2021 Film Challenge

Tubi has a couple. The Beyond should be the priority.*


https://tubitv.com/search/Lucio%20Fulci%20

I'm probably going to come across as unnecessarily fussy here, but Tubi has ads, right? And not just at the start, but in the middle of films? If so, that's a nonstarter for me. I'll pay for a rental first, to be honest.

But I will keep The Beyond on my mental checklist for whenever Criterion runs a Fulci collection (I mean, they're doing Doris Wishman, for god's sake).

There are ads, but they don't run for too long and are placed at pretty natural points (scene transitions). If any ads at all are a deal breaker, yeah you can probably opt for a rental or wait for it on a paid service, but it's nowhere near as bad as watching a movie on network TV, if that's your concern.*

The Beyond is rentable on Amazon (I didn't check iTunes). Zombie, City of the Living Dead, The Beyond, and House by the Cemetery are all on Shudder. Some also on AMC+.

Some should be on Shudder. He should be relatively rentable. (just checking The Beyond)

Yeah, I just can't do ads. Basically, I'm trying to replicate the theater experience as closely as I can (though I will pause for bathroom breaks, I'm not crazy). This is a me thing, I know!

But I appreciate the suggestions, Fulci will get his turn yet.

So far I haven’t understood the love for Fulci, but I’m only two films into his filmography, with The Beyond and House by the Cemetery up next

I remember when Hulu used to do ads in movies. They seemed to stop for that and only do the ads at the very beginning. So, I hear you in terms of it interrupting the viewing experience.


Fulci's kind of an acquired taste (and is known for a slow pace and kind of non-sensical plot). So, it's one of those, I can't give any guarantees you'll like it, but it is... idiosyncratic. I know he grew on me. I think I saw City of the Living Dead last amongst those four, and I think that's when he finally clicked for me. (Though some people describe that movie as slow and miserable. And I can't say they're wrong...)

Oh, sounds like this is for me. Slow, nonsensical, idiosyncratic? You are ticking all my boxes.

Fulci spoke my language right from the get go. In fact, I would likely include him in the top 10 architects of how I currently think about film (this isn't to say best, it would be more a list of directors who led me to understand how supposed craftsmanship is suffocating the life out of the artform)



I rented City of the Living Dead probably when I was about 14 and, while I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and barely seemed able to remember the structure of the thing moments after it had finished, it lingered with me for years. It was probably also one of the few movies that had managed to unnerve me in ages, and I think it had a lot to do with its alien-ness.


I had no real idea of who Fulci was, or what other films he had directed for a long time after that. But when I one day ended up posting a list of the greatest horror movies of all time online, and I had it close to my top 10, what a shock it was to me when I realized the vast majority of people at the time loathed the film. Wrote it off as amateur, gross out nonsense. Because of this, it may have been one of the first movies I ever actually attempted to defend in actual words, and not just with fists and eyerolls. And while I still think fists and eyerolls are probably considerably more effective, I've come to learn words have their place to, as long as they are used similarly.


He also let me learn that it is a considerable waste of time to worry what anyone else thinks about anything when it comes to art. Just like you don't choose your mother or father, you don't choose to movies that matter to you. You just accept them as they come

I used to be similarly fastidious about how I would watch at home as well. Except no bathroom breaks either. Also, I was never allowed to look at the runtime. And, whenever possible, I didn't even want to know what genre the movie was or read any of the summary on the back. All I ever had to go on was the cover on the box, and I probably would have tried to find a way to do without it either if I could have.


Now, I hardly can't afford to be so serious, or I would never watch anything.

Regarding Fulci, I’ve seen Zombi and City of the Living Dead, which were bloody and gorey and CotLD had a nice score, but outside of that, I don’t see the supposed art. Sure, they’re nicely shot, but surely there should be more to the film, right? Like a decent plot, for instance.
I’ve yet to dig into his Giallo, so we’ll see. Not writing him off, or anything. But I’m enjoying Bava more so far, so prioritizing him first.

I had to relax my standards a lot when I had a kid. I used to almost never split a movie over more than one day (unless it was crazy long), but now I'll do it pretty regularly. Ads are still a red line though. A man got to have a code, you know?

Pfft, pausing for bathroom breaks. Go in your pants, you cowards!

I think The Beyond is the best package of Fulci's strengths in one film. Once you gel to that, what he does well in other films will come into focus more easily.

I usually opt for the middle ground of enthusiastic hooting and hollering.

/obligatory Fulci post


*stamps punchcard*

City of the Living Dead would only be diminished by a plot. It needs to function as a kind of delirium of the senses. That is its biggest selling point. That it drifts away from any standard story telling practise. It can't be restrained by our futile logic.



For me, film is inherently an imagistic form. And the medium it plays with is the manipulation of time (through editing, either elongating or abbreviating these moments caught on film). That is the core essence of film. Then there is, of course, all of the accoutrements that come with this--sound design, acting, special effects, costumes,score, cinematography. And while it is also obviously an extremely effective tool to tell stories, narrative comes dead last in my books. It should only be dusted off when you can't make the rest of these elements work on their own. Essentially, story is a binding agent. It orders things logically, gives us goals to root for and offers us dramatic beats to feel specific feelings. And, as a basic film romantic, I like to believe film works just fine without any of this.



Many of the greatest filmmakers in my book can either push narrative into the background, or forgo it entirely. In really good hands, story telling can be an artform in itself. And that is really really great when it happens. But, sadly, narrative has become such a redundant and lazy thing over the years, I've never found many directors incorporate this element with any particular grace. It's mostly used as crutch. And when used this way, it also becomes an anchor that pulls down and drowns the work of what is pure filmmaking.



Not only do I not think Fulci would benefit from any of this kind of structure, I think he would only suffer from it. You start using narrative in hopes of putting something like City of the Living Dead in proper sequential order, with very clear goals that the characters need to achieve, with things we are supposed to root for, and it turns all of its madness and violence into outgrowths of a (most likely) standard story about the end of the world. Fulci instead allows the movie to be about the madness and the violence. And to sell such a thing, it needs to be impenetrable and confusing. It needs to feel like a merciless onslaught. It needs to be something you can't really talk about in concrete details, only in abstracts. It needs to dissipate like a nightmare when it's over.


tldr: Fulci must run wild. Stories shant tame him.

I found it diminished without a plot, but to each it’s own. Along those same lines, I prefer something of a narrative at least, but this depends on the film, and with City….it could have used something.
I plan on watching Beyond and House by the Cemetery this month, so we’ll see how those work.

As others have mentioned, Fulci is unquestionably an acquired taste. And one whose influence is never likely to bleed much past the margins of the little horror niche he's created. Beyond, because it relies a little more on a discernable narrative, is usually the one that can win some over to Team Fulci. But, it's probably for that very reason, I would always put a couple of his films above it (City of the Living Dead, Cat in the Brain, Lizard in a Woman's Skin)


I think the best way to articulate my general point about this is that I think I kind of look at film almost in the same way others look at music. Generally, people don't feel music is a lacking when it doesn't provide a story. Sure, it's a tool some songwriter's can use to great benefit (John Prine, Randy Newman, Tom Waits), but for the most part, it is predominantly about how the sound of it affects them. And, likewise, I think movies (above anything else) need to be observed like light flickering on a canvas.


But, yes, to each their own.

Chekhov, Method or Meisner?
watch 10 films featuring the same actor (Christopher Lee)
1. Horror of Dracula (1958)
2. Dracula Prince of Darkness (1966)
3. Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968)
4. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
5. Scars of Dracula (1970)
6. Dracula AD 1972 (1972)
7. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)
8. The Castle of the Living Dead (1964)
9. Challenge the Devil (1963)
10. The Mummy (1959)