Blog Directory CineVerse: 2025

One groovy gore-fest

Monday, October 27, 2025

Even the scariest skeleton has a funnybone, and that’s as true of great horror comedies as it is of the human anatomy. And they don’t come much funnier or more frightful than Evil Dead II, the 1987 film directed by Sam Raimi and starring Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams – a hapless hero who battles demonic forces after unwittingly unleashing them by playing a recording of passages from the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, the Book of the Dead. The plot here is threadbare, taking a backseat to the astounding visuals: Ash and his girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) spend a night in a remote cabin where supernatural horrors are unleashed. After Linda becomes possessed, Ash must fight for his life and sanity as other characters – Annie Knowby (Sarah Berry), Jake (Dan Hicks), Bobby Joe (Kassie Wesley DePaiva), and Ed Getley (Richard Domeier) – arrive and are also drawn into the chaos. Blending over-the-top gore, zany levity, and inventive camera work – especially the fast-tracking shots from the demon’s POV that chase after the characters – Evil Dead II cemented Raimi’s signature style and Campbell’s status as a cult icon.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Evil Dead II, conducted last week, click here (if you get an error, simply try refreshing the page).


This is both a sequel and a loose remake of the original Evil Dead (1982). Raimi didn’t have the rights to use previous footage from the first film to provide a recap to audiences, so he created a prologue that cribbed the setup from the first movie. But this this film doesn’t pick up exactly where it left off, and the lack of continuity is obvious – as demonstrated by the fact that Ash’s friends from the preceding picture are not shown or mentioned, and the Necronomicon and the cabin in the woods remain intact despite being destroyed in the predecessor. However, you don’t even need to see the first film to understand and enjoy this sequel: It works as a standalone experience. (Interestingly, the filmmakers originally wanted to place Ash fighting the Deadites in the Middle Ages, but producer Dino De Laurentiis insisted that the movie echo the setting of the original.)

Perhaps more than any other fright film, Evil Dead II effectively combines physical humor with scares and gore, becoming the “first-ever slapstick horror movie,” according to film critic Brian Eggert. Sight and Sound even placed it #34 on its list of the 50 Funniest Films of All Time. Comedy influences are apparent, including The Three Stooges, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Tex Avery cartoons, and vintage physical comedians like Buster Keaton. Raimi’s over-the-top approach to blood, gore, viscera, and violence pays off with deliriously exaggerated effects and gags that blunt what would otherwise be shocking and disturbing imagery. Even the dated special effects and stop motion animation give the film a handmade charm and retro aesthetic that still works in the 21st century.

It’s astonishing what actor Bruce Campbell is subjected to in terms of stunt work. The sequence where he battles his own possessed hand is debatably the high point of the film. Consider that a key chunk of the run time is spent with him alone in the cabin and the demonic forces, long before other secondary characters enter the domain.

Arguably, this film is the best in the series, boasting the highest score of any Evil Dead iteration from Rotten Tomatoes (88%). In fact, the Evil Dead saga remains one of the highest acclaimed and audience-beloved horror franchises, with every movie and even the television show Ash vs. Evil Dead garnering plaudits and relatively high scores from critics.

Those who pay close attention are richly rewarded, as Raimi and company tuck several playful Easter eggs into the movie, including Freddy Krueger’s signature clawed glove, seen dangling in the cabin’s basement and tool shed. This was part of an ongoing nod-and-wink exchange between Sam Raimi and Wes Craven. In A Nightmare on Elm Street, Nancy Thompson (played by Heather Langenkamp) drifts off while watching The Evil Dead on TV, itself a callback to The Evil Dead’s own background detail: a ripped The Hills Have Eyes poster. Raimi had included that poster as a sly response to the tattered Jaws poster featured in Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes – a tongue-in-cheek chain of horror filmmakers paying tribute to one another.

Similar works

  • Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975, Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones)
  • Re-Animator (1985, Stuart Gordon)
  • Return of the Living Dead (1985, Dan O’Bannon)
  • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986, Tobe Hooper)
  • Army of Darkness (1992, Sam Raimi)
  • Dead Alive (Braindead) (1992, Peter Jackson)
  • Shaun of the Dead (2004, Edgar Wright)
  • Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010, Eli Craig)

Other films by Sam Raimi

  • The Evil Dead (1981)
  • Army of Darkness (1992)
  • The Quick and the Dead (1995)
  • A Simple Plan (1998)
  • Spider-Man (2002)
  • Spider-Man 2 (2004)
  • Drag Me to Hell (2009)
  • Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

Read more...

Arthouse vampires

Friday, October 24, 2025

Vampire films don’t come much artier or Afrocentric than Ganja & Hess, the 1973 independent horror-drama film written and directed by Bill Gunn. Celebrated as a groundbreaking work of Black American cinema that transforms the vampire myth into an allegory of addiction, spirituality, and race, the narrative concerns Dr. Hess Green (played by Duane Jones), a wealthy anthropologist who becomes immortal and addicted to blood after being stabbed with an ancient African ceremonial dagger by his troubled assistant George Meda (Bill Gunn). When George’s wife Ganja Meda (Marlene Clark) arrives searching for her husband, she and Hess fall into a passionate, destructive relationship that culminates in her sharing his cursed condition.


To hear a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Ganja & Hess, conducted last week, click here (if you encounter an error, simply try refreshing the page).


This picture is surprising, memorable, and innovative in several ways. It serves as a captivating sensory experience, using what the critics call “haptic visualization,” in which we are meant to imagine the tactile sensations the characters feel. What’s more, the three main characters – Hess, Ganja, and Meda – aren’t predictable or conventional. We can’t always guess their motivations or intentions. And it’s not a typical Blaxploitation film from this era in which the filmmakers employ ample titillation, violence, and stereotypical characters.

The narrative is fragmented, with unconventional editing, disjointed visuals, unresolved plot points, and avant-garde sensibilities. The story is also segmented into different chapters with titles. The sound design is quite unique, employing an unsettling home as well as an African sung chant that signifies Hess’s thirst for blood.

There’s a strong focus on sexuality, “but Gunn avoids portraying Black sexuality as carnal or primal, as many Hollywood and even Blacksploitation films did at the time. He presents Ganja and Hess as what scholar Marlowe D. David calls erratic subjects free of Otherness,” according to Deep Focus Review essayist Brian Eggert. The lovemaking scenes are visually interesting, artistically executed, and affectingly sensual without being exploitative. Recall how the coupling between Ganja and her younger victim is often presented out of focus (it’s noteworthy that, with his work on this film, cinematographer James Hinton became the first Black cinematographer to shoot a theatrically released American movie).

Ganja & Hess also pushed the envelope in the early 1970s for displaying full frontal male nudity as well as toe fetishism. Consider that the writer/director, Bill Gunn, was a gay Black man attempting to make a movie at a time when that combination was exceedingly rare.

Interestingly, it’s the word “vampire” is never uttered, and typical vampiric clichés and conventions are not followed. For example, these bloodsuckers can survive in broad daylight and cast reflections in mirrors, and they don’t turn into bats or other animals.

Spiritual and cultural conflict are at the core of this film. Gunn continuously compares and contrasts ancient African culture (the fictional Myrthians, known for drinking blood) with modern Christianity. This narrative suggests a symbolic battle between the two for the soul of Dr. Green, who ultimately chooses to abandon the former for the latter. Ponder how scenes involving Reverend William are much more linear and narratively simple, while scenes depicting Hess, Ganja, and Meda convey a much stronger Black aesthetic and arthouse vibe.

According to Eggert, “Hess’ interest in pagan African civilizations, sexual desire, and ultimately blood represent him straying from a Christian worldview. But Hess gravitates back to Christianity when he visits Luther and is absolved in the end. This allows him to expel the so-called evil in himself by standing in the shadow of a crucifix, once again accepting a Christian ideology, and dying with some measure of peace. And while Hess’ conclusion would seem to bring a certain moralizing shape to the film, Gunn’s last few moments identify with Ganja, who does not feel the same weight of Christian guilt that Hess does.” Meanwhile, essayist Donato Totaro wrote: “There are two narratives that seem to survive in the end: the Minister’s Christian linear view of life (since he remains alive) and Ganja’s more selfish (“Always look out for Ganja”) queer Afrocentric existence. This would explain how she has literally taken over Hess’ space, her gaze lingering out from his window. The clash from Church to Myrthian past exemplifies a theme noted by Gunn of the way Blacks are consumed between these two different historical positions: pre slavery African roots and their post slavery Christian roots.”

Additionally, the filmmakers explore addiction and compulsion. Ganja & Hess is a metaphor, in some eyes, for illicit drug dependence. But they also examine self-actualization, empowerment, identity, and personal freedom. Consider how Ganja is a strong, independent Black woman who rejects conformity and subservience. She tells of how she came to defy her mother and create her own identity. Ultimately, she does not choose suicide like Hess; instead, she embraces her vampiric immortality and superiority as a proud, intelligent predator and sensory being.

Similar works

  • The Velvet Vampire (1971, Stephanie Rothman) – A surreal, sensual vampire film with experimental visuals and themes of desire and death similar to Gunn’s.
  • Lemora: A Child’s Tale of the Supernatural (1973, Richard Blackburn) – Uses horror tropes to explore repression, transformation, and spiritual corruption.
  • Touki Bouki (1973, Djibril Diop Mambéty) – Shares Gunn’s avant-garde structure and exploration of identity, alienation, and freedom within African diasporic experience.
  • Sugar Hill (1974, Paul Maslansky) – A blaxploitation horror film like Ganja & Hess, but with a more traditional revenge plot and voodoo elements.
  • The House on Skull Mountain (1974, Ron Honthaner) – Another Black-centered gothic horror from the same era, though more conventional in its storytelling.
  • Losing Ground (1982, Kathleen Collins) – Explores Black intellectual and emotional life with the same introspective, artful approach found in Gunn’s work.
  • The Hunger (1983, Tony Scott) – A stylized, existential vampire story that treats immortality and addiction as metaphors for loneliness and decay.
  • Daughters of the Dust (1991, Julie Dash) – Shares Gunn’s poetic, nonlinear style and focus on Black spirituality, identity, and ancestral memory.
  • Candyman (1992, Bernard Rose) – Revisits race, myth, and horror with social critique, much as Gunn’s film reframes the vampire myth through a Black lens.
  • Eve’s Bayou (1997, Kasi Lemmons) – Blends gothic atmosphere and themes of mysticism, class, and race in the Black American South, echoing Gunn’s mood and symbolism.
  • Da Sweet Blood of Jesus (2014) – Directed by Spike Lee, this is a direct remake of Ganja & Hess. It closely follows Gunn’s story about an anthropologist who becomes immortal after being pierced by an ancient dagger, exploring themes of addiction, desire, and Black spirituality through Lee’s modern lens.

