In the Realm of the Senses: Brazen Eros and Thanatos
Abe and Kinchizo
If one could pluck erotic tragedy from the vine, my guess is they would have a copy of In The Realm of the Senses (1976) in their fingers. What an audacious feast of carnal desires and social taboos. I dare say this film is meta: Not only do we see the actions within the film as taboo, we ourselves engage in societal taboos as we view a film. It still hasn’t been seen in its entirety in Japan, where it was made. In the Realm of the Senses was directed by Nagisa Oshima, who’s know for films that challenge society’s rules and standards.
In the Realm of the Senses is based on a true story in Japan of folk hero Sada Abe, who, after accidentally killing her lover, Kichizo Ishida, cut off his genitals and carried them around in her purse. Several films have been made about Sada Abe. In the Realm of the Senses is not a biography, nor does it explore Abe’s motivations for the death of her lover. What we have is a film that depicts themes of raw sexuality and tragedy.
Visually we’re witnesses to a tragic, yet erotic love affair that crosses social taboos not only of the time in the film, but to the real word’s censors. Make no mistake. This is a very explicit film, and the sex is real. It has a sublime effect as I went from spectator to voyeur multiple times. Often I felt as an intruder, watching people release their inhibitions.
Part of looking back at In the Realm of the Senses allows us to see where and how far censorship and depicting sex and sexuality in films progressed. This film definitely blurs the line between narrative and titillation with real sex scenes. Director Oshima makes it clear by the content this film, that there would be confrontations and daring even by today’s standard. In many films where the sex is faked and depicted as real, as much as the same manner as violence in film is depicted. In the Real of the Senses dares to break one taboo after another. The film has pornographic aspects, but it’s taken seriously with a strong narrative and tells a story, which doesn’t really happen in typical porn. We also have a tragic ending which is a far cry from XXX features. Even at the end of this film with tragedey and lose, Abe manages to cement her commitment to her lover for Kenchizo. With In the Realm of the Senses we, the viewers face the question of what it means to be sexual beings in a world set with limits and taboos.
Abe and Kinchizo have a lot of conversations during lovemaking that's a bit more than the typical pornspeak.
With In the Realm of the Senses we have an unflinching portrait and cautionary tale when Kichizo and Abe indulge in and are lead by their ID and libido. In fact I dare say the film functions as our ID, allowing us to see a world with explicit details. I applaud the frankness laid out before the viewer. The tragedy and havoc wrecked by this couple is not without consequence, neither is this film. If this is eroticism explored to dark and unsavory levels, I am curious about a film that could express a brighter theme with the use of unsimulated sex.
I admire the unflinching desire to capture graphic sex and sexuality on film while maintaining a narrative. I cringe where the passions of the couple lead the viewer to see how unrestrained a level sex brings to the fold. This is a film that is much more than what is seen on the surface. It’s not a film for everyone. It pushes the limits of what censorship, and the dangers of unleashing the ID, and reflecting actions that do happen in multiple societies. With this film, sex becomes the ultimate expression of love, as does death.
Sex works like an addiction for these two.
There is a willingness to explore penetration, the act of penetration as a skill and as a function of biology/sexuality. There’s also a willingness to be penetrated and explored sexually. Women brandish phallic objects as well. Abe threatens with a knife as wel as fantasizes about murdering Kichizo’s wife. Not all phallic tools are for killing. A group of women explore their own pleasures with a phallic shaped object. Ultimately Abe takes the source of pleasure from her dead lover. This tragic mix of mutilation and sexuality leaves a disturbing resonance of a destructive love.
One of the cooler aspects of seeing this film via the Criterion Collection are the essays in the film booklet. The cinema studies student that I am can’t resist reading them and exploring the discussion of said film. If you get a chance give them a peep. I also suggest Criterion’s website where you can see several of the essays. Oshima’s thoughts are printed in the booklet as well. In one section he speaks the insecurities of many of the actors looked at for the role of Kichizo.
There is a poetic elegance tied to the film, as sexuality is the main theme, but not the only aspect of the film. To label it as simply “pornographic” is a disservice to the material and offers only a limited understanding of the film. Yes it does push boundaries and yes if watching graphic sex is not your cup of tea in a film, I’d sincerely advise against seeing it. Likewise if you’re looking for a straightforward porn film, you may be dissatisfied.
There is a dark side to passion that’s explored here as well. As liberated as the characters, they are also in a toxic love affair. Our hero is married to another women and she; our heroine is a servant of lower standing. Still the fires ignite, that the sexual dependency and liberation clashes against the culture and possibly all the viewers’ sensibilities.
The desire to explore sex and attraction only intensifies from here.
The film’s tragic elements appear when the couple neglect to use restraint and set boundaries for their sexual passions. Had such limitations been part of their regiment, perhaps the tragedy could have been avoided in the first place. As I stated earlier, the ID is unleashed with no checks and balances. Passion became too much of a good thing. Sex does have thrills and exploring can be a healthy between two consenting adults, however there is a limit to surrendering to one’s passions. This is a cautionary tale as relevant as when the film was made in 1976.
The bodies encompass more than sexual desire. They are part of process of identification, and loss. There is vulnerability, aesthetic qualities, and frankness to the body. Sexual roles and identification cannot be hidden or restrained by society’s norms or our own inhibitions about viewing the nude and/or sexualized human body. Still, we live in worlds where there are norms and rules. We have a film where taboos broke down for our entertainment.
As tragic and explicit as this film is, I think it’s an amazing story that doesn’t sacrifice the narrative for the sake of depicting sex. Again, if this is not your kind of movie, I won’t recommend it. If you think the explicit scenes won’t bother you, give it a try.
Contributing Rocks!
I wrote this post about Pan’s Labyrinth for Tastes Like Comics, and I’m very proud of it. I want to share it here, but feel a repost would be a little too much. Visit TLC. While the theme of our get together is comics, its so much more. I love the articles my friends wrote. We in turn love the work we do. Labors of love can be a worthwhile treasure.
I Was Sucker Punched
Lotsa style. So much potential.
I went to see the latest Zach Snyder film, Sucker Punch, and I have to say, as someone who likes Snyder, I felt immensely cheated here. I’m a fan of his previous films, Watchmen and 300. I knew this one would be fun, after all, there was all this hype and the visuals from teasers look like the standard fare. Also it doesn’t take one long to realize that I am a fan of the doppelgänger and the psyche in films. He had me interested from the start but like I said before, I felt cheated.
As with all Snyder films, the visuals are sharp, and the fighting scenes are well choreographed. The scenery has that nice CGI shinerey I come to expect. Parts of the film were grimy, as the mental asylum was intended. The looks of the imagined worlds has some fine details to it. Clearly we’re suppose to see the ladies in the group as some bad ass sirens who get the job done. Even the fetishized touches to their costumes work well in the dream world.
I felt, however, that the narrative and the genres of the films were vastly underdeveloped. In this respect it gives us a mishmash instead of a clever mash-up of genres. As we progress into giant samurai’s, WW II steampunk/clockwork German soldiers, high fantasy style dragons and monsters, I wish at some point there was a stronger plot to belong to this film. At the very least it should have poked fun at itself because it comes off as far too serious.
The story starts off like a psychological thriller where the heroine’s stepfather realizes the daughters inherit the recently deceased Mother’s fortune/estate. The stepfather attempts to kill the daughters, and the youngest of the two dies, and the oldest (Baby Doll) is sent to a mental institution to be lobotomized. From here we go into a surreal world partly inside our heroine’s head. She’s a trapped stripper and the ladies around her go into her dream within dreams on a set of quests for freedom. I feel I’ve been Inceptioned with these dreams within dreams, for all the wrong reasons.
Ignoring some serious plot logic, Sucker Punch delivers all the action and violence with no story to back it up. This might as well be a commercial for deodorant. ”How much pressure can these ladies take before they start to sweat?” The film simply doesn’t do anything with character, narrative, or cohesiveness. One thing that really irked me is that you discover that the dream concepts have some ties to the real world, in a roundabout way. Baby Doll helps a fellow inmate escape, but why? Which parts are real? What is fakery? Why doesn’t Baby Doll ever discuss the loss of her sister? Does the lobotomy help her escape her guilt?
One thing I hate is how the film concludes. The heroine doesn’t really do what we think she’s set out to do, which is free herself. It felt very unresolved and empty. Her fellow escapees meet resolutions in such a brutal way that makes the offender’s own arrest seem a neat way to wrap the story. The ending was so dry and ugly, one wishes the stepfather came back at the last minute in the film and was arrested, killed, or beaten until he confesses. Instead we have a heroine who wishes to be lobotomized, and she gets her wish.
I think for a template the creative team could have used The Wizard of Oz, or even Alice in Wonderland if they were going to play around with the psyche in this film. I hate to say this about this film, I do think it may be interesting to see on DVD/rental/cable, but is was more than disappointing to see at the theater. It may be fun to visit the site and get a taste of the visuals, which are worth a look. Travel at your own leisure.
Melodramatic Vampire Adventures
Louis wants his story told.
In 1994, there was this darling of a film called Interview With a Vampire directed by Neil Jordan and based on a novel by Anne Rice of the same name. Interview starred, Tom Cruise as the Vampire Lestat, Brad Pitt as Louis emo vampire extraordinaire, and Kirsten Dunst as Claudia, the child vampire. Damn if vampires don’t look decadent, somewhat mysterious (alluring), and downright lethal killers. This film masks a potent vision that immortality is not without a high amount of tragedy.
“Decadent” is a key word here, as vampires in this world are very indulgent, and embody the dark fantasy powers that make immortality both exciting and disgusting. To live forever one must kill living beings. It’s pretty nasty. The allure fades quickly. These creatures don’t seem sensual or magnificent, but dark twisted beings. In this respect they are shadows of the human psyche.
The framing narrative is interesting. Louis is so calm and sedate as the world passes him by. Telling his tale to a stranger appeared to bring him some peace. He was resigned to his fate as an immortal to an extent. Let’s talk about the biting for a moment. This seriously has a sexual aspects going here as fangs penetrate skin with a mix of pain and pleasure. There’s a plenty of biting going on for victims and converts .
Lestat fails to understand what Louis meant by "personal space."
This is a world filled with a bit of melodrama, and about the pain of losing a child, which is not fully thought or acted upon until the child is gone. Rejection seems to be a silent theme here as well. Lestat is rejected, as is Claudia, and Armand at different points in the film.
Like many people back in the day I scoffed at Cruise playing Lestat, a true bastard of a vampire. Well he did a good performance. I’m not here to knock it. Granted this film isn’t for everyone. If you like Anne Rice novels, you may or may not even cared to see it adapted to the big screen. I’ll say Cruise does put some energy and charm behind Lestat. Clearly the character is meant to enjoy his actions and that comes through here. Every act is meant to tease and amuse Lestat in some cruel, inhuman way. He’s elitist, arrogant, and evil. He delights in killing and teaching Louis the ways of vampirism.
Claudia's hunger is only beginning.
While Cruise impressed as Lestat, I think Pitt and Dunst stole the show here. As Louis, Pitt is melancholy, super emo, and somewhat annoying. He cannot enjoy being a vampire because he is still too much like his former human self. While Lestat promised Louis that his transformation to a vampire would “pluck out the pain,” it only seems to intensify his misery. Louis remains at odds with the world around him. He takes little or no pleasure from anything around him. Where vampire films may bring about a doppelganger effect to the character’s persona, it does nothing for Louis. He’s still brooding. He resists the urge to give into his need to kill humans for blood/food.
Dunst’s performance is interesting as Claudia. She’s an efficient killer and her wrath is immense as she feels the pain of not being able to grow past a child’s age into a woman (even though she is thirty). Her anger and revenge is swift and cruel, and only highlights the tragedy that will befall her.
The Electra/Oedipus Complex comes to mind when one thinks of Claudia. It is her separation from her two fathers that sends her down the tragic road she leads. Lestat can be seen as her father as he did turn her. Louis is the mother figure since he does nurture and care for Claudia. To Lestat she is a means to control Louis. Claudia in effect kills her dark father, and knows her mother will abandon her soon. Louis is so wishy washy that Claudia has to die before any emotion can be pulled from him. His revenge on the theater of vampires is without pity. For Armand’s (Antonio Banderas) part in Claudia’s demise, Louis rejects him.
Washing that hair must be a bitch, Armand.
The makeup and effects by Stan Winston are wonderful. Lestat’s death at the hands of Claudia, and back from the swamp after Claudia’s failed assassination attempt was creepy as hell. Claudia’s own ashed body was haunting. Fire comes into play a few times in this film. Louis’ manor, Lestat’s home, and the theater where the vampires dwelled. Perhaps it suggests that it is the only element the immortals fear, as it kills them. Fire can mean passion, and passion can destroy the strongest of beings (or redeem them).
I wondered where Lestat was all this time. He was so pivotal at the beginning of the film, but is barely there when Louis and Claudia leave the States for France. When Lestat finally pops up again in what appears to be a chance meeting with Louis, he’s lost his impact as a mentor to Louis and as the monster he truly was. Mind you, Lestat still proves that life is merely a game to him.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Sublime Power of Eros and Thanotos
There used to be a time when vampires didn’t fake their way through high school to seduce a mopey teenager. They were quite evil, selfish, and got what they wanted with little care or consequence in the world. Your virginity be damned, like your soul. People didn’t come back from this nightmare, or they were so changed one wondered what happened after the film ended.
Dracula represents Christianity vs the Turks in the prologue
So in 1992 a film was released, and boldly called, Bram Stoker’s Dracula. One of its key slogans was, “love never dies.” Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, starring Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Ryder (Mina/Elizabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing/Priest), and Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), this film does its best to give us gothic horror mixed with fairy tale motifs, and angst for the centuries.
Doppelgangers are abound in this film. You will see so many of them. Look for Van Helsing twice in the film, as well as Dracula, Mina, and Lucy. Each displays the other self that compliments and damns them. It’s quite a vicious site to behold. As we know the other self can be a sight to behold. More importantly, being a vampire seems to suggest that a person looses their inhibitions, and their humanity.
"Love never dies," yet it did. Bye, bye Elizabeta.
Religious themes cannot be ignored here, as God is brought into question. After all, when Dracula was human, he fought on behalf of the church. It is the tragedy of his beloved’s Elizabeta (who commits suicide), that causes him to question his faith and his “reward” for fighting on God’s behalf.
Eroticism plays a sly and sometimes disgusting part in this film. Dracula seduces Mina, then rapes and kills her friend Lucy. This visitations to Lucy are brutal, and Dracula does not keep his charming, young form he uses on Mina. Instead he looks bestial, deadly, and terrifying. By contrast, he looks young and studly when he visits Mina. When Jonathan encounters him, Dracula appears as creepy old man whose shadow does stay in place and often reveals what the count is feeling at the time. The shadow is a classic Jungian archetype, and the other self and unconscious desires do come to the surface.
To say Dracula represents all the aspects wrong with our psyches is a fair statement. He is the id (switching from Jung to Freud here), and boy is he ugly. There is a reason we as humans suppress and repress our desires. Not all of them are fit for the material world.
As an adaptation goes, the film doesn’t stay as faithful as one would like to believe to the source material, however I will say that Coppola went for a different route than most Dracula films I saw before it. This go round, Dracula knows love, and ultimately love can redeem him, as it was love that cause him to spite and curse God, resulting in his transformation into a creature of evil. This film definitely goes for the artistic, emotional side of storytelling with some commercial concessions. Bram Stoker’s Dracula cannot be accused of lacking style or ambition. Noter the use of the old school Pathé camera when Dracula comes to England. It’s a street scene that again emphasizes the techniques, which reinforce the atmosphere.
The prologue sets the stage well with who Dracula was before he became a creature of evil. Here the fairy tale motifs come alive: We have a warrior prince, a princess, love, yearnings, and one ugly curse. Lucy’s buried in a glass coffin that is straight out of Snow White. The fight scene in the prologue is a little odd as it takes place in shadows against a reddish-orange sky. The scene reminds me of stage plays where color could be used to show emotion.
Poor Lucy get's "turned out" just cause Dracula wanted it to happen.
Much is made of blood and contamination in the film. If it reflects society, AIDS became a major issue. Its not surprising someone who needs blood to live is at the war with the world around him who has no real idea he exists.
Note several of the editing and special effects in the film. When Lucy is revisited by Dracula t some point the film is reversed. Her moves appear unnatural. Likewise when Van Helsing confronts Lucy as a vampire, and she backs into the coffin, the moves again appear unnatural. The cut away scenes from circular and round shapes add a distinct, otherworldly feel to the world.
While this film makes a strong connection to love and redemption, make no mistake Dracula is very evil. He and his wives suck the blood of babies, he kills and kidnaps Jonathan in order to seduce Mina (whom he believes to be reincarnated version of his lost love, Elizabeta). He rapes, then murders Lucy out of spite of Mina’s rejection of him for Jonathan. Being a vampire is gory, unholy, and to a great extent ugly. Dracula has many brides, but he only has eyes for Mina. Sadly love can’t make him whole, just make him see the error of his existence. Also turning Mina is something of a bitter struggle as Dracula confesses to Mina, it’s not pretty.
Is this what they mean by "short end of the stick?" Ouch.
Color is abound in this film as it takes on multiple energies. Note Lucy’s colorful and somewhat outlandish outfits (in fact several of the outfits are more artistic that historically accurate). The night outfits Lucy and Mina were to bed are sublime but out of place for the era.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula’s score, composed by Wojciech Kilar, plays a key part in providing the atmosphere with some extra demented, gothic emotions. The music moves from serene, elegant, to sublime. There are simply moments where the one realizes there is danger in the score itself. Such heartbreaking melodies with somber elements to emphasize the romance and tragedy.
There are a lot of downers in this film as well so don’t think this is all a love-fest. Keanu’s accent is terrible. I wish someone told him to keep his American accent. It would have fit him (and the film) better. Instead when I hear it, I laugh. I love Oldman’s accent, but not everyone falls for it. A friend suggested it’s overplayed, and his hairdo and get ups are so over the top you may laugh (be warned Jonathan Harker laughs at Dracula and gets a sword in his face for his amusement).
The ending could have been, much, much, stronger because it’s clear that Mina is in love with both Jonathan and Dracula. I thought Jonathan and Mina’s confrontation was weak considering he fought so hard to get back to her, and she turned Dracula away to be with Jonathan. Mina plays both ends of the fence here. She may need the closure like Dracula, but she half-asses it.
If you purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray, the commentary and extras were worth it for me, as Francis Ford Coppola and his son Roman Coppola discuss the visual effects for the film. There is talk of the screenplay, director’s commentary, and some behind the scenes goodness I enjoyed. If you like your vampires evil and with a touch of redemption, then this the film for you. Mind you, nobody gets what they want but Dracula in the end, and the accents are grating.
Body Politics in An American Werewolf In London
As the curse begins, humanity and wild converge in dreams.
An American Werewolf in London is a 1981 cult horror film directed by John Landis. This film mixes black comedy with tragedy, and horror. Story-wise, the title says it all: An American, David ( David Naughton) hikes in England with his friend, Jack (Griffin Dunne) and they are attacked by a Werewolf. While Jack is slaughtered, David survives. The curse lives on in David.
This is why I never go hiking.
I think of the 1980s look as “rustic” because narrative and visuals hold up pretty well. You see where the film attempts to edit some scenes but I find that gore and nudity come together to make the film.
Nudity plays a provocative role of danger and laughs when the primal side of the body’s displayed. Censors and prudes be damned. The beast was unleashed, played for a while, then put down. It is a rejection of our own bestial natures. Visually and emotionally David’s body journey’s through multiple stages of vulnerability, love, suffering (transformation), and ends with David’s death.
Note the contrast in David's gaze from previous image.
Seeing the undead people arguing with each other and discussing ways for David to kill himself to break the curse is hilarious and dreadful. David is mortified, and in some was so was I, yet found the scene funny .
David’s transformations from human to beast are horrible, yet sublime. The special effects look painstakingly detailed. We have the human body being reshaped into a creature. As the film progresses, you want this torture to end, yet you don’t want David to die. Like David, we don’t really have a say in the matter.
Waxing is gonna get ugly for poor David.
The Wolfman
The Wolfman 2010 (dir. Joe Johnson) stars Benico Del Toro, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, and Hugo Weaving. This is a remake of sorts of the old Universal horror film. I can say it has a few scary moments (moments not scenes) in there, and the Blu-Ray disc contains an extended version of the film. Admittedly I saw the extended version first. When I saw the theatrical version, I realized that some of the ideas didn’t match up in my head.
I’m always in the mood for a supernatural story. With The Wolfman I was more than ready to devour this film and enjoy it all. As a child the old Universal Monsters were some of my favorite films. I wasn’t looking for scares as much as looking for thrills. The endless possibilities of a the film kept me exited. I got to see it on Blu- Ray disc, and not in the theaters. I have mixed feeling about this film. Very mixed.
To say this The Wolfman is without some charms would be a mistake on my part. As far as the scenery goes, the Gothic elements of this story are done well. I love the crumbling estate we only see in its former glory in brief flashbacks. Symbolically the estate represents the deteriorated roles (and morals) of the characters so well. It also reeks of isolation, desperateness, and loneliness. No one’s mind resembles more of the Talbot Estate more than John Talbot (Hopkins). John Talbot is a shadow of himself, and all the things that were wondrous about him, have long gone. Likewise the relationship with his family is barely there.
This film loves its atmosphere and loves to take its time to let actions unfold. While the extended version makes sense, it does not always take the quickest route to the story. It does make me wonder how long to get to the story. The theatrical version trims the story down, and is worth a second viewing. Yes it was likely a mistake to see the extended version first, but its what I did.
Part of the film to me suggests that in civilization we have a bit of a cages animal within us. Its embodied in the form of this wolfman who is still wearing his clothes when he transforms. The transformation looks painful, and very drawn out. The pain of transformation adds to the curse, as if to suggest that the change from civilized man to pure animal is agonizing.
What the Wolfman does not show so well is the duality of the two natures. We have a rational, and somewhat restrained man who becomes a beast. It would be nice to have seen some changes in his persona. Was he more hungry, amorous, arrogant. Instead he (Lawrence Talbot) stays restrained, a little cautious, and more than attracted to Gwen (Emily Blunt). Perhaps this is the duality, to hold on longer to one’s self control. I’m taking a leap here, as nowhere in this film do I see either werewolf struggling to hold onto themselves.
I could argue that being a werewolf is akin to puberty or an emotional growth for Lawrence. Despite his occupation as an actor, it is only after become the creature that Talbot decided to be emotionally vulnerable. He allows someone inside of his insular world to accept love and compassion. Such trials are savage, brutal, and not without consequence.
I loved Emily Blunt’s performance as Gwen. In my mind I instantly compared/contrasted her role to that of her character in The Devil Wears Prada. In Prada, she was arrogant, snobbish, and hateful. Here she’s restrained, well mannered, and cool. Ultimately she has to “release” Talbot from the curse, making their love tragic and doomed from the moment Lawrence survives the bite.
One of the great problems I have with this film is the motivations of some of the characters, and the pacing. When I try to digest Hopkins’ character (John Talbot), and understand his point of view, I fail. I get his distant persona at first. Some people are like that. Repressed rage and the desire to “let the beast out” only after he explains it.
John Talbot turns on his family first. While his actions can be likened to that of a serial killer (with a supernatural bent), he has to tell us this as opposed to us seeing this within the film. While the character he plays is more than distant, (and he does platy a compelling disassociated patriarch), as a doppelganger I felt we did not know of feel enough. By the end of the big reveal, it feels forced. Like we need to have these things here, as opposed to us suspecting these things about him.
For all the character’s charm, and the slow pacing of the film, I think there should have been room to allow us to see the motivations of the villain. This brings into play who is the main character? Is Benico Del Toro the protagonist, and Anthony Hopkins the antagonist? Their roles seem intertwined in a bad way. At one point Hopkins takes the lead because he has the most control. He know who is the true culprit of all the grizzly crimes. He manages to stay a step ahead of all the other characters. His confrontation with his son, which would be inevitable, also seems a bit staged in my opinion. Hopkins has to clue everyone in, and that makes his role a bit too pat.
The film’s playful stance with the violence with the over the top killings. Because of the comical effect, it lessens the horrors of the film. It in effect, remains distracting for the fact they we’re dealing with a powerful killer. For example, the guy who gets caught in the marsh after spending all his bullets tries to kill himself before the Wolfman gets him, but but he’s out of bullets. The Wolfman decapitates him. When a constable sticks his hand in one of the Gypsy wagons, the Wolfman cuts it off, then gouges the Constable’s eyes out as if to suggest the constable may or may not have been too curious for his own good.
Once scene that left me thinking this movie’s struggling with direction and marring its tone is Lawrence Talbot’s transformation in the asylum. Are we to believe that the Doctor was so full of himself and his speech as to not turn around to notice Lawrence? The mayhem that follows is predictable and silly.
The Blu-Ray deleted scenes are a mixed bag for me. There are alternate endings, and a scene where the Wolfman encounters a blind signer at a party. It does hold fast to the civilized and uncivilized world clashing. I almost wished it was added to the film.
