CINEINFINITO / Filmoteca de Cantabria
Viernes 27 de Septiembre de 2024, 21:30h. Filmoteca de Cantabria
Calle Bonifaz, 6
39003 Santander
Programa:
– Private Parts (1972), 35mm, color, sonora, 87 min.
Formato de proyección: DCP
Agradecimiento especial a la Filmoteca de Cantabria.
Private Parts (1972)
El título provisional de la película era Blood Relations. Premier Productions, la distribuidora de la película, era una subsidiaria de Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Varios críticos señalaron que M-G-M pudo haber distribuido Private Parts a través de su subsidiaria Premier debido a que el estudio estaba avergonzado por el sexo y la violencia en la película. Según un artículo de 1974 en CineFantastique, Private Parts fue archivada después de varias proyecciones desastrosas. Un artículo de LAT de 1978 agregó que la película fue lanzada junto con dos películas de terror bastante inofensivas, lo que llevó a los padres indignados, que habían llevado a sus hijos a ver las otras películas, a protestar por la proyección de Private Parts.
Según la publicidad del estudio contenida en el archivo de producción de la película en la AMPAS Library, la filmación en locaciones se realizó en el King Edwards Hotel, un hotel que alguna vez fue elegante y que se encuentra en el centro de Los Ángeles cerca de Skid Row. Private Parts marcó el debut como director de largometrajes del cineasta underground de Nueva York, Paul Bartel. El artículo de LAT de 1978 afirmó que el productor Gene Corman convenció a M-G-M para que dejara a Bartel dirigir la película.
The film's working title was Blood Relations. Premier Productions, the film's distributor, was a subsidiary of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Several reviewers remarked that M-G-M may have distributed Private Parts through their Premier subsidiary because the studio was embarrassed by the sex and violence in the film. According to a 1974 article in CineFantastique, Private Parts was shelved after several disastrous screenings. A 1978 LAT news item added that the film was released with two rather innocuous horror films, prompting outraged parents, who had brought their children to see the other films, to protest the showing of Private Parts.
According to studio publicity contained in the film’s production file at the AMPAS Library, location filming was done at the King Edwards Hotel, a once-elegant hotel located in downtown Los Angeles near Skid Row. Private Parts marked the feature length directorial debut of New York underground filmmaker Paul Bartel. The 1978 LAT news item stated that producer Gene Corman convinced M-G-M to let Bartel direct the film.
* * *
Private Parts es una película de terror estadounidense de 1972 dirigida por Paul Bartel en su debut como director de largometrajes, y protagonizada por Ayn Ruymen, Lucille Benson y John Ventantonio. Su trama sigue a una joven problemática que sospecha que un asesino en serie desviado vive en el hotel deteriorado de su tía en el centro de Los Ángeles. La película se ha destacado por su mezcla estilística de elementos de terror, comedia negra y thriller psicológico.
Desarrollo
La película fue escrita por Philip Kearney y Les Rendelstein, basándose en personas reales que habían conocido en Los Ángeles en la década de 1960. El productor Chuck Hirsch mostró el guion a Paul Bartel, quien había hecho los cortometrajes The Secret Cinema y Naughty Nurses. Bartel adquirió el guion y lo reescribió. Bartel tenía la intención de hacer la película en Nueva York por $65,000. Luego, su agente envió el guion a Gene Corman, quien lo aprobó y también le gustaron las películas de Bartel. Corman logró conseguir financiación de MGM. "Estaba tan contento," dijo Bartel más tarde. "Pensé que mi carrera estaba hecha."
Bartel comentó: "Era básicamente una película de terror con toques de comedia. La filmé como una película de terror y luego, diez minutos antes del clímax, la cambié y la convertí en una comedia pura."
Filmación
La filmación en locaciones se realizó en el King Edward Hotel cerca de Skid Row, Los Ángeles. Bartel dijo que "la producción transcurrió muy bien."
Private Parts comenzó con el título provisional "Blood Relations"; el cambio se hizo por orden del jefe del estudio Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), James Aubrey, pero Private Parts como título era problemático porque algunos periódicos no lo imprimían; en Chicago, la película se promocionó como Private Arts.
Estreno
Cuando la película fue proyectada en pruebas para el público, los resultados fueron tan malos que MGM —que había adquirido la película en julio de 1972— decidió lanzarla bajo su subsidiaria Premier Productions, junto con dos películas de terror estándar; luego fue archivada. Sin embargo, la película fue registrada por MGM y no por Premier Productions.
Bartel comentó: "Pensé que era sofisticada y encantadora, pero para las personas que vinieron a ver la película y la vieron desde un nivel muy básico, no funcionó. Ellos resentían el cambio abrupto de tono y no podían aceptar la comedia. Tenías que estar distanciado de la película y no tomarla en serio para apreciar lo que hice con ella."
