Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1982. Show all posts

Sunday, September 25, 2016

year 5 day 176 (night bleeds Sept)

movie: Dark Crystal
starring: Barry Dennen, Joseph O'Conor
genre: Fantasy, Sci-fi, Adventure,
year: 1982
format: DVD

plot: Being told he is the only one left of his kind, Jen is given a quest to make the great crystal whole again. He is given the missing piece of the crystal, and instructed to save the worlds in which the crystal controls. Along the way, he meets Kira; who has also been told she is the last of her kind. The two, Gelflings, then find themselves on a journey against time, as each member of the races of both the Mystics and the Skeksis are dying. The Skeksis who currently own the crystal, are unwilling to see it repaired, as it would mean they will die out completely. They have for the last few hundred years been able to cheat death by draining and drinking the lifeforce of other creatures.

This whole movie is about duality of life. Light and dark, male and female, positive and negative, and how it all balances each other out.  When the one race splits into two; the Skeksis become the more physical representations of "human nature" while the Mystics become the more enlightened representations.

I like the little addition of the "drained creatures" becoming zombies and aging rapidly once they have been juiced for their life energy. Shows once again the direct link between the vampire genre and the zombie genre.  They become the slaves to the Skeksis, in a way very similar to Renfield in Dracula. Completely under the spell of the ones who drained them.
I've always said this isn't a kids movie. From the vampires to the witch to the young lovers, this really is something heavier, something darker than a kid's movie.  The fact too that the creatures look like vultures (animals that represent death/rebirth/new way to view things)  and sloths (the need of a different perspective/the way will be slow but you will reach your destination/psychic insight) adds an undertone that makes you think if these were picked for those reasons? I like the touch of the idea that the Skeksis have to sit in the "light of the sun as it is prismed through the dark piece of the crystal" hinting at it as if it were moonlight. (another toss back to vampiric folklore)

You also have this coming of age story. The character of Jen is sent out into the world alone, to deal with very adult issues when his "parent" dies. He discovers girls and violence, and revenge.  The "grandmother" figure of Aughra, is a psychic/hoodoo/hedge witch; who puts him on the right path in his "crossroads".
There is also the fact that the female Kira, is drained almost to the point of death, then does die having sacrificed herself, only to be brought back to life once the crystal has restored everyone else. You could look at it as her being "turned" by the vampiric energy. It's the sacrifice that makes the point that to enjoy life, you have to know when to let go. (birth/death/rebirth)

what do I think I learned? I'm an adult and I still get creeped out by the one character's "hhmmmmm". Will haunt my nightmares for a few days trust me.


Okay, so this month, I decided to do something bit different, I gave you the movie, which was Dark Crystal, and told you to pair it up with a vampire book, expressing the combo of it. Think of it as a mid-term test. I want to see how good you my lovely Spudguns! have gotten with finding the vampires in things.

My personal choice for the book half of the combo is ...Sweet Blood by Pat Graversen (1992).

plot: Adragon and his mother Elsbeth are never seen apart. They look alike, act alike and have spent almost every moment of his seventeen years together. That is until the night Elsbeth gets invited to the Society of Vampires. They want her to write a novel about them, and their secrets. Adragon accompanies her to the strange private party, where he meets Del. A twenty-six year old woman who he quickly falls for. Against his mother's wishes, he begins an affair with Del. After their first night together, she informs him that what he saw at the party was real, and that she is a vampire. Refusing to believe her, Adragon begins to fall deeper under her spell, choosing his new lover over his mother. Before long, Del lets him feed off of her own blood, awakening the vampire side of him. Adragon discovers that for one to become a vampire, one has to have already been one in a past life or at the very lest, one parent must currently be one. To his horror, he finds out both to be his fate. He learns his mother Elsbeth is in fact a vampire, and that they have both lived many lifetimes as such. When he confronts Elsbeth, she confirms this; letting him know they are one in the same. They share a soul, and have been punished in this reincarnation to be only parent and child, and not lovers. This truth begins a downward spiral for Adragon, as he begins to deal with his new life and new choice of who to trust, and who to love.


My "combo connection" was the idea of soulmates and duality and how one can't exist without the other. As we see in the movie, how the creatures of the Skeksis and the Mystics are each soulmated to each other, unable to move on to the next incarnation without the other (originally one being who was split when the crystal cracked), and how the Gelflings can share psychic/telepathic connections. And of course, the taking of "life essence" (souls in the movie via liquified sweat like, and blood in the book) in traditional vampire fashion.

I found it a little ironic that one of the sub-themes in this novel, is that of the "vampire pretending to be human pretending to be vampire -author" which became a strange sub-genre in the 1990s in vampire fiction.

Not only does this novel jump into the idea of what a real soulmate is, it's main theme is addiction. We have the character of Adragon, who becomes addicted to the vampire blood of his lover, Del. He's seventeen, with the temperament of someone who is used to getting their own way. Though the character doesn't start off that way, it only shows itself after he starts the affair. He's also, in his own innocence, experiencing the emotions of that first real love. The two elements begin to counteract each other, making the character a violent greedy one. (much like the character of Chamberlain in the Dark Crystal) He becomes possessive of her, but at the same time disgusted with the situation. He flounders back and forth between wanting to be with his girlfriend Del, and wanting to be with his mother. And then he begins fighting the instinctual desire to be with his soulmate on a sexual level. This brings up a whole new set of insecurities within the character and becomes a new undertone to the story. (I've said it before you can't escape the theme of incest within the vampire or werewolf genres. Whether it's on purpose or not it's always there.) 

Just like in the movie, we have the character of the "girlfriend" being the teacher to the young male hero. Who's real history has been kept from him.

In another ironic twist, both the movie selection and book I picked this month, has a "society lead by an ancient vampire".  In the case of the book, we have the character of Raymond, who has lived in the same "body" without dying for centuries. He's reluctant to let go of his physical life to restart the next phase, because he is alone; without a soulmate of his own. It's only when a willing sacrifice by one of the main characters is offered, does he accept his fate.

I think that is the big theme here that you can say truly runs through both stories. Knowing when you have to give up the thing you are clinging to most, and face the big fear.

And I will stop there for today. October's selections are Salem's Lot (book) and Fright Night (1985) but I will be back later in the week with the official post for it.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

year 5 day 143

movie: Victor/Victoria
starring: Julie Andrews, Robert Preston
genre: Comedy, Musical
year: 1982
format: Hollywood Suites Channel

plot: A woman down on her luck pretends to be a female impersonator in the 1930's

Remake of the 1933 movie and of the 1935 First a Girl.

The lead character, Victoria, falls in love with a man, but in order to keep her identity safe, she continues to live her public life as her alter ego Victor, which begins to take it's toll on her boyfriend. Shortly there after, the boyfriend's bodyguard informs him he's gay, making the boyfriend; who's a mobster, feel uncomfortable.  This then causes some issues for the mobster boyfriend with his business partners forcing Victoria's hand to revealing her true identity. 

The whole movie is about public perception. How we present ourselves, be it for gain or survival in society. The story takes place at a time when a woman having a job outside the home was still considered unnecessary to begin with, add to it the fact she's an entertainer, surrounded by openly gay men, and you've got a lot of prejudice to deal with.  There are a few scenes in the beginning of the movie, where we see our lead character so desperate, she nearly sleeps with her landlord because she's broke and hasn't eaten in days, and a scene where she's planning to con her way out of a restaurant bill.

I find it ironic that the same year Dustin Hoffman stared in Tootise, as a man who pretends to be a woman to get a job.  As well, the line "a woman pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman" would be mirrored a decade later in Interview with the Vampire "vampires pretending to be humans pretending to be vampires, how avant garde"

what did I learn? It's always going to be about the meatballs.

Friday, May 20, 2016

year 5 day 141

movie: Conan the Barbarian
starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Earl Jones
genre:Sci-fi, Adventure
year: 1982
format: Netflix Canada

plot: After witnessing his entire village slaughtered, a slave sets off to get revenge on the man who's responsible.

Based on the novels/stories of Robert E. Howard

So this is the character/serial that all sword and sorcery branch from? Huh.  Religion runs amuck in this, from snake gods, to weapons forged by gods, to one character becoming one of Odin's Valkyries, to the lead being left to die by crucifixion.  It's got a lot of trials/tests happening, that even the lead character is unaware he's taking part in. Like, having to "survive" the pits in the beginning, with his wits as much as his strength, and later; after his "death" which has nothing to do with him as much as it does his companions. 

It's no secret, as I've stated it more than once, I am not a fan of Schwarzenegger at all. But, I found the film's peppering of comedy decent enough. The story being laced with paganism and occult notions from book end to book end was the only reason I was still watching it after the first ten minutes.

I would have liked some more explanation on the why and how of James Earl Jones's character though. Here's this all powerful god or witch or shapeshifting genius, and it's never explained on how he got to be so? Was he always supernatural or did it happen after his years as the warlord?  I was half way expecting there to be some big reveal about Conan being descendant of Doom given the fact Conan was the only one who had been able to defeat the uber snake.
 
what did I learn? The witch, the warrior and the woman...got a ring to it right?

Saturday, October 4, 2014

year 3 day 121

movie: Halloween III Season of the Witch
starring: Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkin
genre: Horror, Thriller
year: 1982
format: Shaw Video On Demand

plot: After a mysterious death takes place in his hospital, a doctor teams up with the daughter of the patient to find out what happened. Tracing the steps her father made in the days leading up to his murder, they find themselves at a small town factory that creates Hallowe'en masks. Before long, they learn the owner of the factory has planned to use the masks to kill millions by remote control.

I've read that this was suppose to have been the launch pad to turn the Halloween films into more of an anthology, hence it's complete departure from the first two.  I get where that was going, and have to say, that it would have been a brilliant thing to do. The only trouble was, audiences thirty years ago didn't have the brains to see that. They saw only that it didn't follow the continued storyline from parts 1 and 2, and didn't really give it a chance.

With that said, the plot of this installment in the series, falls apart in the last act, giving itself to genre confusion. I think the robot body snatchers was a good idea, and I think the ancient Druid storyline was good. I just don't think they were mixed well.  Were this to be remade, it would be wise to pick one plot or the other.

As a stand alone film, it works until the last fifteen minutes, then it just seems like a scrabbled mess of overlapping stories. As a part of the Halloween movie series, it doesn't fit simply for the fact they never came back to the idea of an anthology; they continued with a slasher film for the rest of the franchise.

I'd love to say I found some big bad hidden message here, given many other fans and critics over the years have talked about it in conjunction to consumerism and corporate evils, but that was barely a note from what saw. Personally, I think the movie The Stuff managed to tackle that theme much better.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Day 214

Movie: Star Trek 2 Wrath of Khan
starring: William Shatner, Ricardo Montalban
genre: Scif-Fi, Action, Drama,
year: 1982
format: Shaw Video On Demand

plot: The crew of the Reliant are taken captive by an old enemy of Capt. Kirk's, and brainwashed into helping Khan start to get some revenge.  The Enterprise, which was on a training mission is the only star fleet ship in the area and therefore, the only ones who can help.  Soon it's a face off between Khan and Kirk in a battle of wills.

30 year anniversary of the film. 

I have to say, growing up I had seen bits and pieces of all the ST films, but it wasn't until I was in my late 20's before I actually sat down and watched a ST film all the way through.  I've been semi-addicted ever since. (ST X-Nemesis was what really got my attention)

I know there have been countless studies and reviews and journalistic reports, as well as millions of fan literature on the subject of Star Trek, so my break down of this would be nearly pointless at this juncture.
But, with that said, I wanted to there is a feeling of tribute to this film. This to me could easily of been a stageplay by Shakespeare, it had all the elements. What all great movies should live up to.

What did I think I learned from this film?
Revenge is a personal thing. Sometimes it serves a purpose, sometimes not so much. We all have to live up to our dreams and our regrets or else we will never be able to live with ourselves. 
There is a natural cycle to everything it's just how we choose to accept it that defines if it is a positive or negative ripple into the rest of our life.