The Spectator Film Podcast

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Little Shop of Horrors (1986) || 10.21.22 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 4:13 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!  

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Unfriended (2014) || 10.24.22 Featuring: Faith, Austin Commentary track begins at 7:22 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) || 2/5/22 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 4:26 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964) || 12/23/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 4:55 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Wizards (1977) || 12/3/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 5:04 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970) || 10/29/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 7:14 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Innocents (1961) || 10/1/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 5:46 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… [REC] (2007) || 10/15/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 6:39 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Jennifer’s Body (2009) || 10.15.21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 8:16 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Friday the 13th (1980) || 9/10/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 5:00 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Ring (2002) || 8/6/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 10:07 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Most Dangerous Game (1932) || 9/17/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 4:32 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Chopping Mall (1986) || 9/3/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 5:40 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Gate (1987) || 9/24/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 4:43 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978) || 7/23/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 6:35 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Stranger on the Third Floor (1940) || 7/2/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 9:18 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Dredd (2012) || 6/18/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 7:10 — Note — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Home Alone (1990) || 6/4/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 5:31 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Predator 2 (1990) || 5/21/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 6:24 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) || 4/23/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 8:03 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… King Kong (1933) || 4/16/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 8:09 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

 This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Yojimbo (1961) || 3/19/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 10:59 — Notes — [Notes are forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Con Air (1997) || 2/26/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 6:02 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast... Donkey Skin (1970) || 2/12/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 9:36 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Secret of NIMH (1982) || 2/5/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 8:52 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Time Machine (1960) || 1/29/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 13:46 — Notes — [Notes are forthcoming] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) || 1/25/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 9:20 — Notes — [Notes are forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Taken (2008) || 1/15/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 14:45 — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!  

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Johnny Mnemonic (1995) || 1/8/21 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 8:15 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Carnival of Souls (1962) || 10.9.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 19:23 Thank you to Alicia for the amazing episode artwork! You can find the rest of Alicia’s work at beneandthegesserits.com — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Black Sunday (1960) || 10.30.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 17:04 — Notes — [Notes forthcoming!] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Phantom of the Paradise (1974) || 9/4/20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 16:54 — Notes — [Notes to come! Apologies for the delay] — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Society (1989) || 10.9.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 13:58 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Ju-on: The Grudge (2002) || 10.23.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 16:35 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) || 8.13.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 20:05 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Phantom of the Opera (1925) || 8.28.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 15:39 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Whistle and I’ll Come to You (1968) || 9.25.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 11:28 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Interview with the Vampire (1994) || 10.16.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 22:50 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… My Bloody Valentine (1981) || 9.18.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 7:54 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here's how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you'd like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That's it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Devil Rides Out (1968) || 8.7.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 11:45 — Notes — — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Host (2020) || 9.11.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track stars at 14:28 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Village of the Damned (1960) || 7.24.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary Track begins at 8:53 — Notes — — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Eyes Without a Face (1960) || 8.21.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 19:48 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Princess Mononoke (1997) 5.22.