1980s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

[FerdinandGriffon]

As it happens, I'd agree with you on hunting, but I also think there's a difference between depiction and endorsement, and that Yanagimachi is at the very least ambivalent about the latter.

Every Yanagimachi I've seen has been well worth watching, Camus no exception, even if I find it a bit cute at times. Maybe turn next to About, Love Tokyo, a very moving, upsetting film about Chinese immigrants in Japan, painted on a wide canvas and with the great Jun Togawa in a small role. I would recommend The Nineteen Year Old's Map, but you may struggle with a lot of the same things you found objectionable in Himatsuri there as well, or in any Nakigami scripted film.

[zedz]

It sounds like "Himatsuri" is not much like Yanagimachi's later "Who's Camus Anyway?".

It's more like The Profound Desire of the Gods (but bleaker).

[zedz]

It sounds like "Himatsuri" is not much like Yanagimachi's later "Who's Camus Anyway?".

No, it's much better. For me, Camus is the weakest of the five Yanagimachis I've seen, and Himatsuri the best.

I'm guessing you haven't seen Shadow of China? If so, my mind is boggling. I've only seen four of his films, and I'd put Himatsuri and Camus up the top (and they're extremely different films), with Farewell to the Land just behind, then Shadow of China way, way down on the 'unaccountably bad films by great directors' slagheap. That's what happens when your career hits the brick wall of John Lone.

[Michael Kerpan]

> the brick wall of John Lone.

??

[zedz]

> the brick wall of John Lone.

??

Apparently the problems with the film boil down to the prima-donna-ish behaviour of the star, who ultimately usurped control of the film from the director. The experience was so miserable for Yanagimachi that it was rumoured at the time that he was going to give up filmmaking entirely. Fortunately, he didn't.

The film isn't entirely worthless. There are some fine scenes early on, but a lot of the main action unfolds in uncharacteristically generic fashion, and Lone's vanity seems like it's getting in the way of the potential complexity of his character (but maybe I'm projecting that based on the backstage rumours!).

I have no idea whether the comparative sparseness of Lone's later career has anything to do with his supposed 'difficulty', or if this was a one-off incident.

[Michael Kerpan]

FWIW, Lone struck me as pretty decent in Xin Lee's 2004 "Bamboo Shoot".

[Cold Bishop]

John Lone is a great actor, but he definitely strikes me as someone who can be a primadonna if given that sort of pull on set.

[colinr0380]

I had always thought that the debacle of Cronenberg's M Butterfly was what caused the hiccup in John Lone's career.

This is off topic for the 80s list but M Butterfly is to Cronenberg's filmography what The Underneath is to Soderbergh's! It is a failure that has almost disappeared from view but one which fascinatingly illuminates a lot of the director's themes about sexual and multiple identities entwining with societal issues by showing them in a film that doesn't quite work properly. In its attempts at being a 'major motion picture' with its too-pretty Great Wall of China location shooting the film shows just how good the decision to film Naked Lunch on strangely inauthentic sets was (albeit doing Naked Lunch on sets was forced on the production as detailed in the Criterion edition, and M Butterfly coming straight afterwards showed that the lesson didn't stick!), and the film is hugely compromised by coming only a year after The Crying Game, which already prepared audiences for a similar twist. John Lone isn't quite as effectively androgenous as Jaye Davidson was!

[zedz]

I had always thought that the debacle of Cronenberg's M Butterfly was what caused the hiccup in John Lone's career.

John Lone isn't quite as effectively androgenous as Jaye Davidson was!

That's putting it mildly! For some reason, Lone plays the role with prominent five o'clock shadow throughout, thus rendering Irons' character a ridiculous oaf at a stroke. Lone's Butterfly seems more like a gangster on the lam, forced into grudging drag.

Sorry for the bashing! I've only seen three John Lone films, and he's dreadful in two of them and merely indifferent in the third (which is a movie I dislike in the first place).

[zedz]

Well, I happened to watch a couple of 80s films.