Other films by Bill Gunn

  • Stop! (1970)
  • Personal Problems (1980)

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 90th birthday of Bride of Frankenstein

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

In Cineversary podcast episode # 87, host ⁠Erik Martin⁠ reanimates James Whale’s Bride of Frankenstein for its 90th anniversary. Joining him for this high-voltage episode is vintage horror historian Gregory Mank, author It's Alive! The Classic Cinema Saga of Frankenstein. Together, they dissect the secrets behind Bride of Frankenstein: why the film remains so highly regarded, thematic takeaways that resonate in the 21st century, the extent to which it innovated horror cinema, and much more.

To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Feral Carol in peril

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

A good psychological horror film should take you deep into the disturbed mind of one or more of its characters. Repulsion, the 1965 film by Roman Polanski, checks that box better than practically any other work in this subgenre. Starring Catherine Deneuve, the narrative revolves around Carol, a beautiful but emotionally fragile young single woman living in London. Left alone in her sister’s apartment while her sister is away, she gradually descends into a terrifying state of mental instability. Isolated and haunted by repressed desires, paranoia, and hallucinations, Carol begins to experience disturbing visions and violent impulses, ultimately blurring the line between reality and madness. The film also features Ian Hendry as Carol’s suitor, Michael, and Yvonne Furneaux as her sister, Helen.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Repulsion, conducted last week, click here (if you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page).


One of the most striking aspects of this movie is how minimalistic and sparse it is. The plot is threadbare, yet the film leaves a lasting impression through its intense atmosphere and psychological depth. Designed as a simple black-and-white, low-budget picture, it relies on mood and technique rather than visual frills, gimmicks, or special effects. Polanski demonstrates mastery in constructing suspense and an unsettling mood through a brilliant combination of cinematic tools.

Sound and music play a crucial role in Repulsion, functioning almost as a collective character in its own right. The film’s audio design is remarkably clever, using elements such as bells, drumbeats reminiscent of an executioner’s march, an orgasmic cacophony, clocks ticking, and taps dripping. Extended moments of eerie silence are often abruptly interrupted by shocking sounds or sudden bursts of music, heightening tension and disorientation. Consider how stillness and quiet are juxtaposed with sudden violence or intense sound, creating a disturbing rhythm that lingers with the viewer.

Polanski employs creative camera work, including unsteady handheld shots following Carol as she moves, extreme close-ups of distorted or ugly faces, and fisheye lens shots to convey her growing anxiety. Quiet, drawn-out fades transition between scenes, while distorted sets reflect Carol’s unhinged state of mind.

His direction in Repulsion has frequently been described as “Hitchcockian,” and there are numerous references in this film to works by the Master of Suspense. The opening credit sequence recalls the stylized credits of Vertigo and the close-up of Marion Crane’s dead eye in Psycho. Arguably, Carol bears a resemblance to James Stewart’s isolated character Jeff in Rear Window, as both are solitary figures navigating urban spaces with skewed perceptions of the world around them. Polanski also casts a beautiful blonde, echoing the archetypal female leads in many Hitchcock films. Furthermore, Polanski’s brief cameo in Repulsion mirrors Hitchcock’s tradition of appearing in his own movies.

In tone, subject matter, and suspense-building, Repulsion is comparable to that granddaddy of slasher films, featuring claustrophobic, lonely settings where trespassers meet violent ends. Yet Repulsion diverges from Psycho in significant ways. While the latter presents killing and its aftermath from the perspective of victims and survivors, Repulsion immerses the audience in a subjective experience of murder and madness through the eyes of a disturbed soul. Unlike Psycho, it does not offer simple Freudian explanations or psychobabble to rationalize Carol’s psychoses. Polanski’s film also blurs the line between reality and hallucination, leaving the viewer uncertain whether the events depicted are truly happening or merely exist in Carol’s mind.

Thematic exploration in Repulsion is rich and multifaceted. Alienation, isolation, and confinement pervade Carol’s experience, as does irrational paranoia. The film examines violation and the crossing of societal boundaries, a recurring element in Polanski’s work. Carol embodies the outsider attempting to defend herself from external – or perhaps internal – threats. Clad in white and angelically beautiful, she represents purity, while her apartment symbolizes both her virginity and fractured psyche. The narrative underscores her struggles with sexual repression, exemplified by the rotting meat of the rabbit, a symbol of reproduction.

Carol is also depicted as a foreigner in an unfamiliar city, potentially grappling with her sexual identity and living in a socially conservative community, as illustrated by a threatening phone call she receives. The film emphasizes the pressures from organized religion to conform to traditional roles of mating and family, and it draws interesting parallels between sex and religion through the juxtaposition of erotic sounds and church bells.

Repulsion also masterfully examines the blurring of fantasy and reality: We’re not sure of the verity of any of the incidents we see. Did they really happen, or is Carol yet another unreliable narrator whose nightmarish visions ultimately consume her?

Similar works

  • An Andalusian Dog (1929, Luis Buñuel)
  • Cat People (1942, Jacques Tourneur)
  • I Walked with a Zombie (1943, Jacques Tourneur)
  • Beauty and the Beast (1946, Jean Cocteau)
  • The Lost Weekend (1945, Billy Wilder)
  • Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1976, Chantal Akerman)
  • The Shining (1980, Stanley Kubrick)
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984, Wes Craven)
  • Clean, Shaven (1994, Lodge Kerrigan)
  • Antichrist (2009, Lars von Trier)

Other works by Roman Polanski

  • Knife in the Water (1962)
  • Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
  • Chinatown (1974)
  • The Tenant (1976)
  • Tess (1979) 
  • The Pianist (2002)

Read more...

Bride and prejudice: Why we love this superior sequel to Frankenstein

Wednesday, October 8, 2025


Cinephiles commonly subscribe to a widely accepted truism: sequels suck. Except sometimes they don’t – in fact, occasionally they can surpass the original film of the series. Such is the case with Bride of Frankenstein (1935), the acclaimed follow-up to Frankenstein (1931), both directed by James Whale. Based ever so loosely on the original tale by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s tale, this film picks up the story immediately after the end of the first film. We follow Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) as he reluctantly resumes his experiments under pressure from the sinister Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who envisions creating a mate for Frankenstein’s original creature (Boris Karloff). The resulting creation is the Bride, played by Elsa Lanchester, who also appears as Shelley in the film’s prologue. The film deepens the tragedy of the monster, emphasizing his loneliness and desire for companionship.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Bride of Frankenstein, conducted last week, click here (if you get an error, simply try refreshing the page).


Bride represents the pinnacle of Universal horror and that studio’s classic cycle of fright films, and deserves to be considered as the greatest horror/monster movie from Hollywood’s golden age. This work is widely deemed the best horror sequel ever made and one of the finest sequels of all time, regardless of genre, as well as one of the rare examples of a subsequent cinematic chapter that bests the original. For proof, ponder that it garners a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 95 Metascore on Metacritic. Time magazine included it in its “All-TIME 100 Movies” list, and Empire placed it among the 500 greatest films of all time. Rotten Tomatoes named it #19 on its “200 Best Horror Movies of All Time,” Collider ranked it among the best movie sequels, and Entertainment Weekly cited it as one of the 20 best horror sequels and #2 of the 25 best monster movies. Meanwhile, The Guardian named it the 18th best horror film ever, and The Boston Herald regards it as the second greatest horror film after Nosferatu.

Per Roger Ebert, “Seen today, Whale’s masterpiece is more surprising than when it was made because today’s audiences are more alert to its buried hints of homosexuality, necrophilia, and sacrilege. But you don’t have to deconstruct it to enjoy it; it’s satirical, exciting, funny, and influential masterpiece of art direction.”

Indeed, Bride of Frankenstein is superior to its predecessor in multiple ways, including narrative, characters, art design, lighting and cinematography, makeup, casting, and music. Overall, it’s a more complete story and fulfilling motion picture. Writer George Turner, in an American Cinematographer article, praised the film’s impressive sets, including the refurbished Castle Frankenstein with its vast hall, vaulted rooms, ornate windows, and massive furnishings; and the enormous laboratory, 70 feet high and filled with Kenneth Strickfaden’s fantastical machinery; Pretorius’ strange apartment; a hermit’s crowded hut; a morgue; a courtroom; a cistern and waterwheel; and a macabre dungeon where the monster is chained while villagers watch. Among the stunning exteriors are a blasted forest of limbless trees, a waterfall in a lush wood, a fairy tale-style peasant hut, and a hillside graveyard, all backed by enormous sky cycloramas.

You could make a case that Karloff is even better in Bride than he was in his first turn as the monster three years earlier – exhibiting a greater range of emotion and pathos while also being more expressive and empathetic. Here, he can speak, cry, laugh, eat, drink, smoke, and act both more human and inhuman. It’s not a stretch to call this the greatest performance in Karloff’s career, although he’s exceptional in the 1931 original as well as Val Lewton’s The Body Snatcher (1945).

But the true scene stealer is arguably Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius, who often delivers the best lines and infuses camp sensibilities into the character that make him an unforgettable personality – one who is as visually striking as his intonations are captivating. Pretorius’s angular frame, sharp facial features, expressive eyes, eccentric hair, trilling tongue, articulate speech, and flamboyant manner combined to make him a thoroughly unique personality and unforgettable character. He’s coded as demonstrably queer and prissy, which would have been evident even to 1935 audiences.

Furthermore, unlike the 1931 film, this one has a complete score, by Franz Waxman, that stands as one of the finest of the 1930s and, debatably, the greatest music written for a horror film until Bernard Herrmann’s contribution for Psycho in 1960. Waxman composed a Wagnerian, operatic orchestration that memorably employs three key leitmotif themes – one for the monster, one for his mate, and one for Pretorius. Interestingly, the soundtrack even beats in rhythm to the steadily thumping heart in Frankenstein’s laboratory.

The creation sequence that ends this film tops the one from the 1931 original with an even more grandiose set and fantastical electrical effects. In the sequel, we get more canted angles, expressionistic facial close-ups, lightning bolts, sparks, and tension. Other visual effects are equally impressive, particularly Pretorius’s tiny homunculi, achieved through ingenious double exposure and optical tricks.

Bride of Frankenstein was a pioneering picture in several ways. It’s the first genuine horror sequel (debatably, Son of Kong, released in 1933, is more horror-adjacent as an adventure/fantasy film). The Bride herself is technically the earliest bona fide female monster character in cinema history, or at least the sound era, although some scholars would point to Maria in Metropolis from 1927 and earlier vampires, witches, and supernatural women depicted in silent cinema. Additionally, Waxman’s composition represents the first original score for a horror movie, with his music written specifically for this film (unlike pre-existing music used for earlier horror pictures like Nosferatu or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari). This is also considered by many to be the inaugural horror-comedy in the sound era.

Bride of Frankenstein broke ground by proving that a sequel could surpass its predecessor. Unlike the quick cash-grab follow-ups common in the 1930s and beyond, it delivered a richer, more ambitious work, laying the groundwork for later prestige sequels from Aliens to The Dark Knight.

The film’s tone was unlike anything else of its time. By blending gothic horror with biting satire, irony, and macabre humor, Whale crafted a tonal experiment that foreshadowed everything from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein to Young Frankenstein and even the self-aware scares of Scream. Alternate Ending essayist Timothy Brayton wrote: “By all rights, the film's intense tonal shifts should not work at all... We’ve got the broadest kind of '30s humor in the form of Frankenstein's housekeeper Minnie (O'Connor); the high camp preening of Thesiger as Pretorius, followed at a slight distance by Clive in sort of "medium camp" mode; and then on the other side, the creature, played by Karloff in the single best performance of a career that is fuller of great acting than you'd probably expect, gets a full range of fascinating, beautiful emotions... So we've got horror, farce, Expressionism, camp, humanism… all these mashed-up tones shouldn't work at all. And yet, for some reason, it all does.”

Visually, Bride of Frankenstein – and its 1931 antecedent – borrowed heavily from German Expressionism, as evidenced by storm-lashed graveyards, looming castles, and twisted lab equipment, drenching all of it in exaggerated shadows and light. These striking aesthetics rippled through noir, horror, and eventually the signature style of later filmmakers like Tim Burton.

Whale’s own perspective as a gay filmmaker added another layer, infusing Pretorius and the film’s themes with camp, theatricality, and queer subtext. This dimension has since made Bride a cornerstone for queer readings of horror.

Additionally, although she appears for only about five minutes, the Bride herself became immortal, proving that female monsters had real pop-culture bite. With her lightning-streaked hair, bandaged body, and serpentine hiss, she remains one of the most enduring icons of horror, reverberating through fashion, parody, and Halloween culture ever since.

Later works that drew inspiration from Bride of Frankenstein visually, narratively, thematically, or otherwise include Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), Young Frankenstein (1974), The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), The Bride (1985), Re-Animator (1985), Edward Scissorhands (1990), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), Bride of Chucky (1998), Gods and Monsters (1998), Van Helsing (2004), Ex Machina (2014), the Penny Dreadful TV series (2014), Victor Frankenstein (2015), The Shape of Water (2017), Poor Things (2023), and, we have to assume, the forthcoming Bride (2025).

This film remains James Whale’s crowning achievement as a filmmaker. (Considering his perfect batting average directing four horror masterpieces – Frankenstein (1931), The Old Dark House (1932), The Invisible Man (1933), and this movie – he’s worthy of appearing on the Mount Rushmore of greatest horror directors.) Whale was unafraid to infuse humor in his horror, use religious imagery and Christian connotations, and include a significant character imbued with hints of homosexuality. He also deserves props for beginning the film with a distinctly different prologue depicting Mary Shelley – the original author of this tale – discussing its creation with Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley, two of her literary peers. And he wisely cast the same actress to play both Mary and the Bride. Himself an openly gay man, Whale also ensured that other non-heterosexual actors were cast, including Thesiger and Colin Clive (who was rumored to be gay or bisexual).

As with the first film, Bride of Frankenstein is centrally concerned with the dangers of scientific and spiritual hubris. Pretorius toasts to a “new world of gods and monsters,” in which he and Henry Frankenstein exemplify this new breed of gods of creation, usurping the role of a higher power and ethically exceeding the boundaries of science and technology. Pretorius says: “Follow the lead of nature - or of God, if you like your Bible stories. Male and female created to them. Be fruitful and multiply. Create a race. A man-made race upon the face of the earth. Why not?” Even Henry, who reluctantly agrees to the collaboration, is fearful of this power, remarking: “This isn't science. It's more like black magic.” Also consider how Pretorius lures Henry away from Elizabeth on their wedding night, persuading him to join in the unnatural pursuit of generating life in a way that defies human reproduction.

Another obvious thematic throughline across the franchise? Rejection of the outsider. The creature, and Dr. Pretorius in particular, represents the outcast, a figure who cannot be accepted in mainstream society for reasons fair or unfair. The monster is feared by nearly everyone who can see him, hunted by the villagers, and thoroughly shunned by the bride created for him. And Pretorius must work in secret and perform around the periphery to accomplish his goals.

Some film scholars insist that there’s a gay reading to the film, subtextually suggesting that any male-male relationships in the story represent a threat to society’s established heterosexual order, particularly the bond between the blind hermit and the monster. "No mistake – this is a marriage, and a viable one ... But Whale reminds us quickly that society does not approve. The monster – the outsider – is driven from his scene of domestic pleasure by two gun-toting rubes who happen upon this startling alliance and quickly, instinctively, proceed to destroy it", wrote Gary Morris in a controversial analysis for Bright Lights Film Journal.

Bride also espouses the universal need for companionship. Pretorius urges that he and Henry must work together, and the monster insists that they create a mate for him. Guillermo del Toro was quoted as saying: "If the first one was about the essential loneliness of man, a Miltonian episode about being thrust into a world that you didn't create and didn't understand, then the second one is the absolute compulsion for company, the need not to be alone." In the first film, the brain was the most important organ to the creature, but the irony was that the monster turned out to be a simplistic brute due to having an abnormal brain. In the sequel, fascinatingly, the essential body part is the heart, but the twist is that the monster’s bride acts heartlessly toward her mate. Without the hope of love or companionship, the monster chooses death.

All Frankenstein films, essentially – including this one – explore the danger of the unleashed id, which must be quashed by the social order. The monster is viewed by the populace as a mindless menace capable of extreme violence, which instigates a mob mentality. In Freudian psychology, the id is the unconscious part of the mind that contains basic instincts, drives, and desires, especially those related to aggression, survival, and sex. It seeks immediate gratification without reckoning upon morality or consequences. The viewer may not regard the creature as this perilous id manifestation, but the townspeople do.

Bride of Frankenstein proved that horror – considered the bastard stepchild genre of Hollywood for decades and culprit of schlock and dreck in the minds of snooty scholars – can be high art in capable hands. Bride has withstood nine decades of scrutiny yet continues to rank as or among the very best of its kind. It’s an equally impressive feat that this work set the bar high for sequels of any stripe, demonstrating that a follow-up film can outshine the original, even if that remains an extremely rare phenomenon. Like The Godfather Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Terminator 2, Before Sunset, The Dark Knight, and Mad Max: Fury Road, this work gives us hope that subsequent outings can be exceptional. It also serves as a crucial bridge between the original Frankenstein and the continuation of that series, which remains the best old-school franchise in the Universal house of horrors, despite diminishing returns with later Frankenstein sequels. And Lanchester’s Bride endures as the face of female monsterdom, establishing that women can embody horror on par with the best of the big boy beasts.

Read more...

Revisiting Hitchcock's Vertigo

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Last week, our CineVerse group discussed Alfred Hitchcock's magnum opus Vertigo (1958), with differing opinions on the film across the membership. To listen to a recording of our group discussion of Vertigo, click here (if you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page).

I also created a seven-part essay on Vertigo, published back in 2009, that you can reread, starting with part one, available here.

Read more...

Big Easy blues

Friday, September 26, 2025

Long before he became a prima donna punchline known for phoning in his overpriced performances, Marlon Brando set the stage – and then the cinema – on fire with his electrifying method acting. Perhaps the greatest proof of this talent is evidenced in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), directed by Elia Kazan and adapted from Tennessee Williams’s Pulitzer Prize–winning 1947 play of the same name. Set in a steamy New Orleans apartment, the narrative concerns fading Southern belle Blanche DuBois (played by Vivien Leigh) as she arrives to stay with her younger sister Stella Kowalski (Kim Hunter) and Stella’s brutish, working-class husband Stanley Kowalski (Brando). Blanche hides a troubled past and clings to delusions of gentility, but her refined airs clash violently with Stanley’s raw, animalistic energy. Tensions escalate into a battle of wills and desires, culminating in violence and Blanche’s mental breakdown. The powerhouse cast also includes Karl Malden as Mitch, Stanley’s friend and Blanche’s would-be suitor, whose disappointment adds to her unraveling.


To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of A Streetcar Named Desire, conducted last week, click here.


