My curatorial swansong - this week at Cinematheque

Yes folks, you read it right, my time as curator at the Chauvel Cinematheque has come to an end. On the 5th of February I received an email from the manager of the Chauvel Cinema stating that my services programming cinematheque would no longer be required. I knew the writing was on the wall when the Saturday screenings were canned a few months back and replaced with sessions of Madagascar 2, but it was still a shock.

A Cinematheque will continue at the Chauvel, but the programming will now be done in-house. You'll now have to go to the Chauvel website to find out what's on.

After more than two and a half years and close to 300 shows, I still felt I had more to give, in fact I felt I was just starting to find some real momentum, with some exciting new film suppliers in the wings, a growing active membership and growing input from the members.

The good news is that my tenure as the curator of the Cinematheque will go out with a bang. The last show is on at 6:30 March the 2nd and is the last part in a month long look at the phenomenon of multi-screen movies, or movies that use multiple projectors.

The ultimate night comprises a double feature of multi-screen works by local arts/music experimentalists The Stud and Track Recording Company. The first is a retooling of a 1999 show performed live at the Side On Cafe in Sydney called Idaho Transfer. This show uses a captioned-for-the-deaf print of Peter Fonda's bizarre 1973 science fiction film (above), projected in a twin screen format and given a new, improvised, lo-fi, psychedelic, garage-rock soundtrack by the Stud and Track House Band. The music was recorded at a rehearsal for the show in 1999 and will be remixed live on the night by Brad Maiden.

The second half of the show is a new work, Journey to the Seventh Planet, devised especially for this show. It features a twin screen presentation of the Z-grade Danish science fiction film, a kind of poor man's Solaris, with a new soundtrack that combines elements of the film's original soundtrack, with ambient, electronic and experimental music.

Both shows will showcase the amazing power and fidelity of Lenard Audio's Cinesthesia sound system.

I've always dreamed of filling the main Chauvel cinema and this is my last chance, so if you've enjoyed cinematheque in the past, please come and say hello... and goodbye. Hope to see you there.

I have enjoyed my tenure as the curator of the cinematheque and thank Chauvel and Palace Cinemas for giving me the opportunity in the first place. I will take some time out to renovate the home, concentrate on my University studies, and look after my (soon-to-be) two kids. Hopefully, I can get something else together sometime later in the year. The wheels are already turning. I have a giant backlog of material that was meant for this blog, so I will be updating it regularly. Thanks to all the members past and present.

Expanded Cinema - this week at Cinematheque

Week Three of a month long look at the phenomenon of multi-screen movies continues this week at the Chauvel Cinematheque. This special event is devoted to (mostly) Australian experimental art films that use two and three projectors.

6:30pm Monday 23/2/9 EXPANDED CINEMA

Razor Blades USA/1968/Colour/25mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: Paul Sharits.

From the filmmaker: “A mandala opens to the other side of consciousness. Since the film ends as it begins and because its inner fabric is made up of loops, an infinite loop is suggested.” Sharits hopes this twin screen flicker film provides "occasions for meditational-visionary experience."
“A barrage of high powered and often contradictory stimuli… We feel at times hypnotised and re-educated by some potent and mysterious force.” David Beinstock, Whitney Museum.

Rotunda Australia/1980/Colour/11mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: John Dunkley Smith.

An exercise in perception involving spatial and temporal interplay. Although shot patterns have been determined with a mathematical precision, the film is constructed by the viewer's apprehension/ordering/re-ordering of the constituent elements. There is also scope for the intrusion of chance elements not only within the images themselves but also in the slight variations of image juxtaposition which can occur as a result of the differences in running speed between projectors. This film involves a panning camera placed in the centre of a rotunda in a park. Twin screen presentation.

Experiments Australia/1982/Colour/54mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: Dirk de Bruyn.

A series of experiments employing a range of techniques including refilmed images, solarisation, time-lapse, animation of found objects, word-puns, letrasetted and recycled soundtracks, pixillation, hand dyed film and rapid editing. The filmmaker describes it as 'a scream from suburbia' and 'a statement about filmmaking itself'. A twin screen film.

The City Australia/1970/Colour/8mins/16mm/NFVLS Producers: Arthur Cantrill, Corinne Cantrill.

A composite view of the city is created by three films screened simultaneously. The centre film has a soundtrack of mechanised noise.

Meteor Crater - Gosse Bluff Australia/1978/Colour/6mins/16mm/ NFVLS Dir: Arthur & Corinne Cantrill.

A composite view of a meteor crater is created by a central picture of superimposed images framed by two circling images of 360 degree pans of the crater.

Cheesla Grills (Prat 2) by Pia Santaklaus

CHELSEA GIRLS (part2)

Tonight (16 February 2009), we watched the second half of CHELSEA GIRLS.

This inappropriately named film (note: there are often more males than females present on the screen) is yet another indication of how ruthlessly exploitative the Warhol machine was. Perhaps ‘CHELSEA BOYS’ wouldn’t have enough pull. Advertising sorts will tell you that girls sell more product than boys and so the film title (like the movie poster) becomes another tool of deception.

I remain hesitant to write more on this film as it affords the undeserving subject further publicity, though I can use this opportunity to state that CHELSEA GIRLS remains barely worth watching. In the hands of a real craftsman or artist, the film ‘highlights’ could be distilled into a 3 minute short that could hold something valid. As it sits, CHELSEA GIRLS is a kind of dated precursor to today’s mindless BIG BROTHER ‘reality’ shows, in which fame-seeking, extrovert youth are followed by a camera and microphone picking up even the most (unedited) mundane, unscripted behaviour unfolding.

It’s amazing how little quality Warhol achieved here, even using such a large number of people at the Factory. You’ve heard ‘Many hands make light work’; in this case ‘light’ translates to ‘insubstantial’ and ‘of little importance’. CHELSEA GIRLS really does look like perhaps a few lazy, inept individuals got up one day with a surprising pinch of pseudo-motivation and decided to rally their pitiful combined lowly energies into a stumbling together of fumbled, base, crass, indulgent drivel. CHELSEA GIRLS is not Art, by non-artists.

Sequence 7 returns to the arrogant, chubby, bald fellow still in bed with the slim fellow (“Patrick”) who’s good ‘bouff’ of hair is again messed up and tussled by an envious balding fellow who can’t leave the ‘do’ alone. Various others enter the picture, including a wigged person (in drag) who loves singing cabaret-style numbers.

Already people begin to leave the cinema. I don’t blame them. These ‘leavers’ must respect their valuable time, not willing to waste it on what appears to be the hazy reality of hazy non-entities on the screen. Not everyone wants to watch the jealous ranting of an overweight “smelly” bald guy with “ugly toes”. “Ingrid” enters the picture as well; she clearly picks her nose, and offers the camera ‘the finger’ a few times.

Sequence 8 introduces colour to the screen. Gerard Malanga is on a bed with an angry old woman(?), a bull whip and a crucifix on the wall in what seems to be an exercise in uninterrupted tedium. Also appearing in this segment is the quite attractive head ‘bitch’ from last week’s sequence 5 & 6 who mostly sits there looking fatale.

At times the sequence becomes so boring and uninspired that the person behind the camera begins to add ‘something’ by providing more ‘non-action’ with irritating, harsh, fast zooming in and out. The effect is pathetic, uncontrolled and random. I wonder if it amused the cameraman. Malanga puts on perhaps a dozen long beaded necklaces… time passes slowly in what seems to be a game of ‘what can we do now to fill more time in front of the camera?’. The boredom continues uninterrupted until sound comes on and we hear some interesting, eerie psychedelic music playing in the background.
Sequence 9 is also in colour, but this time an intense, bright ‘solar’ orange filtered aura surrounds a fair youth in close shot. Though no photographs could possibly exist of the romantic poet Percy Bysshe SHELLEY (1792-1822), this young ‘actor’ with his inoffensive dimpled chin, fair skin and long hair has an uncanny resemblance to the radical poet whose image was captured in paintings and drawings of the time.

