I like Kenneth Anger's Lucifers Rising a lot, but the imaginary of Invocation of My Demon Brother does not enchant me that much, but for one reason I like this movie still - the soundtrack is far ahead of its time: what we get are some drones and noisy rock experiments, that are way ahead of its time and I detect such pleasant things yet to come like noise rock, industrial music and ambient drones. Exact rates: 2 for the movie and 3 bonus points for the music only.
18 Reviews
Willfully fragmentary curio from famed sixties occult film-maker
RomanJamesHoffman11 April 2014
Ever since his rampantly homo-erotic debut 'Fireworks' (1947) whilst still a teenager, Kenneth Anger has carved out for himself a singular reputation as a movie-maker whose films willfully transgress society's limits in search of mystical self-awareness. To this end, 'Scorpio Rising' (1964) is a blasphemous homo-sexual biker fantasy writ large while his magnum opus 'Lucifer Rising' (1972) is a gorgeous esoteric rite dedicated to Lucifer himself as well as English occultist (once dubbed "the wickedest man in the world") Aleister Crowley. 'Invocation of my Demon Brother' (1969) sits between these two career defining films and, to be honest, I only find it interesting in that respect. More specifically, the film itself is a 10 minute montage of a Black Albino, some naked men, people jamming and smoking in proper 60s fashion, shots of Anger himself performing a ritual to invoke a new Aeon (replete with Swastika), and a whole host of striking effects done with lights and different lenses, all sound-tracked by a deliberately monotonous moog synthesizer soundtrack courtesy of Mick Jagger who also pops up in a couple of shots. However, two other cameos are of note: the first is long-time friend, and founder of the Church of Satan, Anton LaVey while the other is his former protégée (and later Manson Family member) Bobby Beausoleil who is still in prison for murder. Indeed, the fragmentary nature of 'Invocation
' comes from the fact that the footage was originally part of the original version of 'Lucifer Rising' but an argument Anger had with Beausoleil over money led to Beausoleil running off with the print whereby he inadvertently met Charles Manson who buried the film in the desert. The result? 'Invocation
' was stitched together and released and as it stands lacks the sumptuous, haunting visuals of films like 'Eaux d'artifice' (1953) or 'Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome' (1954), the feverish homo-eroticism of 'Fireworks' or 'Scorpio Rising', or the esoteric narrative grandeur of 'Lucifer Rising'. And yet
it's a film I find myself returning to. Perhaps this is somehow due to the fact that, although always ambiguous about his relationship to Satanism – preferring instead to promote solar worship and Thelema (the religion founded by his occult idol Crowley) – Anger has declared 'Invocation
' to be his most "satanic" film. Maybe it's this, or maybe it's just that I am very forgiving of the film as I value it as a sub-cultural document inextricably entwined with the dark-side of the sixties as well as an interesting interim feature between two career peaks. In conclusion, I can only recommend it to people with a similar niche interest as a casual viewer will probably find nothing of interest here.
Its foolish not to take this at its face value
dcw-126 September 2008
This isn't a film in any conventional sense. For some reason many people because of their lack of sincerity doubt the sincerity of others.
This is pure occultism of the sincerest form. Anger is a known devotee of Aleister Crowley who discussed among other things sacrifice, human and otherwise, demonology, etc.
The film is of a grossly unsettling nature it hints at great horrors while revealing very little. The mind of course can conjure greater horrors than can be shown in film. Certain frames of this stick in your mind like a splinter wondering. The methodic chanting babbling barely audible names is also unsettling and disorienting.
I am not afraid to say this short disturbed me I would prefer I never saw it.
Note: I am not rating this piece a 5, I am offering no rating for it.
This is pure occultism of the sincerest form. Anger is a known devotee of Aleister Crowley who discussed among other things sacrifice, human and otherwise, demonology, etc.
The film is of a grossly unsettling nature it hints at great horrors while revealing very little. The mind of course can conjure greater horrors than can be shown in film. Certain frames of this stick in your mind like a splinter wondering. The methodic chanting babbling barely audible names is also unsettling and disorienting.
