criterionforum.org

DarkImbecile wrote:David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Mr Sausage wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:03 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Is this about to go the Prey route and dump a worthwhile entry in a long-desiccated horror series onto streaming?

Finch wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:38 pm Disney's judgement in deciding what goes theatrical and what's streaming only is already circumspect after they dumped relatively original films like Turning Red and Luca on D+ while giving the dire Lightyear a wide theatrical release (yes, I know, Toy Story connections, but we all saw from the opening weekend figures that that didn't save Lightyear).

Big Ben wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:43 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:03 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:David Bruckner’s Hellraiser

Is this about to go the Prey route and dump a worthwhile entry in a long-desiccated horror series onto streaming?

What's really incredible is that it won't take much effort to make a good Hellraiser film by comparison. Many of the films are atrocious even by Direct to Video standards.

The Curious Sofa wrote:The trailer doesn't make this look much better than yet another Hellraiser sequel, though with the talent involved it has to be better. I wished this had been a new adaptation of the original Barker story, which I thought this would be till recently. While I like Hellraiser, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:17 pm

The Curious Sofa wrote:The trailer doesn't make this look much better than yet another Hellraiser sequel, though with the talent involved it has to be better. I wished this had been a new adaptation of the original Barker story, which I thought this would be till recently. While I like Hellraiser, there is plenty of room for improvement.

Have you watched any of the last six or so Hellraiser sequels? This doesn’t look like them at all.

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:55 pm Wanting Pinhead not to be a central character in a Hellraiser film is like wanting Jason not to be a central character in a Friday the 13th movie. . Hell, Pinhead's even a central character in Clive Barker's sequel novel, The Scarlet Gospels.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:40 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:55 pm Wanting Pinhead not to be a central character in a Hellraiser film is like wanting Jason not to be a central character in a Friday the 13th movie. . Hell, Pinhead's even a central character in Clive Barker's sequel novel, The Scarlet Gospels.

Barker's original plan was to have Julia be the central antagonist of the franchise and the first two films bear that out. I think the Cenobites were effective when used sparingly, which they were in the original. But fans gravitated to the most outlandish characters of the films and Pinhead became the Jason/Freddy/etc of the franchise, which never interested me that much. Everything to do with Julia (helped by a great performance by Clare Higgins) and her moral descent in the cause of love/lust is what I enjoyabout Hellraiser, the rest is set dressing for me. Unfortunately Julia became the Mrs. Vorhees of the franchise instead. That's why I hoped that this would be a remake, that this would get back to Barker's Hellbound Heart but I suppose that boat has sailed.

At least the implications of recasting Pinhead are intriguing and more in the spirit of the novella.

cdnchris wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:55 pmI'm also one of the few that strongly dislikes the second one.

Orlac wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:27 pm I've only seen the first three, but definetly found Part II my favourite.

Orlac wrote:I've only seen the first three, but definetly found Part II my favourite.

Mr Sausage wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:56 pm What's interesting is that Bruckner has cast a transwoman in the role (EDIT: actually I think your last comment was a reference to that, in which case I agree).

Orlac wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:44 pm One debit on the first film: it looks very British, but nearly everyone has been crudely revoiced.

David Bruckner: We never thought a remake was possible. I also thought that even tonally, to chase all the particular figures of your work, it’s just not something I would know how to do over the course of a year and a half experience making a film. At a certain point, you have to let your own instincts carry you away. You were there to help me recognize what I was experiencing and to make the story work. I think what Jamie, what blew me away so much working with her at first- we had several Zooms before we finally agreed to go forth- was that she understood from the beginning that this was going to have to be her own thing. She was having her own experience with the lines. I think from the beginning, she found and understood a certain sensuality in the character that felt new to me.

Clive Barker: Yeah. Before you move on from that, let’s just look at that.

David Bruckner: Yeah.

Clive Barker: Doug was anti-sensual. Doug was, in other words, cenobite is obviously a real word. The female equivalent is anchorite, yes? Which is a nun who spends her life, in some cases walled up, actually behind bricks. So, cenobite is the male equivalent, and Doug went for the anti-sensual monk-like. Yes, he makes a lot of references to sensuality in oblique ways, “No tears, please. It’s a waste of good suffering,” a perfect example, right? References two kinds of emotion; tears and the wetness of watery tears and then pain suffering all in one line. A lot of what he talks about is about himself, I think.

I think what Jamie has done is push the character out into a third place. I’m thinking of the Hell Priest in the book, he’s a very different thing from how Doug creates it. Any good self will take you to a whole new place. I love that. I fucking adore it because you can only do it so many times before the jokes aren’t funny. It’s like comedy. Horror is very like comedy in the sense that there’s a statement and an answer.

David Bruckner: Also, I mean, every actor has their tool kit; they have their experience that is inevitably going to come across on screen. The way that they internalize the lines, the other characters working with them are going to respond to that in some ways. One of the things Jamie got a hold of was a quiet intimidation. You could feel that she had a very, very curious intrigue relative to her subjects. I really grabbed onto that because one of the scariest lines for me in the original film is when Kirsty’s negotiating with the Cenobites and she says, “I can give you Frank,” and the female cenobite says, “Perhaps we prefer you.”

I always loved the idea that speaking to a Cenobite would be like bargaining with God and that you had to do something to their sense of taste in one way or another. So, the idea that Jamie had favorites and that Jamie’s Pinhead has a matter of preference who she’s working with and why and what she wants them to accomplish was something that was really present in the script. I think she got a hold of that and pulled it to the surface in ways.

Clive Barker: I think that Doug’s is person specific. Doug’s Pinhead is person specific. Jamie is the deadly seductress, or seducer, whichever gender you want. There’s something very sly about Jamie, or Jamie’s performance. Doug is not sly. Doug is utterly direct, and that’s what makes him intimidating. His statements are questions and there’s never any ambiguity in the original Pinhead. What you two had brought to our new Hell Priest is ambiguity. I love that, and I hope Jamie will recreate this role again. Because it seems to me that there’s so much more to be done with her performance than the script allows her to do this time around after all.

David Bruckner: That’s right. I think we all want to.