miscellanium (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
miscellanium) wrote2022-12-01 04:33 pm
miscellanium) wrote2022-12-01 04:33 pm
Entry tags:
rue morgue interviews
a while back i got my hands on a 2009 issue of rue morgue mazagine where rituals was featured on the cover - the theme of the issue was vhs movies, and an american distributor was also doing a publicity push for its then-upcoming dvd transfer of the film. i finally got around to scanning it, with thanks to pendulumscale, and it really is a treat of a feature. interviews with dane and many other people involved - ian sutherland, the writer; robin gammell, who plays marty; hal holbrook, harry; ken james, abel; gary reineke, dj - with thoughtful framing and questions by john bowen. the director died suddenly in the 80s so instead of his comments we get people reminiscing about what it was like to work with him.
the scans are a bit hard to read because of the graphic design choice to make it look like it was printed on aged paper - i promise it's not hard to read in person - but i still wanted to make them more accessible to other fans and researchers so i've uploaded them here. if you're into older horror films the "video nasties" bit is also a fun read, as is the rest of the issue, but you'll have to find your own copy to read the non-rituals stuff, sorry!
(the folder with the pdf also includes a couple pages of another interview with dane and sutherland from a different rue morgue publication, this one printed in 2015 and accessible here in its entirety. there's also a neat little look into the production from the art director. it's interesting comparing some of the answers to the same questions several years apart...)
in response to being asked why he thinks rituals works so well as a horror movie, dane said: "That film has a life of its own, and even though it was stifled for a while, it seemed to resurrect itself in the hearts and minds of a lot of people. Rituals has a natural, visceral honesty about it, and I think that's important - that makes it easy for an audience to suspend disbelief and get involved." a natural visceral honesty.... that's exactly what it is i like so much about the movie.
it's easy to tell how passionate dane still is about the whole project which is very cute of him imo, and almost everyone seems to have very fond memories of it as well which makes it even more jarring when reineke says he'd never seen the whole film! (it's also funny to me that ken james said he didn't mind how physically demanding the shoot was because "we were still young in those days" when he would have been around 42 at the time! young compared to being 75 in 2009, i suppose. also, when i was looking up his age i learned that he was also in equus?? i don't remember him in that omg i'll have to watch it again.)
the interviewer asks the obligatory question about deliverance but takes pains to point out that "thematically they're really poles apart", which i appreciate since it shows this is someone who actually bothered to pay attention to the story, lol, and i think dane appreciated that too.
one interesting tidbit comes from sutherland: the addition of an explicit antagonist was at the government funding body's behest. he'd wanted to keep it vague and mysterious and "we were forced to put in a bad guy", he said on page 24. honestly, i think the film works better as is (sorry, ian) because the introduction of the military veteran themes turns the film from Spooky Mystery to something with more social commentary, more weight. i don't think it would have quite the same staying power with one of the original openings he had in mind: a flashback from an institutionalized mitzi, lol. i'm all for more dane content but that opening would have made the story less memorable to me. that said, i can see how he was still trying to keep that sense of ambiguity and i think he did manage to pull off an acceptable compromise.
it's fascinating to me how in the 2009 interview when asked about the film damage dane is described as smiling ruefully before asking to change the subject, but in the one published later he has a whole attempted justification. was it just the new attention to the movie and all the interviews that led him to develop an answer so it wouldn't be awkward? or did revisiting the experience change his feelings on it? or would that have been his original answer but at the time he found it an embarrassing one?
there's a lot more i could say but i've been picking away at this post for a couple weeks now and want to just post it already. more than happy to respond to any thoughts you might have to share!
pendulumscale, and it really is a treat of a feature. interviews with dane and many other people involved - ian sutherland, the writer; robin gammell, who plays marty; hal holbrook, harry; ken james, abel; gary reineke, dj - with thoughtful framing and questions by john bowen. the director died suddenly in the 80s so instead of his comments we get people reminiscing about what it was like to work with him.the scans are a bit hard to read because of the graphic design choice to make it look like it was printed on aged paper - i promise it's not hard to read in person - but i still wanted to make them more accessible to other fans and researchers so i've uploaded them here. if you're into older horror films the "video nasties" bit is also a fun read, as is the rest of the issue, but you'll have to find your own copy to read the non-rituals stuff, sorry!
(the folder with the pdf also includes a couple pages of another interview with dane and sutherland from a different rue morgue publication, this one printed in 2015 and accessible here in its entirety. there's also a neat little look into the production from the art director. it's interesting comparing some of the answers to the same questions several years apart...)
in response to being asked why he thinks rituals works so well as a horror movie, dane said: "That film has a life of its own, and even though it was stifled for a while, it seemed to resurrect itself in the hearts and minds of a lot of people. Rituals has a natural, visceral honesty about it, and I think that's important - that makes it easy for an audience to suspend disbelief and get involved." a natural visceral honesty.... that's exactly what it is i like so much about the movie.
it's easy to tell how passionate dane still is about the whole project which is very cute of him imo, and almost everyone seems to have very fond memories of it as well which makes it even more jarring when reineke says he'd never seen the whole film! (it's also funny to me that ken james said he didn't mind how physically demanding the shoot was because "we were still young in those days" when he would have been around 42 at the time! young compared to being 75 in 2009, i suppose. also, when i was looking up his age i learned that he was also in equus?? i don't remember him in that omg i'll have to watch it again.)
the interviewer asks the obligatory question about deliverance but takes pains to point out that "thematically they're really poles apart", which i appreciate since it shows this is someone who actually bothered to pay attention to the story, lol, and i think dane appreciated that too.
one interesting tidbit comes from sutherland: the addition of an explicit antagonist was at the government funding body's behest. he'd wanted to keep it vague and mysterious and "we were forced to put in a bad guy", he said on page 24. honestly, i think the film works better as is (sorry, ian) because the introduction of the military veteran themes turns the film from Spooky Mystery to something with more social commentary, more weight. i don't think it would have quite the same staying power with one of the original openings he had in mind: a flashback from an institutionalized mitzi, lol. i'm all for more dane content but that opening would have made the story less memorable to me. that said, i can see how he was still trying to keep that sense of ambiguity and i think he did manage to pull off an acceptable compromise.
it's fascinating to me how in the 2009 interview when asked about the film damage dane is described as smiling ruefully before asking to change the subject, but in the one published later he has a whole attempted justification. was it just the new attention to the movie and all the interviews that led him to develop an answer so it wouldn't be awkward? or did revisiting the experience change his feelings on it? or would that have been his original answer but at the time he found it an embarrassing one?
there's a lot more i could say but i've been picking away at this post for a couple weeks now and want to just post it already. more than happy to respond to any thoughts you might have to share!
no subject
it was a pretty good watch! The story is definitely tense and creepy and god, you can really tell they put a lot of effort into it, I can't imagine acting while doing that much physical work. It really sells the desperation that nothing looks faked, and it has that nice kinda grungy look that makes it feel grounded and realistic.
However, personally I would've liked a vaguer ending (in that interview Picnic at Hanging Rock is mentioned, which I love) and the actual real hunter doesn't do it for me. it kind of countered the realism, this almost supernatural feeling hunter (for all the comparisons to Deliverance, I honestly kept thinking of First Blood, like if they were being stalked by rambo) who is like, slithering around perfectly and no one notices, plus it's very conveniently like, this dude who hates doctors happens to see them and decides to take his grievances out on them or whatever (I also felt like I was missing something)... but that's better than someone actually stalking them unknowingly from the city. So yeah that's the biggest complaint from me, a bunch of weird things happening and them all sorta turning on each other because of it and us never finding out the reason is just my kind of jam though LOL.
overall I liked it though, it hit the kind of... good kinds of uncomfortable notes you want to see in that kind of desolate horror setting where it's like, I'm pretty sure no one will survive this, and would you even want to? Definitely get why it'd roll around in someone's mind for a while, it has that kind of open ended staying power that's sort of enchanting.
no subject
honestly i think my resistance to a more vague ending is only in response to the idea of it starting in a mental hospital, which i feel is kind of intellectually lazy lol. in the 2015 interview the writer's description of his preferred premise sounds much closer to picnic at hanging rock, and they probably could have pulled that off just fine. i do agree that the coincidence is pretty implausible, though i feel like they could have made it work better if they'd allowed the movie to be a bit longer and filled in the gaps that force the viewer to really make connections or end up feeling like they're missing something. (i might also be a bit biased because the scene where mitzi is being set up to burn alive and he's STILL bickering with harry is so endearing to me XD i don't know how they would have been able to execute that scene or similar without a tangible antagonist....)
i do like the social commentary aspect with how sympathetic the movie is towards the antagonist, but again i can totally see how something more ambiguous could have been equally engaging! i showed this as the b-movie for a double feature with ken russell's the devils once, lmao, and it was really fun comparing the human cruelty showcased in both - and the endings did feel a little similar, so that was interesting.
no subject
Oh yeah, the mental hospital idea is real bad and lazy, you're right on that. Maybe back in those days it wasn't as much of a trope as it is now so I'm glad it didn't go that direction because it would probably be a huge sour note. and LMAO I did love that part so I wouldn't want to take it away. I feel like you could've pulled that off, maybe as they're investigating what they suspect is the "hunter's" cabin there's an accidental fire and harry can't manage to get in to pull mitzi out for a variety of reasons. cutting from hearing him yelling his ass off to harry suddenly at the road and you can assume he died ? but it feels all weird and vague... this is my imagination theater lol I would've loved that.
I do like the sympathy part, and I would worry that if it was TOO vague it might be playing into like, native people spiritual revenge ooh scary stuff too so while it's fun to imagine what could be, I think it's pretty cool as-is. And damn, the devils is now added to my watchlist, watching that trailer for about 10 seconds it was like, yep yep yep I need to see this.
no subject
the devils is a VERY different movie when you get into the substance of it lmao, and honestly it's a better movie. way more upsetting in places but ultimately a rewarding experience imo. hope you enjoy it!