I am not afraid to say this short disturbed me I would prefer I never saw it.
Note: I am not rating this piece a 5, I am offering no rating for it.
amateurish -no visionary- yes
mikael-funke18 June 2004
I disagree with the comment that angers film is amateurish and boring. what you have to keep in mind is that is was made in 1969 on a shoestring budget. also that the whole MTV aesthetic was not even thought of then, and it would take 30 years until the way Anger does film would be incorporated into the mainstream music videos of acts like Nine inch nails,Marilyn Manson, etc.
The use of juxtaposing sound and film, editing them in a way that creates maximum contrast and dynamic is something every video director - directly or indirectly - has gotten from Anger. he was the first to fuse rock music and experimental films, thereby by accident creating the seed of the rock video.
Angers short films -and especially this one - has probably been more important in shaping pop and art culture than any other single short film. for that he deserves credit and recognition.
The use of juxtaposing sound and film, editing them in a way that creates maximum contrast and dynamic is something every video director - directly or indirectly - has gotten from Anger. he was the first to fuse rock music and experimental films, thereby by accident creating the seed of the rock video.
Angers short films -and especially this one - has probably been more important in shaping pop and art culture than any other single short film. for that he deserves credit and recognition.
Demonic magic
BandSAboutMovies12 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
While you can say that this is but an 11-minute movie, this Kenneth Anger directed, edited and photographed work of art - complete with Moog soundtrack by Mick Jagger - is one of the films that started midnight movies.
Assembled from what remains of the first version of Lucifer Rising, this movie strobes your mind with an assemblage of Anton LaVey presiding over a public funeral for a cat, the cast smoking out of a human skull, Anger on stage leading a ritual, nude men, Vietnam footage, the Stones playing their ill-fated Altamount show and is itself a ritual that follows Crowley's Holy Law of Thelema in that one must master this universe before achieving the mindset needed to become your own god.
You could also say that it's a lot of noise over a collage of imagery. Or perhaps Anger's theory of film as magickal weapon is true. If you follow the logic that this isn't for everyone, then you believe in Crowley's thought process and how he claimed the esoteric would become "that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct."
Evolution will only come by shocking our senses and overloading them with tones, with colors, with images.
Obviously, Bobby Beausoleil is Lucifer and the connections between the occult and the loathsome Manson Family will always be cited.
Assembled from what remains of the first version of Lucifer Rising, this movie strobes your mind with an assemblage of Anton LaVey presiding over a public funeral for a cat, the cast smoking out of a human skull, Anger on stage leading a ritual, nude men, Vietnam footage, the Stones playing their ill-fated Altamount show and is itself a ritual that follows Crowley's Holy Law of Thelema in that one must master this universe before achieving the mindset needed to become your own god.
You could also say that it's a lot of noise over a collage of imagery. Or perhaps Anger's theory of film as magickal weapon is true. If you follow the logic that this isn't for everyone, then you believe in Crowley's thought process and how he claimed the esoteric would become "that which is understood by the people I wish to instruct."
Evolution will only come by shocking our senses and overloading them with tones, with colors, with images.
Obviously, Bobby Beausoleil is Lucifer and the connections between the occult and the loathsome Manson Family will always be cited.
Satanism and the Rolling Stones
Polaris_DiB9 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that in this particular Anger short, I was much more interested in the early synthesizer score by Mick Jagger than I was for Anger's straight-up Satanic imagery. That said, the Satanism and occult nature of this short is important because it's basically a testimonial to various ways in which this imagery has continued to subsist in the imagination of our culture. Images of Satanism and witchcraft, occult and ritual pepper film history from Haxan to the present day, especially in experimental and alternative film-making. There are many experimental short films that could be understood basically as a direct response, reproduction, or return to Kenneth Anger's particular vision. The theatrics of Satanism is compelling because of way it's practiced or imagined to be practiced, in the same way that the Carnivalesque references that need in humanity to mock and subvert through caricature and clowning. Mick Jagger's cooperation in this, and the Rolling Stones concert imagery (I'm assuming "My Demon Brother" refers to Jagger, but I could be wrong) is a winking allegory to the reputation Jagger started to have in the fears and anxieties of 1960s parents and the continual shadow of Altamont over their career (a Hell's Angels jacket appears, plus references to a dead cat that could easily be a stand-in for the murdered audience member as well as fill in the form of animal sacrifice popularly believed is involved in Satanic ritual).
Meanwhile, it's not as if the short itself is completely serious. At one point a doll rolls down a staircase with a sign attached to it that says "Oops you're pregnant! That's witchcraft!" The earlier part of the movie is a simple reaction shot structure where a strange blond (almost albino) man looks around and sees naked men lounging around, almost in reference to the effeminate Jagger--a reference that comes back with the swaying hips of one man in something like quadruple-exposure, etc. The whole thing is almost too playful, with demons literally dressed in red-faced costumes and plastic horns on their heads, and random dogs laying around watching what's going on with detached animal interest.
However, it is engaged cinema, and Anger is still pointing to some of his fascinations with the darker undertones of all humanity and their shifting perspectives and contexts. Nazi imagery shows up, this time closer referencing the original form of the swastika that the Nazis reappropriated for their own use. A hooded congregation leader looks like the high priest of a KKK group, followed by people who are obviously not KKK members. Birth and death are purposefully confused. Bubbling, boiling imagery is mixed with multiple-exposure imagery (Anger is always fond of pointing out that film is a chemical process, like alchemy) and kaliedoscopic imagery to reference bodies and forms as malleable things. Fire destroys it all in the end anyway.
--PolarisDiB
Meanwhile, it's not as if the short itself is completely serious. At one point a doll rolls down a staircase with a sign attached to it that says "Oops you're pregnant! That's witchcraft!" The earlier part of the movie is a simple reaction shot structure where a strange blond (almost albino) man looks around and sees naked men lounging around, almost in reference to the effeminate Jagger--a reference that comes back with the swaying hips of one man in something like quadruple-exposure, etc. The whole thing is almost too playful, with demons literally dressed in red-faced costumes and plastic horns on their heads, and random dogs laying around watching what's going on with detached animal interest.
However, it is engaged cinema, and Anger is still pointing to some of his fascinations with the darker undertones of all humanity and their shifting perspectives and contexts. Nazi imagery shows up, this time closer referencing the original form of the swastika that the Nazis reappropriated for their own use. A hooded congregation leader looks like the high priest of a KKK group, followed by people who are obviously not KKK members. Birth and death are purposefully confused. Bubbling, boiling imagery is mixed with multiple-exposure imagery (Anger is always fond of pointing out that film is a chemical process, like alchemy) and kaliedoscopic imagery to reference bodies and forms as malleable things. Fire destroys it all in the end anyway.
--PolarisDiB
Shocking instead of artistic
Horst_In_Translation10 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This has to be one of Kenneth Anger's worst films, which is especially bad as this is not one of the movies that he shot way before his 20th birthday, but instead here in 1970 he was already in his 40s. It tries to be edgy, shocking and controversial during its 12 minutes runtime from start to finish, but sadly forgets to make any reasonable impact. Just shock as much as possible and who cares about the story? Then again, this has frequently been a problem for Anger that he goes too much for style and too little for substance. In here are included the Rolling Stones, the Hell's Angels, Lucifer, the devil, sex between men, male genitalia etc., so basically everything that could infuriate audiences almost 50 years ago. I cannot say I enjoyed this at all. Not recommended. Anger (who also acts in here, not too often the case in his works) was never among my favorites, but he is really hitting new lows here. The audio gets annoying pretty quickly too, but I guess that was intended. Stay away.
"trippy" but valid
evelsteve30 April 2006
Don't listen to the guy above, since he thinks all art films are supposed to hold your hand, and tell you what to think and believe. This film is obviously an artifact of subjective, artistic expression (like all real art usually is). But I happen to think it's genius. Just because I don't like the images (which I in fact do) doesn't dis-validate it as art. Art is not for entertainment, as it is the allowance of the artist to express themselves in a certain language/form/deliverance.
This film can be interpreted as a view on the artist's fascination with the occult, life, or just certain images in general. Some parts remind me of how sensitive we are to certain images, and so on. Every film isn't like Hollywood, tied up with a neat little bow, were can all hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Sometimes, it portrays what goes on the psyche of certain people. Look at Jordorwosky, for instance.
This film can be interpreted as a view on the artist's fascination with the occult, life, or just certain images in general. Some parts remind me of how sensitive we are to certain images, and so on. Every film isn't like Hollywood, tied up with a neat little bow, were can all hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road. Sometimes, it portrays what goes on the psyche of certain people. Look at Jordorwosky, for instance.
This is the sort of Anger short that loses me...
planktonrules5 December 2009
This is from the second DVD of a set called "The Films of Kenneth Anger"--a collection of avant garde films by this odd film maker. I found the first disk to be more satisfying--the second has a lot about Aleister Crowley and Satanism that I found a bit dreary.
This film is purely for someone who loves art films and has a very, very high tolerance for this sort of thing. While my tolerance is higher than the average viewer, I found this entire short filled with self-indulgence and silly imagery. I am sure that the folks who made this film loved it, as did their friends, but I seriously doubt that more than 1 or 2 in 100 who might otherwise see it actually enjoying the film. It's just NOT a film for the average viewer.
It consists of lots of bizarre imagery, an albino, references to Satanism and various ancient religions, rituals, pot use, dead cats, dead cat heads, a visit from Anton LaVey (founder of The First Church of Satan) in Satanic regalia (looking a lot like 'Hot Stuff' the cartoon character, actually) and lots of crotch shots of naked men. To each his own...
By the way, for a great practical joke, show this to your mother or some of your friends and insist with a straight face that it's the greatest film ever made. Then wait to see their reactions! Be sure to get it all on video or digital film.
This film is purely for someone who loves art films and has a very, very high tolerance for this sort of thing. While my tolerance is higher than the average viewer, I found this entire short filled with self-indulgence and silly imagery. I am sure that the folks who made this film loved it, as did their friends, but I seriously doubt that more than 1 or 2 in 100 who might otherwise see it actually enjoying the film. It's just NOT a film for the average viewer.
It consists of lots of bizarre imagery, an albino, references to Satanism and various ancient religions, rituals, pot use, dead cats, dead cat heads, a visit from Anton LaVey (founder of The First Church of Satan) in Satanic regalia (looking a lot like 'Hot Stuff' the cartoon character, actually) and lots of crotch shots of naked men. To each his own...
By the way, for a great practical joke, show this to your mother or some of your friends and insist with a straight face that it's the greatest film ever made. Then wait to see their reactions! Be sure to get it all on video or digital film.
Deeply creepy, esp. knowing about Bobby Beausoleil
sjohntucson10 May 2008
I watched this last night for the first time, on the "Films of Kenneth Anger Vol. 2" DVD, and to me this was probably the most intense of the set. Between the droning, obnoxious score (by Mick Jagger, of all things), and the changing film speeds, this film really did invoke feelings of, if not really a nightmare, then definitely an altered state, and not a real fun one at that.
But the capper for me was the use of Bobby Beausoleil (sp?), who was one of Manson's killers. This footage was apparently shot only a couple of years before Bobby (sorry, not trying to imply too much familiarity, but I'm really sick of typing his last name, it hurts my brain) murdered Gary Hinman. The footage of Bobby, combined with the knowledge of what he's gonna do in a couple of years, just creeped the f**k right out of me.
So, I did like this, and I'd recommend it to folks interested in Anger, or in weird sixties head trips & the dark side of psychedelia, but I'm really glad I didn't watch it under the influence. It probably would have wound up occupying a "special" place in my brain, and I don't mean a good happy place.
But the capper for me was the use of Bobby Beausoleil (sp?), who was one of Manson's killers. This footage was apparently shot only a couple of years before Bobby (sorry, not trying to imply too much familiarity, but I'm really sick of typing his last name, it hurts my brain) murdered Gary Hinman. The footage of Bobby, combined with the knowledge of what he's gonna do in a couple of years, just creeped the f**k right out of me.
