The-Silent-Photoplayer
Juli 2000 ist beigetreten
Willkommen auf neuen Profil
Unsere Aktualisierungen befinden sich noch in der Entwicklung. Die vorherige Version Profils ist zwar nicht mehr zugänglich, aber wir arbeiten aktiv an Verbesserungen und einige der fehlenden Funktionen werden bald wieder verfügbar sein! Bleibe dran, bis sie wieder verfügbar sind. In der Zwischenzeit ist Bewertungsanalyse weiterhin in unseren iOS- und Android-Apps verfügbar, die auf deiner Profilseite findest. Damit deine Bewertungsverteilung nach Jahr und Genre angezeigt wird, beziehe dich bitte auf unsere neue Hilfeleitfaden.
Abzeichen6
Wie du dir Kennzeichnungen verdienen kannst, erfährst du unter Hilfeseite für Kennzeichnungen.
Rezensionen13
Bewertung von The-Silent-Photoplayer
As an aficionado of ephemeral films of the 1950s, a friend of mine put me in the direction of this parody of said genre. Unfortunately, the almost three minutes credits in its mere ten minute running time (!) betray its origins as yet another clueless Hollywood product.
While clearly a lot of effort went into the production of this short (judging by how many people worked on it), director/writer Donahue is derailed by not being true to the source material, and ultimately, a script that is not very funny. What the audience is presented with is a ghoulish caricature of 1950s American culture, made by someone who either didn't study or didn't grasp the lexicon of industrial films from that era. This caricature/alternate world is apparently a gag that is regularly cultivated in modern film, so to some degree, the false notes this film hits come to no surprise.
The look of the film is that of someone who thinks that the only characteristic that defines 1950s industrial film-making is to shoot in black and white. Many of the other aspects of the photography are anachronistic, such as the lighting, compositions of set-ups, and the fatal use of a zoom lens in a couple of its shots.
The short (and I do mean short) sabotages itself with its own brand of humor. The film's message is either an effect of or effected by its production company, POWER UP, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to offering lesbian film-makers support. This may come as something of a shock to some viewers, as the film's script is decidedly mean-spirited, mocking the genre's supposedly misogynistic attitudes, while overlooking the fact that most industrial films of that time were made outside of Hollywood by particularly left-wing and even black-listed filmmakers. Much of the subversive humor than can be found in these shorts is lost here entirely.
All sorts of questionable sexual innuendos are underlined and highlighted twice over by the ubiquitous 1950s narrator. These basic jokes could have been much more effective by subtlety, but their obvious and in-your-face attitude aren't funny if you're even mildly intuitive. Could the lesbian grocery lady pull out anything *but* a phallic object from her bag? The answer is yes: a pair of melons. How many times have we seen *that* gag? The only character that comes close to being identifiable with the audience is that played by Alex Borstein, and even she is the butt of several jokes. Donahue doesn't realize that you can't make statements with cardboard characters, even if if you do so by making them the polar opposite of what you believe in.
I'll give it a "2" for the fact that the picture obviously employed a number of people for it, but my suggestion to like-filmmakers is to use this picture only as a reference of what *not* to do when creating a satire. In contrast, watch Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and compare it to any of the 1930s Universal Horror films it lampooned. You will see where BILLY'S DAD lands astray.
While clearly a lot of effort went into the production of this short (judging by how many people worked on it), director/writer Donahue is derailed by not being true to the source material, and ultimately, a script that is not very funny. What the audience is presented with is a ghoulish caricature of 1950s American culture, made by someone who either didn't study or didn't grasp the lexicon of industrial films from that era. This caricature/alternate world is apparently a gag that is regularly cultivated in modern film, so to some degree, the false notes this film hits come to no surprise.
The look of the film is that of someone who thinks that the only characteristic that defines 1950s industrial film-making is to shoot in black and white. Many of the other aspects of the photography are anachronistic, such as the lighting, compositions of set-ups, and the fatal use of a zoom lens in a couple of its shots.
The short (and I do mean short) sabotages itself with its own brand of humor. The film's message is either an effect of or effected by its production company, POWER UP, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to offering lesbian film-makers support. This may come as something of a shock to some viewers, as the film's script is decidedly mean-spirited, mocking the genre's supposedly misogynistic attitudes, while overlooking the fact that most industrial films of that time were made outside of Hollywood by particularly left-wing and even black-listed filmmakers. Much of the subversive humor than can be found in these shorts is lost here entirely.
All sorts of questionable sexual innuendos are underlined and highlighted twice over by the ubiquitous 1950s narrator. These basic jokes could have been much more effective by subtlety, but their obvious and in-your-face attitude aren't funny if you're even mildly intuitive. Could the lesbian grocery lady pull out anything *but* a phallic object from her bag? The answer is yes: a pair of melons. How many times have we seen *that* gag? The only character that comes close to being identifiable with the audience is that played by Alex Borstein, and even she is the butt of several jokes. Donahue doesn't realize that you can't make statements with cardboard characters, even if if you do so by making them the polar opposite of what you believe in.
I'll give it a "2" for the fact that the picture obviously employed a number of people for it, but my suggestion to like-filmmakers is to use this picture only as a reference of what *not* to do when creating a satire. In contrast, watch Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and compare it to any of the 1930s Universal Horror films it lampooned. You will see where BILLY'S DAD lands astray.
The plot: During the era of the Crusades, Ricardo Montalban plays an Italian peasant who gains favor of the king and works his way up to knight in order to avenge the death of his father.
THE SARACEN BLADE should work, but it doesn't. It's hampered at all ends-- the script isn't incompetent, but is uninspired and predictable. The dialog and performances jog between "old English" to modern-day soap opera. The cast is uneven, and nary a one of them is Italian, where the majority of the film is set-- indeed, England would have been a more convincing location location given the plot. Carolyn Jones and Betta St. John are pleasing to look at, but totally out of place and are better used in many other films of this period.
Henry Freulich's wide-screen cinematography is colorful, and the set design and costuming reflect this accordingly, but the lighting and camera-work is flat.
The exteriors are unconvincing, often doubling the rocky California countryside for rural Italy as well as the Middle East, and during an attack on a castle, the night-tinted stock footage is painfully unconvincing in black and white, inter-cut with the Technicolor footage shot for the picture.
The blame rests on the always cheap producer Sam Katzman and in-over-his-head William Castle, a director that I admire, but who was clearly more comfortable in westerns and cleverly-written contemporary pictures than costume dramas.
This was screened for me in a theatrical setting (35mm) in the last month, and doesn't seem to be available in any television package at this point (TCM seems to have struck a deal with Sony, so you may see it on their channel).
While I may be over-critical on what is nothing more than what would have been the "B" feature on a double bill in its time, I also doubt it's noteworthy enough to end up on DVD unless it's part of a Montalban set. No loss, as while this would have played in its day as a time-passer on the lower half of a double bill, out of this context today, it's just a mediocre time waster.
THE SARACEN BLADE should work, but it doesn't. It's hampered at all ends-- the script isn't incompetent, but is uninspired and predictable. The dialog and performances jog between "old English" to modern-day soap opera. The cast is uneven, and nary a one of them is Italian, where the majority of the film is set-- indeed, England would have been a more convincing location location given the plot. Carolyn Jones and Betta St. John are pleasing to look at, but totally out of place and are better used in many other films of this period.
Henry Freulich's wide-screen cinematography is colorful, and the set design and costuming reflect this accordingly, but the lighting and camera-work is flat.
The exteriors are unconvincing, often doubling the rocky California countryside for rural Italy as well as the Middle East, and during an attack on a castle, the night-tinted stock footage is painfully unconvincing in black and white, inter-cut with the Technicolor footage shot for the picture.
The blame rests on the always cheap producer Sam Katzman and in-over-his-head William Castle, a director that I admire, but who was clearly more comfortable in westerns and cleverly-written contemporary pictures than costume dramas.
This was screened for me in a theatrical setting (35mm) in the last month, and doesn't seem to be available in any television package at this point (TCM seems to have struck a deal with Sony, so you may see it on their channel).
While I may be over-critical on what is nothing more than what would have been the "B" feature on a double bill in its time, I also doubt it's noteworthy enough to end up on DVD unless it's part of a Montalban set. No loss, as while this would have played in its day as a time-passer on the lower half of a double bill, out of this context today, it's just a mediocre time waster.