Oh, now I remember… I’ve seen this one before. That psycho’s gonna kidnap some poor woman, right?

I think I got this bluray because it was on Hazel Flagg’s list, but I’m not completely sure. I can’t really think of any other reason…

There’s the victim.

What a creep!

I probably saw this on VHS in the early 80s, and while I don’t actually remember anything concrete from the movie, it must have made an impression — I mean, I knew immediately that it was about a kidnapping when I saw that butterfly. On the other hand, that’s not exactly subtle…

I like what he’s done with the place… Did Fritzl see this and go “yes! this is what I’ll do!”

Man, that Terence Stamp is a terrific actor.

I dunno… it’s really well made and well acted — the set design is fantastic — but I’m not altogether all in on this. It’s difficult not to imagine this made by Hitchcock instead: There’s be so much more going on; more tense scrapes; more escape attempts… a less passive kidnappee. It’s hard to believe that somebody would just submit in this way and not try to get an escape plan going.

On the other hand, I don’t think Hitchcock would have managed to make something as creepy as this.

That’s a nice house. Could use more chimneys. MORE CHIMNEY

Anyway, I can’t really say I enjoyed this that much. I guess I kind of respect it? But eh.

The Collector. William Wyler. 1965. ⚃

I’ve started watching the Alan Clarke box set again…

It’s very weird. The previous Clarke BBC films have mostly been very straightforward things, but this is all very … psychological.

The seventies was a fun decade for television. In most of the European countries, there were only a couple a TV channels, and most of them felt an impulse to give the viewers some Real Culture. You’d be watching, and then randomly there would be a Bergman movie.

This is a Play For Today movie, which was a BBC series designed to give people some real culture.

I always liked watching these things as a child and a teenager.

But… I’m not quite sure about this one. It’s done really well — it’s all pensive and weird and stuff. But it’s also a bit cringe-worthy?

I liked this. It’s so in-your-face “we’re gonna shock and befuddle the people in front of the TV”. It’s very strange, in a good way.

Penda’s Fen. Alan Clarke. 1974. ⚄

Heh, it was restored as part of a master’s degree?

I bought the second BFI Akerman box a while back, so I thought it was time I started watching it.

This is a (long) short, and the weird thing about it is how normal it is. I was expecting something along the lines of Hôtel Monterey — something experimental and contemplative.

But instead this is just a drama involving the people working at this hôtel (and the guests).

Was this originally made for Belgian TV or something?

Oh!

Hôtel des Acacias (1982) is a 43-minute Belgian film directed by students at the INSAS film school under the supervision of acclaimed director Chantal Akerman and Michèle Blondeel.

So it’s a student thing… so I guess it makes even more sense that it was restored by a student, too.

When I throw the die for movies, I usually go “is this good for what it is?” That is, if I were to die-throw on an “objective” scale, all super-hero movies would get a ⚀ since I gave a ⚂ to a bergman movie once, and even the worst Bergman movie is better than the best super-hero movie.

So I don’t do that, because that’d be boring, but then what to do with a student movie? Is this a good student movies as student movies go?

And… I don’t really think so? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen student movies that are much better than this.

It’s not that this is awful. I like the cinematography — plonking the camera somewhere and then getting some interesting angles. Most of the performances are bad, but there are a couple really good ones.

But the main problem is just that it’s not really interesting? It’s so normal, only not well done?

Hôtel des Acacias. Yves Hanchar/Pierre Charles Rochette/François Vanderveken/Isabelle Willems. 1982. ⚁