A new way to kill zombies in the cumming apocalypse. The Zombie Sucker

Day #2

Dir. by Henri Georges Clouzot

Wow, what a treat. Watching this film was a much more entertaining and thought provoking experience than yesterday’s. From the title alone (which translates to “the Devils”) we are informed that this film is up to no good. 
From the opening scene, we are placed in a bleak world filled with dark shadows, long hallways, and stone walls. I don’t care if kids had been jumping on trampolines, the lack of music and strange camera movements tell us something is not right. 

Clouzot wastes no time in setting up place. Part of the reason this movie may feel long is because within the first 10 minutes we feel as if we have collected an hour’s worth of information on the world of these characters, with few words actually spoken. 
Michel Delassalle is a principal at a non-denominational boarding school where his wife and mistress both teach. It is unclear why he is the principal, probably just because a woman can not be. His wife, Christina, is independently wealthy, but feels it is more noble to spend her family fortune on the kids. (The actress who played Christina was actually the director’s real wife, and really suffers from the same condition she depicts in the film. Or did suffer until her death, 4 years after the movie’s release….. Oh yeah, spoiler. I am getting off topic already— I do that.) Michel’s mistress, Nicole, is shown wearing dark glasses in the first scene, and reveals to Christina (and us) that Michel beat her the night before. 

We are then introduced to Michel. Never before have I been introduced to a character so immediately hate-able without seeing him perform some terrible act, like molestation or smoking and chewing gum at the same time. His language and chauvinism is jaw dropping. “Go out and play, both of you.” This dude is a douche. However, I have to ask myself if some of the things he said would have felt as shocking for audiences from that era, where male bravado and assholism were excepted. But no, I can’t imagine it, I wanted this guy to die immediately. After the scene in the dining hall, where he publicly forces Christina to swallow rotten fish, I am not sure anyone would want to see this guy live. What amazes me is Clouzot’s ability to create this character in such a short time and never feel like a caricature. I believed in this guy’s existence and the plight of the women he diminishes. 
Christina contemplates divorcing Michel, but feels it to be a sin, though it is safe to assume she fears more the social ramifications. Nicole convinces her that his death is the only way they can escape his torment. I am going to leave out a lot cause this does not need to be an essay. They form a plan and it is sound. 

(Spoilers from here on out… And I feel guilty saying any of this since at the end of the movie the director asked me not to tell anyone how it ends.)
Nicole’s heart condition and nerves create suspense when the women begin to act out their plan, but the majority of the suspense comes later, when the almost supernatural acts begin. They leave Michel’s dead body to be discovered in the school’s pool the next day when it floats to the surface. Clouzot creates such a realistic world that when things start to not add up (for example, the body not floating to the surface and being missing when the pool is drained, the suit he was drowned in being returned by the dry cleaner and his face showing up in a photo, among other things) we feel the weight of these odd occurrences because of the truth of the world he has created for us. 

There are no cliche music builds, dark corners, or lingering shots of suspense. Well, not yet anyway. When it is revealed that the body is missing from the bottom of the pool, he does not cut back to his actresses for reaction. He does not throw some musical flourish in our faces. He cuts away quickly and moves forward. This does not take away from the mystery as one might think, but amplifies it. 
Other than Christina’s praying, we are not exposed to anything supernatural. Her prayers serve only to show us insight into who she is, rather than being used as a tent pole to build some sort of demonic, symbolic representation of what is happening. For a movie that has been imitated time and time again, it feels strangely fresh, even over half a century later. 
I forgot to mention the detective who forces himself into the equation. He is sure Michel isn’t dead, serving to further convince Christina that Michel is back to haunt her and seek his revenge. I have left out Nicole because she is inconsequential to the ending. If the film had ended differently, or I had written this review before I watched the last 10 minutes of it, I would be just as worried for her and what may come of this haunting. 
 

So the ending— holy hell it’s amazing. It builds masterfully, and by the end we are seeing the world as Nicole would. The movie may have started broadly, telling a tale of three people, but by it’s finale you (the audience) become Nicole, and see the world as she would. Ultimately, the reveal of Michel’s body rising out of the tub is terrifying enough to send Nicole’s heart into cardiac arrest. To pull us immediately out of any presumption of the supernatural, we see Michel remove his fake dead eyes and pull himself together to check her pulse. He looks off beyond the frame and says, “It’s done.” It is then revealed that Nicole was in the deceit the whole time (she had left early that day for fear of her life, or so we were led to believe.) This was such a gratifying reveal for the viewer, even though it ended well for Michel and we wanted so badly for that douche-bag to be dead. The gratification mainly comes from the fact that this revelation does not feel cheated or unearned. 
Soon after Nicole and Michel embrace and rejoice over the fortune they just inherited, the detective appears out of the blackness to spoil their fun. At first this reveal upset me. I thought “O.K., here is where it shows its age. Even for as progressive as it was, there could not have been a movie in this time with so little repercussion for evil deeds.” I wanted them to get away with it, so that I would be forced to feel disgusted at their cunning betrayal. The more I thought about it though, I realized the brilliance was in the execution. 

The only aspect of their plan that happened by chance was the newspaper, which revealed that a body had been washed ashore needing to be identified. It is understandable why Nicole would use this as a way to calm Christina’s fears and then come back ten fold when Christina realizes it is not Michel’s body after all. She could not have predicted the detective’s deep desire to dig into the case of her missing husband. He was the one variable they didn’t account for; it was inevitable that he would find them out. Well done, Clouzot, well done. 
It is obvious this film inspired many, many filmmakers over the years, some of which would be served from reviewing it again. (M. Night, I am looking at you.) Clouzot created such a well conceived plot that nothing feels as if it was placed in by chance, everything in its twist ending is explainable and sticks to the realism present. (Then again, a lot of that credit probably goes to the writer.) There was only one convenient “coincidence,” which was accounted for, and did not exist purely to throw the viewer off, as many less talented directors sometimes do (myself included). The only, and I mean ONLY thing I may be able to pick at would be Michel’s plea to Christina to not go through with the divorce. He seemed genuinely invested in not loosing his wife’s money. He even tried to seduce her. I laughed out loud as he whispered in her ear “we could live so comfortably.” Yeah, maybe some people find that sexy. If he knew all along it was a ruse I can’t buy that he would not have just continued to be a douche to make sure she went through with giving him the poison. 

Other elements I really liked:
-Christina’s purity represented in shades of white, Nicole’s evil intentions portrayed in shades of black, lack of soundtrack, saving any horror-esque off camera sound misdirection for the end with the type writer.
-The morgue shot.
-The shot from Christina’s windows to the boys’ wash room.
-When Christina fills the glass with poison after getting slapped.
-When Christina burns the train ticket.
-As I mentally review, the wide shot of Christina crying in the dining room where Nicole is seen pausing for a second next to Michel before going over to comfort Christina. In that split second she revealed her game.
I recommend this movie, and for those of you who don’t have Hulu plus you can download the entire film for free from here: Les Diabolique .

Movie #1 on my criterion quest. 

F is for Fake 

Dir by Orson Welles

What a great and coincidental way to start my journey down the criterion rabbit hole. I won’t get into the characters or plot cause that can be read just about anywhere, instead I will share what I came out of it thinking and feeling. 

This film at times bridges the gap between documentary and farce. I could not help but feel while watching it that he may in fact have unknowingly created the spark that lit reality TV’s fire.

Though Mr. Welles may have promised at the beginning of the film for the next hour to never tell a lie, any one more than a casual viewer could identify the “lies” of film-making everywhere. Often reverse shots in conversations where completed in separate locations, lines that were obviously taken out of context, and these liars present in the film ask to have us take their word without providing any sources. The fast-paced editing and clever guise of cinema verite just had to have given some soon-to-be MTV executives vast amounts of inspiration. 

The movie was hard for me to take seriously at times— I had to imagine myself viewing as one might have in the time of it’s release. Our generation is far too aware of the trickery that goes on, as it is so rampant in our day-to-day media. The main characters in the film were part of the biggest lie of all— they were cast as famous fakers and presented as such almost undoubtedly. But ask yourself, have you ever  heard mention of their names? 

Though the film was so obviously calling itself out for its own lies, and making its lies fairly obvious to seasoned film viewers, there was still so much to take away from it. We often take the word of so-called “experts” or critics on what is worth our time in regard to beauty. With art, it should not matter who made what, or who said what about it. What should matter is how it affected you.  

“If you hang some paintings that are fake in a museum for years, unknown to anyone they are fake, have they not become real?”

There was a long segment at the beginning of the film about men making sport out of gazing at women, and at the end of the film a completely fabricated story about Picasso involving the same woman, who was Orson’s lover. I may be totally off here, but I thought the beginning segment was a comment on the similarity to perceived female beauty and forgery. The woman that struts down the street in heels and a slim dress is no different than one of Elmyr’s fake Monets, and no less enticing to look at. We are a society of fakers, and there is beauty in that. Don’t let some critic or expert tell you there is not. If you value the beauty in front of you, it should not matter whose hand created it. 

I also found it fitting to watch this film before starting a journey to watch a collection of films that have been deemed fit by “experts.” 

Danse Macabre from Zac Eubank on Vimeo.

Directed/Shot/Edited by Zac Eubank
Written by Lucas Eubank/Zac Eubank
Location Sound by Jonathan Morgan
Foley, dialogue editor, and re-recording mixer by Alex Niedt
ADR Recording by Ike Amadi
SFX by Bob Salzano

I have a couple videos coming out this month. Excited for the summer rush of work. There is big news around the corner for myself and my production company can’t wait to share. 

Top