In this sequence, which seems to be in some kind of sensory deprivation space, he speaks slowly in a free-flow fashion. Awash in warm red light stating he “can’t feel a thing, eyes can’t focus” and “I wish I was a piece of sweat”, he focuses considerable attention on his own hair. He plays with his hair and asks “don’t you want to comb your hair?” before he begins combing and caring for his hair. He describes his hair as “beautiful” and also discusses how “Hair lets people down”. He adds various vacuous comments about how he likes having “fun” and “eating apples” and “meeting people”.

More audience get up and leave the cinema. It is painfully obvious that we are sitting here in the dark watching underwhelming people doing and saying nothing much.
Though this sequence experiments with light and colour it isn’t enough to warrant attention. The light in the background becomes a contrasting intense blue as the red-lit ‘actor’ becomes a little ‘blue movie’ presence; he performs fellatio on his own finger, then gets “hot” and takes off his shirt as the camera zooms in very close to his hairy chest. He coyly takes off his pants, tips his head back and rubs his long hair over his back saying he loves the “tingle” and “I’m very sensitive”. It feels like we’ve been tricked into watching soft male porn as a pulsating strobe light and changing colour effects play ‘hide n seek’ with his form. He finds a hairbrush and combs his hair down to hide his face and states “I’ll pray with my hair”. It seems more and more that the underlying running theme (if any) in CHELSEA GIRLS is hair…

Concurrently, sequence 10 is being projected. The same ‘actor’ is present in both sequence 9 & 10. At one point he turns his head and seems to be looking at himself in the other projected sequence. In sequence 9 he is alone in the coloured dark (sometimes holding a mirror) and in sequence 10 stands amongst a crowd gathered together looking down from what appears to be a kind of elevated theatre ‘box’; the crowd aglow in blue light all appear to be watching a ‘show’ that we cannot see…not available to the cinema audience, we are watching them watching something we can only hear. Sure!

More people get up and leave the cinema.

Sequence 11 sees the return of the “Pope” (the ‘therapist’ in last week’s 2nd sequence). Here the film is in black and white. This deluded figure ties a tourniquet around his arm and injects his hand. He appears alone, moody, irritable and cannot think of what to say for the camera. He needs to somehow fill 35 minutes and asks Paul Morrissey (who is behind the camera) “What should I do, comb my hair?” He sees himself as an all-important holy figure. He dubs himself “Pope” and discusses his “flock” of “homosexuals, perverts, thieves, criminals, rejects”. He wants to be idolized and even alludes to being God. He wants a confession and soon a female enters the scene to provide one. They pseudo-philosophize and at one point he tells her “Where is heaven? It’s on my shoulder”. It seems she innocently said something he didn’t agree with and in a snap he becomes horrifically angry and obnoxious and with a kind of sick religious fervour, he genuinely, slaps, beats, hurts and curses her in an act of uncontrolled violence. After the terrified girl is driven away, the worked-up ‘Pope’ rants on about various opinions including something about 1954 when “The Roman Catholic Church has disappeared and Greenwich Village took its place”. He is full of himself and is aware that “this may be a historical document”.

On another projection we see the 12th and final sequence featuring Nico (who had appeared in the opening sequence - perhaps conveying a cyclical element). This time Nico is alone and in colour. The scene opens with her looking teary, sad and contemplative. In shadows, colours and lights project onto her face. More zooming in and out to disguise the lack of action, it is perhaps the slowest-moving sequence yet. Nico does so little that she could be mistaken as an anthropomorphic representation of a projection screen. Her face provides the stage and platform to be used for a mini ‘Exploding Plastic Inevitable’ psychedelic light show. The background noise is groovy echo-chambered psychedelic.

Finally it’s all over!

I am far from impressed with this overlong film which exposes Warhol as a charlatan. Warhol was a problem unto himself. Many of his physical characteristics were not strong. He disliked much about himself including his weak eyesight, his bulbous nose and his early balding head. It drove him. For his eyes he wore glasses. For his nose he had surgery, and for his lack of hair he became obsessed with hair pieces, wigs and such. It’s quite possible the weak thread theme ‘hair’ running through this film was suggested by Warhol, relating to his own insecurity which developed when follicles thinned out quite early.

I see Warhol as a kind of pale, wig-wearing, lonely succubus who ‘rapes’ those unsuspecting inside and outside his sphere of influence. He enticed lost youth into his world and absorbed the fruit of their ideas; though he would surely know the fruit wasn’t so sweet, he also knew he could market and package even the rotting stuff in such a way as to fool enough people to provide him with credit.

Warhol had a hunger to be rich and famous; he somehow achieved this, then went on to become his own cliché, which in effect is a cliché of something wrong.

Pia Santaklaus
16 February 2009.

RAW-HOL & THE CHEESLA GRILLS by Pia Santaklaus

09 February 09:

CHELSEA GIRLS (1966)

Firstly, I must mention that I should not be writing a report on a film that has already had too much hype, exposure and free advertising, but I do it (at the risk of further promoting it) to say that this curio has almost no redeeming qualities and that perhaps if every copy of this film were destroyed, the world might still manage to keep turning.

By far and away the best thing about this film is the fabulously impressive, imaginative and sexy movie poster designed by artist Alan Aldridge (who had worked with the Beatles and the Who) which offers far greater reward than Warhol’s tedious film could ever hope to. Warhol knew the movie wasn’t as good as the poster and in a rare show of humility admitted it to Aldridge. The poster design was inspired by the surrealist work of Rene Magritte and I believe the success of CHELSEA GIRLS owes almost everything to that poster. The poster got more ‘bums on seats’ than Warhol could have hoped for, but then at such a cost; imagine the massive anticlimaxes experienced by most viewers when they suddenly realize they’ve been swindled. (You can’t judge a film by its poster!!!) This is TRULY one of the greatest examples of an exploitation movie. Cheap and nasty, often out of focus, unedited, overlong, boring, ugly, incoherent, mostly insignificant subjects, no real highlights, poor sound quality…the list goes on… Stand back for a moment and you should see that Warhol’s philosophy of filmmaking must surely translate in parallel to the philosophy of Warhol’s printmaking. If so, then the true worth of his prints comes into focus…they too begin to appear unworthy and exploitative. Warhol is the ‘King Rat’ overseeing a bunch of smaller rotten rats, and all together they leave behind great mounds of rat shit.

Shot mostly at the Chelsea Hotel and The Factory, the film is an amalgamation of around a dozen sections, each approximately 35 minutes. It is customary to show these sections on 2 projectors, not only halving the time it takes to expunge the tedium, but viewers might also imagine there is twice the possibility that something interesting might happen, although keeping the eyes busy still isn’t enough to save this film.

The opening scene presents a slow-moving Nico standing around a tired, messy, kitchenette snipping away at her hair. Her hair looks impressive, but it seems to take forever to trim a few ‘bangs’. Nico would later go on to record a solo album called CHELSEA GIRL to capitalise on the movie title. (Recorded April-May 1967, Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, John Cale and others contributed greatly to Nico’s album). Apparently the Nico scene was added later in the process to replace an earlier scene featuring the enigmatic and popular Edie Sedgewick (who later actually moved in to the Chelsea Hotel) who insisted her sequence be taken out of the movie. She requested Warhol stop showing her films. The ‘team’ of Sedgewick and Warhol (blonde on blonde?) had a falling-out by late 1965. Sedgewick, perhaps justifiably, had felt over-exploited by Warhol and was considering working with Bob Dylan and his management. It seems she may have even been under some kind of contract with them whilst CHELSEA GIRLS was being made. A film called ‘AFTERNOON’ eventually surfaced with edited footage of Edie from ‘Chelsea Girls’. Charismatic Edie’s presence may have saved this sinking vessel… the footage of her should never have been taken out of this film. While Nico preening herself is of some interest for about 3 minutes, too much footage reveals that even ‘Stars’ end up in cheap dirty kitchens and lame situations.

The next sequence, partly scripted, partly ad-libbed, is the manipulative therapist (‘the-rapist’) who verbally forces himself on a sad creature called “Ingrid”. The role is something akin to a ‘priest and confessor’ in an “ex-Catholic boudoir”. Ultimately, these characters don’t hold enough interest to warrant complete focus on them for over half an hour. The split screen running 2 images simultaneously adds significantly to the watchability of this drab segment.
Regarding the ‘psychiatric couch’, a relatively new ‘invention’, I imagine Sigmund Freud got the idea from understanding the significance, outrageousness and profit potential of millions of devout Catholics (and other religious) unloading their issues in a private box, to a faceless ‘agent’ of God. Confession is an ages-old practise that seems to help sinners get things ‘off their chest’. It supposedly provides healing for the ‘soul’ with the grace and forgiveness of God. I believe modern psychiatry is closely related to confession (‘psyche’ means ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’). Psychiatry probably took confession one step further as the troubled can unload their ‘burden’ on a ‘faceless’ ear, and all the while they can even lie back on a comfy couch… this value-added innovation (providing a comfortable couch) was enough to begin charging people money for their ‘confessions’… Today, we also have TV talk shows to provide some tarted-up healing.
At one point the 2 screen images seemed to offer an ever-so-vague synch. While Nico preens her hair on one screen, Ingrid washes the hair of the ‘priest/therapist’ with champagne (or beer?) out of a bottle.

As early as this, audience members who don’t care so much about ‘hair care’ synching began to leave the cinema. CHELSEA GIRLS is really NOT riveting stuff. I’m sure these unsuspecting cinema patrons felt their soul contaminated by this movie ‘inexperience’. I’m also already aware that this movie was hyped into significance. Mostly pretentious and pathetic, it remains a poorly executed series of home movies.

Soon we are watching another sequence. An overbearing, aggressive, chubby female with extremely thin lips and a nose that almost snouts, manipulates a syringe and injects a female (“Mary”?). She later injects herself through her jeans. Deluded, she is called “Duchess”. She calls her little syringed ‘victim’ “Tina Louise” (perhaps a reference to the attractive, soft-spoken actress in ‘Gilligan’s Island’).

The 4th sequence opens with 2 men lying side by side on a mattress. One man has a full head of slick, healthy, luxurious hair on a slim, smooth, hairless body, whereas the other man is the antithesis with a bald head on quite a hairy, plump body. At one point the bald man messes up the other man’s locks (hair care envy?). Two women enter the picture and tie up the man with the full head of hair and pull down his underwear. Narcotic paraphernalia is strewn around the messy ‘bed’. The scene becomes more disturbed as the young, handled man seems increasingly ‘out of it’ writhing around like he’s someone’s sick bondage pet. Soon lots of males (including Gerard Malanga) gather around, but we cannot hear the conversation as only one screen at a time is presented with sound.

Meanwhile on the other screen (with sound), the drug dealer-pusher ‘Duchess’ confides that she is evil and that she gave ‘Tina Louise’ “an OD” (overdose). She also gives some insight into Factory life; crediting “silver paper” as being “where it all started”. (Warhol used silver foil to cover the old walls of the Factory- never underestimate the power of a gimmick – something so superficial can hide an array of faults). A ‘hair-dresser’ enters the sequence (again, the ‘hair-care’ theme) and with his considerable skill, works on the chubby one’s hair, actually making the unattractive, loud-mouthed ‘duchess’ presentable (almost glamorous). Perhaps hair-care IS important. Like the gimmicky silver paper used to cover crumbling brick walls, a gimmicky glamorous hairstyle can hide an array of issues. Unfortunately, good hair can only go so far…it’s disturbing how ugly most of the characters seem underneath…even the talented Nico suffers here from an overdose of vanity and superficiality.

At this point another audience member gets up and walks out. As he passes by, I hear him curse “Indulgent shit!” and by golly, I believe he’s right.

The perverse stench continues with the 5th and 6th sequences. Shot on the same day with the same participants (wearing the same clothes), these are ‘bitches’ sequences. One pathetic masochistic soul is ‘imprisoned’ under a desk whilst other sadistic vamps look on arguing and swearing at her. This ‘Girl’s room’ feels like the ‘sleepover’ from Hell. The most attractive girl is also the most beastly. Misguided vanity put these attractive females before the camera and almost nothing is achieved. These crappy ‘home movies’ persist with trivial, trivial, most trivial trivialities! Sound remains weak and difficult to understand. Lighting remains dodgy. Not that it would make much difference, but often, Warhol is not even behind the camera as he delegates ‘directing’ duties to Paul Morrissey.

A veritable feast of sins… vanity, sloth, lust, gluttony etc…is well represented here… Warhol and/or Morrissey point a camera and shoot (a 5 year old really could do it as well) their conceptually daring capture of banalities like sex and drugs. This film is a product of perfect timing on Warhol’s part. In context to what was happening during this time, he picked the right moment to be brash, risky and shocking. One might applaud Warhol for that… but it is difficult when we never see Warhol himself shoot up heroin or stripped naked or humiliated. Something akin to a self-serving politician who sends OTHER people’s children to war (not his own), Warhol hides safely behind the camera, whilst using gullible, love-starved minions and dogsbodies to do his dirty work.

It must be admitted that this so called ‘art statement’, like many other questionable art statements, is really only a well-calculated, over-hyped, poorly constructed piece of talentless drivel created by charlatans for a gullible audience. If an artist can’t be technically proficient or aesthetically satisfying, then at least a good new idea would be something to cling onto. Unfortunately Warhola doesn’t achieve anything close to artistic integrity with this film. The idea may be considered daring, but cannot be considered a good one. Art should not qualify as such based on bad ideas.

That’s it for ‘Part 1’! Next week 6 more sequences (Part 2) and I don’t know if I should waste my time with it. Still, one must be fair, so I (grudgingly) give the whole film a chance. A completist, I feel compelled to finish this difficult thing, though I can safely say I will not be voluntarily watching CHELSEA GIRLS again in the near future.

As always, Brett Garten did a magnificent job screening this film, particularly with the added technical challenge of split screens. In probably the busiest Sydney Cinemateque session so far (A lot of disillusioned new members turned up for the rumoured titillation… the poster really does work!), we witnessed something that needed to be seen once in order to affirm any suspicions of Warhol’s lack of talent. It’s little wonder the coy weasel kept so quiet… too afraid his lack of credibility might unintentionally slip out of his mouth.

Chelsea Girls ephemera

These two items were found in the film cans for Chelsea Girls...

Click to enlarge.

Serial Picture Gallery

The Chelsea Girls - this week at cinematheque

This week we say goodbye to the serial and look once again to the 1960s as Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls kicks off a month of multi-screen movies at the Chauvel Cinematheque.

MON. 9/2 at 6:30pm sharp - THE CHELSEA GIRLS PT. 1

USA/1969/Colour & B&W/105mins/16mm/ NFVLS Dir: Andy Warhol.

