Blog Directory CineVerse: October 2015

Slicing through the layers of "Psycho"

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Fifty-five years may sound old, but hardly any dust has settled on Alfred Hitchcock's supreme horror film "Psycho" since its release in 1960. It's one of only a handful of films that CineVerse has screened and discussed three times in our 10-year history, and, as demonstrated by the strong member turnout every screening of it elicits, it remains thrilling, entertaining, and endlessly fascinating as a work of pure cinema. Here are some of the points we covered in our discussion of the picture last evening:

CAN YOU NAME ANY EXAMPLES OF HOW PSYCHO CHANGED CINEMA FOREVER?

It inaugurated a new era of increased graphic violence for intense shock value; It’s the first true slasher movie
It broke down film censorship barriers by depicting casual sex between two unmarried lovers, showing extensive footage of a scantily clad woman, showing a peeping Tom, violation of a naked woman in the shower, and was even the first feature film instance of a flushing toilet
It is the first to kill off the major character/primary hero so early—within the first third—essentially making Marion a red herring diversion and Psycho a great practical joke
It manipulated audiences into switching allegiances/sympathies from one innocent protagonist to another who turned out to be evil: think of how you felt when Norman waited for the car to sink in the swamp, or when we hear him shockingly say to his mother, “Oh, mother…the blood!”
It usurped 1950s conventionality and repressive values—turning the Ozzie and Harriet generation on its ear; according to critic David Thomson, “Most films of the 50s are secret ads for the way of life. Psycho is a warning about its lies and limits”.
The score was extremely influential: a sparse, abstract arrangement of shrieking, unrelenting strings—later copied in films like Jaws
Psycho became one of the first big buzz event movies thanks to a great publicity campaign and due to Hitchcock’s rule that no one be seated after the film started. The marketing campaign begged the audience not to reveal any plot twists; movie theaters soon initiated policies that set specific showtimes and didn’t allow audiences into the theater once a film started

THERE ARE MANY PARALLELS SUGGESTED BETWEEN VARIOUS SETS OF 2 DIFFERENT CHARACTERS IN THE FILM; CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY OF THESE PARALLELS?
Marion and Norman: You feel sympathy for both early on in the film, despite the fact that both have committed crimes—Marion the crime of theft, Norman the crime of covering up for whom you think is his mother, the murderer. 
o We exonerate Marion because she’s stealing the money for love, and because she’s stealing from a lecherous creep
Norman and Sam: Sam had what Norman wanted (Marion) but couldn’t have—he’s honorable, handsome and prepared; Norman is gangly, awkward and unprepared; both were living a double life (Sam sneaking around to be Marion’s lover)
Marion and Arbogast: both are victims of Norman, but the viewer hasn’t formed a subjective bond to Arbogast as they had with Marion
Arbogast and Lila: Both investigate Marion’s disappearance, but Lila makes it further (upstairs and downstairs) than the private eye did and doesn’t pay the price he did
Marion (first scene) and Marion (last scene): white undergarments (good girl) vs. black undergarments (bad girl)
Norman (early on) and Norman (later, when mother’s secret is revealed): split personalities
In fact, the extensive use of mirrors and mirror images throughout the movie suggests that anyone is capable of having a split personality

AUDIENCES TYPICALLY LEAVE THE THEATER FEELING TERRIFIED ONCE PSYCHO CONCLUDES. DOES THIS FEAR COME FROM THE GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND BRUTAL MURDERS, OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE?
Because you are forced to identify and sympathize with the person who turns out to be an evil psychopath, you are forced to examine your own conscience by the film’s end and ask yourself: am I capable of committing these kinds of crimes? Do I have a bit of Norman Bates in me? Would I ever impulsively kill or steal?
Think of how the film starts: suggesting that this could happen in any random life, in any random town—thus, it could happen to you
The fear that you can’t trust anybody: at some point in the movie, we fear the police, a would-be helpless old lady, and a seemingly harmless looking young man
The horror suggested by Norman’s actions: incest, necrophilia, taxidermy of a dead person, transvestism
Also, they’ve been fooled by Hitchcock’s misdirection: you think the story is about the money theft, but it veers off into something completely different, by random chance. It’s this sudden turn of direction and arbitrary twist of fate that shocks viewers, even subconsciously

