Announcing the Film, Release. Repeat Blogathon

 

 

Hollywood has, for most of it's history, had a mindset of "why mess with a good formula?" Of course, that means that you get such things as, currently, 11 (count 'em... 11) sequels to the original 1984 film Children of the Corn.  Additionally, sometimes the studios in Tinseltown think they can improve on the formula by remaking a classic film. Sometimes those sequels and remakes hit a positive nerve and sometimes the public and the critics both howl with indignation and consternation at the chutzpah that the studios had to making such endeavors.

In terms of remakes, the standout successes with such endeavors such as the Humphrey Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon (which was actually the third attempt at the story, as there had been two previous film adaptations, in case you didn't know...) are paralleled to the Gus van Zant debacle of a remake, Psycho, the horrendous "tribute" to Alfred Hitchcock's original film, Psycho. Additionally, when Hollywood tries to capitalize on box office bonanzas by making sequels to great movies, the results can be equally varied. Many people consider Aliens, the second film in the Alien franchise to be one of the greatest sequels of all time. On the other hand, many fans refer to the Highlander sequel, Highlander III: The Final Dimension  as "Highlander: The Apology", because Highlander II: The Quickening is considered to be such a phenomenal dud.  

The essence of this blogathon is to address some of those classic and not-so-classic films that came out in the aftermath of beloved films. You can have your choice in your selection of the movie(s) you choose to review here. You can pick a remake or a sequel that improves on the original in some way, or you can choose to discuss a remake or a sequel that should never have been green-lighted in the first place. You are not limited to just the immediate sequel or remake in this. For example, one of the movies I am choosing for my part in the blogathon is Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. The Star Trek franchise had four previous major motion picture releases prior to that, to varying quality in story and production.

Additionally, if you think a film got short shrift in it's reception, feel free to defend it with all your might. Maybe you think the van Zant Psycho was a better movie, who knows...? 

My co-host for this endeavor, Rachel at Hamlette's Soliloquy and I have a few guidelines to help you make your decision. 

1. Choose your movie(s) and notify either her or me of your choice. There are enough sequels and remakes out there to go around, so we are only going to allow only one person per movie. But the parameters are open to possibilities.  One person could choose to cover, say, Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol, while another could do Police Academy 2: The First Assignment, while still another could write an overview of the entire Police Academy franchise. The only real requirement here is that your entry focus more on the remake or the sequel, and not the original film. Try to limit yourself to two entries each for the blogathon,  so as to give others a chance at some beloved (or not-so-beloved) follow up attempts at greatness. 

2. Grab one of the banners that Rachel has made for this blogathon and promote the event. 

3. After you post the review, let one of us know of it's URL so we can link it in our wrap up post during the event.

4. Most importantly, have fun.

 

 

 

The Roster: (so far)

 Hamlette's Soliloquy: You've Got Mail (1998) {remake}

 The Midnite Drive-In: The Thing  (1982): {remake}

                                        Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) {sequel} 

NitrateGlow: You Can't Run Away from It (1956)  {remake} 

Cinematic Scribblings: Carmen's Innocent Love (1952) {sequel}

Angelman's Place: A Star is Born (1976) {remake} 

The First Zombie

 

This is my entry in the Early Shadows and Pre-Code Horror Blogathon hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association.

 

 

 

The zombie film has evolved over the years. Gone are the days when a "zombie" in a film could easily be mistaken for a half-zonked drunken fraternity boy. Early films which featured zombies were often like that. I once reviewed a double feature of King of the Zombies/Teenage Zombies in which the zombies of the films were pretty much like that. It wasn't until George Romero came along with his classic Night of the Living Dead that we got the kind of zombies that most people are familiar with today, that of un-dead creatures seeking "brain food" for sustenance.

The initial reference to zombies in modern English culture were from the early 1800's. In this case, voodoo and zombies were closely connected. Thus the idea that those early zombies where basically creatures that walked around in a trance. You see, sometimes the zombies, at least in the Haitian voodoo folklore, are still alive,  just basically removed from their own cognizant will to operate as humans. And that was the case in two of the early zombie movies, White Zombie and I Walked with a Zombie. In both, the main heroine never actually dies, but is just put into an almost permanent hypnotic state. 

With hypnotism, the standard thinking is that, in the real world at least, a hypnotized person cannot be induced into doing something that he would not do in a cognizant state.  In the case of the voodoo zombie, however, that may or may not be the case.  Sometimes, at least as portrayed in film, the zombies can carry out the will of their masters which may even include killing another person. Unless the zombified person was originally of a mind that he or she could actually kill another in his or her cognizant state, that corollary related to hypnotism would seem to be not in effect if a person is turned into a zombie.

