list williamdouglasb's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ williamdouglasb's Recent Activity - Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg williamdouglasb's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here! http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Customer_Care/420/default.aspx Group Name: Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!
Group Description:

Have a general question? Need help with some thing on the site? Have a bug you would like to report? Well then, you have come to the right place. No matter what you are having trouble with, we would like to help you find a solution. And maybe, through your own experience with the site, you will want to help other users too. That's what communities are all about. 


Created: 8/1/2007
Number of Members: 79
Number of discussion posts: 513
]]>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMTSpout Customer CareWed, 01 Aug 2007 09:06:04 GMT790513Group Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/222/default.aspx Group Name: HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES
Group Description:    " I bid you welcome...  Enter freely and of your own will..."
Created: 12/17/2006
Number of Members: 414
Number of Lists: 6
Number of discussion posts: 2333
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMTHORROR MOVIES 101Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:20:09 GMT41462333Group Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts. http://www.spout.com/groups/foureyedmonsters/338/endorsed.aspx Group Name: foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.
Created: 6/4/2007
Number of Members: 322
Number of discussion posts: 56
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMTfoureyedmonstersMon, 04 Jun 2007 15:28:43 GMT322056Group Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety" http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/625/default.aspx Group Name: Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"
Created: 6/30/2008
Number of Members: 52
Number of Lists: 12
Number of discussion posts: 701
]]>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMTWeekly ThemeMon, 30 Jun 2008 15:13:45 GMT5212701Group Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited. http://www.spout.com/groups/Spout_Mavens/366/default.aspx Group Name: Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.
Group Description:

A group of Spout's best reviewers.
Read the requirements.


Created: 6/20/2007
Number of Members: 36
Number of Lists: 9
Number of discussion posts: 451
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMTSpout MavensWed, 20 Jun 2007 10:13:29 GMT369451Group Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film http://www.spout.com/groups/missing_a_film/263/default.aspx Group Name: missing a film - we'll help you find a film
Created: 3/5/2007
Number of Members: 131
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 234
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMTmissing a filmMon, 05 Mar 2007 16:37:43 GMT1311234Group Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American. http://www.spout.com/groups/Friends_of_Foreign_Flicks/591/default.aspx Group Name: Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.
Group Description:

At some point you just want more than what's right in front of you.


Created: 4/24/2008
Number of Members: 30
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 92
]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMTFriends of Foreign FlicksThu, 24 Apr 2008 11:44:11 GMT30192Group Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Documentary/79/default.aspx Group Name: The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.
Created: 4/2/2006
Number of Members: 49
Number of Lists: 4
Number of discussion posts: 53
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMTThe DocumentarySun, 02 Apr 2006 00:58:55 GMT49453Group Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more. http://www.spout.com/groups/Sound_on_Sight/529/default.aspx Group Name: Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.
Group Description:

Sound on Sight proudly brings you two podcasts each week. Voted best podcast in 2008, these hard working hosts cover everything from mainstream Hollywood films to noir, horror, science fiction, cult cinema, documentary film making and more. Look out for a new show added every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

http://www.soundonsight.org/

 

 


Created: 1/6/2008
Number of Members: 104
Number of discussion posts: 150
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMTSound on SightSun, 06 Jan 2008 21:24:34 GMT1040150Group Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too. http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/104/default.aspx Group Name: Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.
Created: 5/5/2006
Number of Members: 200
Number of Lists: 10
Number of discussion posts: 412
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMTWorst Movie EverFri, 05 May 2006 20:20:45 GMT20010412Group Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/657/default.aspx Group Name: Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss
Group Description:

Each week I will post a new poll.  Please vote in the poll and reply to the discussion thread to discuss the question.  Please do not vote more than once.


Created: 11/25/2008
Number of Members: 66
Number of discussion posts: 414
]]>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMTMovie PollsTue, 25 Nov 2008 16:54:38 GMT660414Group Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite! http://www.spout.com/groups/Zombie_Obsession/329/default.aspx Group Name: Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!
Group Description:

Join us to discuss your favorite or most horrifying Zombie Movies or just your most memorable Zombie Moments.  From Funny to Scary to Gory to Bizarre...

 


Created: 5/28/2007
Number of Members: 104
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 594
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMTZombie ObsessionMon, 28 May 2007 02:04:45 GMT1041594Group Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We? http://www.spout.com/groups/A_World_of_MSTies/590/default.aspx Group Name: A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?
Group Description:

Glorify the best show ever (MST3K) with wit, wisdom and downright wackiness!


Created: 4/23/2008
Number of Members: 10
Number of Lists: 2
Number of discussion posts: 23
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMTA World of MSTiesWed, 23 Apr 2008 20:21:48 GMT10223Group Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/46/default.aspx Group Name: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys
Group Description: Year after year, movie lovers and non movie lovers alike discuss ad nauseum the fate of films nominated for the utmost honor, the Academy Award. Some people watch it for the fashion. Some people watch for the haute couture. Some people watch for their fill of celebrity sightings. If you are a member of this group, you love everything about the Super Bowl of movies, especially the movies themselves! You love to make predictions, guess at the politics, discuss and dissect who should have been nominated and who should have won...or, you're just an avid movie lover that likes to pay attention. Come join the group!
Created: 3/4/2006
Number of Members: 41
Number of Lists: 58
Number of discussion posts: 226
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMTIt's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:24:32 GMT4158226Group Spout Group:Movie Marathons http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Marathons/693/default.aspx Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

This is a group for members to start and organize movie marathons. Its primary purpose is to get more people exposed to more film. And to watch these films and discuss them as a group.

Anyone can start a marathon and marathons can be organized in many different ways to showcase the films of a director, actor, genre, theme etc...

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.


Created: 7/22/2009
Number of Members: 15
Number of discussion posts: 22
]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMTMovie MarathonsWed, 22 Jul 2009 01:35:58 GMT15022Group Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies! http://www.spout.com/groups/Movies_we_do_not_want_to_see/70/default.aspx Group Name: Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!
Group Description: Want to be a member? Send me a message with a list of at least 5 movies that you do not want to see. There are many movies that I do not want to see. I'm not sure if its right of me to decide never to see a movie without seeing it. You know...like when a kid says they hate mushrooms even though they admit never trying them. So maybe this is a good spot for people to display movies they don't think they want to see, and see if anyone can convince us to try them out.
Created: 3/22/2006
Number of Members: 20
Number of Lists: 3
Number of discussion posts: 190
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMTMovies we do not want to seeWed, 22 Mar 2006 14:27:50 GMT203190Group Spout Post: Re:Worst Dance Film Ever- Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo? http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Worst_Dance_Film_Ever_Breakin_2_Electric_Boo/104/40501/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 2/17/2009 1:57:18 PM
Body: I say The Forbidden Dance because it was a cheap, terrible film made to capitalize on the craze started by Dirty Dancing. It is super ridiculous. It involves a Amazon princess who tries to get on TV to save her rain forest from an evil company. Of course, this leads to her meeting a rich guy who gets them into a lambada competition on television. And the dancing was about as exciting as seeing Cloris Leachman on Dancing With the Stars. At least Sig Haig played a witch doctor. Maybe this film justifies Captain Spaulding's reign of terror
]]>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:57:18 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever2/17/2009 1:57:18 PMI say The Forbidden Dance because it was a cheap, terrible film made to capitalize on the craze started by Dirty Dancing. It is super ridiculous. It involves a Amazon princess who tries to get on TV to save her rain forest from an evil company. Of course, this leads to her meeting a rich guy who gets them into a lambada competition on television. And the dancing was about as exciting as seeing Cloris Leachman on Dancing With the Stars. At least Sig Haig played a witch doctor. Maybe this film justifies Captain Spaulding's reign of terror Spout Post: Re:Worst Comic Book Adaptation Ever? http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Worst_Comic_Book_Adaptation_Ever/104/40499/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 2/17/2009 1:42:22 PM
Body: I am going to nominate The Fantastic Four flick made in 1994. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it and I hate to bash something without giving it a viewing. But the only way to find it is through bootlegs. So the main reason to nominate it is because of the fact it never got released in theaters or any other medium despite being based on such a popular comic book series. I remember an article about it back then in like Cinescape or something and couldn't help but laugh at just the description of it. For one, the film was made only because I believe Roger Corman had to get it made or in production before a certain date or he lost the rights. So they made this film on the cheap in like a few days. The actor Jay Underwood supposed got his scalp badly burnt from the bleach they poured direcctly on his head so he could be the blonde Human Torch. Anyhow, I am sure it might be the film to make Ed Wood and Uwe Boll proud.
]]>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:42:22 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever2/17/2009 1:42:22 PMI am going to nominate The Fantastic Four flick made in 1994. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it and I hate to bash something without giving it a viewing. But the only way to find it is through bootlegs. So the main reason to nominate it is because of the fact it never got released in theaters or any other medium despite being based on such a popular comic book series. I remember an article about it back then in like Cinescape or something and couldn't help but laugh at just the description of it. For one, the film was made only because I believe Roger Corman had to get it made or in production before a certain date or he lost the rights. So they made this film on the cheap in like a few days. The actor Jay Underwood supposed got his scalp badly burnt from the bleach they poured direcctly on his head so he could be the blonde Human Torch. Anyhow, I am sure it might be the film to make Ed Wood and Uwe Boll proud. Spout Post: Re:'Worst 'Modern' Retelling of a Classic' DVD Giveaway Contest! http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Worst_Modern_Retelling_of_a_Classic_DVD_Giv/104/39681/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 1/19/2009 6:19:57 PM
Body: The worst modern retelling of a classic should be Whatever it Takes, a teen makeover of Cyrano DeBergerac. It was one of the flood of teen flicks trying to cash in on the success of She's All That (itself a remake of George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion). Of course, Roxanne covered Cyrano DeBergerac in many better ways. For one, it understood the hero is suppose to be a loser; teen hunk Shane West played this loser with no fake nose or deformity other than the abilty to play the accordion. Second, the guy he helps is unsympathetic as played by James Franco, who did go on to better things. This hurts the film in the sense that we don't struggle in deciding who the girl they desire (the hot "nerd" girl next door) should end up with. Of course, it takes the hero a long time to go after her since he is at first smitten with the despicable teen queen Franco hooks him up with. Love is not blind in this story; it is just shallow.
]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:19:57 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever1/19/2009 6:19:57 PMThe worst modern retelling of a classic should be Whatever it Takes, a teen makeover of Cyrano DeBergerac. It was one of the flood of teen flicks trying to cash in on the success of She's All That (itself a remake of George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion). Of course, Roxanne covered Cyrano DeBergerac in many better ways. For one, it understood the hero is suppose to be a loser; teen hunk Shane West played this loser with no fake nose or deformity other than the abilty to play the accordion. Second, the guy he helps is unsympathetic as played by James Franco, who did go on to better things. This hurts the film in the sense that we don't struggle in deciding who the girl they desire (the hot "nerd" girl next door) should end up with. Of course, it takes the hero a long time to go after her since he is at first smitten with the despicable teen queen Franco hooks him up with. Love is not blind in this story; it is just shallow. Spout Post: Re:The Worst of 2008 http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_The_Worst_of_2008/104/39208/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 1/7/2009 2:02:17 PM
Body: [quote user="seely"] Its awards season again so we are rapidly finding out which movies everyone loved, but that begs the questions, which ones sucked the most? Lets face it, 2008 left us with a bumper crop of craptacular films. For every Dark Knight there were a dozen Disaster Movies. What are your nominations? *Bonus: it would be fun to divide this into categories, like a real awards show such as... worst cinematography worst picture worst screenplay worst actor/actress worst soundtrack worst foreign film etc... Feel free to categorize your nominations, but don't feel obligated. Can't wait to hear everyone's picks! [/quote] I think Disaster Movie is a good choice since it was a spoof that forgets to actually spoof and just recreate stuff from other movies. Also doesn't make fun of disaster movies but just recent movies we have seen. I think they were more concerned about the poster than the film they made. worst cinematography: Disaster Movie worst picture: Disaster Movie worst screenplay: Delgo worst actor/actress: Drake Bell, College/Superhero Movie worst soundtrack: Delgo worst foreign film: Under the Same Moon
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:02:17 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever1/7/2009 2:02:17 PM[quote user="seely"] Its awards season again so we are rapidly finding out which movies everyone loved, but that begs the questions, which ones sucked the most? Lets face it, 2008 left us with a bumper crop of craptacular films. For every Dark Knight there were a dozen Disaster Movies. What are your nominations? *Bonus: it would be fun to divide this into categories, like a real awards show such as... worst cinematography worst picture worst screenplay worst actor/actress worst soundtrack worst foreign film etc... Feel free to categorize your nominations, but don't feel obligated. Can't wait to hear everyone's picks! [/quote] I think Disaster Movie is a good choice since it was a spoof that forgets to actually spoof and just recreate stuff from other movies. Also doesn't make fun of disaster movies but just recent movies we have seen. I think they were more concerned about the poster than the film they made. worst cinematography: Disaster Movie worst picture: Disaster Movie worst screenplay: Delgo worst actor/actress: Drake Bell, College/Superhero Movie worst soundtrack: Delgo worst foreign film: Under the Same Moon Spout Post: Re:Worst Movie Ever Presents: Worst Present Ever DVD Giveaway Contest! http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Worst_Movie_Ever_Presents_Worst_Present_Ever_D/104/39098/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 1/5/2009 2:02:46 PM
Body: Yeah, I was only three when my grandmother on my father's side gave me a rusty metal Tonka toy truck she found on the side of the road. She got my brother a brand new bike. Well, she did wrap my gift but maybe she was hoping I would cut myself on it and have to go to the hospital. She thought this was all funny and cackled at it. My mother freaked and instantly grabbed it from me. I guess this is why we only got underwear and socks from her after that. It might have been why Tonka stopped the metal toys and switched to plastic. The weird thing is that my grandmother lived next door to me and you would have thought that would have made us closer. I know this all sounds like bull but this woman actually enjoyed people losing on game shows and drove my grandfather to move into a nursing home just to get away from her. Maybe 10 people showed up at her funeral and I think it would be difficult to find a picture of her smiling. Then, again, she did make a mean dressing.
]]>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:02:46 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever1/5/2009 2:02:46 PM Yeah, I was only three when my grandmother on my father's side gave me a rusty metal Tonka toy truck she found on the side of the road. She got my brother a brand new bike. Well, she did wrap my gift but maybe she was hoping I would cut myself on it and have to go to the hospital. She thought this was all funny and cackled at it. My mother freaked and instantly grabbed it from me. I guess this is why we only got underwear and socks from her after that. It might have been why Tonka stopped the metal toys and switched to plastic. The weird thing is that my grandmother lived next door to me and you would have thought that would have made us closer. I know this all sounds like bull but this woman actually enjoyed people losing on game shows and drove my grandfather to move into a nursing home just to get away from her. Maybe 10 people showed up at her funeral and I think it would be difficult to find a picture of her smiling. Then, again, she did make a mean dressing. Spout Post: Frames of Art http://www.spout.com/blogs/williamdouglasb/archive/2007/3/1/5915.aspx Post By: williamdouglasb
Post To: williamdouglasb Blog
Post Date: 3/1/2007 10:04:00 PM
Body: It has been discussed that most of the films of Stanley Kubrick are examples of film-art. In other words, most of his films are thought of as pieces (more like masterpieces) of art. I would agree with this on his work from Paths of Glory to his last film, Eyes Wide Shut (his early film noirs are still good with the exception of Fear and Desire since Kubrick admitted this was a failure with his attempt to destroy every print of it). As for the films in the second half of his career (1971-1999), Barry Lyndon stands out to me as a good example of film-art. Though not the best film from this period in his career (A Clockwork Orange is the best one from this period to me), it is a film that exemplifies film-art to me in a different way than other Kubrick films. There are plenty of reasons you could say that Barry Lyndon was not a very successful piece of film-art at the time of its release. It is common for the studio that bankrolls the film to look at it one way; that view is at how much money did it make. Well, it did gross $9.5 million domestically in 1975; unfortunately, it needed to make $30 million for Warner Bros. to see a profit. Thus, this was considered to be the first major film of Stanley Kubrick to be a box office failure. In fact, it was probably the most unsuccessful for him on that level. But it would be just stupid to dismiss a good film on its box office grosses. Besides, most good films will eventually make their money back on video or television markets since they are usually worth a view. But was this considered a good film at the time? Even the critics were dismissive of this Kubrick film. The negativity was aimed at many things, such as the small amount of dialogue for an epic, stillness of images, and stiffness of the actors in the film. In order words, they didn't like the deliberate slow pace and movements in the scene without much said verbally. Arguably, Kubrick films tend to not be fast paced but most of the time the beauty of the images distract a viewer from the pace (well, at least for me but I don't mind the slow pace in his films). Barry Lyndon's images were no less beautiful than anything Kubrick had done before. But, of course, the three films he did before this were Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange (these are usually considered his best three films). It is arguable that most people today (as well as then) seem to be more interested in science fiction and war images than they are of images from a film set in the early 19th century. But it is hard to not say this film was not an artistic success, which I hold to be more important than to discuss how much it made or how critics felt toward it. Besides, I don't think the critics got what his film did as a piece of film-art. Steven Spielberg felt like it was a short trip through a long museum, such as the Prado. One can only presume that art lover Kubrick may have walked through this museum or saw a book on it. In a sense, Spielberg is right and wrong. But I only believe he is right because his own opinion toward art is not ecstatic. So he is wrong to see it is as too long. I guess what my point here is that this film is slow on purpose because it is suppose to be what it is like to walk through a museum of art. Kubrick wants you to watch the images of this adventurer's rise from peasant and fall from nobility. The takes are long in order to make you pay attention to the image and study its details like the way pieces of art are looked at. As I have said before, you can take a frame from a Kubrick film and frame it as a piece of art. For example, look at the shot of the duel between Barry and Captain Quin. This is a beautiful shot for many reasons. Because, if you were to pause the film after the camera zooms out, you would see how Barry's costume makes him easy to distinguish from the others (nobody tends to wear a similar outfit to Barry throughout the film if you do not include the war scenes). I believe this helps him stand out in almost every frame of the film. Furthermore, he appears powerless, smaller in size compared to his opponent Quin. This shows the view of others toward him as well as his own self-doubts. This way also enables the composition to tell the story more than Ryan O'Neal's expressionless performance as Barry or any of the other blank-faced actors we see throughout. On the subject of the actors, they either remain stiff or move slowly throughout the film. They do this for many reasons. In the past, the artists did not want their subjects to move so they could capture the image without distraction or loss of detail in any way. So in a sense, the artist, such as Kubrick definitely was, controlled the world he presented. But more importantly, due to the limited movement of actors, we look at their surroundings more. The whole image becomes more of a focus and we all know Kubrick wanted his mise-en-scene to be complex. Notably, when Lady Lyndon first appears in the film to gamble, we do not only notice her beauty (Marisa Berenson was a model) but the other elements in the composition. Reverend Runt sits at her side in the mid-ground and does her liking. But we also notice that he looks questioningly at Barry on the other side of the table, who has locked eyes with Lady Lyndon. I already got a sense Runt would turn on Barry at that point if Barry ever hurt Lady Lyndon. We also notice the crowd in the background watch the card and gambling moves the two make in the foreground. One thing I did not say was that the viewer's eye will roam the scene because they are bored and don't know what to concentrate on. They do look at the images long enough that they will eventually notice the other elements. But Kubrick was a master of on how to light a scene and he will have you look where he wanted you. The scene I mentioned above is notable because most of the light hits Lady Lyndon so we do keep most of our attention on her since she is the main subject of the shot. Kubrick lit every scene in this film either with candles (mostly the interiors at night) or natural light; the candles are in the composition of that previously mentioned shot. He wanted this film world to look like it did in its time period (they did not have electric lighting back then so the use of artificial lights would make it look unnatural or just wrong to Kubrick). Once again, Kubrick acted like the artists of old since they also relied on natural light or candles to capture the true beauty of their subjects. This he did marvelously. The film has not stayed too much in the collective unconscious of ordinary viewers since many of them have not seen it. In fact, I have only discussed this film at film school. This emphasizes the point that only filmmakers have only truly embraced this film. Martin Scorsese considers this film a major influence on him as well as others. To many, though, it was saw as a major failure critically, financially (it was this with no doubt), or both. So what? Only artists probably appreciate other artists like many should be. Most filmmakers acknowledge Stanley Kubrick did a good job. But nobody can deny that Kubrick, with the use of such things as stillness and special lighting, painted a piece of film-art with Barry Lyndon. Because it is truly a beautiful film to look at, no matter if you like the film or not.
]]>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:04:00 GMTwilliamdouglasbwilliamdouglasb Blog3/1/2007 10:04:00 PMIt has been discussed that most of the films of Stanley Kubrick are examples of film-art. In other words, most of his films are thought of as pieces (more like masterpieces) of art. I would agree with this on his work from Paths of Glory to his last film, Eyes Wide Shut (his early film noirs are still good with the exception of Fear and Desire since Kubrick admitted this was a failure with his attempt to destroy every print of it). As for the films in the second half of his career (1971-1999), Barry Lyndon stands out to me as a good example of film-art. Though not the best film from this period in his career (A Clockwork Orange is the best one from this period to me), it is a film that exemplifies film-art to me in a different way than other Kubrick films. There are plenty of reasons you could say that Barry Lyndon was not a very successful piece of film-art at the time of its release. It is common for the studio that bankrolls the film to look at it one way; that view is at how much money did it make. Well, it did gross $9.5 million domestically in 1975; unfortunately, it needed to make $30 million for Warner Bros. to see a profit. Thus, this was considered to be the first major film of Stanley Kubrick to be a box office failure. In fact, it was probably the most unsuccessful for him on that level. But it would be just stupid to dismiss a good film on its box office grosses. Besides, most good films will eventually make their money back on video or television markets since they are usually worth a view. But was this considered a good film at the time? Even the critics were dismissive of this Kubrick film. The negativity was aimed at many things, such as the small amount of dialogue for an epic, stillness of images, and stiffness of the actors in the film. In order words, they didn't like the deliberate slow pace and movements in the scene without much said verbally. Arguably, Kubrick films tend to not be fast paced but most of the time the beauty of the images distract a viewer from the pace (well, at least for me but I don't mind the slow pace in his films). Barry Lyndon's images were no less beautiful than anything Kubrick had done before. But, of course, the three films he did before this were Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clockwork Orange (these are usually considered his best three films). It is arguable that most people today (as well as then) seem to be more interested in science fiction and war images than they are of images from a film set in the early 19th century. But it is hard to not say this film was not an artistic success, which I hold to be more important than to discuss how much it made or how critics felt toward it. Besides, I don't think the critics got what his film did as a piece of film-art. Steven Spielberg felt like it was a short trip through a long museum, such as the Prado. One can only presume that art lover Kubrick may have walked through this museum or saw a book on it. In a sense, Spielberg is right and wrong. But I only believe he is right because his own opinion toward art is not ecstatic. So he is wrong to see it is as too long. I guess what my point here is that this film is slow on purpose because it is suppose to be what it is like to walk through a museum of art. Kubrick wants you to watch the images of this adventurer's rise from peasant and fall from nobility. The takes are long in order to make you pay attention to the image and study its details like the way pieces of art are looked at. As I have said before, you can take a frame from a Kubrick film and frame it as a piece of art. For example, look at the shot of the duel between Barry and Captain Quin. This is a beautiful shot for many reasons. Because, if you were to pause the film after the camera zooms out, you would see how Barry's costume makes him easy to distinguish from the others (nobody tends to wear a similar outfit to Barry throughout the film if you do not include the war scenes). I believe this helps him stand out in almost every frame of the film. Furthermore, he appears powerless, smaller in size compared to his opponent Quin. This shows the view of others toward him as well as his own self-doubts. This way also enables the composition to tell the story more than Ryan O'Neal's expressionless performance as Barry or any of the other blank-faced actors we see throughout. On the subject of the actors, they either remain stiff or move slowly throughout the film. They do this for many reasons. In the past, the artists did not want their subjects to move so they could capture the image without distraction or loss of detail in any way. So in a sense, the artist, such as Kubrick definitely was, controlled the world he presented. But more importantly, due to the limited movement of actors, we look at their surroundings more. The whole image becomes more of a focus and we all know Kubrick wanted his mise-en-scene to be complex. Notably, when Lady Lyndon first appears in the film to gamble, we do not only notice her beauty (Marisa Berenson was a model) but the other elements in the composition. Reverend Runt sits at her side in the mid-ground and does her liking. But we also notice that he looks questioningly at Barry on the other side of the table, who has locked eyes with Lady Lyndon. I already got a sense Runt would turn on Barry at that point if Barry ever hurt Lady Lyndon. We also notice the crowd in the background watch the card and gambling moves the two make in the foreground. One thing I did not say was that the viewer's eye will roam the scene because they are bored and don't know what to concentrate on. They do look at the images long enough that they will eventually notice the other elements. But Kubrick was a master of on how to light a scene and he will have you look where he wanted you. The scene I mentioned above is notable because most of the light hits Lady Lyndon so we do keep most of our attention on her since she is the main subject of the shot. Kubrick lit every scene in this film either with candles (mostly the interiors at night) or natural light; the candles are in the composition of that previously mentioned shot. He wanted this film world to look like it did in its time period (they did not have electric lighting back then so the use of artificial lights would make it look unnatural or just wrong to Kubrick). Once again, Kubrick acted like the artists of old since they also relied on natural light or candles to capture the true beauty of their subjects. This he did marvelously. The film has not stayed too much in the collective unconscious of ordinary viewers since many of them have not seen it. In fact, I have only discussed this film at film school. This emphasizes the point that only filmmakers have only truly embraced this film. Martin Scorsese considers this film a major influence on him as well as others. To many, though, it was saw as a major failure critically, financially (it was this with no doubt), or both. So what? Only artists probably appreciate other artists like many should be. Most filmmakers acknowledge Stanley Kubrick did a good job. But nobody can deny that Kubrick, with the use of such things as stillness and special lighting, painted a piece of film-art with Barry Lyndon. Because it is truly a beautiful film to look at, no matter if you like the film or not. Spout Post: Polanski's Genre Baby http://www.spout.com/blogs/williamdouglasb/archive/2007/2/28/5874.aspx Post By: williamdouglasb
Post To: williamdouglasb Blog
Post Date: 2/28/2007 11:56:59 PM
Body: Spoilers Alert: Don't read this if you haven't seen the film. It is an examination of the whole film. Don't proceed if you want to be surprised by this brilliant film. There are many filmmakers who approach a film like every other film of its kind before it. For example, a director is handed a script for an action film similar to Die Hard but set on a train. Instead of giving the film his or her own personal touch, the director and his or her crew create an exact replica of Die Hard, just on a train. They think that by doing this that they will receive the same response to their film that the very successful predecessor had. Of course, many copycats do succeed if they follow the formula to the tee. But some filmmakers don't go that way; they take a risk by injecting the genre piece with their own personal vision on how to express such things as story, ideas, and emotions. If they are successful, their film inspires copycats instead of just being one it. One such example is writer-director Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby. The plot of Rosemary's Baby begins with the arrival of Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse at their new apartment building. Life seems perfect there. Rosemary quickly meets a young woman, Terry, and they hit it off. But her new acquaintance is found dead outside their apartment building soon after. This leads Rosemary and Guy to become more familiar with the elderly next-door neighbors Roman and Minnie Castevet, whom Terry was staying with. Rosemary doesn't take to them like Guy but puts up with them. Guy soon decides they should have a baby and gets her pregnant when she passes out, which is basically rape since she is covered with scratches the next morning (furthermore, in what appears to be a nightmare during the rape, she sees the apartment residents standing around naked and watching as a monster actually impregnates her). Arousing her fears more, the Castevets take great interest in her pregnancy and introduce her to Dr. Sapirstein, who becomes Rosemary's new doctor. Rosemary soon finds herself losing weight and feeling great pain. Everybody else in the apartment building as well as Dr. Sapirstein tells her it is normal and she needs to just have her drink fixed by Minnie daily if she wants the pain to stop. Rosemary doesn't recognize a root used in the drink and asks her old friend Hutch to find out what the root is. He soon ends up in a coma and dies later. But Hutch is a herald since he leaves behind a warning in the form of a book for her, which states that the root is used for satanic purposes. Before this, she decided it was time to switch doctors but found her pain had stopped with her decision. Now, a few days before delivery, she suspects the plot is true thanks to the book and the similarities between Roman and the picture of a man in the book, whose name is an anagram for Roman Castevet. Guy claims she is losing it and puts the book away. Rosemary figures he is in on the plot, too, and goes on the run. She tries to get help from another doctor but the unbelieving man tricks her and just turns her over to Sapirstein. The pregnant woman tries to escape the coven's clutches but goes into labor at the apartment. She wakes up and is told by Guy that the baby is dead. But she hears baby cries in the apartment building. She sneaks out of the apartment and finds the baby in the Castevets' place. Unfortunately, she finds it is the baby of Satan and displays all his features. Without much choice given her psychological state, she takes care of the baby. According to Stuart Voytilla, writer of Myth and the Movies, Rosemary's Baby is a genre piece since it is a member of a certain story type (or types) that features other stories with similar narratives, subjects, and conventions that have been seen by its audience before. Genre is not to be confused with myths, stories that represent the ideas and hopes of a culture and are passed down from generation to generation as a traditional way to express and keep certain ideals from never disappearing in a society. Of course, the myth of the devil crosses over into the horror genre, such as in this film. Genre connections can occur three ways. It can be individual (between the viewer and the film). This means the viewer has certain expectations when seeing this type of genre. This film, part horror genre and part thriller genre, brings multiple expectations with it; for example, thrillers put an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances. Rosemary's situation certainly qualifies this as a thriller, especially since she is not asked to be a part of this coven (her husband has misled, or seduced, her into this world). Another genre connection is inter-textual since the film connects to the genre and other films of the genre. The horror type of human being versus foreign monster, such as the devil, is in other films of the genre like The Omen and The Exorcist, offspring of Polanski's triumph. The final genre connection is cultural, expressing concerns of a culture. The devil is definitely a fear in many cultures, appearing under many different names but affecting many individuals in the same way. Of course, most people favor a god over the devil; this film shows some individuals who beg to differ. Genre analysis is important not only to show the formulas that exist but also to critique ideas. In horror, it is perfect for looking at the fear of not only the devil but also the unknown. The first scene occurs after an aerial journey over the city to the apartment. The pink-lettered credits and lullaby do not suggest a horror thriller; in fact, it is traits more of soap operas or possibly a dark Doris Day flick. This heightens the fear of the unknown to the viewer since this doesn't let us completely know what is going on. Maybe Polanski's aerial trip represents the journey into the unknown, the apartment building, by the heroine Rosemary, an archetype who must sacrifice her to restore order in her universe. The first sequence in the apartment room is the first look at this new place by Rosemary and Guy, which is a slow-paced montage of shots and lit like a soap opera, continuing the nature of the opening (most of the film is this way accept for a few terrifying moments). It is the mise-en-scene that reveals the most details in the film, especially when superintendent Mr. Nicklas takes them in and shows them around. The composition in depth shows Nicklas babble about a woman dying and leaving her things behind in the apartment in the foreground as Rosemary looks around in the background while Guy watches and follows her in the middle; this is the situation in many of the shots in the apartment. Polanski's first shot leads to another moving shot in a wide room full of plants and books, compressing time and space between shots since the duration of the film sequence is exactly shorter than it would be in real life. A close-up of Rosemary shows that the nosey woman has come across something. An insert of a journal writing of the former tenant states, "I can no longer associate myself," before stopping in mid-sentence. This is the first clue of something unknown since what she referred to is left unsaid. Another close-up shows Rosemary realizes something is not right. A cutback to a group shot shows Guy in the background in the middle staring at Rosemary as Nicklas says the room would be good for a nursery. He seems tense and changes the subject to nearby herbs since he is the shape shifter, who must mislead and question the heroine. He already knows about the apartment and doesn't want her to discover the truth about the deal to help his acting career. They follow Nicklas with back-to-back moving shots into a living room where Rosemary, played innocently and more girlishly than womanly by Mia Farrow, goes around the room as Guy stays between her and Nicklas, who is apparently unaware of this plot. This is obvious when a pan right allows Nicklas and the audience to discover a moved secretary in front of a closet. Guy is willing to acknowledge there is a closet because he can't mislead him on the obvious; he's a little more reluctant helping Nicklas move it back where Rosemary had showed it was in a tilt down of the camera. Nicklas opens the closet to discover a vacuum and towels. Once again, it is unknown why the old woman did what she did. Realizing Rosemary's curiosity about this, Guy misleads her on why the woman did it (he says she was senile). Anchoring this deception is the mugging of actor John Cassavetes, who plays Guy; the character is suppose to be a bad actor who overacts in real life as well, making it hard to catch on to the secret he hides in the first viewing of the film. The use of a soap opera look in a horror thriller puts it in the revisionist genre mode. Instead of the classical genre mode, we get a questioning of genre conventions and cultural value even if the subject matter is treated with respect and a complex style that is not parody even if coming dangerously close to being. Who is good or evil is also not clear, being more ambiguous in Polanski's screenplay than in the book it is based on. This is obvious in the first scene of violence, one of the few in the film described by producer Robert Evans as a horror film without the horror. A series of hand-held shots show Rosemary and Guy walking into a crime scene outside their apartment building at night (not coincidentally, this occurs after a scene where they heard Satanic chanting in the apartment next door). Polanski then goes into a spiraling POV hand-held of Terry's bloody body. Rosemary gets emotional at the lost of her new friend, someone she barely knew. She tells the cops what she knows of the woman before we are greeted with the presence of the Castevets, who walk out of the darkness from what seems like nowhere. A conventional horror setup to introduce a villain lurking in the shadows but not for a friendly, elderly couple like the Castevets, dressed in colorful clothes that people who stay at retirement homes wear. Through a series of pans and cuts, the couple shows little emotion when they find out about the body; if anything, they seem disappointed. But this could be like any old couple that has seen many people die in their lifetime, many closer than Terry was to them. They also bicker over what might have happened like a regular couple. But they pretend not to know as much as Rosemary does about her ally Terry, like the fact she had family. They check out Rosemary as she introduces herself in a medium close-up that moves into a group shot that shows the dysfunctional family together for the first time (note that Guy doesn't tell them his name since they already know him in secret). The Castevets hug when she and Guy leave, suggesting they approve of Rosemary for Satan and are not upset over Terry's death since the hug comes here instead of earlier. They are the shadows, the enemies working for the dark side who have Rosemary trapped in their territory. If you are not convinced that this is a revisionist horror thriller, Polanski makes the ending further proof of it. Rosemary, whose takes up most of the frame in many group shots or has the camera angle in her favor, has decided to exploit the thriller issue of what a heroine does when she is in the face of danger (confined to her bed due to drugging) and decides to venture through the closet's hidden passageway to take matters into her own hands. This leads to a sequence that has a hand-held camera follow her through the hallways past a picture of a burning church into the living room of the Castevets, where a black crib sits in the background, the coven occupies the mid-ground, and Rosemary stares in the foreground. The mysterious, non-diegetic music stops and the room go silent as the attention turns to Rosemary holding her kitchen knife. A witch finally lets out an old horror film kind of scream as Rosemary walks toward the crib while everybody else watches (unusual that nobody would try to stop her so she could stab somebody for the horror fans of screen blood). Sensing something wrong herself, she stops and looks at Minnie watching in the foreground with Guy walking circles down the hall, revealing he knows something more than just the fact she realizes he lied to her. She also sees the picture of the ancestor of Roman that was in the devil-worshipping book. The silence returns as the camera cuts backs to her. An insert shows her arm reach into the coffin and a cutback to a close-up hand-held of her reveals she is shocked by what she sees; the arrival of a new musical score also emphasizes her surprise. In most horror films, Satan's baby would be showed for shock value since it must be disturbing looking according to Rosemary's reaction. But Polanski decides to keep the baby off screen and the viewer in the dark as to what is in the cradle. Besides, we get the idea something is wrong since she asks what happened to the baby's eyes. A POV shot shows reaction to the question from the coven, which knows something she doesn't. A wide shot with her in the center of the frame spirals around the room as it is revealed that Satan is the baby's father, not Guy. The dizzying motion indicates the mindset of Rosemary as she tries to get a grip on what is happening. A couple of close-ups of Minnie and a witch stating proof the baby must be Satan's lead to a close-up of Rosemary realizing the truth with a superimposed image of Satan's eyes over her own, causing her to drop her knife since it is obvious that it is helpless to fight such a force with that weapon since her Catholic background couldn't even protect her. This leads to a close-up of Roman celebrating God's death and Satan's triumph. The following shot shows Rosemary sit down, a tight close-up that shows she is suffocating in the collapsing of the world she knew. A hand-held shot shows Minnie pick up the knife and check her floor, showing a different response to the odd situation since she treats it as normal. The next shot has Rosemary listening to Roman explaining her importance. The camera closes in on her again, a sign of what happens when she doesn't accept the situation. The camera is wider and more spacious for the members of the coven in the next shot since they are more relaxed and approving of the situation. She just cries in her next close-up. The coven reaction shot shows some disdain toward her behavior. More people arrive in another shot (foreigners have arrived in a fashion similar to the visitors for the baby Jesus). She notices this back in her shot and watches them near the coffin and admire the baby from her POV. Guy comes over to her and she spits in his face. He realizes she doesn't want anything to do with him and he meets the new guests in another shot. The following setup has Minnie come over to her and give her some tea, making Rosemary feel more like a part of the group (something Minnie and Roman want since they need her milk for the baby). A POV of Rosemary shows a witch rocks the baby too fast, causing it to cry like any other baby. In two shots, Rosemary stands up and moves toward the coffin where Roman shows his confidence in her around the baby by allowing Rosemary to rock the baby. Dr. Sapirstein, the threshold guardian who put obstacles in Rosemary's way so she couldn't have the baby outside the apartment, arrives and sees she has discovered his success in a reaction shot. We see as Rosemary's rocking makes the baby stop crying. The others watch in a wide shot, thinking they got her on their side. The final shot of Rosemary shows her reach in and adjust the baby's blanket, suggesting they're right, as she has made the baby the center of her attention. If this means she has joined them is not clear, leaving the narrative open-ended. Rosemary's Baby is a great film to analyze genres with, especially since its revisionist mode allows the viewer to explore more than one genre and the expectations of each. Though Polanski inverts what we know about certain genres, it still works through individual, inter-textual, and cultural connections. This world is not as normal as it appears nor is its characters; this leaves the audience with the decision to decide what is reality and what is fantasy. Not many films can claim to do that.
]]>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:56:59 GMTwilliamdouglasbwilliamdouglasb Blog2/28/2007 11:56:59 PMSpoilers Alert: Don't read this if you haven't seen the film. It is an examination of the whole film. Don't proceed if you want to be surprised by this brilliant film. There are many filmmakers who approach a film like every other film of its kind before it. For example, a director is handed a script for an action film similar to Die Hard but set on a train. Instead of giving the film his or her own personal touch, the director and his or her crew create an exact replica of Die Hard, just on a train. They think that by doing this that they will receive the same response to their film that the very successful predecessor had. Of course, many copycats do succeed if they follow the formula to the tee. But some filmmakers don't go that way; they take a risk by injecting the genre piece with their own personal vision on how to express such things as story, ideas, and emotions. If they are successful, their film inspires copycats instead of just being one it. One such example is writer-director Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby. The plot of Rosemary's Baby begins with the arrival of Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse at their new apartment building. Life seems perfect there. Rosemary quickly meets a young woman, Terry, and they hit it off. But her new acquaintance is found dead outside their apartment building soon after. This leads Rosemary and Guy to become more familiar with the elderly next-door neighbors Roman and Minnie Castevet, whom Terry was staying with. Rosemary doesn't take to them like Guy but puts up with them. Guy soon decides they should have a baby and gets her pregnant when she passes out, which is basically rape since she is covered with scratches the next morning (furthermore, in what appears to be a nightmare during the rape, she sees the apartment residents standing around naked and watching as a monster actually impregnates her). Arousing her fears more, the Castevets take great interest in her pregnancy and introduce her to Dr. Sapirstein, who becomes Rosemary's new doctor. Rosemary soon finds herself losing weight and feeling great pain. Everybody else in the apartment building as well as Dr. Sapirstein tells her it is normal and she needs to just have her drink fixed by Minnie daily if she wants the pain to stop. Rosemary doesn't recognize a root used in the drink and asks her old friend Hutch to find out what the root is. He soon ends up in a coma and dies later. But Hutch is a herald since he leaves behind a warning in the form of a book for her, which states that the root is used for satanic purposes. Before this, she decided it was time to switch doctors but found her pain had stopped with her decision. Now, a few days before delivery, she suspects the plot is true thanks to the book and the similarities between Roman and the picture of a man in the book, whose name is an anagram for Roman Castevet. Guy claims she is losing it and puts the book away. Rosemary figures he is in on the plot, too, and goes on the run. She tries to get help from another doctor but the unbelieving man tricks her and just turns her over to Sapirstein. The pregnant woman tries to escape the coven's clutches but goes into labor at the apartment. She wakes up and is told by Guy that the baby is dead. But she hears baby cries in the apartment building. She sneaks out of the apartment and finds the baby in the Castevets' place. Unfortunately, she finds it is the baby of Satan and displays all his features. Without much choice given her psychological state, she takes care of the baby. According to Stuart Voytilla, writer of Myth and the Movies, Rosemary's Baby is a genre piece since it is a member of a certain story type (or types) that features other stories with similar narratives, subjects, and conventions that have been seen by its audience before. Genre is not to be confused with myths, stories that represent the ideas and hopes of a culture and are passed down from generation to generation as a traditional way to express and keep certain ideals from never disappearing in a society. Of course, the myth of the devil crosses over into the horror genre, such as in this film. Genre connections can occur three ways. It can be individual (between the viewer and the film). This means the viewer has certain expectations when seeing this type of genre. This film, part horror genre and part thriller genre, brings multiple expectations with it; for example, thrillers put an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances. Rosemary's situation certainly qualifies this as a thriller, especially since she is not asked to be a part of this coven (her husband has misled, or seduced, her into this world). Another genre connection is inter-textual since the film connects to the genre and other films of the genre. The horror type of human being versus foreign monster, such as the devil, is in other films of the genre like The Omen and The Exorcist, offspring of Polanski's triumph. The final genre connection is cultural, expressing concerns of a culture. The devil is definitely a fear in many cultures, appearing under many different names but affecting many individuals in the same way. Of course, most people favor a god over the devil; this film shows some individuals who beg to differ. Genre analysis is important not only to show the formulas that exist but also to critique ideas. In horror, it is perfect for looking at the fear of not only the devil but also the unknown. The first scene occurs after an aerial journey over the city to the apartment. The pink-lettered credits and lullaby do not suggest a horror thriller; in fact, it is traits more of soap operas or possibly a dark Doris Day flick. This heightens the fear of the unknown to the viewer since this doesn't let us completely know what is going on. Maybe Polanski's aerial trip represents the journey into the unknown, the apartment building, by the heroine Rosemary, an archetype who must sacrifice her to restore order in her universe. The first sequence in the apartment room is the first look at this new place by Rosemary and Guy, which is a slow-paced montage of shots and lit like a soap opera, continuing the nature of the opening (most of the film is this way accept for a few terrifying moments). It is the mise-en-scene that reveals the most details in the film, especially when superintendent Mr. Nicklas takes them in and shows them around. The composition in depth shows Nicklas babble about a woman dying and leaving her things behind in the apartment in the foreground as Rosemary looks around in the background while Guy watches and follows her in the middle; this is the situation in many of the shots in the apartment. Polanski's first shot leads to another moving shot in a wide room full of plants and books, compressing time and space between shots since the duration of the film sequence is exactly shorter than it would be in real life. A close-up of Rosemary shows that the nosey woman has come across something. An insert of a journal writing of the former tenant states, "I can no longer associate myself," before stopping in mid-sentence. This is the first clue of something unknown since what she referred to is left unsaid. Another close-up shows Rosemary realizes something is not right. A cutback to a group shot shows Guy in the background in the middle staring at Rosemary as Nicklas says the room would be good for a nursery. He seems tense and changes the subject to nearby herbs since he is the shape shifter, who must mislead and question the heroine. He already knows about the apartment and doesn't want her to discover the truth about the deal to help his acting career. They follow Nicklas with back-to-back moving shots into a living room where Rosemary, played innocently and more girlishly than womanly by Mia Farrow, goes around the room as Guy stays between her and Nicklas, who is apparently unaware of this plot. This is obvious when a pan right allows Nicklas and the audience to discover a moved secretary in front of a closet. Guy is willing to acknowledge there is a closet because he can't mislead him on the obvious; he's a little more reluctant helping Nicklas move it back where Rosemary had showed it was in a tilt down of the camera. Nicklas opens the closet to discover a vacuum and towels. Once again, it is unknown why the old woman did what she did. Realizing Rosemary's curiosity about this, Guy misleads her on why the woman did it (he says she was senile). Anchoring this deception is the mugging of actor John Cassavetes, who plays Guy; the character is suppose to be a bad actor who overacts in real life as well, making it hard to catch on to the secret he hides in the first viewing of the film. The use of a soap opera look in a horror thriller puts it in the revisionist genre mode. Instead of the classical genre mode, we get a questioning of genre conventions and cultural value even if the subject matter is treated with respect and a complex style that is not parody even if coming dangerously close to being. Who is good or evil is also not clear, being more ambiguous in Polanski's screenplay than in the book it is based on. This is obvious in the first scene of violence, one of the few in the film described by producer Robert Evans as a horror film without the horror. A series of hand-held shots show Rosemary and Guy walking into a crime scene outside their apartment building at night (not coincidentally, this occurs after a scene where they heard Satanic chanting in the apartment next door). Polanski then goes into a spiraling POV hand-held of Terry's bloody body. Rosemary gets emotional at the lost of her new friend, someone she barely knew. She tells the cops what she knows of the woman before we are greeted with the presence of the Castevets, who walk out of the darkness from what seems like nowhere. A conventional horror setup to introduce a villain lurking in the shadows but not for a friendly, elderly couple like the Castevets, dressed in colorful clothes that people who stay at retirement homes wear. Through a series of pans and cuts, the couple shows little emotion when they find out about the body; if anything, they seem disappointed. But this could be like any old couple that has seen many people die in their lifetime, many closer than Terry was to them. They also bicker over what might have happened like a regular couple. But they pretend not to know as much as Rosemary does about her ally Terry, like the fact she had family. They check out Rosemary as she introduces herself in a medium close-up that moves into a group shot that shows the dysfunctional family together for the first time (note that Guy doesn't tell them his name since they already know him in secret). The Castevets hug when she and Guy leave, suggesting they approve of Rosemary for Satan and are not upset over Terry's death since the hug comes here instead of earlier. They are the shadows, the enemies working for the dark side who have Rosemary trapped in their territory. If you are not convinced that this is a revisionist horror thriller, Polanski makes the ending further proof of it. Rosemary, whose takes up most of the frame in many group shots or has the camera angle in her favor, has decided to exploit the thriller issue of what a heroine does when she is in the face of danger (confined to her bed due to drugging) and decides to venture through the closet's hidden passageway to take matters into her own hands. This leads to a sequence that has a hand-held camera follow her through the hallways past a picture of a burning church into the living room of the Castevets, where a black crib sits in the background, the coven occupies the mid-ground, and Rosemary stares in the foreground. The mysterious, non-diegetic music stops and the room go silent as the attention turns to Rosemary holding her kitchen knife. A witch finally lets out an old horror film kind of scream as Rosemary walks toward the crib while everybody else watches (unusual that nobody would try to stop her so she could stab somebody for the horror fans of screen blood). Sensing something wrong herself, she stops and looks at Minnie watching in the foreground with Guy walking circles down the hall, revealing he knows something more than just the fact she realizes he lied to her. She also sees the picture of the ancestor of Roman that was in the devil-worshipping book. The silence returns as the camera cuts backs to her. An insert shows her arm reach into the coffin and a cutback to a close-up hand-held of her reveals she is shocked by what she sees; the arrival of a new musical score also emphasizes her surprise. In most horror films, Satan's baby would be showed for shock value since it must be disturbing looking according to Rosemary's reaction. But Polanski decides to keep the baby off screen and the viewer in the dark as to what is in the cradle. Besides, we get the idea something is wrong since she asks what happened to the baby's eyes. A POV shot shows reaction to the question from the coven, which knows something she doesn't. A wide shot with her in the center of the frame spirals around the room as it is revealed that Satan is the baby's father, not Guy. The dizzying motion indicates the mindset of Rosemary as she tries to get a grip on what is happening. A couple of close-ups of Minnie and a witch stating proof the baby must be Satan's lead to a close-up of Rosemary realizing the truth with a superimposed image of Satan's eyes over her own, causing her to drop her knife since it is obvious that it is helpless to fight such a force with that weapon since her Catholic background couldn't even protect her. This leads to a close-up of Roman celebrating God's death and Satan's triumph. The following shot shows Rosemary sit down, a tight close-up that shows she is suffocating in the collapsing of the world she knew. A hand-held shot shows Minnie pick up the knife and check her floor, showing a different response to the odd situation since she treats it as normal. The next shot has Rosemary listening to Roman explaining her importance. The camera closes in on her again, a sign of what happens when she doesn't accept the situation. The camera is wider and more spacious for the members of the coven in the next shot since they are more relaxed and approving of the situation. She just cries in her next close-up. The coven reaction shot shows some disdain toward her behavior. More people arrive in another shot (foreigners have arrived in a fashion similar to the visitors for the baby Jesus). She notices this back in her shot and watches them near the coffin and admire the baby from her POV. Guy comes over to her and she spits in his face. He realizes she doesn't want anything to do with him and he meets the new guests in another shot. The following setup has Minnie come over to her and give her some tea, making Rosemary feel more like a part of the group (something Minnie and Roman want since they need her milk for the baby). A POV of Rosemary shows a witch rocks the baby too fast, causing it to cry like any other baby. In two shots, Rosemary stands up and moves toward the coffin where Roman shows his confidence in her around the baby by allowing Rosemary to rock the baby. Dr. Sapirstein, the threshold guardian who put obstacles in Rosemary's way so she couldn't have the baby outside the apartment, arrives and sees she has discovered his success in a reaction shot. We see as Rosemary's rocking makes the baby stop crying. The others watch in a wide shot, thinking they got her on their side. The final shot of Rosemary shows her reach in and adjust the baby's blanket, suggesting they're right, as she has made the baby the center of her attention. If this means she has joined them is not clear, leaving the narrative open-ended. Rosemary's Baby is a great film to analyze genres with, especially since its revisionist mode allows the viewer to explore more than one genre and the expectations of each. Though Polanski inverts what we know about certain genres, it still works through individual, inter-textual, and cultural connections. This world is not as normal as it appears nor is its characters; this leaves the audience with the decision to decide what is reality and what is fantasy. Not many films can claim to do that. Spout Post: Of Epic Disportion http://www.spout.com/blogs/williamdouglasb/archive/2007/2/22/5680.aspx Post By: williamdouglasb
Post To: williamdouglasb Blog
Post Date: 2/22/2007 12:43:25 AM
Body: Some things can be blamed on moviegoers. Nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to spend money on movie tickets to every parody to come along. The opening weeekend grosses for Epic Movie makes you wonder why they did come considering this is a movie from the people who brought us Date Movie less than a year ago. Date Movie was a movie spoof of recent romantic comedies that gave up its best laughs in the trailer as most bad comedies do. Being profitable, it would figure another spoof would follow but I expected audiences would stay away. Unfortunately for them, they didn't.Expectations weren't high after Date Movie but at least that film was consistent in making fun of comedies. Epic Movie is all over the map when it comes to blasting hit films. But it screws up by making fun of films that weren't epic or even hits. Snakes on a Plane must have not been a big disappointment until they had filmed the opening scenes. At the same time, this wasn't the type of film to fall under what should be considered Epic. Nor are Nacho Libre, Borat, or Click. Where's take-offs on Gladiator, Troy, The Last Samurai, or any other film clocking in at nearly three hours? This film barely makes it to eighty minutes and ran out of steam a long time before that despite plenty of rich material to use besides Charlie & the Chocolate Factory and The Chronicles of Narnia. In fairness, their target audience is a young demographic that might miss a clever Gone With the Wind or even Titanic reference. But the best spoofs such as Airplane! and The Naked Gun stuck to making fun of good films or films audiences actually saw when it did make a mockery of something; hence, people might get the jokes. But the biggest crime the filmmakers commit besides ignoring their premise is the lack of making it funny. Up for P. Diddy and Michael Jackson jokes? That should tell you how stale everything in this is. Even a talented cast including Crispin Glover, Kal Penn, Jennifer Coolidge, and Tony Cox seem to be straining to find laughs in the material; only Darrell Hammond as "Jack Swallows" seems to have a grasp on his character and making it is his own (I honestly didn't realize it was Hammond). Unfortuntely, his part is more of a cameo than being a featured player (except in the ads). Imagine how much better this film would have been if it spoofed the plot of a Pirates Of the Caribbean movie with Jack Swallows as our protagonist. It is time SNL vet Hammond gets a starring role; even Tim Meadows got a shot. That said, even the despicable The Ladies Man was less painful than Epic Movie. As is pulling hair out of your head.
]]>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:43:25 GMTwilliamdouglasbwilliamdouglasb Blog2/22/2007 12:43:25 AMSome things can be blamed on moviegoers. Nobody puts a gun to their head and forces them to spend money on movie tickets to every parody to come along. The opening weeekend grosses for Epic Movie makes you wonder why they did come considering this is a movie from the people who brought us Date Movie less than a year ago. Date Movie was a movie spoof of recent romantic comedies that gave up its best laughs in the trailer as most bad comedies do. Being profitable, it would figure another spoof would follow but I expected audiences would stay away. Unfortunately for them, they didn't.Expectations weren't high after Date Movie but at least that film was consistent in making fun of comedies. Epic Movie is all over the map when it comes to blasting hit films. But it screws up by making fun of films that weren't epic or even hits. Snakes on a Plane must have not been a big disappointment until they had filmed the opening scenes. At the same time, this wasn't the type of film to fall under what should be considered Epic. Nor are Nacho Libre, Borat, or Click. Where's take-offs on Gladiator, Troy, The Last Samurai, or any other film clocking in at nearly three hours? This film barely makes it to eighty minutes and ran out of steam a long time before that despite plenty of rich material to use besides Charlie & the Chocolate Factory and The Chronicles of Narnia. In fairness, their target audience is a young demographic that might miss a clever Gone With the Wind or even Titanic reference. But the best spoofs such as Airplane! and The Naked Gun stuck to making fun of good films or films audiences actually saw when it did make a mockery of something; hence, people might get the jokes. But the biggest crime the filmmakers commit besides ignoring their premise is the lack of making it funny. Up for P. Diddy and Michael Jackson jokes? That should tell you how stale everything in this is. Even a talented cast including Crispin Glover, Kal Penn, Jennifer Coolidge, and Tony Cox seem to be straining to find laughs in the material; only Darrell Hammond as "Jack Swallows" seems to have a grasp on his character and making it is his own (I honestly didn't realize it was Hammond). Unfortuntely, his part is more of a cameo than being a featured player (except in the ads). Imagine how much better this film would have been if it spoofed the plot of a Pirates Of the Caribbean movie with Jack Swallows as our protagonist. It is time SNL vet Hammond gets a starring role; even Tim Meadows got a shot. That said, even the despicable The Ladies Man was less painful than Epic Movie. As is pulling hair out of your head. Spout Post: Re: Cat People On Trial - Faces 7 Life Sentences For Being So Bad http://www.spout.com/groups/Worst_Movie_Ever/Re_Cat_People_On_Trial_Faces_7_Life_Sentences_F/104/5679/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: williamdouglasb
Post To: Worst Movie Ever
Post Date: 2/21/2007 11:51:08 PM
Body: The original suggested stuff instead of showing. Kind of how the first Jaws waited until late into the film to show the shark while Jaws 3-D literally threw the killer in your face.
]]>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:51:08 GMTwilliamdouglasbWorst Movie Ever2/21/2007 11:51:08 PMThe original suggested stuff instead of showing. Kind of how the first Jaws waited until late into the film to show the shark while Jaws 3-D literally threw the killer in your face. Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon http://www.spout.com/members/148616/default.aspx Identity: The_MOW
Name: Mickey Micklon
Interests: movies, sci-fi, professional wrestling
Occupation: Unemployed
Location: Salem, NH
Films listed: 369
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Blog posts: 372
Blog post views: 11337
Number of times tagged: 25
Member since: 4/4/2009
Last login: 10/13/2009
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTThe_MOWMickey Micklon369Uberlister (>100)Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:50:30 GMTMember Spout Member:horror http://www.spout.com/members/144661/default.aspx Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMThorror1Beginner (<10)Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:27:41 GMTMember Spout Member:butterknife http://www.spout.com/members/127080/default.aspx Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTbutterknife1Beginner (<10)Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:18:37 GMTMember Spout Member:rnt2630 http://www.spout.com/members/95208/default.aspx Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTrnt26300Beginner (<10)Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:16:00 GMTMember Spout Member:dsalaski http://www.spout.com/members/94482/default.aspx Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTdsalaski0Beginner (<10)Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:47:53 GMTMember Spout Member:jennkp http://www.spout.com/members/94443/default.aspx Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTjennkp0Beginner (<10)Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:45:31 GMTMember Spout Member:Don0262 http://www.spout.com/members/94195/default.aspx Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTDon02622Beginner (<10)Sun, 09 Sep 2007 15:33:14 GMTMember Spout Member:martinluthar http://www.spout.com/members/93901/default.aspx Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTmartinluthar0Beginner (<10)Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:58:58 GMTMember Spout Member:clwoolfe http://www.spout.com/members/93885/default.aspx Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTclwoolfe0Beginner (<10)Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:09:50 GMTMember Spout Member:XtreamDenny http://www.spout.com/members/93661/default.aspx Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTXtreamDenny0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:49:41 GMTMember Spout Member:bofo http://www.spout.com/members/93627/default.aspx Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTbofo0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:57:17 GMTMember Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham http://www.spout.com/members/93570/default.aspx Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTseanjoneswrexham0Beginner (<10)Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:31:57 GMTMember Spout Member:nny921 http://www.spout.com/members/92277/default.aspx Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTnny9210Beginner (<10)Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:27:22 GMTMember Spout Member:mr_lol http://www.spout.com/members/92275/default.aspx Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTmr_lol0Beginner (<10)Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:25:57 GMTMember Spout Member:fire1311 http://www.spout.com/members/91742/default.aspx Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTfire13110Beginner (<10)Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:48:24 GMTMember Spout Member:Argueta http://www.spout.com/members/91469/default.aspx Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMTArgueta0Beginner (<10)Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:52:15 GMTMember Film:Funny Games http://www.spout.com/films/Funny_Games/288707/default.aspx Title: Funny Games
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Haneke
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMTFunny Games2007Michael Haneke27Tag Target (>10)241483http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s288707.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Funny_Games/288707/default.aspxFilm Film:The Dark Knight http://www.spout.com/films/The_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspx Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMTThe Dark Knight2008Christopher Nolan149Tag Target (>10)98156554http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s288704.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Dark_Knight/288704/default.aspxFilm Film:H2 http://www.spout.com/films/H2/397884/default.aspx Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMTH22009Rob Zombie111http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s397884.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/H2/397884/default.aspxFilm Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World http://www.spout.com/films/Eleanor_First_Lady_of_the_World/10331/default.aspx Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1
]]>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMTEleanor: First Lady of the World1982John Erman1http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Eleanor_First_Lady_of_the_World/10331/default.aspxFilm Film:Black Test Car http://www.spout.com/films/Black_Test_Car/328181/default.aspx Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMTBlack Test Car196224http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u37747stl5z.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Black_Test_Car/328181/default.aspxFilm Film:Dumpster Baby http://www.spout.com/films/Dumpster_Baby/273527/default.aspx Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMTDumpster BabyJames Bickert1http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t76920jjhow.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Dumpster_Baby/273527/default.aspxFilm Film:Rick http://www.spout.com/films/Rick/235722/default.aspx Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMTRick2002Curtiss Clayton1Slightly Tagged (1-5)12http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t51978e8qnf.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Rick/235722/default.aspxFilm Film:Speed Racer http://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer/297765/default.aspx Title: Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 41
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMTSpeed Racer2008Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski90Tag Target (>10)1641163http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s297765.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer/297765/default.aspxFilm Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series] http://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer_Anime_Series/32330/default.aspx Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMTSpeed Racer [Anime Series]19671113http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Speed_Racer_Anime_Series/32330/default.aspxFilm Film:The Raven http://www.spout.com/films/The_Raven/317289/default.aspx Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1
]]>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMTThe Raven2007Ulli Lommel21http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u08974fjkcg.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Raven/317289/default.aspxFilm Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe http://www.spout.com/films/The_Ballad_of_the_Sad_Cafe/2239/default.aspx Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMTThe Ballad of the Sad Cafe1991Simon Callow22http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t54643em1b1.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Ballad_of_the_Sad_Cafe/2239/default.aspxFilm Film:New York, New York http://www.spout.com/films/New_York_New_York/24524/default.aspx Title: New York, New York
Year: 1977
Director: Martin Scorsese
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 57
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMTNew York, New York1977Martin Scorsese23Tag Target (>10)125722http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u47828gvtpe.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/New_York_New_York/24524/default.aspxFilm Film:St. Nick http://www.spout.com/films/St_Nick/402616/default.aspx Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMTSt. Nick2009David Lowery3Slightly Tagged (1-5)255http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s402616.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/St_Nick/402616/default.aspxFilm Film:We Are the Strange http://www.spout.com/films/We_Are_the_Strange/314016/default.aspx Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMTWe Are the Strange2007M dot Strange334http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s314016.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/We_Are_the_Strange/314016/default.aspxFilm Film:The Sadist http://www.spout.com/films/The_Sadist/29811/default.aspx Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMTThe Sadist1963James Landis43http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t27402rl1sl.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Sadist/29811/default.aspxFilm Film:The Alligator People http://www.spout.com/films/The_Alligator_People/50507/default.aspx Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMTThe Alligator People1959Roy Del Ruth212http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t46806zj8ua.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Alligator_People/50507/default.aspxFilm