.

The premise to Doris Wishman's Indecent Desires is like softcore Twilight Zone: a man finds a ring and a voodoo Barbie doll of sorts which allow him to manipulate the body of a woman he's infatuated with. Through the stalker's caresses of the doll, she receives sudden physical pleasure; through his cruelty to it, she receives pain. Her sexually free friend doesn't understand and her square boyfriend can't protect her. I don't think it's a masterpiece by any means, but the story is told over a taut 75 minutes and is so strangely unique that I found myself interested and wondering where it was going to go. There is a lot of casual nudity on display throughout the film, and it was interesting to think about all of the ogling of these two beautiful women (Sharon Kent and Jackie Richards) being put alongside the story of a creepy and dangerous pervert. It was like it was exploitational itself, and yet showing dangers women face from strangers in symbolic form. Was it self-aware of this? I have no idea. It also felt like it could be seen as celebrating the body and female sexuality in empowering ways, or as objectification. The dialogue is dubbed and weak, the acting is awful, and the editing is haphazard, all of which make it feel like very amateurish. And yet somehow it seems to emerge as the purest form of camp, in ways that I can't quite put my finger on. One thing I do know is that it has a strong ending, one worth sticking around for.

The search: This is one of the movies featured in the Something Weird Video opening trailer. This is a bit that's played at the beginning of most Something Weird Videos that is a montage of movies they've re-released. I discovered the name of this movie via a preview featured in the extras section of "The Naked Witch." At Scarecrow Video, I had to find this movie in the Sexploitation room, under "Sex Directors." Anybody wanting to watch this movie for the sex will be severely disappointed. It features some soft * (sort of) scenes, but mostly it's just some fairly attractive ladies walking around in lingerie or half-naked. The good: I enjoy older movies, particularly B movies, for the visuals. B movies seems to capture things (cars, decor, outfits, furniture) that often gets missed in the bigger movies (where many things are generic after a while.) This movie features some great furniture, lingerie, and what a crazy guy's apartment might look like in 1967. Also, the cinematography was interesting, it was black and white, and at times had an almost artsy feel (probably a sign of the times, though). The pace was slow, featured well-framed shots, and had great (kitschy) music throughout. It was also neat that the lead actress was made up to look like a doll (check out her eye make-up...) The gems: The lead actress, probably due to poor editing, changed lingerie in the middle of scenes repeatedly. Jeb had great pants, probably to make him look nerdy (although all the "cool" people wear pants too short for them now). Babs lover has an amazing moustache! And what a titillating toe "sucking" scene! Also, this film was only 75 minutes, making it's slow pace a bit more palatable. The bad: Like many movies of its genre, the plot doesn't really go anywhere. It's a bit redundant, since if it were stripped down to only it's necessities, it would be barely long enough to fill a half hour TV slot.

"Indecent Desires" is an ultra-cheap film, most probably filmed using a Super-8 camera, that, inexplicably, was posted on the Criterion Channel's site. I say inexplicably because the channel and their DVD/Blu-Ray collections are known for their artsy-fartsy films....many of which are foreign. I often like their stuff and subscribed to the channel because of this. However, I was a bit surprised to see within their classic and art films were a small number of ultra-cheapo exploitation films, like this one. The film has minimal dialog and is in black & white. It's about a weirdo with a large ring and a doll. Using them, he apparently is able to molest the doll and have the woman experience what he does to the doll! She thinks she's going crazy....and is there any way to stop this weird guy?! Wow...talk about a low-brow plot! It clearly was intended to titillate audiences of the day and tosses in some nudity...which isn't at all surprising. But since it's the 1960s, the nudity is pretty restrained by modern standards. So what you end up with is a soft-core porno film with dubious quality and entertainment value. There are worse films out there....though not many. A film for the curious and exploitation picture lovers only.

The premise to Doris Wishman's Indecent Desires is like softcore Twilight Zone: a man finds a ring and a voodoo Barbie doll of sorts which allow him to manipulate the body of a woman he's infatuated with. Through the stalker's caresses of the doll, she receives sudden physical pleasure; through his cruelty to it, she receives pain. Her sexually free friend doesn't understand and her square boyfriend can't protect her. I don't think it's a masterpiece by any means, but the story is told over a taut 75 minutes and is so strangely unique that I found myself interested and wondering where it was going to go. There is a lot of casual nudity on display throughout the film, and it was interesting to think about all of the ogling of these two beautiful women (Sharon Kent and Jackie Richards) being put alongside the story of a creepy and dangerous pervert. It was like it was exploitational itself, and yet showing dangers women face from strangers in symbolic form. Was it self-aware of this? I have no idea. It also felt like it could be seen as celebrating the body and female sexuality in empowering ways, or as objectification. The dialogue is dubbed and weak, the acting is awful, and the editing is haphazard, all of which make it feel like very amateurish. And yet somehow it seems to emerge as the purest form of camp, in ways that I can't quite put my finger on. One thing I do know is that it has a strong ending, one worth sticking around for.

"Indecent Desires" is an ultra-cheap film, most probably filmed using a Super-8 camera, that, inexplicably, was posted on the Criterion Channel's site. I say inexplicably because the channel and their DVD/Blu-Ray collections are known for their artsy-fartsy films....many of which are foreign. I often like their stuff and subscribed to the channel because of this. However, I was a bit surprised to see within their classic and art films were a small number of ultra-cheapo exploitation films, like this one. The film has minimal dialog and is in black & white. It's about a weirdo with a large ring and a doll. Using them, he apparently is able to molest the doll and have the woman experience what he does to the doll! She thinks she's going crazy....and is there any way to stop this weird guy?! Wow...talk about a low-brow plot! It clearly was intended to titillate audiences of the day and tosses in some nudity...which isn't at all surprising. But since it's the 1960s, the nudity is pretty restrained by modern standards. So what you end up with is a soft-core porno film with dubious quality and entertainment value. There are worse films out there....though not many. A film for the curious and exploitation picture lovers only.

Indecent Desires (1967) ** (out of 4) Doris Wishman sexploitation film mixed with horror elements features the same badness but this one here is just weird enough to make it somewhat entertaining. In the film, a dorky man finds a plastic doll in a trash can and takes it home because he's sexually turned on by it. One day while walking he notices that there's a secretary who looks just like the doll. Before long, this dorky man is touching the doll to get off and, through some sort of voodoo, the secretary gets the sexual pleasure from it. Technically speaking, this is just like every other Wishman movie in the fact that it was recorded with no sound and later all the dialogue was dubbed in. What separates this film from others in her filmography is the lead actress who is rather hot and constantly taking off her clothes. Yes, the nudity helps the film. The story is pretty good as well but Wishman's lack of directing skills really keeps the film from being as good as it could have been.

Indecent Desires (1967) ** (out of 4) Doris Wishman sexploitation film mixed with horror elements features the same badness but this one here is just weird enough to make it somewhat entertaining. In the film, a dorky man finds a plastic doll in a trash can and takes it home because he's sexually turned on by it. One day while walking he notices that there's a secretary who looks just like the doll. Before long, this dorky man is touching the doll to get off and, through some sort of voodoo, the secretary gets the sexual pleasure from it. Technically speaking, this is just like every other Wishman movie in the fact that it was recorded with no sound and later all the dialogue was dubbed in. What separates this film from others in her filmography is the lead actress who is rather hot and constantly taking off her clothes. Yes, the nudity helps the film. The story is pretty good as well but Wishman's lack of directing skills really keeps the film from being as good as it could have been.