birth. movies. death. may 2015 issue 23

BIRTH.MOVIES.DEATH. / MAY 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Morphing Missive From The Editor

CONTENTS

The Yesterday Of Tomorrow: A History Of Tomorrowland

Video Vortex: Revenge Has A Name And Its BIONIC BOY

Myth vs. Continuity In The MAD MAX Series

A Look Back at the Deliberate Uncertainty of the PHANTASM Films

The Singularly Unnerving Delight of ROAR

drafthouse.com badassdigest.com birthmoviesdeath.com drafthousefilms.com fantasticfest.com mondotees.com

Extreme Canvas: The Mania Behind Ghana Movie Posters

JURASSIC PARK: One Of The Best Movies Ever

Editor-in-ChiefDevin Faraci Managing EditorMeredith Borders Associate PublisherHenri Mazza Art DirectorJoseph A. Ziemba Graphic DesignersZach Short, Stephen Sosa, Kelsey Spencer Copy EditorGeorge Bragdon Contributing WritersDevin Faraci, Germain Lussier, Annie Choi, Evan Saathoff, Brian W. Collins, Britt Hayes, R.J. LaForce, Bill Norris Advertising and SponsorshipsCorey Wilson | [email protected] Public Relations InquiriesBrandy Fons | [email protected] All content 2015 Alamo Drafthouse | drafthouse.com | badassdigest.comPromotional images and artwork are reproduced in this magazine in the spirit of publicity and as historical illustrations to the text. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the respective filmmakers, actors, and studios.

Drafthouse Recommends: EX MACHINA

Your Guide To Drinking At The Derby: The Mint Julep

Come Together: Marvel, THE AVENGERS And The History Of Shared Universes

The Last Word With INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3s Leigh Whannell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEVIN FARACIBadass Digest Editor-in-Chief

Read more at badassdigest.com

@devincf

07SUMMER LOVIN FROM THE EDITOR

I hope Im never too jaded to get excited about the start of the summer movie season. I know that, come September, Ill be welcoming the return of serious movies to theaters, but every May I get really pumped about the impending months of spectacle and pageantry, about sitting in a dark air-conditioned movie theater watching action and excitement, escaping the heat and reality. I dont get to measure my year in school breaks anymore -- let me have this!

This years summer movie season looks to be one of the most intense in a long time, and its exploding out of the gate this May with a few movies that are guaranteed to be the biggest hits of the year -- like Drafthouse Films release of ROAR! Okay, maybe ROAR isnt going to quite equal the box office of AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, but I think it can match any movie this year for sheer big screen spectacle, especially since that spectacle includes real cast and crew being mauled by real lions in a family film. Our own Britt Hayes sings the praises of ROAR this issue.

Speaking of AGE OF ULTRON, its the latest movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a shared world of intertwining franchises that has changed the way Hollywood approaches blockbusters. But it isnt the first shared universe in fiction, and this issue we look at some of the history of fictional worlds.

We also look at the history of Tomorrowland, the latest section of Disneyland to inspire a movie (TOMORROWLAND, of course). Sure, George Clooney wasnt involved in the actual creation of the park, but that doesnt make it any less fascinating a tale. Also a great tale: that of Max Rockatansky, the Road Warrior, returning to theaters this May in FURY ROAD. In this issue of BIRTH. MOVIES. DEATH we look back at THE defining post-apocalyptic movie series. Also this issue: mint juleps, a classic way to beat the heat,

a look back at JURASSIC PARK, one of the all-time great summer movies and another trip into the Video Vortex, this time exploring the brain-blasting fun of BIONIC BOY. And theres more -- posters from Ghana, a hearty recommendation of the cerebral sci-fi movie EX MACHINA and some brain picking of the director of INSIDIOUS 3.

Its a packed issue, but thats because its a packed summer. I couldnt be more excited. 6

THIS MAY AT THE ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE

ACT ION PACK:JURASSIC PARK

TOUGH GUY C INEMA:ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK

ZZANGARANG:MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE

SHINER SOUNDTRACK SER IES + G IRL IE N IGHT:PRETTY IN PINK


TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Yesterday Of Tomorrow: A History Of TOMORROWLAND

GERMAIN LUSSIERWriter/Critic for Slashfilm


@GermainLussier


TABLE OF CONTENTS

When Disney makes a movie called TOMORROWLAND, but its not about their theme parks also called Tomorrowland, confusion is a valid response.

On one hand theres a Brad Bird movie, starring George Clooney and co-written by Damon Lindelof, which opens May 22 and is being released by Disney. Its about a young girl who visits a futuristic world that exists in a parallel dimension. Then theres the theme park, an idea conceived by Walt Disney, which first opened in 1955. There, park attendees can go to experience rides and exhibits themed around science, fiction and a bit of both. Wait, are these things really not related?

The Tomorrowland section of the theme parks serves more as an inspiration than as a literal part of our storytelling, says TOMORROWLAND co-writer Damon Lindelof. In other words, there's no Space Mountain in our movie. Walt's futurism, his commitment (and obsession) with building a City of The Future for REAL, was something we were much more interested in capturing. And hopefully, we did.

So what was Walt Disneys vision of the future and how would he realize it? It started in the mid-1950s when he began plans for what would soon become Disneyland in Anaheim, California. Walt was a very inquisitive man. He was very fascinated with technology and what technology could bring to people, said Steven Vagnini, a Disney expert, employee of Disneys D23 Fan Club and former Walt Disney Archivist. Because of that curiosity, Disneys plans for Disneyland always included something he called a world of tomorrow, where the latest and greatest technology could be on display. That vision was realized on July 17, 1955 when Walt Disney opened Tomorrowland at Disneyland. At the time, it consisted of only a handful of attractions and the vision of the future was supposed to be 1986, the next time Halleys Comet would appear.

Over the next few years, fueled in part by corporations by like Monsanto and American Motors, Tomorrowland at Disneyland began to take shape. By 1959, it had introduced multiple new rides, including three that were referred to as E-Ticket or signature rides: a winter-themed roller coaster called the Matterhorn Bobsled, a monorail, which was the first operational monorail in the Western Hemisphere, and the Submarine Voyage.

The Submarine Voyage was a big, exciting project for Walt, said Vagnini. He wanted to do this grand thing and some people suggested Why don't you do a glass bottom boat ride? But no, Walt wanted a thing under the sea. And so the world's largest peacetime fleet of subs was introduced at that attraction. We worked with General Dynamics, which was tied to the nuclear subs that America was operating at the time. All three

of those E-Ticket rides are still at Disneyland, though theyve all since been updated considerably.

Almost immediately after the introduction of Tomorrowland, Disney began to consider expansion, both in the already open California park as well as on the East Coast. One of his first opportunities to test these ideas was The 1964 Worlds Fair in New York, which also plays a role in the Brad Bird film.

Out of [The Worlds Fair], we got amazing technology, Vagnini explains. The first full-sized human audio animatronics figure in Great Moments of Mr. Lincoln. This whole new ride system that transports guests sufficiently in the Ford Magic Skyway. The ability to send mass quantities of people through a physical space with great capacity at It's a Small World. These were great innovations that were developed and designed for attractions at the fair. And of course when the fair was over, Walt could bring these attractions back to Disneyland.

Keeping things new became one of the biggest issues with the idea of Tomorrowland. In presenting a vision of the future, the one thing Walt Disney couldnt foresee was how quickly technology would advance and necessitate changes in the park. So, in 1967, Tomorrowland was completely redone, the first of two major renovations and dozens of smaller ones.

[The 1967 renovation] was the biggest change that any area at Disneyland had experienced up to that point, Vagnini said. And it was all rooted in Walt's feeling that the problem with tomorrow is at the pace we're going, tomorrow catches up right when it gets built. We catch up with the future so often. One example is an attraction originally called Flight to the Moon. That opened in 1967, two years before humans would actually land on the moon. It was rethemed to be called Mission to Mars in the mid-Seventies.

The 1967 expansion was also significant because it opened just after Walt Disney passed away in 1966. It was really the last big Disneyland specific expansion he was working on, Vagnini said. He was also in the process of quietly buying land in Florida for a second Tomorrowland, which would be part of Magic Kingdom in Walt Disney World, Orlando, Florida. That opened in 1971.

Over the next few decades, Tomorrowland would slowly and steadily grow on both coasts. Rides like Space Mountain became extremely popular. The Carousel of Progress, which was originally at the Worlds Fair, would find a permanent home in Orlando. But by the mid-1980s, Tomorrowland would look to a new kind of future: the pop star.

In 1984, when Michael Eisner and Frank Wells came in to lead what would become the Walt Disney Company, they toured Imagineering and there were some attractions


TABLE OF CONTENTS

that had been preliminarily designed, Vagnini explained. One included a concept for STAR WARS.

In other sections of the park, rides based on Disney movies like PETER PAN, CINDERELLA and SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON were extremely popular, so Eisner had the idea to do that in Tomorrowland. And he would do it with a few non-Disney properties. To begin, they got in contact with George Lucas, himself a kind of Walt Disney of the day.

As development and construction on a STAR WARS ride began, Lucas teamed up with his friend Francis Ford Coppola and the most famous person on the planet, Michael Jackson, to film a 3D movie called CAPTAIN EO. That attraction opened in 1986. A year later, the Star Wars themed ride, Star Tours, opened. Both openings, both in Tomorrowland, necessitated the parks remain open for 60 hours straight to meet demand.

This was a big boost to development at Disneyland, Vagnini said. And of course paved the way for its future in reenergizing it.

Even with Walt Disney decades deceased, his forward thinking at the company never went away. By the late 1990s, once again, Tomorrowland was looking a bit un-Futuristic.

We essentially found ourselves where Walt found himself in 1967 where -- whether it's aesthetically or whether it's the portfolio of attractions -- it was time to re-imagine Tomorrowland, Vagnini said. In 1998, a new Tomorrowland opened. This one was done to better match a classic future environment inspired by various futurists like Jules Verne. And this had been

done successfully at Disneyland Paris where they opened Discovery Land, which is their version of Tomorrowland. And in the mid-'90s Walt Disney World had its major redo of Tomorrowland called their New Tomorrowland. And it was also heavily influenced by the timeless look at the future.

Those redesigns, with a few tweaks and additions, of course, is what Tomorrowland looks like today all across the globe. In total, there are five Tomorrowlands in Disney parks with a sixth on the way.

Which brings us full circle to Brad Birds movie. If what Lindelof says is true, and the films aim is to capture a bit of Disneys vision and ideas, it seems like theyve not only done it, theyve gone beyond that. One of the theatrical posters for the film has a building that perfectly resembles Space Mountain. And in a revealing, international version of the trailer, characters in the film bluntly reference the Tomorrowland theme park and say The theme park is a cover for the real thing. What would happen if all the geniuses decided to actually change the world? Walt was one of them. It seems Disneys influence never fades.

Tomorrowland, the theme park, celebrates its 60th anniversary in 2015. At the same time, in a film of the same name, its imagined as a real place that obviously references back to the park itself. Which makes perfect sense. Thanks to his theme parks, Walt Disneys vision of Tomorrow has and always will be a real place. A place people can go to travel to far away worlds, explore the galaxy and get a glimpse of a better future. 6

TOMORROWLAND arrives in theatres May 22. Check drafthouse.com for listings.


TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Video Vortex: Revenge Has A Name And Its BIONIC BOYANNIE CHOIBleeding Skull Contributor and Author of SHUT UP, YOURE WELCOME


@annietown


TABLE OF CONTENTS

What happens when a group of "professional killers" pulverize a couple with a bulldozer and leave their ten-year-old son for dead?

Hint: It involves revenge.

Another hint: It involves turning a ten-year-old karate champion into a bionic killing machine.

Bionic eyes? Check.

Bionic ears? Check.

Bionic roundhouse kicks? Check.

Bright orange bell-bottom suits with butterfly collars? Check.

As a kid, I became obsessed with THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN and THE BIONIC WOMAN. I watched reruns every day after school. I knew the entire intro by heart. "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him." I desperately wanted to be bionic. I wanted to hear Todd Marsh talk shit about me and then punch through walls to kick his ass. I wanted to casually jump onto rooftops and throw evildoers off with one hand. But in order to get bionic, I had jump out of a plane with a faulty parachute, and I wasn't old enough to do that yet. The best thing I could hope for was getting hit by a car. I told this to my older brother, who called me an idiot, but then agreed that it would be best if I got hit by a car. This is all to say that BIONIC BOY is a summation of my hopes and dreams as a scrawny eight-year-old.

An evil international syndicate tries to take over the Philippines by offing prominent businessmen and taking over their corporations. The thugs secure themselves on a beach resort with a perimeter of explosives. They also secure themselves with bikini-clad hotties and shiatsu massages. But a pesky ten-year-old keeps messing up their assassination attempts, and his name is Sonny Lee. But you may know him by his real name: Bionic Boy.

Bionic Boy jumps low fences in slow motion. He jumps high fences in slow motion. He runs up grassy knolls in slow motion. He lifts a van just like the Incredible Hulk, only in slow motion. Then the van explodes, in slow motion.

The syndicate boss fumes. Bionic Boy must be stopped! But how? Even his best thug -- an out-of-shape bald man in a sumo loincloth -- is unable to thwart the ten-year-old and his bionic, slow motion flying kicks. The henchmen are stymied. They're frustrated. They're angry.

This calls for a dance break.

Specifically disco-dancing. Everyone jiggles and bounces in short robes and bikini bottoms. I'm talking about the men here. Meanwhile, Bionic Boy dances around with a tiger rug. This could be a metaphor about the predatory nature of mankind and senseless bloodshed. Or it could just be a scene where a ten-year-old plays around with a tiger rug.

BIONIC BOY is a solidly entertaining adventure that makes you wish you had bionic fists and an endless supply of pink and green polyester suits. There are plenty of allusions to THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN, but fortunately, the film plays it straight. This is a fun action movie stuffed with stunts, explosions, and a never-ending barrage of bullets. This is also a movie that made the most out of their helicopter rentals. Young Johnny Yap is a formidable martial artist in excellent cardiovascular shape. This kid can kick ass and this kid can run. He runs fast too, even when it's in slow motion. The fight sequences are surprisingly well choreographed and energetic and Yap makes it painfully obvious that half the cast can't touch their toes.

And to answer your questions, yes, there's a sequel. And yes, Bionic Boy kills a man with a coconut.

BIONIC BOY screens as part of Video Vortex in May at the Alamo Drafthouse. 6


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Myth vs. Continuity In The MAD MAX Series

We live in a cinematic era of serialized storytelling filled with standards and rules that would have been easily ignored decades ago. The idea of recasting a role, for instance, is now a major concern. Betraying continuity would be considered a huge offense by many. We have moved beyond the franchise to the universe. For that to really work, both directors and studios must honor the integrity of the worlds they build with great diligence.

And then here comes a new MAD MAX, starring Tom Hardy instead of Mel Gibson, taking place who knows where and who knows when in terms of any overall story, and basically doing whatever it wants whether series fans like it or not. Judging by anticipation levels, series fans seem to like it a great deal. So why, in this age of serialization, does MAD MAX get a pass? The answer is pretty straightforward -- the MAD MAX series has just never given a damn about continuity.

Among the three films we have so far, the original MAD MAX ironically ends up as the outlier by having the most typical narrative. The film definitely takes place in a heightened version of our world -- law and order appear to have been disintegrating for a while -- but a recognizable civilization stands. The world is still the kind of place where a young hotshot police officer can have a pretty wife, a cute child and a functional house for shelter. Max even has the luxury of a friend.

That alone is strange. Max himself barely resembles the Mad Max icon weve come to associate with the series. He wears a police uniform rather than the cobbled-together outfit of necessity we later see. More than anything, he has an overt character arc. The Max were used to changes those around him while remaining unchanged himself. Here the world transforms him from one kind of man to another. Through tragedy, one that symbolizes the crumbling order all around him, something close to the Max we

know gets unleashed. But even this new Max has a long way to go before becoming the guy we see at the beginning of THE ROAD WARRIOR.

Writer and director George Miller has no interest in bridging that gap between the two Maxes, nor does he care to show us how the world went from unstable yet standing to completely obliterated between films. There is talk of a war, but it is vague. You can go online and put together a shockingly detailed version of what happened to Maxs world between MAD MAX and MAD MAX: BEYOND THUNDERDOME, but most is just conjecture; very little information actually comes from the films. Miller just doesnt care. He is a director of great micro-details -- just pause a character


EVAN SAATHOFFBadass Digest News Editor

@sam_strange


TABLE OF CONTENTS

in any of the three films and look at how much goes into what he or she looks like -- but also one of great macro-disinterest.

Which is just as it should be. These arent films about Max or his story. He is an avatar for heroism in a difficult world, a myth to comfort kids around campfires. Its no wonder that after the first MAD MAX, both sequels are actually tales being told by those he helped. Through their eyes, this man becomes more than a man, his actions more daring. FURY ROAD will very likely follow the same pattern, and it is for this reason that it doesnt really matter who plays Max Rockatansky. Hes more of an idea than a person. If you look at all the illustrations included in Stephen Kings DARK TOWER series, youll notice that Roland, the storys main protagonist, never quite looks the same from one painting to the next. Sometimes even his clothes are inconsistent. Max works the same way. He is the blank hero, a costume to be filled.

This also plays into Millers weird flippant attitude toward reusing actors. Hugh Keays-Byrne, for instance, played main villain Toecutter in the first MAD MAX, and yet Miller uses him again in FURY ROAD. He wears a mask, but his hair look somewhat similar. Audience members savvy enough to spot him in both

films might not know what to think. This is even more overt with Bruce Spence, who plays different characters back-to-back in THE ROAD WARRIOR and BEYOND THUNDERDOME. The fact that both of them fly planes and look like Bruce Spence seems almost like Miller is courting audience confusion as a practical joke.

But thats how this crazy series does it. And its about to do it some more, only now in an age where we dont really see this kind of thing anymore. It really doesnt matter when FURY ROAD takes place. There are cars, theres a desert, theres Max, there are people to save, and there are a bunch of insanely dressed villains to save them from. Thats all any of these movies need. Whether it takes place after the wars of MAD MAX or after the nuclear holocaust following THE ROAD WARRIOR isnt important. We see a burgeoning form of civilization at play in BEYOND THUNDERDOME. Who cares! This isnt about how humanity picks itself up from the pit of Hell; its about how a mythical lone wanderer helps various people in bizarre post-apocalyptic scenarios. And its pretty much all awesome. 6

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD arrives in theatres May 15. Check drafthouse.com for listings.


A Look Back at the Deliberate Uncertainty of the PHANTASM FilmsBRIAN W. COLLINSBadass Digest Contributor


@brianwcollins


As far as unlikely franchises go, Don Coscarelli's PHANTASM has to be near the top of the list, at least for horror films. The 1979 film is a bizarre, fever dream of a movie that is more known for its nightmare imagery than characters or plotting, and yet a major studio (Universal, to be specific) backed a sequel nine years later -- a sequel that didn't break records but paved the way for two more installments over the next ten years, and garnered a fanbase that has been demanding a fifth film since. They got their wish out of nowhere last year, when it was revealed that a new film had already been shot and would be arriving in 2015. That movie, PHANTASM: RAVAGER, hasn't surfaced yet, but based on what we

know and what little we've seen, it seems to be in line with what we expect from our adventures with Reggie, Mike and The Tall Man

Those three characters have been in all four released installments, though one of them was briefly played by another actor (more on that later). However, the first film's plot involved a fourth: Mike's older brother Jody, whom we learn at the end of the movie died in a car wreck (OR DID HE?), and that most/all/none of what we had seen during the movie was a dream, or Mike's imagination, or something else entirely. See? There's a lot of uncertainty, a lot of things left up for debate -- the

sort of things you see in standalone movies, not the first installment of a franchise that has spanned over 30 years. Some of those questions were (fuzzily) answered in the sequels, others still leave audiences baffled, but it doesn't matter. The continuity of the creator and (most of the) cast has allowed the tone of all of the films to remain consistent, so even when there's a giant plot hole somewhere along the line, it certainly doesnt affect the quality -- or enjoyability -- of the series.

And few can argue that what the film lacks in coherency it more than makes up for in sheer nightmare fuel; many a young horror fan was left permanently scarred either by the film's iconic silver spheres that can drill through anything (including heads), or the Tall Man (Angus Scrimm) shouting "BOYYYYYYYYYYY". The basic plot is right out of a GOOSEBUMPS-type novel; a young boy (A. Michael Baldwin) has had a rough couple of months -- his parents died in a car wreck, and now his older brother/guardian/hero Jody (Bill Thornbury) is about to move away. Worse, he's convinced that he has seen creepy goings-on at the nearby mausoleum,

including the robbing of his parents' graves, and no one believes him. Much of the movie consists of Mike trying to get Jody or ice cream man/buddy Reggie (Reggie Bannister) to see what he has seen, as he is convinced that the Tall Man is using their parents' bodies for nefarious purposes. It's funny that the film's basic plot can be described so easily, because when watching it one might often wonder if there's any plot at all, as Coscarelli seems more interested in freaking viewers out than telling a traditional story. At the end, just after the Tall Man has been defeated (a fight that left Reggie dead), we're given a huge shock twist -- Mike wakes up from a bad dream, and the very much alive Reggie tells him that Jody died in the same car wreck as his parents, and thus the Tall Man, the spheres and everything else we've seen was all in his head. Reggie is now his guardian, and sends him upstairs to grab something, allowing Coscarelli to pull one more great scare on us -- the Tall Man is in their house! It wasn't a dream after all!

Or, uh, was it? In the PHANTASM movies, even that which seems like a given is revealed as an uncertainty


TABLE OF CONTENTS

eventually. PHANTASM II picks up directly from its predecessor (rare for a sequel released nearly a decade later), with the Tall Man threatening Mike in his bedroom, and then we see what happens next: Reggie blows up the house in order to rescue Mike from the Tall Mans grip (this actually works!). But later Reggie tells him that scene, too, was just a dream, re-confusing the situation all over again. Well, whatever happened that night, Mike is left traumatized by the experience, and hes placed in an institution. When he's released, he's not only "saner," but he's become James LeGros, leaving original actor Baldwin out of the movie entirely (a double was used for the opening scene). As the story goes, Universal wanted to recast both Baldwin and Bannister for their bigger budgeted sequel, but Coscarelli fought them on it until a compromise was reached -- he could keep one of them. Maybe a coin was flipped or maybe the director just realized Bannister was a better actor, but either way, Baldwin had to sit the sequel out. As did Bill Thornbury as Jody, though it seems he was never really part of the plot anyway -- his resurrection doesnt arrive until the next film.

During the time Mike spent in the institution, The Tall Man had successfully wiped out most of the world (something we're only told; visually all we see is a lack of extras and a single ghost town), and the plot of this first sequel finds Mike and Reggie gearing up (including the creation of a four-barrel shotgun that is to Reggie what the chainsaw is to Ash) and following his trail of destruction, hoping to stop him for good. They are joined by Liz, who has dreams of Mike and uses a sort of telepathy to lead them to her, and Alchemy, a random hitchhiker that Reggie picks up (Reggie's horniness is as much of a character in these movies as Reggie himself ). Eventually The Tall Man kidnaps Liz, a lot of spheres fly around, there's a crazy priest and a pair of creepy morticians in there somewhere,

and did I mention the alternate dimension? And yet, PHANTASM II is the most coherent and commercial of the series, for obvious reasons. Sure, it has to be the weirdest damn thing Universal released that decade (it was their lowest budgeted for sure), but when stacked up against the other films in the series, it's not just LeGros that makes the film feel more typically Hollywood. The scope is a bit larger, the action cleaner and the plot more straightforward than the other films in the series. It's by no means a bad film, and in fact it's many fans' favorite, but it is definitely the anomaly in the series.

The third film, subtitled LORD OF THE DEAD, brought the series back to its roots. Jody returned, albeit mostly in sphere form (don't ask), and Baldwin came back to the role of Mike (the actor holds a nasty grudge against LeGros and PHANTASM II in general; you can hear his seething rage on the commentary). Sometimes I think this is the best sequel, as it offers the bigger scope of the first sequel with the loopiness that film's studio mandates wouldn't allow, but other times I feel its narrative is a bit too much like its predecessor, making it feel like a remake rather than a sequel. But if you're a Reggie fan, there's no doubt to this film's appeal -- he's in pretty much every scene, and he's saddled with a (not too annoying) kid sidekick, giving him something new to do while continuing his misadventures with women. It's also got the most action of any of the films in the series, though it sidelines the Tall Man for longer stretches, so that might not sit as well with some viewers.

Our favorite grave robber comes back into the forefront with the fourth film, PHANTASM: OBLIVION, in which we finally learn his name (Jebediah Morningside) and some of his backstory. Whether the character needs that backstory is debatable, but after the similar previous two films, at least this aspect sets OBLIVION apart quite markedly. Adding to the film's uniqueness


TABLE OF CONTENTS

is the fact that a good chunk of it is comprised of unused footage from the original, a trick rarely seen in cinema. Apparently, Coscarelli's first cut of the 1979 film was around three hours, and it was literally cut in half (which might explain why it's so confusing at times -- perhaps the films perplexity wasn't even the original intent), so there's a lot of leftover footage, quite handy for a filmmaker trying to make a new movie with underwhelming funds to do so. Some of the footage feels a bit forced, like when Mike recalls a "last perfect day" in which Jody doesn't appear and his main action is stealing an ice cream from Reggie's truck, almost assuredly a deleted bit of atmosphere/padding originally, and is now for some reason a really strong memory for a man several years later. But when the gimmick works, it's a remarkable feat, and adds immensely to the film's return to a more dream-based logic after two more or less coherent adventures.

The other qualities that distinguish OBLIVION aren't exactly complimentary. The even further reduced budget makes the story/world feel too small, especially in the Mike scenes where he's just driving around or walking in the desert. And after a while, all of the old footage begins to wear a bit on the viewer. It's slightly easier to swallow now that we do indeed have a fifth film on the way, but for a period there it seemed like OBLIVION would be our last time with these characters, and it was a bummer that so much of it was spent in the past, instead of progressing their story and delivering a big finale. It also lacks the strong continuity of the other sequels; the kid

from III isn't even mentioned (his fate was ambiguous at the end of that film; a death scene was planned but never shot due to the budget restraints), and Reggie seems like he cares more about his car than his friends, as if it had been five years instead of five minutes since he was last fighting by their side.

But not those minor blemishes, nor the news that for the first time ever Coscarelli would be handing over the directorial duties to someone else (David Hartman, who worked on JOHN DIES AT THE END with Coscarelli, directs this time, with the two men sharing scripting credit), has dampened "Phans" excitement for the upcoming RAVAGER, said to be the series' final installment. I can't blame the filmmakers for calling it a day; Scrimm is 88 years old at this point and probably can't run down mausoleum hallways for much longer, and I don't think there's a person alive who would want to see him get recast, or watch a PHANTASM film without its trademark villain. It's a shame that Coscarelli didn't call the shots himself when it came time to finish his baby, but his involvement (and the participation of the full cast, including Kathy Lester returning as the mysterious Lady in Lavender for the first time since the original) means that it's in good hands, not some cheap cash-in coasting on the name brand alone. Time will tell whether RAVAGER was worth the seventeen-year wait, but if there's one thing we can count on by now, its that there's no such thing as a "phorgettable" PHANTASM. 6

Mondo puts out the PHANTASM soundtrack this month on vinyl. Go to mondotees.com for more details.

PHANTASM is a film that couldn't have been made in a time outside the late 70s. Its a curious beast -- unlike other American films of that period -- doing away with the gritty aesthetic of the time and relying on an almost non-narrative dreamlike string of images, more in line with Italian auteurs such as Dario Argento and Mario Bava.

The soundtrack, a previously rare find amongst collector circles, is being re-issued on vinyl by Mondo this month.

Fred Myron amd Malcolm Seagrave's score laid the groundwork for horror soundtracks for decades to come. This re-issue will be pressed on 180 gram colored vinyl, and feature all new, original artwork by Phantom City Creative.

Just in time for the recently announced next film in the PHANTASM series, PHANTASM: RAVAGER, we are thrilled to celebrate one of the greatest horror scores of all time.


The Singularly Unnerving Delight of ROARBRITT HAYESBadass Digest Contributor

@missbritthayes


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ROAR is a film that should not exist, but we should thank the divine providence of the insane deity that allowed it to happen. Its a movie that can hardly be defined as such, as if Werner Herzog directed his own version of THE LION KING -- although theres very little direction in ROAR, a film which saw Tippi Hedren and her husband, Noel Marshall, using over 100 lions, tigers, leopards and cheetahs they had adopted and raised. Marshall wrote and directed the film, terms which hardly make sense once youve seen the finished product. Unable to control the innately predatory cats, the cast and crew are forced to work around and react to them. Each scene quickly devolves from a scripted narrative into a clusterfuck of paws and claws and ferocious roars, as the animals attack not only each other, but their human co-stars.

Their stable of large cats makes it very clear from the outset that they will not submit to direction, and the end result reads like a cautionary tale of mans inability to dominate nature. ROAR feels like a movie that shouldnt exist -- not because the finished product is unwatchable or terrible, but because its so baffling and ill-advised. The film elicits a very specific reaction, one thats equal parts awe and dread, with the feeling of inevitable death permeating each sequence, as we watch these giant, predatory creatures give in to their wild instincts. Actors are assaulted and continue to appear on screen, their limbs dripping blood from passive attacks. Their performances are hardly great, but they are impressively dedicated to completing the film, regardless of the endless onslaught of maulings. You expect this sort of dedication from Daniel Day Lewis on the set of a guaranteed awards season favorite. ROAR is hardly prestige filmmaking, but that doesnt detract from its ultimate impact -- a film that inspires genuine awe and terror. Its that perfect blend of cringe-comedy and the unnerving horror that comes from watching the misguided exploits of humanity that makes the guys from JACKASS so entertaining to watch.

Hedrens daughter, a young Melanie Griffith, also stars in the film as a fictionalized version of herself, and like many other members of the cast and crew, Griffith is mauled and her traumatic experience is fully documented. That mauling would lead to over 100 stitches and reconstructive facial surgery. ROAR was the first American production filmed by Jan de Bont, who would go on to direct films like SPEED and TWISTER, but neither of those films capture the terror of nature as well as ROAR. De Bont also suffered a gruesome attack on set: after being scalped by a lion, the cinematographer required over 200 stitches.

ROAR is perhaps the most dangerous production in history, the sort of disastrous filmmaking that would result in a series of lawsuits if it were made today. Its difficult to understand the decision-making that resulted in such an absurdly amazing finished product. Its not simply jaw-dropping -- it will leave your jaw unhinged in delighted, fascinated horror. ROAR doesnt seem like a film that arose from rational thinking or even the most basic of reasoning, but Hedren and Marshall entered this pursuit with good intentions, believing that their film could spread awareness about the overhunting and harmful captivity of these beautiful and deadly animals. By showing the cats flourishing and roaming free -- however violent they might be -- on the couples reserve north of Los Angeles, Hedren and Marshall firmly believed they could compel others to embrace their cause.

Whatever their intentions, the eleven years the couple spent making ROAR resulted in a film thats very existence is so singularly mystifying and astonishing. Lions rush and tackle actors while Marshall does his best to assert dominance on creatures that do not recognize man as their equals, much less their superiors. An extended sequence has Hedren, Marshall, Griffith and Marshalls two sons running from the cats, comically hiding in barrels and locking themselves in the rooms of a home that has been completely taken over by their collection of cats. Furniture has been torn to shreds. The structure of the home is endlessly battered until you wonder how its still standing. The entire house has been mauled as badly as Melanie Griffiths face. It is total chaos and complete disarray -- this is what GREY GARDENS would look like if it were overrun with lions.

ROAR is so exceptional, so remarkable that we should be grateful for its existence, not only as a confounding piece of cinema, but as a peculiar and incomparable time capsule from the lives of these misguided filmmakers. We often enjoy describing certain big-budget, immersive films as an experience, as in its not really a film -- its an experience. That designation becomes meaningless in the face of ROAR, a film that is so extraordinarily shocking and unsettling that you cant truly comprehend what this movie is until youve experienced it -- and even then, its hardly comprehensible. 6

Drafthouse Films releases ROAR to Alamo Drafthouse cinemas and on VOD April 17. Check drafthouse.com for listings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIRTH.MOVIES.DEATH. / JANUARY 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Extreme Canvas: The Mania Behind Ghana Movie PostersMONDO STAFF

@mondonews

How do you create a movie poster for a film youve never seen?

When VHS tapes hit West Africa in the early 80s, artists were commissioned to do just that. In order to advertise for film screenings at mobile theaters (or video clubs), promoters would hire local artists to design movie posters with little to no information about the film. The artists would usually only receive a basic outline, or even just the title, so the stunning interpretations are loose and imaginative. For a film like CUJO, he may just be told its about a dog that has rabies or killer dog, and go from there. The result is a wonderfully strange poster hand-painted on a large rice sack canvas. This is a global phenomenon, but posters from Ghana have gained particular recognition in the States.

Mondo CEO and Creative Director Justin Ishmael first discovered these truly inspired pieces of folk art after seeing the book EXTREME CANVAS: HAND-PAINTED MOVIE POSTERS FROM GHANA when he moved to Austin. Zack Carlson, Lars Nielsen, Tim League, Kier-La Janisse I think they had all seen this book and would talk about how awesome the posters were. I looked around online and found a website that led me to eBay where I grabbed a few; a NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST. and

FRIDAY THE 13TH. We also bought a HELLBOY Ghana poster for Guillermo Del Toro after he let us do the director's series.

When Ishmael received his first poster, it came in a tube bent in half with one of the end caps completely missing. When I pulled it out, the rice sack they use for canvas was COVERED in dirt. It literally made a small pile when I dumped it out. I had to clean the painting off before I framed it. It was the perfect way to get my first ever poster directly from Ghana.Mondos love for these posters has grown over the years and we jumped at the opportunity to commission movie posters for our gallery exhibit, Mondo Ghana, that opens in April. The show featured 12 large (5ft x 3.5ft), original oil paintings based on titles that we had done posters for in the past, like JURASSIC PARK, EVIL DEAD, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, MANIAC. We were pretty speechless with the pieces we received backthe severed limbs, wonky perspectives, inexplicable weaponry. Even expecting the unexpected couldnt prepare us. We worked with three different artists, and each poster had the imagination and creativity of the individual.

Even though the modern movie poster and Ghanian interpretations are used for the same purpose

-- to promote a film to a specific audience -- the differences are remarkable. No contracts dictating how big the lead actors head needs to be, no required copy or legal lines, no studio approval. As a company recognized as putting the art back into movie posters, its incredible to work with a group of people who do the same. Ghana movie posters dont seem to have a place in the modern, digital worldand thats what makes them so fascinating. Over the past couple of decades, the art form has significantly declined due to more readily available equipment and media in Western Africa. There are a handful of artists keeping the tradition alive, and we are honored to showcase their work. 6

Mondos next exhibit will feature artwork from Tom Whalen, on Display May 22nd through June 6th at the Mondo Gallery.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

JURASSIC PARK: One Of The Best Movies Ever

DEVIN FARACIBadass Digest Editor-in-Chief


@devincf


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Terror and wonder. There are no other emotions that so succinctly recall childhood, and theyre the two emotions that Steven Spielberg masterfully manipulates in JURASSIC PARK. Recently watching the film on a big screen for the first time in a decade, I was swept up with those childlike feelings again, and the movie reminded me what it was like to be a kid.

I dont mean to say that it appealed to my inner child or that I was less demanding or intelligent as a viewer (which is what people usually mean when they say something made them feel like a kid -- it made them stupid), but rather that the film completely evoked in me the purity of terror and wonder in ways that made me remember when I used to experience them on the regular. And thats a big part of Spielbergs special genius, which single-handedly lifts a fairly flawed movie into the realm of the classics. He understands what its like to be a kid -- not just a kid of the TV Age or the Information Age or from America -- and he understands how to make you experience that purity without being condescending or stupid.JURASSIC PARK isnt the best Spielberg film but its probably the best testament to his almost superhuman talent. The novel by Michael Crichton is complete schlock, a dinosaur-laden retread of his own Westworld. The script -- credited to Crichton and David Koepp -- isnt all that much better. In other, lesser, hands the script would be pap. But Spielberg is the perfect conduit for the material, being one of the few blockbuster directors who is able to juggle humanity, effects, beauty and exciting set pieces. In fact Spielberg is so good with JURASSIC PARK that the films many, many logical flaws, character shortcomings and story lapses melt away even as youre watching it.

Spielberg never gets his due as a horror director, despite making JAWS, one of the all-time scariest movies. His skills in horror are on display in the opening moments of JURASSIC PARK, where a caged raptor -- perfectly unseen -- manages to attack one of its handlers. The sequence is bloodless, but its still brutal, with Spielberg focusing much of the horror on big game hunter Muldoons loosening grasp. As his man screams in agony Muldoon fights to hold him back, but the beast in the cage is too strong; the shots of intertwined fingers being pulled apart are scarier than any graphic bloodshed.

He weaves horror throughout -- the initial T-Rex attack is some of the greatest tense, scary moviemaking of the 90s -- but JURASSIC PARK is a bravura film, and horror is only one element. On the other side of the emotional spectrum is the wonder. Good horror is hard to do, but compared to capturing wonder its beginners stuff. Theres a line -- one that Spielberg himself sometimes crosses -- between

wonder and cheese, and in JURASSIC PARK the director is straddling it perfectly.

The best example of this is a scene that still makes me cry every time I watch it, when Grant and Ellie first see the brachiosaurs. The moment is expertly paced, starting with a patented looking off screen in wonder shot, followed by their overwhelmingly emotional reactions and the reveal of the beast itself. You know exactly what youre in for with a film called JURASSIC PARK and yet that reveal remains utterly breathtaking almost twenty years later. A huge part of the magic is John Williams cue, part of one of his least overbearing scores ever. But its really a perfect synthesis of cinematic elements -- the performances of Sam Neill and Laura Dern, the gorgeous lighting of Dean Cundey, the perfectly timed cuts by longtime Spielberg collaborator Michael Kahn -- that brings it home. And behind each of them is Spielberg.

The other element, of course, is the brachiasaur itself. JURASSIC PARK is the last great special effects movie, the last film where the spectacle serviced the story while also being cutting edge. The FX in JURASSIC PARK hold up almost perfectly for a number of reasons. One is that there are plenty of practical dinosaurs in the film; as one of the major CGI trailblazers, JURASSIC PARK showed a path that too many films have ignored, which is to have CG support practical effects. The result is something seamless, organic and yet fantastical. The marriage between the wizardry of ILM and the genius of Stan Winston resulted in something as yet untouched. Part of the magic comes from the limitations inherent with the then-current state of technology. There are no bullshit digital cameras performing impossible moves, and the dinosaurs move and act like animals because the animators couldnt yet make them bounce around like gravity-defying Mario Bros. Many of the creatures on screen were there on set, at least partially. There are some completely CGI dinos -- like the brachiosaurs -- but even those FX feel current. I cant decide if that says something terrible about the state of modern FX or something wonderful about the work done on JURASSIC PARK.

I dont think adventure is an emotion, but if it were it would rest in exactly the midpoint between terror and wonder. Spielberg and Kahn edit their set pieces expertly, endlessly ratcheting up the tension. JURASSIC PARK is a movie that moves, and its action scenes particularly hurtle forward -- although the film isnt afraid to take its time. The first T-Rex attack is one of the classic cinema moments of my lifetime because of the way Spielberg builds it up, taking time to escalate the fear from the first ripples of water all the way through to the scramble over the wall. Best of all, Williams score drops out for the

attack; too many filmmakers rely on music to spackle the holes in their work, but Spielberg nails every frame of the scene, relying only on what you see and the astonishing sound design.

The intersection of terror and wonder in that scene is, for me, the moment when Lex shines the light into T-Rexs eye; the way the beasts pupil dilates is amazing and scary at once. This seems to be a real thing!, you think, in awe. And its right there, inches away!, you think, afraid for the kids. But every second of that scene is incredible and perfect; you could write an entire book about just that eight or so minute stretch of film. Whats most incredible, for me, is the way the scene works completely on its own terms despite making no real world sense. How did the trams end up back at the T-Rex paddock? How did the T-Rex eat the goat and climb up on the road when it is established after this scene that theres a hundred foot drop on the other side of the wall? Sometimes movie making is magic, and sleight of hand is a magicians best friend; Spielberg is such a master that even when youre looking out for these geographical bloopers they barely register.

The biggest flaw in the film is that Spielberg is too attached to John Hammond. In the book Hammond dies, and watching the film again recently its clear that he must die. He has to pay for what he did but Spielberg, who sympathizes with Hammonds showman sensibilities and his wide-eyed wonder at the return of dinosaurs, just cant bring himself to knock the old man off. As a result Hammonds arc is stunted, never really going anywhere. Expressing remorse over a tub of melting ice cream isnt enough.

Another character who makes it to the credits in the movie but didnt finish the book is Malcolm, the choas theorist played with remarkable weirdness by Jeff Goldblum. But you can understand why killing Malcolm in the film is off limits; audiences would have stormed the projection booth if Goldblum had died. Whats special about him is that hes almost playing in a different movie, and thats completely on purpose. In a film populated with kids, squares and lizards, Goldblum is the lone breath of modern air. Hes needed to inject the cynical, sarcastic tone thats been in our culture for a few decades -- without him JURASSIC PARK is almost hopelessly retro, even with all the cutting edge dinos. But whats great about Goldblum as Malcolm is that hes allowed to be both right and wrong; yes, things do go badly, but its also incredible to touch a triceratops on the beak. There are a lot of Malcolms in movies these days, but theyre always there to undercut the seriousness and cheesiness, to let the audiences know the filmmakers arent taking any of this seriously. Which is why there are no other filmmakers who could do that brachiosaur reveal. Spielberg took that shit very, very seriously.

That JURASSIC PARK II: THE LOST WORLD centers on Malcolm is a huge indicator of why it completely fails. Sam Neills Grant isnt the hippest hero on the block, and its his warmth and humanity that make him seem almost pass. Its also interesting, by the way, that Grant is a hands-on scientist while the hipper, more modern Malcolm works totally in his own head. Technically Malcolm and Grant are about the same age, but Grant really represents a different America, a country where the workforce was in manufacturing. Malcolm is the coming dotcom bubble personified. Grant is a father figure which is ironic since only Malcolm has children in the franchise.

JURASSIC PARK is a film that plays across gender lines, but its really a boy movie. Ellie makes a lot of noise about equal rights, and Lex gets the traditionally masculine (and completely ridiculously staged) hacker role. But this is a film about loving dinosaurs, and while Ellie gets some dino face time its Grant and Tim who have all of those best moments. Even the nice dinos are that hot on Lex -- she gets covered in brachiosaur snot while Tim and Grant lovingly feed the monster.

But really monster is the wrong word (as Grant himself points out), and thats part of what makes JURASSIC PARK so special as well. Spielberg knows the menace in the dinosaurs, but never sees them as monsters. Other filmmakers might have approached the dinosaurs as a series of obstacles or enemies (see Peter Jacksons KING KONG for a pretty good example of a guy who sees dinos as the enemy), but not Spielberg. The clich is that the dinosaurs are the real star of the film, but thats true to an extent here; the whole point of making JURASSIC PARK was to bring these animals to life in a way they had never been on screen. Its a love letter to the thunder lizards.

JURASSIC PARK came along at just the right crossroad in FX, and it also came along at just the right crossroad in paleontology. The film presents classical dinosaurs, for the most part, but takes into account modern theories about the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. We dont end up with feathered dinos, but we do end up with a T-Rex who moves unlike any other screen T-Rex to date. Other tyrannosaurs were lumbering, Godzilla-like beasts. JURASSIC PARKs T-Rex has the fluid motion of a bird of prey. Its so much scarier, but it also feels more real this way.

The other dinosaur that JURASSIC PARK reinvented in the popular culture was the velociraptor. Growing up as a young dino nut the raptor wasnt even on my radar; after JURASSIC PARK its one of the great cinematic predators. Again, the perfect marriage


TABLE OF CONTENTS

between ILM and Stan Winston created an indelible creature. I dont think that hint of cunning could have been created without the physical animatronic creation; as in all art its the limitations of the puppet that brings about the most realism. The raptor is the only dino who comes close to being evil -- so much so that when the T-Rex shows up at the very end shes the hero of the film.

The scene featuring the raptors in the kitchen is probably the second most famous set piece in JURASSIC PARK, and its a great one because of that evil cunning. Theres something feline about the raptors, something about the cruelty with which they approach their prey. They dont want to just kill Lex and Tim, we feel, they want to play with them first. This is one of the only times in the film when the dinosaurs dont quite feel like animals, but like something more advanced than that.

But as much as the film launched the raptor into the imaginations of dino nuts everywhere, it ends up respecting the king of them all, the T-Rex. The final shot of the tyrannosaur in the lobby, with the When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth banner fluttering past her face, is almost unbearably schlocky but also completely perfect. Its the ultimate idealization of the

dinosaur, triumphant and roaring, the terrible lizard that captured the minds of millions. Spielberg lets the raptor be the delicious villain, but the T-Rex reigns over all.

That isnt quite the last shot of the movie, but its close. People may complain about AI not knowing when to end, but JURASSIC PARK sure does. Spielberg hurries everybody out and speeds along to the end credits; a satisfying but speedy ending is one of the rarest pleasures in blockbuster films.

Anybody could have made JURASSIC PARK, but nobody could have made it as well as Steven Spielberg. He has an understanding of the modern blockbuster that only the man who invented them could have; Spielberg knows how to bring you back to the fears and excitements of childhood without asking you to give up the adult intelligence and taste youve cultivated. When hes doing his best work, and JURASSIC PARK is him doing some of his best work, hes able to play you completely without making you resentful of his manipulation. I think thats because its obvious that if he hadnt made this movie he would have been first in line to see it. 6

JURASSIC PARK screens at the Alamo Drafthouse this month. Check drafthouse.com for listings.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Drafthouse Recommends: EX MACHINA

Simply put, writer-director Alex Garlands (28 DAYS LATER, SUNSHINE) EX MACHINA is the stuff of great sci-fi. A highbrow concept with a pulpy disposition, Garland places his efficient, well-told and unpredictable story in the same thematic realm of BLADE RUNNER and TX 1138. While those films have a much more ambitious and expansive visual style (EX MACHINA can be viewed as a chamber piece), they share the same eerie tone, big ideas and deliberate and assured pacing of Garlands modern masterpiece.

The film centers around three characters: Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) a computer coder, Nathan (Oscar Isaac) his reclusive tech genius boss, and Ava (Alicia Vikander), Nathans latest version of a fully functioning A.I. Caleb wins a company-wide competition and is invited to Nathans private residence to hang out for the weekendbut that quickly turns out to be a cover. What Nathan really wants from Caleb is to test the validity and believability of Ava. Caleb, reluctant at first, agrees.

This simple, tight setup allows for various thematic possibilities and the interplay between the three leads makes the film possess a consistent, unexpected emotional weight.

Also, the intimate setting of Nathans cold but beautifully designed, sleek, mega-modernized home gives a very uneasy tone throughout. Its like Caleb is staying in the lair of an evil villain rather than the home of a boss who wants to share his new discoveries with a valued employee. Because of the visual milieu, and Isaacs uncanny performance, you never quite get comfortable and have no sense of where the film is heading scene after scene. In fact, an unexpected dance party feels like it belongs more in a 60s hangout movie than a sleek, philosophical sci-fi piece.

And even then, with all the elements stated above working like gangbusters, its impressive that Garlands

thematic aims are much higher. He trusts his actors and uses the performances of his three leads to help achieve his lofty goals. In fact, they may very well be the multi-headed MVP of the film. Without these performances, Garlands sharp script could have very well crumbled. Instead, Isaac, Gleeson and Vikander hold it all together.

Garland knows exactly what movie hes making, is confident in his choices, and executes them brilliantly. His most accomplished work prior to EX MACHINA was writing the screenplays for Danny Boyles 28 DAYS LATER and SUNSHINE, both of which showed a talent with potential to spare.

With EX MACHINA, Garland has reached that potential and is proving that there is still more talent he has yet to tap into. Were excited to see what hell bring us next. That is why making EX MACHINA the next Drafthouse Recommends title was an easy choice. 6

@rjlaforce

R.J. LAFORCEAustin First Run Manager/Programmer



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Your Guide To Drinking At The Derby: The Mint Julep

"Then comes the zenith of mans pleasure. Then comes the julep the mint julep. Who has not tasted one has lived in vain. The honey of Hymettus brought no such solace to the soul; the nectar of the Gods is tame beside it. It is the very dream of drinks, the vision of sweet quaffings.

--Joshua Soule Smith

Set aside images of horses thundering down the final stretch of Churchill Downs and the 120,000 or so mint juleps that are consumed annually there on the first Saturday in May. Set aside visions of seersucker suits and ostentatious hats. Set aside the sickly sweet,

or even worse, green tinged, crme de menthe filled monstrosities that are sometimes inflicted by bars of the wrong sort. Set aside pre-conceived notions of the mint julep, and embrace a potable that predates what we call cocktails by a wide margin, requires only a handful of readily available ingredients, and is so easy to make properly that there is never an excuse for a bad one.Juleps are a reminder to slow down, to have conversations with your friends on lazy weekend afternoons. They are easy sipping for sultry heat, front porches and lazy circling ceiling fans. They are perfect

BILL NORRISAlamo Drafthouse Beverage Director

@wnorris3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

for large groups, because they are easy to assemble and lend themselves to being made in large batches. They can inspire rhapsodies.

And, when the humidity is high and the heat is oppressive, a julep or three, sipped slowly, can restore some equilibrium to the body and the soul.

Of Medicine and SlingsAs early as 900 AD, a Persian book, Kitab al-Mansuri makes reference to the word julb, as a medicinal ingredient (in this case, a maceration of violets and sugar), and it remains a reference to medicine in repeated publication all the way until the late 1700s, with English translations using the word julep to refer to various medicinal macerations that sometimes, but not always used alcohol.

Until suddenly, somehow, something changes by 1784 when British traveler John Ferdinand Smyth publishes his impressions of America and notes that in Virginia, workers drink julap, made of rum, water, and sugar, but very strong. One of the early American drinks, common in any tavern, would have been a sling, simply strong spirit lightened with water and sweetened with sugar, and what Smyth notes here is clearly a sling, but being called something else.

Early Americans drank quite a lot, and quite often, and morning cocktails were often winkingly referred to as a kind of medicine, and that seems to be what Smyth has witnessed in Virginia, with a common medicinal term being used to hide the need for an eye-opener.Mint starts to appear in accounts around 1804, with some folks calling the drink, properly for the nomenclature of the time, a Mint Sling, until about 1820, when a mixture of spirits, water, sugar and mint is a julep for good.

