Movie Review and Subsequent Discussion: THE CONJURING SERIES (up through THE NUN 2)

I just finished watching THE CONJURING series as it has been completed thus far, the most recent movie at this writing being THE NUN 2 (2023). Demonic Catholic nuns don’t exactly fascinate me the way demonic dolls do, the latter being the main theme in the three ANNABELLE movies in this franchise: ANNABELLE, ANNABELLE: CREATION, and ANNABELLE COMES HOME. (For my review of the ANNABELLE movies, I mainly just reviewed the third one, which you can read here: https://practicalpagan.blog/2024/05/19/mini-movie-review-annabelle-comes-home-2019/). But, they can be equally as creepy as, say, some clowns. (My apologies to nuns in general, the vast majority of them being not at all demonic, of course.) THE NUN 2 was a little better than THE NUN (2018). I enjoyed the intrigue and haunted school setting in 1956 France. Gothic supernatural horror is often interesting to me. Like its prequel, this movie has a dramatic, clunky climax, which is formulaic and rather pat. But, some of the cinematography is pretty in both productions. And I enjoy seeing ancient architecture and old paintings. A certain brief portrayal of a demon was particularly creepy and fascinating in THE NUN 2. As both of these movies progress, the increasing amount of demonic imagery makes them less scary and more sensationalistic, especially in the first of the two. This results in more campy, spectacle-filled fun, but less eerie and suspenseful atmosphere. The sequel seemed to maintain having more creepy, suspenseful scenes compared to the earlier film. All fun stuff, not to be taken seriously.

The first movie in the series, THE CONJURING (2013) is quite eerie and intriguing, less over-the-top campy than its sequels, THE CONJURING 2 (2016) and THE CONJURING: THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT (2021). It’s a pretty good screenplay overall, even though very Catholic and Christian oriented, which the entire series very much is. All three of these particular productions focus on a real life couple, Ed and Lorraine Warren, helping people to exorcise a demon, or a demonically possessed ghost (this being the case in the first two), out of someone. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are excellent in their portrayals as each of these main characters, with an extra nod to Ms. Farmiga. Her role as that of a psychic medium is especially emotionally demanding and compelling.

I’ve long been fascinated by the clearing away of energetic, including spirit, attachments that occur in people. I’m personally more interested in non-Christian oriented methods, such as shamanic ones, derived from ancient and current indigenous cultures, none of which were originally Christian, and most not being otherwise Abrahamic either. I have an elder colleague, who, while himself identifying as Christian, does spirit and energy clearings for people from what he calls a “psychopomp” approach, which is shamanic. These methods are more gentle than exorcism, but are also persistent and effective.

After watching THE CONJURING movies, most of them based somewhat on several actual events, I’m reminded that there is a rightful place for exorcism practices. I’m just left with curiosity about the non-Christian ones. A crucial aspect of any exorcism, or spirit attachment release in general, is to have a well-developed, confident warrior and healer mentality, backed up with/built upon a strong spiritual system. Being a good psychotherapist ultimately requires these as well. This is at least what I’ve personally come to understand as a mental health professional over the past twenty-five years.

The binary/polarity metaphysics of demons and their supreme leader, the Devil, on one side and God and Jesus Christ on the other are the focus in these CONJURING movies. The series has a feel of Catholic propaganda, yet admittedly all six movies I’ve seen each comprise good, intriguing story-telling. Perhaps, someday, there will be more screenplays written and produced about non-Christian approaches to resolving cases of what is most commonly known as demonic possession. Demons, as I understand them, are chaotic and harmful nonhuman spirits that occur in nature, best left alone and not interacted with. They are different from plant and tree spirits, which are comparatively more neutral in morality and behavior. There is much more nuance and assorted details to the metaphysics of spirits, including demons, and their strata in the universe than what I can say here. Whole books have been written about this large topic of the occult.

Needless to say, the CONJURING movies are entertaining and thought-provoking. I just started watching the INSIDIOUS series. The supernatural has always intrigued me. Some would say “supernatural” is a misleading term, as all such phenomena given that label are simply of another domain of existence in a complex universe of energy and subatomic particles, thus ultimately being natural/occurring in nature.

Movie Review: TOM OF FINLAND (2017)

Right after watching A MOMENT IN THE REEDS, I viewed another Finnish independent movie production, TOM OF FINLAND, also released in 2017. I was impressed, moved, and admittedly relieved at how gay erotica artist Touko Laaksonen’s persona and life were thoughtfully portrayed. Seeing this fairly recent film was not only educational and enjoyable for me but elicited memories from when I was in my early and mid twenties.