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 30:31 — Notes —   — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The City of the Dead (1960) | 5.8.2020 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 12:48 — Notes — Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film by Carol J. Clover — This is a seminal book in academic criticism on the horror genre. We highly recommend this book, and although we didn’t quote the passages at length during our conversation of The City of the Dead, we’ll include Clover’s analysis of “White Science” and “Black Magic” from the second chapter, “Opening Up’: “The world at the opening of the standard occult film is a world governed by White Science—a world in which doctors fix patients, sheriffs catch outlaws, mechanics repair cars, and so on. The intrusion of the supernatural turns that routine world on its head: patients develop inexplicable symptoms, outlaws evaporate, cars are either unfixable or repair and run themselves. Experts are called in, but even the most sophisticated forms of White Science cannot account for the mysterious happenings, which in turn escalate to the point at which the whole community (school, summer camp, family) borders on extinction. Enter Black Magic. Some marginal person (usually a woman, but perhaps a male priest or equivalent) invokes ancient precedent (which in a remarkable number of cases entails bringing forth and reading from an old tome on witchcraft, voodoo, incubi, satanic possession, vampirism, whatever). Her explanation offers a more complete account of the mysterious happenings than the White Science explanation. The members of the community take sides. At first White Science holds the day, but as the terror increases, more and more people begin to entertain and finally embrace the Black Magic solution. Doctors admit that the semen specimens or the fetal heartbeats are not human; sheriffs realize that the “outlaw” has been around for four hundred years; mechanics acknowledge that the car is something more than a machine. Only when rational men have accepted the reality of the irrational—that which is unobservable, unquantifiable, and inexplicable by normal logic—can the supernatural menace be reined in and the community returned to a new state of calm. That state of calm is not, however, the same as the opening state of calm, which is now designated as a state of ignorance. It is a new, enlightened state in which White Science, humbled in its failure, works not arrogantly against but respectfully with Black Magic. It is an ABC story, the C being a kind of religioscientific syncretism” (97-98). “Brief History of the Concept of Heterotopia” by Peter Johnson from Heterotopia Studies — This quick essay is a wonderful introduction to the concept, even to those unfamiliar with Foucault. We’ve only discussed the concept of heterotopia several times in the past, but Peter Johnson’s website heterotopiastudies.com will certainly be one of our resources should we ever discuss it in the future. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema by Peter Wollen — Despite its brevity, this book is one of the most exciting entry points to film studies I’ve encountered. The field may have passed Wollen by, but this book remains incredibly engaging and informative. We’ll include some passages highlighting the system of signs Wollen appropriated from Charles S. Sanders: “An icon, according to Peirce, is a sign which represents its object mainly by it similarity to it; the relationship between signifier and signified is not arbitrary but is one of resemblance or likeness. Thus, for instance, the portrait of a man resembles him. Icons can, however, be divided into two sub-classes: images and diagrams. In the case of images ‘simple qualities’ are alike; in the case of diagrams the ‘relations between the parts’. Many diagrams, of course, contain symboloid features; Peirce readily admitted this. for it was the dominant aspect or dimension of the sign which concerned him” (122). “An index is a sign by virtue of an existential bond between itself and its object. Peirce gave several examples. I see a man with a rolling gait. This is a probably indication that he is a sailor. I see a bowlegged man in corduroys, gaiters and a jacket. These are probable indications that he is a jockey or something of the sort. A sundial or a clock indicates the time of day” (122-23). “The third category of sign, the symbol, corresponds to Saussure’s arbitrary sign. Like Saussure, Peirce speaks of a ‘contract’ by virtue of which the symbol is a sign. The symbolic sign eludes the individual will. ‘You can write down the word “star”, but that does not make you the creator of the word, nor if you erase it have you destroyed the word. The word lives in the minds of those who use it.’ A symbolic sign demands neither resemblance to its object nor any existential bond with it. It is conventional and has the force of a law” (123). Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema edited by Richard Nowell — This is a collection of essays I’ve yet to complete reading, although the Robert Spadoni’s essay “Horror Film Atmosphere as Anti-narrative (and Vice Versa)” is decent. Spadoni’s essay discusses The City of the Dead directly, discussing the seemingly opposed forces of atmosphere and narrative in the film, although the essay isn’t remarkably deep all said. “The Folk Horror Chain” by Adam Scovell from Celluloid Wicker Man — Here’s a wonderful article that runs through some of the defining features of the folk horror genre, alongside some of its prominent films. The City of the Dead isn’t discussed at length but it fits in nicely alongside the rest examined here. — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Time Bandits (1981) 4.24.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 15:44 — Notes — We watched the Criterion Collection release of Time Bandits for the show this week. It’s a solid release with strong supplemental materials and an engaging commentary track recorded by the filmmakers in 1997. “Time Bandits: Guerrilla Fantasy” by David Sterritt — Here’s the accompanying essay with the Criterion Collection release of the movie. “‘Time Bandits’: The Ever-Lasting Importance of Terry Gilliam’s Best Fairy Tale” from Cinephilia and Beyond — As usual, Cinephilia and Beyond proves to be one-stop shopping for anyone looking to learn more about the films they enjoy. On this page you’ll find a PDF of Gilliam and Palin’s Time Bandits script, Gilliam’s original storyboards, and other material from the production and marketing of the film. Britton on Film: The Complete Film Criticism of Andrew Britton by Andrew Britton, Ed. Barry Keith Grant — Here’s the link to a published collection of Andrew Britton’s film criticism. We’ve only relied upon Britton’s writing in our preparation once before, but the precision of his insights is genuinely remarkable. Britton avoids over-reliance on structuralist language, and the clarity of his arguments make his writing very enjoyable. We’ll include some of the relevant passages from his essay “Blissing Out: The Politics of Reaganite Cinema” below: “Artifacts which tell us that we are being entertained… also tell us that they are promoting ‘escape,’ and this is the most significant thing about them. They tell us that we are ‘off duty’ and that nothing is