LIST CANDIDATE: POSSESSION (1981)

Possession has been officially promoted onto the List of the 366 Weirdest Movies of All Time. This post is left here for historical purposes. Please read the official Certified Weird entry.

AKA: The Night the Screaming Stops

DIRECTED BY:

FEATURING: , , Margit Carstensen, Heinz Bennent, Johanna Hofer, Carl Duering, Shaun Lawton

PLOT: A secret agent finds himself in a real mess when he hires a detective to track his unfaithful wife.

Still from POSSESSION (1981)

WHY IT SHOULD MAKE THE LIST: With campy acting, absurdist elements mixed with existentialist philosophy, arty cinematography, and a story full of all kinds of bizarre and wacky stuff like sex with sea creatures, pointless self mutilation, and people making funny faces for no apparent reason, Possession is practically tailor made to make the List. While I personally don’t think Possession represents a serious effort to convey meaning substantial enough to qualify for the List, I am confident that most viewers will strongly disagree with me.  Possession has a resolute feel about it that will be enough to convince most fans of weird movies that it is a meaningful and significantly weird cinematic endeavor.  Out of deference to those fans I hereby recommend it without reservation.

COMMENTS:  A love triangle among eccentric characters spirals out of control and becomes a love octagon. And the protagonist’s girlfriend is in love with some of kind of octopussy thing.

Sam Neil plays a spy who quits his job to spend more time with his girlfriend and out of wedlock son.  She leaves him, he has a nervous breakdown that leads to a three-week black-out, he meets the new boyfriend who is quite completely insane and possibly a little queer for Sam.

Sam dates his son’s teacher who appears to be his wife’s twin.  Meanwhile the wife leaves the new boyfriend for another boyfriend who is some kind of extraterrestrial octopus, to whom she feeds a succession of uninvited guests, such as a private detective and an insane window inspector (yes that’s right, an insane window inspector.)

In the midst of all of this, the characters physically and verbally convulse in spastic apoplexies of philosophical existentialism, unleash stupid violence against each other, and indulge in self mutilation for no particular reason.  They make extreme facial expressions and engage in crazy talk about their love and angst in a random series of bizarre vignettes.

Yup.   That’s about it.

Oh, and Isabelle Adjani shags the octopus.

We get to see it.

I wish I were that octopus.

Possession starts out looking like an art film, the kind which genuinely has something to express, the type that takes a symbolic, perhaps metaphorical approach to it’s thesis, getting at it’s subject without words, as a concept, in some abstract way.  But about halfway through the picture, this approach becomes tiresome because it dawns on the viewer that in fact, the film has nothing much to say at all, and it has been weird only for the sake of being weird.

Imagine if you will, Edward Albee’s Tiny Alice crossed with Naked Lunch.  If Zulawski has something meaningful in mind that he wants to communicate, he is not a very effective director, because his message is not logically discernible.

There are of course, self-proclaimed “cinephiles” who will presume that if they can’t understand it, and it looks arty, that it must be brilliant, perhaps too brilliant for them to get, though they may not admit not “getting it.”

When asked to explain what “it” is, they will likely just make a smug, knowing grin implying that if we didn’t get it, there’s just no point in even asking.

These are the same cinephiles who will pick out non-existent symbolism and roll their eyes heavenward in great reverence for the genius of it all.  Yes, they will extract not only great symbolism, but maybe also metaphor and allegory.  Then they will praise the arty camera work for it’s skillfulness, as if skillfully produced nonsense has some sort of merit.

Well, screw them.

This movie is long on style and short on decipherable substance, suitable for the LSD crowd, though with it’s schizophrenic script and cinematography, Possession on top of a dose of LSD would be redundant.  For all the money spent on arty sets, stylish cinematography, as well as hiring the beautiful, pre-plastic surgery and breast enhancement Isabelle Adjani (Sam Neill is cute in this too—we would like to see them “do it”), the producers could have made a very dark, creepy film, something along the lines of XTRO.  Regrettably, they lacked such focus, perhaps thinking in their cannabis-induced haze that they were instead creating great art.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

“…pieced together in an almost hallucinatory manner, with Żuławski employing the fragmented editing of Nicolas Roeg and the surreal plot tangents of Alejandro Jodorowsky… a strange, essential slice of art-horror.”–Matt McAllister, Total Sci-Fi Online (DVD)


Possession international trailer

(This movie was nominated for review by goregirl. Suggest a weird movie of your own here).

29 thoughts on “LIST CANDIDATE: POSSESSION (1981)”

  1. It might be helpful to have reviewers actually, you know, FIND OUT STUFF AKA ‘Research’, a bit about the films, before doing backhanded complementary reviews that strive for cleverness, but just end up displaying ignorance.

    Just my opinion.

    1. I understand your reaction, LRob. Pam volunteered to cover Possession to help us get through that huge reader-suggested review queue. Though her review is provocative, and not what I would have written, I believe it represents her sincere feelings and opinions about the movie, which is all I can ask for. Opposing viewpoints are always welcomed; anyone who likes may submit a reader review using the contact form, or defend the film in the comments here. Possession will get another review down the line; I’m hoping it will get a DVD re-release in the coming years.

  2. I haven’t seen this film, but your description of it reminds me of other arty-pretentious films that overbearing “cinephiles” love to root out non-existent symbolism in, and it can be frustrating to defend your own opinion against those people. So though I haven’t seen it, I enjoyed reading your review! Not sure if it’s something I’d watch though… maybe if it makes the List.

  3. Three important things:
    1.) There is a butchered American cut of the film that apparently makes no sense, so if you watched that version then confusion will probably be guaranteed
    2.) Attacking phantom ‘elistits’ (that don’t represent any actual person) for claiming to ‘get’ some ‘logically discernible’ ‘message’ that they won’t share is a pretty absurd strawman, if for no other reason than that I know of no seasoned cinephile who would get stuck up on ‘meaning’ as if they were still in a high school English class. If you’re looking for someone who loves the film (and, coincidently, openly admits to not knowing ‘what it all means’), try Mark Kermode. And then attack him, too, because attacking the fans of a film is good film criticism, right?
    3.) If you are going to call the acting ‘campy’ then you’ve already shut yourself off from the film’s deliberate embellishments, and calling the cinematography ‘arty’ isn’t exactly helping your credibility. All it really exhibits is xenophobia. Why is the acting embellished and the cinematography frequently swirling about through space? Do you ever consider the purpose of elements within an artwork or simply sit back and label things ‘arty’ and ‘campy’, content with passivity and the status quo?

    1. Well said. What an awful, awful review. I also noticed that she gave a positive review to Funny Games, go figure.

    2. You are absolutely correct ‘JeanRZEJ’. This review is clearly an amateurish attempt that fails in its purpose. Pamela, no offence, but dear your nihilistic approach doesnt alter anyone’s sense of appreciation, who ever knew how to appreciate any art in its original appearances that is not tainted by some preconceived ideas of what is actually an art. I dont go around boasting my knowledge of this film, which I miserably lack, but I certainly recommend it with confidence and I do that quite frequently. Maybe my visual sensibility doesnt need to be satiating my curiosity of contemplating the message. And even if at the end all I get to take with me is just a memory of couple of hours spend in semi tranquilized state of total contentment, I know that I loved this movie and who cares if I dont decipher the meaning.

      Likewise there have been so many movies that were hated to the core by some major critics around the planet even though they may hold a very strong or surprising message which some viewers could easily derive through some logical inferences. So Pamela you need to ask yourself that cliche question – “What actually is an art?” Remember, sometimes it takes much longer to analyze.

      O by the way, ‘JeanRZEJ’, you were truly bold to disclose the true nature of the perspective that envisions this criticism. I wouldnt dare to use that Xeno— word. It’s an (almost) racist word. Dont hit me Pamela, the satire was a humble one.

      Love you all. What an amazing site (apart from this article).

  4. Mondo Vision is releasing Zulawski’s films in Region 1 – POSSESSION is “coming soon”, but it may be awhile. The uncut version isn’t that hard to find, however… utilizing interlibrary loan through your local library is enough to net a copy of the OOP Anchor Bay release, amongst other methods.

  5. Re: L. Ron Hubbard / research.’
    I was aware at the time of writing the review that Zulawski was going through a traumatic breakup, was in an odd state of mind, and that some of the scenes are supposed to be symbolic of the abstract impressions and emotions that one experiences in such a situation. This is such a broad, subjective subject however, as to make such symbolism trivial and vague. If Zulawski had been properly focused, he would have found something more substantial to symbolize, and the meaning would be discernible after a little contemplation. I stand my remarks.