It’s vague for me exactly when I first came across printed images by Mr. Laaksonen, far better known as Tom of Finland. It may have been as early as 1988, when I was still in college, though most certainly by around 1989, the year after I’d graduated. 1991 saw the publishing of the second of three retrospective books of his artwork. I certainly paged through new copies of that and his first retrospective book, published in 1988, on several occasions I happened to be in a local bookstore or one up a ways in San Francisco. The late ’80s were when I came out of the closet and began exploring my sexuality, thus rendering me extremely impressionable around Tom’s work. I think I owned either a postcard or magazine cut out of one of his drawings, letting go of it sometime during one of several moves for graduate school. Tom of Finland imagery pervaded my psyche. Even though I was not in the Leather scene and was a skinny young man, looking nothing at all like that Finnish artist’s hyper muscular, often leather clad hunks, I was very taken with their exaggerated, cartoonish mix of pretty and ultra masculine. Tom’s drawings portrayed an idyllic world of hot men sexually expressing themselves with each other in assorted places and situations, often in parks and bars. Even though and in spite of HIV/AIDS being in full swing by the time I’d started having sex with other men, the Finnish gay icon’s work affirmed my homoerotic desires, assuring me they were not only valid but also beautiful. A lot of gay men around me back then surely agreed. Even my psychotherapist at that time, a gay man in his mid thirties, acknowledged familiarity with and a respect for Tom of Finland during one of our sessions. If you were a gay or bi man, you likely knew of him. Tom’s work was a bold and welcome counterweight to so much homophobic judgment coming from assorted quarters in the world.

In late 1991 or early 1992, I watched at a local arthouse theater DADDY AND THE MUSCLE ACADEMY, a documentary on Mr. Laaksonen and his artwork. Among other things, I was pleased to find that he was quite slim in build, like me. We thin and sensitive men could imagine– specifically, fantasize about sexual freedom in the world– like any other gay or bi dude. But, Tom took this further by manifesting such fantasies and dreams of freedom and beauty on paper and, ultimately, up on screen, for me and so many others. His life came to an end in November of 1991 while mine felt like it had just begun. I was grateful back then, and remain so now, for Tom of Finland’s creative output, regardless of its arguably problematic extremes and paradoxical limitations of vision. Worthwhile art is often controversial, pointing out wonders, possibilities, and imperfections and/or challenges in life. This man’s art was and is thought provoking, not simply a turn on.

Watching TOM OF FINLAND the movie felt like a deepening of connection to, or a continuing of, a part of my own life history I just reviewed above. I resumed mentally connecting with this artist– or, I should more accurately say, with his work and certain values it expresses– I’ve long admired. I have no idea how historically accurate the screenplay is to the actual subject’s life, but I surmise that much of the narrative is true, even if, say, events were moved around, compressed, and/or embellished. The story begins during WW II, when Touko/Tom is a young man serving in Finland’s military. He begins to cruise for sex– or has long already been doing so– with other men during that time. Living in Helsinki after the war, he continues to often do so in a local park and a men’s restroom of a cocktail lounge. He draws sexualized pictures of soldiers and, later, civilian men he finds attractive. A recurring fantasy image of a tall, handsome man in leather pants, vest, and hat appears in Tom’s room now and then, showing us how the artist’s imagination is ever active. This is his specific version of the ideal man, which continues to influence gay culture, especially the Leather subculture, to this day, for better and for worse.

Seemingly sustained by cigarettes, drawing, and cruising, Tom eventually meets another attractive man (played by Lauri Tilkanen), a professional dancer, who becomes his life partner. They connect through, of all people, his sister, who is both devoted to Tom yet non-accepting of his being gay. Mr. Laaksonen’s sexual adventures and initial attempts to share his homoerotic art with others initially land him in dangerous situations in culturally conservative 1940s and 1950s Finland and Germany. But, he persists, eventually becoming known in the States through secret mail order sales of his art. Later, at least one gallery showing of his work occurs, as well as the publishing of his oeuvre in book form. We witness personal tragedies Tom faces, especially after he becomes a celebrity for 1970s and ’80s gay culture, particularly the Leather subculture.

The HIV/AIDS crisis is thoughtfully addressed without disaffirming Tom’s contribution to gay liberation and cultural identity. Life and death are constant themes in the narrative, with Tom plagued by guilt over an incident occurring when he was on active duty in WW II. Whether or not this actually happened, it makes for fascinating psychological drama. Actor Pekka Strang is excellent as the title character, looking the part similarly enough in height and lankiness, and sounding gruff voiced like him as well. With my having seen the earlier referenced documentary about Tom of Finland over thirty years ago, to me Mr. Strang effectively conveys the pensive, often sullen persona of the actual artist I remember watching up on screen during the last part of his life.

Other characters are eventually brought in with a balance of humor and respect, namely a young male couple who act as informal agents for Tom in the United States. They introduce him to the gay Leather scene in Los Angeles, possibly representing an amalgamation of several people in real life and, undoubtedly, over a longer period of time than what is shown in the movie. I felt a sense of relief and victory for Tom as he finally finds his niche. This is a man who lived with being marginalized and at constant risk of persecution for what would be the first half or so of his adult life. The movie is a mix of internal reflection (especially of flashbacks during the second World War), observation by an outsider of an often hostile world, and some occasional but beautiful cinematography of Finnish countryside. We viewers witness a man begin to “bloom” later in life (which I and others can directly relate to), him persisting at doing so with the help of his more emotionally open and expressive partner and some gay friends (including his commanding officer from his days as a soldier), all before Tom finally becomes (semi) famous. Anxious and traumatized from war and for being sexually nonconforming, Tom’s art consoles him, provides a language for him to connect with others, and gives him a sense of purpose. And Tom’s frequent cruising for sex is intimately and sensitively portrayed, something I can’t quite recall seeing before in a movie without some moralizing message implied or even directly attached. That unto itself elevates this production to another, higher level.

Regardless of historical accuracy, in overall tone TOM OF FINLAND is a well-rounded, nuanced portrayal of a complex, creative man in a historically fascinating and challenging time. The movie gracefully manages to explore some controversies– namely concerning the AIDS/HIV crisis– the artist’s work seemingly elicited or contributed to. It does so without diminishing or maligning Tom of Finland as a man, an artist, and affirming cultural-historical icon for many of us gay men.

Movie Review: ROAD HOUSE (1989)

Several years ago, I watched ROAD HOUSE (1989) halfheartedly on late night TV. With a new remake of it out starring Jake Gyllenhaal, I rewatched Patrick Swayze as John Dalton in what I would amusingly retitle DUDES AND CHICKS BAR. This time, I gave my full attention to the movie. Much of this story has been told and shown before, both in Westerns and crime dramas. A small town is overrun by a gangster bully and his tough minions. A strong loner arrives to rid the place of this blight once and for all, saving the day. The story and movie SHANE come readily to mind here.

John Dalton and Wade Garrett (Sam Elliott), Dalton’s more gritty looking and acting friend and mentor, portray roughed up by life, but good hearted professional bar bouncers. Dalton takes a job in a roadside bar somewhere in Missouri, assigned to clean up the place from its particularly rough and corrupt elements, both of employees and patrons. His reputation for doing this elsewhere precedes him. Garrett eventually shows up to help, including to try and pull Dalton out of his guilt ridden past. There is a loving bond here of teacher and student, whereby both have learned from each other. Fine acting by Swayze and Elliott elevates this production out of the trashy action film it otherwise obviously is.

The late guitarist and singer Jeff Healey plays Cody, leader of the bar’s resident band and who vaguely seems to know Dalton from past lounge gigs. Their onscreen chemistry is warm, with the blind, talented, and adorable young Healey and his band providing excellent rock tunes throughout the movie. The Jeff Healey Band was a perfect choice here, Healey himself mirroring Swayze’s textured mix of soft sensuality and grittiness.

Unintimidated, with training in martial arts, Dalton is faced with his most challenging job yet. His success at turning the bar around, thereby increasing its popularity, angers and threatens local gangster boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara). Dalton’s fight against him eventually becomes that of local business owners too, who are long tired of Wesley siphoning off money from them so as not to face his wrath.

What made this rather routine screenplay come alive for me (in addition to and more than the Jeff Healey Band) was Swayze’s unique look and persona. He is a rare combination of tough yet emotionally sensitive, physically scarred yet elegantly lithe like a cat, a mix of pretty, clean, handsome, selectively rough and wild. Practicing Tai Chi, Dalton is disciplined, fierce, sensual. The male archetype he best represents here is that of the Greek god Ares, or Mars in the Roman pantheon. Women in the movie are believably drawn to him. Some of us gay and bi men watching him are (and were) too.

