I learned of the existence of Exposé (1976), a film with multiple English language titles (a sure sign of quality) from a documentary on video nasties. There was a moral panic in the 1980s when home video gained popularity because a multitude of cheaply made horror films were marketed as straight-to-video entertainment, many of them pretty gory. Several dozen gained infamy for being banned as 'video nasties'. Exposé was the only British film to be included on the list.
It now seems that, like basically all panics, however they are stirred up, the video nasties panic was a lot of fuss about nothing very much. If the others on the list are of the calibre of Exposé then the principal point of concern is that of poor quality, no make that laughably bad quality, and not traumatic content. You'll probably be more astonished than troubled by Exposé, for it is staggeringly inept, a film without any clear idea of its true purpose. Is it a psychological horror, a giallo, a softcore sex romp, a drama empty of substance or a comedy devoid of laughs? Yes is the answer.
Early on I checked the dates to see if this movie was attempting to rip-off Argento's Tenebrae, and lo! No. It's the other way, although Tenebrae's ludicrousness is vastly more entertaining (and scarier) than this preposterous nonsense. Paul (Udo Kier) is a novelist working on his second book. He's up to Chapter 18 already, but apparently only now does he decide he needs a typist. Paul is tormented by nasty visions, of a wheatfield, a screaming mouth, bloodspilled, a dead man's face. Is it something he's done, or is it prophetic, or what?
Linda, the hired secretary, arrives. What follows is an assortment of elements borrowed from other movies, Straw Dogs being likely, but it's as if a softcore sex movie was being superimposed on the same material. You should just see the way Udo Kier (as Paul) and Fiona Richmond (as Suzanne) go at it. Linda (Linda Hayden) has three scenes of masturbation and one of rape/murder just on the day of her arrival. In fact, far as I could follow, everything happens in about 36 hours.
As for the bloodiness of the movie, it is strikingly short on blood and gore. When people get the knife it's more like they're being drawn on in red rather than sliced open and made to gush blood. The line, "You've got red on you" from Shaun of the Dead (2004) could have been inspired by this film.
All three principals, not counting the housekeeper, have only one facial expression each, that is, when they're not making the beast with two backs. Then they look more alive, although decidedly whorish in the case of Richmond (she's just got to be someone from xxx-rated movies). Hayden generally looks bored. Kier works the hardest out of all of them, although his face does intense as a starting point and works its way up to panic sporadically.
The final sequence is so incredible it defies comprehension. How anyone could have written or directed or accepted it is just beyond understanding. It's worth seeing Exposé just to see its whaaaaaaaat! Finale. It's also fascinating to see a dial telephone again, and a typewriter with all its mechanical noises. And to see the beautiful nude bodies, natch.
I suppose this is the kind of thing the moneymen behind Repulsion (1965) were expecting to make, before they realised they had an artist of Polanski's calibre at the helm. Exposé deserves only to be banned or cut (I saw it uncut, the 84min) if we all agree that crapness is the best reason for cutting or banning movies. In reality, only criminal enterprises should be banned or destroyed, and this film's only crime is that of being rubbish from first to last, but even being rubbish it has some capacity to amuse.
For connoisseurs of junk movies only.
It now seems that, like basically all panics, however they are stirred up, the video nasties panic was a lot of fuss about nothing very much. If the others on the list are of the calibre of Exposé then the principal point of concern is that of poor quality, no make that laughably bad quality, and not traumatic content. You'll probably be more astonished than troubled by Exposé, for it is staggeringly inept, a film without any clear idea of its true purpose. Is it a psychological horror, a giallo, a softcore sex romp, a drama empty of substance or a comedy devoid of laughs? Yes is the answer.
Early on I checked the dates to see if this movie was attempting to rip-off Argento's Tenebrae, and lo! No. It's the other way, although Tenebrae's ludicrousness is vastly more entertaining (and scarier) than this preposterous nonsense. Paul (Udo Kier) is a novelist working on his second book. He's up to Chapter 18 already, but apparently only now does he decide he needs a typist. Paul is tormented by nasty visions, of a wheatfield, a screaming mouth, bloodspilled, a dead man's face. Is it something he's done, or is it prophetic, or what?
Linda, the hired secretary, arrives. What follows is an assortment of elements borrowed from other movies, Straw Dogs being likely, but it's as if a softcore sex movie was being superimposed on the same material. You should just see the way Udo Kier (as Paul) and Fiona Richmond (as Suzanne) go at it. Linda (Linda Hayden) has three scenes of masturbation and one of rape/murder just on the day of her arrival. In fact, far as I could follow, everything happens in about 36 hours.
As for the bloodiness of the movie, it is strikingly short on blood and gore. When people get the knife it's more like they're being drawn on in red rather than sliced open and made to gush blood. The line, "You've got red on you" from Shaun of the Dead (2004) could have been inspired by this film.
All three principals, not counting the housekeeper, have only one facial expression each, that is, when they're not making the beast with two backs. Then they look more alive, although decidedly whorish in the case of Richmond (she's just got to be someone from xxx-rated movies). Hayden generally looks bored. Kier works the hardest out of all of them, although his face does intense as a starting point and works its way up to panic sporadically.
The final sequence is so incredible it defies comprehension. How anyone could have written or directed or accepted it is just beyond understanding. It's worth seeing Exposé just to see its whaaaaaaaat! Finale. It's also fascinating to see a dial telephone again, and a typewriter with all its mechanical noises. And to see the beautiful nude bodies, natch.
I suppose this is the kind of thing the moneymen behind Repulsion (1965) were expecting to make, before they realised they had an artist of Polanski's calibre at the helm. Exposé deserves only to be banned or cut (I saw it uncut, the 84min) if we all agree that crapness is the best reason for cutting or banning movies. In reality, only criminal enterprises should be banned or destroyed, and this film's only crime is that of being rubbish from first to last, but even being rubbish it has some capacity to amuse.
For connoisseurs of junk movies only.