Persona Non Grata Festival

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Philip Kaufman, 1978)

“Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1978) is a horror movie directed by Philip Kaufman, which follows a substance from space which falls onto the Earth, and it duplicates anybody it touches. The Health Inspector named Matthew (Donald Sutherland) is one of the only people in the whole town that doesn’t become a duplicate, along with some of his friends and some accomplices. Suddenly, all of them are being hunted down in which the film turns into a thrilling chase movie, in which you aren’t sure what will happen next. There have been three versions told of this story, remade many times after being adapted from a book which Warner Brothers bought for $500, with the author earning no more for the adaptations of it. Each film seems to show how society was when it was made. The original 1956 film of the same name was about McCarthyism, and the Abel Ferrara version titled “The Body Snatchers” from 1993 was set around the AIDS epidemic of the 1990s. What about this one from 1978? I personally feel that this version from 1978 was around the boom of pop culture, and how society is perceiving things whilst following a regime set through a leader of power. Director Philip Kaufman recently said that can be resembled through Trump in this contemporary society when Trump points to the back of an auditorium like in the horrifying ending this film has. I believe that out of the three adaptations, this one does it best in how its theme can still be related to culture today, which is highly powerful. The performances are also fantastic, featuring Donald Sutherland and Brooke Shields in the two stunning lead roles, along with supporting roles from Jeff Goldblum serving as comic relief in the movie, and Leonard Nimoy plays a character who we aren’t sure as to if he is a duplicate or not, due to being a lifeless character which is a saddening representation of any members of society. Of course, he turns into one of these duplicates later on but it is tragic nonetheless. Philip Kaufman intended this to not be a full-on remake of Don Siegel’s 1956 film, but something which connected with the people of 1978, and what he did has been very important for society up to this point in time, which shows how powerful a movie can be, no matter how out there the story is. 5/5.

Lisa & The Devil (Mario Bava, 1973)

“Lisa & The Devil” (1973) is a gothic giallo film directed by Mario Bava, which follows a girl who finds herself lost whilst travelling, only to find herself descend further into a world so bizarre, it creates a very surreal experience. Mario Bava is a very well respected connoisseur in the genre of horror, and more specifically the sub-genre of Giallo. As festival curator Gorjan Markovski explained before the screening I attended, Bava was given complete creative control over his new movie after the multiple box office successes of his previous movies. When the film premiered at Cannes however, it was a very disastrous screening which led to the studio re-editing the film entirely and making it look like “The Exorcist”, which had come out around the same time to box office success. They named this movie “The House of Exorcism”. This film had not been seen in its intended form, until many years later. With that explained, I will begin to discuss this troubled film. Firstly, this is obviously Bava’s most personal film, which is why he decided to use his creative freedom on this project particularly. Personally, I don’t see how it is his most personal film due to how ridiculous it is, but I respect what Bava tried doing with this film. Elke Sommer plays the lead role of the titular character, Lisa. She had a very interesting career, as an actress in many films during the late period of the Golden Age of Hollywood, and her performance here seemed so strange to me. She kept on with the old Hollywood style acting, but brought it into a giallo film which just seemed rather off. Nonetheless, her performance was fine, along with the rest of the cast, even if very ridiculous. I am not sure what else to say about this movie without spoiling it, as this is truly an experience which shouldn't be spoiled for the viewer, and rather it gets seen with only the minimal knowledge of its release, which I have tried informing you of. Overall, I am not sure if I recommend this movie, but it is worth checking out. 3.5/5

Seconds (John Frankenheimer, 1966)

"Seconds" (1966) is a surreal kafkaesque sci-fi horror, which follows a man who decides to become a Second, which is a new version of you, placed into a new body, so you can start your life over. Rock Hudson, as the iconic poster proclaims, is a Second. He is a new body, which experiences a whole new reality, which proves to become rather horrifying. Rock Hudson’s character Tony, is someone who becomes trapped in a system of power by this corporation that outgoes the surgeries, which leaves Tony unable to have control over his own body. Could that last bit be seen as a metaphor for society’s treatment of people in third world countries, who have no control over their bodies and used as someone to toy around with? It could very well be, which leaves “Seconds” being a representation of the times then, in which women were not treated like men, and Tony is someone who, even though remains a man, must experience how it is when he swaps over into another body, except he is being controlled by an organisation. This can be seen as being like the media’s control over people through contracts, in which they have full control. Honestly, I am not sure as to if that was the intent with “Seconds”, which was to portray this neo-capitalist society following what they are told to do, because they signed a contract. Rock Hudson’s character does the same, which left me thinking about its intentions. John Frankenheimer was a very well respected director during his long run of film directing. His films, also tended to be very politically charged. This led me to believe that Seconds was either about power over people in entertainment through neo-capitalism and how it twists our perceptions of how we should be, or it was trying to explain some sort of political message, which I am assuming was along the lines of power over people, choosing what they have to do, and I see any of those two fitting, even combining together which makes perfect sense too. Rock Hudson’s performance is brilliant in this film, an entirely different performance to what he usually did in films prior to this. The cinematography by James Wong Howe is incredibly surreal and breathtaking, with shots so strange, it is difficult to tell how exactly they were filmed. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is unsettling, which fit the strange and unsettling opening of this film, with faces and many other things distorting, as if they are some type of liquid. In conclusion, I see “Seconds” as being a fantastic film about the dehumanisation of people, and I would definitely recommend it. 4.5/5.

The Dark Mirror (Robert Siodmak, 1946)

“The Dark Mirror” (1946) is a mystery about someone who is murdered, but the police can’t tell who did it due to the killer having an identical twin sister, who also refuses to say anything. This leads the police and a psychiatrist, to try and figure out who did this. Now of course, this movie was released before fingerprint identification was a thing, so we are left watching this strange mystery play out. A problem with this movie, is that once the twin plot is revealed, there isn’t really another plot twist which leaves you waiting right up until the end of the film for its climax. That isn’t to say it isn’t boring in between however, it is certainly very entertaining, as we see the relationship between the sisters begin to fall apart as one tries to destroy the other out of jealousy. (I’m not sure why, but I feel that any movie about twins will have one of the two be a crazy person, even Danny DeVito was rather crazy in “Twins” with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why is this a trend in any movie about twins?) So in the film, we are treated to many visually stunning shots, which for the 1940s looks fantastic. And whilst it isn’t a Powell and Pressburger film such as “The Red Shoes” made two years later which looks very dazzling, this is a very well filmed movie! I also feel that Olivia De Havilland is so fantastic in this film, especially during its last act, in which her performance excels so high. The use of split screen to create two versions of Olivia De Havilland was very well done, considering that the film was made in 1946 when this wasn’t that easy to do. The role of the psychiatrist brought out a very interesting element to the story of this film, which I think was really good. In conclusion, I don’t feel that this film would have been made today due to its inaccuracies in how simple it would be to find this out today when so much technology exists to do that, but it is nonetheless a very fun movie which I highly recommend, even if its just to see Olivia De Havilland’s great performance. 4/5.