Connect with us

Published

on

So, I have this inappropriate habit of answering honestly when asked a question. I’ve failed personality tests this way – multiple times. And it’s not because I’m a terrible person (it’s because I’m an awful person ahahahaha – classic gags never retire), it’s just that I give these questions thought and merit. Maybe too much thought and merit.

During one uncomfortable icebreaker at a work function, my questions were: my name (easy, it was given to me a while ago), my job (easy, it was earned), and my favorite animal. I should have said dog. Dogs are great.

So cute!

I did not say dog. I said Protoceratops. But that requires an explanation, which then goes into the book by Adrienne Mayor that posits that it was the fossilized Protoceratops bones and nest/egg fragments, found by ancient Scythian nomads, that were the inspiration to the myth of the griffin. You see, the Protoceratops had a beak-like mouth, much like an eagle. The ridge was very delicate, so if it were to break apart from the head and fall near the back…

And there were about thirty people that realized too late that they had asked a mundane question that I was going to answer: honestly, painfully, specifically, and disgustingly.

So, what am I leading to?

Advertisement

Because Haunted MTL asked me a question…

Oh, dang. Here we go. 

Oh, no, Parzz1val….thank *you* very much…

As part of the contributor’s profile, Parzz (and boss) asked a “simple” question: What is your monster of choice?

So, first of all – what is a monster?

Okay, no, we’re not going that far into it. I could, but I would never see life again and I would miss parts of it.

No, instead, we’re going to do something a little different. And it all has to do with identity.

Advertisement

Since November, I’ve been a contributor to Haunted MTL, kicking around the tufts of cult classics, newer shrugs, and beautiful hidden gems. But this month, Imma get real, kids, because this is a weird month for me. You see as I am a gender-fluid –nonono, it’s cool, come back. I barely identify as Apache helicopter or whatever Millennials, Boomers, and Zoomers are making fun of these days.

Obviously I identify as a sharkicopter – duh.

But with who I am, “monster of choice” is not an easy “tea or coffee” pick for me. Since I’m the type to write an overly-complicated essays about surfing Nazis and HIV zombies, you can see I take my horror seriously.

Dead seriously

So, let’s explore the monsters who are the “others” of gender for this Women’s Day as I narrow down to my monster/villain of choice. Join me, won’t you?  

I should just say “dog”, right?

Brain Roll Juice

Gender and horror itself are interesting elements fused together more closely than most would think. There are masculine horror icons and traits – serial, insane, sadistic, carnal. Just as there are feminine – sorrowful, vengeful, jealous, and…well, a more complex insane, shall we say?

Masculine; we have the bloodthirsty hookman, lumbering Jason, sadistic Freddy, carnal Candyman, serial Jason. Their motives are not complex. They are killers, and they kill. On the other hand (more often seen in legends) feminine icons are more personal and complex. They are La Llorona, Bloody Mary, Kuchisake-onna, banshees, and the hag/witch (Baba Yaga, the Bell Witch, and the like). 

In movies, the roles can be pretty stringent – usually if a female villain/monster is introduced, she is the mate of the male – the supporting role. This is most apparent in the older films like Bride of Frankenstein, but even can be seen in films like Basketcase 2-3. They’re usually cis-gender and adhere to gender norms in one form or another. 

Even in legend, monsters are generally gendered via society’s gentle nudge. Bigfoot = hairy dude. Sea creature = scaly dude. Zombie = rotting dude. Vampire = fanged dude. Loch Ness Monster = dino lady. New Jersey Devil = a devil dude into some weirdass cakes.

You get my point.

Advertisement

However, there are characters that fall into a more grey area, regardless of sex (very loosely: gender is how you feel, sex being the dangle or non-dangle parts). These are a few of my favorites, 7 to be precise, all taken from movies. Take note – there are some spoilers to old movies. 

The List

#7 – The Blob

Ew, gross. Imma just poke it with this stick.

“You can’t say ‘the blob’. it’s…like…just a blob. It’s not anything!” Glorious Spouse, 2020

Au contraire, mon petit fermier (my French may be rusty). But, yeah, I can count the blob. Why not? Just because of its absence of sex and gender doesn’t mean that I can’t identify and add it to the list, honey-pie.

In fact, the concept of the blob, as a growing, expanding, overwhelming alien creature, is a perfect metaphor for that cool gender-fluid anxiety that sometimes hangs around. Out of control, amorphous, and just seen by other people as “icky” and untouchable. It’s gross. People don’t want to explore it, they want to avoid it, and the more you avoid it, the larger it gets. The more suffocating it becomes because it’s a weird, gross problem that just gets in the way.  

Ew, it tastes like special snowflakes!!!

And like the end of the movie, it never really goes away. It can be quiet sometimes. It can lie dormant. But it’s never really gone, and it’s never really dead.

#6 The Cenobites

Advertisement
Their new album is going to be LIT

I might get push-back on this one (well, maybe all of them, who knows). The cenobites have clearly defined sexes, yes, but when gender is concerned, they are fluid because gender just doesn’t matter. Some call them angels, others call them demons, but no one says that they adhere to social norms, especially not typical, standard American. 

Pinhead himself is small, lithe, and femininely sleek in his costume, the only imposing parts of him are his voice and presence. The female cenobite is not portrayed as a mate, but just another vessel of their main mission – the experience. Their whole fixation is on pain/pleasure in the experience of eternity, not hierarchy or power (I’m just focusing on the first movie).

#5 Kenny from “Terror Train”

I really dig this killer on a few different levels. I mean, haven’t we all wanted, at some point in our lives, wanted to kiss Jamie Lee Curtis and then turn into a human tornado?

And I know that Kenny might get flack as a character for a few different reasons – he has problems with mental illness, he has gender identity issues, he has murdering issues. However, he is a fascinating character as all identities.

Kenny is not just male but also female, “they” are a duality as much as Jamie Lee Curtis is the duality as “the last girl”. In fact, to call her a last girl leaves something to be desired because it’s not through circumstance that she survives, but her duality of masculine and feminine traits that keep her alive and unbroken.They are both unconventional, but Kenny fails to actualize where Jamie Lee accepts. Hence, human tornado. 

Those sequins are going to do such shrapnel damage…

Anywho, there are times that I wish I could fade into different personas as quickly as Kenny, and blend in with whatever crowd that happens to be there. Especially as Snake Man.

#4 Pumpkinhead

Advertisement

Pumpkinhead is an interesting creature, as it is an interesting movie. It also made me feel feelings (how dare it). I’ll probably get into my P-Head love later (phrasing), but as I mentioned, this creature is interesting. Its role is very fascinating. In my intro I mentioned a few iconic horror figures – male and female. Masculine motivations tend to be gluttonous, wanton bloodlust and power over others. Mostly, stabby-stabby, kill-kill. Even Freddy, although he likes to play with his victims, it’s all a power thing.

Female figures can be stabby-stabs, but more often than not have more complex motivations for murder and mayhem. They are seeking revenge, or haunted by their bloody past. Much like this, Pumpkinhead appears as a manifestation of vengeance. And, maybe this is a stretch, as it is not even spurred its own revenge, but just a supporting figure (a tool) of someone else’s revenge, it is taking a more feminine role. Just like I mentioned many females in horror (and “normal”) movies are there only for the fact of supporting the male’s actualization and his character development. Pumpkinhead is the same. Well, apart from being a mate…

P-head is different from most villains, even “summoned” characters such as Betelgeuse. It gains no pleasure or pain from doing its work, it has only one task and has no say or agency. It has absolutely no power, nor does it seek it. It’s kind of sad, actually. It’s basically a murderous Meeseeks, but with even less agency and dignity.

This poor, sad sap…

#3 Angela from “Sleepaway Camp”

The multiple faces of Angela

This one has gotten some slack over the years and I can’t speak to all sides, nor should I, I can only speak to how I feel about this character and what Angela means to me. Let’s get over the reveal, okay? Go watch it if you haven’t.

The only face everyone remembers

So, Angela the Killer is relatable because “she” is forced into both worlds, while belonging to neither. I also want to point out that “she” has been called trans by some, but I’m not sure if that’s even inherently correct as this was not by choice. Angela is attempting to navigate as what she/he/it believes is required of her/him/it, enduring some of the most negative aspects of being “female” (sexual harassment, bullying, predatory behavior).

The murders are a result of the culmination of the abuses Angela faces and the confusion of never being accepted as she/he/it truly is. Every time Angela begins to open up, she/he/it is again met with societal expectations and norms that she/he/it can’t adhere to, and the ultimately crushing disappointment when others can’t accept that.

Look, it’s not me, it’s you…

I’m not saying that killing everyone was the right move…I’m just saying that I think I get it.

#2 Jaws

Advertisement

Jaws…Jaws is many things, all in one. It is a force of nature, a shark with a badass scar, a mother seeking revenge, a…voodoo spirit seeking revenge…Jaws itself is a strange a beautiful enigma…and also really good-bad sequels featuring beautiful Lea Thompson and not-giving-a-flip Michael Caine.

But I want to concentrate on Jaws #1. The original. One of the reasons that I love the movie (a million times more than the book) is that it’s an examination of male identity – from father/authority figure, scientist/intellectual, to…well, Quint. 

But Jaws, itself, is more of a force of nature, an impending doom, than an example of masculinity. It tests their strengths. It prods their weaknesses. It is more monster than man, with only primitive motivation of survival, and perhaps, the hunt.

You could make a claim that Jaws also encompasses a more aloof masculinity, but, again in my own opinion, it is a primordial being of hunger and chaos – sex and gender are too complex for what it represents. Almost like a primeval Leviathan, rising from the bowels of the ocean to cast down the modern man.

Jesus!!! Two mouths!???

Too bad for it that Roy Scheider was a legend, with Richard Dreyfuss on the sidelines, ready with high-fives.

And the Monster of Choice is:

Glorious

#1 T-Rex from “Jurassic Park”

Here we are. Surprised? Don’t be.

