The Fall of the Louse of Usher: A Gothic Tale for the 21st Century

I've just had the pleasure of seeing the premiere of this extraordinary movie in London - it's a trashy, hallucinatory riot that just proves what can be done with a shoestring budget and lots of enthusiasm.

It's rare to see any movie these days without having been exposed to a large amount of hype, reviews etc, before even entering the cinema. Here, I had no idea what to expect. In some ways it's a shame that this film is likely to receive the critical acclaim and cinema release it deserves: but this also helps to keep it a delicious underground secret. Search it out and enjoy.

The rarest thing of all is to see a cinematic genius and artistic visionary like Ken Russell take full command of a movie, shooting it at home on digital video without interference (or budget) from a studio.

There are several ways that people have attempted this in the past: we have Lars von Trier's Dogme manifesto that used video to create a documentary-style gritty realism. Then there was the Blair Witch, which was more an exercise in clever marketing than a real innovation: the video medium was used - as in von Trier's movies - to convince the audience of the reality of the situation. Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh's recent 'Anniversary Party' was shot on DV but pretended to be celluloid, showing that a low-budget video could look like a much more expensive affair.

But with the Louse of Usher, Russell goes with the video grain, revelling in the cheap nasty look of DV, and creates a hallucinatory world from deliberately cheapo blow-up toys, joke-shop props and even bouncy castles. The ugly, contrasty look of DV enhances the crumbling white makeup and tombstone teeth of the characters. Far from the documentary-style realism of Dogme, Russell creates moments of decadent synthetic visual madness that fully suit the video medium.

It's hard to imagine that this project was initially intended to be a studio-funded, medium budget film: the whole concept is so suited to the bargain-basement production values. The deliberate use of cheap blow-up plastic toys reminds me of how John Carpenter used a beach-ball for the alien in 'Dark Star'... instead of trying for something a bit more realistic and expensive looking, both directors choose to use their low budget to humorous effect by exaggerating the cheapness of the props.

Then there's the plot... oh yes, the plot.. umm... poaching Poe's plots and themes and whipping them up alongside fetishy gore-trash and terrible double-entendre jokes hardly makes for coherency. Other wild Russell films have much in common with this movie in its crazed mess of a plot... but that's not what we're here for. In fact, the disorientation is deliberate - we're being shown the muddled state of a crazed musician's mind, in great style and humour.

The cast (an a-z of 'underground') and all who took part were contributing their free time at weekends, and clearly having a huge laugh in the process. Tulip Junkie as Nurse ABC Smith stood out especially- a gorgeous, kinky, trashy presence. Russell's own performance as the deranged Dr. Caligari is, of course, hilarious - and central to the manic feel of the film.

Essentially an art movie put together with all the enthusiasm and messy imagination of a home movie, the fusion creates something entirely new, totally tripped-out and hopefully a great inspiration to any film-makers who worry that DV can't be used artistically, stylishly. Bravo Ken.

This movie, the 30 minutes or so of it I did watch, really filled me with horror. It is scary to think that this is Ken Russell without professional crew, editor, producer. The film really imparts the lesson that you do need a studio you do need backing you do need at least a few different expensive craftsmen for every pixel on the screen. I would be loathe to criticize Russell cause of his past work. Man Ray used to say that it is hypocritical of a critic to endorse one work by an artist then to reject another. But this movie looked like something you'd have to sit through at an underground film festival ca 1971 like Trisha's Wedding. And what moves me to speak badly of it is that although I doubt he meant to make this point, he has, and its not true. You don't need all the money in the world to make a great film you just need to take lots and lots of care or do lots and lots of shooting and lots and lots of cutting.

As far as using non actors to do scripted dialog, well George Kuchar does that a lot better too, using the awkwardness for comic effect rather than just having everyone yell constantly. But in the case of casting I think the ineluctable lesson is that unless you after a very particular kind of comedy, you shouldn't give non actors lots of scripted lines. The little darlings should be led by the nose through improvs into what looks like acting (in fact what often looks like very very good acting).

George Kuchar is a hugely important role model if you want to work outside the system. He has shot innumerable gorgeous films on 16 mm for say $600 per 20 minutes. He mostly works with video now.

As a lifelong admirer of Ken's work I was very disappointed with this film. Not in the making of the film using home video, not in Ken's artistic vision, but in the muddle that his scripts and latest written work have become. Take away the producer looking over his shoulders as a critical friend and you have the pensioner trying to regain his long-lost youth in a kind of disordered teenage romp. Parts of the film raised a smile but only in a kind of 'shouldn't he have got over that at the age of sixteen' sort of way. Ken is so much better than this and I look forward to Tesla & Katherine with anticipation. Best forget 'Louse', I think!

Thirty years ago, I sat in a movie theatre stunned to my very bones watching THE DEVILS. Director Ken Russell worked with big budgets and big stars then. Now, that's not the case, but the feeling of being stunned remains the same. FALL OF THE LOUSE OF USHER blows you away. It's as simple as that. Russell has made a low budget, feature length video with no producer or movie company looking over his shoulder. The result mystifies because, on one hand it's a puerile, tasteless, and totally delirious send up of just about everything connected with pop culture; on the other, it's a playfully mature work of art that can indeed be taken seriously if one can withstand its brutal and disorienting assault to probe the meaning of Russell's vision. It's like this: cross the Jackass boys with Jean Luc Godard and add a little ATTACK OF THE COCKFACED KILLER, and you get, relatively speaking, a point of departure for discussing this movie. Russell plays with his digital camera like a teenager in puberty, but the sophistication of an elderly artist is there, as well. This is not the least bit surprising to me when you consider Russell's obvious need to create. While others sit around and wait for the phone to ring, Russell gathers all these young folks at his house and goes for it. Given the ghastly state of most straight to video fare, much of which has been shot on video, one can only hope that those with money who produce will see the value of this director and let him go, go, go some more. The movie is great, and Ken Russell is even greater. Thank-you for stunning me so.

I'm not sure if it was because it was a slow Sunday afternoon or the fact that I'm having a thing for blokes with bad teeth (is that redundant?) but I didn't dislike this movie as much as I probably should have. I love Ken Russell...everything I have seen of his from The Boyfriend to The Devils.(We share birthdays!)I think that if a director is one of those filmmaker's who has a strong flavor, a distinct original style that one enjoys, it is hard to deny even his lesser moments. This movie is probably only for die hard Ken Russell fans like myself. I don't know anyone I would recommend this film to...but that is more of an insult to those I know than the movie itself.