Sunday, May 16, 2010

Ich liebe dich so, Anita Pallenberg


I love Anita Pallenberg, extra much today. I've always loved the Nordic blonde goddess types, not the bland automaton types (the Americans- no offense, mom) but the ferociously alive yet cold-at-the-core Teutons. As I listen to Rolling Stones' "Angie," I think about what the Stones would have been without Anita and Marianne Faithful to guide them, the twin muses of the twins Glimmer. They were a great pair, these girls, but different: the allure of Faithfull lay in her archetypal depth, her timeless beauty, dating back to Camelot and the Celts ("The kind of girl men fought dragons for"), coupled to fearless moxy. Pallenberg's appeal was/is more elusive --you can't even really remember what she looks like because her face is so liquid, so alive from second to second with crazy emotions. She seems to morph like a mirror, vis-a-vis capturing the soul of Brian Jones during their time together like some ferocious carnal vampire, capable of limitless sensory exultation. We remember her long teeth, her vibration level, her knack for knowing just what kind of drugs and how much any situation called for, and her innate fashion sense. She's a chaotic-neutral djinn poured into a German model's body, with the face of a tripping 18 year-old in the first stage of transformation into a werewolf. All I can do is offer screen captures culled from PERFORMANCE to try and hang some random adjectives on her clotheshorse from Valhalla appeal:

 

With the arrival of James Fox's gangster into their psychedelic love den, Anita Pallenberg and Mick Jagger launch a series of wigs to conceal the hooliganism of Chaz (Fox) so he isn't found by his old gang. Anita initiates the red wig and against the red decor she seems like a whole new character, but it's just a mirror of Fox's original disguise, a hideous red shoe polish hairdo, and he will eventually wear the red wig himself... and lipstick. As with Brian Jones, she seems to be an effortless chameleon, getting to the core of a person with just a few brush strokes and a wig change. 

 

Drugs play a huge part in this transformation. Though many contemporary shamen and Buddhists don't think drugs are needed, those shamen are dumb. Shaman Anita swears by them, and without those shrooms, Fox's transformation would be incomplete -- like trying to reach Nevada on foot instead of in an air-conditioned limo. To choose to walk instead may add 'authenticity' but smacks of puritanism and dogma. It's the kind of thing someone who'd walked almost the whole way would say when you stopped 10 yards from the gate to Nirvana to offer them a lift. 



Films of the late 1960s and early 1970s were full of political incorrectness and sexist drug orgies but PERFORMANCE was directed and written by Donald Cammell, a man who lived and breathed drug orgies, the real kind. The difference is like night and so much later that night that it's the breaka dawn.

Speaking of which, why am I letting yet another nice day go by writing blog entries? I'm  scared of all the tourists outside, and would rather be up in my own bescarved den of creativity, hiding from the world til it's dusk and the tourists are gone, the year of the Cat. I'll leave you with a link to my earlier PERFORMANCE piece and the beautiful ode to the song, "Wild Horses" by a writer with many of Pallenberg's alluring qualities, Sunset Gun's Kim Morgan. Lastly, this post is dedicated to my band's own beloved Marianna and Anita, Kristen and Beth! They may both have kids now, but man were they cool, so beloved by us all I'd still fight dragons for them!

PS - check out Anita's black and purple wigs in BARBARELLA (1968)!




Thursday, May 13, 2010

Leperello sells Spotto (or The Sailor's Farewell): ROAD TO SINGAPORE (1940)


I just watched THE ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN (1948) starring the great Errol Flynn--perfect casting of course considering his reputation--and it managed to be thrilling despite its winkiness. I'm a fan of the Mozart opera, DON GIOVANI (which is to say I can tolerate more than most operas) so I was sad to see the Flynn version skips the "Hell" ending (see pic below) and fails to delve into the complexity of Juan/Giovanni's manservant, ultimate wingman and perennial drinking buddy Leporello, who waits outside with the horses for a quick escape beneath m'lday's boudoir window, then hears, no doubt, all Don's inevitable boasting. There's not been near enough characters like him: the Juan and Leporello pair bond is a fundamental archetypal bond which today survives only in the form of the sidekick or else falls into disrepair via the "Bromantic Comedy."

The true measure of a man when you're trying to hook up with a woman is whether said man be a wingman or cockblocker. Oft times they are one in the same. Once the class divide is erased then the issue of the rich kid footing the bill for his poor but hilarious confidente is mussed up and endangered. Such a Leporello-Juan relationship is nowhere better expressed than in ROAD TO SINGAPORE, with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. 


Most all the Bob Hope-Bing Crosby "road" movies are sublime. The third, ROAD TO MOROCCO is commonly considered the most hilarious and inventive, but I'll take ROAD TO SINGAPORE (1940), which gives us the boy's full back story and thus a better idea of class demarcations (Hope is the poor sailor friend to rich kid Crosby). Paramount knew comedy, and it seems the studio was most permissive regarding improvisational canoodling and futzing around in what Manny Farber would call 'termite art.'

Bob and Bing have a relationship that mixes constant fraternal antagonism (and backstabbing) with a post-modern detachment that never quite falls into the abyss of narrative disruption, which is a PBS fancy-pants way of saying you still get absorbed in the plot, even as the boys constantly eat the script. They dance on the lip of complete chaos but never fall in; they are classic "bad influence" friends of the sort weary sets of parents meet over drinks to figure out how to separate. Their worst enemies as far as getting girlfriends are always each other as they try to outmaneuver and betray one another every chance they get, but all while being perfect pals, both madly in love with the sweet and demure and ever-so-vaguely 'ethnic other,' Dorothy Lamour (left).

Bing always gets the girl, because he can sing. I generally hate when some guy starts crooning onscreen, but der Bingle brings such a smooth tone to his tunes no feather can stay ruffled. Even if you leave to go get popcorn during his romantic numbers, he forgives you. All I have to do is remember Mel Blanc's (?) impression of him and Sinatra as dueling roosters in Swooner Crooner, a cartoon I saw countless times through childhood, and I too swoon.

Usually we see only the evil versions of bad influence buddy friends onscreen, as in the girls of HEAVENLY CREATURES or DON'T DELIVER US FROM EVIL or the lads of BUTCHER BOY. But Hope and Crosby are the other end of the moral spectrum: they're knights of Camelot in vagabond clothing and mouths washed of poesy talk. Even if their gallant behavior is solely to placate the era's sharp-eared censors and strict codes, their de-sexualized lust strategies are calming, endearing examples of what Lao Tzu might call "the pursuit of emptiness." Neither one is going to "do" anything if they win Dorothy Lamour. They can't stay separate long enough, like comedic magnets, to get beyond (or even to) first base. 

It's possibly due in part to Hope's baby face and Bing's glassy-eyed ease in his own skin. What's Dorothy Lamour without Hope around, and vice versa? They're all 'mates,' Bob and Bing, married to each other the way young straight guys or a pair of outcast young male lions can sometimes be, freely wandering the savannah together, growling in good-natured antagonism, vowing 'no women' even as they fight over each flash of legs through the sarong of Lamour, who refuses to pick one over the other for more than a few minutes at at time. Even if they think they're winning, that in turn prompts them to remind each other where that train of lustful thinking leads: children and nagging! Round and round they go!

While eternally free, Bob and Bing's path is one of flight; reacting against the terror of returning 'too soon' from the idyll of boyhood. In the beginning of the film, Bing's dad (Charles Coburn) admonishes his son to settle down: "Your galavanting is over, young man!" But we've not seen any of this previous galavanting - there is no past when you live in the moment! Bing's barely begun the picture; he's not about to settle down so soon after the opening credits. The boys would seldom be back in the states after this first outing. I don't think Bing ever saw his dad again. They just kept running!

Their rapport is always the same: Bing is the leader in the end by virtue of his sharp wisdom, calm demeanor and his singing; Hope's always been excellent at mirroring and playing off his fellow actors, using his natural heterosexual nervousness around hot babes as electricity that juices him into flurries of action and barking. Bing meanwhile seems much more calm around the ladies, playful and relaxed, waiting for the meat to drop so he can grab it, and Bob uses this space to become a great meat dropper. The tension Hope works with centers around babes, or food, or money. His need for whatever's lacking is unending; he's 'fear and desire,' and Bing is more the calm, cool, Zen center.

In an earlier post I discussed my deep appreciation of the "Thanks for the Memories" number that serves as a quiet show-stopper in the otherwise ROTM film BIG BROADCAST OF 1938.  That was Hope's first big picture and how interesting it is that only two years later he slammed this home-run, ROAD TO SINGAPORE, kicking off the immensely popular road pictures and displaying that great range of cowardliness and courage, a two-fisted Romeo and conniving goofball, immature layabout and solid citizen. In the first few reels, Hope even looks kind of handsome in his black sailor sweater and cap. (The scene represented by the picture below, however, is a whole post in and of itself):


Yes sir, racist, perhaps, but would you admonish children if they're up in their bedroom wearing bedsheets and pancake mix, pretending to be native tribesmen? Jokes reflect their era and stereotypes run rampant, but it's all just for laughs... like Stanley Cavell writes about screwball comedy in his essential Comedies of Remarriage, the core of post-code 'screwball' comedy is the play-acting of children, such as 'house' and 'dress-up' and the 'paddy cake / paddy cake / baker's man" chant that comes right before the boys start punching cops (but in a fake fighting way, like brothers do). The censorship code kept everyone locked in their room, grounded in pre-sexual juvenalia, bu--like Cary Grant or Groucho Marx--Hope and Crosby seem to find a special way to use libidinal restriction to make the world edgy, alive, and full of laughs -- and sexy almost as a side benefit. Rather than all the strident leering and wolf drool of say, Frank Tashlin or 80s sex comedies (wherein the sexier it tries to be the less sexy it actually is), Hope and Crosby are sexy because they never try to get past first base.


The film begins with the lads having recently come back from an ocean voyage, watching from on deck as their sailor brethren are corralled and abused by their waiting spouses. No sooner have they badmouthed marriage than a hick shotgun wedding party tries to corral Hope because he kept a girl named 'Cherry' out "half the night" at the movies. The implied sex or pregnancy is never addressed: it all being a crazy misunderstanding - and we believe it - as the pair have the impish charm of eternal youth that makes sex seem a vulgar impossibility. One of my favorite Hope moments comes when his face lights up at the name 'Cherry' only to suddenly slowly drain into dead seriousness before looking them in the eye and slowly shaking his head no, no idea who that girl is. A couple of brawls later and they've escaped to Singapore and a life of ease. The boys may or may not be innocent but really, as long as we don't see it, did it really happen? What does happen is that someone needs to chase them to keep the party moving, and no one does that better than Anthony Quinn as the whip wielding Lothario who 'raised' Dorothy Lamour as his daughter and now, her time to be married, she has come.

The magnetic pull of Lamour is enough to drive a wedge between the our heroes, because Hope isn't Crosby's servant--this is America, buddy!---and yet neither Hope or Crosby is apparently ever sexually intimate with her. Hope and Crosby sleep together in one room and she in another. When Hope tries to go to her in the middle of the night, Crosby stops him and vice versa. They never think to share her, as she shares herself with them, and when either gets a chance to be alone with her, he can only either badmouth the other or sing a song. Thus they are like fishermen who throw whatever they catch back as they don't really like fish. Theirs is the 'boyfriend/girlfriend' of childhood wherein there's no sex or kissing and any actual contact is usually antagonistic. The relationship often exists more in conversation with your second grade buddies than in actuality. In their constant jostling for top dog position, Lamour becomes the ultimate McGuffin, but me, I like Gloria, the rich socialite Bing's engaged to and always running out on. She never seems jealous, piqued or put off. She calms down her flustered prospective father-in-law as they go gallivanting all over the Pacific in search of errant Bing. "You haven't seen me in a sarong," she tells him. "I'm quite a dish," and I believe her (for proof, see below right.) I'd marry her in a second because Lamour's character is very normal and conventional, Gloria at least has fun - even being jilted time and again she's never bitter, just bemused. She wouldn't be a harridan like say, Bulldog Drummond's or the Falcon's fiancees, ever demanding they stop doing what they love and settle down to boring staid respectability, even obstructing justice and endangering innocent people to do it in a way as to make it seem like the films are underwritten by some self-hating conservative censor ever trying to bite his own tail off. Oh yeah, we all come to see Drummond or 'Gay' Lawrence not solve crimes and just get yelled at for 90 minutes. But Judith Barrett's Gloria is about as far away from that as it's possible to come, all the way into Myrna Loy territory, if someone was smart enough to let her. She's way more fun and free than Lamour's innocent. Being poor and free looks like the same thing when you're neither of the two.

Judith Barrett - quite a dish
Before teaming up with Bing, Hope had already shown flair for the adventure-comedy, able to hold his own agains the overplaying of Martha Raye one minute and nail a touching duet the next in BIG BROADCAST OF 1938, and setting a new high water mark for the ubiquitous old dark house quipping comic relief hero in CAT AND THE CANARY (1939) while Bing held his own against Raye in WAKIKI WEDDING (1937) and subjugated a hoiti toiti Carole Lombard castaway in WE'RE NOT DRESSING (1934, which included the Raye-ish Ethel Merman). But when they weren't busy chasing off the brass belters and orbiting around the timid torchers, Bing and Bob always seemed a bit lonesome, like no one in the room could match their insouciant wit, their ability to be 'in' the film but not 'of' the film --to be play wolf-ish one minute then touchingly honest and sweet the next (without ever becoming mawkish or smarmy --no mean feat). They were like those two brilliant kids with no one their own age or hip intelligence to play with at the beach. But when Bob and Bing were put together they both lit up with a magic instant best-friend chemistry. Every good parent knows that if you want the kid to have a good time at the beach, you have to let him bring a friend. Though if they both like the same girl, look out, brother!

Call me crazy but comedy took a one-two punch for the worse with the success of THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR remake in the late 90s. They brought scatological humor out of the bathroom and onto the dinner table and comedic civilization has since crumbled into balls and scrotums. Hope and Crosby, they got class! They're peppy! Fun for the whole family, sure! Spotto! Sure they're not exactly cutting edge today, but relative to the overall Mickey Rooney squareness of the post-code / pre-WW2 era they toiled in, they were leagues ahead, and they've aged way, way better than Martin and Lewis. Hell, I'd rather hang out with Bob and Bing than the all the dick-wagging navel-gazing schmucks of today. Hope and Crosby didn't need to talk about their dicks, they just plowed the chorus and kept it on the DL, feigning a sexual naïveté that only the well-laid can feign. To make childish behavior ennobling is only ever embarrassing, like Adam Sandler doing MR. DEEDS. In order to grow down you have to first grow up, otherwise you're just stunted.


I turn to the holy Cavell when struggling to explain the timeless appeal of the Hope-Crosby ROAD films. His analyses of the era's key screwball comedies are comforting to me in the same way the ROAD movies are, like the friends who never fail to take you back into their inner circle even after you blew them off for the last three years to be with your controlling girlfriend (1). Now you're back--wrecked and sad--and they take you in like you never left. They are the cool uncle who takes the pain away with a single deadpan smile. They are the hearth; the earth father; our Iron King; our blue mood saviors. They are every moth-eaten Romeos chance to start again, with an unslain Mercutio, ten cents, and a zauberflote carved from a sweet potato. And now a word from the folks at PBS... for every ten dollars donation you get a year's supply of Spotto!

Friday, May 07, 2010

Acidemic Mother's Day


I recently re-read a 2004 popmatters review I did on ORCA (1977) and it's definitely the wellspring from which my 70s Dad series flowed. You should read it but wait, tis Mother's Day, I need to do a sequel to my Cinematic Blonde Moms of Death!


There's lots of theories of the "gaze" or viewer perspective in the mise-en-scene; are we masochists unable to control the stimulus we feel (unbearable suspense in Hithcock, for example) or sadists dominating and controlling through our masterful stare of covetous ownership? I think of it in Buddhist reincarantion terms, as if we've spent countless hours in between past lives surfing through the wormholes of the world, scoping out future wombs suitable to our karmic needs the way we scope out new apartments in "waking" life. At any rate, I get a glimmer of such a feeling during certain movies, such as MULHOLLAND DR., PERSONA and SPECIES, as I've written about. In all these the mother isn't yet a mom, in that sense, but the specter of an unborn child seems to hover around her, literally in PERSONA with the cut-aways to the kid waking up in the morgue; with the momentum of an unborn child's urgent need to be born into SPECIES, raging at the CGI bastard who takes our place; or with the camera as fearful, hesitant child approaching depressed mom in bathrobe in MULHOLLAND.


I talked to my own mom today and can attest that she's actually a pretty sweet and a nice lady, despite all the cold, Nordic things I write. Moms understand that their writer sons need to push them back/elevate them up into larger archetypal symbolic realms to add extra textural resonance to their emotional outpourings into the ether's vast unknowable net. My dad also read where I called him Orson Wellesian and thought I was ribbing him about his weight. Man oh man, some parents just don't understand that to a film lover, Orson Welles is like Shakespeare, Zeus, the devil, Daniel Webster and Colonel Kurz all rolled into one, and if their story is really a confession, then so is mine. Dad, Mom, I love ya.

