#I suspect that scrooge isn't like... a GOOD adaptation actually but I do love it very much | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

watching-pictures-move · 2 years

Text

Put On Your Raincoats #34 | The Passions of Carol (Costello, 1975)

As I alluded to in my review of Christmas Evil, I do not celebrate Christmas, so generally do not respond too strongly to those that fit a strict definition of a "Christmas movie" (in that they're about the holiday). I prefer my Christmas movies to contain things like shootouts (Die Hard), death-defying stunts (Police Story, which I shamefully forgot to cite in that review), race- and class-conscious comedy (Trading Places), stabbing (Black Christmas, Silent Night Deadly Night Part 2, Christmas Evil). Well, you can add fucking and sucking to that list because I had a very good time with The Passions of Carol, Shaun Costello's hardcore adaptation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Now, what's most surprising is that this actually does meet that strict definition of a Christmas movie. While I was tempted to recommend this on novelty alone, porn parodies are a dime a dozen and not all of them have more than a cursory grasp of their source material. (I watched Re-Penetrator back in October, which has maybe a minute of the male lead playing Herbert West before diving into a prolonged sex scene for the rest of its runtime. I did enjoy that movie, as zombie Joanna Angel wearing gigantic platform heels is not without her charms, but an incisive parody it was not.) This actually commits to retelling the story, and despite the sex scenes, actually feels true to the spirit of the source material, rather than milking it for laughs.

Now, you don't need me to tell you the plot, as you're no doubt familiar already. But what you might not know is that in this version, Scrooge has a threesome with an Elvis impersonator played by Sonny Landham. Or that the scene moves to a room which looks like the inside of a washing machine. Or that Marley, as played by Mark Stevens, "died at [his] desk with a hard on" (to which Scrooge responds "Even the Grim Reaper can't shut you up"). Or that the Ghost of Christmas Past demonstrates the consequences of greed with a man wearing giant credit cards, doomed to have them turned down wherever he goes ("Surely you must take American Express"). Or that Scrooge's childhood room is decorated with pornographic drawings of what look like Raggedy Ann dolls (I suspect Costello's turn-ons are different from mine). Or that the Ghost of Christmas Present looks like a rotund oompa loompa who informs Scrooge that "[he's] so now that if there were a reincarnation, [he'd] come back as Bloomingdale's". Or that the Ghost of Christmas Future takes Scrooge on a tour through 42nd Street, where we see marquees telling us that theatres are playing movies such as Airport 1975, The Odessa File, The Love Bus and, in some particularly ominous shots, The Groove Tube. Now, you're probably thinking what the heck most of this has to do with Dickens' original story. Well, let me tell you about a little concept called "The Death of the Author", in that the author is dead and can't do fuck all about any of it. (No, I haven't read the original essay. You're telling me that's not how it works?)

I understand Costello made this after a run of "one day wonders", ultra cheap pornos shot in an extremely short amount of time. This was him showing some ambition, to the point that he put effort into the screenplay, went over time and budget, and sank his own money into having this play at a non-pornographic theatre. The care shows in the results onscreen. This isn't as slick or stylistically fluid as the later films I've seen by him, but the relatively static visual style (which still looks good, mind you) is complemented nicely by the mise-en-scene, with almost every frame packed with at least one of red, green or white. It definitely looks like a Christmas movie, is what I'm saying. And it sounds like one too, thanks to the well chosen music selection (including the unexpected but not unwelcome use of "Tubular Bells"). Also, while these movies tend to be prevalent with the male gaze, you can see Costello trying to evoke the heroine's perspective with admiring shots of Landham's body in the first sex scene. Costello's use of a female pseudonym ("Amanda Barton") may have been a cynical move, but you do get the sense he wanted couples to be able to enjoy this movie without embarrassment, rather than purely targeting the raincoat brigade. And the movie is held together with some nice performances, including an unexpectedly sympathetic role by Jamie Gillis, and, despite playing Scrooge, a pretty endearing lead performance by Mary Stuart (credited as "Merrie Holiday"). On a technical level, she might not be the most refined actress, but she is extremely likable, and someone you actually root for to learn the meaning of Christmas (by having to witness a whole lot of fucking and sucking). In its final moments, the movie holds on two shots of her overcome with joy, and her energy is infectious.

#film #movie review #put on your raincoats #shaun costello #the passions of carol

1 note · View note