(Cheesy Shock Tactics Movies About) Drugs are Bad For You

 

 

This is your brain:

 

This is your brain on drugs:

 

 

This is your brain on cheesy, shock tactics laced  "warning" movies about drugs:

 

In the history of cinema, primarily the 30's and 40's, but even into the 70's, educational scare tactic movies predominated not only classroom social studies classes, but also were made as Teach Scare Your Children features to supposedly educate you and your children on the dangers of drugs. In the case of, say, heroin and cocaine, maybe these were beneficial, even if not entirely accurate. 

The real bugaboos in those early days, however, were the most readily available drugs, primarily marijuana. If you've seen Reefer Madness, you already know how rough and egregiously over-hyped the effects of that devil's weed had on the poor innocents who hung out with the wrong crowd and succumbed to the temptation of it. Reefer Madness, however, is not the only example of such scare tactics the authorities used to frighten innocent minds from ever trying this "horrendous blight". The tendency of the time, when the government and Hollywood both tried to highlight a theme of "moral panic" concerning the looming drug culture. was to make marijuana the ultimate boogeyman of the whole shebang.

In my piece on the film Reefer Madness, for instance, I highlight the fact that the main proponent in the film for making the insidious drug a dire monster, said that marijuana was "more vicious and more deadly than opium, morphine and heroin".  Over hyped and even, in retrospect, egregiously false information about marijuana abound in that film, so much so that when the film was rediscovered in the 70's, groups like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) highlighted the film for its unintentional comedy, since much of the action of the characters who smoke it is patently false.

But even today there is a resistance to the seemingly unstoppable reform of how the law approaches the drug. Peter Tonguette, writing on a website called First Things, for instance, really seems to exemplify  this resistance to the change:

"Who, or what, bears responsibility for this sad state of affairs? Surely the widespread legalization of marijuana—initially under the pretext of its alleged medical benefits, later on the more honest grounds that its users like to get high without getting busted—bears the blame. But attitudes changed before laws, and attitudes, in this society, are often shaped by movies." 

(If you read the whole article it's easy to get the idea that the author would feel right at home if he were in the crew backing the Reefer Madness film in its original intent of sending the message to "beware this dangerous menace!"...) 

Note: While I don't quite align with the author on marijuana use in movies in these later days, I do agree that the demonization of harder drugs, like heroin, in film (à la The Man with the Golden Arm) serves a good purpose. But I also feel that marijuana is no more a deleterious drug than alcohol, meaning it should be regulated in the same way (not selling to minors, regulated when using heavy equipment or driving, etc.)  

I don't care whether you have never touched the "insidious" drug, variously known as "reefer" or "marijuana" or other such terms or not. The fact of the matter is those warnings in the films discussed, of the danger of marijuana. were seriously overstated. In most of them, all it took was one quick puff to turn a straight-laced normal guy or girl into a raving lunatic. And the character in question didn't even have to inhale... (And, yes, I have partaken of the drug, in my younger days, and I can safely say I never went out on a murder spree or started to run over innocent pedestrians like I was recreating scenes from Death Race 2000... But just to clarify, I have been clean and sober for almost 17 years, so I am not trying to defend a current habit here...)

 

Marihuana (1936):

Subtitled, as per the movie poster, "WEED with ROOTS in HELL!", the movie begins with a warning, with the added indication of the racist tendencies of white Hollywood at the time:

"For centuries the world has been aware of the narcotic menace. We have complacently watched Asiatic countries attempt to rid themselves of DRUG'S CURSE and attributed their failure to lack of education. We consider ourselves enlightened, and think that never could we succumb to such a state. But - did you know that  - the use of Marihuana is steadily increasing among the youth of this country? Did you know that- the youthful criminal is our greatest problem today? And that - Marihuana gives the user false courage, and destroys conscience, thereby making crime alluring, smart? That is the price we are paying for our lack of interest in the narcotic situation. This story is drawn from an actual case history on file in the police records of one of our large cities. Note: MARIHUANA, hashish of the Orient, is commonly distributed as a doped cigarette. Its most terrifying effect is that it fires the user to extreme cruelty and license."   

(Bold and underlined portions edited by your blogger. Otherwise, the text is verbatim as the credits roll.)

Well. After that  dire introduction, watching the rest of the movie would seem to be unnecessary... But since we are already here... 

The film opens in what seems to be a typical bar, complete with beer and dancing. Although, the people in this bar are extremely drunk. You think maybe they are trying to evangelize the drinker as well as the dope smoker? Possibly... Morally reprehensible, this newly re-legalized alcohol... (Prohibition had only recently been repealed.)

Meanwhile, across town, Elaine (Dorothy Dehn) is preparing to go out on a date with her boyfriend, Morgan (Richard Erskine). Before the date mama (Juanita Fletcher) and Elaine discuss Elaine's sister Burma (Harley Wood).  Burma is a good girl, apparently still in high school, since at the time she is over at a friend's house doing homework.

 

Burma, however is not doing homework, she is in a bar drinking with friends (and probably underage to boot, since she may still be in high school...) It turns out that Burma, who comes off as the neglected daughter, has been using the "study date" ruse with her mother for some time, but instead goes to bars with her boyfriend, Dick (Hugh McArthur). 

 

Into the bar comes a guy, a disreputable looking person from the outset.  This is obviously the villain of  the film, as he makes every effort to look sleazy and unsophisticated in just his facial expressions. Of course, it turns out he's a drug dealer... He tries to make a play for the girls, even as their boyfriends look on without a clue.  The new guy, Tony (Paul Ellis), who is played with as much "bad guy" sleaze as can be mustered and still look reputable to the novice, invites the four to his beach house that Saturday night. Ostensibly it is for a weenie roast and some innocent drinking as far as the kids are concerned, but you know Tony has ulterior motives...

 

At the party, the kids, including some that Dick and Burma invited to come along for the ride, quickly run through the stash of licit stuff (hot dogs, alcohol, etc.) But the duplicitous Tony didn't invite these kids over for innocent fun... He puts out a stash of funny cigarettes, which at least one of the girls knows exactly what this stuff is. As usual in these early "dope"-sploitation films, all it takes is just to light up, not even inhaling the drug to make the kids turn into raving lunatics. (So much for Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton...)

 

Chaotic antics ensue as some of the girls decide to go swim in the ocean, sans clothes. And Burma has sex on the beach with Dick. Inhibitions are cast to the wayside after a couple of innocent puffs. One of those skinny-dipping girls actually drowns. And Tony, ever the helpful kind soul, offers to help the girls cover up the true details. (yeah, right!) Really what he does is blackmail them into keeping him and his place out of hit, else he will inform on them, thus making them wards of the juvenile court.

 

At home, the rebellious Burma blames her rebellious habit by the fact that mother dotes on Elaine more than her.  "It's always Elaine! Elaine! Elaine!" (Oh go to your room, Jan... I mean Burma...) But Burma is in trouble in more ways than one, and she now really needs to marry Dick. You can probably guess why... Dick goes to see Tony, maybe to get a loan to tide them over until he can get a job, but Tony has other ideas, like making Dick an "employee" of his. But Dick is shot and killed while smuggling drugs for Tony.

When Burma confronts Tony and threatens to go to the police, once again Tony blackmails her. He offers her a choice: go way and have the baby in secret, which will be given up for adoption, and she will start to work for Tony as a mover for his drug operation. Gradually Burma becomes cynical and even proposes a plan to kidnap Elaine's daughter and hold it for ransom. 

Of course, what Burma does not know is the daughter is not Elaine's. Elaine had adopted her and knows that the true mother of the baby is.... Burma.

In the 30's, the studios demanded that the evildoers get their own just desserts, so It should come as no surprise what Burma's final scene involves. Once again, the innocent lives that are corrupted by that seemingly harmless first puff of the illicit drug has to come to it's fatal conclusion. This one makes that final exit much more extreme than some of the others in this genre, however.

One can only blame Dwain Esper for the more sensational and titillating portions of the movie in an effort to get the money in the door. Sure, it drives home the point of how marijuana can reduce the moral stands of the imbiber, but surely even, by today's standards, it wasn't necessary to dwell so long on the nude skinny dippers. And that from your blogger, who is probably one of the least prudish people out there.

Marihuana will never replace Reefer Madness on it's ability to bring an overwrought emphasis on what was not a very dangerous drug after all, but it did have the courage to show how desperate users of harder drugs, such as heroin, can became when they are enslaved by the symptoms of withdrawal from said harder drugs. And that is worth the movie if nothing else.  

 

 

Assassin of Youth (1937):  

The movie appears on collections as, variably, "Assassin of Youth" and "The Marijuana Menace" (although, at least on my copy of "The Marijuana Menace", it cuts into the film just after the title, so I don't know if the film ever was released with a different title card...) It is the same movie nevertheless. Once again I point out that these movies were designed to scare adult parents and teenage would-be partakers away from this insidious drug. So melodrama and spurious information abound.

The first thing you notice is that Dorothy Short is among the players in this film. Short, in case you were not aware, was also in Reefer Madness, as well another exploitation film in her early days, Damaged Goods. She seems to have broke free from that mold, and although her career was rather short (it only lasted 19 years, she did play much better roles. The rest of he oeuvre was spent acting alongside the likes of Tex Ritter and Tim McCoy in B westerns.

The movie opens with a death. Two people in a car are driving along when the girl screams. The newspaper headlines blare "Aged Woman Killed" followed by another "Marijuana Crazed Youths" and yet another, "Marijuana Deals Death" (implying, I guess, that the youths intentionally ran over the woman...)

The scene shifts to a newspaper office where enterprising young reporter Arthur Brighton (Arthur Gardner) is given his cub assignment. It seems that the old woman killed earlier has a will that includes a morality clause, requiring that in order to receive her inheritance, the girl to whom the old woman left her money must prove she is a woman of good moral character.

 

Enter Henrietta Frisbee, a busybody old woman who looks like Almira Gulch from The Wizard of Oz on a scooter instead of a bicycle. She approaches the potential new inheritor, Joan Barry (Luanna Walters), trying to find out just how much money she was going to inherit, but Joan politely declines to tell her, making Henrietta a bit put off.

 

Joan chides her sister, Marge (Dorothy Short), for laughing when Henrietta falls off her scooter. it would seem that Joan is a good girl and Marge has a little less sympathy for her fellow man (or woman)... Joan has a cousin, Linda (Fay Mackenzie) who stands to inherit the money if Joan doesn't pass the morality requirement. She hatches a plan with her husband, Jack (Michael Owen) to facilitate a way to get Joan disqualified. BTW, Jack and Linda were married in secret, thus making it easy for Jack to pose as an unmarried man to seduce Joan into the drug culture.

 

Meanwhile Art has gone undercover to try to investigate the drug culture of the local youth. And there is a thriving drug culture. From the looks of it, every teenager but Joan is deeply involved in the consumption of reefers (marijuana cigarettes). As such undercover work, he acquires the job of a soda jerk at the local malt shoppe, which is coincidentally the place where the "hopheads" hang out.