Lords of Fliestown (Cute Kids and Canadian Corpses): THE CHILDREN, SURVIVING CROOKED LAKE, PLAIN DIRTY

  THE CHILDREN
(2009) Dir. Tom Shankland
***

British horror auteur Tom Shankland closes in on Neal Marshall for the title of British John Carpenter with this sweet tale of a tadpole egg-related infectious disease that turns children into coughing, smiling, wan, matricidal maniacs in an isolated English estate on Xmas holiday. 
 
What's really good here--aside from the awesome music--is the film's knowing critique of our fucked up social order in the wake of 1980s conservative "Spielbergism," through which 'cute' children are allowed to literally get away with murder while sulky teens are ostracized for beginning to remind parents too much of themselves. As an eldest child attention-seeker who's had to face being upstaged by cuter little tykes (and with no children of my own), I relish scenes where blind adherence to child-worship  results in bloody death. The seminal archetypal moment in this is perhaps the daughter in the basement rising up to grab a trowel in 1968's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (right). Advancing towards her mom while all mom can do is plead, so crippled by maternal compassion she can't even ward off a single stabbing blow. 

If that's one of your favorite scenes in movies, then you will love THE CHILDREN, wherein moms conveniently forget that their sweet children were trying to stab them just minutes ago, preferring to blame the savvy teenage girl in the group, rather than be forced to re-adjust their sense of the cuteness hierarchy. It's a terrifying thing when your parents won't believe you for no other reason than your little sister is more angelic and less openly rebellious, so you wind up punished for her murders. Shankland creates a great sense of mood, pace and real time amidst the dead winter English countryside, and it's heartening that in Britain you can still show parents drinking and smoking in front of their kids, as they did in my day. I'm sure there's American audience members who think that if you smoke and drink in front of your child you should be arrested for reckless endangerment, and I'd just love to stick these sanctimonious reactionaries in this movie, so they could cry "Won't someone think of the children?!" as they gently wipe their own blood off said children's mouths and knife edges. Oh yeah. Believe it, for the jealous older sibling in each of us, These CHILDREN got mad corn.


SURVIVING CROOKED LAKE
(2009) - Starring Stephanie Richardson
*1/2

Or "Anti-Antigone" as this Canadian film (made by three University of Toronto film students) starts off ready for riveting with the story of girls learning to shake the veneer of civilization to survive in the wilderness, but instead it winds up being about a girl's irrational refusal to bury the decomposing corpse of her brother. You don't need a hostile Greek king to pronounce her sentence, she'll do it herself --that's feminism! Rather than fight bears, tigers or hillbilly mutant cannibal rapists,  Steph (Stephannie Richardson) and her three cute blonde friends have to contend with Steph's obsessively self-righteous "no corpse left behind" policy. 

Up until about half-way through the film it's a pretty good bucolic fantasia. Our three student directors keep the shots artsy and the shorts short, with sun-dappled dreamy close-up dissolves from one blonde-haired, nearly-mature beauty to the next. There's a nice film school idyll at work, like the cinematographer really studied PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK (1973) and maybe even MEAN CREEK (2005). But then the film bogs down into an argument about whether to drag the heavy, rotting corpse of their accidentally dead guide --he is also Steph's dead brother--FITZCARRALDO-style over hill and dale towards what they hope will be the highway. 

As Steph is the insane one who wont bury her brother or leave him, it becomes very hard to not judge her as the villain for her selfish, reckless endangerment of her friends, just so she can save her sibling's rotting corpse from being re-absorbed into nature. When some friendly wolves offer to take the corpse off her hands, Steph shoos them away and you don't know whether the filmmakers want you to cheer her bravery or wish she'd just get eaten, too. In other words, are these filmmakers weirdos who think archaic funeral rites make us human or are they recovering from some past trauma of being forced to attend an open casket funeral as a child? 

Either way, like, ick. 

Whereas THE CHILDREN seems a veiled critique of modern over-parenting and child worship, SURVIVING CROOKED LAKE becomes an open attack on girls who can't let go of their "inability to let go," even with slow death by starvation (anorexia) and constant vomiting from the stench of a decomposing brother (bulimia) staring them in the face. Are Canadians obsessed with dragging corpses around or did the screenwriter get flummoxed at the first narrative hurtle? Is this a national problem the way child obsession is in the states and UK? Something that needs to be addressed? It's certainly far enough outside my own realm of experience it seems made for some weird necrophiliacs-trying-to-get-straight rehab lounge. I hope it's not that someone somewhere secretly gets off on seeing girls regularly vomit from the stench of what was days ago their mutual object of teenage lust! Praise Jesus and King Edward, it ain't me babe.

