lashtal.com
Events - Chemical Wedding: Crowley Film
Tool93 - Apr 19, 2008 - 04:02 PM
Post subject: Chemical Wedding: Crowley Film
*I looked all over for a link that could have previously been made on this subject and could not find one so that is why I posted this.*
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Care Fraters and Sorores:
I have stumbled across the Official Trailer for Bruce Dickinson's Film Chemical Wedding. Link---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rVv483BTA After the first watching of the Trailer I was greatly disapointed in how he was potrayed but when I watched it again for the 2nd and 3rd time most of it looks like it is purposely a comedy and I love How Crowley says "Hellloooo Ladies" haha its hilarious Well anyways I wanted to see what your view on the movie is.
-Frater KHA
Love is the law, love under will.
lashtal - Apr 19, 2008 - 04:54 PM
Post subject: RE: Chemical Wedding, Crowley Film
The release of the trailer was added as a main News item here on 16 April: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Article1043.phtml
There are also several Forum threads about the movie here:
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?n ... al+wedding
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?n ... al+wedding
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?n ... al+wedding
http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?n ... al+wedding
I'll lock them and we can use this thread for discussions about the movie.
lashtal - Apr 19, 2008 - 09:03 PM
Post subject:
This from Filmofilia:
‘Chemical Wedding’ Sci - Fi - London 7 Premiere
Posted by FionaApril 19, 2008
It was previously announced that Bruce Dickinson’s ‘Chemical Wedding‘ will be unveiled at Cannes Film Festival.
But Julian Doyle, Simon Callow and Bruce Dickinson confirmed that ‘Chemical Wedding‘ will have London world premiere at the 7th Annual London International Festival of Science Fiction and Fantastic Film on Sunday 4th May 2008 - closing night. Sci - Fi - London 7 starts on 30 April.
‘Chemical Wedding’ will be introduced by co-writer Bruce Dickinson, writer/director Julian Doyle and star Simon Callow followed by an audience Q&A.
Based on an original screenplay by Bruce Dickinson, front man of the legendary heavy metal band Iron Maiden, and Julian Doyle, veteran Monty Python second unit director/editor, Chemical Wedding is a supernatural occult thriller inspired by the life and works of Aleister Crowley. Once dubbed ‘the most evil man in Britain’, Crowley was a major Edwardian figure and a scandalous character. Originally a Trinity College Cambridge graduate, he later became an infamous mystic and occult scholar, his entire life a celebration of decadence and, to some, evil.
Starring Simon Callow, Kal Weber, Lucy Cuddon, Jud Charlton, Paul McDowell, John Shrapnel, Richard Franklin, Terence Bayler and Robert Ashby, Chemical Wedding is directed by Julian Doyle (Brazil, The Meaning Of Life, Time Bandits, Life Of Brian, Monty Python & The Holy Grail) and features a musical score by Bruce Dickinson.
Chemical Wedding is distributed by Warner Music Entertainment UK and will open at UK cinemas on 30th May 2008.
Equinoxstudios - Apr 20, 2008 - 11:22 AM
Post subject:
So good this post found me. Just booked my tickets for 4th May. See you there.
Tool93 - Apr 21, 2008 - 02:25 AM
Post subject:
I do notice that this does seem to have much more comedy in it. So I think it will just obliviate people caring if Crowley was "evil" or not. I sure would enjoy it, that is if I could see it being that I am in the USA -.-
Equinoxstudios - Apr 21, 2008 - 09:06 PM
Post subject: Deleted promo Scenes
Forty seconds of fun from the Chemical Wedding never used in the trailer. Good scream and a bit of a beating for Crow...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDTUzPzrSs
Check out Anger's Rabbit's Moon (Came In The Night short version) on my channel too!
lashtal - Apr 22, 2008 - 07:28 PM
Post subject: RE: Deleted promo Scenes
From booktrade.info:
Mainstream Film Chooses To Self-publish Book Tie-in
Posted at 4:03PM Tuesday 22 Apr 2008
Iron Maiden front man Bruce Dickinson and film director Julian Doyle have opted to self-publish the book tie-in for their forthcoming Chemical Wedding motion picture.
Written by Bruce Dickinson, front man of the legendary Iron Maiden, and Julian Doyle (Time Bandits, Life of Brian), Chemical Wedding is an occult thriller starring Simon Callow inspired by the life of the infamous Edwardian mystic, Aleister Crowley. It will go on general release in cinemas on the 23rd May.
The film tie-in will be self-published by Dickinson and Doyle under the Matador self-publishing imprint to coincide with the film's release.
Dickinson, who has a small cameo role in the film, has stated that "On several levels, I think it will be nice for them [Iron Maiden fans] to see somebody from Maiden doing something else that gets the band's name out there and also potentially gets a bit of respect for heavy metal and all the rest of it.... But, in addition, I think they'll just enjoy it. It's a rollicking good story."
http://www.troubador.co.uk/matador
The book can be pre-ordered here: http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=646
Baphomet111 - Apr 24, 2008 - 08:58 PM
Post subject: RE: Deleted promo Scenes
The film does seem to be more of a slap-stick-scifi comedy now that I've seen a few other clips. Not that Chemical Wedding is bad, but it would be nice to see an more artistic film devoted to the guys life. All I've seen is the trailer. No intention of shooting the messenger.
lashtal - May 04, 2008 - 11:40 AM
Post subject: RE: Deleted promo Scenes
From today's UK Telegraph newspaper:
Chemical Wedding Aleister Crowley reincarnated as Simon Callow in a story devised by Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson. Sounds too good to be true? Not this time.
Equinoxstudios - May 04, 2008 - 01:39 PM
Post subject:
See you all at the Apollo West End tonight!
I'll tell you all about it later...
Equinoxstudios - May 05, 2008 - 03:37 AM
Post subject:
My review for what it's worth...
Fun trailer, but bereft of the usual hype associated with the launch of a movie, I arrived at the Apollo West End to see the Chemical Wedding with mainly my own great expectations.
Stormtroopers from Star Wars greeted moviegoers at the doors as it was the final night of a Sci-Fi festival and after a few beers at the bar we all sat in the theatre and waited. Two simultaneous screenings in adjacent theatres in the same cinema – cast and crew in Screen 4, us common people in the one next door in Screen 5. After a personal introduction by Bruce Dickinson (screenwriter), Julian Doyle (director) and Simon Callow (lead actor) we all looked forward to the film.
The story begins with the arrival of American scientist Mathers from Cal Tech to supervise the installation of a virtual reality simulator suit at Cambridge University. For the very first time this state-of-the-art piece of equipment is being hooked up to a revolutionary new British supercomputer, the Z93, which unbeknown to anyone, has been programmed with a virus by lab assistant Victor who has reduced the rituals of Aleister Crowley into binary code and infected it with them.
The film time shifts back to when mild mannered university lecturer Professor Haddo (Simon Callow) is willingly persuaded into the suit by Victor for its first trial run. Haddo goes missing immediately after his experience in the suit and turns up the following day at a lecture theatre to give a talk on Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” – except that clearly he is no longer the man he used to be, no longer the meek stammering lecturer he was before his VR suit experience but now an outrageous sexually explicit speaker who urinates on his audience (lol). The film goes on to imply that the Z93 supercomputer virus composed by Victor has actually caused Haddo to become the reincarnation of Aleister Crowley and so begins a tale of the apparent depths of depravity that a person possessed by the soul of Aleister Crowley would sink to.
This is the crux of the problem that this film has – just what would someone possessed by the late Aleister Crowley do all day long? “Sex and murder” unfortunately is this film’s disturbing answer and then just how outrageous can this character become? The implication in the trailer was that this portrayal of Crowley might be tongue-in-cheek or humorous, but the result is far more worrying than that.
Numerous examples of exactly “just how evil could a person possessed by Aleister Crowley be” continue in a procession of visual and conceptual shocks ranging from relatively innocuous excrement deposited on an office desk to the crucifixion of a prostitute. Now, controversial a character as Crowley was, I really must ask what Bruce Dickinson is up to here. I listened to Callow emphasise that his portrayal of Haddo was “Playing the part of someone possessed by Crowley… and not actually Crowley Himself” but I see this as a pre-emptive excuse on his part for what we saw on screen and some of the issues that we might have with it.
As for the characters: shallow, meaningless and undefined. Haddo comes over as nothing and we don’t care that he’s been possessed by Aleister Crowley (n.b. Simon Callow’s performance is a delight – I just wish the script had been up to it.), Lia the journalist is our damsel in distress and you don’t care if she’s rescued or not, Aleister Crowley is just pure evil and doesn’t deserve to be reincarnated, Victor is just a virus writing geek and got what he deserved.
Deeply offensive, blatantly sensationalist, Bruce Dickinson’s script leaves me with questions about the target audience of this film – fans of Simon Callow (?), fans of Bruce Dickinson (heavy metal fans who will be disappointed by the soundtrack), fans of Aleister Crowley (please note, only those who specifically want to be thought of as evil and twisted) or practicing occultists (who will be annoyed by this film’s cold and completely non-spiritual content).
lashtal - May 05, 2008 - 10:26 AM
Post subject:
Thanks very much for the review which I found both factually accurate and interesting.
I'll add my own mini-review later today: my take is rather different...
ParrachF - May 05, 2008 - 07:23 PM
Post subject: My Review
I too was there. Sorry to have missed you Paul, would have loved to meet you. And sorry Equinoxstudios to leave you like that but I had a train to catch and an early flight today (But I'm up for a pint in London anytime 
)
Well, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, for what is. Callow performance is gripping and I think the movie is worth watching for this alone. Dickinson's soundtrack is surprisingly good, although metal fans will definitely be disappointed since it is a proper movie soundtrack with a metal-ish credits song that sounded out of place...
Let me also emphasize that the director Doyle, as far as I'm concerned really worked hard on the visuals. It tries to be more than just "this is what's happening". There's powerful visuals and behind the action things that try to captive he who dares to look to the backgrounds (But it's no Matrix in that matter).
As for the rest, the movie is basically driven by Haddow's incarnation of Crowley, trying to blend science with some of Crowley's mystical concepts. I'm sure Paul will delve deep into this in his mini-review.
The problem with the movie, for me, are twofold. Like Equinoxstudios said one his Crowley's representation. Even though Callow insisted he did not play Crowley but someone who believed to be Crowley (and actually one could argue that not all of Crowley's "equations" were inserted into the Z93 computer), I'd say most of what we've seen was more or less the picture I had of Crowley, minus the murders.
The second problem, but it's probably just me, having grown to Thelema via Grant's books, was the lack of actual magic in the movie. There's the ritual that leads to one of the best comic scenes in the movie (the fax machine scene) and the "greatest occult event of history". He needed a Scarlet Woman, but then it is said that he doesn't really need her to cooperate, just her blood [please correct me if I misunderstood it]. That's it, oh and a syringe. Well, this doesn't sound about right. But then again, maybe they actually based it on something that I don't know (and it might in fact be referred to in the book tie-in, which I didn't buy last night).
Anyway, a young Thelemite here but one who enjoyed the movie
Equinoxstudios - May 05, 2008 - 07:58 PM
Post subject:
Just a very brief aside, but Simon Callow reviewed I Crowley by Snoo Wilson in the Sunday Telegraph some years ago and it might be useful for someone to dig this out to see Callows performance in the context of his review - anyone got a copy to post???
lashtal - May 05, 2008 - 09:50 PM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › Just a very brief aside, but Simon Callow reviewed I Crowley by Snoo Wilson in the Sunday Telegraph some years ago and it might be useful for someone to dig this out to see Callows performance in the context of his review - anyone got a copy to post???
Hmmm... I've seen the quote you're presumably referring to: "Brilliant . . . the Great Beast explaining himself in lapel-grabbing prose." It's prominently displayed online in advertising fluff for Snoo's book and is attributed to "Simon Callow, Sunday Telegraph".
I tried to track down the review some time ago but without success. A search just now of the telegraph.co.uk site was equally unsuccessful.
Equinoxstudios - May 05, 2008 - 10:53 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: › I tried to track down the review some time ago but without success. A search just now of the telegraph.co.uk site was equally unsuccessful.
Same problem I had. Now I wonder if my Informant is also online and has that copy?
lashtal - May 05, 2008 - 11:38 PM
Post subject:
For what it's worth, my brief review is online now: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Reviews-req ... d-57.phtml
And yes, I enjoyed the movie.
Equinoxstudios - May 06, 2008 - 12:50 AM
Post subject:
Many thanks for your long awaited review!
Indeed, is it a thriller? is it a Horror?? is it a comedy??? Not even Julian Doyle wanted to categorise it.
You reckon it's a comedy. Strangely, I didn't and yet I've been an active member of a Thelemic magickal group for 20 years.
This is clearly a film that will provoke a number of different responses. I would be wary of the way in which Lashtal.com will be perceived by the rest of the world because of the spectrum of opinion this film will generate. This may be of no concern to you and I can fully understand that.
Focussing on one of the many interpretations of this film does not diminish the effects of the alternatives. I would provoke you to be wary of a simple dismissal of this film as a comedy, it is capable of causing the perception of Aleister Crowley a great deal of harm.
DWTW is not a license for the subversion of one belief system by the irresponsible action of another.
lashtal - May 06, 2008 - 08:16 AM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › You reckon it's a comedy. Strangely, I didn't and yet I've been an active member of a Thelemic magickal group for 20 years.
Would being a member of such a group help me to determine the genre of this movie?
Quote: › I would be wary of the way in which Lashtal.com will be perceived by the rest of the world because of the spectrum of opinion this film will generate.
LAShTAL.COM has not been involved in the development of the movie and the movie is a piece of entertainment, so I'm not sure I understand the point you're making here.
Quote: › it is capable of causing the perception of Aleister Crowley a great deal of harm.
That is true, of course. Having said that, it's also capable of encouraging some to the serious study of his work.
Quote: › DWTW is not a license for the subversion of one belief system by the irresponsible action of another.
Do you feel that your "belief system" has been "subverted" by the movie? Or perhaps by the contents of Symonds' biographies of Crowley? Or by the publication of his "Magical Record", in which potentially far more damaging material is published?
Equinoxstudios - May 06, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Post subject:
Hi Paul,
As the dust begins to settle after the impact of the film there are facets that become more clearly illuminated.
I note that this film can be construed as a comedy and my involvement in magickal practices has no bearing on this observance. I mentioned my involvement in a petty effort to qualify my opinion which was of course unnecessary.
Indeed, LAShTAL.com is strong enough to weather any opinions that the 'general public' has about Aleister Crowley, even if that opinion becomes degraded or populated with even more falsehoods.
My knee jerking has been twitched in the implication the film makes that a person posessed by the spirit of Crowley would be capable of murder. Now I never thought that AC would have that in his repertoire and my own respect for the work of this man makes me naturally react to someone implying this in such a public way in the name of 'entertainment'.
The matter may be further complicated by the fact that there are living descendants of AC that have their own reconciliation of the actions and reputation of their origins. That reconciliation may not have included that AC was capable of or had carried out murder. Some of these descendants may wish to object to anything that misrepresents the character of someone as potentially close in blood relation as their grandfather especially as this has been done in such a way in the name of 'entertainment'. This upset is not for me to prempt but merely to observe its possibility.
I then also wish to contemplate why Bruce Dickinson decided to write the prostitute murder scenes. I may not be his target audience but I think he has an idea of who is going to come to his film. This forum has a membership of largely 'free thinkers' and I would like to ask its membership if we are entirely happy about harming the reputation of AC merely in the name of entertainment.
Patriarch156 - May 06, 2008 - 11:04 AM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › I then also wish to contemplate why Bruce Dickinson decided to write the prostitute murder scenes. I may not be his target audience but I think he has an idea of who is going to come to his film. This forum has a membership of largely 'free thinkers' and I would like to ask its membership if we are entirely happy about harming the reputation of AC merely in the name of entertainment.
Tell you what, I have been involved in various communities centered around Thelema for over 20 years myself and a member of the O.T.O. for over 15 and I don't mind. What I am <i>not</i> happy about is our community whining about the rest of society through entertainment educates the public at large wrongly about Crowley. I mean why should they, that is our job and that is exactly why associations such as the Aleister Crowley Society is so important. Rather than whine about how this movie presents Crowley, why not instead look upon it is a possibility for increased interest in him and with that a chance for us to educate them about Crowley.
Equinoxstudios - May 06, 2008 - 11:35 AM
Post subject:
[quote="Patriarch156"]Equinoxstudios wrote: › Rather than whine about how this movie presents Crowley, why not instead look upon it is a possibility for increased interest in him and with that a chance for us to educate them about Crowley.
Whining is an incorrect vocal pitch to visualise when reading my words.
sethur666 - May 06, 2008 - 12:43 PM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: ›
You reckon it's a comedy. Strangely, I didn't and yet I've been an active member of a Thelemic magickal group for 20 years.
What? Someone joining a Thelemic group and losing their sense of humour? Surely not!
Steve W
sethur666 - May 06, 2008 - 12:46 PM
Post subject:
Without having seen the film myself, it seems to me that the context to see it in is not that of comparing the Haddo-Crowley character in relation to the real Crowley but to the other fictionalised Crowleys over the years. How does it compare, for example, to Oliver Reed's portrayal in the Radio 4 play directed by Ken Russell?
Steve W
sonofthestar@Gmail.com - May 06, 2008 - 02:25 PM
Post subject:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The only hurt to AC and Thelema that could come from the movie would be to have Thelemites in front of theaters protesting the showing of the film, in the way various "christian" denominations do when a movie comes out which they consider blasphemous.
Thank goodness we are not like that!
Crowley would probably laugh more than anyone else during the show! and be told by the Usher to keep it down.
He would then give the killjoy in uniform a look, prompting said Usher to run from the theater never to be seen again!
After the show, some people would complain that they could not see the film at all, due to a certain bald head in the front row reflecting the light from the wall sconces back at them.
Love is the law, love under will.
Athanaton - May 06, 2008 - 08:48 PM
Post subject:
Somehow I would think that Crowley would have been the first to appreciate the film as a medium of entertainment, murder or no murder.
Equinoxstudios - May 06, 2008 - 10:54 PM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › What? Someone joining a Thelemic group and losing their sense of humour? Surely not!
Steve W
Well put Mr Wilson.
Interesting feedback from all the membership that has replied without seeing the film. Thank you. I now therefore anticipate a lull in this discussion until the film emerges and look forward to a 'flurry' of new registrations to this forum as Chemical Wedding hits the screens. Should be interesting...
Keep some space in your diary 
Ivor
lashtal - May 07, 2008 - 08:51 AM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › Interesting feedback from all the membership that has replied without seeing the film.
For the record, your report was followed by posts from just five of the site's 4,700 members. Two of those five have seen the movie.
I really must caution against being too "precious" about Crowley's reputation: as someone once pointed out, he spent a lifetime trying to blacken it himself! It's only by recognising the flaws in Crowley's personality that we will ever be successful in encouraging a fair assessment of his legacy. The film employs Crowley's spirit as a comic device, portrayed by a professional, likeable and popular actor: things could have been far worse even by being more accurate.
sethur666 - May 07, 2008 - 02:46 PM
Post subject:
Crowley-inspired rather than Crowley? That just about covers the black magic episode of Rab C Nebitt. If Chemical Wedding is anywhere near as funny ("so, that'd be the Great Beast's duvet cover you're wearing then?") I can't wait.
Steve W
HocEstCorpus - May 08, 2008 - 02:54 PM
Post subject:
93,
I was at the premiere with some OTO brothers and sisters.
I found myself laughing out loud on many occasions during the film.
I think Crowley would have loved it.
Of course it would have been nice to focus more on his philosophy and teachings...but perhaps thats better left for a different film?
Yes, the murdering was a little OTT, but hey.....havn't you ever rooted for the serial killer bad guy in horror movies cos the victims are soooo damn annoying!
Carry On Crowley.
nothing more, nothing less.
HEC was entertained.
Paul, sorry to hear about your car.
93, 93/93
lashtal - May 08, 2008 - 06:28 PM
Post subject:
Quiet Earth's review of the movie is here: http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2008/ ... al-Wedding
lashtal - May 09, 2008 - 06:54 PM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › My review for what it's worth...
I note that your post here is repeated verbatim as the Mandrake Speaks review of the movie, with the addition of a summarising sentence: Three words describe this film: "Straight", "To", "DVD".
nachash - May 09, 2008 - 11:13 PM
Post subject:
But, But, when will it be in the U.S.?
Equinoxstudios - May 10, 2008 - 01:42 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: ›
Equinoxstudios wrote: › My review for what it's worth...
I note that your post here is repeated verbatim as the
Mandrake Speaks review of the movie, with the addition of a summarising sentence:
Three words describe this film: "Straight", "To", "DVD".
This is true. I posted the review to a number of sites. Mandrake have not copied the review from LAShTAL. The Straight To DVD quote is my addition.
lashtal - May 10, 2008 - 01:49 PM
Post subject:
Equinoxstudios wrote: › Mandrake have not copied the review from LAShTAL.
I didn't for a minute think they had: I've known Mogg Morgan since the early eighties and have nothing but respect for what he has achieved.
I only mentioned your review as part of a series of posts that attempt to give a flavour of the coverage and reportage being afforded to the movie.
We can expect to see a lot more about the movie on LAShTAL.COM...
A "celebration" of the movie, if you will.
Equinoxstudios - May 10, 2008 - 03:27 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: › I've known Mogg Morgan since the early eighties and have nothing but respect for what he has achieved.
I'm sure we've met then!
Equinoxstudios - May 15, 2008 - 07:12 PM
Post subject:
Another review has appeared online...
www.denofgeek.com/movies/54639/chemical_wedding_review.html
Equinoxstudios - May 16, 2008 - 02:23 PM
Post subject:
And another review today from Film4:
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=166568
And Fortean Times:
http://www.forteantimes.com/reviews/films/1152/chemical_wedding.html
Please note I'm posting these links to reviews as they begin to appear online regardless of their content. I don't know if these reviewers were at the premiere and an embargo has just been lifted but three have just appeared in the last 24 hours.
More will appear soon. The press have been issued with a fairly extensive pack to accompany their invitation on Bruce's plane tomorrow. Out to Cannes, private screening and back the same night.
Horemakhet - May 17, 2008 - 12:45 AM
Post subject:
It was with great disapointment that I viewed Callow in 'Tristram Shandy'( a film so bad that Sterne flipped over a few times in a grave sarcastic dislight). I do not view this film as anything more than a poorly swung Waltz. I would not see it even If I was paid to. My childhood was filled with Jehovah's Witness fantasies & the last thing that I want to see is a Hero of mine reduced to a "characfer". I have never liked Iron Maiden, & I was annoyed by his approbation of Blake's artwork for his solo projject. POP.
Horemakhet - May 18, 2008 - 10:39 PM
Post subject:
... that being said, I have done some thinking about it the last few days, & - At the time I wrote the above I felt deeply offended & hurt by someone (anyone) turning my ' Uncle Al ' into a murderer & rapist for fictional purposes, & what is more - because of their attendant fame, gaining attention for the 'Film', based on another field ( although : " 666 - The Number of the Beast " - cute. ). Jimmy Page always eschewed this role in popular culture, even though journalists (when he would actually speak to them ), were always trying to drag him into making statements upon his Occult affiliations. I respect Jimmy for his great respect to the legacy of A.C., especially at a time when it was not necessary for him to treat the matter with such a high degree of reverence & Silence. (Though he is arguably an 'initiate', where Bruce may not be; at least to the same degree)- Maybe Bruce IS aware that there are those out here who find what he is doing a far more extreme version of ' Oliver Haddo '. - & that Maugham was writing a 'John Bull '-friendly character study of someone who was of casual acquaintance & contemporary to him, - not a gross character Slur some 60 years after a, now-proven, "Good Man's", death. - A.C. might have even enjoyed this kind of notoriety for a time during his middle age, but I am quite certain that he spent his final years, at times, emotionally sequestered by the continued lack of understanding towards his Great Work & the Public who never forgave him, & no longer cared ( Well, the War changed many things, didn't it?). I have not seen this film, but based on all of your comments and descriptions it seems obvious that Bruce may not realise that times have changed in A.C.- Land since the Eighties. I think that Bruce is also a 'Good man', & an accomplished man - far more accomplished than I am at this time - But, I believe that he would have reconsidered his approach for this film had he known that those who really care, think that "Enough is Enough, already".
lashtal - May 18, 2008 - 11:04 PM
Post subject:
Horemakhet wrote: › ...I have not seen this film...
Quite.
Let us know when you've had your preconceptions confirmed by actually viewing the movie.
