Peeping Tom

I do not write my reviews specifically to avoid spoilers. Just so you know.

Bill, from the Outside The Cinema podcast, wondered what my opinions of this film would be. Happily, their review of the film led to my finding I did not already own a copy, so I popped out down the shops to buy a special edition of it, and sat back down to re-watch it for the first time in a few years. Upon initial release, this film was vilified as misogynistic and violent trash. Nowadays, of course, we can see it for what it truly is – a film that hates ginger people.

Initial Thoughts:

• Is that a camera in your jacket or are you just pleased to creep me? Already we can the victims react to the camera lens (us), not to the cameraman.
• Mr. Peters: “Which magazine sells the most copies?”
Mark: “Those with girls on the front covers and no front covers on the girls.”
• Would sir like some free newspapers with his porn?
• My word – Mark is far too good at getting the facial expressions he wants from his models.
• When Helen asks about Mark’s father, she asks “what was he?” rather than “who was we?” Spot on.
• Watching you, watching me.... Helen enjoys seeing the look of fear (on the killers face, no less); perhaps watching some of his films would be a suitable birthday gift after all?
• Filming her fear at watching his childhood trauma gives a “by proxy element” to his strategy here, which might explain why Mark comes to favour Helen – that, or the fact she isn’t as slutty as he thinks most of his victims are. Probably both, actually.

Moving On:

• You say “mem-oh,” I say “mee-mo.”
• He’s a bad un, that Baden.
• “I stand to lose nothing.” Regardless of if he gets caught or not, nothing is going to change how Mark feels inside. Eek!
• Mark: “Imagine someone coming towards you who wants to kill you, regardless of the consequences. “
Vivian: “A madman?“
Mark: “Yes but he knows it - and you don't.”
• Mother: “I don't trust a man who walks quietly.”
Helen: “He is shy.“
Mother: “His footsteps aren't. They're stealthy.”
• Her choice of theme for the book – is it irony or poor plotting? I can never decide. Anyway – “There are some things I photograph for nothing.” Best not put them in a book for children though Mark, right?
• “The silly bitch has fainted in the wrong scene!” That line is soon followed by “I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun, but we do have a maniac on our hands.” Two moments of wonderful black humour.
• Most murderers would be able to overcome their fear of locks to prevent anyone finding out what they have been up to – but no, not this one!
• “Take me to your cinema.” Why, it’s all over your face already, mother dear.
• Cinema rarely gets this unsettling. But then, “Instinct is a wonderful thing, isn't it Mark? A pity it can't be photographed.”
• Now that the “cure” seems like too much hard work, I think we can all agree she should have spent the night with one of her many other “gentlemen.”
• A sign on the shop door reads “You Can’t Beat Pains.” Mark looks at this, and the pictures of numerous ladies in bikinis, and smiles...he is a lot less sympathetic now.

Final Moments:

• We know Mark has been in the house for some time – and the time between his arrival and his appearance behind Helen is hugely uncomfortable. Should we assume her mother has not had the greatest night in? Regardless, the suspense in waiting for him to appear on screen again is unbeatable.
• Mark: “You will be safe as long as I can’t see you are frightened.” Is he talking to Helen, or to the viewer?
• Mark: “Aged five...aged seven...all the rooms were wired for sound...they still are...” Helen starts to realise how Mark came to understand the residents so well.
• Mark: “Do you know what the most frightening thing in the world is? It’s fear. So I did something very simple...very simple.”
• Mark: “I have timed it so often...” The timer suddenly makes sense.
• Young Mark: “Goodnight daddy...hold my hand...”

Aftermath:

The plot of Peeping Tom is fairly simple. A loner (Mark) works at a movie studio and as a ‘glamour' photographer – and he also murders several young women. This voyeuristic killer – disturbed by a childhood spent with a mentally abusive father - uses a camera to film the women (none of whom suspect his actual motive for doing so), attaches a mirror so that they can see their facial expressions, than reveals a blade at the end of one tripod leg, murdering them whilst they look at their fear. He finds a degree of comfort with a girl (Helen) who lives downstairs – but not from her disapproving mother or friends. Eventually, trying to talk himself out of murdering Helen, (now aware Mark is a murderer) and realising he is about to be arrested and punished for his crimes, Mark films his suicide, witnessing his own fearful reaction as he dies. Helen lies next to his corpse, distraught, and is eventually helped away by a policeman.