    1. So you stand by your inane smartass remarks against fans of the film too?

      Btw quit getting caught up in “symbolism.” That’s the sort of thing that Un chien andalou was mocking. People see something remotely strange they think it must “symbolize” something and there’s nothing else to it beyond that. There is nothing I hate more than “criticism” that sees films as mere puzzle games, and a movie of this kind of fluidity, persistent feverish mania, stylistic and genre-bending fervor is NOT the kind of movie that calls for such simplistic reductionisms.

    2. Pamela, by defining “abstract impressions and emotions” as “unfocused” and (at least implied here ) unworthy subjects for cinematic symbolism, you’ve essentially nullified ANY films with abstract emotional subject matter – meaning all the films of David Lynch, for example, and their symbols are “trivial and vague”. That’s going to narrow your field of engagement with weird cinema significantly.

      Stating that emotional states cannot effectively translate to cinematic symbols, is limiting both the scope and means by which film makers can explore various themes and subjects. Is it your contention that Zulawski should have made a social realist picture in the mode of Ken Loach about his break up experience? Would that experience have spoken to you more personally? Fantastic. But I still think your reasoning behind the invalidity of “Possession’s” symbolism is narrow minded and absurd.

      Have you considered that viewers take their own individual meanings from symbolism in films, and that this multitude of meaning making is part of the joy of the cinematic experience? Have you considered taking on “Possession” as an emotional experience rather than a literal experience?

      Why not simply state the self-evident truth inherit in your review: neither the film’s style, images, theatrical acting or execution spoke to you on any level and for that reason none of the symbolic imagery affected you? I think this would make for a more effective review than a series of ever more presumptive and broad statements about what does and does not work when it comes to cinematic symbolism.

  6. I am not a great reviewer or intellectual but I see a lot of movies. I also feel it is a crap. I see there are some genuine mastermind art lovers who see much beyond this crap. I am sorry to say I can’t see it and neither can any normal person. If this film is only for masterminds; I have only one thing to say “Go fcuk yourself”

  7. If something is strange enough and holds my attention, with ingenious surprises, symbolism be damned (IE weird in the way of some truly insane jpop music video). Perhaps ridiculing such pretentious work is the goal. Though, I’m still waiting to see the movie, it wont be long. When looking at a review i just take the presented fact and discard obvious opinion. I wait and form my own later. Hoping this is more than Bruce Willis in Breakfast of Champions style weird.

  8. May I just say that a Region 2 DVD, which is to the best of my knowledge not too badly cut, and quite possibly not cut at all, will fall through my letterbox in about 6 hours? If it would be useful, I will share my impressions of this movie with you tomorrow.

  9. OK, I finally watched this movie and wanted to add what I thought since this film has caused some discussion since Pam’s orginal review. Truth is, now that I’ve seen it, I’m not exactly sure what I saw. It certainly ranks as one of the weirdest and most enigmatic films I’ve ever seen. First off, I would not consider the acting “campy”. I would reserve that term for less-serious movies along the lines of Barbarella, Rocky Horror, etc. Yes, the acting goes over the top, but this is definitely a serious film. I see it in the same vein as Antichrist (although much less cringe inducing). Probably the director just encouraged the actors to embellish their emotions as much as possible to convey the mental anguish and instabilities the characters are going through. One of the most bizarre and memorable sequences is the subway scene which depicts Isabelle Adjani screaming and writhing around for about 5 minutes. Was this necessary? Perhaps not, but it culminates into an emotionally draining climax that would have lost the impact if not for the banshee-like wailing and erratic behavior that had preceded it. As for the accusations of the director making a film that is “weird, for the sake of being weird” well more power to him. I embrace and admire filmmakers who push the boundaries into weird territories. David Lynch doesn’t get flack for making weird movies, he is celebrated for it. I am, however, annoyed by many modern independent film directors who make films that are “quirky, for the sake of being quirky”. Almost like the director made a list of the quirkiest things he could possibly think of and then tried to develop a film around those ideas (Garden State, among other offenders). I find “quirky” and “weird” to be two radically different constructs. But subjective terms nonetheless.
    Possession has so many elements and layers within the basic psycho-sexual disintegration of a relationship plot that it is difficult to make much sense out of everything upon the first viewing. The octopus/sea creature must represent something; but what? (Mis-)perceptions of God? Ana’s interpretation of Mark’s hideousness to her? And who the hell is that guy in the pink socks? I can’t even try to figure out that baffling ending. I’m only certain of a few things:
    1. Isabelle Adjani is stunningly beautiful in this.
    2. Sam Neill cannot sit still in chairs.
    3. The first encounter of Mark and Heinrich (Ana’s lover) results in one of the gayest fight sequences ever filmed.
    4. This is a great weird film that requires multiple viewings.

    I purchased a relatively cheap Region-free dvd import from South Korea. I believe it to be uncut. It ran a little under 2 hours (117 min.) Does anyone know how long the uncut version is supposed to run?
    And also…Greg…have you personally seen the film? I’m looking forward to the “official review” in the future to possibly shed some light on this mysterious and strange little jewel.

    1. I saw the film about 20 years ago on VHS, and frankly I remember not liking it much at the time. I can’t guarantee that I didn’t see the mangled version or that I wasn’t on bad drugs that clouded my judgement, however, and I’ve been anxious to give it another chance.

  10. Thanks LRob, I must have seen the UK version, cut down a little from the Anchor Bay release. At least it wasn’t the completely butchered version that I’ve read runs less than an hour and a half.

  11. The fact that the UK version has a shorter run time doesn’t necessarily mean they are different cuts. Region 2 DVDs use PAL encoding, which runs slightly faster than the NTSC format used in the States (25 frames per second vs. about 24 fps). PAL DVDs therefore always have shorter run times than NTSC DVDs, even if the content is exactly the same.

  12. Sorry, I was going to reply to this thread earlier, but things intervened. Anyway. This is a PROFOUNDLY weird movie. But the trouble is, the above review makes it sound a hell of a lot more fun than it actually is. To be fair, in my opinion, Isabelle Adjani’s mental breakdown is more convincing than Catherine Deneuve’s in Repulsion (to which this film owes a great deal). I was never in any doubt that she was really, really mad. But there are absolutely no significant characters in the film you can truly sympathise with, apart from a little boy who is basically a plot point. Oh, and Eric Gabbard is not strictly correct when he claims there is no campy acting. Well, technically he might be, because although the guy playing Heinrich is as camp as a groundsheet, I’m not sure if what he’s doing is “acting”.

    It’s got elements of Repulsion, only more so, it’s got elements of Eraserhead, only in colour, it’s got elements (huge ones!) of The Brood, only done as an arthouse movie – it really ought to be something special. But somehow it just didn’t grab my attention. Jack Nance’s hapless anti-hero in Eraserhead is as doomed as Sam Neill, but he isn’t a horrible person, just a man driven beyond his breaking point – Sam Neill is both. His attempts to sacrifice everything because he finally realises that his one true love is his wife come so late in the film that they’re unrealistic, especially after we’ve had an hour and a half of seeing how bonkers she really is, in ways that you can’t honestly imagine any man brushing under the carpet just because she’s pretty – if you’ve seen Confessions of a Psycho Cat, she’s basically that character played by somebody who can act.

    And the whole thing about her unexplained mutant squid lover doesn’t quite work, because most of the movie takes place in the real world, except that the central character can in some incomprehensible way give birth to a logic-defying creature for no reason at all. The rest of the film should have been slightly weirder so that it isn’t too jarring that this octopus sex embryo somehow exists.

    By the way, it should be noted that, since this film was not made in Japan, the whole tentacle sex thing is treated as horrifically bizarre rather than erotic. Although there is quite strong sexual content, this is by no means a porno film, unless your tastes in that area are extremely odd (or Japanese). And I can honestly say that, despite my being a heterosexual male and this being a film in which Isabelle Adjani takes her clothes off, I didn’t find it the slightest bit erotic, because I don’t think there’s one single second of the movie which is truly free from imminent threat of some form of grief or nastiness.

    That being said, the actual gore content is surprisingly low, and by today’s standards, pretty innocuous. Since this film was originally banned in the UK as a “video nasty”, but is now legal again, I suspect that the Region 2 DVD may indeed have suffered a bit of trimming just to keep the censor happy. I haven’t done the math on precisely how long it ought to be, given the different numbers of frames per second in this and other versions, but the subway scene – by far the most powerful and controversial scene, and one which apparently caused the actress genuine psychological trauma – seems to me to cut off very abruptly, and I’ve read accounts suggesting that quite a lot more is supposed to happen.

    This may be wrong – writers of books discussing hard-to-see movies normally available in butchered versions sometimes insert scenes they’ve heard rumours about, or simply made up, just to imply that they’re so cool that they’ve seen a version of the movie you never will. Django KIll is a case in point. But that scene in Possession looks to me as though it cuts off sooner than the editor intended.

    Is it a certifiably weird film? Undoubtedly. Is it a good way to spend a couple of hours? Probably not, unless you’re into extreme angst punctuated with brief outbursts of bloody violence, and you don’t particularly care if the ending makes sense – no, I didn’t have the faintest idea who that guy with the pink socks was either, or why it mattered (though David Lynch was probably taking notes). However, if I correctly understood the ultra-weird unexplained plot thread that went absolutely nowhere, Sam Neill has played the Antichrist twice (not a plot-spoiler. since it has nothing to do with anything).

    This is the kind of weird movie where you realise within 10 minutes that every single character is doomed, but unfortunately they’re all going to yell at each other for a very long time indeed before they actually give us the money-shot and die. Though on the plus side, if you’ve got fantasies about Sam Niell’s buttocks, you get to see them for longer than I would have thought was strictly necessary.

    I really am in two minds about this film. Isabelle Adjani is very good, yet most of what she’s good at is either repulsive or downright tedious to watch. And she has to carry the film, which obviously has a limited budget for special effects, by giving us extend scenes in which she demonstrates that she’s crazier that a tree full of fish, long after we’re well aware of this fact. Basically, far too much of the film is just characters who are very hard to like being incredibly unpleasant to each other, while potentially interesting secondary characters like the gay private detectives are grossly underused. And then sudden;y you get a little bit of horror to prove that it’s a horror film.

    Should it make the list? On weirdness quotient, yes. On entertainment value, no. And that’s an extreme statement coming from someone who has recently watched a film in which Isabelle Adjani takes all her clothes off and has ecstatic sex with some sort of mutant tentacled blob.

  13. I concur completely! I wrote up this review for Amazon in 2005, and still feel the same:

    There’s Much More Going One Here Than You Think, April 21, 2005

    Yeah, Possession. The First time I saw this film I was catatonic by the end. Three friends and I talked about it so much we got 4 new friends to watch it with us again. We continued marveling over it and watched it yet again on the third night (ten people this time). Why? Because this isn’t really a horror film. Yeah, there’s a “monster”, but only in America would this get relegated to the “Horror” genre. Because here, we usually make films to fit in a box, follow a formula or entertain; whereas this one seems to be about catharsis for the director.

    Several years ago there was an amazing fan site to this man’s work (which doesn’t seem to exist anymore) that went into infinite detail about his films and personal life. Suffice to say, there’s much more going on here than you think.

    During 1970’s and 80’s Poland, all films were approved by the Polish film commission and Zulawski’s second film “Diabel” (1975) was banned. Made in Polish, it was essentially cut off from it’s only possible audience. He took a trip to France, made his 3rd film and returned to his homeland to do the 4th. After two years work the authorities would not allow him to finish it. Since then he has lived and created successfully in France.

    “Possession” is the first film he made immediately following the second incident in Poland; just as his marriage was dissolving, and is better described as 3 films in 1. The first part is a drama centered around a couple who’s marriage is falling apart. As the discord escalates, it becomes a horror film with some scenes potentially taking place only in the psyche of the wife. The finale is an action film that drives the frenzied pace even higher through chase sequences.

    Other confusions seem to stem from many lines of dialog (especially in exchanges between Hans and Sam Neil) that may be interpreted as critique of Zulawski’s treatment by the government of Poland. Consequently some exchanges leave viewers perplexed, as characters words don’t appear to have any bearing on the scene at hand. The mysterious “agents” that pop up from time to time, simply create the social context the director must’ve felt as a persecuted artist. And as for the doppelgangers… I like to think they are the plastic versions of each character that the government or society’s values would have them become.

    In many ways this film is an examination of the internal landscape of Zulawski at that moment; divorced from his wife and exiled by his beloved homeland. The high drama of these characters has the actors screamingly portraying every pent-up emotion Zulawski felt about his marriage, and wasn’t allowed to say to his fellow countrymen about their homeland. I love this film. I love every gut wrenching, hysterical, chaotic minute of it. Viva Zulawski.

