melodrama

Spellbound (1945)

/ swampflix / 2 Comments

Alfred Hitchcock’s fascination with psychoanalysis and the complex workings of the human mind inarguably peaked with Psycho, but fifteen years earlier, he made an initial foray into the inner lives of psychotherapists and the patients that they analyze with 1945’s Spellbound, starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. Spellbound finds Dr. Constance Petersen (Bergman, in the first of three collaborations with the director) in residence at the Green Manors psychiatric facility, where she is the only woman on the staff, and as such often finds herself having to fend off the unwanted advances of her insufferable colleagues. The hospital is in the process of being handed over from long term head of staff Dr. Murchison (Leo G. Carrol, in his third of four collaborations with Hitchcock) to the incoming Dr. Anthony Edwardes, following an event in which Murchison was found to be negligible, possibly as the result of the early stages of senility. Dr. Edwardes (Peck) arrives, and a romance blossoms between him and Constance almost immediately, although their early interactions are fraught with tension when he seems to change into a different kind of man altogether whenever he sees images of parallel lines against a white background: the tracing of fork tines in linen, the pinstripes in Constance’s white dressing gown, train tracks, etc. In short order, it becomes clear that “Edwardes” is an impostor, and he reveals to Constance that he is an amnesiac with the initials J.B., and he flees to New York from Green Manors just before the arrival of the police, who confirm that the real Dr. Edwardes is missing and his unknown travelling companion is suspected of killing him. 

Spellbound decidedly falls into the realm of Hitchcock’s domestic crime thrillers, as opposed to his espionage-oriented ones, but it’s also an example of one of his lesser-considered genre films: melodrama. One needs to look no further than the film’s opening to see this, as this is, to my knowledge, the director’s only film in which there is an overture. It’s certainly a much more successful one than a certain later Hitchcock/Bergman collaboration, however, as the film never quite loses its thriller edge. Although the picture occasionally flirts with going for a full-on soap opera plot, there are enough touches of malice and menace to carry it to the finish line, and the thrills of the second half more than make up for some of the occasionally plodding romance scenes in the first. Although the contemporary audience may not have been primed to view Peck as an actor who was consistently known for portraying characters of high moral fiber (To Kill A Mockingbird was still seventeen years away) to the same extent that a modern audience would be, they certainly would have been able to see the vulnerability, confusion, and occasional hints of danger in his handsome face. We trust that Constance knows the inner workings of the human mind but are less convinced that she’s a strong judge of character, especially as she falls in love for the first time in her life, blinding her to the pieces of evidence that J.B. may, in fact, be exactly the dangerous criminal that the police think him to be. He’s certainly capable of turning malicious in an instant, and when he begins to stalk about the home of Dr. Brulov (Michael Chekhov), in which they’ve found shelter, with a straight razor, we’re not certain that either Constance or Brulov is safe. As such, the film’s narrative structure is superficially similar to that of Suspicion, although Spellbound is a much stronger film. 

Often, when a Hitchcock film becomes hard to find or is somehow neglected, it’s because it contains some problematic element that has caused it to fall out of favor. Secret Agent, which sees Peter Lorre doing a racist caricature in brownface, seems to only exist on bargain bin DVDs with transfers that look like they were remastered by being thrown down the stairs. Even on the Criterion app, no one attempted to quality check the subtitles for Young and Innocent, and one can only conclude that it’s because whoever was working on captioning the thing saw the grotesque Blackface at the end and threw their hands in the air. Spellbound has fallen out of print and isn’t streaming online anywhere, and I wondered over the course of the film if this had anything to do with what could be perceived as pervasive sexism throughout the narrative, although I would argue that the prejudice is on the part of the characters, not the text, since all of the people who underestimate Constance are proven wrong. Her male colleagues at Green Manors all consider her frosty, cold, and unwomanly. When she makes her way to the Empire State Hotel, she is first harassed by a drunken man who propositions her before he’s turned away by the hotel’s staff detective, who incorrectly diagnoses Constance as either a schoolteacher or a librarian and credits himself as being “a bit of a psychologist.” Constance, who actually is, is able to prey on his hubris and play the part of the repentant wife looking for her husband, thus tricking him into revealing what room J.B. is staying in. Among her peers at Green Manors, she’s also the only one to spot the thread that reveals that someone there knew the real Edwardes and thus knew J.B. was an impostor all along, eventually resulting in the downfall of the true culprit and the liberation of J.B. from prison. It’s another example of Hitchcock’s messy relationship with women and feminism. He may have been a terror to women who worked on his sets, but he also never passed up an opportunity to show a woman’s mind was more than capable of matching wits with a man. I’m not sure why this one isn’t more easily accessible or well-remembered; I only managed to catch it the first time on TCM years ago, and was only able to rewatch it on the VHS tape that I used to record it, lo these many years ago now. 

Visually, this is also one of Hitchcock’s finest. The slow establishment of J.B.’s fugue states when he sees parallel lines leads to an utterly fantastic two-minute dream sequence that includes images that were created by Salvador Dalí, and they are utterly beautiful and surreal. When Dr. Brulov tricks J.B. into drinking drugged milk, we see the image from his point of view as he raises the glass and drinks from it, the creation of a pure white horizon foreshadowing the revelation that the traumatic incident that caused his amnesia took place on a ski slope. The entire film is in black and white, save for two frames of red when the camera takes on the point of view of the end of the barrel of a gun as it fires. It’s great stuff, and given that Hitch was feuding with Harry O. Selznick at the time and wasn’t as invested in this as he was in films he was more passionate about, it’s a great insight to just how good the man could be even when he was only half-assing it, at least at this point in his career (his half-assery in his later works does not compare). I’m not sure where you might be able to find this, dear reader, other than perhaps through your library or browsing the thrift stores, but when you do, you’re going to enjoy it. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Under Capricorn (1949)

/ swampflix / 4 Comments

In Douglas Brode’s book Edge of Your Seat, he writes of Under Capricorn: “Tepid, uninvolving mishmash set down under, with stars utterly unbelievable as Aussie husband and wife […] in a creaky, soap-operish plot that goes absolutely nowhere and, worse still, takes forever getting there.” Of all of Alfred Hitchcock’s thrillers listed forty thrillers in the book, this is one of only two single-star reviews (the other is Topaz). In Truffaut/Hitchcock, the master of suspense recalled a contemporary NYT review that stated the first suspenseful moment comes at 100 minutes into the run time. In his autobiography Vanity Will Get You Somewhere, leading man Joseph Cotten called the movie “Under Corny Crap,” and the film’s box office likely suffered due to the scandal surrounding Ingrid Bergman that same year, when she became pregnant with the child of Roberto Rossellini (they were both married at the time). To circle back to Mr. Brode’s notation above, he makes two major errors: first, both Sam (Cotten) and Hattie Flusky (Bergman) are Irish expats living in Australia (though they remain “utterly unbelievable” as Irish folks as well), and secondly, this is not a thriller, but a melodrama that cribs from Gaslight in its final moments. Audiences at the time had come to expect something different from the filmmaker; in the preceding decade alone, he had made Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur, Shadow of a Doubt (also starring Cotten), and Notorious, just to name a few. Under Capricorn, I would imagine, shares more in common with his earlier British non-thriller dramas like The Skin Game or Rich and Strange, and I would also go so far as to posit that it’s filed with his suspense films less because of the content of the feature itself and more because forty makes for a nicer, rounder number for a list of “Hitchcock Thrillers” than thirty-nine does. 