Advertisement

Apart from being one of my favorite films (and a friendship deal-breaker if you don’t like), it has the best female villains.

They just happen to be dinosaurs…

And are also not entirely female

It’s true. At one point, Dr. Grant finds egg shells and realizes that the dinosaurs are changing their own sex to reproduce (“life will find a way”). While this is a bit of a throw-away line to go into the greater “playing God” theme, it’s a very cool and powerful moment for the creatures themselves. In nature there are animals that can change sexes, “gender roles” and other social dynamics. It’s pointing to the fact that it’s natural. We evolve. We change as a species. It’s okay. To be stagnant is to be the death of our lineage, we must adapt. In the movie, it was the sex of the dinosaurs. For humanity, maybe it will be something akin to gender.

But just as a movie concept, and going back to monsters, that makes the T-Rex incredibly powerful. Not only did she successfully fight for her freedom from forced confinement and exploitation, she can change herself. She can become he, and vice-versa. She has that agency and choice to, which is something lacking by others on the list. She can physically alter her body and hormones by her own will, for the continuation of her lineage and legacy.

By the end, she establishes her boundaries, reclaims her own body, and asserts her own path. And if that isn’t one of the most powerful characters in cinema history, boy, I sure don’t know who is.

Advertisement

When not ravaging through the wilds of Detroit with Jellybeans the Cat, J.M. Brannyk (a.k.a. Boxhuman) reviews mostly supernatural and slasher films from the 70's-90's and is dubiously HauntedMTL's Voice of Reason. Aside from writing, Brannyk dips into the podcasts, and is the composer of many of HauntedMTL's podcast themes.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movies n TV

The Last Drive-In Live: A Tribute to Roger Corman

Published

on

By

The Last Drive-In with Joe Bob Briggs returned March 15th for a special tribute to Roger Corman. Filmed live in Las Vegas during Joe Bob’s Jamboree last October, fans who were unable to attend can finally see what they missed. The Drive-In is available on AMC+ and Shudder.

This week on The Last Drive-In, Joe Bob and Darcy return to pay tribute to Roger Corman’s first 70 years in Hollywood. Roger and Julie Corman join the hosts between films at the West Wind Drive-In for an incredible interview on stage. Legendary actor Bruce Dern is also part of the conversation. Spanning the decades, Joe Bob presents Corman’s A Bucket of Blood (1959) and Deathstalker (1983).

Live from Las Vegas

A Tribute to Roger Corman begins with a live rendition of the show’s theme song in front of the cheering audience. The stage brings the trailer park to Vegas with its familiar set-up of chairs and a cooler. John Brennan croons as Yuki Nakamura beats a colander with a stick before introducing the show’s hosts. Joe Bob gives a special shout-out to the Las Vegas Chamber of Cannabis before introducing Darcy the Mailgirl.

In place of a tangentially related rant, Joe Bob opens with focused praise of Corman. He lauds Corman’s ability to fully meld the business and art halves of producing. Bringing attention to how “cheap” Corman is, Joe Bob highlights the smart decisions that sustained Corman’s long career. He calls them “the decisions of a producer who is being an artist.” Corman’s ability to spot talent and negotiate deals connects him to the beating heart of Hollywood, and leaves Joe Bob “truly in awe” of him.

Beatnik City

Part of what makes Corman special is his fascination with new and culturally relevant ideas. A Bucket of Blood (1959), is perhaps the best example of his ability to take real life and turn it into art. Corman together with writer Charles B. Griffith spent time in beatnik coffeehouses to create what Joe Bob calls “the ultimate parody of the whole beat generation.”

Advertisement
A poster for Roger Corman's A Bucket of Blood.
A poster for Roger Corman’s A Bucket of Blood

Bucket tells the story of Walter Paisley (Dick Miller), an impressionable busboy who is determined to impress the customers he serves. Jealous of the attention poet Maxwell H. Brock (Julian Burton) commands; Walter decides to become a sculptor. While attempting to sculpt the face of the coffeehouse’s hostess Carla (Barboura Morris), Walter inadvertently kills his pet cat. Seizing the opportunity, he covers the cat in clay and passes it off as original work. When the sculpture gives him a taste of the adoration he seeks, Walter continues down the dark path of melding murder with art.

The Drive-In Totals include but are not limited to: 4 dead bodies, 1 dead-cat sculpture, attempted busboy seduction with heroin, skillet fu, and gratuitous beatnik poetry. “Four stars. Joe Bob says, ‘Check it out.’”

Decisions, Decisions

Despite the film only being 67 minutes long, Joe Bob emphasizes how its length in no way limits the complete and complex story. Corman cuts down film times as a production decision. According to Corman, 78 minutes is the perfect length for a movie because it lowers distribution costs. Low run-times also make movies more likely to receive a television sale as it allows for more commercials.