One of the things about zombie films is that they were often used as a metaphor for the current climate. In the above referenced Teenage Zombies, for instance, the zombies were obviously a substitute for Communists. But that was the 50's. Even so, there can be some political undertones even in movies that predate the Red Scare (or any other politically charged atmosphere).   

One of the things that could be underlying the basic plot line of White Zombie is the situation involving the main character, Murder Legendre, who is a plantation owner. He has created, essentially, his own "slave" population to run the drudgery of labor at the farm. Not that the makers would be trying to make a political statement in favor of the "slavery environment" of the 1700's and 1800's, but the world was still looking sideways when it came to the idea of big countries like France and England which still had "colonial rule" as a part of their acceptable rule. 

If you look at White Zombie as a criticism of this ideology, however, you may be  short changing yourself. After all, in the end, the black Haitian zombies all end up dying, not freed from their bondage, which would seem to be the proper way to approach it.  Of course, there is still some outrage at the idea here; that Legendre has essentially created slaves, albeit not live ones, who might object to their current situation. 

 One must take in the historical context of the movie. At the time of the film the United States was very involved in it's own form of imperialism. Imperialism is the concept, to put it bluntly, that a third world country is not capable of running its own business, at least not as it relates to the interest of the bigger country. In the case of countries like the Soviet Union, this often meant using a strong arm to enforce it's own agenda, in this case Communism. Not that the democratic country of the United States was any less aggressive in it's agenda, however. While using military force to impose its will is something that may make the average American cringe, the presence of American influence in Haiti was seen as a necessity to prevent another "less acceptable" power gaining control.

Thus, Murder Legendre and his influence over the population might be something akin to letting Hitler or Stalin gain a foothold in the country. But there seems to me to be another theme underlying the situation. Murder has influence that even extends to the white race. The titular "white zombie", after all is a white woman, with all the freedom that that implies in the context of the time period. Sure, it might be acceptable to "enslave" the indigenous Haitian population, but it is an entirely different matter when that extends to the white race.

Just down the road, time wise,  a demagogue (Hitler) would come to power to power in Germany and extend his own influence by enslaving the citizens of those countries in which he took power. Like the white zombie in this film, those citizens became virtually powerless to resist the influence of said demagogue. Likewise, another demagogue (Khrushchev) would exert similar control as the Soviets overtook countries in post World War II Europe.

Sure, this movie is a something of a predecessor to both of those tyrants, but the parallels are hard to ignore. So take another look at this classic with a view towards the underlying political themes that it holds. One can hardly feel that Murder Legendre is much better than Hitler or Khrushchev when looked at from this perspective.  

 

 

 

White Zombie (1932): 

On their way to be married in Haiti, Madeleine (Madge Bellamy) and Neil (John Harron) come across an odd ritual. Several natives are burying one of their own in the middle of a road. 

The ritual, as their coach driver (Clarence Muse) tells them, is to prevent grave robbers from stealing the body. Why would anyone steal a dead body? Well, it turns out that someone is turning the bodies into zombies, the animated undead. 

 

As the coach continues there is a man in the road ahead. This is our ultimate villain, Murder Legendre (Bela Lugosi), as it turns out. All you need to do is look into those haunting eyes, which makes both Madeleine and Neil cringe. But just as quick as they stop the driver hauls butt again because he sees zombies coming over the next ridge.

 

When the pair arrive at the home of Charles Beaumont, whom they have come to see, they meet Dr. Bruner (Joseph Cawthorn), a preacher who has been a missionary on the island for 30 years. He dismisses the zombie story as a legend and superstition. The pair are meeting with Beaumont, whom they barely know, because Beaumont has promised to make Neil his agent in his own enterprise. Seems they might have made friends with Beaumont just a little to easily (ah, the naivete of the 30's...) Beaumont has ulterior motives.

 

He had made his plantation available as a wedding site for the pair, but Beaumont has designs on Madeleine for himself. Barring the fact that she is wholly in love with Neil, Beaumont plans a little surprise that would make her wholly devoted to him instead. As he discusses his plans with his butler, Silver (Brandon Hurst), Silver tells Beaumont he wishes he would abandon his plan to work with "that other man". (We don't need to be told at this point that "that other man" is the previously met Murder Legendre, although we may not be sure exactly what Beaumont's plans have to do with hm.

Despite the fact that Beaumont only recently met Madeleine on the ship traveling from New York to Haiti, it is apparently that he is obsessed with her and determines to have her for himself.  He goes to meet Murder at his plantation, a plantation that is almost entirely run by people who are seemingly automatons. They don't even react when one of their number collapses and falls into the thresher they are operating.

 

Beaumont and Murder discuss the possibility of having her just disappear for a month, but Murder informs Beaumont that that would be not near enough time for her to forget Neil and become devoted to Beaumont. But... there is another possibility...

 

Murder suggests that Beaumont turn her into a zombie. This involves an elaborate plan to give her a potion which will make it seem like she died. Which Beaumont gives her just before the weeding. The result is, while the newly married couple are toasting each other after the weeding, Madeleine "dies".  Note: It is fortunate that she is put in a coffin and placed in a crypt without the benefit of embalming, otherwise this whole thing might end in tragedy before it even gets underway.

While Neil is drowning his sorrow in wine,  Murder and Beaumont go to the crypt to retrieve the body of Madeleine.  Murder informs Beaumont that all his servants are zombies. When Beaumont asks what would happen if they regain their souls, Murder tells them they would tear him apart. "But that will never happen..." After stealing the coffin Neil comes along and finds the crypt empty.

 

He meets with Dr. Bruner who informs Neil that there are two possibilities; either her body was stolen by a death cult for use in their ceremonies or possibly "she is not dead". Dr. Bruner tells Neil  about Murder's history, that of turning his enemies into soulless zombies, creatures that are not dead, but not entirely living either... the automatons that do the work of Murder without any resistance. ("Resistance is futile", as the Borg in Star Trek are fond of saying...)

 

But Dr. Bruner admits he does not think Beaumont is capable of doing this on his own, even though Neil suspects him of being behind it. The doctor thinks he must have had help from a witch doctor on the island and wants to get his hands on the witch doctor so he can make an example of him. And we all know who that witch doctor is, even if Dr. Bruner is not entirely sure.

Meanwhile Beaumont is having second thoughts about the situation and wants Murder to reverse the zombie status of Madeleine. But Murder has other ideas and tricks Beaumont into drinking some wine that has the potion that turns Beaumont into another zombie instead. Neil has found the secret lair of Murder where Madeleine is being held and tries to rescue her, but even his efforts are an uphill battle as Murder uses his spell to make Madeleine attempt to kill Neil.

 

The final minutes of the film are intense as a battle of wills occurs between Murder and Neil and Dr. Bruner, but even as Beaumont is gradually being turned into a zombie he still has some remnants of his dignity and the vague sense of right and wrong and may manage to save the day.

 

In my usual wrap of films I try to give some of the production values from the film, but my research doesn't have much. It was filmed in 1932, after all. The movie had a budget of $50,000. I'm not sure how much it actually grossed after it's release. It wasn't entirely received well, and some of that has to do with the acting.  Most of the actors appear to be thinking they are doing a stage play rather than a movie. There is much over-acting and overwrought emotion depicted in the film, as if the actors were, as they say, "playing to the back of the house". One such reviewer, one who wrote for Commonweal magazine, is quoted as saying that the movie is "interesting only in measure of it's complete failure" (quoted from a Wikipedia article).

Time has been better to the film, however. That great rating system, the Tomato-meter, has it as 86% Fresh, and it, being the first ever full-length zombie film, has a following who praise it. You probably already know that singer Robert Cummings, better known as Rob Zombie, is such a devotee of the film that he named his first band after the movie.

My own personal opinion is that, while not on par with Frankenstein and Dracula, it is still a fairly good movie for the most part. That overacting only really gets laughable in one or two scenes, particularly the scene where Neil is drinking himself silly and imagines he sees Madeleine everywhere. 

 

Bela Lugosi, as would be expected, is the highlight of the film. You can see the quality he brings to the part of Murder Legendre especially when he is just standing there and relying on his facial expressions to express his mood.

There have recently been a couple of attempts to get a remake of White Zombie underway, although apparently none by Rob Zombie. So far none of them have come to fruition. I wonder how the public would respond... If the new kid on the block, Blumhouse, is any indication of the direction it would take, it would probably rely more on shock than on characterization. We shall see.

Well, folks, the old Plymouth is now warmed up and ready to roll. I think if I see any stumbling people on the road I'll make a wide detour. Drive safely, folks.

Quiggy

 

Christmas Ghosts

 

 

 

 

Yes, folks! I'm back to my old Christmas in November tricks. Although, really, Christmas only figures in to about the first 15 minutes or so of this film, so it might be more of just a sentimental romance than anything. But, if you know me, you KNOW there has to be more than just that angle or it wouldn't be showing at The Midnite Drive-In... The ghost angle, of course, is what attracted me, even though the ghost angle was essentially played for laughs and sentimentality... 

