suspiria56

Regardless of the subject matter or the music, this is a brilliant documentary, never anything other than subjective. Obviously I'm a fan-boy, loving the first album despite phasing out after the release of the SOME MIGHT SAY single and disliking the 2nd album with growing apathy with each release and the growing super-stardom that followed. The summer of '94 brings great memories, with friends, whirlwind romances, chemical discoveries, and what not, fun coming out me ear-holes, with Definitely Maybe sound tracking it. I'd managed to stave off the tracksuit image....just.....but it all felt real still. I'd grown sceptical of what the band later achieved and audiences that followed them. I guess it was inevitable, and call me a snob, but it was satisfying that last night this doc identified exactly what happened to Oasis, what they became, beyond any media promotion or shallow hipster idolisation. They simply haven't got the creative nous to produce further albums of greatness beyond that exhilarating debut (think the Pistols here also, like). And its for all to see up there on screen, the original bands awareness of themselves beyond the cocaine fuelled hedonism and, of course, the wealth. Of course it carried on as we know and the rest is history, a disappointing history for me, alas. Because Definitely Maybe is a f*cking mega album, end of. And this doc is too. Its not DiG! that the f*cking hipsters all think is great (Its not guys - its a shocking doc, but has great music). Its the real deal whether you like the band or not, an expose of EXACTLY what it must be like for a bunch of scallies from Burnage, with a love for hedonism and rock 'n' roll, who got marketed and became massive beyond their control. Mega! x.

Yet again we are fed the same old treatment for a new decade. (The American Nightmare treaded much the same ground previously). Watching this latest 'historic' instalment of how cinema's arguably finest and most effective genre came into fruition, feels like a retread, nothing new, nothing challenged. Granted the first half of the 20th century is covered with enthusiasm, but it is when contemporary American horror cinema is tackled does this documentary fall flat, with an approach almost like first year academia.

However, John Carpenter makes a perfect point mid-way through in that we give directors like Craven (for Last House on the Left) too much credit by saying that films like Last House on the Left was pure social commentary. Or like Eli Roth's criminally over rated Hostel. These are not great social comments on America.

Indeed, Last House on the Left is an excellent film, but it is an excellent exploitation film…and a film that can only be a product of its time - i.e. US cinema became more independent following the mid-60s boom, of which European cinema had been for many years. Before that, it had been controlled implicitly by a studio system. The horror genre will always thrive through independence.

With Hostel, it is again a product of its time (okay it has trite, spoon feeding themes in it, but still…). It is a reaction to how desensitised audiences have become with the genre, a marketable push again by Hollywood studios to cash in on real issues - it's painful really, and a reason why the sludge of American horror cinema at the moment is truly woeful.

Another point made here also was that the barrage of updates/remakes of 70s horror has become more gory and violent linked to events in the world ….don't give me that, it is purely that we are used to dumbed down violence, not just from news reports but by the need to shock and go one step further with what has previously been made, typified again by the US studio system (can you imagine a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre with no blood in it, ironically like the original - the studios wouldn't take the risk). The US studio system would remake anything if they could, but the marketable agenda is largely ignored. If the point was that these remakes reflected social ills, why is it that the slew of far Eastern horror, mainly from Korea and Japan, are tame versions of their original sources, not bloody, shocking versions. It is studio tactics, nothing more, nothing less. It is of no coincidence that the far Eastern originals are far superior, particularly as effective examples of the horror genre.

Ultimately, the real depth to US contemporary horror was missed here again with this doc. We've heard the same trite academic stances before, over and over, with no counter argument. It is worth noting, and ignored in this documentary, that 70's US exploitation cinema is just as important in the history of the American horror film. Exploitation cinema exists outside of the studio system, away from franchises, pushing boundaries and normal expectations, much in the same way that there is a wealth of amazing European exploitation films (Italy, Germany and Spain being obvious sources of origin, yet many more beside). This brought to American cinema, certainly through the advent of the drive-in cinema and grindhouse picture house, a tidal wave of cinema free to explore any avenue, upping the ante of what audiences consumed.

Despite its enthusiasm, and with the usual suspects (Carpenter, Romero, Dante et al) being interviewed, all this documentary really tells us is the historic arc of marketing the horror film….and for that motivation, misses the point entirely.

Now let me get this straight. I love extreme cinema.

The August Underground trilogy is something of a revered thing amongst lovers of gore, horror, and extreme cinema. Mordum, the 2nd part of the AU trilogy, is considered by many to be something of a milestone in those three areas.

Filmed in an ultra-real fashion and seeming like a 'snuff' film, it follows the paths of a gang of three who terrorise and murder various people over the course of a night (?). The film contains a constant barrage of abuse (sometimes the verbal shockingly more disturbing than the physical) as we witness numerous forms of torture and depravity. The protagonists portrayed are possible some of the vilest characters I have ever witnessed; the violence is amongst some of the strongest I have seen (baring in mind that at times the excellent special effects are sometimes exposed due to the zero budget here); and the tone and atmosphere is continually grim. And it is this constant atmosphere that made me revile this film like no other I have seen before it. Having witnessed, and often appreciated, the many examples of extreme cinema, I seemingly have found my limit. Even with last year's controversial A Serbian Film being a million miles away from being this disturbing. Possibly the closest feeling I have taken away from a film to this would be Salo: 120 Days of Sodom or the hard-to-find Snuff 102.

And that is exactly the point of the filmmakers' intentions, who clearly have a talent for this sort of thing (in fact, the latest from co-director Fred Vogel, Sella Turcica, is making ripples in the underground horror scene). But it is nasty and will ruin those not akin to this sort of thing. Although there is clearly not a chance of ever getting a release here in the UK anytime soon, and a cut form would be pointless.

I'm not saying that August Underground: Mordum is a terrible film, it's very effective indeed. I just don't think I have the stomach I clearly thought I had. It certainly shouldn't be banished away by the powers that be just because people can't 'handle' it. It has a place in cinema whether you or I like it or not.

So job done then, Toetag Pictures! Just keep telling yourself: "It's only a movie, it's only a movie, it's only a movie………."