Category: Filmography

Scotland Yard vs. Dr. Mabuse (1963)

Posted on by

Dir: Paul May
Star: Peter van Eyck, Dieter Borsche, Werner Peters, Klaus Kinski

Dr. Mabuse is best known through the Fritz Lang movies. Dr. Mabuse the Gambler, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, but in the sixties, the character was revived for six films made by the Berlin company, CCC Film. Some were remakes, in particular 1962’s version of Testament, which starred Gert Fröbe of Goldfinger fame – though not as a villain! But others used the character in other settings, such as this, the fourth entry, based on a novel by Bryan Wallace, who was the son of the more famous Edgar. Here, Mabuse is actually dead, but his role has been adopted by the head of the lunatic asylum where he was confined, Professor Pohland. His plan involves liberating an electronics specialist, George Cockstone (Borsche), to work on a mind-control device which can implant suggestions in virtually anyone’s mind, that they are powerless to resist. When strange cases start to occur as a result, such as a postman murdering a man to whom he is delivered a package, they are investigated by German detective Inspector Vulpius (Peters).

However, once crimes start also to occur in England, the full force of Scotland Yard comes in to assist, led by Major Bill Tern (van Eyck), who was originally responsible for putting Cockstone away. Mabuse/Pohland continues his plan, and the move to England was for a specific purpose, since with the aid of the mind-control device, he accumulates an entire cabinet’s worth of high-ranking citizens, from the police commissioner through to royalty. As the villain expounds, “I’ve summoned you all here, for the express purpose of assisting me to halt the decay of the country, to bring back the glory of the empire and to bring new leadership.” Among those abducted are Vulpius and Inspector Joe Rank (Kinski), and they kidnap Tern with the intent of killing him, and deraoling the investigation. But it turns out that Vulpius, as well as Tern’s elderly mother, have something that renders them impervious to the mind-control device, and which holds the key to Tern defeating Mabuse’s spiritual successor and his quest for global, or at least Anglo, domination.

mabuse2It’s quite an entertaining piece of hokum, even if the concept at the core is dubious; the mind control works only until the subject falls asleep, so the suggestion must be reinforced every day, which has got to become problematic as the circle of the hypnotized grows, apparently exponentially. The connection to Mabuse is tenuous at best, though this does mean you don’t have to have seen any of the previous entries to appreciate this one. On the other hand, the characters are memorable and quirky, particularly Tern’s mother, who appears to be several steps ahead of the “professional” detectives in terms of figuring out what’s going on, thanks to her encyclopedic knowledge of crimi. I also note a significant plot-point is a robbery of the Glasgow-London train. Either this was eerily prescient or turnaround on production was remarkably fast, because the real Great Train Robbery took place in August 1963, and the film came out in German cinemas the following month.

Kinski’s role is relatively minor – more than a cameo, yet you’d be hard pushed to call it a significant supporting role – and he’s positively restrained by the standards of even his later work in the genre. It might have been more interesting, from a casting point of view, to have Kinski play the role of Cockstone since, at least in Wallace’s original novel, published the previous year, he appears to have been the main protagonist rather than operating largely as a minion. Indeed, that version of Cockstone has something of a Mabuse-esque quality to it, and I’d like to have seen what Kinski could have done with the role of a megalomaniacal villain, rather than what is, if truth be told, a bland and colorless police officer. The film, notably, also drops the anti-socialist theme of the book, in which Cockstone offered his device and its potential to the Communist party! Hey, there was a Cold War on, y’know… If not what you’d call memorable, it does keep moving at a good pace, and succeeds in its apparent goals, even if those never seem any more ambitious than achieving an adequate degree of competence.

Paganini (1989)

Posted on by

Dir: Klaus Kinski
Star: Klaus Kinski, Debora Kinski, Nicolai Kinski, Dalila Di Lazzaro

“Everyone knows what a pig he is. The whole world knows what a dissipated life he leads. It’s disgusting. His only interests in life are… money and, of course, women. The younger, the better, and if possible, underage. He’s obsessed with sex.”

The above lines are spoken at the beginning of the movie, by two priests on their way to Paganini’s house where the musician is dying, in an effort to administer last rights and save his immortal soul. But, obviously – and in the light of subsequent allegations, unfortunately – they are intended to be applied as much to Kinski himself. Klaus clearly sees himself as a spiritual descendant of Paganini, and even referred to himself as Paganini reincarnated: a great artist, whose genius is misunderstood and derided by his critics, but who is capable of touching the hearts of his audience directly. Quite how accurate he is there, could politely be called a topic for debate, but let’s face it: he had a one-man show in which he played Jesus Christ. No-one had a higher opinion of Klaus Kinski’s talents than Klaus Kinski.

However, it’s clear that whatever skills he had on the stage and in front of the camera, did not translate in any way to writing and directing. For the result is a complete mess, and an utter failure in terms of providing any significant insight into the life of Paganini. As an insight into Kinski’s self-image and psychological identity, on the other hand, there’s enough material here to keep an entire Las Vegas convention of psychiatrists happy. As disasters go, it’s a glorious, fascinating one, a misconceived project from beginning to end.

Werner Herzog says Kinski repeatedly asked him to direct the film, but Werner turned it down. When a man who dragged a full-scale boat over a mountain for his movie, calls your script “unfilmable,” it’s probably best to rethink it a bit. Klaus, naturally, had no such second thoughts, instead opting to direct it himself, and the result is the most batshit-crazy biography ever of a classical musician. And considering this field includes the likes of Ken Russell’s Lisztomania, that’s some gold standard for insanity.

It’s the kind of film which breeds urban legends, of varying credibility. There’s rumors of a 12-hour version. Or that the film contains so many long shots, because this allowed the crew to stay out of range of Kinski’s wrath. Before going on, I should mention the review is based on the director’s cut version, which runs 94 minutes. The producers, when they saw what he had delivered, were apparently appalled, calling it “pornographic”- not without reason – and suing Kinski. Their version, which received a minimal release, runs 80 minutes, although one presumes, is no more coherent. 

For there is little or no effort at any kind of narrative structure here: what you get is a series of montages, approximately 50% of which involve sex (or perhaps it just seems that way), and most of those involve Kinski. But not all. In one of the film more notorious sequences, Di Lazzaro, playing noblewoman Helene von Feuerbacha, is overcome in her carriage with lust at seeing a stallion servicing a mare, and begins masturbating furious while thinking of Paganini.

paganiiniThis is, it appears, perfectly normal. For another early montage shows Paganini on stage, while the (young, attractive) women in the audience are virtually orgasming in their seats, and generally reacting in a way that recalls Beatlemania at its height. There’s a lot of this kind of thing, unsubtly suggesting he is entirely irresistible to women: later on, one of his conquests goes on a self-abasing demand that he make love to her again, mere seconds after he has dismounted. “He is an animal!” it is bemoaned. “Given the chance, he would rape every girl he meets. Especially the ones underage!” Again with the benefit of hindsight and future events, an unfortunate choice of sexual predilection, not apparently rooted in biographical accuracy. Though one of the film’s themes appears to be how the legend of Paganini was exaggerated to malign him by his enemies, which could conceivably apply equally as much to Kinski and his legacy. Here, Paganini certainly doesn’t need to rape anyone, his partners are all entirely and enthusiastically willing.

In between the sex, you get footage of Paganini stalking the streets of Venice in slow-motion, violence to both a chicken and a goat, and scenes of family life, with his wife Antonia Bianchi, played by Debora Caprioglio. The two were having a relationship, even though Caprioglio was one-third Kinski’s age, and credited as Debora Kinski even though she was never actually married to Klaus [curiously, she also played the wife of his character in their other film together, Grandi cacciatori] Extending the familial feel, Nastassja was supposed to have been involved, but it’s reported, “after three days she fled from the set in tears, never to return”.

Instead, we do have Klaus’s son Nikolai, by his third wife, Minhoi. It’s actually kinda touching, because the affection between father and son appears entirely genuine on both sides. This also leads into the film’s best sequence, with Paganini playing the violin with increasingly berserk passion, as his son watches, entranced and holding a kitten. Which is a good place to laud Salvatore Accardo, whose performances provide the music for the film, and is awesome. If nothing else, he was apparently satisfied with Kinski in the role, saying, “Paganini has finally come back to us through you, Klaus.”

Mind you, that comes from the film’s website which says, almost proudly, “Just as Paganini didn’t need to tune his violin because he could play his unique music anyway, so Kinski doesn’t need to prepare, repeat or rehearse the scenes – he just does it. Also as the director, he doesn’t rehearse or repeat – he just shoots.” If having the ring of plausibility, this is probably the movie’s biggest problem: it’s no coincidence that the quality of Kinski’s performances appear almost directly related to the degree any given director was prepared to butt heads with him, e.g. Herzog. Here, there wasn’t apparently anyone with the courage to stand up to Kinski and rein in more self-indulgent ideas, such as apparently insisting on everything being shot with natural light [though this may partly be an issue with the transfer of the director’s cut].

This was described by one viewer as “very possibly the worst film I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” and while I don’t agree, that isn’t an assessment with which I can find enormous fault. The review did continue, “on that score alone it’s clearly a must-buy,” and that does illustrate the conflicting emotions the film generates, much like the man himself. Yes, it’s a complete mess and abject failure, on just about every level. But as complete messes and abject failures go, it exerts an almost-hypnotic fascination, and I’d far rather have something like this, which takes the art of cinema and twists it into something bizarre, than another bland biopic. Klaus’s sole directorial credit is absolutely everything you would want or could expect from that, illustrating once more how thin the line is, between genius and insanity.

kinski-paganini

Black Killer (1971)

Posted on by

Dir: Carlo Croccolo
Star: Fred Robsahm, Antonio Cantafora, Klaus Kinski, Marina Malfatti

This is one of Kinski’s more morally-ambiguous characters. Sure, gun-toting lawyer James Webb is clearly a man with no qualms about manipulating others to achieve his own ends, nor is he squeamish about violence, dealing death from his law books, in which he has concealed pistols. However, as far as the town of Tombstone – hey, local flavor, even if this never leaves Italy! – is concerned, he represents a much more palatable alternative than the O’Hara clan, who are responsible for a reign of terror in the area. Contrary to what their name might suggest, they are not Irish, but apparently Mexican – the first names of the five brother who make up the gang are Ramon, Pedro, Miguel, Ryan (!) and Slide (???). They have a scheme by which they force, with intimidation and brutality, small landowners to hand over the deeds to their property, working in cahoots with Judge Wilson, the local arm of the judiciary. The town sheriff is no use: they’ve already gone through eight of those, and the ninth is terminated after daring merely to issue a wanted poster for one of the brothers, Pedro.

