Nightbirds

American director Andy Milligan is best known on the cult circuit for the numerous trashy exploitation movies he put out during the 1960s and 70s, namely the likes of Bloodthirsty Butchers (1970), The Rats Are Coming! The Werewolves Are Here! (1972) and, most famously, the video nasty The Ghastly Ones (1968). His work isn't fondly remembered, and his horror pictures are perhaps only worthwhile for their unintentional comedic value. However, Milligan occasionally dabbled in art-house movies, and Nightbirds - made in Britain - is one of the most interesting, if plodding, things he's ever done. Thought lost for years, the combined efforts of Nicolas Winding Refn and the BFI have allowed the film to be pieced back together and re- released after decades in the wilderness.

On the grainy streets of late 60s London, a young homeless man named Dink (Berwick Kaler) is discovered puking his guts up by the striking Dee (Julie Shaw), who takes the hapless mummy's boy back to her decaying flat. While Dink is clearly socially inept and inexperienced with women thanks to years of mental abuse at the hands of his overbearing mother, he strikes up an intensely sexual relationship with Dee. The good times soon give way to jealousy however, as Dee disapproves of any woman Dink strikes up a conversation with, and Dink becoming increasingly frustrated at the frequent presence of Dee's creepy Irish neighbour. As they gradually attempt to control one another, the once blissful and sexually- charged relationship turns to cruelty and bitterness.

It barely saw the inside of a cinema screen during its release back in 1970, and its somewhat difficult to see how it will find an audience all these years later. It's a deliberately provocative piece, full of sexual imagery and foul language, but it's also incredibly slow- moving, even at a measly 74 minutes. While Kaler does well as the timid, neurotic Dink (who went on to have a successful career on British TV), Shaw struggles to emote much at all. Her character is manipulative and sexually dominant, and calls for a performance capable of handling such complexities, but Shaw barely manages to convincingly switch between happy and sad. Still, it's a nice change of pace from the usual free-loving and swinging 60s the movies usually inform us it was, and suggests that there was a little bit more to Milligan than the schlocky output he was best known for.

Mind you, most his films are cheap, and full of anger.

Nightbirds is a breath of fresh air as Andy has toned down his anger and generally every single character trying to out manipulate and lie to each other. Since there are essentially 2 characters throughout 90% of the movie.. the Boy is actually charming, calm and a little naive. The Woman seems nice at first..but he gets lured into her via desperation and her charm.

If you read Jimmy McDonnughs biography of Andy, it was no secret that he HATED women. Thought they were all lying manipulators. This was no exception - except she was not so angry. Even if you didn't know Andy's previous works, this still stands out on its own merits as an engaging take on two peoples lives.

This odd attempt to create a sort of naturalistic two-character drama is thus closest to Milligan's first film, "Vapors," being more indebted to early, earnest indie arthouse models than the genre conventions he otherwise tried to graft his unique form of no-budget hysteria onto. So it's offbeat, particularly within his ouevre. However, that means even more than usual, the actors are dependent on their director's weird, garrulous dialogue and his equally off-kilter ideas about human psychology. So this tale of an attractive London woman who takes in a handsome but helpless homeless boy alternates between the dull and the arbitrary.

The actors manage as well as they can with characters undefined in the writing, not to mention scenes that go nowhere, serving no purpose but to pad the runtime until something finally happens. And that "something" is that, out of nowhere (yet somehow predictably), one character turns out to be "evil" and destructive because, apparently, that's the only way Milligan can conceive of that entire gender. Frankly, if the script was going to go in that direction, it should have done so much sooner, which at least would have provided some semblance of plot tension.

While obviously made on the barest of shoestrings--even by Milligan standards--the movie is perhaps most interesting if you try to imagine just who he, or anyone, thought it might be 'for." Did the director somehow manage to impress some very gullible Brit as an auteur? More likely they hoped he was making a sexploitation movie, which the thin story indeed does suggest it will become, but it's terribly chaste, unless you count the hero frequently having his shirt off. (And god knows that's not the toplessness grindhouse viewers were looking for in 1970.) There are several bizarre moments where it's hinted that poor man is made to perform oral sex on the heroine, and of course Milligan suggests this is a thing of indescribable perversity and horror. But that just underlines that the movie is not only prudish, it's downright anti-sex. As for violence, well, there just isn't any.

I'd always been curious to see "Nightbirds," so at least this can now be checked off the bucket list. But if you've seen excerpts, trust me, you've seen enough. It is not a movie that suggests Milligan was wasted on cheesy horror films, but instead confirms that his having to make cheesy horror films was probably the best possible thing for a sensibility whose eccentric neptitude and myopia were doomed to make any less daft material simply tedious.

Those familiar with the films of Andy Milligan will hardly be able to recognize "Nightbirds" as his, because it contains few of the Milligan trademarks fans have come to love and expect. It looks like Andy was going for something very different here, something more serious and artistic..and he manages nicely, this tale of two very maladjusted young people, who meet "by chance" on the streets of London's East End. The coolly beautiful "Dee" comes off as warm and friendly to the homeless "Dink..." almost TOO friendly, as she invites him to live with her only hours after meeting him. The two blonde lovers settle into a domestic arrangement inside Dee's rooftop artists loft, but soon things begin to change, as a subtle, psychological power struggle ensues between the two young, but insecure kids. As the story progresses, it becomes quite clear that Dee has some very strange notions about love and relationships. It also becomes clear that she is a very disturbed woman. This is a slow film, but with a surprising conclusion that is definitely worth the wait. At times Milligan creates the illusion that the film is going nowhere, but the big reveal at the end is truly blood chilling. The casting choice was brilliant; the actress who plays Dee has the frigid look of an ice princess, with her white blonde hair and her icy, pale blue eyes. She is beautiful but there is something threatening and diabolical about her. Milligan fans will recognize Dink as "Spool," the forlorn hunchback from "The Body Beneath." In "Nightbirds" Berwick Kaler looks similarly pathetic and insecure. His character is a virgin with no self esteem, on top of being homeless. He is exactly the kind of desperate soul that Dee is drawn to, for reasons that i won't divulge. Shot in haunting black and white, and enhanced by a moody flute jazz soundtrack, "Nightbirds" is a recommended watch for anyone interested in the work of Andy Milligan. It's interesting to see a side to this film maker that is so different from the style that made him the King of no-budget grindhouse cinema. Danish director Nicholas Refn saw enough value in this film to basically bring it back to life, after being considered a lost film for decades. This fan hopes that more of Milligan's lost movies will be rediscovered.

Considering this was made by Andy Milligan, it's refreshingly down to earth and "normal" Milligan wasn't usually one known for his realism or nicely drawn characters, but he does create a few memorable ones this time around with its two young transients living in a shabby attic in London and getting into all sorts of trouble. Some of the acting is better than what can be found in his other films as well. Unfortunately, the story meanders a little too often and doesn't seem to have much of a point.