Shame Statement 2018

Great to be a part of another year of Shame! I actually accomplished quite a bit. I knocked off a good deal of horror films with Friday the 13th being the big one I wrote about. I also watched and wrote about Straw Dogs which was a very unique viewing experience. Now here we are at 2018 and I have a new list of films to partake of for the first time. This year I want to try for a themed approach. This year I want to focus on westerns, my favorite genre. Not every Shame will be a western though. But I do want to add some more of this genre to my cinematic talking points.

Yojimbo/Sanjuro – Akira Kurosawa

The Hidden Fortress – Akira Kurosawa

The Shooting/Ride the Whirlwind – Monte Hellman

The Revenant – Alejandro G. Inarritu

Romancing the Stone – Robert Zemeckis

A History of Violence – David Cronenberg

Hang em High – Ted Post

One Eyed Jacks – Marlon Brando

McCabe and Mrs Miller – Robert Altman (pray for me here as I typically can not stand Altman films)

Pan’s Labyrinth – Guillermo Del Toro

Ghost in the Shell – Mamoru Oshii

Death Rides a Horse – Giulio Petroni

Wyatt Earp – Lawrence Kasdan

No Dog in this Fight: My first viewing of Straw Dogs.

The end of Straw Dogs has Dustin Hoffman’s David Sumner driving an uncredited David Warner’s Henry Niles back to town after the climatic showdown in the Sumner house. Henry tells David, “I don’t know my way home.” To which David responds, “That’s okay. I don’t either.” This final exchange sums up the entirety of what  Straw Dogs conveys. At the end of the day, just what are we? 

There will be spoilers here.

Prior to my viewing of Straw Dogs, the only film by Sam Peckinpah I’ve seen was The Wild Bunch. I took that film as a more visceral version of a Leone western. However having only seen it once, I didn’t get the themes that are prevalent with Peckinpah’s work. This film is rife with controversy and complications and interpretations. It is not an easy watch. Things do not resolve themselves. People are not good and don’t nescesarily become better people by the end of this.

This film is certainly one that earned its controversial status. It raises questions. Even if you answer one question, you may not answer the next question the same way.  Is Straw Dogs a condemnation of violent masculinity? One may interpret it that way. Or is it a celebration of that? It may be as well. Is Peckinpah blaming women for the violence that occurs against them? It seems that way, at least to me it did. Early on David asks his wife Amy (a heartbreaking performance by Susan George) why doesn’t she wear a bra if she doesn’t want the leering eyes of her ex-boyfriend and his cohorts focused on her chest. This moment is actually one of many that show her husband is not only meek, but part of the overall problem. He disrespects his wife at times and belittles her. He blames her sexual freedom for the attention she did not ask for. By time we reach the climax, you’ll see David is no better than the brutes who invade their home. It just took him a little longer to get there.

The controversial rape of Amy is still a discussion point to this day. Becuase of how Peckinpah filmed the scene, there are indicators that Amy at first refuses but then acquiesces. Now I do not see it that way. I saw a woman trying to cope with the violation being committed against her. The scene is brutal and uncomfortable and I actually feel uncomfortable trying to discuss it. Yet this is film criticism and I’d be remiss to not mention it at all despite its notorious reputation.

This is a very complicated film, directed by a very complicated man. Did Peckinpah hate the violence within himself? Did he allow that to manifest in this film? Does he think David is a hero or antihero? So many questions. It’s fitting that this film came out in 1971, the same year as fellow controversial director Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. Straw Dogs, like that film are not easily watched. Yet both films hold a mirror to the ghastly primal nature of humanity and at the very least, make you look inside and question just what are you. Straw Dogs, structurally is a time bomb, ticking away during its runtime until it explodes in the climax. 

Is it just a matter of time for any of us? Just another of the many questions it forever brings. Endless questions and endless discussion.

Iconic? Really? A First timer’s time at Camp Crystal Lake

I have not posted in a long time, a long time (in my Obi-Wan voice). So instead of overextending myself with some grand essay to announce my return to the Shame, I’ll keep this simple. Plus there really isn’t too much I have to say on this.

For years I knew of the great horror Monsters of the 70s/80s. You have Michael Myers, Freddy Kruger, Leatherface and Jason Vorhees. Believe it or not I had never seen a Friday the 13th film. I’ve seen Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but never a film with Friday in the title that didn’t star Ice Cube or Chris Tucker.

Well I knew I missing out, these are the things that when you’re growing up in the 90s are signs of your growing-upedness. “Hey did you see the new Jason movie?” Nope never. I resolved back during the first year of CinemaShame to watch at least the original film. I got collection of the first four for a really cheap price. So what happened? How did I receive these classics of modern horror? These iconic films of the slasher genre?

Answer: I didn’t receive them at all and wondered how they got their iconic reputation. 

There was nothing in the original film that to me came close to the achievements in the films by John Carpenter, Wes Craven or Tobe Hooper. In Halloween we get the suspense of the unstoppable Michael Myers, in Nightmare, the fear of dreams. For Texas Chainsaw we have an almost documentary like shoot of madness and murder. Even if you aren’t scared, you’re always engaged. Friday the 13th had none of that. I felt no tension, no thrills, I cared so little about the characters that I don’t even remember their names. Only Kevin Bacon. And I don’t actually remember his character’s name, just that it’s Kevin Bacon.

That was my face while watching. 

Sean Cunningham does have an interesting found footage type of style to his shooting of the film, it just sucks that there were no thrills until the end. Thankfully the movie is less than 2 hours so it is brisk. It’s just an interesting brisk. 

So after finally seeing Friday the 13th and some of the following films, I can why Jason is an iconic character, but not why this film or series has that same description. It’s not quite the “killer” I thought it would be.

Quick Shames Part 1: Billy Wilder’s Ace in the Hole

This is the first of 3 Quick Shames that I’m writing to get back into the mix of CinemaShame.

Ace in the Hole has proven to be an almost prophetic film for me. It is an examination of the media and its relationship with the people who consume it.

Kirk Douglas is Chuck Tatum. Tatum is a newspaper reporter who stumbles upon the story of Leo Minosa. Minosa is trapped underground while gathering Native American artifacts. Tatum manages to manipulate the rescue operation in order to better sell his story until it snowballs into a sideshow that does everything but focus on the task at hand. Tatum even goes as far as convincing the contractor to take a method that’s even longer than needed just to prolong the story.

Douglas is superb as the self-centered Tatum. I find him really good at playing these sort of slimy roles as he is also fantastic as an alienating film producer in 1952’s The Bad and the Beautiful. He clearly is adept at that type of role. You can see the effect he has on the characters around him including Leo’s wife Lorraine and Herbie Cook, a young photographer who loses his idealism over the course of the film.

Ace in the Hole was Wilder’s first foray as writer, producer and director. He did not have his longtime writing partner Charles Brackett. This film would also prove to be his first failure both commercially and critically. I can see why. In his previous film Sunset Boulevard we see the effects of an industry on an individual who was a part of it. In this film we see how news spreads and what people will do to appease a gullible public. I oils imagine no one as ready for this in 1951.

Ace in the Hole is totally relevant in 2016. The tools may have changed. We now have smartphones and social media platforms that keep us connected 24/7, but the game has remained the same. Ace in the Hole is an prime minister example of why Billy Wilder is one of the greats of cinema by giving us in 2016 a mirror to look at ourselves, yet he gave it to us over 60 years prior.

Jubal: A Shakespearean Western


I did not complete any shames for 2015 after March. Shame on me. But I’m back and going to give it another go. I’m kicking off 2016 with a look at a western. The first I saw in 2016 was also a western, Quentin Tarrantino’s The Hateful Eight so I felt that genre was appropriate to start the year off with. 

 Jubal was released in 1956. It was directed by Delmer Daves who would direct 3:10 to Yuma one year later. I wrote about that film last year. It is based on a novel from 1939 called Jubal Troop that was written by Paul Wellman. The film stars Glenn Ford, Ernest Borgnine, Valerie French, Rod Steiger and Charles Bronson.  

 Jubal Troop (Ford) is found in bad shape and without a horse. He is taken in by rancher Shep Horgan (Borgnine) and his wife Mae (French). Jubal’s work ethic impresses Horgan who promotes him to foreman. This brings him into conflict with Pinky (Steiger), a fellow cattleman.

In high school I read quite a bit of Shakespeare. Fortunately this was based on one of my favorites, Othello. The character equivalents are Jubal as Cassio, Mae as Desdemona, Horgan as Othello and Pinky as Iago. If you’ve read that play you know the story. It plays out similarly here. It may be familiar tale but that doesn’t make the film any less interesting. 

 I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Delmer Daves is an underrated director. Particularly in regards to the western genre. I may have said that when I wrote about 3:10 to Yuma. This time however I’m sure of it. In an era where the western was churned out as dime a dozen, Daves seems to make his feel a bit ahead of their times. The biggest strength of Jubal is with its actors. They have that movie star look, but really turn in fantastic performances that transcend the film’s era of its creation.  

 Ernest Borgnine gives an aura of experienced naïveté as Horgan. A man unaware of what’s going on around him. Ford plays a cautious and aware Jubal. A man trying to just make his way. Steiger gives Pinky an obvious jealous streak from the moment he and Jubal meet. The star of the show for me however is Valerie French as Mae. In addition to a very stone faced yet welcoming look, I did have sympathy for her. She was a young woman who made a decision at an early point in her life. She wants to start over. That’s nothing that most of us have not felt at some point in our lives. 

 Jubal is a nice way of working classic literature into film. It’s fantastically shot and directed but it’s the cast that make this more than standard 50s western fare. Delmer Daves, you’ve got a new fan.

March in the Korova Milk Bar


Year Released: 1971
Director: Stanley Kubrick

That opening shot. That standard Kubrick tracking shot. I’d seen it before many times. It always makes me crack a style to see one of this director’s signatures. Yet this time, that shot that I had seen many times in the past, gave me a sense of uneasiness. That long stare of a young man with a glass of milk wearing white with a black hat. The images all around the milk bar, from the tables shaped like naked women to the words that appear to be Russian on the wall coupled with a haunting electronic piece by Wendy Carlos. The film is A Clockwork Orange. And for the first time ever, I had seen a film that truly has me conflicted.


Based on the novel by Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange stars Malcolm McDowell as Alex DeLarge, a juvenile delinquent who partakes in drinking milk-plus and engaging in rape, and ultraviolence. Within the first 45 minutes of the film, Alex and his droogs beat up a homeless man on the street, get into a fight with another gang and assault a writer and rape his wife. I’ve always heard about the use of “Singing in the Rain” in regards to this rape scene and now I understand. Usually when a movie know for its violence ages it tends be a little tamer when viewed. Not at all here. This isn’t the type of stylized violence we see from Tarantino or Verhoeven. These are despicable actions by despicable people. It is uncomfortable and unpleasant. Yet Kubrick makes it hard to turn away. I don’t know what he did with his films of the 70s, but this and Barry Lyndon, which I felt was extremely boring but I couldn’t take my eyes off it, but he managed the same here.

Alex is incarcerate for murder and is released after going through an experimental treatment designed to “cure” him of his criminal nature. By time it’s all over he gets physically ill when faced with a violent or sexual situation. The state declares him cured and releases him back into society. However when he comes across the people who he has wronged in the past, he can not fight back as the prospect of violence makes him sick.


This is where the film makes me question myself. Normally I’d would want to see a person like Alex get what he deserves and he does once he returns home. Yet it’s doesn’t seem balanced since he is conditioned to not fight back. I want him to get his when he is at full strength. A minister while he was in prison says the state has taken away his free will. He has choice but to behave because he can’t choose the opposite. Should I have sympathy for Alex? Even at the end of the picture I was unsure of what to feel.

I love Stanley Kubrick’s work and this is the only one of his films I had not seen. I put it off for years because of the subject matter. This is quite a disturbing film. Will I ever watch it again? Perhaps. I need to clear my head after watching this. Do I feel this film is classic? Absolutely. It does what a film is supposed to do, open your eyes to new ideas and ideals and sometimes challenge your mind. I still feel Kubrick’s a master of the craft. This film cements that opinion.