When Webb arrives, toting his books somewhat ostentatiously, there are thoughts he might be a long-awaited federal agent. That isn’t the case – as we discover, when the real one is ambushed by the O’Haras and killed, before he even reached Tombstone. But Webb certainly has an agenda, and sets his plan in motion. Meanwhile, Burt Collins (Robsahm) arrives in town to visit his brother, Peter, one of the victims of the O’Haras, who now lives on the outskirts of his town with his squaw wife, Sarah (Malfatti). Yes, I know the term “squaw” is considered derogatory these days, but you should see this portrayal, which is pretty much a collection of stereotypes, all fringed buckskin, beaded hair and good with a bow and arrow, played by an actress born in Florence, without any apparent ounce of native American blood. Burt kills two of O’Hara’s men after catching them cheating at cards in the town saloon, which is run by the semi-respectable brother, Ramon (Cantafora). The following day, when three more members of the gang show up, seeking revenge, and are shot (with a little help from Webb), Burt is told by Judge Wilson (also with a little help from Webb), he must become sheriff #10, or stand trial. If he kills all the O’Haras, the land will default to Wilson, who offers to split it 50/50 with Burt.

black killerBefore he can get that far, the O’Haras strike first, attacking Burt when he is visiting Peter and Sarah. The new sheriff is beaten unconscious, Sarah raped, and her husband killed when he tries to stop the attack. The gang set the farm on fire, but fail to finish off the Sarah and Burt, which turns out to be a fatal mistake, for the second half of the film (largely free of Kinski), concentrate instead on Burt and Sarah’s team-up against the O’Haras. no longer solely driven by Judge Wilson’s interests. [If ever I become an evil overlord, I will instruct my minions to be utterly ruthless, and leave no survivors who can take on a mission of personal vengeance…] Between Burt’s shooting, and Sarah’s archery skills, the gang of brothers are whittled down until only Ramon is left. Webb, meanwhile, turns out to have some nifty safe-cracking skills, and uses these to extract papers from Wilson’s safe, applying the screws to the judge and setting up the final confrontations between the various corners of the plot, in and around the center of Tombstone.

I’ve really got no idea what the title means in the context of the film, or even to whom it is supposed to refer; it could be just about any of the characters, from the Judge, through the two protagonists, to Ramon O’Hara. But it’s hard to be sure, since nobody in the film is black, and nobody in the films kills anyone who is black either.  Otherwise, much of this is fairly standard Western fare, the main exception being the question of whether Webb and Collins have a relationship, or if their near-simultaneous arrival in the town is merely fortuitous. They share very few scenes in the film, up until the climax, and it seems the script intentionally keeps it murky as to who is running things. My money is on Webb being the puppet-master, not least because he is smart enough not to step directly into the firing line against the O’Haras. He apparently prefers to spend his time lurking around the saloon, which is equipped with an unexpected number of curtains, perfect for skulking behind to overhear conversations, etc.

The ending kinda clarifies things, though can hardly be said to tie up all the loose ends, with the question of the Collins/Webb relationship never fully explained. Still, it’s solid enough, even if I wished Kinski had been quite as prominent in the film as he is on the promotional materials, and Daniele Patucchi’s score cements his place among the upper tier of Italian soundtrack composers. Have to say, the English dubbing here is also quite interesting, giving Webb a plummy, upper-class sound that is certainly unusual and distinctive, particularly when whoever is playing the part gets to sink their teeth into lines like “It seems to be oozing with quiet calm,” as Webb sarcastically describes Tombstone to Ramon on arriving in the town. Webb certainly puts the “aggressive” in “aggressive legal representation,” even if you do wonder how he manages to aim his lethal library with such apparent accuracy.

Zoo Zéro (1979)

Posted on by

Dir: Alain Fleischer
Star: Catherine Jourdan, Klaus Kinski, Pierre Clémenti, Piéral

There are probably stranger movies out there, but I’m not sure I’ve seen one. This is the kind of film, carrying massive artistic pretensions of “meaning,” which would typically have me gnawing my own limb off to escape. I think if I had actually been forced to sit down, and devote my entire attention to this  nonsense for its full running-time, that would likely have been the case. But, I will confess, I took advantage of the subtitles, and spent the last 50 minutes running on our treadmill. This is probably not the way the makers intended their creation to be appreciated, but what can I say? It worked for me, and I would recommend something similar to viewers, since this probably works better as background art, like a painting on the wall of a room, rather than as something to which you must devote your full attention.

I can’t really provide much of a coherent synopsis here, since obscurity is the film’s middle name. I’m going to crib shamelessly from other sources. Unfortunately, when you Google “Zoo Zero”, the IMDB.com information says “A cruel dictator rules a Latin American state. Corruption, brutality and exploitation are present every day. A few people begin to organise resistance.” Two things worth mentioning. Firstly, that’s actually the synopsis of another Kinski movie, Kommando Leopard. Secondly, such is the obscurity in which this wallows, it’s not implausible this could be the synopsis here too, because there are definite references to what appears to be the death of General Franco. Fortunately,. Letterbox.com is slightly better informed:

Eva is a singer in a Noah’s Ark themed nightclub, where the guests wear animal masks. She sings about a doomed love affair between a lion tamer and a lion. She is approached by a stranger who claims to know her and to remember her singing Mozart which she denies. Driven around in her midget manager´s limousine she encounters bizarre characters who turn out to belong to her incestuous family of ogres.

zoozeroAt this point, I’m tempted to insert a clip from Doctor Who, which has David Tennant saying “What?” for about 30 seconds. But I can’t argue with its overall accuracy either, and it has a dream-like atmosphere which means that you just have to roll with its own surreal logic, as the surreal events unfold. They climax in Eva (Jourdan, best known for her supporting role in The Girl on a Motorcycle) and Yavé, the zoo manager played by Kinski, running around the zoo, while arias from Mozart’s The Magic Flute play. Oh, and Yavé speaks entirely through a computer-controlled vocoder; it’s not clear if this was ever even actually Kinski speaking the lines, and they were subsequently treated electronically, or if he managed to get a pay-check, purely for showing up and looking suitably intense.

The film certainly looks lovely, with the art department and lush, blue-drenched cinematography making for a picture that’s pretty as a picture. The characters seem both to exist and to act, simply because the film demands it happen. How else to explain the chauffeur of Eva’s pint-sized manager (Piéral), who carried a ventriloquist’s dummy with him in the front-seat, and with which he will occasionally do political commentary? As with many other things here, I’m sure there’s an intended meaning, but 35 years of time have removed any obvious topical content, and it’s so obtuse as to be completely impenetrable. I did enjoy the use of music: the opening scene had echoes of Cabaret with its staging of the musical number, and the opera score, in particular the Mozart, is also effective, and had me making a mental note to find a full version of The Magic Flute.

Curiously, that opening, where Eva sings about a semi-bestial relationship between a man and his feline, felt almost like it was foreshadowing Cat People from three years later, starring Klaus’s daughter, Nastassja [And I mentioned in my review of Grandi cacciatori, how that, in turn, seems to answer back Paul Schrader’s film] As Kinski roles go, it’s certainly unusual. The deliberately masked timbre of his voice, while disconcerting, is probably preferable to all those films I’ve seen, in which he has been dubbed, by someone who is very clearly not Klaus. Its melodic tones are certainly in contrast to his physical performance, which is like a tightly-wound spring, as he calmly discusses his philosophy with the caged Eva before releasing her, for them to gallop through the zoo. It does take the film about an hour to get there, with much of the early going consisting of Eva being driven around, and to be honest, that isn’t very interesting. Kinski’s appearance provides the film with something it desperately needs: a focus, rather than feeling like turning the pages in a picture-book dreamed up by your subconscious after too many slices of pizza.

On the whole, while I’d still have to class this as a failure, it is at least an interesting failure. Even if it’s not at all clear what Fleischer was attempting to accomplish – perhaps I needed the right mind-altering drugs – and nor is it something I’ll be rushing to re-watch, in terms of cinema as a visual art, this does have its moments.

Grandi Cacciatori (1988)

Posted on by

Dir: Augusto Caminito
Star: Harvey Keitel, Klaus Kinski, Roberto Bisacco, Yorgo Voyagis

Well, this is a weird beast, and make no mistake about it. At least one place describes it as “Klaus Kinski’s last film,” which doesn’t seem right to me, since I always thought that title belonged to Paganini. This is what it goes on to say: I can’t vouch for the accuracy, and it’s on a members-only forum, so there’s no point linking, but would certainly explain some of the more bizarre aspects. “Kinski had an agreement for 4 movies with Carlo Alberto Alfieri and Caminito, including Paganini. But you know Kinski: after shooting the second one, his Paganini, he made a lot of trouble while shooting the third and then, after shooting the first part in Africa, left the set while in Alaska. Consequently the story was changed and Kinski dies after 40 minutes or so.” I’m not sure what four films they would be: aside from Paganini, there’s also Vampire in Venice and this one, but that’s only three, so we still seem to be missing one. Neither Alfieri nor Caminito have anything else on their filmographies around this time with Klaus. Maybe the contract never was completed, with Grandi Cacciatori (which translates as “Great Hunters”) being the third?

It certainly globe-trots, with the first chunk, as noted, in Africa, where Kinski plays Klaus Naginsky, a famous big-game hunter, whose life goes off the rails after his wife is attacked and killed by a black panther. He starts drinking heavily, and becomes obsessed with the animal in question, considering it “his”, to the extent that he reacts violently when another party attempts to capture the panther. The resulting gun-battle gets Naginsky sent to prison, but he is bailed out by Hermann (Bisacco), who has an offer: a hunting job on the other side of the world, in Alaska. There, Hermann’s brother, a film-maker, was killed while documenting the barbaric practices of the annual fur seal hunt, with the last seconds of footage testifying to the identity of the killer. Klaus is hired to wait on the pack ice, wait for the hunters to return, identify the perpetrator and deliver some Arctic justice. However, Klaus – Naginsky, but if the report above is true, Kinski as well! – vanishes without trace, and Herman has bring a replacement for the same task, Thomas (Keitel), who gets the same spiel and follows his predecessor onto the ice.

Things don’t go so well, though he does discover his predecessor, entombed in the ice, gazing up at him like a mammoth, looking slightly surprised. [Man, that would be a great idea for a SyFy original movie: Kinski Comes Alive, in which a deep-frozen KK is discovered in the German Alps, is thawed, and goes on a rampage through the modern film industry…] Worse is to follow, as Thomas’s first encounter with the hunters ends with him being clubbed on the side of the head, and left unconscious in the snow. Fortunately, he is found by one of the native inhabitants, who takes Thomas back to his igloo, and nurses the hunter of hunters back to health. While recuperating, he is shown the wreckage of a downed plane, left over from the end of World War II, and in it’s hold, preserved better than you’d expect due to the cold conditions, is a very large machine-gun. With the aid of some Eskimo urine (look, I’m not making this up!), Thomas gets the gun ship-shape, and in something with echoes of Django, heads of for another encounter with the hunters, intent on completing Hermann’s mission of vengeance.

cacci2

In some ways, this is “Klaus Kinski vs. the Wilderness” – and, as usual, the wilderness comes out on top. I think it’s a shame he walked off the set, as there is definite potential shown in the early scenes. Naginsky’s relationship with the panther that killed his woman is a deliciously weird one. It’s a true love-hate deal, which sees the hunter incredibly possessive, prepared to shoot up anyone he perceives as a threat to the animal – yet it’s apparently only because he wants to be the one who kills it. I’m certainly tempted to read many kinds of psychological meanings into the film, given daughter Nastassja’s portrayal of a woman who turns into a black panther, earlier in the eighties. You could organize an entire convention of psychiatrists around an analysis of this movie, in that regard. However, it’s an angle that’s entirely dumped after Kinski is sent to prison, even before his transformation into a giant popsicle. I’m not sure why, and wonder how the film might have gone in a radically different direction, if not for the need to replace Kinski with Keitel.

Keitel isn’t bad; he rarely is. But in his second “overlap” with Kinski, after El caballero del dragón (which did at least have them share scenes, unlike this!), you sense Cacciatori is more of a case where he rolled up his sleeves and got down to some jobbing acting. The switch in focus from one character to another after the first third is extremely jarring, and they would have been far better off, simply junking the footage shot with Kinski and beginning the film all over again. I imagine it was purely a business decision, the production being unable to fund a return trip to Africa to reshoot all the footage there, with a different lead actor. If so, it didn’t pay off, as the film appears to have received little or no distribution at the time, and subsequently vanished into the black hole of lost rights for a quarter-century, until unexpectedly showing up on Italian TV, from where a fan-subbed version was generated, and can be found in several places, including YouTube. It’s certainly worth a look, though probably benefits from the viewer being forewarned regarding the… ah, difficult nature of its creation!

cacci3

Le orme (1975)

Posted on by

This is the kind of film which could easily provoke riots at the cinema with its ending, a cheap-shot caption which ranks up there with “…and it was all a dream,” in terms of absolute laziness on the part of writer Luigi Bazzoni. I can only presume the novel on which it was based, Las Huellas by Mario Fenelli (who also worked on the screenplay), was a good deal more rigorous in terms of its storytelling. It’s a shame, as up until the movie’s abject failure to provide anything approaching a suitable resolution, there is much to admire. It looks, thanks to triple-Oscar winning cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, very nice, and Nicola Piovani’s score is also highly effective. Bolkan delivers an effective performance as heroine Alice Cespi, who is initially plagued by dreams of an astronaut being deliberately left behind on the moon, apparently as part of some experiment, run from mission control by Blackmann (Kinski). That turns out to be the tip of the mental iceberg, because when Alice turns up to her job as a translator, the boss berates her for missing days of work, and Alice is shocked to realize a whole chunk of time has apparently gone missing from her life.

Back in her apartment, she discovers a clue, in the form of a ripped-up postcard from the ‘Garma Hotel’, and on a hunch, she travels to the Turkish seaside resort [in reality, it was filmed in Kemer]. There, she meets a little girl, Paula (Elmi), who seems to recognize her – but as a woman with red hair, called “Nicole”. And she is not the only person who appears to remember Alice/Nicole from a previous visit to the town, for one reason or another, a boutique owner and an old lady on the beach also having interacted with her. She is befriended by a visitor, Henry (McEnery), but the more Alice pries out of Paula about her alter-ego Nicole, and what she told the child, the more suspicious she grows about Henry’s motives. Alice also becomes increasingly concerned that persons or a group – perhaps connected to ‘Blackmann’ in some way – are after her, though the reasons for this remain obscure. Did she discover something in connection with her work, perhaps when she was translating at an astronautics conference? Meanwhile, the dreams continue, and do they hold a key clue? Or is she just remembering scenes from a film she saw?

leorme2It’s the kind of paranoid, psychological thriller that is a great deal easier to set up than to resolve, and it’s clear that Bazzoni has absolutely no interest in the resolution. Which, I’d probably have been a great deal more okay with, if I had known going in, that there would be only a token effort to tie the threads together – which is so wretched, I wish they hadn’t bothered – I could just have appreciated the atmosphere, which is certainly present in spades. But I’ve always been a believer that cinema should be a story-telling medium, first and foremost; if there are other aspects present, that’s fine, as long as they are built on an adequately-strong foundation of content. Otherwise, you might as well just be in an art gallery, looking at pretty pictures. In multiple places online, I saw this movie described as a giallo, that most Italian of mystery genres; but apart from its total disregard for logic, it lacks the horror and erotic elements which tend to characterize the other entries in the field (though that may be as much my own interests leading me towards that side!).

Kinski’s role is little more than an extended cameo, and I doubt it took much more than a couple of days to film his segments. Indeed, just as in Deadly Sanctuary, it appear that his character has absolutely no direct interaction with anyone else in the movie, since he’s communicating with the astronauts over the radio from a (sparsely populated!) ground control center. Perhaps this is a way directors found to avoid issues? Effectively, keep him in solitary confinement? I’ll have to keep an eye out for this in other Kinski-cameos. It’s a very slight piece, not helped by Kinski apparently being dubbed into Italian, though he does manage to deliver his usual disturbing degree of intensity. If he’d been on the ground in Houston for Apollo 13, he could probably have brought the module home by sheer force of will. However, it certainly counts as a film watched in spite, rather than because, of the Kinski content. And yet, despite the qualms expressed above, I don’t feel like it was 90 minutes entirely wasted. The technical aspects and the lead performance were enough to merit appreciation. It’s just a shame they weren’t in the service of a better script.

Dir: Luigi Bazzoni
Star: Florinda Bolkan, Peter McEnery, Nicoletta Elmi, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Primal Impulse, Footprints on the Moon

Deadly Sanctuary (1969)

Posted on by

Dir: Jess Franco
Star: Romina Power, Maria Rohm, Mercedes McCambridge, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Marquis de Sade: Justine

“Contrary to his reputation, [Klaus] was not difficult to direct. We made seven films together, without any hassle and he was wonderful: friendly, gentle as a child, except, of course, when he got pissed off. This great master didn’t have problems, except with idiots. When a small-time filmmaker told him nothing at all except, “Sit there and smile”, he got angry.”
— Jess Franco

justineKinski is certainly a good choice to play the Marquis de Sade, between those full lips and a sense of overwhelming cruelty lurking not far behind his eyes. So, I was surprised to learn he was actually not the first pick for the role: it was originally supposed to be Orson Welles, who apparently backed out after reading the script. I’m not certain quite what Franco’s thought process was here: I’m hard pushed to think of any character where you’d think, “Well, if we can’t get Orson Welles, what about Klaus Kinski?” Though perhaps surprisingly, this film is only one of a number of connections between Welles and Franco. Back in 1965, Franco was the second-unit director on Welles’s Chimes at Midnight, though they reportedly parted on bad terms, and there are at least two other Franco productions in which Welles was linked to roles, including 1975’s The Man From Guyane, which also had Kinski attached to it. And after Welles’s death, Franco took the footage from his unfinished Don Quixote production and turned it into 1992’s Don Quixote de Orson Welles.

That’s surprising, because – and let me speak frankly here – Franco is one of the most godawful directors in the history of cinema. I know there are those of a cult persuasion who love his work, but the description of him as a European version of Ed Wood is perhaps closer to the mark, albeit an incredibly prolific Ed Wood with a fondness for sleaze, with Franco not infrequently working in hardcore porn. However, given that, this adaptation of the Marquis de Sade’s Justine: The Misfortunes of Virtue, is actually relatively tame, with only one (admittedly, fairly extended) sequence exhibiting the sadomasochistic bent which was one of the characteristics in much of Franco’s work. It feels more like a historical romp, though does retain some of the cynicism present in the original, which suggests that the wicked are rewarded, and that a life of virtue is simply a meaningless exercise in self-restraint. It is also true that, the novel itself was relatively restrained by de Sade’s standards of depravity. However, the film does present a softer ending than de Sade’s novel, in which the heroine is struck by lightning and killed.

Truth be told, Klaus doesn’t have much to do – not even a single line of dialogue – since the film is not “about” him, except in the sense that the story occasionally flicks back from the main plot, to the Marquis de Sade (Kinski), scribbling feverishly away in his cell at (supposedly) the Bastille. There, he’s tormented by visions of women, inspiring him to inflict further torments of his heroine as she progresses on her journey through life. She is Justine (Power), who along with her sister, Juliette (Rohm), are being brought up in a convent, though Justine is far closer in temperament and outlook to the nuns than Juliette. Their tranquil to the point of boring life is shattered by the news that their father is bankrupt and their mother dead, a double whammy which leads to both sisters being turfed out on the streets of Paris [albeit a Paris oddly equipped with palm trees] with 100 crowns to their name. Juliette says she knows where they can stay: when this turns out to be a notorious brothel, Justine bails.

This kicks off a series of misadventures which see her arrested as a thief; broken out of jail by notorious murderess Madame Dusbois (McCambridge); forced to become part of a gang; turned into a servant to the wife of a gay aristocrat; forced into becoming the sex slave for an order of depraved monks under Brother Antonin (Jack Palance, apparently drunk throughout filming); re-encounters Madame Dusbois and is turned into an 18th-century stripper; is accused of murder; and, finally, encounters her sister again, who has turned her life of depravity into a position as the mistress to a member of the upper classes. Juliette rescues her sister from a likely trip to the guillotine, thanks to her powerful connections. Justine realizes that all her efforts to be good and do the right thing, have not helped her in the slightest, so she might as well have given into her baser tendencies, and used them to her advantage and pleasure, as Juliette did.

klausmarquisIt certainly looks better than the typical Franco low-budgeter – the price-tag on this one was a million bucks, which is close to $7m in today’s money. However, that appears not to have come without its problems. He had originally cast Rosemary Dexter as Justine, but Hollywood’s Golden Rule – he who has the gold, makes the rules – kicked in, one of the producers insisting on Power (daughter of Tyrone Power) for the leading role. The director reluctantly agreed, with Dexter reduced to a small role, but it’s a choice Franco has repeatedly regretted, comparing Power’s performance unfavorably to that of a window dummy. Personally, I didn’t find her particularly grating: she’s playing a wide-eyed innocent, so her lack of acting experience perhaps works for her in the role. However, in her scenes with McCambridge, it’s definitely clear who is the seasoned actress, and you are left to wonder what might have happened, had Franco been given the same budget without any external interference in casting or production.

But much more irritating for me, is Klaus Kinski being entirely wasted. While, as mentioned above, it’s a great choice, I’d have far preferred to see him play de Sade in something like Quills, peeling away the psyche of one of history’s most notorious figures. Here, his presence is entirely pointless, and you’re left wondering why they bothered to get him at all, for what can only have been a couple of days’ work. It’s certainly not Franco’s worst – I’ve sat through Virgin Among the Living Dead, so can say this with absolute certainty. But there’s not a great deal to commend this to anyone, unless you’re specifically looking for a lukewarm adaptation of de Sade, lightly garnished with Kinski face-pulling.

Killer’s Carnival (1966)

Posted on by

Dir: Albert Cardiff, Robert Lynn and Sheldon Reynolds
Stsr: Stewart Granger, Pierre Brice, Lex Barker, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Gern hab’ ich die Frauen gekillt, Spies Against the World

I think there’s a good reason the anthology film is more common in genres like horror than the spy field. While you can conjure up scares with a relatively scant amount of storyline, it takes a fair amount of plotting to put together a decent espionage yarn. That certainly seems to be the case here, where the three stories presented are all underdeveloped, little more than trifles where any potential interest is only sketched out in the briefest of terms. It’s like this film is an artist’s impression of three statues, rather than any of them being fully-fledged work in themselves. The wraparound story is also rather dumb. A wanted man (Peter Vogel) takes refuge in the house of a professor (Patton‘s Richard Münch); while waiting for the police who are combing the era to leave, the professor tells three stories of crime and espionage, with the vague moral that crime doesn’t pay. [The way this ends, after the final tale is told, likely will be among the more WTF? twists you’ll have seen]

The first story takes place in Vienna, and is clearly trying to channel The Third Man, right down to the zither-laden soundtrack. After a woman’s journalist brother is killed in a car “accident”, she goes to David Porter (Granger), a grumpy private-eye who initially refuses to help, but eventually agrees after seeing that the woman was apparently trailed to his office. The journalist had been investigating a drugs ring, travelling across Europe to find its leader, and it seems he may have got too close to the truth. Porter pays a visit to the last person shown in the dead writer’s journal before his untimely demise, and discovers that the conclusion that contact was a dead-end is not entirely true. So why would a journalist lie in his own notes to himself? It;s an intriguing idea, but no sooner has it been set up, than it’s resolved, in about two minutes of unconvincing deductive work, because the film needs to gallop on to the second installment.

