52 Pick-Up # 10 – Z (1969)

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up.

And for anyone who's reading this because they read last week before the edit and are now thinking 'What the Hell? Where's Multiple Maniacs?', I will explain once again – simple human error. I mentally flipped which movie to which point in the schedule. Multiple Maniacs will be coming up next week, but I didn't want to skip this movie, because damn I'm glad I rolled it.

So, once again, as some may have missed it, I will recycle the set-up from before – if I had a nickel for every European movie from 1969 that I've watched this year that aged uncomfortably well, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice.

Without further ado, let's get into Costa-Gavras's political thriller Z.

While I'm falling on my sword this week, I have to take this moment, in discussing what this movie is about, to say it took me way too long to realize this inadvertently dovetails with last week's movie. Like In the Realm of the Senses, Z is its directors stylized take inspired by a true story – in this case, the assassination of Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis and the events that came immediately after.

That origin in reality is a good place to start this review, especially as Gavras begins his movie with the statement 'Any similarity to real people or incidents is not coincidental. It is intentional.' Despite this, unlike Oshima, Gavras doesn't present this as the original Lambrakis story (adding to this, Gavras also took inspiration from other acts of political violence, such as the disappearance of Mehdi Ben Barka) but instead keeps many of the details in his telling ambiguous. We get some generalized names, but a country is not specified, and those characters who are named receive a first name only. It's a move that has helped add to how this movie has aged, as even while it can be compared to a single incident, the open nature of the place and time makes it feel relatable beyond just Greece of the 1960s.

Honestly, I feel like that's the part of this that stuck with me the most – despite the movie being over 50 years old, and the incident that inspired it even further back, Gavras's film still feels relevant nowadays. It's not even a single moment or element. Right from the start, there's a sense of how little has changed, as the movie begins with a scene of a government meeting which starts off talking about combating mildew on vines and then pivots to using the same language for ideologies they disagree with.

A sample of some of the 'mildew' they refer to needing to
eliminate.
Yeah, it's sad we keep letting these guys have power 50+ years on.

Many of these characters don't appear again for much of the rest of the movie, but this scene echoes through much of what follows. From the government offices where higher ups loftily speak of opposing views with the same degree of disdain as molds, we head to the other end of where their ethos takes hold in the form of protests against a government deputy (Yves Montand) who is advocating for nuclear disarmament. Cutting to specific figures among the crowd, it isn't long before Gavras shows us that these are people ready for violence and just waiting for the right opportunity to kick it off – even if they have to do so themselves.

That becomes the parallel that drives the movie – the 'civilized' disdain of the right wing leaders at the top and the antagonistic street violence on the ground, at first presented in contrast, are soon presented to all be part and parcel of the same larger political undertaking. The leaders can happily talk of their opponents as simply dirt or mold because their own rank and file people are the ones who will dirty their hands to deal with them (and, if necessary, take the fall for the cause.)

I'm trying not to get too into the details on this, because, despite the age of this movie, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it. Especially because I would argue it is incredibly worth seeing. Not just for the relevance (though that is a big part of it), but also as this is in general a well made thriller in its own right. Besides the very palpable sense of anger Gavras imbues this movie with for the abuses those in power inflict with little to no meaningful consequence, it is also a genuinely tense, well made movie that keeps you engaged with seeing how far it will all go and to what end.

As an additional general note goes – the title of this movie comes from an actual political sentiment from Greece at the time, a shorthand referral to Lambrakis said to mean 'He lives.' It feels both encouraging and sadly appropriate as a title nowadays. Encouraging for the feeling that, even in death, the ideals of people like Lambrakis (or his fictional on-screen counterpart) continue on after their death. Sad as it also applies to the above mentioned feeling of anger Gavras works into this movie. Even over half a century later, the maneuvers in this movie feel sadly familiar, even as the technology changes, the plays remain the same. Even more familiar than the strategies, however, are the consequences – those in power see their opponents discredited, cast aside, or flat out killed, and suffer no real meaningful losses, save for the occasional resignation or a foot soldier who has to be sent to prison. They repeatedly get caught in abuses of their authority and are then left free to keep right on abusing them.

Tale as old as time, as it were.

Okay, that was a bit more of a downer note than I intended to go out on, but it's hard not to feel a bit gloomy with this movie (he said after endorsing people watch it. Hey, not every moviegoing experience needs to be about comfort.)

In all seriousness, this is a very worthwhile movie. Just, maybe have something light for a chaser afterward.

Speaking of which, next week, as promised it's back to Uncharted Waters with the movie that arguably ushered in the rise of Divine as a force in Dreamland lore – it's Multiple Maniacs.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up #9 - In the Realm of the Senses (1976)

 You know, its funny? We go into February light on the romance and then start picking up just as the month ends. Then we come into March with another story of--

Oh.

OH.

Well, this is certainly going to be a different take, but then this project is all about trying something different.