HOW DID PSYCHO DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS HITCHOCK EFFORTS IN THE FIFTIES LIKE “REAR WINDOW,” “VERTIGO” AND “NORTH BY NORTHWEST”?
Those were bigger budget, glossy, color pictures with big name stars
This was made to look like a cheap exploitation film in b/w—a longer version perhaps of one of his TV show episodes of the time
There is no calming moral resolution by the end of this film—yes, the villain is captured, but we’re left feeling unnerved by Norman’s interior monologue
There is no slick, handsome villain nor is there a hero/heroine who endures by the end

WHAT IS THIS FILM’S MACGUFFIN—THE DEVICE THAT MOVES THE PLOT ALONG BUT WHICH IS RELATIVELY MEANINGLESS?
The $40,000, which Hitchcock forces us to dwell on up to the point where Norman sinks it in the trunk
This becomes Hitchcock’s little joke—the money turns out to be insignificant by the end of the film, despite all the attention we’ve invested in it
In this way, the last shot of the car being dragged out of the swamp is Hitchcock’s final laugh: it’s his way of tacking on a happy ending to the problem about the money—it’s ultimately found

THE SHOWER SEQUENCE IS OFTEN CITED AS ONE OF THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND IMPORTANT IN THE HISTORY OF FILM. WHAT’S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS SCENE?
It borrows heavily from Soviet montage theory (of Sergei Eisenstein and others) and New Wave filmmaking
It wouldn’t be nearly as shocking/effective if Hitchcock hadn’t so masterfully developed Marion’s character beforehand and forced us to identify/sympathize with her
In fact, it becomes it’s all the more shocking the first time you see it because we feel so much better about Marion right before it: she’s decided to go home and give the money back, and she has a happier look upon her face. 
You never actually see a naked body (that’s a body double in a sheer body suit) nor does your naked eye see a knife enter it; nor is the blood real or red (it’s chocolate syrup); it’s the power of suggestion that is really at work here, and that’s how Hitchcock was able to appease the censors, a very clever solution
From the moment Marion disrobes and steps into the shower, the pace and cutting of the shots quicken; 90 cuts over 45 seconds
also, the water shoots in contrasting directions to disorient us, as it did on her car windshield earlier, creating an anxious, out of sorts feeling
The point of view is through the eyes of a voyeuristic killer

WHAT IS ARGUABLY THE ONLY BLEMISH IN THIS OTHERWISE EVERGREEN MASTERPIECE?
The tacked-on psychologist’s diagnosis that explains Norman’s actions and psychosis, which probably goes on too long and softens the blow
Yet, it makes the last scene of Norman’s internal monologue more effective, because everything we see and hear makes a mockery of what the shrink explains—this guy is pure evil (so much so that you can see a human skull slightly superimposed over his own smiling face in the second to the last shot). 

Read more...

Sleepover at Norman's house--and you're invited

Sunday, October 25, 2015

On October 28: CineVerse's Shocktober Theater concludes, but the "Our Favorite Films" series reconvenes, with “Psycho” (1960; 109 minutes), directed by Alfred Hitchcock, chosen by Farrell McNulty. Plus: enjoy a brief feature deconstructing the making of the infamous shower scene.

Read more...

The "Blair Witch" laid bare

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Love it or hate it, "The Blair Witch Project" has legs--meaning that it has survived past its initial hype and turn-of-the-millennium zeitgeist popularity to stand as one of the seminal "found footage" horror flicks worthy of continued study. Among the conclusions reached by our CineVerse film discussion group on this movie are the following:

