You
know what kind of movie you're in for when the movie begins with a
minute-long lingering shot of the female lead's vagina.
OK,
that's a bit of an exaggeration. The film actually begins with a shot
of three thugs standing near the Golden Gate Bridge. Why? Because it
was cheaper than getting a “shot on location” title card made up.
That's my guess anyway. From there, the film moves on to our female
lead being tenderly groped in bed by her boyfriend, Bob (played by
1970s low budget porno regular Gerald Broulard). They whisper some
sweet nothings to one another (she says “I love you, honey” and
he responds “so do I”. How romantic!) as the camera eyes up her
labia. It's only after we've stared at her crotch for 60 seconds that
the film tells us her name. Karen.
Karen
says goodbye to Bob and hops a plane from LA to San Francisco. She's
going to spend some time with a friend named Judy. Just one problem.
Judy has been kidnapped by the three thugs we saw during the opening
credits. They proceed to gang rape poor Judy while waiting for Judy's
sister to pony up the $50,000 ransom they're demanding. Even though
Judy's sister (I don't think she's ever named in the film) tries her
best to get Karen to return home by lying to her about Judy's
whereabouts, Karen doesn't buy any of it and goes looking for her
friend. Predictably, she gets herself captured by the thugs and a big
gang bang ensues. Once the rapists have had their fill, they decide
to slice poor Judy up with razor blades, accidentally killing her.
Meanwhile, Bob has arrived in San Francisco. Will he be able to save
the day before Karen ends up dead?
All
of that encompasses about 25 minutes of the films running time. If
that sounds rushed and overly busy to you, let this sink in for a
moment: the film is only 50 minutes long. Yeahhhhhhh.
Another
15 minutes is spent on the rape, an endless parade of spread legs,
manhandled breasts, dangling dicks, public hair and ball sacks. The
remaining bit of time is spent on the climax of the film, the rapists
being shot dead by a couple of cops (portrayed, naturally, by bit
part porno actors). When this incoherent mess finally ended and I had
a minute or two to think about what I just watched, I was left with
the unshakable feeling that I just sat through an unfinished film.
For
starters, the movie was largely shot with live sound. Nothing about
the audio is balanced. The score is sometimes so loud you can't make
out the dialogue and the final scene of the cops shooting the rapists
dead is done without any sound effects. We don't even get someone
screaming “BANG!” off camera. They just clutch their stomachs and
drop over dead. Then there's the rape scenes, obviously shot in a way
to accommodate hardcore inserts. Whether or not those inserts were
ever filmed is unknown to me, but the way these scenes are directed
(almost entirely in close up with simple pans to create the illusion
of coverage) scream porno. The films director, Jack Genero, was a
porn director before SAN FRANCISCO BALL and remained a porn director
after, the only cast members who made a film before or after this
were adult performers, and the crew is sprinkled through with adult
film veterans. I have a hard time believing that the cut of SAN
FRANCISCO BALL I watched was the intended version of this film.
Not
that hardcore inserts would have made this film much better. As
erotic and exciting as autopsy footage, SAN FRANCISCO BALL makes 50
minutes feel like two hours. No one can deliver a line in a way that
sounds even remotely realistic. The print I watched was horribly beat
up, but there's barely any attempt at interesting composition anyway
so I doubt a pristine print would have made this look in any way
visually compelling. But this is a cheap roughie, not an art film, so
how does it hold up as a simple piece of provocation? Not well. It's
missing any sense of genuine outrage. The rape scenes are difficult
to take seriously when the victims look only mildly annoyed and the
rapists are behaving like characters in an Eli Roth film. The razor
blade torture is largely unseen and any kind of satisfaction we might
have received from watching these pricks get their comeuppance is
robbed from us by poor execution. So even as a cheap-o roughie, SAN
FRANCISCO BALL fails to deliver.
Still, it's a genuine rarity. At the very, very, absolute least, I can say that I've seen it. So yay for me. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment
SPEAK YOUR MIND