Lot in Sodom

I could hardly spoil this, since everyone knows the story.

This film looks, as one writer here noted, as if it were made in Germany about 1920. The directors seem to have used all the special effects they knew, like neophytes. It is more ballet than conventional movie, using music, singing, voice-over and text (though some is in Latin) to augment the action.

I seem to recall that this group made their few films in Rochester, so perhaps they were connected with Kodak. Sorry I can't give a citation for that.

On the whole, the film is interesting as an historical glimpse into early independent work. A good film for stoners.

Having first seen the directors' 12min take on Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, I was looking forward to seeing this one too and wasn't disappointed at all. Though perhaps not quite up to the same level of artistic attainment as 'Usher' it is nevertheless very much in the same vein.

Like the 'Usher', the viewer should be familiar beforehand with the story on which it is based. In 1928, the directors, Watson and Webber, could have safely assumed the audience's knowledge of the biblical tale. (Interestingly, apart from the actual Genesis account, a phrase from the Song of Songs is also used when Lot is offering his daughters to the mob outside, desperately trying to convince them of the attractions of 'woman'). To complain that the film does not present the plot more overtly is beside the point, and almost a declaration of ignorance.

The basics of this tale (for those that know them) survive intact its retelling through the particularly distinctively visual, sometimes abstract or symbolic approach of Webber and Watson, and its protagonists are all clearly identifiable and well portrayed by the actors.

On the whole, a more accessible film than the 'Usher' film from the same directors. It bears, even demands, repeated watching. My only wish is that Webber and Watson had made more than just these two films together.

I saw Lot in Sodom at a film festival about eight years ago and was dazzled by its visuals. The film was shot in the early sound era and, like other films of that period by Dryer, Murnau, and others, the soundtrack is used for music, sound effects and occasional unintelligible words. This film is a must see for anyone interested in the virtuosic film work of the German and Soviet filmmakers of the late silent era as it is a rare example of similar work being done in America. The work's creators used the medium of film to its full potential rather than being content to use the camera to record visuals that could just as easily be seen on a stage.

I tried for years to get a copy of this film and wrote to companies to see if someone might release it on DVD. I am happy to now own a copy, review it repeatedly and share it with friends.

"Lot in Sodom" is a sensual depiction of the Sodom and Gomorrah story filled with sinewy and semi-clad bodies, delirious bacchanales devoted to physical pleasure, and a searing, cataclysmic visage depicting the fall of a city devoted to sins of the flesh.

Director James Sibley Watson was an heir to the Western Union telegraph fortune created by his grandfathers, Don Alonzo Watson and Hiram Sibley. He was many things throughout his life, including a medical doctor, but at this point in his life he was an experimenter in film.

This movie uses experimental techniques, avant-garde imagery and strong allusions to sexuality, especially homosexuality. While some of it is truly "avant-garde" and hard to decipher, much of it is very traditional. lot, in particular, looks exactly how you would expect a biblical figure to look.

I was pleasantly shocked when viewing this film for a class I'm taking.

All those beautiful images of bare-skinned men: you can't construct images like that without having a gay eye.

What we have here is the story of Lot: too much homosexuality and God will strike you down. But, in order to illustrate exactly what was/is so sinful, the filmmakers Watson and Webber, explicitly detail bare male bodies and the actions/emotions they inspire (from other bare male bodies).

At least one young man's glance directly into the camera is "cruising" glance.

And what beautiful men these Sodomites are! The actors were clearly carefully selected for their rippled bodies - and they seem to have no problem running around, chasing after each other. Clearly, there was some "camaraderie" among them. And, clearly, the filmmakers did not simply hold an open casting call and take whatever guys showed up. Those boys were "screened."

What really got me was the presumed "straight" men - Lot and a few others - are old and made-up (well, Lot is made-up) so as to appear very unattractive, unappealing.

What I took away from this film was a sense of "the world of gay men be 'sinful' but look how ugly the world of heterosexuals is." We must remember that this is "avant-garde" film: if it doesn't make sense to you, well then the filmmakers succeeded in their efforts. Pieces like this are meant more to evoke moods more than illustrate narratives. That said, "Lot in Sodom" is probably one of the few to maintain a recognizable narrative. (And that title - I could almost swear it's something of a joke - maybe "(A)Lot in Sodom"?)