Linda and Jack take Joan to a local fireside weenie roast (there it is again, that innocent weenie roast... maybe these movies were also suggesting you shouldn't go hang out near the beach and these awful so-called "weenie roasts"...)  Joan accidentally falls into the lake, and as result has to let her clothes dry near the fire, but Linda manipulates the situation so that Joan's clothes end up being burned up, leaving her naked except for a long overcoat.

 

On the way back home, the bad couple end up "conveniently" crashing the car into Miss Frisbee's property, thus taking the opportunity to let the consummate busybody aware that Joan was naked, but implying it was all on purpose by Joan. Which means of course that Miss Frisbee will spread the rumor around town. Meanwhile Arthur is spurred on to discover whether these parties are just an excuse to have "toke" parties instead.

It is important to note that at no time is Joan actively making a choice to become involved in the drug culture. Everything that happens to her is part of a devious plot by her duplicitous cousin, who wants to discredit her so that she will be unable to take the inheritance left to her. At least in this film there is some attempt to cast a sympathetic eye on at least one of the participants.

Be gladdened that Linda's plan, although ALMOST successful, is thwarted by our good guy hero, Arthur, who shows up at Joan's review and exposes the sinister Linda's evil plan. And, guess what, Arthur and Joan are going to get married... (you saw that coming... right?) 

 

Yet, still, the message of the film comes through. Marijuana is an evil menace, because it corrupts impressionable teenagers, causes immediate psychological changes in attitudes towards the law, and erodes polite  societal attitudes, usually from the first partake.

Put together, these two films, along with the aforementioned Reefer Madness, helped to enforce a long standing negative attitude towards the drug, although, like I say, it is hardly the demonic blight that many believed it was for decades. Once again, speaking from personal experience, I think it deserves to be looked at with the same open mind as one would look at alcohol. Sure, my more religious friends might say that BOTH are "sinful", but if one is readily accepting of alcohol, I think one should cast the same open-minded eye  on marijuana.

And I reiterate, I have been clean and sober from both alcohol and marijuana and any other mind altering substance for over 16 years now, so don't read this as a defense of an existing habit on my part.

Hope you find this entry entertaining, even if it doesn't change any established outlook on the subject.

Quiggy

 

 

 

 

A "We Love Fairy Tales Week" Tag

 

 

 

 Rachel at Hamlette's Soliloquy  is hosting a week of fairy tale love. My previous entry on The Midnite Drive-In, on my favorite fairy tale villain, Hooked on Hook, delves into one aspect of the fairy tale genre. Here is some more fun, a questionnaire posted by the host:

 

 

1.  What's your favorite fairy tale?

 

I always liked the Bremen Town Musicians. More so these days as I get older because the main characters are elderly animals, since I ain't no spring chicken myself...

 

 

2.  If you could cast any actors and actresses ever in a movie version of that fairy tale, who would you pick?

Well, the story has actually been filmed twice, as far as I can tell, but both of them are Russian films. Of course, with the main characters being a rooster, a cat, a dog and a donkey, you couldn't exactly make a live-action film... Notwithstanding any subsidiary characters (such as the animals' owners who drove the refugees into their current circumstances), voice actors would have to be used.  So, having recently watched Song Sung Blue, I know Hugh Jackman can sing. Let's give him the role of the singing rooster. But then, all of the animals can sing, so here is no need to find the perfect fit. The rooster and the rest of the main cast can be interchangeable as need be. Except that I would definitely have a female be the cat. So let's cast that one with Amanda Seyfried. Gerard Butler feels like he should be the donkey. And for the dog... Johnny Depp.

3.  Do you have a favorite fairy tale movie?

 

The Princess Bride. Hands down. 

 

 

4.  Do you have a favorite book that retells a fairy tale?

 

At the risk of being accused of apple-polishing, I really liked The Man on the Buckskin Horse by Rachel Kovaciny

 

 

 

5.  If you got to be in a stage or film production of a classic fairy tale, what fairy tale would you want to be in, and who would you like to play?

 

If they ever remade The Princess Bride I'd want to play Miracle Max (or maybe even his wife...? I'd be comfortable in drag...), two of the most outstanding secondary characters in the story. If I were about 40 years younger, I would have gone with Inigo Montoya, however.

 

 

 

 

 

6.  Do you like fairy tales by Hans Christian Andersen or the Grimm Brothers best?  Or someone else's?

 

Grimm Brothers, especially the more gruesome ones. 

 

 

7.  What more obscure fairy tale do you think more people should know about?

 

Unless you are well versed in Irish folklore, you may not know about Finn McCool (that's just one of the variations of spelling his name. The wikipedia article on him has the original spelling as "Fionn mac Cumhaill" ).  The legendary hero of Irish folklore is a badass fighter who is sort of like Beowulf, battling big monsters and coming out on top. Check out this Finn McCool entry to see why I like him.

 

 

 

Until next time.

 

Quiggy 

 

Hooked on Hook

 

 

 

 

The fantasy / fairy tale world has many, many memorable villains. Whether it be a literary villain, such as Rumplestiltskin  or the Big Bad Wolf from Little Red Riding Hood... Or villains from animated films, such as The Evil Stepmother from Snow White or Cruella De Vil from 101 Dalmatians... Or classic live action films like The Wicked Witch of the West in The Wizard of Oz or the villainous duo of Prince Humperdinck and Count Rugen from The Princess Bride.