Horemakhet - May 18, 2008 - 11:35 PM
Post subject:
I do not want to see it, Paul. A preconception can be totally accurate. if a preconception upsets me as much as it does, why do I want to subject myself to further torment?.........
P.S. Sometimes, you are so 'English' that i despair..... & i mean that in the best possible way - aside from the jab.
lashtal - May 19, 2008 - 12:03 AM
Post subject:
Horemakhet wrote: › Sometimes, you are so 'English' that i despair..... & i mean that in the best possible way - aside from the jab.
lashtal - May 19, 2008 - 12:16 AM
Post subject:
Meanwhile, back to the topic in hand - and ignoring just for one moment the risk of a professed Thelemite being "hurt" and "tormented" by further reference to this iconoclastic movie - here's another review... This one is from the Guardian UK newspaper:
Rock star Bruce Dickinson flies in to bring a touch of Satan to the Croisette
Andrew Pulver
Monday May 19, 2008
The Guardian -- http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/fea ... 06,00.html
X Metal god, actor, novelist, swordsman, pilot, DJ - and now screenwriter. Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson is a man of many parts, and this weekend he showed up in Cannes to show off a new film called Chemical Wedding. Dickinson, a registered commercial airline pilot, flew himself to the south of France, along with a bunch of journalists, fans, and suitably attired hangers-on (they carried tote bags bearing the legend "Bruce Air Flight 666").
There's something very Iron Maiden about Wedding, dabbling as it does in the occult world of early-20th-century mystic Aleister Crowley, finding several excuses to liberate young women from their clothes, and incorporating dialogue that sounds as if it was lifted from the Number of the Beast's lyric sheet. It would all be too ridiculous if Dickinson were not such a nice, unassuming chap - the 49-year-old product of a minor public school with a penchant for satanic imagery.
When Dickinson sits down with Chemical Wedding director Julian Doyle (a veteran of Iron Maiden videos and Terry Gilliam's editing room) the pair clearly get on like a house on fire. Dickinson says Chemical Wedding has been in the works for 15 years, having passed through a number of producers; in the end, he got the thing off the ground himself.
"I started getting into Aleister Crowley when I was 15," he says. "He was the first rock star." He adds that Chemical Wedding is "Withnail & I meets The Wicker Man", which must have sounded good in those pitch meetings.
Without Dickinson, Chemical Wedding would have remained one of the submerged nine-tenths of gunk films clogging up the Cannes film market. Hampered by ropey performances, it never reaches the levels of weirdness and humour it is aiming at. But Dickinson, game as ever, can't resist a final, harmless blasphemy: "We bring Crowley back for three days. Like Christ. Only better." Get your devil-horn salute ready now.
As someone suggested in a post earlier in this thread: I can't help but feel that Crowley would have been rather flattered by the attention. The stats for this site suggest that large numbers of people are being introduced to Crowley as a result of reading about the movie and are consequently taking the effort to undertake at least a little research.
Dare I bring attention also to the fact that Crowley is referred to in this review as a "mystic" and not the de rigeur "Satantist and pervert"?
Horemakhet - May 19, 2008 - 12:57 AM
Post subject:
I agree with the above Post in terms of Dickinson being an amazing vocalist & a worthy Pilot - & his band, under the guidance of Steve Harris, to be the 'top of the heap'(once again), in the Metal World ( though I have never liked Iron Maiden ). However, none of the above constitutes Crowley (as a dead man), somehow being categoricaly 'Pleased' with this kind of attention. It is sensationalism & nothing more. Crowley was a deeply spiritual person ( though definitely 'conflicted' - in the Catholic sense) . He had an amazing constitution & could even Endorse ( in defiant Prose ), the worst attacks attacks against him, - but a Villian of the sickest kind known to the more gentlest of humanity (our children), is something that I think he would have fought against.
lashtal - May 19, 2008 - 01:20 AM
Post subject:
Horemakhet wrote: › I agree with the above Post in terms of Dickinson being an amazing vocalist & a worthy Pilot
And I have no comment to make on the worthiness of his piloting.
Quote: › his band, under the guidance of Steve Harris, to be the 'top of the heap'
Damning with faint praise given your statement above that you "have never liked Iron Maiden".
Quote: › categoricaly 'Pleased' with this kind of attention. It is sensationalism & nothing more.
Far from being "categorical", the phrase I actually used was "I can't help but feel". And what did I feel? Not that Crowley would be "pleased", but that he'd be flattered.
Quote: › [Crowley] could even Endorse the worst attacks attacks against him
And how on earth did he "endorse" the attacks?
Quote: › a Villian of the sickest kind known to the more gentle of humanity, is something that I think he would have fought against.
I haven't the faintest idea what you're alluding to here: what does "the more gentle of humanity" have to do with anything?
Your contributions to this thread are vacuous and, until you've seen the movie, pretty much irrelevant. Resist the urge to respond.
Horemakhet - May 19, 2008 - 01:30 AM
Post subject:
... ok. You Win.
lashtal - May 19, 2008 - 09:49 PM
Post subject:
This from blabbermouth.net...
Julian Doyle, the director and co-screenwriter of IRON MAIDEN frontman Bruce Dickinson's supernatural horror-thriller "Chemical Wedding", will appear in London this Friday for the launch of the "Chemical Wedding" book at Atlantis — a bookshop which was frequented by Aleister Crowley himself. Doyle will be there to sign copies of the book and show "the making of" "Chemical Wedding" to all of the attendees.
The details are as follows:
Friday, May 23:
Atlantis Bookshop
49a Museum Street, London WC1A 1LY
7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Dickinson was in Cannes this past weekend to show off "Chemical Wedding". Dickinson, a registered commercial airline pilot, flew himself to the south of France, along with a bunch of journalists and fans.
"Chemical Wedding" wrapped principal photography in September with Julian Doyle at the helm. The film stars Simon Callow as a reincarnation of Aleister Crowley, once dubbed "the most evil man in Britain." Callow's character, Haddo, is a shy, stuttering professor.
"My experience with stages is obviously IRON MAIDEN and that sort of stuff," Bruce said. "I've directed a few videos over the course of my rock 'n' roll past and I enjoyed them, I enjoyed directing videos. Writing movies a completely different thing. I wrote a couple of absurd comic novels — that came out as well, and you know, they did OK actually. So, writing is something that's always sort of interested me, so this seemed like a good opportunity to learn the process, really."
Camlion - May 19, 2008 - 10:40 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: › As someone suggested in a post earlier in this thread: I can't help but feel that Crowley would have been rather flattered by the attention. The stats for this site suggest that large numbers of people are being introduced to Crowley as a result of reading about the movie and are consequently taking the effort to undertake at least a little research.
Dare I bring attention also to the fact that Crowley is referred to in this review as a "mystic" and not the de rigeur "Satantist and pervert"?
I have the same feeling, Paul. -Camlion
Equinoxstudios - May 20, 2008 - 06:07 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: ›
Atlantis — a bookshop which was frequented by Aleister Crowley himself. Doyle will be there to sign copies of the book and show "the making of" "Chemical Wedding" to all of the attendees.
Can't make it 
lashtal - May 20, 2008 - 06:57 PM
Post subject:
The soundtrack album tracklisting has been announced:
Bruce Dickinson Chemical Wedding OST CD
Overview
Chemical Wedding is a feature film written by Iron Maiden front-man, Bruce Dickinson and long term Monty Python editor, Julian Doyle, who also directed the film. The film is a gothic sci-fi extravaganza set in Trinity College Cambridge, where a scientific experiment goes awry resulting in the resurrection of the infamous Edwardian Occultist Aleister Crowley, who was immortalised into pop culture by the likes of The Beatles, Jimmy Page and Ozzy Osborne.
