Glowworm Zone

At the beginning, I struggled with the narration and odd editing, but out of the first act things really started to come together and I began to care about the story. The film starts at its dullest and gets steadily better as it continues, before reaching a moment of genius at its conclusion. Overall it's a good film, quiet and subtle but for the most part avoiding boredom. And again, perfect ending.

Date written: March 16, 2023

The feeling of belonging in a time you've never experienced can offer momentary comforts, sure, but it's far too easy for this feeling to turn regressive and violent. Because the past is violent. The past is a lifeless machine that continues to reek destruction on us, and taking solace in that past brings that destruction closer to home.

Christine is the past, and Arnie's desire for her is so strong, it becomes all-consuming. A symbol of nostalgia, ever-present in idealized, marketable depictions of the 50s, becomes an object of lust as well as a murder machine. The mechanical becomes the physical. Arnie is quietly distorted by it, growing more resentful and bitter as time goes on. He calls it love, all while describing how it's destroyed him and everything else in his life. And, you know, the funny car kills people. Truly, this film is something else.

Date written: February 2, 2023

I am certain that the avant-garde editing style of Death Racers, unappreciated in its time, will be cited as an inspiration by many a filmmaker of the 2030s. The extremely high contrast; color over-correction that switches from one scene to the next to the point where an entire car seems to change colors; the instant replays; the image distortion—all ahead of their time techniques that build a unique in-your-face atmosphere. That's not to mention the incredible story. The martyrdom of Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope is a clear Christ metaphor. The ending, where the lone survivor of the Death Race poses to the camera in the rubble, is a subversive artistic statement that left me speechless.

Date written: September 4, 2022

It's easy to interpret this film as being about masculinity. The radio show David listens to at the beginning features a man ashamed of being an effeminate house-husband. David himself was unable to defend his wife from harassment. It's easy to see the parallels as he is also unable to defend himself from the larger, more imposing truck, attempting in a way to prove his masculinity against it. If the truck is seen as a masculine symbol, then masculinity itself is the antagonist, an overwhelming force of destruction and violence.

I'm not the first to point this out by any means, and I'm not denying that those themes are present. But let's be honest: this is mostly a film about how cars are scary. Anyone who relies on cars for their daily transportation can tell you this. Every time you go on the road could be your last. You can't trust everyone operating a multi-ton death machine to be reasonable, and this film captures that. I find it funny that freight trains are featured so prominently, too. It's like a taunt. If the US had viable passenger rail none of this would have happened. But cars are inescapable and so David is out there fighting for his life.

Anyway, good movie. Intriguingly minimalist. The narration was goofy, but it had good pacing, good direction, and pretty good cinematography. A little campy. I enjoyed it.

Date written: June 26, 2023

I found The Fan to be poorly written. The pacing is odd, and for a thriller, it's practically suspenseless. The character of Douglas in particular is not well-constructed. He is a one-dimensional caricature of a stalker. He doesn't have enough depth to be understood, in whatever twisted way, but he also isn't unpredictable enough to at least be a slightly interesting stock-stalker. Even when he's committing violent acts, he just comes off as silly. Michael Biehn is hamming it up, but could he at least have hammed it up a little more while he was at it? Make things more entertaining? As is, I was bored.

Lauren Bacall's performance is the sole redeeming aspect of this otherwise mediocre film. She doesn't go over the top. She lends realism and humanity to the role, which could easily have been missing, since the writing itself is pretty stale. Lauren Bacall is a very good actress—I know, I know, big shocker—so this movie would definitely have been much less bearable without her.

Overall, this movie is just kind of uninteresting, but it's not terrible. Except... what the hell was that part about Douglas murdering a gay man and then lighting his corpse on fire and trying to pretend it was his own body and that he immolated himself? Which was never brought up again for the rest of the movie? Yeah, what the hell was that? That was really weird!

Rollerball sets itself up as a story of a lone individual struggling against a system that wants to put him down. The individual is star rollerball player Jonathan E, and the system is that of the corporate executives who now rule Houston and the entire world. Jonathan's success contradicts the purpose of their bloodsport, intended to show citizens the futility of individual effort. They want to force him into retirement, but he wants to keep skating around, throwing balls and knocking the opposing team unconscious (or worse).

Right away there are a few things wrong with that premise. Why do the corporate leaders, with full power over every person, thing, and piece of information, feel threatened by this guy? He isn't too bright, he isn't trying to take them down, he doesn't care about working with other people, he's just good at the sport they invented and he wants to keep playing it. He's a celebrity who's been winning at rollerball for a decade; if they didn't want him to succeed, or others to get ideas from his success, surely it's a little late for that? Also, the individualism thing annoys me—shouldn't they be more afraid of people working *together* against their oppressive government? But no, the executives decide Jonathan is the #1 threat, and if he insists on staying in the game, they have to change the rules to make it more likely to kill him.

I was so confused by the idea that Jonathan would somehow single-handedly take down the dystopian government by being good at a sport that I spent the whole movie waiting for a twist where he turned out to have played directly into their hands.

I thought the film was going there during the world championship game with no time limit. That rollerball match is at least more interesting than the first two; you can feel the dread of the teams as they enter the court, knowing they will die there. As bodies pile up, the crowd quiets, and eventually Jonathan is the lone survivor of his team. He kills another skater with his bare hands. The final survivor of the other team approaches him, and is quickly pinned to the floor.

Here it is, I thought. This show of brutality is exactly what they wanted from him all along! Except it isn't, and he doesn't even kill the last guy, or anybody else, he just gets up and scores a point like a dweeb. Everyone chants his name and Mr. Cartoonishly Evil Executive flees in terror. Well done, Jonathan. The corporate dystopia is clearly no match for your individualist swag.

Obviously this film is nonsensical and ridiculous, but I could overlook that if it was campy over-the-top fun. It isn't that either! It takes itself seriously and it's quite slow paced. It approaches some interesting ideas like corporate rule, information censorship and loss, environmental destruction (the tree exploding scene) and the commodification of women (who are "assigned" to celebrities and traded between executives like shiny objects). And of course, sports obsession. But none of these ideas are handled well or given enough space to say something interesting, not even sports obsession, because we only know the team. We see cheering crowds of rollerball fans, but what are their lives like? Why do they get such fulfillment out of this? We don't know, they're just a prop. So instead of adding to the film, this jumble of other ideas just drags it down and makes it feel even slower and more boring than it already is.

On the whole, I found this movie intensely frustrating, but it had some redeeming qualities. There were really great visuals and set design, a few standout scenes, and altogether decent entertainment value even with its many flaws. But everything it tried to do was done way better, trashier and more fun in Death Race 2000, so you should really just watch that instead.

Date written: July 25, 2023

Not cool! Okay, cool, but also not cool. Made me cry with silly jumpscares. Didn't help that I watched this alone at night in a new place with all the lights off.

The jumpscares especially frustrated me because I couldn't believe I was getting scared by things like faceless children and creepy tapes and distorted voices. I used to complain a lot about cliches like that in analog horror shorts and cited them as a reason why I couldn't enjoy the genre, yet here they are in a full length film, scaring me. I'm a little annoyed at myself and the film both for how upset I got. But hey, it did succeed at scaring me, and horror movies are allegedly supposed to do that, so good job.

I actually liked the style more than anything else. The abstractness, the unconventional structure, and the ominous shots of interior spaces were all pretty cool. Lots of neat visuals. And I meanm the house this was filmed in wasn't even that scary of a house so like imagine if it was a scarier suburban house (I've seen a lot of them) it would probably be a horrible masterpiece.

Unfortunately I can't love this... for every part that genuinely scared me there were parts that either had no effect or vaguely annoyed me. The whole thing took a while to really get going and though that's not a bad thing, I didn't think the payoff was worth all the meandering parts. Still, the vibe is there and I have to respect any film this mainstream that has this many extremely long shots of corners and ceilings. I need to get into structural films now.

Date written: October 23, 2023

I still don't fully know what to make of this movie. The way it parodies inspirational uplifting indie melodrama is hilarious, and so on-the-nose I almost wondered if it was being played straight. Unfortunately much of the writing fell flat for me. I just don't usually find gross-out comedy funny, even in this context.

Ultimately I thought there was not a good enough payoff to its interesting setup and the various turns it takes along the way. But when it works, it works. At any rate, this is admirably bizarre and I undoubtedly had fun watching it.

Date written: August 30, 2023

The protagonist of Victim, Melville Farr, is a gay man who has spent his entire life fighting this fact, and has attained a successful career as a barrister. His insistence on never "acting on it," as well as having a wife who he stays with at the end of the movie, would likely make him more acceptable to audiences of 1961. But I think to reduce his character to "acceptable" is doing this film a disservice. There's a bit more to him than that.

I think one scene in particular highlights the core of Farr's character. He's speaking to three of the blackmail victims, who ask him not to interfere; they would rather pay for security than risk legal consequence by giving away the blackmailer.

One asks, "Do you support the law?"

Farr replies: "I'm a lawyer." It's a non-answer, emphasizing his obligation to uphold the law regardless of whether it is just.

Another of the men immediately calls out the hypocrisy in this statement. "Do you ever hear from the Stainers, Farr? I was the old man's secretary, that's how I knew young Stainer killed himself. While you stayed alive, shrouded yourself in virtue, and married Judge Henkins' daughter. Like an alcoholic takes a cure." In response to this, Farr punches the man.

A moment later, he says, "I may share your instincts, but I've always resisted them." As if this makes him better than them. He lies to the world, fits into society, always stays in line, never sidesteps the law. He's a respected barrister, upholding the same laws that oppress him and those like him. Shrouding himself in virtue. And what does this get him? Respect from those who'd want him dead if they knew who he really was? Can he be happy in this life?

The answer, of course, is no. Farr comes off as well-adjusted, subdued, yet he's played with such underlying pain that you get the feeling he's bitter and miserable with his successful life. But choosing to live outside the law is something he's incapable of. He seeks justice for those who do, those who have been targeted not only by the law but now by the blackmailer. Even this is something he might not risk if it wasn't for his guilt.

Because it's personal: A man Farr cared for was as good as murdered by the blackmailer—driven to suicide after he was arrested for stealing to pay the demands. Barrett could have lived, if Farr hadn't refused to see him when he was looking for help. In one of the film's strongest scenes, Farr admits to his distraught wife he refused to see Barrett because he wanted him. And Farr's fear of that want was what led to Barrett's untimely death. He can't forgive himself for this, but he can at least fight to see that the blackmailer is brought down. Even though it means sacrificing his own career.

Gays in this film are victims, sent to unfortunate fates by oppressive laws and those who seek to profit off their fear and the existence of those laws. The film is outspoken in its condemnation of not only the blackmailer but the law. At some points it feels like more of a plea than a narrative (which I don't by any means fault it for). Its political and social significance make it an important film; it's also a good film. It's well-acted and tense, and worth a watch. It wouldn't work nearly as well narratively if it wasn't for Bogarde's incredible performance, which is what gives all the much-needed depth to Farr's character. It's never stated outright that he's unhappy with doing the "right thing"—his heterosexual life—but it's made abundantly clear, and that solidifies the message of the film further.

Date written: August 23, 2022 after I watched the movie on YouTube on an upload that was slightly stretched to the wrong aspect ratio