Powerful

One of my all time favorites.

As Good As It Gets

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I have to say that in this particular Anger short, I was much more interested in the early synthesizer score by Mick Jagger than I was for Anger's straight-up Satanic imagery. That said, the Satanism and occult nature of this short is important because it's basically a testimonial to various ways in which this imagery has continued to subsist in the imagination of our culture. Images of Satanism and witchcraft, occult and ritual pepper film history from Haxan to the present day, especially in experimental and alternative film-making. There are many experimental short films that could be understood basically as a direct response, reproduction, or return to Kenneth Anger's particular vision. The theatrics of Satanism is compelling because of way it's practiced or imagined to be practiced, in the same way that the Carnivalesque references that need in humanity to mock and subvert through caricature and clowning. Mick Jagger's cooperation in this, and the Rolling Stones concert imagery (I'm assuming "My Demon Brother" refers to Jagger, but I could be wrong) is a winking allegory to the reputation Jagger started to have in the fears and anxieties of 1960s parents and the continual shadow of Altamont over their career (a Hell's Angels jacket appears, plus references to a dead cat that could easily be a stand-in for the murdered audience member as well as fill in the form of animal sacrifice popularly believed is involved in Satanic ritual).Meanwhile, it's not as if the short itself is completely serious. At one point a doll rolls down a staircase with a sign attached to it that says "Oops you're pregnant! That's witchcraft!" The earlier part of the movie is a simple reaction shot structure where a strange blond (almost albino) man looks around and sees naked men lounging around, almost in reference to the effeminate Jagger--a reference that comes back with the swaying hips of one man in something like quadruple-exposure, etc. The whole thing is almost too playful, with demons literally dressed in red-faced costumes and plastic horns on their heads, and random dogs laying around watching what's going on with detached animal interest.However, it is engaged cinema, and Anger is still pointing to some of his fascinations with the darker undertones of all humanity and their shifting perspectives and contexts. Nazi imagery shows up, this time closer referencing the original form of the swastika that the Nazis reappropriated for their own use. A hooded congregation leader looks like the high priest of a KKK group, followed by people who are obviously not KKK members. Birth and death are purposefully confused. Bubbling, boiling imagery is mixed with multiple-exposure imagery (Anger is always fond of pointing out that film is a chemical process, like alchemy) and kaliedoscopic imagery to reference bodies and forms as malleable things. Fire destroys it all in the end anyway.--PolarisDiB

This isn't a film in any conventional sense. For some reason many people because of their lack of sincerity doubt the sincerity of others.This is pure occultism of the sincerest form. Anger is a known devotee of Aleister Crowley who discussed among other things sacrifice, human and otherwise, demonology, etc. The film is of a grossly unsettling nature it hints at great horrors while revealing very little. The mind of course can conjure greater horrors than can be shown in film. Certain frames of this stick in your mind like a splinter wondering. The methodic chanting babbling barely audible names is also unsettling and disorienting.I am not afraid to say this short disturbed me I would prefer I never saw it. Note: I am not rating this piece a 5, I am offering no rating for it.

I watched this last night for the first time, on the "Films of Kenneth Anger Vol. 2" DVD, and to me this was probably the most intense of the set. Between the droning, obnoxious score (by Mick Jagger, of all things), and the changing film speeds, this film really did invoke feelings of, if not really a nightmare, then definitely an altered state, and not a real fun one at that.But the capper for me was the use of Bobby Beausoleil (sp?), who was one of Manson's killers. This footage was apparently shot only a couple of years before Bobby (sorry, not trying to imply too much familiarity, but I'm really sick of typing his last name, it hurts my brain) murdered Gary Hinman. The footage of Bobby, combined with the knowledge of what he's gonna do in a couple of years, just creeped the f**k right out of me.So, I did like this, and I'd recommend it to folks interested in Anger, or in weird sixties head trips & the dark side of psychedelia, but I'm really glad I didn't watch it under the influence. It probably would have wound up occupying a "special" place in my brain, and I don't mean a good happy place.

Don't listen to the guy above, since he thinks all art films are supposed to hold your hand, and tell you what to think and believe. This film is obviously an artifact of subjective, artistic expression (like all real art usually is). But I happen to think it's genius. Just because I don't like the images (which I in fact do) doesn't dis-validate it as art. Art is not for entertainment, as it is the allowance of the artist to express themselves in a certain language/form/deliverance.This film can be interpreted as a view on the artist's fascination with the occult, life, or just certain images in general. Some parts remind me of how sensitive we are to certain images, and so on. Every film isn't like Hollywood, tied up with a neat little bow, were can all hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Sometimes, it portrays what goes on the psyche of certain people. Look at Jordorwosky, for instance.