So, I did like this, and I'd recommend it to folks interested in Anger, or in weird sixties head trips & the dark side of psychedelia, but I'm really glad I didn't watch it under the influence. It probably would have wound up occupying a "special" place in my brain, and I don't mean a good happy place.
1969 Psychedelic Claptrap
Hitchcoc2 May 2019
I'm sorry. Some things don't stand the test of time. I lived through all this stuff when everyone was smoking or taking acid and thought these kinds of films were so cool. Now they seem laughable. Apparently, this helped to put the Rolling Stones' Satan stuff in some sort of visual realm. Instead, it looks like something a bunch of high school kids did in their art class. Throbbing and endless.
Disquieting
Quag720 September 2008
There is a difference between "trippy" and "psychedelic." "Trippy" is what people who mostly have never had psychedelic experiences ascribe to weirdness in art, and "psychedelic" is art - be it music or film or whatever - that simulates or outright induces a state of altered consciousness as a proxy or alternative to psychedelic drugs, dream states, meditation, etc.
People really like to pat themselves on the back a lot in their neurotic quest to dismiss all 60s or occult techniques, imagery, sounds, tropes, whatever. I can understand this to some degree. A lot of the 60s was just goofy. The case I'd make for this and Lucifer Rising is that this is about as good as this kind of thing can be done.
It is not for everyone.
Here Anger turns everything up to 11 in a relentless torrent of Thelemic, Satanic, and Nazi imagery, nudity, drug use, and blasphemy.
This is a psychedelic film or, I guess, if you're just too hip or grounded or intellectual or contemporary or whatever for Kenneth Anger, an attempt at one. The purpose here is to get on top of you, by which I mean, tap a nerve. This is a torrent of input - visual and aural - pumped mercilessly into the viewer's senses.
The disturbing soundtrack, varying film speeds, interlaced light effects and occult imagery (flashing unicursal hexagrams, etc.) are clearly meant to unsettle and induce a state of altered consciousness of some sort, but in my case it just kind of made me uncomfortable. In a good way. This is not to say a pleasant way. An effective way. (Is this film itself, a magickal working of sorts?)
I can't help it. I like this, even if I don't *enjoy* it exactly. This is not an exploitation film. This is the real deal: the Age of Horus spontaneously exploding through (and nearly obliterating) the Age of Aquarius.
Evil hippies, man.
I found this nightmarish, frantic, and disconcerting. I suppose if you can simply dismiss the whole of the 1960s and the whole of the occult of the time, you can dismiss this, too. I'm just not that cool I guess.
Worth a watch as art and as film-making with a different purpose than usual (while this is entertaining, I don't think this was conceived of as primarily "entertainment").
There's no plot here. If you need one, don't bother. Watch with an open mind.
Then go to Church after.
People really like to pat themselves on the back a lot in their neurotic quest to dismiss all 60s or occult techniques, imagery, sounds, tropes, whatever. I can understand this to some degree. A lot of the 60s was just goofy. The case I'd make for this and Lucifer Rising is that this is about as good as this kind of thing can be done.
It is not for everyone.
Here Anger turns everything up to 11 in a relentless torrent of Thelemic, Satanic, and Nazi imagery, nudity, drug use, and blasphemy.
This is a psychedelic film or, I guess, if you're just too hip or grounded or intellectual or contemporary or whatever for Kenneth Anger, an attempt at one. The purpose here is to get on top of you, by which I mean, tap a nerve. This is a torrent of input - visual and aural - pumped mercilessly into the viewer's senses.
The disturbing soundtrack, varying film speeds, interlaced light effects and occult imagery (flashing unicursal hexagrams, etc.) are clearly meant to unsettle and induce a state of altered consciousness of some sort, but in my case it just kind of made me uncomfortable. In a good way. This is not to say a pleasant way. An effective way. (Is this film itself, a magickal working of sorts?)
I can't help it. I like this, even if I don't *enjoy* it exactly. This is not an exploitation film. This is the real deal: the Age of Horus spontaneously exploding through (and nearly obliterating) the Age of Aquarius.
