Showing posts with label Heinz Hopf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heinz Hopf. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 09, 2014
WINTER OF DISCONTENT: Exponerad
I’d had it on good authority that Gustav Wiklund’s ‘Exponerad’ (a.k.a. ‘Exposed’) was the ne plus ultra of Swedish erotica, though – looking back – no other reason was offered than the presence of Christina “is that a bazooka in your pocket or do you just have a functional libido” Lindberg.
Nor, to be perfectly honest, have I undertaken a rigorous enough study of Swedish erotica to offer an educated opinion*. So, for the purposes of this evening’s review, let’s assume that ‘Exponerad’ (a.k.a. ‘The Depraved’) is indeed the high point of the genre – the Beethoven’s 9th of the top shelf, the ‘Ring Das Niebelungen’ of the dirty mac brigade – and see how it measures up to its fearsomely priapic reputation.
In doing so – in fact, in discussing ‘Exponerad’ (a.k.a. ‘Diary of a Rape’) in any remotely worthwhile detail – it’s necessary that I hoist the jolly SPOILER ALERT.
You see, there’s two levels on which to read ‘Exponerad’ (that’s “read” as in “watch”, by the way; and that’s “watch” as in “feel ashamed of yourself”):
1. As a rites-of-passage genre in which an impressionable 17-year-old gets passed from dippy boyfriend to free-spirited couple to Svengali-esque manipulator who hosts sex parties, blackmails our heroine with nude photos and generally acts like a right nasty bastard who, once he’s got his claws into her, won’t let go …
… which is to say, for much of its running time, ‘Exponerad’ (I’m all out of alternative titles, by the way) is kind of like what ‘Lolita’ would have been if it had been written by a particularly filthy-minded Swede, the titular heroine was four years older, and Humbert Humbert was devoid of all his wit and wordplay and wore crap turtleneck sweaters;
or:
2. As the incredibly boring story of a moony 17-year-old who, left alone while her parents go off on a long weekend, constructs an elaborate fantasy life in order to stave off the dullness. Albeit an elaborate fantasy life which involves being sexually objectified, blackmailed, pawed over by a total gimp of a boyfriend (Bjorn Adelly) and even-worsed-over by a stalker-ish older man (Heinz Hopf). Which, I’ve got to say, is nowhere near the sort of fantasy I’d construct if I had a few days to kill and nothing better to do with them. Actually I’d spend them surfing the net for downloads of these kind of movies and writing about them for the blog.
Subject of which, back to business. ‘Exponerad’ (a.k.a. ‘Fuck You, Dude Who Recommended This POS’) starts with Lena (Lindberg) arguing with the BF; he slaps her and she walks off sullenly. Walks to the outskirts of town where she hitches a lift from a middle-aged businessman who forces himself on her … then drops her off a few minutes later with a cheery smile. Each of these incidents is accompanied by a wash of faded white light across the screen (how can white be faded, you ask? it was a crappy print) at which point it occurred to me – I’d like to say suddenly, but actually I saw it coming like an ocean liner on a duck pond – that they existed purely in Lena’s imagination.
As the film went on, there was a lot more faded light washing across the screen.
While there are some films that play their ultimate “it was all in the protagonist’s head” card to devastating effect (entries on Fincher and Scorsese’s filmographies spring to mind) and leave the audience reeling, ‘Exponerad’ – which could have been a suitably sleazy study of a nymphet finding herself in above her head; ‘Exponerad’, which could have built towards a tense, nasty woman-in-peril finale; ‘Exponerad’, which could have been the jewel in the crown of its starlet’s limited CV – not only benefits in no discernible way from using this device but is actually a weaker film for it.
So, yeah. ‘Exponerad’. SPOILERS END. Ditto this review. With one caveat: to he who made the recommendation – there’s a bus leaving town in an hour; be under it.
*Expressions of disbelief and outright sarcasm may be logged in the comments section. That's what it's there for.
Monday, November 15, 2010
WINTER OF DISCONTENT: Thriller - A Cruel Picture
INT. Evening. NEIL’s den. Enter NEIL JNR.
NEIL JNR: Daddy?
NEIL: Yeah?
NEIL JNR: Why didn’t you tell me you’ve got a blog?
NEIL: Er, you know about my blog? You can use a computer?!?
NEIL JNR: Daddy, I’m five, sure I can use a computer. I didn’t know you could.
NEIL: Does Mommy know you’ve seen my blog?
NEIL JNR (shaking head): Uh-uh.
NEIL: Best we keep it that way, son.
NEIL JNR: Daddy?
NEIL: Yeah?
NEIL JNR: What’s an exploitation movie?
NEIL: Well, son, it’s a cheaply made motion picture, usually designed to cash in on the popularity of an already established genre, albeit with a greater focus on, say, graphic violence or explicit nudity. Like all categories of cinema, the exploitation film has certain subgenres, such as nunsploitation, Nazisploitation, carsploitation, rape/revenge or women in prison films.
NEIL JNR: Daddy, you’re using words of more than one syllable. I’m five, damn it. WHAT’S AN EXPLOITATION MOVIE?
NEIL: See this DVD?
NEIL JNR: The lady on the cover is real pretty. Almost as pretty as Mommy.
NEIL: Yes, she is Her name’s Christina.
NEIL JNR: What’s the movie about?
NEIL: Let’s watch it together and find out.
CUT TO:
107 minutes later.
NEIL JNR (hysterically): Mommmmmmeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
And here’s everything you always wanted to know about ‘Thriller – A Cruel Picture’ but were afraid to ask. It’s all at David Zuzelo’s magnificently lurid site Tomb It May Concern. This guy is a veritable encyclopaedia on the film and it’s not for nothing that he’s credited on the 2004 Synapse Films DVD release.
The plot – a join the dots narrative of all things unpleasant – goes like this: as a little girl, Frigga is sexually abused by a dirty old man, the trauma of which leaves her mute. Fifteen years later, Frigga (Christina Lindberg) is all grown up and womanly with it but still unable to speak. Her parents, poor but honest farmers, spend money they can ill afford sending her to the big city for appointments with a specialist. One fateful day, she misses the bus and accepts a ride from a sophisticated and worldly-wise gentleman named Tony (Heinz Hopf) who –
Oh, who the fuck am I kidding? Writer/producer/director Bo Arne Vibenius tries to suggest that the naïve and trusting Frigga is taken in by the suave and affluent Tony, but honestly if you’d been assaulted by a dodgy bearded guy as a kid would you really trust someone who looks like this …
(If it wasn’t for the spliced in hardcore porn scenes, this would easily be the most offensive part of the film.)
Anyway, Frigga pays the price for trusting a fucking classless prick who not only dines at shit restaurants where the maitre d’ looks like a bouncer and they don’t know a champagne flute from a fucking sorbet glass (sorry to bang on about this!) but has a bachelor pad that looks like this …
The long and the short of it is, Frigga ends up strung out on smack and forced to work as a hooker. Tony, ever the consummate businessman, forces her to sign a contract. This done, he appends her signature to a letter to her parents stating that she never wants to see them again. All ties severed and Frigga dependent upon Tony’s daily fix, she’s put to work. The idea of disrobing for her first client doesn’t go down too well with her and she claws his face to shreds. Tony persuades her not to commit such a social faux pas again. That’s “persuades” as in “takes a scalpel and puts her eye out with it”. Frigga spends the rest of the movie modelling matching eyepatches (and inspiring Tarantino’s Elle Driver homage in ‘Kill Bill’).
First day off, Frigga hops a bus into the country to go and visit her folks. She’s in time for the funeral procession. Distraught at Tony’s letter, they’ve topped themselves. Which seems a bit drastic. Personally, I’d have wondered if the letter wasn’t written under duress and filed a missing persons report with the police. But, hey, that’s just me.
Devasted, Frigga returns to Tony’s employ. And again, that isn’t the course of action I’d have opted for. Okay, so there’s the whole strung out on smack/nowhere to go now the folks are riding the night train to the big adios, but there are still other options open. Y’know: police, social services, methadone clinics, selling your story to the media for megabucks and checking into a private clinic. That kinda thing.
But, no. Frigga goes about things differently. Next day off, she takes some karate lessons …
Now imagine that the fat-boy-treats-Frigga-like-a-piece-of-meat scenes incorporate hardcore footage of vaginal and anal penetration, and ejaculation.
Vibenius apparent cut this footage in thinking it would boost the film’s overseas sales. Oooops, shot yourself in the foot there, old son.
I tend, albeit very slightly, to the second school of thought. I’d probably subscribe to it wholeheartedly if the revenge element of things wasn’t so flawed.
Apparently, Vibenius opted for the use of slo-mo to disguise Lindberg’s awkwardness in a martial arts scene. Unfortunately, instead of just using it sparingly in this one instance (or perhaps varying the speed of the slo-mo footage a la Peckinpah to create an impressionistic montage isolating the moment of death and fixing the human cost to both the victim and the killer never mind the moral imperative or bastardization thereof that occasioned the killing), he uses it during every fucking gunfight Frigga instigates (and there are plenty of them) and uses the same speed every time.
According to this review, Vibenius filmed at something like 1,000 frames per second which, in layman’s terms, means that in the time it takes Frigga to shoot someone or a kick a policeman in the face, you can leave the DVD running, make a cup of tea, nip out to the corner shop for a pack of biscuits to have with it, check your email, finish writing that letter to your mum, read a couple of chapters of a Stephen King novel, trim your toenails and still be back in front of the screen before the body’s hit the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