Tracklisting
1. CHEMICAL WEDDING - BRUCE DICKINSON
2. MEET THE WICKEDEST MAN IN THE WORLD - GEOFF BRETON & SEAN REA
3. HUSH, HUSH, HUSH, HERE COMES THE BOGEY MAN (REMASTERED) - HENRY HALL
4. YOUNG SYMONDS & YOUNG ALEX MEET CROWLEY - GEOFF BRETON, SEAN REA & JOHN SHRAPNEL
5. 50 YEARS I KEPT HIS WATCH - PAUL MCDOWELL
6. THE SUIT REVEALED (Score)
7. THE EVIL THAT MEN DO LIVES ON - THOMAS NELSTROP
8. MATHERS’ DREAM (Score)
9. SEXUAL MAGIC - SIMON CALLOW & JUD CHARLTON
10. AN ENCOUNTER WITH HIM - SIMON CALLOW & JUD CHARLTON
11. LIA MEETS MATHERS (Score)
12. SYMONDS INTRODUCES DR OLIVER HADDO - PAUL MCDOWELL
13. MESSIAH : PART 2 "HALLELUJAH" - HANDEL
14. HADDO'S LECTURE (Dialogue) - SIMON CALLOW
15. SYMPHONY NO.40 IN G MINOR K550 : I MOLTO ALLEGRO - MOZART
16. HADDO'S EXPLANATION - SIMON CALLOW, RICHARD FRANKLIN & ROBERT ASHBY
17. THOSE COCKLESS WINDERS - SIMON CALLOW & LUCY CUDDEN
18. WHO IS IT YOU THINK I AM - SIMON CALLOW & JUD CHARLTON
19. CAN I PLAY WITH MADNESS - IRON MAIDEN
20. PROFESSOR IN SUIT THE JOURNEY - KAL WEBBER, JUD CHARLTON, TERRENCE BAYLER & JAMIE LISA JACQUEMIN
21. EVERY MAN & WOMAN IS A STAR - SIMON CALLOW
22. FANLIGHT FANNY - GEORGE FORMBY
23. HADDO VISITS THE MYSTIC SHOP - SIMON CALLOW & LILLY DUMONT
24. THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE – JUD CHARLTON & LUCY CUDDEN
25. SIP THE WINE - THE CEREMONY – NATASHA FORD
26. SPARE SOME CHANGE – KARE SILVERSTEN
27. THE WICKER MAN - IRON MAIDEN
28. SEPERATION BY SKIN (Alchemical Mix) - EARTH LAB
29. SHE’S THINKING OF ME - SIMON CALLOW & JUD CHARLTON
30. PRODUCING A MOONCHILD – MIKE SHANNON & PAUL MCDOWELL
31. BEHOLD THE PLACE I HAVE LED YOU - SIMON CALLOW
32. HYPNOTIZING BRENT - PAUL MCDOWELL, TERRENCE BAYLER & KAL WEBER
33. THE CURIOUS CAT COMES WILLINGLY - SIMON CALLOW
34. HE WAS NEVER A CARPENTER - PAUL MCDOWELL & KAL WEBER
35. MATHERS ENTERS THE SUIT - PAUL MCDOWELL & KAL WEBER
36. TIME AFTER ALL IS ONLY RELATIVE - SIMON CALLOW
37. WHERE’S THE DOOR - KAL WEBER & JAMIE LISA JACQUEMIN
38. HOLY UNION (Dialogue & Score) - SIMON CALLOW
39. THE LAST FIGHT (Score)
40. PRÉLUDE À L'APRÈS-MIDI D'UN FAUNE - DEBUSSY
41. FELT OUT OF PLACE (Dialogue) - MIKE SHANNON & PAUL MCDOWELL
42. MAN OF SORROWS - BRUCE DICKINSON
N.O.X - May 22, 2008 - 12:34 AM
Post subject:
I would appreciate it if someone could tell me when this is going to be released in the U.S and I also would like to know if it is going to be a limited release or not. I hope it will be playing nationwide. I think that I could possibly meet another Thelemite at the movie. Hopefully it won't be too long before its released on DVD.
ParrachF - May 22, 2008 - 04:12 PM
Post subject:
I finished reading the tie-in book and, I have to say, I'm impressed! I'll try to keep this review spoiler-free but for the last paragraph, so don't say you weren't warned.
I decided to read the book now mainly for two reasons: i) I really enjoyed the movie and wanted to relive some of it's best moments; ii) I would like to see if they developed some of the esoteric themes that were just mentioned in the movie, especially the ritual of the Chemical Wedding (see my movie review).
The writing style is soft and straightforward. It almost reads like a straight novelization of a movie script, descriptions are kept to a minimum (unlike most movie novelizations), the dialogues are all there (with a few slight changes) and the action is narrated exactly as in the movie.
Yet there are some good reasons for someone who saw the movie to read the book as well. First is what I call the Umberto Eco's style, named after his "Foucault's Pendulum". Although not trying to imitate Eco, the authors of "Chemical Wedding" either via a description, a pause in the narrative or by extending some of the movie scenes delve into everything, and I mean everything! From the identity of Jesus' father to the science behind light reception in the eye till the information reaches the brain, passing through the mandatory (in these days) Templar Knights and, of course, most of quantum physics. Of course they don't delve too deep into it (you don't get the feeling that the authors have a PhD in... well, everything like you get when you read Eco) but deep enough to entertain and yet generate curiosity in the reader who is not familiar with such concepts.
From this point of view it can be said the book's trying to be a "DaVinci Code" style book to get these esoteric concepts to the average reader but there are shortcomings to this. First, it's a self published book, so I believe (but I might be mistaken) it will not generate the amount of publicity necessary for such and endeavour. Second, there are lots of typos, some of them repeated more than once, like Megathurion for Mega Therion and Uncertainty Principal instead of Principle. For the interested reader these are not shortcomings at all, but for the average one they might be...
Secondly, for those who watched the movie, the book has some extra scenes and extra information about the characters, most importantly what goes in Lia's mind. In fact there's this whole subplot about her dead father that is developed here. Other things are interesting to know, like what happened to the purpled suit guy after his "encounter" with Haddo (and also what really happened in this encounter, but that's implicit in the movie).
One thing that is worth mentioning is that Haddo is always Haddo, and this helps the reader to keep in mind what Callow mentioned 3 or 4 times before and after the Premiere in London, that he is not playing Crowley but someone who believes to be possessed by Crowley. In fact there's a discussion about Shakespeare's Richard III and why he had to be a villain that mimicks Haddo's feelings.
The science, well... Me being a theoretical physicist and all... It's not that bad, mostly because it deals more with Quantum Physics, which is in fact quite... esoteric. It actually got me thinking...
Dr. Mathers is unrealistic though, he's the typical movie scientist who knows everything about all the natural sciences. What's a Chaos physicist doing researching a Cyber-suit and that happens to know all the intricacies of Quantum Physics and some Cosmology. Well, some super genius, maybe worthy of a Moonchild
Lastly, what I really wanted to know, the Chemical Wedding itself. I'm still confused about it. It apparently is the "oldest and most powerful ritual" and it was done only 4 times (2 of them named in the book). But then it is said that it is the ritual that Crowley used in all of his incarnations(4 are named, and none is one of the others), and the one he needs to do now to "fix" himself in this timeline.
To finish after reading this, even though it stills lack in magickal content, I now will enjoy the movie even more.
So, is anyone going to Atlantis tomorrow evening? I intend to go, maybe even ask Julian to elaborate on this last issue and maybe try go get a signed copy of the book (at the premiere I had them sign a copy of Crowley's Book of Lies instead ) and meet the lovely Lucy as well
I'm up for a pint later to meet some other Thelemites as well
lashtal - May 22, 2008 - 05:43 PM
Post subject:
Thanks for that review... Much appreciated.
lashtal - May 22, 2008 - 05:59 PM
Post subject:
http://blip.tv/file/926812
lashtal - May 22, 2008 - 06:27 PM
Post subject:
"Absolutely ridiculous but mildly enjoyable supernatural thriller."
http://www.list.co.uk/article/8533-also-released-film/
lashtal - May 25, 2008 - 12:58 AM
Post subject:
A review in today's The Scotsman newspaper starts: "Aleister Crowley craved drunken oblivion and mindless sex. What a loss he will be to the new series of Big Brother when it cranks up next month."
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/ ... 4117014.jp
lashtal - May 25, 2008 - 02:30 PM
Post subject:
One of the UK's most popular newspaper, the Sunday Mirror (read by millions) seems to "get the point" of the movie:
"It is a bizarre blend of comedy, thriller and horror with various sexual shenanigans, and features a deliciously over-the-top performance by Callow as lecturer Dr Haddo. Boy does he enjoy himself.
The production values may well be low budget, but essentially the film is a strange cross-genre gothic romp through occult madness. A bit of a mess - but Callow is great fun to watch.
FINAL CUT
A rockin' occult romp. **"
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sund ... -20428817/
lashtal - May 27, 2008 - 04:20 PM
Post subject:
Time Out's review:
Simon Callow’s always a good bet for a humourous slice of thespian camp and that’s often the case with this paean of sorts to the late, influential occultist-cum-writer, Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a bit of a devilish weirdo but, woah, this is one strange brew.
http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/855 ... dding.html
lashtal - May 27, 2008 - 04:23 PM
Post subject:
And Crowley finally makes it to OK! magazine:
This is one bonkers movie, but it’s quite entertaining if you’re into paranormal horrors. Simon Callow is gloriously over the top as the hedonistic occultist.
http://www.ok-magazine.co.uk/movies/vie ... l-Wedding/
lashtal - May 28, 2008 - 01:01 PM
Post subject:
A long review from UK TV's Channel 4 concludes:
Let's call it what it is: a vanity project, one naturally slathered with Iron Maiden hits, unsubtly crowbarred into the action. "Your time will come!" says a prophet of doom at one point, immediately followed by 'Maiden's 'Wicker Man' lyric: "Your time will come, your time will come!" If Jimmy Page managed to alchemise his Crowley fixation into gold, lesser rockers, it seems, can produce only handfuls of tin.
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=166568
lashtal - May 28, 2008 - 04:37 PM
Post subject:
http://www.scifilondontv.com/audio/real ... edding.mp3
Well worth a listen...
lashtal - May 29, 2008 - 08:45 PM
Post subject:
This from the people behind the movie:
On general release tomorrow!
Come and see Chemical Wedding this weekend!
The film finally opens in the UK only on 30th May in the following cinemas:
Apollo West End (lower Regent St) 0871 220 6000
Showcase Cinemas:
Newham
Reading
Peterborough
Birmingham
Derby
Dudley
Coventry
Nottingham
Walsall
Bristol
Cardiff
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
Teeside
Glasgow East
Paisley
For further information check out the Showcase cinemas website http://www.showcasecinemas.co.uk or call to book tickets on 0871 220 1000
sethur666 - May 30, 2008 - 09:02 AM
Post subject:
The Metro, a free morning newspaper distributed in most British cities, has given it one star. I don't think they do zero stars.
lashtal - May 30, 2008 - 10:54 AM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › The Metro, a free morning newspaper distributed in most British cities, has given it one star. I don't think they do zero stars.
sethur666 - May 30, 2008 - 11:37 AM
Post subject:
Mind you, they describe Crowley and a 1930s drug and sex crazed Satanist. I don't get it, why do so many people outside Thelema associate Crowley so much with the 1930s, in many ways his least fertile decade? (prepares for accounts of Crowley's achievements in the 1930s).
Is it because it was in this period he became more and more dependent on collusion with the press (allegedly)?
sethur666 - May 30, 2008 - 01:27 PM
Post subject:
The Guardian, one star. Crowley? Devil worshipper, Satanist. Ho hum.
Steve W
lashtal - May 30, 2008 - 02:03 PM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › The Guardian, one star. Crowley? Devil worshipper, Satanist.
Indeed: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic ... 41,00.html
There's also: "Notorious occultist" (The Mirror): http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/enterta ... -20588019/
"Notorious occult guru" (The Sun): http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sh ... 224083.ece
"A relatively harmless old bore with a sleazy interest in deviant sex and an unpleasant tendency to relieve himself on the carpet and, occasionally, other people" (Daily Mail): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/re ... assic.html
"Notorious occultist" (Channel 4): http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=166568
"The Great Beast of occult obsessives" (The Scotsman): http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/ ... 4117014.jp
"Influential occultist-cum-writer" (Time Out): http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/855 ... dding.html
"Sleazy Victorian-age dabbler in the dark arts" (Sunday Mirror): http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sund ... -20428817/
"Infamous Edwardian occultist" (MovieScope): http://www.moviescopemag.com/index.php? ... ;Itemid=53
"Infamous mystic and occult scholar" (The List): http://www.list.co.uk/article/8533-also-released-film/
... and so on.
ianrons - May 30, 2008 - 02:49 PM
Post subject:
I think what's coming through here is that journalists are now expected to have read at least one biography, since they now feel able to give a small amount of detail in order to label him "passé" (but AC still isn't so widely read that he can be regarded as serious in any way).
Previously (before last year, I suppose), hacks were expected merely to rely on recycled media reports. At least this is my impression.
I suspect the "boring", "passé" interpretation will now persist, since it saves the denizens of the Street of Shame from the embarrassment of being seen reading such an unfashionable author first-hand, but they will still be able to show off at dinner parties by regaling their fellow troughers with tales of AC's high jinks. Move over Gauss -- this is the Law of Least Journalistic Effort.
BlueKephra - May 30, 2008 - 02:57 PM
Post subject:
20 seconds ago on Radio Five live, "a terrible film" "listen to some Iron Maiden instead"
sethur666 - May 30, 2008 - 03:06 PM
Post subject:
So Crowley was a Victorian Edwardian magician of the 1930s. That's what I call magic! But how sad it is when one of the least arguable descriptions - "Notorious occult guru" - is from the Sun.
Steve W
lashtal - May 30, 2008 - 03:24 PM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › But how sad it is when one of the least arguable descriptions - "Notorious occult guru" - is from the Sun.
All the epithets I quoted are at least moderately accurate in some sense. That's the puzzle and fascination of the man.
lashtal - Jun 01, 2008 - 01:20 AM
Post subject:
<i>From <b>The Observer</b>...</i>
Stylistically, it resembles a demented version of those Hammer Studios occult horror flicks based on black magic novels by Dennis Wheatley, a writer much influenced, in his fiction at least, by Crowley's personality and works. There are references to Einstein, L Ron Hubbard, Stephen Hawking, black holes, alchemy, quantum physics, along with much copulation, masturbation, urination, decapitation and mortification.
It's unintentionally funny and indifferently acted, except by Simon Callow, who gives a barnstorming performance that seems to be an attempt to rival Donald Wolfit and Henry Irving in The Bells. But it's never boring.
nemo418 - Jun 01, 2008 - 01:59 AM
Post subject:
Only 5 people were in the cinema including me and aisha. Probably not going to be a blockbuster, really funny and enjoyable! I reckon it will become a 'cult classic' like the devil rides out (similar ending), or the wicker man.
lashtal - Jun 01, 2008 - 02:03 AM
Post subject:
For no reason whatsoever, I find myself gratified that you enjoyed the movie.
I agree with your "cult classic" remark...
sethur666 - Jun 01, 2008 - 09:57 AM
Post subject:
Of course, Plan 9 from Outer Space is a cult classic too. Becoming one isn't necessarily good.
lashtal - Jun 01, 2008 - 11:40 AM
Post subject:
Dr Dave Evans has published a review of the film on Plutonica from the perspective of an "occult historian": "I’ve written two books about AC and presented academic papers about him, so I reckon I know a little…"
He doesn't like it.
http://plutonica.net/2008/05/31/film-re ... -spoilers/
Camlion - Jun 01, 2008 - 08:20 PM
Post subject:
Well, if it simply opens the door for future cinematic efforts, I suppose that is something. I'm sure that I will buy the DVD, watch it, and stick it on the shelf with the stuff recorded from television.
-Camlion
sonofthestar@Gmail.com - Jun 01, 2008 - 09:10 PM
Post subject:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I can see how an Historian on Crowley and Magick might be a tad upset, --if they go see the picture for any other reasons than being simply entertained. Better that they give the film a bad review because they regard AC higly, than giving the thumbs down just because they hate AC and anything having to do with the Occult, Thelema , or his name.
When I enter the theater, or see a DVD or video, I do not commence my viewing--- as any kind of expert, critic, or nit picker,--but only to enjoy the movie.
I was not upset at all when early monster movies referred to the creature itself as "Frankenstein" and not "The Monster". It did not trouble me at all, that Erik the Phantom was "born" looking like he did in the novel itself, but in most of the films based on that book he is that way as a result of having acid thrown in his face etc.
If someone makes a movie about WWII and cannot find the correct kind of Sherman tank used in the African Theatre of operations--and has to make do with the version that came out towards the very end of the war using an entirely different kind of suspension system, I am not going to make a big too-do over it; --not even if the Officer in command says "bring up the Shermans" and a company of Pershings roll out!
I will even overlook the abundance of errors found in most Occult thrillers!
Is one going to be so upset by what one sees as to let it interfere with the purpose of just having fun? Must a movie absolutely agree with what we know or think we know concerning the subject matter? In a serious documentary, yes----but a serious documentary is a far different thing than something that is supposed to simply entertain and amuse.
