Silent Madness 3-D

Silent Madness 3D

Directed by Simon Nuchtern.  Written by Bob Zimmerman & Bill Milling.  Additional Dialogue by Nelson DeMille.  Stars Belinda Montgomery, Viveca Lindfors, Solly Marx.  
1984, 93 minutes, Color, Rated R. 

Summary:
When a glitch in the computer system at an asylum for the criminally insane results in the release of the wrong patient - a giant-in-stature homicidal maniac named Howard Johns, who has a penchant for killing college coeds - it’s up to one of the institute’s top doctors to track him down. Unfortunately, it’s not just Howard she has to worry about, as the administration of the asylum has decided to cover up the error to avoid bad press, going as far as to hire a duo of thugs to permanently ’silence’ the good doctor. Soon enough, Howard finds his way back to the sorority house he once terrorized and sets out to murder the latest batch of nubile coeds who have taken up residence in the stately manor.

3D Rating:  **** out of *****

What makes a good 3-D film?  One could argue that the same rules that apply to 2-D films should apply to 3-D.  Good is good, right?  But that is not the case.  Any movie has the capacity to be better in 3-D.   I'm not talking novelty--I mean the very nature of it's dimensionality can enhance a dramatic work in unexpected ways. This is where "real" 3-D sets itself apart from "converted" 3-D.  Real meaning either two cameras or lenses captured the spatial information real-time on a set.  Converted meaning a 2-D image was processed to artificially create the two images used to make the 3-D image.

In a converted film, the visual effects technician has to manually determine what the dimensionality will entail, and how nuanced it will be.  This is not unlike what a cameraman using a 3-D rig would do on set, but the difference is every shot converted to 3-D costs money, and by and large only a certain amount of money will be spent on something as innocuous as someone walking down a corridor to get from point A to point B.  Certainly, some fine conversions are out there, but even in the best conversion there will be aspects that don't take full advantage of the third dimension.  And the reasons for that can be varied but it usually comes down to either money, or the filmmakers playing down the dimensional effects because they do not want "gimmicky" 3-D.

However, when you talk about a "real" 3-D film all of that depth and real world spatial orientation is just THERE.  True, the camera system used was adjusted to affect depth, but by and large when real 3-D is both filmed and presented correctly it's an amazing experience.  One of my film truisms is that a great presentation will always make marginal entertainment more watchable.  

Which brings us to SILENT MADNESS.

Now, this is not a great film.  I had never heard of this before seeing it for sale on Black Friday 2020, and only bought it largely due to it being released by Vinegar Syndrome and featured 3-D restoration work by the 3-D Film Archive. There would be a vigorous discussion trying to call it even a "good" film.  The acting is variable, and the story is pretty dumb, but even in 2-D it achieves some suspense and atmosphere.  

However, it is fabulous 3-D entertainment.    Truly, this is one of best 3D experiences I have had in many years.

3D disclaimer:  I have a LED TV that can display digital 3D.  My 3D reviews are based on how things look on my set. I am aware that other methods of displaying 3D may be different.

SILENT MADNESS was filmed in Arrivision 3-D, which was a single camera system that used a special lens to capture both right eye and left eye information on a single strip of 35mm.  Because only half of the 35mm frame was used, films shot in Arrivision 3-D are typically more grainy than not.  The director of photography was Gerald Feil, who had previously filmed FRIDAY THE 13th 3-D (1982).  Judging by the results on display in SILENT MADNESS he learned a few things from that experience.  

SILENT MADNESS does not have a great story.  According to the supplemental features on the disk, the film started as one kind of film but ultimately morphed into a slasher film.  As such, the film is a little clunky, characterizations are a bit thin, and the acting is a bit variable.  The film does tell a (generally) coherent story and generates suspense, so it satisfies as early 1980's horror film even without the third dimension.  

When viewed in 3-D, however, the film is an absolutely hoot.  Real care was taken to highlight the dimensionality of the different locations, and there are numerous "pop out" effects.  Additionally, the final chase sequence adopts a filmic style with colored gels that is quite different from what preceded it.  Think Mario Bava as opposed to FRIDAY THE 13TH and you get an idea of what I mean.

The Blu-Ray is taken from a release print, as apparently the original negative is missing.  The print used for this release is not great.  Many of the same faults found in the other Arrivision 3-D films JAWS 3-D and FRIDAY THE 13TH 3-D are also present here--alignment issues and a general all around softness.  These faults are largely baked into the print used, so while The 3-D Archive has done a remarkable job making it look as good as it does here, there was also only so much that could be done.

Also included on the disc is a "sizzle reel" which is in better condition than main feature.  This sizzle reel includes footage not in the final film and also presents a black and white flashback sequence in full color.  It's an interesting extra.  Colors are stronger as well, which seems to indicate that a scene in an experimental hospital wing was influenced by the body farm in COMA (1978).

Also notable is that there are two 3-D versions of the film included in the release.  There is the digital 3-D version of course, but there is also an anaglyph version as well.  I was not interested in this when I purchased it, but I have to admit that it works far better than I thought it would.  My experience with anaglyph 3-D was limited to broadcast "special events" when growing up, which typically did not work very well due to limitations inherent to NTSC.  However, the good folks at the 3-D Film Archive have come up with a proprietary process for anaglyph that works really well.  Watching it in anaglyph is a very viable alternative if you are not equipped for digital 3-D.  I've included some screenshot examples of anaglyph from the sizzle reel.  If you have the appropriate glasses, the 3-D should work well on your computer monitor.  

Vinegar Syndrome also includes at least one pair of anaglyph glasses in the package, as well as an embossed slip cover.

The Magnificent Ambersons

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS

Directed by Orson Welles.  Written by Orson Welles.  Stars Tim Holt, Joseph Cotten, Dolores Costello, Anne Baxter, Agnes Moorehead, Ray Collins.  
1942, 88 minutes, Black And White, Not Rated. 

Where to start with this one?  

Rightly or wrongly, the original version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS stands as one of the great lost films in the history of Hollywood. This was Orson Welles' second film for RKO, after CITIZEN KANE.  The controversy generated by KANE did not translate into box office dollars, so when the first cut of AMBERSONS tested poorly, RKO instructed the film's editor to shorten it dramatically and reshoot some of the more extreme scenes to be more palatable.  Said editor was Robert Wise.  

Welles was out of the country while most of this went down, and it's intriguing to think what may have happened had he been in the country.  Evidence suggests that he was not opposed to making changes and memos exist where he suggests even more drastic restructuring than what ended up in the released film.  The story of why he was out of the country is an interesting story in itself--he was appointed a good will ambassador to Latin America by the Government and so started to make an anthology film of life in the lower America's.  Although jointly funded by the U.S. Government, RKO pulled the plug based on the footage being sent back, which was also most likely as an indication for how far Welles' star had fallen.

While most can acknowledge the innovations of CITIZEN KANE, even if they don't care for the film itself, it's not generally as understood that AMBERSONS was just as innovative in new and different ways than his previous film. The visual look of the film is what most people gravitate to, but there are other more subtle innovations that were lost due to the editing. Specifically, the original version of AMBERSONS featured multiple scenes of extremely long takes with intricate camera moves and/or subtle character interactions.  This is not to suggest that Welles was being theatrical in the way of stage plays, but rather theatrical in the film medium*.  The shot length for many of these scenes originally were far outside the shot length norms of 1940's Hollywood. The film is also much darker—literally and figuratively—than typical films of the era, with deep shadows that mirror the characters emotions. 

Then there are the sets. Going against convention, Welles had the Amberson manor constructed as a contiguous multi-story set. The detail lavished on the set was impressive (and expensive) and contributes enormously to the believability of the setting. It also allows for some highly expressive (“arty”) shots that use both depth and shadows to outstanding effect.

While Welles does not act on screen in AMBERSONS (the only time he was ever able to do that for one of his films) he contributes the narration. The first few minutes of AMBERSONS are an absolute joy to behold mainly due to his rich baritone voice.  It is also worth noting that the first half hour of the film is the least molested of what remains.  There are deletions, but nothing in the way of new scenes.

100% of the long takes mentioned above were compromised by the pre-release editing done to "improve" the film. The two biggest areas that were harmed were the ball sequence--a long single take that wound from one end of the set and back again, all while dialogue scenes and dancing took place. Welles claimed it was an entire reel of film, but even if it wasn’t it was still a tour de force. As most of the edits occurred after the halfway point of the story, much of the scene still exists in the film as it is relatively early in the story. Not so lucky was the original ending with Agnes Moorehead's emotional explosion chopped off before it really gets going.  Likewise cut in half was a kitchen scene where it is explained that some of the Amberson land had been sold because they needed the money.  In fact, just about all of scenes that illustrated how society was changing, for better or worse, and how it affected the family were lost in the re-editing.

I think that if the original 131 minutes version had been released in 1941, it would have died a death at the box office, so it's reasonable that RKO would have tried to "fix" the film. The question of whether the film was taken out of Welles' hands is more complicated.  Superficially, this became the first in many films that Welles lost control of.** Looking at it a little closer, however, it's an open question whether Welles was removed or whether he removed himself.  He left for South America to film his Latin American film before AMBERSONS was fully edited, and one has to wonder why he did that. Was he simply naïve, or was he aware that the film was problematic?  Perhaps he didn’t have the stomach for the compromise needed to appease the studio.  Sheer irresponsibility also cannot be discounted.

Based on what is known about the original version--the continuity script exists for that version--it was an artistic triumph but not an "easy" film.  The film is also aggressively "arty" and that may have also been a problem with audiences outside of the bigger cities.  This would have hurt its chances at the box office. The fact is, the film was flawed in having one of the most unlikable lead characters in film history. I happen to think that Tim Holt is fine in the role, and played it exactly as Welles wanted, but the character is a cad and it colors much of the story. The fact that the film's portrayal is a faithful rendering of the character from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel does not really help things--what works in print sometimes just doesn't work on screen.  If Welles had played the lead, he may have been able to pull off making the lead character more likable.  This may have improved its chances at the box office. Maybe.  

That said, I also 100% believe that if the long version had been released it would be considered a filmmaking masterpiece, right alongside KANE.  It probably would have taken a generation for it to outlive its box office failure, but like it or not, art generally prevails.  

* On a side note, I personally have always viewed Mike Nichols' peak period (1966-1973-ish) to be "Wellsian" in nature as he approached things in a similar manner--long takes with a striking visual touch. 

**.  LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948), MR ARKADIN (1955), TOUCH OF EVIL (1958).