Part of me is sad that Wes Craven and David Hess didn't live long enough to see "Last House on the Left" turn fifty years old. They certainly did get to see their gritty, grimy, low budget exploitation movie turn into a box office success and spawn a number of even sleazier imitators. Though it initially derailed Craven's career, he obviously went on to become one of the most iconic filmmakers in the whole genre. (And Hess did okay for himself too.) In time, "Last House on the Left" even became respected, which was surely impossible to imagine in 1972. Yet, fifty years after the fact, it's a set-in-stone cult classic, recognized as one of those movies that singled a tide change in the genre. Which is quite unexpected when you compare the film's reputation — and glossy remake — to its extremely low budget, even frequently clumsy actual quality. Let's get back on the road that leads to nowhere and reconsider "Last House," my first viewing of this motion picture in many years.
On the eve of her seventeenth birthday, Mari Collingwood journeys with her friend, Phyllis, to her rock concert. At home, Mari's loving parents, Estelle and John, prepare for their daughter's return. It's destined not to be. While looking to buy pot, Mari and Phyllis are abducted by sadistic criminal Krug and his gang of psychos. They take the girls into the forest, sexually assault and humiliate them, before murdering both. By some sad coincidence of fate, the murderous quartet stop at the Collingwood home to spend the night. When the parents realize that these are the people who have destroyed their daughter, they enact brutal, bloody revenge.
"The Last House on the Left" is a film of its time. By summoning the ideas in the air in 1972, Craven created a death knell for the peace and love decade. The script is awash in signifiers of the hippy era. Mari wears a peace sign necklace, discards her bra as a symbol of women's lib, and seeks out weed as a natural course of the evening. Yet her and Phyllis are out to see an Alice Cooper-like shock rock group called Bloodlust — a grim precursor of what's to come — which is the first sign that this is not a hippy flick. Krug and his gang look like hippies too, especially his junkie son. Yet the quartet more resemble Charles Manson's family, in the way a sociopathic patriarch holds sway over shaggy followers. Jeramie Rain, who plays psycho Sadie, even previously appeared as one of the Manson girls. In "Last House," drugs do not free the mind but enslave the body, as Krug keeps Junior pliable with dope. There is no free love here, only violation. The deaths of innocents like Mari and Phyllis represents the most unavoidable hint that the peace movements had failed: The protracted end of the Vietnam War. This was Craven's high-minded goal. To bring the violence home, to have the desecration of life happen right in our backyard. This makes the most well-known title — chosen after several others were discarded and against Craven's wishes — fitting. The last house on the left could be your house. It could be any house, in any American neighborhood.
That "Last House" contains potent ideas like this is honestly surprising. This is an astonishingly crude movie in many ways. Craven and Sean Cunningham came from the world of pornography and “Last House” was originally conceived as a hardcore movie. On an aesthetic level, porn is what the film resembles. The camera work is rough. The editing is rougher. Even the most cleaned-up Blu-Ray prints look grainy. The hippy-dippy soundtrack jives weirdly with what's happening on screen. The acting is stilted from almost the entire cast, with Marc Sheffler as Junior giving by-far the most awkward performance. The most prominent evidence that Craven and his crew barely knew what they were doing is the comic relief. Often, the movie will cut away – even from the horrible torture of the girls – to a pair of buffoonish cops. (One played by a young Martin Kove.) They bumble through a number of clownish scenarios, involving chickens or jeering hippies. These scenes absolutely feel like something that would fill the minutes between fuckings in “The Pig Keeper's Daughter” or “Prison Girls.”
No matter how shoddy the film's production values and techniques are, “Last House on the Left” still proves to be a disquieting viewing experience. Krug is a ridiculous character, so comically evil that hooking his own son on junk ranks as his least villainous action. Yet, when he's in the woods for Mari and Phyllis, holding court with his band of equally deranged followers, he's an utterly intimidating figure. The cruelty he enacts on the girls feels distressingly real. The infamous “piss your pants” scene, when he carves his name into Phyllis' skin, or forces the girls to make-out for his amusement, are all things an actual sexual sadist son-of-a-bitch would actually do. The movie still sure as hell makes you feel like you need to take a shower afterwards. The gore is crude but convincing. The hopeless feeling present at the end leaves an impression. Even if its flaws are more evident than ever, “Last House” does have power. You feel like something extremely dark was being exorcised during the making of this one.
Wes Craven was an English professor before becoming a filmmaker, which is evident all throughout his career. Even though Craven started movies in the gutter – which is certainly where this one feels like it emerged – he still packed “Last House' will high-minded idea. It is, after all, a loose remake of Bergman's “The Virgin Spring.” Their daughter's killer showing up at the Collingwood's home is the sort of dramatic irony a writer appreciates. Craven, always fascinated by the family unit, cooks these themes into the film as well. Certain parallels and differences are drawn between Krug's brood and the Collingwoods. While the criminals are too depraved to ever be anti-heroes, their acts of violence against richer family could be read as an act of class revolution. That layered approach is also clear in the film's hopeless ending, expressing a theme about the uselessness of revenge. Craven's ambitions doubtlessly exceeded his resources. Yet “Last House's” jabs at artistry are sometimes effective, such as the haunting sequence of Mari descending into a lake before Krug shoots her.
It's often been said that “The Last House on the Left” feels like a documentary or a snuff film, which overstates the movie's realism. It's too ramshackle a production for that to be true, the acting too unbelievable. Craven would improve drastically in his future films, with “The Hills Have Eyes” expanding on many of these same themes in a far more effective way. Yet Craven and his cohorts still make a shocking, upsetting movie that is far smarter than its appearance suggest. Brutal enough to make the controversy that greeted it understandable, and with enough substance to more than justify its cult following, the grimy, unsettling power of “The Last House on the Left” can still be felt fifty years after it was made. [7/10]
Rutger Hauer's career as an action hero has always struck me as kind of funny. It's not that he couldn't do it. He had the striking good looks and more than enough charisma to pull it off. Yet, even when he was in leading men roles, the quirky heart of a character actor clearly beat within. This was a guy meant to star in Dutch art movies, not a big screen reboot of "Wanted: Dead or Alive." Yet Hauer, his agent, or some misguided studio exec really gave it a shot. Some good movies emerged out of this portion of Hauer's career, though few connected with audiences. One such example is "Split Second," an oddball sci-fi/action/horror hybrid that has managed to gain a small following in the years since.
In the far-flung future year of 2008, global warming has caused many portions of Great Britain to become flooded, while smog chokes the sky. Dysfunctional detective Harley Stone prowls the watery streets in search of the lunatic who killed his partner. After nearly catching the murderer, who has a habit of ripping people's hearts out, Stone is assigned a partner, a specialist in abnormal psychology named Dick Durkin. As Stone and Durkin investigate the case more, they realize the killer isn't human but a demonic monster.
In many ways, “Split Second” is not an atypical example of an action movie for the early nineties. The film is buddy cop movie, which had largely become the default for this genre by this point. Stone is a loose cannon, cowboy cop who is constantly in shit with the chief, who has no regard for the rules, and is fond of oversized firearms. He's rumored to have a drinking problem too, due to his traumatic past. Even the fact that his partner is dead reads like something of a cliché. Hauer is given a token love interest, in the form of Kim Catrell playing his dead partner's widow that he has an on-off thing with. She exists primarily to get imperiled and captured in the last act. That's because Stone's real love interest is Durkin. The two can't stand each other at first, Stone totally resenting having a by-the-book hanger-on around. Yet the two quickly begin to rely on each other, Stone's wild card tendencies rubbing off on Durkin and the duo getting the job done together. There's even casual homoeroticism, like Durkin offering to rub Stone's shoulders. That seemingly every character in the movie is dressed in studded leather points towards a queer undercurrent as well.
In other ways, “Split Second” is an excessively quirky take on your usual eighties/nineties action flick. The water-logged sci-fi setting, the global warming element being quite ahead-of-the-curve for 1992, barely factors into the story at all. Hauer, meanwhile, does everything he can to make Stone as much of a weirdo as possible. When the character is introduced calling a guard dog “a dickhead,” which he does repeatedly, is a good sign that this hero is an oddball. He subsists solely on coffee, cigarettes, and chocolate. The character regularly has panic attacks, as a result of the lingering trauma from his partner's death. At one point, Stone wakes up from a nap with a pigeon sitting on his head. Even the seemingly straight-laced partner is offbeat too. Hauer speaks largely in sarcastic one-liners while bringing a lot of wide-eyed intensity to the part. Durkin, as played by a deadpan Neil Duncan, makes repeated references to marathon sex sessions with his girlfriend. There's just so many touches of weirdo personality in the movie like that.
The action genre had become so over-the-top by 1992 that it's hard to say if “Split Second's” many quirky touches were an intentional exaggeration or not. Do the heroes tear walls and rooms apart with massively over-sized guns because the writing is a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration? Or had this kind of thing been done so many times before by this point, that playing stuff this big was necessary for distinction? Either way, “Split Second's” horror elements do further distinguish the movie. The monster, which looks like a cross between a Xenomoprh and Venom, is never actually explained. The creature carves occult symbols into his victims' bodies or leaves them in blood at the crime scenes. The beast is repeatedly linked to rats. As much as this points towards a Satanic origin for the monster, it also has a science-fiction element, being an amalgamation of the DNA of everyone it's killed or attacked. Strangest yet, none of this stuff is ever explained. “Split Second” is an over-the-top action flick, with a sci-fi setting, and a slimy latex monster for its villain and none of this disparate ingredients are ever linked.
