June 23, 2016

THE GIALLO PROJECT - A GAME OF CRIME (1964)


WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD! 

A GAME OF CRIME marks the birth of the second variation of the Poisoned Past narrative. This variation can be defined as follows: the story of a man or woman whose personal safety is put in jeopardy due to the present actions of someone they are involved with romantically. This variation tends to produce the weakest films for several reasons, all of which are found in this film. To properly explain, I'm going to have to go into details so turn away now if you were ever planning on tracking down this giallo rarity.

A GAME OF CRIME begins with a man named Paolo being followed, chased and eventually beaten up by a couple of thugs. Turns out Paolo has a gambling problem and is in serious debt. When his nightclub performer girlfriend Christina can't bail him out of it, Paolo goes for Plan B. He steals a million lire from his employer, David. Naturally, David doesn't appreciate this, but the person most shocked by Paolo's actions is David's wife, Anna. She and Paolo have been having an affair, something David knows all about. So to punish both the crook and his cheating wife, David plans on calling the cops, only to fall ill when his heart condition flares up.

Bedridden and tended to by his doctor friend, Bowen, David tosses and turns, clearly in pain. And he isn't the only one. In an upstairs room of the house resides David's brother, Carlo, a man reduced to an incoherent mass of scar tissue after an automobile accident a few years back. Carlo is looked after by a live-in nurse named Elizabeth, mostly because Anna cannot tolerate Carlo's incessant, agonized wailing. When David's heart condition suddenly worsens, everyone rushes to his aid, including Paolo, who has been hiding in David and Anna's house for the past couple of days. Bowen asks him to retrieve David's heart medication from the bathroom and Paolo, slime that he is, suddenly finds a way out of this mess. He purposefully gives David the wrong medicine, killing him.

Only days after, Paolo and Anna are a couple. Christina has been pushed to the side by Paolo. He's angry that she won't abort their unborn child but she, for some indiscernible reason, still loves him. Anna love him too, even though Paolo doesn't treat her any better than her abusive, now-dead husband. But no matter. Paolo wants to live the good life, spending the money Anna received from David's life insurance policy on a brand new car. Carlo still resides in the upstairs bedroom, his ongoing care a condition placed upon Anna in the insurance agreement. Even Carlo's screams can't dampen Anna's mood.

But the police sure can. They've received an anonymous letter claiming that David's death was not a natural one. And so begins the long and torturous central narrative of A GAME OF CRIME.

The problems should be obvious. For starters, we have two main characters, one of whom is a greedy, good-for-nothing killer. The other is a widow fully aware of the circumstances of her husband's death. Or at least I think she is. The film never bothers to explicitly state how much Anna knows. In one scene, she's paranoid about the cops arresting her. In another, she's more or less just worried about the ramifications of being accused. Regardless, Anna is a weak, borderline pathetic character for the film to hang its hat on and Paolo is little more than a petulant, arrogant brat. Am I really supposed to care if they're arrested?

Dancing around the periphery of the film are two far more interesting and sympathetic characters, Elizabeth and Christina. Elizabeth is first presented to us as quiet and devoted to her work, but as the film goes on, her character is given sudden depth which goes completely unexplored. She's the one that sent the letter to the police and is later revealed to be not only Paolo's sister but David's lover as well. This provides the film with ample opportunities to explore a character torn between past greed and present moral torment over her actions. But because she presents a possible problem for everyone involved, it becomes imperative for her character to be killed off. And killed off she is, leaving us with the far less interesting cast of characters.

Then there's Christina. While completely removed from the central narrative, Christina is the only other character with any semblance of inner motivation for her actions. It's rare to see a film from 1964 deal with abortion as something integral to a character arc, but A GAME OF CRIME plays that card rather well. She is the only character I felt any sympathy for in the whole film. Unfortunately, she really is just a side character, only kept around for the sake of a misguided happy ending.

Gialli are not known for being strongly ordered, logical affairs, but the ending of A GAME OF CRIME rises to such a staggering degree of stupidity that I feel it's worth discussing. It is revealed late in the film that David did not die. With the help of Bowen, David faked his death. He killed his suffering brother, put on a custom-made Carlo mask and has been sitting upstairs in his brother's bedroom the entire time. How he pulled this off is beyond me. We're told by the police that David's autopsy came back clean. Someone would have had to put a body in a coffin for the burial and I'm fairly certain that no one would have confused the clean-cut David with his burnt-to-a-crisp brother. And what reason did David have to pull this all off? For money, of course. HIS money.

Let me repeat that. A wealthy man fakes his own death so he can steal his own money. Wow.

My guess is that I wasn't supposed to think about the twist ending logically. I was supposed to be blown away by it, shocked by it, confounded by it. Truth be told, I was, but it had the nasty side effect of completely jettisoning me out of a film I was barely orbiting in the first place. A GAME OF CRIME is a film about unlikable people doing unlikable things. BLOOD AND BLACK LACE did this same sort of thing, even giving us a late game murderess whose motivations we understood and sympathized with. But here all we have is Paolo, a brat, Anna, a cheating wife and accomplice, Elizabeth, reduced to a petty, duplicitous backstabber and David, a total prick. There is no place to hang your hat on here and that is what makes the ending so remarkably aggravating.

Because after this is all said and done, and David has been eaten alive by rats beneath the house, we are treated to a scene of the police having a drink with Paolo, Christina and Anna. It's like watching a group of friends discuss their day, laughing and making light of everything that just transpired. Paolo decides to stay with Christina and raise their child. Anna flirts with the police inspector. And me? I was screaming “you do remember that two of these people are guilty of attempted murder, right?!” at the top of my lungs. Normally, there would be some kind of comeuppance, some kind of emotional closure for the audience. Not here though. What we have here is a demonstration that the people who made the film have no real grasp on poetic justice or irony. They sacrificed all of that in favor of a cheap twist.

A GAME OF CRIME
(Crimine a due)

Director: Romano Ferrara Writers: Marcello Coscia, Romano Ferrara
Starring: John Drew Barrymore, Lusia Rivelli, Lisa Gastoni, Jean Claudio
Italy; Eco Films
1964, 89 minutes

Narrative Variety: Poisoned Past, Var. 2
Murderer(s): Male
Murderer(s) Role: Husband
Murderer(s) Motive: Greed
Victims: 1 Female (shot), 1 Male (dies offscreen, cause undetermined)
Murderer(s) Death: Eaten by rats

June 19, 2016

HELL NIGHT


Say what you will about slasher films being formulaic, but that underlying narrative formula kept most of these movies moving along at a brisk pace. Born from the “every ten minutes” rule codified by drive-in masters like Roger Corman, slasher movies were the ultimate in apologetic cinema. Sorry about the bits of story going on here, guys. Have a complimentary decapitation! We're really sorry about this bout of exposition. To make up for it, here's a scene of someone being eviscerated! You really have to try hard to mess up such an easy formula, but here we are. HELL NIGHT, a film that confuses spook show for freak show and takes way too long winding up for a pitch only to have it fly five feet then thud straight back to the ground.

What I'm trying to say is that this movie is so damn boring.

The film begins at a costume party thrown by the Alpha Sigma Rho fraternity. Despite being absolutely jam packed with people, I have to wonder just how popular this fraternity is as there appears to be only two pledges, Seth and Jeff. When Lambda Lambda Lambda has more pledges than you do, it might be time to close the doors. Anyway, as part of the hell night initiation ritual, the pledges will have to spend the night in Garth Manor, the obligatory haunted house of the film. Legend has it that Raymond Garth had a bit of a meltdown one night and murdered his entire family. But there may have been a survivor of that bloodshed, a son who is now a raving lunatic, killing anyone who sets foot in his home. Think THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL except full of people who say “radical”.

So Jeff and Seth are locked in the property by Peter, head jerk of the fraternity, and to keep sexual tension high, they're partnered with two girls from a sorority, final girl Marti and Denise. Now I'm not entirely sure what college these people attend, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be Scooby Doo University as Peter and his friends begin tormenting the pledges using plastic skeletons on fishing wire, hidden speakers that play canned haunted house effects and two-way mirrors. A good portion of the film plays out like this: Peter plays a prank, spooking one of the girls. Enter one of the guys to carefully and meticulously explain how the prank was done. Rinse and repeat. It's like watching the worst episode of Ghost Hunters imaginable (which says a lot). Unfortunately, the TV show these pledges should have been recreating in their spare time was MythBusters because whadda ya know? Turns out the legend of Garth Manor is true and one-by-one they're all bumped off by a killer.

Which could have been fun if this movie wasn't so damn boring.

I have a few questions. If the Garth Family Massacre only happened about a decade ago, why does Garth Manor look like it was ripped out of a Hammer movie? There are candles everywhere. No electricity at all. Were they Amish? And most certainly Garth Jr. would have killed someone during the set-up for this little prank, right? I mean, it must have taken a full day for Peter and Co. to put all those fresh candles all over the house and set up the speakers and the mirrors and all the other pranks. They've clearly done this before too so why hasn't anyone else ever been killed before tonight? Do I even care? Not really.

But there's nothing else to focus my brain on because this movie is so damn boring.

I did appreciate the films willingness to kill off virtually everyone, sparing us a forced happy ending. If only it spared us the forced romance angle between Marti and Jeff. They're not terrible characters on their own, just thinly sketched, two white do-nothings bitter about their upbringings. Maybe if only one of the two was a self-important whiner, I would have been more engaged, but together they combine to form an unholy personality vacuum that just sucks all the fun out of everything. Seth and Denise on the other hand are so pumped full of hormones that I wouldn't be surprised if Denise's vagina had become sentient, screaming “feed me!” over and over again in the middle of the night. Seth does become the unlikely hero of the film later on, but Denise's sole character trait is that she likes her quaaludes and her Jack Daniels. I think I was supposed to be enamored by this early 80s drug and alcohol abuse, but I could see through the charade. It was just an excuse to get a lingerie-clad Suki Goodwin in bed and keep her there for the majority of her running time. In fact, a good portion of this film is devoted to people just lying in bed.

One of the many reasons why this film is so damn boring.

It's also too fucking long, clocking in just shy of two hours. That is far too long to spend with six or seven characters you wouldn't want to share a three minute elevator ride with. The film takes so long to get to the killings that I honestly started to wonder if this film was ever meant to have a killer in it at all. Maybe this was just a reworked spook show script? The killer is uninspired visually, but as the survival of these characters was the only thing standing between me and my ability to do something better with my time, I found myself rooting for him the entire film. I could see the light at the end of the tunnel. Faster, Ugly Guy in Overalls! Kill! Kill!

Once the film was over, I was noticeably happier. No more pranks. No more listening to people I don't care about talking about living lives I can't relate to. No more bad 80s humor. No more unironic uses of the word “radical”. No more overacting. No more Linda Blair running around in a corset… wait, that was something I liked about this movie.

Overall, HELL NIGHT is too damn boring to recommend. Watch something else instead. Like paint drying.