Endlessly quotable (you, er, may have noticed?), this remains a terrifying, if flawed, thriller that almost totally finished off the career of director Michael Powell (previously responsible for numerous melodramatic classics of cinema, such as A Matter of Life and Death), the best known of which were his collaborations with Emeric Pressburger. To say Powell made the wrong move to go it alone would largely be unfair - although his decision to make Peeping Tom must, despite the way it has generally gone on to be seen as one of the most effective thrillers of all time, have been something he felt was something of a misjudgement soon after the time of the original release of the film. At the film's completion, Powell seemed to believe he had made his best film – something time and current opinion suggests is the case. Critical and popular opinion in the early sixties vehemently disagreed. Whilst Hitchcock was saving himself from the damage caused to his career by the critical reaction to Psycho (helped by the film finding a decent sized audience amongst the public), Powell struggled after Peeping Tom failed to find an audience (it lasted less than a week at UK cinemas in 1960, the distributor desperate to separate themselves from the negative reaction). Powell promptly disappeared to Australia and found himself limited in future output.

Of interest – to me anyway – was Powell using one of his sons and their home in the film, not least since his home would appear to be the location which formed the central location for the madness and his son played the abused child. Nice touch. Someone call social services.

The key reason for the effectiveness of this film –which led to early audiences for it being so very appalled – is the direction. There are several memorable scenes: one involving falling stationery (of which, more in a moment), the home movies showing a traumatic childhood, an unfortunate dance performance which establishes far too much audience interest in a woman we know is not likely to be long for this world, the reveal shot of a facial disfigurement, Helen taking far too long to run when she realises what some of Mark’s films mean, and the projection of murderous scenes in front of Helen’s blind mother. The camera frequently positions the viewer directly behind Mark so that we become “as one” – not a comforting position to be in when Mark is the killer. This trick has become more popular in thrillers and horror films –the POV shots in Halloween and most of fellow Slasher brethren, the video playback sequence in Henry... – but in 1960, being “as one” with a demented mind pursuing murderous intentions was rather new, and not what an unsuspecting audience would likely enjoy.

The narrative and dialogue provides ample opportunities for us to feel sympathy for Mark, which fuels the discomfort of “being” him so often. Siding with a killer is always frustrating, occasionally exhilarating, to an audience. Hitchcock used the idea to great effect in several films – most notably, I would argue, in Frenzy, which has several close ties to Peeping Tom. Powell employs it well here, and there is a fantastic scene where Mark almost gives himself away whilst spying on police investigating one of the murder scenes. For just a few seconds, we find ourselves hoping Mark gets away with it – then we find ourselves annoyed and despairing when he escapes, undiscovered, having had us hope that we this killer would do so. His social ineptitude and sexual confusion are results of his being a tormented child, and his knowledge that his actions are wrong keeps being pushed back by his desire to find a resolution to his feelings. He does not just want to see the look of fear on his victim’s faces, but their knowledge of this expression –he has had to witness his fearful reactions during childhood, so what makes these women any different? But his actions do not bring Mark the peace he desires – to his, and our, upset - although he clearly finds a certain comfort in seeing the reaction on the face of a buxom model that had pursued her own control and analysis of him.

The abuse of women – and achievement of showing their pain back to them – was seriously nasty content for the time too. It remains hard to watch at times. In Mark, the apparent misogyny (all of his victims are women) seems to come from the way in which his father married a second wife and left Mark to play with (uh oh!) a camera whilst he went on honeymoon. The result should have been a hatred of his father and relief at this woman causing a few days of peace – but the movie doesn’t explain why Mark chooses to murder women rather than men. Perhaps his work just makes them the more obvious victims? Does he see himself as feminine?