Joe Bob credits Bucket with defining the acting style of Dick Miller and kicking off his career of playing oddball characters. The film also shows the strengths of Julian Burton as a character actor. Corman expected those in his films to continue in the industry, but not necessarily with him. Speaking about a conversation he had with Corman once, Joe Bob recounts him saying, “If you make a third movie for me, I tend to lose all respect for you.”

Budgeting

Bemoaning that a producer like Corman doesn’t exist for the modern age, Joe Bob asks the audience who they think could be analogous. Eric Butts gleefully shouts out “Lloyd Kaufman!” Darcy agrees with Butts, but Joe Bob doesn’t seem to think one truly exists. If one does, I agree that Kaufman is the closest thing. Joe Bob seems to think Blumhouse might be it, but concedes “they make expensive movies now.” Corman was not one to make expensive films even if it was within the budget.

Utilizing cost-saving measures, Little Shop of Horrors (1960) was filmed shortly after Bucket and utilized the same sets. Little Shop is the only Corman film in the National Film Registry. Joe Bob seems perplexed by this as Bucket and Little Shop are “identically structured movies.” Between the two, he believes Bucket to be the superior film.

Advertisement

When Darcy asks Joe Bob what he would do with $10 million in production funding, he says he would make 40 movies. Bucket of Blood 2, Gatorbait 3, and Hogzilla 2 are all thrown out as options. As soon as hogzilla is mentioned, the crowd bursts out in the now-familiar “Hogzilla! Hogzilla! Hogzilla!” chant. Being there, it felt good to be able to join in on the chant live instead of yelling it at my screen.

My rating for Bucket of Blood: 4.7 out of 5 stars (4.7 / 5)

Crowd Pleaser

Due to the live format, there is no mail break between movies. Instead, Joe Bob announces that Darcy will be going through the crowd to collect their letters. This appears to be news to Darcy and she responds with a startled look on her face, “Oh, I will not be moving amongst them!” She may have become more confident with her place on The Last Drive-In, but sending her out into the dark among the masses is too far. We’ll try to not take it personally, Darcy.

Joe Bob sits on stage next to Darcy the Mailgirl
Joe Bob attempts to convince Darcy

Instead of leaving the stage, she asks Joe Bob if he has his questions ready for Corman. She braces again when he replies that he is going for spontaneity tonight. Joe Bob says he’s already asked all of his questions in previous Corman interviews, so he’s left with no choice but to wing it. “Whenever you say something off the top of your head, you make everyone mad, and I defend you,” she reminds him. 

Welcome to the Stage

A sense of joy and reverence overtakes the stage as Roger and Julie Corman join the hosts. It is easy to tell from Joe Bob’s face how much love and reverence he holds for Corman. Their relationship/friendship has lasted since Joe Bob presented Corman with a lifetime achievement award 40 years ago. Of course, the award was inscribed on a Chevy hubcap. And of course, it’s presentation took place at a drive-in theater.

Joe Bob Briggs interviews Roger Corman on stage.
Joe Bob interviewing Roger Corman

Noting that a Chevy hubcap just wouldn’t cut it this time, Joe Bob gives both Roger and Julie lifetime achievement awards inscribed on Cadillac hubcaps. When Darcy hands Corman his award, he smiles in delight. “That’s great, that’s great! I love it!” The synchronicity of the moment is a beautiful thing to behold.

Always Prepared

Although Joe Bob told Darcy he did not have questions planned, he dives into the interview. “You were the man who brought Ingmar Bergman to the drive-in,” he starts. Corman reveals part of his distribution strategy and notes that drive-ins typically suffer in the fall from a lack of pictures. He says they decided to put Bergman’s film Cries and Whispers (1972) into drive-ins and see what happened. “We were delighted to find we had done average business.”

Advertisement

Corman is just as endearing and affable throughout the remainder of the interview. As Joe Bob delves into his genre-spanning career, Corman’s answers are a wealth of institutional knowledge and personal stories. This is an interview that anyone and everyone planning on going into film should watch. Going through the multiple genres reveals how much of a finger Corman kept on the pulse of culture as well as his chameleon-like ability to fit himself into any situation.

What a Trip

Genres he has worked in include (but are not limited to): westerns, redneck action, film-noir, rock-and-roll musicals, historical action, ripped from the headlines exploitation, gangster, comedy, pure action, costume drama, women in prison, sword and sorcery, and motorcycle movies. Corman reveals he holds an affinity for the science-fiction genre in particular. “[It] is laid in fantastic areas, but to a large extent, it can be a comment on the present day.” Julie chimes in to reveal the first story Corman ever wrote was a science-fiction piece, and Corman looks wistful as he remembers failing to sell it.

When asked about his art-film period, Corman talks about dropping acid with the cast of The Trip (1967). Intending to draw from the experience while filming, Corman says the experience didn’t go entirely to plan. “I had such a great trip.” He remembers worrying it was “going to end up as an ad for LSD.”

Surprise Guest

Unbeknownst to everyone in the audience, Joe Bob arranged for a member of The Trip’s cast as a surprise guest. Bruce Dern enters the stage clad in a leather jacket. I’m not sure if this is his normal garb, or if he is making a nod to another Corman film he starred in – The Wild Angels (1966).

Dern is bursting with praise for Corman and his impact on the film industry. When Joe Bob asks about working with Jack Nicholson, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper, Dern asserts “We went to the University of Corman.” I immediately wish I could buy merch emblazoned with that. He summarizes Corman’s career succinctly, “You do shit that’s never been done.”

Advertisement

Dern acknowledges that the pay wasn’t always fantastic, but that Corman always made sure his stars received the proper billing. “He put our names above the title.” Dern recalls being offended on Corman’s behalf for the lack of proper recognition throughout the years. “It was always fun to be with him and be able to say this kind of stuff about a guy, who God damnit deserves it.”

Lifetime Achievement

The interview ends with three incredible moments. First, Corman recalls receiving a death threat from Big Otto Friedli (a former President of the Hells Angels). Friedli was suing Corman in regards to The Wild Angels. His response to the threat leaves the audience in laughter. “My advice to you is forget the momentary pleasure of killing me and go for the million dollars.”

Next, the audience learns from Corman that a remake of Little Shop is coming in conjunction with Brad Krevoy. Joe Dante is directing the film, which is called The Little Shop of Halloween Horrors.

To end, Corman reveals that not only does he still have his original Chevy hubcap given to him 40 years ago, but that he brought it with him. In an incredibly touching moment, Corman bestows the award back to Joe Bob. “It’s my pleasure to give you the lifetime achievement award.” I cannot think of a higher honor.

You’ve Been Warned

Content warning: The second film of the night contains multiple depictions of sexual violence. Consequently, Joe Bob refers to it within his discussions of the film.

Advertisement

Despite there being literally hundreds of Corman films to choose from, Joe Bob selects Deathstalker (1983) as the second movie. He breaks his decision down to three factors. First, he wants to present a sword and sorcery movie. Second, he wants to highlight Corman’s use of foreign countries to “make movies that otherwise would not be made.” Third, the movie has a lot of naked women in it and is “loincloth city.”

A poster for Roger Corman's Deathstalker.
A poster for Roger Corman’s Deathstalker

Deathstalker tells the story of, well, Deathstalker (Rick Hill) and his quest to acquire three magical items in order to defeat the evil sorcerer Munkar (Bernard Erhard). As Joe Bob puts it, “There’s rape and there’s pillage and there’s magic swords and there’s castles and there’s peasant hoards…”

The drive-in totals include but are not limited to: 30 breasts, 24 buttocks, limb ripping, spears through the gizzards, heads roll, leprosy fu. “Four stars. Joe Bob says, ‘Check it out!’”

Parental Advisory

This film has an almost absurd amount of sexual violence in it. It is rare for a woman to be on screen without there being sexual violence. If you are uncomfortable with watching that take place, Joe Bob does an accurate summation at each break. If you don’t want to hear about it, skip the second film entirely. As Darcy says, “This movie is very rapey.” 

Thankfully, Joe Bob does also delve more into Corman’s history during the breaks. Corman struck a 10-picture deal with Héctor Olivera and Aries Films based out of Buenos Aires. Joe Bob credits this deal with saving Aries Film during a time of hyperinflation in Argentina. Apparently, The Argentine film industry wasn’t a fan of Deathstalker and criticized the exploitation inherent in its production.

The stunt-work in the film is impressive. While the stunts are fun to watch, it’s hard to forget that the performers were risking bodily harm at a pay-rate that was only acceptable because of Argentina’s economic situation. Joe Bob highlights the work of José Luis Arévalo as the character Pig-Face specifically as deserving praise and recognition.

Advertisement

A New World Order

Moving away from the film, Joe Bob goes deeper into Corman’s film distribution history. Starting with New World Pictures in 1970, Corman went on to create and sell various distribution companies. In the process, he created numerous sub-genres and launched the careers of several successful filmmakers. Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard are included in the list.

Corman would not allow someone to direct a film for him until they had editing experience. According to Joe Bob, Corman believes “editing is the key to great movies.” This calls back to his idea that 78 minutes is the perfect length for a movie. 

Lack of Defense

The film performed well in America but was a dud in its production home of Argentina. Joe Bob notes early into the film, “I am, by the way, one of the few defenders of this movie.” Darcy agrees that she is also a defender of the film. I am not.

My rating for Deathstalker: 1.3 out of 5 stars (1.3 / 5)

Wrap it Up

Although Darcy never waded into the crowd to collect letters, fans still wrote on whatever scraps they had and threw them in the collection box. Darcy chooses four letters, but my favorite comes from Victoria from Virgina. She writes in with a topical blonde joke: “Why did the two blonds freeze to death at the drive-in? They went to see ‘closed for the winter.’”

The night can’t really end until Joe Bob tells his jokes, and that he does. As the night draws to a close, John Brennan and the Bigfeet come back out with Yuki to sing the mutant oath as a send-off. Appropriately, the night ends with the crowd lovingly chanting Joe Bob’s name.