Evil hippies, man.
I found this nightmarish, frantic, and disconcerting. I suppose if you can simply dismiss the whole of the 1960s and the whole of the occult of the time, you can dismiss this, too. I'm just not that cool I guess.
Worth a watch as art and as film-making with a different purpose than usual (while this is entertaining, I don't think this was conceived of as primarily "entertainment").
There's no plot here. If you need one, don't bother. Watch with an open mind.
Then go to Church after.
DAMN this film is creepy.
Silkenray15 May 2003
A very strange film. The sound track - done on a Moog synthesizer - is repetitious and droning, which adds to the atmosphere, though can be annoying if you're not "into it". It's creepy. There really isn't a lot to say - only watch this film if you understand what you're getting into. By far more creepy and off-putting than most modern Hollywood horror films, in part because the film style gives it a more immediate presence. The cinematography isn't polished, the sound and setting aren't polished, but that's half of what makes it work so well.
The Drugs Don't Work
Squrpleboy25 September 2003
I'm not really sure why I've repeatedly given Kenneth Anger's films a chance, considering how I've loathed the experience of viewing every single one of them, but seeing INVOCATION OF MY DEMON BROTHER tonight was officially my last attempt.
Basically, with this film Anger shot a bunch of disjointed scenes that he could loosely tie together with some high-school-level occult imagery, and tacked on a long, droning soundtrack which I assume was meant to mesmerize us into a submission of the "possessed". Not even a good try. Wigged-out hippies smoking pot from a ceramic skull, some twitchy-eyed albino kid, a couple nude guys on a couch, tacky use of a kaleidoscopic filter, bad superimposed tattoos, a couple shots of The Rolling Stones in concert, and some loser performing dollar-store occult rituals all flip back and forth on the screen without much use of engaging pacing or interplay. Even Satanic butt-kisser Anton Le Vey turns up dressed like a reject from an lost episode of Batman, circa 1966.
So typical, non-engaging, amateurish and lacking real passion or discipline it's maddening. Then again, maybe I needed to be right stoned out of my mind to get the "deep and hidden meanings, man". Yeah, right.
How Anger ever posited himself amongst the leading American avant-garde filmmakers of his generation, and still retains a level of reverence when he created "esoteric" palp like INVOCATION is truly frustrating and stupefying to say the least. It is rare that I can say I genuinely hated a film, or the experience of having viewed it, but in this case I really feel I need to warn others to avoid this film at all costs.
1/10. A shameful and putrid waste of time and celluloid.
Basically, with this film Anger shot a bunch of disjointed scenes that he could loosely tie together with some high-school-level occult imagery, and tacked on a long, droning soundtrack which I assume was meant to mesmerize us into a submission of the "possessed". Not even a good try. Wigged-out hippies smoking pot from a ceramic skull, some twitchy-eyed albino kid, a couple nude guys on a couch, tacky use of a kaleidoscopic filter, bad superimposed tattoos, a couple shots of The Rolling Stones in concert, and some loser performing dollar-store occult rituals all flip back and forth on the screen without much use of engaging pacing or interplay. Even Satanic butt-kisser Anton Le Vey turns up dressed like a reject from an lost episode of Batman, circa 1966.
So typical, non-engaging, amateurish and lacking real passion or discipline it's maddening. Then again, maybe I needed to be right stoned out of my mind to get the "deep and hidden meanings, man". Yeah, right.
How Anger ever posited himself amongst the leading American avant-garde filmmakers of his generation, and still retains a level of reverence when he created "esoteric" palp like INVOCATION is truly frustrating and stupefying to say the least. It is rare that I can say I genuinely hated a film, or the experience of having viewed it, but in this case I really feel I need to warn others to avoid this film at all costs.
1/10. A shameful and putrid waste of time and celluloid.
