White Worms, Devils and Women in Love

With the recent blu-ray release of his bizarre adaptation of Bram Stoker’s “Lair of the White Worm,” yet another of controversial Director Ken Russell’s films has the opportunity to reach a wider audience.

But it won’t.

WOMEN IN LOVE

Despite having directed nearly thirty films over four decades, Russell’s is not a household name. His most popular work, 1969’s Women in Love — an adaptation of a D.H. Lawrence novel — scores a 91% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but it is not widely shown. It may actually best be known for its somewhat homoerotic naked wrestling match between stars Oliver Reed and Alan Bates. In fact, the film is held in high regard for its performances. Russell even won the Academy Award for best director.

Yet, as a loose adaptation of Lawrence, Women in Love seems to settle on only one theme present in an otherwise complex novel: lust vs. love. Indeed, it is lust that drives much of the plot forward. And it is lust that is arguably at the center of many of Russell’s movies. Pagan, anarchic, deviant lust vs. safe, sanctioned, “normal” sex.

The Devils (1971)
The Devils (1971)

THE DEVILS

The Devils (76% fresh) is the most blatant (and controversial) of Russell’s films that depicts this dichotomy. An adaptation of yet another famous novelist’s work — this time, Aldous Huxley’s Devils of LoudonThe Devils has been censored (a full 14 minutes cut in some versions), denounced by the Church, and outright banned in several countries. The (semi) historical account of the rise to power and fall from grace of Urbain Grandier, a seventeenth-century Catholic priest executed for witchcraft, The Devils juxtaposes the love of Christ with lust for the flesh. And among the nuns of Loudon, the two get intertwined. Is it demonic possession at play? Or is the sexual deviancy the inevitable result of repression in the highly eroticized atmosphere of a religion that makes attractive the very transgressions it condemns.

LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM

Lair of the White Worm Blu-Ray
Lair of the White Worm Blu-Ray

These themes are less obvious in Lair of the White Worm (61% fresh), but — in an almost comic (and certainly campy) way — they’re still there. In Lair, a pagan artifact in the form of a worm-like skull literally lies beneath a convent (which lies beneath, of all things, a very proper bed and breakfast). Thus, the known, safe and inviting secular buries the otherworldly religious which in turn buries the deviant pagan. And what represents the pagan? The very villain of the Garden of Eden. The snake.

Though at times tough to follow (or swallow as it were), the plot can be summarized pretty easily: an archaeologist (played by a young Peter Capaldi, now known for his turn as Dr. Who) believes the ancient skull is connected to the “d’Amton Worm,” a creature of legend slain by the ancestor of the current Lord of the local manor (Hugh Grant). Soon, the mysterious Lady Sylvia Marsh (Amanda Donohoe) — a seductress known to give young, impressionable boys one-way rides in her car — steals the skull and kidnaps one of the poor innocent women who run the bed and breakfast.  Seems Lady Sylvia worships the worm, and she needs a sacrifice. It is eventually up to Capaldi and Grant to free the woman and prevent Lady Sylvia from offering her up to an ancient vampiric snake-god.

In a 1988 People Magazine review, Peter Travers called Lair a “hoot of a horror film,” and, indeed, the dialog is, at times, hilarious with the oft scantily clad Lady Sylvia a caricature of the femme fatale — slithering about like the snake she worships in a sexy, over-the-top performance. Grant and Capaldi seem to be enjoying themselves a little too much. And who could not laugh at the sound of bagpipes enticing a snake-like woman to rise from an oversized basket?



While the film shares little with the Bram Stoker story on which it is loosely based, it does carry Stoker’s fear of an overtly sexual female (think Harker and Dracula’s brides) and therein Russell finds his theme. For it is Marsh’s sexuality that terrifies the “normal” men and women of sleepy Derbyshire, and she must be destroyed before the, um, worm turns, as it were.

It’s not all humor. There’s a hallucinatory sequence where a worm constricts Christ on the cross as nuns are raped by Roman soldiers. But for those who can see past the shock (and bad special effects), the camp factor rises like a Lady Sylvia charmed. One can rest assured in a film of this kind that deviance is dispatched and the virginal (in none-too-subtle white underwear) is kept pure.

Transgression is almost always ultimately overcome in the films of Ken Russell. Nowhere is this more apparent that the oft overlooked Altered States (1980) (86% fresh) a film worthy of its own article. Suffice to say that the lead character goes to great lengths to know the mysteries of mankind’s origins (indeed, the universe itself) and only comes to his senses (literally and figuratively speaking) because of the love of his wife. Sanctioned, safe and “normal” love.

Much can be (and has been) made of Russell’s conversion to Roman Catholicism in the 1950s. There are those who have questioned how a Catholic could be responsible for a film like The Devils and even the seemingly anti-religious (or at least anti-establishment) adaptation of The Who’s Tommy (1975) — where, if we can pause for just one moment, one of most bizarre scenes in any of Russell’s films finds Ann Margret smothered in baked beans (77% fresh)Both films carry indictments of organized religion. And yet, upon closer inspection, the indictments are more of the corrupters of faith, not the faith itself. Sins of pride. Sins of desire. Sins of the flesh. Sins familiar to a Catholic who undoubtedly struggled with such issues — or at the very least, questioned them.

In this respect, though easily dismissed as campy horror trash, Lair of the White Worm deserves its place among Russell’s more well-known films. Lair too challenges norms and addresses transgression. It just does so with prosthetic cobra fangs and and thigh-high vinyl boots.

Lady Sylvia Marsh playing with her food
Lady Sylvia Marsh playing with her food

More (or Less) Human: Gynoids and Realdoll AI

Real Doll’s first “robotic head system”

Sex doll manufacturer Realdoll has recently announced that its silicone companions will soon have limited artificial intelligence. The company’s “first robotic head systems” (no pun intended, I’m sure) will roll out later this year, featuring eye and mouth movement that will simulate facial expression and deliver vocal responses that actually play off of — and learn from — its owner’s conversational cues.

Just as much of what we take for granted today on the internet — from streaming video to e-commerce — was pioneered by the porn industry, so too it would seem that advances in AI (and VR for that matter) will owe their development to humankind’s baser instincts. Predicted in many works of science fiction — such as Maria, the gynoid, in Fritz Lang’s silent masterpiece Metropolis (1927) [set in the not too distant future of 2026] or the “basic pleasure model” replicant Pris in Ridley Scott’s genre-defining Blade Runner (1982) [set in the even sooner future of 2019] — the android as sex slave has been the dream of many a horny lonely nerd. And the idea that machines could simulate human action? Centuries’ old.

The earliest documented attempts at creating an artificial human —referred to early on as “automaton” — dates to both Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon in the 13th century. But it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the term “android” found its way into the lexicon (the term appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature human-like toys), with “robot” oddly enough following it early in the twentieth century. Coined by playwright Josef Čapek in R.U.R. the word “robot” is derived from the old Slavic ‘rabota’, meaning “servitude” or the more modern “rabu” meaning “slave.”

Indeed, the robot or android as slave is a a theme in much science fiction. And what if society’s robotic slave labor could understand its condition? Awareness of the meaning of their existence as being nothing more than servitude would be an existential nightmare.  “Quite an experience to live in fear,” says replicant (android) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) in Blade Runner. “That’s what it is to be a slave.”

It’s a very real ethical dilemma for futurists.

In a 2013 essay for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, futurist and transhumanist Hank Pellissier reduces the roles of robots to three basic tasks: work, kill, sex. “Robot obeys. Robot does what human Master wants. Robot is Slave,” writes Pellissier, adding “we’ll want them gleaming gorgeously and functioning smoothly as they perform their functions for us – laboring, battling, copulating.”

Gorgeous and functioning, um, smoothly (pun definitely intended), is certainly the directive of the RealDoll. Having no will, it will simply bend to suit its master’s desires.

Of course, there’s always the fear that the slaves will turn on their masters. Physicist Stephen Hawking, for example, in an interview with Larry King, once said “artificial intelligence has the potential to evolve faster than the human race” adding that “once machines reach a critical stage of being able to evolve themselves we cannot predict whether their goals will be the same as ours.” Is it so outlandish to think that limited AI as being pioneered by McMullen could decades from now be seen as the first generation of androids that will, indeed, be able to pass for human and think freely? It is after all, only a sex doll.

RealDoll’s founder and CEO Matt McMullen makes no pretension to such lofty goals for his doll that will set you back $10,000. In an interview with vice.com, he says “We’re not trying to fool you into thinking, ‘Is this a real person?’ We’re trying to make the experience something you’ll enjoy.”

Enjoyment. Pleasure. Companionship. It may be simulacrum, but the RealDoll doesn’t judge. It doesn’t make demands. And like a doll, it can be put away and taken out only when its owner wants to play.

What this will do to social interaction and human behavior remains to be seen. Should the price drop and RealDoll becomes as ubiquitous as the mobile phones that suck our attention and keep us from making true human contact with the person right next to us at Starbucks, we may face a future where it is the human that becomes more and more like the cold machine. Distanced from other human beings and closer to the machines that fulfill our needs. Then the lines will really blur as the science fiction of our time predicts with shows like Westworld and Humans.

In a 1994 issue of Scientific American, Marvin Minsky, a cognitive scientist and co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory wrote “Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.” Two decades later, artists and engineers like McMullen have skipped that paradigm. Robots will not be our children. They will be our wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, lovers.

What’s the next step in Realldoll’s development? McMullen is calling the next stage “Realbotix” — an attempt to animate the whole doll so that it may more realistically respond to the physical stimulus that is its owner. One can only imagine the possibilities. And therein lies the rub (literally and figuratively speaking). For it is imagination that fuels the future.

How beauteous machinekind is! (Will it be a) depraved new world that has such beings in it?

Click here to watch a short interview with McMullen and a demonstration of the Realdoll AI courtesy of Fusion.