In the early 50s, this film would have certainly been controversial for its unflinching treatment of sexuality and violence. From the start, there is a strong carnal undercurrent running throughout the story that would have been difficult to get past the censors. The implied rape of Blanche by Stanley is shocking and disturbing, while hints of female lust and nymphomania – Stella’s longing for her husband, the sexual tension between Blanche and Stanley, and Blanche’s own repressed desires – push the boundaries of what audiences at the time expected on screen. Stella endures both physical and verbal abuse, and Blanche’s backstory includes the suggestion that her husband was homosexual, a revelation that, combined with her taunting of him, may have contributed to his suicide. The bleak and tragic ending only intensifies the discomfort: Blanche has been assaulted and committed to a mental institution, and Stella will presumably take Stanley back (her vow in the final scene to never return to her husband rings hollow to the ears of modern audiences).

At its heart, Streetcar is built on an ideological clash between the past and the present. Blanche represents the old South, a pretender living in denial, a pseudo–southern belle yearning for a time that has passed. Stanley, by contrast, embodies the new South, one shaped by capitalist and industrial forces, a primal presence standing as the antithesis of the gallant white knight who once saved damsels in distress. Between them stands Stella, exuding fertility and representing a new Southern attitude – one in which women tolerate the brutality of men, having shed the gentler accents and illusions of their upbringing. Together, these three characters dramatize the struggle between decaying traditions and hard-edged modernity.

Blanche and Stanley, in particular, operate as opposing forces locked in a Darwinian struggle over Stella’s loyalties and over the symbolic survival of their respective “species.” Blanche’s attempts to “save Stella from the brutes” and to restore a bygone Southern culture place her directly in conflict with Stanley’s raw, unapologetic dominance. Critics and scholars have often pointed to this tension as emblematic of a survival-of-the-fittest contest. Stanley ultimately wins: The birth of his son signals his line will continue, while Blanche is expelled from the environment altogether. In the end, Stella chooses the flesh over the spirit, staying with Stanley and sealing Blanche’s fate.

The casting deepens and enriches these themes. Leigh is the spot-on choice for Blanche, bringing with her the association of Scarlett O’Hara and the old South from Gone With the Wind. Leigh’s own emerging struggles with bipolar disorder may also have informed her layered, tremulous performance. Kim Hunter is also perfectly cast as Stella, her plain appearance underscoring her earthy sensuality and quiet strength. Brando, meanwhile, is a force of nature: His physicality, emotive body language, and dangerous allure create a believable and complex character. Historians widely see his performance as a turning point in film acting, ushering in a new era of nuance, detail, and range. Roger Ebert noted that American actors before Brando often portrayed violent emotions with restraint, holding back a certain modesty. Brando shattered that restraint, paving the way for Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Jack Nicholson, Sean Penn, and others who embraced rawness as the new standard.

The movie’s visual and aural design amplifies its psychological intensity. Tight, claustrophobic interiors close in on the characters, increasing the sense of pressure and conflict. Viewers can feel the sweat, heat, and grime of New Orleans – there is no romanticizing here, only a seething sauna of sexuality and confrontation. Even the score reflects the characters’ inner lives: brief musical cues infused with New Orleans–style jazz conjure an atmosphere of brooding desire and unrest.

Beneath these surface elements run themes of illusion versus reality and old values versus new values. Blanche’s misleading letters, her purple shade over the light fixture, and her pining for Belle Reve all reveal her clinging to a fading ideal of Southern manners and gentility. Yet this gentility is met not with sympathy but with brutality, indifference, and ignorance. The story also explores different kinds of desire – sexual, emotional, and social – along with the search for identity and the power of sexuality to either destroy or redeem. Through these intertwined threads, the film presents a world where the past and its illusions are crushed by the unstoppable force of the present, leaving its characters trapped between longing and survival.

Similar works

  • Sunset Boulevard (1950)
  • Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
  • Baby Doll (1956)
  • Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
  • Sweet Bird of Youth (1962)
  • Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
  • Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967)
  • Last Tango in Paris (1972)
  • Closer (2004)
  • Blue Jasmine (2013)

Other films by Elia Kazan

  • A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)
  • Gentlemen’s Agreement (1947)
  • Viva Zapata (1952)
  • On the Waterfront (1954)
  • East of Eden (1955)
  • Baby Doll (1956)
  • A Face in the Crowd (1957)
  • Splendor in the Grass (1961)

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 50th anniversary of Dog Day Afternoon

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

In Cineversary podcast episode #86, host ⁠Erik Martin⁠ takes it to the bank as he commemorates the 50th anniversary of Sidney Lumet’s Dog Day Afternoon. Joining him for this golden celebration is Maura Spiegel, a film studies professor at Columbia University and author of the book Sidney Lumet: A Life. Together, they examine how this film remains resonant and relevant, the impression it made another filmmakers, major themes, and much more.
Maura Spiegel
To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including
Apple Podcasts
and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com.

Read more...

Seek out this De Sica gem

How do you top Bicycle Thieves and steal the title of perhaps the greatest Italian neorealism film ever made? Make Umberto D., that’s how. Amazingly, both pictures were helmed by Vittorio De Sica, with the latter released less than three years after the former. Written by Cesare Zavattini, Umberto D. is named after its title character, Umberto Domenico Ferrari (Carlo Battisti), an elderly retired civil servant in postwar Rome who struggles to survive on a small pension. Faced with eviction from his boarding house and increasing isolation, his only real companion is his loyal dog, Flike. Maria-Pia Casilio plays Maria, the young maid who befriends the old man.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Umberto D., conducted last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page.)


This work eschews melodrama for a quiet, humane focus on everyday struggles, particularly the overlooked plight of the elderly poor. It isn’t sentimental, mawkish, or emotionally manipulative. For proof, consider the scene where Umberto looks for his dog at the pound and sees all the confined canines who will likely be euthanized; the filmmakers certainly could have tugged at your heartstrings more here, but they don’t. They simply let the scene play out without manipulation.

It’s a bleak, warts-and-all character study that can be depressing and downbeat. There’s very little humor or comic relief, and few exciting things that happen to this man or his dog. And the lack of sentimentality can actually cause viewers to feel less or no sympathy for the protagonist. Per reviewer Glenn Erickson: “The story doesn't have cute kids, dreamy lovers, or crime thrills to distract the audience. Instead, we get the kind of grinding real-life problems faced by the honest poor. I can see less generous viewers reacting to Umberto's lack of options by deciding that his problems are his own fault. It's true: the average audience will accept social realities in their entertainment, but even an arthouse crowd wants to be 'entertained'. Umberto D. is an uncompromised neorealist experience.”

Contrary to other neorealist movies, Umberto D. doesn’t depict the struggles of the working-class everyman in or near the prime of his life; Umberto himself is a low-income, forgotten senior who lives a relatively miserable existence. He’s not rebelling against socioeconomic forces or seeking justice—he simply wants to exist alone and in peace. Additionally, the key social issues explored in this film are not necessarily economic injustice, man’s inhumanity to his fellow man, and postwar social challenges faced by most people; instead, the struggle here is to thwart shame and maintain dignity and decency in the face of old age. Truth is, this neorealism film has a much simpler and straightforward plot. The primary relationship here is simply between a man and his dog. Interestingly, the movie uses ample long shots that often show Umberto and his dog from far off, versus medium or close-up shots; the longshot effect evokes a feeling of distance, isolation from others, and loneliness.

What’s surprisingly effective is that De Sica employs real-time sequences and depicts banal everyday occurrences. Recall the maid’s humdrum morning routine or the old man’s attempts to go to sleep. It feels documentary-like, brutally honest, unscripted, and nontheatrical. This is 180 degrees from a sympathy-soaked melodrama filled with contrived conflict.

According to Roger Ebert, “Umberto D. tells what could be a formula story, but not in a formula way: Its moments seem generated by what might really happen. A formula film would find a way to manufacture a happy ending, but good fortune will not fall from the sky for Umberto. Perhaps his best luck is simply that he has the inner strength to endure misfortune without losing self-respect. It is said that at one level or another, Chaplin's characters were always asking that we love them. Umberto doesn't care if we love him or not. That is why we love him.

Umberto D. reminds us that life is often not fair, and those who often need the most help find the least help. It masterfully depicts the struggle to maintain dignity and eke out an existence in a pitiless world where no one seems to care. Yet we are shown that even the most mundane existence devoid of excitement can still have meaning and resonance. As long as you have a single loved one who needs you and vice versa, life is worth living.

Similar works

  • Ikiru (1952)
  • Wild Strawberries (1957)
  • A Man and His Dog (1952)
  • A Dog Year (2009)

Other movies directed by Vittorio De Sica:

  • Shoeshine (1946)
  • Bicycle Thieves (1948)
  • Miracle in Milan (1951)
  • Two Women (1960)
  • Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (1963)
  • Marriage Italian Style (1964)

Read more...

Every dog has its day – or at least an afternoon

Tuesday, September 9, 2025


Five decades later, Dog Day Afternoon – directed by Sidney Lumet and based on a true story – could debatably be more resonant and relevant than it was upon its release in September 1975. Exploring powerful themes of desperation, media spectacle, and social bias, the film centers on Sonny (Al Pacino), who, along with his partner Sal (John Cazale), attempts to rob a Brooklyn bank to pay for his lover Leon’s (Chris Sarandon) gender-affirming surgery, only for the heist to spiral into a chaotic hostage standoff. As the tense situation unfolds, Sonny tries to negotiate with police detective Sgt. Moretti (Charles Durning) while dealing with growing media attention and the emotional strain of his personal life. Also featuring James Broderick as FBI agent Sheldon, the film blends dark humor with social commentary, making it both a gripping thriller and a human drama.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Dog Day Afternoon, conducted last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page.)


Dog Day Afternoon stands as a high point in the careers of its creators, potentially representing Lumet’s most accomplished direction and featuring perhaps the most memorable and powerful performances ever delivered by Al Pacino and John Cazale. (That’s especially high praise for Cazale, who was practically perfect in each of the five masterpieces he appeared in before dying of cancer: The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, this film, and The Deer Hunter.)