Anyway, the treatment of poor Vivian – a minor character briefly offered the opportunity to literally take the lead female role in order that she be dispatched – is particularly difficult to deal with. Murdered on a quiet stage, her corpse is tucked away into one of the props (“at greatly reduced prices” reads a sign in the setting). I doubt she would have been so willing to be the centre of attention under quite those circumstances!

The jazz soundtrack is a beauty, matching the atmosphere and locations with a mixture of harsh blows, comical undertones and a variety of fast changing or consistent beats. All of the key performances are excellent, although Carl Bohm is the standout. As Mark, his faint German accent (which side was daddy on 15 years beforehand, hmm?) adds to the outsider, slightly off-kilter value of his character in the film environment. Mark is portrayed as a frightened man capable of slight of-hand violence, an insecure person with the ability to control others without their knowing. The contrivances around his character could feel nonsensical whilst watching the film, but his performance makes them seem almost entirely plausible.

The problems I have with this film are mostly with the final third – although, it has to be said, the weapon used by Mark is one of the clumsiest imaginable. Characters sprawled out beneath it might just about be justified in struggling to avoid the blade, but Vivian has absolutely no such excuse. The concept might underpin the excellence of the film in leading the audience, but the end result would be a laughably daft idea in practice, and it looks ridiculous when we see it being prepared from third person viewpoints. Also, why do the victims not shut their eyes when they are about to be murdered?

The sloppiness of the police and the effort Mark has gone to in order to prepare for his suicide (not having gone through with it when it would have been a more plausible action) ultimately make the conclusion even less satisfying, though it is certainly tense (almost unbearably so).

By the end, Helen – whilst interesting – is a character that offers neither the genuine support Mark needs nor the suspicions that could have ended his murderous activities. Perhaps her faith in so obvious a disturbed individual is a result of having been raised by an unhinged mother? The result is that Helen ends up being a bit of a waste of space, despite the depth offered to her character. She ends up joining for Mark for dinner, asking him to help provide pictures for the most stupid sounding book for children ever (I cannot bring myself to repeat it here – it really is bloody awful and was clearly conceived in the hope of providing a hilarious link to Mark’s activities), and then she (briefly) plays a damsel in distress as punishment for continually displaying the same sort of altruistic attraction that killed the cat (and Mark). She is as obsessed with watching, with spying and misinterpreting, as Mark – albeit with less fatalistic and interesting consequences.

Ultimately, Helen is too sorely lacking in judgement, strength and a clear purpose within the events of the film to count for much as an early attempt at a “final girl.” Her mother is a more interesting – if frustratingly elitist and moody – character, yet her role is limited to offering advice to protect Mark and her daughter (it doesn’t work, neither pay as much attention to her wittering as they perhaps should) and she is almost entirely absent from the end of the film. A recording suggests she might be drunk in another room, but it is entirely possible that Mark is playing back from an earlier recording, and has already paid the old dear a visit. For several minutes, he was certainly doing something unseen by the viewers and there is also a throwaway comment by another lodger suggesting she might have been involved in some sort of struggle. Disappointingly, we will never know and I suspect Powell presumed it would be of no interest, rather than wanting to keep us guessing.

These flaws prevent me from having as high a regard for this film as many others obviously hold for it, but as an alternative to period Hitchcock, an early influence on many of my favourite films from the seventies, and I suppose in its own right, this is a dark and effective little shocker that deserves the recognition history eventually offered it.

This weekend, I will post a brief review of equally awful things captured on film, and a longer lasting reaction of mass contempt from critics and the public alike. Joy.

Grade B (Take The Time)

Resident Evil: Degeneration

I do not write my reviews specifically to avoid spoilers. Just so you know.

This was a rental. I love the games, though I have missed those not released on the Playstation consoles and have not yet played part 5. I even quite enjoyed the three live action movies. This one should be a safe bet – famous last words, since I used them for Scar 3D...

Initial Thoughts:

• A quick run through the key points in the history of the series, and some zombie masks for a fun shot hinting at what is to come. So far, so good.
• Unless that lady is driving the car back into the airport lounge, that is not a terribly useful idea.
• Much creepiness on the plane. This is pretty promising.
• Oh good - an Englishman in a horror movie. Well, I’m sure he is going to be really very nice. Who could the villain of the piece possibly be?
• One camera crew and a presenter is not what most of us would call “a circus.”
• Worst. Disguise. Ever.
• Slamming into the action, fast and furious – I’m enjoying this trash more by the minute.
• They got the text on the TV broadcast pretty quickly.
• Is Curtis really that much more interesting than playing Where’s Rani?
• No fuel in the tanks? Did the pilot crash deliberately. or just let some zombies into the cockpit? I don’t think the filmmakers know…this is getting ominous. Some logic to the plot leaps would help, as this is getting a bit too silly. Good action sequences though.

Moving On:

• At least check for ID.
• The film just skipped at least one promising big scene (the escape and hiding at the airport) and replaced it with a couple of lines of dialogue.
• It would be too risky to send in loads of trained soldiers. Just let three people climb in through the roof. Yeah – sounds like a plan. A crappy plan, but a plan nevertheless
• This woman is far too trusting. The gey faced man on the floor is not groaning to show he is in good health.
• Where did all of the zombies come from in such a small space? The office is heaving with them in the space of a couple of seconds.
• Shoot them in the head.
• I get tired of shouting this out aloud at these kinds of film, but please someone listen to him and shoot them in the head.
• Loving the Umbrella gag. Good work.
• The Senator is such an enormous douche nozzle that it’s hurting the movie.
• For the love of…JUST SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD ALREADY!
• Thinks he is safe, so he lets his guard down again immediately – big shock what happens next. Sloppy.
• He had at least an hour left, but yeah – let him go ahead and sacrifice his life needlessly.
• Using a child as a distraction worked better in a great scene during the second film in the Blind Dead series. Still, always fun to see it used again.
• Fantastic slap – worth the wait. The Senator needs to chuck in a reference to keeping the town open for holiday season, and every cliché to this kind of character will have been used.
• Did her auntie have a name by the way? I forget…
• “All our fault.” How? No don’t explain it, there’s really no need…this is all a bit silly if the filmmakers cannot explain some of the decisions and beliefs been made her.
• And – cue weepy computer game music. Yuck.
• Why is the (obviously not villainous) Englishman explaining the building? What possible good could it do either of them?
• Did they forget about Rani completely? She isn’t allowed to be with her no-name aunt, but everyone else she has gotten to know just upped and moved on!
• Performing tests with human subjects yet again. Protecting rats simply has not worked.
• As if Curtis meant to blow himself up. This is all a bit obvious.
• Security wasn’t tight enough to keep them out then…
• That Leon is such a flirt.
• So did all the staff die?
• Yes but your brother is a doofus dear.
• Uh, all these T-virus infected staff – how and why?
• It would be odd if one of them did try to get killed.

Final Moments:

• I thought the countdown part would come later in the movie, but fair enough.
• No fair – the countdown speeded up?
• Breeding tool? Ewww!
• So Leon sees her as a breeding tool as well?
• That’s the thing with these state of the art security systems – they never work on the main characters or biggest monsters.
• I thought that little phrase would vomit up again.
• It still isn't dead
• Time for the big reveal yet? Yep...
• How did they know where to find him parked up? Anybody know?
• What an awful, awful dress.
• Yes – her brother was indeed a tool.
• CGI wind blows different CGI characters’ CGI hair in different ways. Classy.
• With the exception of little miss Laura Ashley, the entire cast could really use a change of clothes now.
• Is he dead? Hurray!

Aftermath:

Firstly, this isn’t following the path of such cinematic dross as Wing Commander or Street Fighter. Nobody responsible for this film deserves a spanking. Nor does this follow the example of Uwe Boll excrement like House of The Dead (at least amusing) or Alone In The Dark (at best an affront to directors that spend time on their filmmaking rather than on boxing people who work at their craft) in that this follows the game history and development faithfully, which is more than some of the RE games apparently have. I suspect the film happens after the vents of Resident Evil 4, which makes it curious that the developments of parasites from that game are neither mentioned nor of consequence to a film that nods back most directly to the events of the first game, despite references to the outcomes of the second and third.