 PS - If you want to check out another quiet strange "personal" Canadian exploitation film along the lines of CROOKED LAKE, may I recommend instead PUNCH?  Allegedly about the world of female topless boxing, it's actually the story of a widower trying to ween his daughter off her incestuous desires for him so she'll stop socking his new girlfriend, a timid photo booth worker with a topless boxing sister who may just have to come to the rescue. The director's actual daughter plays the girl and admits in the essential commentary track that the story is based on their true relationship!! In other words, he got funding to make a sleazy late night Cinemax cat fight flick but highjacked it to tell his own perverse confession, ala Ed Wood with GLEN OR GLENDA! Icky but fascinating... read my review here. 

 
 PLAIN DIRTY 
(2003) Dir. Zev Berman
***1/2

And if you want a good swampy jail-bait exploitation fairy tale that's way off the radar and which the writer/director subverted to his own motive--this time to a loose reading of MACBETH--check out the under-appreciated PLAIN DIRTY (2003, above). It's almost Val Lewton-esque in that it shows you can make art instead of obsessive confessions and still hide it all under a functionally exploitative backwoods sleaze rubric. It does what HOUNDOG could have, though from the box art you may be tempted to pass this one off as one of the endless Zalman King-style infidelity and revenge sex flicks cluttering the late night premium cable rosters. But this is good stuff, actually, something fans of Jane Campion’s THE PIANO will like better than IN THE CUT. 

Newcomer director Zev Berman and newcomer screenwriter Deborah Pryor have conjured up a mystical swamp environment that augments what amounts to nothing less than a genuine psychosexual feminist fairy tale, the type where the frog suitor of the imprisoned princess shows no signs of ever being a prince, but if she looks at her chains the right way they sparkle like jewels and a beautiful castle lies hidden in the dirt and squalor of her prison. Dominique Swain stars as Inez MacBeth (yeah, there’s Shakespeare connotations), the desirable young bride of local loser Edgar (Henry Thomas, aka little Elliot fromE.T.) whose friend the creepy Flowers (Arie Verveen) is infatuated with her, even stealing her flip flops for god knows what kinky purpose. Karen Allen is great as the “witch” who lives in a big house down the way, who predicts Inez’s true love will soon ride to her rescue. Inez assumes she means her pale, rich boy in town (James Urbaniak) who looks vaguely like a marionette just waiting for someone with the raw humanity of Inez to turn him into a human. What follows involves murder, desire, suspicion and double-crossing, but what makes it succeed is all that groovy archetypal mythic resonance, ala the female’s journey to adulthood, which one hardly finds in films these days. There’s lots of that good old southern fried gothic po’ poetical dialogue, and symbolic metaphors like blindness, chains, and headless chickens. 

Thankfully, visionary directors and writers like Berman and Pryor are finally starting to realize these low budget sex pot indies can be used as more than just wastes of drunken late night cable viewers’ time. They take a typical swamp and cut off shorts exploitation set up ala Gator Bait, Poor White Trash, or Mudhoney, and then go off the deep end with it, into Kentucky-Freud Gothic grandeur. There’s a great, scraping viola and cello score by Nathan Barr, and dark, steamy cinematography by Scott Keven, both of whom worked, along with Verveen, on that last great entry in the redneck genre, Cabin Fever (2002). Keven doesn’t waste any chance to capture muted swampy sunlight trying to break through the filthy windows of these muddy shacks. The performances are all wonderful, especially Verveen’s, who manages to be believable while being simultaneously dirty, poetic, sneaky, charming, and oh so creepy as he woos Inez with lines like: “I wanna see what you look like when you grow old. Is you gonna grow gray or what?” Swain’s untamed Lolita-like energy makes her a believable force of girl nature, running around in her cut off shorts (nowhere near as short as Daisy Duke’s, alas) and cut up, dirty legs, or a filthy summer frock.

The big bow should probably go to Thomas though, as Edgar he manages to give one of the best abusive husband performances ever. His rage is shocking to himself, and deluded attempts to try and forgive or justify his own actions come off as false even to him, driving him further into a spiral of rage and self-hatred projected in all directions. Sexy, brutal, funny, well-paced, well written, and turned into something truly mythic and magical thanks to a great writing, moody score and cinematography, Plain Dirty is one of the reasons why taking risks on the straight to video shelves sometimes pays off.

---
MMMmmmm, filthy... isn't there some over-nurturing movie parent out there who can come do her laundry?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...