New Humbug?

 

 

Note: This makes only the fourth time in the history of this blog that I have decided to address a film that is in current release. As such, there is a limited amount of information I can include. For instance, since I haven't got a credit list I can refer to, often I will have to address parts of the film without any data to enhance it. Apologies. I thought it well worth a departure. 

 

Ebenezer (2026):  

The film, as it should be obvious, is yet another adaptation of the classic Dickens story A Christmas Carol. As such, it remains at heart the traditional tale of redemption for which the original story is famous. It does take a few liberties in this retelling, none of which really detract from the story.

The most obvious alteration involves a 10 minute opening, which takes place 7 years before the standard story started. If you know the story by heart, you can probably see where this is going. 

Yes, at the beginning of the film Jacob Marley (Ian McKellen)  is still alive and well. And we get to see how much of an influence the partner may have had on Scrooge (Johnny Depp). But shortly into the film Marley is taken out of the picture. (The original Dickens story did note that Marley had died on Christmas Eve seven years before the events of the story took place...)

 

Ebenezer Scrooge

Jacob Marley

 

 

The movie transitions to what we normally expect from a rendition of the story. Seven years later, now the present in the context of the film, Scrooge interacts with the standard characters that he is bound to meet prior to his night of revelation, including the rather rude dismissal of a couple of charity seekers and his curt refusal to join his nephew Fred (Sam Claflin) in the traditional Christmas dinner that Fred has always invited him to participate. 

 

Fred

There is also the rather shabby treatment of his employee, Bob Cratchit (Ruprert Grint).   

 

Bob Cratchit with Scrooge

 

The film doesn't exactly depart from the story, as such, with the ghosts. We still get Marley returning from the dead to inform Scrooge of his impending trip into what is going to be his reformation. However, in departure from most of the more classic versions of the film, Marley, as well as most of the ghosts, are visually creepy. 

 

Jacob's ghost

 

On that note, I have to tell those of you who read this blog with children of an impressionable age, this is definitely NOT a family movie (in case that pic above doesn't reveal it already...). Some of the ghosts could conceivably be a bit much. But then, it is rated PG-13... nothing overtly sexual, but the graphics are a bit stark.

For instance, The Ghost of Christmas Present (Andrea Riseborough) even gave me some chills. And I have seen some pretty graphic stuff over the years. One of the things that impressed me most about Riseborough's performance was her delivery when speaking. She speaks her lines in a monotone which adds to the chilling aspect rather than detracts from it. Now, I admit, at first it seemed kind of odd taking that track, but as her scenes went on I gradually came to see how effective that decision to do the part that way was. And it effectively fit in with the makeup that she had in the part.

 

Christmas Past ghost

 

Just as impressive was The Ghost of Christmas Present (Tramell Tillman). I still think that Edward Woodward's portrayal was the closest to the actual character Dickens wrote, and Tramell's portrayal is quite a bit different from the one we traditionally expect. Tillman's Ghost is decidedly more gauche than any that have come before him, but he manages to not make the character a caricature. 

 

Christmas Present ghost

 

The Ghost of Christmas Future is no different from the many that have come before him. He is still the gaunt, hooded, bony hand figure that you have come to expect (Dorian Harewood's portrayal in An American Christmas Carol being the only departure that I can remember...)

 

Christmas Future ghost

 

I won't reveal the way the film altered the denouement of the final ending here. I will say that traditionalists might object. It doesn't drastically change, just gives the characters a different interaction. Does it matter? Ultimately, no, but if you are one who wants to see a particular ending to the story played out, it's not exactly the same.

The fact that director Ti West has a huge reputation for his horror output probably had some influence on the presence of some of the scenes were the other ghosts try to attack Scrooge. And here, they mostly come off as being there as a sort of attempt to add a more stark ghost movie, or sometimes even zombie movie cachet to the film. This is the reason why I recommend that you leave the smaller ones at home.   

Johnny Depp gets mixed reviews for his work. His portrayal of Scrooge is nowhere near Academy Award level, and, really, has anything he's ever done been Academy level? 

(Right now some of you are saying "But, Quiggy... he was nominated for an Oscar for Neverland, but I would say he was probably a distant fifth in the voting against Jamie Foxx, Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio and Don Cheadle, and I personally would have him to have changed places with Paul Giamatti in Sideways. And I'm not alone there. I guess I should add his first appearance as Jack Sparrow which also got a nom, and that was pretty good, although, again, I would not have called it Oscar level). 

I thought he did a decent job, however. He manages to occupy the character without turning him into a caricature. He doesn't exactly chew up the scenery like you might expect from some of his previous roles. And, bonus, the makeup department did a damn good job on him. If you didn't know it was Depp going in in, I would hazard a guess that you probably wouldn't know it was actually him. 

 

 

 

It is rather hard to not compare him to previous incarnations of Scrooge. But that is more to blame on the script than Depp's portrayal. For myself, based on his reactions throughout the redemption sequences, I was wondering whether this Scrooge would end up not being redeemed after all.  At times when I was expecting a little bit of mellowing of the character's hard heart he still seems to be reluctant to let these revelations have any effect on him. 

  

So, how is it being received on the critical front? 

Well, The Catholic Spirit website says it's a "yuletide treat for all but the easily frightened" and that it "ranks as a fresh and ethically insightful iteration of an oft-told yarn". But it warns, as I said in my own review, that it's probably not one to take the kids to see. Focus on the Family's "Plugged In" blogger is of the opinion that there are much better movie versions out there. But those are from the more religious sector of the blogosphere.

Other reviews are pretty much mixed as well. As would be expected, a lot of them seem to question whether we really needed another interpretation of A Christmas Carol. (And my response to that would be why the hell not? But then I am prejudiced since the story is my favorite Christmas story...) 

Early ratings have given this movie a current Rotten Tomatoes rating of 53%. It's way too early to give any financial data on it, of course. I saw the first showing for my local theater and there were only four other people in the theater, but that is no real indication since this was 2 in the afternoon, not a prime time showing. 

It remains to be seen. obviously, how history will treat this movie. If I'm still around in another 5 years, maybe I'll come back to this movie and give it a second look in light of how time has altered it's reception. But at this point I am recommending it, especially if you are, like me, a devoted fan of the overall story.

Drive safely, folks.

Quiggy

 

  

Blowing in the Wind

 

 

 

This is my entry in the Cinema Couture: The Art Of Illusion Blogathon hosted by Classic Movie Blog Association. 

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to go see Gone With the Wind in a theater. The venue was The Ritz in Austin, Texas. The theater had been around since the 1920's, although it had at times been a different kind of venue. It spent some time being a place to go see live bands, as well as turns at being a valid movie theater. Currently it is a comedy club, but from 2007 to 2021 it served as a movie theater under the auspices of Alamo Drafthouse.

 

The neat thing about The Ritz was that it was a classic old theater, with the seating style basically unaltered from it's days during the heyday of it's existence. The Ritz had two screens (I think). The approach to the actual seating had a small lobby with stairs going up to enter the theater. The seating was probably altered just enough to make them more comfortable to modern audiences, but still laid out in much the same way as it had been during it's first opening. 

 

 

It was originally built in the 1920's and is noted as being the first movie theater built in Austin specifically to show the new "talkies"; movies that actually had sound as opposed to the older "silents". 

The experience of seeing it at the Ritz in 2021 was especially memorable. I'm not sure about ALL of the films that Alamo Drafthouse showed during the Flashback Cinema, but on the occasions when I went to see a film in the Flashback Cinema series (another one I saw was It's A Wonderful Life)  there was an employee who would come out and give a little historical background to the film showing that day. In this particular showing a young lady came out on the stage in front of the screen and gave a little history.

The really memorable part of this exhibition is that the young lady came out in an outfit inspired by the Carol Burnett Show parody of the film, in which Carol, as Starlett O'Hara, came out dressed in an outfit made from one of the mansion's curtains (complete with the curtain rod). Don't have a picture of the young lady in the theater that day, but here is the original Carol Burnett scene to give you an idea...

 

The background to this incident was that the girl said she had mentioned she was going to talk about Gone With the Wind and her father mentioned the classic TV parody. The girl had never seen, nor even heard of, the parody so her father sat her down and showed her the entire episode, and the girl decided to do something similar for her presentation.  

So earlier this year a notice popped up in my Facebook feed that Gone with the Wind was going to be making another appearance in the theater and, coincidentally enough, one of the dates it was going to be showing was on October 10th, which was my sister's birthday. Most years I have a problem with finding something for her birthday, usually settling for something mundane, like taking her to dinner. But, as you know if you have been reading this blog over the years, her tastes in movies tend towards the old classics. And by classics I mean dramas and westerns, but not horror or sci-fi or anything even remotely outre. Which means about 90% or more of the movies I review could safely be classed as "not her cup of tea". (She is definitely not watching White Zombie with me, much less A Clockwork Orange.) 

But this movie falls easily into a category of one she likes. So, last month we went to the local theater.

Note: Gone With the Wind is a classic in the annals of Hollywood. As such, I have no illusions that any of this stuff will be revelations that 95% or more of you didn't already know. I am deeply indebted to Cynthia Marylee Molt who, in 1990, published a volume Gone with the Wind on Film which provided much of the information I used for this piece. Also, many trivia notations came from a Turner Classics production, The Making of a Legend, a documentary made on the production of the film.