HOW IS THIS FILM VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER HORROR MOVIES?
This is one of the first examples of the “found footage” subgenre in which would-be documentary footage, supposedly later discovered, is presented, often shot by the actual actors and featuring a shaky handheld camera style. Whoever “found” this footage edited it together and presents it as a document of what happened to the people who originally shot it.
There is no graphic violence, very little blood/gore, no physical manifestation of a monster, witch or ghost shown, no cheap shocks/popouts, and no special effects or CGI. Instead, this is a psychological horror movie.
There is no real plot, and not much happens, other than initial interviewing of townsfolk followed by camping in the woods, getting lost in the woods, and increasing arguments between the three principals. In fact, there really aren’t that many scare scenes/shots in the entire film.
There is no music, except for the end credits, which are really just ambient/industrial-sounding noises.
The actors are all nonprofessionals and unknowns, and the film really only features three people.
The ending is abrupt, and there is no resolution: all we know is that the three college students were never found again. We don’t know if they were killed or who stalked/threatened them. We don’t learn the significance of or the providers of the remnants they discover (the twig men, the eerie bundle), and the “legend” of the Blair Witch is not demystified in any way.
It was promoted as a mysterious but real event (the disappearance of the 3 students) and it became a grassroots marketing sensation, with strong word-of-mouth bringing many viewers to the theater and helping it build a reputation as one of the scariest pictures ever made.

IF YOU FIND THE FILM SCARY, WHAT MAKES IT SO?
The movie’s verisimilitude is palpable: this looks like the most amateurish of video footage, appearing too shaky, shoddy, and off-the-cuff to be fake, choreographed or contrived. That realism is a testament to the design of the filmmakers, who allowed the actors to shoot the footage without much direction and who stayed primarily off the set to allow the performances and dialogue to unfold naturally.
o The actors weren’t faking it, either: they really were camping in the woods for days, lacking sleep, exhausted, cold, aggravated with each other, not privy to the script, and unaware of what the filmmakers were going to unleash upon them. 
The film builds tension and fright via the simplest of techniques: eerie off-screen sounds, strange things presumably happening out of the frame but nearby, brief but effective night scenes that are almost completely dark except for the camcorder light, and friction/infighting between the three lost college students, which puts each of them on edge.
o The Dissolve essayist Mike D’Angelo summed it up effectively: “The Blair Witch Project" is one of the goriest movies ever made: It’s 81 minutes of nerves being slowly shredded before your eyes. The real horror lies in watching Heather (Heather Donahue), Josh (Joshua Leonard), and Mike (Michael C. Williams) gradually turn on each other as their circumstances grow bleaker, until there’s arguably no longer any need for a witch or other bogeyman to torment them. By night, the film is an unconventional horror flick... By day, on the other hand, it’s a harrowing collegiate gloss on Jean-Paul Sartre’s play "No Exit," in which three dead souls discover that their eternal punishment consists of being locked in a room with each other. The woods here are just a big, empty room, and the screaming, bickering, and blame-tossing isn’t a grating distraction from the main story. It is the main story.”
“At a time when digital techniques can show us almost anything, ‘The Blair Witch Project’ is a reminder that what really scares us is the stuff we can’t see. The noise is the dark is almost always scarier than what makes the noise in the dark,” Roger Ebert wrote in his 4-star review of the movie.
The concept of being lost, especially in the woods, as well as hunted is terrifying to many people.

THIS FILM ALSO FRUSTRATED MANY VIEWERS. WHAT ELEMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED IRRITATING/FRUSTRATING?
Nothing much really happens: again, we aren’t shown any visible monster or supernatural threat, and we don’t know what actually happens to the three campers by the film’s conclusion. The film ends suddenly and ambiguously. 
Being that these are nonprofessional actors, the performances, dialogue and infighting—as unscripted and verite-style as they are—can be grating, irksome and tedious.
When released in 1999, the film was marketed as a true story/actual event; consequently, there was some audience backlash when nothing was explained/resolved by the film’s conclusion. Many viewers wanted to learn of the fates of the 3 students and desired a confirmation of the authenticity of the footage and the events depicted. Also, many people who were told word-of-mouth that this was a terrifying motion picture felt cheated and/or duped.
The real hubris for many is that they didn’t find it scary enough.
“The Blair Witch Project is an art film that was sold to the public as mainstream entertainment. The filmmakers tried to make it more accessible [to audiences], but there wasn’t much they could do,” D’Angelo wrote.

