Friday, January 20, 2006Bay of Blood
1971, Italy. AKA Twitch of the Death Nerve. Starring Claudine Auger, Luigi Pistilli, Claudio Camaso, Anna Maria Rosati, Cristea Avram, Leopoldo Trieste, Laura Betti, Brigitte Skay, Isa Miranda, Paola Montenero, Guido Boccaccini, Roberto Bonanni, Giovanni Nuvoletti. Directed by Mario Bava. Written by Mario Bava.
I'm going to have to cram a bunch of history up front in this review, so if you already know most of it, please forgive me. I feel it sets the stage properly for those among you who aren't nerdy enough to have a vast and swelling knowledge of the ins and outs of British censorship efforts, Italian slasher-thriller movies, and the joyous day those two tastes were plunged together into a scrummy treat known as the "Video Nasties" list. Let me first take back to a time when Samantha Fox was still a fox and the world was just beginning to discover the pleasure of home video systems. England has always had a somewhat contentious relationship with cinema censorship, and certain types who like to get upset over idiotic things were worried about the fact that the rules governing the rating, licensing, and editing of films for release to British theaters had not been written in a language that would allow them to be applied equally to films distributed on video. This little lapse in the foresight of censorship laws to anticipate the invention and subsequent wildfire-like spread of VCRs meant that films previously cut or banned could be legally (more or less) distributed in uncut format on videotape. Certain newspapers (The sensationalist Daily Mail being the leading culprit) in need of a moral crusade over which to express their burning outrage and indignation began a crusade against the potential free-for-all of home video, dubbing the sick and disgusting movies one could acquire for home viewing the "video nasties," since movies that benefited from the loophole were presumably packed with sex and violence and swarthy Italians stabbing each other in the eye. Having nothing better to do that day, and perhaps looking for something that would take the edge off less important problems, like the IRA putting bombs in garbage bins and mailboxes, the cause was embraced, thereby turning a bunch of films it was likely no one wanted to see in the first place into overnight legends and must-have taboo items. With a few swift strokes of the quill pen (I assume they still use those in England), a whole stack of awful movies got to plaster their oversized 1980s boxes with the phrase, "Banned in the U.K." For most of these movies -- the bulk of which were horror films from the United States and Italy which were considered so heinous in their content that they would fray the very moral fabric of youth Britannia -- there was no better advertising than being placed on the instantly-infamous Video Nasties list. Whatever revenues were lost by having British borders sealed against their intrusion was undoubtedly recouped via the spike in interest the banning caused elsewhere. The Young Ones did a whole episode revolving around efforts to obtain one of the movies on the Nasties list, and The Damned wrote a song about it. However, listing the Video Nasties as "banned" is slightly misleading. At the time the list was created, film censorship was handled by the courts, and a certain standard had to be met for a film to be eligible for censorship or outright banning. The Video Nasties list was actually a list of films the public prosecutors thought would be worth pursuing in court. So they were not so much banned as they were "potentially banned," with excessive sex, violence, or more importantly, sex-related violence being the primary focus of moral disgust. Just getting on the list was enough to effectively keep a film out of England, though, because no company wanted to invest money in releasing a tape that could potentially be confiscated a couple weeks or months later. Anyway, that's how I understand the history of the list. I may have taken a misstep here and there, so please alert me if I have. Reading through the list can cause one to take pause and wonder what sort of criteria went into developing the titles that appear on it. Some of them make sense. If you're going to ban a sick and perverse film, you can't do much better than have Cannibal Holocaust as your poster child. But other titles seem straight out of left field, with nothing in them that could possibly justify a banning under the guidelines set up by the BBFC for a country where Benny Hill could still conjure up random gusts of wind that would make a buxom lady's dress blow off, thus causing her to run around in fast motion wearing nothing but her knickers while Benny fluttered his eyelashes. Sure, some of the movies were gory, but really, where was the danger to morality in a movie as ludicrous as Lucio Fulci's Zombie or Luigi Cozzi's Contamination? And how did a movie like Tobe Hooper's Funhouse make the list? Or Dario Argento's Inferno, easily one of the least gory films he'd made? The big problem with the list, it was revealed, was that not only did it make a bunch of crappy, boring films (and some genuinely good ones) instant must-see "classics" of shock cinema, but the titles on the list were often placed there by people who had never seen the actual movie, or had simply run across a picture of the box art, or had gotten the movie confused with some other movie. It was a complete hodge-podge with no real research put into it. And like most attempts to ban or censor horror films, it only increased interest in the movies that made the cut, so to speak. Fulci's Zombie, Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, and Umberto Lenzi's Make them Die Slowly benefited hugely from inclusion on the list. I distinctly remember the giant boxes in the video store for both Zombie and Make them Die Slowly celebrating the banning of the films in England. Most of the movies on the list have since been released in the UK uncut on DVD, but having been place don the Video Nasties list will forever remain a badge of accomplishment for many of the titles. Heck, for some of them, it's about the only good thing they have going for them. Can you imagine fighting customs agents, smuggling in a video, risking fines and imprisonment, then sitting down to discover all your effort resulted in a movie as godawful boring as Funhouse? Among the titles on the list was Mario Bava's 1971 proto-slasher film Bay of Blood, known these days in the United States as Twitch of the Death Nerve. Bava, as you should know, is considered more or less the godfather of the Italian horror films, and one of the legendary greats of the genre as a whole. Any list of the best horror films of all time compiled by someone who knows about movies made before 1995 or so is pretty likely to contain at least one, and possibly several, Mario Bava films: gothic horror films Black Sunday (aka Mask of Satan) starring Barbara Steele, Kill, Baby...Kill!, or The Whip and the Body starring Christopher Lee; or perhaps his more modern horror films like Twitch of the Death Nerve and Blood and Black Lace. Bava's visual style was defined by his affinity for moody, hallucinatory atmosphere and candy-colored phantasmagorical lighting and remains to this day a major influence on filmmakers. With Blood and Black Lace, he pretty much created the Italian giallo film -- murder mysteries and supernatural thrillers that drew heavily from pulp novels and relied heavily on shocking murders and a highly stylized visual approach. Since Bava was from an older generation of filmmaker, he tended to restrain himself when it came to sex and gore. There was titillation, to be sure, and plenty of violence. But nudity was rare, sex scenes were non-existent, and bloody gore almost never made an appearance. Even as other filmmakers embraced increasingly lax regulations about what they could show on screen, Bava -- like his contemporaries at England's Hammer Studios -- stayed his hand. At least until 1971. Perhaps it was the fact that Bava had been saddled with a string of unsatisfying projects, thus filling the venerable director with frustration he needed to vent. Maybe he just thought the time was right. Or maybe he felt that the script for Bay of Blood was witty and funny enough for people to recognize that the excess was there to create an almost comic book-like sense of the absurd that couldn't possibly be taken seriously by anyone. Whatever the motivation, Bava decided to pull out the stops for Bay, which has ended up with more titles than I care to list. I'm sticking with Bay because it's the shortest. The film opens with serene shots of a wooded lake. As the credits role, it becomes evident that we're following the flight of an insect. As the credits wrap up, the fly suddenly and without reason drops dead. It's a foreshadowing of what's to come -- that anyone, and any time, is going to die in this film; that they will, in fact, be dropping like flies. Mimicking this opening is the next scene, which consists of an old woman in a wheelchair puttering about her fancy abode. Her daily routine is rudely interrupted when a man appears and strangles her with a noose, leaving her dead and dangling in a doorway. One would assume that the remainder of the film would revolve around various players attempting to discover the identity of the murderer, but Bava short-circuits that expectation by immediately panning up and revealing the killer's face -- then promptly has the killer murdered by yet another killer. I don't know if you would call this "playful," but it is an indicator that Bava is going to infuse this film with a little more humor than might be expected in a film with a title like Bay of Blood. From there, the story proper kicks in. After the old woman's death, the home and accompany murky lake are up for grabs by a cast of potential heirs, all of whom descend upon the house ostensibly for the sorting out of the will, but mostly so they can plot, connive, and be murdered by the mysterious assailant. Most of the cast is of a nasty disposition, and all of them have various things to hide. The twists and turns in gialli are often, oh let's say, either far-fetched or completely uninteresting, but Bava keeps viewers guessing and interested in the identity of the killer -- or killers, because it seems more than one person is bloodying their axe at this remote paradise. There's not much point in going through the machinations and revelations of the plot, since listing who stabs who inthe back (sometimes literally) doesn't have the same impact of simply lying back and watching the bloody delerium unfold on the screen. Suffice it to say that no one is especially nice, not even the odl woman we see murdered int he very beginning. It's possible that the symbolic fly from the credit sequence was a nice enough fellow, but then given the fly's tendency to vomit it's filthy eggs onto the top of your sandwich, it's likely that the fly was as much a scheming jerk as everyone else. Bay is a strong film, though not my favorite Bava outing (I prefer Kill, Baby...Kill! and Blood and Black Lace). Still, it's one of the best giallo films ever made, and it also has the somewhat dubious honor of being considered by many to be the first "slasher" film. For my money, establishing the first slasher film is a tricky proposition -- why is this a slasher film and Blood and Black Lace not? Whatever the case, it certainly means the slasher film was boiling long before the previously cited "first" slasher film, John Carpenter's Halloween. Without a doubt, Halloween was the impetus for the flood o' blood that spilled during much of the 1980s, but the Friday the 13th films have pretty much become the poster children, however bad most of them may have been, for the whole genre. There's not much doubt in my mind that the template for the F13 films was lifted wholesale from Mario Bava's much smarter, cleverer Bay of Blood. Bay establishes all the essential genre cliches that would be mercilessly flogged some ten years or so later. You have the remote, wooded location and a seemingly complete lack of police force. You have the diverse group of generally unlikable characters. You have most of those characters getting murdered by sometimes outlandish methods, then piled up in some central location for someone else to stumble across. And perhaps most important of all, you have the founding of the "get naked, then get killed" pattern that became the lifeblood, so to speak, of the entire slasher genre. Bava flirted with nudity in previous films, but it was generally incidental -- who would make a movie with Edwige Fenech, for instance, and not get her naked for at least a couple shots? With Bay of Blood, however, Bava went further with nudity than he had before, though it's still nothing compared to what we'd be seeing in the coming years from other Italian thrillers. But what's more important is that the film sets up the pattern: a woman gets naked, either for sex or for skinny dipping, and moments later they get skewered. Much has been made of the psychological implications of this tendency, that it is a manifestation of a repressed and/or oppressive male reaction to female liberation, arguments like that. In many of the later slasher movies, I don't doubt this one bit. It's mean-spirited venting, scenes written by frustrated horror writing nerds who weren't getting lucky with naked women of their own, so they take their frustrations out on female characters, and then in turn provide both titillation and some sort of grim, twisted satisfaction for the portion of the viewing population that shares their sentiments. With Bava, however, the entire premise seems less sinister, but that may just be me. What makes Bay of Blood markedly different from the slasher films it would inspire is the undeniable sense of humor that pervades everything. It's a twisted sense of humor, no doubt, but it's obvious that Mario Bava is out on a bit of a lark with this film, and as such there's really no point to getting especially upset or unnerved by any of the implications. Bava has always, in my eyes, been a slightly less controlled and more visually daring peer of Alfred Hitchcock, and Bay feels similar in many ways to late-era Hitchcock, or a particularly edgy Agatha Christie novel. There are plenty of other elements that set Bay of Blood apart from the pack it eventually unleashed. For starters, Mario Bava is a much better director than just about everyone else who made a slasher film, many of whom were helming one of their first films when they slid behind the camera to shoot the carnage in the woods, or wherever their film may have been set (it was probably the woods). But Bava was a veteran director, cinematographer, and writer by 1971, with some four decades of experience under his belt. His visual flare and stylistic approach shines through. He also has the good sense to populate his movie not just with a bunch of more or less anonymous, pretty throw-away non-actors who do nothing more than serve as fodder for the killer, but also with a cast of seasoned vets who know their way around a movie and lend it an element of maturity that is sorely missing from the teen slasher films of the eighties. Bond fans will be pleased to stumble across Thunderball Bond girl Claudine Auger in the film. Me? I'd be happy to stumble across Claudine Auger just about anywhere. So Bay of Blood is neither your typical giallo or your typical slasher film. It's something much smarter and better composed than the bulk of films it inspired, as is often the case. It was Bava's last great film, though I might be willing say second-to-last, as Lisa and the Devil is pretty spectacular and by far his weirdest film. Bay is mean but not exactly mean-spirited, clever without being irritating, and really just sort of nastily funny. One gets the feeling that Bava really relished the opportunity, after infusing so many of his films with a humanist compassion toward the lead characters, to simply cut loose and let a bunch of conniving, spoiled schemers really have it. So why did it make the Video Nasties list? You'd have to ask whoever put it on there, but my guess would be the mix of bare breasts and bloody mayhem caused it to be placed in the crosshairs. But it's just as likely that the box art set someone off, or that one of the people compiling the list was trying to sell some bayfront property and thought a title like this might hurt their chances. Whatever the case, while the Video Nasties list is nothing more than an oddity of eighties entertainment paranoia that has been largely forgotten except as the butt of jokes, Mario Bava and Bava's Bay of Blood have been rediscovered by a new generation thanks to DVD, and Bava's influence and importance to filmmaking continues to be explored and exalted. Labels: B-Masters Roundtable, Director: Mario Bava, Horror: Giallo, Horror: Slashers, Year: 1971 posted by Keith at 1:26 PM | 0 Comments Monday, December 13, 2004Danger! Diabolik
1968, Italy. Starring John Phillip Law, Marisa Mell, Michel Piccoli, Adolfo Celi, Claudio Gora, Mario Donen. Directed by Mario Bava. Available on DVD (Amazon).
This lavishly colorful and thoroughly enjoyable comic book romp features what is without a doubt one of the swankest moments in all of cinema, if not the swankest. Having just completed a major heist, our cool-as-liquid-nitrogen anti-hero, Diabolik, returns to his sprawling, space-age underground lair full of cool mod furnishings, where he and his staggeringly beautiful girlfriend, Eva, proceed to make love on a gigantic rotating bed covered in piles upon piles of the money he's just stolen. When I was young, and even not so very long ago, I always looked at this moment as the goal to which all men should aspire. Our lives should be like this, lived with ferocity and daring, panache and style, sexiness and suaveness. I swore, on that day, that I would work tirelessly toward such a destiny, never resting until I, too, could collapse into my rotating bed covered in cash and roll about with the woman of my dreams. As it stands right now, rather than going out drinking with socialites, rubbing elbows with countesses, and dancing the night away in a fancy club before stepping out to steal priceless emeralds and sapphires (I always preferred those stones to diamonds), I spent the evening sitting at home drinking bourbon, watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and cutting out little color cover printouts for all the VHS tapes I'm finally converting to DVD-R in the name of conserving precious space in my ever-shrinking Brooklyn apartment. Diabolik would weep for me, or rather; he would slap me and laugh heartily before bounding off to live his dreamlike, lusty life of adventure and romance. Make no mistake about it. Though I may dress better than many of my fellow movie website masters and perhaps be in slightly better physical condition (though tonight's dinner of bourbon and cake could put an end to that), I'm still pathetic in my own special, desperately lonely way. I mean, I don't even have a hundred Friendsters yet. Granted, Diabolik would look at the whole Friendster thing and shake his head in amused disbelief as he hopped in his Jag to go punch a criminal kingpin then make sweet love to his woman all night long. The 1960s were defined by different things to different people, and while some saw the paramount of the decade as a bunch of scruffy hippies wallowing in the mud for a few days in upstate New York, I always looked at the defining moments of the decade as the films Barbarella and Danger! Diabolik. That or the violence at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Or, um, the start of American involvement in the Vietnam War. Or the Bay of Pigs. Or maybe the assassination of the Kennedy Brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr. Or the arrival of The Beatles. No, it was Barbarella and Diabolik, if for no other reason than they were the exclamation points at the end of an era of which I am particularly fond, that being the carefree Swingin' Sixties that brought the world pop art, slim mod suits, mini-skirts, go-go boots, lots of spy films, and that cute pixie haircut sported by Twiggy. Although born a shade too late to enjoy the proceedings, it's the time with which I most closely identify and still attempt to recreate in my own impoverished and pathetically undaring way. With the escalation of the war in Vietnam and ensuing civil unrest and violence, not to mention the whole hippie movement destroying any vestige of standards in the realm of courtesy, manners, social grace, and dress, there was really no way the swingin' era could survive. Being care-free was taboo, even though hippies tended to spend a large amount of time smoking pot, dropping acid, and staring at their hands. Likewise, adhering to a uniform anti-code of dress became the standard. I won't argue that increased social awareness is a boon to an individual, though I would argue against anyone who claims those who defined the latter portion of the 1960s were any more politically aware than those who came before them who were seen as shallow because they enjoyed go-go dancing more than that weird wavy-hand dance. I know many of you enjoy the ultra-casual, anything-goes world in which we live thanks in part to our hippie forefathers, but I can't count myself among you. I don't wear a shirt and tie because I have to; I wear one because I want to. I like it. It's comfortable to me. Granted, I didn't always hold this sentiment, and there was a time when I could deliver a wild-eyed sermon against the chains of suit and tie oppression as well as any other young punk rocker. But as you get older and start having more important things about which to worry, such as how you're going to get that rotating bed covered in money and a delicious European blonde to accessorize it, you realize that punk, casual - everything is as much a fashion uniform as anything else, and there really is no sin in putting a little effort into things. The only sin, really, is in wearing pleated, relaxed-fit Dockers. The mod era was on its way out, and what better way to send it off than with a duo of eye-popping, self-indulgent, cinematic flings? In 1968, director Roger Vadim gave the world a zero-G striptease by his then-wife Jane Fonda, who was without a doubt in her prime as far as bombshell status is concerned. Dino De Laurentiis, famous for throwing big-budgets and low-budget genre ideas, produced this phantasmagoric, Technicolor acid trip adapted from a French comic strip about a sexy space agent plying the galaxy in search of missing scientists and lustful encounters. It was such a hoot that De Laurentiis decided more of the same would be in order. Again he turned to European comic strips for his source material, this time setting his sights on Diabolik, the ongoing saga of a master criminal who confounds both the police and the established criminal underworld. On paper, it was supposed to be a spiritual if not narrative follow-up to Barbarella. De Laurentiis snagged Mario Bava to direct, and it couldn't have been a better choice. Since his first film in color, Bava had been a mater at playing with light and creating surreal atmospheres even on the tiniest of budgets. Films like Blood and Black Lace (1964), Planet of the Vampires (1965) and Kill, Baby...Kill! (1966) continue to influence films to this day for their bold, convention-bucking use of color and lighting, not to mention violence. With Diabolik, Bava would be allowed to indulge his sweet tooth for candy colored psychedelia equipped with a budget that dwarfed anything with which he'd previously been supplied. Not that the bigger budget mattered to him. In fact, though De Laurentiis granted Bava some $3 million for the film. Bava brought it in right around $400,000, though you'd never know it. The film looks like he spent the full budget, and one can only imagine how out-of-this-world it would have been had Bava not been so conditioned to make the most of every single cent - or lira, or whatever currency applied. French star Jean Sorel (Short Night of Glass Dolls, Lucio Fulci's One on Top of the Other) was slated to portray the suave super-villain/anti-hero Diabolik, while the beautiful Catherine Deneuve (Indochine) was to star as his partner and lover, Eva. Mere days into the production, however, Bava determined that Sorel simply wasn't right for the part, and he was replaced by John Phillip Law, who had starred as the blind angel Pygar in Barbarella and would go on to appear as Sinbad in The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. Law was a jaw-dropping hunk with phenomenal good looks, but he was never the greatest actor on the block. Still since the idea behind Diabolik was not style over substance but rather, as with Barbarella, style as substance, he fit the bill perfectly and certainly looks the part. His reserved - some would say wooden - acting style clicks nicely with the character. Casting woes continued, however, as Deneuve refused to do the nudity required for the aforementioned "making love on a pile of money" scene. Bava had always thought more of concealing than revealing, and while there is certainly plenty of flesh both male and female on display in the scene, there is no actual nudity per se, as in no one sees the earth-shatteringly taboo bare bottom or nipple. All the strategic areas were suitable strategically covered by piles of money. But the scene had to be shot with both actors in the buff, and Deneuve balked. She was quickly and, for us viewers, blessedly replaced by European starlet Marisa Mell. Mell is every bit Law's physical match. A beauty so great as to cause men to drop tot heir knees and weep, she ranks right alongside some of the all-time most beautiful women to ever grace the screen, which is a list that for my money is topped by Nicole Kidman and also includes Halle Berry, Maggie Cheung, Sylvia Koscina, and Kim Novack. As the sophisticated and liberated sidekick to the devil-may-care Diabolik, I can imagine no one else better than Marisa Mell. A serious auto accident in 1963 had left her partially disfigured, and after years of rehabilitation and reconstructive surgery, she emerged looking like some incredible kind of goddess, with the only lingering side effect of her accident being a quirky upturn at the side of her mouth which, just about everyone agrees, amplifies her beauty tenfold. It is most unfortunate that her life would take a drastic downturn not too long after this film. She was relegated to B and C-movie status, then more or less forgotten, making ends meet by posing in a nudie mag and reading poetry to try and supplement what was, by most accounts, rather a wild lifestyle. In the end, Marisa Mell died from cancer in 1992, relatively penniless. A melancholy note, but still she exists on screen in this movie as one of the great and timeless images of grace and beauty. It is that way that I think she is best remembered, as a stunning woman with an impish and playful curl to her lip. For the roll of Diabolik's foils on both sides of the law, Bava had experienced French actor Michel Piccoli as the dogged Inspector Ginco, and the robust Adolfo Celi, still relatively fresh off his memorable turn as the vastly enjoyable villain Emilio Largo in the James Bond film, Thunderball (1965), as the flamboyant Mafia boss, Valmont. It was as solid a cast of character actors as Bava had ever had. He plucks them down into a world that isn't quite real. One of Bava's great strengths, and the element that perhaps made his horror films so successfully eerie, is his ability to warp the familiar, to twist the mundane into something foreign and menacing. Here, he's pulling the same stunt, but purely for laughs. The world of Diabolik is not the world in which we live, though it bears a striking resemblance. It is, instead, a campy pop-art extraction. Money is transported in bags marked with huge dollar signs on the front. Stylistically, it has the most in common with Bava's previous Blood and Black Lace and forthcoming Five Dolls for an August Moon and Four Times that Night, both of which revel in trippy modernist fashion and psychedelic over-indulgence. It wouldn't be surprising to see the characters from any one of those movies show up in the other, though Diabolik is, in my opinion the most realized stylistically and conceptually. It is Bava at his most impish and playful. The story, as stated earlier, was adapted from a long-running European comic strip, or fumetti. Although I'll admit to being a comic book reader in my youth, with intellectual fare like G.I. Joe and the ten thousand or so Spider Man titles that littered the 1980s being at the top of the list, I don't really count myself among the legion of comic book fans. I have no interest in them now, and even the ones that people insist I'll like because they're intelligent and mature, leave me cold and a bit disappointed. Even the ones where people tell me, "no, this one is different," still fall flat. It's not that I deny their power or their artistic merit, even if I find some of the obtuse attempts to appear more "adult" by adding more violence, sex, and cussing, to be monumentally tedious. There are, to be sure, plenty of superbly written comics out there, and none of them appeal to me. Not the big names, not the plucky little independents. It's just a matter of taste, and since my taste in literature these days consists primarily of travel essays, Tony Hillerman Joe Leaphorn/Jim Chee mysteries, and old espionage novels from the 1960s, I'm hardly one to pass judgment on anyone else's reading material, though I am finally getting around to reading John Dos Passos' American trilogy, which I suppose is something every American ought to do. One of my goals for the current phase of my life, after all, is to finish up the many classics and essentials I missed during high school, college, and those heady post-college years when I spent too much time watching pro wrestling. That said, these European comic strips from the 1960s seem like they would have been a lot of fun. Considering they birthed such chain-smoking, sexy anti-heroes as Diabolik, Barbarella, and Modesty Blaise, all clad in skintight fetish gear. Well, I guess that last one is pretty common, actually. Having never read any of the original Diabolik comic strips, but having at least glanced over some English-language plot summaries, I don't think the storyline for the movie is lifted from any single episode, though bits and pieces may have come from all over the comics. The main characters certainly come from the comic strip, and here we get to watch them as Diabolik goes through a series of heists that get him on the bad side of both the police and the old crime syndicates - the establishment, basically. Chief of police Ginco sets a number of traps for Diabolik, but each time Diabolik outsmarts the inspector and makes his getaway with the loot. When one of his heists angers crime lord Valmont, Ginco hatches an unholy alliance with the mob to finally catch this thorn in both their sides. Each heist is more or less a little self-contained episode building toward Ginco's plan to melt down the whole of France's gold reserve in order to lure Diabolik into a trap. The heists are exciting and outlandish, this again being a fantasy world in which the standard laws of common sense and logic do not apply. In his quest to steal a priceless jeweled necklace, Diabolik defeats the inspector's trap by pulling the ol' "stick a photo in front of the security camera" gag. He later smuggles the jewels to safety by fashioning them into bullets, using them to kill an opponent, then posing as said opponent's relative to collect the jewels after cremation. Obviously, there are some logistical problems with this plan, not the least of which would be fitting jewels into a revolver, but this is a comic book world. We're not meant to take anything seriously or worry about realism. This is part of the reason it's also easy to accept Diabolik as the hero of the story even though he is, without a doubt, a villain. He kills cops. Not corrupt cops, but regular guys just doing their job. He has no concern for anyone but himself and his one true love, Eva. When he dynamites the nation's tax records, he doesn't do it out of any sense of Robin Hood-esque duty to the poor and oppressed masses. He simply wants to screw with The Man -- which leads to one of the film's funnier moments, in which the Minister of Finances makes a public plea to all the outstanding citizens to come forward and voluntarily pay the taxes they owe. Comedic touches like this, along with the purposeful disregard for realism, keep the movie light-hearted and chipper even when our main character is committing acts of a most heinous nature. It's not that Diabolik is immoral, however. If anything, he is adamantly amoral, completely rejecting the standards by which society judges the concepts of good and evil. He's not an evil person. In fact, he's quite likeable, almost childlike, even when he's clad in a skintight white leather outfit and scaling a castle wall to rip someone off. At his heart, he is 1968. He is the social upheaval, the youthful rebellion that was engulfing countries across the globe. It's no coincidence that the two forces most opposed to him are established law and established crime - two sides of a coin in which Diabolik sees no difference. They are the old guards; the outdated, out-of-touch generation whose lack of modern sophistication and intelligence is best exemplified by the fact that Valmont's gangsters dress anachronistically, looking like something out of a 1930s mob movie. They don't understand Diabolik's approach to crime, his use of modern technology and embracing of modern ideals. Likewise, on the other side of the coin is Inspector Ginco, a man who seems to respect Diabolik in a way, just as Diabolik respects him. In fact, it's possible that Ginco could catch Diabolik, best him, if only the inspector could break away from the established way of thinking. Unfortunately, he is a man too mired in the old ways, and thus destined to be one step behind Diabolik. If only he could escape the constant supervision and micro managing of the bureaucrats, Ginco could make real progress. In a way, Ginco must envy Diabolik his freedom of thought. It is in this way, more than through the story itself, that Diabolik achieves the depth so many people seem to claim it lacks. It is a tale of a super criminal versus the cops on one level, but on a deeper level, it is a tale of the generation gap, of the culture conflict between young and old that characterized the late 1960s. Diabolik and Eva are the new way, feared and misunderstood by their elders. They are the iconoclasts, perhaps more symbols than actual people, as is Valmont. Ginco is the man in the middle, who knows things and times must change, but not by the methods employed by the amoral and self-serving Diabolik. He is, despite being the supporting character and foil to Diabolik, the most sympathetic and human of all the characters. He is, in effect, most of us, dissatisfied with the establishment but still committed to some sense of orderly progression and society. The relationship between Eva and Diabolik is further example of the film's hidden but most definitely present depth. They are in love, deeply and passionately. Ginco seems to forego romance in favor of duty, and Valmont can see women as nothing more than playthings. But Eva and Diabolik are liberated and modern. They are sexually attractive and have an insatiable appetite for one another, but they are also in love. Diabolik steals for Eva, but Eva does not stay with him because he steals; she stays because she loves him. Stealing is simply what they do, a game, and an amusement. Another way for them to thumb their noses at the generation that does not understand them. Their relationship is strong, and they are willing to sacrifice for one another. In the face of a world that wants to rub them out, they always have each other. Sometimes, they have each other on a rotating bed covered in money. So Diabolik is not an example of style over substance as much as it is an example of style as substance. The mod, liberated, pop art lifestyle of Eva and Diabolik is a stark contrast to the buttoned-up, confining world inhabited by Ginco and Valmont. Not that the style lets itself be overshadowed by the substance. They walk arm in arm, and even if you disregard anything Diabolik might have to say, there's no denying it's look. That Mario Bava pulled this off on a miniscule budget is staggering. With the possible exception of Barbarella and some of the wilder Bond adventures from the 1960s, few films look as sleek and sophisticated as Diabolik. The fashion is impeccable, and for a man like me who has endless admiration for the mod styles of the 1960s, it's like some crazy kind of dream come true. Every outfit donned by Marisa Mell is gorgeous enough to make you cry, especially when it's draped upon someone as beautiful as she was. Likewise, Diabolik's fetishistic head-to-toe leather outfits are beautiful, leaving as they do only John Phillip Law's intense and deep eyes visible. Their underground lair is a sight to behold, as are the old Jags they both drive. I love me a good Aston-Martin, but if I had to chose, I'd go for a 60's Jag. They're just about the coolest cars ever manufactured - taking nothing away, of course, from my dust-and-road-salt-streaked black Honda Accord. Diabolik is, indeed, a mod man's dream, even more so than the more outlandish Barbarella. After all, someone out on the town dressed as Barbarella would turn heads but ultimately look just kind of silly; someone out dressed in the mod fashions displayed by Marisa Mell would simply look breathtaking. This isn't the type of film where you fret over the details, and if you do, you're just going to miss the point. Like I said, it exists in a fictitious comic book world. It's not meant to be any more realistic than any other superhero/villain movie or comic book. What does count is the pace of the story, and Bava keeps things moving along at a fair clip. It's not an action-packed movie, not by today's standards where something big must explode every ten minutes in between a sequence involving bikini girls freak dancing. But it is expertly and briskly paced, with a light-hearted tone that keeps you from worrying too much about the fact that the man we're supposed to love is a murderer and a thief. Ultimately, of course, Diabolik is a criminal and must pay for his crimes. The film's ending is vague in its resolution but absolutely fitting. Ginco must prevail, after all. The exuberance and reckless abandon of youth must be tamed. And so we are left with Diabolik encased in a coffin forged out of his own greed, a gold plating from which he cannot escape. Or can he? We'll never really know. De Laurentiis was so pleased with the fact that Bava brought the movie in $2.6 million under its $3 million budget that he practically begged for a sequel. Unfortunately, the reportedly mild-mannered Bava could not bear the oppressive and often dictatorial producer, so no sequel ever came about. We are left, then, with the final shot of Diabolik imprisoned by his own greed, laughing either slyly or maniacally, protected by his special suit from the molten gold but unable, as far as we can tell, to escape. His rebellion, after all, was not perfect. And while the establishment is able, at least for the time being, to contain Diabolik and his socially challenging threat, while they may suppress it, it's unclear as to how long that will be the case. It could always resurface. It is a beautiful tongue-in-cheek ending, one that even works quite cleverly in conjunction with the fate of Valmont, who finds eventually himself on the more fatal and literal end of greed. Although it would seem, at first, to be a major departure from Bava's greater body of work, most of which up to the point had been gothic horror and giallo, Diabolik still manages to cover most of the director's pet themes and thus fits quite perfectly into his oeuvre. Diabolik is an outsider who rejects what those around him see as established common sense. Appearances are, as always, deceiving at their very best. Diabolik's use of disguises and his foiling of Ginco's trap by using a photograph of an empty, peaceful room are the most obvious examples. And like most of Bava's anti-heroes, Diabolik eventually gets his comeuppance. For my money, Diabolik is an unabashed success on all levels. The art design is without parallel. The script is crisp, witty, and fast-paced. The universe Bava creates is wild and enjoyable. And the performances - yes, even John Phillip Law's - are wonderful. It is the ultimate super-villain movie, with a villain so charismatic that you forget he isn't the hero. Campy, clever, and never taking itself as seriously as some dim-witted critics seem to think it does, Diabolik is one of the best, if not the best, European comic book/fantasy/sci-fi films, not to mention of the most breathlessly beautiful and fun films of the 1960s. Labels: Action: Superheroes, Director: Mario Bava, Espionage, Eurospies, Year: 1968 posted by Keith at 6:20 PM | 0 Comments |
![]() |