required of us but to sit back, relax, and enjoy. Entertainment, that is, defines itself in opposition to labor, or, more generally, to the large category ‘the rest of life,’ as inhabitants of which we work for others, do not, in the vast majority of cases, enjoy our labor, and are subject to tensions and pressures that the world of entertainment excludes. It is of the essence that entertainment defines itself thus while appearing, at the same time, as a world unto itself. It does relate to ‘the rest of life,’ but only by way of its absolute otherness, and when the rest of life puts in an appearance, it is governed by laws which we are explicitly asked to read as being different from the laws which operate elsewhere. The explicitness of these strategies—the fact that they are always mediated by some form of direct address—is the crucial point. It is a condition of the function of entertainment that it should admit that the rest of life is profoundly unsatisfying… Entertainment tells us to forget our troubles and to get happy, but it also tells us that in order to do so we must agree deliberately to switch life off” (100-101). “The feeling that reality is intolerable is rapturously invoked but in such a way as to suggest that reality is immutable and that the desire to escape or transcend it is appropriate only to scheduled moments of consciously indulgent fantasy for which the existing organization of reality makes room. The ideology of entertainment is one of the many means by which late capitalism renders the idea of transforming the real unavailable for serious consideration” (101). “It leaves out everything about the existing reality principle that we would prefer to forget, redescribes other things which are scarcely forgettable in such a way that we can remember them without discomfort (and even with uplift), and anticipates rejection of the result by defining itself as a joke. Thus, Reaganite entertainment plays a game with our desire. It invites us to take pleasure in the worlds it creates and the values they embody, but because it is also ironic about them, it confirms our sense of what reality is and leaves us with the anxieties and dissatisfactions which leave a space for Reaganite entertainment. The films continually reproduce the terms of ‘the world as it is’ while also a yearning for something different; if people go back to them again and again, it is perhaps because of the lack of satisfaction the films build into the pleasure: they regenerate the need for escape which they seem to satisfy and provide confidence of a kind which leaves us unconfident. By at once celebrating and debunking the ‘good old values,’ and addressing them both as viable norms and the conventions of a fantasy, Reaganite entertainment perpetuates a paralyzed anxiety and institutionalizes itself” (110-11). Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan… and Beyond by Robin Wood — We’ve referenced Robin Wood a great deal on the show, and this may be one of his most significant contributions to film criticism. This book is tremendous. We’ll include the quoted passages from the chapter “Papering the Cracks: Fantasy and Ideology in the Reagan Era” below: “It is important to stress that I am not positing some diabolical Hollywood-capitalist-Reaganite conspiracy to impose mindlessness and mystification on a potentially revolutionary populace, nor does there seem much point in blaming the filmmakers for what they are doing (the critics are another matter). The success of the films is only comprehensible when one assumes a widespread desire for regression to infantilism, a populace who wants to be constructed as mock children. Crucial here, no doubt, is the urge to evade responsibility—responsibility for actions, decisions, thought, responsibility for changing things: children do not have to be responsible, there are older people to look after them… don't worry, Uncle George (or Uncle Steven) will take you by the hand and lead you through Wonderland. Some dangers will appear on the way, but never fear, he'll also see you safely home; home being essentially those ‘good old values’ that Sylvester Stallone told us Rocky was designed to reinstate: racism, sexism, ‘democratic’ capitalism; the capitalist myths of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity, the individual hero whose achievements somehow ‘make everything all right,’ even for the millions who never make it to individual heroism (but every man can be a hero—even, such is the grudging generosity of contemporary liberalism, every woman)” (147). “Spielberg's identification with Elliott (that there is virtually no distance whatever between character and director is clearly the source of the film's seductive, suspect charm) makes possible the precise nature of the fantasy E. T. offers: not so much a child's fantasy as an adult's fantasy about childhood” (158). Lacan and Contemporary Film Edited by Todd McGowan and Sheila Kunkle — We’ve used Todd McGowan’s book The Impossible David Lynch during some previous episodes in order to structure our Lacanian analysis, but this is the first time we’ve used this particular book. I’ve yet to finish reading it, but this book seems like an adequate intro to Lacanian film analysis; I except it would remain challenging for newcomers.  We’ll include the quoted passage from the introduction below: “What was missing in this Lacanian film theory was any sense of the power of film to disrupt ideology and to challenge—or even expose—the process of interpellation. This was the result of its too narrow understanding of Lacan, an understanding that elided the role of the Real in Lacan’s thought. According to this way of understanding Lacan, the signifier’s authority is absolute, and its functioning is flawless. But this fails to see the signifier’s dependence on failure—the role that failure plays in the effective functioning of the signifier. Failure is necessary because the signifier must open up a space through which the subject can enter: a perfectly functioning system allows for no new entrants, no new subjects. As a consequence, if the symbolic order is determinative in the path that it lays down for the subject, it doesn’t lay down this path smoothly but in a way that is fraught with peril. That is to say, the symbolic order continually comes up against a barrier that disrupts its smooth functioning—a barrier that Lacan calls the Real. This barrier is not external to the symbolic structure: the Lacanian Real is not a thing in itself existing beyond the realm of the signifier. Instead, the Real marks the point at which the symbolic order derails itself, the point where a gap occurs within that order. The symbolic order cannot exist without gaps at which its control breaks down. These gaps not only hinder the working of the symbolic order, they are also essential to its working. Without the hindrance, the mechanism cannot function. In order to function properly, the symbolic order must function improperly” (xvi-xvii) — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie. That’s it!

 This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009) 4.17.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 11:41 — Notes — The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms & Literary Theory by J. A. Cuddon — This book’s a very helpful resource for grappling with the otherwise challenging or inscrutable terminology frequently encountered in academic writing. I’m linking to the 5th Edition, which also credits M. A. R. Habib, although I used to 4th Edition for the definition of diachronic/synchronic I’m including below: “A term coined c. 1913 by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). A diachronic approach to the study of language (or languages) involves an examination of its origins, development, history and change. In contrast, the synchronic approach entails the study of a linguistic system in a particular state, without reference to time. The importance of a synchronic approach to an understanding of language lies in the fact that for Saussure each sign has not properties other than the specific relational ones which define it within its own synchronic system.” “Eat Shit and Die: Coprophagia and Fimetic Force in Tom Six’s The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)” by Dolores B. Phillips from The Projector — This essay by Dolores B. Phillips provides lots of insightful analysis, examining the politics of coprophagia and how it’s been depicted on film. Additionally, this essay comes from The Projector: A Journal on Film, Media, and Culture, which is completely open-access! This particular issue of The Projector focuses on the theme of food and consumption in horror cinema. We’ll include some insightful passages from Phillips’ essay below: “The Human Centipede's cult and commercial success suggest that it readmits excrementality—and that it is the epilogue of Laporte’s History of Shit, which tracks the return of excrement to the fields of cultural production. Excrement becomes capital, shit alchemically transformed into the coin of the realm. The films shift the register of excremental politics: much of its study (Warwick Anderson, Jed Esty, David Inglis, Achille Mbembe, George Bataille) concentrates upon the purgation, elimination, and celebration of shit. Indeed, excrement has a particularly potent political resonance in postcolonial fiction, where shitting in beds and leaving heaping mounds of filth in toilets is a particularly insulting intrusion into the homes of dispossessed middle class citizens and intellectuals whose lives are disrupted by political flux. Its ingestion adds a new dimension of cruelty and spite to images of effusive excretion and excessive consumption. As they avail themselves of an ironic posture toward recycling waste,images of coprophagy also align themselves with themes of decadence, humiliation, and hyper or mismanagement of the body.” “…a deconstruction of the conflicting social settings of the subject in an age of information oversaturation. Instead of a solitary figure bent over a keyboard or a mobile device, face illumined by a single screen into which she stares, rapt, substituting virtual interactions for real-life connections with others, and instead of the endless connectivity with others offered by social media and the instantaneousness of immersion in the internet, the HUMANCENTiPAD and Six’s precursor films offer an intermediary: the individual sutured to others, ingesting excrement and extruding it. The solitary netizen is revealed as a fiction—she reads and is read by others. She is bound to them by the streams of information into which she dives, searching for stimulation and novelty, impatiently demanding updates by obsessively and repeatedly pressing F5. This is because the viewer is as much a segment in the centipede as its victims” “Our own vertiginous enjoyment of the film’s horrors highlight the absurd, disturbing excess Gwendolyn Audrey Foster laments as she observes ‘the cyclical loop’ of ‘capitalism eating itself.’ She argues that television culture in the US disgorges its excess to feast upon it again in the forms of exploitative gluttony. She describes television as ‘coprophagic and cannibalistic in this way; TV is largely feces, our own regurgitated feces, which we ultimately pay to eat.’ Se notes that ‘shows such as Hoarders exploit and engage in coprophagia for better ratings, ultimately supporting gluttonous capitalism.’ Tom Six’s films make this the literal foundation for their appeal, especially as they sink deep roots in other moments of coprophagy in film and internet culture” [The writing by Gwendolyn Audrey Foster referenced in this passage from “Capitalism Eats Itself: Gluttony and Coprophagia from Hoarders to La Grande Bouffe“] “Grotesque Realism and the Carnivalesque in Tom Six’s The Human Centipede (First Sequence) and The Human Centipede II Full Sequence” by Ellen N. Freeman from Monstrum — We didn’t make use of this essay to help frame our conversation of the film, but it remains an insightful read. Freeman examines The Human Centipede in light of Mikhail Bakhtin’s writing on the carnivalesque and grotesque in Rabelais. Furthermore, Monstrum is an awesome multilingual, peer-reviewed open-access journal on horror and you should absolutely check out the other essays and reviews, which include writing on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Lucio Fulci, the occult in Hammer Studios Horror, Peeping Tom (1960). — Listener Picks — Do you want to pick a movie for us to discuss on the show? Here’s how: Make a donation of $20 or more to ofwemergencyfund.org Check your email for a donation receipt, and send a screenshot of your donation to austin@spectatorfilmpodcast.com or @spectatorfilmpodcast on Instagram In your email or DM, include 1.) your name 2.) the movie you’d like discussed on the show and 3.) a brief overview of your thoughts on the movie That’s it! Don’t pick Satantango or Shoah!

