Fragment of Fear is a Richard Sarafian film from 1970 starring David Hemmings and based on a novel by ex-spy John Bingham (who was apparently the real life inspiration for George Smiley in the John le Carre novels - yes I spent some time on Wikipedia this morning). The film is kind of like Blow Up but not boring and with a proper story. Hemmings plays Tim Brett, a former heroin addict who is on holiday enjoying the spoils of the novel he wrote about his addiction when his elderly aunt dies in mysterious circumstances. When he finds a clue linking his aunt to a mysterious organisation Tim decides to investigate her death only to be confronted with a series of increasingly bizarre threats. It's a film that's really difficult to discuss without giving away the ending so I can't go into too much detail, but the "thing" that happens to Tim is one of the most authentic and interesting depictions of that "thing" that I've ever seen on film. The story starts small and gradually builds and it's this subtlety and the small scale of the production that makes it all work. This is a thriller set primarily in small London flats and smaller London offices. There's a normality and a familiarity to it all that gives everything that happens an added layer of realism. I thought it was really fantastic and was surprised to learn that it wasn't particularly well regarded critically or even by the people working on it. But then again I never really liked Blow Up all that much so what do I know? I think Fragment of Fear holds up and is definitely worth checking out.
I’ll try to keep this brief because pretty much every extreme of opinion has already been written on mother! and they’re all out there. I really enjoyed it. I liked how it started off like a Polanski film like Repulsion or The Tenant and became something entirely different by the end. I loved the moments of absurd comedy as much as I loved the moments of surreal horror. I loved the audacity of the third act. I loved how utterly bonkers the whole thing was and how much the director and actors committed to that. I liked seeing Stephen McHattie in a big movie. I’m not sure I can say I liked the film as a whole but I was never bored and I found myself eagerly anticipating whatever crazy turn the film would take next. It reminded me of the Lars von Trier film Antichrist in that the moment it becomes clear you've been tricked into watching a full on arthouse film you have to decide whether to go with it or not. I went with it. I didn’t get the Biblical references and had to find an article online afterwards to explain that part for me. Even if I had picked up on all the references, the Bible-in-a-domestic-drama idea is all a bit sixth-form theatre project and I’m not sure what the aim was other than 'look what we did!'. That said, I do think there’s a consistent and coherent story in mother! about a woman losing control. I also liked the world the film creates, with it’s invisible time jumps and ever-evolving environment. It reminded me of the Alasdair Gray book Lanark in places and I can’t really fault a film that conjures up moments from one of my favourite books. Whether it succeeds or not I’m glad mother! exists because it’s a celebration of trying something weird and out there, which is a fuck of a lot more interesting than the thousands of films that don’t try. I think everyone should at least see it.
In Episode 16 of our podcast we attempted to name three of the main characters in our film project and now we need help to make a final decision. Please use the voting buttons below to register your vote via Twitter or feel free to leave your own suggestions in the comments on this post. Thanks!
Help us name our characters (1 of 3)! Which of these names do you think fits a male amateur filmmaker in his 30s? Vote for one of the names below or comment with your own suggestion!— Brothers Regan (@brothers_regan) January 25, 2018
Help us name our characters (2 of 3)! Which of these names do you think fits a female amateur filmmaker in her 30s? Vote for one of the names below or comment with your own suggestion!— Brothers Regan (@brothers_regan) January 25, 2018
Help us name our characters (3 of 3)! Which of these names do you think suits a former female horror filmmaker in her 60s? Vote for one of the names below or comment with your own suggestion!— Brothers Regan (@brothers_regan) January 25, 2018
Raw is a French cannibal film written and directed by Julia Ducournau. Despite my love of earlier French cannibal film Dans Ma Peau (written and directed by Marina de Van in 2002) I wouldn't have said I'm a fan of cannibal films in general and put off seeing this one for longer than necessary. I never really liked the Italian cannibal films like Cannibal Holocaust and Deep River Savages in which people run around the jungle in their pants and bother real animals on camera. Raw doesn't take place in a jungle, although interestingly there are people running around in their pants and animal bothering so maybe I should start this review again.
It's really good. Like the best horror films it's not really about cannibalism, although you will need a strong stomach to get through some of it (I nearly threw up at one point and I've seen things you people wouldn't believe). It would be easy to label Raw as a film with a vegan agenda. There’s a scene early on in which the main character, Justine (Garance Marillier), argues that animals feel the same things humans do. The film then proceeds to show us humans at their most animalistic with Justine herself experiencing the most extreme and most physical transformation. I think that’s valid but for me this was more a film about figuring out who you are. Ultimately, Justine’s discovery of her taste for human flesh isn’t presented as a bad thing. Sure, it’s a problem, although there is the possibility that she may embrace it, but the act of discovery is as liberating for her as it is for the audience.
The scene in which Justine tries human flesh for the first time is transcendent in its visceral and emotional beauty. Ducournau and Marillier take the viewer from apprehension to disgust to cathartic release bordering on pure joy, which you wouldn't expect in a scene that involves eating a finger. Then there's that slow dolly shot towards Justine where we move between a woman licking a man's eyeball, which doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about but it's the coolest fucking shot I've seen in a long time (and I've seen things...).
There is horror in the film but it doesn't come from the natural horror and revulsion prompted by Justine's actions. The real horror is the fact that upon discovering her true self Justine doesn't find anything new at all; she finds something that was already there. Raw explores the idea that as much as we think we're autonomous individuals we're actually on rails, following exactly the same path as those who went before us. That's a truly terrifying thought and it's that revelation that makes Raw an incredible horror film.
The highly secretive web series Chris and Pete have been working on since September 2015 has been exposed by horror blog destroythebrain.com in an article that makes a favourable comparison to Marble Hornets. You can read the full article here.
Chris and Peter will be attending the London Screenwriters Festival 2016 between 2nd and 4th September.
I recorded a video about the project I'm working on right now...
Peter completed a short horror film in 2013 that has been kept private for festivals. Now it's ready to be released for anyone to see. You can see the film here http://vimeo.com/79604811