Advertisement

While I may not be a fan of Deathstalker, the special overall was incredible to experience. Sitting live in the audience (and catching glimpses of myself on TV) is something I will never be able to forget.

It’s fascinating to see how the live experience translated to the screen, but production did a fantastic job making it seamless. The energy of the crowd is really what makes this special. Chanting will never be the same again.

Darcy on stage chanting "loincloth!"
Loincloth! Loincloth!

My rating for A Tribute to Roger Corman: 4 out of 5 stars (4 / 5)

Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Unraveling the Artistry in Sean Mathias’s Hamlet Film with Ian McKellen

Published

on

2b v ~ 2b

Imagine Sir Ian McKellen, an icon of the stage and screen, diving back into the turbulent waters of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number, and McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. This Hamlet film is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling.

Now, I’m not just whistling Dixie here; as someone deeply entrenched in Shakespeare’s rich tapestry and perpetually on the edge of my seat for fresh adaptations, the buzz around this particular version of Hamlet has me all kinds of excited. With IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ready to chart its journey, and echoes of David Tennant to Helena Bonham Carter reminding us of Hamlet’s storied cinematic past, Sir Ian’s version is primed to stand tall amidst the ghosts of Kenneth Branagh and the tragic echoes of Ophelia. This film isn’t just a recount of Denmark’s doomed prince; it’s a beacon for Shakespeare enthusiasts and cinema buffs alike.

Overview of the Film

Diving headfirst into the heart of this cinematic marvel, “Hamlet” with Ian McKellen at the helm, is like stepping into a Shakespearean whirlwind spun into the modern age. Directed by the visionary Sean Mathias, this film plants its roots in the historic Theatre Royal Windsor, UK, transforming every corner of this iconic space into the brooding world of Elsinore. The cast, oh, the cast! It’s a lineup that reads like a who’s who of the acting world – from Jonathan Hyde’s (Claudius) gravitas to Jenny Seagrove’s (Gertrude) elegance, and let’s not forget the powerhouse that is Alis Wyn Davies (Ophelia). This ensemble, including Ben Allen (Horatio), Ashley D Gayle (basically everyone not named already) and Emmanuella Cole (Laertes), navigates Shakespeare’s complex language with a finesse that’s downright enviable.

Advertisement

This isn’t just any adaptation; we’re talking about a cinematic spin on Sean Mathias’s groundbreaking 2021 production, where age is just a number. McKellen’s Hamlet shatters expectations. Jim Phoenix

Picture, if you will: the world’s been hit with the stillness of the 2020 COVID-19 shutdown, and amidst this, “Hamlet” emerges as a beacon of artistic resilience. It’s not just any adaptation; it’s a modern-dress treatment that speaks to the here and now, pared down to a gripping two hours. The production breathes life into the Theatre Royal Windsor, turning its abandoned nooks and crannies into the very heart of Elsinore. From the safety curtain to the theatre foyer, every scene unfolds with an intimacy that only enhances the drama.

This film isn’t just about showcasing stellar performances; it’s an exploration, a conversation between cinema and theatre. How does one enhance the other? Can the grandeur of theatre translate onto the silver screen? With Neil Oseman’s ingenious cinematography, every frame of this film attempts to answer these questions, offering viewers a Hamlet that’s both familiar and startlingly new. Set your tvs on stun as this version hits shelves and electrons on April 8 coming out on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital Download, this film is a testament to the timeless allure of Shakespeare, reimagined for a world in pause.

Ian McKellen dressed in a white fencing outfit with the title Hamlet

Ian McKellen’s Performance

Let me tell you, seeing Sir Ian McKellen take on Hamlet again, especially at 84, is like watching a master painter revisit his masterpiece with new colors. This isn’t just any performance; it’s a nuanced, age-blind portrayal that flips the script on traditional casting, making it a must-see for anyone who’s even remotely intrigued by Shakespeare’s work.

  • Age-Blind Brilliance: Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. McKellen’s casting in an age-blind production adds layers to Hamlet’s character, showcasing a blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age. This duality brings a fresh perspective to the role, making it relatable across generations.
  • A Masterclass in Delivery: His performance is a quiet storm. It’s meditative, focusing on the weight of Hamlet’s words rather than overt dramatics. McKellen’s command of the language, his ability to find new inflections in well-trodden speeches, is nothing short of a masterclass. Shakespeare aficionados will be hanging on every word, reveling in the masterful delivery of the bard’s intricate verse. For those struggling with the text of the play, this might be the most friendly adaptation to sink your teeth into. McKellen’s delivery hits all the high notes, but his wisdom in holding back where others might push helps newer audiences connect with the material.
  • Physicality and Emotional Depth: Despite the quieter, more reflective approach, McKellen’s physicality and emotional depth do not wane. His portrayal is a testament to his skill, bringing a compelling prince to life who is both vulnerable and unpredictable. The scenes with the players, in particular, highlight his calculated madness, offering a glimpse into the prince’s tormented psyche.