The voice acting is limp and the dialogue wretched – neither of which is exactly helped by the awful English language dubbing. Huge jumps of plot-logic are required, with absent scenes meaning the viewer frequently has to make up parts of the film for themselves. The character development consists entirely of two dullards falling in love over a weepy back-story, a sulky widower placing his faith in the kind of people he has been dedicating his life to punishing, and a selfish man not being as malicious or as devious as a British tea drinker. The majority of the second act is lots of talk about not very much. But so much of this film delivers above expectations that tit feels nasty to dwell on the failings.

The action set pieces are admittedly superb. Both Leon and Claire are well established with millions of people as being fantastic action heroes. Who cares if the characters actually have all the charisma and depth of a few thousand shiny pixels? Since when has depth of character mattered in an action movie? I can overlook personality vacuums when a setting sucks itself into vacuums in several stages (for no reason other than to let survivors bounce around bits of the location).

I thought this was a fair, amusingly cliché riddled film, just with the problems obvious in the cut scenes from the games continuing here. There are the usual far-fetched circumstances of who survives explosions and when certain wounds are deadly or lead to the heroes developing a slight limp.

The plot is standard for a video game – big drama, get time to breathe and figure out most of what is going on, series of unfortunate events, ticking clock against the biggest monster, figure out obvious twist, save day, hint at more to come, kiss and clap and hug and cheer, some nastiness continues, cue credits. None of this should count as spoilers – a film based on a video game varies from these tracks only when the games are wilfully bizarre (I’m thinking Silent Hill) or the films actively hurt an audience (Super Mario Bros, the Mortal Kombat films, Uwe Boll Uwe Boll we hate your continued employment Uwe Boll). These narrative issues are a lot more entertaining when the viewer is placed as an active participant, but they are still cheesy fun to watch. A few more key characters – and fewer throwaways just disappearing at the midway point – are desirable in a film like this, but it’s all so disposable that the action book ending the film holds the flabby second act in place. Patience rewards and all that.

For every predictable step forward, the staging within the excellent CGI environments provides fine eye candy and some clever framing for effective jump shocks all the same. What greatly impressed me was the accuracy of the “survival horror” portrayal these angles and locations present – dark and oppressive, eerily claustrophobic atmosphere abounds. The chaos at the brightly lit start, and the creepy emptiness to some rooms in limited light, are thrilling to watch.

The biggest failing in my view is that those unfamiliar with the games will get lost figuring out what the makers want viewers to assume and what actually makes sense to the fans. Those viewers who do know the games will, I suspect, likely get annoyed by the frequent bursts of back-story and terms (for example, the types of virus developed by Umbrella). The film gets lost between pleasing either type of viewer, and doesn’t ultimately work towards the wants of either. Eloquence was clearly not a concern for the filmmakers.

Still – trashy fun is what I expected, and trashy fun is what I got. But this should – and, with a little more focus and greater resources, would – have been a classic genre film. And dear me - what an awful, awful dress...

Grade C+ (Take The Time)

Scar 3D

All my reviews will contain spoilers. Just so you know.

I borrowed this on DVD from a friend – a friend aware of my new found interest in 3D films, curiosity as to what Angela Betiss does next and passion for all kinds of slasher flicks (crappy or smart). This one looked a safe bet.

Initial Thoughts:

• Betiss looks embarrassed rather than scared. Not a good sign.
• I wonder if anything will happen to that piercing?
• I wonder if anything will happen to that new piercing?
• Nothing says party like a bimbo bleeding from her belly.
• What a, like, totally rocking party of people standing in lines in the cold.
• Creepy guy – early red herring or obvious killer?
• Feel free to ask before you take. Rude girl, limited dialogue - dead yet?
• “The ethnic minorities – thick and vapid or thick and bitchy? Let’s use both!”
• Unless someone covers for creepy guy, the red herrings have yet to show up.

