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Was this originally made for Belgian TV or something?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. ⚁

This is a gay classic that I always assumed I’ve seen before… but some months back, I watched To Live and Die in L.A., and was really impressed. It’s directed by William Friedkin, and I realised that I’d seen so few of his movies, so I went on a little shopping spree.

Which, again, made me wonder whether I’d really seen this before. And I really can’t remember seeing it! So now I am!

Darn. This 2K release has been cut down to 16:9. I hate that. (It’s just from 1.85:1 so it’s not that big of a difference, which sort of makes it even a greater insult…)

Hey, nice. That’s where I want to live.

But with fewer cockroaches.

Somehow I thought this was an 80s movie, but it’s from 1970! It’s a classic classic!

Awkward!

No, I have seen this before! Must have been in the 80s sometime…

Harold is very memorable.

It’s very Ibsenian — we’re gonna reveal all the life lies of all the characters, apparently.

Or perhaps more Tennessee Williams. The setup is more artificial — they’re playing a game where they’re phoning their true loves… Very… high emotional stakes.

The 70s was a sweaty decade.

So sweaty!

Yeah, OK, sure — it’s pretty risible, and I can totally understand people who loathe this movie. I think it’s spiffy. But I’m a sucker for this kind of theatre drama.

The Boys in the Band. William Friedkin. 1970. ⚄