Incorporating these elements into his portrayal, McKellen not only honors his past performances but also elevates this Hamlet film to new heights. It’s a celebration of Shakespeare’s timeless language and the psychological complexity of its characters, delivered by a cast led by a titan of the stage and screen.

Supporting Cast and Their Contributions

Alright, diving into the world of Elsinore beyond McKellen’s Hamlet, let’s talk about the squad that brings this Shakespearean drama to life. It’s like assembling a dream team where each player has their unique flair, but instead of dribbling basketballs, they’re slaying lines in iambic pentameter.

McKellen’s Hamlet is a feast for the senses and a triumph of storytelling. Jim Phoenix

  • Jenny Seagrove as Gertrude: Seagrove’s take on the Queen is interesting. I’ve seen Gertrude played a lot of different ways. Mostly, the audience should find some sympathy with Gertrude (enough to make a real connection that she truly loves Hamlet and is, most likely, innocent in most things). There are times where Seagrove approaches this, but the royal mask stays tightly on. Some have suggested her performance as ‘wooden’, but I think they are missing the point. Seagrove does move to emotion when she must, but the excels at keeping the ‘Royal Mask’ intact. In the end, Queen Gertrude is exactly that–Queen. When was the last time you saw England’s former monarch express a lot of emotion in public? This doesn’t suggest either were incapable of emotion, but rather a master of theirs.
  • Jonathan Hyde as Claudius and Emmanuella as Laertes: Hyde’s Claudius is the smooth villain you love to hate, capturing the complexity of the character with finesse. Cole steps into Laertes’ shoes and runs with them, delivering a performance that’s solid, given the big shoes she had to fill.

Mix in the age- and gender-blind casting, and you’ve got a recipe for a Hamlet that’s as fresh as it is classic. From modern-dress Polonius to a female Ghost stirring the pot, this cast turns Shakespeare on its head in the best way possible. And let’s not forget the costumes – or lack thereof, in terms of evocativeness. It’s like everyone decided to raid a very somber, very Shakespearean version of H&M. This works in the movie’s favor. It’s a zero-shits given version of Hamlet casting. They cast the best person for the role, gender, age, color be damned. It’s pretty refreshing to see this cast and they knock it out of the park.

Critical Reception and Audience Response

So, let’s dive into the sea of opinions swirling around this Hamlet film, shall we? I mean, it’s not every day you get to see Sir Ian McKellen give life to one of Shakespeare’s most tormented souls, right? The buzz was real, folks – from critics singing praises to some scratching their heads in puzzlement. Here’s the lowdown:

Let’s face it. Even my first thought was ‘how the hell is McKellen going to play Hamlet at 80??!’ Well, the answer is…brilliantly. Jim Phoenix

  • Praise for McKellen and the Modern Twist:
    • Critics and audiences were all about McKellen’s portrayal. The blend of youthful energy with the wisdom of age? Gorgeously done as we all knew he would.
    • The contemporary take on this classic tragedy had folks intrigued. It’s like Shakespeare met 2024 and they decided to throw a party.
  • But, Not All Was Rosy:
    • The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia felt like it was on a diet – underdeveloped and leaving us wanting more. I’m not sure where it goes ‘wrong’ here. The acting is spectactular for both Hamlet and Ophelia, but there isn’t a joint spark. Hamlet’s kiss to his mother was more romantic than anything happening between these two (and that kiss was a tad creepy).
  • Production Woes and Wins:
    • Experimental space and tone had its ups and downs. Some decisions had us scratching our heads, wondering if the chaos was part of the charm. This includes some setting (how many flights of stairs did Gertrude run down to nark on her son?) and sometimes the lines either cut or–oddly–added.
    • With all that said, the good far outweigh the bad here. Even the wonky stair run works to show a level of Gertrude’s literal and metaphorical descent. It goes to show space in the madness–a madness that is quite contagious in this play.

Navigating through this mixed bag of reactions, it’s clear this Hamlet wasn’t just another adaptation. It was a conversation starter, a bold experiment in blending theatre with cinema, and a showcase for McKellen’s undiminished talent. As a Shakespeare enthusiast, it’s these daring takes that keep the bard’s work alive and kicking in our hearts.

For those new to Shakespeare…

I know someone who is currently teaching Hamlet in class. After seeing Sir Ian’s vision of Hamlet, we both agreed: This might be the bridge for younger adults to get a greater understanding of Shakespeare. The run time, the choice of words and scenery, and the stellar cast all form a ‘relatable’ version of Hamlet. There are some food for thought with this version that we discussed earlier (e.g., age and gender blind casting; some of the text is from elsewhere, etc), but if you’re new to Shakespeare and want to tip-toe in–this is your jam. Even better–if you love Hamlet and thought you saw it all–this is also your jam.

