Showing posts with label stephanie rothman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephanie rothman. Show all posts

Monday, 7 September 2026

Mubi Monday: Group Marriage (1973)

I initially thought that I hadn't seen any other movies from director Stephanie Rothman. I was wrong. It turns out that I have seen two of the films she made before this one. Whether or not they could be considered better examples of work remains to be seen (I'll be checking out another couple of her movies in the near future), but I am happy to now try to keep her name stored somewhere in my foggy memory banks.

Group Marriage is basically summed up by the title. I'm not going to go through every character onscreen, but the main ones are Chris (Aimee Eccles) and Sander (Solomon Sturges), Dennis (Jeff Pomerantz) and Jan (Victoria Vetri), Phil (Zack Taylor) and Elaine (Claudia Jennings). Each of these individuals ends up finding something attractive in someone other than their primary partner, which leads to them eventually settling on the idea of living together in one house and creating one unusual, but effective, group marriage unit.

As well as taking on her directorial role, Rothman also helped to co-write this screenplay with Richard Walter and Charles S. Swartz. Although it may be difficult to point to the elements added by each individual writer, it feels as if Rothman was happy to use the potential sex comedy premise to make some important points about consent, the gap between love and sex, and the ways that society judges and mistreats those who don't conform to a set of apparent norms that were established by people who probably didn't want to have sex unless it was scheduled and purely for the purpose of procreation. There's still some comedy here, especially in scenes that show people figuring out boundaries, and dealing with others who may assume that the situation gives them a free pass to do whatever they like, but it's smarter and sharper than the "ooh, I've tripped and my clothes have fallen off" nonsense that could have been scattered throughout.

The males do well to avoid being too irritating, and it helps that they're often a step behind the women when it comes to planning some consensual non-monogamy, but both Eccles and Vetri are constantly captivating. Not only are they both obviously appealing to the men around them, but their attitude is pleasantly interesting and fluid. They're allowed to become cautious once they decide to open up the parameters of their relationships, they're allowed to still feel jealousy and resentment, and they're allowed to push back at others when being side-eyed for simply allowing themselves to add more pleasure to their lives. 

Entertaining, sometimes titillating, and certainly progressive during the moments that have characters figuring out how to balance their personal harmony with everyday living, Group Marriage is the sort of fascinating curio that should make you keen to check out other features from the film-maker. That's how it affected me anyway.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing. All links are HERE.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Saturday, 6 November 2021

Shudder Saturday: The Velvet Vampire (1971)

Having not heard of director Stephanie Rothman before, I didn't know what to expect at all from The Velvet Vampire, a film that sits almost exactly at the mid-point of a filmography that includes titles such as Blood Bath, It's A Bikini World, Group Marriage, and The Working Girls. Having co-written this film with Maurice Jules and, regular collaborator, Charles S. Swartz, Rothman obviously had something in mind that would carefully navigate territory between art and exploitation, an erotic vampire tale that also takes time to show that the seductions are just part of the facade of a lonely and pained soul, but the end result is a bit of a mess. And some sequences are just plain boring.

Celeste Yarnall is Diane LeFanu, a young woman who lives in an isolated house in the middle of nowhere. It isn’t a castle atop a mountain, nor a cabin in the woods, it’s just situated in a desert-like area, a good distance away from any nosey neighbours. When Susan (Sherry E. DeBoer) and Lee (Michael Blodgett) visit her, it doesn’t take long for her to start displaying signs that she may be wanting to suck their blood.

Now fifty years old, and not looking as if it is about to get a pristine restoration any time soon, The Velvet Vampire is a rough, ugly, film that tries to make up for that aspect with moments that present the characters and/or nudity in more aesthetically-pleasing shots. It also tries to put some fresh spins on vampire lore, although none of that really clicks into place until the very last scene of the film.

Yarnall is certainly attractive enough in her role, and acts enjoyably confident and uninhibited in her own skin. It’s easy to see how she could lure and keep people by her side. DeBoer and Blodgett have less presence, and I wouldn’t single either one out as a great thespian, but both are game when it comes to the flesh-baring requirements of their roles. Other people flesh out the cast, but nobody makes a strong impression (certainly not for the right reasons).

While this is a bizarre piece of work, and not one I'd ever recommend anyone putting high on their list of prioritised viewings, I'm happy that it hasn't been completely lost. Although hampered by her limited resources, Rothman does her best to make an impact with the strength of her ideas and vision. There are times when that comes into view, a hazy abstract that clarifies for just a moment, like a mirage offering a gorgeous watering hole to a parched wanderer, but it's gone just as quickly. The more I think about it, however, the more I admire it. It's an American film from the early 1970s that attempts to deliver something more in line with the European vampire movies of that time, and the very end of the film gets things just right with an explanation that basically explains things well while also teasing an entertaining final turn towards darkness.

If you can overlook how dated and technically crude it is, there are still enough individual moments here to just about make this worth 80 minutes of your time.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews