Unmade Beds (1980)
from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
Between the mid 60's and the mid
80's, there was a massive amount of underground filmmaking coming out
of New York and Paris, most of it incoherent nihilistic gibberish
generated by guys who wanted to be Godard.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that the
world needed one Godard, let alone an entire movement, but Godard had
a very fine photographic eye, and so does Amos Poe, the director of
this film. The film can best be described as a series of black and
white photographs that move. As such, it can produce some striking
images which are reminiscent of Godard's films.
|Mind you now, the film is
made by a guy who wants to be Godard in 1980, and the subject matter is
a bunch of people who wanted to be Godard in 1959. This leads you to a
film which is possibly an homage to Godard, possible derivative of
Godard, and possibly a parody.
Probably not parody, because I don't
see much sign of a sense of humor, but if it isn't parody, it is a
pretty good unintentional one. Do you remember how SCTV used to make
fun of Bergman? Well, if SCTV wanted to make fun of Godard, what would
be in the film?
- a bunch of guys wearing sunglasses
and horizontal-striped shirts, sitting around smoking cigarettes in
- obviously posed shots. Here's the
cover: a guy sits in a peacock chair in his underpants and socks,
smoking an unfiltered cigarette, wearing a scarf, his sunglasses
tilted up to the crown of his head. Next to him, a woman in 1950's
style lingerie, ala Anna Magnani in The Fugitive Kind. (By the way,
the woman is Debby Harry, of Blondie fame, and she plays a character
Well, that's what you have here.
Homage or parody? Beats me.
Now that I think about it, Godard was
probably engaged in a lifetime of irony and self-parody anyway, so
parodying him would be a pretty pointless task.
The film looks pretty cool when you
view the stills gallery, but it's just typical pointless rambling,
which must reflect the pointless rambling of our universe, or
something like that. Frankly, the great wisdom of the film must be too
deep for me.
- With their
IMDB summary: not enough IMDb voters
to generate a score
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this description, this
film is a D. I can't recommend it as a worthwhile way to pass
your time. It has some very evocative and interesting
photography, but cinema is, after all, more than just people
posing for photographs. Or is it?
the Movie House home page