A pesar del desinterés de MGM en promover la película, el estudio pasó la oportunidad de venderla a New World Pictures de Roger Corman cuando expresaron interés en comprarla. La película no tuvo un buen desempeño en taquilla. En el Reino Unido, recibió una calificación X.
Respuesta crítica
Roger Greenspan, quien revisó la película para The New York Times en su estreno, escribió:
[Bartel] tiene éxito en algunos detalles y falla en otros. Pero el intento, incluso cuando no funciona del todo, es mucho más interesante que la mayoría... Private Parts es al menos una ocasión esperanzadora para aquellos de nosotros que amamos el cine intelectual y al mismo tiempo apreciamos la escalera amenazante, la sombra ominosa, las habitaciones vacías cerradas contra la luz de la tarde... Bartel es un joven director cuyo trabajo anterior en cortometrajes ha mostrado un genio de título (Secret Cinema, Naughty Nurse) no del todo igualado por su contenido. Private Parts no es un triunfo, pero marca un gran paso adelante hacia la exitosa combinación de perversidad precoz y buen sentido satírico que parece ser la dirección inevitable de su carrera.
Joe Baltake del Philadelphia Daily News alabó la cinematografía de la película y la dirección "estilosa" de Bartel, describiéndola como "un verdadero carnaval espeluznante sobre un sórdido hotel en L.A. lleno de pasillos espeluznantes, puertas chirriantes y extraños inquilinos que están en todo tipo de perversiones... Private Parts, en total, es una adición de muy alto nivel al género de películas de terror—tan aterradora y artística como Repulsion de Roman Polanski. Vale la pena verla."
Will Jones del Star Tribune escribió sobre la película: "Se ha derrochado una gran cantidad de habilidad y técnica en toda esta basura, y con la devoción entusiasta y total de la Sra. Benson al papel de la excéntrica tía Martha, que resulta ser más rara que cualquiera de sus invitados, tiene el aspecto de una basura bien hecha y de alta calidad."
En una revisión de su lanzamiento en 1978, Los Angeles Times la calificó como "una pieza estilosa, en realidad bravura de Grand Guignol que podría ser repugnante si no fuera tan hilarante."
En una evaluación retrospectiva, Bruce Reid de The Stranger notó que la película estaba adelantada a su tiempo, escribiendo: "Private Parts sabía que América estaba llena de inadaptados solitarios obsesionados con el sexo una década antes de que David Lynch apareciera en escena." La película fue incluida en el libro de 2003 Fangoria's 101 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen: A Celebration of the World's Most Unheralded Fright Flicks.
Private Parts is a 1972 American horror film directed by Paul Bartel in his feature film debut, and starring Ayn Ruymen, Lucille Benson, and John Ventantonio. Its plot follows a troubled young woman who suspects a deviant serial killer is living in her aunt's dilapidated hotel in downtown Los Angeles. The film has been noted for its stylistic mixture of horror, dark comedy, and psychological thriller elements.
Developmen
The film was written by Philip Kearney and Les Rendelstein, based on real-life people they had met in Los Angeles in the 1960s. Producer Chuck Hirsch showed the script to Paul Bartel, who had made the shorts The Secret Cinema and Naughty Nurses. Bartel optioned the script and rewrote it. Bartel intended to make the film in New York for $65,000. Then his agent sent the script to Gene Corman who liked it, and Bartel's films. Corman succeeded in raising finance from MGM. "I was so pleased," said Bartel later. "I thought my career was made."
Bartel said "It was basically a horror film touched with comedy. I shot it as a horror film and then ten minutes before the climax I cut away and made it a pure comedy."
Filming
Location shooting took place in the King Edward Hotel near Skid Row, Los Angeles. Bartel said "the production went very smoothly."
Private Parts began with the working title "Blood Relations"; the change came at the order of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) studio head James Aubrey, but Private Parts as a title was problematic because some newspapers would not print it; in Chicago, the film was advertised as Private Arts.
Release
When the film was test-screened for audiences, the results were so bad that MGM—who had acquired the film in July 1972 —decided to release the film under their Premier Productions subsidiary, along with two standard horror films; it was then shelved. Nevertheless, the film was copyrighted by MGM and not Premier Productions.
Bartel said "I thought it was sophisticated and delightful but for the people who came to see the film and viewed it from a very basic level, it didn't work. They resented the abrupt change of mood and were not able to accept the comedy. You had to be deatched from the film and not take it seriously in order to appreciate what I didwith the film."
Despite MGM's lack of interest in promoting the property, the studio passed on the opportunity to sell it to Roger Corman's New World Pictures when they expressed interest in buying it. The film did not perform well at the box office. In the United Kingdom, it was granted an X rating.
Critical response
Roger Greenspan, who reviewed the film for The New York Times on its release, wrote:
[Bartel] succeeds in some details and fails in others. But the attempt, even when it isn't quite working, is a good deal more interesting than most...Private Parts is at least a hopeful occasion for those of us who love intellectual cinema and at the same time care for the menacing staircase, for the ominous shadow, for empty rooms shuttered against the light of the afternoon...Bartel is a young director whose previous short films have shown a genius of title (Secret Cinema, Naughty Nurse) not entirely matched by their content. Private Parts is no triumph, but it does mark a giant step forward toward the successful blending of precocious perversity and satiric good sense that seems the fated direction of his career.
The Philadelphia Daily News's Joe Baltake praised the film's cinematography and Bartel's "stylish" direction, describing it as "a veritable spook carnival about a seedy L.A. hotel brimming with eerie corridors, creaking doors and strange tenants who are into all sorts of perversions... Private Parts, in total, is a very high-class addition to the horror film genre—every bit as scarey [sic] and arty as Roman Polanski's Repulsion. It's well worth seeing."
Will Jones of the Star Tribune wrote of the film: "A great deal of skill and technique have been lavished on all this trashy nonsense, and with Ms. Benson's wholehearted and enthusiastic devotion to the role of freaky old Aunt Martha, who turns out to be freakier than any of her guests, it has the look of well-made, high quality trash."
Reviewing it in a 1978 release the Los Angeles Times called it "a sylish, actually bravaura piece of Grand Guignol that could be sick if it wasn't so hialarious."
Mon, Mar 06, 1978 ·Page 48 In a retrospective assessment, Bruce Reid of The Stranger noted the film as being ahead of its time, writing: "Private Parts knew America was full of lonely, sex-obsessed misfits a decade before David Lynch came on the scene." The film was included in the 2003 book Fangoria's 101 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen: A Celebration of the World's Most Unheralded Fright Flicks.
Films on the Disc: Paul Bartel and the Gaze
Julius Kassendorf
Ed’s Note: There are spoilers for movies that are over 40 years old: The Secret Cinema, and Private Parts. Just a head’s up.
Watching movies is, by its nature, a scopophilic activity. That is: we, the audience, take pleasure from looking. Few people understood this better than Alfred Hitchcock. He took a perverse pleasure both in watching, and in creating for our viewing pleasure. His 1954 feature, Rear Window, was about the audience watching a watcher watch (and occasionally direct). Photographer L.B. Jefferies is trapped in his apartment after he broke his leg taking pictures of a race car accident. So, like many of us, he whiles away his time by watching. Unlike many of us, he spends his time watching his neighbors who range from piano players to newlyweds to a sexy young dancer known as “Miss Torso.” In Rear Window, Jefferies’ gaze is a benign obsession of innocent objectification. However, in 1960, Michael Powell perverted that gaze with Peeping Tom. Mark Lewis is a photographer who stalks and murders people while filming them so he can capture their exact moment of fear.
Paul Bartel was obsessed with watching. But, he was also obsessed with watching watchers. And watching watchers watch watchers. His first short film, The Secret Cinema (an extra featured on Criterion’s release of Eating Raoul), is about watching watchers watch. Originally a satire of the concept of “underground cinema” creating “in” and “out” groups who know about forbidden filmmaking, The Secret Cinema is about the idea of making films out of reality. Dubbed a paranoid fantasy, Jane, an everyday secretary, suffers a series of humiliating indignities at the hands of everybody around her: her boyfriend dumps her, her mother dismisses her, her obese boss makes perverted passes at her, and her best friend convinces her to go on a date before giving her a terrible haircut. There’s a reason this all happens at once; Jane is the subject of a new series of underground cinema features whose audience derives pleasure from watching Jane suffer for the camera.
Bartel isn’t just letting us watch the story unfold. He shows the underground series’ cameras early and often. The audience is already in on the gag long before Jane is. As the audience, is watching Jane, the audience is acutely aware that we’re watching her life be manipulated by people for the pleasure of another watcher. We’re watching people watch her. When The Secret Cinema finally makes it to the theater showing Jane’s films, we’re listening to people watching the films who are, in turn, watching what the watchers want them to watch. In a way, Bartel is also indicting the audience for creating the market that leads to the humiliation, but he also takes a pleasure in watching the watchers, and in making the audience engage in watching the watchers watch the actress.
Paul Bartel’s 1972 feature Private Parts, in turn, takes this watching to a new level. Everybody is watching everybody in Private Parts. The opening credits are of high contrast monochromatic photographs of naked body parts separated by a camera flash. The final one of a male’s naked behind fades into full color to reveal a couple having above-the-sheets sex. Neither of these are Cheryl, Private Parts‘ protagonist. Cheryl is actually standing behind a curtained room divider, spying on her roommate having sex.
We’re not even five minutes into the movie, and Bartel is complicating the concept of the Male Gaze. According to Laura Mulvey’s 1973 essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” the heterosexual male dominance behind the camera turned women into passive objects or images that exist for the scopophilic pleasures of the (usually) heterosexual male protagonists and the (almost always) heterosexual male directors, usually with an intended male audience. Thus, the audience was inadvertently forced to look through these two sets of eyes.* In the case of Hitchcock’s “Miss Torso,” she was being eroticized by Jefferies, Hitchcock, and the audience. Being a woman, Lisa, who watches Jefferies watch Miss Torso, sees Jefferies eroticizing the unknowing woman and admonishes him for his invasion of privacy.
In this opening sequence of Private Parts, the women are the watchers. Cheryl is watching a couple have sex, where the man is on top and the most exposed (his penis is even caught on camera for a frame or two). On top of that, her roommate is the one who sees Cheryl’s feet under the curtain divider. She sees Cheryl watching them. To top it off, Paul Bartel is a gay male filmmaker. The audience is now looking with a gay male filmmaker’s eyes at a woman watching a man and a woman having sex, and a woman and man watching her watch them.
This gets even more complicated. After being discovered, Cheryl seeks refuge in a hotel owned by her Aunt Martha, where everybody is engaging in sexual worship of some kind. Cheryl doesn’t give up her snooping ways, but everybody in the hotel is constantly spying on or watching people. Aunt Martha is always watching people in her lobby. An old lady is keeping an eye out for former resident Alice, and repeatedly accosts Cheryl looking for Alice. A gay priest has a secret altar of gay porn and a giant cut out of a muscle man in his room, worshiping the printed image. And then there’s George.
George and Cheryl are matched in their scopophilic fetishes. George is a photographer who has giant photographs of Alice posted around his room. He also has access to a room right between Cheryl’s room and the bathroom, with spyholes cut through the walls so he can watch Cheryl throughout the night. George also has a couple fetishes with the bodily form. He sends Cheryl clothing to wear so he can watch her wearing them. He has a clear plastic water-filled blow-up doll on which he tapes a picture of Cheryl’s frightened face, literally turning her into a transparent eroticized image. But, he’s always watching. At one point, when Cheryl snoops in his room, he is watching her from his cabinet. Similarly, once Cheryl knows she’s being watched, she takes pleasure in the idea of being an object being watched and invites George to keep watching.
But, she’s also watching him watch people. An extended sequence in the middle of the film has Cheryl stalking George through the city as he goes to sex shops and takes pictures of people having sex in public. The audience is watching Cheryl watch George watch and take pictures of people having sex, as directed by Paul Bartel.**
With all the gender confusion of Private Parts, one can easily guess where it is going (and, yes, the ending is as gross and transphobic as you would expect). The trans reveal, however gross, is in keeping with the scopophilic theories of the movie (which pre-dates Laura Mulvey). Alice/George is, essentially, the audience in the before time. A woman would usually turn into a man by indulging in the scopophilic fantasies of cinema watching. But, with the new feminism, there’s room for women to take charge of both the role as a watched object and the role of the watcher. Even after Cheryl knows she’s being watched, she takes charge of her role as an image to be watched and literally invites the watcher. But, Cheryl is also an active force of watching, as the camera frequently uses her point of view. In doing both of these, Cheryl also walks the line between being a sex-negative critic (she chides her roommate for having sex all the time) and a sex-positive observer (she goes into a sex shop without the fear of perversion).
It’s telling that this movie was made by a gay man, a person who indulges in the pleasures of watching but usually looks through the eyes of those rare female protagonists. Women in cinema are sometimes allowed to look at and eroticize men (especially in 1950s/1960s beach movies) while, at that time, gay protagonists were rare (and sexualized gay protagonists were rarer still). To that end, gay men usually co-opted the female gaze in order to indulge in their own scopophilic eroticization. Private Parts and The Secret Cinema constantly spins the gaze until the gaze becomes theories unto themselves.
the-solute.com
*Laura Mulvey’s essay erroneously used Vertigo as an example of turning women into passive images, when much of that movie centers on a woman making sure that a man is watching her at every moment. Though the camera rarely takes Madeline’s direct point of view – we’re almost always watching Scotty watch her – she is calculatedly watching Scotty to make sure Scotty is watching her at the exact moments.
**In I Heart Huckabees, there’s a brief five-shot sequence that beautifully and precisely captures this whole sequence of gazing. 1 – We start watching a pair of lady’s feet walking through a parking lot. 2 – These feet belong to Isabelle Huppert, walking through a parking lot. 3 – Isabelle is actually following Lily Tomlin through a parking lot. 4 – Isabelle is following Lily following another woman through the parking lot. 5 – And, they’re all headed to the Huckabees headquarters.