Not only is this a melodrama, it’s also a period piece, which meant it was already starting on the back foot for me. Taking place in the 1830s in New South Wales, then still a penal colony under British rule, the film finds Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) arriving in Sydney with his second cousin, Sir Richard, whom the crown has appointed as the region’s new governor. Charles is the youngest son of his family, and the practice of primogeniture means that he is set to inherit nothing, so he has come to the colony to seek his fortune. Although he’s a man of good humor, he’s fairly disinterested in honest work. After meeting with a local bank manager to discuss his prospects, he meets Sam Flusky, seeming to recognize the name; the manager tells him that Flusky is a successful landowner but also an emancipist (someone sent to Australia for penal reasons who has since served their time but remained on the continent). Despite being warned against becoming socially linked to Flusky, whose newfound wealth has not resulted in his acceptance in high society (such as it is) in Sydney, and being directly forbidden from associating with him by his cousin, Charles accepts an invitation to a dinner party at Sam’s. The dinner is attended solely by several local gentlemen, all of whom deliver poor excuses for the absence of their respective wives. The reason becomes clear when Sam’s wife, Hattie, descends the stairs in a drunken stupor. Surprised, Charles recognizes her as a childhood friend of his older sister’s, and suddenly recollects that she left Ireland suddenly when she eloped with a man below her station. Said man was her stable boy, Sam, who was sentenced to seven years on the chain gang for the slaying of Hattie’s brother Dermot. 

Sam, recognizing Charles’s immediate rehabilitative effect on Hattie, asks him to stay with them in his manor house; this raises the ire of Flusky’s housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton), who has become accustomed to running the household in Hattie’s stead, all while enabling and facilitating Mrs. Flusky’s all-hours stupefaction. What follows is a series of vignettes, as Charles manages, over time, to wean Hattie off the bottle and encourage her to reassert herself as mistress of the house. When Milly purposefully embarrasses her in front of the other servants, Hattie retreats back to her room and locks herself in; Charles climbs up to the balcony and lets himself in, setting her right again. Sam is not entirely unaware of the love that Charles begins to have for Hattie, but he also adores his wife and believes that she deserves to re-enter the society that shunned her while she waited seven years for her husband to be freed from imprisonment. When Charles’s various subterfuges pay off and Hattie attends a ball at the governor’s mansion, Milly poisons Sam’s mind with thoughts of their potential infidelities, resulting in Sam arriving and embarrassing Hattie so thoroughly that her rejection from high society is confirmed. Poor horseman Charles departs the Flusky home on the back of Sam’s wild mare, and the animal breaks its leg, forcing Sam to shoot the old girl and put her out of her misery. A confrontation with Charles follows, and Charles is shot, albeit nonfatally, leaving him delirious and intermittently unconscious; since Sam is a previously convicted felon, he is likely to be hanged for the crime. 

This prompts Hattie to admit that it was actually she who shot her brother, and that Sam took the fall for her. When she confesses to the governor, he tells her that she will have to return to Ireland to stand trial, but Sam refuses to corroborate her version of events. Reluctantly, Sam decides he will return with her and leave his life as a nouveau riche gentleman behind, much to Milly’s chagrin. To keep him in Australia, she tries to poison Hattie, but is exposed, as is her scheme of making Hattie believe she’s losing her mind by leaving shrunken human heads in the lady’s suite. Charles recovers enough to claim that his shooting was an accident, and we all end happily ever after, with Sam and Hattie’s love having conquered all, and Charles returning to Ireland in disgrace, but cheerful. 

Under Capricorn is notable in that, like its immediate predecessor in Hitch’s C.V., Rope, the film is shot almost entirely in long, unedited shots, although the breaks here are a little more obvious than in his previous film. Unfortunately, they don’t end up amounting to much. There’s a credit for the use of Technicolor here, but it feels like a waste of that technology, as this a mostly beige and brown movie; Charles wears a couple of blue and green waistcoats, but the color of them is so muted that it hardly seems like costuming should have gone through the effort at all. That’s not to say that the film looks bad, but it certainly doesn’t leap off of the screen. Since this was a melodrama and not a suspense thriller, I couldn’t help but think about Douglas Sirk’s films in the genre. The snow in All That Heaven Allows is so pure and white that it almost looks blue, and the absurdly pink bedroom of Lana Turner’s daughter at the end of Imitation of Life is doing some excellent environmental storytelling; there’s not a single image in this film that’s as visually arresting as the scenery that Sirk worked with. The extended shots display a mastery of the craft, but it’s no surprise that Hitchcock made precisely two movies composed entirely of “oners” and then went back to using the technique only when it matters. In Rope, the film’s real-time nature makes that work for the entire thing, whereas its use in Under Capricorn feels like a failed experiment. It’s an interesting technical exercise, but nothing more. 

I viewed this as a Kino Lorber release, and while their print looks quite good, the quality control on the subtitles is, frankly, unacceptable. Flusky’s Roger Corman-quality matte painting house is named “Minyago Yugilla,” which supposedly means “Why weepest thou?”, and every time someone translates this for another character, the captions substitute “though” for “thou,” and that’s only one of the many errors that makes one wonder who’s minding the store over there. (I’m personally willing to accept, at a very reasonable rate, any proofreading jobs that any boutique physical media retailer has to offer, if there are any companies that are still offering this kind of work instead of outsourcing it to AI to be botched.) It’s not even as if the dialogue is all that difficult for a captioner to understand; to say that anyone in the film is failing at an Irish (or Australian) accent would be a lie, because it would imply that there is a single person in the cast who’s making the effort to even try one. There’s not much to speak of when it comes to extras on the disc, either, if that’s of interest to you. 

All of that being said, I went into this expecting a much worse film, and perhaps because my expectations were so low, I didn’t despise it the way that Brode, Cotten, Hitchcock, and the film-going public did. It held my interest well enough, even if it wasn’t terribly exciting, and I don’t think that I’ll ever revisit it or recommend it to others. This may be the worst performance of Bergman’s storied career; it is, at least, the worst one I’ve witnessed. Not helping matters is the hideous period dress that she’s forced to don on several occasions. Every bonnet they put on Bergman is more ostentatiously ugly than the last, and there’s a set of nightclothes that she wears that are meticulously decorated with lace that seems strategically placed to make one ask “Why?” There is already a nineteenth century period piece in which Bergman plays a wife driven to madness, featuring the presence of a sullen housemaid and Cotten in a lead role, and in which Bergman is publicly embarrassed at a societal function when she dares to leave the house for the first time in years. It’s Gaslight, obviously, and it’s a much, much better picture than this one. Under Capricorn is for completists only, and only the kind of completist who needs to either (a) see every Hitchcock ever made, or (b) who needs to watch all of the master of suspense’s thrillers while also needing the number of the said films to be an even forty.

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Camille 2000 (1969)

/ swampflix / 2 Comments

Radley Metzger’s late-60s romance Camille 2000 slips through the cracks of most marketable genre definitions. Its title suggests a Swingin’ 60s sci-fi futurism, but its story is set in contemporary Rome; the only thing futuristic about it is its see-through inflatable furniture. Its fashionable Italian production design and scene-to-scene dramatic sensibilities recall the post-Hitchcock stylings of a giallo, but there’s no murder nor mystery to be found in its plot. Its director’s reputation as an unusually stylish hardcore pornographer sets the mood for lewd on-screen sex, but its historical timing as pre-Deep Throat erotica means it can only deliver softcore posing of nude bodies, with no genital contact nor thrusting. So, what exactly is a sci-fi title without science fiction, a giallo without murder, a porno without penetration? Like with many artsy Euro dramas, it’s all just a vibe. In this case, the vibe happens to be a Pierre Cardin magazine layout inspired by Valley of the Dolls. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

The titular Camille is a wealthy Roman socialite who’s living a dangerously fast life of pure, high-fashion hedonism. She spends her careless days drunk & stoned, shopping for dresses, and party-hopping from orgy to opera to orgy. The only thing she needs to do to sustain this fabulous lifestyle is to marry rich, an obligation that stresses her out as she half-heartedly attempts to placate an aging sugar-daddy fiancée while continually humping the more age-appropriate fuckboys whom she actually desires. She warns the latest fuckboy not to fall in love with her, since that life-dependent need to marry rich will certainly break his heart in the long run, but the young Frenchman can’t help but fall for her anyway. He swears that even if he sleeps with 2,000 other women, he still won’t be able to get over her (thus the futuristic-sounding title). He copes by draining his modest bank account trying to keep her clothed and happy until she can’t help but move on and officially marry, securing her place in life. She copes by popping pills in-between her nonstop parade of orgiastic cocktail parties, too numb to feel the full brunt of her burgeoning love for the dolt. Their toxic dynamic inevitably leaves him drunk and her dead. It takes 131 long minutes to arrive at that predetermined destination, like a train that takes lengthy breaks at every station.

Camille 2000 is not a movie you watch for its drama or its action; you watch it for its production design. Its social conflicts and stoney-baloney fuck sessions are frustratingly inert, but they’re at least staged inside an Italo fashion magazine layout, where it’s appropriate to wear see-through swimsuits to an afternoon cocktail party and no bedroom is complete without at least a dozen strategically angled mirrors. It’s less actual pornography than it is lifestyle pornography, inviting the audience to hang out with emptyheaded European socialites whose only immediate concern in life is finding the chicest place to smoke their dope and get their rocks off. Metzger can’t go full-hardcore here the way he does in later, more famous pictures like The Opening of Misty Beethoven, but he has plenty of opportunity to leer & drool over his actors’ carefully arranged nude bodies. In the most stylish scene, Camille is being eaten out by her favorite Frenchman in the background while a vase of camelias is framed close-up in the foreground, with Metzger’s lens alternating focus between the two displays to the rhythm of her orgasmic breaths. Like everything else in the picture, it’s gorgeous, it’s indulgent, and it lasts for several more minutes than you expect it to, so it’s best not to be in a rush to get off and get over to the next swanky locale.

Roger Ebert wrote a 1-star review of Camille 2000 for the Chicago Sun-Times, frustrated by the excess of mirrored nude modeling and the total lack of actual phonographic thrusting. That review was published in October of 1969, and I am dying to know if that was before or after Ebert wrote the screenplay for Russ Meyers’s Beyond the Valley of the Dolls that same year. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls resembles Camille 2000 in its garish look and its erotic sensibilities far more closely than it recalls the original Valley of the Dolls it was supposedly a sequel to, almost to the point where it feels like a direct parody of Metzger’s film. Camille even has a gay fashionista bestie that stands in as the film’s very own Z-Man, whom I fully expected to transform into Superwoman during the film’s climactic, prison-themed S&M orgy. I must admit that a large part of my enjoyment of Camille 2000 is in its resemblance to Russ Meyer’s much crasser, much more exciting follow-up, since it was a joy to spend more time luxuriating in mise-en-scène that so closely recalled one of my all-time favorite films. Meanwhile, Ebert would’ve been confronted with it as a routine work assignment that tested his patience & forgiveness as its drama refused to progress and its nude models refused to hump. All I can say is that all movies become more interesting with time, which tends to flatten their differences and accentuate their shared value as cultural snapshots of a bygone era.

-Brandon Ledet

The Oscar (1966)

/ swampflix / Leave a comment

This year’s Oscars statues were doled out earlier this week, and most of them found their way to deserving hands. There were a lot of great winners this year among a lot of great nominees, so there isn’t really anything major to complain about (depending on the fervor of your Stan Wars allegiance to Sinners or One Battle After Another). Personally, I enjoy the annual ritual of the ceremony, which provides one of the few remaining incentives for mainstream studios & audiences to pay attention to Real Movies for a few months before the marketing machine defaults back to Summer Blockbuster season. The secret to enjoying the ritual is to celebrate the instances where the awards happen to go to good movies, without fixating on the awards not going to your favorites. Getting hung up on Oscar snubs & losses is a quick path to madness, only advisable if your favorite pastime is getting mad, not watching movies. That said, I was amused by one particular Oscars “loss” this year, in the Best Lead Actor category. A couple months ago, the narrative was that Timothée Chalamet was a lock to win for his starring role in Marty Supreme, but the tide quickly shifted at the last minute to favor Michael B. Jordan instead, who ultimately won the statue for playing twin brothers in Sinners. It was a late-breaking upset widely celebrated for both its winner and its “loser,” since Chalamet had quickly become The Villain of this Oscars season, while Jordan is by all accounts a total mensch. Chalamet seemingly earned that 2026 Oscar Villain designation (despite having heavy competition in actual-villain Sean Penn) by allowing the youthful narcissistic brashness of his Marty Supreme character to bleed over into his real-life press circuit persona, turning off onlookers by playing a deviously ambitious brat for the cameras. None of this matters in any meaningful way, but it is funny how many of the jokes made during the ceremony were at Chalamet’s expense, and the crowd seemed ready to line up and take turns spanking his pasty behind with ping-pong paddles for the transgression of believing his own hype. It was even funnier watching him have to politely smile through it all, so we wouldn’t add “spoil sport” to his growing list of supposed offenses (alongside “ballet & opera hater” and “all-around fuckboy”).

