Tag Archives: what dya mean you haven’t seen

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen… The Evil Dead?

The Evil Dead

As I have mentioned before on here and on others’ blogs in the past, I’m not the biggest fan of horror films. I like them in theory as I’m fascinated by the paranormal, myths & legends, and psychological nutcases. However, when it comes down to actually watching a horror film, I’ll quite often want to weep within the first 15 minutes. Even horror films that everyone apparently thinks are awful will quite often reduce me to a quivering wreck. And yet I’m still somehow drawn to them.

I had seen the trailer for the remake of The Evil Dead and thought it looked fantastic, even though after just a two-minute clip I still wanted a massive cuddle afterwards. This intrigued me to check out the original, a film I know is loved amongst cult horror fans and is apparently the inspiration for many horror films that followed. So I turned the lights off (I like to do things properly) and booted it up.

Plot: A group college students take a holiday to a cabin in the woods where they find a creepy old book and an audio tape. When they play the audio tape it is a series of incantations of writings from the book which releases evil demons that one-by-one possess the hapless students.

The Evil Dead was made way back in 1981 and was director Sam Raimi’s first feature film. He had made several short films prior, including Within the Woods which would serve as a trial run of sorts to drum up investment for The Evil Dead.

Bruce Campbell as AshAs shown above, the plot of The Evil Dead is incredibly simple but that’s no bad thing at all; it’s the films simplicity that is it’s strongest element. We don’t need deep back stories or complicated love triangles; instead, we’re thrown straight into the story, essentially just being told to accept what’s happening without giving it a thought. The whole thing pretty much takes place in and around the solitary cabin which gives it a very claustrophobic feel, amplifying the horror.

And it is scary. Despite the fact that it’s obviously become dated and hasn’t aged particularly well, it still remains a lesson in how to do low-budget horror. There are a few jump scares, but the film mixes it up and there are plenty of other techniques used to get under your skin. The camerawork, for instance, is very clever; one scene sees Ash (Bruce Campbell) try to drive his girlfriend away from the cabin but stops the car to get out. It appears that the car is parked on flat ground but was actually parked on a slope and the camera tilted to correct the slope. This adds an eerie disorientation to the shot as Ash walks away from the car at a seemingly strange angle.

As I mentioned, the film hasn’t aged particularly well, which could well be why Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are revisiting it for the remake. The acting is pretty atrocious, although that’s what you often get with low budget films. You could argue that it’s part of the film’s charm, but there’s no denying that the acting is somewhat laughable at times. Some of the effects are also dated, but on the whole they don’t really take anything away from the film. The OTT effects are a hark back to the B movies that influenced the film and are what gives it some personality.

RaaaarMany cite The Evil Dead has an example of horror/comedy, albeit very dark comedy, but there’s something about that that doesn’t really sit right with me. I believe that this was never intended as a piece of comedy but as a proper, straight-up horror film. However, various things (largely due to the budget) led it to become slightly amusing in places. The bad acting, the over-the-top gore and make-up, etc, now seem worse than they did back then and any comedy drawn from them is likely accidental. Recognising this, Raimi maybe thought he would embrace it with the sequels (of which I haven’t seen but am aware). I could be wrong but I doubt Raimi would have made the film as it was if he had a larger budget, which could well have eliminated much of what added a level of comedy. I have a feeling that people may be laughing at it slightly more than with it.

What is very interesting is the obvious effect The Evil Dead has had on horror films that followed it. I doubt it was the first to feature an isolated cabin in the woods or a cursed book that released the dead, but it’s certainly one of the most influential. It’s hard to think that any filmmaker incorporating anything like that into a horror film doesn’t have The Evil Dead at least somewhere in their mind as they do so. It’s even spawned a number of comedy horrors, such as The Cabin in the Woods and Tucker & Dale vs Evilwhich use The Evil Dead as such an obvious point of reference that they don’t even attempt to hide it.

The film also gained a lot of its cult popularity from the fact that several attempts were made to censor it. Many countries, in fact, banned it for some time. It was labelled as a ‘video nasty’, a title reserved for only the nastiest and most disturbing films. This definitely adds to the film and gives it a certain level of expectation going into it. This could well explain why I was left feeling ever so slightly disappointed by it. It was entertaining enough but it didn’t really enthrall me as much as I was expecting. Perhaps if I had seen this when it first came out I would have a higher opinion of it. I appreciate and respect The Evil Dead’s significance and what it achieved with the resources available but I’m not sure it belongs in the higher echelons of cinematic greatness.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen… The Seventh Seal?

For those who don’t know what these ‘What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen…?’ posts are about, they are basically me catching up on and discussing films I probably should have seen by now and when I tell people I haven’t seen them, their response is often along the lines of ‘what dya mean you haven’t seen X?’. See what I’ve done?

I chose The Seventh Seal because I have heard so many amazing things about Ingmar Bergman and yet his films remain a bit of a gap in my film viewing. I watched Wild Strawberries whilst I was at university but didn’t really wrap my head around it, so I thought I’d give another of his films a whirl.

Plot: Antonius Block (Max von Sydow) is a knight returning from the Crusades where, on a beach, he is confronted by Death (Bengt Ekerot) who tells him it is his time to go. Antonius then challenges Death to a game of chess, stating that if he wins he must be allowed to go on living, and whilst the game goes on Death cannot take him. Death agrees to the game and the two play at intervals as Block, along with his squire Jöns (Gunnar Björnstrand), go on their travels. Throughout the land, the Black Death is taking hold, killing thousands of people, prompting Block to head for his castle where he believes he will be safer. Along the way, they are joined by others who are promised refuge in their castle. However, the omnipotent presence of Death constantly hangs over their shoulder during their various encounters.

It’s an incredibly difficult film to sum up as it’s easy to not give enough of a synopsis to let people know the story, but equally easy to go overboard and harp on about every last scene. There are many, many themes running through The Seventh Seal and it’s likely that only Bergman himself can fully explain it all. There is so much to contemplate and pontificate on that you could go mad trying to analyse every last shot, but there is also a fairly straightforward story at the heart which folk can enjoy even if they don’t buy into the whole critical analysis thing.

One of the major themes is that of Antonius having a crisis of faith, becoming disillusioned with the existence of God. This isn’t particularly ambiguous as it’s spelled out a few times throughout, and is reported to come from Bergman’s own wavering beliefs. Antonius’s confidence in God has obviously been shaken and it’s an understandable view that our protagonist has. He has just returned from the Crusades where he no doubt saw countless people die and the Black Death is currently ravaging Europe. What kind of a God would let that happen? It’s an argument that is likely as old as religion itself, and some could argue that this is an anti-religion message. This argument is strengthened by Antonius’s constant questioning of a higher power – “Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call.”

One of the most iconic images in cinema

However, it could also be argued that the film paints a negative picture of those who are not religious. Antonius is questioning his faith as Death comes to take him away and is distraught at this, suggesting that those who accept God, no matter whether he shows himself or not, will be much less afraid when death becomes them. Furthermore, the family of circus travellers, Mia (Bibi Andersson) and Jof (Nils Poppe) and their child, that Antonius and Jöns encounter are obviously a symbol of a Holy family, representing Mary, Joseph and Jesus. The fact that these three are spared their lives whilst others die, could be read as a pro-religious message. Personally, I believe that it is more anti-religious and the sparing of the ‘Holy family’ is more to do with their kindness and good nature than anything else.

Because The Seventh Seal is also about finding purpose in one’s life and doing good in the limited amount of time we have. Mia and Jof are constantly striving to do good. As circus travellers, their aim is to make people happy, and they are trying to do this during an outbreak of the plague when there’s not much to be happy about. They also offer Antonius and Jöns food and drink even though they do not know them, which leads Antonius to speak some of the most heartfelt lines in the film – “I shall remember this moment: the silence, the twilight, the bowl of strawberries, the bowl of milk. Your faces in the evening light. Mikael asleep, Jof with his lyre. I shall try to remember our talk. I shall carry this memory carefully in my hands as if it were a bowl brimful of fresh milk. It will be a sign to me, and a great sufficiency.” Here Antonius seems truly happy for perhaps the only time in the film and it is because of the generosity of others. He is close to death, literally, and yet he is comforted by people who make him happy; this is his way of dealing with the inevitable.

Danse Macabre – The Dance of Death

The threat of death and Death is constant throughout. Antonius’s game of chess continues along their travels, whilst the Black Death is constantly biting at their ankles. It’s speculated that this is Bergman’s response to the new nuclear threat following World War II; death is just around the corner and could call at any moment. Death also doesn’t care who you are, it doesn’t discriminate and doesn’t care whether you believe in God or not; it is inescapable and cannot be cheated. This is highlighted in the scene with the girl who is being burned alive for allegedly being a witch. We’re never sure whether she is a witch or not, but death doesn’t care, he is “unknowing”. The danse macabre at the film’s end is another example of death’s non-discriminating nature – No matter one’s station in life, the Dance of Death unites us all.

There is just so much to think about in The Seventh Seal; I doubt any of this barely scratches the surface. It’s one of those films I thought I would feel indifferent about a third into it, but a few days later I’m still thinking about it, trying to piece it all together, so it must have done something right. I realise I may well have waffled quite a lot up to now, so well done if you’ve stuck it out!

Whilst the cinematography, editing, etc, aren’t anything special, this leaves more for attention to be focused on the themes and messages brought up, rather than being distracted by other things. It’s a film where dialogue is king and Bergman has written some truly superb stuff here. If you miss any of it, you could miss out on something that adds a huge amount to the story. It’s beautifully written, perfectly highlighting Antonius’s inner turmoil and struggles as he battles to make sense of his life before Death inevitably catches up with him. There is also a smattering of humour throughout, particularly from Jöns who seems much more matter-of-fact than Antonius and happy to tell everything as he sees it. This humour is much needed as without it, the film could have become a little too heavy and depressing.

I get the feeling that The Seventh Seal is a film I’ll need to watch more than once to fully appreciate. There are so many different things going on under the surface that one view doesn’t seem to do it justice. Whilst I did enjoy the first viewing, I was sometimes left a little perplexed by certain events and their meaning, which could well be a comment on my lack of critical understanding rather than the film itself. Like I mentioned before, there is a fairly straightforward story at the heart of the film, but it is one that some may struggle to really get into. It’s not one to be thrown on if you’re looking for some light viewing; you really need to give it your full attention. And if you do so, you’ll find a film that challenges you to think, which is something not a lot of films do anymore.


Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen… Carrie?

As it’s still Horror Movie Month (just, at time of writing), I thought this next What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen…? should probably be horror related and one of the big horror movies missing from my viewing was Carrie. With news, trailers and images of the impending remake starting to land, I thought it was the perfect time to get acquainted with Brian De Palma’s original telling of the Stephen King novel.

Plot: Carrie White (Sissy Spacek) is an unassuming, high school loner who gets teased by her classmates and suffers physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her super-religious mother (Piper Laurie). Odds things start to happen during some of Carrie’s more irritable moments: a light bulb smashes, an ash try flips off a table and a boy falls off his bike after teasing her. However, when a prank at prom humiliates Carrie on front of the whole school, she unleashes a fury that has disastrous results.

Spoilers ahead, obviously.

Strip it down and Carrie is a coming of age story but with a horror twist. The film starts out with Carrie getting her first period whilst in the shower at school, an obvious statement that she is becoming a woman. This is mirrored with the onset of her telekinetic powers, symbolising the fear and confusion many experiences when going through that stage in their life. It’s also an excellent example of foreshadowing, a scaled down version of what will happen at the prom later in the film.  However, she grows as the film progresses, standing up to her mother and getting her revenge on those who tormented her. This her sexual awakening, and the sexual imagery throughout only cements this; often an act of torment or violence is closely associated with something erotic or sexual. The opening sequence with Carrie in the shower is a prime example of this.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen… Strangers on a Train?

This is the first ‘What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen…?‘ feature and you may be forgiven for thinking that Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train is an odd choice to kick off with. Sure, it may be considered one of Hitchcock’s classics but there are other films I own and haven’t seen that would perhaps be more fitting. Well, the reason I have chosen Strangers on a Train is that whilst I was at university it was one of the films on the list we were required to watch as part of my film studies course. However, due to one thing or another (I was a student after all) I didn’t get round to watching it and was subsequently berated by my lecturer. Therefore, I thought I should right a wrong and actually watch the damn thing.

Spoilers ahead!

Plot: Amateur tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) is travelling by train when he bumps into Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker), an enigmatic and mildly flamboyant man who invites him to have dinner in his carriage. During dinner it is revealed that Guy wants rid of his adulterous wife Miriam so he can marry the beautiful and sophisticated Anne Morton (Ruth Roman) and that Bruno despises his father. Bruno gives Guy what he believes is the perfect way out of their predicaments – to stage a ‘criss-cross’ murder, so that Guy kills Bruno’s father whilst Bruno kills Guy’s wife. Guy politely tells Bruno that it’s a great idea before leaving. That’s enough for Bruno to keep up his part of the bargain and then pursue Guy to ensure he does the same.

One thing that struck me was how dark the tone of the film was. The topic of murder becomes average dinner party conversation, turning what would be a normal, lighthearted discussion into something much more sinister, almost trivialising it in the process. This could well be a metaphor for Man’s desensitisation to murder and other terrible things, but you’d have to ask Mr Hitchcock on that one. It certainly works as one, anyway. Bruno’s murder of Miriam is probably the most shocking moment in the film. Up until this point, you’re not sure as to whether he’ll actually do it or not but, sure enough, he goes through with it and, whilst relatively tame by today’s standards, it was certainly a lot more graphic than I expected. However, the murder is even more chilling when you consider Miriam was pregnant at the time, therefore making Bruno not just her killer, but also the killer of her unborn child. This is something that is never mentioned in the film, probably in order to get it past the censors, but it certainly adds another dimension to Bruno’s evil actions.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

New feature: What dya mean you haven’t seen…?

This man can’t believe I haven’t seen Apocalypse Now

The creative juices must be flowing. It’s not been that long since I introduced a new feature to the blog, ‘What is…?‘, and now I’m slinging another one in. This could well be a case of information overload but I’m just hoping it’ll give the blog a decent amount of varied content.

What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen…? is essentially me watching films that I probably should have already seen but I’m only just getting around to watching; films that when people learn I haven’t seen, they go ‘what dya mean you haven’t seen <insert film title>?’. Clever, eh?

When I do reviews of relatively recent films, I tend to write them with a critic’s hat on and try to keep them rather formal. For example, I never write anything in the first person, “I think this, that or whatever”, etc. However, when a classic film has been out for years and has been reviewed to death, it doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to try and do that. Therefore, in this feature I will give some of my personal thoughts on the film, whether it lived up to expectations, what I liked, didn’t like, and so on. It’s hardly a ground-breaking feature but it’ll hopefully mix things up a bit and allow me to get some more classic films onto the blog.

Here’s the first ‘What Dya Mean You Haven’t Seen…?’ – Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train. Not the most obvious of choices, but all will become apparent why I started with that one.

Tagged , ,