By far, my favorite villain from fairy tales would have to be Captain Hook. That ne'er-do-well pirate from the classic Peter Pan. He first burst forth from the psyche of author J. M. Barrie back in the early 1900's and has been haunting the childhood of many a youngster ever since. He has been portrayed on screen, both in animated films and in live action films for well over 100 years now.

The first time, as near as I can tell, was in a 1925 silent film version with a guy named Ernest Torrance, who made a name for himself at the time playing villainous characters.  Hook has since been portrayed by the likes of Cyril Ritchard and Danny Kaye on TV, Cyril Ritchard (again) and Boris Karloff (!) on stage, and voiced in cartoon versions by Hans Conreid (among others).

But when it comes to live action versions of the Peter Pan story, although there have been several, by far my two favorites involve actors who could take over the camera any time they ever stepped in front of it. The first was the 1991 Steven Spielberg / Robin Williams entry, Hook. Then, just a mere 12 years later, a cast of (mostly) virtually unknowns came along, 2003's Peter Pan, which featured one of my favorite British actors, Jason Isaacs. 

(Side note: Jason Isaacs, BTW, was my choice for taking over the reins of the James Bond role when rumors cropped up that it was being re-inaugurated in the early 2000's. I found out later that he had indeed auditioned for taking over the role from Timothy Dalton before the producers went with Pierce Brosnan...)

Of the two portrayals, I have to give Hoffman the edge. Mainly because of his over the top performance. As the villainous Hook, he reminds me a lot of two other movies, in which I enjoyed the villain more than the ostensible hero; Raul Julia as M. Bison in Street Fighter and Max Von Sydow in Flash Gordon. It seems to me that Hoffman is relishing his role immensely. 

You have to understand Captain Hook and his prior relationship with Peter Pan to really understand his enmity with the boy. You see, like Captain Ahab, who lost his leg to the titular whale, Moby Dick, Hook has a hook for a hand because long ago Peter cut off his real hand and fed it to a crocodile. (I'd be pretty pissed, too, to tell the truth). Even the author admits he got some inspiration for the character of Captain Hook from the Melville novel.

Did you know that Hook was not in the original first draft of Barrie's play? I have no idea what went on with the story prior to Hook's introduction into the story, but apparently at some point Barrie injected the character into the story because he decided that, since children liked pirate stories, his play could use the character to appeal more to children.

I did not know this, but Hook was a college educated man. Really. He apparently was a graduate of Eton College (where his major was... I don't know... maybe creative entrepreneurship...?)  Hook, also, was not his real name (obviously), but Barrie once stated "to reveal who he really was would even at this date set the country in a blaze". 

Captain Hook's transition from stage play to animated film to live action film (and even to TV miniseries) has brought some interesting casting opportunities. Some you may be familiar with, while others may be unknown to you, depending on how big a fan of the Peter Pan story you are. 

One of the more interesting castings I came across involved a 2014 TV adaptation of the musical version of the story, called Peter Pan- Live! This one escaped my notice since, at the time, I didn't have access to a working television. But the cast included Christopher Walken as Hook (and in case you, like me, are saying "I didn't know Christopher Walken could sing...", well, judging by the clip I found, he probably could be said to be more of a rapper than a singer...)

 

Then there was Stanley Tucci, who played the character in an ITV miniseies called Peter and Wendy (which, sad to say, I can't find a decent clip to use to showcase his portrayal..).  

And in yet another cable station output, on Disney+, we get Jude Law as a definitely harder and more villainous Hook. I rather like Law's portrayal, and he just might be #3 in my list of favorites.

 

But none of the live action versions of Captain Hook are a match for Jason Isaacs or Dustin Hoffman.

Firstly (and #2 on my list) is the character as brought to the screen by Jason Isaacs. Isaacs proved his mettle as a villain in the Mel Gibson film The Patriot, as well as bringing to life the character of Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  So it is without a doubt that he could pull off a character like Captain Hook.

In Peter Pan (2003), Wendy (Rachel Hurd-Wood) entertains her two younger brothers, John (Harry Newell) and Michael (Freddie Popplewell), with entertaining swashbuckling adventures, including the story of Cinderella (Cinderella is a "swashbuckling adventure"??), but Peter Pan spies on her. His goal is taking back the adventures to tell his friends in Neverland, The Lost Boys.

Meanwhile, Captain Hook (Isaacs) bides his time, waiting for the return of Peter to Neverland. He has only one goal in mind, the complete utter defeat of Peter, in revenge for a resentment he has harbored against Peter. It seems that Peter had cut off his hand and fed it to a giant crocodile. The downside of this is the crocodile developed a taste for Hook meat, and seeks the rest of him. The crocodile is truly the only thing that Hook is actually afraid of.

When Wendy and John and Michael end up in Neverland, Hook decides his best opportunity for revenge is to use them as bait to lure Peter into battle.  Isaacs as Hook exemplifies the truly insidious nature of Hook, although he does occasionally garner a bit of goodness about him, although not enough of it to hinder him from his ultimate goal.

 

Isaacs, however, pales by comparison to Dustin Hoffman in terms of pure entertainment, if not in pure insidiousness. It's the campiness of Hoffman's portrayal that endears him to me. I never can resist an actor that plays a villain with such over-the-top panache like that which Hoffman brings to the role. In addition to the two previously mentioned Julia and von Sydow I would also add such endearing camp villains as Geoffrey Rush as Casanova Frankenstein in Mystery Men and John Lithgow as Lord John Whorfin in  The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension.

