Guelph Film Society

The Classic:

"Here it is, the original and best: a genuinely scary movie, and so thoroughly inappropriate for the larky mood of Halloween. Hideo Nakata's 1998 horror film Ring, though influenced by Tobe Hooper's 1982 something-in-the-TV-set nightmare Poltergeist, was an instant and original classic. It spawned a raft of remakes, similar films and spoofs, and heralded an influential Japanese horror mythology that always seemed to involve young girls from watery places with lank hanks of black hair creeping up behind you with a weird creaky-groaning sound." Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian)

"While the movie has its basis in Japanese ghost mythology, it also boasts more contemporary threads of thought, one with a distinctly more feminist vibe. Predominantly, it’s an extended commentary on women surviving – or not – in a patriarchal society. Sadako’s backstory is one of tragic misfortune at the hands of men, [spoiler redacted]. And there are definite parallels to be drawn between Sadako’s horrifying past and Reiko’s own experiences with male-dominated society." Darren Tilby (UK Film Review)

Ryuji Takayama: This kind of thing... it doesn't start by one person telling a story. It's more like everyone's fear just takes on a life of its own.

The Remake:

"A deviously engineered parasite that'll crawl under your skin and live in your nervous system for a while if you give it half a chance." Andrew O'Hehir (Salon)

"The best thing about the movie, which is a very elegantly crafted piece of gothic snuff hokum, is the way it teases and intrigues us with the revelation of what's on that tape." Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly)

Aidan Keller: It's going to keep going, isn't it? She'll never stop...What about the person we show it to? What happens to them?

[Steve]

welp, we've arrived at the end of Classics + Remakes month folks. this week we'll conclude with both the J-Horror film that birthed the subgenre itself, RINGU (1998) by Hideo Nakata, as well as its Americanized remake THE RING (2002) by Gore Verbinski.

coming somewhat full circle from where we started this month with the supernatural worlds of THE EVIL DEAD franchise, RINGU + THE RING take a different approach comparatively. while still dealing with spirits and the unexplainable (by rational means), our J-Horror counterpart takes a minimalistic, less-is-more approach. THE RING, on the other hand... i used the word "Americanized" deliberately. it's still a great film and cross-cultural adaptation, but it's definitely the louder, pompous younger brother in the family (whom we still love dearly).

after watching a videotape consisting of what is either a glorified student film or a truly haunted piece of technology, our protagonists Reiko (Nanako Matsushima) in RINGU and Rachel (Naomi Watts) in THE RING have seven days left to live. being professional journalists, the two in their respective films follow lead after lead in an attempt to solve the mystery behind this mystical killer VHS, while also trying not to die in the process.

RINGU + THE RING are great examples of the 80s/90s Japanese wave of Techno-Horror. much like TETSUO: THE IRON MAN (1988) by Shinya Tsukamoto and KAIRO (PULSE; 2001) by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, RINGU + THE RING explore how contemporary technology influences our lives. much like the positives with each new technological innovation, there are always the uninvited dark sides, which Japanese cinema is thoroughly equipped to creatively contemplate.

Japanese folklore and cinema have explored the ghost story for decades, if not centuries, so RINGU isn't treading unfamiliar territory. combining it with the cerebral fear of burgeoning technology however... director Hideo Nakata & co. have crafted something truly inventive here, especially when looking to the zeitgeist that followed the film's release. RINGU inspired countless imitations and successors both in the East and the West, even spawning franchises of their own in both markets.

however, much like another famous film franchise once put it, there's only one ring to rule them all...

***

join us Sunday, November 1 at 10am at the Red Brick Cafe for our final discussion of Classics + Remakes month.

you can stream RINGU for free on Kanopy and Tubi (w/ ads).

Godfather, Coda is not perfect by any means, and doesn't share the cool intelligence of I and II, but it's time to stop punishing it. It is its own movie. Cosmetically it resembles the first two, but its core is jagged and despairing. - Rob Gonsalves

A triumph of a revisitation; Coppola's recut breathes new life into his final Godfather film. While it does not elevate to the quality of its predecessors there is a weight, a gravitas to this new film, which makes it finally worthy of the name. - Adam Solomons

In 1990 it felt out of time, with Martin Scorsese bringing out the vibrant Goodfellas, but, decades on and with a new beginning and end, its stateliness and pace work well to unravel the mental torment suffered by the Mob boss Corleone. - Jonathan Dean

* * *

Michael Corleone: Friends and money—oil and water.

Kay: No I don't hate you, Michael. I dread you.

* * *

[Barry]

{A note about this week's discussion. In 2020 Coppola re-edited his original 1990 Part III film. It is now framed as an epilogue, or Coda. It lands differently. It would be lovely if everyone could watch this 2020 ‘Coda’ version.}

The Godfather Part I takes place from 1945 to 1955. The events in Part II take place from 1958 to 1959. The Godfather, Coda takes place in 1979 to 1980, and then concludes in 1997.

This is the unintended sequel. Under financial pressure, Francis Coppola rose to the challenge of creating an epilogue, or coda. He was inhibited in following his personal vision, and could not secure some key cast members again.

Since it was never envisioned as part of the Godfather duology, the latecomer Coda addresses different thematic concerns. Once again, the plot mirrors figures and historical events of that period, including a financial scandal at The Vatican and a new Pope with his eye on revisions. It is often observed that each successive Godfather film enlarges the scope of its commentary on society. This should make for a good discussion.


* * *