This is more of a spy caper, and is clearly not intended to be taken seriously, right from the time that the hero, Agent Brice (Brice) gets his instructions in the form of a 7″ single made of spaghetti, which he is instructed to eat after listening to. Though disappointingly, he doesn’t bother to boil the pasta record and serve with a nice carbonara sauce. What a Philistine. His mission, should he choose to accept it, is delivering a package of documents to a specific location, but Brice soon finds the Chico gang are also after the papers, and will stop at nothing to get their hands on them. With no backup to hand, he has to figure out who he can trust, and who is really working for the enemy. If light-hearted in nature, that’s no excuse for being dull as ditch-water, with comic mugging and slapstick replacing anything likely to cause more than a slight twitch at the corner of your mouth.

killers

The third is perhaps the most interesting, and has the most potential for development, though as with the other two, is severely hampered by having to gallop through the narrative at such a pace as to leave little or no room for character portrayal, atmosphere, etc. It starts in San Francisco with the discovery of two dead women in the ocean; private eye Glenn Cassidy (Barker) investigates, and discovers that they were killed to try and hush up a planned plot to assassinate the Brazilian president during the Rio carnival. He takes the place of the assassin hired for the job, and heads for Brazil to expose the ringleader, who is incredibly cautious with regard to protecting his identity, to the extent of wearing a black hood when he meets with Cassidy. This has some nice action sequences, in particular a roof-top chase involving a Ferris wheel, that has some good stunt-work. It’s the one of the trilogy that I could most easily see being expanded into a full feature, and on this showing, wouldn’t be a bad one.

You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned Klaus. That’s because his appearance is very much of the “blink and you’ll miss it” variety, playing the part of Gomez, one of the leading henchmen to the assassins in the final segment. He has about two scenes, one depicted in the picture above, which takes place overlooking Rio harbor and Sugarloaf mountain – apparently for the sole purpose of proving that the film did actually shoot on location, and not fake it with the aid of some stock Mardi Gras footage. Given the paucity of his role, I suspect the pitch for this went something like, “Fancy a couple of weeks in Rio, Klaus? Just need you for a scene or two.” Can’t say I blame the man for accepting on that basis, though having to wait 87 minutes into the film for him to show up, is certainly going to tax the patience of most Kinski fans.

Random trivia: the German title, Gern hab’ ich die Frauen gekillt, translates as “I am happy to have killed the women,” and is a riff on an operatic aria by Franz Lehar, Gern hab’ ich die Frauen geküsst, “I am happy to have kissed the women.” I only mention this, in the light of Kinski’s presence, because the name and subject of the operetta is Paganini…

Mister Zehn Prozent – Miezen und Moneten (1968)

Posted on by

Dir: Guido Zurli
Star: George Martin, Andrea Aureli, Paolo Carlini, Klaus Kinski
a.k.a. Mister Ten Percent, Psychopath, Sigpress contro Scotland Yard

This begins with opening credits which have, in the background, a hairy George Martin bouncing, without his shirt on a trampoline. It feels a lot longer than the four minutes it lasts, and I couldn’t help thinking I’d rather have had Karin Field bouncing topless on a trampoline for four minutes. Hell, I’d probably rather have had Klaus doing the back-flips, purely for bizarreness. I guess the aim is to establish Sigpress (Martin) as an athletic type, and no sooner has he dismounted than he’s being swarmed by beach bunnies, enamored of his physique. We soon also discover his day-job is as a thief, albeit with a twist: he steals jewels, and then ransoms them back, either to their owner or to the insurance company, for a cut of their value. Hence the title of the film, which translates as Mister Ten Percent – Chicks and Big Bucks. He is being hunted by Inspector Bennett (Carlini) of Scotland Yard, whom Sigpress delights in taunting over the phone.

After an amusing opening caper, where Sigpress robs some robbers, disguised as James Bond, the main focus is on a jewel, the Eye of Allah, belonging to dubious businessman Thamistokles Nyorkos (Aureli), who is unable to come and pick it up from London due to outstanding legal issues. The gem is sent on the boat-train to Paris, under escort of Lloyds’ agents and Inspector Bennett, with Sigpress on the train too, pretending to be a journalist doing a feature on Bennett. But someone else swoops in and steals the gem from under their noses. Turns out it was actually an associate working for Nyorkos – this way, he’ll get both the gem, for his private collection, and the insurance payout. Is that going to stop Sigpress? Of course not. However, he’s not the only person with designs on the gem, as Nyorkos finds out, when he is attacked and shot on the way back from Paris.

What does Klaus have to do with all these continental shenanigans, I hear you ask? Good question. He plays Periwinkle – I’m fairly sure the first and last time Kinski played a character named after a flower. Or possibly a shellfish. Or a Crayola crayon. Regardless, he’s Sigpress’s manservant, whose duties include answering the phone and, as depicted at the top of this review, bludgeoning British bobbies into unconsciousness. As this would suggest, he’s entirely aware of his boss’s clandestine activities, this mugging occurring as part of a trip to a seedy nightclub, where Sigpress hopes to gather intel on the jewel, by taking on the identity of one of the collaborators, who is knocked out and whom Periwinkle is left to guard, eventually drawing the attention of the police officer in question.

psychoThis is followed by Sigpress going for a stroll through swingin’ London, which includes another nod to everyone’s #1 secret agent [You Only Live Twice had apparently just come out], that is a decent summary of the lighthearted approach taken here. The film at its best when its playing with the conventions of the genre like this, and twisting them in an occasionally surreal fashion. For example, when in Paris, Nyorkos and his wife go out to a venue that seems to offer dinner and dancing, as well as striptease and casual prostitution. Bennett and Sigpress are both there, the former declining an offer of female companionship by deadpanning, “I’m afraid you’d be wasting your time. You don’t know me, but I strangle women, and with their own belts.” The scene ends with the nightclub customers dancing, with moderate enthusiasm, to what I swear appears to be a jazzy Ride of the Valkyries interpretation.

It would be preferable if there was more Kinski. Despite the wildly misleading cover, above right [wrong in just about every details, although the biggest question would be, where the hell did they get the title, Psychopath?], he is very much a supporting character. Once Sigpress goes off to France, Periwinkle is virtually out of the movie, although he does make a crucial reappearance at the end to get his boss off the hook, just when Bennett thinks he has finally got his man, That’s a shame since the pair make an entertaining double-act, with Kinski deadpanning his way through scenes in dogged support of Martin. There’s almost an element of Inspector Clouseau and Cato here, though Sigpress is a good deal more competent, obviously. It feels like they were trying to start a franchise here, but given the lack of follow-up, it appears this initial entry did not meet with sufficient success to justify it. It could still work in the modern era, and though certain elements are dated, the core idea is strong: you could see, perhaps, Jason Statham or Clive Owen taking on the lead role, though I’m at a loss to figure out who might replace Kinski [true for many of his performances!].

I enjoyed this, perhaps in part because I went in with no real expectations or foreknowledge – though heaven knows what I’d have thought had my expectations been based on that sleeve! After what feels like a fairly long sequence of films where the non-Kinski elements have been disappointing, it’s a breath of fresh air to find one whose entertainment value is not solely dependent on Klaus’s presence. He made no secret of being willing to appear in just about anything for the right price, and the results often reflect his lack of quality control. However, this isn’t one of those, providing a frothy Euro-romp that is definitely aware of its own silliness, and has withstood the test of time rather well.

They Were Called Graveyard (1969)

Posted on by

Dir: Nando Cicero
Star: Antonio Sabato, Klaus Kinski, Narciso Ibáñez Menta, Cristina Galbó
a.k.a. Due volte Giuda (Twice a Judas)

graveyardThis is a strikingly good idea, which grabs the viewer’s interest right from the get-go. A man (Sabato) regains consciousness on the side of a hill, next to a corpse. He can remember nothing about who he is, or how he got there. Making his way to the nearest town, he’s recognized as Luke Webster by someone, who appears to have a job for him. Our hero plays along, even when he discovers he’s going to be the decoy at an assassination of a local landowner. Except, he then discovers the victim is actually his brother, Victor (Kinski). Why did he agree to be part of such a plot? If only he could remember the past… From here unfolds a tale of filial tension, local politics and vengeance, as Luke seeks the man responsible for killing his wife, whose name, “Dingus”, is carved into the butt of Luke’s gun. [The film claims it’s also Mexican for “mongrel” or “half-breed”, which makes sense in the light of what transpires, but I haven’t found any verification for this] For it turns out that this hit on Victor was put out by a group of local bankers led by Murphy (Menta): there’s a fierce struggle between them over local tracts of land, with both sides using intimidatory tactics to try and bend the homesteaders to their will.

The main problem here, is the usual one concerning cinematic amnesia. It’s an obvious and contrived gimmick, with the victim inevitably recovering their memory in the way and at the time which is necessary for the dramatic goals of the movie. In this particular case, it’s triggered by Luke’s discovery of a music-box, resulting in a flashback that more or less ticks all the boxes, and sets up the final showdown. There, we just know he’s going to showcase off his father’s weapon, a modified shotgun that sends a spray of lethal missiles over about a 60-degree arc in front of the shooter. However, to get there, he has to withstand a lethal assault at the family homestead where his mother is still living. Fortunately, the family dog still remembers him, and his happy to assist by flushing the enemy up from their hiding places, for Luke to take down.

Still, despite my qualms about the convenience of the plotting, this is still delicious in its moral ambiguity. For much of the running time, you had little or no idea about who was good or bad, since nobody seemed to have an unassailable moral position. Vincent, for example, firmly believes he’s on the side of the angels – except, the way he behaves is in reality, little or no different from the bankers he’s fighting. Is he really liberating the Mexican peons who are being deported? Or simply ensuring his property has cheap workers? That even extends as far as the hero, who shows an early willingness to take part in murder for hire, and only has moral qualms when he discovers the target is a blood relative. Hell, for a good chunk in the middle, I had a suspicion that he’d actually end up being “Dingus” himself. For example, that name could have been carved into the rifle to indicate his ownership, not as some kind of mnemonic device so he’d remember it. Would have made this an earlier ancestor of Memento had that actually been the case.

Sabata and Kinski are both excellent in their roles, though it might have been even better had the two men swapped their roles, just to confound moral expectations even further. The body count is quite hefty, though it seems at times that Luke is the only person capable of hitting his target: this incompetence is likely necessary to the plot, I think. I hadn’t heard of Cicero before, but it turns out the director was initially an actor, working for the likes of Visconti and Rossellini. This was the last of his three spaghetti Westerns, after Last of the Badmen and Professionals for a Massacre, both starring George Hilton. in the seventies, he switched to the comedy genre, in particular, the bawdy style of the commedia sexy all’italiana. Kinski and Sabato, meanwhile, would face off again a couple of years later, in 1971’s L’occhio del ragno, though it’s not a Western, but a crime film about the aftermath of a diamond heist.

It’s an effective piece of work, ranking in the upper tier both among Kinski’s performances during this era, and of spaghetti Westerns in general. Despite my qualms about amnesia as a plot point, it’s a good deal more restrained and less lazy than some of the others which I have seen try to use the condition, and the other aspects of the storyline, along with the performances, are enough to make me forgive this.