The essence of the over-the-top performance is to play it broad, but not so broad that it becomes ridiculous. There are a few out such cases out there that edge into the ridiculous. Not a big fan of Will Farrell in the first place, but his role in Zoolander takes it beyond the pale, in my opinion. 

And then there's Hoffman. Hoffman very rarely played anyone on the bad side of the coin, although he did play a few unscrupulous characters, such as "Ratso" Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy. But not anyone you could conceivably actively hate. Even as Captain Hook, it's really hard to hate him.

 

O.K., I seriously started out this entry only meaning to write a brief overview of Hook, as I did with the rest of the films in this entry, but sentimentality took over and I absolutely can't resist the voices in my head telling me to go more into detail on this particular film.   Some of that has to do with some facts I learned while researching the film, which will be noted at the end of this blog entry. 

In the context of the film, at some point Peter Pan had decided he did want to grow up after all. He is a grown man, now named Peter Banning (Robin Williams). Peter has pretty much gone whole hog into his career and the potential benefits, financial and status wise. But his sacrifice has been that he has neglected his children, promising to be there for special events, but constantly being distracted by the job. 

For instance, he has promised to be at his son Jack's (Charlie Korsmo) baseball game, but he is caught up in the rigamarole of taking care of business, and, even though he would like to fulfill his promise, he ends up having to send a subordinate to film the game.

(BTW: Does Charlie Korsmo look familiar? He had a VERY brief career as a child actor, choosing to go to college and study law, but if you saw the Warren Beatty film Dick Tracy, he was The Kid. I think that one was actually his first movie...)  

Peter and his family go on vacation to England, where Peter meets up with the woman who raised him as an orphan, Wendy Darling (Maggie Smith). His family, which includes Jack, his daughter Maggie (Amber Scott) and his wife Moira (Caroline Goodall) are there primarily for a vacation, but also to attend a dinner being held to honor Wendy and her work with orphans.

Peter gets upset when his children interrupt him during an important business call and Moira chides him, saying that their time as children is brief, and soon neither of them will be so enthusiastic about spending time with their father, but pursuing other interests. That very night, while Peter and Moira and Wendy are attending the celebratory dinner, a mysterious force comes into the house and whisks away the children. Peter finds a note left in place of his children.

When this catastrophic event happens Peter, quite naturally, calls in the local constabulary. (and wait, isn't that Phil Collins, the drummer for Genesis, in the role of a Police Inspector, postulating that the whole thing might be some sort of "prank"?)

It is therefore up to Grandma Wendy to clue in Peter on just who he is and who this mysterious "Jas. Hook" is. Peter was, of course, once known as Peter Pan, and originally came from Neverland. But, in the process of becoming an adult, he has either forgotten or chose to block out his memories of the time when he was the leader of the Lost Boys in that fabled land. Eventually an old ally, Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts) shows up to help him get back to Neverland so he can rescue his children. (Because, among other things, Peter has forgotten how to fly).

 

Peter and Tinkerbell arrive in Neverland and end up on Hook's pirate ship, The Jolly Roger. Peter is still not sure just what the Hell is going on, but Tinkerbell does her best to disguise him so he won't stand out like a sore thumb.  Enter Smee (Bob Hoskins), Hook's second mate. And starting off by echoing or parodying a line from a previous Robin Williams movie, introduces the villain:

 "Good morning, Neverland! Tie down the main mast matey's 'cause here he is, the cunning kingfish, the bad barracuda! A man so deep he's unfathomable! A man so quick he's fast... asleep! Let's give him a hand... 'cause he's only got one! I give you the steel-handed stingray! Captain James HOOK!" 

(Sounds kind of like he's introducing Hulk Hogan or some other wrestling sensation...) 

And finally the title star makes his appearance, and boy does Hoffman make an entrance! When Hook eventually figures out that this older man Peter is in fact Peter Pan he is disappointed. He demands that Peter fly up to his children to prove he is Pan, but guess what... this Peter is afraid of heights. So  Hook has decided to throw in the towel of his plan for revenge on Peter Pan and just kill the children. But Tinkerbell says, give her a week's time and she will mold Peter back into the Pan he, Hook, knew. Well, actually only 3 days, since that is all Hook is willing to concede.

Between this scene and the final battle (in which, yes, spoiler alert, Peter does indeed become Pan) we are treated to two separate stories. On the one hand, Peter has to convince the Lost Boys he is Pan, and is subjected to a three day boot camp to get him in shape, both physically and terms of his imagination, which has become seriously deficient since he became an adult.

On the other hand, Hook tries his best to make the children love him, which he thinks would seriously damage Peter's ego. He has no success whatsoever with Maggie, but it appears he is getting through to Jack, since the thing Jack wants more than anything else is to have a father figure who connects with him; i.e. cares about his interests and engages with him, which Peter as his real father had been neglecting.

It comes down to a final battle between Peter and the Lost Boys and Hook and his pirate crew.  You don't need me to tell you how that turns out in the end, but there is one loss for the Lost Boys which is sure to bring a tear to your eyes. 

The background of how Peter finally decided to stop living in Neverland and start living in the real world and become an adult is very revealing. It seems while in Neverland Peter Pan and the Lost Boys never aged. Peter gave up immortality in child form, then, for the love of a girl who eventually grew up to be his wife.    

OK. on to the reason (or reasons) why I thought this movie deserved a more in depth review.