Conclusion

Through this detailed exploration of the Hamlet film starring Ian McKellen, we’ve navigated the complexities and novelties introduced by a profoundly compelling adaptation. The artistic innovation that underpins this rendition extends from its age-blind casting to the incorporation of modern dress, illustrating Shakespeare’s enduring relevance. McKellen’s portrayal of Hamlet, enriched by his depth of experience and fresh perspectives, alongside a robust supporting cast, fortifies the film’s appeal not only to Shakespeare veterans but also to those who are newly discovering the intricacies of the Bard’s masterpieces. This narrative fervor aligns harmoniously with an audience that is simultaneously well-versed in Shakespearean lore and eager to witness this unique adaptation unfold.

As I conclude, the significance of this adaptation transcends mere entertainment, heralding a vibrant dialogue between traditional theatre and contemporary cinema. The anticipation surrounding its release is a testament to the lasting impact of Shakespeare’s work, ingeniously reimagined for today’s audience. For enthusiasts and scholars alike, the film promises to be a captivating experience, merging the old with the new in a celebration of Shakespearean drama that is not to be missed.

To ensure you don’t miss out on this cinematic feat, make sure to go buy it from Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment when it comes out on Blu-ray, DVD, and streaming April 8. This adaptation not only redefines the parameters of classical theatre in the modern age but also beckons us to revisit the timeless questions and emotions that Shakespeare so masterfully encapsulated.

Final Rating

4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Short Synopsis: McKellen reprises his lead role as Hamlet, a man who descends into madness as he seeks vengeance against his uncle for the alleged murder of his father. A tale of revenge that has stood the test of time, Shakespeare’s classic tragedy is reimagined for the modern day as a gripping psychological thriller. Kaleidoscope Home Entertainment

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movies n TV

Goosebumps, Night of the Living Dummy: Part 2

Published

on

After last episode’s spectacular ending that honestly felt like a season finale, I was apprehensive about this episode. I was expecting this one to feel slow, tacked on, and a little gimmicky. Fortunately, it was only two of those things.

The story

We begin our story with Nathan, just finishing up the book he’s written about Slappy and the town. He sent it off to a publisher who loves it! Except, for the ending.

Cover for Goosebums Night of the Living Dummy 2

Nathan tries valiantly to write an ending. But in the end, he just can’t come up with one. With his publisher breathing down his neck, Nathan decides the only way to end the book is to bring Slappy back for an encore.

Slappy manages to immediately endear himself to Nathan by bringing Fifi back to life. And I’ll be honest here. I probably wouldn’t have retrieved a homicidal dummy for the perfect ending to a book. But I’d do some shady shit for someone who could bring my dead pets back to life. Even if they did have scary monster teeth.

Advertisement

Of course, this sort of thing never goes to plan. Soon enough Slappy has everything he wants. And the ending of Nathan’s story is the least of his concerns.

Meanwhile, the teens are in Seattle with Margot and her mom. Margot is thinking about moving there, and there are conflicting opinions about this. Lucas realizes he never wants to leave their hometown, which causes conflict. Conflict that I didn’t think was bad enough that he needed to get on a bus and head home alone, but what do I know?

The only real reason why this matters is that the kids, who are clearly the only ones paying any attention in this town, are in fact out of town when Slappy returns.

What worked

A lot of the joy from this episode came from Nathan. It was a really fun episode if you are a fan of R.L. Stine, a fan of Stephen King, or a writer. As I’m all three, this was quite fun for me. At least half the episode was.

Advertisement

First, I loved the generational stupidity of Nathan Bratt. We know that it was his ancestor, Ephraim Biddle, who first found Slappy and locked him up in the Biddle house. It was then, of course, Harold Biddle who was corrupted and eventually killed by Slappy. So when Nathan goes to find Slappy, you can almost hear generations of his family yelling at him.

This episode is littered with jokes about R.L. Stein and Stephen King. King is name-dropped several times, and you can see at least one of his books in the background while Nathan’s talking to his publisher. Also, the publisher’s note that Nathan’s ending is bad could be a reference to King.

Stine also has a wonderful cameo in the form of a writing podcast Nathan is listening to. If that podcast exists, I need to find it. I also appreciated the dig about ‘everyone being dead the whole time’. This episode took shot after shot at my favorite childhood author and my favorite author from adulthood and I loved it.

Justin Long in Goosebumps.

What didn’t work

Sadly the episode couldn’t all be horror writing in-jokes. Sometimes we did have to pay attention to the main characters. And that storyline was, to put it bluntly, boring.

I couldn’t care less that Margot is considering moving. I don’t care that Isaiah and Lucas are both in love with her. I don’t care that Lucas has never heard of long-distance relationships. I don’t care that Isabella has feelings for Isaiah. I tuned into Goosebumps to watch killer dummies and vengeful ghosts. If I wanted to watch teenagers have hormones at each other, I’d have watched Degrassi. None of the teens’ love lives have anything to do with the plot and this portion of the show was so, so very dull.

Advertisement

All in all, this wasn’t the strongest episode of the season. It was one of those dreaded bridge episodes, there more to set the stage for what’s to come than to be enjoyable in its own right. But, it did that. I’m excited to see what the last episode has in store for us. 3.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 / 5)

If you’re a fan of my work, please check out my latest story, Nova, on Paper Beats World. New chapters launch every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending