The horror
OK, so we're sticking our fingers in our ears during the narration now on British Film Forever (at one point this week, my fingers slipped out and I heard Jessica Stevenson, reading out the words of Matthew Sweet - both blameless - and she spoke of Boris Karloff "popping back" to Britain, which pretty much set the grating, matey tone), but what happened to the Horror edition, Magic, Murder and Monsters? There was some really interesting stuff in this one, not least about the exploitation years, which are covered in great detail in Sweet's Shepperton Babylon and came to life in clips and interviews, but about 20 minutes before the end, it sort of changed direction and suddenly covered Fantasy, which is different to Horror. Certainly, the previous hour had been exclusively about Horror. But then we had Brazil and the films of Terry Gilliam, followed by a final flourish in which Harry Potter was tenuously tied back into the Hammer tradition. It was honestly as if the programme had come loose from its moorings! Anybody else feel this way?
Gosh, what a confusing experience this series has turned out to be.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 9:11 AM
18 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
18 Comments:
I wondered about that too. To be honest I switched off after they started talking about the Harry Potter films. To put them in the same category as 'The Wicker Man' and 'The Elephant Man' seemed a bit unusual, to say the least.
I wasn't aware that the British horror film tradition descended so badly into the 'Lesbian Vampire' type of films they mentioned. It was an eye opener. What could have gone so wrong?
Jessica Stevenson/the writers certainly tried their best to mess this series up, but I personally have learnt a fair bit from it, so I can't have too much of a pop at it.
I'm not too sure that The Elephant Man is a horror film, to be honest. It is about horror. It is also about much more. I was glad to see it celebrated, but I fear we're into Seven Ages Of Rock waters again, where round pegs must be bashed into square holes for the sake of format.
I agree it's not a horror film in the true sense of the word, but does come under the heading of 'Monsters' I suppose.
I wanted to highlight the difference between these critically acclaimed British films and the Harry Potter series, which are basically just kid's movies, are they not? (Cue the HP fans baying for my blood).
I was also surprised to learn that only a handful of British films were made in 1980, the same year as The Elephant Man. Dark days indeed.
Well, it was "Horror & Fantasy" but... yeah, the fantasy part got tacked on. Although why it concentrated on Brazil which was financed by Universal, I'm not sure. Doesn't that make it an American film?
If you go to the BFF Horror page on the BBC website there is an extended clip of the interview with Gilliam which is revealing about his attitude to horror.
And when did An American Werewolf in London become a 'British' film as well? Maybe I didn't get that memo. Surely The Company of Wolves warranted inclusion instead?
What really narked me was the brief piece on The Wicker Man, voted the number one horror film by the Radio Times readers. It was dumped at the end of the lesbian vampire section, the narration concentrated on the nudity and then, when the effigy is burning and the islanders are singing Sumer Is Icumen In, Jessica Stevenson informs us that they are "singing the song from Bagpuss". WHAT??
When it came to Harry Potter and The Elephant Man I was using my sofa as a scratching post.
If BFF is a "celebration" of British film, is the fact that Peter Walker made the kind of "video nasty" exploitation films ahead of the others something to stand up and salute? Answers on a decapitated corpse I assume.
You've mentioned spoilers in these kinds of shows before and I agree.
If this is meant for hardened film fans, it fails for all the reasons you note - the links don't stand up, items are thrown together, half the talking heads are irrelevant.
If it's meant for newcomers to film and as a teaser for films for those who haven't seen a handful of classics then it fails again, as they completely ruin the endings. The Whicker Man is one of the best examples of a film ruined by big-heads.
A great film in its own right but surely the ending is critical to one's enjoyment of it?
Also - why no interview with Christopher Lee?
Swines: my guess is that Christopher Lee declined to be interviewed, as I understand he is sick of talking about Dracula. (Ironically, he thinks Lord Summerisle is one of his best roles, so they should have tried to secure him via that route.) I agree: showing the ending to the Wicker Man was an act of vandalism, especially when it's one of the films selected for reissue at Odeon cinemas by the British Summer of Film, or whatever it's called.
Chris: 1980 was the worst year for British film production since 1914, with only 31 films being released. Although things got worse in 1981, with only 24 films released (albeit one of them was Chariots of Fire).]
Good Dog: completely forgot about that fucking Bagpuss comment. Shall we belittle a great film even more? Also, yes, Brazil was an American-funded film, made by an expat American, but it's British because . . . it's set in Britain? Written by a Brit? Starring some Brits? We could debate such things all year. The fact is, Lawrence Of Arabia was funded by US money, and that's a classic British film. It's not a horror film, though, and nor is Brazil.
How important is funding when deciding on whether a film is British or not... in industry terms, it's central, in cultural terms, totally irrelevant. That's why 'British Film' is indefinable.
PS - I wasn't talking about The Wicker Man, I was talking about The Whicker Man, in which Alan Whicker self-immolates on the Isle of Mull.
I guess Lawrence of Arabia made the list because it was produced by Spiegel's Horizon Pictures GB (with US money).
Brazil... the prod co was Arnon Milchan's Embassy International Pictures. Which also made Ridley Scott's Legend pretty much the same year. So why wasn't that included? Brit director. Shot at Pinewood (before the set burned down).
I mean you're absolutely right that this is all debatable, but it's something the series should have dealt with. Because the film industry here has money from all different sources and films from different countries being made here, what BFF needed was to set the parameters.
Like I mentioned before, dividing it in genres is a great way to go but, like Planet Earth, there really should have been an opening introductory overview to set out the stall, nail the colours to the masts, and explain the industry, the relevance, and what makes a genuinely British film before going off in different directions.
Then again, if you look through the BFI screenonline database, Brazil gets a listing. So... I suppose that's okay then.
I gave up on it after the Hammer bits, have to agree about the Wicker Man bit.
Curious about how they select people to comment. I love Rufus Sewell, but had to wonder why. Did a film he's starred in feature later on?
He's not known to me as a horror actor, a fine and attractive actor certainly, but if he's to be pigeon holed, he's more usually to be found in period costume sitting on a horse than being horrific!
This was the first one I watched all the way through and it was just not as good as it could be. I enjoyed the early horror stuff which I didn't know anything about but the voice over did annoy as did the pointless celeb "comments". The sad thing as soon as a practitioner started talking it got interesting but these bits where fleeting . I thought the spoilers were a travesty epecially as I don't think we were warned before. As for Terry Gillingham why not have square peg programme for all the the stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere I know this won't fit into a nice "themed programme" but genre films, Docs and art films should be shown. Also we did get to see "The Witchfinder General" a wonderful film . I haven't learnt my lesson with all this and will check out comics brittania appearing soon doh!
I don't think the series will go down as a classic of its type. In which case the fact the there has been no Andrew Collins in them is a good thing. Only appear in classic BBC programmes, that's my advice.
Isn't Jessica Stevenson now Jessica Hynes? Her name was credited that way on her recent Doctor Who performance.
The "square pegs into round holes" thing you point out is interesting because, when you think about it, dividing the story of British Film into genre categories is, well, a pretty stupid way to tell the story of British film, isn't it? The story of British comedy film is presumably not unrelated to the story of British romance movies, is it, which has similarities to the story of British horror. They might as well have ordered the series alphabetically: Part One, British Films from A-D, etc.
Clivec, I rather fear you'll see my ugly mug on next week's show about War, and the one after, about Comedy. Let's hope they've been kind to me in the edit suite.
Just had a look at the new Radio Times where Matron Graham has a few things to say about the narration "Viewers of this film might've thought they were having their legs pulled" which accompanies a clip of... Reach for the Sky.
Huh? Oh, and since the subject is War, one of the films showcased is United 93.
I give up.
I have to say i do think we are being a bit pompous about this (I hesitate to use that word). I still think there are more good things about this series than bad.
I like films a lot and there were quite a few films on this show that I have not heard of The Sorcerers or The Innocents and they both look very interesting.
In the Social Realism section a few weeks ago I heard about Raining Stones which I had not heard of before I dare say when I get around to watching the costume drama section on Sky+ I will find a film on there I want to watch.
They will all go on my Sofa Cinema list and I will get to see them which I may not have before.
I think all the criticisms of the show have some validity but I just think we should lighten up a little. Or maybe take the advice Andrew offered in his entry above about blogs we don't like and switch off.
Raining Stones is a truly magnificent film. Without giving anything away, the scene with the sheep is hilarious!
I had avoided this series up till now as I guessed it might be a pile of cack, but being a big horror fan I felt I would watch this. Ignoring the narration, the programme did tick all the boxes, i.e. Hammer, Amicus, Michael Reeves, Tigon, Pete Walker, even Tod Slaughter, so I thought it wasn't going to be too bad (besides the comments by the likes of Rufus Sewell!?). But then the usual arses turned up such as Danny Baker and Phil Jupitus (ARGH!), and when it turned to Terry Gilliam and Harry Potter I was completely non-plussed. Ending it with the Elephant Man was most strange as well, surley a biopic of John Merrick, not a horror film (even with the involvment of Freddies Jones and Francis).
The "horror" films being shown are ridiculous as well: Doctor Who and the Daleks, Brazil, Things to Come. It reminds me of when BBC4 did a season of British 60s films and showed Reach for the Sky. Still this odd season has meant I've finally got to see the Whisperers, the Pumpkin Eater, Becket, the Gorgon and the Damned.
Post a Comment
<< Home