OTHER FILMS, INCLUDING “FOUND FOOTAGE” HORROR MOVIES, THAT “THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT” REMINDS US OF:
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
The Last Broadcast (1998)
The St. Francisville Experiment (2000)
REC (2007)
Cloverfield (2008)
The Paranormal Activity movies

Read more...

Life's a Witch, and then you die...

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Circle October 21 on your calendar: that's the date when you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares after attending CineVerse's Shocktober Theater, part 3: “The Blair Witch Project” (1999; 81 minutes), directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez. Plus, we'll have extra time to screen “Curse of the Blair Witch,” a fascinating fake documentary delving deeper into the legend of the Blair Witch.

Read more...

November/December CineVerse schedule is live

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Admit it--you're itching to learn what CineVerse will be viewing and spewing about through the rest of the year, aren't you? Your wait is now over. View the November/December 2015 CineVerse calendar by clicking here or visiting http://1drv.ms/1MEHeHW.

Read more...

The plot wick-ens

In the annals of movie horror, few features are as outright weird and disturbingly wonderful as Robin Hardy's 1973 "The Wicker Man," which can have a polarizing effect on audiences. Upon closer inspection, it is imbued with impressive elements that help it stand out from the creepster crowd. Consider, for example, the finer points we examined yesterday during our CineVerse meeting:

WHAT SETS THIS FILM APART FROM OTHER HORROR OR MYSTERY FILMS YOU’VE SEEN?
It’s actually hard to categorize – it has enough original songs to be possibly considered a musical, and you wouldn't be wrong in thinking of it as a melodrama, whodunit mystery, or psychological thriller.
Many experts categorize it in the sub genre called folk horror – in which folklore, social rituals and tradition are at the heart of the horror; cinematic examples include Blood on Satan’s Claw, Witchfinder General, Haxan: a History of Witchcraft Through the Ages, Der Golum, The Phantom Carriage, and The Devil Rides Out.
There is no blood, gore, cheap shocks, or graphic violence (other than arguably the final scene). Instead of relying on horror clichés or conventions like monsters, grotesque images, slasher violence,  shocking popouts, or unsettling special effects, this is a movie that frightens by building a growing dread and unsettling atmosphere. In fact, some say it’s difficult to describe exactly what frightens them about this movie (besides perhaps the twist conclusion).
It also doesn’t resort to depicting any supernatural power that validates or supports Summerisle’s pagan religion; in fact, we’re not even clear if Lord Summerisle actually believes the religion he espouses or uses it as a tool to control the people he governs.
The look and cinematography showcases a bright, sunny, predominantly outdoor, and colorful palette—quite a difference from the dark, shadow-filled, Gothic visuals of most horror films.
The film ends on a disquieting note, without us learning if the Islanders’ sacrifice helped their crops or if their act was brought to justice by Howie’s police force. Nothing is tied up neatly in a bow and resolved clearly here.
o An alternate reading of the film suggests that “the film ends with a triumphant single clarion note and the sun sinking behind the burning wicker head, there's every indication that the islanders' sacrifice will prove successful, their crime go undetected, and their island thrive (although Howie does plant, just before he burns, the idea that, should their crops fail another year, the islanders' next sacrifice will have to be Lord Summerisle himself,” wrote the blogger Momus.
The soundtrack, replete with buoyantly chipper or moody folk songs filled with creepy lyrics, also plays against our expectations: songs sung in a film musical can speak of conflict experienced by its characters, but they usually reinforce a feeling or belief or positivity that is shared by the viewer; here, the tunes belted out in this picture are eerie and off-putting to non-paganists.
This is a time-capsule flick that’s very much a product and statement of its times: the early 70s, after the counterculture movement had suffered defeat following the death of the free-spirited 1960s and due to public disillusionment in the wake of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and loss of faith in our public leaders.

WHAT THEMES ARE EXAMINED IN “THE WICKER MAN”?
The dangers of religious fanaticism, although the movie arguably points out this danger in both Christianity and paganism, which it treats as equal but opposing forces.
o Consider how much an outsider and pariah Howie is to the islanders—morally, authoritatively, and attitude wise. Our allegiance is initially with him, in that he stands as a surrogate for the audience arriving at the island trying to solve a murder mystery, and he, like so many viewers, is a Christian. As reviewer James Berardinelli wrote: “We feel safe identifying with him because he has the power of righteousness on his side.”
o Yet, as the film progresses, we see the contrast between his stern, prudish, judgmental, and brash demeanor and the polite, content, happy attitudes and defensible intelligence of the islanders, whom many viewers switch their allegiance or sympathies to. Howie and what he stands for is yet another threat to the liberal/free love ideals of the hippy/counterculture crowd.
It explores the question: What if primitive pagan beliefs were practiced and allowed to flourish in mainstream society today?
It turns moral expectations on its ear: “here…law is sin and sin is law. And it’s peculiarly attractive. Law, in the form of Howie, the prudish virgin, is mocked and finally destroyed, whereas sin, in the form of unshameful sex and a deep concern with fertility, structures community life,” suggested the blogger Momus.
The hunter becomes the hunted.

OTHER MOVIES OR WORKS OF LITERATURE THAT REMIND US OF “THE WICKER MAN”
Rosemary’s Baby
The Fearless Vampire Killers
Witchfinder General (The Conqueror Worm)
The Man Who Fell to Earth
Eyes Wide Shut
Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”

OTHER FILM SCREENPLAYS WRITTEN BY ANTHONY SHAFFER
Sleuth
Frenzy
Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun

Read more...

Wicker Man = wicked movie

Sunday, October 11, 2015

On October 14, Shocktober Theater returns with “The Wicker Man” (1973; 94 minutes), directed by Robin Hardy. In addition, we'll present a trailer reel preview of the November/December schedule.

Read more...

A horror film with real backbone

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Director Guillermo del Toro has proven himself to be master of the fantastical, as evidenced by his imaginatively visual works like "Pan's Labyrinth." An earlier companion film to to "Pan's Labyrinth" is "The Devil's Backbone" – a haunting ghost story set during the Spanish Civil War. For a recap of major conclusions reached by CineVerse last evening after watching the movie, read on:


HOW IS THIS FILM DIFFERENT COMPARED TO MANY CONVENTIONAL HORROR MOVIES?
It relies on a curious, satisfying blend of fantasy, politics, poignancy, tragedy, history, and horror to tell its tale.
o The setting is the Spanish Civil War, which underscores the sad circumstances of the characters and their lives; however, the film doesn’t require the viewer to be an historical expert on the Spanish Civil War to appreciate this story.
The rationale for the supernatural phenomenon and the ghost’s motivations is more understandable and sympathetic. As Roger Ebert put it: “Ghosts are more interesting when they have their reasons. They should have unfinished affairs of the heart or soul. Too many movies use them simply for shock value, as if they exist to take cues from the screenplay. (This film) understands that most ghosts are sad, and are attempting not to frighten us but to urgently communicate something that must be known so that they can rest.”
While the movie has its supernatural shocks, scares and related special-effects, arguably the real source of terror and tension in this tale is the troubled times, flawed authority figures, and political setting that these children – and all Spanish citizens subjugated by Franco’s fascism – must endure.
o Put another way, this isn’t a cheap exploitation horror film that goes for lowest common denominator “gotcha” popouts, gore and gross-out effects, or gratuitous violence. Instead, it’s a richly layered and carefully textured thriller in which we care about the characters and can appreciate the historically accurate back story.
It also tells a story from the perspective of a vulnerable parentless child, whose conflicts and disturbing experiences are all the more unsettling because of his age and dependency on undependable adults. Good horror films involving children in danger are often extra suspenseful and nerve-racking because we are forced to identify with and/or sympathize with a lead child protagonist. Carlos and the other boys are threatened and/or frightened by multiple forces, including the ghost, the ticking bomb, Jacinto, and violent soldiers.