Between the start of the cinema age and, roughly. the mid-50's the "ghost" theme seemed to crop up more for laughs and romance than actual "scare the pants off" trope. After all, one of the first films that portrayed a ghost, the 1898 The Haunted Castle, used the the ghost for "amusement, rather than fear". And over the years well into the 50's, comedy and romance were more central to ghost movies. Witness such films as Topper (1937), The Ghost Breakers (1940), Hold That Ghost (1941),   The Canterville Ghost (1944) or The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947).

To be sure, there WERE a smattering of seriously horror entries during that period. The Uninvited (1944) and Dead of Night (1945) are two examples of English language films that were released. But many of the more eerie films involving ghosts were usually of foreign (non-English) variety. The Phantom Carriage (1921; Sweden), La Llorona (1933; Mexico)  and Ghosts of Yotsuya (1949; Japan) were some of the creepier ones.

OK, so this film falls firmly into the category of "ghosts that aren't scary" line of movies. But even that is not what attracted me to this film. No, one of the draws for me was to see an early role by Richard Carlson, an actor who was in a few of my favorite science fiction films such as Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Magnetic Monster and It Came from Outer Space.

The rest of the cast consists mainly of character actors. The more well-known of these would probably have been Harry Carey, who had been a regular in many of the Poverty Row westerns of the silent and early sound westerns, as well as a frequent co-star with John Wayne. Also on that familiar name list would be Maria Ouspenskaya, who often played women of foreign nationalities, including a couple of times as a Gypsy woman Maleva in the Universal horror films, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. Prior to this film she had been nominated for Oscars.

Rounding out the character actor troupe were Charles Winninger and C. Aubrey Smith. As well, Jean Parker and Helen Vinson both had significant female roles. Neither of those names were familiar to me, nor were they familiar to my sister, who has watched many more of those old mainsteam movies than I have.

 

 

 

Beyond Tomorrow (1940):

The film opens on Christmas Eve as three old bachelor entrepreneurs work on a project for the coming year. At least, two of them are anyway.  George Melton (Harry Carey) and Allen Chadwick (C. Aubrey Smith) have the bottom line foremost in their mind. Their third partner, Michael O'Brien (Charles Winninger) is much more of a free spirit, arriving with presents for everyone, and chides his partners for making everyone work through Christmas Eve.

 

When a telegram arrives that gives some bad news, that some expected guests for dinner will not be showing, both George and Allen become even more down on the holiday and the good will spirit of humanity, but Michael, ever the optimist, thinks they are both wrong. To prove his point he suggests that each of them throw out of the window a wallet with $10 and their cards and sees who will return the wallets. Both George and Allen are absolutely sure none of the wallets will be returned, but Michael insists they will, and that those good souls who return the wallets can be invited to Christmas Eve dinner to replace the missing guests.

 

One of the wallets is indeed kept by the person finding it, but two of them are returned. One is returned by a Texan who stayed after his rodeo left town, James Houston (Richard Carlson) and another is returned by a local schoolteacher, Jean Lawrence (Jean Parker). The two are invited to stay, and as could be expected in such fantasy worlds as movies like this, the two hit it off. Over the course of a few weeks, a love blossoms and there is talk of even marriage.

 

It turns out that James can sing. (and it also turns out, to my surprise, that it really is Carlson who is singing in those musical numbers...) He plans to get work as a singer, the better to help him make enough to be a good and productive husband. 

 

The three benefactors make plans to fly to Philadelphia. Their housekeeper, Madame Tanya (Maria Ouspenskaya), begs them to take the train instead but they insist she is overreacting. But as often is the case, these Eastern European women seem to have a sixth sense about the future, because the three do end up dying, and returning to the mansion where they had lived. Thus we get our three ghosts.

 

The three men, while still living, had bequeathed a series of bonds to the couple so they could afford to get married. This sets off a sequence of events where the story is picked up by the newspapers and James is offered a tryout for a radio program. At the tryout he meets Arlene Terry (Helen Vinson) an established singer who invites him to meet her manager. (BTW, I found out later that the woman in the beginning of the film who keeps the money and ditches the wallet instead of returning it was this same woman... Sort of hints at just what kind of woman she is, given that.)

 

The three ghosts watch on in dismay as it looks like James might be going down the wrong path. He becomes more involved with trying to advance his career (and in the process alienating Jean). He also seems to be developing an infatuation for his singing partner. Arlene, however, has her own past to deal with, including an alcoholic ex-husband who is unwilling to let bygones be bygones.   

You can see it coming from a mile away. As James and Arlene's relationship advances Jean becomes more and more convinced she is losing him. And the ex-husband is determined that if he can't have Arlene, by gum, no one can. 

In between all this the archangels in Heaven keep returning for the lost souls of the three men. Ultimately both Charles and Allen are taken, but when the Heavenly hosts finally return for Michael, he insists that he can't go until the situation between James and Jean is resolved. And things look bleak for that when the ex-husband shows up where James and Arlene are meeting and shoots them both.

But remember, folks, this is not only 1940, but it's also supposed to be a feel good movie. So don't start crying yet.

Beyond Tomorrow has it's flaws. For one thing, James is a rather shallow character, played rather shallowly by Carlson. Just when you start to feel good about a guy who seems to really want to find his place in life, complete with the requisite girl of his dreams, he goes off on a jaunt to find fame and fortune, neglecting said girl of his dreams. He is easily distracted by cute girl of the moment. It appears at the outset that this might be just a part of the part she can play in helping his career, but then the character of James is tarnished by the fact that he can't seem to differentiate between what is good for his career and what is good for his home life. Although he initially still has his devotion to Jean, he seems to be unable to resist the wiles of the bad girl, Arlene.

One can easily see why Arlene's first marriage did not work out. I'm not entirely sure that her ex-husband didn't become an alcoholic after the fact, rather than, as she says, the alcoholism was part and parcel of what led her down the road to divorce. In that instance, even though she is a cardboard cutout character of a "bad woman" I think that Helen Vinson imbues her with just enough subtlety to give her some dimension. 

The three main characters of the men/ghosts are much better. Especially Winninger has the ever optimistic Michael.  The sad part is that they don't seem to have much to do in the story after the transformation from living to deceased. Mostly they seem to just stand around and shake their heads in despair at how James is ruining his chances for true love. But Ouspenskaya has some bright spots as the intuitive Madame Terry, and even though she can't see he ghosts, she knows they are there and has a rapport with them.

Calling this a Christmas movie is not quite right, but the feelings and it's overall message is something akin to A Christmas Carol, because the character of Allen does eventually transition from the curmudgeonly Scrooge-like man while still alive to a change of heart at the end. And the final realization of James that the life he really wants is the one he already has can be something like Jimmy Stewart's George Bailey's transformation in It's A Wonderful Life. 

 So, is this a good movie? Overall, I would say yes. 

Good tidings for the coming season.

Quiggy 

Green Holidaze

 

Yes, folks it's yet another Christmas entry (And you say: "Bah! Humbug! It's not even Halloween yet!").

 

OK, I'll concede to the Scrooge-y outcry. You want Halloween, you say? Bet you weren't expecting this...

 

In 1977 the television animation studios at ABC presented the world with what amounts to a prequel to the classic 1966 Christmas tradition of How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Titled Halloween is Grinch Night, it was presented to the public on October 28 of that year, and quickly became a Halloween holiday tradition, much in the same way that it's predecessor did as a Christmas tradition.

 

What's that, you say? This never became a Halloween tradition? Hmm... What a shame! Maybe the ill sweet sour winds were blowing in the wrong direction. 

 

OK, I'll be honest. Although I was alive, and in my late teens, when this cartoon hit the airwaves, I don't recall having ever seen it. In fact, until I ran across a DVD collection called Dr. Suess's Holidays on the Loose, I wasn't even aware that it even existed. (Just a note: You never know what you'll find in those garage sales and resale barns. I paid $2 for this, but I would have never even thought to look for it...)

 

 

 

 

The DVD also includes another Grinch cartoon that I never heard of, this one brought out in 1982. It's called The Grinch Grinches the Cat in the Hat. But in the case of that one, I have an excuse for not even noticing it. It first aired in May of 1982. At that time I was in college and wouldn't have been caught dead watching a kiddie cartoon show.  Besides, at that time I had a job throwing a newspaper route, and was probably asleep so I could be prepared for my job at midnight.

 

Of course, nowadays I wouldn't be so dismissive of children's fare. Possibly because at my age I am looking back at a long life, and regretting that period of my life when I didn't have a childlike innocence and missed out on some fairly good stuff in retrospect. Just for instance: In my 20's, an animated film would have been the LAST choice I would make in picking my weekly theater experience. But just look at what I missed out on during that period: The Black Cauldron, Labyrinth, The Last Unicorn, The Never-Ending Story, The Secret of N.I.M.H., every Muppet movie until  The Muppet Christmas Carol (and I only went to that one because the Dickens story is one of my favorite stories). All of those I have since watched and found entertaining.

