CASTLE KEEP (1969)
Article 5433 by Dave Sindelar
Date: 4-23-2017
Directed by Sydney Pollack
Featuring Burt Lancaster, Patrick O’Neal, Jean-Pierre Aumont
Country: USA
What it is: War movie

During WWII, a group of eight misfit soldiers are stationed in a French castle that is the home of paintings and antiquities. When it turns out to be directly in the route of a German invasion force, the major decides to make a stand at the castle.

Some of the sources from which I cull my hunt list of fantastically-themed films do not explain the reasoning behind the inclusion of certain of them, and occasionally I find myself in the position of trying to figure out why a film that doesn’t seem to qualify (such as this one) was included. I can think of three possible reasons. First, there’s a sequence where a painting comes to life, though it is clearly in the imagine of a soldier. The second is when an attempt to destroy a Volkswagen Beetle goes awry, one of the characters speculates that it may be supernatural. The third is a little more difficult to pin down; there’s something of a surreal, “out of time” feel to the soldiers of the modern day finding themselves in an ancient castle with a moat, and the Peter Falk character speculates as to whether they’re in the right war. For the record, I consider all of these a bit questionable, and the movie is marginal at best in terms of its fantastic content.

As far as the movie itself is concerned, Burt Lancaster felt it was a commentary on the Vietnam war, and is in some ways an anti-war film. It’s certainly difficult to miss the point when we see orchards destroyed, architecture blown up, works of art burned and statues exploded, and the irony of the situation is that they all might have survived if a stand had not been made at this location. The movie’s first half is eccentric and a little bizarre as we meet the various characters and learn about their quirks. The movie becomes much more predictable during the second half where it becomes a full war movie. All in all, it’s interesting, but only sporadically effective.

LA CIGALE ET LA FOURMI (1927)
aka The Grasshopper and the Ant, Jugendrausch, Eva and the Grasshopper
Article 5432 by Dave Sindelar
Date: 4-22-2017
Directed by Georg Asagaroff and Wladyslaw Starewicz
Featuring Camilla Horn, Gustav Frohlich, Else Burkhardt
Country: Germany
What it is: Fable

Grasshoppers party away the summer while the ants work diligently saving for the winter. What happens to the grasshoppers when winter comes?

For the record, I don’t think I’ve seen this complete movie. Two directors are listed, but one of my sources says that Starewicz only directed the animated section. However, my copy is all animated; there is no live action at all, so I’m wondering if for some reason the print I saw was only the Starewicz section of the movie. At any rate, what I saw was self-contained; it tells the well-known fable, though in Starewicz’s own style. The grasshoppers party in a nightclub, playing bizarre musical instruments as the patrons dance. Meanwhile, the ants are trying to work, often while hindered by the pranks and jokes of the other insects. As usual, it’s very creatively done, though occasionally it is a bit difficult to figure out what’s going on. It even has a bit of poignancy; the short ends with a funeral and a crying family of insects. Starewicz’s work is dazzling as always. I just wish I knew more about the full movie and I wonder about the footage I’m missing.

CAMELOT (1967)
Article 5431 by Dave Sindelar
Date: 4-21-2017
Directed by Joshua Logan
Featuring Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero
Country: USA
What it is: Arthurian Musical

On the eve of his invasion of the castle of Sir Lancelot to retrieve Queen Guenevere, King Arthur speculates on the events of his life that brought him to this pass.

Adaptations of the story of King Arthur do not automatically qualify as examples of the fantastic genres for me. It mostly depends on how the character of Merlyn is personified; though sometimes he is portrayed as a wizard with supernatural powers, I’ve also seen him portrayed as little more than a trusted adviser to the king in movies that are striving to be more “realistic”, probably from directors who prefer to approach the legendary king as a historical figure rather than as a man of legend. This version is based on the novels of T.H. White, and that’s a good sign, since the Merlyn in this version was clearly a wizard. However, at this stage of the action, he exists as a memory, and though he appears twice during the movie, they may be as snatches of memory rather than as a mystical creature. Fortunately, there is one event in the middle of the movie that could be interpreted as a miracle, so whether this version of the story qualifies as a fantasy is a matter of interpretation.

Of course, this being a musical, the emphasis is not going to be on the adventures and exploits of the knights; in fact, only a tiny handful of them are even given names in this production. No, the emphasis was exactly where I feared it would be; this movie amounts to three hours of love triangle. I was hoping the emphasis would shift a bit once Mordred shows up two-thirds of the way through, but no, he’s mostly there to serve the triangle plot as well. And for me, the Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot triangle is one of the least interesting parts of the story, though I do understand how central it is to the whole picture. Combine that with the fact that I’m not a musical fan (and the songs for this movie aren’t exciting enough to win me over), and I’m afraid I have to say that I found this one mostly a bore. The only scene that really caught my attention was the one with the potential miracle; it’s a scene where Lancelot is challenged by three jousters. The actors do a fine job; I’m especially impressed with Redgrave’s performance. However, ultimately, this movie largely reminds me of how much I like the song about Camelot from MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL better than anything here.