Moving On:

• Feel free to hold the chloroform over your face for him.
• The body popped up at that point in time - because…?
• If the lake is full of rusty metal, why did they encourage all their kids to dive in?
• We all enjoy wearing medals around the home of an evening at my family home too.
• “I couldn’t think of anyone else, so I called my creepy not-boyfriend in for a hug.”
• That beret just keeps making me chuckle. Funny torture-porn? God, but this movie isn’t getting any better yet.
• Worst. Vomit. Ever. Half a mouth full of mint sauce?
• Flat-Top looks hot, so why are we not getting more of his red-herring character? I flick back thirty seconds to watch those eyes again. More please.
• Or you could have called for help when you found the corpse.
• Nobody saw him run in front of their cars. Really?
• Interviewing the suspect on your own? I have gone off you and your landing pad hairdo now.
• Oh Betis – why did you agree to be in this?
• So it is going to be the most obvious suspect killing them then. Thought there could be a surprise. Wait up. Reverse. He basically just admitted he was the killer – how can she not know?
• Bald spot cam – now in 3D.
• Did she threaten them with the gun before she ran off or did no-one notice her go?
• I have had enough of the old fashioned green / red 3D, and go back to the main menu to watch the rest in 2D. Perhaps, without the eyestrain, this will all be a lot less painful? Nope.
• No one else thought to look there. Really?
• OK – that was a great flashback scene. Movie nearly back on track.

Final Moments:

• Now call for help.
• Don’t go for a run – call for help.
• You know where she is likely to be now – call for help.
• Call for help, dimwit.
• Not too late – call for help before I start routing for him to kill you.
• OK – just watch your back for any geeky teens then.
• Most obvious suspect, etc. It’s usually the slow kid. No mystery here.
• This film is rubbish again. Did not take long.
• So the motive was that he wanted to reel off a crap speech?
• Blaming Iraq and his dad seem a little ill conceived. Torture the writers. This is mildly offensive stuff, but I think they expected the gore to be what got the viewer going, not his motivations.
• Oh Betiss – you had a career going for a while.
• The piercing hurt her more going in.
• Ha ha – a supermarket aisle gag. It’s funny because…well…lord…
• He is not dead, so just watch your back for any geeky teens.
• Uh, yeah that did the job on him. Good. Roll credits now please?
• All really well lit and cheery – got to be a dream sequence. Just roll credits.
• I knew it. And “It never stops”…sadly. Please roll credits.
• Credits. Eventually.
• Hideous song over end credits.

Aftermath:

This was drab, artless, poorly made and uninspiring stuff. I got angry with some of the shortcomings, particularly the empty shots that might have been of interest in big screen 3D yet look thoughtless on the small screen. Mostly, I just sat and waited for The End.

Dull and dumb characters mean there is less reason to care than a general outline of the film would suggest. There were depths to the two lead female characters but they never come out properly in the finished film. The roles are played by bored actors – some of those I have not seen before might be quite good in another film, since Betis has been magnificent in the likes of May. But who can tell? They all sleepwalk through an almost entirely generic slasher script - with added, of the moment (and soon to be amusingly dated), torture-porn nonsense in a few brief flashbacks and final few minutes. I have no admiration for the likes of the tiresome and stroppy Hostel and the Saw films but, as much as it pains me to admit this, such content should have featured more heavily here. It feels as if everyone involved bottled out of wanting to make an impact beyond using their central gimmick. My Bloody Valentine 3D may have been daft and sloppy, but at least there was a genuine effort to keep the audience engaged with that and a lot of action to keep things going. Not so here.

Not gory enough for it’s (severely limited) ambitions and never scary, there were passable enough scenes of violence – just like 99% of slashers – but these were brief. Less than a minute - for two murder scenes – just for a bit of “creative death” fun? This was never going to be enough of a reason to watch the movie. Without the 3D, there was no reason for this to get a theatrical release. At home, with the 3D reduced to crappy old school, Quality Street specs 3D, there was no reason for a DVD release.

Grade D- (Burn Baby Burn!)