Okay, so I write this blog last night, spend over an hour on it, hit “send,” and it disappears into the ether. So here I am, trying it all over again.
You get what “bad” and “ugly” are all about, right? For bad, think “Angel Eyes.” For ugly, think “Tuco”; And if you have no idea what I’m talking about, stop what you’re doing right now and rent The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly before you watch another Ripper film! Just remember: we love Tuco.
Once again, these are all Jack the Ripper movies. In chronological order…
The Phantom Fiend (1935, US title; 1932, The Lodger, UK title)
Anybody see Gosford Park? If so, you probably remember the character Ivor Novello. He’s the guy who spends most of his time playing and singing at the piano. Early in that film, the catty elderly woman makes some comment about his most recent movie having been a flop. The 1932 Lodger is that film. Novello had starred in Hitchcock’s silent Lodger several years earlier, and decided to make a sound version. But Miles Mander and the other writers wrote the script more to show off Novello’s musical talents than to tell a compelling story. The end result is a vanity production, in which Novello’s lodger woos the leading lady through song (and highly melodramatic speech). The movie does have some fine moments, but most of them occur when Novello is not on screen. RATING: UGLY
The Man in the Attic (1954)
In 1944, the most famous version of The Lodger, starring Laird Cregar, was released. Only 10 years later, this inferior (not to mention, gratuitous) version of virtually the same script appeared in theaters. It’s not all that bad if you haven’t seen the ‘44 Lodger. But if you have, it’s kind of laughable. Mediocre cast, with the exception of Jack Palance (who’s always interesting to watch). RATING: UGLY
“Knife in the Darkness” (1968 )
Episode of Cimarron Strip. Script writer Harlan Ellison, as always, blames this one on the director, but I’m not so sure. Was it the director who decided to have Jack kill an unlikely 8-10 people (I lost count somewhere), all in one night? This is fun and silly Ripper fluff. Kind of lame, but definitely watchable. RATING: UGLY
Jack the Ripper (1976)
I’m sure there are Jess Franco and Klaus Kinski fans out there who will object. But let’s face it, folks… Klaus can do better— heck even Jess can do better—than this! Granted, I have not seen Der Dirnenmörder in the original German. And yes, my rating for this film is partly the result of having suffered through the really really really bad English voice acting in the English dubbed version. But I would have problems anyway. Franco turns Jack into a dismembering killer, who dumps body parts in the Thames. I can take several variations on Jack’s modus operandi, but this is not one of them. Klaus looks like he’s getting ready for his moody turn in Nosferatu, which means, of course, that Jess is spending way too much time on Klaus’s face— and that just doesn’t work. This film is a killer vs. detective story, so it needs to move faster. It’s waaaaaay tooooooo slooooooow for its genre. And then there’s the necrophilia. Yeah, it’s possible that the killings did go down that way, but I don’t need to see it. RATING: Somewhere Between BAD AND UGLY—really really UGLY.
Lulu (1978 )
Pretentious silent art film version of the Wedekind plays, directed by artist Ronald Chase. Too busy being “arty” to do anything really interesting with the story. Yes, there is some nice cinematography, some bizarre set design, and a really studious re-creation of certain elements of silent cinema. But the film is boring, long, and just not very good. Before you think that I just like films geared towards action, let me add that I love Andrei Rublev and The Sacrifice by Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. Those are extremely slow moving and extremely arty 3-hour films. The difference between them and Chase’s Lulu is that they are good. RATING: BAD
Lulu (1980)
Directed by Polish erotic filmmaker, Walerian Borowczyk. Borowczyk is supposed to be an artistic director of eroticism. You would never know it by this movie (which, granted, is one of the most obscure in his oeuvre—so apparently there is some agreement on its worth). The version I saw was in French with Greek subtitles. It is possible that this version was edited down so that only the (un-erotic) “erotic” scenes remained. Regardless, what I saw had almost no plot coherence. You get the hint of Wedekind’s plays, but nothing to tie the story together from one of Lulu’s lovers to the next. Borowczyk also transforms the beautiful lesbian Countess Geschwitz into an old crone figure, who, yikes!, masturbates with her cane and on top of a portrait of Lulu. Just icky. Oh, and Udo Kier delivers a terrible performance as Jack the Ripper. This is almost impossible to find, and I would say: “Don’t seek it out”— not even if you’re a Borowczyk or Udo Kier completist. RATING: BAD
The Ripper (1985)
This is Tom Savini’s infamous Ripper movie. Savini has never stopped apologizing for this Direct-To-Video production, but actually, he’s one of the better elements in the movie. The Ripper has a great concept, but terrible execution. With the exception of Savini and Tom Schreier, the rest of the cast is… well, how do I put this nicely?… amateurish. They deliver what you would expect if someone turned on a video camera at a college dorm party and asked everybody to play a role, sight-unseen, from a script. Yes, the acting is that bad. And where was Savini when they shot the SPFX gore? The mutilations sure don’t look like his work! Still, the movie does get points for trying. The concept really could go far with a moderately budgeted remake, and there actually are some (intentionally) witty moments in the script. (The Conqueror Worm sequence is an absolute hoot, if you know that movie and pay attention to what’s actually coming out of the television). RATING: Somewhere Between BAD AND UGLY
Terror at London Bridge (1985)
Ever wonder what it would be like if you put Jack the Ripper at Havasu City and made a movie with David Hasselhoff and plenty of water sports? No? Well, apparently the makers of this made-for-TV-movie did. Lots of red herrings and plot twists. This movie is fun for awhile, but eventually it starts to drag on… and on… and on. Silly fluff. RATING: UGLY
Edge of Sanity (1989)
Ick! Yuck! I need to take a shower!!! Sleazy, voyeuristic, Ripper movie which in which pornography director Gerard Kikoïne makes an intrinsic association between sexuality and fatal violence. Too bad it’s one of Anthony Perkins’ last performances. RATING: BAD
why the happening doesn’t
The RipperLady blog is not limited to Ripper movies. Here we takes a look at M. Night Shyamalan’s latest film, and how it stacks up against the movies it’s taking on.
Filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan is known for creating twist endings. What he should be known for is twisting conventional genres. Sometimes it works—as it did in The Sixth Sense, Signs and Unbreakable. And sometimes it just falls flat.
In The Happening, Shyamalan plays off a couple of different genres, but most obviously he works with “nature gone wild”—a subgenre of science fiction and horror with a resumé dating back at least to 1954’s Them! In its science fiction manifestation, “nature gone wild” usually involves genetically altered species of animals or insects: giant irradiated ants (Them!), giant chemically mutated bunnies (Night of the Lepus), giant irradiated brain-eating talking crabs (Attack of the Crab Monsters). You get the picture.
In its horror manifestation, “nature gone wild” sometimes involves natural breeding gone dangerously out of control (The Swarm), but most often it involves some kind of malign natural sentience. That is, some element of nature, without any mad science assistance, has developed an apparently conscious will to kill humans. The two most famous examples involve: 1) a lone shark preying in shallow waters, and 2) the interspecies flocking of homicidal birds (c’mon, you know the titles!).
In The Happening, Shyamalan blends “nature gone wild” with what I jokingly refer to as the “siege on a farmhouse in Western Pennsylvania” subgenre of horror—i.e. the George Romero Dead movies and their descendents, including the British Dog Soldiers and Shyamalan’s own Signs. (Curiously, the original “siege on a farmhouse” movie took place in Bodega Bay, CA… and involved the interspecies flocking of homicidal birds).
The most obvious similarity between The Happening and Romero’s zombie movies lies in what happens to the infected. They don’t become flesh eating zombies, of course, but they do become something equally alien and horrifying to the non-infected: suicidal automatons, often wreaking (or seeking) havoc on their own bodies. The Dead films are not just about zombie noshing. They’re also about loss of will and becoming one’s own worst nightmare.
Shyamalan intentionally, even strategically, inserts The Happening into the lineage of some of Alfred Hitchcock’s and George Romero’s greatest work. So how does it match up?
The Birds takes its time in revealing the threat. Starting out as a sort of screwball comedy about the wacky interactions between a wealthy socialite and a young lawyer, the first bird attack— a single swoop down on the socialite— comes at least 20 minutes into the film. The attacks build and build, though, until swarms of birds are racing down the farmhouse chimney, pecking their way through ceilings and doors, and massing for what seems like miles around the farmhouse. In the end, we don’t know the cause of the event. We don’t even know if it’s isolated to Bodega Bay and environs or if it’s the first wave of a worldwide apocalypse.
Night of the Living Dead similarly paces itself. An isolated attack in a graveyard leads to the discovery of an abandoned farmhouse, which leads to the grisly discovery of a mutilated corpse, which escalates towards a full-scale assault. We get the news in waves. The living, first in ones and then groups, descend on the farmhouse. Then come the dead. The film is well underway before we hear the first newscast explanations for this epidemic of homicide.
But the slow, deliberate tease is not necessarily crucial to the genre. Drawing on the mythology of its antecedent, Dawn of the Dead places us already in the middle of the crisis, opening with a SWAT team trying to take down zombies while talking heads try to explain the phenomenon.