Chelsea Girls comprises twelve reels of film (the last four in colour) each running 35 minutes in a continuous unedited 'take' shot with a static camera but with sometimes frequent use of zoom. Each reel was supposedly shot in rooms in New York's Chelsea Hotel with Warhol Factory types, sometimes drug-dazed, more or less being themselves or acting out sketchily conceived roles. Warhol's film is both a document of the period and a film which implicitly has as its subject the nature of cinema and cinematic expression, from the role of the camera through the notion of stardom to the conventions of projecting and viewing the finished work. Chelsea Girls makes a transition from the aesthetic minimalism of Warhol's earlier films to the relatively more commercial movie-making of Lonesome Cowboys and Paul Morrisey's subsequent films. The cast includes Nico, Ari, Bob 'Ondine' Olivio, Bridget Polk, Ingrid Superstar, Ed Hood, Mario Montez, Eric Emerson, Mary Might, International Velvet, Marie Menken, and Gerard Malanga.

“The results are often spellbinding.” Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

NOTE: The film will be projected in a twin-screen format with sound from only one of the two reels on the screen and projection staggered to allow for reel changes. Due to the length of this film, the film will be screened in two parts over two weeks. As the film is non-narrative it is not necessary to see both parts, but it is recommended.

MON. 16/2 at 6:30pm sharp - THE CHELSEA GIRLS PT. 2

Chelsea Girls Pt. 2 USA/1969/Colour & B&W/105mins/16mm/ NFVLS Dir: Andy Warhol.

“In stripping the cinematic medium of its pretensions and decorations, Warhol has produced an art statement that is likely to be acceptable only to the very few. Whatever one's opinion of the merits of the films, it must surely be admitted that Warhol has finally forced a realignment of the purpose, place, and function of the artist, who is no longer solely a technician or a decorator, but is now strictly an idea man and director. Much of his subject matter is, in one way or another, the subject matter of the commercial artist; in this manner big business and the immediate past, probably the two most difficult things for the contemporary artist to come to terms with, become for Warhol both the content and the product of his art." Gregory Battcock, Art Journal

Review of Judex by Pia Santaklaus

JUDEX by Pia Santaklaus.

6 Fabuary 2009.

Although I really enjoyed the zany, stylish, abstract and absurd short animation FANTORRO, today I’ll discuss this week’s main feature JUDEX (1963).

JUDEX (1963) is Director Franju’s feature film ‘remake-tribute’ which tries to evoke the aura of the original 1916 silent-era serial JUDEX… At the close of the movie we read that this film is “a souvenir of an unhappy time”.

It is quite a moody, serious piece with few light touches. Besides the main characters, JUDEX features a likeable detective (Mr Concantin) portrayed as a cross between Lewis Carroll, Sherlock Holmes and Charlie Chaplin. Mr Concantin reads escapist literature such as ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘Fantomas’, he is kind to children and in turn a boy-child helps him as a sort of side-kick ‘Watson’ or ‘Robin’.This particular film is stylistically strange and ‘out of time’ – in parts it looks and feels like it is faithfully set during the early 20th century and yet at other times it presents quite comfortably as 1950’s or 1960’s. Some aspects (such as the clothing and dialogue) curiously flow in and out of context… perhaps in an attempt to reach a ‘timeless’ or more eclectic mood. It’s amazing to hear talk of selling “Rio Tinto shares” even back then.

This film was surely made with great love and respect for the original subject matter… The sometimes excruciatingly slow pace is perhaps forged deliberately that the viewer might have ample time to analyse, observe and admire details in an attempt to convey a dreamlike, creepy mood piece.

The sets are gorgeous. Art Nouveau details such as wallpaper, lamps, furniture, buildings and more, work as a kind of eye candy.

Judex is a mysterious master of disguise, a magician, a heroic vigilante figure who has, and uses cutting edge technology (such as surveillance) in his personal war against Favraux the ruthless banker. ‘Judex’ meaning ‘Judge’ is an appropriate name for a vigilante archetype. I think the later ‘Judge Dread’ carries a similar psyche.

In some ways JUDEX (and FANTOMAS) is a forerunner of themes and images found in such successful later ventures as ‘Batman’ and ‘V For Vendetta’. ‘V for Vendetta’ (comic book series and 2006 film) features a mysterious vigilante anarchist who wears a Guy Fawkes mask and tries to thwart the controlling system. Common themes between JUDEX and V for Vendetta are: masks, cloaks, secret lairs, rooftop action, investigators, surveillance systems, imprisonment and more…

The Catwoman in the campy 60’s Batman serial may have been inspired by the female criminal in a black ‘cat-suit’ that Judex must struggle against.

Filmed in black & white, the characters in JUDEX also seem very black & white… in a world of good verses evil with few shades of grey.

I suspect some religious elements creep into the film as well; one scene sees the ‘death’ of Favraux and his subsequent resurrection after 3 days (he was not dead but drugged by Judex)… perhaps this somehow reflects on Christ’s own death and resurrection...

There is little or no music for long stretches of the film which adds to the somewhat empty and slow-pace of various sections.

I really liked the use of bird imagery in JUDEX. Birds are appropriately symbols of freedom and communication… My favourite scene was the bird-themed masked ball. The surreal ambience was jaw-dropping and reminded me of some of Max Ernst’s early, strange collages some of which had formally-dressed, early 20th century figures with bird heads. Many of the original films and serials of Feuillade (including JUDEX) deeply inspired the Surrealists (including Dali, Cocteau and Ernst).
Franju’s JUDEX had enough for me to want to chase down at least one of his later films ‘SHADOWMAN’ (NUITS ROUGES) which I understand deals with the quest for the grail.

Thanks for a good movie experience Brett.

What are the chances of seeing Fanju’s SHADOWMAN at Cinemateque?

Judex - this week at Cinematheque

This Monday the 2nd of February sees the last in a special month long program dedicated to the motion picture serial. This week looks at the influence of the serial on successive generations of filmmakers and will include an introduction by film historian Barrie Pattison, a selection of trailers of recent films informed by the serial, Jan Lenica's animated short Fantorro, and Georges Franju's feature length Judex.

Fantorro

Germany/1971/Colour/12mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: Jan Lenica.

Animated fantasy presenting episodes from an imaginary science fiction serial set in Paris in 1900.

Judex

France/1963/B&W/99mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: Georges Franju.

Judex is a homage to Feuillade's serials made in 1916. The characters - Judex the implacable avenger (magician Channing Pollock), the evil banker, his innocent daughter, the comic detective, the adventuress and the glamourous, acrobat-battling vamp, Irma Vep - are derived directly from the serial. Surreal set pieces abound, including a murder at a masked ball filmed in the contrasty black and white of early cinema. On the surface Franju's atmospheric nouvelle vague film seems to foreshadow postmodern pastiche but the difference lies in the gap between the random stylistic allusion of the latter and Franju's loving immersion in the 'surreal innocence' of an earlier time. One of Maurice Jarre’s groundbreaking scores adds to the atmosphere of menace and wonder.

The Fantom Menace by Pia Santaklaus

Sydney. 12 January 2008.

The programme began with a remarkable BATMAN serial from 1943. This particular episode featured both Batman and Robin. At one point Bruce Wayne (Batman) knocks out a fortune teller and takes his place to warn a femme fatale she is in imminent danger. The whole scenario is riotous! I loved it as a period piece and a pop-culture curio!

Then we were treated to the screening of FANTOMAS - (1913). This was the 2nd episode (Juve Contre Fantômas) in the exploits of the popular French fictional arch-villain ‘FANTOMAS’ - created by Frenchmen Marcel Allain (1885-1970) and Pierre Souvestre (1874 -1914) both of whom were involved in law, journalism and then writing, collaborating on 32 books involving Fantomas from early 1911 till 1914.