As to who first mixed one up; that is anyones guess. No one is recorded as the inventor of the julep, no one has come forth to lay any credible claim to the formula, a rarity for a drink that from the early part of the 19th Century until the Civil War was the most popular mixed drink in America, and available nearly everywhere mint and liquor could be found. Indeed, despite its probable origin in the Southern states (or colonies), and its laid back image, bars as far afield and urban as the Astor House in New York were famous for their juleps.

A Note on IngredientsMuch like the Sazerac, the julep was largely a cognac drink when it first started to gain traction, but juleps were also commonly made with rum, whiskey (both Rye and Bourbon, though before the Civil War, whiskey versions were considered a touch vulgar), Genever, and in variations like the Georgia Julep, which featured brandy of the regular sort and a bit of aged peach brandy.

During its early days, there were all sorts of fancy juleps, finished with garish fruit garnishes and chunks of pineapple, doctored with liqueurs and syrups, but right about the end of the Civil War, a standard julep starts to solidify, made as we would recognize it today, with bourbon, mint, sugar and crushed ice.

Fancy Cups, Frosty and ColdThe modern julep, when done well, is served in a silver julep cup, or at lesser establishments, in cups made of shined up pewter. Early julep recipes make no mention of metal vessels, but by at least 1816, silver julep cups were being awarded as prizes at County Fairs in Kentucky, and the current, most popular design is believed to be based on the work of Louisville silver smiths Asa Blanchard and William and Archibald Cooper, who introduced their julep cups in 1846.

While these early silver vessels were probably meant to be ceremonial, to be used on occasions calling for the good silver and china, or when the in-laws popped over for a cocktail unannounced, metal cups, especially silver, play an important role in achieving a perfect julep.

Silver has a thermal conductivity rating of 429 Wm1K1 (in comparison, Stainless Steel is 16 Wm1K1). In lay terms, the higher that number, the more easily the metal transfers changes in temperature. The reason that copper cookware (copper comes in at 401 Wm1K1) is so beloved by chefs is that any flick of the dial on the range is transmitted almost immediately to the contents of the pan. Unfortunately, copper also has the potential to transfer toxins into the body if food or drink is consumed in or cooked directly on a copper surface, so copper cups are probably not the best idea. Silver, if used for the whole vessel, makes the julep cup prohibitively expensive (a 92.5% Sterling Silver cup is available for $495.00), but silver plated around a copper core is much more manageable in cost, quite fetching on the table, and almost as equally as conductive as a solid silver cup.

So, why is this so important, besides the fact that it makes the drink look fantastic? Unlike most cocktails, the julep is neither shaken nor stirred. Instead, it is built simply in the glass, starting with sugar and mint leaves lightly pressed into the bottom of the serving glass, before a goodly portion of crushed ice is added, enough to make a mound of it over the top of the glass. Only then is the spirit poured over the crushed ice and allowed to mingle of its own volition with the rest of the drink.

The thermal conductivity of silver and/or copper means that all of that ice quickly makes the julep cup very, very cold, which in turns slows the melt rate of the ice and affects the overall dilution of the drink, allowing it to slowly evolve and change over the course of a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

leisurely session of drinking, not quite in equilibrium, but close.

You can make a julep in any sort of cup, but it will not carry the same magic if it is made in a cup of lesser metals, glass or plastic. Indeed, when made in silver, the julep cup should quickly develop a crust of frost on the outside, and be cold enough that you need to wrap your handkerchief around it to keep handling it comfortably.

In Relation to the Above, the Importance of IceRegular ice cubes cannot be used to make a julep. This is absolute. Your ice must be crushed, and it must be crushed well. This is partly related to the same issue of technique that makes the silver julep cup more than just a pretty face, and it is deeply connected to the science of ice.

Good bartenders prefer different sizes of ice for different applications and for good reason. Larger, very dense cubes are excellent for shaking cocktails and for serving many shaken or stirred cocktails over ice, as their relative lack of meltable surface area allows for good control of dilution. For stirring drinks, those cubes are often cracked to create more exposed surface area that will melt a bit faster.

With crushed ice, you create massive amounts of meltable surface area, and in a drink like the julep that calls for a rather healthy slug of booze and not much else, that crushed ice fulfills two important duties -- rapid chilling of the drink and, in conjunction with the metal cup, a somewhat controlled dilution that keeps the drink from becoming too watery if it is drunk at the appropriately leisurely julep pace.

If youre having a lot of people over for juleps, your local Sonic may be of assistance in this regard, otherwise, break out your ice crusher of choice and have at it.

Three More Quick ThingsOne, the julep is one of those rare occasions where it is acceptable for an adult to consume a beverage with a straw. When properly kitted out, a julep will be topped by a bouquet of mint with the straw almost hidden amongst the leaves. As the drinker lifts the glass to his face, the mint will unleash a wave of mint aromatics before the drink is even sipped.

And, of course, all that crushed ice will come tumbling into your lap should you try to drain the glass of the last of your julep without aid of a straw.

Two, as with the mojito, you do not need to brutalize your mint. Be gentle. Let the aromatics out, but keep the bitter, vegetal chlorophyll inside the leaves.

Three, if youre having a group of people over, you can cheat and make yourself a mint syrup in advance, rather than go through the fuss of muddling each drink. Its

not quite as good, but it is close, and it is advisable for things like Derby Day. For every two cups of sugar, add one cup of water and bring to a boil, stirring to dissolve the sugar. Remove from the heat and toss in a healthy handful of mint leaves for each cup of sugar. Allow to steep for 24 hours or so and strain out leaves. A half ounce or so in each drink will do.

Some Recipes:Prescription Julep (1857, Harpers Monthly, Via David Wondrich)

1 oz. Strong Cognac (Pierre Ferrand 1840 is excellent here)

oz. Rye Whiskey (Rittenhouse 100 proof)

oz. (about a tablespoon) of sugar

1 oz. water

Mint Leaves as desired

Add the sugar and water to a 9-10 oz. glass and stir to dissolve. Lightly press the mint into the sugar water, to release its aromatics, fill the glass with crushed ice until it mounds over the top and add your spirits. Top with a sprig of mint.

Mint Julep (Modern Standard)

2 -3 oz. of good quality Bourbon, preferably over proof

oz. simple syrup (2-1 Ratio Sugar-Water)

8-10 mint leaves plus mint tops for garnish

For execution, here is more from Joshua Soule Smith:

How shall it be? Take from the cold spring some water, pure as angels are; mix it with sugar till it seems like oil. Then take a glass and crush your mint within it with a spoon crush it around the borders of the glass and leave no place untouched. Then throw the mint away it is the sacrifice. Fill with cracked ice the glass; pour in the quantity of Bourbon which you want. It trickles slowly through the ice. Let it have time to cool, then pour your sugared water over it. No spoon is needed; no stirring allowed- just let it stand a moment. Then around the brim place sprigs of mint, so that the one who drinks may find the taste and odor at one draft.

Then when it is made, sip it slowly. August suns are shining, the breath of the south wind is upon you. It is fragrant cold and sweet it is seductive. No maidens kiss is tenderer or more refreshing, no maidens touch could be more passionate. Sip it and dream-it is a dream itself. No other land can give you so much sweet solace for your cares; no other liquor soothes you in melancholy days. Sip it and say there is no solace for the soul, no tonic for the body like old Bourbon whiskey."

Enjoy. 6


TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Shared universes -- theyre the big thing in movies now, thanks to the massive success of Marvels Cinematic Universe, which comes together once again this month in AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON. Every studio is trying to catch up with the idea of a series of intertwining franchises, from Warner Brothers with their nascent DC movie universe launching with BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE to Sony with a just-announced GHOSTBUSTERS shared universe.

But shared universes arent new -- they arent even new to cinema. Theyre definitely not new to storytelling, as the entirety of the Greek mythological canon, and by extension THE ILIAD and THE ODYSSEY, is a shared universe. In fact shared universes have a long

and storied history, and include some of the great works of art of the last two hundred years.

Many of Thomas Hardys novels, including JUDE THE OBSCURE, take place in a fictionalized part of England called Wessex. Agatha Christies characters crossed over, allowing us to connect Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple, even though they never appeared together. Isaac Asimov merged his two fictional worlds from the FOUNDATION series and the ROBOTS series into one massive megaverse. Stephen Kings stories first had tangential connections -- shared fictional towns, oblique mentions of events from other novels -- before he pulled them all together in the multiverse-spanning THE DARK TOWER series.

Come Together: Marvel, THE AVENGERS And The History Of Shared UniversesDEVIN FARACIBadass Digest Editor-in-Chief


@devincf


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Kings shared universe seemed to arise out of in-jokes and easter eggs, but it eventually cohered into something metafictional. The web of TV shows that share a universe is far less coordinated; it turns out that if you draw a line between various TV series throughout history that have crossed over (either directly or through reference) you can construct a massively shared universe that has been estimated to contain over 90% of all television shows ever aired. Known as the Tommy Westphall Universe, it stems from the final episode of ST. ELSEWHERE, where it is revealed that the entire series was happening inside the imagination of an autistic boy. Drawing a line to other shows that crossed over with ST. ELSEWHERE -- and the shows they in turn cross over with beyond that

-- you end up with a six degrees of separation game that connects shows as disparate as THE X-FILES and THE BOB NEWHART SHOW, M*A*S*H and I LOVE LUCY, making almost every show youve ever watched Tommy Westphalls daydream.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a much more cohesive world, and it takes that from the continuity-obsessed comics from which it sprang. The first ever comic book crossover took place in MARVEL MYSTERY COMICS #8, where Namor The Sub-Mariner and the original Human Torch duked it out. A few months later DC introduced the first team-up comic with ALL-STAR #3, which brought together many different characters into the Justice Society of America.

Crossovers would continue for decades, but it wasnt until the 1960s when it became serious business. DC crossed over their characters in JUSTICE LEAGUE (and between titles as well) but it was Marvel Comics, launching their new line of superhero books, that made sure all the crossovers counted. Spider-Man, looking for a way to monetize his new powers, tried to join the Fantastic Four in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1, and the characters in other books would reference that. Doctor Strange ended up needing medical assistance and he got it from Dr. Don Blake, the Mighty Thors secret identity. The Human Torch delivered a speech to Peter Parkers class. These crossovers werent necessarily big events, but they established that the characters lived in the same city at the same time, unlike DC, where the heroes all lived in their own fictional towns, far apart. Iron Man could bump into Ant-Man while getting lunch, but Batman had to travel all the way to Metropolis to meet up with Superman.

All of these connections in the Marvel universe led to the original team of Avengers -- Iron Man, Ant-Man, The Wasp, Thor and eventually The Hulk -- getting together. What made this team unique in comics at that point is that the events of their solo titles could

impact their adventures as a team, unlike the Justice League, which seemed to exist outside of the main lives of its members. Marvel Comics established that their line wasnt just a bunch of different books being published at once, it was a massive, long-form soap opera that spanned multiple titles.

Today the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the blueprint for every studio hoping to follow their path to the box office, but it wasnt the first out of the gate. The Universal Monsters all shared a universe, although trying to figure out how the timelines of DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN and THE WOLF-MAN gibe is tricky. Godzilla, King of the Monsters, rules over an expansive cinematic universe where all sorts of kaiju have their own adventures and battles. The worlds of PREDATOR and the ALIEN franchise have come together, although with much, much less success than Marvel has achieved (which is a bummer - remember how exciting it was to see a Xenomorph head as a trophy on the Predators ship in PREDATOR 2?).

For some the shared cinematic universe is a warning sign -- an example of yet another way that the studios are franchising and branding every single movie into a homogenous glob. For a nerd like me the shared cinematic universe is a joy. I grew up parsing the continuity of Marvel and DC, and I loved the way the gods would cameo in different Greek myths. Seeing the monsters rumble in Godzilla and Universal movies always filled me with joy. Half the fun of reading Stephen King books at one point was looking for the little clues revealing how this fit into the larger tapestry, whether it be a mention of Derry or Castle Rock or a flitting appearance by a character you recognized from another novel. When the connection is what drives the story, it can be overwhelming -- this is a problem both Marvel and DC face regularly, as their business has turned largely into promoting huge crossover stories where you need to buy 30 extra comics to understand whats happening -- but when its done with subtlety and ease its a blast. Theres a sense of puzzle pieces coming together, and of being rewarded with a bigger picture. You dont have to watch AGENTS OF SHIELD, Marvels weekly TV series, to understand AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, but if you do there will be tiny clues and payoffs that will reward you for paying attention.

Theres a reason weve been telling stories that exist in shared worlds for so long. We like the consistency, we like the way they build on each other. It feels more like life, which isnt just a series of unrelated events but a very long sequence of causes and effects where we move in and out of the stories of our friends, enemies and loved ones. We live in a shared universe

-- it makes sense we would want our stories to take place in one as well. 6


The Last Word With INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3s Leigh Whannell


Q: What is your guilty pleasure movie?

A: If Im hung over, I definitely love to bust out MACGRUBER. It makes me laugh until I cant breathe. I can hear a chorus of people saying why is MACGRUBER a guilty pleasure? Its awesome! -- which is the problem with saying something is a guilty pleasure; youre implying it is bad. There are a whole lot of 80s films that have HUGE nostalgic value for me but probably wont be making the AFI list anytime soon: such as TWINS, OVERBOARD and SHORT CIRCUIT. What about SUMMER SCHOOL? Come on!!

Q: What was your most magical cinema experience?

A: I remember going to a drive-in movie theater when I was about six and seeing a double bill of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and the first SUPERMAN film. That was pretty special. And I remember seeing GHOSTBUSTERS in a theater for the first time -- that had a pretty massive effect on me. And of course, I have to give the standard answer of most people around my age and mention STAR WARS. All of these films are American, obviously, but I was on the other side of the world in Australia so they seemed very exotic to me. It made me become obsessed with the US as a country. All of my favourite stuff came from there -- so I would like to take this opportunity to say a sincere thank you, America, for giving me all these wonderful cultural gifts that changed my life. Youve been very generous to me, and continue to be.

Q: What is the movie you believe everyone should see?

A: Now that is a tough question, almost impossible toanswer. If I was going to send one film out into space for aliens to watch, Id probably send APOCALYPSE NOW. It sums up so many different things about our world -- the madness of our planet, our inhumanity towards each other, but also the great things like music and art.

Q: Only one of your movies can continue to exist after you're gone - which one is it?

A: Well, Ive only directed one film thus far (INSIDIOUS 3), so Id probably say that one at this point! I wrote, directed and acted in that film and Im terrible at multi-tasking, so at least one example of me doing more than two things at once would survive me. The inscription on my gravestone would read I told you I could multi-task.

Q: If you weren't born to direct, what else would you be doing?

A: The scary thing is that I have no idea. Im not reallygood at anything else, and Im not even great at this! The SLIDING DOORS aspect of it all terrifies me (sorry to reference a Gwyneth movie) because if none of my writing or directing jobs had ever happened, I dont know what that alternate path would have been. I think Id be in a teaching job or something. I really admire people who put everything on the line to take a shot at the ideal version of their life. Many get annoyed that Los Angeles is filled with so many quote-unquote wannabe actors, but I dont. My heart is filled with so much empathy for them. Not to get all Tony Robbins on you, but they are chasing their dream, in a profession where they know the odds are stacked against them -- yet they do it anyway. That makes me smile. Its so courageous.

Q: Why do you make movies?

A: It is simply what I love. Movies are something I was enchanted by at a very young age, before you can define things the way adults can. As a teenager, I pretended to like a lot of stuff that I wasnt really into, just to fit in -- but as a four-year-old, youre coming from a much purer place. You love what you love. I used to wander through the local video store, just staring at the covers. The world of movies grabbed a hold of me back then and they still havent let go. I make movies now because I want to be a part of that world -- not just a viewer or a fan, but an active participant. For example, when I was nineteen years old, I got a job as the movie guy on an MTV-type TV show. I got to interview Tim Burton, John Woo, Peter Jackson -- it was basically a movie fans dream job...but somehow I was never happy doing it. I didnt want to interviewTim Burton, I wanted to BE Tim Burton! You know what I mean? And now I get to make films. Sheesh, Im tearing up just writing this. Thanks for the free therapy, guys!

INSIDIOUS: CHAPTER 3 arrives in theatres June 5. Check drafthouse.com for listings. 6


ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE SUPPORTERS

GET 40% OFF A ONE YEAR FANDOR MEMBERSHIP fandor.com/promo/alamo-drafthouse

a film by PAWEL PAWLIKOWSKI

2015 BAFTA FILM AWARD WINNERBEST FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

2015 INDEPENDENTSPIRIT AWARD WINNER

BEST INTERNATIONAL FILM

2014 EUROPEAN FILM AWARD WINNER

BEST FILM, BEST DIRECTOR

2015 ACADEMYAWARD WINNER

BEST FOREIGN FILM

There are streaming sites, and then theres Fandor INDIEWIRE

WATCH IT ON

Image Courtesy of Music Box Films

birth. movies. death. may 2015 issue 23

Documents

latest movie

movie tomorrowland

years summer movie season

history of shared universesthe

best movies evereditor

return of serious movies

alamo drafthouse

britt hayes