The background to the film has a fairly long and intriguing story. The novel on which it was based was started by the author, Margaret Mitchell, as a way to occupy her time while she recovered from an automobile accident. It took her something like 10 years, off and on, to complete, and when it was finally published it was an international best seller. 

The casting of the film is a legend in itself. Due to the popularity and renown of the novel, there was a great interest in the casting of the primary characters. Especially for the headlining role of Scarlett O'Hara. Virtually every actress in Hollywood of an appropriate age (and even some not so appropriate) saw themselves as the best choice to play the role. Even the public got into the debate. According to the  aforementioned documentary, a public poll of who would be the ideal Scarlett ranked the following as the best choice (in order): Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Miriam Hopkins, Margaret Sullivan, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck. (As a side note, I think Hepburn or Davis would have been good choices, but I think Crawford would have been a bad choice, even though she would have added some nuances to the vindictive side of Scarlett...)

An incomplete list (but including some of the more notable applicants and considered possibilities) for the role would include Lucille Ball, Tallulah Bankhead, Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, Jean Harlow, Susan Hayward, Carole Lombard, Lana Turner and even, (believe it or not), Margaret Mitchell herself!

The part of Rhett Butler was almost a shoo-in for Clark Gable. Nearly everyone thought he was the only possible actor to play the role. But I discovered, reading the reference work on the film cited above, that Mitchell's choice was... wait for it... Groucho Marx! Gary Cooper, Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Randolph Scott were considered.

Another interesting contender: The part of Belle, the brothel madam, could have been played by Mae West. As much as I would like to have seen her in that role, I have to admit that I feel the movie would have suffered some if she was in it, mainly because I think she would have drawn attention away from the central characters whenever she was on camera. The role was eventually awarded to Ona Munson, who did a good job.

The costume designer for Gone with the Wind was Walter Plunkett. Because of the Hays Code, many films suffered a little because of the strictures of propriety that the Code enforced. Molt notes in her book that producers clashed with those rules in some productions because you couldn't really be historically accurate in costumes, mainly because the real historical style of clothing was a bit too risque for the times. For instance, the 1934 version of Cleopatra: "for which authentic clothing would have been no clothing at all" and "Forever Amber (1947) {would have required} the bawdy deshabillé of a woman during the Court of Charles II in England". 

For Gone with the Wind, Plunkett had no strictures, since the fashion of the South circa the late 1800's was pretty much along the same lines as what the Code established was allowable. Even the scene where the young women are preparing for nap time, garbed in night clothes, was reasonably sensible for the Code. And the dresses worn by the female characters in public are astounding. 

Sets for the film are also pretty impressive. The only one that really suffers, in my opinion, is the scene involving the burning of Atlanta. Although it is rather impressive in look, the sets, which were really older sets for very obviously NOT southern US settings, is just a little off. Many of the buildings burning look exactly like what they really were: settings from the 1933 film King Kong and also from The Garden of Allah. 

 

As well, since this scene was the first one filmed, prior to the prime casting, stunt doubles were used in most of the scene. Not all that obvious when watching on a small screen, but watching it on a movie theater, many of the long shots emphasized, unintentionally, that that was not Gable and Leigh in the carriage. The rest of the film did have some great settings. I was particularly impressed by the dishevelled look of Tara, post Civil War, when Scarlett returned home. 

 

I will say, at this point, that if you have never had the privilege of seeing the film on the big screen you should jump at the opportunity if it comes your way.  Hopefully you won't have to wait until the (probable) 100th anniversary re-release in 2039...

 

 

Gone With the Wind (1939): 

Note: Given that it's sure bet that you already know the entire plot by heart (and if you don't what have you been waiting for to watch this?), most of what follows will be a musing on my impressions of how the film played out and the characters involved, rather than an in-depth discussion of the story itself. 

The film opens with Max Steiner's score as we see a party being held at Tara. Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) is surrounded by admirers, hoping to gain her attention. Among these are the two Tarleton brothers, Stuart and Brent (note: the credits are in error as George Reeves is credited as Brent, but actually played Stuart and Fred Crane is credited as Stuart, but actually played Brent. Apparently the credits were already made and it was deemed too costly to redo them. But, unless you were familiar with one or the other, or both, it wouldn't stand out too much, since both characters are pretty much the same...)

 

 

 

Scarlett toys with the affections all of her potential suitors, but her true love is reserved for Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Unfortunately, the devotion is not requited by Ashley. Instead, he is betrothed to Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). Which doesn't set well with Scarlett, obviously. Scarlett comes off in this film as a spoiled and manipulative brat, and her actions throughout gave me nervous shivers. I felt sorry for every man that crossed her path, and couldn't help but feel relief for Ashley, who escaped a lifetime of pure distress if he had been the unfortunate victim of her machinations.

 

Because Scarlett has a single-minded obsession with Ashley, she ultimately marries Melanie's brother, Charles (Rand Brooks), not because she truly loves him; she is only doing it to hopefully inspire a little jealousy in Ashley. (Manipulative bitch that she is). The marriage is doomed, however, when, after the start of the Civil War, Charles is killed in action. Scarlett doesn't spend much time grieving over the loss however.

 

Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) makes his appearance on the scene, and Scarlett takes a dislike to his brash manner, but does eventually mellow towards him, especially after he helps her and Melanie escape Atlanta during the burning of the city by the Union. 

 

She returns to Tara, where the financial troubles of keeping her beloved home cause her to, once again, use her wiles to get money to keep it afloat by marrying Frank Kennedy (Carroll Nye). (Once again, Scarlett's self, self-entitled personality grated on me). Frak also dies, and Scarlett has about as much grieving over the loss as she did for Charles.

 

Eventually Scarlett and Rhett hook up. Rhett, for his part, seems to love Scarlett and her independent spirit, but once again, Scarlett really only holds her true love for Ashley, even though he is still married and devoted to Melanie. The relationship between Scarlett and Rhett gradually deteriorates as he realizes that Scarlett is just as single-minded and immature as when he first met her. This comes to a head when their daughter, Bonnie, dies. Rhett truly was devoted to Bonnie, although it seemed to me that Scarlett just considered her a burden to be borne.

 

Even the ending didn't change my opinion of Scarlett, as her grief over the loss of Rhett's love came off more as a "woe is me, nobody loves me, everybody hates me" scene. Still selfish, even to the last. Her final words in the movie are "I'll think of some way to get him back! After all... tomorrow is another day!" Personally, my opinion of what Scarlett does from here on out is reflected by Rhett's final words: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"

 

So, even though I truly don't like Scarlett, I think the movie is astounding, especially in tems of the way it was filmed, the sets, the costumes and the music. Given a much more likable main female character, this could easily be one of my top ten movies. It still ranks in the top 25, which is a credit to those other factors. And it is worth watching multiple times.

One final note: some critics have disparaged the film for it's portrayal of the slaves as being happy in their position. Were some slaves comfortable with their position as this movie implies? Maybe, but probably not.  That doesn't detract from the film for me. I especially liked the Mammy (Hattie McDaniel) character, despite the fact that her devotion to the O'Hara family may have been unrealistic. Assuredly this is a film that deserves a better reputation than the likes of, say, Birth of a Nation in it's depiction of the Negro. Whether or not you agree, there were some serious changes made during the filming process. Equality, whether agreeably or grudgingly, was upheld at may points. For instance, one article I read stated that the restrooms had to be desegregated on set if the Negro cast were going to continue. And Clark Gable said that unless equality were a part of the set he would not appear in the film. These may seem like minor concessions to the 21st century mind, but given the climate of the time, there were fairly progressive.

With a budget of only about $4 million, the film was an astounding success at the box office, bringing in $380 million in ticket sales (to put that in perspective, a ticket for a film in 1939 was only about 25 cents). The film virtually swept the Oscars that year. Out of 13 nominations it took home 8 of those, including a record setting first Oscar to a black actress, Hattie McDaniel for Best Supporting Actress. Of the five that the movie did NOT win, the most egregious loss, in my opinion, was giving Best Actor to Robert Donat (Goodbye, Mr. Chips) over Clark Gable. 

The film ranks #4 on the 100 Years...100 Movies list put out by the American Film Institute, behind Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather. (It's no secret about how much I don't like Citizen Kane, but I think the other two deserve their spots, so I personally would not object if it were ranked #3... even if it wouldn't garner that high a spot in my own personal list.) 

This viewing, as I said earlier, was a birthday present for my sister. We had a good time, and it's always a nice thing to see a movie that was previously only available on whatever small screen format that could be found. A side note: My own birthday is coming up next month, and I am hoping we can do another outing, because The Maltese Falcon is being re-released. 

That's it for this time. Drive safely, folks.

Quiggy

 

  

 

Announcing The Bingeworthy Blogathon

  

Sherlock button

 

On The Midnite Drive-In I recently started a series which I call "Bingeworthy", which focuses on TV shows that your humble blogger considers worth watching multiple episodes in a row. The concept of "binging" TV shows predates the modern era.

 

The Sopranos button

 

When I was a kid back in the 70's, there would be what were called "marathons", in which a local station (usually one of the UHF stations) would run several episodes in a row of a classic TV series. It was where I first got my taste for The Twilight Zone. Nowadays you don't even have to depend on the whims of some programming grunt to decide which episodes of a series you would like to watch. With streaming, as well as DVD collections, you can pick and choose a TV series and watch whatever you want.