For me, the late Swayze will always be the quintessential John Dalton. While I admire Jake Gyllenhaal as an actor, loving him as Jack Twist in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, he does not have the sensual look and naturally graceful manner of Swayze, who was a trained dancer. I have no interest in seeing the remake to this cult classic. Swayze is beautifully iconic in ROAD HOUSE. I don’t wish for anyone else portraying John Dalton to blur that image and sense of him in any way for me.

Movie Review: MAKING LOVE (1982)

After forty-two years of knowing about MAKING LOVE, I finally saw it last night. I was fifteen when the film was released in February of 1982. I distinctly remember seeing the preview for it on at least two occasions in the local movie theater I frequented in Grass Valley, Northern California. That small city then was almost entirely white and predominately conservative. At the time, I was a skinny, repressed teenager who was still a few years away from consciously acknowledging his deep attraction to other males. Hence, the preview for MAKING LOVE unsettled me and I purposefully avoided going to see it. The hostile groans of a few teenagers sitting nearby ensured my internalized homophobia and shame stayed firmly in place for a good while. But, I never forgot about the film and its gorgeous stars, Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean, and filed it away in my brain to someday watch.

Having long since read, and then largely forgotten what I read, about MAKING LOVE, I watched this somewhat dated, yet pioneering movie with low expectations. I was then pleasantly surprised at the production’s overall good (not great) and thoughtfully done quality, namely with respect to the treatment of all the characters, the story arc, the portrayal of gay men as both sexual and sympathetic humans with varying and conflicting relationship needs, and the tender man-on-man affection and sex scenes. From what I have read and personally remember, MAKING LOVE was the first mainstream, fully gay-centered and affirming U.S. production (though others promptly followed that same year, with the exception of the lesbian oriented PERSONAL BEST coming out one week prior), all other previously released American gay-centric (with emphasis here on affirming) movies having been independent and comparatively more obscure projects. Not surprisingly, MAKING LOVE bombed at the box office. Heterosexuals largely avoided it after its first weekend in theaters and queer people hadn’t quite mobilized as a national and international market force the way we long since have. Over the years, I am sure the film has finally made a profit in video and dvd rentals, TV network broadcasts, and streaming fees.

This seems to me like a minor classic, at least for us white people. The movie shows a very few token men of color in bar scenes among a crowd of guys and, if I remember correctly (though I may not), at an outdoor cruising spot near a gay bar. Interracial focus between two gay or bi curious men was not explored in MAKING LOVE. That would have to come later in other screen productions, as also would men of color expressing gay love among themselves, which still seems rare to this day.

I was impressed with Kate Jackson, then a known star from the glamorous TV series CHARLIE’S ANGELS just a few years before, choosing to be in MAKING LOVE. At that time by far the most well-known, marketable actor within the cast, she sweetly plays the faithful, beautiful wife Claire to Michael Ontkean’s closeted Zack, a young physician. He becomes romantically involved with Bart (played by still relative movie newcomer Harry Hamlin), one of his new patients who playfully flirts with him during a physical exam. Medical ethics breaching be damned, Zack and Bart pursue their mutual attraction to each other, with Zack being more monogamous and long-term relationship minded and Bart being caught up in his promiscuous stud identity. All three principal players perform quite competently, though over act in places where strong emotions are called for in the script, which has a bit of stiltedness in some of the dialogue here and there. This makes for an uneven emotional tone to the narrative, which is touching in places nonetheless, helped along by the string-filled orchestral theme music by Leonard Rosenman. The result is a mix of shmaltz with genuine, heart-felt effort at showing life drama concerning a legitimate, prevalent issue that long needed to be addressed up on screen. By 1982, countless heterosexual marriages had come to an end because of one partner trying to deny their primary attraction to the same sex. I’m aware that this is still a concerning dynamic in some marriages. I both appreciated and was amused by MAKING LOVE’s rather earnest approach to this topic.

There is just enough gay sensibility relayed in the film, I found, with the screenplay written by Barry Sandler, a gay man, who based it on a story by A. Scott Berg, also an openly gay man. The gay bar and outdoor cruising scenes look and feel believable enough, with men wearing jeans, T shirts, shorts, and, often, leather especially presented. Such “clone” looks were popular then in Los Angeles and elsewhere, even though they weren’t the only looks. The film focuses on cruising as a way into gay life, which made sense for the time it was made, just a little over a decade after Stonewall. And the frequent references to Gilbert and Sullivan music are fun and precious without being overly precious. Harry Hamlin as Bart certainly looks and seems the part of a gorgeous gay lothario. And, yet, with a stall in his career after playing this then daring role, Hamlin managed to reach TV stardom about four years later in LA LAW. I respect him for choosing such a part, especially before his career was established.

