|
Post by sean on Jan 16, 2008 8:49:01 GMT
Here's a link to a little article I wrote about this classic film some time ago... www.videovista.net/reviews/dec06/peeptom.htmlIt's an abosolutely superb film, and if you have somehow missed it, dig it up and watch it immediately!
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Jan 16, 2008 12:22:33 GMT
A very hard film to watch. I have a copy and keep meaning to give it another go. Am I correct in assuming the first image you see in PT is a close up of an eye staring out at you? And would anyone agree that the use of non-Englishman Carl Boehm gives Mark an extra outsiderness? There are so many references to film, watching, observing, scopophilia etc in here that many viewings still turn up something new each time. It's also interesting that the blind mother is one of the few characters who can 'see' beyond Mark's outer shell. Particularly like copper Jack Watson's film comments during his investigation. (Great review, Sean BTW)
|
|
|
Post by killercrab on Jan 16, 2008 12:49:42 GMT
A very hard film to watch. >> I didn't find it unbearably hard to view ( I was expecting some pang of guilt) after reading up about it's voyeuristic slant. I think though that it depends on the viewer and how they accept what they watch or distance themselves from the home truths. I'd say the same *applies* to books - I remember a few folks feeling uncomfortable reading Darke's The Witches books. Big topic this - comments welcome. ade
|
|
|
Post by franklinmarsh on Jan 16, 2008 13:08:53 GMT
I find I have to be in the right mood for this Ade. It's not a film I could just pluck from the shelves and watch in lieu of anything else, or for fun. I remember going to a triple bill at The Everyman cinema in Hampstead - Circus Of Horrors, Peeping Tom and Horrors Of The Black Museum (lumped together as 'Sadian Movies' in David Pirie's A Heritage Of Horror). Circus is a fun film to watch with great (if somewhat lurid) performances - Black Museum was a laugh-riot. Peeping Tom was something else entirely. You can't help but identify with the killer.
|
|
|
Post by Calenture on Jan 16, 2008 13:36:02 GMT
I've got Peeping Tom on tape, and - like Eyes Without a Face - it's brilliant, but not one of those films I'd choose to watch if I wanted a pleasant evening's viewing.
I thought this comment of Sean's was particularly interesting:
It's natural if horror fans occasionally step back and wonder just why the hell they're spending so much time absorbed in things many find repugnant. But why someone who'd worked on The Red Shoes and A Canterbury Tale would want to do that is a mystery.
Good, thought-provoking stuff, Sean.
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Jan 16, 2008 14:22:59 GMT
You can't help but identify with the killer. That's what makes it such a powerful film, in my opinion. For some strange reason, I've always enjoyed films, books, etc where I can identify with the villain. Not being sexist but I wonder if there's a gender difference with Peeping Tom too? I can watch it, identify with the killer when I guess I should really be identifying with the victim, and then detach myself from that very easily. Whereas if you're a male watching this, the thought of identifying with the killer might just be too uncomfortable for you? I don't know; it's a theory anyway. I'm probably talking complete rubbish!
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 16, 2008 17:57:43 GMT
Long time since I saw that one. But I can understand why this movie more or less destroyed Böhms career in Germany at the time. After his family friendly "Sissi"-films which made him a star Peeping Tom could only be a slap into the face of his audience. It is hard to come up with a with a modern day equivalent ... let´s say if someone like Jennifer Aniston would do the leading role in SAW V, only with a lot nudity, I guess it wouldn´t further her career either. Or maybe it would. It is hard to imagine that content would have such negative repercussions for all involved today.
I never read about Böhms side, why he did this movie in the first place, but I guess he really hated the stuff he did before. But maybe he was genuinely surprised about the backlash. Who knows.
The movie is hard to watch, even without the gore of todays standard. You do identify with the killer, which you can´t say with Norman Bates. One shivers at the thought of a remake.