First, the much vaunted Tomato meter ranks this movie as the absolute worst of Steven Spielberg's directorial output. Yes. Even worse than 1941. Although, truth be told, I liked that movie too. My vote for the worst would have been Always, which has Richard Dreyfuss taking over as some sort of guardian angel in the afterlife (I think). It should be noted, BTW, that the Tomato meter ranking is the only list I found that ranks Hook at the bottom, but still... The site says "The look of Hook is lively indeed, but Steven Spielberg directs on autopilot here, giving in too quickly to his sentimental, syrupy qualities." Really? I could have said much the same thing about E.T. The Extraterrestrial. 

Of course, the Tomato meter is based on actual reviews from the time, and I would be remiss to not point out that some of those reviewers were probably not in a happy frame of mind when they entered the theater... Roger Ebert said "No effort is made to involve Peter's magic in the changed world he now inhabits, and little thought has been given to Captain Hook's extraordinary persistence in wanting to revisit the events of the past."  

The film had a pretty prestigious cast. Hoffman, Williams,  Roberts and Smith all have won Oscars and Hoskins was nominated for one. Several other cast members were recipients of nominations and/or even winners of other awards. So it had a load of prestige actors. There is also a great score by none other than John Williams, a man who could score an episode of some low level TV show like My Mother the Car and make it memorable.

Hook was a bigger hit with audiences, however. It made $300 million on a $70 million investment and is rated no less than an A- on several audience review sites. And it did get some recognition by the Oscar committee that year, having been nominated for five Oscars (although none for Best Picture, Director or Actor...) It didn't win any, losing to either Bugsy or Terminator 2 in each category, but just getting nominated is an  accomplishment.

I saw Hook  on my 30th birthday in the theater, one of the few movies I saw that came out in theaters on my birthday. Unlike my experience with The Postman a few years later I actually enjoyed this one. I do think it has a niche however. Younger kids may not fully understand just what is going on: "Who is this old guy? Peter Pan is supposed to be a boy!" There may also be a period in your life where the whole sentimental theme is just annoying. I pity the adult who loses his childlike sensibilities completely, although I have to admit if I had seen this movie for the first time after I turned 40 I might have been turned away from it's overall thematic sense.

Now in my mid 60's I am starting to return to that childlike sense of wonder. Too bad I never had kids (or grand kids). It might be instructive to watch this with kids and see how they react.

Well, folks, that second star to the right is sending out it's enticing message. May have to trade in the Plymouth for some wings to get there however. Drive safely.

Quiggy

 

 

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project # 6: Alice's Restaurant

 

 

 

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 #6: Massachusetts -

(BTW: That banner is the state's motto: "Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem." for those of who didn't take French in school that translates, loosely,  to: "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.")

 

The state of Massachusetts was established on February 6, 1788.

Details about Massachusetts:

State bird: chickadee

State flower: mayflower

State tree: American elm

Additional historical trivia:

Four U.S. Presidents were originally born in Massachusetts: John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John F. Kennedy and George H. W. Bush.

For you chocolate lovers; the first chocolate factory was established in MA, as well as the invention of Toll House Chocolate Chip Cookies.

Fenway Park (home of the Boston Red Sox) was the first established MLB baseball field.

"Watson! Come here! I want to see you!", the famous first telephone call occurred in Boston.

Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (and there's a tongue twister) holds the record for the longest lake name in the U.S. The name, BTW, is Algonquin, and roughly means: "Fishing Place at the Boundaries - Neutral Meeting Grounds". And sometimes you may hear the since disproven translation as "You fish on your side, I'll fish on my side, and no one shall fish in the middle."All I can say is, Thank God no monster like the Loch Ness Monster has been spotted in Lake  Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg.... 

 

 

Alice's Restaurant (1969):

Arlo Guthrie's famous "Alice's Restaurant Massacree", a folk rock protest song about the Vietnam War and the draft, was originally recorded in 1967. The word "massacree" deserves a bit of explanation. According to wikipedia it comes from the dialect spoken by natives of the Ozark Mountains. It is "a story that describes an event so wildly and improbably and baroquely messed up that the results are almost impossible to believe". Which pretty much defines the story as Arlo Guthrie relates the events preceding and surrounding his attempt to register for the draft. Keep that in mind, because I will point out some differences between the real story, the song and the movie as we go along.

The movie opens with Arlo and several others appearing before a draft clerk (Vinnette Carroll) to justify exemptions they listed on the draft registrations on why they may not be eligible for the draft. Arlo's excuse is Hutchison's chorea, which is hereditary. Unfortunately even though his father and other members of his family have it, Arlo does not have it at this point so his exemption is disqualified.

 

(Note: this may be a fictional representation of the real Arlo, but since he is called Arlo Guthrie in the film, and he does indeed have a dad named Woody Guthrie, both in the film and in real life, I am forced to take most of his personal part in the film as somewhat biographical. And Woody did indeed die from Hutchison's chorea.)

 

Arlo decides his best bet to avoid the draft is to enroll in college, which he does in Montana. but he is not cut out to the rigors of fitting into college life. He eventually gets expelled and heads to Stockbridge MA, where a couple named Ray and Alice Brock (James Broderick and Pat Quinn) have bought a de-consecrated church and basically have turned into some kind of commune for like-minded hippies. Alice also pens up a restaurant nearby, which, by the sound of the menu, has a rather eclectic feel to it.

The first hour of the film involves some rather deep and emotional content that was used to bulk the song up into a full-fledged movie.Two people that play an important part in Arlo's life come into the film. Roger (Geoff Outlaw) is a friend that Arlo grew up with, and Shelley (Michael McClanathan) is a former heroin addict who has just gotten out of rehab and is trying to make it straight.  