So, before we get into this movie, I'm gonna start with a disclaimer, both for the audience and to cover my own backside on this one. This week's entry, as stated last time and above, is on Nagisa Oshima's controversial 1976 movie In the Realm of the Senses. For anyone not familiar with this, it's a movie with a reputation for its rather frank depictions of sexual acts – most infamously scenes of unsimulated sex between some of the performers.

Okay, so TECHNICALLY the Japanese title
for this roughly translates to Bullfight
of Love

I'm going to be trying to keep this worksafe (or as worksafe as I can), but if this is something you'd rather not stick around for, I can understand on that. Feel free to come back next time if you step out though – in a rare courtesy for those checking out early, next week continues the journey into Uncharted Waters with his sophomore feature Multiple Maniacs.

EDIT - Okay, it hit me at work earlier that I realized I made a mistake in the schedule. Multiple Maniacs is coming, but it won't be for another week. My apologies, as we all know, this year has been a lot.
Which is kind of fitting in light of what next week actually is - to borrow the oft-used internet paraphrase: If I had a nickel for every international feature from 1969 that feels hauntingly relevant to watch 57 years later, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice. Next week will be the Costa-Gavras political thriller Z.

So, to recap - Z next week, Multiple Maniacs the week after.

Okay. Now you know for next time. Hopefully will see you then. Not looking to change this format so much in the future.

Now then – on with the main feature.

Like I was saying above, this is a fairly controversial movie for this selection, particularly with regards to its depictions of sex. Watching it I was getting flashes of some of the recent discourse in some circles of the internet regarding the question of necessity for sex scenes in film and it felt like as good a jumping off point as any for this particular title.

First, as a general thought on this question, I frequently find myself at odds with this topic. Partly because this question seems to be predominantly raised towards sexual content, nowhere near as often is it applied to questions of language or violent content, creating a weird question of what has artistic merit vs what doesn't. Which comes to the much larger part of why I tend to take exception to this question – it presents a scenario where art is treated as an algorithmic formula. The question of 'necessary' basically presents a scenario where everything exists only to serve a particular need. Now granted, there's times I'll look at something in a movie and say, for my part, it feels excessive or needless – but that's all in execution. One movie's overkill is another movie's effective hammering of a point, and it's all a matter of context and how it's done, and the idea that there's a universal standard here feels antithetical to the whole undertaking.

Okay, now just let me take a moment to climb off my soap box and we can get back to how this ties in to today's movie.

This isn't quite as caption iffy as The Damned,
but damn, I can't find a safe word joke here
I don't come away from thinking 'This is a little much'

For context for anyone not familiar with it – In the Realm of the Senses is Nagisa Oshima's own stylistic telling of the real story of Sada Abe – a geisha in 1930s Japan who began an affair with her employer, Kichizo Ishida. Their relationship culminated in her murder of the man, after which – to put it politely – she removed his wedding tackle and carried it with her. In the years since, the case has been subject of no shortage of art and speculation, with Oshima's being but one of many pieces inspired by the story.

With that context, and in regards to the above question, I would say that yes, In the Realm of the Senses can be argued to be a movie where one can argue the sexual content is necessary. It certainly won't be to everyone's tastes, but one would be hard pressed to say it has no narrative significance, both in terms of the on screen facts of the story as well as thematically.

Oshima focuses his telling specifically on the relationship between Sada and Kichizo (often shortened to just Kichi in the movie) and how their relationship is defined primarily through the sex they experience together. Thematically, this becomes one of the most interesting elements of the movie, because throughout the movie, Oshima has characters using sex as a way of conveying power. Kichizo, for example, is presented as someone who frequently engages in sexual activities with geishas or hired help. In most cases, he is the one dictating the actions in what's being performed.

Operative word most – enter Sada. Sada is presented by Oshima early on as a character who uses her sexuality as a means of power. This is established even before she begins her relationship with Kichizo with a set of scenes involving a vagrant that apparently knew Sada from her past as a prostitute. He is presented as ultimately powerless and begging her for attention. When she finally does grant him that audience, to her amusement, he is utterly unable to perform. It's an effective way of helping really convey that sex is how Sada wields power, and she is aware of it and not afraid to use it.

...and then there's this scene.
Just...again, this kind defies captions.

It's that confidence, and awareness of it, that makes it so when she and Kichizo meet, she clearly becomes the more dominant of the two. It's not explicitly presented in their relationship like that wording would suggest – it's in the broader sense that Sada doesn't simply comply with Kichizo's various proposed experiments, and instead approaches them first as his equal, then as the one leading the relationship.

This all leading to the final act, where Sada is the active component in their sexual activities as Kichizo becomes more and more passive. By the time he comes to his end, he is literally just lying there as Sada carries out the fateful final activities that make up the movie's finale.

I'm sure someone could still try to argue the sexual content of this movie as unnecessary, but I would continue to disagree. You could, in theory, make a sex-free version of Sada's story, but it wouldn't be remotely the same movie, save for coming from the same point of inspiration.

If you've not seen this before, and aren't put off by what's been said here so far, I would recommend seeking this out. It's definitely not a movie for everyone, but Oshima makes this truly engaging without feeling like he's just trying to shock or titillate. It's present, and often graphic, but in the service of a larger theme.

With that, I can't help but be amused that I'm going from a defense of a very sexual, but artistic movie, into another round in John Waters's earlier transgressive phase of filmmaking.

So, once again, Multiple Maniacs, Z. Next week.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up # 8 – Valley Girl (1983)

Welcome back for another round of 52 Pick Up.

Hey, they can't all be witty and topical.

As I said at the start of this month, I was leaving an opening for an outside vote to my wife for a title a month. For the record, next month's roll, save for its Waters tag-in, has no substitutions. The exact response I got when showing the list to see if she wanted the option was, and I quote, 'Hell yeah, I am here for ALL of this.'

Something fun to keep in mind as next month unfolds.

In the meantime, this week marks her first substitution pick, and I have to admit, this is one I was very pleasantly surprised by. Without further ado, let's get into Martha Coolidge's 1983 romantic comedy Valley Girl.

The pitch for those not familiar with this one: the movie introduces us to Julie, our titular valley girl (Deborah Foreman) fresh off breaking things off with her jerkish (to put it mildly) boyfriend. Over the course of a few encounters, she crosses paths with Randy (Nicolas Cage in one of his first major roles), a good natured, if awkward, punk who she hits it off with. After a memorable night out, the two navigate back and forth over whether their relationship has a future, balancing their own feelings with the pressures of their different social backgrounds.

One particular thought before I go into the movie itself – it is fascinating to watch a movie like this in 2026. Not in a bad 'look at how out of date this is' way, but rather to look at this and remember the period when Nicolas Cage was generally seen as a working actor. In particular it's a perspective check to remember that he had a period of the better part of two decades where he had standing as a romantic lead in a number of different styles of movie – and often he was good in the roles to boot.

I'm not saying this to disparage the Age of Cage that we live in. It's a fun time and that particular brand of over-the-top bonkers can be a lot of fun with the right movie. But it's nice to remember he's got those other acting modes in him and that he can still flex those roles nowadays, even if he doesn't get to as often (I can't count it here, but if you've not seen the movie Pig, it is an excellent turn for him and easily a career best.)

By today's standard, the most memetic thing about this
Cage performance is just his punk look.

I bring this up as a way to go into my main takeaway for this movie. As I've discussed here in some write-ups in the past, over time, I've kind of tempered how I look at some movies. Yes, I still will occasionally vent my let down expectations towards some movies, but as I've gotten older, I try not to judge a film on what I wanted it to be if that isn't what I was getting from it. The other side of this coin means there has been many a movie I have watched and I can see that alternate version that wouldn't work. That version where the director was just that little bit more cynical or risk averse or the cast just wasn't up to the task or any number of takes which would have taken the components and made them not work.

I say this as my way of saying I can see a version of Valley Girl that would have been an excruciating watch. A story of two people who I would not have given the proverbial hoot for despite the movie's insistence I should. An empty, vapid, grating story of two teenage archetypes being lovelessly mashed together.

As you can imagine, this is my way of saying, thankfully, this is not that movie. There's a reason I called this a pleasant surprise above and I'm happy with how much of this movie worked for me.

I tried to think of a Frank Zappa joke for this,
but just can't quite get it there without going way too
far out of the way for it.

Right at the top of what makes this work - our two leads. In general, the cast for this movie works, but with a premise like this, it would live or die on how well these two work together. In that regard, Foreman and Cage do a lot for keeping these roles as people you want to follow. Foreman's Julie, from the start, is presented as having a bit more on her mind than the archetypal valley girl tropes, even if she seems unsure how to really express that. Because she has that nuance early on, it helps keep her journey engaging rather than having her be someone who has to grow out of a broader stereotype. Likewise, Cage's Randy could have been seen as a lot more of a jerkish character – the fact he is presented to us instead as more of a awkward/charming guy who just happens to be more at home on the fringe helps keep him from being a 'what would someone see in this guy?' figure. In fact, his invitation to Julie to experience life outside of the valley is presented all around as a good way to set up their relationship – neither party is being overtly judging, she's interested in seeing more of life outside of her world, and he's happy to show it to her.