It's unsurprising to read that “Split Second” had a messy production. The script was being rewritten all throughout filming. Director Tony Maylam, previously of “The Burning,” stepped away late in production. This might explain why certain details here are left unexplained and the ending is rather abrupt. Despite these mishaps, the movie is too fucking weird not to be consistently entertaining. There's an explosion, a shoot-out, a monster attack, a bizarre character detail, or an unexpected bit of world-building every minute. “Split Second” was a box office failure in 1992, which was blamed on the movie opening during the L.A. riots. Yet it's hard to imagine a film equal parts derivative and off-the-walls like this ever being a hit. Thankfully for cult movie aficionados like me, it became a common fixture in video stores. Give it a look, if you're a fan of bullshit like this. [7/10]
Creeped Out: A Boy Called Red
“Creeped Out,” BBC's kid-friendly strange stories anthology, would tackle the premise of time travel with “A Boy Called Red.” Vincent has a tense relationship with his dad, who doesn't seem to like him very much. They travel back to his dad's childhood home, still owned by his Aunt Jean. There's an old well outside the house, which Vincent's dad is frightened off. When he was Vincent's age, his best friend was a boy named Red who fell into the well to his apparent death. While exploring the house, Vincent comes across a strange glowing orb. This transports him back to his father's childhood, where the two bond over a love of video games. Vincent doesn't tell the young version of his dad his name... So he starts calling “Red.”
The opening narration of “A Boy Called Red” presents the same idea that “Back to the Future” was powered by: Would you be friends with your parents, if you knew them at the same age? It's a fruitful premise, though I wish “A Boy Called Red” delved into it a little more. As an adult, Vincent's dad is grumpy and morose. As a boy, he has a stutter and fixates on beating the high score in “Asteroids.” Eventually, the script links all of the father's later problems in life to the trauma of seeing his childhood best friend die. This is certainly an understandable reaction, though one that is perhaps oversimplified. Vincent's actions in the past result in a super-happy, overly neat conclusion that I didn't much care for. I guess, since this is a kid's show, that's an A-to-B path for psychological trauma is about what kids could understand. But I wish the script cooked a little more ambiguity into things.
As for the creepiness factor, “A Boy Called Red” is light on that. The glowing orb that transports Vincent through time is never explained. Its introduction in the dusty basement is mildly spooky. I wish more was done with the derelict old well, which ends up having more of an incidental role in the plot than anything else. Malen Clarkson is a bit too stiff in the lead role but I do like the chemistry he has with Boris Burnell Anderson as the adult version of his father. Especially when they bond over playing Atari. Still, this episode is far more cute than horrific. It seems like I'm not going to find an episode of “Creeped Out” as creepy as “The Many Places” any time soon. Though it's still a lot more subtle than “Goosebumps” or “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” [6/10]
Here's another obscure short I stumbled onto thanks to Letterboxd, from filmmaker Norman Hull and starring a young David Morrissey. “Out of Town” follows a young man as he goes for a walk in the English countryside. Alongside a muddy, gravel road, he gets his foot stuck in a hole. Frustratingly, nobody stops to assist him. In fact, the people (and animals) who do notice him seem to actively scorn him, either attacking him or hurling insults his way. This goes on for hours, the man becoming hungry and cold out in the elements. When someone finally does appear to help him out, they are quickly run over by a passing car. Somehow, this situation is only going to get worse before it's over.
“Out of Town” has a potent thread of existential horror in it. The idea of getting your foot stuck in a hole is such a simple premise, anyone can imagine that. It's also not scary taken on its own. However, the idea that no one would stop to help you is what makes this idea subtly terrifying. That your fellow man could be so callous, to act as if you don't exist, and for no discernible reason, is the kind of idea that gets under your skin. Imagine that: You're just trying to go on a walk and suffer what should be a minor inconvenience. Instead, it becomes life threatening. There's also a degree of absurd comedy to “Out of Town,” as the premise is so simple, yet so potent, that it could easily have arisen from a dream. This is emphasized by the to-the-point direction and cinematography, focused on Morrissey's face and the desolate environment.
We never do find out why the locals are being so cruel to Morrissey's character. The biggest hint we get is in the title. “Out of Town” is a distillation of one of horror's favorite trope, of the city slicker outsider wandering into the place where he doesn't belong. We can tell Morrissey is an urbanite based on his clothing and his ever-present cassette player around his head, which is a nice use of visual storytelling. All the fear of being an outsider in a strange land are boiled down to its most basic fear, of not being treated like a human simply based on how you look. That the only person that helps the protagonist is a black man reveals this as a subtle commentary on racism. Which seems deliberate to me, though the final scene moves this even further into absurd, nightmarish, unexplained horror. That's a hell of a note to take this potent ten minutes out on. [7/10]
No comments:
Post a Comment