User reviews

"Lot in Sodom" is a sensual depiction of the Sodom and Gomorrah story filled with sinewy and semi-clad bodies, delirious bacchanales devoted to physical pleasure, and a searing, cataclysmic visage depicting the fall of a city devoted to sins of the flesh.

Director James Sibley Watson was an heir to the Western Union telegraph fortune created by his grandfathers, Don Alonzo Watson and Hiram Sibley. He was many things throughout his life, including a medical doctor, but at this point in his life he was an experimenter in film.

This movie uses experimental techniques, avant-garde imagery and strong allusions to sexuality, especially homosexuality. While some of it is truly "avant-garde" and hard to decipher, much of it is very traditional. lot, in particular, looks exactly how you would expect a biblical figure to look.

I could hardly spoil this, since everyone knows the story.

This film looks, as one writer here noted, as if it were made in Germany about 1920. The directors seem to have used all the special effects they knew, like neophytes. It is more ballet than conventional movie, using music, singing, voice-over and text (though some is in Latin) to augment the action.

I seem to recall that this group made their few films in Rochester, so perhaps they were connected with Kodak. Sorry I can't give a citation for that.

On the whole, the film is interesting as an historical glimpse into early independent work. A good film for stoners.

Having first seen the directors' 12min take on Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, I was looking forward to seeing this one too and wasn't disappointed at all. Though perhaps not quite up to the same level of artistic attainment as 'Usher' it is nevertheless very much in the same vein.

Like the 'Usher', the viewer should be familiar beforehand with the story on which it is based. In 1928, the directors, Watson and Webber, could have safely assumed the audience's knowledge of the biblical tale. (Interestingly, apart from the actual Genesis account, a phrase from the Song of Songs is also used when Lot is offering his daughters to the mob outside, desperately trying to convince them of the attractions of 'woman'). To complain that the film does not present the plot more overtly is beside the point, and almost a declaration of ignorance.

The basics of this tale (for those that know them) survive intact its retelling through the particularly distinctively visual, sometimes abstract or symbolic approach of Webber and Watson, and its protagonists are all clearly identifiable and well portrayed by the actors.

On the whole, a more accessible film than the 'Usher' film from the same directors. It bears, even demands, repeated watching. My only wish is that Webber and Watson had made more than just these two films together.

This surreal short film is based on the text from the bible concerning the fall of sodom and gomorrah.

But the film does not tell this story in traditional manner, instead opting for a more esoteric, surreal tone and style.

There are graphic depictions of sexual behaviour, homosexuality, that must have been very controversial at the time when this film was made. And I suppose, still is in certain countries.

There are some strikingly beautiful visuals in this shortfilm and the use of experimenting film techniques makes it film way ahead of its time.

Should be seen by anyone interested in early avantgarde cinema.

Okay, I'll admit that it is the ONLY gay Avant Garde Biblical film I have ever seen,...but by default it is definitely the best. It's a pretty strange little film, though compared to the rest of the short films from the Kino Video Avant Garde collection, it's pretty "normal" and approachable for the average viewer. However, I am really not sure exactly who the audience is for this strange art film. After all, gay audiences probably won't enjoy all the religious content and Bible verses--especially when the people of Sodom are damned. And, due to the homo-erotic imagery, most deeply religious people will be at least super-duper hesitant to watch the film! So, unless you really want something very different and pretty oddly creative, this film probably won't be one that will change your life or get to to watch it more than once. I gotta say, though, that the inventive camera-work is pretty cool and the film is in many ways like a piece of Pop Art.

If you ARE looking for an "artsy" film but find this type of film I described sounds too unusual or esoteric, maybe you should try the films of the great French artist/director Jean Cocteau. Other than his BLOOD OF A POET, his other films combine artistry and Avant Garde imagery with well-constructed plots and familiar movie elements. My favorites of his films are Orphée (Orpheus) and La Belle et la bête (Beauty and the Beast).

A highly stylized spin on the Biblical story of Lot--and I mean highly stylized, with a generous amount of avant garde tossed in. Lots of beautiful guys, but very sparse on gals. Supple and ethereal editing, yet put the entire thing together, and it doesn't make much sense at all. "Lot in Sodom" makes an Andy Warhol flick seem like a Doris Day feature. Unless you're wired radically different than most of us, I'd give this one a wide pass.

I saw Lot in Sodom at a film festival about eight years ago and was dazzled by its visuals. The film was shot in the early sound era and, like other films of that period by Dryer, Murnau, and others, the soundtrack is used for music, sound effects and occasional unintelligible words. This film is a must see for anyone interested in the virtuosic film work of the German and Soviet filmmakers of the late silent era as it is a rare example of similar work being done in America. The work's creators used the medium of film to its full potential rather than being content to use the camera to record visuals that could just as easily be seen on a stage.

I tried for years to get a copy of this film and wrote to companies to see if someone might release it on DVD. I am happy to now own a copy, review it repeatedly and share it with friends.

This is one of the longer films in Kino's 2-Disc "Avant-Garde" collection, also among the more notorious and, in retrospect, disagreeable. The title obviously refers to the Old Testament episode depicting the destruction of the immoral twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; it is very probable that this was made in the wake of the contemporaneous Cecil B. De Mille epics of Biblical lore but, in the long run, their hokey and unsubtle approach is vastly preferable to what is on offer here!

Its multiplicity of slowed-down images comes across as mere ostentation; otherwise, there is a concentrated striving for authenticity: Lot is recognizably a Jewish stereotype, the archaic intertitles direct quotes from Scriptures and, most importantly, the overt gay perspective corresponds to the 'historical' reason behind the obliteration (a rare instance of this, by the way, here surely at its first representation)… but which was clearly what the film-makers were interested in portraying to begin with, thus distorting the point of the entire narrative!

For the record, the directorial duo had previously been responsible for the lesser of the two rival 1928 film versions of THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER and the film under review unaccountably ranked among the year's Top 10 in the annual "National Board Of Review" selections!

This is a very strange film - so strange that if you don't know the story beforehand, it won't make any sence at all. It is filmed uniquely (lost of special camera effects), using minimal intertitles. The subject matter is racy, to say the least, and you get to see plenty of skin from beautiful people. is it a fantastic movie? not especially, but worth seeing.

I was pleasantly shocked when viewing this film for a class I'm taking.

All those beautiful images of bare-skinned men: you can't construct images like that without having a gay eye.

What we have here is the story of Lot: too much homosexuality and God will strike you down. But, in order to illustrate exactly what was/is so sinful, the filmmakers Watson and Webber, explicitly detail bare male bodies and the actions/emotions they inspire (from other bare male bodies).

At least one young man's glance directly into the camera is "cruising" glance.

And what beautiful men these Sodomites are! The actors were clearly carefully selected for their rippled bodies - and they seem to have no problem running around, chasing after each other. Clearly, there was some "camaraderie" among them. And, clearly, the filmmakers did not simply hold an open casting call and take whatever guys showed up. Those boys were "screened."

What really got me was the presumed "straight" men - Lot and a few others - are old and made-up (well, Lot is made-up) so as to appear very unattractive, unappealing.

What I took away from this film was a sense of "the world of gay men be 'sinful' but look how ugly the world of heterosexuals is." We must remember that this is "avant-garde" film: if it doesn't make sense to you, well then the filmmakers succeeded in their efforts. Pieces like this are meant more to evoke moods more than illustrate narratives. That said, "Lot in Sodom" is probably one of the few to maintain a recognizable narrative. (And that title - I could almost swear it's something of a joke - maybe "(A)Lot in Sodom"?)