Beyond our leading couple, most of the rest of the cast also do well dodging the pitfalls of being stock characters. Julie's friends (including a pre-voiceover role by E.G. Daily) mean well (okay, most of them) and if they can be guilty of anything, it's just being a little less curious of that larger world compared to Julie. Their attempts to get her back on the more socially acceptable track aren't out of cruelty as much as simply not realizing she wants more than this. Likewise, Randy's friend Fred is occasionally weird, but the movie is careful to keep him from ever being framed as a charming creepy as much as a guy who is just not so great at picking up social cues, but when push comes to shove will still do the right thing, even if not in the best way. Even Julie's parents (Colleen Camp and Frederic Forrest) are presented as dancing the line between archetypes – in their case the former hippies who got 'respectable', but still keep their roots in wellness – but giving them enough moments of genuine human feeling to keep them likable

I know it's not actually him, but it is kind of
distracting to me how much Fred reminds me of
Gerrit Graham

Alongside the cast, Martha Coolidge is similarly keyed in to the necessary balancing act to keep this watchable. This was kind of surprising to realize on finding out this was her sophomore directorial effort after an earlier feature that was decidedly less light and fun (though given what Not a Pretty Picture is about, I'd be genuinely disturbed if she DID make that light and fun.) She takes to the comedic side of this movie well and getting her cast working with the material well.

For the most part. If I'm being fair there are a couple of beats that do feel a little bit off in the larger mix. For an early, example, the movie mostly keeps Julie's ex at a reasonable level of jerk, but there is a moment early on that dips into genuine creep territory that winds up feeling somewhat out of place with a lot of what comes later. Not in a way where I'd say it ruins the movie, but it is a moment that you almost feel like should result in some harsher karmic comeuppance for him than what he ultimately gets, as the act is unknown to all but the character he carries this out on. Likewise, there is a subplot involving one of Julie's friends and her stepmom competing for the feelings of a man that feels somewhat out of step with the overall tone of the rest of the movie. Again, not in a way that kills things, but it is definitely a weird vibe that the movie keeps checking in on and I wonder if this was a remnant of a larger storyline from an earlier draft that got whittled down and maybe should have just been scrapped in the finished product.

Having said that, again, these beats are odd, but don't weigh the movie down too much. To put it another way, they ding the movie rather than fully denting it, and the pros definitely outweigh the cons on this.

Incidentally, one other big pro for this – the soundtrack. This is one of those that's up there with Fast Times at Ridgemont High (also an early Nic Cage movie, come to think of it) as just getting a good slice of 80s music that works both for the movie in general as well as being enjoyable in its own right. Even if you opt to skip out on the movie, the soundtrack is still worth a listen for a good 80s selection.

I'm still surprised how much I liked this. Not one of the best have seen, but it has a lot of charm and goodwill going for it, and it's nice to watch this and remember there was a time when people looked at Nicolas Cage and thought “This guy can be a charming, likable romantic lead.”

I mean, yeah, I still love the weirdo Cage, but it is nice to remember he had this phase.

With that, February is coming to a close here, but the draws continue as 2026 continues its weird, wild, sometimes horrifying journey.

To anyone out there who has been missing the international flavor of January, good news – next month is starting things off going abroad, with a combination even I didn't fully see coming.

From a combination of French and Japanese filmmaking – it's the story of one woman's erotic journey from Osaka to Tokyo, it's Nagisa Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses.

Till next time.

52 Pick-Up #7 – Cry-Baby (1990)

So, guess who got excommunicated after last week?

Come to think of it, CAN you even be excommunicated from an evangelical church? Sorry, my whole point of reference is growing up Catholic.

Then again, not even sure if that could happen anyway since I'm not really affiliated anywhere these days, nor was the movie that especially transgressive regarding the church (and since I've already seen The Devils, I can't count it for this, so back to the drawing board.)

So in the meantime, how about some John Waters?

As I said at the beginning of the month, this entry marks the first in my series of addressing the titles in the John Waters filmography I have not yet seen – a mini-run I am informally titling Uncharted Waters that will be running now till August. Kicking things off, it's his 1950s musical throwback Cry-Baby.

Okay, this is kind of one I was bracing myself for. Not because it's bad or even considered bad as much as this movie has something of an elephant in the room nowadays care of its lead actor.

For the record, I do think Johnny Depp is giving a good performance in this movie, so don't take this as criticism just for his being there, particularly at this point in his life and career. If there's one thing Waters has been good at in choosing big name performers, it's getting people that can sync up to the wavelength of whatever project he's working on (see also, Kathleen Turner's phenomenal performance in Serial Mom), and in this regard, Depp fits this particular role like a glove.

So with those thoughts of his particular involvement in this movie factored in, here's what I'm gonna do. As you scroll down, you will see a picture of Willem Dafoe as a prison guard in this movie (and, one of two performances I would call one-scene wonders that just absolutely steal the moment.) Past this particular point, I'm going to just say my piece on this particular subject and that will be the end of it. Should this come up in a future installment (which it might, I've been circling adding some Jarmusch to the queue), I'll just link people back to this rather than go over it all again.

So when you see Dafoe, if you wish to avoid this topic, keep scrolling. At the end, you will see Dafoe again. At that point, you're all clear to keep reading.

Okay?

Okay.