THIS IS ALSO A FILM REPLETE WITH SYMBOLISM. CAN YOU CITE EXAMPLES?
Jacinto and his dark nature represent the infiltration of Franco’s fascism throughout Spain at this time – this nature can influence and infect Spain’s younger generation.
Santi the ghost is a surrogate for the disembodied, helpless, tortured Spanish citizens who have been forced to endure their country’s Civil War and political tragedy.
The unexploded bomb symbolizes how precarious a situation this is for Spain – with the possibility of extreme violence and destruction detonating at any moment.
The parental figures of Dr. Cesares and headmistress Carmen and the volatile young Jacinto represent an Oedipal triangle, according to critic J. Hoberman.
Carlos exemplifies the country’s future, which, at this time is uncertain.
Ghosts/objects frozen in time, as exemplified by the fetuses suspended in a solution of rum and by Santi appearing as if he’s underwater.

WHY IS THE FILM CALLED “THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE”?
Recall that the head of the school explained how the rum solution in which the fetuses were kept was sold to gullible people seeking an elixir, yet that suspension fluid worked as a perfect preservative to keep the fetuses intact and free from decay; this underscores the filmmakers’ main point here: the blurred line between science and superstition, between reality versus fantasy, and how we can interpret our events and experiences as either realistic or fantastical.

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE GUILLERMO DEL TORO’S STYLE AND APPROACH AS A FILMMAKER?
Criterion Collection essayist Mark Kermode wrote: “His best work combines a love of the freedom of fantasy with a commitment to the strictures of social responsibility, creating populist fables with strong political undercurrents, fairy stories about the “real world,” often seen through the eyes of a child. In this context, The Devil’s Backbone (2001) is a touchstone, bringing together the personal and the political in perfect, passionate harmony...a key to del Toro’s work (is) the triumph of sympathy and melancholia over terror.
Kermode further wrote: “The recurrent themes that haunt del Toro’s work: the ghosts of history, the freedom of fantasy, the imperative of choice, the relationship between the “real” and the “imagined.” At its heart lies the conviction that horror and fantasy are inherently political.”
Kermode continued: “…it is the pain and tragedy of the Spanish Civil War that underwrite both the sense of horror and the spirit of defiance that ring throughout the movie. It is a film about repression that celebrates, albeit in heartbreaking fashion, the irrepressibility of the innocent human spirit. This duality also underpins Pan’s Labyrinth, a fable about a young girl’s exploration of an underworld. Both films balance political tensions with a feud between fantasy and reality, between the way the world seems and the way it is. And both counterpose the recurrent fairy-tale motif of choice against the specter of fascism—the ultimate lack of choice. Both films also centrally feature “a child facing a very adult situation, and dealing with it from a place of grace or purity.”

WHAT OTHER FILMS OR WORKS OF LITERATURE DOES THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE CONJURE UP IN YOUR MIND?
The Sixth Sense
The Spirit of the Beehive
Pan’s Labyrinth
The Others
Night of the Hunter (consider the imagery of Dr. Casares protecting the boys via a shotgun, similar to Lillian Gish’s character)
The Orphanage
What Lies Beneath
The Lord of the Flies

Read more...

Spooks from Spain

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Shocktober Theater, Cineverse's annual foray every October into horror/mystery/thriller films, returns with a vengeance on October 7 with a World Cinema Wednesday special from Spain: “The Devil’s Backbone” (2001; 106 minutes), directed by Guillermo del Toro. Plus, stick around for "Spanish Gothic,” a brief feature examining gothic elements used in the movie.

Read more...

Surely, you can't be serious, CineVerse

Thursday, October 1, 2015

It's hard to hold a magnifying glass up close to the film Airplane! and examine it with any seriousness while keeping a straight face. Nevertheless, this is a movie deserving of props as a pioneering modern comedy that has undoubtedly influenced innumerable imitators and admirers over the past 35 years. Here's our take on the film, without relying on any Automatic Pilot-type analysis:

