Archive for the ‘Brain Squeezings’ Category

The Dong Show: Libidomania (1979)

Monday, November 12th, 2012

A quotation at the end of Libidomania, ostensibly from an ancient Chinese philosopher, claims that sex unites us with the mysteries of the cosmos. You’d never guess this was true from the preceding 80 minutes. This 1979 Bruno Mattei pseudo-documentary is supposed to be about “sexual aberration” and the endless variety of human perversion. Instead, it’s a series of tacky vignettes that make the deviant imagination seem very, very limited.

Like most “documentaries” of this kind, Libidomania pretends to be serious. It shows us scenes of lewd behavior, while insisting they’re informative rather than titillating… like the illustrations in a medical textbook. That’s an age-old dodge, but you have to give Mattei his due: the illustrations certainly aren’t titillating.

The movie consists of a series of interviews with some dubious “psychologists”, followed by little vignettes showing us dubious psychology, dubious history and extremely dubious anthropology. Some of these vignettes — probably fewer than I realize — were shot specifically for this movie, and most of them are mercifully short. None of them allow for much skill in film-making, and none of them show any. Frequently they consist of little more than glimpses of the perversions being illustrated, with a voice-over telling us what we should be seeing. This is particularly true of the section introducing body fetishes, which goes by at lightning speed and gives us only hints of what’s going on in each tableau (lights up! A guy in a diaper sucks at the breast of a girl in peasant garb! Lights back down again! NEXT!). The music that accompanies these brief scenes often seems inappropriate, especially the twangy Jew’s-harp in the background of a scene about a man who’s turned on by running sores.

Of course, some of the sequences are appalling at any length… particularly three in a row that deal with bodily functions. The first skit, about urine — in which a woman squatting on a man’s chest apparently pees into a glass, which the man then drinks from and empties onto himself — is neither sexy nor shocking, and in fact brings only one word to mind: proteinuria. Urine should not fizz… and it certainly shouldn’t develop a foamy head. What’s more, whatever that liquid is, it appears to come out of the girl so rapidly and in such quantity that she starts to resemble a Human Keg.

Admittedly, given the choice between certain beers and urine, I’d be hard-pressed to even tell the difference, let alone choose between them. But the urine scene is just risible. It’s the next two scat sequences that go over the line.

The setup of the coprophilia scene is almost the same as that of the Golden Showers bit, but the, er… substance involved is much more convincing. Even though the whole thing goes by in a matter of seconds, and perhaps because it goes by so quickly that we can’t gauge for ourselves how fake it is, it’s enough to leave the viewer thoroughly nauseated.

That brings us to the sequence involving réniflage, sexual arousal from inhaling the odor of somebody else’s excrement… a sequence that unites the absurdity of the piss vignette with the sheer discomfort of the poop scene. It starts as though it’s just a bit of harmless voyeurism: a weedy old man pretends to wash his hands in a public toilet as a woman goes into a stall to relieve herself. As soon as she’s shut the door, the old man hastily runs to the door and peers through the keyhole. So far, nothing outlandish. But then the woman leaves the stall — and the old man, delirious with ecstasy, runs into the toilet… the woman has forgotten to flush! In typical Bruno style, the scene goes straight to hell: the man plunges both hands into the doughy, tan substance in the bowl, pulling it apart as he raises it to his nose. Ahh! The sweet smell of Mattei! It doesn’t matter that the stuff he fondles doesn’t look like real shit (or at any rate, if it is her shit, that woman needs to see a doctor post haste); the idea is more than enough to disgust.

That should give you some idea about the scenes shot specifically for this movie. But those who know Bruno from his later films, like Hell of the Living Dead or Cruel Jaws, will not be surprised that a large chunk of Libidomania is made up of footage from other people’s movies. For instance, one of the examples whose source I’ve been able to verify is the footage that (for some reason) accompanies a lecture on aphrodisiacs: it’s a hallucinatory “beauty and the beast” sequence that’s been desaturated, tinted sepia, and transplanted from a German sex film called The Devil in Miss Jonas (thanks, IMDb!). There are plenty of other scenes, particularly those illustrating Satanism and sexual magic, that have clearly been robbed from feature films. But what might surprise the seasoned Mattei veteran is how much of the rest of the stolen footage in Libidomania is familiar: specifically, the parts of the movie that deal with that dubious anthropology I mentioned.

Most of the infamous New Guinea footage that popped up in Mattei’s Hell of the Living Dead — including the doctored shots of a woman appearing to eat maggots out of a human skull — also show up here. As offensive and condescending as those inserts were in a zombie movie, in this context they actually seem worse. For Libidomania uses the New Guinea footage to pad out scenes supposedly taking place not just in New Guinea, but in the old Guinea, in West Africa, as well as in two different parts of Central Africa. The documentary footage is then supplemented by newly-shot scenes featuring black extras (wearing the same or similar costumes in each scene), supposedly enacting some “native” sex ritual. New Guinea, Old Guinea, Cameroon… it’s all the same thing, right? Apparently all dark-skinned people, including extras in Cinecittà, are thoroughly interchangeable.

Now, if you’re hoping for any penetration scenes in this sexploitation movie (well, human penetration scenes, anyway…), then the closest you’re going to get is some of that stolen documentary footage: in one scene, a New Guinean man assaults his own nostrils with a wad of reeds in order to get some of his blood to flow. The excuse given for including this scene is that the man is supposedly purifying himself for a fertility ritual that we never see (in fact, the movie goes from the man’s bleeding nostrils to a very bizarre lecture on fetal sexuality, of all things). Like the bulk of the rest of the stolen documentary footage — especially the maggot-eating paste-up, but also including the scenes of mourners smearing themselves with mud and effluvium from an actual corpse — the connection to anything sexual is remote at best, and the movie’s attempts to establish a connection to Western sexual practice is laughable. Gee — on the one side, we have New Guinea religious ritual, and on the other side… a middle-aged man who likes to expose himself to young girls. It’s all the same thing, right?

Sigh.

All this would be unpleasant enough, but there’s more: the movie is a hopeless jumble. There’s no sense of progression from one set of sexual shenanigans to another. Just as nasal self-abuse passes into a discussion of embryonic sexual development, so too does the discussion of body-part fetishism turn unexpectedly into brief moments of BDSM and necrophilia. Sex murder comes up unexpectedly only about 45 minutes into the movie; and having touched on it ever-so-briefly, the movie passes on to a look at… aphrodisiacs! A rather tame bit on necrophilia is followed immediately by a look at bestiality. Now, I’m no fan of bestiality — I don’t think that civilized human beings should participate in any behavior they can’t spell — but I don’t see how you can use it to follow up corpse-fucking without a real sense of (pardon the expression) anticlimax.

And while we’re on the subject of Sodomy, I should point out that (this being a movie of the Seventies) male homosexuality is included in the list of sexual deviations… but it’s crowded in at the very last minute, and it is not given an accompanying vignette. Bruno knows his audience. But for all Libidomania‘s reticence on gay sex, you’ve probably never see so many various dongs on display in a movie presumably aimed at heterosexual men. There are real ones, and there are prosthetic ones — ranging from French dildos designed to ejaculate, to well-endowed statues and paintings, to the plasticine penis dangling from the nethers of the “transsexual” who has “accepted her condition” (NB: most transsexuals are happy with their altered condition; it’s the “trans” part of being a transsexual. What the movie seems to mean is “hermaphrodite”). Most of these are human wangs, but there’s a horsey one, too, in the movie’s most explicit scene (don’t worry: both participants are horses). There are even two schlongs that get cut off in the course of the film: one is reduced to pulp in a bloody but simulated sex-change operation, and the other — a familiar-looking plasticine pecker — is chopped off an “African” adulterer in one of the scenes illustrating “primitive” behavior. Wall-to-wall weenies, that’s Libidomania.



Mattei made two other “sexy” pseudo-documentaries like this one: Le Notti porno nel mondo (a.k.a. Mondo Erotico, 1977) and Emanuelle e le porno notti nel mondo no. 2 (1978). Both starred Laura Gemser, “Black Emanuelle” (“black” here meaning “dark brunette”), as narrator, who at least gave the audience something beautiful to look at in between tawdry strip-show sequences.