This work often plays as a comedy but ends as a tragedy, all the while ticking away as a fine psychological drama and mild thriller filled with fine performances and fascinating characters that were hallmarks of early 1970s cinema. The movie has a lot to say about the power of the media, sociocultural politics, LGBTQ awareness, and the deep state of mistrust and pessimism that pervaded our culture in the mid-1970s.

It tackles the subject of a gay relationship with honesty and matter-of-factness. For a mainstream film released in 1975, it was groundbreaking in portraying a queer relationship at the center of its story without ridicule or sensationalism, instead treating Sonny’s love for his partner as a deeply human motivation that audiences could empathize with.

The picture is considered relatively authentic and fairly accurate because it closely follows the real 1972 Brooklyn bank robbery by John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturile. Lumet and screenwriter Frank Pierson stayed faithful to the main events, including the hostage situation, tense negotiations, and chaotic interactions with police and the media. Pacino’s Sonny reflects Wojtowicz’s personality and motives (he also bears an uncanny resemblance), particularly his efforts to fund his partner’s gender-affirming surgery. It achieves a striking authenticity by grounding itself in this true story and real environments. Filmed on location in New York with natural lighting, a documentary-like style, and improvisational performances, the movie captures the immediacy and unpredictability of real life, blurring the line between drama and reality in a way that still feels fresh 50 years later.

It features no traditional musical score, instead relying on atmosphere and natural sound. The absence of a composed soundtrack heightens the realism and tension, making the viewer feel as though they are truly inside the unfolding events. The only song used—Elton John’s “Amoreena” in the opening, which is revealed to be playing on the radio inside the getaway car, making it diegetic music—sets the everyday New York mood before the chaos begins, making the contrast even more striking.

This film certainly tells us a lot about life in America 50 years ago. It embraces an anti-authoritarian theme that critiques the political climate of the 1970s. By spotlighting police aggression, public distrust of institutions, and the lingering disillusionment of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the film tapped into widespread anxieties of its time, giving it both topical urgency and lasting relevance. Through tense interactions with police, the film critiques law enforcement and bureaucratic inefficiency.

According to DVD Savant critic Glenn Erickson: “Sonny, a Vietnam vet, displays a paranoia and distrust of authority that was the hallmark of the era. It may be one of the most famous scenes in film history, but Sonny's "ATTICA! ATTICA!" tirade, inspired by a notorious prison riot that ended with officers shooting numerous prisoners in the back, speaks to his disgust with law enforcement and the system in general. The robbery may have happened in August 1972, only two months after the Watergate break-in, but by the time the film was produced, Nixon was out and Sonny's view of authority was no longer counter-culture mysticism; It was a mainstream public view.”

Dog Day Afternoon "captures perfectly the zeitgeist of the early 1970s, a time when optimism was scraping rock bottom and John Wojtowicz was as good a hero as we could come up with,” wrote critic Christopher Null.

Consider that Sonny is the first openly gay/bisexual character featured in a Hollywood movie, and Pacino is the first major American star to ever play a gay/bisexual man. Dog Day Afternoon broke new ground by presenting a gay relationship as a central, fully human element of the narrative of a feature film—something rarely seen in mainstream films of the 1970s. Sonny’s sexuality is treated matter-of-factly, and his love for his partner drives his actions, giving the character depth and complexity rather than reducing him to a stereotype. Likewise, the gay character of Leon – superbly played by Sarandon – is presented with nuance and sensitivity minus clichés or caricature.

Additionally, Dog Day Afternoon deviated from the conventions of earlier heist films and debatably reshaped how crime dramas were made. Shot with handheld cameras, natural lighting, and overlapping dialogue, it adopted a documentary-like realism that gave the story a raw, authentic feel and inspired later films like Heat and Inside Man to ground their crime narratives similarly.

Rather than focusing on the mechanics of a slickly executed robbery, the film centered on the flawed humanity of its characters, with Al Pacino’s Sonny portrayed not as a criminal mastermind but as an ordinary man trapped in extraordinary circumstances—a character-driven approach echoed in The Town and Hell or High Water.

At the same time, Lumet infused the story with social and political themes of the 1970s, touching on distrust of authority, media spectacle, and LGBTQ+ identity. This willingness to mix social critique with genre storytelling influenced later socially conscious thrillers such as John Q. The film was ahead of its time, too, in portraying the robbery as a media circus, with television cameras and public spectacle becoming part of the drama, a motif that resonates in Inside Man. Some credit this film with actually prefiguring the later rise of reality TV, especially in the scene where the pizza deliveryman yells, “I’m a star!” Pacino remarked: “That was the first time that kind of recognition vis à vis TV and the real world was shown. In a way, it was reality TV.”

Films that came in the wake of Dog Day Afternoon and were likely influenced by it, even if only as bank-robber stories, include Quick Change (1990), Heat (1995), John Q (2002), Inside Man (2006), The Town (2010), and Hell or High Water (2016). This work may also have influenced Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing in that both films unfold over the course of one sweltering New York summer day, both end in violence and tragedy, and both resist offering easy answers or clear-cut morals, instead leaving audiences to grapple with ambiguity and unresolved tensions.

Fortunately, the film doesn’t pander or resort to overplayed clichés or stereotypes. Ask yourself: Did you suspect Sonny of being gay before it was revealed? It shows the Sonny-Leon relationship objectively, fairly, and impartially; consider that it’s given equal time compared to Sonny’s relationship with his wife.

On the other hand, detractors would argue that this reveal functions as an intentionally shocking plot twist designed to heighten the drama at a critical point in the narrative, effectively serving up this suddenly exposed relationship as salacious melodrama. Additionally, it presents somewhat negative portrayals of Sonny’s mother and female wife. They seem to be shrill, unattractive, inattentive listeners and out of touch with his needs; some theorize that these qualities prompt Sonny to come out of the closet and prefer a gay relationship. Yet, some of the women hostages are shown as strong and brave.

Pacino expertly plays a man who stands as a fascinating study in contradictions, which is part of what makes him such a compelling character. At times, he appears to be in total control of the situation, only to quickly reveal that he has no idea what to do next. He’s both hero and anti-hero—you root for him because of his vulnerability and humanity, even while knowing he’s breaking the law. His personal life is equally complex: he has a wife and children, yet is also married to a man, and he has a straight male partner in crime. His greatest weakness is ironically his compassion, as his attempts to help others—whether his partner, the hostages, or even the crowd—consistently backfire. And while he’s cheered on by onlookers for defying authority, many in that same crowd reject him for his sexuality, which highlights the bitter irony that what he’s condemned for is not illegal, while what earns him cheers most certainly is.

Per Roger Ebert: “Sonny isn't explained or analyzed -- just presented. He becomes one of the most interesting modern movie characters, ranking with Gene Hackman's eavesdropper in "The Conversation" and Jack Nicholson's Bobby Dupea in "Five Easy Pieces."

Ponder how Sonny is a different person to everyone around him. Interestingly, he tries to satisfy everyone and solve other people’s problems, but ultimately he fails. Like Sal, Sonny’s a living paradox (for proof of the former, recall how Sal criticizes the female bank employees for smoking yet is engaged in armed robbery). Sonny is incredibly media savvy – he knows instinctively how to whip up the crowd for the cameras, get the public on his side, and make the police look like antagonists; recall how he tucks in his shirt before heading back out to face the media, and Sal even believes Sonny has the power to control the TV news. Additionally, Sonny has good instincts for ferreting out the fakers (like the undercover cop driving the bus). Yet he’s relatively clueless about where to escape to (he prefers Algeria because they have a Howard Johnson’s), and recall that he stupidly sets fire to the bank ledger, which foils their entire plan.

Sonny is aware that he’s flawed and difficult to understand, but he has confidence in himself to solve problems, even if he is not successful. He says: “I’m a fuck-up and an outcast – you come near me, you’re going to get it”; “I’m me, and I’m different, and “I speak what I feel.”

The director deserves ample credit for infusing realism into this film and lending it a docudrama feel that attempts to capture the look and tone of the mid-1970s. But not to undercut this authenticity, he intently focuses on the psychological conflict experienced by Sonny, Sal, and their captives, depicting their states of mind, stress, and personal crises with commendable sensitivity and depth. This is not an objective reenactment of a true-life bank robbery. Yes, we are shown the perspectives of law enforcement, providing needed balance, and Sonny and Sal are seen as criminals capable of violence; yet they are both humanized and presented by the filmmakers as sympathetic characters.

Consider, as well, how Lumet uses no artificial lighting, instead employing the fluorescent lights used within the bank building. And his use of quick mobile handheld camera shots, particularly in the claustrophobic confines of the bank, is particularly effective. His opening montage of real people sequences across New York City helps set the template that this is an ordinary day in the Big Apple, set during one of the dog days of summer. With the help of editor Dede Allen, Lumet uses a series of quick cuts when gunshots are fired: first when Sonny shoots at the back window, and later when Sal is shot dead. These stylistically quick edits are meant to disorient the viewer as well as the characters.

On the subject of this film, Lumet – widely regarded as an “actor’s director” – explained in his own book that “Freaks are not the freaks we think they are. We are much more connected to the outrageous behavior than we know or admit.”

“Lumet's genius here is to design the film's environment so that his outstanding cast can really embody their roles,” critic Glenn Erickson further wrote. “While much of the dialogue has an improvisational feel, the film is very carefully structured to build at a certain pace. There is a real sense of unstoppable momentum (every error made by either the robbers or the law just sends us further down the path of disaster); the film also creates the slow-burning sensation of a situation that at times just drags on.”

Lumet directed many exceptional films, including 12 Angry Men (1957), Long Day’s Journey into Night (1962), The Pawnbroker (1964), Fail Safe (1964), Serpico (1973), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982). But Dog Day Afternoon could be his crowning achievement.

Thematically, the film brilliantly explores the power of the media and the “15 minutes of fame” phenomenon. As the robbery becomes a televised spectacle, the film reveals how quickly a man driven to extremes can be turned into a folk hero or a public curiosity, foreshadowing the media-saturated culture we live in today, where public opinion is shaped in real time. For a few hours, Sal and Sonny are the new Bonnie and Clyde. In thematic terms, it’s fair to ask: does Sonny survive because he’s already been cemented as a media-anointed people’s champion, and does Sal die because he’s not as photogenic, newsworthy, or attractive to the masses?

Another moral to the story? Desperate times call for desperate measures. Perfectly encapsulating the mid-1970s, a recessionary era marked by public dissatisfaction with economic conditions and elected leaders – a time when heroes seemed hard to find and the country was suffering from post-Watergate/Vietnam malaise – Dog Day Afternoon taps into these concerns and our collective ennui. Distressed characters like Sonny and Sal are easier to understand in this sociocultural pressure cooker context. As threatening – and bumbling – as they are as bank robbers, we can sympathize with their money woes and intense desire to change their luck.

Dog Day Afternoon also examines the domino effect of doomed destiny. Just about everything goes wrong for Sonny and Sal in this comedy of errors, which sees their best-laid plans quickly turned upside down and their fates sealed from the outset. We know practically from the start that this is an unlucky pair destined to fail. But despite predicting these bad outcomes early on and being proven right, the viewer nevertheless remains enthralled by this botched crime and the cascading pressures that engulf the bank robbers.

Furthermore, the film masterfully explores social exclusion and bias, particularly homophobia and societal judgment, highlighting how marginalized individuals are mistreated or misunderstood even as they strive for recognition and acceptance.

As Spike Lee did so effectively in Do the Right Thing, Dog Day Afternoon works beautifully as a time capsule moment, depicting a particular place (New York City) on a particular day (August 22, 1972) and reflecting the moods, mores, and sensibilities of its era. Setting our protagonists in a high-pressure environment where crucial mistakes are made and multiple adversities converge upon them in a matter of hours – the hot weather, the media, local and federal authorities, and interpersonal crises from partners and lovers – this film manages to organically tighten the knot minus narrative trickery or implausible shoot-em-ups and without becoming too super-serious for its own good. Lumet appropriately adopts a humanistic approach in his rendering of Sonny and his complex personal relationships, but doesn’t turn the bank robbers into blameless victims or pitiable pawns in the system.

Perhaps Dog Day Afternoon’s single greatest gift is the phone call between Sonny and Leon, which mines incredible emotional depths to reveal their complex relationship, underscoring both tenderness and latent hostility from Sonny as well as vulnerability and pathos from Leon. The acting is off the charts, and the awkward intimacy of this moment adds poignancy, allowing us a privileged view inside Sonny’s headspace.

Dog Day Afternoon remains one of the greatest cinematic portraits in any era of a common, desperate man besieged by internal and external forces he’s responsible for setting into motion. Not quite shown in real time, we follow Sonny and Sal over several hours in one day and marvel at how quickly events unravel, circumstances change, the pressure mounts, and the public grows fascinated with this media circus. Sure, the funky fashions, public attitudes, and period trappings anchor it firmly as a product of its times, but the human drama on display remains evergreen and credible. Proud of his creation, Lumet himself said, “You're sucked into a world – quite claustrophobic – but you believe every second of it. There’s not a false moment in that movie.” 

This movie remains highly acclaimed and celebrated in the film industry. The American Film Institute has honored it on multiple fronts: it ranks at #70 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Thrills list, and its iconic line “Attica! Attica!” is placed at #86 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movie Quotes; it was also nominated for AFI’s 100 Years…100 Movies in both 1998 and 2007. The film boasts a stellar Rotten Tomatoes “Tomatometer” score of 96 percent, reflecting widespread critical acclaim, and a Popcornmeter audience score of 90%, while its Metacritic score stands at an impressive 86 out of 100. It won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Frank Pierson and was also nominated for Best Picture, Best Director (Lumet), Best Actor (Pacino), Best Supporting Actor (Sarandon), and Best Film Editing (Allen).

Read more...

Feeling sunshiny about a near spotless movie

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

One cinematic hybrid you don’t see every day? A sci-fi romcom. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), directed by Michel Gondry and written by Charlie Kaufman from a story by Kaufman, Gondry, and Pierre Bismuth, certainly fits that description. In this surreal 21st century masterwork, we follow Joel Barish (Jim Carrey), a reserved man who discovers his ex-girlfriend Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) has undergone a procedure to erase their relationship from her memory; heartbroken, he chooses to do the same, but as his memories are systematically erased, he realizes he still loves her and desperately tries to hold onto fragments of their connection. (It’s interesting to keep in mind that, in addition to being a fantasy, this is a science fiction story; with the rapid pace of technology and scientific innovation, it’s not far-fetched to envision a near-future where the wiping of selective memories is possible.)

The narrative also includes subplots involving Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), who runs the memory-erasure company Lacuna Inc.; Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), his receptionist with complicated ties to the procedure; Patrick (Elijah Wood), a technician who exploits Joel’s memories to pursue Clementine; and Stan (Mark Ruffalo), another technician entangled with Mary.

Acclaimed for its clever script, inventive visuals, and poignant exploration of memory, love, and identity, the picture features career-defining performances—particularly Carrey’s against-type dramatic role and Winslet’s unpredictable, vibrant Clementine—and won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, cementing its status as one of the most original and influential films of its era.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, recorded last week, click here. (If you get an error message, simply try refreshing the page)


This is a nonlinear narrative that can be tricky to follow because it dovetails in on itself, possibly starting with the ending and including several surreal and fantastical moments that we realize are happening in Joel’s mind. The fragmented nature of this storytelling makes Eternal Sunshine a compelling watch but one that you have to pay close attention to.

Carrey plays against type here, and deserves applause for exceptional restraint. He stays firmly in character as the melancholic Joel and resists any attempts at slapstick, broad comedy, or the manic energy we associate with him. As in previous films like The Truman Show and Man on the Moon, he demonstrates serious dramatic talent and versatility.

Winslet, on the other hand, serves as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a character christened by Nathan Rabin as a female personality who “exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.” She’s a classic screwball dame in a 21st century story, leading her lover on a madcap and mysterious journey – this time through her male counterpart’s very psyche. She’s responsible for the several meet-cutes we observe, another trope that’s playfully explored by the filmmakers.

The script is ultra-clever in how it Joel’s memories as fragmented and wobbly. He isn’t exactly sure which memory happened first or next. The genius stroke here is how Kaufman and his collaborators have Joel change his mind on the memory erasure and empower Joel to hide his memories of Clementine by imagining the two of them as young kids. “Joel attempts to fight the erasure of his memories, and Eternal Sunshine admits early on that it’s a fight he cannot win. That he keeps on fighting anyway is the crux of the film, and a breakthrough for Kaufman—writing about the human condition more than questioning our lives as self-made fictions,” per Slant Magazine critic Jeremiah Kipp. “The fantasies here are more “real” than anything that Kaufman has ever written, because they define who we think we are. Joel rediscovers his love for Clementine through fantasy, which is to say through his clouded memories of her. Such things are precious, and Gondry revels in that world in all its fleeting, flickering, ever-mutating joys.”

The famous quotation, “’Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,” written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, perhaps best summarizes the main message of this film. Joel learns the hard way that a romantic relationship can be cruel and painful, but typically the happy memories and love shared outweigh the negative moments.

The cautionary lesson here is that our memories and experiences – both the good and bad ones – are indispensable. They are integral to shaping our identities, provide purpose and meaning to our lives, help us grow and mature, and teach us how to avoid making the same mistakes. Permanently forgetting or erasing these recollections, impressions, and life episodes can leave a significant void (which happens to dementia/Alzheimer’s sufferers and their loved ones). This work suggests that it would be dangerous and damaging if we had the ability to pick and choose only the memories we want to keep. Roger Ebert tapped into this theme: “The wisdom in “Eternal Sunshine” is how it illuminates the way memory interacts with love. We more readily recall pleasure than pain. From the hospital I remember laughing nurses and not sleepless nights. A drunk remembers the good times better than the hangovers. A failed political candidate remembers the applause. An unsuccessful romantic lover remembers the times when it worked. What Joel and Clementine cling to are those perfect moments when lives seem blessed by heaven, and sunshine will fall upon it forever.”

Additionally, Eternal Sunshine espouses the value of rediscovery and reinvention. By resisting the erasure of his memories associated with Clementine, Joel essentially creates a reboot opportunity whereby he can fall in love with her all over again, with the possibility of reconstructing their relationship, hopefully with better outcomes. While viewers don’t have the option of erasing their memories (yet), the takeaway here is that it can be possible to start over with someone, sidestep past mistakes, and appreciate your partner for their positive qualities.

The movie further deserves applause for cleverly exploring love triangles, with paralleling threesomes: Joel, Clementine, and Patrick form one triangle versus Stan, Mary, and Dr. Mierzwiak, who represent the other triangle.

Similar works

  • Superman II (1981), particularly the ending where the titular character kisses Lois Lane to erase her memory
  • Being John Malkovich (1999), Adaptation (2002), Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002), Synecdoche, New York (2008), all written by Charlie Kaufman
  • Memento (2000)
  • Her (2013)
  • 50 First Dates (2004)
  • Anomalisa (2015)
  • Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)
  • Shakespeare’s The Tempest

Other films by Michel Gondry

  • Human Nature (2001)
  • The Science of Sleep (2006)
  • Be Kind Rewind (2008)
  • Mood Indigo (2013) The Book of Solutions (2023)

Read more...

Meet Popeye the streetwise man

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Ask a well-versed film lover what the greatest car chase in movie history is and they may cite Steve McQueen’s San Francisco pursuit in Bullitt (1968); the high-speed realism of Ronin (1998); the desert spectacle of Mad Max: Fury Road (2015); Jason Bourne’s Mini Cooper escape in The Bourne Identity (2002); the wrong-way freeway madness of To Live and Die in L.A. (1985); the 40-minute “Eleanor” chase in Gone in 60 Seconds (1974); the comedic destruction in The Blues Brothers (1980); Batman’s Tumbler and Batpod pursuit in The Dark Knight (2008); and the music-synced getaway of Baby Driver (2017). But we all know the real answer is The French Connection (1971), which boasts a standout high-speed chase sequence involving undercover detective Popeye Doyle (played by Gene Hackman, who was a curious choice at the time in that he wasn’t yet an established star). This tense crime thriller, directed by William Friedkin, follows two New York City narcotics detectives, Doyle and Buddy “Cloudy” Russo (Roy Scheider), as they pursue a French heroin-smuggling operation led by the suave kingpin Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). Known for its gritty, documentary-style realism, the film also features Tony Lo Bianco as mobster Sal Boca and Marcel Bozzuffi as Charnier’s ruthless hitman, Pierre Nicoli, highlighting the dangerous, obsessive lengths Doyle is willing to go to crack the case.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of The French Connection, conducted last week, click here.


Beating the release of Dirty Harry to the punch by just a few weeks, Doyle stands out as an amoral anti-hero cop who’s not necessarily motivated by the quest for law, order, and justice but by obsession, anger, and selfish determination. We root for this bigoted, roguish, violent intimidator because he’s the protagonist of the story, and we’re intrigued by his mission to stop these criminals, but his actions are morally troubling.

This begs the question: Are we required to care and root for a thoroughly unlikable character? Consider that several people die unnecessarily due to Doyle’s relentlessness in pursuing the heroin-related criminals. Doyle prefigures Robert DeNiro’s turn in Raging Bull, which also featured another main character many viewers loathe.

The French Connection depicts the ugly, dirty, gritty realism of urban decay, warts-and-all New York circa 1971. The landscape is hellish, dark, gray, and cold. The film employs a realistic style via handheld cameras, location shooting in New York and France, and a you-are-there verité sensibility that makes us feel as if we’re watching a documentary.

The car chase scene tops any one previously filmed, including Bullitt, in terms of action, tension, stunts, realism, and danger. It’s a riveting centerpiece of the film, but arguably given too much significance in the grand scheme of the movie. However, as Roger Ebert said, “in a sense, the whole movie is a chase,” which makes this scene perhaps the centerpiece. The French Connection paved the way for extraordinary car chase sequences that came thereafter, including Vanishing Point (1971); Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991); The Rock (1996); The Fast and the Furious (2001); Death Proof (2007); Drive (2011); and John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023).

By contrast, much of the earlier segments of the picture are slowly paced, appropriate given that these men are on tedious stakeout detail. The car chase helps release some of that bottled up tension and accelerate the rhythm and pace.

The ending is decidedly bleak and nihilistic, much like many of the films of this era, including Midnight Cowboy (1969), Klute (1971), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Godfather (1972), and Chinatown (1974). Note that this was the first R-rated film to garner the Best Picture Academy Award.

What helps make Doyle such an interesting, atypical law enforcement character, especially for a police procedural like this one, is that he’s not given any backstory, and we’re not shown any flashbacks or provided any explanatory exposition; we do know that his hunches once got a good copy killed, but it’s never explained. We’re also never told how he got his “Popeye” nickname, and he’s not given any love interest, means by which to relieve his tensions, reward, or recognize his hard work.

Today, even antihero characters are often allowed a shot at redemption by the end of the film. Popeye isn’t redeemed or rehabilitated, and he garners little to no sympathy from viewers. His palpable racism and recurrent use of the “N” word certainly don’t endear him to modern audiences.

This film helped usher in the era of the vigilante, streetwise cop character, made further famous by Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson, and 1970s police shows like Baretta, Starsky and Hutch, and others.

The French Connection reminds us that good doesn’t always triumph over evil, and innocent people often pay the price for the pursuit of justice. Consider that most of the criminals get away without being punished, and that innocent citizens are often put in harm’s way by Doyle and his determination to catch the bad guy.

Pay attention to doubles and doppelgangers as motifs in this movie: For example, consider how Doyle is contrasted with the villains around him, including the French criminals, who savor their seven-course meal while Popeye has to eat cold pizza outside, or how Doyle collapses next to the villain he shoots in the back.

Similar works

  • The Lineup (1958)
  • Bullitt (1968)
  • Madigan (1968)
  • Z (1969)
  • Dirty Harry (1971)
  • Serpico (1973)
  • The Seven-Ups (1973)
  • Mean Streets (1973)
  • The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
  • Taxi Driver (1976)

Other films directed by William Friedkin

  • The Exorcist
  • Sorcerer
  • To Live and Die in L.A.

Read more...

"It's the pictures that got small" – but not this picture

Tuesday, August 26, 2025


Filmmaker Billy Wilder is a man of many masterpieces. But arguably his crowning achievement remains Sunset Boulevard, the 1950 noir that’s often considered to be the finest motion picture about making movies and where movies are made. To back up this claim, consider that the film ranks #12 and #16, Wilder’s highest-ranked work, on the AFI’s Top 100 Greatest American Films of All Time lists from 1998 and 2007, respectively. In 1999, Sunset Boulevard was ranked #43 on the Village Voice list of the Top 250 Films of the Century. In the 2002 Sight & Sound poll, it placed #63 among critics and an impressive #12 among directors. By the 2022 Sight & Sound directors' poll, it remained highly regarded, coming in at #62. In 2015, the film was ranked #54 on BBC Culture’s list of the 100 Greatest American Films. Additionally, the Writers Guild of America has recognized Sunset Boulevard's screenplay as the 7th greatest ever written. And it commands a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 94 out of 100 Metascore on Metacritic.

The story follows Joe Gillis (William Holden), a struggling screenwriter who stumbles into the decaying mansion of Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), a once-great silent film star who has faded into obscurity but dreams of making a triumphant return. Norma, clinging to her illusions of stardom, ensnares Joe in a complex relationship—offering him money and shelter in exchange for his help on her comeback screenplay. The film also features Max von Mayerling (Erich von Stroheim), Norma’s devoted but secretive butler, and Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a young studio script reader who becomes both Joe’s creative collaborator and romantic interest.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Sunset Boulevard, conducted earlier this month, click here. To hear the latest Cineversary podcast celebrating the 75th anniversary of Sunset Boulevard, click here.


It boasts a stellar combination of talents, including Wilder and Charles Brackett who wrote the Oscar-winning original screenplay together; Gloria Swanson, William Holden, and Erich von Stroheim, who each received Academy Award nominations for their performances; a brooding, brilliant score by Franz Waxman, who earned Oscar gold for the music; fantastic lighting and compositions by master noir cinematographer John Seitz; and costumes by the legendary Edith Head. In all, the film was nominated for 11 Oscars and won three, including Best Art Direction-Interior Design (let’s not forget that this was All About Eve’s year, with that rival scoring six Oscars, including Best Picture, and 14 nominations).

In addition to being regarded as perhaps the finest movie about Tinseltown ever made, it’s also one of the first and greatest meta films of them all, in which the movie is self-reflexive about the creation of motion pictures. We are given an insider’s look at how the industry works, Hollywood’s winners and losers, and the cynicism inherent in this field. Turner Classic Movies describes it as “one of the first serious treatments of life in Hollywood, coming at a time when most movies about movies were irony-free comedies and musicals.”

This film’s greatest meta achievement was the casting of Swanson and von Stroheim, who portray a former actress and film director – the roles they actually served years ago during Hollywood’s silent movie age. Desmond’s character also draws clear inspiration from the real-life decline of several silent-era stars: Her reclusive lifestyle echoes that of Pola Negri and Mary Pickford, while her psychological instability recalls figures like Clara Bow, Valeska Surratt, Audrey Munson, and Mae Murray. Many film historians believe her name was crafted as a nod to silent film actress Mabel Normand and director William Desmond Taylor, whose scandalous 1922 murder – still unsolved – captivated the public and media alike.

Wilder and his collaborators lend authenticity and verisimilitude by name-dropping real players and referencing actual movies: from Alan Ladd, Tyrone Power, Daryl Zanuck, Greta Garbo, and Rudolph Valentino to Gone With the Wind, King Kong, and Queen Kelly (which was, ironically, directed by von Stroheim and starring Swanson).

There are also impressive cameos by bona fide actors, filmmakers, and celebrities playing themselves, including Cecil B. DeMille (who was shooting the real film Samson and Delilah in that sequence), Buster Keaton, H.B. Warner, Anna Q. Nilsson, and gossip columnist Hedda Hopper.

Sunset Boulevard boasts some of the sharpest dialogue and most treasured lines of any film in history, particularly those delivered by Swanson, which is hardly surprising considering they were written by tag team champions Wilder and Brackett:

All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up.

You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big / I am big – It’s the pictures that got small.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!

Without me, there wouldn't be any Paramount studio.

No one ever leaves a star. That's what makes one a star…The stars are ageless, aren't they?

She was the greatest of them all! You wouldn't know, you're too young. In one week, she received 17,000 fan letters. Men bribed her hairdresser to get a lock of her hair. There was a Maharaja who came all the way from India to beg one of her silk stockings. Later, he strangled himself with it.

It was a great big white elephant of a place. The kind crazy movie people built in the crazy 20s. A neglected house gets an unhappy look. This one had it in spades. It was like that old woman in Great Expectations. That Miss Havisham, in her rotting wedding dress and her torn veil, taking it out on the world because she'd been given the go-by.

You don't yell at a sleepwalker. He may fall and break his neck.

Funny, how gentle people get with you once you're dead.

The poor dope - he always wanted a pool. Well, in the end, he got himself a pool.

This film checks several genre and subgenre boxes: noir, black comedy, character-driven drama, satire, romance, horror film, and meta movie. There’s even a sequence early on with the repo men where we think this could turn into a chase film. But first and foremost, it remains a benchmark noir, complete with one of the most iconic femme fatales in the canon, an unforgettable gunshot murder, noirish thematic elements of inescapable fate, and, of course, gorgeous chiaroscuro lighting. But Sunset Boulevard is also rife with elements of horror, including an old dark house in the form of a decrepit Gothic mansion, Toccata and Fugue being creepily played from a giant pipe organ, a midnight graveyard burial, rats running wild, Max serving as the Igor assistant of sorts to Norma’s mad scientist, Norma peeking through shades that resemble a giant spider web, and Ms. Desmond embodying a surprisingly violent vampiric creature with Nosferatu-like claws who slowly sucks away Joe’s dignity and self-respect.

Additionally, Sunset Boulevard could be both the greatest satire and meta film ever made about the inner workings of Hollywood and the many skeletons buried there. Think back to the opening credits, which show the film’s title literally superimposed over a gutter and then displaying cast and crew names in a step-down pattern, suggesting perhaps a descent from loftier heights. It also satisfies as a consistently humorous black comedy, one that goes more for clever comedic touches and grin-inducing moments than broad guffaw-generating laughs.

We can’t deny that, even if they’re subplots, this film works on a romantic level, too. Roger Ebert agreed, writing that “…it’s also a love story, and the love keeps it from becoming simply a waxworks or a freak show.” We feel Joe’s pangs of romance, desire, and betrayal (to his friend Artie) in his blossoming amorous relationship with Betty. And even if it’s out of pity or selfishness, let’s not forget the would-be romance between Norma and Joe: He returns to Norma after her suicide attempt, initiates an intimate embrace, and remains her kept man for the rest of the picture.

Lastly, ponder the ending sequence, in which a totally unhinged Norma walks down the staircase to greet the cameras, which can be described as simultaneously comical, pathetic, eerie, disturbing, depressing, grandiose, grotesque, and even beautiful. Just as it can slot within different genre folders, these final images reinforce how the entire film can evoke many different feelings and reactions from the audience.

Thanks to its meta structure that provides textual and subtextual commentary on the film industry, Sunset Boulevard likely inspired subsequent movies to adopt similar approaches, including the casting of actors and filmmakers who play themselves and riff on their personas. Without this work, you probably don’t have follow-up films like The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), The Star (1952), or The Barefoot Contessa (1954) that give us a continued inside look at the workings of Hollywood.

Reflect, as well, on how more contemporary movies like Robert Altman’s The Player (1992), Spike Jonze’s Being John Malkovich (1999), and Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994) feature actors and directors playing themselves to somewhat comedic effect: a trend that became more accepted and mainstream after Sunset Boulevard.

This picture was undoubtedly an influence on later films like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (1962), Woman in the Dunes (1964), The Day of the Locust (1975), and Mulholland Drive (2001). Also, several cinematic works reference Sunset Boulevard directly in their scripts or echo its themes, lines, or imagery through homage, including Soapdish (1991), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), Gods and Monsters (1998), Cecil B. Demented (2000), Mulholland Drive (2001), Be Cool (2005), and Inland Empire (2006).

But the impact didn’t stop there. Sunset Boulevard deeply penetrated pop-culture, as evidenced by its being spoofed, referenced, or mirrored in TV episodes of The Twilight Zone, The Carol Burnett Show, American Dad, Archer, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Twin Peaks, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Desperate Housewives; and being imitated by Australian wrestler Toni Storm, who portrays a highly theatrical character that draws significant inspiration from Norma Desmond and her butler Max.

Additionally, the movie seemed prescient in its focus on the dark side of fame and celebrity culture as well as celebrity crime. Norma killing Joe makes us think of the later murders associated with Robert Blake, O.J. Simpson, and Phil Spector, for example. And Sunset Boulevard’s cynical tone helps peel back the façade of the Hollywood dream factory, exposing its rotten underbelly and preoccupations with past glory.

It was also controversial for its depiction of an older, rich woman essentially paying a man for companionship and, presumably, sex. What’s perhaps narratively innovative is that the main story revolves around this relationship, delving deeply into Norma’s intense obsession and Joe’s reliance on her. Earlier movies seldom present this dynamic so openly or make it such a strong focal point of the story.

This film helped catapult Holden to stardom, too. It wasn’t long after that he won a Best Actor Academy Award for Stalag 17 (1953) and became the number one box-office star (1956).

There’s plenty to admire about Wilder’s filmmaking choices. Like his Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard benefits from its flashback format and voiceover narration by a dying—or, in this case, already dead—character. Wilder and company could have shot this in color, but chose monochrome to remain true to the noir aesthetic. (Interestingly, this was the final significant Hollywood movie shot on a nitrate negative, a film stock that created incredibly rich black-and-white visuals.)

As much as he was admired by critics and scholars for daring to make a film this scathing about Hollywood and its dark underbelly, Wilder was severely criticized by his peers and risked major blowback.

Most impressively, Wilder deftly balances shifting tonalities in Sunset Boulevard, which can quickly pivot between being cynical and sincere, elegiac and upbeat, droll and deadly serious. And one can easily admire how Wilder populates his picture with both facsimile characters and genuine celebrities who are distorted for the screen. Appreciate how, despite this being her comeback triumph, Swanson risks attracting negative attention for years of failing to be cast in a Hollywood picture; von Stroheim straddles the line between stellar performance and walking parody of his former self; and ponder the unflattering cameos by the real-life Buster Keaton and Hedda Hopper.

Deep Focus Review essayist Brian Eggert is fascinated by “how Wilder dares to imitate life with his art, yet always with a wry sense of morbid humor… For each of Sunset Boulevard‘s strangest moments, there’s a real-life counterpart warped for the purposes of the film, some of them horrifying, some of them endearing…Wilder carefully uses Holden’s greenness, as well as (Swanson) and von Stroheim’s desperation to create something truly uncommon, fascinating, and brilliant…Before anyone else was willing to remark on their own industry with such scathing representation of Hollywood’s grotesque underworld, Sunset Boulevard lays bare Tinseltown’s flashy allure.”

Themes are as abundant as the cynicism dripping from Gillis’ mouth. Sunset Boulevard is certainly about the dangers of living a lie, glorying in the past, and not evolving as a person or artist. Norma resides in a delusional fantasy world and refuses to learn or accept the truth: that she is no longer in demand or attractive to audiences. She can’t escape the sins of pride, vanity, and obsession with self-image.

But it’s also a treatise on determinism and dark fate. It’s crucial that the story begins at the end and is told in flashback, as many classic noirs are. Joe, our protagonist, is dead, but he’s ironically telling his story as a voiceover narrator from beyond the grave. This makes us believe that the character’s fate is predestined: We know upfront how his luck will sour. Recall, as well, how Max presciently announces to the stranger who has wandered into Norma’s mansion, “Madame is waiting for you upstairs”; they each happen to be screenwriters, and they each happen to be single – but it feels like more than mere coincidence. And reflect on how Joe keeps running into Betty, as if they’re star-crossed lovers destined to fall in love. Ruminate on how Joe is a fly doomed to be ensnared in a spider’s web – becoming entangled in the trap of Norma’s twisted life, from which he can’t easily extricate himself. When he tries for the final time, the spider woman devours her prey.

Sunset Boulevard further preaches how Hollywood needs to reckon with its past and change with the times. This movie was made in an era when the film industry was challenged in several ways and the Hollywood system was faltering. Studios were forced to sell off their owned theaters, deal with congressional investigations that turned into a communist witch hunt and resulted in blacklists, and compete with increased competition from television. The message here is that the old money and antiquated forces that built Hollywood (as exemplified by Norma and her mansion) could no longer prop up modern Tinseltown. The industry needed to evolve and adapt to changing times.

Concurrently, Sunset Boulevard serves as a sad commentary on how quickly talent can become a disposable commodity – forgotten or ignored by the fickle public and corporate America in its greedy pursuit of profit. Per critic Pamela Hutchinson with The Guardian: “The film industry in Sunset Boulevard is shown to be on its last legs. Paramount producer Sheldrake is ill with stress; Gillis is broke and only one rejection letter away from quitting show-business for “a copy-desk in Dayton, Ohio”; his friend Artie is stuck on a disastrous shoot in Arizona; Betty the script-reader is optimistic that she can make films that matter, but even she has been through the mill, rejected as a wannabe starlet…Sunset Boulevard is twice as chilling a film when you realise that Desmond made Paramount Studios a success, rather than the other way around. The faltering movie business was built not on fragile foundations of an art form doomed to obsolescence, but on stronger, more ambitious grounds than it occupied in 1950.”

The movie also warns of the consequences of enabling – Max makes matters infinitely worse because he keeps feeding Norma’s ego with lies and faux attention from filmmakers and imaginary fans – and reminds us that there are no shortcuts to success: Hard work, real talent, and lots of luck are required. Ponder how Joe is down on his luck as a Hollywood writer but decides to take up Norma’s offer to live with him and write for her. Ultimately, he pays for this opportunistic shortcut with his life.

The scalpel-sharp script by Wilder and Brackett is most responsible for keeping Sunset Boulevard evergreen in the 21st Century. The extraordinary writing is responsible for a film that can boast of several all-time great scenes and quotable lines. The contrast in the two main characters’ personalities (and the acting styles of Swanson versus Holden) makes for a fascinating study. Joe’s demeanor is cool and cynical, his mindset modern, and his mannerisms realistic and credible. Norma’s movements, expressions, and speech, by contrast, are stylized, exaggerated, overdramatic, and grandiose; she creates a grotesque and creepy impression that plays on the opposite spectrum.

Cinemablend reviewer Brian Holcomb wrote: “One of the great joys of the film is watching the way in which William Holden's naturalistic performance clashes with an actress and performance style from an earlier age. This tension actually generates a great deal of the film's oddball humor, since every moment Norma is seen striking grotesque poses and being ‘dramatic’ is quickly undercut by Joe's matter-of-fact expressions.” The noir and horror elements also serve as a delicious juxtaposition to the comedic and satiric qualities infused in this movie. This genre mashup and disparate stew of styles create an unforgettable film experience among viewers who can appreciate a sharp wit and ironic tone.

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP