A Job For Imbeciles

 

 

This is my entry in the Kenneth Williams Blogathon hosted by The Wonderful World of Cinema.

 

 

The classic Sherlock Holmes novel The Hound of the Baskervilles, first published in 1902 by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, has been adapted numerous times, both as a feature film and as part of on an ongoing television series. The story is usually adapted to fit in to whatever the current climate or milieu that is part of the presentation. Many of them featured Sherlock in his own time period of the late 19th and early 20th century. 

 

The BBC TV series Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch had an episode, "The Hounds of Baskerville", which had the character investigating the moors of England in the 21st century, and that is one of my favorite depictions of the story. That one includes some mysterious goings on in an Area 51 - like area in the UK, conveniently known as the "Baskerville Research Facility".

 

The original Doyle story has some supernatural aspects to it, but Sherlock, being Sherlock, is dismissive of anything that can't be validated by his logic.  For the most part, those variations present Holmes as the rational logical machine that Doyle presented him as in the canon. The Hound of the Baskervilles, as a novel was originally published as a concession to the overwhelming urging of the public to bring back the character of Holmes to its adoring public. As such, having no desire to resurrect the character from the dead, the story itself, in the context of the canon, takes place in the history between the meeting of Watson and Holmes and Holmes' supposed death at Reichenbach Falls.

Kenneth Williams, one of the comedic minds behind the beloved British comedy series of Carry On... (such as Carry On Cleo, Carry On Sergeant and Carry On Up the Khyber). He was a character in 26 of the 31 Carry On... films. IMDb lists 63 overall credits for Williams, so the Carry On.. films account for a whopping 42% of his output on film.  It is interesting to note that, after his death when his private diaries became public, it was revealed that Williams actually had little regard for the series, although probably some of that had to do with how little money he made off the series.

 

Outside of the Carry On films, Williams had a varied career. He appeared in plays on stage, had roles on BBC radio and television shows, and even wrote several books. People on this side of the pond could be forgiven if they have never heard of any of his output beyond those Carry On films (and there may be quite a number of Americans who would give you a questioning look even if you started taking about THOSE films). But for those who had been around during his heyday in the UK, he was a well known and popular comedian.

In the tradition of comedy films, parody has always been a favorite of mine. And I also have a fairly good collection of movies and TV series featuring Sherlock Holmes. Combining comedy with Sherlock Holmes may seem sacrilege to some aficionados of the Great Detective, but one of my favorite Sherlock films is actually Without a Clue, a parody that postulated that Dr. Watson was the real brains behind the mysteries and that the character of Sherlock was just a figure that Watson created, using an alcoholic actor to pose as Holmes.

This entry falls under that parody genre. It's up to you to determine whether it should be a legitimate Holmes movie, and probably even whether it is a legitimate comedy, for that matter.   

 

 

 The Hound of the Baskervilles (1978):

The opening scene of this film wastes no time in letting you know just how different this Holmes outing is going to be from anything you've ever witnessed before as a pianist (Dudley Moore) comes out on stage to play a chaotic piano intro to our film. This segues into the prologue in which the title card says "French Nuns" as Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cook) wraps up his current case.

 

Only, Holmes hasn't really solved the case. The nuns are concerned about a holy relic that is missing from their church and Holmes helpfully suggests that is is missing because of the "work of thieves." (Thank you, Captain Obvious!) But then, again, maybe he has, because he tells them that, through his extraordinary ability at observation, he knows exactly who stole the relic. It was the member of the congregation that he saw loitering around the place where the relic usually sat, with a bulge that resembled the relic protruding from his pocket. (And why can't Scotland Yard be this "on the ball"...?)

You have to pay attention throughout this movie. Throwaway jokes abound. Like Holmes reading a tome called "Guilt Without Sex". (read that again...)

 

The story proper begins with the arrival of a Dr. Mortimer (Terry-Thomas) from Dartmoor. Mortimer represents the estate of Baskerville. It seems that the estate's prior owner, Sir Charles, had died, of natural causes according to the papers. But Mortimer thinks Sir Charles was murdered. By supernatural means. It turns out that local legend says that every master of the Baskerville estate has had a strange coincidence surrounding their deaths... the appearance of a monstrous hound.

 

Our heroes agree to go to Baskerville Hall and meet the new heir, Sir Henry Baskerville (Kenneth Williams). Sir Henry tells Holmes of  a strange incident recently. Henry had put his boots outside his bedroom door to be shined, but when he went to the door the next morning, one of them was missing... Holmes is aghast. Not at the strange theft, however.

"Do you think I'm going to waste my time combing the streets of London for some old boot? This is a job for an imbecile!" 

 

Holmes declines the case, leaving it in the capable(?) hands of his assistant, Dr. Watson. What follows after this is a discombobulated sequence of seemingly unconnected skits, including a visit to Sherlock's mother (played by Dudley Moore) who is running a scam as a spiritualist leading seances, but it's all fake, with a helper off scene causing tables to rise, etc. 

 

Also, there is a scene that has Sherlock visiting a massage parlor, which may or may not also be operating as brothel (although none of the women are appealing to anyone normal male who would visit a brothel...)

 

There are other scenes that seem to be added to flesh out a 5 minute skit into a full-fledged film, some of which are humorous for about a minute or so, but then become a distraction. For instance, when Sir Henry and Watson show up at the Baskerville estate, they are housed in a room that is ankle deep in water (and with no forthcoming explanation of where the water is coming from, nor with either Sir Henry or Watson commenting on it). 

There is also some very strange parody of The  Exorcist. Why? Who knows. Eventually (after what seems like an interminable time, but is actually only about 90 minutes), the titular hound is revealed to not be some supernatural horror, but an ordinary Irish setter. But getting to that point requires a bit of patience. Which is surprising, since other movies in the Moore / Cook  were actually good and well-made (The Wrong Box, Bedazzled, Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies).

Kenneth Williams, too, might be sub-par, especially when compared to characters he played in the Carry On films. Here Sir Henry is pretty much a stereotypical upper-crust fop, albeit with some not-so-subtle caricatures of gay tendencies. In addition there are a few other cameos that don't always pan out. Denholm Elliot, who shone as Marcus Brody in the early Indiana Jones films and as the butler in Trading Places is seriously overused but not very well drawn out as a guy who has to carry around a chihuahua that has a serious bladder problem. 

 

A lot of blame for the failure of this movie (it was a bomb in every sense of the word) is often placed on the director, Paul Morrisey, a student of Andy Warhol, who although he could do avant-garde films pretty well (Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula), had no idea how to work with Moore and Cook in their preferred comedic milieu.  He rewrote the screenplay that Moore and Cook had originally submitted. I wonder what the original actually looked like.

This one has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes rating of any movie I have ever reviewed, only 0%. (I guess negative numbers are not available...) Critics of the time can be summed as saying it was pretty terrible. It surely didn't make much money. It was originally released in the UK in 1978, but didn't make it's way across the pond to the U.S. until 1981 (and I think that primarily was because of the success of the Moore film Arthur... otherwise it might have stayed overseas indefinitely...)

As a relic of the past, I would say only completists who want to watch every Dudley Moore and/or Peter Cook performance (or for that matter Kenneth Williams or any of the other featured actors) should bother with this one. It has very few really funny moments, and most of those happen within the first 10 minutes.

Well, until next time, folks, drive safely.

Quiggy

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #7: Explorers

 

 

 

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 #7: Maryland -

 

The state of Maryland was established on April 28, 1788

Details about Maryland:

State bird: Baltimore oriole

State flower: black-eyed Susan

State tree: white oak 

Additional historical trivia:

Francis Scott Key wrote the poem that eventually became the national anthem while observing a battle in the Revolutionary War from a ship in Baltimore harbor.

The official state sport of Maryland is jousting. (Really! Would I lie to you...?)

The state flag of Maryland (pictured above) is the only state flag based on British heraldry.

Elijah Wood, a native, created the ouija board (and thus was peripherally responsible for The Exorcist)

Famous people born in Maryland: John Wilkes Booth (assassin of Abraham Lincoln), Babe Ruth, Robert Duvall, Frank Zappa, Tom Clancy and Spiro T. Agnew (Vice-President under Richard Nixon) 

 

Explorers (1985): 

Children in sci-fi settings became a huge thing in the early 80's. Thanks (or blame, depending on your viewpoint) to Steven Spielberg and his huge E.T. the Extraterrestrial, children focused science fiction movies became a big thing in Hollywood, although to varying success. Trying to mine the gold that Spielberg found with his mother lode proved to be a difficult project. In the space of 8 years after the release of E.T we got several movies featuring pre-teens or teens in sci-fi and fantasy settings,  the likes of which included  Flight of the Navigator,  D.A.R.Y.L., