Tag Archives: artsy horror

Relentless Subjectivity: The Witch and The Lighthouse

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

So, finally last week, I had a chance to go to the movies for the first time in months and catch Robert Eggers’s The Northman before it left cinemas. While it’s not my favorite thing that he’s done, I was happy to have the chance to see it on the big screen and hear it at full volume (it’s a loud movie). On one level, I really wanted to catch it because – hey, an epic-mythic Viking tale of revenge, working with the same source on which Hamlet was based, just sounds pretty cool and also, having so appreciated Eggers’s first two features, I feel a sense of loyalty and will check out pretty much anything he makes for a while.

But this isn’t a Viking blog – it’s a horror blog, so today, I’m not going to delve much into The Northman, but rather those first two movies which so enraptured me: The VVitch and The Lighthouse. I’ve long wanted to re-visit them and consider them together as they share many elements and artistic/thematic preoccupations. Plus, they both just delighted me on first viewing. And as it’s also a blog about ‘delight,’ here we go…

The VVitch: A New-England Folk Tale (2015)

The film centers on Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), eldest daughter of a family of puritans kicked out of a New-England colony for somehow being too puritanical. The family patriarch, William (Ralph Ineson) thus drags them all into the wilderness to work the land and make a life for themselves, free to be as pious as he wants. Unfortunately, the only thing he’s actually good at is chopping wood (and this he does plenty of – in an obsessive, fevered, nigh masturbatory manner – his only outlet for the storm of emotions broiling within). Their vegetable plots are sad and barren, their corn beset by blight. They are barely scraping by, such that William has secretly sold his wife’s silver cup, her only remnant of her life and family in England, to buy a trap so they might catch animals to eat and somehow survive the coming winter.

Then one day, while Thomasin is playing peek-a-boo with her baby brother, he suddenly goes missing from one moment to the next, never to be found, and it doesn’t take long for their minds to first start teeming with intimations of the supernatural (the children had already spoken of a ‘witch of the wood’ before the abduction), before directly turning on Thomasin and accusing her of being the witch (having already been blamed for the cup’s disappearance), her adolescent female body a natural site for this confluence of desperate pride, religiosity, puritanical fear, and a terror of nature itself.

We see supernatural elements, but it’s unclear what is real and what is fantasy, and it all builds to a fevered, bloody family self-destruction. By the end, only Thomasin remains and when the devil appears before her in the form of the family’s goat, “Black Philip,” and offers her the opportunity to “live deliciously,” I can’t imagine rebuking her acquiescence. Her world is one of ‘sin,’ and she has already been labeled and attacked as ‘wicked,’ not to mention starved of the simple comforts of society. Under such conditions, if a goat seductively asks, “Wouldst thou like the taste of butter?” the answer is clearly “yes.” As she rises naked into the night, joining the fire-lit coven, it is emancipatory, rising towards an existence that simply must be better than what she’s known. Good for her. And at the same time, this sense of empowerment comes with the bite of tragedy and that juxtaposition makes the moment more than both.

This was, I believe, my fifth viewing since The VVitch was released seven years ago – and the experience of watching it has changed over time. I remember being so pulled in at first by the mystery of what was actually happening. Was there really a witch or was it just a case of this family projecting their supernatural fears onto the dire circumstances they had chosen to inhabit? If there was a witch, was it really Thomasin, or was this scary old crone actually out there, using baby’s blood as body lotion and/or wood stain for her broom? And was she the same as the lady in red or was there a group of women living in the forest and stealing children? The nightmare of it all was heightened by my inability to find firm ground on which to stand, and when it finally culminated in its explosion of goat/family violence and its denouement of triumphant, exultant, and willfully chosen witchery, it was deeply satisfying, while still inhabiting a space just beyond my full logical comprehension. Now, having watched it multiple times, I enjoy dwelling in that space of uncertainty. The film could be read in multiple ways – more or less supernaturally or realistically, sociologically, psychologically, religiously – but I find it most satisfying to leave Schrödinger’s Box closed, all states remaining simultaneously true and false.

I recently listened to an interview with Eggers on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast, and something he said there feels like a key to much of his work – in all of his features, he tries to approach his historical characters from their own perspective, without judgement. Thus, subjectivity reigns. There is no objective viewpoint of what is “real” – if the characters view the world itself, and the nature that surrounds and suffuses them as inherently sinful, it is. If they fear the devil, he is to be feared. If their worldview is one in which witches haunt the woods, they do. And in this, the film doesn’t make a claim of what was real in the past, but rather, it just gives us a glimpse through their eyes for the span of the story.

His obsessive attention to historical detail really supports this approach and helps to bring it all to life – the VVitch was filmed with natural light, among settings built using only period appropriate tools and techniques. The language is as accurate to how people would have been speaking then as he was able – it all comes together to situate the viewer in a time and a place and a mindset – and in this case, it is a troubling, eerie, emotionally fraught, and terrifying one. Somehow, this exactingly accurate past re-creation allows for a story that need not be rooted in realism, but is free to follow the often dark flights of fancy of its characters. I find it interesting that he was praised by both Satanists and Born-Again Christians for understanding their perspective and showing it in a good light. That subjectivity of character invites a similar subjectivity for the viewer.

The Lighthouse (2019)

Here, Eggers runs with that subjectivity and manages to take it to an extreme point of delirium and fractured identity. This can make the film delectable for some and exhausting for others as it is, in a narrative sense, pretty difficult to track what is or isn’t actually happening at any given moment. But when I saw it in the cinema, I was absolutely up for its wild ride, and came away from it enraptured. This is the first time I’ve revisited it since then and, while I think it did suffer from being viewed at home, surrounded by distractions, its madly ambitious hysteria still captivates, not to mention the absolute cinematic pleasure of its visually striking imagery and the simple joy of its performances. (Also, as an aside, I did – sort of – discuss its source material here.)

In short, a man, Thomas (Robert Pattinson), comes to a remote island lighthouse in the late 19th century to be an assistant lighthouse keeper, running away from a dark secret. He is thrust into tight quarters with his partner-boss, the main lighthouse keeper, or “wickie,” Thomas (Willem Dafoe). After one month, a storm prevents them from being relieved by the next wickies. He goes mad. He has sex with a mermaid. Poseidon makes an appearance. Mysterious tentacles writhe at the top of the lighthouse. The two men circle each other in a dance of aggression, attraction, mirrored identity, and ever shifting power dynamics. The older man’s eyes become lighthouse beams, pinning the younger man down with the searing light of truth. All the while, the storm rages outside, battering their fragile shelter, the water getting into everything and spoiling the food. They run out of booze and start drinking the kerosene. In the end, having ‘spilled the beans’ on his past crimes, the younger Thomas kills the older, finally gets to see the coveted light in the tower, and has his liver eaten by birds on the rocks as waves crash around him.

Or maybe none of that happens. Maybe he’s only there a couple of days before he goes mad. Maybe he’s freezing to death in Canada, imagining this all. Maybe he chases Thomas with an axe or maybe Thomas chases him. Maybe Thomas the elder is gaslighting him, lying about how many days have passed to make him think he’s losing time and responding to things that have never been said, toying with him cruelly by means of Sanford Meisner acting exercises because there’s nothing better to do on this rock than torment his assistant. Maybe they are really the same person, two parts of a divided self. Maybe he’s Prometheus, trying to steal the light of the gods. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

The gestalt effect is one of being trapped within an ever-shifting sense of psychosis, pushed and pulled by emotional impulses, by overwhelming forces both without and within, compulsions, repressed aspects of one’s self, the needs of the body. And if you are up for it, it is a great deal of fun. I mean, Willem Dafoe’s “Curse of Triton” speech, pure Shakespearean bombast, amidst the comedy and tension of a domestic squabble over how Thomas the elder cooks his lobster, is just about the most ecstatic couple minutes of film I can think of. But I can also easily see how this wouldn’t be for everyone.

It is not a film of plot. Perhaps it doesn’t even have one – there are events, but is there really a story, or is it all just a tour through madness, exploring the dictates of psychological and natural impulses and mythic passion? In any case, it is filmed within an inch of its life. The stark black and white cinematography is never short of beautiful; the tight, narrow aspect ratio is claustrophobic and reinforces the verticality of the central image – this giant phallus that the two men (if there even are two men) are trapped inside, driving each other crazy; and the whole film is so physically visceral. For a film set within a mental state, it is obsessed with physiology – with these men’s bodies. It is a film of flesh and sweat and stink, of semen and urine and vomit and over-full chamber pots that the wind blows back in your face when you try to empty them. I think centering the body in this way has a similar effect as what I discussed for The VVitch above. Just as intense historical accuracy opens the door to something beyond realism, so too does this foregrounding of biology result in highlighting something psychic or spiritual.

I think at the heart of it all is a desperate drive towards some ineffable transcendence (perhaps a theme here in the last couple of weeks, given last post’s film) – this is the light in the tower. Thomas the younger craves it and the elder guards it jealously, locking the younger man out and stripping down to worship the glory of this alien, geometrically radiant beacon. The Nature that surrounds them is that of 19th century Romanticism – terrifying in its power, beyond human comprehension or endurance – more than what people’s weak minds can hold. Thomas is mired in flesh, in the constraints of his mind, and is pulled both towards some sense of stability (dreaming of earning enough money to settle someplace where he can have his own land and no one will ever again give him orders) and also towards the power of something beyond, something inexpressible, something unmoored.  It is a riotous, gleeful, terrible space to inhabit for two hours.

Considering Both Films

There are certainly threads that run through both. Firstly, as mentioned, this totally subjective viewpoint really characterizes them, but there’s more. These films situate their characters in a specific relationship with Nature (whether that of the wind howling through the trees in the dark, wild wood OR the waves crashing against the rocks as the skies open and the heavens pour down OR the uncontrollable dictates of the fleshy human form) – one that is fraught with both fascination, temptation, horror, and worship. And both seem focused on themes of the individual carving out a place within that threatening yet so desirable Nature – in that, they both carry a myth of America – entering the fearful wilderness and claiming what is yours to take. They also both yearn for something beyond – for something sublime, whether it is to be found in Christian faith, a pact with the devil, the wind whistling in the dark forest, a light in a tower, or sex with a fish lady. They both firmly plant their characters in very historically accurate and oh so physical settings where everything is solid, corporeal, and material, but from which those characters can encounter the danger and allure of something else. On the strength of these two, I’m surely going to check out anything else that Eggers puts out.

So What About The Northman?

Well, I’m glad I got to see it in the cinema. It deserved that rather than the diminished attention, smaller screen, and quieter sound of a home viewing. And Eggers continues to foreground historical accuracy, nature, and the drive towards sublimity. There is a lot here to love – especially in the recreation of Nordic culture, religion, ritual, music, and mentality. But I didn’t really love the film the way that I had his first two.

I think the main issue for me is that in trying, as he has described, to meet his characters on their own ground, from their own perspective, he dooms the film to be unsatisfying for a contemporary audience. The main character lives in a world of fate and his ultimate satisfaction is to see that destiny fulfilled – even when there is no other dramatic/character reason to do something. I really enjoyed so much that led up to it (particularly Nicole Kidman’s performance – revealing secrets that prompt Amleth’s final push towards vengeance), but by the time that two naked Vikings are battling to the death on the lip of a live volcano, I was simply not that engaged – the fight hadn’t needed to happen, not really – its outcome doesn’t really matter – but what has been foretold has come to pass. And the film doesn’t question any of this – there is no dramatic tension of whether he is doing the right thing or not – he is just doing the thing he is doing. Now, I think it would probably mean a betrayal of the characters and their worldview had the film really posed these questions (a choice that would have felt quite modern, the expected dramatic turn), but in avoiding judgment, Eggers sacrifices catharsis, something that didn’t happen in The VVitch or The Lighthouse.

But I’m glad he got to make his Viking epic and I’m glad I got to see it. Even if the end effect underwhelmed, it was still a big, bold, bloody, ambitiously weird outing, and though the whole was less than the sum of its parts, some of those parts are really great, and I’m glad they got to exist.

Finally Braving A Demanding Classic: Possession

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

So as a devoted fan of the genre, and now a horror blogger, I feel compelled to maintain a certain degree of street cred, so to speak, and there are some films that loom so large that, even if I’ve never gotten around to watching them, I find myself behaving as if I have, as if ‘of course, I understand this reference, for I have undoubtedly consumed the canon of the great works of horror cinema in its entirety.’ And often, you don’t need to have seen something to have a strong impression of it, to have taken in so many iconic images, to have had the ending spoiled, to know a work’s themes and where it fits into the history and larger context of the genre, to know that this or that performance is most esteemed or reviled, to know that this is a ‘very-important-work’ of a ‘serious-film-maker.’

Today’s film is one of these.  

So, the other day, I finally sat down and subjected myself to Andzrej Żuławski’s Possession. The next day, I watched it again to take notes, and here I am now, writing about it…I just wish I had actually liked it. But, you can’t have everything in life and my intention on this blog is not to write movie reviews, declaring things good or bad, but rather to process my thoughts about work that is worthy of consideration, and even if I find it difficult to get through (this was not the first time I tried watching it, just the first time I succeeded), it is that.

One programming note: while Żuławski was indeed a Polish director, I’m not including this in my somewhat dormant series on Polish horror films (which can be found here, here, here, and here.) Filmed in West Berlin in English, I feel this doesn’t qualify – or if it did, so would Rosemary’s Baby, and that doesn’t seem like useful taxonomy. One day, I’ll finally return to that series and check out either his Diabeł or Szamanka, both filmed in Poland in Polish.

Possession (1981)

Apparently inspired by Żuławski’s own, this is essentially the story of a divorce. Mark (Sam Neil) is a spy who has finished a recent assignment and returns to his home in West Berlin to find that his wife, Anna (Isabella Adjani), wants to split up. They shout. He goes on a three week bender. They shout some more. She moves into a derelict building. There’s additional shouting, a small child covered in jam, and now some domestic abuse. He finds that their son’s teacher, Helen is Anna’s doppelgänger. Shouting continues. Anna stabs some guys and puts a head in the fridge. Shouting. Mark and Anna cut themselves with an electric knife and have sex in the kitchen. Shouting.  Anna kills her friend, Margie. Shouting. Mark drowns Anna’s lover in a toilet. Shouting. Anna’s been having a sexual affair with a giant, bloody, tentacled, squiddy creature (maybe feeding it somehow with these men she’s killed?). Shouting, and gunshots, and more doppelganging, and a final, disturbing image and soundscape of war. The end.

I mean, I’ve happily never gone through a divorce, but I guess that’s what it’s like?

I think a key in looking at a piece such as this is that, though it comes with the trappings of horror, it is really not a typical work of narrative, genre based storytelling. The dialogue vacillates between being naturalistically banal and unrealistically poetic and/or philosophical. The performances are totally stylized, expressionistic, making no attempt at recognizable, human behavior, but rather trying to express thoughts, feelings and experiences that transcend verbal elucidation. There are visual themes and concepts that reflect each other and all contribute to a kind of tone poem of bitterness and neediness and jealousy and separation and control, and a desperation for something that can’t quite be expressed, but which is no less necessary. It is captivatingly filmed, with a kinetic, ever circling lens; it makes no attempt to deliver likeable characters, focused as it is on two people in extremis, all kindness  and tenderness exhausted; the score is compelling and sometimes even surprisingly groovy; and somehow it is even occasionally funny. It is an idiosyncratic, challenging, unique piece of work, a nightmare vision of the lack of love, human connection, or any form of meaning, and the hunger for something to fill that gap, and while I still find it difficult, it is certainly an artistic piece worthy of respectful analysis – so, I’m sorry if I took a mocking tone in the previous paragraph – the constant level of shouting just wears me down.

So, how might I analyze it? What do I do with it all? Let’s consider some images and themes. It focuses on divorce and takes place in a divided city, the wall ever-present and East German soldiers always visibly surveilling through binoculars. Mark is a spy, and throughout the film, his jealousy and need to control mirrors those soldiers. This drama and trauma play out amidst brutalist modern architecture – spaces that do not seem designed for humanity or human relationships. We also have two pairs of doppelgängers; is the self doubled, or is it divided like the city? We barely meet Mark’s double, but Anna’s is totally different from her – warm, present, helpful, loving, articulating her thoughts in a way that Mark can receive. What and why is she? A fantasy for Mark – the ‘perfect wife’? A challenge to him? Even in the presence of someone so warm and giving, he is just as much of a bastard – how could he be otherwise with someone who doesn’t embody this ideal? And might that mean that with her tentacled paramour, Anna is creating an ideal as well? I don’t think the film sees a need to justify or explain.

I feel both characters inhabit a world where relationship is an impossibility. Mark is self-centered, abusive, and possessive. The possession of the title may reference that. Something he’d had was taken from him and he needs it back, even if he has already spoken of how he’s fallen out of love and has no interest in what his wife feels. Still, even lacking that interest, he needs to know what is going on with her – where she is – who or what she is in bed with – that knowing being a form of having her. Anna, in her turn, is inscrutable, driven towards an inexpressible exigency which Mark can only be an obstacle in the way of. There is really no way that these two could ever hope to relate to each other.

So much of this plays out in the performances, both of which are commendable, if also pretty arduous to endure. Mark is situated as the main viewpoint character, but no steps are taken to warm us to him. Emotionally clingy, physically abusive, and pettily cruel, he’s pretty much the worst. But all of these traits are also human, identifiable. It is easy to see the processes spinning in his fevered brain that result in his awfulness. Anna is not so readable. Her thoughts and feelings are an opaque mystery, and the deeply poetic words she speaks are inadequate to truly explain anything. One might assume that anyone would want to divorce this jerk, but I feel the film implies a greater depth to her dissatisfaction and desire for change.

I can only assume that this is rooted in the extent to which the film is informed by lived experience. Perhaps Żuławski could foreground a descent into the ugly emotional reactions with which he was more familiar, but the female counterpart remains essentially unknowable. Then again, perhaps I’m wrong to project my limited knowledge of his biography onto the characters. That may be an unfair oversimplification.

But the performances go farther than simply portraying difficult characters undergoing hard times. There is a stylization to the acting that pushes beyond anything so basically realistic. I must admit I found it more than a little off-putting, but I then also had to question why. I mean, the performances are really great: nuanced, physically and vocally extreme, expressive, unguarded, ugly (which is harder than it sounds), and magnetic – but they simply don’t talk and move and react like human beings tend to. However, I genuinely believe this is not a failing, but a clear artistic choice. In stage acting, performances are often stylized (the same could be said for the text), and in that context, I expect I would have had no issue, but in the cinema, we so rarely see anything like this, and that makes it more difficult. I am not well prepared to suspend my disbelief in this way in this medium, but it is surely not the responsibility of the actors or the film to only deliver that which we are used to seeing. If I have trouble connecting, it may simply be that I am not bringing enough to the film as a viewer, investing the attention and doing the work to meet the artwork in the unique space which it inhabits. I’m, of course, allowed not to respond well to everything; not every film is for everybody, but I feel like in this case, the film asks a lot of me and I’m not always up for it. I wonder how different it would have been if I’d had a chance to see it in a cinema rather than on my sofa.

This stylization is most clearly evident in the famous subway scene. In a rare peaceful moment, seeking to explain what she is going through to Mark, Anna tells the story of how she “miscarried her faith.” We see in flashback Anna walking through the subway and then simply snapping. She shrieks and shakes; she dances in a trance state; her groceries are smashed and, caked in egg and cream, she writhes and howls until blood and bile and pus and something bubbling and green start to pour forth out of her. The performance is intense, resembling more than anything, Maya Deren’s ethnographic footage of Voudou rituals, possessions in which the faithful are ridden by the gods. Possession has been put on display in countless horror films, sometimes very artfully and effectively, but this is different. It is an absolute act of performance art, but it feels less formed, not shaped to be scary, to tell a story, and rather more a documentation of a performer putting herself through something ineffable, something which I could only witness from some distance. And Adjani is really something here – there is a sense of truth to the performance, even if I had no concept of how to interpret what I was seeing on first viewing, or second. To be honest, I’m still not so sure, but here goes:

She confronts an essential existential absence. Nothing is important. Nothing is necessary. Life is empty chaos, a horror. She purges herself of whatever false faith she had still maintained and having done that, is somehow opened to the divine. She is ridden by it. Maybe she births it. She is consumed. And there is no possible return to life as lived before. She can live in her crumbling flat in worship of/service to/sexual communion with this phallic, cephalopodic monstrosity, murdering anyone who comes too close, who threatens her link with sublimity (How do I not absolutely love this? On paper, this is my jam!) and has no other needs, perhaps reflected in the fact that she never changes her dress for the whole film, though weeks or months have passed. This is beyond Mark. For him, god is a dog that has crawled under the porch to die. And, as he is our sole lens through which to view her and all the action of the film, we can never really understand what we witness. Our comprehension dies with him in a hail of gunfire as the whole spy subplot somehow comes back, and we are left as bereft of meaning, of the holy, as he is.

It is a confounding, confusing cinematic artwork which is horrific and funny and shrill and grotesque and ecstatic and somehow even somniferous (meaning it kept threatening to put me to sleep) – but maybe that’s just a defense mechanism on my part, seeking escape from the monotony of this emotional, sensory assault. And I haven’t even touched on so many other components that may carry meaning or may be there just to break the brain with their incomprehensibility: the esoteric lover, Heinrich and his suicidal mother, the pink socks, Mark riding a motorcycle, screaming manically before spectacularly wiping out for some reason, Mark’s double instructing a random lady to shoot at the spies; the list goes on. But I think it was worth putting myself through, worth reckoning with it. If nothing else, now I don’t have to pretend that I’ve seen it.

—

So, that was Possession, but why was it so hard?  I feel like the older I get, the more difficult it is to put myself through challenging work. Perhaps, had I seen this at 23, I would have fallen in love with its weirdness, its artistic unity, its extremity, its bloody, gooey, horrific divinity. But at 43, it feels a bit more like doing my homework, eating my vegetables. (Though I must say that I’ve enjoyed considering it and writing about it a great deal more than I did watching it, and the more I think on it, the more my appreciation grows – but I don’t think I’ll watch it again.) Am I getting lazy? Less adventurous? So much of what I come to horror for is just such extremity, to be challenged on a dramatic, moral, psychic level – and it does just that. In recent years, have I seen anything new to me that was such a challenge which I actually liked, or do I just have a warm place in my heart for difficult work seen first when I was younger (von Trier, Noé, Aranofsky, for example) and now I need films to be more ‘fun?’  If that’s true, is it a problem, and should I challenge myself more?

Maybe? Maybe not. Good art can also entertain and I don’t know that it’s exactly personal weakness to want to actually enjoy the things I take time to shove in my eye-holes. (Ouch.) Anyway, I’m glad I finally made my way all the way through it, twice. Whew. Good for me.

A holiday in Point Dune

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

So, I’m going to do a number of different things on this blog.  Sometimes I’ll want to expand on some bit of theory.  Sometimes I’ll give a quick response to a film I’ve just seen or a book I’ve just read, and sometimes I’ll pop in a longer film review to dig into something I think is worth spending more time with.  So to kick things off, let’s have a look at a real gem.

Messiah of Evil (1973)

Willard Huyck’s and Gloria Katz’s film (which they both co-wrote and co-directed) is a confounding masterpiece of style.  Tightly composed, rich in color and contrast, and at once hypnotic and jarring, characters are silhouetted against deeply saturated colors, odd groups of locals wait by bonfires, looking out to sea and snacking on rodents, painted faces watch characters from all sides as they attempt to sleep, and the hands of the dying fill the frame for one last moment before being pulled down into a mass of hungry bodies. The fact that the central story is perhaps the least consequential aspect of the piece may be due to its creators’ avowed lack of interest in the genre.  The plot may not be a significant expression of their artistic talents, but the strength of the rest of the film certainly showcases them.

As for the plot, I am not the first to describe it as seemingly influenced by H.P. Lovecraft’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth. The protagonist comes to a small seaside town, filled with strange inhabitants worshipping and awaiting the return of something ancient and evil which will come from the sea.  Here, we follow Arletty (Marianna Hill) as she enters Point Dune (though it sure sounded like ‘doom’ the first time it’s mentioned), looking for her artist father, who no longer answers her letters.  The people of the town are odd and standoffish, until she meets Thom (Michael Greer), a playboy folk legend enthusiast and the two women traveling with him, Laura (Anitra Ford) and Toni (Joy Bang).

The trio invite themselves to stay with Arletty at her father’s abandoned and highly stylish beach house/home gallery and Thom shares some of what he has gathered about the legends of this town where once the moon turned blood red and a mysterious, sinister stranger walked into the sea to return a hundred years later when the world would be ripe and ready for his wickedness. Some light is also shed on this from Arletty’s father’s diary.  It seems that the town somehow infects its inhabitants, causing a variety of physical symptoms (bleeding from the eyes or ears, loss of sensation) and apparently a hunger for human flesh and the tendency to dress rather conservatively.

Also, possibly the inability to be killed—or are they all already dead—it’s never really explained.  First Laura and then Toni grow jealous of the attention Thom is paying to Arletty and go off on their own to inevitably be killed by the townspeople in rather striking sequences (Laura in a supermarket after coming across the townspeople dining in the meat aisle, and then Toni in a cinema which first seems empty, but which slowly fills in behind her until it is far too late). 

Eventually, Arletty starts to show the telltale signs of Point Dune’s contagion and after a conflagratory confrontation with her father (she burns him to death), who had been hoping to keep/drive her away from this horrible town, already damned himself, she and Thom attempt to escape.  Ultimately Thom is lost, but she is permitted to leave, carrying with her the warning of the doom that is coming from the sea.

It’s a little hard to follow and this synopsis is neither entirely accurate nor complete, leaving so many questions to investigate which I won’t be delving into here, but these are the broad strokes.

And again, the story is really not at the heart of this little gem of a picture. While the narrative may somewhat bewilder, the atmosphere, the mood, the sense of unease, of the uncanny, of creeping doom suffuses practically every frame.  This is, in no way, a direct Lovecraft adaptation, but it really captures so much of what worked in his writing—that growing sense that something, some place, some people, just feel wrong somehow, off.

Point Dune feels empty and threatening. The people, when they can be communicated with at all, have odd tics. The stores look, on the surface, totally normal—no strange lighting or colors or shadows, but in their clean emptiness and apparent normalcy, there is an eeriness. Arletty’s father’s house is gorgeous to look at, but does not look comfortable to inhabit.  It doesn’t look designed for living in.  The bedroom (where the bed hangs from chains) is filled with giant murals featuring figures (the dead? the townspeople?) watching from every angle.  The town itself feels barren, though there are people; it is devoid of life, of the normal noise and bustle of living.   

And I feel that it is somewhere in this that a visual theme of the film comes to life. Point Dune is at the seaside, somewhere on the California coast. It’s at the edge of the continent, of the country; from a certain (Western/American) perspective, it is at the edge of civilization, of the inhabited world.  Along the coast, lies nature. The sea, the crashing waves, the unknowable depths, where the horizon disappears and the blood moon is reflected upon the black water. 

And at the border of all that, Arletty finds herself living in an art gallery—surrounded by the artificial, by 2 dimensional paintings, and in a town filled with buildings, filled with the relics of society, but no people, no life, no nature.  She also finds herself at the center of a film which is, itself, quite consciously artistic. Every shot is arresting and the colors are intensely vibrant—and I find it striking that in such a colorful film, little of this effect comes from lighting as it might in a Bava or Argento inflected piece. Rather, the color comes from physical objects—paintings, wallpaper, carpeting, bed sheets, costumes.  Everywhere you look, there is some actual, physical, produced art-object.  On the other side, the waves are breaking.

It is in this meeting of the dangerous, unknowable wild of the sea and the dead, arid town, filled with relics of life and art and artifice, that this dread filled picture is most effective.  What is living and what is dead? What is authentic? In a late scene, Arletty’s father first throws bright red paint across the walls of his home murals before falling among his paints, where his own unrealistically red and viscous blood mixes with the vivid pigments.

This is before the silhouettes of the townspeople, mirroring the people of the murals, begin to fill the windows and finally attack—as if the figures on the walls are coming to life.

In the end, Arletty is in an asylum, mad and broken, knowing that she will never be believed and that what is coming cannot be stopped.  This juxtaposition of real and unreal, of human-product and the natural world, of what we can understand and what is beyond us is sustained throughout and offers a delectable ambience for viewers who take pleasures in such things.

Huyck and Katz, who went on to write American Graffiti, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Howard the Duck, both apparently disparaged this early film and never again worked in the genre, but even if accidentally, they managed to produce a beautiful and ominous treasure.