Now everyone look busy, here comes the guard!

I'll just come right out with it – damn, it's frustrating watching this performance nowadays. Again, this is through no fault of its own. Depp is good in this role, he gets what it's going for and he doesn't try to be above the more openly silly parts of the persona.

Which is frustrating because watched in 2026, it really hits that this version of him is gone. To be clear, I'm not putting this on the allegations. I feel like he could be offered a gig again tomorrow and it still wouldn't feel like a 'he's back' moment because it honestly feels like this energy left him long before any accusations really stuck.

That is one of the other awkward things about this topic – when you really dig in, the reports of questionable behavior and substance abuse had been floating in the ether for a long time before the particular accusation that really took hold surfaced. In many cases, they were ignored or shrugged off as the bad boy actions of a younger star. More importantly, a younger star who still made bank. If there is one lesson that has remained the most consistent in terms of which actors get comebacks and which ones flame out, it's that there are very few sins in Hollywood as great as wasting other people's money. After all, we've seen some actors who have done some INSANELY sketchy things (one of whom is currently up for an Oscar this year) but they still manage the return on investment, so they get to stay in the picture.

(Okay, Jared Leto remains the anomaly as his career continues even as it hemorrhages money, but the fact he's been putting up the funds himself lately raises the question of how much longer that will continue.)

Anyway, back to my initial point. When I say that version of Depp is gone, I'm feeling like it was gone years before the particular allegation. I say this as someone who was in his 20s in the 2000s. Someone who saw the man's repeated collaborations with Tim Burton go from a source of great anticipation to increasingly exasperated sighs of “Again?!” Someone who remembers the schlock entries like Transcendence and Secret Window (and let's not even get started on Mortdecai.) Yes, there was Pirates, but even that went from feeling like a fresh reminder of juice in the tank to something that felt like it devolved into broad shtick as became more and more the Captain Jack Show.

In short – I look at a movie like this and I just remember all that promise that got frittered away over the course of a decade or so from any number of poor professional decisions long before any questions of his personal life came to the fore.

Okay. There's Dafoe. We can get back to talking about Cry-Baby now.

As far as the rest of the cast of this movie is concerned – again, Waters knows how to put together a good team. In this case, I kind of feel a bit bad for Depp and Locane as the leads, because while they're good, they're also the more grounded characters, and as a result get somewhat drowned out by their more colorful co-stars. I can think of several here would love to give particular shout-outs to – Iggy Pop and Susan Tyrell are both a welcome dash of crazy as our hero's uncle and grandmother, as is Mink Stole as another actor alongside Dafoe who gets one scene and makes a meal out of it. That said, if I had to single out a particular standout here, it's Kim McGuire as the fan favorite character nicknamed 'Hatchet-Face.' In true Waters fashion, McGuire comes into the film with a distinct look and genuine 'holy shit' energy that creates the dilemma of if the movie needed more of her or if the fact we don't get more of her just makes her scenes that much better.

Again, it speaks to Stole as a Dreamland regular that
Waters can give her a scene where she's in an iron lung,
puffing on a cigarette, and she can still make it memorable.

Besides the casting? The movie is overall good, but if I'm really being put to it, I'm kind of putting this on the lower end of what I've seen of Waters's work (though, to be fair, even lower end Waters is still a good time and this is still holding together better than Mondo Trasho, which has its moments but also has a lot of 'first feature' rough edges to it.) It's good, but it doesn't quite hit the audacity of his earlier movies, and even of the more mainstream work, it doesn't really feel quite as strong or memorable as films like Hairspray or Serial Mom do on either side of it. Even as a musical, a lot of the tunes in this just didn't really make an impact (to the point where I can kind of see why the subsequent attempt to make this into a stage musical just opted to forego the movie's entries and make their own songs.)

I have to admit, I feel a little bad that this is the first draw in this that really netted some genuine criticisms, because there are a number of things to recommend in it. But, at the same time, I'm also looking at this as less 'this is bad' and more I graded this on a curve with other Waters movies and it just didn't measure up as well. Honestly, I feel like if I came to this earlier in my dive into his work, I might have warmed up to it more. I'd still say it's worth the watch – and not just to be a completist – but will maintain I've seen Waters make stronger impressions.

To paraphrase her own words - 
There's nothing wrong with her face,
she's got character
...and a big knife. That helps too.

Of course, there's still five more movies, so there's a chance I may eat my words in the future, but we'll see. If this is as low as we go, I'm still calling this one an all around win.

In the meantime, we've got one more to go for February, and this marks the first select from my wife as well as the first invocation of another bonkers legend of Hollywood – the great Nicolas Cage.

Hope to see you all next week for the 1983 Martha Coolidge movie Valley Girl.

Till then

52 Pick-Up #6 – Marjoe (1972)

Welcome back and praise the Lord for another round of 52 Pick-Up.

Okay, sorry, had to get that one out of my system. I can't really say I've found that old time religion here.

In fact, given what this movie goes into and shows, I'd say if I did you should all be very deeply concerned.

This is a movie that has been blipping on and off of my radar for a while leading up to this entry. I had first heard about Marjoe Gortner the person some years back and mentally backpocketed this documentary. Recently a friend discussed it for her podcast on Oscar-winning cinema and it put the movie back on my radar.

From the radar, to my list, to here.

So I have to thank her in part for reminding me of this, cause Marjoe is one Hell of a hidden gem from this project and one I would recommend seeking out, both as a documentary and just in general.

The premise such as it is concerns the above mentioned Marjoe Gortner – a child preacher who became something of a sensation in the evangelist circles in the 1950s. The film actually starts with a collection of some of his greatest hits as a child preacher, clips that start from almost cute and veer into the genuinely strange (there is a scene were a pre-teen Gortner officiates a wedding between two grown adults that I still find myself unsettled by in the sense no adults found any issue with this.) After the montage, we are introduced to Gortner as an adult, affable, outgoing, and considerably more clear-eyed about his past exploits. While he has ostensibly given up as a revival preacher, he decides in his 20s to go back on the circuit with a documentary crew in tow. His mission: to take them behind the curtain and show them the business of preaching, interspersing some of his own song and dance sermons with scenes of explaining the tricks of the trade and conversations with some of his peers.

Put in plain text like this, one would almost expect Marjoe to be an angrier movie than it is. One could see this as a movie by the former child star who has decided to burn it all down, but that is one of the interesting things about Gortner as a subject – he definitely does seem to feel some remorse over what he's done, but he's not looking to send the whole apparatus crashing down. Early on, we hear him discussing his approach and there is no active sense of disdain for other preachers or the believers in the way he talks about them, rather he simply just wants to show what this is all about and hopes maybe some people will come around as a result.

The result is a movie that strikes a curious tone – the genial Gortner gives the movie an overall disarming feeling that, rather than robbing the movie of its impact, causes some of the quieter revelations to land even harder. Whether it's seeing Gortner's performances preceded or intercut with footage of him explaining the play-by-play of acts of religious fervor leading to collecting money or scenes of him meeting with other evangelists behind closed doors (the first of these being especially telling as the other preacher sits counting a stack of money at his desk) the movie actually makes the revelations hit harder for how matter of fact they are. Instead of being shocking insights, they are the day to day nature of the business and treated as such.

Amid the 'banality of evil' looks at the evangelist industry (which, yes, did generate some controversy at the time of release), there is an additional emotional through line that hits harder for the way it's presented, and that's the way the movie presents Gortner's relationship with his parents. Again, the movie's introduction doesn't shy away from the fact his parents were more than happy to cash in on their child's stage presence, and one could expect a genuinely angry look back at them. Instead, Gortner's reflections on his parent as an adult are more saddened than angry. One conversation in particular standing out where he reflects on his relationship with his father. Gortner can't find it in himself to be angry with him simply because he feels like he doesn't really know him especially deeply as a person – even their conversations are more surface level than any sort of emotional connections.

This last part leads to probably the closest thing to a genuine beat of happiness in the movie – the presentation that Gortner has, since distancing himself from that past, found himself in a happier place personally with someone completely outside of the church scene. Like the earlier revelations, it's presented not as a grand triumph, but genuine happiness for a man whose smiles we have seen to this point as paired with an empty, exploitative industry and an empty family life. Again, instead of a grand gesture, it's the quieter change that lands better as a result.

If you're looking for something that's going to be a full-throated shock of a documentary about the darker side of faith, there are other documentaries I could recommend (Jesus Camp comes to mind as a genuinely disturbing movie.) That said, Marjoe is still a strong recommend in its own right as a look at a man whose experiences with faith proved hollow and unfulfilling compared to the life he found for himself after, as well as a very matter of fact look at the bald-faced cynicism and greed running throughout that life of faith.

The movie is available to watch on Tubi – I bring this up not as something I intend to do all the time, but in this case because I really do think this one's worth seeking out if this got you interested.

Okay, that concludes this week's 52 Pick-Up. You may go in peace.

…

Oh. Wait. That's right. Church shtick doesn't work for this ending. Still got next week to tee up.

Well, I did say this was coming and now comes the first round of the John Waters round-up – next week we make our first foray into Baltimore with Waters' most overt cinematic foray into musicals with Cry-Baby.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up #5 – Oddity (2024)

Ah, February. First month went off without a hitch.

Posting-wise, anyway. The year itself...thaaaaat's a topic for another day.

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up, a year-long trip to keep me committed to working through my cinematic to-do list by checking out a movie a week that I have not seen and posting responses here.

Last month, I had mentioned I'd be changing up parts of the formula going forward, so I should probably just address that here.

Starting this month, I will be putting two new adjustments into the mix. One will be temporary, one more of a recurring feature.

So, let's start with the temporary. 

Since 2021, I have gained a particular custom in the fall. For a weekend in September, I join the gathering of lovable freaks, weirdos, and perverts that is known as Camp John Waters – a celebration for fans of the director lovingly known as the Pope of Trash.

It's been a good time and I've made some good friends as a result. But, as is so often the case, all good things must come to an end, and this year will be CJW's big finale. With plans to attend already locked in, I'm dedicating some time in the next few months to addressing the gaps in what I have seen in Waters's filmography. What this means going forward is that I will have something of a thumb on the scale as I make my rolls. Of the titles chosen, one will be selected from the John Waters specific queue (no, I won't say what this month's is yet.)

The more recurring is, itself, something that occurred to me in part after the discussion with my wife regarding Yellow Submarine. I pitched the idea to her, and with each month, after I roll up, I'll have one title I will give her the option to swap out for a title of her choosing that we have established I have not seen. The swapped out title will be returned to the queue where it may be rolled at another time (if it does, I may give it weighted preference/immunity from being a swap-out.)

Okay, that's enough rule jockeying. Let's get back to the movies.

I'd like to tell you that the informal tour of Europe ended with January. Of course, if I did that, I would be a liar. I promise, we'll eventually getting some American film in there, but you're just gonna have to wait for another week cause we're making a stop off in Ireland.

If it helps any, we're changing the decade at least. In fact, this is a fairly recent title I had been curious about since seeing the trailers and missed the theatrical run for – so, time to dig in to Damian McCarthy's Oddity.

This may be one of the titles on this list I went in with the least knowledge of. I had no prior familiarity with anyone attached to the movie and the trailers I had seen were more pitched towards tone and mood than actual story beats (with particular emphasis on the effectively creepy wooden statue.) For as much discourse as there's been over marketing giving too much away in movie advertising, there is something refreshing about when you can get that blank slate experience, even though I'll admit it's paradoxical to these sorts of write ups. So let me just leave it at hopefully this reveals enough to get you interested without giving too much away and press on.

As an 'in a nutshell' summary goes, Oddity tells the story of two sisters – Dani and Darcy (both played by Carolyn Bracken.) Dani is happily married to her psychiatrist husband (Gwilym Lee) while Darcy is a professional medium who runs an antique shop specializing in unique and cursed objects. Despite these two very different backgrounds, the sisters get along well. Which is complicated when Dani is murdered in the house she and her husband are renovating. A year after her death, Darcy arrives at the now largely finished house to mark the anniversary with Dani's husband (and his new girlfriend) with a creepy wooden statue in tow and plans she is keeping to herself.

That's about as much set-up as I can put here without any spoilers. Some of it you might already piece together (and I know there were some beats I keyed in on) but I have to admit, like The Bird With the Crystal Plumage, the overall execution kept that from being a problem to me.

One of the things found particularly interesting in this case is that this movie is, functionally, a mystery more for the audience. The story presents Darcy to us as the de facto 'detective', but we see pretty early on that she has already clocked what happened to her sister and worked out her own plan for what to do about it. As such, the mystery is primarily on the audience to figure out and catch up with the characters (who, if they have any question it's 'How much does * know?')

"...sooooo...aren't you going to ask me about the wooden man?"

I've been trying to think of the last time I saw a movie that did something quite like this – where the burden of the mystery is more on the viewer than the character – and for the life of me, I'm coming up empty (with the possible exception of The Last Broadcast, which, while I enjoy it, I feel like it's far less adept in handling the payoff.) 

Adding to the appeal, this doesn't feel like it loses anything when you know the reveal – especially as parts of it can be picked up on early on. It doesn't fall into the pit of movies that feel like they lose steam when you know where it's going, as the movie makes its reveal with a lot of runway left to instead go into how this knowledge is being acted on.

Another part of that working goes to the overall visual style and tone of the movie. Alongside the above mentioned statue, the movie has a very striking look to it, both in terms of set design and even the way the cast are fashioned (particularly the stark difference in styles Bracken offers between Dani and Darcy, the latter presented as a figure out of a ghost story with her own pale, blind appearance.)

I can't pretend I'm going to be raving about this movie, but at the same time, there needs to be a place for movies like this in the discourse – not a game changer, but a well made, effectively told little ghost story with enough of a sense of style to it that, I will admit, I'm going to be keeping an eye out for some of McCarthy's other work and hope maybe this gets some of you curious enough to see if his movies will work for you.

But, it's time to be moving on here, and, after five weeks, 52 Pick Up finally ends its trip abroad and touches down in the US. Not only that, we're also marking another big first for this project – alongside the first American movie featured, this will mark the first documentary on this list, and one I've been circling for a while now.

So if you plan to be here next time, break out your Sunday best and meet me at the revival tent, cause next up is the 1972 Academy award winning documentary Marjoe.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up #4 – Yellow Submarine (1968)

Once, upon a post...
Or maybe twice.

Welcome back for another draw of 52 Pick-Up. Already one month down and so far, it's been an interesting journey. From cautionary tales of the dangers of authoritarianism, to fever dreams of demonic furniture, to a murder mystery abroad. With January going to a close, where do we go from here?

For starters, as I said last time, we're still tooling around Europe (and will be for just a little bit longer next month), but also we're closing out this month with a title that has been on my 'to do' list for a long time. In fact, of the first four, this has arguably been on here the longest.

It's the movie my wife was surprised to learn I hadn't seen until just this month, it's the animated classic Yellow Submarine.

I should start by saying, I wasn't avoiding this movie. It's one I'd had a general interest in for some time both for its own sake as a movie and just as one of the more colorful creations born out of the Beatles' legacy. Mostly it was just never quite lining up the right pieces of time, access, and opportunity.

As John himself once said it best 'life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.'

Okay, that's a bit of a reach to justify the fact this took me this long, but humor me.

Having now seen this movie? I have two immediate thoughts. The first – this was an incredibly fun experience and one I was pleased to see did not falter under its own reputation.

The second is a call back to the fact my wife was surprised I hadn't seen this (and something I am posting here with her blessing.) In mentioning this was on my to do list, she had mentioned first seeing this when being shown it by a music teacher she had growing up. Said teacher, she added, was very likely at some point in their life a hippie.

On having watched the movie for myself, I immediately sent her the below image with regards to that assessment:

Again, this is not a criticism. I really enjoyed this one.

First, let's get into the customary 'What is this about?' part.

Before I get into the pitch for this movie, I just want to say this – if you're watching Yellow Submarine for the plot, I don't want to say you're watching it wrong, but I am seriously questioning your priorities on this one. The story, such as it is, involves Pepperland, a fantastical fairy tale realm of love, peace, and music under the sea, where the people are all living in harmony. At least, for the first few minutes – enter the Blue Meanies, an outlandish band of villains whose hatred of music is matched only by their desire to stomp out joy (as their boss loudly declares early on “We Meanies only take NO for an answer!” if that gives an idea how committed they are.) The Meanies invade Pepperland, plummeting it into a sadness and disarray in short order. In the chaos, one of the residents, Young Fred, escapes in the titular Yellow Submarine to get help. His journey leads him to Liverpool where he crosses paths with the Beatles (not voiced by themselves, though they appear at the very end) who agree to help him save his homeland. What follows is a free-wheeling, outlandish journey through space, time, and a respectable slice of Beatles discography.

Hmmm...can I still make the 'It's not the real Beatles,
but it is an incredible simulation' joke if the actual Beatles
do still make an appearance at the end of the movie?

Again, don't try to think too hard about the plot unless you want to give yourself a bad time. Just enjoy the ride, because while it's not deeply or tightly plotted, it has a lot to recommend in it.

Up high on the list of things to recommend this for? The animation. I had known about the look of this movie from stills for years, but finally seeing this all in motion, I was pleasantly surprised by how good this looks in general, both in terms of its motion and just the uniquely strange visual styles it plays around with. In fact, this just placed pretty high on the movies I'll be looking for repertory screenings on, because I'd love to see this one in a theater to further just soak it all in.

Of course, this isn't all just music and fun visuals – though that is a lot of it. For as much as I was saying not to expect a deep or involving story, what story there is here is helps keep everything moving, it's breezy, it's funny, and it just keeps you interested and moving in equal parts to keep you from getting too bogged down in 'how did that work?' types of questions. The humor, especially, was one I didn't see coming. I expected this to just be a fun, delightful ride, but I was also pleasantly surprised at the number of times this movie got honest to God laughs out of me – be it with the over the top antics of the Meanies or the often deadpan comedic deliveries of the Beatles themselves. The two make a fun contrast, with the villains played at a constant 11 while the dialed back performances of our heroes read as less 'cool' and more comically oblivious to the situation they've been thrust into and just going with the flow.

Speaking of over-the-top villainy, special shout-out to actor
Paul Angelis, whose performance as the Chief Blue Meanie
is easily the acting MVP of the film. Just pure concentrated
mustache-twirling lunacy, and one was not surprised to learn
Mark Hamill got some inspiration from for his Joker performance.

Okay, score one for chance on this entry. Yes, the year started off on a good, but downright bleak note. As we come to the end of the first month and the temperatures get colder, this made for a welcome light note to close out on and one I'm now glad to have taken off the list.

For a starting four, this is giving me a general good feeling about the year ahead.

Speaking of which, next time something goes live here, it will be a new month, and with it, some new tweaks to the way these are chosen. I'll explain more next time as our informal tour of Europe continues for just a bit longer, though we're finally shifting to a different period in time. So, see you all in February when this project stops in Ireland for the 2024 horror movie Oddity.

Until then.