Blog

The Bloody Judge is an historical horror / drama, in the Witchfinder General style, that was directed by prolific hack/auteur/pornographer [delete according to taste] Jess Franco.  It was first released in Italy in February 1970 under the title ‘Il Trono di fuoco’, the first of many such retitlings as the film made its way around Europe; however, The Bloody Judge was Franco’s preferred title.  His least favourite title, incidentally, was ‘Night of the Blood Monster’ a ludicrous and nonsensical title bestowed upon the film by our unscrupulous American cousins.

The film stars Christopher Lee as Judge George Jeffreys, a Welsh lawyer of the 17^th century who rose to the position of Lord Chancellor under King James II.  When a Protestant rebellion against the Catholic King James was quashed in 1685, Jeffreys was tasked with conducting the trials of captured rebels, with the instruction to be as severe as possible.  Some 300 rebels were executed and the rest deported and it is for this reason that Jeffreys acquired his infamy.

It’s against this backdrop that the film’s events take place.  Harry Selton, son of the Earl of Wessex (a bewigged and, frankly, slumming it Leo Genn) is one of the rebels plotting against the King; on the side, he is in love with Mary Gray (Maria Rohm – Franco regular and, probably not coincidentally, wife of producer / sleaze impresario Harry Alan Towers) whose sister Alicia (Margaret Lee) is being persecuted by the Bloody Judge himself, who when not executing treasonous Protestants indulges in a spot of witchfinding.

Harry (Selton, not Towers) is eventually captured and imprisoned at Taunton, which evidently looks a lot like rural Portugal given Franco’s decision to shoot there.  The Earl of Wessex attempts to intercede on his son’s behalf but is cruelly rebuffed by the merciless judge who then receives a much more appealing offer from Mary who is prepared to do whatever it takes to secure her lover’s freedom.

Into this heady brew are tossed a blind sorceress (Maria Schell, who must be wondering how she went from Visconti to Franco in little more than 10 years), a hooded torture-master (Howard Vernon) and battle scenes involving cannons and cavalry.  On top of that you get lashings of torture and soft porn – you know, the kind that Christopher Lee swears he knew nothing about – which is, let’s face it, what most of us are sitting through a Franco movie to see.

I have to say though that, as Franco movies go, it’s not half bad.  Apparently he had a decent budget on this production and used it to good effect securing a far better cast than he usually got, with the consequence that the amateurish feel of a lot of Franco’s efforts is absent here.  It looks good too; okay, the locations don’t look much like the west of England but the buildings themselves are authentic and even if the film is exploitation rather than history it is at the very least plausible.

On the DVD are a 25-minute interview with Franco and Lee (separately) who, despite Lee’s attempts to distance himself from his horror past, seem to have got on pretty well.  There are also some deleted / alternate scenes one of which carries the notice that it was sourced from a VHS bootleg tape.  Watching that scene was a nostalgic reminder of the lengths you had to go to in pre-internet days to see this sort of film and the generally poor quality you experienced if you managed to find them.  So if, like me, you’re of an age that had to suffer third-generation dupes back in the day you’ll want to see some of Jess Franco’s movies again, and this time on a quality DVD like this one.

Another great video review from the gorgeous Leah Brighteyeslonglashes Hather.  This time Stallone in Bullet To The Head.

I have yet to see the new Les Misérables film, mainly because my friend described it as “so long and they NEVER STOP SINGING” (I’ll try to get her to write a guest review). I have, however, just seen another film dedicated to exploring the harrowing existence of the poor and of women in historical Paris, without making a song and dance about it.

Gervaise was released in 1956 to a slew of awards; an adaptation of Émile Zola’s 1877 novel L’Assommoir. It follows the life of laundress Gervaise (Maria Schnell) as she tries to throw off the chains of poverty, a sexist society and selfish men. The film opens with her adulterous partner Lantier (Armand Mestral) abandoning her and their two sons for another woman. Gervaise is soon married to illiterate roofer Henri Coupeau (François Périer), described as a “kind man” who is not deterred by her existing children and past lovers. Gervaise’s humble dream is to open her own laundry shop, and through years of hard work, she and Coupeau finally raise the money to rent a building. However, tragedy strikes and Coupeau is left bed-bound for months, eating into all their savings and trapping him in the grip of alcoholism. Gervaise’s future then stumbles steadily, inexorably, downhill.

In 1956, this film would have been quite progressive for its time, and even more so the 1877 novel. It tragically portrays the struggles of decent, hard-working women in the face of a cruel patriarchal, conservative society, and the struggle of those living in poverty to find a way out whilst maintaining their pride and integrity.

Although Gervaise is determined and industrious, she is trapped by the necessity of having a man in a patriarchal world, no matter how disappointing that man may be. She narrates of how selfish Lantier took her when she was 15, gave her two children then left; to avoid destitution and social exclusion, she then marries Coupeau, who ends up drinking away her money and her business, and drinking himself into an early grave.

The most striking display of the tragedy of mid-19^th Century woman’s dependence on men comes at the crux of the movie. Gervaise has the money to rent her laundry shop, but the law requires her husband’s signature (despite Coupeau’s illiteracy leaving his signature as no more than a scrawled “X”). As he gets up from his roofing job to sign the form, he trips and falls: it is this that leaves him bed-bound, and in turn leads him to alcoholism and despair. Had Gervaise been able to rent the room on her own, the heartbreaking events of the second half of the film might never have happened.

This film is more complex than a simple “women are good, men are evil” narrative, however, and I wouldn’t want to give that impression. This is more a tale of the structural evils of patriarchy, of labour laws, and of poverty than it is of individual deeds. Coupeau and Lantier may essentially ruin Gervaise’s life, but Coupeau at least cuts a pitiable figure. He begins a good man, but because of expensive medical bills, his illiteracy and male pride, falls into despair. There is one purely “good” man in the film: Goujet (Jacques Harden), a quiet, honest blacksmith who loves Gervaise, but is put into jail for striking at the one time he could have saved her. Equally, women are not all portrayed in a positive light, with deceitful Virginie (Suzy Delair) causing much of Gervaise’s anguish.

It is this complexity and realism in Gervaise that makes it such a compelling watch. There are no simplistic heroes and heroines and no happy ending. It is a sad tale, but a powerful one, and a poignant reminder of how far society has come, yet how far it has to go.

By Laura Owen.

Peter Jackson’s highly awaited follow up from the Lord of the Rings success packed Cinema’s in keen anticipation of a film to rival the mania of his previous Middle Earth adventures.

Having a strong presence of British actors the film was certainly a hit on the big screen at the local Cinema. Martin Freeman, better known for his stints in The Office and Sherlock and on the big screen in Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy, takes on Bilbo Baggins and creates a rather interesting take on a much loved literary character.

Doubtful at first appearance, he seems stiff and a little awkward. But given time and a few scenes Freeman creates Bilbo on a multi faceted level and it just becomes another quirk of the wily Hobbit. Along the way Freeman does a spectacular job of portraying Bilbo. He makes him reluctant, funny, nervous and courageous in all the right places and drops his brilliant speeches in just as casually.

Bilbo rather reluctantly at first goes off on an adventure simply to live up to his ancestor’s reputation as a Took. Joining forces with a gaggle of Dwarves and Gandalf, reprised of course by Ian Mckellen, to reclaim the Dwarves home from a dragon, Smaug.

A brilliantly entertaining invasion by the Dwarven team on Bilbo’s quint little hobbit hole gives the audience a good laugh and brightens up the scenery for a short while. Their antics and Bilbo’s appalled reaction get’s the laughter going, giving some light hearted bonding for a group that’s going to go through Hell shortly.

Prince Thorin a solemn and broody figure is the only doubter in the company. Richard Armitage, better known for his role in Robin Hood, plays the Dwarf wonderfully. Full of skepticism and outright distain he doesn’t do anything to make Bilbo feel welcome, in fact he rather bluntly lets him know he thinks he’ll be dragon food pretty shortly. He continues to be suspicious of Bilbo’s motives, not accepting him fully until he rather selflessly rescues the Prince and shows other forms of loyalty to the group. A rather inspiring speech about Bag End, Home and helping the Dwarves reclaim their own helps ease some tension. Perhaps helping rescue the Dwarves from hungry Trolls also helped his acceptance along with the other’s of the group despite their Prince’s distrust.

The meeting between Bilbo and Gollum is something that every diehard waited for. The scene was flawless and the transition of the ring something everyone could anticipate with bated breath.

“Bilbo: Why don’t we have a game of riddles and if I win, you show me the way out of here?
Gollum: And if he loses? What then? Well if he loses precious then we eats it! If Baggins loses we eats it whole!
Bilbo: Fair enough.”
— The Hobbit

The scene builds going from fright to funny to worrying and nail biting anticipation flawlessly. Gollum the schizophrenic and his transitions from Precious to Gollum and back again are enough to build an atmosphere of anticipation, but cast together with Freeman’s perfect reactions and timing it makes it into something worthy of the franchise. People who have adored the books can take this scene and mark it as one of the defining moments in the history of the Ring and of Middle Earth and find it completely satisfactory to expectations.

The relationship between the Dwarves and the Elves is explained in more detail and the reasons for the feud come to light along the way, a story told in flashback that makes Thorin seem far more understandable and gives a new dimension to the tale of the Dwarves struggles without the aid from the other species of Middle Earth. We get more insight into the past of Middle Earth expanding on many of the facets hinted at in the LOTR films.

Voiced by Freeman’s cast mate from Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch, Smaug the Dragon is a dark cloud hovering over the adventure. Despite the hilarity and bonding of being captured by Trolls, the struggle of being again captured by Orks and a multitude of other shenanigans. What we’re truly waiting for is the final battle, the fight to take back the Mountain.

Highly disappointing however the Dragon does not make much of an appearance in the film, considering it is based entirely on the story of how a Dragon took over a Dwarven city and killed off many of their numbers to do so and they have suffered long years trying to survive now they have no home.

It seems rather bizarre that the main Antagonist of the film did not make more than peripheral appearances, in flash back form as the Dwarves told their history to persuade Bilbo to aid them.

However by the number of groans and cries of indignation I was not the only person in the cinema stunned by the credits rolling up. Peter Jackson has created another Trilogy and we’ll just have to wait for that action.

Despite the lack of closure I’d give the Hobbit a look. It’s funny, entertaining and in places touching. The acting was believable, the script another masterpiece by a master of the genre, and the cinematography again another golden achievement for Jackson who delights in manipulating the New Zealand beauty to stunning results.