Reviews

Soy Cuba (I Am Cuba, 1964)

/ swampflix / 3 Comments

Soy Cuba (I Am Cuba) is one of the greatest movies ever made – possibly the greatest. I say that without hyperbole. At the end of watching this movie, even though there was only one other person in the room with me, I stood up as the credits rolled, unable to contain the puzzled look on my face and started to clap. This is the first and only film to ever get a standing ovation in my living room, and I’m absolutely desperate for everyone else to see it. 

Soy Cuba initially came to my attention over a year ago, when one of the many film folks that I follow on social media talked about how a particular scene featuring a bus should be studied by student filmmakers before they ever even touch a camera. This sparked my interest, but after an exhaustive search for it online, I gave up on ever seeing it and put it in the back of my mind. The film became part of the discourse again recently, when Phil Lord (half of the “Lord & Miller” duo) responded to the announcement of the film’s upcoming Criterion physical release to criticize it as a “distorted Soviet propaganda piece”, saying that the film should be contextualized as such, citing later that he had largely seen Soy Cuba “generally presented as a romantic documentary,” which I think says more about his college than it does about the film. It is Soviet propaganda, to be sure, albeit one that the Soviets didn’t care for much at the time of release (due to its accidental framing of capitalist excess as “cool”) and buried it, leaving the film largely forgotten until it was rediscovered by Martin Scorsese and remastered. And bless that man and all his progeny, because this is a treasure. 

The film unfolds in four separate narratives. In the first, a woman named Maria, who lives in a hovel in a slum, goes to a casino to prostitute herself; her john for the night, an American, insists on seeing where she lives rather than taking her back to his hotel room, essentially acting as a tourist in her poverty for the evening before buying her most beloved possession—a crucifix—and leaving her behind. In the second, a sugarcane farmer named Pedro is told by his landlord that he must vacate the property, on which he has just raised his best crop after decades of working the soil, as the landlord has sold the land to United Fruit. In the third, a student rebel named Enrique takes part in the symbolic torching of a drive-in movie theater screen that is showing propaganda about Fulgencio Batista, the dictator of Cuba prior to Castro’s uprising. After he rescues a local woman from marauding American sailors, he retires for the night, only to learn the next morning that one of his comrades has been murdered by the police and to find that Batista’s regime is spreading the lie that Castro has been killed as a way of suppressing hope among the rebelling proletariat. In the fourth and final story, another farmer named Mariano is eating his meager breakfast with his family when an exhausted rebel stumbles upon their meager shack and entreats Mariano to join the revolution. The farmer declines, but the trajectory of his destiny is forever altered when Batista’s air forces bomb the valley in which he lives, with deadly collateral damage. 

There are things that the camera does in this movie that utterly boggle my mind. The movie is made up almost entirely of stunning standalone shots, which would be impressive on its own, but there are ways that the camera moves that seem impossible to me. Right from the outset, there’s a sequence at one of the casinos that starts on a rooftop where a band is playing, as the camera zooms in and out on various musicians in a way that organically blends with the music itself, before our audience POV goes over the edge of the building and glides down to the poolside below, even diving below the surface to show off all the shiny, happy people who are having a great time at the expense of the impoverished locals. Even more impressive is a later scene in the third segment, which starts on the left side of a bus as the vehicle is approached by a news-seller on a bicycle. He rides straight up to Enrique’s outstretched hand and puts the paper in it, as the camera strafes leftward to enter the bus and focus on Enrique’s reaction to the news he’s reading. We get a full shot of the rest of the bus that shows that this wasn’t done with some kind of cutaway, either; when the bus comes to a stop, Enrique departs, and the camera stays within the bus to watch him descend, cross the street, and then run up a long set of steps, all without batting an eye. When I was watching this, I turned to my viewing companion and asked “Did we just go through the bus?” before shaking my head and declaring “I can’t figure out how the hell they did that.” It’s a technical masterpiece, a breakthrough on par with breaking through to the technicolor world from drab Kansas in The Wizard of Oz. A later scene moves away from a massive funeral procession into a building and then climbs to the top of it before panning through a room full of laborers and then back out through their window to watch the march proceed into the distance, unstoppable. It’s stunning. 

It’s not just that mastery of the craft that makes this so impressive, though; it’s the humanity. The story of Maria, from the moment that we first meet her, is one of such tragic hopelessness that it’s impossible not to have your heart break for her. We first meet her as herself, as she encounters a poor fruitseller who is in love with her and dreams of marrying her one day in the nearby chapel, excitedly dreaming about her beauty in her white dress. She is forced to go from here almost immediately to a casino, where three boorish American sex tourists that we have already seen harass her and a few other working girls into drinking with them. One of them, who earlier waved off two of Maria’s colleagues and was accused of being prudish by his buddies, spots her immediately, and he makes it clear what attracts him to her: her faith and innocence, as evidenced by her displayed crucifix. She is entreated to dance and initially hesitant, but ultimately gives in and begins to move with such frenetic energy that she almost loses shape on film, a dervish, as she metaphorically resists the attempts of these capitalist pigs to buy her—buy her body, buy her dignity, buy her innocence, buy her soul—before being forced to relent, and in so doing gives up control of herself. After the tourist spends the night with her, he tells her that he is a collector of crucifixes, and as he lays a couple of bills on the bed, he offers her another, then a second, then lays a third beside her before he takes the symbol of her faith (et al) from her. It’s five bills in total; he pays more for her innocence than for her body, and it’s clear that he’s done this many times and plans to continue to do it forever, pillaging and plundering the colonized world for its body and its soul. What it lacks in subtlety, it makes up for in its overt reminder that, yes, all colonization is predatory, now and for all time. 

Not a day has gone by since my screening that I haven’t thought about this movie, and I don’t think I’ll ever stop thinking about it. Through the modern lens, it’s impossible not to look at the representation of the suffering of the people of Cuba under Batista and not see in their struggles and in their faces the embattlement and the countenance of all people, everywhere, who suffer under the oppression of colonialism and the evils of an economic system that can only exist by enforcing suffering on others. We are living in a time of great moral darkness, watching the systematic and unconscionable evil that is being forced upon the people of Palestine at the hands of the West and its collaborators, and although this movie is explicitly propagandistic, we can’t lose sight of the fact that this simple fact does not necessarily make its message incorrect or inapplicable. Across all spectrums, all marginalized people are struggling together, and our oppressor is always the same system. To fight that is the only fight that matters. 

I’m not sure when the Criterion disc is expected to be released and I’m not sure that, when it is, it will also mean that the movie will be on their streaming service. You can watch it for free right now, however, as one of your four free monthly borrows with your library card, on Hoopla. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Down By Law (1986)

/ swampflix / Leave a comment

Big changes are afoot at Wildwood, the weekly series that has recently brought classics as varied as John Waters’s Desperate Living and Barbara Loden’s Wanda to local cinemas for packed-room repertory screenings.  Firstly, the series doesn’t officially appear to be called Wildwood anymore; all social media presence has been temporarily rebranded to “WWCinema” while the programmers soul-search for a new name.  More importantly, it has switched times & locations to Wednesday nights at The Broad, which is much more easily accessible to me by bus than their previous slot on Thursdays at Canal Place.  So, it was my solemn duty to attend WWCinema’s “debut” at The Broad this month, despite the fact that I don’t particularly care for the films of notorious No Wave slacker Jim Jarmusch.  Programming Jarmusch’s 1986 prison escape comedy Down By Law in any local screening series is kind of a no-brainer, since it’s the exact kind of high-style, low-ambition filmmaking that convinces college-age hipsters from around the world to move to New Orleans and inspires lifelong New Orleanians to pick up cameras to capture the local mise-en-scène.  It’s often cited by cineastes as the best movie ever set here (an honor that actually belongs to Paul Schrader’s Cat People, also a former Wildwood selection), which always sets my teeth on edge even though it is, from what I can recall, the only Jarmusch movie I’ve ever fully enjoyed.  Thankfully, rewatching it with an enthusiastic crowd did remind me exactly why I have vaguely fond feelings for Down By Law despite all of its minimal-effort hipster posturing & N’awlins Y’all cultural cachet, which already makes me grateful that Wildwood is moving closer to home.

My knee-jerk resistance to Down By Law comes from two separate places of distrust.  The major issue is my longstanding bias against Jarmusch as a filmmaker with an incredible wealth of resources who often deliberately chooses to do nothing with them, because doing nothing is the Gen-X ideal of cool.  Speaking more personally, this is the project that brought that performative Gen-X slackerdom to my home turf, making hip-cred outsider musicians Tom Waits & John Lurie the poster boys for laidback New Orleans cool.  When I hear someone declare Down By Law their favorite film set in New Orleans, I automatically assume they idolize the kind of dirtbag alpha male behavior exemplified by those two leads, who are both role models for a specific kind of French Quarter hipster that’s been around as long as I can remember (likely because this movie was released the year I was born).  Waits stars as a WWOZ radio DJ with a dumb little porkpie hat & goatee combo to match his dumb Cool Guy™ personality.  Lurie co-leads as a suave street hustler out of a classic shot-on-location noir starring a Sal Mineo or a James Dean (or, in the case of King Creole, Elvis doing his best impersonation of Dean).  They’re both framed for crimes they didn’t commit and are locked up in a small cell at OPP, spending the rest of the picture trying to out-alpha each other as top dog of their block.  For the first twenty minutes or so, Down By Law is the exact ambitionless, inert slacker drama Jarmusch always delivers, more concerned with cool cred than artistic ambition.  Then, the film’s third lead arrives in the form of Roberto Benigni as an Italian tourist who was arrested for manslaughter – the only one of the cellmates who wasn’t framed for his crime, and the movie’s saving grace.

I have whatever rare brain disorder causes people to find Robert Benigni funny; in my worst moments, I’m convinced he’s the funniest man who ever lived.  If nothing else, he’s the only comedic performer who’s ever dared to ask the question “What if Harpo Marx was obnoxiously loud?”, a true visionary.  Setting his chaotic cornball energy loose on an otherwise typically laidback Jarmusch set is the genius of Down By Law, a magic trick the director only ever came close to repeating with Mia Wasikowska’s vampire-brat in Only Lovers Left Alive.  Jarmusch clearly understands the value of what he has in Benigni, and he allows that vaudevillian presence to reshape the entire movie to great effect.  While Lurie & Waits are participating in an imaginary Cool Guy™ contest, pretending to heroically care the least about what’s going on around them, Benigni strives with every atom in his body to be classically entertaining.  He wills the movie into becoming more exciting, citing The Great Escape as an example of great American cinema because it has “lots of action.”  His cellmates put on stoic Tough Guy personae, but he’s the only character in the movie who hunts, who kills, who fucks.  By the final scenes the difference between him and the other boys verges on the philosophical; Lurie & Waits split into arbitrary, opposing directions just to spite each other while Benigni finds happiness staying in place, a fully content man.  In short, the problem with New Orleans these days is that too many young, impressionable dudes watch Down By Law and move here with ambitions to become suave street hustlers and hipster radio DJs, when what we really need is more classical Italian clowns.

The funny thing about Down By Law‘s reputation as New Orleans’s finest moment onscreen is that very little of the film’s runtime actually showcases the city.  Sure, it opens with sideways pans of shotgun homes & cemetery tombs set to one of Tom Waits’s greatest hits, but just as much of the third act features forward-facing boat trips into mysterious channels of the swamps outside the city.  The story opens with Waits & Lurie committing petty crimes as French Quarter gutter rats, but after they’re pinched by the NOPD we never return to the city streets.  Shot on cheap black & white film stock and deliberately ignoring the basic facts of New Orleans geography, the film often recalls the Poverty Row noir aesthetics of schlock like the 1956 Roger Corman cheapie Swamp Women.  The OPP cell block looks like it could’ve been filmed in a hastily decorated warehouse or apartment.  The prisoners’ escape from OPP directly leads into swamp water instead of the intersection of Tulane & Broad.  The cops-and-hounds hunt for the escaped prisoners is represented entirely as distant sounds to keep the costs of casting down.  This is scrappy, D.I.Y. filmmaking from the height of the Indie Boom that made festival darlings like Jarmusch moderately famous instead of desperately auditioning them for career-crushing deals with Marvel or Netflix.  WWCinema is pitched to its audience as a series programmed by and for legitimate working filmmakers, so it’s not surprising Jarmusch’s current go-to editor Affonso Gonçalves selected Down Bay Law for the series, given its local connections and its inspirational model for high-style, low-budget filmmaking.  Let’s just hope most of the impressionable young men in the audience latched onto the right role model at that screening; the city already has more than enough Tom Waits wannabes hanging around, doing nothing especially worthwhile.

-Brandon Ledet

The Beekeeper (2024)

/ swampflix / 2 Comments

The latest Jason Statham action vehicle The Beekeeper is “John Wick with bees” in the same way that the recent Nic Cage culinary thriller Pig was “John Wick with a pig”.  Stylistically, neither film emulates the tactile, close quarters fight choreography that John Wick has inspired in the past decade of DTV action schlock.  In Pig, Nic Cage disposes of his enemies with carefully prepared meals; in The Beekeeper, Jason Statham specializes in rapidly firing guns & quips, not performing balletically brutal stunts.  However, both films do borrow from John Wick’s preposterous character motivations and worldbuilding indulgences for narrative convenience.  In John Wick, Keanu Reeves’s dog is killed by home invaders, sending him on a one-man revenge mission where he processes grief for his dead wife by avenging his favorite animal.  In Pig, Nic Cage’s pet truffle pig is kidnapped, sending him on a one-man revenge mission where he processes grief for his dead wife by avenging his favorite animal.  In The Beekeeper, Jason Statham’s beehives are blown apart by shotguns, and . . . you fill in the blanks.  All three men are pulled out of retirement for one more job, re-entering absurdly well-organized underground societies of mafiosos, chefs, and Deep State government supersoldiers, respectively.  In terms of action movie aesthetics, The Beekeeper hails from a much older style of inane shoot-em-ups that long predate John Wick, the kind of movies that star Arnold Schwarzenegger as a retired small-town American supersoldier with an unexplained Austrian accent and a crippling addiction to situational puns.  It clearly adheres to a “John Wick with bees” narrative template, though, if not only for the sake of convenience.

It may be a mistake to cite either Commando or John Wick when singing the praises of this disposable January schlock, since those comparisons set expectations a little too high.  Really, The Beekeeper is the kind of Newsmaxed out conservative fantasy that usually gets developed into a CBS procedural you’ve never heard of but tops the Nielsen ratings every week.  Thankfully, it’s an easily digestible 100min gunfight oozing with an excess of bee puns instead.  Statham stars as both a literal and a figurative beekeeper.  He was once trained as a Deep State supersoldier for a secret government agency known as The Beekeepers, who are explained to be more powerful & secretive than the FBI & CIA combined.  After retirement from the organization, he took up legitimate beekeeping – a peaceful pastime that allows him to meditate on the violence of his past while lovingly providing jars of honey to his impossibly sweet landlord.  When that beloved landlord is targeted in an online phishing scam that drains all of her bank accounts, he suddenly comes out of retirement to avenge her against the anonymous crypto bros who’ve ruined her life.  When the crypto bros strike back by killing his bees, he goes ballistic, following their trail of misbegotten funds all the way up to the White House.  There, he finds a thinly veiled avatar for Hunter Biden (Josh Hutcherson), a drug addict playboy who uses his parents’ government connections to line his own pockets with the retirement funds of kindhearted American taxpayers.  The whole ordeal culminates with Statham effectively storming the capital, guns blazing as he takes down the wrongful president of the United States and their corrupt brat kid in a storm of bullets & bee puns.

The Beekeeper is delicious rubbish with rancid politics.  Its novelty as January action schlock is twofold.  Firstly, it leans hard into the beekeeping ephemera of its premise every chance it gets.  Between kills, Statham constantly mumbles about “protecting the hive” (over his individual desires) and “smoking out the hornets” (murdering the bad guys) who threaten that hive (the elderly Republican voters of America).  When asked what his deal is when meeting anyone new, he simply explains “I keep bees.”  Enemies quickly latch onto this internal logic, taunting him with inane phrases like “Where you at, Bee Boy?”, “You’ve been a busy bee,” and, inevitably, “To bee or not to bee?”  The other source of novelty is the film’s fixation on the politics of America’s great generational divide.  Statham self-anoints himself the hero of Boomers everywhere the same way Godzilla routinely emerges from the sea to save children from other fire-breathing monsters.  While the Hunter Biden avatar he brings to justice lives in a “Metaverse meth lab” world of espresso, skateboards, sushi, and transcendental mediation, Statham often saves the day with old-school tools like ratchet straps and pickup trucks.  It’s a clash between authentic living and modern ills, one where the bad guys barter for their lives with the promise of transferred NFTs.  It doesn’t take much for that disgust with newfangled youth culture to fully tip into a hateful Conservative power fantasy.  Its pro-cop, anti-FBI paranoia over Deep State governmental control is just as well suited to director David Ayer’s history of knuckle-dragging Conservative action cinema as it is to the cursed YouTube conspiracy videos that actually prey on the elderly citizens of America every day.  There’s nothing that overtly evil to overlook in the ideology behind Pig or John Wick, but those movies also don’t prominently feature a how-to guide titled Beekeeping for Beekeepers so, you know, choose your battles.

-Brandon Ledet

The Book of Clarence (2024)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

Usually, movie distributors save uncategorizable headscratchers for late in the year, when they can compete for coveted positions on obscurity-pilled critics’ Best-of-the-Year lists for easy promotion.  In contrast, January dumping season is usually reserved for movies with gimmicky, single-idea premises originally scribbled on bar napkins.  After a couple grueling months of picking apart challenging, thorny Awards Contenders like The Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, and Killers of the Flower Moon, it’s nice to kick back and unwind to inane novelties that can be neatly categorized and easily understood.  We should spend January watching Wyatt Russell swim laps in a haunted swimming pool. We should be watching Jason Statham shoot guns at nameless goons while dressed in a beekeeper costume. We should not be questioning the mysterious meaning behind a movie, and we definitely shouldn’t be questioning the mysterious meaning behind life.  That’s why Jeymes Samuel’s semi-ironic, semi-evangelical The Book of Clarence is such a strangely timed release for the first few weeks of the year.  A backpack rap modernization of the sword & sandal Biblical epic, it would be a tricky movie to market in any context, but TriStar Pictures’ impatience in not saving it at least until Easter feels like an admission of defeat.  The movie’s own distributor doesn’t really know what to do with Samuel’s low-key religious epiphany, and I’m not entirely sure what to do with it either.

That tonal & thematic ambiguity does work in its favor, though.  The Book of Clarence is not especially great, but it is Interesting and difficult to parse, which is more than you can say in favor of most contemporary “faith-based media.”  You can tell this isn’t the hip-hop equivalent of God’s Not Dead PureFlix propaganda as soon as LaKeith Stanfield appears as a crucified Christ figure in the opening seconds, just before the clock is dialed back to his Ben Hur-style chariot race with a badass Mary Magdalene (Teyana Taylor).  The Book of Clarence casually flirts with blasphemy throughout its runtime, even though it’s ultimately a loving message to the Believers in the crowd.  Stanfield stars as Clarence, an atheist contemporary of Jesus who believes the proclaimed messiah to be a conman magician, since he has never experienced one of His miracles first-hand.  Out of an act of financial desperation (and a pointed fuck-you to his twin brother, Doubting Thomas), Clarence is determined to cash in on the local phenomenon of Jesus’s popularity any way he can.  He starts by attempting to angle his way into Christ’s inner circle as “The 13th Apostle,” then eventually shifts gears to repeating His conman playbook by declaring himself “The New Messiah.”  The scheme blows up in his face, attracting both the attention of the white Roman officers who brutally police his community and the attention of Jesus Christ, who gradually wins over Doubting Clarence as a reluctant follower.

If there’s any overt, recognizable mission in Samuel’s screenplay, it might just be in making the world and characters of the Gospels relatable to a modern audience.  Clarence and his friends are just normal everyday guys from “the cobblestones” (i.e., “the streets”), getting by selling ditch weed to the nightclub and opium den patrons of ancient Jerusalem.  They’re depicted as laidback stoners who chain-smoke blunts to high-minded funk & hip-hop sound cues, but a lot of that hipster posturing is undercut by dialogue that refers to them as “highfalutin nincompoops,” among other old-timey turns of phrase.  There’s a distinctly Black take on the narrative of Jesus and the Apostles’ outlaw status under the oppressive eye of Roman soldiers, culminating in a police-brutality execution of an innocent man outside a nightclub, recalling far too many real-life news stories from recent years.  What’s less distinct is what the movie is trying to say about Clarence’s relationship with Faith.  He eventually emerges from his Biblical trials as a follower of Christ, but in a confused way that makes a distinction between “knowledge” vs “belief” in his path away from atheism – the kind of bullshit intellectualism that inspires people to say “overstand” instead of “understand”.  I appreciate that Clarence’s personal salvation is mostly found in his rejection of his once selfish ways, at one point sacrificing his personal freedom to free an army of slaves he has no personal connection to.  I just can’t quite figure out the reason why his story has to mirror the exact Stations of the Cross that marked Jesus’s ascent, except maybe that the script was originally written with Jesus as the main character and was considered a little too playfully blasphemous in its initial rough draft.

Maybe all of this not-quite-blasphemous modernization of the Jesus narrative would make more sense to me if I were successfully raised Christian.  Maybe I’m too much of a first-act Doubting Clarence to fully understand where the third-act Knowing Clarence fits in the grander theological debate outside this movie’s permitters.  Either way, I do think the film’s odd sincerity and thematic confusion are ultimately beneficial to its overall memorability & entertainment value.  It easily stands out as one of the most interesting wide-release novelties that hit multiplexes this month, which is impressive considering that it’s retelling the most often repeated & reprinted story of all time while competing with a horror movie about a killer swimming pool.

-Brandon Ledet

Teorema (1968)

/ swampflix / 4 Comments

I’m going to tell you something you already know: the Gen-Z teens are really, really into Saltburn.  From the wealth class making TikTok tours of their mansions in honor of Barry Keoghan’s “Murder on the Dancefloor” nude ballet to the working-class slobs beneath them making cum-themed cocktails in honor of Jacob Elordi’s bathwater, it’s the one film from the past year that’s captured that entire generation’s horned-up imagination (despite Bottoms‘s efforts to best it).  Of course, that kind of youthful enthusiasm is always going to be met with equal gatekeeping cynicism from more seasoned film nerds.  A lot of the online rhetoric about Saltburn outside its ecstatic celebration on “MovieTok” expresses frustration that the teens & twentysomethings enjoying it haven’t yet seen real transgressive cinema, which makes them easily impressed by Emerald Fennell’s social media-friendly Eat the Rich thriller.  The most common chorus among older cynics is that Saltburn is just the toothless Gen-Z version of Talented Mr. Ripley, a comparison I even made when I first reviewed the film in December (calling it Mr. Ripley‘s “airport paperback mockbuster” equivalent).  I was mildly amused by Saltburn on first watch, but I’ve only become more endeared to it in the month since as Gen-Z’s horned-up adoration for it grows.  Maybe it is most of these kids’ first mildly horny, safely transgressive movie, but so what? We all have to start somewhere.  Back in 1999, I found my own erotic thriller training wheels in the equally timid Cruel Intentions, a film I still love to this day against my better judgement (after decades of having seen much better, hornier cinema of transgression). 

Despite my naive affection for Cruel Intentions, it took me 20 years to make time for its more sophisticated equivalent in Dangerous Liaisons, a film I did not watch until 2019.  Meanwhile, I liked Saltburn okay, and it only took me a few weeks to catch up with its own artsy, smartsy precursor.  Let’s call it personal progress, something that only comes with time.  I’m not speaking of The Talented Mr. Ripley in this instance, nor am I referring to Saltburn‘s second most cited influence, Brideshead Revisited.  Such pedestrian literature can no longer penetrate my jaded skull, which has been toughened by decades of chasing the high of my initial repeat viewings of Cruel Intentions and subsequent Placebo soundtrack singalongs in the Year of Our Dark Lord 1999.  No, my cinema addled brain turned instead to the great Italo provocateur Pier Paolo Pasolini, whose final film Salò tested the limits of my thirst for transgression just a few years after I first saw Cruel Intentions (and was also frequently cited by trolls on recent threads pushing Gen-Z Saltburn enjoyers to watch something genuinely dangerous & fucked up).  Devoted Pasolini scholars and Criterion Channel subscribers would likely be appalled to see his film Teorema contextualized as a Saltburn prototype, but I’m compelled to do so anyway, since the hyperbolic, nerdy gatekeeping around Fennell’s totally cromulent sophomore feature needs to be combated with fire.  Teorema is a much smarter, harsher, politically sharper social-climber thriller than Saltburn by practically every metric, so it might initially seem like an insult to present it in this comparative context, but since all it would really take is one TikTok video recommending it to Saltburn fans (Salties? Burnies? Tublickers?) for the film to find a younger, curious audience, I’m willing to risk the faux pas.

Terrence Stamp stars as a nameless young man who mysteriously appears at a bourgeois family home in 1960s Milan.  His arrival is announced via telegram, and he is introduced to the family’s social circle at a house party reception, but his origin and presence are treated as a supernatural phenomenon.  Without overt coercion or force, The Visitor methodically seduces each member of the household into an intimate sexual relationship.  Equally mesmerized by his saintly aura and by the bulge of his pants, everyone from the father figure to the live-in maid makes a sexual advance at the mysterious stranger, which he tenderly obliges with Christlike compassion for their individual plights & desires.  In Saltburn, that infiltration of the bourgeois household is a strictly conniving one, where the outsider weaponizes his sexual charisma as a way to distract from his scheming theft of the family’s inherited property.  In Teorema, it’s more like a visit from a ghost or angel, throwing the family’s “moral sense” and “personal confusion” into chaos without any aims for personal gain.  Then, a second telegram announces The Visitor’s departure, and he abruptly leaves the family to adjust to their new life post-orgasmic bliss – changed, unmoored, confounded.  Like the abrupt departure of Jacob Elordi’s character in Saltburn‘s third act, The Visitor’s absence leaves the family spiritually & emotionally hollowed.  They’ve been transformed by the experience and are unsure how to adjust to the new paradigm of their lives.  Only, in this case their transformations touch on divine transcendence rather than merely experiencing the emotionally stunted British equivalent of grief.

In interviews promoting the film, Pasolini described Teorema as both “a parable” and “an enigma.”  Anyone frustrated with Saltburn’s kiddie gloves approach to class politics would be much better served by this film’s engagement with the topic, especially by the time the father figure’s mourning after his angelic sex with The Visitor convinces him to relinquish his factory to a worker’s union as an attempt to dismantle the bourgeoisie.  Meanwhile, his son processes his own grief on canvas, suddenly transforming into a Picasso-esque painter; it’s a life pivot that feels both sympathetic to his sudden burst of inspiration and mocking of trust-fund artists who can afford to live phony peasant’s lives on their bourgeois family’s dime.  On the opposite end of the wealth scale, the family maid is transformed by her own sexual epiphany into a religious idol who can enact tactile miracles of God that even The Visitor seems incapable of.  Of course, most Tublicker youngsters slurping up Saltburn rewatches on their parents’ Amazon Prime accounts aren’t really in it for the class politics, which might be the one instance where Fennell has Pasolini beat.  Saltburn is much more sexually explicit than Teorema, which does include flashes of nudity (good news for anyone wanting a glimpse of Terrence Stamp’s scrotum) but largely keeps the runtime of its sex scenes to a minimum.  In the family’s most arousing transformation, the mother figure picks up the cruising habits of a gay man, soliciting young trade & roadside gigolos around rural Italy in an attempt to relive her carnal bliss with The Visitor.  It’s a satisfyingly salacious impulse in the narrative, but it’s just one angle on the story among many; by contrast, her daughter responds to the family’s loss by choosing to go catatonic, opting out of life entirely.

I do not mean to present this side-by-side comparison as a cheap echo of the “hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby” meme.  It’s clear enough that the bourgeois-estate-interrupted-by-chaotic-outsider premise shared by these two otherwise extremely different films is executed with much more spiritual & political heft in Pasolini’s film than in Fennell’s, to the point where I feel embarrassed even saying it.  If nothing else, Teorema includes images & events it refuses to explain to the audience (including the frequent interruption of the narrative by the shadows of passing clouds on a volcanic mountaintop where the story eventually concludes), whereas Saltburn begins and ends with plot-summarizing montages that overexplain what’s already a very simple, straightforward story.  The comparison is only useful, then, in pointing out how absurd it is that the two films should be held to the same standards.  Pedantic film nerds pointing out that Fennell’s film is neither as politically bold as Teorema nor as harshly transgressive as Salò aren’t helping any Gen-Z teens get enticed by the great works of Pasolini; they’re just making the kids defensive.  Do you know what might actually get them into Pasolini, though?  The popularity of Saltburn, even if it takes them 20 years to warm up to the idea of watching its higher brow equivalents.  Enough Film Twitter freaks and Letterboxd addicts have already pointed Tublickers in the direction of The Talented Mr. Ripley, a much more easily digestible precursor to their new pet favorite.  I can only hope this review will help bump up Teorema‘s SEO presence in that conversation, and they’ll eventually work their way up to this one too.  Either way, I’m just happy that they’re excited about any dirty movie; it’s a start, and it’s worth encouraging.

-Brandon Ledet

The Not-So-New 52: Wonder Woman (2009)

/ swampflix / 6 Comments

Welcome to The Not-So-New 52, your digital Swampflix comic book (adaptation) newsstand! Starting in 2007, DC Comics and Warner Premiere entered the direct-to-home-video market with animated features, mostly in the form of adaptations of well-received event comics or notable arcs. This Swampflix feature takes its name from the 2011 DC relaunch event “The New 52,” and since there are (roughly) fifty-two of these animated features as of the start of 2024, Boomer is watching them in order from the beginning with weekly reviews of each. So, get out your longboxes and mylar sleeves and get ready for weekly doses of grousing, praise, befuddlement, recommendations, and occasional onomatopoeia as we get animated for over fifteen years of not-so-new comic cartoons. 

It’s a testament to just how starved we were for Wonder Woman content in the aughts that this animated movie, which came out in 2009, was so well received. It’s not bad per se—in fact, in many places, it’s quite good—but this movie’s version of Steve Trevor is gross in a way that was probably apparent even at the time, but which has become even more apparent in contrast to the way that the character was portrayed by least problematic Christopher in Hollywood, Chris Pine, in the live-action 2017 film that was released just a scant eight years later. 

The 2009 Wonder Woman film starts in the distant past: Amazon Queen Hippolyta (Virginia Madsen) is locked in battle with god of war Ares (Alfred Molina), her former lover. As her warriors die on the battlefield, locked in combat with an army of mythical monsters led by her and Ares’s son Thrax, she turns the tides by beheading her own offspring. Preparing to do the same to Ares, she is stopped by Zeus and Hera (Marg Helgenberger), who tell her that they cannot permit her to kill a god, but they will bind his powers and allow her to hold him as her prisoner in perpetuity, granting her and her people a new home on the paradise-like island of Themyscira, safe from the dangers of “man’s world.” After she and her people build their new home, Hippolyta is granted another boon as she crafts a child for herself from the island’s clay, which the Olympians bring to life: a daughter, Diana (Keri Russell). Decades later, Ares remains under lock and key under the guardianship of Persephone (Vicki Lewis), a warrior who lost an eye when she jumped into the line of fire and took a blow that was meant for bookworm Alexa (Tara Strong) in the war against Ares in the prologue; this lack of interest in battle on the part of Alexa makes her the target of mockery for supposed cowardice by her older sister Artemis (Rosario Dawson), Hippolyta’s right hand general. When modern USAF pilot Steve Trevor (Nathan Fillion) lands on Themyscira after an aerial dogfight, a contest is held to determine which of the Amazons should travel beyond their peaceful oasis to return him to his nation. Diana wins this competition, but her excitement is short lived, as Ares’s escape while the island’s inhabitants were distracted by the contest means that she will not need to seek him out and return him to his cell. 

There’s a tonal issue at play here that drags this one down a bit. It’s got a PG-13 rating, and at the time of release, there was some outcry about the level of violence in this one. I think that’s reflective of a systemic issue, as this film is no more violent than Superman: Doomsday, which didn’t receive the same kind of criticism, and I think it’s owed solely to the fact that the combatants here are women. There is a decapitation (in shadow), but in the earlier film, Doomsday murdered an actual child (although the “camera” cut away), but because Amazonians (read: women) are doing the violence, this one received more criticism. It makes sense that this would get the MPAA rating that it did because of this, but the dialogue remains very PG. There’s a recurring bit that starts because Trevor says “crap” in front of the Amazons, then has to explain that it means excrement; each time after this that he uses the word, the Amazons take this as further evidence of the crassness and baseness of mankind, until Diana finally uses it herself at the end as a demonstration of her becoming more acclimatized to man’s world. That’s all well and good (if a bit pat and trite), but its failure to push the boundaries of the film’s rating demonstrates that the franchise is still trying to bridge a gap between appealing to (and being acceptable for) children while aiming to attract an older audience through a novel, more mature approach to storytelling. 

Once upon a time, I owned this movie on DVD, having obtained it for a mere $5 from the CVS on Leon C. Simon, when I was a student at UNO. I have a very clear memory of watching the special features, which included several talking heads from the film’s voice cast, and Rosario Dawson using the word “warriess” several times, which I always found endearing. Dawson is giving a great performance here in general, with a couple of quite badass lines—my favorite of which is when someone teases her about her giant sword, and she replies that it “is but [her] dagger.” Very little in the film stuck out in my mind, however, other than the speedrun through the stations of the Diana of Themyscira canon: born of clay, paradise island, crashed air pilot, championship to determine the ambassador to man’s world, crusader for truth and justice. Once Diana comes to the modern world, there’s a distinct lack of charm in her fish out of water story that acts as a demonstration of why this narrative works better as a period piece; the Patty Jenkins Wonder Woman movie sets its events during WWI while the Lynda Carter TV classic was set in WWII (at least initially), as the earliest comics had been. This allows for there to be some natural chemistry between this isolated demigod princess and a man who can be a little regressive but still likable in that he was more aware than average for this time. Here, Steve Trevor is a total hound dog, in a way that would have been obnoxious even for a contemporary guy at the time of the film’s release. 

All of the stuff with Wonder Woman herself is great (minus a comment that she makes about Etta Candy that is supposed to shame her for being a stereotype), but I’d really rather not have heard Steve Trevor tell Queen Hippolyta that “[her] daughter’s got a nice rack,” even if it’s supposed to be a moment played for comedy (he’s bound with the Lasso of Truth). Later still, he tries to get Diana drunk with the implication that he expects to have the opportunity to take advantage of her! It’s vile, frankly. The rest of the film, as wonderful as so much of it is—the fight between the Amazons and the reanimated dead is a particular standout, especially as it exists both as set piece and as vehicle for closure on the Alexa/Artemis relationship—doesn’t make up for the fact that its male lead is an attempted sexual assailant by any other name. Edit all of that out and you have a 4-star animated flick, but it is in this film, and that leaves us where we are.

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Destroy All Neighbors (2024)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

I have developed parasocial relationships with several of the key collaborators behind the retro splatstick comedy Destroy All Neighbors, which has me rooting for its success.  I met one of the film’s writers, Charles Pieper, at a local horror festival a few years ago, and we established one of the most sacred bonds two people can share: social media mutuals.  The film’s score was also co-produced by Brett Morris, who produces and co-hosts several podcasts I’ve regularly listened to for over a decade now, which is arguably an even stronger (one-sided) bond.  Several of the central performers—including Jonah Ray, Alex Winter, Jon Daly, and Tom Lennon—have all maintained the kind of long-simmering, low-flame cultural longevity on the backburners of the pro media stovetop that also encourages that same kind of parasocial affection, the feeling of rooting for someone to continue to Make It just because knowing of their existence feels like being privy to a deep cut.  It seems appropriate, then, that the film is about the kind of long-term, stubborn hustle artists must maintain to complete any creative project in a town like Los Angeles, and how that LA Hustle mindset can also get in those poor souls’ own way.  There’s a tricky balance between the lonely self-determination of seeing a project through even though no one else fully believes in it and the simultaneous need to foster collaboration & community to achieve success.  The people who made Destroy All Neighbors appear to understand the difficulty of that balance down to their charred bones because they’re all struggling with it in real time; all the audience can do is cheer them on from the sidelines.

Jonah Ray stars as the avatar for that LA Hustle mindset: a prog rock musician who has been tinkering with the inconsequential details of his unfinished magnum opus album for years, with no sign that he’ll ever walk away from the project.  Like all frustrated creatives, he blames his creative block on the minor annoyances of anyone within earshot, from the untalented nepo-baby hacks who cash in on their industry connections for easy success to the mentally ill homeless man outside his jobsite who’s just angling for a free croissant.  Things escalate when he finally lashes out at one of these annoying distractions from his “work”, a cartoonishly grotesque neighbor with an addiction to wall-shaking EDM (played by Alex Winter under a mountain of prosthetic makeup and a Swedish Chef-style goofball accent).  What starts as a neighborly spat quickly snowballs into a full-blown killing spree, and the frustrated musician’s Nice Guy persona is challenged by his weakness for violent white-nerd outbursts.  His grip with reality becomes exponentially shaky as his body count rises, and the film slips into a Dead Alive style approach to comic chaos and goopy puppetry, regularly delivering the kinds of practical effects gore gags that earn “special makeup effects” credits in an opening scroll.  Does the troubled prog nerd finish his unlistenably complicated rock album before he’s brought to justice for his crimes? It doesn’t really matter.  What’s more important is that he learns how to get along with the people around him instead of lashing out while he’s trying to tinker with his art project in peace.  It’s just a shame that by the time he figures that out, most of the people around him are reanimated corpses and cops with their guns drawn.

In horror comedy terms, Destroy All Neighbors falls somewhere between the belligerent screaming of a Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and the nostalgic throwback to old-school splatstick of a Psycho Goreman.  If it does anything particularly new within the genre, it’s in its use of cursed guitar lesson YouTube clips instead of cursed camcorder found footage.  Jon Daly regularly appears on the prog nerd’s phone as the host of evil YouTube tutorials, filling his brain with poisonous ideas about how if people “get” or “enjoy” your music, you’re automatically a failure and a sellout.  He’s just one of many abrasive characters who live in the musician’s head rent-free, though, and to blame the murderous rampage on that one rotten influence would be to misinterpret the film’s overall push for communal art collaboration.  Otherwise, Destroy All Neighbors is just impressively gross in a warmly familiar way.  It’s playful in its willingness to distract itself from the main narrative just to have some fun with the tools & personnel on hand, exemplifying exactly what the nerd-rage prog boy needs to learn if he’s ever going to finish his magnum opus.  What’s amazing is that we’re still rooting for him to pull it off even after the liner notes for his unfinished album now include an “In Memoriam” section.  Regardless of whether you’ve ever tried to Make It in LA, anyone who’s ever worked on a noncommercial art project for a nonexistent audience should be able to relate (give or take a couple murder charges, depending on your personal circumstances).

-Brandon Ledet

The Not-So-New 52: Batman — Gotham Knight (2008)

/ swampflix / 5 Comments

Welcome to The Not-So-New 52, your digital Swampflix comic book (adaptation) newsstand! Starting in 2007, DC Comics and Warner Premiere entered the direct-to-home-video market with animated features, mostly in the form of adaptations of well-received event comics or notable arcs. This Swampflix feature takes its name from the 2011 DC relaunch event “The New 52,” and since there are (roughly) fifty-two of these animated features as of the start of 2024, Boomer is watching them in order from the beginning with weekly reviews of each. So, get out your longboxes and mylar sleeves and get ready for weekly doses of grousing, praise, befuddlement, recommendations, and occasional onomatopoeia as we get animated for over fifteen years of not-so-new comic cartoons. 

Batman: Gotham Knight was the third direct-to-DVD release that DC submitted for the approval of general society. Releasing in 2008, it was intended to be consistent with the then-ongoing Christopher Nolan Batman films, specifically taking place between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I was really looking forward to this one at the time, and I remember being less than excited about the final product at the time. Serving as a series of six interconnected vignettes, the film was imagined as DC’s answer to The Animatrix, and although I didn’t much care for it when I first saw it (in fact, I distinctly remember buying the DVD, watching it once, and then trading it in for credit at Wherehouse Music almost immediately), my estimation of it has gone up in the intervening years. Maybe I’ve just grown more accustomed to non-Western art styles or more accepting of changing styles within a single narrative, but this one is pretty fun. 

In the first segment, “Have I Got a Story for You,” penned by A History of Violence screenwriter Josh Olson, several teenage friends gather to tell one another about having seen the urban legend figure of Batman battling it out on the streets with a supervillain: one describes him as a cyborg, another as some kind of vampire, and a third as a monstrous human/bat hybrid with giant wings. If that sounds familiar, you may have read the 1975 story on which it was based, or (more likely) you’re thinking of the 1998 episode “Legends of the Dark Knight” from The New Batman Adventures. This one isn’t a new story, but it does take advantage of the different art styles available from Studio 4°C, the art house that directed this one. Some of the art here could be considered ugly, but it works both as an intro to this particular omnibus-style film and in its own right. 

The second segment, “Crossfire,” is written by prolific comic book writer and author Greg Rucka and animated by Production I.G (Ghost in the Shell). It introduces one of the throughlines of the overarching narrative, the background element of a looming gang war between the forces of Sal Maroni and a mobster known only as “The Russian.” This one serves as a character study of two Gotham City detectives for the Major Crimes Unit. They work directly for Jim Gordon and have conflicting feelings about their leader’s association with Batman – Crispus Allen, who is planning on resigning as he feels that he and his partner are stuck running errands for a vigilante (including the return of the captured felon from the first segment to his cell in Arkham Asylum), and Anna Ramirez, who believes that Batman has changed Gotham for the better. The two end up in a crossfire between the Russians and Maroni’s forces and are rescued by Batman, who tells them that Gordon is a good judge of character, and that he recognizes them and trusts them based on Gordon’s belief in them. 

The third (and in my opinion best) segment is “Field Test,” animated by Bee Train (.hack//Sign) and written by Jeff Goldberg, who was perhaps the closest to Nolan’s work of anyone involved with the production (other than David S. Goyer, who we’ll come back to), as he was associate producer on The Prestige and The Dark Knight before becoming co-producer on Inception and The Dark Knight Rises and executive producing Interstellar. This is the segment with the most pathos, as a mechanical malfunction in a WayneTech satellite is shown to have the side effect of creating an electromagnetic field, which resident tech genius Lucius Fox is able to reverse engineer into a device in the Batsuit that can deflect bullets. Bruce first uses it to frustrate a businessman whom he suspects of having had a local aid worker killed and uses a PDA that he steals from the man to force Maroni and the Russian into a confrontation that he can mediate to force a truce (to keep them from expanding their war into the civilian population while he collects enough evidence to put them away). However, when one of the henchmen is gravely injured by a bullet deflected by the new device, Batman becomes distressed by the violence that is so like the kind that took his parents from him. He gets the man to a hospital and forgoes the use of the deflector belt for the time being. 

Although this one is my favorite, it is worth pointing out since I haven’t so far that no one from the Nolan films is reprising their roles here, but having Kevin Conroy, who is the definitive Batman as far as I’m concerned, more than makes up for it. The only drawback to that is that his voice doesn’t always match with the animation style that the film has. It’s most noticeable here, where Bruce is drawn in a very pretty, bishōnen style, but which I mean that he’s always looking at the camera like this: 

Or this: 

And there’s something about it that just doesn’t set the right mood, even if this is the strongest link in this chain. 

Segment four, “In Darkness Dwells,” was written by David S. Goyer (who contributed to all three Nolan films) and animated by Madhouse (Beyblade, Vampire Hunter D). This segment follows Batman as he pursues the kidnapper of a local church cardinal into the sewers and learns that his opponent, the so-called Killer Croc, is acting under the influence of fear toxin that is continuing to be created by the on-the-loose Scarecrow. It’s the most action-focused of the segments and is more interested in creating interesting visuals than pushing the narrative forward, and it works for what it is, with several fairly tense sequences that really had me on the edge of my seat, credit where credit is due. The segment that follows, “Working Through Pain,” sees the return of Studio 4°C as the animator, with Brian Azzarello taking on writing duties. This one picks up immediately where the previous chapter left off, with Batman being shot by a hallucinating man. He cauterizes the wound and spends the larger part of the segment trying to find his way out of the sewers while flashing back to learning pain management techniques from a woman named Cassandra, who took him in when he was rejected by a monastic order which promised to teach him to work through physical pain. This one is probably second best, as its shift in focus to Cassandra and her own story; the same monks previously took her in when she was posing as a boy in order to learn their ways, only to eventually expose and shame her when they are unable to break her spirit as she excels in their order. In the sixth and final segment, Madhouse returns to provide animation for the story “Deadshot,” penned by longtime animation writer Alan Burnett. It’s straightforward enough: the shady businessman from earlier in the film hires the titular assassin to kill Batman after he lures the Dark Knight into the light by staging an assassination attempt on Jim Gordon. It’s a fine end, if not necessarily a climactic one. 

There’s less to talk about here than in the previous two films. The segments range from acceptable to quite good, but they never reach the point of being truly amazing. At a brief 76 minutes, it’s worth checking out, even if you don’t care all that much about Nolan’s films. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Britnee’s Top 15 Films of 2023

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

15. No One Will Save You – Like Priscilla, this is a great film about loneliness. Except, instead of being trapped in Graceland, our main girl is dealing with home-invading aliens.

14. The Holdovers – An instant holiday classic. The movie version of a comforting bowl of chicken noodle soup on a chilly winter’s day.

13. M3GAN– Finally, a modern killer doll movie that isn’t afraid to be weird AF.

12. Priscilla – I didn’t know that Graceland was so scary. Sofia Coppola did a wonderful job telling Priscilla Presley’s story.

11. No Hard Feelings – Raunchy comedy is not dead! I haven’t seen a film this funny in a long time, and now I have hope for the future.

10. May December – All of the campy made-for-tv drama is extremely fun, and then Charles Melton makes it clear that this film is actually about how trauma ruins lives.

9. The Iron Claw – Coming from someone who dislikes sports dramas, this is an incredibly powerful movie with outstanding performances, particularly from Zac Efron (never thought I would say that). I wanna cry just thinking about it.

8. John Wick: Chapter 4 – Another fantastic edition of the greatest action franchise of our time. This was my favorite theatrical experience of 2023. I saw it with a group of girlfriends, and we had so much fun cheering John Wick on while almost going into cardiac arrest from all of the intensity.

7. Past Lives – A love story that isn’t actually romantic but is so deep and real. It slowly pulled all sorts of emotions from me and then really hit me in the feels at the end.

6. Talk to Me – Grief horror is my new favorite sub-genre. There’s just something about covering your eyes in fear while crying at the same time that really makes me feel alive. 

5. Barbie – I didn’t expect this to be such a meaningful personal experience. But seriously, how can I rent one of the Barbie Dreamhouses from the set? I bet the utilities are included. 

4. The Royal Hotel – I’ve never been to Australia nor have I worked at a bar, but my god, this film captures the unnerving feeling of being trapped in a misogynistic environment fueled by alcohol. Every woman needs to have a Hanna in their life. 

3. Beau is Afraid – This is such an accurate depiction of living with anxiety, which is what makes it so terrifying yet beautiful. Ari Aster is a genius, and I adore his sick and twisted mind.

2. Infinity Pool – Mia Goth is at her peak when she’s playing deranged characters, and this is her best film yet. I loved how batshit and unique the story is, and I can’t wait for the next Brandon Cronenberg fever dream.

1. Saltburn – The trashiest film of the year, one that has influenced the youth to embrace filth. It’s everything a modern movie should be.

-Britnee Lombas