All of this baseless speculation about Oscar narratives, Oscar villains, and dirty behind-the-scenes Oscar campaigns can feel like a decidedly modern phenomenon, specific to online discourse in a post-Weinstein movie industry. As evidenced by the 1966 industry melodrama The Oscar, however, those unseemly aspects of the Oscars season have been part of the ritual for over half a century now. Stephen Boyd stars as the dastardly Frankie Fane, a New York City gangster turned big-shot Hollywood actor, wholly made up for the source-material novel. The film starts at a 1960s Academy Awards ceremony where Frankie is expected to win for Best Lead Actor, despite being the obvious Villain of that season. We then flash back to his earlier years as a ruffian hustler on the opposite coast, making chump change as a carnival-barker promoter for his stripper girlfriend. In its first act, The Oscar operates mostly as a scumbag noir, characterizing Frankie as the kind of fast-talking tough guy sociopath James Cagney used to play several decades earlier. Then, it shifts into macho melodrama once Frankie is “discovered” by Hollywood types while threatening unsuspecting stage actors with a knife, seeing in him a sexy volatility that had made stars out of character actors like James Dean & Marlon Brando. Once Frankie goes to Hollywood, the movie becomes an All About Eve knockoff for meatheads, satisfying male audiences’ repressed desire for juicy gossip while distracting them with brutish delights like switchblades, bikini babes, strip shows, and fist fights. Frankie learns no lessons along the way. He burns every bridge he crosses, hustling his way to the very top in a series of professional backstabbing maneuvers, then works the press into crafting a pre-packaged Oscar narrative sure to win him the Best Lead Actor statue. In his own devious words, “I can’t rig the votes, but I can rig the emotions of the voters,” which still rings true to how most Oscars are “won” today. Only, Frankie has set himself up to be publicly humiliated by the end, since his fate lies in the hands of “a black-tied jury of his peers,” in an industry exclusively populated by people who hate his guts. He’s an asshole, everyone knows he’s an asshole, and it’s hard to pity an asshole.

It’s amusing to see a movie take the absurd pageantry of The Oscars so seriously, as if the stakes were life or death instead of the size of a nominated actor’s paycheck for their next role. The Oscar literally rolls out the red carpet to sell the prestige & grandeur of the event, going as far as to brag in its opening credits that it borrowed actual Oscar statues from The Academy instead of using props, treating them like celebrity guests. Legendary costume designer Edith Head also gets Celebrity Guest Star billing in the opening credits, appearing in a wordless cameo as herself in multiple scenes in the third act (alongside other infamous Hollywood Types like gossip columnist Hedda Hopper & 19-time Oscar host Bob Hope). Head, of course, also gets her more typical “Gowns by” credit, alongside a “Furs by” credit for famed furrier Frank Somper, which is how you know this is a classy affair. The recent Kino Lorber scan boasts some gorgeously garish color saturation, which again heightens the pageantry of this paperback novel adaptation miles above its station. The first half of the runtime is a go-nowhere crime story mostly consisting of sweaty men throwing punches to a swanky jazz soundtrack; the second half is a fish-out-of-water melodrama about a New York City street tough who can’t adjust his brash machismo to the more genteel schmoozing of the California cocktail set. Neither of those modes are especially compelling on their own, but they combine for an amusingly overwrought character study of The Oscar Villain as an archetype. Here we have a knuckle-dragging meathead with no sense of social tact, who can only get by on his movie-star handsome looks for so long before no one in his industry can stand to work with him any longer. By the time his rancid reputation catches up with him, he’s seething in his theatre chair on live TV while pretending to applaud a professional rival. He is a broken man at the rock-bottom end of an existential crisis, like Burt Lancaster at the end of The Swimmer, except the only tangible fallout of his humiliation is that he’ll have to pivot from movies to TV. I doubt that absurd scenario shares much resemblance to Timothée Chalamet’s brief, superficial arc as this year’s Oscars Villain, but it is funny to think about as the melodramatic extreme of that movie-industry cliché.

-Brandon Ledet

Flowers in the Attic (1987)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

During a recent discussion with friends about the name of a book shop in our city and how we find it unwieldy and off-putting, one person in the group stated that if he ever opened a bookstore, he would call it “Flowers in the Attic.” I asked if he knew what Flowers in the Attic was about, and he admitted that he didn’t; he just liked the poetry of the phrase. To demonstrate why this would be, at best, a bad name for his future hypothetical business, I suggested that we watch the novel’s 1987 film adaptation, which (naturally) happened to be streaming on Tubi. [For those interested, the 2014 Lifetime adaptation of the novel is also on Tubi, but the service doesn’t seem to house the channel’s further adaptations of the three sequel novels for some reason.]

Cathy Dollanganger (Kristy Swanson) has the perfect life. The second eldest of the Dollanganger kids, a couple of years younger than older brother Christopher Jr. (Jeb Stuart Adams) and a half decade older than twins Cory and Carrie, she is doted upon most by her beloved father, Christopher Sr., a fact that her mother Corrine (Victoria Tennant) takes note of. On his thirty-sixth birthday, Chris Sr. dies in a car accident, and as the family’s savings dwindle and they lose their home, Corrine packs the family up and takes them to the home of her parents, known in this film only as “the grandmother” and “the grandfather.” Grandmother (Louise Fletcher) is a harsh and cruel woman who wastes no time laying down the house rules and her interpretation of religious doctrines, which are, to her, one and the same. Some of them are reasonable, like ensuring that the boys share one bed while the girls share the other, while others, like that the children are to be silent at all times, are more authoritarian. Corrine explains to her children that Grandfather is very old, and Corinne must keep the kids’ existence hidden from them until she “wins back [her] father’s love,” and that once she has, he’ll recant his previous disinheriting of her and the family will once again be financially secure. 

Of course, the most famous thing about Flowers in the Attic is that it’s a novel that deals with the taboo subject of incest. Notably, Cathy and the others have to be kept secret from Grandfather because they are the product of an incestuous relationship between their Corinne and Chris Sr. (Later books would overcomplicate this genealogy but Chris Sr. is stated to be the much younger half-brother of the Grandfather, making him Corinne’s half uncle.) This is also the stated reason that Grandmother is so monstrous to her own grandchildren, as she considers them abominations, despite their innocence. The 1979 novel on which the film was based, written by author V.C. Andrews, was derided upon publication for being utterly deranged but nonetheless proved to be shockingly popular, enough to warrant a few sequels during her lifetime (and some after that, but we won’t get into it). I read it years before I was even aware that there had been a film adaptation, and with that in mind, although this movie is difficult to defend from an objective standpoint, it’s the best way to enjoy this story with as little disgust as possible. Although the previous generation’s incest is kept intact as the inciting reason for the Dollanganger kids to be locked away in the attic, the film cuts out the relationship that develops between Cathy and Chris as the two enter puberty in complete isolation, which could be argued to both undercut the darkness of the narrative and make the more “young adult novel” elements of the original story blossom, no pun intended. It’s ultimately more toothless, but also more palatable. 

Flowers in the Attic is by no means a good movie, but it’s one that I can’t help but watch any time I’m presented the opportunity. Fletcher isn’t asked to do much here but retread the same beats that netted her Oscar win for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and the film is wise to keep her out of frame with the child actors, who are universally dreadful. Swanson went on to have something of a career, albeit a brief one, but Adams appears to have mostly disappeared following Flowers, and the film world did not mourn his absence. He’s stilted, wooden, and clearly far too adult to convincingly portray a teenaged boy capable of being overpowered by Grandmother. Tennant’s portrayal is a mixed bag, as I think she subtly underplays Corinne’s financial panic and understandable horror at returning to Foxworth Hall but goes too broad later. I could almost buy that she is resentful of what she perceives as a lack of gratitude for her sacrifice on the part of her children, the film makes no time for her to have a meaningful aside glance, deep in troubled thought, as she reaps the benefits of her family wealth while her children grow emaciated and pale from lack of sunlight and exercise. There’s no evolution from the Corinne who genuinely loves her children but can’t provide for them and thus must accept a literal whipping from her parents in order to return home to the Corinne who coldly tells the remaining children that Cory has died in the hospital. It’s really on Fletcher to carry the whole thing, performance-wise, and she manages to make it work despite a role that she probably could have sleepwalked through. 

I’ve never been able to put my finger on why this film has had such staying power in my mind, and it might simply be that this is a weird tonal and narrative mish-mash. Wikipedia suggests that it could be considered part of the psycho-biddy genre, but the story mostly involves juvenile fiction elements in the form of its fantasy about adolescent self-sufficiency and competence as Chris and Cathy come to act as surrogate parents to the younger two. The novel is often considered to be a gothic text, which is fascinating to me as it clearly does align with the kinds of plots one would find in most European (specifically English) gothic stories—the old dark house, the unwanted relatives in the attic, subordinated passions, etc.—but Andrews was an American writer. American gothic lit usually eschews those elements, trading castles for caves and replacing the metaphorical representations of the horrors of the old world with the existential terror of the “wilderness” of the Western Hemisphere. Andrews’s novel, for better or worse, is probably the primary example of an American writer, specifically a Southern American writer, crafting a European style gothic story set in the American south. The first time I saw this film was when I was in grad school, broadcast over a local New Orleans affiliate that I could pick up with my rabbit ear antenna, and I was deep in the study of American gothic literature at the time—as my intended capstone thesis was originally going to be about the influence of Calvinism on the gothic traditions of the U.S.—so that’s probably why it got so solidly lodged in my mind. 

What’s fascinating about Andrews’s work is the fact that, deranged though the material itself may be, the author had a very distinct prose style. This was a trashy but popular novel that was adapted into a trashy and mostly forgotten movie, but when one thinks about contemporary literary output that would fall under the same subgenre now, the difference in actual literary quality is staggering. For all of its many, many faults, Flowers in the Attic isn’t slop. I say this as someone who is in the process of editing one of his own novel manuscripts right now, and I’ll freely admit that my own prose is not as good as Andrews’s. That carries over into the film adaptation as well. This is clearly a very cheaply made film ($3.5M) that spent most of its money on sets and (one hopes) Louise Fletcher, but even for mass-produced schlock of the late eighties, it still functions on a higher technical level than some theatrical releases I’ve seen in recent years, and it’s also fully committed to its bizarrely melodramatic tone. The periodic slow-motion shots of Grandmother unveiling the leather whip as she prepares to beat her daughter while Grandfather watches or her brushing Cathy’s treasured ballerina music box to the floor to shatter into dozens of pieces manage to somehow be both campy and utterly sincere, which is probably why it’s gone on to be a cult classic. That it never deviates from that tone even when Swanson is wearing perhaps the worst wig in the history of cinema is a testament to its staying power. 

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

My Christmas Wish: Treat Yourself to All That Heaven Allows (1955) This Year

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

Last year, Douglas Sirk’s All That Heaven Allows made it to number 24 on Swampflix’s Top 100 films, so naturally I spent the evening of last Christmas Eve closing that blind spot. If you’re a weirdo like I/we am/are (and if you’re on this site, that’s probably the case), you’ll likely find yourself recognizing the plot from its contours, because what Star Wars is to Spaceballs, this movie is to John Waters’s Polyester. Since Brandon had already written a review years earlier, I repurposed the review I couldn’t stop myself from writing to save for this year as an earnest recommendation to spend some part of your Christmas season with Sirk too, on the 70th anniversary of Heaven’s release. 

Cary Scott (Jane Wyman) is a well-off widow in New England. Her life is quiet, with visits from her two college-aged children Kay (Gloria Talbott) and Ned (William Reynolds) growing fewer and further between. Her best friend, Sara Warren (Agnes Moorhead), takes her out socially; attempts to get her to pair off with older widowers in their social circle are unsuccessful, as she feels no spark with any of them. One day, she realizes that some new hunk is tending to her landscaping, and he introduces himself as Ron Kirby (Rock Hudson), the son of the late Mr. Kirby who was previously engaged as the Scott family’s arborist. When she visits him at his home, she learns that he sleeps on a cot in a room attached to the greenhouse, and when he mentions planning to tear down the old mill on the property, she cajoles him into giving her a tour of the long-abandoned building, and she encourages him to convert it into a livable home instead. As their romance burgeons, their love is represented in ongoing changes to the mill house, which comes to resemble a livable home more and more. Ron takes Cary to meet some of his friends, a couple who have given up on the lifestyle of trying to keep up with the Joneses in New York and now instead tend a tree farm. As the night goes on, a party erupts, and the couple introduces Cary to their bohemian friends: birdwatchers, beekeepers/artists, cornbread masters, and lobster-catchers. 

Cary has a wonderful, uninhibited time, but there’s trouble around the corner; her high society friends are rather snooty about her relationship, as are her children. When she mentions selling the house and moving in with Ron (post nuptials, of course), Ned becomes quite upset about his mother selling his childhood home and tells her that the “scandal” she’s bringing upon the family by dating someone who’s merely (upper) middle class could jeopardize his career options. The local gossip hound starts a rumor that Cary and Ron had been an item since before her husband died, which deeply upsets Kay, as she begs her mother to break things off with Ron. Everyone also seems to be utterly scandalized by their dramatically different ages. (Hudson was 30 and Wyman 38 at the time, and those are the ages that they appear to be to me, but the film may be trying to imply a greater disparity.) She acquiesces to the demands of her fairweather socialite friends and her ungrateful children, only to learn some months later that her sacrifice was in vain. Both of her children delay their Christmastime return to their hometown, and when they arrive, they reveal their own new life plans; Kay will be getting married to her beau in February when he graduates, and Ned will be leaving straight from his own graduation to take a position in Europe that will last, at minimum, a year. They present her with a Christmas gift that she doesn’t want (more on that in a minute), and Ned even suggests that they sell the house, since the kids won’t be needing it as their “home” any longer. Via a simple misunderstanding, Cary comes to believe that Ron is getting married to another woman, and the melodrama only unfolds further from there. 

Sirk is a Technicolor artist, and this is a gorgeous movie, and a very funny one at that. One of the things that I really loved about this cast was the opportunity to see Agnes Moorhead play a kinder, more sympathetic role. Just a couple days after watching this one I caught her name in the opening credits of Dark Passage and thought to myself, aloud, “That woman was working.” And, wouldn’t you know it, I tuned into the New Year’s Twilight Zone marathon on H&I just in time to catch her episode of that: 

Moorhead’s Sara Warren is the only real friend that Cary has, as she’s the one who encourages her to get back together with Ron when she sees just how heartbroken her friend is. We learn this in a scene that’s perfectly framed and is one of many pointed social critiques that the film makes. We cut to a shot of a housekeeper vacuuming a carpet, as the camera dollies backward through the doorway to the room in which Sara and Cary are talking, and Sara closes the door to shut out the noise so that the two women can converse. It’s a neat gag, but it plays into the overall social critique of the movie, in which even the most sympathetic member of the bourgeoisie is still an aristocrat shutting out her social inferiors, despite her softening her heart towards her friend’s desire to date a blue collar business owner. There’s also a great contrast between the country club cocktail party that Cary attends near the film’s opening scene and the lobsterfest that happens at Ron’s friends’ house, where the upper class is presented undesirably. A married man makes a pass at Cary, kissing her; a potential romantic interest tells her that there’s little need for passion at their age, to which she (rightfully) takes some offense; the town gossip queen is there to do her thing. Ron’s group’s party is a lively place, where he plays the piano and sings boisterously, and people dance with great fervor. It’s never commented upon, but it is present throughout. 

Another fun little tidbit about this one is its distaste for television. Early on in the film, Sara suggests that Cary get a television to keep her company now that the house is empty, which Cary finds to be a contemptible suggestion. When a television salesman sent by Sara calls upon the Scott household, Cary shoos him away in a huff. In the final insult, however, Cary receives a television set as a gift from her children for Christmas. Ned even reiterates that Cary will be lonely and unfulfilled without her children and should have something in the house to distract her from her pitiful solitude, as if he and his sister hadn’t done everything in their power to sabotage her relationship with Ron. After the children have gone off to do their own things, their mother is left alone in the house, lit only by the lights of the Christmas tree and a duplicate fire: one in the hearth and its mirror in the flat TV screen — the giver of warmth and its cold reflected image. It’s striking and memorable, and the relatively tiny window that the TV might give of the world is visually contrasted with the vivid Technicolor world just on the other side of the panoramic windows that Ron has installed into the home he built to share with Cary. It’s good stuff. 

The film doesn’t demand a winter or Christmas time frame to be viewed, but I think it works best in that context. I’m getting the word out now so you can put it on the calendar before we all get Christmas brained. And, while you’re at it, when was the last time you watched Polyester?

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Lagniappe Podcast: Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

For this lagniappe episode of The Swampflix Podcast, Boomer & Brandon discuss Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s 1959 adaptation of the Tennessee Williams-penned Southern Gothic stage play Suddenly, Last Summer, starring Katherine Hepburn & Elizabeth Taylor.

00:00 Welcome

01:31 The Naked Gun (2025)
06:35 Together (2025)
14:40 Freaky Tales (2025)
23:26 Weapons (2025)
41:04 I Confess! (1953)
46:01 The Phantom Lady (1944)
47:42 Stage Fright (1950)
52:30 The People’s Joker (2024)
56:04 The Last Picture Show (1971)

1:01:35 Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)

You can stay up to date with our podcast through SoundCloud, Spotify, iTunes, TuneIn, or by following the links on this page.

– The Lagniappe Podcast Crew

The Leather Boys (1965)

/ swampflix / 2 Comments

To my surprise, the film I’m most looking forward to from this year’s Cannes slate is not the new Lynne Ramsay, the new Ari Aster, the new Julia Ducournau, nor any other new release from an established-name auteur. The Un Certain Regard selection Pillion was the title that most caught my attention in the trades, teased with a premise in which “A timid man is swept off his feet when an enigmatic, impossibly handsome biker takes him on as his submissive.” Given their recent freakshow outings in Please Baby Please & Infinity Pool, respectively, the casting of Harry Melling & Alexander Skarsgård as that unlikely couple is certainly part of the attraction, despite debut writer-director Harry Lighton being an unproven no-namer at the time of this posting. Honestly, though, it’s just an alluring logline premise on its own no matter the talent involved, even if it’s more or less been done before: recently in Jeff Nichols’s excessively hetero biker-culture melodrama The Bikeriders and a half-century ago in the kitchen-sink drama The Leather Boys.

The Bikeriders starred Austin Butler as a gorgeous greaser whose affection is fought over by his wife (Jodie Comer) and his gang leader (Tom Hardy) despite his one true love being the open road, breaking both their hearts. That bisexual love triangle goes more or less unspoken despite the homoeroticism inherent to depicting a group of men whose sole passion is to get filthy, roughhouse, and pound beers together while dressed in heavy leather. It’s so blatantly intrinsic to biker culture that a 1960s British studio film could get away with telling its own queer love triangle story without being censored out of existence. The Leather Boys is just as carefully chaste in depicting its unspoken bisexual tug-of-war as The Bikeriders, and yet it was saddled with an X rating because it did not similarly bury those themes in subtext. In contrast, Pillion promises to be explicit enough in its themes and its sexual imagery to have legitimately earned that X rating, at least according to early festival-circuit reviews. Still, it’s impressive that such a non-judgemetal portrayal of closeted, hush-hush homosexuality within 60s biker culture was made in its time at all.

Colin Campbell stars as the lead leather boy, Reggie, who’s still a hotheaded teenager when he marries his high school sweetheart Dot (Rita Tushingham). The working-class knuckleheads aren’t at all prepared for the day-to-day realities of marriage, and they struggle to settle into a healthy routine after the initial rush of lust cools. Every conversation quickly escalates into a top-volume shouting match, with Reggie frustrated that his wife isn’t motivated to cook or clean while he works at the local garage and Dot frustrated that her husband no longer wants to have sex. To blow off steam, Reggie starts spending more time around his leather-jacketed biker buddies at the local cafe, where he strikes up a fast, passionate friendship with a flamboyant jokester named Pete (Dudley Sutton). Pete & Reggie hit it off so well that they end up sharing a bed every night in a relative’s spare room while the naive teens’ marriage hangs in limbo. Only Pete seems to be aware of the romantic tensions of this “friendship”, while Reggie doesn’t have any self-awareness of his own feelings or desires whatsoever.

The Leather Boys is a sordid love triangle played as kitchen sink melodrama . . . with motorcycle races! While its source-material novel depicts two young leather-clad lovers on a wild sex & crime spree, the movie version is deliberately subtle & underplayed, avoiding all of the typical road-to-ruin trappings of similar teen thrillers of the 1950s. No one dies. Reggie & Pete sleep together, but they do not fuck. The early implications that Pete is gay start as a general disinterest in girls and an eagerness to perform the wifely duties Dot neglects, and his queerness is only confirmed by the delicate way he holds his “fags” while smoking in bed. Reggie’s own sexuality is even more subtly played, to the point where it’s never fully defined. He’s confused by Pete’s social flamboyance, confused by his own disinterest in bedding his wife, and generally just all-around confused by his feelings & life. The only thing he’s certain about is that he’s intensely uncomfortable when Pete introduces him to a larger queer community at the local gay bar, which breaks the spell of their brief tryst as best bros.

Through all of its rocker-culture ephemera and the hormonal confusion of its lost teen lead, The Leather Boys ultimately proves to be a more direct prototype for the coming-of-age rock opera Quadrophenia than for The Bikeriders or Pillion. Its kitchen-sink realism mostly manifests in its improvised slang, with the Cockney teens punctuating their every thought with phrases like, “You’re a right blighter,” “Get roffed!” and, of course, “Innit?” There’s also a kind of hidden-camera quality to the visual style, framing both the cramped interiors & wide exteriors of the location shoots through an extreme wide-angle lens, as if the entire film were shot in a motorcycle’s rearview mirror. It’s a cool, sensitive, surprisingly frank story of a young man with conflicted feelings, torn between his love for his wife and his attraction to his fellow leather boys. The only reason it was rated X was so that impressionable teenagers wouldn’t leave the theater to buy bikes & leather jackets of their own and flirt with a little confused gay romance for themselves.

-Brandon Ledet

Imitation of Life (1959)

/ swampflix / 2 Comments

Imitation of Life is a weird document. All That Heaven Allows lives and dies based upon your investment in the happiness of its lead character, and Written on the Wind is a narrative about a wealthy American family in slow decline, rent asunder by internal forces of jealousy, desperation for approval, and poor parental love; both are also shot in glorious Technicolor. Imitation of Life, on the other hand, was marketed in much the same way as Heaven, namely that it was supposedly a romantic picture about a widow finding love again, but that narrative is by far the least interesting thing about the film. What it turns out to be instead is an unexpectedly heartbreaking story about a family that is torn apart by societal forces that even an abundance of motherly love can’t overcome, with the emergence of a new theatre star as the supposed primary plot of the film while actually serving as the background to a much more interesting story. 

Lora Meredith (Lana Turner) loses her daughter, Susie, at Coney Island one day, then finds her in the company of another girl, Sarah Jane. Lora, delighted, meets who she first assumes is Sarah Jane’s nanny, Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore), but learns that Annie is actually Sarah Jane’s mother. Annie describes her late husband as having been “close to white” and that Sarah Jane takes after him, rather than Annie. Upon discovering that Annie and her daughter are essentially homeless, she takes them into her apartment, as there is an extra room off of the kitchen (a common feature of the time, as Lora is essentially putting them up in the maid’s quarters, and their placement there is not an accident). The supposed A-plot features Lora seeking to make it as a star onstage in the big city; she successfully bluffs her way into the office of talent agent Allen Loomis (Robert Alda) and gets an invitation to a party that same evening where all the movers and shakers will be. When it turns out that this is a prelude to a casting couch situation, she leaves in an understandable huff, although this is all forgiven when Loomis ends up becoming her agent regardless. He gets her an audition for the latest play by David Edwards (Dan O’Herlihy), and when she stands up to him about a scene not working as written, he’s likewise impressed with her moxy and gives her an even bigger part. This is counterposed with her budding romance with Steve Archer, a photographer whom she met that fateful day at the beach; he took a photo of the girls balancing an empty can on a sleeping man’s stomach that day and eventually sold it for use in advertisements for beer. (Incidentally, Steve is played by John Gavin, who you may remember as Marion Crane’s afternoon delight stud-muffin in Psycho; try not to let his character being named Sam Loomis there while his character here is romantic rivals with a different Loomis confuse you.) Steve and Lora grow closer until he finally proposes, but his insistence that she give up her career is a non-starter. 

All throughout, the film focuses on Annie and her relationship with her daughter, who is clearly struggling under the weight of her Black identity. When she and her mother first arrive at the Merediths’, Susie tries to give Sarah Jane her newest and most prized doll, which happens to be Black, causing Sarah Jane to resent the younger girl’s innocent insensitivity. When Annie is telling the story of Mary and Joseph’s trip to Bethlehem at Christmas time, Sarah Jane asks what color Jesus was. Lora tells her that Jesus is whatever color one imagines him to be, and Sarah Jane protests that this can’t be the case since they are being taught he was a real person. Finally, she says “Jesus was white. Like me.” Things really come to a head, however, when Annie comes to Sarah Jane’s school to bring her lunch and learns that her daughter has been passing as white among her peers and the teachers, and the realization among her classmates when they learn the truth bears out much of Sarah Jane’s fears about exposure and the mistreatment she can expect because of the racism of the society in which she lives. When I started that last sentence, when I got to the end of it, I had to rethink my initial plan to conclude that Sarah Jane is mistreated “because of the color of her skin,” because that’s exactly the opposite of what’s happening. Sarah Jane is being treated fairly because of her apparent whiteness, and injustice and unfairness enters into the equation when a white supremacist society inexorably forces its way into these dynamics. Annie laments that her heart breaks because she can’t explain to the daughter that she adores why reality is so unfair, because Sarah Jane was “born to be hurt” by the world because of no fault of her own. 

Things are even worse for Sarah Jane when there’s a time jump from 1947 to 1958, the passage of time represented by continuously superimposed images of Lora’s name on various marquees and the accompanying year. Her newfound wealth has afforded them a manse in the countryside, where Annie and Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner) continue to live with Lora and Susie (Sandra Dee). It’s unclear what exactly Annie’s role in this new house is, as there are other servants now. A charitable read of the situation is that Lora and Annie have essentially been coparenting both of the girls since Annie and her daughter first came into the Meredith household, with Lora in the breadwinner role and Annie as the housewife, but even if that’s what’s happening here, it ignores all of the power dynamics at play. It’s also clear that Lora has been paying Annie in addition to housing her, as Annie mentions having saved up enough to send Sarah Jane to college. I’m not sure, but how you read this situation can have a lot of bearing on how you feel about its participants. If we choose to read Annie as co-head of household, as she’s mostly treated, then her oversight of the house and meals feels a little funny but isn’t ultimately demeaning. If we choose to read that the relationship between Annie and Lora has changed from being two women trying to make it in the big city together to one that feels familial but is nonetheless employer-employee, then Lora becomes much less sympathetic. My ultimate reading boils down to how Lora reacts when the two are parted by death, and that although she truly loved Annie and considered her a partner in life and not a servant, she nonetheless found herself occasionally acting in the patronizing manner of the era despite her affection and devotion. 

Sarah Jane, for her part, is having a rough go of things, continuing to seek inroads to the life of privilege to which she feels entitled and which her perceived whiteness gives her just enough ingress to see how things are on the other side. This reaches a point of harrowing violence, when she goes to meet up with the boy who’s talked about running away together and getting married, only to find him sullen and unable to look her directly in the eye. He demands to know if what he’s learned—that Annie is her mother and that Sarah Jane is Black—is true. Sarah Jane denies it, but he nonetheless beats her savagely. Meanwhile, she’s having to deal with all of Susie’s stories about finishing school and watching her not-quite-sister get a pony as a graduation gift; to get out, she claims to be working at the NYC library, but Annie discovers she is actually working as a sort of sexy lounge singer where men leer at her, and when Annie’s appearance once again outs her as non-white, she loses the job. This prompts her to flee even further, finally ending up as a chorus girl out west, but when Annie comes to see her one last time, she tells Sarah Jane that she has come to say that she won’t chase her anymore, and that she loves her daughter enough to accept her choices. When one of the other chorus girls finds them together, Annie pretends to be no more than Sarah Jane’s old nanny in order to preserve her daughter’s concealment of her true identity. 

