Blog

  • Berberian Sound Studio – Review

    Berberian Sound Studio – Review

    Something is rotten in the Berberian Sound Studio and maybe, just maybe, it’s you. Not since Ruby Sparks has a film made me seriously consider whether or not my artistic taste had more than a hint of misogyny to it. You see, I like horror – a lot – and my enjoyment of it is unique insomuch as the cruder it gets, the more I tend to enjoy it. Don’t get me wrong, I love smart and supremely crafted horror as well – which Berberian Sound Studio just happens to be – but I also like to see things slashed, impaled, and cut to buggery.

    And the Berberian Sound Studio is where the sound recordings of all those vicious acts are created. Italy 1976, and the studio is guts deep in the giallo era of Italian cinema; cheap, sleazy exploitation films pioneered by the likes of Dario Argento, Lucio Fulci and Mario Bava. The films of this particular subgenre of horror – often dubbed ‘video nasties’ and banned in the UK – were famous for their lurid subject matter, for running excessive with the red stuff, and for their unsettlingly discordant but evocative soundtracks. The film currently being made at this particular studio? A Santini picture, Il Vortice Equestre (The Equestrian Vortex) about catholic women being interrogated and brutalised after being suspected of witchcraft. Typical of giallo flicks, it’s fit to bursting with women being slashed, impaled and cut to buggery.

    Enter Gilderoy, a quiet, reserved sound engineer from England, played to absolute perfection by Toby Jones. It’s Gilderoy’s job to engineer the splats, the rips and the tears, and to mix the screams and moans into horrific psychotropic frenzies. He’s not done this sort of thing before and before the film ends, he – and we – are forced to ask ourselves, what is it about the suffering that appeals to us? Why were there over two decades of these films? Many things are cut up and torn apart in the making of Il Vortice Equestre; cabbages, cherries, watermelons etc. and they’re all supposed to be women.

    The wisest move director Peter Strickland makes is not to show any footage of the film within the film, save for the title credits; a jarring mashup of red, split open faces, red, screaming eyes, skulls and gothic architecture, and red. What denying us the actual film footage itself does is force us to use our imagination. When we see Gilderoy’s face distort in aggression when cutting up a cabbage with the ferocity required to match up with the action onscreen – which only he can see, not us – all we can ask ourself is “what’s being done to her?” The sounds are sickening, the aggression to which Gilderoy resorts sickens him, and I really have to ask myself: why do I like this stuff again? By enjoying these crude flicks am I in some way complicit with all this butchery? It’s a fascinating question.

    The director, Santini, dismiss the idea that his films are exploitative. Beneath a baby smile, he purrs, they are not horror films. They are “Santini films”, brutal depictions of the human condition. “I hate what they did to these beautiful women. Really, I hate it. But it is my duty to show.” Well, Strickland cries bullshit on that particular excuse for excessive gore by depicting none of Il Vortice Equestre, demonstrating that one doesn’t need to actually show the slashings, impaling and cutting to buggery in order to depict the cruelty of such deeds. So, again, if they’re gratuitous, why exactly do we feel we need them? Why do we feel that a horror film wouldn’t be complete without them?

    The violence and misogyny of Il Vortice Equestre is tucked away into little boxes of sounds effect cues on technical spreadsheets, cues like ‘Hair yanking(Hard)’, ‘Monica falls’, ‘Monica hits the ground’. In the studio, another melon splats to the ground. There is something unsettling and devilish in the professionalisation of the horror. Every man of the crew is simply showing up to work, co-operating, doing a job, and engineering cruelty towards women. Actresses are locked in a sound booth and told to scream behind glass. The lead actress, Silvia is abused physically and mentally by the all-male crew. After all, her pain is what makes her screams the best.

    As Strickland bombards us with revolting images of the rot under the skin of the fruit and vegetable props, so too we come to see the corruption and violence boiling beneath skin of the men. The producer, Francesco stalks Gilderoy and the more vulnerable actresses like a tyrant, the crew appear almost zombified, totally unmoved by the horror around them, and the vampiric director Santini, slowly poisons everyone around him. The Italian men are simply – perhaps a little too simply – predators. It can hardly be an accident that the studio is a mere pair of letters away from being called the Barbarian Sound Studio.