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INNOVATIVE, UNIQUE, AND/OR CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT AIRPLANE! WHEN IT WAS RELEASED IN 1980?
Experts say the secret to this film’s success is that all the actors play it straight-faced and serious, including several older actors, such as Lloyd Bridges, Robert Stack, Leslie Nielsen, and Peter Graves, who were known for playing ultra-serious leading man in dramas and melodramas from decades before.
o Film scholar Glenn Erickson wrote: “The beauty of Airplane! is that it's not throwaway humor with actors doing whatever they want. Bridges and Robert Stack (the princes of countless dramas requiring deadpan intensity and terse line readings) keep straight faces despite the provocations of control-tower queen Steven Stucker's Johnny Hinshaw. Peter Graves gives every absurd dialogue line his patented 100% sincerity sales push, even when he's hitting on a nine-year-old boy.” And comedian Patton Oswalt commented: “Seeing the movie for the first time taught me a great lesson: You’ve got to play comedy as if it’s deadly serious. You’ve got to play weirdness as if it’s the most normal thing in the world.”
Additionally, while the film can be rambling, random, silly and over-the-top, it doesn’t stray from telling a complete story and sticking to its narrative; instead of stitching together a bunch of unrelated skits, spoofs and bits, this movie has a fairly cohesive plot that resolves itself by the end – allowing the filmmakers to pack in gags and jokes in between the story.
o Writer Nathan Rabin posited: “I was impressed by the economy of storytelling involved in spoofing a series like the Airport franchise, which seemed to employ the totality of not only Hollywood, but international film over the course of its run. Airplane! introduces a dizzying array of characters, each with subplots that need to be resolved over the course of a lean 87 minutes. Airplane! accomplishes an awful lot, storytelling-wise, in less than 90 minutes, while delivering at least a laugh a minute.”
Also, the film continually lampoons movie clichés, outdated film situations, overdramatic dialogue, and Hollywoodized characters and behaviors.
It wasn’t afraid to be irreverent, crude or offensive: consider the use of profanity, brief nudity, racial stereotyping, and even pedophilia as the focus of satire.
The movie uses virtually every comedic trick in the book, including slapstick, sight gags, corny puns and one-liners, ridiculous asides (the practice of cutting away from the main action to an unrelated visual non-sequitor or bizarre reference), hilarious montages.
It’s ratio of gags per minute was very high – which ensures that, while some jokes will fall flat, others will hit their mark, satisfying most audiences.
o Rabin also wrote: “ZAZ’s legacy extends beyond spoofs; the gentlemen also helped popularize a style of comedy that delights in a wide variety of humor, from smart verbal wit to proudly dumb visual gags, as well as an emphasis on quantity over quality. ZAZ threw as many gags against the wall as possible, and since they were brilliant gagsmiths in the prime of their career, an awful lot stuck.”
Airplane! also uses plentiful pop-culture references, but it doesn’t rely on these references to do much heavy lifting. In other words, while some of these references to pop-culture would have been more relevant in 1980, their inclusions don’t date the movie too badly or befuddle younger viewers who don’t get the jokes.

PREVIOUS FILMS AND TV SHOWS THAT INSPIRED AIRPLANE!
The anarchic, irreverent, madcap humor and punny comedy of the Marks Brothers films
“Zero Hour!” (1957)
“The Crowded Sky” (1960)
“Knute Rockne, All-American” (1940)
“Hellzapoppin” (1941)
“Airport” (1975) and its sequels
Disaster movies like “The Poseidon Adventure”
Skits from television and film comedians like Sid Caesar, Milton Burrell, Jerry Lewis, and Carol Burnett
The films of Mel Brooks, including “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein”
“Bananas” (1971)

FILMS AND OTHER WORKS INSPIRED BY “AIRPLANE!”
Gross-out comedies by the Farrelly brothers, including “There’s Something About Mary,” “Dumb and Dumber,” and “Me, Myself and Irene.”
Contemporary gag-filled comedies like “Epic Movie,” “Date Movie,” the “Scary Movie” films, and African-American facsimiles, such as “I’m Gonna Git You Sucka” and” Don’t Be A Menace To South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood.”
Modern prime-time animated series, including “The Simpsons,” “South Park,” and “Family Guy.”

OTHER FILMS BY ONE OR MORE FROM THE COMEDY DIRECTING TEAM OF JIM ABRAHAMS AND BROTHERS DAVID AND JERRY ZUCKER
“Kentucky Fried Movie” (1977)
“Top Secret” (1984)
“Ruthless People” (1986)
The first two “Naked Gun” movies (1988-1991)
“Ghost” (1990)
The “Hot Shots!” movies (1991, 1993)

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP