Sinthia: The Devil's Doll

Somebody was drunk or high when they came up with this one. A completely nonsensical collage and mishmash of random scenes with no solid plot. As immature and stupid as it sounds, the only benefit to being on set for this disaster would've been the beautiful, naked women.

Sinthia: The Devil's Doll (1970)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Ray Dennis Steckler's in the director's chair for this weird mix of incest, Satan and of course sex. In the film a young girl named Cynthia sees her mommy and daddy having sex. Cynthia has a thing for daddy so she brutally murders both parents. Flash-forward several years and she's involved with a Satanic cult. If you read any review for this film I'm sure the word "confusing" is going to be found. Yes, this movie doesn't make a bit of sense but I think some have been way too hard on it. Many have called this one of the worst movies ever made and many even went as far as to say it's the worst thing Something Weird Video ever released. None that statement is far from the truth because I thought there were some entertaining moments to be found here. Yes, on a technical level the film is quite the mess because it doesn't make a bit of sense and it really does seem as if the director doesn't know what he wants to do with the story. It bounces around with no rhyme or reason and it's nearly impossible to ever know where the thing is going to go next. Some might say this adds a surreal nature to the picture but I think if this is true then it was done on accident. Fans of Al Adamson's drive-in pictures from this era will be happy to see Gary Kent on hand here. Shula Roan plays the title character and while it's far from a good performance she at least keeps you slightly entertained. The film is full of all sorts of strange colors but the psychedelic approach doesn't always work. I will at least say there's plenty of nudity and strange sex scenes to help keep it moving. THe biggest problem is that there's just not enough story here to carry the 78-minute running time, which really starts to drag badly around the 50-minute mark.

Dont get me wrong I love Stecklers films , "Rat Fink a Boo Boo" , "Thrill Killers" , "Wild Guitar" , "Super Cool" all have a pervading feel of fun and to be corny the "joy" of just making a film. But sadly "Sinthia" is one of his lapses into the adult movie genre. He has made sine full length hardcore films which have to be the most un-erotic scenes committed to film. It seems that "Sinthia" was his practice run for the lamentable pap that was to follow a dozen years later. The girl in question is having strange dreams and see's a lot of hackeyed hallucination sequences and people trying to look scarey with little more that painted faces and paper plates with hair. To be honest the plot didnt grab me at all and the film wanders between soft core orgy scenes (with hideous people) and running around on the beach. Its 100 % worse than his later films "The las vegas serial killer" and "The Chooper" (Blood Shack) and made me feel disappointed that from the same mind that gave me some of the original film I have ever seen came this run of the mill sort core trash. For archive value to fans of Steckler its a must , I was told for years before I saw it how bad it was and how that even I would hate it, but thats never put me off before but for once I have to say that im sorry I didnt listen to advice , but then again im glad I have seen it.

"Sinthia the Devil's Doll" was my first acquaintance with the oeuvre of Ray Dennis Steckler, whose other horror movies do enjoy a modest cult reputation. Nobody claims that titles like "The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies", "Rat Phink a Boo Boo" or "The Thrill Killers" are masterpieces of the genre, but supposedly they hold some kind of irresistible charm and entertainment value. This is NOT something that can be said about this film, however. Maybe it's my own fault and I should have chosen a Steckler movie where he actually uses his own name on the credits instead of an alias, or maybe – and most likely – it's just a seriously retarded film; period. The best aspect about the entire movie is the play upon words in the title. The lead girl's name is actually Cynthia, but Sin-Thia is pronounced exactly the same, so there you go. Clever, huh? "Sinthia, The Devil's Doll" is a typically late 60's Sexploitation movie without anything that even remotely resembles a plot. To compensate for the lack of substance, Steckler attempted to insert wannabe controversial themes (a teenage girl in love with her father) and psychedelic hallucination footage (an orgy with the Devil himself). The finished product is far from exciting, just plain boring and irritable. The film opens with a flashback of young Cynthia killer her parents and setting fire to the house (off-screen, obviously) because her beloved daddy treats her too much like a daughter instead of a mistress. Fast forward to six years later, when the adolescent Cynthia visits her psychiatrist who intents to find out what exactly happened that night. From then on, "Sinthia" is one long and incoherent hallucination sequence that does not seem to end. She endlessly wanders over secluded beaches, descents into hell and has sexual conversations with Lucifer himself. For all you cult-fans out there: Lucifer is depicted by Herb Robins, who also co-wrote the script (what script?!?) and went on to directed the oddball 70's flick "The Worm Eaters". The sex footage is beyond dull and Shula Roan – in her first and last major film role ever – isn't even attractive or voluptuous or anything. Personally, I fell asleep multiple times during this short movie but I couldn't even be bothered to rewind and see what I missed. One to avoid, there are so many better exploitation trash movies out there to discover.

I understand how one can judge this as a bad film, I myself felt this was the case for many years. Actually I've felt this way about many of Ray Dennis Stecklers films only to return, because somehow these films have some sort of magic to them i.e. a mysterious staying power.

I've criticized all the usual things one would criticize because I too was conditioned to judge film by traditional standards, but somehow find myself coming back to these films, again and again. I now appreciate the very things I had criticized because they're really part of the film as an organic whole.

That these films don't conform to the golden rule of creating and maintaining an illusion is irrelevant, because this was not Ray's objective. His approach is more auteur based, where you experience the presence of the filmmaker him/herself behind every frame, in what becomes a multi faceted experience of how a filmmaker expresses oneself and their subject matter. A more idiosyncratic sensibility emerges as one film merges such conflicted influences of the French new wave, classic Hollywood, B movies, home movie aesthetics, Cinema Verite, Antonioni, to what is his own invention in what has come to be seen as Camp or Pop Art. One can certainly discern this from film to film, in addition to his interviews/commentary tracks, where he himself acknowledges, this. That he in part made films about films.

I thought of Sinthia the Devil Doll, as I mentioned earlier, as a bad film, ONLY to find that there is much that is memorable and redeeming about it. Cinematically you'll find Ray experimenting quite extensively with super-impositions, gestural hand held camera-work, editing and expressionistic lighting that, like Munch, portrays dissonance in what is the tortured psyche of a troubled woman. What I most appreciate was how Ray, through these various means, had created and sustained a unique atmosphere, that is at once eerie and dreamlike. It is to such a degree that one experiences the film as a literal transcribing of the character's mind/psyche/thought processes. It's more of a subjective approach that is similar to certain, 'experimental' films, such as those of Kenneth Anger.

I recommend that one watch this film as it's own complete vision. To do so, I urge the viewer to see beyond the confines/ prejudices/ conditioning over what is considered 'good' or 'bad' in film, because while they're some flaws, (particularly the interludes between the girl and a psychiatrist, scenes Ray was forced to add), there is much the low budget adds to the nightmarish quality. It's the claustrophobic sets, non glamorous casting, amateurish acting that lend the film it's own surrealistic identity.