  14. I might also state that I have since sprung for more of his films and they all have fractured structures with rampant symbolism. DIABEL has a guy being sprung from jail and returning to his hometown to see what the civil war has wrought. But the manner in which this occurs elicits all manner of question involving whether the main character is a ghost, why his devil-ish guide is involved, why a mysterious dwarf keeps appearing around his dead father’s body, etc. There’s also the same disconnected dialog, wherein the main character talks about and even directly to his sister/lover, in such an abstract manner; it becomes obvious it’s all veiled references to actual political turmoil entwined with the personal turmoil of the scene they’re physically acting out about her ‘marrying’ another man. It almost seems to me that he is so steeped in the language of film, that when he starts creating one…he sort of spills his guts like a Tourette’s victim. The visuals, genre formulas, etc; blur together in a surreal mish-mash to whatever emotional ends he has crafted the dialog. In this respect he resembles Jodorosky, but that guy’s symbolism and use of character duality seems rather straightforward and linear compared to Zulawski. The image that comes to mind is that each of Zulawski’s films are not unlike fever dreams.

  15. Just saw “Possession.” This film is amazing. Didn’t care for it at first but gets better as it goes along. Very visceral with Grotowski inspired extreme performances/exorcisms. I felt I was losing whatever sanity I have while watching it. Should be an easy entry for the weird list.

  16. This review did me a bit of a disservice, because I just blew off the movie as a result. Then last Friday I read on the Ebert website a glowing review of On the Silver Globe, which has been restored and rereleased (hopefully there’s a DVD coming from Criterion). I decided to do a movie marathon the next day, starting with the Devil, then Possession, and finishing with On the Silver Globe.

    My first reaction is shame at my prior state of ignorance. Why have I never seen a Żuławski flick before? My second reaction is happiness because I have discovered a director of the exact caliber of Jodorowsky or Lynch, one of the great directors of weird cinema, but he is completely unfamiliar to me. The Devil was my favorite of the bunch, with Possession a close second.

    What is this movie really about? There’s more going on than a symbolic depiction of Żuławski’s breakup with a woman. If you’re going to try to reduce the meaning of an artwork to biographical details about the artist, which is a somewhat unimaginative method of criticism, at least get all the facts down. More importantly than his breakup with some chick is the fact that this was his first movie after On the Silver Globe was shut by the Polish government, The first of a projected trilogy based on his own great uncle’s science fiction novels, he had to fight tooth and nail to get the project going (two years work on the screenplay, for example, just to come up with something that was both true to his artistic vision as well as acceptable to the Polish authorities), and he came so close to getting it done (80% shot) before it was shut down. Furthermore, to his knowledge at the time Possession was made, all of the footage from On the Silver Globe was destroyed (only later, I think, did he learn that members of the cast and crew had preserved it, allowing him to use narration to fill in gaps and then release it ten years later). From the above mentioned review on the Ebert site: “Żuławski rebounded with the deeply wounded and wounding paranoid divorce drama Possession, which led him down a path of similarly abrasive psychodramas about men in thrall to women—stand-ins for his artistic obsessions—and the political obstacles to their romantic unions.”

    Even this reading doesn’t make much sense. Say that Sam Neill’s character represents Żuławski, and when he quits his spy job to work on his relationship with Isabelle Adjani, that represents his attempt to finish On the Silver Globe. The problem with this is the fact that I see no “political obstacles to their romantic union” coming from outside, say from the spy agency that Sam Neill works for. On the contrary, the obstacle seems to come from inside the relationship itself, i.e. from Isabelle Adjani’s proclivities for murder and octopus sex. Maybe we can read Isabelle Adjani as the tortured artist, the octopus as her artistic creation, and Sam Neill and his spy friends as the “political obstacles.”

    I honestly don’t know what the hell is going on here, but who cares? The photography, the acting, the narrative, all are superlative. I will readily admit that Żuławski’s “message is not logically discernible,” but that only adds to the charm. I look forward to picking apart the layers of meaning through multiple viewings over the coming years, and I expect to be just as frustrated and entertained as by my multiple viewings of Lynch. I look forward to Żuławski’s inclusion on the list, because that will come with a proper review of Possession.

    A few notes. You guys are behind the curve on Żuławski . All three of the movies I watched last Saturday deserve to be on the list. It was the Ebert website that really clued me onto this guy – a mainstream site from the dude who hated Lynch. And this review of Possession, it is a precise example of how to read a weird movie the wrong way. The plot description was accurate and even amusing, but the criticism and interpretation stuff was shockingly bad. The list candidate review of the Devil was good, but really, list candidate? This guy should have been on the list a long time ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *