Last Chants for a Slow Dance (1977) User Reviews

Jost's First

[Craig-32 · 3 February 2000]

LAST CHANTS is a fine introduction to Jost's work, because, really, the films that follow aren't much different (at least, those with Tom Blair in them: SURE FIRE and THE BED YOU SLEEP IN.) Basically, they all follow a man who drives a pickup truck and has questionable morals, though Tom's character in BED isn't the same sort of character we see here and in SURE FIRE. But the men are usually failing in their business (a wacko get-rich-quick tourist scheme in SURE FIRE and a lumber company in BED) and later turn to violence. So the films seem formulaic at times, but it's Jost's exclusive formula, and it works. Here, though, there's a lack of the visual splendor that Jost injects in his later films, which is understandable. Anyway, LAST CHANTS is certainly worth a look, and it's a fine introduction into the work of this great, virtually unknown filmmaker.

Last Chants for a Slow Dance

[jboothmillard · 4/10 · 25 April 2019]

I watched this film purely because I found it listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, otherwise I never would have heard of it, let alone bothered to watch it. Basically Tom Bates (Tom Blair) is a misanthropic (hateful of humankind) working-class husband and father of two. He is struggling to find work in the Midwestern United States, most likely because of his anti-social nature. Tom spends most of his time driving around, hanging out in bars, and having one-night stands. One day he does return to his wife Darlene (Jessica St. John), but they do nothing but argue with each other. She complains that he cannot find work, has no sense of responsibility, and runs away when things get too much for him to handle. More pressure is put upon Tom when Darlene reveals she is pregnant with another child. But like before, he leaves and continues to drive from town to town. He stops in a café attempting to socialise with a man about picking up women. Tom later stops at a bar and flirts with a girl, until eventually they go somewhere to have sex. Tom does make a phone call to Darlene to find out how she is and try to reconcile, but this only turns into another argument. After leaving the young woman he slept with, Tom has car trouble and man in a second car offers help. In an act of desperation, Tom takes out a gun and points it at the man, he demands money, eventually he forces the man into the nearby wood at the side of the road. He shoots the man, he has a little sob before he steals his truck and drives away, it is unclear where he is going. The budget of this film was $2,000, it is largely improvised, you can tell Blair, St. John and the other actors are making it up as they go along, and the camerawork in many scenes goes all over the place. Besides the scenes of dialogue between characters, including many long takes and a good amount of profanity, it consists of mostly moving backgrounds and songs written and performed by director Jon Jost, no real structure, and colour often changing to black-and-white, it does have small moments of violence as well, including a dead rabbit being decapitated. There is not a lot more to say about it, I guess I can see why it has become something of a cult movie, it divides audiences, some consider it a work of art, I personally found it mildly interesting but mostly confusing, a strange but watchable (at least once) independent drama. Okay!

First Jost Experience

[themoon-3 · 10/10 · 30 March 2006]

Watched on VHS last night. It was the most consistently amazing movie experience I've had in awhile. Every scene is done very well, the dialogue is cutting and true to life but in a condensed form, especially the 10-15 minute argument between Tom and his wife when he comes home.. there's all sorts of really intense facial flickers coming off the both of them, it's crazy. Some parts of the opening monologue sound 'written' in that stagy sort of way, but only for a moment or two... it doesn't take much away from the total impact of the film. The descriptions are misleading, talking about a 'motiveless killer', as if killing is the focus of the film. It's about a particular man and his actions, interactions, and point of view, to put it simply. A lot of the camera work was particularly nice looking to me. The opening shot of the road, then the pan upwards, and everything after... it's just beautiful to me. I wish I could be more articulate but I need to watch it again, it's a mass of image in my head right now. Jon wrote and sang every song in the film if anyone is wondering... no soundtrack release to speak of but correct me if I'm wrong. It would really surprise me.

Not my favorite Jost film- still good though.

[leopoldfilmmaker · 10/10 · 27 May 2015]

I first came across this movie after seeing it in the 1001 movies you must see before you die book. I later met Jon Jost in Houston and I thought that he was a very kind and friendly man. Since then, I have been steadily acquiring more and more of his work. Thus far, I have seen 5 of his movies. They are: FRAME UP, THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, LAST CHANTS FOR A SLOW DANCE, SURE FIRE, and ALL THE VERMEERS IN NEW YORK.

Of those five, LAST CHANTS, the title in question, has been my least favorite.

Firstly, there are some good things about this movie. Heck, there are some fantastic things about this movie. For one, the soundtrack, written and sung by Jost himself, is truly sublime. If anything I recommend you watch this movie just for the great music; it includes some of the best country songs ever written.

Then, there is some interesting photography. As usual Jost's long takes are a marvel to see, particularly a scene in which Tom Bates and his girlfriend have sex and we hear the TV in the other room. Jost, from the very start of his career, has always had a keen sense of framing and visual juxtaposition. Then there's a great scene at a bar, in which Jost utilizes very little lighting and it feels very dark and loud. The camera lingers on many images for a longer time than you would imagine, forcing you to think and contemplate on something more than you would expect with a Hollywood big-budgeter.

Finally, Tom Blair is in this movie. He's one of the best actors I've ever seen. His performance in THE BED YOU SLEEP IN is truly second to none- he acts with a true sense of built up anger, intensity, and boiling aggression. Watching Blair act is something to marvel at.

But I didn't quite like this movie. It's not that it's a bad movie, it's just that it feels unexperienced. I'm not calling it amateur by any measure, I only mean that Jost still had a long way to go in his career. The photography, when compared to other more typical works, is great- but when you think about the technical aspects in regard to the rest of Jost's career, it isn't all that interesting. The lo-fi aesthetic, poor audio, and general all-around 70's kitsch is nothing compared to Jost's later works. In other movies like THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, Jost captured beautiful pastoral landscapes, lush scenery, and just some of the best cinematography I've ever seen. In LAST CHANTS, he captures a dead rabbit getting cut up.

Then, even Tom Blair isn't on his highest form here. Sure he is great, but there's something about the high-pitched giggling and monologues that feel too scripted that I can't buy. (I know this film, and all of Jost's films for that matter, weren't shot with a script.) But still some of the actors don't feel genuine. Examples are the opening scene in the car and when Tom Bates goes back to his see his wife. This is entirely subjective, but I didn't 100 percent "buy into" these scenes. I bought into them 90 percent, but there's still that 10 percent that irks me.

And, finally, I have one more complaint. The plot didn't all add up. Now I know that this is a highly unconventional film, one that isn't heavy on plot or story, but instead character and atmosphere driven. But I don't understand a few details. SPOILER: why did Tom Bates kill that man in the end? Wouldn't it have made more sense if Tom Bates had killed a woman? I mean, there was a huge thread about the way that he viewed females. It would have made more sense. END SPOILER: Some things like that just didn't quite make sense to me. THE BED YOU SLEEP IN and FRAME UP where very enigmatic films that forced you to think a lot, but with LAST CHANTS FOR A SLOW DANCE I am just left not quite seeing the point of it. I took away powerful messages from THE BED YOU SLEEP IN and FRAME UP, etc.- but not quite with LAST CHANTS FOR A SLOW DANCE. It simply didn't come together for me.

All I can really say is that Jon Jost is a damn good filmmaker. One of the best, actually. But when he made LAST CHANTS, he wasn't there yet. It would only be a few years after LAST CHANTS that he would start churning out masterpieces one by one. But to be honest, you could skip this one. Go on to THE BED YOU SLEEP IN or FRAME-UP to see what kind of genius visionary Jost would become.