Wind River (2017)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Wind River (2017) – T. Sheridan

Above average thriller that has more to say than usual – about sexual violence against women, in particular on Native American reservations (where tribal police may be understaffed and have no ability to prosecute non-Native offenders).  It also spends a lot of its runtime with characters who are grieving, allowing viewers to absorb their feelings.  Jeremy Renner plays a hunter who is called into the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming during the winter to track a mountain lion who has been killing sheep.  He is no stranger to the reservation (portrayed as a dead-end place), as his ex-wife grew up there; they are divorced, after the recent death of their teen daughter. So, when Renner finds the frozen body of another Native girl, this brings traumatic memories back for him.  Elizabeth Olsen is the FBI agent, perhaps out-of-her-depth, brought in to solve the crime.  Graham Greene is the cynical tribal sheriff.  The content is depressing and the many chilly shots of people in snow simply add to the forsaken feel.  As seen in flashback, the crime itself is brutal and terrifying, revealing not only hostile prejudice toward Native Americans but a depiction of the worst of men.  Renner’s final actions feel as though they can’t possibly erase his trauma and might add to it.  Yet, at the end of the day, we do get glimpses of human warmth, between Renner and the dad of the victim, between Renner and Olsen.  Hope isn’t all lost when people care about each other -- but the failure of the American government to adequately protect its indigenous peoples (and women particularly) is a gaping wound in the heart of the nation.

 

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

 

☆ ☆ ☆

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) – T. Fisher

A direct sequel to Hammer’s first Dracula film (1958’s Horror of Dracula) that begins with actual footage from the earlier film (as seen in the mind’s eye) to bring viewers back up to speed.  Although we see Christopher Lee (the inimitable Hammer vampire) in this flashback, it is quite some time before he appears in the actual film and then he never utters a word but only glares and hisses.  This time, I watched the film with the audio commentary and so I got plenty of chatty (and clearly unscripted) commentary from Lee and his co-actors – so I was a bit distracted from the plot.  Suffice it to say that two couples are travelling (near Carlsbad) when their coachman refuses to go any further, even though a local monk has earlier said that Dracula’s castle is empty as the dark lord has been destroyed.  Nevertheless, after they are dumped from the coach, another empty coach turns up and the horses bring them straight to the castle where a butler awaits them.  They eventually decide to stay the night – and of course one of them (Australian Charles “Bud” Tingwell) becomes a blood sacrifice to bring Dracula back to life (or back to un-life, I guess).  And then things proceed as expected, particularly with regard to Dracula’s approach to the ladies.  The unique thing about this outing is how Dracula is eventually vanquished – it isn’t by sunlight or stake (but I won’t spoil it).  Solid Hammer fare – and you already know if you like it.

  

Rope (1948)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Rope (1948) – A. Hitchcock

Hitchcock’s first film in colour is widely known as an early experiment in shooting a film in just one shot.  Of course, there have been many examples of this technical feat more recently (for example, Russian Ark, 2002) – and, in fact, due to limitations of cameras of the day, Hitch could only achieve 10 minute takes before the camera had to be reloaded (resulting in shots that ended and began with the camera pointing directly at someone’s back.  Nevertheless, Hitch organised his takes with a series of travelling shots that still manage to adhere to his theory (stated in Hitchcock/Truffaut) that varies “the size of the image in relation to its emotional importance within a given episode”. The story, drawn from a play by Patrick Hamilton, begins with two young men (based on real life killers Leopold and Loeb) strangling a third young man in their apartment.  After they hide the body in a trunk, they invite friends, his girlfriend and his parents included, over for a party.  They also invite their old college professor played by Jimmy Stewart, believing that he has espoused some theories (similar to those of Nietzsche perhaps) that identify that certain people may be naturally superior and therefore be entitled to engage in certain behaviours, even murder, that set them apart from the rest of humanity. Of course, Brandon (if not Philip) assumes this mantle of superiority for himself and even imagines that Rupert (Stewart) will applaud the heinous act he/they have committed.  Stewart gives a very weird performance, fully inhabiting a much more awkward and perhaps slightly sinister character than he usually does (apart from his Westerns or Vertigo) – but in the end he becomes suspicious and the movie follows Hitch’s usual designs around creating suspense (but not surprise) since viewers know more than the protagonist does.  A compact film (given the burden of the continuous take) but still fully in line with the Master’s oeuvre, even if it doesn’t quite attain the heights of his great masterworks.

 

 

La Main du Diable (1943)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

La Main du Diable (1943) – M. Tourneur

Better translated as The Hand of the Devil, this French horror film reminded me of The Monkey’s Paw, although in this case the talisman offering good luck is an actual human hand and more than a few wishes are available – the cost, however, is the loss of one’s soul to the Devil himself.  Pierre Fresnay (from La Grande Illusion) plays the foolish painter who buys the talisman for one penny in order to achieve fame and love.  Upon learning more, he contacts the Devil (a cunning old man in a bowler) and learns that he can sell the hand back for a penny but that each day he delays, the price will double.  Fearing that he will lose his wife, he dawdles too long and soon owes millions of francs.  How he gets out of this predicament is something of a flight of fancy, involving the invocation of all the previous owners of the creepy left hand, but the ending still sits right.  Perhaps director Maurice Tourneur’s film is not exactly on par with the output of his son, Jacques, for producer Val Lewton at the same time but this is still worth a gander if you are in the mood for a different version of this age-old story.

 

Sleuth (1972)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Sleuth (1972) – J. L. Mankiewicz

Impressive two-hander (from Anthony Shaffer’s play) starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine in a twisty game of cat-and-mouse.  Olivier pulls out all the stops as a wealthy game-loving mystery writer who has hatched a plot to ensnare Caine, the hairdresser son of immigrants who is sleeping with Olivier’s wife (seeking a divorce).  Although the fun is in watching Olivier and Caine spar across the three acts, the subtext about class differences is never far from the surface.  Olivier can’t stand the idea of Caine showing him up.  The whole thing is staged in a single location, Olivier’s country estate filled with games, theatrical props, and mechanical toys (well directed by veteran Joseph L. Mankiewicz).  It’s hard to write about the film without giving too much away – however, my feeling is that the ending is just a little bit too pat (although I’ll admit that there was really no other possibility). If you are up for a theatrical game of gotcha full of clever sadistic twists, then this may be your cup of tea.

 

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Drag Me to Hell (2009) – S. Raimi

It only gradually dawned on me that this film is actually an homage to Jacques Tourneur’s Curse of the Demon (1957) – which I should have realised since that is one of my all-time favourite films.  Most obviously, there is a curse placed on the protagonist (here, Alison Lohman) that means that a demon will come and destroy her in a matter of days.  In CotD, the curse came from an Alastair Crowley-type figure and here it is from a Hungarian gypsy but the slow encroachment of the demon is the same, all shadows and psychological effects at first before the full-on attack.  Although Tourneur’s film (drawn from a story by M. R. James) really focused on the passing of the runes, the passing of an object is not neglected here and although Dana Andrews played a sceptical psychologist who was cursed in the earlier film that role goes to Lohman’s boyfriend (Justin Long) in this film – she is a bank loan officer instead.  Beyond also showing a séance, that’s probably where the similarities end (except perhaps the ending and its location!).  Raimi’s film is much more tongue-in-cheek, a bit scary but definitely with some gross-out humour (and comedy-of-embarrassment scenes) and “modern” special effects and action, harkening back to the later Evil Dead movies for which he is rightly famous.  Ultimately, this is a fun ride but with an extra special something for fans of classic supernatural horror (which really can’t be beat – check out the earlier film if you can!). 

Bitter Springs (1950)

 

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Bitter Springs (1950) – R. Smart

Well-intentioned but still problematic film about colonialism and racism here in Australia.  Chips Rafferty, beloved 1940s film icon, plays against type as the racist white settler & sheep rancher who purchases title to some land in South Australia (the film is shot near Quorn in the Flinders Ranges) situated around a water hole used by the local Indigenous tribe.  As he and his family (and several others who have joined them for the trip) arrive, they are met by a local Trooper (played by Michael Pate) who explains that the family should plan on sharing their land and the water hole with the local tribe.  When Rafferty bristles, Pate explains that the other options are to either force or perhaps ease the Indigenous people off their land but that it would be difficult because it is sacred to them.  The rest of the film shows us the conflict between Rafferty and the Aboriginal people (played authentically by real uncredited Indigenous non-actors, who unfortunately may not have been treated or paid appropriately) along with a distracting romantic subplot and ridiculous vaudeville performer brought in from the UK to “star” (Tommy Trinder).  In some ways, the film feels like an American Western, perhaps later in the cycle when Native Americans were accorded a greater degree of humanity.  In Bitter Springs, we don’t quite get to know any of the Indigenous people (save Blackjack who arrives with Rafferty’s group but soon allies himself with the blackfellas) and we don’t necessarily see things from their perspective – but the film is nevertheless sympathetic to them.  However, one has to wonder whether some in the audience may have sided with Rafferty – the original ending to the film apparently had the entire family wiped out after the tribe takes possession of the water hole but this proved too grim for test audiences.  Instead, a tacked-on coda shows Rafferty changing his ways and working together to raise sheep on his land with the Indigenous people at his side.  That said, the film has some beautiful vistas (in gorgeous B&W) and, you know, its heart seems to be in the right place.  If only Australian government actions were more attuned to the needs of the traditional owners of this land.