 

Dr. Suess had been around for decades prior to the first television cartoon adaptation of his work, the now famous How the Grinch Stole Christmas, but with the exception of a few Private Snafu animated shorts released in theaters during WWII, his work was hardly every translated to film. But after the Grinch a succession of Suess inspired cartoons were made for TV, including Horton Hears a Who, The Cat in the Hat and The Lorax. And you are probably already aware of the full length movies released in theaters in recent years that include the Jim Carrey version of the Grinch story and the Mike Myers version of the Cat in the Hat. (I'm still waiting for a film version of "The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins", BTW, if anyone in Hollywood is checking out this blog...) 

 

Firstly, just to appease the Grinchier crowd who might be objecting to an early Christmas entry...

 

 

 

Halloween is Grinch Night (1977):

 

 

 

 

Things look pleasant in Whoville, But Josiah (Hal Smith; "Otis" from The Andy Griffith Show) smells a "sweet sour wind" in the air. He gets his wife, Mariah (Irene Tedrow; Mrs. Elkins on Dennis the Menace) to double check, and sure enough, the wind has that sweet sour smell.  That means the local Grunker's Pond will be disturbed, awakening the gree-grumps, who will begin to howl. That will make the hakken-krakks star to yowl.

 

 

 

That can only mean one thing. The villainous Grinch (Hans Conried), who lives on the nearby Mount Crumpit will be lurking about, because it is now Grinch night. The Whos in Whoville scurry inside and lock the doors and windows, and they won't go outside... not even for $1.50... The whole town keeps an ear to the radio for the coming on the Grinch, as posted by Sgt, MacPherson (Jack DeLeon; who was memorable as one of the first openly gay characters on TV, Marty in Barney Miller ), who acts a weather broadcaster, only in this case, the watchful eye of the ill wind of the Grinch.

 

 

 

The Grinch, on the other hand, is ecstatic because it's his night to howl. He loads up his wagon, puts his poor dog Max on the reigns, and begins his descent on Whoville where he plans to have a big party in the Whoville town hall.  He will be the guest attendee.  Really, he will be the ONLY attendee...

 

 

 

Poor Max bemoans the lost childhood he had and his fate at being a slave to the Grinch, but he really has no choice.   As the Grinch begins his ascent to Whoville, Euchariah (Gary Shapiro), the young son of Josiah and Mariah, suddenly realizes he needs to go to the "euphemism" (Really. That's what they call it. Cover your eyes, ye easily shocked readers, because it means he needs to go to the...  outhouse...)

 

 

 

The wind, however, is really strong, and despite his struggle to get there he is blown off course, and ends up om Mount Crumpit, the home of the Grinch.  Euchariah runs into the Grinch and bravely stands up to him, but the Grinch is dismissive of such a small foe. He gives Euchariah the discount store scare and figures that is that.

 

 

 

But Euchariah decides that the only way to save the town from the Grinch is by his own work.  He stands up to the Grinch and basically dares the Grinch to do his best at scaring him.  The Grinch, who is not one to back down from a challenge, proceeds to throw everything he can at young Euchariah. 

 

 

 

Unfortunately for the Grinch, young Euchariah is determined, and despite all the spooks and monsters the Grinch throws at him, he bravely endures. And just long enough, too, because the sweet sour wind of Grinch night dies down, which is basically the death knell on the Grinch's activities for the night. He turns his cart around to make the trek back up the mountain, promising he will be even worse on the next Grinch Night. But his dog, Max, deserts him and becomes the dog of his new master, Euchariah.

 

Hans Conried had to fill in for Boris Karloff as the voice of the Grinch, since Karloff had passed away by the time this prequel was made. He does a passable job of it, but it's not quite the sinister twang that the legendary icon put on the original. But hey, nobody lives forever. It was bound to happen. Fortunately the fantastic deep bass singer, Thurl Ravenscroft, was still around to do the musical parts of the Grinch story.  

 

Just one note here, story-wise: This is supposed to be taking place before the events of How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Yet in that later story the Grinch has Max back in his lair. Did the dog decide that life in Whoville was too sedate and return to the Grinch? Or maybe sometime in between the Grinch managed to rope in another dog...  

 

Halloween is Grinch Night won the 1978 Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Program, beating out, among others, The Fat Albert Christmas Special. 

 

OK, you Ebenezers... happy now? 

 

What? Still not ready for cheer and eggnog? OK. I'll play along for now. The second feature on this DVD is:

 

 

 

 

The Grinch Grinches The Cat in the Hat (1982):

 

 

 

This piece (probably) comes after the transformation of the Grinch into a happy carefree figure he became at the end of How the Grinch Stole Christmas, because the sun rises and the Grinch (Bob Holt) is smiling and laughing. Even Max is a little wary, but apparently the afterglow of the events in How the Grinch Stole Christmas (see below) he is a new character.

 

The first thing that comes into play in this piece by the way is the fact that the narrator is none other than Mason Adams. (Adams may not have been a dynamic actor on screen (IMDb only credits him with 77 appearances), but as a voice actor, for me, it's always a treat to hear him. He did narration and voice over credits throughout his career.)  

 

But' in the Grinch's lair, his reflection in the mirror is not so ready and willing to accept this transformation. The mirror image reminds the Grinch of his venomous nature and makes him repeat the "Grinch Oath". With the Grinch apparently saved from a life of charity and goodwill, he leaves the house to find something dastardly to do to prove his Grinch-i-ness.

 

 

 

On the other side of town, the Cat in the Hat (also voiced by Mason Adams) has decided it's such a nice day he is going on a picnic. Unfortunately for him however, he fails to pull his car completely off the road. And the Grinch comes along and hits it.  Of course, the Grinch blames the Cat in the Hat and has a few choice words for him. But the Cat in the Hat, if anything, is accommodating and apologizes.

 

 

But the Grinch isn't going to let it go with just some wimpy apology. Can you say "road rage"? Eventually the Cat in the Hat arrives safely at his own home, but that's not the end of it. In a series of illustrations as to how letting it go and getting over it is the right way of reacting and an endless series of attempts to get revenge is the wrong way, the Grinch errs of the wrong side several times.

 

One way is he has developed a device which distorts sound within a radius, and pointing it at the Cat in the Hat and his surroundings causes confusion. In essence, whenever anyone or anything makes any kind of noise within it's radius, it comes out as gobbledygook. But it doesn't stop there. Because the Cat in the Hat is not turning into the raging antagonist that the Grinch seems to expect.

 

So the Grinch amps it up. He has a device he calls a "darkhouse". It's like a lighthouse, except in reverse.  It casts a shadow of darkness wherever it is pointed. 

 

 

 

This still isn't getting the results so the Grinch casts a pink glow which causes, among other things, to make food look really unappetizing.

 

The Cat in the Hat has an imaginary thought bubble psychiatric session with the Grinch, trying to figure out what makes him tick and why he's so mean-spirited. 

 

 

 

And during this imaginary session a thread of hope comes out. The Grinch really loves his mother, which eventually leads to the denouement. as patrons at the restaurant where the Cat in the Hat was dining when the Grinch used his pink ray all band together to go to the Grinch's house and serenade him with a song about Mom.

 

 

 

The Grinch becomes teary-eyed and sentimental once again. And when the mirror refection tries to entice him back to his Grinch side, Max points the noise disrupting ray at it and it starts spouting gobbledygook.

 

This production was also awarded a Primetime Emmy award, beating out not just one, but two each, of Charlie Brown and the Smurfs cartoon specials. 

 

OK. Now can I do my Christmas theme?  

 

 

How the Grinch Stole Christmas  (1966):

 

 

 

This is the one cartoon that I will make a point to watch every year. I was a wee lad, not even yet 5 when I first saw it. I probably watched it every year until I was well into my 20's, after which it was only if the broadcast was convenient for my work schedule, since I often had a night time job. But somewhere in my late 30's I was able to jump back on board with making it an annual tradition.

 

"Fa-who for-aze! Da-who dor-aze!  Welcome Christmas bring your light!

Fa-who for-aze! Da-who dor-aze!  Welcome in the cold, dark night!

Welcome Christmas, fa-who ra-mooze!  Welcome Christmas, da-who da-mooze!

Welcome Christmas, while we stand, heart to heart, and hand in hand!

Trim up the tree with Christmas stuff, like bingle balls and whofoo fluff!

Trim up the tree with goowho gums, and bizelbix and wums!

Trim every blessed window, and trim every blessed door!

Hang up who boo hoo bricks, then run out and get some more!

Hang pantookas on the ceiling. pile panfoolas on the floor!

Trim every blessed needle on the blessed Christmas tree!

Christmas comes tomorrow! Trim you! Trim me!

Trim up the tree with fuzzle fuzz and blipper bloos and wuzzle wuzz!

Trim up your uncle and your aunt with yards of who faunt flant!!!"

 

 

 

The Whos down in Whoville absolutely love Christmas. What joy! What fun! Singing an dancing and Christmas fun! And then there's the toys! All the kids get to enjoy their new found toys and make such noise!

 

Noise! Noise! Noise! That's the one thing that the Grinch, who lives just north of Whoville hates the most. (And just out of curiosity, what is it about the "north" that causes such animosity in these tales. It seems to me that every villainous sort of character in these tales happens to live in the north part of the region...)

 

 

 

Anyway, the Grinch hates all the goody good Whos down in Whoville and their overbearing happiness and good cheer. And most annoying is the Christmas season, when that "good nature attitude" comes out in waves of cheer and good will. But what can he do, it's just going to happen, and that's a part of life.

 

But maybe  not this year.  Maybe, just maybe, the Grinch can pull off a feat of such transcending evil that the Whos will transform from their happy-go-lucky selves into wailing and bemoaning spirits, and that would please the Grinch to no end. 

 

 

 

So what is his plan? He will dress up as Santa Claus and sneak into town while all the Whos in Whoville are asleep and steal every present, every tree, every decoration, and even all the Christmas dinner and just sit back and watch the fun as the Whos discover that there won't be a Christmas in Whoville this year after all.

 

 

 

"You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch, you really are a heel!
You're as cuddly as a cactus, you're as charming as an eel! 

Mr. Grinch!
You're a bad banana with a greasy black peel!

You're a monster, Mr. Grinch, your heart's an empty hole!
Your brain is full of spiders, you've got garlic in your soul! 

Mr. Grinch!
I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

You're a vile one, Mr. Grinch, you have termites in your smile!
You have all the tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile! 

Mr. Grinch!
Given the choice between the two of you, I'd take the seasick crocodile!

You're a foul one, Mr. Grinch, you're a nasty wasty skunk!
Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk!

Mr. Grinch.
The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote: "Stink! Stank! Stunk!"

You're a rotter, Mr. Grinch, you're the king of sinful sots!
Your heart's a dead tomato splotched with moldy purple spots!

Mr. Grinch.
Your soul is an appalling dump heap, overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable... mangled up in tangled up knots!

You nauseate me, Mr. Grinch, with a nauseous super "naus!"
You're a crooked dirty jockey, and you drive a crooked hoss! 

Mr. Grinch!
You're a three decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich, with arsenic sauce!"

 

Note: I really don't understand why the Grinch had to dress up as Santa if he expected to be able to get in and out of Whoville undetected. Of course, as we will see, that Santa outfit did come in handy after all. For, while he is busy trying to stuff a Christmas tree up the chimney, a little who, Cindy Lou Who, who was no more than two, wakes up and catches him in the act, and he has to pretend he is Santa and that he is taking the tree back to his workshop to fix a glitch with the Christmas lights on it.

 

 

 

Once the Grinch succeeds in his nefarious plan he heads back to his cave on Mount Crumpit and deliciously anticipates the cries and wails of the lost season down in Whoville. But to his amazement the Whos come out singing and generally expressing joy. Without presents. Without decorations. Without even the Christmas feast. And the Grinch realizes that the Christmas spirit comes from somewhere else, not the things that can be had by the physical realm, but from somewhere deep in the heart. And the Grinch himself has a change of heart, and returns the gifts, and becomes the leader of all the good will that Whoville has to offer.

 

 

 

Outside of Boris Karloff as the narrator and the voice of the Grinch, no one received any credit for their role. Specifically, the classic "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" was actually sung by Thurl Ravenscroft, who's big claim to fame at the time was as the voice of Tony the Tiger in Frosted Flakes commercials. ("They're GREEEAT!") Also missing was the credit for the one vocal that was NOT Karloff, that of Cindy Lou Who, who was actually voiced by June Foray.

 

How the Grinch Stole Christmas is the only one of these three that was not in the running for an Emmy for children's program the following awards year. Just to clarify, a 1966 filming of the Jack in the Beanstalk was the winner, beating out, among others, It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown. But in retrospect, in later years it has been awarded it's own heritage in standing. In 2004 a list by TV Guide named it #1 out of the 10 Best Holiday Specials.  (A Charlie Brown Christmas came in second.)

 

Rejoice, ye Ebenezers. It will be after Halloween before the next Christmas themed entry comes your way. Still before Thanksgiving, true, but you gotta take your pleasures where you can find them... (And since today is Halloween, theoretically the next one could be tomorrow...)

 

Quiggy