The Happening tries it both ways—starting off fast, but teasing it out slow. Like Dawn of the Dead, The Happening opens with a large-scale crisis. Mass suicides occur in Central Park and nearby. But by the time Philadelphia hears, the only questions are how large the crisis is and what’s causing it. Our awareness of the size of the catastrophe, like the characters’, develops slowly, while our sense of the cause evolves over the course of the film.
Regardless of characters’ theories, the film never unequivocally adopts a single explanation. In fact, the “wrap up” at the end is actually The Happening’s most direct tribute to Dawn of the Dead. This is not a categorical summation or pronouncement but an intentionally comic explication of the event by an “expert”… and the exasperated reaction by the show’s host. If you want to get the joke, watch Dawn of the Dead and pay close attention to the talking heads. But herein lies a problem. Should we really need to familiarize ourselves with a secondary film in order to “get” the equivocal nature of Shyamalan’s ending? Not in a mass market movie! But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s back up a bit.
Like Romero in Night of the Living Dead, Shyamalan does do a reasonably good job with building up the sense of danger, from rumor to reality to panic to mass death and the potential for apocalypse. But he gets his film too tangled up in secondary mechanisms (not to mention other people’s movies) to give his threat the immediacy it deserves.
In The Birds and the Dead movies, the threat is immediate and visceral. Birds or zombies attack. The characters defend themselves or die. In The Happening, the threat is more conceptual. Neurotoxins are released into the air by an unknown agency (the trees? the government?), and those infected kill themselves. (Technically, they lose their self-preservation instinct, and for some reason, this translates into an immediate and fatal burst of self-destruction).
Shyamalan did a nice job with the unseen threat in Signs. But there was always a physical bulk behind the invisibility, and that physical bulk could be fought. Here, the struggle is against something insubstantial (the wind) and microscopic (the neurotoxins it carries) and the destruction is ultimately carried out by a secondary agency (the infected individual against him or herself). This pestilence cannot be fought. All anyone can do is try to outrun it (or find an antidote!). And this makes the struggle seem less immediate, even passive.
By riffing off Hitchcock and Romero, Shyamalan creates certain expectations about the kind of threat his protagonists face and how they will fight it. Of course, Shyamalan lives to subvert expectations, but in order to do so successfully, he needs to create a work that at least nearly equals the ones he’s challenging. The expectations established by these films have, after all, seeped in to our collective cinematic unconscious.
So does Shyamalan pull it off? The concept he’s dealing with has potential. In “nature gone wild,” the things we take most for granted are typically the things that turn against us. And what do we take more for granted than the air we breathe? (No matter the cause of the crisis, air is the common denominator here). The concept can work, but it will need strong characters to drive it and actors who will sell it.
Characters do drive The Birds and the Dead movies. The Birds starts with strong characters and develops them more fully through the crucible of an apocalyptic nightmare. In the Dead films, Romero cuts straight to character development through crisis. Unlike Hitchcock, he can’t pay for for A-list actors or a lengthy prelude, but he makes up for these deficiencies in the raw urgency and passion he gets from his cast. Audiences care when major characters go down in Romero films. Romero’s actors, regardless of acting skill, always sell their situation.
In The Happening, though, Shyamalan sacrifices character to situation. Mark Wahlberg’s is the only well-realized character among the major cast. A few small players – the soldier and horticulturalist in particular – manage to make their characters resonate. But most of the cast has trouble getting the audience to care deeply about their characters’ plight or even their deaths. Whether this is a function of the writing or the acting, it is ultimately the responsibility of the director.
Shyamalan loves to present himself with tricky problems that he tries to solve in unique ways. But instead of high concept that can be distilled into a single sentence (eg. “tell a ghost story from the perspective of a ghost who does not come across as a ghost”), The Happening gives us multiple concepts that get tangled up in each other: 1) “transform the ‘nature gone wild’ subgenre from animal/insect threats into vegetation/environmental threats while remaining equivocal that the threat even has its origin in nature,” 2) “transform the end result of the toxin so that the infected do not attack the uninfected but the infected attack themselves,” 3) “transform pestilence movies from scientists racing to find a cure to characters racing against the wind,” and so forth.
The Happening ambitiously attempts to refresh old subgenres. It would like to be The Birds. It would like to be Night of the Living/Dawn of the Dead. But without the boldness of high concept, and without actors who can really sell its overly tangled and abstract threat, The Happening doesn’t ever quite happen.
This article first appeared on Blogcritics.