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… La Belle et La Bête (1946) 4.10.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary track begins at 20:27 — Notes — We watched the Criterion Collection Release of La Belle et la Bête for this week’s episode. It’s an amazing release, with lots of tremendous bonus features and two commentary tracks. Perhaps one of Criterion’s best releases.  Also available on the Criterion Channel. “Beauty and the Beast: Dark Magic” by Geoffrey O’Brien from The Current  “On the Making of Beauty and the Beast” by Francis Steegmuller from The Current “Cocteau, Jean” by Richard Misek from Senses of Cinema — Great Director profile from Senses of Cinema Jean Cocteau and His Films of Orphic Identity by Arthur B. Evans — While this book foregoes discussion of La Belle et La Bête to focus on Cocteau’s Orphic Trilogy, it remains an insightful introduction to anyone looking to learn more about Cocteau’s films. Other books on Cocteau can be weighted down with obscurity, but this one’s a very reliable entry point for those looking to learn more. Fantasy Film: A Critical Introduction by James Walters — I haven’t finished this book at the time of posting, but so far it’s a terrific resource of information that’s slightly lacking in insight; perhaps a light recommendation for those interested in the fantasy genre. That being said, Walters discusses society’s ideas of the spiritual and supernatural and how they were influenced by the advent of film in the early 20th century. This portion of the book can easily be connected to our conversation of Jean Cocteau’s poetic filmmaking approach as “seance photography,” and may be worth reading for anyone interested to learn more. “Gender Politics – Cocteau’s Belle is not that Bête: Jean Cocteau’s La Belle et la Bête (1946)” by Susan Hayward from French Film: Texts and Contexts (Ed. Susan Hayward & Ginette Vincendau) — Here’s the link to French Film: Texts and Contexts, which features Susan Hayward’s Lacanian analysis of  the film. Given the impressive list of contributors to this book, it’s probably an interesting read and may show up again as a resource for future episodes. The Enchanted Screen: The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films by Jack Zipes — Only read the chapter on Beauty and the Beast stories so far, but this book is fantastic. Wonderful insight into the historical lineage of the story in addition to discussion of the film adaptation itself. We’ll likely be using this book as a resource for future episodes. We’ll include some worthwhile passages below: “The issue at hand in [The Beauty and the Best fairy tale] is fidelity and sincerity, or the qualities that make for tenderness, a topic of interest to women at that time, for they were beginning to rebel against the arranged marriages or marriages of convenience… and Mme Le Prince de Beaumont did an excellent job of condensing and altering the tale in 1756 to address a group of young misses, who were supposed to learn how to become ladies and that virtue meant denying themselves. In effect, the code of the tale was to delude them into believing that they would be realizing their goals in life by denying themselves” (227-28) “There is a false power attributed to Beauty as a virtue. By sacrificing oneself, it is demonstrated, the powers that be, here the fairies, will reward her with a perfect husband. The most important thing is to learn to obey and worship one’s father (authority) and to fulfill one’s promises even though they are made under duress. Ugliness is associated with bad manners like those of her sisters. The beast is not ugly because his manners are perfect. Beauty and the Beast are suited for one another because they live according to the code of civility. They subscribe to prescriptions that maintain the power of an elite class and patriarchal rule” (229). Beauty and the Beast: Diary of a Film by Jean Cocteau — Here’s the link to Ronald Duncan’s translation of Cocteau’s renowned on-set diary. Tremendous book, providing Cocteau’s commentary on the famously troubled production. While this Internet Archive version is free, I believe this specific translation may currently be OOP. Jean Cocteau by James S. Williams — This book was our main resource in the discussion of the film. As is the case with most of the books in this French Film Directors series, this serves as both a reliable introduction to Cocteau’s work, biography, and other significant pieces of scholarship on the subject. That said, Williams has a slight tendency toward obscurity and hyperbole in his evaluation of Cocteau’s work. Despite its strengths, this book likely isn’t a one-stop shop resource on Cocteau’s work, and even more so in reference to the question of his collaboration with Nazi and Vichy institutions in occupied France. “Whatever field and medium he was working in, however, Cocteau always considered himself a poet ‘la poesie'…as opposed to simply ‘the poetic' as conventionally understood” (5) “Further, Cocteau insisted on cinema’s ceremonial aspect and the fact that when films are projected we receive phantom images and words emanating as if from beyond the grave” (15) “[Documentary-style filmmakers] were the greatest poets for Cocteau precisely because they were not seeking the poetic. With Cocteau there is always the giddy sense of the marvelous waiting to be revealed, and he had an impish delight in discovering the strange, unheralded forms delivered up by the machine. A great film is an accident, a banana skin under the feet of dogma he once quipped with utter seriousness, and he considered his role in the process as merely that of an intermediary or conductor agent” (15). “Cocteau’s highly materialist approach to film practice provides it ultimately with a metaphysical aim to transfigure the real… these were real objects transformed by cinematic time and are now projected visions of both sublime beauty and horror… The cinema is linked intimately, and tragically, to a consciousness of death… For Cocteau, any filmic image, however fictional and in whatever style, has the documentary force of a newsreel since it has recorded reality and is thus a direct despatch from the real… The special effects in Cocteau’s films, a combination of mechanical artifice and visual mirage, are ‘true’ because they were witnessed in the here and now by the actors and crew and duly recorded by the camera” (17). “[Cocteau’s] ideal version of cinema is conceived as a direct engagement with the individual viewer who ‘collaborates’ with the film to make his or her own… Indeed, Cocteau’s personal mythologies (statues, mirrors, doubles, etc.) almost always resist the standard codes of representation and exegesis and guard the imaginary against his sworn enemy, banal symbolism. Snatched as if from death, each instance of sound and image in his work is nothing less than an apparition in the spontaneous act of becoming” (19). “Queer Margins: Cocteau, La Belle et la bête, and the Jewish Differend” by Daniel Fischlin from Queer Theory and the Jewish Question (Ed. Daniel Boyarin, Ann Pellegrini) — This link will bring you to Queer Theory and the Jewish Question, which features the magnificent essay Daniel Fischlin we referenced during the show. This essay seems to have become a major piece of criticism in the discussion of this film, as Fischlin examines the link binding the Queer and Jewish Other in French society at the time alongside some discussion of Cocteau’s biography. “…the story of La Belle et la bête nonetheless plays out in microcosm a version of the alien’s relation to a normative culture. La Belle et la bête‘s drama has acute national resonances: nation functions, however illusorily, as the norm against which alien otherness is measured. Those resonances are rendered more affective through the gendering of national vulnerability in the figure of Belle, the beauty threatened by the beast of otherness… Cocteau’s film represents those same values in terms of the racist and classist paranoias that produced a scapegoat for Nationalist Socialist dogma” (366-67). “…La Belle et la bête bears further examination for the wau in which the film articulates a postwar vision that simultaneously effaces any trace of the war from its visual images while nonetheless symbolically encoding the underlying logic of otherness upon which the war was predicated. The antisemitic unconscious of the film circulates paranoia about the contaminant presence of the other all the more effectively because it is encoded at the level of a textual unconscious. The film uses an amalgam of symbolic techniques to achieve this effect, including its reinscription of the Jews it figures in its margins, its recuperation of a putatively classic French fairy (Volk) tale, its bourgeois epiphany in which the Beast is transformed into the prince, who looks just like Belle’s village suitor (she gets it both ways), thus implicitly restoring the merchant and his family to the class advantage they have lost, its use of lead actors with prominent Aryan features, and its complex erotic dimensions, framed as they are by the queer margins of Cocteau’s gaze forming and deforming the body of his lover through manipulation of the camera’s gaze” (374). “The film… simultaneously articulates disidentification with that ethnic otherness even as the exotic (queer) link in the signifying chain of Jew and homosexual is internalized, both by the film’s signifying structures and the personal circumstances circulating around Marais and Cocteau’s relationship as lovers. The move ironically reinstates the Jew’s presence in the metonymic form of queer other even as the representation of male Jews in the film enacts Cocteau’s disidentification of homosexuality and Jewishness. Disidentification resolutely reinstates identification” (376). “… [the beast] is both an ambiguated ideal (the prince as heteronormative and queer) and the threatening lover (Avenant) by virtue of being played by the same actor. The Beast condenses the anxieties and guilt circulating through these unstable forms of desire, encoding by his/her very difference the multiple configurations that complicate any notion of stable sexual identity. Thus, the queer dimensions of the multiple roles played by Marais – as Cocteau’s homosexual lover, as the object of heterosexual desire, as the Beast, as Avenant, as Ardent – inflect the film with a potent emblem of fluid sexual identities that resist simple categorization in the modes of mere hetero- or homo – or even queer normativity” (382). “The Beast, then, is at one level the imaginary other of the director. But s/he is also an other, and the film suggests that this monstrous love can lead both Beauty and the Beast to a new humanity, one that leaves behind the troubled legacy of the patriarchal family, the perversion of restricted forms of sexual identity, and the disabling fear of all forms of difference, sexual or otherwise. The Beast, depending upon the gaze constructing his or her presence, is thus an ambiguous sexual construct, a queer, especially in a reading that incorporates Cocteau’s directorial eye into the context of the gaze that constructs the beast as an object of desire. From that perspective the film’s camera work becomes a sensuous point of contact between Cocteau and his lover, a way of framing their sexual relationship in a visual code that is unceasingly drive by the passion of the lover’s gaze. At the level of signification the Beast becomes the very signifier of queer presence in the film, despite the (not quite) conventional heterosexuality figured in the denoument with which Cocteau was notoriously unhappy” (382). “Cocteau clearly leaves room here, in both versions of this scene [the ending scene], for resistance to the enormous pressure of the narrative is under to conform to a normative notion of sexuality. The lines reflect… the power of the queer margin – as it turns out, Belle too is attracted by the bestial more than by the idealized prince, and the transformation will require her to ‘adjust.’ Belle’s own desires, what she wants, remain opaque to say the least, a tissue of filial, bestial, and troubled heterosexual possibilities in which difference is always in a potential state of eruption. Thus, even as monstrous love is being erased, the film reinstates it in Belle’s retrospective attraction to the difference(s) incarnated...

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… A Clockwork Orange (1971) 4.3.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary Track begins at 14:52 — Notes — Film as a Subversive Art by Amos Vogel — We didn’t reference Vogel’s brief review of A Clockwork Orange during our episode, but it’s worth investigating for anyone interested. Vogel was a tremendous writer, and this book is a classic of film criticism. Highly recommended. Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange edited by Stuart Y. McDougal — This Cambridge Film Handbooks edition of essays discussing the film was one of our primary resources in framing our conversations for this episodes; essays by Janet Staiger, Margaret DeRosia, and Peter J. Rabinowitz were particularly insightful. As is the case with most of the releases in this book series, this is highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the film. On Kubrick by James Naremore — Here’s an accessible and steadfast introduction into Kubrick’s work, which balances an historical account of his career alongside some thoughtful analysis and personal response. While I recommend it as an introduction, it certainly still has much to offer those (unbearable) people who’re already thoroughly familiar with Kubrick’s career/films. We don’t reference it specifically during this episodes – many of the resources it uses were made redundant by our other research – but its chapter discussing A Clockwork Orange remains an insightful and fun introduction to critical discussions on the film. Don’t Look Now: British Cinema in the 1970’s edited by Dr. Paul Newland — We didn’t make reference to this book in the episode, but its a tremendous resource for learning about British cinema during this period. A Clockwork Orange is featured in an essay by Justin Smith examining the film’s demonstration of male anxiety. “Kubrick, Stanley” by Keith Uhlich from Senses of Cinema — The Great Director Profile of Stanley Kubrick from Senses of Cinema.

