This post is part of the Vincent Price Blogaathon, hosted by Reelweeigie Miget Reivews and Cinematic Catharsis. Find more great posts in this blogation here. 
​When I was thinking about a film to write about for this blogathon so many of my favorite Vincent Price films came to mind - The Fall of the House of Usher, House on Haunted Hill, Laura. But I figured what better film to watch when you're shut inside during a global pandemic than a film about a man alone in the world with vampires? 
While normally I would concentrate on what really draws me to The Last Man on Earth (1964), its religious subtext and bleak, existential dread, given that this blogathon is about the last man himself, I would like to focus on Price's work in this film. 

  Adapted from Richard Mattheson's novel I Am Legend (1954), Last Man on Earth is hailed as one of the most faithful adaptations of the book in contrast to the two other major adaptations, Omega Man (1971) and I Am Legend (2007). Mattheson himself noted this about the film, though he did not actually like it, using a pseudonym to pen the screenplay. He believed that Price was miscast for the part noting that Harrison Ford would have been the best choice. 
Needless to say, Price did play the role with is usual style and flair. 
​If you haven't seen the film, I suggest you watch it before reading any further...
The Last Man on Earth opens with a sunrise and what appears to be a desolate cityscape. Getting closer we see bodies lying in the streets, in doorway, and on piles of construction materials. Quick cuts show us more and more, like images out of a wartime magazine. It is truly bleak. 

It is among the dead that we are introduced to Price's character, Robert Morgan, who is sleeping. Once awake, Morgan narrates in a way that only Price could do. We get the picture of a lonely existence of mundane routine. Everything that we need to know about what is going on the present is situated within those first few shots. Coupled with the eeriness of Price's narration, we get the sense that Morgan has not only fallen into a routine, but has no belief he will ever break that routine. 

Morgan goes through phases, we see him perform his mundane tasks almost lost in the ritual of it. Until he, like everyone in a zombie film, becomes too complaisant with the idea that he is alone and doesn't make it home before sunset. This jolt of coming so close to death prompts a resurgence of his scientific endeavors.  This along with the appearance of a dog, a living dog, fuels Morgan efforts to understand and figure out the disease. 

In the end, Morgan encounter a woman, who is a spy for a group of vampires who espouse the creed "better living through chemistry", and look to kill Morgan as he has killed members of their group. Ironically, Morgan, having given a blood transfusion to the woman he just met, saved her through his antibodies. And yet he had to die, the last man on earth. 

The Last Man on Earth, distributed through American International, having been picked up from Hammer after British censors did not approved the film's subject matter. Can you image how good this film would have been as a 60's era Hammer film? Filming took place in Rome, which totally looks like L.A., since I haven't been to L.A. since we lived there when I was 5 - but yeah, it's totally L.A. The film is really interesting time for Vincent, as it drops between Comedy of Terrors (1964) and Masque of Red Death (1964), two of my other favorite Price AIP films. It seems like the marketing for this film didn't know what to do with it, and looked to market the film as if it were part of the Corman Poe cycle. The American poster for the film oozes with a gothic vibe - a Victorian looking mansion, and a ghost like figure of a woman adjacent to a large picture of a worried Price. And of course, a frail distressed woman in a state of undress. All of which do not appear in the film, which is fine with me. One of the things I love about mid-20th century genre films, especially those out of AIP and Hammer, is their promotional materials. Just amazing, amazing art produced that in some cases like Last Man on Earth, have nothing to do with the film itself. 

This film still stands up today, and is visually striking in many aspects. It also served as a huge influence on George Romero, who cited it as one of his inspirations for Night of the Living Dead. This is evident in the vampires look, as well as the overall desolate look of the film. At the very least, we have this film to thank for influencing Romero. 
As far as Price is concerned, I always enjoy his work, however, I would tend to agree with Matheson, he might have been miscast in this role. When I read the book it wasn't Price that came to mind - it wasn't Harrison Ford either, Matheson's ideal person. Yes, Harrison Ford with George Miller behind the camera. I can only dream of the film that would have been. 
If you love Price, like I do, then this film is great. It makes a great double feature with House on Haunted Hill (1958). 

This post is part of a new series I am doing I've titled Minor Distractions - just short pieces on small thoughts I write about when they come to my mind, 

I've seen White Christmas (1954) more times than I can count, ok, I probably can count the times I've seen the film given that my father and I have watched it every Christmas day for my entire life. It is really interesting how the way you read a film changes as you age. One thing that never changed is my crush on Rosemary Clooney that I've had since I was 5. But, in the last decade of watching the film, my feelings about how romantic the relationship between Crosby's and Clooney's characters has changed - with some cringing involved. 
Particularly the scene where Betty Haynes (Clooney) can't sleep, so her little sister, who is trying to hook her up, tells her to go down to the lodge and get some grub. There she finds Bob Wallace (Crosby) playing the piano and inquires about a some rumored sandwiches, as you do in a lodge late at night. This brings up Bob's theories about food and dreaming...

"Now if I have a ham and cheese on rye like that, I dream of a tall cool blond.."
"Turkey? I dream about a brunette..."
"What about Liverwurst?"
"I dream about Liverwurst.."

Cringe. I don't know if Bob is negging Betty or if the kitchen told him to push the leftover sandwiches. Either way, it works, and she joins him by the fire for a song about how he falls asleep to dream about blessings (read women).  
According to a Good Housekeeping piece on the '25 Surprising Facts About White Christmas' this dialogue was mostly add lib by Crosby. While this bothers me because it seems outdated, even for 1954, what really struck me was the difference in age between Clooney and Crosby. At the time of filming, Clooney was 26, and Crosby 51. This knowledge, thank you Good Housekeeping, really made me think about the power dynamic of the two characters. 
I think that there are a couple of different types of power dynamics at play in this scene. One, Bob is essentially a professional mentor to Betty. He and his partner were picked up by the two women to help improve their act by exploiting an old Army relationship. It is obvious that the men are teaching the women, as laid out it  the scene that follows when Bob and Betty discuss the "blessings number". But does this mentoring lead to an uneven balance of power? Does this dynamic force Betty to laugh at Bob's jokes? Or even to feel pressure to be romantically involved with him to further her career? We don't really know.
We see this dynamic told visually in the scene as well.. Bob is standing, leaning over the bar while he explains his sandwich theory. While Betty is seated, looking up at him. The camera is placed to show both actors with a slightly off kilter over the shoulder shot. Thus, keeping the perspective the same. This position places Bob in the visual frame as the character with the power - visually above Betty at all times. Something you would expect from a mentor who is giving sage like advice about dreams, but perhaps not a love interest.  
Second, there is the underlying dynamic of the dramatic age difference between the two actors. Since this age difference is visible(ish) to the audience, we can assume that it played into the power dynamic of the two characters. In a way, this age difference plays out a male fantasy, dating a woman half your age.  While is not difficult to believe that a man in his 50s could be romantically involved with a 26 year old, it does make us think. What do you think when you see an older man with a younger woman? Gold-digger, yes. Maybe that's why Bob is counting his blessings. 
I don't think either of these dynamics negate Betty's agency completely. Let's remember that she was the one who wrote the fake letter to the men getting them to come see the act in the first place. Betty also messes everything up by leaving to do a side gig after she thinks that Bob is a sellout. I think that it is a new way to look a the film, at least for someone who has seen it close to 100 times. 
I hope to continue this series along with the other longer pieces I am writing. Sometimes it's really good to get things off your mind. Even if it's fa month after Christmas. 
​

Susan Denberg (the stage name of  Dietlinde Zechner) was hired using the “Hammer Glamour” model of actress recruitment. Hire a beautiful up and coming, and then promote her in PR before a single piece of film was shot. It helps if she’s already made a splash by appearing nude in Playboy - Miss August  1966, and would be on the minds of every 15 year old boy for a while. Unfortunately for Denberg, this film would be her only major starring role at Hammer. This was not the first time that Hammer had cast a beautiful woman in a titular role. Working with Fox had increased Hammer’s need to push the sex element of their films. Susan Denberg was already known, having appeared in Warner Bros An American Dream, an adaptation of the Norman Mailer book of the same title. Though the film flopped, it gave her the opportunity to put some roots down in Hollywood by dating a number of famous actors. After filming Frankenstein Created Woman, Denberg fell off the radar, returning to Austria and was  believed to have committed suicide. ​

"Bodies are easy to come by, souls are not". Frankenstein has finally achieved god like status with manipulation of souls between two individuals. And the invention of a force field that can not be penetrated. No one really addresses this in the film It is simply taken at face value that he was able to do this, but that is for another post. What scientific achievement is there left for him to accomplish? But the question of what happens to the soul is never really answered. Thanks to the efforts of Frankenstein we know that it doesn't leave the body after an hour, but that is about it. Where did Hans' and Christine's souls go after she plunged into the river at the end of the film? So many unanswered philosophical questions!  ​

After a pee break, some kissing and slick shoes, the group makes it to the final test. They must play a piano, or organ, made from human bones (note: humans were harmed in the making of this piano). It is a good thing Andy decided to stay with the group since she is the only one who knows how to play a piano, or at least took lessons. Here we see again a connectivity to the past. Andy must recall a skill she learned as a child. It's a less appreciate social-skill in the 20th century, yet there is a universally timelessness to this skill. Both Andy and the men who built (make up) the piano are connected by it. After some foul play, Andy is able to lower the hatch, and the group slides their way towards Willy's ship. 
The ship itself (an homage to the ship in Captain Blood (1935) which happened to be the movie Sloth was watching earlier) is still in tact. A feat in itself since it's been resting, water logged, in a cave since the 17th century. The kids climb aboard in search of Willy's treasure. Stef asks Mikey "where is the treasure," to which he replies "this whole ship is a treasure." Perhaps this statement relates to an ideal instilled by his father. The importance of the preservation of the past.
While the rest of the group is solely in this adventure for monetary gain, Mikey is looking to complete a story. To justify a folk tale told to him by his father. He is one of the only characters that believes the story to be true from the very beginning of the film. In discovering the ship, Mikey has already found closure. Once they find the secret room with all the treasure, they grab as much as they can. The only problem is they're caught by the Fratellis. Not to worry, Chunk, or should I say Captain Chunk, is there to save them with the help of his new friend Sloth. The group escapes, but they lose all the loot they had gathered. While making their way along the beach they're picked up by the police. Their parents show up, with hugs and pizzas. 
Troy's father takes advantage of the group's gathering to have Mr. Walsh sign those papers. But all is not lost, Mikey happened to put some jewels in his marble bag, a fair exchange. They can use the jewels to pay off the debt. Mr. Walsh rips up the paper and everyone cheers. But what about that ship? Willy makes one more voyage out to sea. 

The Goonies presents the past as important, but not important enough to be preserved. While the characters are not out to destroy the materials from the past, they certainly do nothing to prevent their destruction. At the same time, the film presents a connectivity to the past. It teaches us that those in the past should matter to us. We all have a story to tell.
Ironically, the character who is most involved in the preservation of the past, Mr. Walsh, inadvertently does nothing to preserve it. He stores artifacts in his attic, and he uses jewels to pay off a loan. In light of family circumstances, his professional code of ethics has been set aside. Or maybe marine salvage laws apply, so it doesn't matter. Either way, we can't be too mad at Mr. Walsh. At least he took the time to keep those items in the attic. The "rejects" from the museum found a place in his home.
One thing I think we can take away from this film is that no matter where you live, someone has been there before. And their story - their culture -  influences you. 

In part 2 I will be discussing one of cinema's most famous curators, Marcus Brody. Like Mr. Walsh, he is a character that is in the background yet has great influence on the film's narrative. 

All photos are screenshots from the 2001 Warner Bros DVD release of The Goonies. 

Five Dolls, like the Christie novel, is set on an island. A rich man has invited a number of guest to stay with him on the island. While in the novel,U.N. Owen is a mysterious figure to the guests, all of the guests of Mr. George Stark know him. They are all there because of one man, or rather one piece of paper. Professor Gerry Ferrell has come up with a new type of resin and three of the men are there to buy it from him. They’ve combined forces, offering him 3 million dollars, and maybe a wife or two. Whatever he wants. All the food, J&B whiskey, and sun he can handle. All he wants is to rest.
Marie doesn't want rest. Her husband needs her help in seducing the Prof into giving him the formula. Too bad she's more into the houseboy, Charles. I mean he can drive a boat with his feet, without looking ahead, while laying on the deck. Amazing young man. It's too bad someone stuck a knife in him. It is also unfortunate that Mr. Stark sent away the yacht for a few days, so no one will be bothering them. Not even the police. So like any normal group, they wrap up Charlie and hang him in the walk in freezer next to a slab of beef Rocky would use to train.  

After the first victim, it becomes apparent that someone is trying to cause trouble for those on the island. The telephone/radio has been broken. Tempers are beginning to rise, and J&B whiskey is flowing readily. The men must still keep their eye on the prize. So Nick decides to bring his check to the Prof hoping to persuade him  to do business with him alone. The Prof won't have it, so he returns the check, or does he. Maybe it's caught in someone's clothing. 

Before this mystery can be solved, the professor is shot and dragged into the water. Oddly enough, we know who shot him. It was Mary-Ann, I mean Isabelle. Why she did this is unknown. Unlike the novel, the characters for the most part, while some visibly shaken, don't seem to be affected by these murders. Nick wants to know about his check, Stark wants to buy the formula from Trudy, the Prof Farrell's wife. While Jack and Peggy want to play footsie. 
It's not long before more bodies turn up. This time it's Marie, wearing that red bra, perhaps the check is in it? She's been stabbed in the chest, exactly as she was in the opening seen, only this time it wasn't a joke. So the meat locker gets another body. 