 

Colin from Accounts button

 

The thing is, with this technology you can schedule a "binge" session of a TV series you like and watch 2, 3 or 4 hours, or even more, of your favorite TV shows. You can also do the same thing with movies. I once sat through an entire night of The Hobbit, running all three of the films in succession in one sitting. 

 

Dark button

 

Give credit to Gil, who writes the Realweegiemidget Reviews blog for the inspiration for this blogathon. Once she planted the seed in my mind, it just germinated to a full size in my mind.

For this blogathon I am asking for your choices in jam sessions of classic TV series. Or, if you choose, a series of films that are inter-connected. For films I'm thinking of such things as the Indiana Jones films, the Rocky saga, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the like. So you don't necessarily have to stick with a TV theme. 

All I'm asking is that the binge session you pick have some kind of thematic connection. (In other words, don't just say, for instance, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Wizard of Oz and Star Wars and just say "the Greatest Movies of All Time" is your theme, please. Have some thematic thread of connection that puts them all in together. For example, writing about the various incarnations of Sherlock Holmes would be acceptable. But writing about favorite films featuring an actor or an actress, using random unconnected films would not. Save those for somebody's Katherine Hepburn or Spencer Tracy tribute.

 

Nirvana in Fire button

 

The dates for this blogathon are not necessarily concrete. I'm not oblivious to the fact that many of you have family and friends getting together over the holidays. So you can post early, that's fine. The connection won't appear on this blog until the date I set up, but if you want to play along, feel free to get your entry in earlier. But I am asking for new material. Not something written months or years ago. 

And I am not establishing a limit on entries. If someone else claimed your preferred choice, go ahead and choose it again. That said, I sincerely HOPE that I don't have a dozen entries for Breaking Bad or Mad Men, but if it happens, it happens...

You know the drill by now:

1. Write your blog piece about your favorite "binging" TV or film experience.

2. Notify me here when it is live on your blog.

3. Use one of the above buttons I created for the blogathon in your post. (And, yes, this time I actually made them myself... Can't you tell...? LOL)

4. Have fun. And Happy holidays and Happy New Year

Quiggy 

Blogroll: 

The Midnite Drive In: Monk (2002-2009)

Hamlette's Soliloquy: Lost (2004-2010)

Silver Screenings: Blake of Scotland Yard (1937) 

Realweegiemidget Reviews: Top of the Pops (1964-2006) 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #45: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

Week #45: Wyoming- 

 

 

The state of Wyoming was established on July 10, 1890 

Details about Wyoming:

State bird: western meadowlark

State flower: Indian paintbrush

State tree: cottonwood

Additional historical trivia:

Nellie Tayloe Ross became the fist woman ever elected to be a state governor (By only a few days. She was followed the same year by Miriam Ferguson, who was elected governor of Texas the same year.) 

Because of it's natural topography, the lowest point in the state, the Belle Fourche River, is actually at a higher elevation than some states' highest elevation point.

 

There are only two escalators in the entire state, both located in buildings in Caspar. Got a fear of climbing stairs? Avoid Wyoming then...

 

The famous Devil's Tower (seen in Close Encounters of the Third Kind) got it's name due to a mistranslation. It's Indian name meant "Bear Lodge", but the mistranslation ended up with it being officially designated as "Devil's Tower". 

 

The first J. C. Penney's store was established in Kemmerer. 

 

Famous people born in Wyoming: George Clayton Johnson (author of many stories adapted for The Twilight Zone), Curt Gowdy, Brandon Nimmo, C. J. Box and Jackson Pollock.  

 

Note: Close Encounters of the Third Kind is somewhat a departure from the initial rules of this project, in that a lot of the action doesn't actually take place in Wyoming. It's all over the world. But the fact that the most dynamic portion takes place at Devil's Tower is enough to warrant it's inclusion. (That and the fact that the originally scheduled movie I had slotted for the Wyoming entry turned out to be a dud... a 1966 remake of the John Wayne classic, Stagecoach. So sue me...)

 

The concept of this film is so classic that it doesn't really need much background discussion, but much of what follows really is interesting. So, even though you may have heard it before, I am going to delve into some background.

First, the story behind Close Encounters: The original story started out under the title Watch the Skies, and originally was going to be about UFO enthusiasts. Then it was going to an entirely different story, one about an Air Force officer whose job was to debunk so called "sightings", but had a sighting himself, and was actively trying to blow the lid off a cover-up.

The eventual story that was filmed had a lot of trouble, mainly from the government and the military. The Air Force and NASA both refused to get involved. NASA even went so far as to send a memo to Spielberg suggesting that the project be cancelled, basically telling him it would be akin to "career suicide", I guess.

Of course, that wasn't the case, it turns out. After Jaws was such a big hit, Spielberg was granted carte blanche to make whatever he wanted, and with a budget of $19 million he created what turned out to be one of the biggest money makers of the year, just coming in behind Star Wars and Smokey and the Bandit. 

As far as the cast was concerned, Dreyfuss was not the first considered for the part of Roy. Some rather big names turned down the role, including Steve McQueen, James Caan, Robert DeNiro, Gene Hackman, Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman and even Jack Nicholson. Of those I think Hoffman is the only one who could have given a performance that made the character believable. The others would probably have brought too much of previous roles to the part, and made the innocent Roy a different character all together.

Meryl Streep and Amy Irving auditioned for the part of Roy's wife. Terri Garr, who eventually got the role, originally wanted to play Jillian, but Melinda Dillon was cast instead.  

 

 

 

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977):

Close Encounters doesn't waste much time getting to the story. The opening credits feature only the title, two stars (Dreyfuss and Truffaut), the director of photography, Vilmos Zsigmond, and the director, Spielberg. Then it jumps right in to the film. (Less than 1 minute into the start...)

The film opens on the Sonoran desert in Mexico, where a flight of missing airplanes that disappeared in 1945 have reappeared. Despite the fact that 30 plus years (at the time) have lapsed since their disappearance, they are in pristine 12945 condition. Only the planes have reappeared, though. There is no sign, as yet, of the missing crew. And the flight had disappeared off the coast of Florida, but now it;s in the heart of Mexico.

 

In a remote are of Indiana a young boy, Barry (Cary Guffey), awakes to find all his toys going haywire. He gets up to investigate and finds he has guests in the house (although at this point we can only speculate, since we don't see what he sees...) He wanders outside, and his mother, Jillian (Melinda Dillon), who only sees her son wandering outside, gives chase.

  

Meanwhile, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) gets a call about power outtages and has to go out to check them out. He gets hopelessly lost (This is pre-GPS... he has only a slew of fold-out maps to help... even I would probably get lost, and I have an innate sense of direction.) While parked ("you're in the middle of the road, you jerk") he witness one of the first of the many UFOs we will see in the film. He also discovers a band of people, along with Barry and his mother, on the side of the road, waiting for something.  (Maybe it's that traffic jam of UFOs that just went by...?) 

 

 

It gets even weirder.

In the middle of the Gobi Desert another mysterious appearance, a ship. Yes, I said a ship. Not a space ship. Just a regular WWI era cargo steamship, but not on the water, in the desert miles from where it too had disappeared years ago. 

 

There suddenly seems to be a rash of reappearances of missing transport vehicles, all of which had coincidentally disappeared years before in that mysterious area we call the Bermuda Triangle. The question as to why they are reappearing now is a mystery (at least to those witnessing it, although not to us...)

Roy and Jillian both seem to be having an obsession with recreating something from some vision they have, which, as it turns out, seems to have been instilled in them from the aliens. It is the area we know as the Devil's Tower in Wyoming. They eventually both come to the conclusion that they are being drawn to this area by these unseen forces.

 

 

At the same time, government agencies also come to realize that something big is going to happen there. And as usual the government has no scruples in deterring others from the site. They manufacture a ruse that there has been some chemical spill accident and evacuate the countryside, as well as set up elaborate roadblocks and subterfuge to prevent anyone from coming to the area from the outside. All in the effort to keep the public away from the actual truth, the landing of aliens on Earth.

 

 

There are a number of parallels in this film to Biblical legends within the film. I have to admit these never occurred to me before I read about them, but in retrospect they do make sense. I didn't connect the facts, but the classic Charlton Heston film, The Ten Commandments, is playing on the Neary household TV, and later, when Roy finally tries to climb the Devil's Tower, there seems to be a lot of relationship to that classic story. Roy can be seen as Moses, the Devil's Tower could be Mt. Sinai and the aliens could be a substitute for God. Also, when Roy boards the brightly lit alien spacecraft, it could be a parallel to when God took Elijah up in a golden chariot. 

The movie is an excellent look at the loss of innocence. There is something childlike about Roy as he gradually realizes he is on the verge of a new learning experience and his transition from the ordinary guy to a lucky observer of a new outlook on life feels like the same way when a child learns new things.    

Close Encounters of the Third Kind was nominated for an astounding 8 Oscars, but lost in nearly every award in the voting to either Annie Hall or Star Wars. In fact, the only Oscar category it did win was for Best Cinematography, coincidentally the only category in which it was NOT competing against one or the other of those aforementioned films. It did win a second Oscar, a Special Achievement award for sound effects editing. 

The film consistently ranks high in many lists of the greatest movies of all time.  It ranks #64 on AFI's 100 Years, 100 Movies list. It's #44 on a list of Rotten Tomatoes best science fiction movies. On that site it garners a 91% Fresh rating. As noted above, it's $19 million budget was recouped in multiples, bringing $309 million at the box office. Whenever some one reissues it for theater it consistently sells out the theater. New viewers, people who were not even alive when it first came out, find it just as impressive as those of us who were lucky enough to be around for it's premiere.   

That wraps it up for this week. Drive safely, folks... and keep watching the skies.  Not all those aliens out there are bent on the destruction of mankind. Some actually have our best interests at heart.

Quiggy

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #44: The Being

 

Note: this entry has been edited. Somebody decided the original contained something that violated guidelines of the community. I have no idea what triggered it to be flagged,  and Blogger apparently didn't deem my query worthy of a response, but I removed all of the pics and censored one word that might have been the problem. Hopefully it now conforms to the rules.

Because of the hectic schedule of running the Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon, as well as the special 100th post this year celebration, my weekly Semiquincentennial Movie Project post had to be delayed a few days. Back to a regular schedule next week.

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

Week #43: Idaho -

The state of Idaho was established on July 3, 1890

Details about Idaho:

State bird: mountain bluebird

State flower: syringa

State tree: white pine

Additional historical trivia:

Sun Valley Resort lays claim to being the first established skiing resort in the US. It is also famous as being where Ernest Hemingway completed his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls.

Boise State University football is played on a unique surface, a football field colored blue.

Idaho grows about a third of all the potatoes consumed in the US. (Note: the website where I garner these tidbits of trivia follows that fact with "It is likely that the people living outside the state eat more of these starchy vegetables than the people in Idaho", without even a hint of irony... Seriously??? Idaho, with just over 2 million residents, ranks only 37th in population in the ranking of states... There are some whole cities in the US that have more people living in them...) 

The town of Wallace lays claim to being "The Center of The Universe". (I can't make this stuff up, folks... someone else does the work for me...)

 

OK... I realize that this is only 4 trivia facts instead of my usual 5, but on that note, I can't go on... I just can't... 

So let's move on to... 

Famous people born in Idaho: Lana Turner (who was born in Wallace {see above}. Is she the reason why it's called the "center"...?), Picaboo Street, George "Pappy" Boyington, Mark Felt (the famous "Deep Throat" that Woodard and Bernstein used to expose Nixon's illicit activities) and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin (her family moved to Alaska shortly thereafter, but she was born in Idaho). 

 

The Being (1981): 

It seems somewhat relevant that the top tier (before the title) actors are a host of what I like to call "actors who were on the down side of their careers". Of the four names that appear in this sequence, only one, Martin Landau, had a significant career following their appearance in this low budget outing. 

The other three names, Jose Ferrer, Dorothy Malone and Ruth Buzzi, made only a few movies after appearing here. It could be reasonably argued that Buzzi never really had a significant career outside of her recurring participation in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, of course, but Malone and Ferrer had significant roles earlier. Malone in particular had been an Oscar winner (for Written on the Wind) and a Golden Globe nominee (for both Written on the Wind and the TV series Peyton Place).  Ferrer also had garnered attention with Oscar and Golden Globes winning and nominated roles (Joan of Arc, Cyrano de Bergerac, Moulin Rouge and The Caine Mutiny.

The rest of the cast included a few familiar names. Murray Langston, who was otherwise remembered as "The Unknown Comic" on The Gong Show and Kinky Friedman, a country music star (Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys) who also garnered some attention when he ran for the Governor of Texas in 2006 and also was the author of a series of mystery novels in which he appeared as a fictional version of himself as the main character / amateur detective. (Side note: If you like the amateur detective genre of mystery fiction that has a dash or two of cynical humor, you ought to check out his mystery output, Greenwich Killing Time and Armadillos and Old Lace for a start.)

The film is a gold mine for a case for a bunch of friends and relatives who just decided to make a movie. The producer, William Osco, who also appears in the film under the preposterous stage name of Rexx Coltrane, was married to the director Jackie Kong. His little daughter, Roxanne, makes a brief appearance as Susie in a scene competing with other children on an Easter egg hunt. His first wife, Nancy, appears in a scene as one of the victims. Osco got his start producing a video featuring Langston in his "Unknown Comic" role. Additionally, Buzzi was married to Kent Perkins, who plays one of the police officers.   

The film opens in the town of Pottsville, Idaho, a town, as the narrator intones at the beginning, is "not much different from any other main street U.S.A., where strange and unexplained events are occurring... some people are missing, among them a little child. The ultimate terror has taken form, and Pottsville, Idaho will never be the same..." And if that isn't an enticing opening, the rest of this movie is going to be isn't going to improve your outlook.

 (One quick side note: I live in a town in Texas called "Pottsboro", so I like the name of this fictional town...)

What we have at the beginning is a kid running from some unseen Being. He hijacks a car in a junkyard, which not only conveniently has the keys in it but actually runs... But not, apparently, fast enough to get away from the pursuing Being.

Have to admit, it took some time to connect the fact that some other kid, the one who had recently gone "missing" from the prologue, is now this transformed mysterious Being of our title. And even more time than that to figure out that that previously missing kid had been fooling around in the local nuclear waste dump which had transformed into The Being (even after the film actually reveals that's what happened).

A lot of the confusion surrounding the identity of The Being has to be attributed to the editing of the film. It seems apparent to me that the film editor had no idea what the director wanted to accomplish. Either that or the editor just took it on himself to create his own movie. There is virtually no coherency to the editing. It seems to jump, willy-nilly, from one scenario to another, with only goal being to isolate various characters so they can be victims of The Being.

Much of the film involves the main character, Officer Lutz (Coltrane/Osco) discovering the aftermath of the presence of The Being, which mainly consists of some green radioactive goo. The motivation of The being is severely lacking, too. It seems to only exist to kill off the citizenry. It doesn't even eat it's prey, which would at least make a little sense. Apparently it's only goal is to dismember it's prey (out of pure enjoyment? Who knows?)

We get a few standard characters, including the oblivious Mayor (Jose Ferrer), whose only goal is to see that this development doesn't infringe on the city's main source of revenue, which leads to this conversation between Officer Lutz and his girlfriend, Laurie (Marianne Gordon):

"But if this thing is actually killing people, then why is the mayor trying to keep it quiet?

"Potatoes."

"Potatoes?"

"Around here that means big money."

 

Mayor Lane does seem to have the interest of his constituents in mind, however. He calls in a nuclear expert, Garson Jones (Martin Landau). But, not as it turns out to get to the bottom of the mysterious events. He calls in Jones to validate his insistence that that nuclear waste dump on the outskirts of town in no more dangerous than a glass of water. (Seriously!) Mayor Lane comes off seeming like the Mayor from Jaws, who would rather just sweep any ominous things under the rug than admit there is a problem that could threaten the city economy.

In the midst of all this is a few other stock characters. Ruth Buzzi plays a leading matron of the city whose primary interest is that she looks good to the wealthier inhabitants of the town. 

There are a trio of rednecks who think that the more serious matter in town is that someone may be moving in a massage parlor in one of the vacant buildings, which can only lead to (yegads!) pornography being sold. The rednecks include the aforementioned Kinky Friedman and Murray Langston. (Personally I'd be more suspicious of a guy named "Kinky"... but that's just his stage actor name... his character is called "Willis"...)  

Additionally, wandering through the film is a semi-psychotic woman (Dorothy Malone), who turns out to be the mother of the kid that was changed into The Being. And it's hinted at, but never straight out admitted, that she knows The Being is really her son. 

Given it's somewhat incoherent plot the movie does manage to be entertaining on several levels. Most of those have to do with the "jump scares" (scenes where you are expecting the monster to jump out and go "Boo", but you instead get a cat that jumps out and goes "Boo"... I mean "Meow"...). As well, the monster looks pretty decent. At least when the film bothers to reveal the monster. 

The Being, by the way, is credited as being played by Jerry Maren, a prolific little person actor. Now, given that the monster is played by a little person, it should be no surprise that none of it's attacks are shown in long camera view (which is probably a good thing... who would be scared of a midget monster...?)

Looked at from the drive-in movie lens, however, The Being manages to deliver the goods. If you've been paying attention to my blog, you know that I don't consider low-budget acting and special effects to always signify tripe. Under the right circumstances (say, a supreme pizza and a case of beer) The Being could easily be loads of fun, especially if you gather at least a couple more like-minded individuals to watch it with you. As I always say, don't take the snarky disparagement I inject into my reviews to mean I think it's a total waste of time. Sometimes even the worst movies can be worth a watch. 

The dispatching of a couple of the more annoying characters is worth the price, in itself. I guarantee you will probably cheer when The Being (inevitably, so not really a spoiler) takes out the Mayor. If nothing else, you gotta see the scene where The Being wreaks havoc at a drive-in theater, all while some maniac is wreaking havoc on the drive-in movie theater screen.

 

There is no info on how much money The Being actually made at the box office. Wikipedia says it "performed poorly" but that's ALL it says about it's reception. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't even give it a rating, but another benchmark rating site, the Popcorn-meter, gives it an 18% rating. But hey, my hero, Joe Bob Briggs gave it 3 out of 4 stars. And for the first time ever, I am quoting Joe Bob in one of my reviews:

"We're talking some serious slime work here... Excellent slime glopola monster with a moving mouth. Drive-In Academy Award nomination for Jackie Kong, the [censored by admin] director of The Being." 

If it's good enough for Joe Bob, it's good enough for me... 

Well, that's it for this week. Drive safely, folks. And, my advice, take the long way around that nuclear waste dump.

Quiggy