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Underworld (2003) 3.27.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary Track begins at 17:58 — Notes — “Sullied Blood, Semen and Skin: Vampires and the Spectre of Miscegenation” by Kimberly A. Frohreich from Gothic Studies — Here’s a neat essay delving into the cycle of 90’s/00’s vampire media in which Underworld participates. Frohreich reviews the racial subtext these texts share and points to additional resources for understanding this cycle. A free PDF version of this file can be found by searching Google Scholar. We’ll include relevant passages below: “Like Blade, Underworld’s plot also centres on racial purity versus racial mixing, with the Lycans positioned as ‘vectors of category transformation’, as Haraway would suggest. Indeed, the Lycans’ main strategy in the racial war against the vampires is to prove that the two races can be mixed or combined. In other words, they fight to miscegenate, to create a half-vampire, half-Lycan, or mixed-race being. The vampires, on the other band, maintain a belief system in which this mixing would not only be an ‘abomination’, it would also be impossible. Indeed, for Viktor, one of the vampire eiders, vampires and Lycans are not separate races, but are separate species…As a previous slave-owner, and the image of a Southern plantation patriarch, Viktor believes in the polygenetic origin of the two ‘species’ and rejects the belief in the ‘sons of the Corvinus clan, one bitten by bat, one by wolf, claiming it is merely ‘a ridiculous legend’. In contrast, the Lycans depend on this monogenetic origin, or this ‘legend’, in their attempt to create a mixed-race subject” (37-38). “In other words, the film suggests that being part of a race involves sharing a common history, one that in turn defines the racial group. Where the Lycans are able to recruit humans to their cause, the vampires’ genocide of the Lycans appears as a strategy to maintain their own version of history. Indeed, the vampire rulers limit the sharing of blood, and thus of history, to themselves. As the spectator discovers with the vampire Selene, the character through which the narrative is focalised, the history recorded in writing is false, while other past events were never recorded. Because Selene does not initially know that the Lycans were once the slaves of the vampires, and because she (wrongly) believes the former to be responsible for the murder of her human family, Selene (along with the spectator) originally sees the vampires as the victims of the violent, animalistic, and bloodthirsty Lycans rather than the reverse. The film, therefore, highlights how historical discourse is used to define the racial Other through the falsification and erasure of past events and memories, or the prevalence of white male history over the voices of the other” (38). As in traditional vampire narratives, the female body in Underworld is also fought over and depicted as in need of protection. However, the film also rewrites the (white) female body as vampire and as post-feminist ‘girl power’ model. Almost a daughter to Viktor, Selene is one of the elite female vampires who need to be protected from being ‘tainted’ by Lycans. Yet, Selene will not let anyone do battle for her or over her. Clothed from head to toe in black leather, she is immediately set apart from other female vampires who remain at the castle in extravagant dresses while she joins male vampires as a ‘death dealer’ in their hunt for Lycans. Just as Selene refuses to play the role of the stereotypical elite female, she also eventually refuses to assist other vampires in their fight for racial purity” (39) Celluloid Vampires: Life After Death in the Modern World by Stacey Abbott — This book serves as an admirable introduction to vampire cinema, even though a few of its assertions appear strenuous. It even features a chapter discussing Underworld alongside the other films from the 90’s/00’s “cyborg vampire” cycle, like Blade (1997). “Underoworld” by Roger Ebert from Rogerebert.com — Here’s the link to the Ebert review Maxx referenced. ‘A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, And Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century’ by Donna J. Haraway — Here’s a link to Donna J. Haraway’s groundbreaking essay. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience by Donna J. Haraway — This is a fascinating book by Donna Haraway, and I’m including it here because it discusses the figure of the vampire throughout. Anyone interested in learning more about vampires should dedicate time to exploring Haraway’s work and concepts of post-humanism. Check out some of the interesting passages below: “Lurching beyond the symptom in the first paragraphs, however, I acknowledge that a specific figure animates this essay. The figure is the vampire: the one who pollutes lineages on the wedding night; the one who effects category transformations by illegitimate passages of substance; the one who drinks and infuses blood in a paradigmatic act of infecting whatever poses as pure; the one who eschews sun worship and does its work at night; the one who is undead, unnatural, and perversely incorruptible. In this essay, I am instructed by the vampire, and my questions are about the vectors of infection that trouble racial categories in twentieth-century bioscientific constructions of universal humanity. For better and for worse, vampires are vectors of category transformation in a racialized, historical, national unconscious. A figure that both promises and threatens racial and sexual mixing, the vampire feeds off the normalized human, and the monster finds such contaminated food to be nutritious. The vampire also insists on the nightmare of racial violence behind the fantasy of purity in the rituals of kinship. It is impossible to have a settled judgment about vampires. Defined by their categorical ambiguity and troubling mobility, vampires do not rest easy (or easily) in the boxes labeled good and bad. Always transported and shifting, the vampire's native soil is more nutritious, and more unheimlich, than that. Deeply shaped by murderous ideologies since their modern popularization in European accounts in the late eighteenth century—especially racism, sexism, and homophobia— stories of the undead also exceed and invert each of those systems of discrimination to show the violence infesting supposedly wholesome life and nature and the revivifying promise of what is supposed to be decadent and against nature” (214-215) “Just when one feels secure in condemning the toothy monster's violations of the integrity of the body and the community, history forces one to remember that the vampire is the figure of the Jew accused of the blood crime of polluting the wellsprings of European germ plasm and bringing both bodily plague and national decay, or that it is the figure of the diseased prostitute, or the gender pervert, or the aliens and the travelers of all sorts who cast doubt on the certainties of the self-identical and well-rooted ones who have natural rights and stable homes. The vampires are the immigrants, the dislocated ones, accused of suckingthe blood of the rightful possessors of the land and of raping the virgin who must embody the purity of race and culture. So, in an orgy of solidarity with all the oppressed, one identifies firmly with the outlaws who have been the vampires in the perfervid imaginations of the upstanding members of the whole, natural, truly human, organic communities. But then one is forced to remember that the vampire is also the marauding figure of unnaturally breeding capital, which penetrates every whole being and sucks it dry in the lusty production and vastly unequal accumulation of wealth. Yet the conjunction of Jew, capitalist, queer, andalien is freighted with too much literal genocide to allow even the jeremiad against transnational capital to carry the old-time conviction of moral certainty and historical truth. The vampire is the cosmopolitan, the one who speaks too many languages and cannot remember the native tongue, and the scientist who forces open the parochial dogmas of those who are sure they know what nature is. In short, once touched by the figure of this monster, one is forced to inhabit the swirling semantic field of vampire stories. In those zones, uninvited associations and dissociations are sure to undo one's sense of the self same, which is always neatly prelabeled to forestall moral, epistemological, and political scrutiny” (215) “Biology's epistemological and technical task has been to produce a historically specific kind of human unity; namely, membership in a single species, the human race, Homo sapiens. Biology discursively establishes and performs what willcount as human in powerful domains of knowledge and technique. A striking product of early biological discourse, race, like sex and nature, is about the apparatuses for fabricating and distributing life and death in the modern regimes ofbiopower. Like nature and sex, at least from the nineteenth century race was constituted as an object of knowledge by the life sciences, especially biology, physical anthropology, and medicine. The institutions, research projects, measuring instruments,publication practices, and circuits of money and people that made up the life sciences were the machine tools that crafted “race” as an object of scientific knowledge over the past 200 years. Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, the biological and medical sciences began to disown their deadly achievement and worked like Sisyphus to roll the rock of race out of the upscale hillside neighborhoods being built in post-World War II prosperous times to house the new categories of good natural science. All too predictably, the new universal, like the suburbs and the laboratories, were all too white” (217)

This week on The Spectator Film Podcast… Them! (1954) 3.20.20 Featuring: Austin, Maxx Commentary Track begins at 15:36 — Notes — “Rip & Tear” by Mick Gordon Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950’s by Mark Jancovich — Insightful and engaging book discussing the various forms of monster/horror film produced in America during the 50’s. Jancovich is a talented writer on the horror film, and this book manages to jump from alien invasion narratives, to Roger Corman’s work, to the glut of teenage-themed horror pics, discussing each sub-genre with clarity. I’m unsure whether the book is currently in print, but it remains a valuable resource for anyone interested in studying this era of horror film production. We’ll include some relevant quotes below: “If the 1950’s invasion narratives are considered within this context, it can be seen that rather than legitimating Fordism and its application of scientific-technical rationality to the management of American life, these texts often criticised this system by directly associating the alien with it. It has often been pointed out that the qualities which identify the aliens with the Soviet Union is their lack of feelings and the absence of individual characteristics. It was certainly the case that during the 1950’s, many American critics claimed that in the Soviet Union people were all the same; that they were forced to deny personal feeling and characteristics, and to become more functionaries of the social whole. It should also be noted, however, that, as has been illustrated, it was common in the 1950s for Americans to claim that the efforts of scientific-technical rationality upon their own society was producing the same features within America itself. If the alien was at times identified with Soviet communism, it was also implied that this was only the logical conclusion of certain developments within American society itself. The system of scientific-technical rationality was impersonal, and it oppressed human feelings and emotions. It did not value individual qualities, but attempted to convert people into undifferentiated functionaries of the social whole, functionaries who did not think or act for themselves but were ordered and controlled from without by experts. It is for this reason that even in the most pro-scientific of the 1950’s invasion narratives, the scientists often display a respect for, and a fascination with, the aliens which, it is stressed, represent their ‘ideal’ of a society ordered by scientific-technical rationality” (26). “If the invaders are presented as natural, they are carefully distinguished from associations with ‘human nature’. They are vegetables, insects or reptiles. They are cold-blooded beings which lack what are generally understood to be human feelings or thought processes. They resist anthropomorphism, and are usually presented as little more than biological machines. As a result, the fact that many of the monsters are products of science is significant. These texts often display and anxiety about humanity’s role within the cosmos. The familiar world becomes unstable and potentially dangerous. Science may save us at times, but it also creates a world which we can no longer recognise, a world in which giant ants or man-eating plants threaten to overwhelm us” (27). “The Imagination of Disaster” by Susan Sontag — We didn’t explicitly reference this essay during the show, but it’s one of the fundamental pieces of criticism examining this era of filmmaking and the ways audiences consume destruction on screen. Sontag was generally an excellent writer and critic, and this essay lives up to her reputation. For more conversation relevant to the themes and subtext of Them!, listen to our episodes discussing Starship Troopers (1997), Pacific Rim (2013), Men in Black (1997), and Destroy All Monsters! (1968).