Stark's wife Jill can't take it anymore. So she kills herself. This is only revealed after a fight between Nick and George over the missing check. ​Peggy is shot while enjoying the morning sun. And I've lost count of who is left. With only a few people left alive they decide to wait it out together. The yacht should be there soon. No one has inquired where Isabelle is at all by the way. Trudy begins to record a message on a reel to reel tape player detailing the men she is left alone with and that one of them is in fact the killer. Just as in the book, a recording holds some importance. Not in detailing the supposed murderous deeds of the individuals. But to indicate that someone has been playing a trick on them. And that person is, no I won't give it away. I will say this, much like the novel, without the "epilogue", the film would not make any sense. There is a sort of twist at the end.
While it may seem that this film is dull due to Bava chosing to use primarily off screen violence, rather than a typical giallo. It fits in with the structure of And Then There Were None. In the novel the murders are mostly happened upon by the group. This gives the reader a further sense of confusion as to who is the killer. There must be someone else on the island committing these murders outside of the group. We are put in the same place as the characters. Unfortunately in the case of Five Dolls, we are just confused. But if confusing plots stopped us from watching films, we would never have the pleasure of such gems as The Big Sleep (1946). And let's be honest, much like reading Playboy for the articles, the real reason we came to Five Dolls is for the visual pleasure. 

Apart from a typical 70's overuse, in my opinion, of zoom. Bava creates visual pieces that are beautiful. His famous painted mattes are in full effect here. These visuals, along with the jazzy score by Umiliani make for some great scenes. And while it may seem that Bava is less concerned with the Christie story he's pulling from, there are themes such as isolation, distrust, depression, and greed that are present in both. This film is an example of how literary works do not need direct adaptation in order to convey the same message. While we always say "the book was better" it is important to remember that the film is a vision or interpretation of text. And a good story has the ability to evoke thought through more that one medium. 
If you are a fan of Bava's work I would recommend checking this film out. (All photos from this film are screen shots taken from the 2007 Anchor Bay release of the film). 

Also, here is the trailer for the film care of Arrow Video. And don't forget to check out my Tumblr page 

"They say there's no such thing as the perfect crime.." 

The Ice Harvest has all the trappings of a neo-noir film. It is grounded in a work of pulp fiction, and though it steers away from the novel in some elements, it remains true to the thematic nature story (I would recommend reading the novel if you have a chance. It is darkly comedic). Characters, set pieces, and plot developments are nestled in a the seedy underworld. Or what some would consider seedy. As Charlie says to Vic “I sue people for a living, you sell them porn, Roy hurts people”. This is only reiterated by Pete’s insistence not to mess with Charlie because he’s “big time mob lawyer”.  Even the honest characters have anger issues. Like many noir films, there really isn’t a “good guy” that we are supposed to be rooting for to win. It’s more or less, which character is more empathetic. We want Charlie to win, while in reality he is a thief and murderer. Unlike that of Phil Conners journey, Charlie is not aiming to be a better person. Perhaps even the opposite. The Ice Harvest also contains a key noir element, the femme fatale. Renata works on Charlie at a very slow pace. So slow you may not even realize, as he didn’t, her villainy until it is almost too late. She is playing both Vic and Charlie, waiting for one of them to bump off the other. This plan works pretty well, until Charlie decides to look in her closet. You should have changed bags Renata.
​In the end, both protagonists from Groundhog Day and The Ice Harvest reach their goals. Phil finds love and gets out of his never ending cycle, while Charlie finds money and removes himself from the his daily routine. To the victor goes the spoils, pancakes.

Check out my photographic posts about this film on Tumblr here

"My mom was a ventriloquist and she always was throwing her voice. For ten years I thought the dog was telling me to kill my father."
Wendy Liebman

Dolls, are creepy. My apologies to little girls and doll enthusiasts around the world, but it’s a fact. Innocent things can take on the most sinister sides to them. A child’s room could be filled with dolls at night and you’d think nothing of it.  But visit your grandma’s house and be forced to  sleep in her guest room, which also houses her massive doll collection.  You’re not sleeping.  In the same vein of creepiness as dolls, are puppets. Puppets, however, step up the creepy a notch or two.  They have a fluidity of movement that dolls just don’t have. The puppeteer makes it talk, dance, laugh and mimic all types of activities. Once done,  the puppet sits or hangs lifelessly.
Perhaps is more than just lighting or your eyes playing tricks on you that is making you fear puppets. It might be a real fear, automatonophobia. Automatonophobia is the fear of anything that falsely represents a sentient being. This can be the fear of puppets, muppets, ventriloquist figures, marionettes, automatons, or other mechanical creatures.  I think in a way, we all have little of this phobia in us. For me it’s not the puppets I’m scared of, it’s the puppets coming to life and attacking me that gives me the willies. There is a lot of potential scares in puppets. Just imagine them moving and acting without the aid of their human manipulators. Not cool. If you’ve ever seen Poltergeist (1980) or Pinocchio (1949) you know what I’m talking about. There is also this idea that the puppeteer has embedded some portion of their own personality into the puppet. That maybe, the puppet has acquired some of the owner’s spirit. This is especially the case in that of ventriloquist figures. Ventriloquists are known to talk to their figures when not in use. Many times the figure or dummy is given elements which caricature the artist themselves. Further exasperating the idea that the doll in imbued with elements of the master. 
The idea for this post came after watching Attack of the Puppet People (1958) on TCM. This movie has no puppets, save one, and it doesn't attack. It gets demolished by a very small man.  They should have really gone with one of its pseudonyms, I Was a Teenage Doll, which is more closely related to the actually plot of the film. Although there are no teenagers in the film.  I won’t bore you with this film, but it did lead me to think about puppet movies. Child’s Play series aside, which is technically a doll movie, I came up with a few films involve puppets.  They’re all related to the art of ventriloquism. They are Devil Doll (1964), Magic (1979), and Dead Silence (2007). 
Now I know there are many, many other puppet movies out there. I mean there are like four Puppet Master films, and let’s not forget Black Devil Doll From Hell (1981) or Black Devil Doll (2011). Technically, those last two are also doll movies. All of the films I chose to discuss here have commonalities to them such as ventriloquism, and the supernatural. While Black Devil Doll and Child’s Play use the supernatural to move the plot, I wanted to stay away from serial killer doll possession films. As much fun as those are. These three films also speak to the different ways in which we identify with puppets. And how this identification can lead to the automatonophobia we all have.   
The word ventriloquist comes from Latin, meaning to speak from the stomach. Ventor meaning stomach, and loqui meaning speak. In Greek, this type of act was referred to as gastromancy, which sounds more like the ability to tell all gasses to do your bidding. Throwing one’s voice has long been associated with the supernatural. Often this ability was either feared or revered. While initially seen as sorcery, this skill  became more widely used for entertainment purposes, hitting its peak in the days of vaudeville. Yet associating ventriloquism with the supernatural has lingered in our collective  minds. As society became more secularized, this supernatural association led to the linking ventriloquism with those who are gifted with supernatural powers to perhaps just mentally unstable.        

What Dead Silence teaches us is that you can fill a film to the brim with tropes, putting them in at all the right places, and still have a film that is uneventful. Dead Silence combines themes presented in Magic and Devil Doll. While primarily about the supernatural, the film touches on the mental stability of the killer, Mary Shaw. I mean she wanted her corpse turned into a doll, you don't get much more mentally unstable than that. It also takes us back to our fear of the supernatural forces surrounding the art of ventriloquism. We may no longer believe that ventriloquists are magicians, but we still don't trust them. 
So, what do these films tell us about automatonaphobia? First, that fear can be partially derived from fiction. I am creeped out by dolls, not because of their intrinsic creepiness, but mainly because I saw films like Poltergeist when I was younger. Which also happened to compound my fear of clowns at the time. Secondly, the distrust of ventriloquist is not completely without merit. They are in fact deceiving us, or they wouldn't be very good at what they do. There is a concept in psychology called  visual capture. Visual capture is the dominance of our vision over other senses in how we perceive the environment around us. The ventriloquist effect is a form of visual capture. It is a process by which we perceive sounds to be coming from the figure's mouth rather than the ventriloquist's because our visual capture is overriding the fact that we know the ventriloquist is making the noise. This gives the figure, at least in our minds, a voice. 
Now you may be thinking "what do I do if I have this phobia?". I would advise that you stay away from ventriloquist acts, don't watch the Muppet Show, avoid the doll isle at the toy store, and don't go near an American Girl store. Most of all, have no fear, they're just dolls, they can't hurt you. Unless they're possessed. Then run, toss them in the fire, do not stab yourself or others, and if necessary, share your ham sandwich.  

And then there is the Vent Haven Museum. I wonder if they do overnights...