But I have to confess I also think the movie often hilarious. The scene with the "porn" fotos virtually sold under the counter is laugh out loud. I truly wonder if there were ever such a scene in Britain spending a lot of money for such awful wannabe porn.
|
|
coral
New Face In Hell
Posts: 3
|
Post by coral on Jan 16, 2008 22:54:50 GMT
Susan Sarandon didn't work again for years after doing the Rocky Horror Picture Show, definitely a bad career move! I don't think a remake would come anywhere near the original, that atmosphere would be almost impossible to replicate nowadays. It would probably end up as a typical thriller/whodunnit thing.
|
|
|
Post by bradstevens on Jan 17, 2008 11:06:04 GMT
It's natural if horror fans occasionally step back and wonder just why the hell they're spending so much time absorbed in things many find repugnant. But why someone who'd worked on The Red Shoes and A Canterbury Tale would want to do that is a mystery. But so much of PEEPING TOM is already there in those films: THE CANTERBURY TALE's glue man, who goes around pouring glue into women's hair as a protest against modern society (and whom the film clearly regards as an admirable individual), and the idea in THE RED SHOES that art is only meaningful if one is willing to pursue it to the point of death (which, for the manipulative male character at the heart of the film, means the death of the young woman who has fallen under his spell). It's worth noting how completely PEEPING TOM's reputation has changed in the last 20 years. I first saw it in the mid-80s, when it was screened on BBC1 as part of a late Saturday night series of horror films. At the time, it certainly wasn't regarded as any kind of classic by the general public. Martin Scorsese had raved about it (I'd already seen clips in the excellent Scorsese documentary MOVIES ARE MY LIFE, which was included on the first UK video release of MEAN STREETS), as had Brian De Palma, but on the whole, it was considered to be something extremely sleazy. There was actually a rumour that the film was somehow banned in the UK; I remember that, when the BBC announced their screening, a lot of my friends were calling each other to pass on the news; and, after the screening, there was the feeling that the BBC had somehow got away with something by showing the film (I think we had the impression that they'd deliberately buried it among a series of horror films, hoping that nobody would notice).
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 17, 2008 18:06:01 GMT
Tied in with the question of how this film is viewed (are we meant to feel somehow complicit in the crimes, or uncomfortable for simply choosing to watch?) is the question of why we all read horror (whic Calenture brought up).
To be honest, most people I have any contact with these days are interested in horror either in film or the written word, or both. Due to this, I feel it is completely normal to be immersed in the stuff (and to write it as well!) and it comes as a bit of a surprise when I bump into someone that doesn't share my interest.
This happened recently when a childhood friend who I hadn't seen since we were both 10 or 11 got in touch (found me on myspace, of all things!) He is of the opinion that he is fucked up enough without having horror stories adding to it. This got me thinking, because I tend to view horror as a genre like any other. I don't think it is harmful, and I'm not of the opinion that it an interest in horror highlights some deep, twisted personallity defects. And I'm sure that the genre is of use above and beyond mere entertainment (scratch that - mere entertainment is a wonderful thing in itself!). What do you wonderful bunch of experts think?
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Jan 17, 2008 18:49:09 GMT
Interesting question, Sean. I'm the opposite of you in that all of my friends in the flesh, so to speak, think I'm totally bizarre to enjoy horror. I frequently get comments like: "Yuk, I couldn't read/write/watch stuff like that!" But I definitely don't think of it as a personality defect (mind you, my friends probably do!); it's just a matter of personal preference. Other forms of fiction bore me to tears - romance, historical fiction, fantasy, etc. I do enjoy good comedy too though! I've often wondered about another related question. Every horror writer I've met so far has been a really nice person, and it makes me wonder just how can people so nice dream up so many abominations to put onto paper? Perhaps if we didn't write/read/watch these things, we would exhibit some kind of "personality defect"? Perhaps enjoying horror is a kind of "safety valve"? Or maybe I'm just getting too bogged down in psychology?!
|
|
coral
New Face In Hell
Posts: 3
|
Post by coral on Jan 17, 2008 23:26:56 GMT
Horror themes such as murder, violence, rape and the urge to dominate others are inherent in the human psyche, for what were initially very good reasons, so they are not dreamed up at all, merely set within a plot and embellished with characters. This is stuff that every human being can relate to, either consciously, or at a deeper level for those who insist on appearing civilised, and that is the attraction. The other main theme in "entertainment", love (or sex) relates to the self in the same way. Another thing the human being experiences en masse with every other human is the so called Religious Experience, which manifests itself in every culture in some way or another, from self induced hallucinations of shamanry, to the "acceptable" fevour of religious ecstacy. This desire to understand ourselves that has us seeking "meaning" is the same drive that fuels the urge to watch human behaviour in all it's forms. Our base animal drives combined with our higher mental need to understand are what create this dichotomy in "nice" people who read/watch horror. It's not just a safety valve, but a means of interpreting our own personalities and instincts. Which is why people into horror are often good people, they are far more well rounded individuals than those who stick merely to "love". One usually finds more people overstepping the bounds of civilised behaviour who concentrate on one to the detriment of the other. Thus Peeping Tom is a perfect blend of stimuli, making it both difficult to take in, and easily identifiable with all at once. So you're ALL correct
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Jan 18, 2008 8:21:11 GMT
my only problem with horror at the moment is the that reality provides it in abudance. I often question my personal motivations for writing the stuff. But I have at least found, here on this board, that horror writers seem to have a an abundance of decency in apparant contradiction to their predilection for producing the most horrific scenarios possible.
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jan 18, 2008 11:44:30 GMT
er, what coral said... not having checked in for a while, i've come late to the table, but (of course) i've got a couple of things to say. the first is that while i agree with craig that horror is all too prevalent in real life (probably always has been, i think i'm just noticing it as i get older), the thing about horror fiction for the writer - and the reader - is that it's incredibly cathartic, and like most fiction enables you to live out a scenario vicariously without much fear of danger. you can get as close as your imagination allows, but with the knowledge that it can't actually GET you...
crime fiction tends to have a similar meaning, in that it allows you to transgress laws and morality with no actual dangers (hence, i suppose, the turn from the law keeper as hero to law breaker in recent years). this does raise the issue of responsibility (the point on which the arguments of those who feel it influences the young, as in gangster rap etc, turns). i think that's balls, myself: i know lots of people who like the vilest books, films, etc, yet are perfectly nice people in real life. those who commit crime may get ideas from the media around them, but in the days before such media that character and psyche type (broadly speaking) would have gained stimulus from local legend, etc. broadsheet ballads as responsible for the ripper, perhaps?
at the end of the day (sorry, came over a bit john motson there), surely one of the purposes of art and culture in a society is to express those feelings and thoughts that run through the psyche, both good and bad. isn't it the polynesians who have the most violent folk theatre and legend, yet are the most peaceful and least violent of people? i'm sure i read that somewhere, but we all know you can't trust books...
Peeping Tom is a great film. the discomfort you feel at empathising with the killer is why it's so good. where Curse of the Crimson Altar (say) allows you to sink into silliness and wallow in indulgence, PT is about making you really think about what you're feeling and why, as a vehicle for understanding the motivations behind transgressive behaviour. same form, different function.
Brad - you raise some great points about Powell's work. although this film stands apart in the sense that it is harsher than anything before, your points about the Red Shoes and Canterbury Tale are spot on in my book. even a light film like I Know Where I'm Going explores what happens when personal motivations and drives step over the lines of accepted morality, albeit in a completely different manner. A Matter Of Life And Death also examines what people will do to stay alive and achieve their compulsive aims, and the psychological constructs they make to explain this to themselves.
It's funny, the first time i saw it, it was talked about as the film that 'destroyed' Powell's career (which it did in practical terms back then), yet now it's seen as his greatest and most meaningful work. it's neither - it fits into his canon and is as different as Red Shoes, or 49th Parallel are from each other. they all have their meanings and purposes as the artist explores his ideas.
and scorcese - yes, i recall that documentary where he raved about Red Shoes and PT in the same breath. he got it. pity it took the UK so long to catch up.
|
|