Lot in Sodom

This is a very strange film - so strange that if you don't know the story beforehand, it won't make any sence at all. It is filmed uniquely (lost of special camera effects), using minimal intertitles. The subject matter is racy, to say the least, and you get to see plenty of skin from beautiful people. is it a fantastic movie? not especially, but worth seeing.

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 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.

This is one of the longer films in Kino's 2-Disc "Avant-Garde" collection, also among the more notorious and, in retrospect, disagreeable. The title obviously refers to the Old Testament episode depicting the destruction of the immoral twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; it is very probable that this was made in the wake of the contemporaneous Cecil B. De Mille epics of Biblical lore but, in the long run, their hokey and unsubtle approach is vastly preferable to what is on offer here!

Its multiplicity of slowed-down images comes across as mere ostentation; otherwise, there is a concentrated striving for authenticity: Lot is recognizably a Jewish stereotype, the archaic intertitles direct quotes from Scriptures and, most importantly, the overt gay perspective corresponds to the 'historical' reason behind the obliteration (a rare instance of this, by the way, here surely at its first representation)… but which was clearly what the film-makers were interested in portraying to begin with, thus distorting the point of the entire narrative!

For the record, the directorial duo had previously been responsible for the lesser of the two rival 1928 film versions of THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER and the film under review unaccountably ranked among the year's Top 10 in the annual "National Board Of Review" selections!

This surreal short film is based on the text from the bible concerning the fall of sodom and gomorrah.

But the film does not tell this story in traditional manner, instead opting for a more esoteric, surreal tone and style.

There are graphic depictions of sexual behaviour, homosexuality, that must have been very controversial at the time when this film was made. And I suppose, still is in certain countries.

There are some strikingly beautiful visuals in this shortfilm and the use of experimenting film techniques makes it film way ahead of its time.

Should be seen by anyone interested in early avantgarde cinema.