The Necronomicon is of course a fictional book of occult magic invented by H.P. Lovecraft. There have been numerous books that have made the claim that the book actually existed and there have even been bogus translations published. Franco came across one of these and was convinced it was the real thing. An excerpt from this “translation” provided Franco with the inspiration to combine it with a story he’d already written and it became the basis for the movie.
So what is this movie about? That’s an excellent question. When it was shown at the Berlin Film Festival people told Franco they didn’t understand it, to which he replied that he didn’t understand it either. He notes with amusement that this admission created an even greater buzz for the movie. He also notes that it was at this time that he realised that audiences didn’t really care if they understood a movie or not, what mattered was whether it had a visual or emotional impact on them.
And Necronomicon is all about the images.
Lorna (Janine Reynaud) does a kinky nightclub act, very popular with the decadent arty crowd. She may also be a murderess. Or she may not be. There are certainly several murders. Or perhaps there aren't. Lorna may be a demon, or she may not be. The things that happen to her may be quite real. Or they may not be. They might be her own dreams, or possibly someone else’s. Someone could be trying to send her mad, or she could be imposing her madness on others. She may be insane, or she may be perfectly sane. The movie does not commit itself and makes no attempt to explain the strange events that occur. This was a bold decision but it was the right one. It has multiple contradictory meanings and you choose the one you prefer, or you just sit back and enjoy the ride.
And it’s quite a ride. This is Franco at the peak of his ability to create unsettling psychedelic dream landscapes. It is visually arresting to say the least. Franco does not use any of the accepted cinematic tricks to signal that a sequence is a dream sequence. There are none of the usual pop psychedelic camera tricks. He uses the settings and props (just as mannequins which have often been used for such purposes but rarely so effectively as here), he uses costumes and he uses Janine Reynaud’s strange and disturbing presence. Her dresses were by Karl Lagerfeld and they’re stunning and (being a model rather than an actress) she knows how to wear them.
He does shoot the Lisbon scenes differently compared to the Berlin scenes, with lots of soft focus, but we have no way of knowing whether the Lisbon scenes are dream and the Berlin scenes are reality or whether it’s the other way around or whether they’re all dreams or all reality.
Being a Franco film the music is all-important and adds to the strange atmosphere.
Speaking of music, Franco was a jazz fanatic and the structure of a Franco movie tends to make a lot more sense when you bear that in mind. They’re not so much unstructured as jazz-structured. The settings also matter, not just as settings. They are essential ingredients contributing to both the atmosphere and the emotional content. In this instance, as usual Franco has found some truly striking settings. And as usual he mixes old but strange architecture (such as Lorna’s castle home) in Lisbon with stark modernist architecture in Berlin. In fact the contrast is so great that you might wonder whether these are not just different geographic settings but entirely different worlds and possibly even entirely different timelines.
Like most of his movies of the 60s Necronomicon is more polished technically than some of the director’s later efforts.
In the late 60s Franco seemed to be on the verge of establishing himself as a major force in European cinema, straddling the worlds of genre film, the art film, the erotic film and the exploitation film. For a variety of reasons it never happened. He had a lengthy, colourful and extremely interesting career (and directed at least 200 films) but he never did achieve the respectability that seemed within his grasp in the period from 1968 to 1970. He probably didn’t care. He just wanted to make movies and he was still doing so right up to his death in 2013 at the age of 82.
The fact is that Franco was too obsessed with his own personal vision, too undisciplined and too determined to make his movies his way to achieve any lasting mainstream or critical success. Of course it’s these very things that make him so interesting as a film-maker. His filmography is a hit-and-miss affair but when he hit the target he did so with extraordinary effect.
His best movies (such as Necronomicon, Venus in Furs, Vampyros Lesbos and Doriana Grey) are just not like anybody else’s movies. Like Jean Rollin he was pretty much indifferent to what anybody else thought was the right way to make movies. He was an original.
Blue Underground’s DVD release (which came out some years ago) offers a very good anamorphic transfer. The highlight of the extras is a 22-minute interview with Franco.
Necronomicon is one of Franco’s most interesting movies. It’s almost a horror movie but shot as an entirely different kind of movie with a decidedly arty kind of feel. Highly recommended.
I’m rather enjoying revisiting some of the Franco films that I haven’t seen for years so you can look forward (with joy or trepidation depending on how you feel about how work) to more Franco reviews very soon.
3 comments:
Jess Franco clearly had a real talent, but unfortunately, he lost himself in his film-making. Jean Rollin managed in many cases more coherency, and frankly (for better or for worse) comes out better received in the end. I recommend genre fans watch the films of both directors, and draw their own conclusions.
Jess Franco clearly had a real talent, but unfortunately, he lost himself in his film-making. Jean Rollin managed in many cases more coherency, and frankly (for better or for worse) comes out better received in the end.
That's basically true although Rollin has the advantage that he usually only gets judged by the movies he made under his own name, which gives the impression that he reduced a reasonably coherent body of work. They're the movies that are easily seen on DVD. Most fans and critics probably haven't seen his many porn films so they're not judging him by movies like Hyperpénétrations or Bouches lascives et pornos.
Whereas with Franco most fans and critics have been exposed to a lot of his lesser films.
Rollin was able to keep the two sides of his filmmaking, the serious films and the frankly erotic films, pretty much insulated from each other. Franco made no attempt to do that. If Franco's lesser films weren't available on DVD he'd probably be judged a bit more favourably.
But on the whole I agree. Rollin had a much greater focus in his "real" movies whereas Franco ended up with too many movies that were hopelessly undisciplined and his artistic and erotic interests got too mixed up. A good example is Doriana Grey. It's actually a very very good movie but the only version available on DVD is the one that includes hardcore sex scenes so its reputation has suffered and it's likely that some people avoid it for that reason.
This is a bold, bizarre and intriguing film. It's like a dark, sensual dream captured on celluloid. I think you make an excellent point in that Franco doesn't rely on the usual psychedelic cliches (which would have been new then). For instance, in the party scene, the revellers appear to be taking a drug trip (It was 1968, after all) but it's done in a striking way I've not seen before. In fact, as a Franco newbie, what I notice is that he doesn't do anything much the way other directors do - you have to expect the unexpected in a Franco film. I'll have to seek out more by Franco. Thank you so much for the recommendation.
Post a Comment