Fantomas is a sociopathic criminal who doesn’t balk at killing. Fantomas is ruthless, merciless and unfaithful; a master of disguise, he can assume the look and persona of those he kills. In the first Fantomas novel (1911), set in Paris around 1900, Fantomas (as ‘Gurn’) kills with a hammer. Many of the stories feature a French Police Detective called ‘Juve’ whose aim is to catch Fantomas. Other main characters include ‘Fandor’ a French journalist friend of Juve, and ‘Lady Beltham’ who is Fantomas’ aristocratic English mistress.

The Fantomas books reveal Fantomas’ exploits, some of which were turned into silent film serials from 1913. Five silent serials were made in total. Importantly, Fantomas marks a transition between gothic era villains and modern pulp heroes.

His popularity ensured many remakes… in 1920 a 20 episode serial was made in America called ‘Fantomas’ starring Edward Roseman. Along the way, Fantomas films were also made in 1932, 1946, 1948, 1964, 1965 and 1966. The 1960’s Fantomas were made in a more James Bond style. In 1980 a TV series was made. In addition, various Fantomas comic books have been published; 1941, 1957, 1962, 1969 and in the 1990s.

The original French Fantomas novels inspired numerous French Avante Garde and surrealist artists including Guillaume Apollinaire and Rene Margritte. Fantomas also inspired other creations including Tenebras (by Arnould Galopin), Masque Rouge (by Gaston Rene), Belphegor (by Arthur Bernede), Demonax (by R. Collard) and Tigris, Fatala, Miss Teria, Ferocias (all by Marcel Allain). There is suggestion that even the original 1963 Pink Panther film borrowed elements from Fantomas (ie: Sir Charles Lytton was called ‘the Phantom’ and Inspector Clouseau was modeled after Inspector Juve).

Possible inspirations for Fantomas may have included ‘Arthur J. Raffles’ the gentleman burglar of London, created in the 1890s by E.W Hornung. Like Sherlock Holmes, Arthur J Raffles is a master of disguise and has a loyal sidekick (Harry ‘Bunny’ Manders); Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes’ sidekick was ‘Watson’. Under another guise A.J Raffles also keeps a great London apartment where he stores his many disguises. Another possible inspiration for Fantomas, similar to A.J. Raffles and ca ontemporary of Sherlock Holmes was the popular French character ‘Arsene Lupin’ - another gentleman thief of detective fiction; French writer Maurice Leblanc created Arsene Lupin and from July 1905 Arsene Lupin stories were serialized. It is thought that Arsene Lupin may have been inspired by the real-life clever, generous and sharp-witted anarchist Marius Jacob (on trial March 1905) or an even earlier fictional gentlemen thief, Arthur Lebeau (1901 by Octave Mirbeau). Yet another possible inspiration for Fantomas was Zigomar (created by Leon Sazie), serialized in magazines in 1909 and 1913. French writer Gaston Leroux wrote ‘The Phantom Of The Opera’ first published in serial format from September 1909 to January 1910. The novel got an English translation in 1911. Like Fantomas after him, the fearful, gothic ‘Phantom’ wears a mask and inhabits a mysterious personal landscape.

While watching the movie and trying to piece together the many elements, I noticed various scenes in FANTOMAS featured a strong, mysterious lady. Perhaps she is the 'Princess' or ‘Lady Beltham’ (Fantomas’ mistress); either way, she certainly doesn’t look or dress like the aristocracy of the day, certainly not English aristocracy, but rather like someone more ancient, perhaps from a Biblical time and place… curious!

Though unclear, it is thought that Fantomas might be of British and/or French background. In the books, Fantomas gets around, even reaching India around 1895. By 1897 Fantomas was in USA and then Mexico. In 1899 he was in South Africa and soon, back in Europe… This habit of ‘wandering’ might suggest Fantomas is of the then-often ‘homeless’ ‘Wandering Jew’ or gypsy stock. Perhaps he is a German or Russian Jew immigrant or perhaps some kind of mistreated minority. When seen in context with another Feuillade film, JUDEX (1914) one might extract further possibility of a Jewish connection…

JUDEX is a French silent serial made in 1914. The release was delayed till December 1916. ‘Judex’ was filmed soon after ‘Fantomas’ by Frenchmen Louis Feuillade and Arthur Bernede. Like many other popular flamboyant villains of the time, Judex was a mysterious dark being, a master of disguise with a secret identity, who often wore a large hat, cloak and a mask (very similar to ‘The Shadow’). A master fighter, Judex also had his own secret subterranean headquarters beneath a castle (similar to The Phantom of The Opera who had subterranean quarters beneath an Opera House) anticipating Batman’s ‘batcave’ as here is where Judex kept all his technological gadgetry. Interestingly ‘Judex’ means ‘Judge’ and his complex quest in life is to exact revenge on his arch-enemy, a corrupt banker who swindled people. The positions of Judge and Banker are often associated with the Jewish people. In the book of Judges (Old Testament), we find a history of Biblical judges who helped and guided the Israelites whilst in the modern world there is remains a ‘Jewish Bankers’ conspiracy that anti-Semitic subscribers buy into.

It is difficult to explain the popularity of Fantomas when he clearly acts in an unsocial, unethical manner. To try and explain, perhaps an example of the French socio-political upheaval of the times may be helpful, as seen in one of modern Europe’s most notorious and controversial political events; the ‘Dreyfus Affair’. Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935) was a French officer of Jewish extraction. Born in Alsace, his family moved to Paris around 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. Many believe Dreyfus became a victim of anti-Semitic sentiment when he was tried on charges of treason and convicted in 1894. France had a Catholic identity and a strong campaign ensued which led to the release of Dreyfus from prison in 1899. By 1906 he was exonerated and readmitted into the army as a Major and then made a Knight of the Legion of Honour; some may see this as sweet revenge.

Minorities, migrants, the persecuted, the homeless, the poor; many folk were hurting. Masses wanted and needed rescuing. Tyrants needed beating. The concept of the ‘superhero’ was long overdue and about to make a splash. In this world, Fantomas took the law into his own hands and made his own rules, dishing out death to whoever he felt deserved it. This vigilante behaviour may herald back to Robin Hood who was in his own way a vigilante-antihero with tights (I might call him a ‘thieving ruffian’ or ‘robbing hood-lum’!). From this path, Fantomas could have inspired what eventually became the superhero phenomenon. Superman, Batman, The Shadow, The Spirit, The Phantom… many, many heroes wearing cloaks, gloves, capes, hoods, cowls, hats, tights etc all hiding their identity.

Coincidentally or deliberately, the name of Lee Falk’s popular comic strip hero ‘The Phantom’ (created 1939) has a similar ring to ‘Fantomas’. They both wear masks, tights and have a dog although Lee Falk has stated that The Phantom (Ghost who walks) was inspired by various sources including myths, legends, folklore and characters like King Arthur, El Cid, Tarzan and in particular Robin Hood.The difficult migrant experience may have contributed to modern psychiatric concepts and newer understandings of darker ‘fantomas’ elements in humans; consider the result of migrants disposing of their past lives, passports and Ids in order to gain entry into various countries, having to adopt new names, voices and personalities in a bid to assimilate. These displaced souls would have to keep their true identities very secret as we see in characters such as Superman or Fantomas – a secret identity or disguise becomes necessary whilst One’s real personality (ID) is hidden deeply away, not exposed in public. One would need a very private shelter or place where one could relax and be oneself and so, perhaps wishes are ignited for a personal base, a home, one’s own private place – fortress of solitude – a secret headquarters (even read ‘mind-space’) where none can disturb and one can be free to express true inner self. Perhaps as a kind of reaction to requirements brought on by rootlessness, bases were soon to become standard inclusions in even the hero genre armory. Places like the ‘Fortress of Solitude’ (Superman) and the ‘Batcave’ (Batman) are good examples.

