Review: Jethica

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2023
Images from the Internet

Jethica
Directed by Peter Ohs
Visit Films; Spartan Media Acquisitions; Pretty Ideas; Lightbulb Film Distribution; Strike Media
72 minutes, 2022 / 2023
www.strike-media.com

Love-obsessed stalkers fall into two categories: the first is the ex- that cannot accept that it is over, the second is the one who is delusional and believes there is a connection between the two parties, when there is none.

After a 20-questions type prologue that introduces Elena (Callie Hernandez, who has some major credits such as the recent Shotgun Wedding, 2016’s Blair Witch, and Alien: Covenant in 2017), one of the three four characters of the story, we are told the events as a flashback.

Callie Hernandez, Ashley Denise Robinson

From LA, she moves to New Mexico to live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere (near Mountainair). Not even a forest, so this is a cabin in the…desert? The introduction to her domicile there is obviously a homage to the opening of Evil Dead (1981), perhaps signaling to the viewer that something unearthly is afoot. Also noteworthy is a later scene reminiscent of “The Hitchhiker” episode of “The Twilight Zone” (1960, with “The Farmer’s Daughter” herself, Inger Stevens).

New Mexico is a beautiful place. Much of what we see is open fields that go on for miles. It is winter there (hence the coats) in the film, and desolate as you can get. Actually, it reminds me of the Canadian prairies in the spring. There is an old joke that says if you stand on a cigarette box, you can see a dog run away for three days. This is the type of landscape that we see a lot in the film. It makes sense as the backdrop is a symbol of the desolation of emotions felt by the main characters, including Elena’s odd acquaintance, Benny (Andy Faulkner), who looks as windswept as the environment.

Going to get some gas in town, Elena runs into an old California high school mate, Jessica (Ashley Denise Robinson), on the run from a stalker, Kevin (Will Madden), an classmate in college, who keeps tracking her down; it is obvious to see where this is going, but as it is the main focus of the plot and its selling point, I do not believe I am giving anything away here.

At some point, the film takes an unexpected supernatural element that I will not discuss, but it is both disturbing, and yet, amusing (this is a very bleak and dark comedy…when it wants to be that).

The cast and directors are given co-writing credits, indicating that this was mostly ad-libbed around a pre-conceived storyline. Sometimes that does not really work, but in this case, it enhances the experience of tying the story and the language used in a lovers’ knot.

Though there is humor and the supernatural involved, the main word I would use for this is minimalism. The film is shot very serenely, considering the action, and there is a lot of decent dialogue (kudos, especially if I am correct about the ad-libbing). The landscape, which is a character unto itself, is reflective of the pace of the story, wide and vacant, yet poignant.

Will Madden

The same could be said for the excellent cinematography and editing by the director, lovingly showing the beauty of the plains. I moved from the city to the prairies, and its starkness and the quiet nature of the scenery is almost startling.

Equally haunting and understated is the soundtrack by John Bowers, which is subtle throughout the story, lulling and wrapping itself around the action, rather than startling with loud dissonant notes, as in most supernatural films.

What I especially liked was the way the story twists and turns, in ways that are completely unexpected. There were bits I figured out, but it definitely went in a direction that was happily unanticipated. This is also helped by the excellent acting all the way around, especially by the ironically named (to the story) Madden.

There is no blood and gore, little violence, a jump scare or two, and plenty of dialogue, as I said. However, this film is story-based, and it is incredibly enjoyable. The only thing that confuses me is the title; although it makes it easier to look up on search engines.

Considering the small cast, it has a “filmed during Covid” feel, but that could just be my projection. I have stated this before, that my theory is that Covid has made filmmakers more creative by forcing them to use limited interactions and spaces.

Amazing for a release that only cost $10,000. And stick around after the credits.

Available on AppleTV, Amazon, Sky Store, Virgin Media, Google Play and RakutenTV.

IMDB listing HERE

Review: The Electric Chair

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2018
Images from the Internet

The Electric Chair
Written, produced and directed by Mark Eisenstein
Wild Eye Releasing / MVD Visual
105 minutes, 1985 / 2010
www.Wildeyereleasing.com
www.MVDvisual.com

Whether Mark (Marcus) Eisenstein’s work could be put into the transgressive film category is borderline, but he does have an aggressive style that has a large dose of religion (mostly Jewish), confrontation, and imagery.

His The Electric Chair, from 1985, has long (well, for 25 years) been considered a piece of “lost cinema,” directed by this film professor from Jersey City State College. Fortunately, Wild Eye Productions has not only seen fit to release this piece of unorthodox cinema, but has also added in a whole bunch of Eisenstein’s shorter pieces as extras, along with some trailers and a track commentary. But more of that later.

Written originally as a play that was mounted but once, Eisenstein (okay from now on I’m just referring to him as ME…deal with it) decided to make a film out of it, and offered the lead role to Harvey Keitel, who actually wanted to direct it as well. ME was all for it, but due to prior commitments, Keitel backed out and offered up his pal Victor Argo in the lead. Yes, the heavily Jewish role was handed to an actor of Puerto Rican heritage, who just nailed the part perfectly. There is a lot of dialog in long bursts, and being trained as a stage actor, Argo was more than up for it. After filming for no pay, it sat in the can in minimally edited form for years, even after Argo’s death in 2004.

Though filmed in the ‘80s, ME finally finished the black and white film by editing in some footage he took of decrepit buildings on Block Island in the Long Island Sound (or would that be considered the Atlantic?) in 1971, in splashes throughout the narrative, effectively adding a layer of mood to the zeitgeist of the story.

The basic premise of the plot is centered around a shoe salesman, Arnie Schwartz, a lonely man whose marriage has grown as tired as he is, and who spends nights doing a stand-up comedy and music show at a local bar in New Jersey (where most of ME’s films are located). An electric chair appears on the stage as he is bombing, and in front of an audience that represents his whole life, he is warned not to achieve several levels of intimacy with the object.

As the gig does on, the comedy act turns into a rant about the philosophy of comedy, and bit by bit focuses in on his life, God, and schtupping, which uses up most of the film. It takes a strong actor to be able to portray this level of anger and still remain somewhat sympathetic (though in the commentary, ME states that he was not going for sympathy, just the anger), if not pathetic. In front of his mother, himself as a young man dominated by her, his kid sister, a sax playing rabbi, a couple engaged in their own intimacy, and others, Arnie rails right to the climax, which comes as no surprise. However, it is the last shot of the film that I found the most effective and unnerving.

The time goes quickly, and Argo is more than up for the task of possibly his only starring role in his long career. Keitel would also have done well, but Argo brings some depth to his emotions, and can punch out the lengthy gunfire dialog, while in close-up, without ever making it redundant or boring. It’s hard to turn away as he gives his all, which is even more impressive considering, as I said, he wasn’t even paid for it. That’s dedication to a craft.

The images of the super 16mm film (except for the Block Island footage, which is a grainy 16mm) is exceptionally sharp, giving a near German Expressionist pastiche, with high contrasts and an occasional glow, with Argo’s white suit against a black background. It’s the facial close-ups where the shadows are the most effective. My only qualm is the editing, sometimes a bit too sharp and jarring, or perhaps that was the meaning (the other Eisenstein filmmaker, Sergei, was famously noted for proclaiming that “editing is motion”).

This is definitely not a date movie, nor is it a backdrop film. It needs special care and attention from the viewer to see the slow build-up to the finale, and all the subtlety in-between as the tone of the film changes.

The commentary was interesting all the way through, though I felt like I wanted a second one. ME is paired up with indie filmmaker Peter Crocker (I may have this name wrong) and Rob Hauschild of Wild Eye Productions; Crocker is an “expert” on the film, and runs off with the conversation a number of times; I just wanted to say “shut-up, this isn’t your film” more than once. A lot of technical questions are discussed about the film, the “hardware” as it were (pre-production, production, and post-production), but not enough, I feel, on the “software” (plot, meaning, intentions). I would have liked more insight on what ME was trying to “say,” and at key moments, such as the ending, I thought, “why are you talking about that instead of what’s on the screen?” Don’t get me wrong, the commentary is full of fascinating facts, it just left me wanting more than it offered.

The shorts by ME that are included, and there are several of them, run from the “mini-feature” of “The Roach,” which lasts more than 20 minutes, to a couple that are just a few minutes.

“The Roach” is an interesting set piece of a waterbug that suddenly becomes human, but still scuttles about, played well by 20-something hipster type Eric Mednis. He has no dialog, and flops around when he’s on his back. The Roach is as confused about the human world as it is about him. He keeps following a profane exterminator named Mr. Acme, played by Nick Taylor, and is nearly seduced by a lonely woman (Joan Moossy, who is in many of ME’s productions), before the film ends, Nero-and-Poppaea -style. The film is simple and smart, and obviously a reversal of Kafka’s infamous “The Metamorphosis,” and is one of his few works here in color.

Some of the shorts are extremely esoteric, such as “The Smog” (1967; 6.5 min.), where people are filmed talking in a smog while their voices are re-recorded; “Eight Tragedy Term Papers Plus Three by Maggie Murphy” (1967; 15 min.) in which a real-life poetic term paper by a student who passed away is read by ME as a typewriter types out newswire stories; and in “Mark Eisenstein: Inventor of the Frame” (1982, 1.5 min.), the director explains how he “invented” the frame for cinema (before, supposedly no one knew where to look). There are a couple of others of varying success, but interesting to help put The Electric Chair into a larger picture of Eisenstein’s process.

There are also some trailers put out by Wild Eye Productions, though there is also one for an unreleased Eisenstein film called “God Is On Their Side,” an (I am assuming) allegorical tale of trying to get God on one side or another during a war, while all he wants to do is sing, dance, and smoke cigars. Why am I so interested in this? Simply because God is played by (and credited to) Buster Poindexter, also known as New York Dolls’ vocalist and Staten Island’s own David Johansen.

Review: Murder Made Easy

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2017

Images from the Internet

Murder Made Easy

Directed by David Palamaro

No-Money Enterprises / Lock and Key Films

76 minutes, 2017

https://www.facebook.com/MMEmovie2017

https://www.facebook.com/MMEmovie2017

I found it kind of humorous, for a number of reasons, that part of the story in the film sprung from a previous play production of Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap, in which many of the characters performed together a few years earlier.

First of all, the whole film production reads like a play. It’s heavy in dialogue, mostly takes place in a single room, and the pacing of the whole thing could easily be mounted on a stage. As far as Christie goes, this also feels very Frank Capra-esk in the way the words are spoken in a quick and light patter. This murder mystery has been compared to the game Clue, but I definitely believe that it’s more the source material of the dining room murder mystery that they have in common rather than the end piece.

In a theatrical way, there are title cards announcing the various acts, and there’s even an intermission (albeit brief), which helps keep track of just where the viewer is in the process, and also giving us some point of reference about both the story and the food.

Did I mention the food yet? There’s plenty of it as we watch course after course being consumed, each one unique and all looking very tempting – and occasionally healthy.

This is a very dark comedy. How dark is it, I can hear Ed McMahon asking in my head? If this film were chocolate, it would be 90% cacao or more. Of course, that is definitely part of its charm. Like most murder mysteries – again, let’s use Christie as an example – there are a lot of characters most foul, and even more important, there is double-crosses upon double-crosses.

Jessica Graham

In the story, Joan Chandler’s (Jessica Graham, who is also one of the film’s producers and published author of a non-fiction book on good sex) husband Neil (Neal?) has been dead for a year. Not happy with the way her husband was treated by his friends, she and mutual pal Michael (Christopher Soren Kelly) decide to take matters into their own hands, and make things right by… well, the title is more than just a hint.

Each of the guests, who arrive in serial fashion, are acquaintances of Neil, who have either worked at the Theater Department of the local university, and have all performed as a troupe in one of his productions. Guests are an amusing yet annoyingly self-righteous vegan (Emilia Richeson), a self-quoting psychobabbling passive-aggressive author (Sheila Cutchlow, who also is actually a published author), a not-too-bright wannabe documentary filmmaker (Daniel Ahearn), and a co-professor (Edmund Lupinski). Gifting each of their dinner companions with objects that were Neil’s that reflect just why the widow feels slighted on his behalf, it isn’t long before things get pretty tense.

Jessica Graham and Christopher Soren Kelly

The cast is really tight, like they’ve been doing this particular piece for a while. Solid professionalism. While there are some standout performances, there is not a weak moment in the acting, from opening scene to close. That being said, it feels like the camera loves Graham and either keeps gravitating to, or lingering on her. Luckily, Graham can handle it, as she says so much with a snide smile, a frown, or a subtle shift in mood. Kelly is the yin to her yang, a ball of kinetic energy to her nuances. They spin around each other like a double helix, boosting each other’s characters.

Of course, though it needs not to be said if you are at all familiar with the style, little is as it seems. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors, as there should be in this kind of story, and I recommend giving yourself enough time to watch it twice, to catch all the – err – clues you may have missed (I would say the same about some of the more extensive Christie pieces).

In case I haven’t made it clear, this is a strong and solid piece of work. The writing is crisp and sharp as a razor, which never takes the easy way out, even by the end (which, of course, I will not give away… no spoiler alerts). Considering the confined space, the camera does not feel claustrophobic, which is quite the accomplishment in itself.

With the large amount of bodies piling up in corners of the house, there actually is very little blood, and the violence is often blocked by the way the shots are – err – blocked by the director.

For a set piece with a lot of dialog and extremely lengthy shots (i.e., less editing), there is also enough of a high energy level to transfer to the viewer so it doesn’t seem as static as it actually is onscreen. While I tend of find Christie a bit tedious, the pace remains fluid rather than stodgy even though this is kind of modeled after that paradigm, so I was riveted by what was unfolding before me. This is an example of good filmmaking.

The only negative I can say about this movie is that I can almost guarantee you’re gonna be hungry, and for something more substantial than fast food. Like this film, which is a fine vintage, quality stands out.

Trailer is HERE.