The film is ostensibly a comedy, but there are some serious moments in the film. One in particular that stands out is that Alice keeps becoming increasingly disenchanted with Ray, and often falls into other men's arms for solace. This is a microcosm of the attitude towards sex and fidelity that was a part of the 60's, especially among those who felt disenfranchised from the norm of the establishment (at least as much as I know from my history books... I was WAY too young to even be aware of it until I reached my teens in the 70's...)

Of course, the original song never mentions Arlo's dad, Woody, but there are some heartrending moments in the film as he visits dad in the hospital. Woody (played by Joseph Boley) is dying from the aforementioned disease. Arlo deals with it as best he can, but it is apparent, at least in moments that he is in the hospital room with Woody, that he would rather be anywhere else. I can empathise with that sentiment completely.  I, too, have dealt with death in my family and often wanted to be far away from it, because then I could pretend it wasn't happening.

Eventually the part of the film that incorporates the events in the song come into it. Ray invites a raft of friends and gets Alice to fix a "Thanksgiving meal that can't be beat". 

 

After the meal, Arlo and several friends pack up the debris left over from the shindig and take it to the city dump, only to find that the dump is closed for the holiday.

 

But they find a back road where they find a place that someone else has dumped a load of garbage and combine he two. Bu the fly in the ointment is Officer Obie (William Obanheim, playing himself). he finds out that Arlo was behind the illegal dump and arrests him. He also takes him to court. 

 

But the problem with the trial is that all the pictures that Obie and his officers took are pretty much useless, because the judge (James Hannon) is blind.  All that Arlo receives is a fine and an order to clean up the garbage 

Later, while at the draft board registering for the actual draft, Arlo makes a nuisance of himself, first by tring to pretend to be psychotic, then by complaining about a line in the form questioning whether he was rehabilitated from his crime (which is well and good if he had been convicted of rape or murder, but Arlo thinks it rather stupid to ask if he has rehabilitated from being a litterbug.

 

The movie is not quite over yet, however, there is some sentimental stuff to end it, which I won't delve into, but suffice to say that someone close to Arlo is going on to a greater reward.

The film has a 63% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and did garner some good reviews. Newsweek said it was  "the best of a number of remarkable new films which seem to question many of the traditional assumptions of establishment America."  Believe it or not, director Arthur Penn even garnered a nomination for Best Director at the Academy Awards. His competition that year included George Roy Hill for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and the eventual winner John Schlesinger for Midnight Cowboy.

 According to a real life compadre in crime for the event, Richard Robbins (on whom Roger was based), the film is only about 15% based in fact, and the rest is totally fabricated. Arlo even said that the reason for his leaving Montana was not because of some run-in with the law, but that he dropped out voluntarily. Arlo himself has expressed the opinion that the movie was fairly accurate however, So who to believe? The friend or the central character himself?

You should know before going in that this film is markedly different in tone and feeling from Penn's acclaimed Bonnie and Clyde. Although both deal with characters who are somewhat at odds with the rules of normal polite society, the only way I would recommend these two as a double feature is if you wanted something to cheer you up after watching the devastation caused by the characters in the Bonnie and Clyde film, on BOTH sides of the law.

All in all, I can recommend Alice's Restaurant as at least a good window into the counterculture of the time period.

Until next time. drive safely folks.

Quiggy

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #5: The Stepford Wives

 

 

 

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 #5: Connecticut-

 

 

The state of Connecticut was established on January 9, 1788. 

Details about Connecticut:

State bird: American robin

State flower: mountain laurel

State tree: white oak

Connecticut is the only state to have an officially designated state composer: Charles Ives. Although every state does have a state song, and some acknowledge the state song composers, none have a "state composer" designation.

Do you get annoyed with that 60 or 70 MPH speed limit? Blame Connecticut as it was the first state to establish a speed limit. Although be glad it progressed over the years. Originally the rural road limit was only 15 MPH... And while on the subject of cars, the first permanent license plate originated here.

Connecticut is the home of the origin of such things as the sewing machine and the Frisbee.

Famous names who claim Connecticut as their birthplace: Katherine Hepburn, Christopher Lloyd, Michael Bolton, P. T. Barnum and our 43rd U.S. President, George W. Bush. 

 

 The Stepford Wives (1975): 

"Something strange is happening in the town of Stepford..." 

You know what the perfect wife would be? Someone who is docile, agreeable, a homebody, doesn't spend too much of hubby's money, in essence, that age-old male chauvinist idea of the perfect woman, whose only purpose is to stay "barefoot and pregnant". And it seems that the men of Stepford, Connecticut, are more lucky than the rest of the world in finding these ideal wives.

The Stepford Wives started out life as a novel by Ira Levin. Levin is the author who gave us Rosemary's Baby, A Kiss Before Dying, Sliver and The Boys from Brazil, all of which were made into great, or at least fairly good movies.  (Some may disagree whether Sliver was any good at all, but I like it...) Levin wrote 7 novels in his career and 6 of them were made into movies. That's 86% of his novel output that is on celluloid. (Eat your heart out, Stephen King). I just wish someone would tackle This Perfect Day, the only one that hasn't been made, and #2 on my list of favorites of his work.

The cache of talent involved doesn't stop with the author, however. The screenplay is credited to William Goldman (The Princess Bride, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,  All the President's Men and Misery, among others.) Of course, director Bryan Forbes rewrote a lot of it, but Goldman's touch is still there. The cast included Katherine Ross in the headliner role of Joana Eberhart, with her husband played by Peter Masterson. (And here's an interesting tidbit. The part of one of their daughters, Kim, was played by Peter Masterson's real daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson, in her film debut.)

Tina Louise (Ginger on Gilligan's Island) and Franklin Cover (Tom Willis on The Jeffersons) were also among the supporting actors in the film. There could have been other big names involved. Diane Keaton, for instance, was approached to be the lead, but turned it down because her analyst didn't like it. (it may be overstated, but I think about at least 50% or more of Hollywood was in some sort of psycho-therapy in the 70's...)  Jean Seberg and Tuesday Weld were also considered.

The movie starts as Joanna Eberhart (Katherine Ross) and her husband, Walter (Peter Masterson) and their two daughters, Kim (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Amy (Ronny Sullivan) prepare to depart from New York City on their way to their new home in Stepford, Connecticut.  The trip is approached with varying degrees of attitude. Walter is enthusiastic about it (at one point he even gushes that "you don't even have to lock your doors in Stepford"). The kids are oblivious, since it's just another day, and probably just thinking about the new friends they'll make.

 

On the other hand, Joanna seems to be having a little apprehension. After all, moving to a small suburb from the hubbub of the big city affects her in more ways than one. For one thing, she is an artist (photographer), and the move will take her away from the artistic word in, say, Greenwich Village, or wherever she happens to do business.

To make things even more disconcerting for her, she finds that most of the women in Stepford are the exact opposite of her: they are more interested in being dedicated housewives, keeping clean kitchens and making exquisite meals, rather than being open to the feminist ideals that Joanna adheres to. And strange things happen; like when Carol Van Sant (Nanette Newman) takes a blow to the head in a traffic accident and Keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.

 

To make matter worse, there is a thriving social club in town, but it is strictly "men only", which is an affront to the radical feminist Joanna. One of things that stands out early in the picture is that Walter seems to be overly eager to cave in to his wife (to use a derogatory term; [expletive deleted]-whipped).

 

But he gradually gets his own backbone upright by joining this men's club, albeit to the objections of Joanna.  Joanna meets a neighbor, Bobbie (Paula Prentiss), who is like her a free-spirited feminist, and the two decide to start their own "women's club". But while Joanna and Bobbie, and another woman in town, Charmaine (Tina Louise), are receptive to the concept, the rest of the women fit into that dedicated housewife category. 

 

Bobbie

Charmaine

 

In fact, at their first meeting, although the feminist sector open up about their feelings on the male-dominated society in Stepford, the housewives delve into what the best product is to keep food from sticking to the pan when baking. (It all comes off like a TV commercial...)

 

Joanna and Bobbie start to get suspicious when Charmaine suddenly turns into one those dedicated housewives. Initially Bobbie thinks there must be something in the water and takes samples to a science lab, but they find it's nothing but ordinary tap water. And then, somewhere along the way, Bobbie also turns into one of those dedicated housewives. Joanna decides she's had enough, and if Walter won't pack up and leave Stepford, then she will take the kids and leave herself. 

 

The roadblock to that occurs when Walter, for some reason, has sent the kids off, so he can have a quiet weekend with Joanna. Since the "quiet weekend with the husband" occurred prior to her friends becoming the "alien" personalities, she gets her hackles up and decides to delve into this mysterious "men's club" meeting house.

 

I'll leave just enough for you to be curious about the ending, although it's a good bet that most of you already know, even if you never have watched the movie. The term "Stepford wife" has insinuated itself into the lexicon far enough that just the basic idea may be in your mind already. 

The film was released in February of 1975. The only real competition for it appears to be Shampoo, a Warren Beatty film that ended up being  the third highest grossing film of the year, making $49 million dollars. The Stepford Wives, although not a "dud", only managed to pull in $4 million dollars. Critical response was generally mediocre. It currently holds a rating of only 55% on Rotten Tomatoes. One critic even stated that the screenplay from the source material was "tedious and padded".

One of the more interesting aspects of it's reception was with the feminist sector of the population. I personally thought that the film had a fairly strong feminist tinge to it, but then, I am a male, and a single male at that, so what do I know? Wikipedia, quoting an article from Entertainment Weekly, says that at one showing to an audience of feminists, it was met with "hisses, groans and guffaws." Betty Friedan, a respected leader of the feminist movement, called it "a rip-off of the women's movement." However, some feminist authors did come to it's defense, and director Bryan Forbes objected to the criticism by claiming that if the message of the movie was anything it's anti-men.

The movie spawned three made-for-TV sequels and, in 2004, a remake starring Nicole Kidman in the Katherine Ross role. Haven't seen that, but I am given to understand it was beneath the original, and only barely made back it's production costs in the theater. 

In my opinion, the 1975 version gets a lot of bad press. I think that Katherine Ross carries the film well, and some of those "transformed" Stepford women give me the creeps, which says a lot about how well they became the docile, subservient women the men of Stepford created. There are also some decent parallels to the classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers, in that sometimes the changes in the "victims" can be so insidious and yet subtle that you just don't realize until it's too late. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence, to me at any rate, that both movies take place in bucolic suburbs rather than in the big city. (Of course, the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers did occur in a big city, and as I said in my review of that movie, it's up to you to decide which is a more scary scenario.

The one issue that I had with the movie is that it seems to ignore the children. One wonders how the children responded to the change in Mommy's personality. After all, besides Joanna, I'm sure there must have been some of the others who had had kids prior to their change. What did they think of the new attitude of Mommy?

The Stepford Wives was a much better movie than the remake with Nicole Kidman, that much is certain. Watching Ross and her gradual realization dawn that something is not quite kosher in Stepford is well worth the price of admission. 

Well, that's it for this time folks. Drive safely.

Quiggy