Thursday, 29 October 2009

Wandering Ginza Butterfly (1971)

Wandering Ginza Butterfly (Gincho wataridori) was one of Meiko Kaji’s first films for Toei Studios after leaving Nikkatsu, where she’d starred in the very successful Stray Cat Rock series. While the plot synopsis might make it sound like a pinky violence movie, in fact it’s much more of a traditional Japanese yakuza movie.

Kaji is Nami, a former girl gang leader serving a prison sentence for murdering a yakuza boss. After being released she gets a job as a hostess in a hostess bar. She’s filled with remorse for her crime, and determined to make amends to the dead man’s widow. She meets Ryuji (Tsunehiko Watase), a likeable rogue who’s a borderline yakuza but basically a good guy. She’s doing OK, she’s very successful as a hostess and she also has a considerable talent for collecting debts from recalcitrant customers.

Unfortunately her life starts to get complicated when a particularly vicious gangster named Owada tries to take over the bar where she works. He’s holding a phoney debt over the head of the mama-san, and since the mama-san has treated Nami decently she’s anxious to help her to save the bar. Ryuji is keen to help as well, being rather sweet on Nami, while they have another ally in the mama-san’s boyfriend Shin. Shin is a disreputable enough character in his own way, but like Ryuji (and Nami for that matter) he’s essentially decent. So we have a contrast set up between Owada and his gang on one side, who are simply thugs, and on the other side Nami, Ryuji and Shin, who are or have been petty criminals but with a code of honour.

Nami also happens to be a very skillful billiards player (her uncle is a pool-hall hustler from way back), so she challenges Owada. She will take on his champion player. If she loses, Owada will get her uncle’s property; if she wins, Owada will give up his claim on the bar. The billiards duel is filmed very stylishly and is the highlight of the movie. Of course it all gets more complicated, and eventually Nami is forced to resort to violence. The bad guys discover that if it’s foolish to take on Nami on the billiards table it’s even more foolish to mess with her with cold steel! The final showdown, with Meiko Kaji in a kimono wielding a sword (even though the movie is set in 1970s Tokyo) gives director Kazuhiko Yamaguchi an opportunity for another very impressive visual set-piece, a frenetic mix of swordplay and gunplay.

Apart from the ending there’s surprisingly little violence, and even more surprisingly for a 1971 Japanese exploitation movie there’s no sex or nudity at all. In fact the film has a rather old-fashioned feel, more like the Japanese movies of the 60s. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. What it lacks in violence it makes up for in human drama. It also gives Meiko Kaji the chance to do a lot more acting than in her later movies, and she produces one of her best performances. Nami is an engaging mix of toughness and tenderness. And she gets to wear some great 70s clothes in this one! Tsunehiko Watase is also impressive. In fact the acting overall is extremely good.

The plot follows the established formula for a yakuza movie but it’s executed with style and elegance and the actors are good enough to breathe life into what could have been rather cliched characters. There’s plenty of fun to be had, the comic relief is done reasonably well, and while there are moments of sentimentality they’re handled with sufficient skill not to become annoying.

Synapse’s DVD presentation is impressive and includes some worthwhile extras. As long as you accept that this is not an actual pinky violence movie then there’s plenty of entertainment to be found here. There was a sequel, with the delightful title Wandering Ginza Butterfly 2: She-Cat Gambler.

Wandering Ginza Butterfly is certainly an absolute must for Meiko Kaji fans.

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

The Golden Lotus (1974)

The Golden Lotus (Jin ping shuang yan) is a bit of an oddity. It’s a 1974 Shaw Brothers production, so you expect king fu and/or swordplay. What you get is sex. You also get corruption, deceit and intrigue, and you do get several murders.

It was based on a 16th century Chinese classic of Chinese erotic literature, the Jin Ping Mei, although it’s set much earlier. Ximen Qing is a wealthy young merchant, and as we later find out he’s also less than scrupulous in his business dealings. He’s even less scrupulous in his dealings with women. He collects women the way other men collect paintings or other beautiful objects. Especially women with very tiny feet. Nothing gets him more excited than tiny dainty feet.

Pan Jinlian is the wife of the local pancake seller, the dwarf Wu Dalang. And she has very tiny feet indeed. With the help of the notorious procuress Madame Wang he seduces the rather naïve Pan. Pan may be naïve, but her sexual appetites are well and truly awakened by this first encounter and soon they’re carrying on a torrid love affair. Her husband is a bit of a nuisance though, so they’ll need to get him out of the way. Soon Pan finds herself installed as Ximen Qing’s fifth wife.

But Ximen Qing has no intention of stopping at five wives (plus sorted concubines). He is soon pursuing another married woman. Pan decides she might as well have some sexual adventures as well, but this earns her a brutal beating from Ximen Qing. He is gradually revealed as a rather nasty piece of work, with a vicious temper and a generally selfish and childish outlook on life.

The main interest of the film is Ximen Qing’s household. Entirely dominated by women, whether they be wives, concubines or servants, it is a hotbed of domestic intrigues and power struggles. Survival in this household depends on developing the skills of manipulation and deceit to a fine art. A woman’s only power comes from her beauty and her sexual allure, and these must be used ruthlessly. Especially when dealing with a man as powerful, cruel and corrupt as Ximen Qing. Pan Jinlian becomes a skillful and ruthless intriguer.

The movie’s main problem is that the plot is immensely complex, and as it progresses events become more and more compressed and it can be difficult to follow exactly what is happening with so many plots and counter-plots and and affairs and seductions and shady business deals.

Shaw Brothers movies invariably look good, and renowned director Li Han-Hsang has made The Golden Lotus a very handsome film indeed. The movie’s greatest strength though is the performance of Hu Chin as Pan. She is equally convincing as the innocent victim of a shameless seducer and as the skilled artiste in intrigue that she becomes. She is very wicked and very sexy. Look out for martial arts star Jackie Chan in a small role, very early in his film career.

Despite the subject matter the sex is not very explicit and there’s not a great deal of nudity. But there’s certainly more of both than you generally expect in a Shaw Brothers movie. And some scenes do achieve a genuine erotic intensity. It’s certainly a treat for foot fetishists! It’s reasonably entertaining and represents a fairly successful attempt by SHaw Brothers to widen their appeal to a broader exploitation market. It’s a movie that is as much about power and corruption as it is about sex.

The Region 4 DVD presents the movie in its correct Shawscope aspect ratio and includes a featurette on director Li Han-Hsang.

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

The Man from Hong Kong (1975)

The Man from Hong Kong is one of the more unusual ozploitation flicks of the 70s, being a kung fu movie set mostly in Australia.

It was actually an Australian-Hong Kong co-production, and although most of the action is supposed to take place in Australia many of the interior sequences were shot in the Hong Kong studios of Golden Harvest. It still manages to have a very Australian feel to it.

It opens with a drug deal gone wrong on the top of Ayers Rock, which as writer director Brian Trenchard-Smith explains on the commentary track was intended to set the tongue-in-cheek mood of the whole film, this being absolutely the silliest possible place in which to conduct a drug deal. Trenchard-Smith immediately pushes the movie in an even more tongue-in-cheek direction, with a Drug Squad detective chasing the drug courier up the rock where they engage in a spirited kung fu duel, while his partner speeds off in his car with a police helicopter in hot pursuit.

This is followed by the first of many hang-gliding sequences, with a glamorous female Australian reporter hang-gliding into the parade ground of the Royal Hong Kong Police, to land more or less at the feet of the movie’s hero, Inspector Fang Sing Leng (Jimmy Wang Yu). The inspector has been demonstrating his martial arts prowess, and after driving the reporter back to her hotel he proceeds to demonstrate his prowess in the bedroom. By this time Trenchard-Smith’s formula has become pretty clear - we’re going to have lots of action, interspersed with sex, romance and some fairly broad humour. And that’s what we get, done with considerable style and enormous energy.

Inspector Fang flies off to Sydney, to handle the extradition of the suspect captured at Ayers Rock. After interrogating the suspect in his inimitable style (a style that involves very large amounts of physical violence) Inspector Fang gets the name of the man behind the deal - the infamous Sydney gangster Jack Wilton (who also happens to be a formidable king fu master). After several more extended and very impressive fight scenes we finally get to meet Wilton. And it’s none other than George Lazenby, the former James Bond. And a very fine villain he makes too. Lazenby did his fight scenes himself, which wasn’t a problem for him since he’d studied martial arts under some chap by the name of Bruce Lee.

Much to the despair of the two Australian cops assigned to the case Inspector Fang proceeds to leave a trail of devastation in his wake as he pursues his criminal opponent with a zeal bordering on fanaticism. In between acting as a one-man weapon of mass destruction the Inspector also finds time to cut a swathe through the local female population. He is unstoppable on the streets, and irresistible between the sheets.

The mayhem accelerates with car chases, more kung fu and more spectacular stunts, all leading up to an explosive (literally) finale.

Having a former James Bond in the movie is rather appropriate since apart from spoofing kung fu movies The Man from Hong Kong also has a good deal of fun spoofing James Bond-style thrillers. It effectively combines Hong Kong-style action (lots of king fu) and Australian-style action (lots of violent mayhem with cars).

Jimmy Wang Yu and George Lazenby have a great deal of fun with their respective roles, while Hugh Keays-Byrne overacts outrageously as usual as an Australian Drug Squad sergeant. Frank Thring delivers a typically delightful and insanely overripe performance as Lazenby’s chief lieutenant. Ros Spiers and Rebecca Gilling don’t have a great deal to do other than looking sexy and engaging in bedroom romps with Jimmy Wang Yu, but at least they manage to deliver their lines with a straight face, which must have been fairly challenging.

Trenchard-Smith’s script is littered with groan-worthy but undeniably amusing dialogue, and his actors deliver his lines in the right spirit. No-one is taking this seriously, but everyone is enjoying themselves. His direction is frenetic but tightly focused. Russell Boyd (who has since gone on to win an Oscar as a director of photography) handles the cinematography with commendable skill but without succumbing to the temptation to try being arty.

Trenchard-Smith contributes a very entertaining commentary track. The movie was restored for its DVD release and looks splendid. It’s all very exciting and highly enjoyable, and the mix of action, sex and humour works perfectly. Like the best exploitation movies, The Man from Hong Kong glories in being an exploitation film. What more could you want?

Monday, 26 October 2009

The Swarm (1978)

I thought that Airport 1975 and Airport '77 had set a standard that very few 1970s disaster movies could live up to. The outrageously hammy acting and the insane silliness of the basic plot premises seemed enough on their own to see off any challengers. But that was before I saw The Swarm.

Directed and produced by Irwin Allen (creator of camp TV classics Lost in Space and The Time Tunnel back in the 60s) this one doesn’t rely on just one spectacularly silly idea. It has one spectacularly silly idea after another. There’s a certain epic grandeur to the silliness of this movie that one can’t help but admire.

Michael Caine is Dr Brad Crane, an entomologist who has been warning for years about the imminent and inevitable war between humanity and the insects. But no-one has listened. When a swarm of mutant African killer bees attacks a US missile base in Texas and wipes out all but a handful of the personnel he is finally vindicated. The president puts him in charge of the war against the bees, much to the disgust of General Slater (Richard Widmark) who thinks of this as just another military operation, best left to professional soldiers.

Dr Crane calls in a team of top scientists who set to work to look for ways of killing the bees, or of protecting humans from their deadly venom. His old mentor Dr Krim, the country’s leading immunologist, is in charge of finding an antidote. Dr Crane is also assisted by a beautiful female air force doctor (played by Katharine Ross whose career was well and truly on the skids by tis stage) and of course pretty soon romance blossoms between them. Meanwhile the bees have turned their attention to the nearby town of Marysville, populated largely by Hollywood has-beens like Fred MacMurray and Olivia de Havilland.

The scientists come up with some ingenious methods of wiping out the bees, but these insects are not just deadly, they’re smart as well. Having caused carnage in Marysville they’re now on their way to Houston. General Slater and Dr Crane argue incessantly, while devastation threatens the whole of Texas.

This film has all the classic hallmarks of 70s disaster movies. Lots of pointless appearances by superannuated stars of yesteryear, or by almost-stars like Patty Duke whose careers were on a fast track to nowhere. A complete absence of logic. Ludicrous pseudoscience. And amazingly cringe-inducing dialogue.

And of course atrocious acting. I happen to think that Michael Caine is a very fine actor, but put him in a bad movie and he’s pure ham. He’s completely unable to take a movie like this seriously, and it shows. Even taking the awfulness of the script into account some of his line readings really do appear to be deliberately and consciously mocking of the entire project. But it all adds to the fun. Katharine Ross seems depressed, and you can’t blame her. Richard Widmark engages Michael Caine in some memorable scenery-chewing duels. The faded stars of the past mostly just embarrass themselves.

The version I saw was the extended version, 40 minutes longer than the original theatrical cut and really about an hour too long. The special effects are reasonably well done, and some are quite impressive.

If you’re a connoisseur of this type of movie then this one will delight you. You will be amazed at the cunning of those killer insects, and some of the dialogue will stay with you forever, no matter how hard you try to forget it. Outrageously campy, and despite its inordinate length highly entertaining.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Project Moon Base (1953)

Project Moon Base is a 1953 space exploration film that bears the indelible stamp of its creator, science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein. And I don’t mean that in a good way!

It does make some attempt to avoid the outrageous scientific blunders that characterise most sci-fi movies of its era, and that’s certainly a plus. Unfortunately it also incorporates Heinlein’s attitudes towards women, attitudes that can mot charitably be described as bizarre.

It’s set in what was then the fairly near future, in the late 1960s. The US has established an orbiting space station as a first step towards establishing a permanent base on the Moon, which is apparently a vital defence requirement. But the Enemies of Freedom are determined to destroy the station as part of their nefarious plans for world domination. Even by 1950s standards the anti-communist paranoia has a rather hysterical tone. The enemy has come up with an incredibly cunning plan - they have recruited exact doubles of hundreds of leading Free World scientists, astronauts and technicians. When a Dr Wernher is selected for the first mission to orbit the Moon, he is kidnapped and his place is taken by an enemy agent who is such a perfect double that no-one could possibly tell them apart.

The pilot chosen for the mission is Colonel Briteis, the woman who had made the first ever spaceflight several years earlier. Her co-pilot and second-in-command is Major Bill Moore, and he’s annoyed at being passed over for the command job, his annoyance being exacerbated by the fact that he and Colonel Briteis had been a bit of a romantic item at one time.

Despite a fairly low budget the effects don’t look too bad. The lunar surface looks ore realistic than in most films of this period, and spaceship models are cute in a sleek and streamlined 1950s way and the space station looks rather cool. A very nice touch is that since the station is in zero gravity the crew can choose to walk on either the floor or the ceilings, or even on the walls (although walking on the wall is prohibited in the corridors). So an important briefing takes place with two people seated at a desk anchored to the floor, and two others seated on chairs anchored on the opposite wall! This effect is rendered extremely well.

The plot starts off making a certain amount of sense, if you allow for the extreme paranoia and the basic unlikeliness of even the most diabolically clever enemy being able to find exact doubles for hundreds of peoples. As the movie progresses it gets slightly more unlikely, and towards the end becomes totally crazed as regards the romantic sub-plot. It was apparently originally intended as TV series, which may explain some of the creakiness of the plot.

The acting is as good as anyone could reasonably expect given the script and the often jaw-droppingly weird dialogue.

What really makes this one stand out, even among 1950s American sci-fi movies which are notorious for their sexism, is Heinlein’s understanding of the human female. Or more precisely his spectacular lack of understanding coupled with some extremely creepy ideas about relations between the sexes. On the surface it’s almost a proto-feminist film - the President of the United States is a woman, the commander of the lunar mission is a woman. But as was usual in Heinlein’s books, the women characters bear not the slightest resemblance to any woman who has ever actually lived, and are essentially sexual wish-fulfillment fantasies on the part of the author.

The most extraordinary example of this attitude towards women has to be the scene where the General in charge of the space program (who is creepily known as Pappy) tells Colonel Briteis that if she disobeys another order he’ll put her over his knee and give her a spanking. This was apparently Heinlein’s idea of the appropriate way for a superior officer to address a colonel in the US Air Force. I have an awful sinking feeling that it may well have been his idea of the appropriate way to address women in general.

After that, the ending in which Colonel Briteis willingly and enthusiastically accepts the natural superiority of men will come as no surprise. She’s already apologised for “going all female on him.”

And then there are the uniforms! Very brief shorts, combined with odd pixie hats.

So what you have is a movie that starts off looking like it might actually turn out to be a halfway realistic anticipation of future space exploration that ends up being something that can only be appreciated as a spectacular example of 1950s high camp. But it’s a movie you have to see, because you are most certainly not going to believe it until you’ve actually seen it for yourself.

Saturday, 24 October 2009

Another Day, Another Man (1966)

Another Day, Another Man is another serving of weirdness from the queen of 60s sexploitation, the inimitable Doris Wishman. It’s trashy, it’s campy, and it’s fun.

Ann and Steve are married but have not been able to afford place of their own. Now Steve has had a promotion and he can finally afford an apartment, and he can avoid the shame of having a wife who has to go out to work. Ann is beside herself with excitement at the prospect of being a real housewife at last. She’s been sharing an apartment with Tess, who works as a high-priced hooker.

Everything is going swimmingly until Steve is stuck down by a mystery ailment, and the doctor warns that he must have six months of complete bed rest. Clearly in order to cope with the medical bills Ann will have to go back to work, but her old job didn’t pay well enough to cover the rent and the medical expenses. But then she remembers how much Tess was earning as a prostitute. So begins her double life - by day the devoted housewife and nurse to her ailing husband, by night an expensive call girl.

Of course sooner or later she’s not going to be able to keep these two worlds separate, and everything is going to fall apart.

There are sub-plots that have little connection with anything, including one involving an innocent country boy who discovers to his horror that his beloved childhood sweetheart is now a hooker, takes a swipe at her, then comes back to apologise and finds himself seduced by the Bennett twins. What appears to be a major sub-plot, with Tess finding herself pregnant to her pimp Bert (who is also Ann’s pimp), suddenly just disappears from the movie.

As usual, Wishman wrote, produced, directed and edited the film, using a variety of pseudonyms. It has all the classic Wishman touches - lots of shots of ducks on the pond, buildings, items of furniture and people’s feet. The dialogue was dubbed in later, so it isn’t properly synchronised. She uses her usual technique for dealing with this - people turn away from the camera when they speak, their faces are obscured, or they’re filmed in long shot when they’re talking. When we do see them closer up and notice that the sound isn’t synchronised properly it just adds to the charm. She was a true low-budget auteur whose movies could never be mistaken for anyone else’s.

This was one of her “roughies” but in fact there’s not much violence, and what violence there is is so stylised and so silly and bizarre that it’s amusing rather than disturbing. There’s also no actual nudity or sex. This is true to some extent of most of Wishman’s films of this period but this one is unusual in having none at all. There are however lots of shots of women in their underwear. If women with beehive hairdos and wearing suspender belts are your thing then you’ll be in bliss.

Plenty of Wishman regulars turn up in the cast, including Darlene Bennett and Gigi Darlene. Sam Stewart plays his usual sleazeball role. The acting is as delightfully bad as you could wish. The sets look pretty much identical with those used in Bad Girls Go To Hell.

The movie is sleazy but in a good-natured campy fun sort of way. It lacks the edge of true weirdness that makes other Wishman movies of this era so wildly entertaining - if you’re new to the strange world of Doris Wishman then I’d recommend Bad Girls Go To Hell (which is included on the same DVD double bill) or Indecent Desires as better places to start. If you’re a dedicated fan of her work though you’ll find much to enjoy in this outing. Her movies are always fascinating and enjoyable in their own off-beat way.

Something Weird have again come up with a stunningly good print of an obscure movie. It’s crystal clear and looks fabulous.

Friday, 23 October 2009

Mad Max (1979)

The plot of George Miller’soriginal 1979 Mad Max is a stock-standard revenge plot that could have been lifted from any one of several dozen westerns. Not that it matters, because this is a movie that is all about style, energy and mood. It’s how you tell the story that matters.

The first of the three Mad Max films is not quite a post-apocalyptic film. It depicts a society on the way to becoming a post-apocalyptic society. Civilisation hasn’t collapsed, but it’s in a lot of trouble. The battle between the forces of law and order and the forces of anarchy and violence has become a war with few rules, a war in which the cops are only marginally less brutal than the criminals. Miller cleverly doesn’t give us too many details - we have no idea what has brought this situation about, but we don’t need to know. This is minimalist film-making, with no time wasted on filling in backstories or detailed exposition. The tone is set, and that’s enough.

The title character drives an Interceptor vehicle for the Main Force Patrol. Whether this is an official or unofficial police force is irrelevant - it’s all there is. After a spectacular opening sequence that ends in the fiery death of an escaped road criminal known as the Night Rider the Main Force Patrol officers involved find themselves targeted for revenge by the Night Rider’s buddies. A cycle of revenge is established and it steadily escalates.

When the bad guys go after Max’s wife and kid you just know things are going to get really out of hand. Max isn’t well balanced at the best of times.

The obvious influence on this production was an earlier Australian movie, Peter Weir’s 1974 The Cars That Ate Paris, which had the same blurred lines between authority and anarchy, the same moral nihilism, the same black comedy, the same almost religious obsession with car culture. What Miller did was to increase the level of action and violence by several orders of magnitude.

Mad Max caused much teeth-gnashing in Australian film circles. It was regarded as being thoroughly disreputable and its huge commercial success caused even more resentment. It launched Mel Gibson as an international star, although whether that was a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view. It is interesting to see the Mel Gibson person still only partially formed at this stage. He does a lot less scenery chewing than in later roles. He’s blander, but less annoying. And he’s completely overshadowed by Hugh Keays-Byrne as the sinister Toecutter.

The acting has a slightly stylised, theatrical quality to it that was probably intentional. It adds to the feeling that this is not reality, this is not the present day. It’s not quite science fiction, but it’s not quite our world either.

It’s a stylish and highly entertaining movie for those who like adrenaline-charged action movies. It’s certainly a classic of its type. It inspired some tedious imitations, but that sadly is the way of the world. On a less positive note it reinforced the unfortunate trend towards totally male-oriented testosterone-fests, although to be fair Miller does appear to take a slightly sardonic attitude towards the whole male bonding thing, and to the car fetishism.

Mad Max remains the best known of all ozploitation movies, and whether you love it or hate it it’s one of those must-see movies simply because of the extent of its influence on popular culture in general and on exploitation movies in particular.