It’s this that serves as the film’s climax. Sure, there are other things going on. Lora and Susie are distant because Lora always put her career first. Steve re-enters the picture, and he and Lora make plans to travel together and get to know one another again that she immediately reneges upon when offered a part in a new film from an Italian art director. Steve keeps Susie busy that summer and she falls madly in love with him (who wouldn’t?). Susie tells her mother to just be with Steve, and they get together. All seems kind of rote and pale in comparison to what’s happening with Annie, doesn’t it? That’s clearly intentional, and even though there’s a kind of going-through-the-motions energy of everything happening with the Merediths, I was never bored by any of it. Everything happening with Annie just overpowers it, as she ultimately succumbs to (perhaps literally) a broken heart from losing her daughter, spiritually if not literally. Her funeral service features a performance of “Trouble of the World” from Mahalia Jackson, and it’s beautiful. 

In many ways, this is one of director Douglas Sirk’s finest hours. Annie’s story is beautiful, thoughtful, and tender, while Lora’s is perfectly serviceable. It may be that the DVD I saw of this didn’t have a very colorful transfer, but where this one is lacking is in its visual panache. You can almost feel the chill of the blue snow in All that Heaven Allows, but the colors here seem muted, although that may be due to the fact that this was a Eastmancolor production, not a Technicolor one. Susie’s room in the country manse stands out for this reason, as her bubblegum pink room should really pop, but it feels rather dull. Infamously, a publicity stunt surrounding this film was that half of its two-million-dollar budget was spent entirely on Lana Turner’s wardrobe, and while there are many fine pieces, it feels like they’re lacking in some razzle dazzle that one of Sirk’s other pictures would have more effectively conveyed. There are also some places where the narrative seams are less than flush. For instance, the extended sequence of Sarah Jane doing a musical number at the NYC club seems to be a leftover sequence from when the film was conceived as a musical. Both Steve (demanding that Lora forsake the stage in 1947) and Susie (realizing that her infatuation with Steve is childish and relinquishing her mother of any guilt in pursuing him in 1958) make decisions that feel more narratively convenient than true to the characters. Nonetheless, this one is definitely a contender for Sirk’s greatest work.

-Mark “Boomer” Redmond

Both Ways (1975)

/ swampflix / 1 Comment

Long before New Queer Cinema directors like Derek Jarman, Todd Haynes, and Gregg Araki were praised for their confrontational depiction of queer sexuality onscreen in the 1990s, there was already a strong, decades-long independent filmmaking tradition of doing just that in hardcore gay pornography.  At least, that was the central thesis of Liz Purchell’s archival work in the Ask Any Buddy project, which is where I first heard of Jerry Douglas’s 1975 bisexual romance thriller Both Ways.  Although the review of Both Ways on the Ask Any Buddy podcast was less than glowing, it still felt like a necessary purchase when I ran across a used DVD copy of the film in a Minneapolis record store, since its X-rated onscreen sex meant I’d unlikely be able to access it on any mainstream streaming service in the near future (which is the exact kind of false scarcity logic that’s led me to collect a modest stack of vintage porno titles like Pink Narcissus, SexWorld, Bijou, and Fleshpot on 42nd Street).  On its surface, Both Ways is a fairly straightforward—pun unintended—porno drama about a closeted bisexual man living a double life, but between the director’s commentary track on the Vinegar Syndrome disc, the supplementary insight from the Ask Any Buddy pod, and the plot’s last-minute swerve into Hickcockian violence—okay, pun obviously intended that time—it ends up feeling like a surprisingly substantial work of outsider art.

The first sounds you hear in this Golden Age porno is a child giggling as his father tickles him on a carnival Ferris wheel.  Gerald Grant stars as a straight-laced family man: a Harvard graduate (which he’ll remind you of frequently) who’s built a tidy suburban life for himself as a high-powered lawyer and a loving father of a young son.  All is not well in the bedroom, though, as his sexually neglected wife, played by Andrea True (likely the most famous member of the cast, due to her disco hit “More More More”), confronts him for being distracted by a secret affair outside the house that she can’t quite figure out.  She’s correct, of course, as her husband has been sneaking around with—shocker of all shockers—a Yale student played by Dean Tait.  Now, you might expect that vintage pornography about a closeted bi man’s infidelity would mean double the variety of onscreen sex, but it really just doubles the amount of couples bickering.  This is the kind of porno-chic relic that speeds through rapid edits of sex scenes so it can really dig into its domestic melodrama, making for a shockingly sincere representation of male bisexuality for its era … until it takes a wild swerve into psychological thriller territory.  After all of its cheeky humor about collegiate rivalry between Harvard & Yale and all of its sentimental homelife drama in which the father figure constantly buys his cavity-sweet son handfuls of balloons, Both Ways gets really dark in its final twenty minutes, making for a chilling ending to something that’s ostensibly supposed to heat couples up on a naughty date night.

In filmmaking terms, Both Ways is surprisingly playful for a hardcore porno.  Douglas does a lot to mirror the domestic scenes in both of our antihero’s competing relationships, even going as far as to symmetrically pose his actors in front of wall-hung mirrors to drive the point home.  During early domestic squabbles where both couples recount how they first met and during a later pornographic montage of the cheating husband alternating between his two partners in two separate beds, the threesome’s body language is exactly copied in direct contrast to underline how little meaningful, physical difference there is between the two relationships.  Douglas also plays around with insert shots of artificial exteriors to simulate intimate dialogue when characters are navigating the world outside their bedrooms, shooting his actors against a surreal blue-void “sky”.  He also tries his best to ground this tale of extramarital romance within the context of Free Love looseness, setting a major couple’s spat at a swingers’ wife-swap orgy and meticulously framing a lit joint at the center of a male performer’s buttcheeks.  Other visual details & directorial choices are more inscrutable, such as the frequent cutaways to a frumpy housekeeper during the aforementioned wife-swap, the repetitive focus on yellowed copies of New York Times headlines to mark the timeline of the couples’ pasts, and the Ivy Leaguers’ obsession with ceramic beer steins – which only become more noticeably bizarre the more they become directly involved in the scene-to-scene plot.  It’s all baffling in its distraction from the presupposed purpose of hardcore pornography, but it also all adds to the feeling that this is a personal, thoughtful, creative project for Douglas instead of a quick cash grab between writing his off-Broadway stage plays.

I’m fond of Both Ways despite all of its lopsided plotting and its confused representation of Normal male bisexuality.  Even after the domestic melodrama gives way to crime-thriller psychology, the movie still has an oddly light tone to it, present both in the generic funk-guitar background music and in the nosy investigations of a local antiques dealer who mistakes the husband’s sneaking around for living a double life as an undercover Commie spy.  It may not be the artistic pinnacle of Golden Age pornography, but it does function as a clear, standalone example of how porn from that era has unique cultural value as independent filmmaking.  If nothing else, it’s difficult to imagine any mainstream Hollywood studio dramas of that time depicting male bisexuality with so much candor (even if it is easy to imagine a Hollywood version of this film choosing to conclude with the exact same act of domestic violence).  I got the sense that the reason the Ask Any Buddy crew were less enthused about Both Ways in their much better-informed review is that Jerry Douglas had previously contributed to a much more accomplished bisexual porno as the writer of Radley Metzger’s Score, which makes this one suffer by comparison.  I cannot personally speak to that comparison, as I have not yet scored a copy of Score while killing time in second-hand media stores on vacation, but I also never expected to find Both Ways through that method either, so never say never.

-Brandon Ledet