26th Hall of Fame

Tools    





I suppose that speaks to where me and the sex positive crowd part ways. I donít see playing up to the male gaze and their fetishes as liberating. I see it as dehumanizing.
I kinda like gazing at the pretty girls



I kinda like gazing at the pretty girls
Well, yeah, Iím human. I definitely have to fight sexualizing women at times. Not hard for me with this movie though. I found most of the segments gross. I certainly think the fetish element is part of the intent though.



I think with what they were doing being off-putting I never really judged their looks much, to be honest.



Well, yeah, Iím human. I definitely have to fight sexualizing women at times. Not hard for me with this movie though. I found most of the segments gross. I certainly think the fetish element is part of the intent though.
I was just joking around... My honest reaction to the two actresses as I watched the film was: I found them charming, in a nutsy way. I didn't find them sexy. I don't think they were ever presented as sexy or eye candy. They seem to be presented as young adult women trying to rebel against conforming. Even that screen shot Raul posted isn't sexy to me it's more charming (yes I use that word a lot at my age!). If this had been an American film made today, they would've been presented much differently.



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
With a second watch, my initial reaction and appreciation is pretty much spot on, so I will copy and paste my first review from the 2nd Animation Hall of Fame:




Tower

Once upon a time, such a scenario of someone going to the top of a building and firing away at those below was almost unheard of. This is why this specific scenario from back in '66 had such an impact and would be played out in a number of references. I even remember reading a comic book as a kid with a very, very similar situation inked out about a glass-wearing youth on top of a building with an apple and a rifle with a sight. The final panels show him taking a final bite of the apple, setting it to the side, and standing on the ledge, waving. Then being hit multiple times by gunfire from below.

That, and other references played off the view of the sniper himself.

This does not.

In fact, using rotoscoping and mixing it with documented film, we follow several of the victims and police officers involved in the 96-minute shoot-out that claimed some 16 dead and around 36 wounded.
Making for a rather captivating documentary where the rotoscoping of those telling their stories added quite nicely to the storytelling. Even more so when, near the end, when we see the actual people telling their stories resulting, for me, even more of an impact.

I found the entire film both informative and sympathetic to those who lived through that hour and a half of madness and death. They did an excellent job of it all. focusing nearly all of it on those who lived through it and their actions while only giving the sniper a bare minimum of time. Which I found extenuated the humanity of those below and the officers who got up and took him out. Instead of glamorizing the one behind the trigger who continued to fire on anyone who got in his line of fire.
__________________
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.



I was just joking around... My honest reaction to the two actresses as I watched the film was: I found them charming, in a nutsy way. I didn't find them sexy. I don't think they were ever presented as sexy or eye candy. They seem to be presented as young adult women trying to rebel against conforming. Even that screen shot Raul posted isn't sexy to me it's more charming (yes I use that word a lot at my age!). If this had been an American film made today, they would've been presented much differently.
I actually agree but I think intent matters.

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored. So, yeah, looking at it through todayís lens itís benign. Looking at it through the lens of Czech New Wave, itís not. Thatís what you guys are responding to though, is the step forward in that way.



The trick is not minding
Exactly. That film was 'Promising Young Woman' (2021)
Which was a very fine film.
The thing everyone needs to remember about Daisies is it is a surrealist film, and is meant to be absurd.



I actually agree but I think intent matters.

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored. So, yeah, looking at it through todayís lens itís benign. Looking at it through the lens of Czech New Wave, itís not. Thatís what you guys are responding to though, is the step forward in that way.
That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if I fully understand your line of thinking? You say:

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored.
Why? Censored in what way?



Why? Censored in what way?
If it went as far as it wanted with the sexual aspect, as it would be able to if it was made today.

Iím other words. I think it is intended to be sexual in nature. Because of the time and place it was made it is tame in that way to us.

Part of me asking my original question is whether it was intended to be as sexualized as I thought. Thatís why you comparing it to Benny Hill confirmed my thoughts.



Yeah, the idea that weíd censor it for anything isnít credible, considering what weíve shown in recent years.
See my post above. If that doesnít clarify, let me know.



If it went as far as it wanted with the sexual aspect, as it would be able to if it was made today.

Iím other words. I think it is intended to be sexual in nature. Because of the time and place it was made it is tame in that way to us.

Part of me asking my original question is whether it was intended to be as sexualized as I thought. Thatís why you comparing it to Benny Hill confirmed my thoughts.
I didn't see any sexual aspects to Daisies. Do you mean there was an underlying lesbian theme going on?



I didn't see any sexual aspects to Daisies. Do you mean there was an underlying lesbian theme going on?
Could be. Definitely think the fetishes and attire, the cutesy aspect your talking about are playing to the male gaze. Again, all very tame by our standards.

Curious why if you didnít see it as somewhat sexual why you compared to Benny Hill?



Could be. Definitely think the fetishes and attire, the cutesy aspect your talking about are playing to the male gaze. Again, all very tame by our standards.

Curious why if you didnít see it as somewhat sexual why you compared to Benny Hill?
I mean Benny Hill was silly, sappy goofy...with very farcical/whimsical short snippets making up the entire show.



You find his show sexual?
Ha, no...In high school I had a friend who liked The Benny Hill Show and so whenever I was at his house we'd watch it. I never liked that show though and Benny was kinda creepy looking down women's dresses then making that grinning face at the camera. I was into Monty Python's tv show at that time.



Ha, no...In high school I had a friend who liked The Benny Hill Show and so whenever I was at his house we'd watch it. I never liked that show though and Benny was kinda creepy looking down women's dresses then making that grinning face at the camera. I was into Monty Python's tv show at that time.
Itís like we are on the same pageÖeven though we are on opposite pages.





Not Quite Hollywood : The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! - 2008

Written & Directed by Mark Hartley

Featuring Quentin Tarantino, Jamie Lee Curtis, Dennis Hopper
Jackie Weaver, Jack Thompson and Barry Humphries

Not Quite Hollywood opened doors that had heretofore been shut, even to Australian audiences who had lived through the explosion that was the Australian New Wave of cinema during the 1970s and 1980s. It was a hidden treasure just waiting to be discovered - although there was on the surface a reluctance to acknowledge the more base levels of Australian film, there is a uniqueness here that strikes people who come across these movies. Quentin Tarantino was influenced a great deal by them - but they were loathed by Australian critics who felt especially image-conscious, and as such they were buried at home and rarely seen overseas thereafter. In 2003 Tarantino caused something of a sensation in Australia when he premiered Kill Bill Vol. 1 and at the screening dedicated it to Brian Trenchard-Smith in front of critics and filmmakers who had fervently wished that Trenchard-Smith had never decided to carve out a career directing Australian exploitation cinema. For his part, Tarantino considered those at the screening 'snobs' - but attitudes began to change when this documentary hit the big screen and film fans began to rediscover a forgotten era of movie history.

Mark Hartley spent a number of years researching this subject - something akin to cutting a trail through virgin jungle in the Amazon. It was a subject virtually unresearched - it's foremost expert Quentin Tarantino himself. There were no books published on this subject. When Hartley sent Tarantino his rough draft for the film he expected no reply - but instead the reply was instant. From that moment on Tarantino did everything in his power to help the project go forward - including sitting for hours of interviews regarding the films and his personal history with them. His help didn't end there. There were some cases where the negatives of the films involved didn't exist or couldn't be found - and Hartley discovered that Tarantino himself had hunted them down in the past and owned them personally. With this auspicious start, Hartley spent the next five years putting together the documentary Not Quite Hollywood : The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!

This documentary's advantage is the fact that it is one of the most entertaining 100-plus minute films you can encounter - with the added effect of arousing your curiosity enough to set film lovers into action hunting down these films and watching them. Examining film after film, it could be excused for becoming tedious or tiresome - but Hartley has expertly and wisely cut down his film into a digestible size. He had over 250 hours of interviews and film footage to wrestle with - and had a film of over three hours in length when he had cut everything but it's most essential elements. I applaud him for delivering a film that runs under 2 hours in the end - and not leaving us exhausted and perhaps fed up. Special mention should also go to editors Jamie Blanks, Sara Edwards and Mark Hartley. On it's DVD release, another 100 minutes of cut footage entertains no less - but an important lesson to learn is that some things, no matter how lively and wonderful they are, must be left on the cutting room floor. The rest is left to us to explore - and Hartley has faith in us to do that.

The film is divided into three sections, with an introduction that gives us the background of what state the Australian film industry was in the decades leading up to the 1970s - which was that it was virtually nonexistent. Here Hartley has had some luck inasmuch as the explosion of genre filmmaking in Australia did go through three distinct phases, the first coming during the 'free love' era and consisting of sexual exploits and nudity, the second being more horror based and the third honing in on action and stunts. The titles of these sections are appropriately bawdy and irreverent : Ockers, Knockers, Pubes and Tubes - Comatose Killers and Outback Chillers - High Octane Disasters and Kung Fu Masters. The tone and content are laid back and rude in keeping with the films, but behind it all is some serious research, skill and delivery only seen in the best of documentaries. There are an extensive number of films examined in an attractive way that actually gives most viewers a great urge to search them out and see them. Writers, directors, crew and actors all appear to have fond memories of the era - and to have had a great time.

Co-existing with the exploitation genre were the serious Australian New Wave films, which deserve a mention. Some, like Wake in Fright, Breaker Morant and Picnic at Hanging Rock do get that mention - but only in service to the genre films being examined - although Wake in Fright did initially have much greater coverage in the documentary. It's a little-seen great film, and described by Jack Thompson as showing a true-to-life depiction of Australian culture that most Australians did not want people overseas to witness. Many of the exploitation films, as mentioned by Tarantino, were not promoted as being Australian. Some, such as Dead Kids (otherwise known as Strange Behavior) were set in the United States and utilized U.S. actors nearly exclusively. Others, like Road Games featured U.S. stars such as Jamie Lee Curtis, and Stacy Keach. Mad Dog Morgan featured Dennis Hopper in the title role. Importantly, Hartley manages to interview Jamie Lee Curtis, Dennis Hopper and Keach for this film - giving it a comprehensive profile and getting serious star power behind it.

For those old enough to remember drive-ins, there is some nostalgia delivered pre-credits and during the film. There's some sadness that the era came to an end, but the advent of the video era gave many of these films an exposure they wouldn't have had otherwise. There is also prominent mention of the fetishistic love Australian men have for cars, and the role they played in many exploitation films. Most issues like this are well-balanced and not stretched to the point where we begin to lose interest. The film's music also keep us charged up and includes Angry Anderson belting out Rose Tattoo's 'We Can't Be Beaten', The Angels with 'Shadow Boxer', 'Living in the 70s' from Skyhooks and The Easybeats with 'I'll Make You Happy'. Some great animation - a real staple of the film - is provided by the film's animation department. Such is the editing, there is no need for any narration - the story flows smoothly and coherently from beginning to end.

Being film fans, my friends and I were surprised by Not Quite Hollywood when we saw it at an arthouse cinema - and so were film fans in general. It led to a mass release of films which up until that moment were largely forgotten. Many I recognized from the days when video revolutionized the film-watching experience, and many I had until then not heard about. Some I never knew were Australian - such as the very strange musical The Return of Captain Invincible, where Alan Arkin plays a superhero whose secret weakness is booze and where a villain played by Christopher Lee belts out songs. I know a few friends who cleared a spot for a whole new genre in their collections. It's a documentary I'm thankful for, and one I can be always in the mood to watch. For anyone that enjoys it - I recommend the two-disc collectors version which includes hours of footage cut from the film, trailers for all of the films featured (and trailers were very different in those days,) interviews, a fantastic collection of images and film posters, Q&A sessions and various funding pitches from the film's early gestation. I'll leave this with a small section (the whole thing is too long to transcribe) of the Fantasm Comes Again press kit which is included with the release :

3. Australian films are in the news at the moment. Get your college and/or university newspaper to do a story on the sequel to Australia's most successful international movie. Run a competition for the reader who guesses the size of Mary Gavin's breasts.
We will probably never see the repeat of this particular New Wave movement of films and their exploitation deluge of "boobs, pubes and kung fu".

I also recommend, to whoever enjoyed this, Mark Hartley's Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films, which was released in 2014.

(I decided not to give it a rating - since it's my nomination in the Hall of Fame)
__________________
My movie ratings often go up or down a point or two after more reflection, research and rewatches.