Exposé (1976)

So much average

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This movie has the triple distinction of being one of the 72 (though some sources state there were really 74!) infamous "Video Nasties" crackdown that took place in England during the first half of the 1980s, one of the 39 among them that were successfully prosecuted and subsequently suffered from a long-term ban, and also the only British film to actually make the list! Now that I have watched it for myself, I cannot say the picture does in fact deserve all the attention that comes with such notoriety but, considering the quality of the sheer majority of those "Video Nasties", this is definitely a step-up! Incidentally, EXPOSE' has a couple of other more appropriate monikers: TRAUMA and THE HOUSE ON STRAW HILL (which is the title borne by the copy I acquired), and I am pretty sure the latter was intentionally evoking both STRAW DOGS (1971) and LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972), two even more infamous films of the era; to be fair, it does owe something to each of them but, to the movie's credit, it also has its own identity.The plot deals with a novelist (a dubbed Udo Kier – as it happens, the star of yet another "Video Nasty" i.e. FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN {1974}) who has acquired instant celebrity status with his first book and is having a hard time following it up (though how he pretends to even be considered for the Pulitzer Prize with a piece of erotic fiction filled with such descriptions of someone engaging in the sexual act "like a virtuoso on his Stradivarius", to say nothing of blatant errors in typography picked up in close-ups, is beyond me!). To this end, he retires to a county house in England and, in order to speed up the writing process and meet his publisher's deadline, he is sent a secretary (Linda Hayden). The girl, however, has an agenda of her own – tied up with the nightmare that Kier himself keeps having (his neurosis extends to donning rubber gloves while making love to his girlfriend, softcore superstar Fiona Richmond!) – and soon proves to be even more disturbed than he is! The STRAW DOGS connection is particularly evidenced by the scenes involving a couple of yokels – one of whom, amusingly, sports a T-shirt boasting the inscription "I'm a Vampyre") – who importune Hayden when she arrives at the train station and then get to rape her in the fields outside Kier's house. The incident, however, does not traumatize her in the way that it should (which is, perhaps, another clue to her unhinged state-of-mind) since, for one thing, she disposes herself of the duo pretty easily but, also, because she had been repeatedly masturbating to the photo of the man who appears as a murder victim in Kier's visions (she even absents herself from typing to go have a 'quick one', with her employer subsequently pointing out "You've been a long time", to which she giddily quips, "In coming?"). One wonders why Hayden does not just 'get it on' with Kier (even if she does, eventually, as well as Richmond when the latter turns up at the house!)...but, of course, it has something to do with her mission there – which is to see the novel through before the revenge (I predicted the outcome of this, by the way: Kier is, in fact, a fraud who has not only stolen the manuscript of the true author and passed it off as his own but he has even killed the man, who happens to be Hayden's hubby) can be actuated. An interesting scene in this regard has the leading lady so into her work by the end that she literally finishes the book for the hero.Therein, then, lies a typical problem with this type of fare: even if, deep down, we sympathize with Hayden's motives, her extreme methods still decree that she is made out to be a villainess and, consequently, has to pay for her actions – but it also means that Kier himself, whose selfish/callous behavior actually put the whole thing in motion, is ultimately let off the hook (despite being the recipient of several knife wounds which will surely make him think that much harder on his next career move!) thanks to the eleventh-hour and, frankly, WTF intervention of one of the rapists who has unaccountably survived a gunshot to the face!! Apart from those instances already mentioned, the violence – not all that gory given its reputation (incidentally, my copy ran for 80 minutes, which I take to be a PAL conversion of the original 84-minute duration) – is directed at an old and nagging housekeeper (when she refuses to leave) as well as Kier's girlfriend (after Hayden has tricked her employer so that the two can remain alone). The sex, on the other hand, is ample and rather strong for the time but still too-obviously simulated (especially Richmond performing fellatio on Kier). For the record, Hayden and Richmond would later reunite for the same director in LET'S GET LAID (1978) – with the film he made in between, HARDCORE (1977), being a fictionalized biopic of Richmond (who even portrays herself)!

A writer struggling to complete his second novel retreats to a remote cottage in Essex and hires a pretty typist to assist him in completing the book, but soon discovers that he should be more careful about who he employs in the future...Exposé's closing credits only lists six cast members, but what a cast it is: crazy-eyed Udo Kier as best-selling author Paul Martin; gorgeous Linda Hayden as his sexy typist; big breasted softcore queen Fiona Richmond as Paul's lusty lover; 'Brush Strokes' star Karl Howman and legendary stuntman Vic Armstrong as a pair of rapist scumbags; and UK TV regular Patsy Smart as the housekeeper (OK, I've never actually heard of Patsy until now, but it seemed unfair to not mention her).With this excellent line up, plus plenty of steamy sex and several nasty scenes of violence (highlights being a double shotgun killing and a bloody knife attack in a bathroom), director James Kenelm Clarke delivers a sleazy, slow burning psychological thriller guaranteed to keep any fan of exploitation movies more than happy for the duration. Cult favourite Kier is his usual reliable self, and Richmond adds a certain novelty factor (this was her first major role outside of soft porn), but it is the delicious Hayden who steals the show, at first appearing all sweet and innocent, but soon revealing her true colours as she regularly stops work to masturbate, murder, and eventually get it on with Richmond in an eye-popping lesbian clinch. Whew!

Intended as a cheap sexploitation/horror film, made for only £50,000, it's interesting to discover what became of Expose - and consider what it might have been. The plot is good - better than an average episode of The Avengers, anyway. A writer (Udo Kier) rents a detached farmhouse in Essex and hires a secretary (Linda Hayden) to type his somewhat improbable manuscript.There are low ceilings, claustrophobic surrounds and a small ensemble of performers including Fiona Richmond, who, as Kier's girlfriend, stimulates him so much that during intimacy with her, he feels the need to wear latex gloves. It all augurs well, the soundtrack's good too and I was pleased to see a vignette from talented Karl Howman, who I first saw in the exceptional National Youth Theatre production of Zigger Zagger.The sex isn't outrageous by today's standards - though not quite the sort of thing you'd come across in Last of the Summer Wine. Funnily enough, I first discovered this film due to an innocuous appearance of Linda Hayden in another sitcom, Some Mother's Do 'Ave Em.Her role in this is not dissimilar to that of Susan George in Straw Dogs; on one occasion, as she towers over her drunken employer, lying on the floor staring up at her, panic-stricken, I felt distinctly uneasy. Coming from Stanmore, near to where I grew up, she might at least have considered towering over me, after an evening of inebriation in a pub near the end of the Northern Line. Charlotte Rampling, a fellow actress from the neighbourhood, who appeared in The Night Porter, amongst other things, became a much bigger star. Linda could - and perhaps should - have emulated her. She was apparently disappointed Fiona Richmond enjoyed star billing on the posters and that the film was advertised as a skinflick. Fair enough, but perennial masturbation was not depicted so much in mainstream films in those days (these days, it's almost compulsory, although most associated with American boys in teenage coming of age movies).Suffice to say, with a little bit more suspense, erotica and sensuality rather than sex and perhaps one more twist, this could have been a Witchfinder General or Wicker Man. Perhaps. As it is, it's interesting, worth a look and in the end, hangs together rather well.

Unimaginative slab of sexploitation horror has nubile (if slightly pudgy here) Linda Hayden as a disturbed woman who comes to work as secretary for pretentious writer Udo Kier. After a slow buildup, peppered with repeated scenes of Hayden masturbating, she gets to work on knocking off the supporting cast. Hayden's charisma goes a long way to making the film watchable, but it's all a very dry exercise, with little effort in either suspense or characterization making the whole thing seem rather pointless, and the final twist revelation making all of the antics that came before somewhat questionable in motivation. In a supporting role, Fiona Richmond occasionally wears clothes.