Even a movie that has as it's purpose the outright vilification of something we cherish can be enjoyable and funny if looked at from an Illuminated perspective!
Notice also how in The United States, and possibly elseware-- there seems to be a tendency to glorify criminals in film, when in reality they are most often on the whole no more than selfish thugs; how less than wholesome figures from popular myth are celebrated in films as though they were real -- in any tense--past or present.
It is no surprise then, that a true Hero and champion for human freedom so misunderstood as AC ----is, was, and will be portrayed by the popular press and film as someone bad. This is the Irony of Life! We must live with it.
It is my will only to be entertained when watching moving picture shows of any kind, and it will be the same for this one---no matter how much I might or might not know about AC and Thelema.
People have to recollect that many movies are usually unique "adaptations" of books, or whatever else they are based on, and even if those things they were derived from really happened a lot of truth can be lost in the translation.
From what has been written, someone could make a Crowley movie that is very accurate concerning AC, and Thelema---yet even then, it would only be a glimpse of the way things really were and are. As far as movies go, it is possible that an accurate and non upsetting version of things might oddly miss the essential suchness of "how it really was"---whereas a totally flawed and upsetting take on things might actually capture the "real flavor" of a subject or an era..
Perhaps the big story here, is that the movie stands as a testament to a man called Dickinson manifesting his will-- in spite of the obstacles presented to him. It seems from what I've gathered, that even with a lot of money, he still had much trouble trying to see this particular manifestation of his will come to life as a tangible reality..
So, if any of you are or will be upset by this Crowley "character" in the movie and would seek to do The Prophet of the New Aeon justice on film, get to it! Now is the time to write your screen play!
Strike whilst the iron's hot!
I have not seen the movie yet; when I eventually do, my review will most likely consist of a one word either way! If it does not fail to amuse and entertain me I will give it a Yes: if it does not meet these criteria I will give it a No. What I saw on the trailer met the criteria I fancy in a movie--amusement and entertainment value. I think Dickinson set out to make an entertaining movie and I think he most likely succeeded.
If AC is who he said he was---this movie or any other movie cannot hurt him or Thelema.
All in all, the move is a good thing for those who can forget about who or what they are, and just enjoy a movie for what it is!
Love is the law, love under will.
nemo418 - Jun 02, 2008 - 03:38 AM
Post subject: plan 9
I like plan 9 from outerspace as well, Boris, bald headed bloke, goth type woman. Beware phlogiston abuse!
Equinoxstudios - Jun 03, 2008 - 04:35 PM
Post subject:
The MySpace page of Lon Milo DuQuette has a review by a chap called Tom. He didn't like it.
Only four people in the Apollo West End Cinema on its opening night
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=67520602
lashtal - Jun 03, 2008 - 05:42 PM
Post subject:
Ivor,
I'm beginning to wonder if your dislike of the movie is masking something perhaps a little more personal? You appeared to be involved in the early promotion of the movie - pre-release - but since then you've published your "review" in a number of places almost as if you're on some sort of crusade. I note you've also placed the trailer on YouTube, perhaps as some sort of honey trap.
You're certainly not alone in disliking the movie but I do think it would be appropriate for you to declare any personal interest. It is, after all, only a piece of humorous froth and your obsession with it is beginning to look a little odd. Did "Equinox Studios", I wonder, have some sort of commercial interest? Of course, there's no reason why you shouldn't express your own opinions far and wide: I'd just prefer it if you didn't use LAShTAL.COM to promote any personal issues you might have with the film makers...
achad - Jun 03, 2008 - 07:52 PM
Post subject: clarification- or addition
Paul is being a little selective in just quoting me as a historian and from that perspective only
indeed, i am one, and i hated the film as a historian - if you cast your mind back to Mel Gibson's Braveheart you might recall a stomper of a film, but it is historically miles out, and the manifold errors and wildly untruthful plot devices infuriate historians of that period. This film is not a stomper, it is just very poor, IMO. One of the things i am trying to do as a historian of occult matters is to get a better, more accurate and more sensible academic view of AC out there, and defuse some of the tabloid nonsense that prevails. This film will put that hope back by a decade... "how many times did Crowley use to crucify prostitutes and why did he shave their fannies?" is an example of a question i'm now expecting to meet regularly from academics in other areas of study who know little about the man but who are perhaps more likely to see this nonsense of a film than read a sensible book about him)
i hated the film as an occultist
i hated the film as a mere film-goer, it makes a lot of the tosh that followed Hammer Horror look professional, and i begrudge Mr Dickinson the 7 quid it cost to get in to see it
i hated the film as a vehicle for Bruce Dickinson to self-promote: i do honestly suspect some of the motives that i speculate on in my review on plutonica.net, and i further suspect that AC, had he met Bruce, would be withering
dave e
lashtal - Jun 03, 2008 - 08:15 PM
Post subject: Re: clarification- or addition
As you know from our previous correspondence, I have the greatest respect for your work.
achad wrote: › One of the things i am trying to do as a historian of occult matters is to get a better, more accurate and more sensible academic view of AC out there, and defuse some of the tabloid nonsense that prevails.
We share the same objectives.
Quote: › This film will put that hope back by a decade...
On this we are at variance: the movie is harmless because it is so obviously a confection. It'll do no more harm to Crowley's legacy than "Carry On Cleo" did to the pursuit of Egyptology. If it was more accurate then I might have been concerned, but it's so obviously in the tradition of English farce and so anachronistic in its details that only occultists and historians will ever take it even remotely seriously.
Quote: › "how many times did Crowley use to crucify prostitutes and why did he shave their fannies?" is an example of a question i'm now expecting to meet regularly from academics in other areas of study
Then I'm not sure they're worth being dignified by a reply.
Look, the serious work is being done in books like the rather wonderful "Secret Agent 666" by Richard Spence. It's to research like this that we need to look, not a harmless piece of whimsy like "Chemical Wedding".
Quote: › i further suspect that AC, had he met Bruce, would be withering
Really?
Anyway, I stand by my review, which acknowledged the movie's many faults, and which I know for a fact has resulted in the arrival of many at this site in search of more information about the real Crowley. I suspect that AC would have been really rather pleased.
achad - Jun 03, 2008 - 08:31 PM
Post subject:
thanks Paul
one of the problems of cultural reception is that cinema and visual media have a dominance... while good numbers of people read books, a LOT of people watch TV and go to the flicks - i point out in my research that the definitions and perceptions of the Left-Hand Path in common consciousness (if they are there at all) come not from writings by Crowley or Kenneth Grant or even Mme Blavatsky, but from nonsense in Indiana Jones and Dennis Wheatley films, and this Chem Wedding film is going to be taken in and perhaps taken as gospel by far more people than would ever read me, the mighty Ron Hutton or the new secret agent book (which looks fabulous by the way).... including a lot of folk who may have not known much if anything about AC before... it is in much the same way that Braveheart annoys Scots historians, or Jurassic Park irritates the crap out of paleontologists...
if i had the time and a silly amount of money i'd bankroll an anti Spinal Tap-esque film about Iron Maiden tours that had them drinking nothing but chamomile tea, growing orchids and founding the museum of needlepoint in Bishop's Stortford, in order to donate their own efforts, which had been painstakingly embroidered in those long evenings after gigs on a world tour, when there was nothing else to do... and see how Bruce liked it
Yes, as an aside, i think apart from all else, AC would have hated Bruce D's books, the Iffy Boatrace material : )
lashtal - Jun 03, 2008 - 08:40 PM
Post subject:
achad wrote: › i think apart from all else, AC would have hated Bruce D's books, the Iffy Boatrace material : )
That's something on which we agree!
MichaelStaley - Jun 03, 2008 - 10:19 PM
Post subject:
Dave,
In my opinion you are taking this way too seriously. It IS only a fictional film, not a documentary. It's like complaining that 2001: A Space Odyssey gave a distorted view of space travel, or that gunfighters in the Wild West were not really like the Man With No name in A Fistful of Dollars, or that Bladerunner gave androids a bad press. It was created as entertainment, and is taken as such.
There are some fictional films which are regarded as bordering on the factual, but I doubt if this film is one of those, just as Herbert West: Reanimator was not confused with advances in cryogenics.
