother before. I still think it’s a let-down, but as I said in my own review, the big reveal often is.
#3 by Blake on August 31, 2009 - 7:43 am
Quote
I remember reading an analysis of this film and one of the more interesting bits was the author talking about the reveal of Carlo being a homosexual. The author mentioned the scene in which his father is stabbed to death, who then gets the knife, which represents the phallus, and tries to pass it over to his son. His son doesn’t pick it up or catch it or something, meaning that he did not get the phallus, which doomed him to become a homosexual. It was a rather odd interpretation to say the least.
#4 by El Santo on August 31, 2009 - 7:58 am
Quote
“So, El Santo, you actually owe Danish porn to one of your readers? How does that happen?”
Actually, I owe it to the folks who sent me the screeners. And you wouldn’t believe how many of them they sent, either…
#5 by ProfessorKettlewell on August 31, 2009 - 6:51 pm
Quote
El Santo: compounding the nonsensicality of ‘Deep Red’ is the fact that I have a pretty good idea that the reason Argento made it (and also hired David Hemmings) is that he was pissed that the ‘murder mystery’ in ‘Blow Up’ wasn’t resolved in a ‘sensible’ way……
#6 by lyzard on August 31, 2009 - 8:56 pm
Quote
I don’t know; I always saw it more as a tribute to Blow Up than a riposte.
Santo, whether the full cut would alter your opinion generally I couldn’t say (it *is* a giallo, after all, so “sense” was always going to be a disposable commodity), but there are a lot of subtle structural and visuals details throughout that suggest to me that Argento had more on his mind than just “looking cool” with this one – although there’s certainly plenty of that too. I forgive most of it just because that damned doll freaks me the hell out.
#7 by lyzard on September 1, 2009 - 2:03 am
Quote
And it wasn’t about “paying someone to be your friend”. Ladies did not live alone; in lieu of an unmarried female relative, you paid someone to “lend you countenance”, as the expression went. Given the (assumed) severance of male and female concerns at the time, a woman without unmarried daughters could, depending upon income and geography, spend around 90% of her time completely alone. So again, you hired a companion.
Conversely, being a professional companion was one of the very, very few ways a woman could earn an income and remain “a lady”. It could be the cushiest job in the world, or it could be utter hell, depending on the temperament of your employer. If you were lucky, you got one like Mrs Smedhurst.
Sorry. Too much information, yes? 🙂
#8 by Nathan Shumate on September 1, 2009 - 10:12 am
Quote
Oddly enough, I got the same screeners for Danish porn. (At least, I hope they were the same screeners. I don’t want to entertain the notion that there are two competing companies trying to release that stuff.) I had to get back to them and say, “Yeah, ‘genre cinema’ apparently means a different thing to you than it does to me…”
#9 by El Santo on September 1, 2009 - 11:05 am
Quote
About six or seven movies with titles following the formula, In the Sign of [Insert Zodiac Constellation Here]?
#10 by Nathan Shumate on September 1, 2009 - 11:15 am
Quote
No, I think I got a different batch of screeners. (I don’t remember the titles — the screencaps on the covers blotted out all rational thought.)
#11 by Blake on September 1, 2009 - 11:44 am
Quote
I wonder how long it will be before people start offering ME Danish porn (not that I’d actually watch it, but I’d be flattered nonetheless).
#12 by El Santo on September 1, 2009 - 11:47 am
Quote
“I don’t remember the titles”
In which case we can safely assume that Bedside Dentist was not among them, either. There’s no way anyone could forget a title like Bedside Dentist.
#13 by Nathan Shumate on September 1, 2009 - 11:47 am
Quote
Because there’s nothing Danish porn distributors look for in a review outlet like a bunch of kung fu movies.
#14 by Blake on September 1, 2009 - 11:51 am
Quote
Well, there are a few movies recently I’ve seen that have had so many fights and so little plot to string them together that you may as well call it “fight porn.” So the transition would be…well…oh, who am I kidding?
#15 by Nathan Shumate on September 1, 2009 - 11:52 am
Quote
From my memory, the title of all of them was Danish Porno From VHS Masters Featuring a Bunch of Body Hair.
#16 by David on September 1, 2009 - 4:12 pm
Quote
But the ‘Sign of…’ films are not just Danish porn … but ‘Spy porn’ featuring Agent 69 (naturally!)
And in my quest to watch every spy film on the planet, not matter what depraved little corner of the world it may take me to, I’d be honored if they sent them my way. You should be too. It’s research…it’s a quest!
Well, that’s my excuse anyway! Now where did I leave that box of tissues?
#17 by Blake on September 1, 2009 - 4:19 pm
Quote
Oh Nate, if you get any more screeners/micro-budget films featuring female kickboxers/muay thai specialists, feel free to send’em my way. 🙂
#18 by El Santo on September 2, 2009 - 7:25 am
Quote
“But the ‘Sign of…’ films are not just Danish porn … but ‘Spy porn’ featuring Agent 69 (naturally!)”
That’s only the last two, actually– In the Sign of Scorpio and In the Sign of Saggitarius. The others are more varied, but all seem to be more or less equally weird.
#19 by Read MacGuirtose on September 6, 2009 - 1:12 am
Quote
Re The Ghost of Rashmon Hall… maybe the house is actually Rashomon Hall, reflexively symbolizing the fact that each character perceives its name differently…