cudkey
The idea that Anger might be messing with dangerous forces here, and roping the viewer (without asking) into a dark ritual, is cool. The soundtrack is not like anything else I've heard, perfect for trance induction. And who cares what one thinks of Anger's preoccupations (and possible problems)? Just to witness them in such an overt display is fascinating - the murky deep end of confessional art. Ugly, messy. Upsetting. And so refreshing now amid so much commercialism, safety, and p.c. nothingness. Featuring: an albino, a future murderer, drug use, male nudity, cat parts, the U.S. military in Vietnam, Nazi symbolism, and a lineup from the Church of Satan.
A B
There is a child 3:52. Does anyone know who that is? Also there's a man seen at 9:51, 9:54. He's in a kaleidoscopic scene between 9:58-10:16. A B&W flashing shot between 10:21-10:30 & seen at the end between 10:39-10:45. Who is that man? This is what I really wanna know. Thanks people! now the review...............................................................iTHINK it was GREEEEEEEEEEAT!My sister thought it was so weird & her daughter almost got flash male privates! LOL. That made her mad so I watched the rest at home. My BF showed me it. He's is the one who has got me interested in who the boy & man in the short was. All the symbols & stuff are enthralling. I think it's a trance video. The actually Jagger music could put me to sleep. When u listen with Ur eye & hear with Ur ear..Zap! Ur pregnancy! O.O LOL JK! No, but the imagery says a lot...That reminds me of school days. A girl asked what I was drawing, asked if I was a wiccan. I have no prob with wiccans but this girl thought she exposing me in some way. I told her by the end of tomorrow her mother would die & the dumb girl believed me! I should have wrote a note that said: Zap! Ur pregnant. That's witchcraft!
sjohntucson
I watched this last night for the first time, on the "Films of Kenneth Anger Vol. 2" DVD, and to me this was probably the most intense of the set. Between the droning, obnoxious score (by Mick Jagger, of all things), and the changing film speeds, this film really did invoke feelings of, if not really a nightmare, then definitely an altered state, and not a real fun one at that.But the capper for me was the use of Bobby Beausoleil (sp?), who was one of Manson's killers. This footage was apparently shot only a couple of years before Bobby (sorry, not trying to imply too much familiarity, but I'm really sick of typing his last name, it hurts my brain) murdered Gary Hinman. The footage of Bobby, combined with the knowledge of what he's gonna do in a couple of years, just creeped the f**k right out of me.So, I did like this, and I'd recommend it to folks interested in Anger, or in weird sixties head trips & the dark side of psychedelia, but I'm really glad I didn't watch it under the influence. It probably would have wound up occupying a "special" place in my brain, and I don't mean a good happy place.
evelsteve
Don't listen to the guy above, since he thinks all art films are supposed to hold your hand, and tell you what to think and believe. This film is obviously an artifact of subjective, artistic expression (like all real art usually is). But I happen to think it's genius. Just because I don't like the images (which I in fact do) doesn't dis-validate it as art. Art is not for entertainment, as it is the allowance of the artist to express themselves in a certain language/form/deliverance.This film can be interpreted as a view on the artist's fascination with the occult, life, or just certain images in general. Some parts remind me of how sensitive we are to certain images, and so on. Every film isn't like Hollywood, tied up with a neat little bow, were can all hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Sometimes, it portrays what goes on the psyche of certain people. Look at Jordorwosky, for instance.