Best wishes,
Michael.
bubbafett4hire - Jun 04, 2008 - 02:53 AM
Post subject:
I have not yet seen the movie as i live in America and probably won't get to see it until someone loads it on a torrent file or i order it when it come out to DVD, but from what i have read from the pre release information and reviews here on this site and from the movie page its self as i am a huge fan of Iron Maiden and Bruce Dickerson. i can tell that this movie is not going to be historically incorrect in a lot of ways, but that Simon Collow does capture the spirit of Crowley with his use of tone and mannerisms one person who had seen the movie had wrote. But to my point in the tradition of Iron Maiden and if you have ever been to one of there concerts there all about showmanship you can't blame Bruce for making more of it then what need to be, after all isn't true to a point that if we took 200 random people and said who was Lee Harvey Oswald and what did he do about 150 would tell us if we asked the same 200 people who was Crowley and what did he do about 100 would say Crowley who? 75 would say the Ozzy Song? 20 would say oh he was that guy who practiced black magic and satanism (thanks to bad press) and the other 5 would probably be members of this board and try to set them right, so in short to have this film make inaccurate account of Crowley should be expected after all the majority wants fantasy when sells so much better and that all its about with almost any movie is making a buck off of it, but theres always that person or persons who go "WOW i wonder if all this is true" then they spend the next few days on Google looking up about Crowley and learn the truth for them selfs while the others go unenlightened and oblivious to the truth
sethur666 - Jun 04, 2008 - 09:10 AM
Post subject:
Hmm, you reckon 5 out of every 200 people is a member of Lashtal? I think the real point is that public perceptions are more affected by mass culture than academic work, and this film sets things back considerably from the point where Crowley was described as an English philosopher on (I think) Criminal Minds, or got into the top 100 most influential Britons of all times poll.
However, it doesn't seem as if that many people are going to see it. I doubt that Crowley's reputation will change very much, any more than Lovecraft's was changed by a scene in an obscure Australian film called Outback Vampires:
Newly arisen vampire to bloke who has unwittingly awoken her:
"Are you an ascended master, an acolyte of the Great Old Ones, a magus armed with all the power of the pantheon of mighty Yog-Sothoth himself? Or are you just some kind of jerk?"
bubbafett4hire - Jun 04, 2008 - 02:06 PM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › Hmm, you reckon 5 out of every 200 people is a member of Lashtal? "
Ok maybe not five out of 200 but you can always hope
lashtal - Jun 04, 2008 - 06:39 PM
Post subject:
According to DreadCentral.com...
Chemical Wedding in NYC!
Attention East Coasters! The Two Boots Pioneer Theater, located at 155 East 3rd St and Avenue A in New York City, has just announced a badass screening of Julian Doyle’s Chemical Wedding, with a very special guest in attendance!
The film will unspool on Sunday, June 15th at 11:59PM and co-writer/Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson will be there to introduce it! There’s not many chance you get to hang out in a room with Bruce Dickinson without being violently escorted away by bodyguards, so if you’re anywhere nearby you should take the chance while you have it!
In case you had forgotten, Chemical Wedding tells of a mild-mannered Oxford professor who becomes the reincarnation of famed Satanist Aleister Crowley after a virtual reality experiment goes very, very wrong. The film recently premiered in the UK and has been getting a great response so far, so there’s another reason not to miss it!
http://www.dreadcentral.com/story/chemical-wedding-nyc
Not too sure about the "getting a great response" part (!) but I know a lot of US members will be interested in this news.
Camlion - Jun 04, 2008 - 06:51 PM
Post subject:
93,
Interesting recent posts to this thread. I think that this sort of sensationalist notoriety was part of the fabric of the parachute whereby Crowley's legacy survived the dark couple of decades between his death and revival, not to mention his artful use of it during his lifetime. It is still a very effective publicity tool today, and I'm sure that it will catch the attention of some people new to the subject and eventually draw some of these toward a more balanced familiarity with it. I'm also sure that if Paris Hilton had been persuaded to hump Simon Callow in a couple of scenes, this effect would have been greatly enhanced.
As for the negative impact of the film, if I were being true to my usual form, I might be wondering if the message of Thelema need be totally neglected in the film or, even worse, if it need be contradicted. Fortunately, it has not escaped me that the bait often stinks, but such bait lures certain varieties of fish irresistibly to the hook.
93 93/93
Camlion
Camlion - Jun 04, 2008 - 08:15 PM
Post subject:
lashtal wrote: › According to DreadCentral.com...
Chemical Wedding in NYC!
Attention East Coasters! The Two Boots Pioneer Theater, located at 155 East 3rd St and Avenue A in New York City, has just announced a badass screening of Julian Doyle’s Chemical Wedding, with a very special guest in attendance!
The film will unspool on Sunday, June 15th at 11:59PM and co-writer/Iron Maiden frontman Bruce Dickinson will be there to introduce it!
Thanks, Paul. This brings the possibility of a wide-screen viewing of the damn thing in LA, as some theaters here still do the midnight showing thing, usually with the 'cult classics.' -Camlion
lashtal - Jun 20, 2008 - 03:59 PM
Post subject:
Pre-orders are now being taken for the DVD, which will be released on 8th September in the UK.
Extras include: a commentary with Bruce Dickinson and Julian Doyle, a "Making Of" documentary, outtakes, deleted scenes and "more".
Link to buy: http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5438754/ ... edding+DVD
According to the Play.com site, "Play.com exclusive bonus soundtrack (pre-order only)".
DrJackShelton - Jul 02, 2008 - 06:43 AM
Post subject:
sethur666 wrote: › I think the real point is that public perceptions are more affected by mass culture than academic work, and this film sets things back considerably from the point where Crowley was described as an English philosopher on (I think) Criminal Minds, or got into the top 100 most influential Britons of all times poll.
I completely agree. I think people will take Crowley less seriously once he's been shown off as the boogeyman of a metal musician's passion piece.
I haven't personally seen this film but from the way it's being described and peoples' reactions, I really think the portrayal of Crowley sounds one-dimensional and a bit like a cartoon character. He's not just some important figure we all know and love... he was a person, and I imagine one of the most complex figures of the last century. Boring one-dimensional cartoon characters don't sit down and write The Book of Lies, after all.
I really hope someone makes a big-budget serious film about Crowley that showcases all the different sides to him that make him so complex. I can't be the only one here that thinks that he was more than just the 1920's rockstar. The man was funny, egotistical, encyclopedic, willful, self-doubting, self-loving, confused, grandiose, brilliant, fickle in every way... or at least that's what I can tell from the time I've spent gathering many perspectives on him. ...I feel as though, for someone to have so many bizarre and contradictory descriptions, they must be a lot more interesting than a cereal-box mascot.
Of course, I am not a huge expert on Crowley, and I am certainly new to his work... (a bit over a year) and I am yet to see this film, I repeat, but I think I'm starting to understand the man a bit better, and I think he deserves a more accurate portrayal in a full 3-1/2 hour epic film without any horror movie nonsense, and a big-shot Hollywood director.
What say you, comrades?
lashtal - Jul 02, 2008 - 02:04 PM
Post subject:
Since you ask, I agree with many of the points you make: Crowley's life will inevitably one day be the subject of a serious movie, supported by an accurate script and substantial budget and I am aware of moves afoot in that direction.
But "Chemical Wedding" isn't that movie: it's a comedy romp in the tradition of a number of British movies. Some will like it, some will hate it - most won't be especially bothered either way. All will leave the cinema - or DVD player - having heard of Crowley's name. This is likely to be a good thing, in the same way that works like the Symonds and Mannix biographies brought the man to a larger audience which included many that subsequently became serious students.
DrJackShelton wrote: › I completely agree. I think people will take Crowley less seriously... I haven't personally seen this film but...
Your opinion will, of course, be even more interesting when you've actually seen the thing.
DrJackShelton wrote: › I am not a huge expert on Crowley, and I am certainly new to his work... (a bit over a year)
I'm no expert, either, and I've been studying his work daily for the past thirty-four years.
DrJackShelton - Jul 02, 2008 - 06:19 PM
Post subject:
Well, I shall try to point my eyes and ears in its direction then!
zardoz - Jul 02, 2008 - 07:24 PM
Post subject:
DrJackShelton wrote: ›
What say you, comrades?
I say any publicity is good publicity. If someone is scared off of Crowley by this obviously fictional film, it's probably for the best.
BlueKephra - Jul 28, 2008 - 02:45 PM
Post subject:
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5438754/ ... oduct.html