    Amidst all the Mediterranean passion, Gilderoy quickly fades into the background, his politeness a weakness too readily exploited by his coworkers. In fact, the only time that Gilderoy is able to hold his co-worker’s interest is when, during a power cut, he creates the sound effect of a spaceship for them in the darkness, using only a lightbulb and a rack of metal. It’s a soft moment of sweet near-music, a gentle glimpse into Gilderoy’s past life and work; a charming, spellbindingly simple, and typically British piece sci-fi trickery, straight out of Doctor Who. Then the power returns and everyone gets back to their gruesome work.

    More used to working on charming documentaries in his garden shed, all this grotesquery naturally unsettles Gilderoy, but his squeamishness when faced with all the bloodletting is seen as English weakness. “You English. Always hiding” purrs the director. They correct his etiquette, tell him the only way to get things done is to become aggressive like them. Santini places a piece of fruit in his mouth to bring out his hedonistic side, saying “ah-ah. Where I come from, we swallow the seeds.” It’s an insidious form of assault disguised as improvement and, not unlike the calm manipulation of vegetables and actresses by the suited men, it’s savagery masquerading as a professional code of practice.

    This has turned into more of an essay than a review, but that’s only because there’s so much to say about the film themes that I almost forgot about the technicalities. It’s simply one of the most effective chillers I’ve seen in years, seamlessly held together by a cocktail of rock-solid performances and hypnotic – almost hallucinogenic – direction. This is only Strickland’s second feature, but he is so assured of his craft, so subtly capable in nudging and twisting mundane imagery into something with a much deeper sense of menace, that he seems bound to be one of the most interesting directors of his generation.

    In a film about sound engineers, it’s hardly a surprise that Berberian Sound Studio‘s own sound design is faultless. Very little, if any, non-diegetic music can be heard at any point. Instead, the slow distortion of the sound effects themselves substitutes for progression between chapters, discordant howls stitching scenes together in a slow procession, creating a numb sense of time passing at a disorientating, creeping pace. Everything starts to blend in on itself. We see nothing of the outside world, nor natural light. Gilderoy lives on the premises and is our sole vantage point, so, like him, we spend the entire film locked away, deep in the claustrophobic studio. It’s like solitary confinement. Time is passing, that we know, but days? Weeks? Months? And meanwhile, between chapters, screams are blending together, and the red light of the studio flashes at us angrily, oppressively, for SILENZIO.

    It’s masterful storytelling, managing to be compelling despite the slightness of the plot, deliberate without ever boring its audience, and horrifying without gratuitously indulging in the very excesses of the genre that the film attacks without mercy. Which makes it a shame that Berberian Sound Studio just doesn’t quite nail the landing.

    In the third act the film descends, as these things so often do, into madness and the walls of reality come crashing down around Gilderoy’s ears. Dreams bleed into reality, frantic editing chops his peaceful world apart with horror-style zooms, film burns and spikes of audio. The film seems to envelop Gilderoy whole. His dialogue becomes inexplicably dubbed over in italian, and he starts to see snippets of his own life up there on the screen.

    As the ending to a character piece I suppose this is a satisfying enough arc, Gilderoy slipping from naïve, via aggression, into almost zombified insanity, but from a narrative standpoint, well, it’s just too easy. What about Gilderoy’s apparently non-existent flights? What about his mother back home? Is Gilderoy actually in Hell? Rather than attempting to tie up these various narrative strands, Strickland simply jumbles them up into an incoherent mess of editing and imagery and heads for the exit. It’s a beautiful mess no doubt, but an ultimately frustrating one, leaving the audience in awe – haunted even – but still numb with confusion. But maybe becoming numb is the only way survive in the Berberian Sound Studio. You don’t have to be mad to work there, but it helps.

  • Oscar-Winning Road Movies To Drive Your Entertainment

    Oscar-Winning Road Movies To Drive Your Entertainment

    Autos and films go together like cinemas and popcorn. So, with the Oscars season upon us, here are five Academy Award-winning road movies worth stopping off for.

    Little Miss Sunshine (2006). A dysfunctional family takes an incident-packed camper-van drive from New Mexico to California where its youngest member competes in a pre-teen beauty pageant. As the grizzled, drug-abusing grandpa in the back seat, Alan Arkin scooped the best supporting actor award; this bitter-sweet black comedy also won the Oscar for best original screenplay.

    Thelma & Louise (1991). When a waitress shoots dead the man raping her housewife friend, the two women flee in their ancient convertible across a beautifully-shot America. Barreling towards the Mexico border, with the cops in hot pursuit, Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon’s characters achieve a state of liberation neither has known before. T&L won not just the Oscar for best original screenplay, but also critical acclaim for its feminist overtones.

    Bonnie and Clyde (1967). In Great Depression-era America, Clyde Barrow meets Bonnie Parker when he tries to steal her mother’s car. A lethal chemistry ignites, sending the two on a spree of ever-more violent bank robberies. Sex symbols Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway play the leads in this icon of 60s counter-culture. But the Oscars went to supporting actress Estelle Parsons – as Clyde’s sister-in-law, a preacher’s daughter turned reluctant fugitive – and the movie’s dynamic cinematography.

    It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). A car chase and crash starts this crazy, star-packed caper. With his last words, a dying gangster tells the posse of befuddled motorists who’ve stopped to help about a stash of loot buried beneath a beach. Cue a marathon race for the booty, involving everything from family cars and roadsters, to pick-up tracks, yellow taxis and a World War I biplane. In a year when major awards went to weighty dramas, IAMMMW only won gold for best sound editing. But it’s still a hilarious ride.

    It Happened One Night (1934). Hollywood’s original comedy road movie was also the first film to win all of the ‘Big Five’ Academy Awards – for best picture, director, actor, actress and screenplay. Helmed by Frank Capra, it has Claudette Colbert’s pampered socialite desperate to escape her father’s control and falling in love with Clark Gable’s roguish reporter. For its day, this smash hit was super-sexy – to secure the couple a ride, the hitchhiking heroine lifts her skirt and reveals a shapely thigh to an oncoming driver; while it’s reported that Gable’s bare-chested bedroom scene sent sales of undershirts plummeting.

  • 247F

    247F

    Can you take the heat?

    Another horror film based on true events, but how much is really true and what has inevitably been created for our entertainment. With no monsters, no serial killer, no masked madman…could it really be death by sauna?

    Opening with a car crash and a girl who we later realise is Jenna (Scout Taylor-Compton), screaming trapped in a car, we skip forward 3 years a group of the usual twenty something’s Jenna included are heading to a remote island for the weekend visiting Ian’s uncle Wade (Tyler Mane). Jenna still haunted by the events of her past is struggling with moving on with her life, could this be the relaxing break she needs to put her life in perspective.

    Of course the group find the sauna, drink and relax, Michael (Michael Copon) who is suitably drunk leaves for the toilet and unknowingly locks his unsuspecting friends in as a ladder blocks the door. With temperatures rising tempers also fly as Jenna, Renee (Christina Ulloa) and Ian (Travis Van Winkle) fight to survive. Breaking the sauna window to let some cool air in they take turns by the door breathing in what little air they can. Jenna thinks if they break the temperature gage inside the sauna it might stop the heat rising, of course unwilling to listen to Ian she breaks the thermostat causing the heat to steadily rocket without it and with the window broken the heat will continue to rise and will not reach the temperature they originally set but surpass it causing heatstroke and almost certainly death if they are not found.

    There is a moment when you think the three friends will be found as Beau barks and barks outside the sauna but Wade and a friend are letting off fireworks and thinking these are what spooked the dog they ignore it. the pair then bump into Michael who has been passed out from alcohol and drugs thinking his friends have gone to the party without him, he does not go looking for them.

    Jenna is the character you empathise towards did she really want to be dragged away for the weekend with activities that involve inclosed spaces? Renee who’s sole purpose throughout the film is to shout Michael repeatedly to no avail is the least favourable character, why did Michael not ever go to check on his friends? Ian is the stand out hero of the story the real knight in shining armour willing to risk everything to be rescued. Will the friends be found in time and survive the ever increasing heat.

    More a claustrophobic survival film than a horror, a simple concept turned into a terrifying reality likely to bring fear to us all.

    Next time you use the sauna double check the door opens, I know I will.

  • Some Thoughts After Viewing Steven Hinde’s ‘Love On The Airwaves’

    Some Thoughts After Viewing Steven Hinde’s ‘Love On The Airwaves’

    “A woman’s voice on the radio can convince you you’re in love
    A woman’s voice on the radio can convince you you’re alone”
    Some Thoughts After Viewing Steven Hinde’s Love on the Airwaves
    By Pablo D’Stair

    To get it out the way in front, least my below riffing be wrongly colored with some kind of aggressive tint: I dug this little film, really enjoyed it. I liked the way it was photographed, paced, performed. Really nice little piece.

    My thoughts, surrounding my viewing (or in fairness, my thoughts in a time close after viewing) got caught in a kind of roundabout loop, considerations on the short-form in the written-word and filmed medium.  And also they snagged in some version of that age old and somewhat sophomoric rhetorical of wondering what the primary difference is between filmed-medium and written-word, some version of ‘Does film rob the imaginative, interactive aspect of art from audience?’

    Of course, in principle, it does not—this is a subjective sort of question, a Socratic impetus for a conversation the conversation is the purpose of, the conclusions moot and dull.

    Yet, in specific instances (to be truthful) I do feel film can be a pacifier, a delivery method only, a stimulus that is not enlivened one way or another by action back toward it from those regarding it.

    This film, Steven Hinde’s film: what is it?

    See, as a short-story, were this a page, two page prose riff, I’d find more to it, more grounding, more of myself to bring.  As a short-film, though, I feel I am listening to somebody else’s take on something, wholly (in this case, someone else’s quaint joke, their light remark on a quasi-subject) anything I might be called on as audience, as thinking-entity, to bring of myself kind of made ill-belonging.

    Were these words on a page, this scenario played out quick and simple, I would feel called on to supply something—atmosphere, description of face, of tone, pacing of delivery, to think of it either in abstacto or (I lack the Latin for this) in specifico, at my discretion. Would I, for example, even were I told in a prose-piece it was an older cab driver, paint the driver as he is depicted in the excellent (really, I dug it very very much, would have watched it for hours straight, just his face in this dark cab) performance by Max Cullen? Would I envision the assaults to the driver form the electronics exaggeratedly (would I give them physicality at all)? Would I flesh the world or leave it bare stage? Would I give the gadgets ‘gadget voices’ (whether the written word told me so or no) or would I give them human voices, tonalities, personalities? Would I make them both at once? Etc etc.?

    I find myself thinking all this because (I do honestly feel) that beyond the quick joke of the film (dark and/or poignant as it may be) there is something more to the idea of it, some germ in it that is causing this flare up of fever thinking—but having had all of above queries (and more) supplied by director and performer, I feel that bringing an “analysis” to the ideas on display (if the ideas I feel could be there, are) really ridiculous, like it would be belaboring something, going on too much about an idea that only may or may ‘belong to the film’.

    The film, everything presented to me as complete, leaves my mind (personally) sure with some questions about technology, kind of, or about the intersection of intimacy with progress blah blah blah. None of which do I think the film, as a film, is concerned with. I am concerned with them—thus, were it short prose, I would supply them along with everything else (as discussed above) and the fusion, the commingling of it all would be my experience. It would be about me.

    Taken as just shy of five minutes of cinema, I am timid to do anything other than say ‘That’s there. Cool. Good work.’ Because, really, I wonder what there is for me, as audience, and what, if anything, the folks who produced the thing intended me to bring.

    Written word actively requires audience to bring—no matter the pedigree of it, from fluff to pulp to high-art to self-indulgent blather (to wit: imagine the difference between reading my—yes, highly self-indulgent—remarks here, you having to supply a voice for me, a face, an attitude, versus seeing me speak in to a web cam or something, a ‘more fully rendered me’ there for you to regard and to consider my motives and attitudes from) while cinema only sometimes requires anything of an audience.

    Truly, cinema at its best equals literature at its best, but other gradations are harder (for me, anyway) to get a finger on. Is the shoddiest novel, in principle, more ‘solid’ than the shoddiest film and (most interestingly to me) are films and written pieces not particularly remarkable in-and-of-themselves equal to each other in that unremarkability, is it the same thing one is ‘unremarking’ just because it doesn’t stir particularly engaged response?

    Obviously, I tend to think not. And from this, there is a peculiar emptiness to me as a ‘creative audience’ (to borrow a phrase)—if a film does not require me…what then? I watch Love on the Airwaves and I like it. And I can say ‘I like it’ (or click a button indicating that I do) but to go much further…seems to be going a lot further.

    I enjoy every component piece of this film and enjoy the whole, as well—yet the component pieces, removed and held individually, I like much more: the words (script) the actor’s performance, the color palate etc..  I can extricate the one from the other, remark on them—but something in knowing the one doesn’t exist without the other makes this feel (to me) like whistling in the dark.

    Because (and I’ll end with this) being given specifics to react to does not, in itself, diminish something. Some things, indeed, can only be filmed. Which might be where my whole unsettledness lies.  I find myself wondering: Doesn’t a filmmaker, intrinsically, have the desire to present things that could only, only be presented as film—as doesn’t a painter, a sculptor, a writer—doesn’t an artist, principia, want to express in one way some thing, some specific thing, that can only be expressed that way?

    The above film, which I very much like, runs about five minutes and seems to contain about five minutes, specifically, nothing for audience to add.  Nothing wrong with that. But just to leave a juxtaposition for enduring my rambling, I include the below—a short film running forty-five seconds, about as simple as can be, which (to me) contains an eternity, and one that could not be expressed at all except as Cinema and its components made irrevocably one.

  • I, SUPERBIKER: THE DAY OF RECKONING

    I, SUPERBIKER: THE DAY OF RECKONING

    Narrated by F1 broadcast legend Murray Walker OBE, I, SUPERBIKER: THE DAY OF RECKONING is the electrifying sequel to 2012’s ground-breaking, critically acclaimed I, SUPERBIKER: THE SHOWDOWN.

    The British Superbike Championships are the largest single spectator sport in the UK. I, SUPERBIKER… is the high-octane wheel to wheel following of the 2012 British Superbike season, culminating in the sport’s closest final heat in its history, leaving just six riders competing for the prestigious title in a dramatic showdown.

    Writer, producer and director Mark Sloper said, “I wanted to capture the emotion and passion of motorcycle racing and the drama of the new showdown format. This is a classic motorcycle racing film, set in the 2012 season but a timeless story that will stay fresh for years to come. I also wanted it to appeal to people outside the motorcycle industry and the fan-base and I truly believe it will change outsiders’ perceptions of motorcycling.”

    Capturing the on-track action in stunning 2K digital photography, as well as exploring deep into the commitment, psyche & lives of the riders, the film also goes behind the scenes to reveal the unfolding drama through the eyes of the wives, girlfriends, team-mates and managers of the competitors.

    Tommy Hill, the current British Superbike Champion who spectacularly won the 2011 title by one sixtieth of a second, is determined to prove himself the champion once more.

    With a pregnant fiancée in the wings, will his nerve hold in such treacherous riding conditions? Tommy commented: “Only one man can be the winner. British Superbikes is motorcycle racing at its very best and the film captures that brilliantly. It’s amazing to see BSB on the cinema screen. It’s a massive sport with a great following – now hopefully people who don’t know it that well can see what an incredible event it is.”