| |
Scary of Sixty-First, The
|
|
| Year: |
2021
|
|
Director: |
Dasha Nekrasova
|
| Stars: |
Madeline Quinn, Betsey Brown, Dasha Nekrasova, Mark H. Rapaport, Stephen Gurewitz, Jason Grisell, Ruby McCollister, Anna Khachiyan, Michael M. Bilandic, Aaron Dalla Villa
|
| Genre: |
Horror, Comedy, Trash, Weirdo |
| Rating: |
  3 (from 1 vote) |
| Review: |
Best friends Noelle (Madeline Quinn) and Addie (Betsey Brown) are apartment hunting, and not having much luck so far, they are delighted but wary when they find an affordable place in New York City, the well-off end. They may have a reservation or two about it - what's up with that bedroom arrangement that seems designed to lock someone in by someone else on the outside? - but the price is too small to turn down. However, on moving in, the women start to suffer strange dreams, and grow suspicious about the apartment's history. Precisely what happened here before they arrived?
In the infinite variety of categorising people on the internet, and specifically social media, there is a type identified as the sort who makes every subject about themselves. If the subject has little or nothing to do with them, they will find a way to turn it around to focus on them. Which basically was what was happening with this film and its interest in the Jeffrey Epstein controversy, where the multi-millionaire was accused of sex trafficking very young girls for use by his rich friends, not that his rich friends ever admitted to any wrongdoing, including as they did Prince Andrew, the highest profile of the rumour mill.
Seeing this story in the headlines, director/writer/star Dasha Nekrasova teamed up with co-star Quinn to come up with a storyline that crowbarred themselves into the Epstein story, and what they concocted was that Noelle and Addie realise they have been duped into renting an apartment where Epstein conducted some of his crimes. Worse than that, there is a supernatural, residual force that possesses Addie and has her act like a young teen victim, only one who is really into her trafficking and spends her time furiously masturbating over photos of Prince Andrew, even using Royal memorabilia to help her out carnally.
When Queen Elizabeth II gets landed with the C word as a description in the dialogue, you appreciate subtlety and good taste are not on the cards, but this had the tone (and 16mm appearance) of a student film going all out to stand out from its peers by adopting edgelord posturing. When Nekrasova shows up researching the history of Epstein, for some reason this is the trigger for a more salacious angle, as after agreeing that her unnamed character is correct in all her conspiracy theories, Noelle proceeds to go to bed with this woman, another instance of organised sexual abuse turning on the young ladies here that does not appear in any way true to life. Nevertheless, all three of the main females here suddenly have their sex drives boosted significantly.
And all because the thought of Prince Andrew sexually victimising Virginia Giuffre is overwhelming to them? Yes, we do see that much reproduced photograph. There's a case here that they were making a black comedy, but when their biggest joke is that they're inspired by Roman Polanski in the plot and style of their movie, and guess what he's famous for other than film directing, it is quite bracing to see this get its sense of humour, and indeed sense of reason, so catastrophically wrong. With Polanski, at least those who still use him as an artistic influence can have the excuse that his now-grown child victim has long since asked the matter to be left behind her so she can move on with her life, if that is enough excuse for you (how many Repulsion copies are still being made?), but it's not as if the Epstein matter was old news when this was shot, the victims had been living with the fallout from it for years and many were still suffering, and sex trafficking was a tragedy still unfolding across the world. So what's so fucking funny?
[The Scary of Sixty-First – A Shudder Exclusive
New Film Premieres 3rd March 2022.]
|
| Reviewer: |
Graeme Clark
|
| |
|
|
