![]() ![]() It's a description of sin and pleasure with a heavy dark side, slightly feverish in mentality and burdened down (purposefully) by kaleidoscopic imagery and multiple exposures and cuts. "Lot in Sodom" starts out with a palindrome involving an imagination of Sodom that premeditates both of Kenneth Anger's later works "Inaugeration of the Pleasure Dome" and "Fireworks". Reviewed by Polaris_DiB 8 /10 Both experimental and iconographic My only wish is that Webber and Watson had made more than just these two films together. It bears, even demands, repeated watching. On the whole, a more accessible film than the 'Usher' film from the same directors. The basics of this tale (for those that know them) survive intact its retelling through the particularly distinctively visual, sometimes abstract or symbolic approach of Webber and Watson, and its protagonists are all clearly identifiable and well portrayed by the actors. To complain that the film does not present the plot more overtly is beside the point, and almost a declaration of ignorance. ![]() (Interestingly, apart from the actual Genesis account, a phrase from the Song of Songs is also used when Lot is offering his daughters to the mob outside, desperately trying to convince them of the attractions of 'woman'). ![]() In 1928, the directors, Watson and Webber, could have safely assumed the audience's knowledge of the biblical tale. Like the 'Usher', the viewer should be familiar beforehand with the story on which it is based. Though perhaps not quite up to the same level of artistic attainment as 'Usher' it is nevertheless very much in the same vein. Having first seen the directors' 12min take on Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, I was looking forward to seeing this one too and wasn't disappointed at all. Reviewed by gmwhite 9 /10 Short masterpiece (but read the book first) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |