Wake In Fright Review

Wake In Fright is a hell of a movie, and I mean that literally and figuratively. It has often been wrongly described as the inability of a man to escape the clutches of a town which seem to tighten on him every passing day. Like every great work of art, it is about something deeper than it cares to admit and at its crux, Wake In Fright is rather about the inability of a man to convince himself why he needs to escape. Free food, free beer, free housing, free sex and a great time with mates while doing absolutely no work. Now what could possibly be wrong with that ? Bundanyabba does seem to be a paradise on Earth. Yet show it to a 10 year old kid and even he would fish out the moral murkiness the happenings of the movie are surrounded with.

Is it the town that is insane for housing tenants who seem to have been raised in zoos, educated only to the base instincts ? Or is it John Grant who is insane for yearning to be a part of this savagery forsaking all sensibility ? Or is it we that are insane for having made moral order synonymous with the mundane, raising brows and coughing disapproving sighs when everyone happens to be just having a good time ? If it is the answers to these questions you are looking for while watching Wake In Fright, I believe you will be terribly disappointed. Like all great horror movies, it tries to evoke rather than supply.

The premise is stark plain and quaint. John Grant, a laid back schoolteacher  in an outback town in Australia travels to Bundanyabba by train during vacations. He plans to stay there for the night and set out in the morning to the airport to board a flight to Sydney to meet his girlfriend. Yet, trouble ensues in gambling as it always does, leaving John stranded penniless in Bundanyabba, a town where waiting for a bus would be inscrutably bound with thoughts of whether it has a darned bus line or not. The problem with most movies is that the premise seems to gradually develop into the plot, yet in the case of Wake In Fright, saying that the movie is just about these above lines would be like looking at a brick in the Great Wall Of China and saying that’s all there is to it.

Most films, even great ones, evaporate like mist once you’ve returned to the real world; they leave memories behind, but their reality fades fairly quickly. The terrifying part of Wake In Fright is that once it ends, it seems the reality of the movie has transcended into that of the world and it is this macabre that the viewer seems to be walking into. We realize that John Grant was just a vessel and it had been us, the viewers, that where his mind and soul all through.

Another stratagem of looking at Wake In Fright is through the prism of Jungian transcendence. John becomes conscious of the shadow and his anima through the course of the movie. The denouement hints at a possibility of self-realization as well, a sense of heightened understanding of how all of our days and ways are a fragile structure perched uneasily atop the hungry jaws of nature that will thoughtlessly devour us. How life is a spread of limitless ennui, interrupted briefly by insanity. Yet, no hints are given on whether John becomes conscious of his archetypal spirit. Is it to catechize whether the ordeals sustained and sacrifices made for enlightenment are worth the price of one’s soul ?  We don’t know. Kotcheff doesn’t say.

Michael Haneke while talking about his Funny Games once said ‘Anyone who leaves the cinema doesn’t need the film, and anybody who stays does’. If the very same can be said about Wake In Fright, I am darn sure no walkouts will ensue when it plays. We do need this movie, and to be frank, we need it very badly. And considering how it has emerged from all ruination and shambles to its past glory, I guess it needs us too.

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes

Advertisements

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Review

There is no denying that horror and exploitation movies have a world of their own, inhabited by connoisseurs who scrutinize these grisly works with the precision as one might view Fellini’s 8 1/2 or Jonze’s Her. And although my personal stance is of utter repugnance towards these mostly gore-fests, it would be vacuous to evade them completely, for once in a blue moon, some movies rise from the standards of these pulp reels, and establish them worthy to considered seriously. Over time, Texas Chainsaw Massacre with ‘Last House On The Left’ and ‘Night Of The Living Dead’ has grown in reputation as a serious work which encapsulates the terror that true horror emanates. And after watching it, I can see why. It is four times a better movie than what the title seems to promise.

It follows a group of friends as they wade through the outlying areas of Texas on their way to the ancestral home of a character bound by the wheelchair. A chance encounter with an uncanny hitchhiker materializes and things start going south, ending up with almost all these friends meeting up with terrible fates ranging from the ponderous sledge hammer to the serrated chainsaw at disposal.