I may be going too far out on a limb and I don’t imagine anyone else has yet expressed this, but perhaps even Freud’s concept of the inner ‘Id’ came from such analyzing conflicted personal I.d (Identification). I suspect Freud’s concept of the 3-part ‘psychic apparatus’ of the psyche (Id, Ego, Super-ego)* was developed through a new understanding of the workings of the migrant psyche, mind-set and 'balancing' function…echoed perfectly in the later 3-part psychic concept of Kal-El (Id), Clark Kent (Ego) and Superman (Super-ego).

Moving on… I appreciated the introduction to tonight’s program by Barrie Pattison who made some very insightful and incisive calls. As he often does, he also provided a pertinent detailed A4 sized, double-sided flier, this one titled ‘The Weird World of Movie Serials’ with useful historical information.

The picture quality of the tonight’s film, though compiled from various copies (the originals lost), was breathtakingly good in parts, considering it is now approaching 100 years old.
The soundtrack was a special treat. A live, new, ambitious original score created in only 2 weeks by talented Adrian Clement and his most worthy recruit Alex Robinson (percussion-drums). This was Adrian’s second venture into the world of movie soundtrack performance and was also Adrian’s 2nd live original film score, coming only a fortnight after his wonderful first foray and in many ways this one was even better.

Tonight Adrian surprised us by utilizing a more synthetic electronic keyboard organ sound for much of the movie. At times, the soundscape presented like some far-out, 70s prog rock/art rock groove with elements of Pink Floyd and Yes style synth elevating the experience to something credible, dignified and all-new. Adrian and Alex played with force and went beyond standard silent film music fare. It astounded me how much good noise these 2 guys made.

Various abstract sounds filtered in and out of the mix. The structure seemed to comprise of individual sections sometimes bridged by a suite of percussion held together by Alex Robinson. Some excellent improvising throughout, the whole music would make a wonderful album.

Appropriate electronic effects and varying time codes followed the film action perfectly for much of the movie. At times the listening experience outshone the visual experience. Both musicians gave solid performances, blending ambience with solid notation. The addition of sound bites such as traffic, car horns, train sounds and much more, added vital texture and clarity, not unlike the various additional effects Pink Floyd utilized on their various albums.

At one point, the music became a mash of 1930s American cabaret-acoustica –jazz-Latin guitar (Eddie Lang - Django Rheinhardt style), deliberate atmospheric drums and other mystery sounds; the effect was intoxicating.

Paced beautifully, the music built up layers of sound, peaking in the last 5 minutes where it seemed to take off in an absolute masterwork of pumping groove as the action reached a crescendo. A synthesized bass line rang out complementing the driving drums.

A touch of theatrics and flamboyance, both Adrian Clement and Alex Robinson donned dark, fantomas-styled costumes for their performance. Presented on stage, in front and below the screen, they looked and sounded appropriate.

Adrian and Alex should record this stuff. I picked it up as aural nectar. It had grace, dignity, invention, and above all, cool! Impressive, I would love to listen to that music on my own home stereo.

All up, a very fine Cinemateque experience; many thanks to curator Brett Garten for his work and insight putting it all together! Marvelous! (and DC-ous!)

*The ID (identity) is pure, instinctive, uncoordinated, creative, infantile and driven by a basic primal search for pleasure and gratification through life and death instincts… babies are Id-ridden; The Ego is practical, diplomatic, organized, defensive, intelligent and aware enough to function and respond to and with the reality it identifies. It tries to keep the Id happy in ways that minimize upset from potential conflicts in the real world. The ego also mediates between the Id and the super-ego, aiming to please both; The super-ego is critical, moralizing, prohibitive, idealistic and a perfectionist. It is the opposite of the Id and is concerned with the social good. It is one’s conscience. Freud first developed this structural concept between 1920 and 1923. The terms Id, Ego and Super-ego are Latinized translations of Freud’s terms.

The Saga of the Serials Pt. 2 - this week at Cinematheque

Serial-mania continues this week at the Chauvel Cinematheque with the second part of Barrie Pattison's look at the Saga of the Serials. This Monday the 26th of January at 6:30pm sharp, Barrie will reacquaint us with the legendary super-hero figures of the classic serial - Batman, Zorro, Flash Gordon, Dan Winslow and others. Many believe the cycle reaches its peak with Hollywood’s Saturday morning comic strip heroes. In this program, see caped crusaders battle malevolent mega-villains and their paunchy underlings and understand the the ongoing influence of the form on the Hollywood blockbuster - James Bond, Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.

The Saga of the Serials Pt. 1 - this week at Cinematheque

Following up from last week's screening of Fantomas, Barrie Pattison, Australia's leading film historian, delves deeper into the morass of episodic melodrama in the first part of a special two week look at the wonderful world of the movie serial. In this week's program, screening at 6:30pm sharp on Monday the 19th of January, Barrie will look at Pearl White, Fantomas' stalwart American counterpart of the early silent film era. Gasp as Pearl/Pauline suffers perils in the company of Craig Kennedy the scientific sleuth, as we study the peak achievements of the ambitious American silent serials, and follow what many see as a decline, when sound introduces strip cartoon adventures and khaki-clad heroines menaced by giant insects.

A fascinating compendium of episodes and excerpts from many classics of the form, including…

The Story of the Serials

USA/1959/Colour/26mins/16mm/NFVLS

Excerpts from famous silent serials - including The Perils of Pauline and even earlier productions - succeed in recapturing the atmosphere of those early thrillers. A study of the forgotten achievements of the American silent serial.

Program Note for The Weird World of Movie Serials by Barrie Pattison

Thanks to Barrie for writing this up.

Click to enlarge.

Fantomas - this week at Cinematheque

The Chauvel Cinematheque's in-depth, month-long look at the motion picture serial, a forgotten but still reverberating form of motion picture history, kicks off this Monday the 12th of January at 6:30 with an episode of Louis Feuillade's 1913 silent French serial Fantomas.

With an introduction by film historian Barrie Pattison and a new score performed live by the "young Franz Liszt" Adrian Clement, this event promises to be a lot of fun.

Join Australia’s leading film historian Barrie Pattison as he delves into the weird world of motion picture serials in the first of this four part program. Follow the cycle as it moves from its surreal origins with the serials of Louis Feuillade to James Bond, Indiana Jones and the Dark Knight. This program contrasts Feuillade’s archetypal serial drama Fantomas with the Batman serial of the 1940s.

Fantomas France/1914/B&W/60mins/16mm/NFVLS Dir: Louis Feuillade.

A long excerpt from the classic French serial devoted to the exploits of the criminal anti-hero Fantomas. Our detective hero battles the hooded terror of the Paris streets, who brings his own vamp characters and boa constrictors into the fray. Combines a sense of fantasy and lyricism with documentary details of pre WWI France.

Click on the new program link on the right sidebar to find out about the rest of the screenings in this thread.

Transcript of an Introduction to Detour

By the one, the only, Jimmy Vargas...

DETOUR... THE HOLY GRAIL OF AMERICAN NOIR.

by JIMMY VARGAS

DETOUR....1945...Film Company PRC
Director Edgar G Ulmer.
Starring Tom Neal as Al Roberts and Ann Savage as Vera.
Story from the novel Detour: An Extraordinary Tale by Martin Goldsmith.


DETOUR... THE PLOT

B-boite piana-thumpa AL ROBERTS as played by Tom Neal, and his blonde canary ammorata Sue, (Claudia Drake) squawble out pre-war juke hits in an lower east side cabaret. Miss Peroxide soon ditches both the double douche act and said affair, high-keeling it off to Hollywood, as a single-o in aspiration of becoming a Z-grade Bronx Bettie Grable.

Al is left behind plucking both heart and piana strings shucking out a deaf toned career in the same skid lounge, to zilch clientele.

Months pass.

Al, still a-strokin at the cuckold horn he's born forced to bear, fones his cuckoo on the humiliation hot line for another ear wax of rejection.

But Susie, jerkin the hankie routine that her Hollywood hubba hubba hopes has turned to hash, coo ca choos that she misses him, and as a result both, pitch'n'woo a California rendezvous in order to jump-start both their love life and showbiz careers.

With no coin, our galah-cad, sets out to hitch hike across the ol' USA on the cuff. A good samaritan Edmund McDonald (Charles Haskell) gives him a lift, but through a fatal accident, Eddie tragically dies en route to the West Coast. Al decides to dump Ed's body, hijacking both car and identity of his deceased benefactor.

One half reel later, Al himself picks up hooch cooch hitch-hiker, the viperous VERA aka AnneSavage. An existentialist tragedy on the Route 666 ensues. Al, caught up in the double crossin of Vera's low harlot high heels, never to reconnect with his blonde tweetie bird.

DETOUR... THE BACK STORY

Based on the cult novel Detour: An Extraordinary Tale by Martin Goldsmith... 1938. The screenplay was also written by Goldsmith with uncredited contributions by a Martin Mooney.

The script had been purportedly shopped around at Warner Bros studio as early as '42, with brooding broadway boxer and method actor, Julius Garfinkle aka John Garfield mooted for the lead of Al, with those nitrate saloon dames Anne Sheridan, and Ida Lupino propo'd for the wraith persona Vera that Anne Savage eventually claimed.

The orphan script eventually landed on the desk of a Leon Fromkess, President of glitter gulch studio... Producers Release Corporation, a cheapjack production house, that was known in the trade as PRC, initials that the Big Five of the Hollywood studios spurned with the epithet of Poverty Row Crap.

The trades were more polite, monickering PRC with the euphemistic title of "That haven of no- budget 'melos'," a term that distinguished it from other nickle grindsters like Monogram and Eagle Lion in the late forties. PRC, in reality was the iconic Hollywood bottom feeder, where black balled directors and actors went to expire.

DETOUR... FILM PRODUCTION AND COSTS.

Detour was shot on 3 sets, with the standard cheapjack back projection scenery, as befitting a dime store corporation as PRC. The reeler was filmed over six days, with Ulmer zipping through 52 set ups per diem. (A Normal production schedule, filmed at A studios, MGM or Warners would usually cover a mere 10 set ups per day.)

The flick could have passed in under budget of $14,500 but there were major editing problems.
In order to parallel the westbound New York to L.A. travel of the characters Al and Vera with right-to-left movement across the screen, many scenes had to be flipped. This caused the cars to appear to be driving on the wrong side of the road, and the hitchhikers to enter the car on the driver's side. Negative and promotional costs eventually came into the bone-crunching cost of $15, 332 dollars.

DETOUR...THE CINEMATIC AESTHETIC.

The paucity of PRC's budget, props, decor, and the soiled sweaty character wardrobe of it's anti-heroes however informs and legitimizes the existentialist nightmare that is DETOUR. It is this very construct that reverberates a true noir resonance from its grimy sepia cels.

With the director Edgar G. Ulmer verbally whipping his stars with the autocratic command of "Faster , Faster, Faster !", due to budget/schedule constraints, the dialogue whip-cracks with a viperous velocity, as if both Vera and Al, with their cryptic clipped delivery, don't want to breathe in each others halitosic despair, the soylent fart of each other's reply, or for that matter inhale the evil air of their Americana skid domain, in fear of having their souls sucked out.

For in this route 666 diner, Al and Vera are not only bereft of air conditioning, salvation ain't on the menu either.

As the sets, that are stripped to skeletal frame, so too is the husk of Al's and Vera's existence shucked to a crude, boned, venal desperation.

The arid, desolate tundra that is America's desert, over which they sport in a stolen jalopy, mirrors their own spiritual vacuum.

Ulmer, in aiming to avoid having the viewer witness the collapsing three wall set, kept his subjects nailed in to the hacksaw furnishings like roaches to a pool hall dartboard. The patina rimming off PRC's substandard film stock, bastes it's subjects with a glaze of putrefication and decay, and the oily smear of the character's greed/lust engulfs and vaselines inside the camera lens, meta-phylizing the stonk of rank roadside diners, the odourous soiled sheets of a skid crib, Vera's sour mash dimestore parfum, and the fetid groin sweat of the American underbelly.

DETOUR... AMERICAN FILM NOIR & THE FRENCH EXISTENTIALIST CONNEXION

Detour the novel, in both it's philosophy and plot/narrative influenced, (as had many American pulps at the time), the burgeoning French Existentialist and Italian Neo-Realist auteurs that sprang forth at the end of the Second World War. This was not a casual synchronicity.

One can see a direct umbilical thread between Goldsmith's classic noir of 1938, and Jean Paul Sartre's Huis Clos (No Exit), the stage play which was premiered shortly after the liberation of Paris in 1944.

Both Goldsmith's and Sartre's opus' deal with people who are trapped in the hell of themselves and each other, damned in a soul scorching environment, suffocated by an external and internal fascism.

Ironically enough, Ulmer, tonight's film director utilises certain embellishments in his mounting of Detour, particularly the skid row crib scene between Vera and Al, that recall similar staging mechanics, physical dynamic and interaction, of the lead characters, from the original transcript of Sartre's play No Exit, where the Parisian anti-heroes too are bound in an airless, barren hotel room not unlike their American doppelgangers.

And for another example of the helixical twining 'tween Sartre’s and Ulmer's opuses, Sartre's Huis Clos is a Parisian slang term for "In Camera". The existential author not merely pre-meditating his play's cinematic appeal, but revealing that the play itself was a camera.

Ulmer in DETOUR too, places this instrument as a third accomplice, his deleriant-tremened, hand-held camera baits his subjects with a claustrophobic clawing that suggests more than a peep show voyeurism that predates Hitchcock, but a succubian nightmare, and a diabolic invasion.

Ulmer gazumps Sartre's assertion to cinematic notoriety, by re-claiming Detour back to it's original American terrain and street vernacular, before it's imitator No Exit managed to get to the screen in 1954 with female director Jacqueline Audry at the helm of the French production. Ulmer, it most be noted was no dervativist nor plagiariser however, for he himself had started in the film industry as a set designer for famed German director F.W. Murnau at that progressive Berlin film studio UFA in the twenties.

He arrived in the U.S.A. in 1923, as one of Murnau's trusted adjutants, a benefitee of the Hollywood studio carpetbaggery system that raided a dissolute Berlin in the pre-WW2 years, cherry-picking willing creative krautskis from the rubble of the inflation stricken Wiemar Republic, and the simmering fascist putsch.

It must be noted that all of Ulmer's own Hollywood film work, bears the UFA's Expressionist birth mark, the principal DNA of that bastard American offspring we now classify as film noir.

THE POLITICAL POLEMIC OF DETOUR.

Detour can be so regarded as the holy grail of pure American noir. Beyond it's existensial allusions, it's a demented 16mm travelogue of underworld U.S.A, circa '45 - a nation facing an atomic annihilation, recession, communism, and gender battles in the bedroom.