The first of the films is a fairly tame affair. It starts off with a tacky stage act, in which a woman dressed as an explorer (complete with pith helmet) is attacked by a guy in a terrible gorilla suit. Later, it shows us a magician who first makes his assistant’s clothes disappear — she was wearing so little that this is hardly a feat — and then makes her grow a penis (you know, if you rearrange the letters of “grow a penis”, you come up with “Spiro Agnew”, so there may be a political aspect to this scene I overlooked). The audience goes wild. The movie also shows us Dutch mothers who rent their underaged daughters out to dirty old businessmen. Gemser’s narration seems less upset at the exploitation of the girls than at the unattractiveness of the men. We’re also taken off to exotic Hong Kong for a look at a club that caters to (gasp!) lesbians! That’s right: Bruno’s idea of shocking Asia is a lesbian strip club. Le notti porno also claims to show us forbidden footage from the Arab world… where apparently they have multi-armed gods, Hindu dancers and sitars.

The second film gives us ever-so-slightly raunchier stuff. It starts with a vignette about sex and devil worship, probably taken from a feature film (though as familiar as it seems, I can’t place it: it’s got a sexy seance interrupted by a burly Xiro Pappas look-alike with a painted face, who takes the participants down to the cellars for some Satanic rituals. Mattei may have shot this [in which case it’s surprisingly competent compared to the rest of the movie], but it seems too elaborate to have been intended only for a vignette). That’s followed by a brief look at a sex carnival; and then comes a surprisingly innocent nudie-cutie episode featuring Armand, the Sex Magician. Armand big trick is making his audience’s clothes disappear. His act is interrupted by the sudden appearance of a naked dwarf with an enormous prosthetic erection… he chases the dwarf away with a flying dildo.

Other segments include:

  • …a stripper whose Lady Godiva act involves much more than just riding her horse;
  • …a sequence about (gasp!) lesbians co-hosted by Ajita Wilson;
  • …a glimpse behind the scenes of the making of a porn film (and no, the guy playing the director is not Bruno Mattei). One scene of this movie-within-the-movie has the director berating his male actor for flopping around “like a dead eel” — all together now, that’s a moray! — while on a similar note, a later scene involves a girl and her very close relationship with a snake;
  • …a (simulated, but graphic & bloody) Japanese penis transplant operation;
  • …a version of Snow White that Disney would rather you didn’t see. The scene is three dwarves short of a full set — and so, I think, was Bruno for including it;

…and, of course, some drearily familiar footage from New Guinea, including the notorious scenes of stone-age style piglet slaughter. I’d explain how that last bit relates to sex, but I’m too busy vomiting.

The only truly interesting thing about these Mondo movies of Bruno’s is how they relate to his later work. In the Laura Gemser movies, Mattei did for the first time what he would do regularly throughout his career: that is, make two very similar films either simultaneously or back-to-back. In making the Mondos, he’s also relied rather heavily on footage from other movies… not an uncommon thing for a pulled-together Mondo flick to do, but also another hallmark of Mattei’s later style.

And as we’ve seen, by the time we get to Libidomania, it’s not just the technique of scavenging things from other films that will seem familiar to us. It’s the actual footage itself.

Libidomania is Janus-faced in this respect. Looking backward, it recycles a lot of footage from the earlier two Mondo films; but Mattei takes the material presented fairly straightforwardly in the originals — the Dutch sex school in the first movie, for instance, and the penis operation, the New Guinea stock footage and the concluding nudist athletic event from the second — cuts it up, and then shoehorns it into a new movie without regard for continuity or context. Even if it made sense the first time… once Bruno’s finished with it, it will have lost most of its meaning. And if that doesn’t sum up a large part of Mattei’s film-making over the years, what does?

And this brings us back to Libidomania‘s forward-looking face — which has a bone through its nose. Liz Kingsley (brave, brave woman) has identified the sources for the New Guinea material that’s used in Notti No. 2 and Libidomania, and that recurs (and recurs, and recurs) in Hell of the Living Dead. Good for her: now I know which other films to avoid. Funny thing, though: there are bits of Libidomania that seem awfully familiar, even though they are not literally repeated in Mattei’s later movies. For instance, the explicit horse-fucking scene may not be the exact same one used in 1980’s The True Story of the Nun of Monza — in fact, the one in Libidomania is slightly less graphic — but it’s close enough.



Aside from its historical interest as a glimpse into Bruno Mattei’s development as a film-maker, there’s not much to interest a modern viewer in Libidomania — or, really, in any of the three Mattei Mondos. Their subject matter is practically quaint by comparison to what we’re used to in either popular entertainment (or porn) these days; and their approach to that subject matter is extremely uninteresting and uninvolving.

You’d think movies about the spectrum of human sexuality would have some kind of narrative flow… you know, a thrust… a gradual build over a series of smaller peaks to one solid climax, followed by a brief, quiet coda that allows us to gather our thoughts and put it all in perspective; almost like… like… well, I’m sure a simile will occur to me eventually. But that’s not the way Mondo movies in general, and Libidomania in particular, seem to be constructed.

Rather than give a structured, meaningful glimpse into the variety of sexual practices, Libidomania seems to suggest that most kinds of sex are brief, furtive, embarrassing and badly-lit — which, come to think of it, is probably how most of the movie’s target audience knew it. Bruno managed to promise his weary wankers a lusty escape from the dreariness they knew, only to give them back that same dreariness on a world-wide scope. Congratulations, Bruno! What a perfect way to embark on a thirty-year career of disappointment and frustration!

BRUNOWEEN

Livide (2011)

Monday, September 17th, 2012

I’d like to tell you all about one of my new favorite movies, Livide (2011). I’d like to go into detail about its sense of style… its amazing fantastique imagery… its references to horror icons, including one jaw-dropping throwaway scene that pays tribute to a very famous director through one of his least-appreciated movies. I’d like to analyze the ways writer/directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury (Inside / À l’intérieur) subvert the conventions of the films they so clearly love, or wax rhapsodic over the way they combine reality and fantasy so that it’s difficult to decide which of the two is more believable.

I’d like to. But I can’t. At least, not as much as I want to.

For the truth is, Livide‘s plot is so slight that if I give away any more than the most basic details, I’ll have spoiled the wonder of it. If I tell you exactly what conventions are being overturned, what film references are being made, even what kind of monsters lurk in the shadows, I’ll have ruined the experience for any first-time viewer.

Normally, I don’t particularly care about including spoilers in a review, since most of the movies I write about are so old their secrets are well-known… that, or else they don’t rely so much on the first-time surprises to make them watchable. But this one… this one’s different. This one’s special. It will certainly bear repeated viewings after the twists and shocks have been revealed; in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you decide you want to watch it again and again — starting from the very moment you’ve finished watching it for the first time. But the thrill of the discovery… the gradual unfolding of those secrets and shocks… that represents an experience I wouldn’t keep from anyone.

I suppose I can tell you a little bit, hopefully enough to whet your appetite. After all, the basic setup of the plot is so familiar and shop-worn that you may be tempted to pass the movie by, if you’re just going by bare outlines:

Chloé Coulloud plays Lucie, a 20-year-old student nurse on her first day of field training. Lucie lives in a small town on the northern coast of France. The only thing remarkable about Lucie is that her left and right eyes are different colors. The only thing remarkable about her town is the number of young children who’ve been disappearing from it.

(What’s happening to the children is revealed to us very early in the movie, so you needn’t pay much attention to that. The knowledge increases our sense of unease, but has much less to do with the unfolding story than you might think.)

Lucie accompanies an older woman, Catherine, on her rounds, visiting various invalids and shut-ins to give them their injections, clean their bedding and make sure they’re all right. It’s pretty uneventful and routine, and Lucie proves herself to be very good for a novice.

But then… the two women arrive at the house of Mrs. Jessel. Yes, Mrs. Jessel; no apparent relation… her screw is probably still loose. Anyway: Mrs. Jessel is in a permanent coma. Having no surviving relatives (since her daughter died tragically young), the old woman is left alone, silent, unaware of her surroundings, in her antique bed on the top floor of her ancient house.

The house is terrifying. If ever a house looked haunted, it’s this one… except you can’t help but think any sensible ghosts have long since fled, gibbering in terror. But poor old Mrs. Jessel seems like the perfect inhabitant for such a house: grey and still, rendered faceless by a respirator; smothered by the richness of the furniture and drapery; her fingernails grown to horny claws, and a bag of vivid red blood hanging by her bedside.

LIVIDE: The house.

Catherine confides to Lucie that Mrs. Jessel is rumored to have some sort of treasure hidden in the house. She’s even looked for it, in the brief times she’s been alone in the house; but she’s never found a trace of it. Later on, when Lucie half-jokingly tells her fisherman boyfriend William about what Catherine said, she’s horrified when he becomes determined to go look for it.

Eventually, thanks to some developments I’m not going to reveal, Lucie, her boyfriend, and their friend Ben end up going out to Mrs. Jessel’s house, intending to break in and look for the treasure. That’s right: young people trapped in the haunted house. Oh — and it’s Hallowe’en night. Naturally. Where have you heard that sort of setup before, right? What’s to differentiate this from, say, Spookies, or The Unnameable?

Forget your expectations. Even though I’ve explained the setup of the plot, I’ve told you next to nothing about what happens thereafter, and what they find.

Let me give you one tiny taste of the attitude this film has: when the three young people set out for Mrs. Jessel’s house, it’s emphasized that Ben’s car — which they’re forced to use, because Ben’s the only one who has a car, let alone a driver’s license — is in terrible shape, and never starts up the first time. Aha, we think. They’re setting up the old monsters-are-after-us-car-won’t-start gag. It’s a reasonable assumption. But after this expectation has been firmly planted in our postmodern 21st-century heads, the car doesn’t even reappear in the second half of the movie.

But perhaps I’ve already said too much.

Let me put it this way: the better you know horror movies, the more subtleties you will find to enjoy in Livide. But if you are familiar with 19th century French ballets, that will help, too. If you’re not so big on the horror, you may still find so many astonishing, beautiful, even poignant images in the movie that you’ll still find it rewarding. Maybe even more so: I thought the horrors lurking in Mrs. Jessel’s mansion were much scarier when they were lurking in the shadows, waiting, than when they were doing their terrible deeds. But that’s fitting, somehow: for all their skill in realizing the obligatory shock scenes, Bustillo and Maury seem less interested in them than they are in, well, everything else.

For Livide isn’t just another horror film: it’s an amazing piece of cinematic storytelling. When Bustillo and Maury want to explain something, they do so visually, and with perfect economy… for instance, we learn everything we need to know about Lucie’s family with barely a word being spoken. When Bustillo and Maury want to leave something unexplained, the strength of their images is enough to make an impression in the viewer’s imagination… the images will stick there, resonating quietly and making their own self-sufficient meanings.

Welcome to the Monkey House

Monday, September 17th, 2012

On September 21, 2012, the Hungarian Cultural Centre of London and the Royal College of Art are teaming to present a symposium called ZOO-TOPIA. It’s a day-long investigation of the cultural and architectural significance of zoo design, held as part of the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad.

I bring this up in part because I play a tiny, tiny part in the project. My translation of a minor poem by a major Hungarian poet — Weöres Sándor’s “Monkeyland” — is being included in the book of essays and artworks that will accompany the symposium.

But I also bring it up because I think the subject is fascinating. Though I’d never before given it any serious thought, now that the topic’s been raised I can’t stop turning it over in my head.

Here’s the brief description of the focus of the symposium, from the Cultural Centre’s website:

The ZOO-TOPIA symposium explores the display of architecture within zoological gardens, and zoos will be also considered in relation to the city, as psycho-geographical spaces of fantasy, and as sites of national representation.

I may be showing my age, but I have to admit: when I think of zoos, the first image that comes into my mind is the classic model from the Bad Old Days: great cats on one side, monkeys and apes on the other; somewhere in between, the bears or the reptile room… animals segregated by type, placed in separate cages or bare concrete enclosures, all for the supposed entertainment and enlightenment of the human visitors. Certainly that’s an image of a zoo that still appears in the movies and pop culture.

In fact, ethical zoo design is evolving beyond this model. Over the course of the twentieth century, the idea of the zoo underwent a major transformation. We began to realize that we couldn’t just treat living creatures like static displays in a museum… Doing so not only told us very little about the animals or their behaviour, but also had a terrible effect on their physical and psychological well-being.

In most major Western zoos, attempts have been made to accomodate the animals in a reasonable approximation of their own habitats. This has meant that designers and architects have needed to de-emphasize the elements in their plans that appealed solely to the aesthetic sense of the visitors, and become really clever at modeling nature while remaining practical in their design. That is, zoos have had to balance between being an expression of local and national identity… and being a model of the real, natural world — from which both nation and city have struggled for centuries to assert their independence.

In fact, the very idea of the zoo forces us to confront what it means to be human.

When we talk about “being human”, we mean several contradictory things. For example… on the one hand, there’s our existence as cultural beings, with our ability to speak, to write, to speculate about the future, to use the conditional tense; with our ability to consider our species’ place in the world (and even beyond it, in the universe as a whole); with our ability to create and appreciate things like art, design and architecture, or come up with such ideas as “national identity”.

On the other hand, there’s the sense of being human as being only human: being strictly biological creatures, frail in some respects and amazingly strong in others; fitting an evolutionary niche that has allowed us to survive and prosper — so far — yet still sharing kinship and a remarkable amount of genetic information with the chimp, the rabbit, the mouse… and other creatures we once thought so distant and separate from us.

If the classic zoo was an attempt to recontextualize the natural world — to bring it into the cultural framework of the city; to attempt to control it by recasting it into the terms of human culture — then looking back at the history of architecture and design in zoos should be eye-opening. It’s a way to examine the changes in our understanding of mankind’s position in nature. When we, in effect, create a zoo for zoos, we place ourselves in a unique vantage point: we observe ourselves observing.

We can see how the discovery of evolution and genetics has influenced our thinking on the relative standing of the zoo animal and the human visitor, and the way both are accomodated through design. We can investigate how the contributions of individual artists and architects, or the goals of aesthetic movements, have helped or hindered the practical purposes of zoos, and the care and treatment of the creatures in them. We can ask how the zoo as an architectual “site of national representation” impacts, e.g., the mountain gorilla in London, or the polar bear in Miami. We can see where we have succeeded in combining our need for “psycho-geographical spaces of fantasy” with the modern zoo’s commitment to science, conservation, and humane care… and where we have failed, since there are plenty of documented cases of dismal failure.

Of course, I have no idea if this kind of speculation has anything at all to do with the actual line-up of the symposium. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend to find out — there’s this pesky ocean in the way. But this whole line of thought fits so perfectly with my long-standing interest in animal welfare that I can’t help but think it will result in some new creative work down the road…

And Good Riddance.

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

Harlan Ellison, punning on “boob tube”, famously referred to television as the Glass Teat. While the connection between television and sucking is clear enough, there’s a problem with that image. Nursing usually benefits the child doing the suckling — there’s some vital nutrition being passed through the nipple. Unfortunately, for decades now I think we’ve been wrapping our lips around a totally different body part. For us, that’s stopping now.

For many years we didn’t have television, and frankly we didn’t miss it. It was mostly a matter of economy at first: as we started our lives together, we didn’t have the money to waste on TV… let alone the time. Even later, when we could afford it, it wasn’t exactly high on our list of priorities.

It was only about seven years ago that we decided to subscribe again. My wife watched TV fairly regularly, but I usually only watched when she had something on; I can’t remember the last time I specifically turned on the television to watch something myself, and at no time did I ever sit down and idly flip through the channels. That’s not to say there weren’t shows I enjoyed, but I’d usually catch up with those on the Internet if they weren’t things Lisa watched regularly. But we had a fundamental difference in outlook about TV programming: we both recognized that television fare was mostly poisonous social engineering, but while Lisa liked to study the methods of the hucksters on the shopping networks (without buying a single thing, or even being tempted)… and liked to marvel at the moral pornography of the Dr. Phil Show, or Teen Mom, or Toddlers and Tiaras, or The People’s Court… those same things caused me to break out in hives. The merest glimpse of a Real Housewife was enough to send me into a fit of existential despair.

But things got unbearable for both of us when our provider, DirectTV, got into a squabble with one of its providers, Viacom. DirectTV had just jacked up the price of a subscription yet again, yet they balked when the equally greedy and evil Viacom decided they wanted their share of the spoils.

DirectTV sent out ads complaining that Viacom’s demand of an additional 30% represented a billion dollars nationwide… without, I guess, realizing what a profoundly illuminating statement that was. A billion dollars is only 30% of their revenue? That means they’re raking in several billion dollars…. for a steady stream of pure drivel. And they’re not willing to part with a penny of it, if they can help it… neither to their providers, nor to their disenfranchised customers. They just decided to drop about 30 channels completely until Viacom decided to see things their way. Viacom responded by pulling many of their freely-available videos from the Internet, so we customers were truly SOL. Two behemoths, Godzilla and Megalon, were duking it out… and we were beginning to feel an awful lot like like Tokyo.

So we cancelled the whole damned service.

Or at least we tried to cancel it. Telling you cable company you want to go without TV is a bit like going to your parish priest and telling him you won’t be paying your tithes this year because you no longer believe in God. No, no: I take that back. Cancelling TV is way more difficult.

The robot receptionist was DirectTV’s first line of defense. It kept asking Lisa to please say or enter her account number. She started by speaking, slowly and clearly… but the robot kept garbling the number. Later on it stopped taking voice input entirely, and when you tried to input the numbers via the keypad it would refuse those, too, unless you typed them in at exactly the right moment (which was never now).

Several tries and a lot of lost temper later, she finally managed to talk to a human being. Ooo! Big improvement! The Customer Service Representative kept her on the phone for half an hour as he worked through Kübler-Ross’s Five Stages of Fuckery.

First there was disbelief — you’re cancelling television? Impossible! — then bargaining: how would we like to get five whole dollars back, for the duration of the outage? That’s almost two shiny new dimes for each channel! When that failed, he proposed an even better deal on our monthly rate (which made us wonder exactly how low we could’ve gotten the fee if we’d really wanted television, and how much of a scam this whole multi-billion dollar fleece job really is). Then he went on to the third stage, denial: surely we must have been seduced by another competitor’s advertising… but he’d beat their rate to win us back! When this still got him nowhere, he made it to the fourth stage, acceptance, and started transferring her to the the department that handles the disconnections.

This brought on the fifth stage: Lisa’s cellphone dropped the call.

Starting all over again, Lisa made it through DirectTV’s tears, and anger, and bargaining, and general incredulity — “But where will you get your news?” they said, which made her mad — and finally got the company’s assurance that the service would be stopped, and our remaining subscription fee would be refunded to us.

A few days later, they sent her a survey to fill out on-line… and the fuckery continued. I thought it might be full of ridiculous leading questions, such as: “What part of our world-class service and amazing lineup of entertainment do you think you’ll miss the most?” Ha. Little did I realize (NOTE TO DIRECTTV’S LEGAL DEPT.: The following is a paraphrase, exaggerated for comic effect. But I think the gist is still pretty accurate).

“Why did you leave us?” they asked. “Was it because you lost your job and are now too poor to afford the TV you want… you need… you crave?”

No, replies Lisa. Next question.

“You accepted a competitor’s offer, didn’t you? You faithless slut! How dare you, after all we’ve done for you?”

No, replies Lisa. Next question.

“OK, then. (Ahem.) You were lying about question one, weren’t you? Loser!”

Grrrr.

And so to the conclusion: “We think you’ll be crawling back to us in no time. But please take this opportunity to let us know about any issues you feel are important to resolve this problem.”

Internet users in the Northeastern US may have experienced a brief outage that day, as miles upon miles of communications infrastructure melted from the blistering heat of Lisa’s response.

So that was that. DirectTV sent us a box in which to return our rented equipment. We also had two old receivers, but they didn’t want those. Strange, how they considered the antiquated equipment ours, or at any rate not worth returning — and yet all this time, they’d continued to charge us for having them.

Next we went out and picked up a Roku box, which uses our Internet connection to pick up a whole lot of free streaming content. We get to choose what we want to bring into our home. We’ve also subscribed to… what’s it called? Cthulhu? No: Hulu. Hulu Plus, that’s it… which brings even more stuff for us to choose from. It may not be the most current programming out there, but who cares? And now that I have much greater control over what’s flowing into my TV, I may end up watching more. Thanks to Hulu, I’ve got about a hundred Criterion Collection films in my queue. And thanks to this whole fiasco, I’ve seen something I would never have seen otherwise, on the Hulu Plus/Criterion listings page:

The X fromOuter Space... on the Criterion Collection

When the hell did this happen? How did I not know Criterion had acquired the rights to The X from Outer Space? True, it’s the same print I have on a Japanese DVD (and reviewed for braineater.com), but still… the thought that somebody browsing for Winter Light may suddenly decide to add this to their queue instead fills my black little heart with joy.

In the meantime, DirectTV has announced they’ve finally reached an agreement with their arch-rival, and not only will the service be resuming… they’ve also managed to agree to raise their fees by a mere four percent. Such a bargain! While we, in the meantime, have our television needs met for an entire year, at less than the price of a single month’s subscription to DirectTV. And that includes the hardware. If the cable company wants us back, it’s our body parts that will be awaiting their lips for a change.

Kitty 3, Braineater 0

Monday, July 9th, 2012

Twelve years ago, we had two puppies who were less than a year old. When they went through their chewy stage, among the things they destroyed was my pristine Mattel Rodan from 1979 — they tore it to tiny vinyl shreds, really. I was surprised at how thoroughly they pulverized it. I learned a tough lesson: as long as I had animals, I just couldn’t have nice things.

I remembered that this evening, as I went to look for one of my prized possessions: a press packet for the movie Green Slime. It was an original set of promotional materials for the movie from 1968. Precisely one newspaper ad had been clipped out of the back page; evidently the movie had a very limited run at that particular theater. My plan was to scan or photograph some of the pages to go with my podcast about the movie.

I found the press kit, all right… along with the press kit for Hannah, Queen of the Vampires and my enormous 6-foot by 4-foot French poster for Lucio Fulci’s 7 Note in Nero. They had been knocked off their shelf (probably a year ago), dragged to the back of the closet behind the shelf, and shredded to make a nest for my weird little goblin cat. There’s barely a piece left of any of them that’s more than two inches long and a half an inch wide (The kitty also got the sheet music for the Vaughan Williams Tuba Concerto… but as I haven’t touched the instrument in 25 years, that’s not such a big deal).

I’m not as mad as I thought I’d be. After all, I’ve been in this situation before… many times. Nine years ago, someone — possibly the same cat — unerringly chose some of my favorite books off the shelf and turned them to confetti. My complete annotated collection of M.R. James ghost stories was one volume I lost. Also, I was about to write a lengthy comparison between the 1944 Ray Milland film The Uninvited (often described as the first serious ghost story in Hollywood history) and its source novel, Dorothy Macardle’s “Uneasy Freehold”; but somebody shredded the book before I got started writing. I haven’t found a replacement copy since.

The thing is, this particular kitty, who has spent most of the last 14 years hiding in a shadowy corner — Lisa calls her “the troll” — has in the last couple of years decided to become a house cat. She’s always been fond of me, if not my belongings… and now she likes to come into my room while I’m working and visit. She’ll sit on my lap and rest her greying chin on my hand as I move the mouse. She’d sit there all day, if I let her. How could I stay mad at anything that cute? And in the end, who needs “nice” when you have a cat?

I’m going to keep telling myself that, because it’s just occurred to me that I can no longer find my Seventh Voyage of Sinbad re-release poster, and some of those fragments in the closet look awfully thick…

Let’s start with a canon

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

What could be more fun than getting together with a group of friends and singing canons? Not much. This is a little three-voice canon I came up with nearly thirty years ago… I’ve presented it in g-minor to fit gratefully within a range of voices, but I’m also including an audio clip of a version in c-minor for organ (with a cheating tièrce de picardie in a fourth voice at the end… y’know: just because). It wouldn’t pass counterpoint class, but it’s still enjoyable.

Three-voice canon by Will T. Laughlin