The big nod to high camp, a niche of gay sensibility, comes through the presence of veteran British thespian Wendy Hiller, who shows up in a few scenes as Winnie Bates, Claire’s and Zack’s friend and landlady, just before and then after the couple move out into their own home in Los Angeles, a lovely Spanish hacienda styled house. Winnie recites flowery lines of poetry and recounts times in her life from decades ago while dressed in colorful attire. I hope Ms. Hiller had fun playing a grand, lonely dowager filled with wistfulness over bygone days. She is lovely, slowing the movie down into some more contemplative and clarifying moments like when one stops to adore and smell pretty flowers on a leisurely stroll. Claire seeks her counsel towards the end, showing that a wise, artistic elder is also relevant and helpful in one’s still young and busy life. For me, these moments with Hiller help elevate the uneven MAKING LOVE to at least semi cinema gem status. The screenplay is a diamond in the rough at best, marred by flaws for sure.

Hamlin and Ontkean, then a comparably more established actor, do pretty well as straight men playing gay guys lusting for each other. I can’t help but wonder if their love scenes would have been even more steamy and believable if one or both of them were gay in real life. We’ll never know. Besides, a whole production team behind the camera can affect one’s acting, in intimate scenes and otherwise, no matter what one’s sexual orientation. Apparently, several big-name male stars at the time, such as Michael Douglas, were approached to play Zack, with Douglas declining it (twice) and others passing it up as well, a very few due to legitimate scheduling conflicts, such as for Tom Berenger. Who we viewers end up with (Ontkean) looks and works well enough, though.

When the vain Bart notices a red blemish on his neck just before meeting Zack, I quickly thought, “Oh, no, Kaposi’s sarcoma [a.k.a. KS]. He’s got HIV.” I wondered for several minutes as the movie unfolded if it was going into an even more serious direction, since KS had been showing up on HIV positive gay men quite a bit by 1981. However, those who have already long seen MAKING LOVE know that this turns out not to be the case for Bart, with Zack diagnosing him as having an ingrown hair. I could not help but wonder if this particular choice of plot device for Bart to meet Zack was intentionally meant to be vague and foreboding, given that HIV and accompanying KS were newly publicized in 1981 and ’82 and were certainly becoming more known among the gay community. I didn’t know what to make of this small element in the film except that it was likely mere coincidence that this health crisis was unfolding at the same time the movie came out. As there are no direct references whatsoever to HIV and safer sex anywhere in the screenplay, which completed filming almost a year before its release, the creators of MAKING LOVE either did not have the epidemic on their radar or chose to avoid mentioning it altogether. They likely kept to a script that, according to Wikipedia, had been written by 1980. Berg and his friend Sandler began to discuss the former’s idea for this film back in 1978, when Berg observed many men he knew leaving their straight marriages to be with other men. That was his inspiration and focus for this piece. Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry on the movie is there any mention of the AIDS/HIV epidemic and how this impacted its script and subsequent production. Sometimes, little synchronicities arise– be they dark, light, or neutral ones– from works of art and life in general where new meanings in response to changing contexts can then be found. This is such an instance. Fascinating.

I’m glad I took my sweet time to see MAKING LOVE. It fits comfortably into my now more well-lived and introspected life than it certainly would have if I’d managed to only view it while still a teenager. There are other movies I probably should re-watch where I missed so much because I was too young and addled inside to take them fully in at the time. At least that isn’t the case for me with this very imperfect but historically interesting and well-meaning piece of gay cinema.

Mini Movie Review: WARLOCK (1989, released in the U.S.A. in 1991)

Julian Sands as the evil warlock/witch and Richard E. Grant as the late 17th century witch hunter transported into modern times are each handsome and wonderful in WARLOCK, a campy and often cheesy supernatural horror movie from 1989. Grant speaks convincingly and sexily in Puritan era English. He has the best lines and looks adorable in animal furs and a mullet ‘do, which I too had for a haircut in ’89. And though Sands plays someone vicious and brutal here, he is quite luscious to behold. In a twisted, disturbing way, it is understandable that an unwitting gay male character early in the film flirts with Sands’ warlock, who looks so seductive just before killing the kind but clueless guy. Only Sands and Grant with their charismatic, well-trained screen presences are pretty much what make this piece of cinema schlock somewhat worthwhile.

The special effects are often ridiculous, even for the late 1980s, due to budget constraints. However, Sands’ and Grant’s gravitas significantly compensate for this shortcoming, including humorously. (I’d love to see some outtakes where, surely, they each laughed while delivering such over-the-top lines.) This is fun escape, worth streaming for free. I plan to watch the 1993 (not really) sequel, WARLOCK: THE ARMAGEDDON, also starring Sands in the title role and available for free streaming as well. (Update: I just saw that follow-up movie and it was so awful that even Mr. Sands could not redeem it in any way.)

Since dear Mr. Sands has nigh been missing for over five months since going on a hike in Southern California, me thinks we shall only be able to see him in his existing canon of work and nothing more, alas.

Movie Review: LOOKER (from 1981)

The talented, late actor Albert Finney starred in two films released in 1981, neither of which performed well at the box office at the time. His urban horror film WOLFEN (released in July of ’81) was powerful and well-done, however. It explored the tension between nature and the encroachment of humans and their technology via an often haunting, atmospheric screenplay about highly intelligent wolves killing people in parts of NYC. There was even a Native American shamanic thread within the narrative, adding further depth. I watched that movie with rapt attention in the theater and then again on video about a year later. I can see why Mr. Finney chose to perform in such an interesting, thought-provoking project.

LOOKER, released in October of 1981, is also an urban-oriented suspense thriller, though far more superficial than that year’s WOLFEN. As a teenager, I remember feeling curious to see the film when it was new in the local movie theater, but, somehow, I didn’t manage to get around to doing so until very recently, over forty years later.

Albert Finney stars as Dr. Larry Roberts, a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. Susan Dey costars as Cindy Fairmont, a professional television and print model and one of his recent patients. Three models, all patients of Dr. Roberts,’ are mysteriously killed in close succession, two of them on screen. Larry and Cindy become caught up in the police investigation of these murders, which point to Digital Matrix, a research firm that’s directly a part of a large corporation headed up by John Reston (James Coburn).

LOOKER is a fairly weak screenplay, which, I read, would likely have been more coherent and logical if it were not so edited down to just ninety-four minutes. It presents some science fiction technology that borders on the absurd, namely a certain light pulse (Light Ocular-Oriented Kinetic Emotive Responses or L.O.O.K.E.R.) gun. This weapon temporarily blinds a person with carefully pulsed light, hypnotizing the victim to lose sense of time for several moments and render their assailant briefly invisible to them. Some similar technology is used on television commercials, whereby the audience is hypnotized into buying the endorsed products. The presentation of this and the CGI of human models is visually interesting and intriguing, especially for how long ago this movie was made. The actual CGI in LOOKER is minimal (on CRT screens within the movie), whereas real people (including Dey’s character Cindy) play what are supposed to be CGI creations within TV commercials. We viewers are never explicitly told why three models are killed and a fourth one, Cindy (Dey), is in grave danger. But, we eventually surmise that Digital Matrix simply does not wish to continue to pay a salary to live models once it creates CGI duplicates of them to use on TV at no further cost and only for profit.

The core premise of this what now seems like a fun cult movie from the early ’80s is that TV is a means of hypnotic control of the masses by predatory corporations and humans are disposable, even replaceable with computer technology. In a way, this campy, somewhat tongue-in-cheek production is hauntingly prescient. It presents AI made imagery, now taking off hugely on social media over the past few years, without actually calling it that. The development of “deep fake” online videos of people and the current debate about concerns over AI stealing from and, eventually, replacing the work of graphic and other visual artists are indicators that we have pretty much arrived in the strange world LOOKER was foreseeing.

LOOKER is visually slick and entertaining in places with its display of beautiful women models wearing tasteful clothes and bathing suits. And I always find Los Angeles city and beach scenery make for pleasant viewing. Finney’s and Coburn’s presences lend some ruggedly masculine gravitas to this amusingly bizarre, if often flimsy, film. Nevertheless, what manages to come through somewhat are the grave implications of technology driven by hyper-capitalism. If left un-checked, this economic model can and will further steal lives and souls from humanity. I do wonder if some footage left on the cutting room floor rendered this movie more vapid than what it may well not have been had the final print been, say, about half an hour longer. According to Mr. Coburn himself, “They really pissed that film away,” because of over-editing. It seems like an opportunity was missed in producing a more substantive, memorable project.