Big Trouble in Little China - A handful of decent gags aside, this is mostly your standard clunky, cheesy 80s popcorn fare. The shortest-distance-between-two-points plot is 95% conveyed by breathless expository dialogue, and is pretty much irrelevant to the set pieces anyway. The film could have been about drug smuggling or alien invasion or Communist espionage and been essentially the same thing. Kurt Russell struggles to make his character a comic archetype (an action hero who's basically incompetent without being farcical), but the script isn't providing much support, so he never rises above an incongruous John Wayne impersonation, and everybody else in the cast is a barebones stereotype. It passed the time breezily enough, but unless you saw the film at an impressionable age and feel the need to wallow in nostalgia, there are much better uses for your time.

Nostalghia - The Kino disc isn't perfect, but it's certainly the best I've ever seen this film. I'm aware of a couple more weaknesses in the script this time around (the way Andrey's heart condition is 'casually' set up sticks out as a piece of obvious exposition in a film where most of the dialogue is more deflected), but the visual storytelling sweeps all that away. What this viewing made clear to me is how much the peculiar power of Tarkovsky's mise en scene relies on the characters' gaze. The frontal framing is always aesthetically charged, but it becomes positively electric when one of the characters looks into the camera. It's rarely a direct look, and more often a glance or aside, but those instants somehow fuse the viewer into the composition, and I realize that throughout much of the film, the threat of that galvanic gaze animates almost every shot. If Tarkovsky were using that direct-to-camera gaze more frequently, or more insistently (by having the character actually address the camera, say), it would lose a lot of its power. As it is, it's as if we as viewers are interlopers in the world of the film, and occasionally we're noticed and acknowledged.

This will presumably make my list. I'm much less keen on The Sacrifice, but will revisit that as well.

[Mr Sausage]

I had always thought that the debacle of Cronenberg's M Butterfly was what caused the hiccup in John Lone's career.

This is off topic for the 80s list but M Butterfly is to Cronenberg's filmography what The Underneath is to Soderbergh's! It is a failure that has almost disappeared from view but one which fascinatingly illuminates a lot of the director's themes about sexual and multiple identities entwining with societal issues by showing them in a film that doesn't quite work properly. In its attempts at being a 'major motion picture' with its too-pretty Great Wall of China location shooting the film shows just how good the decision to film Naked Lunch on strangely inauthentic sets was (albeit doing Naked Lunch on sets was forced on the production as detailed in the Criterion edition, and M Butterfly coming straight afterwards showed that the lesson didn't stick!), and the film is hugely compromised by coming only a year after The Crying Game, which already prepared audiences for a similar twist. John Lone isn't quite as effectively androgenous as Jaye Davidson was!

I remember Roger Ebert saying that Leslie Cheung, then fresh off his androgynous role in Farewell My Concubine, would've been a far more suitable choice. I'd have to agree.

[FerdinandGriffon]

I'm guessing you haven't seen Shadow of China? If so, my mind is boggling. I've only seen four of his films, and I'd put Himatsuri and Camus up the top (and they're extremely different films), with Farewell to the Land just behind, then Shadow of China way, way down on the 'unaccountably bad films by great directors' slagheap. That's what happens when your career hits the brick wall of John Lone.

No, never seen Shadow, though I'm glad my expectations have been tempered for when I inevitably get around to it. And even happier to hear Farewell is so good, as I've been saving that one for a rainy day as well.

[colinr0380]

I'm not a big fan of Big Trouble In Little China either (comfortably the worst of John Carpenter's energetic and always entertaining run of films in the 80s, but at least his worst film of the decade was a bizarre and weird one rather than just boring!), but the great offshoot of this film is that Carpenter gave Victor Wong and Dennis Dun far better roles in his next film, Prince of Darkness (the same year that both actors also turn up in Bertolucci's Last Emperor!)

I remember Roger Ebert saying that Leslie Cheung, then fresh off his androgynous role in Farewell My Concubine, would've been a far more suitable choice. I'd have to agree.

I'd certainly agree that it might have helped, although the major problem with M Butterfly rather than the actor is that it revolves around a man becoming obsessed by a woman so much that he never really notices that they have never had vaginal intercourse and that he is giving away state secrets all the while! (This is the central core of the whole film as well and it cannot really carry that kind of weight of direct attention and emphasis by itself. In comparison Jaye Davidson's character in The Crying Game was a key one in the mid-section but marginal against all of the IRA stuff actually driving the plot bookending it). It might be a true story but it requires a big suspension of disbelief and the emphasis being entirely on the Irons' character's obliviousness means that Lone's character isn't really developed (with reasons, motives, conflicting emotions, was he forced into the role, performance and gender roles in Chinese theatre, etc - i.e. the kind of material that Leslie Cheung's character had to deal with in Farewell, My Concubine), remains too much of an enigma and doesn't really develop beyond anything more than an obscure object of oriental desire.

I think M Butterfly does have a lot of value as a Cronenberg work though - all the shifting identities, dangerous sexuality, lovers playing dangerous games with each other, a kind of self regard that shifts into a kind of loss of identity, a duplicitous and indefinably dangerous and treacherous society, and so on - but it ends up being a deeply flawed but interesting film rather than a neglected masterpiece. I wouldn't be terribly upset at a Criterion edition of the film though! (hint, hint!)

To get things back on the 80s track though, all of Cronenberg's films from the decade are fantastic but I especially love The Fly. It is a rare quality that a director's most mainstream and accessible film is also his most complex, moving and powerful one too.

And the best John Lone 80s performance for me is as the titular thawed out Iceman!

[Feego]

The Lair of the White Worm (1988, Ken Russell)
I have not been a major Russell fan based on the films I’ve seen -- Women in Love, The Devils, Tommy, Valentino -- having been indifferent toward the first and finding the latter three’s over-the-top shenanigans more tiring than provocative/offensive/titillating. So White Worm is a surprise in that (1) I found myself generally amused by it and (2) actually wishing it was even more over the top than it is. If ever a story deserved to be told with the broad, histrionic strokes of Vanessa Redgrave’s alien giggle and Ann-Margret’s chocolate writhing, it’s this one. By Russell’s standards (and no one else’s!), this adaptation of Bram Stoker’s snake-themed rip-off of his own Dracula is a bit too reserved, although it does feature fun splashes of batshit stupidity. I really have to credit Amanda Donahoe as our Lady Dracula, who embraces every ridiculous direction with a straight face and delivers a genuinely smart, sexy, funny performance. I will never forget the way she rises out of a pot and shimmies through her mansion and out the front door to the hypnotic beckon of snake-charming music. This movie won’t make my list, but that moment would likely make my top 10 movie scenes of the 80s!

Oh, and this has got to be the most phallic movie I have ever seen.

[knives]

The Goonies
Get it, it's funny because he's fat he and eats too much. But hey, at least he gets the second quality of clumsy to laugh at and shout. That's a low blow, and the film is much better than I remember it being especially in terms of stylistic personality, but a lot of the humour is repeating one joke per character in a never ending loop which gets tiring after a while. That the humour whatever quality it might actually hold undercuts all tension I thought was a pretty savvy move ala Big Trouble in Little China. The film seems to understand the familiarity of its own tropes well enough to aim for something else for its drama. That drama isn't particularly well delivered, but its hard not to at least respect it for the thought. Additionally stuff like how Looney Tunes ineffective the villains are or the loud kid speaking spanish poorly is enough to make it stand out a little bit from other '80s kids flicks, even as it doesn't really cohere to an overall enjoyable experience considering how repetitive it is.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Now this is how to do an honest and effective high school film against my problems with that Hughes film. Though I suppose that should be expected from a teaming of Heckerling and Crowe. What's especially interesting is how great it is at evoking time. You'd almost expect it to be a period piece it so perfectly captures a sense of '82 in the fashion that American Graffiti does '62. They both handle the death of an era and the birth of a new one so perfectly (with the date matching up to Flyonthewall's timeline). At the same time it so perfectly gets at the universal aspects of growing up. These characters manage to archetypes and people in the same instance having this excellent flair of nonchalance that most High School films forget in the strive for angst. Even Mr. Hand and Spicoli get some excellent characterization at the end which deepens their character beyond hardass and stoner. Hell even the partnering of them across the film deepens both because of how they have to go past their descriptor to interact.