A Freaky-deaky experience
mchlcmmng18 March 2014
A very worthwhile freak-deaky experience. In this film's short lifespan it takes you on a wild ride using techniques that have become common place in modern cinema. The music by Mick Jagger that is oh so memorable. The jump cuts, the shot-layering, the changing of frame rate is so definitively anger that you would be daft to confuse it with anyone's else work. The way that Anger tries to shove you head first into the occult is just breathtaking. You go into some kind of trance state with this film. To view Satan as he appears in this film is truly changing. Any film student interested in making an impact on film today has to see this picture. Anger made his first film at 15, he was young when he made this one too. This is a film that pushes the envelope. We don't need anymore formulaic boring action movies, we need people like this willing to push the limits of the medium and mess with your mind.
"Zap. You're pregnant. That's magick"
chaos-rampant22 December 2008
You don't have to be a scholar of the avant-garde/experimental scene to realize that Kenneth Anger IS trying to invoke something with his short film. A hypnotic nightmare, a devilish delirium, a dervish dance, a chaotic panorama of sights and sounds plucked straight from the late sixties hippie melting pot, pulsating with frenzied energy, convulsing and threatening to spiral out of control at every turn. The imagery Anger employs is an eclectic mix of Hell's Angels denim, occult liturgy, caleidscopic nightmares, religious iconography, hell, he even throws a Nazi flag in for good measure, and everything coalesces in a helter skelter of diabolic psychedelia. Yet what must have been a completely alien experience back in 1969 seems familiar territory by now - mostly because a lot of what Anger was doing back then, both in terms of imagery and execution, has been appropriated by the music video industry the past twenty years. Speaking of music, Mick Jagger's hypnotic score was as ahead of its time as the film itself. A must-see for the adventurous viewer.
Who is that man? Who is that child?
candiwallz-127 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
There is a child 3:52. Does anyone know who that is? Also there's a man seen at 9:51, 9:54. He's in a kaleidoscopic scene between 9:58-10:16. A B&W flashing shot between 10:21-10:30 & seen at the end between 10:39-10:45. Who is that man? This is what I really wanna know. Thanks people!
now the review...............................................................
iTHINK it was GREEEEEEEEEEAT!My sister thought it was so weird & her daughter almost got flash male privates! LOL. That made her mad so I watched the rest at home. My BF showed me it. He's is the one who has got me interested in who the boy & man in the short was. All the symbols & stuff are enthralling. I think it's a trance video. The actually Jagger music could put me to sleep. When u listen with Ur eye & hear with Ur ear..Zap! Ur pregnancy! O.O LOL JK! No, but the imagery says a lot...That reminds me of school days. A girl asked what I was drawing, asked if I was a wiccan. I have no prob with wiccans but this girl thought she exposing me in some way. I told her by the end of tomorrow her mother would die & the dumb girl believed me! I should have wrote a note that said: Zap! Ur pregnant. That's witchcraft!
now the review...............................................................
iTHINK it was GREEEEEEEEEEAT!My sister thought it was so weird & her daughter almost got flash male privates! LOL. That made her mad so I watched the rest at home. My BF showed me it. He's is the one who has got me interested in who the boy & man in the short was. All the symbols & stuff are enthralling. I think it's a trance video. The actually Jagger music could put me to sleep. When u listen with Ur eye & hear with Ur ear..Zap! Ur pregnancy! O.O LOL JK! No, but the imagery says a lot...That reminds me of school days. A girl asked what I was drawing, asked if I was a wiccan. I have no prob with wiccans but this girl thought she exposing me in some way. I told her by the end of tomorrow her mother would die & the dumb girl believed me! I should have wrote a note that said: Zap! Ur pregnant. That's witchcraft!
Demon Lover Diary
cudkey12 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The idea that Anger might be messing with dangerous forces here, and roping the viewer (without asking) into a dark ritual, is cool. The soundtrack is not like anything else I've heard, perfect for trance induction. And who cares what one thinks of Anger's preoccupations (and possible problems)? Just to witness them in such an overt display is fascinating - the murky deep end of confessional art. Ugly, messy. Upsetting. And so refreshing now amid so much commercialism, safety, and p.c. nothingness. Featuring: an albino, a future murderer, drug use, male nudity, cat parts, the U.S. military in Vietnam, Nazi symbolism, and a lineup from the Church of Satan.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
