Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#382 Funeral Parade of Roses/Bara no sôretsu

Watched: March 27 2026

Director: Toshio Matsumoto

Starring: Pîtâ, Osamu Ogasawara, Yoshio Tsuchiya, Yoshimi Jô, Emiko Azuma, Koichi Nakamura, Flamenco Umeji, Saako Oota, Toyosaburo Uchiyama

Year: 1969

Runtime: 1h 45min

Have you ever wanted to watch a reinterpretation of Oedipus Rex, but with drag, drugs and documentary-style digressions? Well, you won’t believe what we have for you today! (Also, if you know a word on “d” which means nonlinear, let us know at 1000filmsblog@gmail.com. We had to make a terrible choice between alliteration and accuracy in our opening line.)

Don’t worry. We’ll take a long, hard look at ourselves in the mirror.

Funeral Parade of Roses is a movie that should be experienced, so we’ll keep our summary brief. In short, we’re in Japan in the swinging sixties, moving through the gay-, trans- and drag-scene(s) via nonlinear storytelling, interviews and intertitles. The main narrative follows Eddie, a gei boi who works at a bar in Tokyo and is sexually involved with its manager, Gonda. Gonda is also in a relationship with the madam of the club, Leda, who is basically Eddie’s boss/superior. We’re introduced to several side characters from Tokyo’s underground culture – young people from all walks of life who take drugs and make art while enjoying the sexual liberation of the 1960s.

Pictured: an awkward glimpse behind the scenes of a sex scene. We particularly enjoy the jealous partner of one of the participants lurking in the corner and judging everyone’s performance.

This movie is very experimental, very ’60s and very stylish. It’s a fascinating look into queer culture in ’60s Japan, and we loved the way it blurred the line between reality and fiction. It’s beautifully shot, and Pîtâ’s Eddie in particular is compelling to watch. We also loved Guevara with his feux beard, the soundtrack, the editing and the general vibe. Not to mention the twist!

“Are you serious??? You’re going to mention the twist? Motherfu…”

Funeral Parade of Roses is cool, subversive, bold and brave for its time. Though, to be completely honest, if we met the group of artists depicted in this movie today, we’d be terribly bored by their drug enduced self indulgence. Times have changed a bit in that regard… We still found the film both moving and engaging. And experiencing new sides of drag and queer culture from a non-western point of view is always refreshing and interesting.

The decapitations were unexpected though. Did not see that coming at all.

What we learned: Something about absent fathers, maybe? And that drag and gender expressions come in many forms.

MVP: Eddie. And her wig game. Or possibly Sofokles.

Next time: I Start Counting (1969)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 2 Comments

#293 Privilege

Watched: March 18 2021

Director: Peter Watkins

Starring: Paul Jones, Jean Shrimpton, Mark London, William Job, Max Bacon, Jeremy Child, James Cossins

Year: 1967

Runtime: 1h 43min

Source

In the near future (counting from 1967, that is. So the distant past, we guess), Steven Shorter (Jones) is a pop sensation with a complete grip on the youth population of Britain. His stage shows are theatrical productions designed to manipulate the audience – mostly consisting of women. Thank God no one wants to take advantage of his position and influence to create a fascist regime!

“Hahaha! We wouldn’t dream of it…”

Source

Just kidding! That is exactly the plan, of course. You see, the youth of Britain refuse to conform and bow to traditional authorities such as the police, the government and the church. Rude! And naturally, we cannot have that. So why not take this pop star and make him the poster boy for former criminals who have seen the light and are now repenting Christians? It’s a sure fire plan to bring the youth of Britain back into the fold.

“For the stage show, we should go subtle with the symbolism, I think.” “Um… Yeah, sure. We’ll totally do that.”

Source

The only person on Steven’s side trying to steer him right is Vanessa (Shrimpton), an artist comissioned to paint his portrait. But how can the two of them stand up against the powerful machine of the establishment?

I know! That scourge of fascist regimes everywhere: sexual liberation!

Source

Well, this movie was oddly prescient… Made in 1967, but it might as well have been made today. We’ve now truly experienced how pop culture and social media fame can influence politics and how dangerous this can be.

“Take the shackles off my hands so I can…manipulate you all to blindly follow my crazy cult of complete conformity and conservative Christianity. And also dance.”

Source

Are Paul Jones and Jean Shrimpton amazing actors? Well, no. But their apathetic approach sort of works anyway. Privilege is a very compelling pseudo-documentary and one which is very much relevant to this day and we loved it. For an interesting (and depressing) double feature, try pairing it with Framing Britney Spears. Or the Cheeto’s political career… Whatever bites your apple.

“Biting will cost you extra…”

Source

What we learned: Do not worship celebrities… Or probably anything, really.

Next time: Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#285 Dont Look Back

Watched: November 23 2020

Director: D. A. Pennebaker

Starring: Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Albert Grossman, Bob Neuwirtz, etc.

Year: 1967

Runtime: 1h 36min

Source

We have a confession to make. We don’t really care that much about Bob Dylan…

Sorry ’bout it, Bob

Source

I mean, sure, we know the hits, we know the face and we get the general gist of his appeal, but he was never really our cup of tea. Or coffee for that matter. Still, we thought, we’ll give this a go. Perhaps it will be our come-to-Jesus-moment?

Real question: would Jesus amass the same following if he played the harmonica..?

Source

For those not in the know, Dont Look Back is a documentary covering one of Dylan’s UK tours. It’s an interesting look into the folk music scene in the ’60s, the “proper” establishment versus the young, rebellious musicians, fame versus artistry, and it’s probably a perfect film for Bob Dylan fans to enjoy together, preferably with a couple of beers and loads of cigarettes.

Why yes, Bob, that would be the ideal place to host such a gathering.

Source

Esthetically, it’s very pleasing as well. The black and white photography is beautiful, the start is very cool, the music is of course excellent, and the style works very well with the contents. Also, the negotiation scene is surprisingly intriguing, and overall we enjoyed it.

What’s that Bob? What are you trying to say? Did Timmy fall in the pig pen?

Source

However, Dylan himself comes across as an arrogant, argumentative prick. Which isn’t really the best way to win us over as fans, reported genius aside. In fact, we found him quite annoying… Which probably wasn’t the intention, but that was the unfortunate result, and we tend not to like artists who are argumentative bastards, no matter their cultural importance.

Perhaps it is, Bob. Perhaps it is. But is it ours or yours..?

Source

In conclusion: esthetically, filmatically, culturally and historically, this movie is definitely worth watching and you get a fantastic sense of the 1960s. Personally, it’s hard to like Bob Dylan in this – sure he’s cute and charming, but he’s also fucking annoying and arrogant. Then again, he was 23 years old and everybody worshipped him, so can you really hold it against him..?

You know, you’re right. You should dig yourself. Way too many people are too hard on themselves. All we’re saying is that there’s nothing wrong with being nice to other people even if you think you’re better than them.

Source

What we learned: We’re the wrong audience for this movie.

Next time: In Cold Blood (1967)