Scarface
Watching this for the first time in about a decade it's surprising how Psycho the violence is cut like. Even the chainsaw scene is just blood splatters and reaction shots. Restrained is probably not the right word for a three hour teaming of Stone and DePalma, but the movie kind of is. I suspect that effect mostly comes from DePalma sleepwalking the movie. There's a few establishing shots that make it clear who is behind the camera, but outside of that this is easily the most anonymous I've seen him. That said expertly framed anonymity is still better than Mission to Mars. If anything Stone's script is the problem of the film. Bloated all to hell, feigning politics but showing no interest, and so in love with the sound of its own voice you'd think this was Verdi quality. For all those problems though the film is pretty hard to dislike if just because of how absorbing the performers are in this kitschy '80s Miami sort of way. Pacino's absolutely hilarious seemingly aiming to see if he needs to speak words to be understandable. It doesn't work at all to get the film to be coherent, but a more fitting performance would make this be the total bore it should rightly be. The score in all of its weird electronic glory also helps a lot. Sometimes, like with the close-ups concerning Tony's sister, it falls absolutely flat being giggle worthy. Most of the time though it gives a better illusion of the dramatic than all of the shouting and gun shots. The film would simply die without it.

Lethal Weapon
I can't tell if this is a very silly movie that wants to be seen as serious or the other shoe, but I didn't find either tone entirely successful throughout the movie. Fortunately it works so quickly that it is never crippled by the tone. Whatever merits the film has, and it has a fair number, they all seem small when compared to Die Hard which it has so many qualities in common with. The strange characters in Die Hard all seem deeper without the melodramatics offered here like a suicide attempt and that weird arm burning thing. Playing against the Stallone and Schwarzenegger is present here too, but instead of looking into it through action as begets the genre it does it through loud vocalizations. Trying to paint Gibson's action star persona as an effect of mourning/ PTSD is an interesting conceit but the film seems to buy into what it at times is claiming to deconstruct. This is made all the more clear with a redux of the Dirty Harry suicide scene. It gives lip service, mostly through Gibson overacting, to his insanity but mostly it serves to show the cliche of 'he gets results damnit'. The one earnestly positive thing about the film is Glover as the more subdued member of the couple. Occasionally he's forced to reach up to Gibson's level, but most of the time he handles the script in the sense I think it could have excelled at even slipping in an understated humour as he's shouting. It's not a perfect performance, but it is far better than the rest of the movie should afford.

Suspect
This is an intensely frustrating film because it is really well done lifting its old material into a quietly new sphere that at the same time manages to just work excellently as a suspense film. Yet the way the film decides to develop this is through such a contrived and absurd plot device that I felt, at least, it to be impossible to immerse myself in the problems of the film. Cher's great in this, but she's a total damsel constantly getting mugged and seemingly unable to do her job with all of the actual heroics being placed on Quaid's terrible plot device as if Roth was comfortable having a female protagonist, but not having her be qualified for that role. Take out Quaid and give Cher those heroic qualities and this easily becomes a top level pot boiler.

[domino harvey]

Feego, if you want another wacky, over-the-top horror film from Russell this decade, you might like Gothic. I didn't at all, but it sounds like it'd be up your alley!

Some variations of grotesqueries this round:

the Fly (David Cronenberg 1986) I'm not nearly as enamored with Cronenberg and his assorted obsessions as most of the rest of you, but I loved this, mostly due to its stripped-down narrative and clarity of vision. If you're going to do a story as ridiculous as this, you either embrace the camp aspects or play it straight for all its worth, and Cronenberg takes the bolder latter choice. Jeff Goldblum is great (as always-- I feel he often gets a short-shrift due to his often imitated mannerisms, but is he ever anything less than fun to watch in any vehicle?) and Geena Davis skillfully walks the sketchy line between caring and foolhardiness. I could have done without the possessive editor ex-boyfriend, who seems to be in the picture only to participate in the gruesome finale, but the same special effects could have been employed to deal with another version of this character that didn't make me want to throw things. I haven't seen the Fly II yet, but I await Colin's impassioned defense (Kidding… I think). All of the failed sequels rounded up in the film's Wikipedia entry sounded pretty awful, so I can only imagine which scenario they ended up green-lighting.

Tendres Cousines (David Hamilton 1980) / Un été à Saint-Tropez (David Hamilton 1983) / Premier Desirs (David Hamilton 1984) If you'll recall, I hated David Hamilton's 70s output, and yet here we are. About Tendres Cousines I will say or do nothing more than close my eyes and shake my head while mouthing "No". I thought Saint-Tropez had the potential to be the most promising of the Hamilton films since it's a dialog-free collection of drippy-looking soft set-ups for his models to frolic within-- ie it will just let him focus on the only thing he really cares about anyways: generic-looking young French girls. But this too proves as monotonous as anything else in Hamilton's oeuvre. Premier Desirs proves to be more of the same, with the only point of interest being the lead's striking resemblance to Aimee Teegarden, which put the specter of Coach Taylor kicking my ass for looking at his daughter into play, but certainly nothing else. Not sure how Criterion intend to sell this one unless it comes in a plain brown wrapper. Here as with all his films, Hamilton seems to be determined to make the sight of naked girls as dull as possible, and that truly is his legacy. As for the moral implications of all this garbage: let's just say "Yuck" and move on, shall we? Hopefully none of you make my mistake and acquire an entire unseen director's work just because it was cheap-- or at least be smart enough to know when to just throw in the towel (which will then be laid upon by an undressed lissome gamine)

[Michael Kerpan]

Godard's Detective (watched a couple of days ago) was actually extremely enjoyable. The story was pretty twisted -- but a pretty fine cast and some great cinematography.

[Feego]

Feego, if you want another wacky, over-the-top horror film from Russell this decade, you might like Gothic. I didn't at all, but it sounds like it'd be up your alley!

Domino, I've read your brief write-up of Gothic in the horror thread, and it sounds like you and I share similar thoughts on Russell. I may check out Gothic, but the other Russells I'm particularly interested in seeing this decade are Altered States and Crimes of Passion.

[Cold Bishop]

I remember Roger Ebert saying that Leslie Cheung, then fresh off his androgynous role in Farewell My Concubine, would've been a far more suitable choice. I'd have to agree.

Interestingly enough, Leslie Cheung only landed the role after John Lone famously turned it down. The latter after all received his training in the Peking Opera. And being the closest thing to an Asian Hollywood leading man at the time, he was a de facto star throughout the region (In fact, I think he's been doing Chinese television for the last decade).

[Yojimbo]

I see the "punk"/"new wave"/"alternative" covers of old pop material really taking off in the 1980s, but that may be due to a biased statistical sample (I have a 2 1/2-hour playlist of this stuff and the vast majority of it is from the '80s).

Maybe that explains it, since my (hypothetical) punk playlist would stop at 1980. I actually think the 'new wave' covers trend (if what you're talking about is what I think you're talking about) also predated 'My Way', with Stiff issuing things like Lene Lovich's 'I Think We're Alone Now' and Rachel Sweet's 'B.A.B.Y.' in '78. (And the Rubinoos issued their stateside cover of 'I Think We're Alone Now' a year earlier on Beserkley.)

Just been backtracking on the 80s chat I'd missed and noticing this chat about punk which just about coincided with me chancing upon my copy of 'The Boy Looked At Johnny'
Any more of you erstwhile punk fans ever got yourself a copy?

Interesting quote on page 44 attributed to Johnny Rotten, following the band's breakup : "Steve can go off and be Peter Frampton; Sid can go off and kill himself and nobody will care"

[Yojimbo]

The Stunt Man (Richard Rush, 1980): Steve Railsback stars as Cameron a fugitive on the run from the law who stumbles on to director Eli Cross's (Peter O'Toole) anti-war film set. Cross agrees to hide Cameron so long as he agrees to work as the stunt double for the film's star. Of course things don't go according to plan as Cross seemingly spends his time plotting new ways to torture Cameron and drive him to the edges of sanity and even death. This is a deeply strange film, one whose oddity I cannot put into words. However, I fear that it too often uses its own weirdness as a substitute for substance. Strip away the layers of Cameron's hallucinatory experiences and what is left? Anything at all? I'm not sure, but I do know that I want to punch Eli Cross.

Despite the kind of people who've raved about it since, it made such a poor impression on me that I've no wish to try to remember what it was that disappointed me about it - never mind revisit it.
I suspect it was mostly down to finding ho-hum much of what others considered weighty - or of some significance.

Although I will agree that Railsback did a great Charles Manson; and maybe there's some kind of Dennis Wilson connection here.

[colinr0380]

I haven't seen the Fly II yet, but I await Colin's impassioned defense (Kidding… I think). All of the failed sequels rounded up in the film's Wikipedia entry sounded pretty awful, so I can only imagine which scenario they ended up green-lighting.

The Fly II is a much cruder film compared to the original and plays as a more slick and soulless carbon copy compared to the emotionally raw original (it is kind of suffering from similar issues to Robocop 2). It focuses on a well trodden 'evil corporation' plot rather than the relationship angle. And it disposes of Geena Davis (or her double in a curly wig) pretty early on in a scene that just steals the nightmare sequence from the first film. But once you calibrate your love story expectations lower to better fit a romance between Eric Stoltz and Daphne Zuniga rather than Goldblum and Davis and see the story as a kind of premonition of Species, then it isn't too bad! Zuniga also gets to give a belter of a scream after the film's standout gratuitous gore effect!

Speaking of which, the film doesn't downplay the gore here, although a lot of it plays much more as "we need to show some nasty stuff here" moments compared to the more seamlessly integrated way that kind of stuff is used in the original. It is also too obviously treating the teleporters as the stars of the show compared to the more restrained use of them in the first film. (The emphasis of effects over story can more often than not be anticipated whenever you see that the director is a former special effects technician! See Virus, Jurassic Park III, Jason X, etc)

Spoiler

But it does help to prepare for the nasty final scene of the film, which has always seemed to me to be referencing the ending of Tod Browning's Freaks as much as the Cronenberg film!

By far the best scene of the film, which alone makes it worth watching, is the one involving the only returning actor from the first film, John Getz as Stathis Borans, still bitter about his failed relationship, and barely able to conceal his contempt of these young upstarts going through the same motions as the previous couple! Although from your comments domino, you might not like the fact that he returns!

EDIT (8th May): I've re-watched this inspired by the discussion and would stand by the above comments. I would only add that the 'crudity' gets displayed in a lot of different ways, from the way that the romance and disease beats are re-staged (particularly the sex scene occurring just before the onset of the symptoms); to the characterisation of all of the minor characters (particularly all the staff of the evil corporation being cruel, brusque or just downright rude to our couple!); to the callous revelling in the use of animal test subjects (even if they are used as a plot point, it is pretty cruel!).

However the weirdest aspect is the sound design, from the silly way that the computer screens all make bleeping or blooping sounds, but particularly the way that every object that goes through the teleporter has to have a kind of 'farewell' noise, from the dog woofing to a kitten mewling, through to a telephone dialling and a cactus growing! It is part of the film underlining all of its elements too much.

One funny aspect of the film though is that it did the "you've got to say the magic word!" computer lock-out cliché years before it turned up in Jurassic Park!

[Black Hat]

I saw it mentioned once or twice earlier but Sara Driver's Sleepwalk warrants more discussion. To that end I'm going to feature it as my second spotlight.

Sleepwalk is a film, upon initial viewing, that every reactionary instinct of mine itched to declare dumb. Was I meant to take this seriously? A nonsensical story explored through seventies, eighties porn level acting with a shooting budget match. An absurdist joke perhaps? But from the moment I saw it about a year ago it's stuck with me as only the richest cinematic honey can.

I've watched the film four or five times with my full attention and had it on in the background another handful of times. Every shot, although not set anywhere special, nor with characters dressed in anything eye popping fits perfectly. It's a great example of 'ok this is what is available to us, lets get creative with light & shadow and make it look cool'. The acting which I initially felt laughable fits seamlessly with the understated tone of the film. Incredibly each scene works on its own as a short film but has enough connecting threads, mostly thanks to a delightfully bizarre cast of characters interacting with each other, to create a cohesiveness for the seventy eight minute duration.

There are elements of surrealistic madness that are smartly restrained by the film's deliberate pacing and Phil Kline's outstanding score which seems to be simultaneously asking, while answering you, "Is this really happening? Yes it is." The film's pacing serves to create a realism nothing we are watching should have. It's essentially what makes the movie work, what has me revisiting it over and over again without looking forward to a specific scene.

The film can easily go into a time capsule of a New York from a specific time and place, the middle ground of the 80s where the weird and the corporate made peace, meshing in ways they never had before, nor ever will again. Perhaps this is why on a personal level I feel a closeness to the film for as a native New Yorker it gives an insight to the New York I grew up in but was too young to understand. The New York I wish still existed but I know is long gone, never to return.

[Cold Bishop]

I definitely plan on rewatching it and contributing into the discussion. Yet, since it didn't get nearly enough fanfare as it should have, it should be mentioned all her films are available in an affordable boxset.

[Black Hat]

Yes. Thank you. Meant to link to that but forgot obviously. It's a set well worth owning as the other films are arguably better. Really intelligent stuff.