One of the reasons why Texas Chainsaw Massacre works has to be the depiction of violence. Unlike other low-budget gore fests whose violence is mainly concerned with giving the viewer an inherently flawed human anatomy class when it happens on-screen, Tobe Hooper, the director of this movie, makes sure minimal attention is drawn towards the act. On the other hand, the camera focuses on the helpless reactions of the characters who have the grave luck to witness the atrocities being committed on their pals.

Most of the horror is atmospheric, with the ravaging fields of Texas set against the backdrop of a setting sun with a chainsaw yielding cannibal providing a genuine tingle to the hairs on my neck. But does the plot justify the horror that ensures ? No, it does not.

My foremost problem seems to be the spoon fed lines of Franklin following the terrifying encounter with the meshuga hitchhiker. All though none of the other characters seem to reciprocate his fears (which they should, considering how such an event will surely perturb people), the lines which Franklin says is completely directed to give the audience a sense of fear of the impending fate of the characters although it is completely unnatural to the scenario being played out. There is a huge cringe worthy moment where Franklin in a fit of anger mimics Sally’s laughing pitch which is probably one of the worst scripted comedy moments I have seen in recent times.

But none of these minor mishaps outweigh the principal quandary :- Isn’t what Sally endures much of her own flawed decisions ? The final character in this madness to endure is Sally, but to truly love and feel terrified of this movie, one needs to sympathize with the impending doom on the characters. Not giving too much away, Sally and Franklin have an argument which is a complete farce in the name of logical reasoning and seems to be played out only for the sake of playing out the climax.

But as much there is to criticize, there is to applaud in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It deserves to be considered in the same vein it is now – as a serious work of film-making. I would be lying if I said at its best Texas Chainsaw Massacre failed to scare me. Unfortunately, I would also be lying if I said the moments which lead up these terrors justify the artistry of the latter.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a good movie. The only reason I am dissatisfied is because it showed the promise of being something much more.

RATING :- 5.8 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes

The Shining Review

A book and its movie adaptation should be treated as two different entities when they are talked about. This is a principle I have always adhered to when I have reviewed any book adaptation on this blog. This may be due to the fact that in the case of every book adaptation I have reviewed here, I watched the movie first and book later. In the case of The Shining, the case was different.

And to be honest, the workings of these two are so divergent that it is impossible to treat the movie with the same mindset as one might treat the book. First of all, Kubrick is a visual suzerian, so he treats the subject matter with that mindset. The images in The Shining and perplexing, especially the layout of The Overlook hotel. There are windows and doors where there should not be, carpet designs so abstract and asymmetrical in terms of their color scheme that seem to have a convulsing effect on the subconscious. It feels like the unfulfilled dream of Alfred Hitchcock, who envisioned to trick the subconscious with images and sound to create horror.

The camera seems more menacing than Jack throughout the movie. The steadicam gives an eerie feel to the shots, of a silent intruder who is always behind the heels of these characters tiptoeing his presence into their minds. However, this entire effect is atrophied by the background score which got on my nerves with its untimely explosions. Instead of creating a feeling of distress which I believe was its objective, it atrophies the entire feeling of dread. The most brilliant scenes are Jack and Grady’s conversation and Jack’s encounter with the girl in the tub, devoid of any noise. Silence, as I have repeatedly said without any avail, is the most scariest tool in the arsenal of any film-maker who aspires to make a horror film.

The reason why I found the movie less effective than the book seems to be Kubrick’s mindset that the true evil is Jack. He explores him as a non compos mentis from the first scene itself, a man who is hostile and distant to his family. This seems to take the very essence out of what was the actual horror of Stephen King’s work, which was to paint Jack as a tormented and pitiful soul who loves his family and how The Overlook and its ghosts eventually wear all humanity out of him. In the novel, the effect is distressing because we actually care about Jack as an individual and actually do feel contrite when he gradually goes down the spiral.

Kubrick’s movie however raises serious questions on the reliability on the mental state of its characters, which in turn, raises questions on the presence of any real supernatural entity in the hotel. The book by Stephen King gave us characters which seemed to consider the Overlook as a redemption to their diabolical lives and induced a feeling of claustrophobia and cabin-fever with its slow-pacing which made me feel as if I was shut in by the ghosts the Overlook seemed to house, creating a feeling of utter distress and eventual terror. On the other hand, Kubrick’s movie grows on to you and then lets go and oscillates with these feelings throughout, in the end creating an impersonal work which is at times chilling, but rest of the times, making an effort to be.

RATING :- 5 / 10

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.