Al can be well viewed as the crippled American every-man - a hicksville joe doe, de-neutered by a Great Depression, de-balled by an Iwa Jima land mine, still stalking the heartland of America's shadow psyche, haunted, paranoid on a freight train to noir-town.

The Manifest Destiny of Self Determination and Success has been denied this returning doughbuoy.

As Al constantly voice overs in a monotnous mantra of self loathing "That's life. Whichever way you turn, Fate sticks out a foot to trip you."...He carries preternatural guilt, for a yet uncommitted crime.

The schnarl 'n' spit coupling of Al and Vera too is stripped to the pornographic husk of the true male/female relationship in post war America.

In Detour sexual extortion is the courtship.

Psychic rape is romance.

Death is matrimony.

Al and Vera... Vera and Al... Bound eternally by the swangin' wire coil of Ma Bells telephone cord.

Detour presciently pronounces the shift of the sexual gestalt in the late forties USA. The gelding and eventual sissification of the American male, and the masculinization of the new American woman, who through the social and economic liberation of war is unshackled by Depression era propieties and can now party on independent coin, hustle and pursue her own sexual self determination.

As Vera's tongue alternately coos and cobras with convoluted hustle-baits, Al's responses, echo the strangulated coitus of the new american castrati. When Vera lashes him with the flip "Shut up... you are making noises like a husband..." She has him pegged as a submissive, a wife, and she, Vera, has already appropriated the status of dominant male.

THE BOX OFFICE

Detour was released as a bottom of the bill filler to grindhouses in the fall of '45, where-after it recouped it's negative cost, was shuttled off the big screen and into the junkyard of midnight TV reruns after PRC sold off the rights. With the expiring of its copyright the movie shunted into public domain.

Upon the noir revivals of the seventies and eighties, Detour slowly circulated back into the cinematic radar, no doubt assisted too by ANNE SAVAGE who was known to hawk her own 16 mil copy of the flick at Festivals held in her honour.

In 1992, the Library of Congress named Detour as the first film noir and "B- movie" inducted into the National Registry of Film.

In the same year a remake of DETOUR was produced by Wade Williams and starred Tom Neal, Jr. playing his late father's ill fated role.

THE CINEMATYRS OF ALL AMERICAN SHOWBIZ LOSERS

TOM NEAL and ANN SAVAGE had both shared screen time together as cinematic pardners in three 'B' reelers for Columbia Studios, KLONDIKE KATE, TWO MAN
SUBMARINE , and UNWRITTEN CODE between 1942 and '44.

Thus their rythmn, and risque rapport had already been cemented into the American cinematic psyche as a tussling, torrid two-some during those warrin' forties.

But by 1944, both were dropped by Columbia Fuehrer HARRY 'KING' COHN within weeks of each other, their careers subsequently spiralling into Z-grade obliviana at PRC.

An observant viewer can witness a mutual cognizance of each other's decline in Ulmers pix. It adds a poignant, epitaphical note to the sordid cine-massacre that is Detour.

SAVAGE's and NEAL's nitrate sizzle is all too real. As the two of them gnash, claw, and shred up both each other and their cheapjack soundstage, they are not merely playing out the death throes of a screen marriage, but a snuff reel of the double shotgun suicide of their respective careers.

THE ACTORS... ANN SAVAGE.

Though having enjoyed 'A' league status with Columbia Pictures in the early forties, and cache as a popular Esquire pin up girl during World War 2, the post war ANN SAVAGE, like the character of Vera she played, was doomed to B grade hell after her Detour appearance. Her career went south to TV land throughout the forties and fifties, where she appeared intermittently in turkey productions such as the Schlitz Playhouse at C.B.S - on the same Columbia stages she used to exalt on not yet ten years before. With the death of her husband/agent BERT D'ARMAND, in 1969 she left the busines all together.

Upon the art house revival of noir in the eighties, Savage was lured back into the spotlight, by notable noir curators such as EDDIE MUELLER who having her make stellar appearances at his annual SAN FRANCISCO FILM NOIR FESTIVAL, helped resurrect Miss Savages's dormant career.

Her reappearance onto the national stage brought her back into cinematic circulation, and she was awarded an "icon and legend" commendation by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at the 2005 Oscars.

In 2006, she was coaxed before the cameras again by Canadian director GUY MADDIN, having her play his mother in his own autobiographical flick My Winnipeg.

In 2007, Time Magazine named ANN SAVAGE as one of the "Top Ten All-Time Best Cinematic Villains", for her "walking nightmare persona' of Vera in Detour.

She is still alive in Los Angeles today.

TOM NEAL

The plotline of DETOUR itself however served as a prescient forecast of the tumultuous career spiral of TOM NEAL - his own life a harrowing sequel, living out the obscene nitrate curse of his cinematic alter ego, AL ROBERTS.6

Neal, originally coming from prime American moneyed stock, had been a member of the boxing team at the esteemed Northwestern University, and had earned himself a law degree from Harvard, before scoring plaudits on the Broadway stage in '35 season.

In 1936 he went west, and enjoyed both inkage and wattage under the Columbia umbrella, where he was groomed as the studios answer to Clark Gable. His careeer slinked to sewer city in the mid forties due to his boozing, whoring and cop bashing activities, and by '44 Harry Cohn shucked off his contract, and he was a muscle mouth for hire. Throughout the late 1940's and into the 1950's, NEAL appeared mostly as bruisers, and hard-hearted hucksters in Hollywood low-budgeters.

In 1951, in a dispute with his former clutcheroo, the faux platinum Barbara Payton (herself a blonde doppelganger junkie hooker version of Vera), he took to violence against Payton's new and more successful Hollywood beau, the bisexual actor Franchot Tone, mangling the matinee idol's head into the gawping mouth of the gold dragon mascot outside Sid Graumanns Chinese Theatre at a Hollywood premiere.

As a result of the very public altercation, the major Hollywood film studios black-listed Neal.

Turning to the production side of the industry, TOM NEAL, with fledgling pulp crime scribbler, bit actor, and James Dean confidante JOHN GILMORE, vainly attempted to get seed money together for their filming of 1940's Hollywood murder mystery, the BLACK DAHLIA onto the screen.

L.A.P.D cops and A-list Studio executives, who were complicit accesories in the killing breathed relief, when in 1965, NEAL was found to have shot his third wife Gale, with a .45-caliber bullet to the back of her head after a domestic dispute.

Californian Prosecutors sought the death penalty for Tom Neal, aiming him for a gas chamber bounce for the felony, however a sympathetic trial jury, convicted him only of "involuntary manslaughter", and Neal was sentenced to 10 years in jail, of which he served only six. Eight months later, in February 1972, Tom Neal died of heart failure.

The nitrate ghost of Al Roberts was purportedly seen to rise up from that grindhouse graveyard of the Hollywood Forever cemetary to greet him with..."That's life. pal... Whichever way you turn, Fate sticks out a foot to trip you."...DETOUR... EPITAPH... ROAD CLOSED.

The movie Detour itself can be caustically viewed as an industrial promotional film for a dying studio, a funereal vignette created by director Ulmer, offered as a nitrate corsage to his reel life/ real life doomed actors Savage and Neal, and the moribund production house that boasted this cheap flickeroo.

Allegorically Detour is not only about the ill-fate suffered by one emotionally marooned and failed pianist heading for Los Angeles, but a paean to the failure of American showbiz, a clueless caste who without success to define them, wander L.A. as the new class of Un-American Untouchables, mooching and scooching nickel bait hustles, not realizing that their harping skeletal frames are merely coal-bait to keep that noir dime-factory of Hollywood Auchswitz a-grinding.

(C) JIMMY VARGAS 2009… www.jimmyvargas.com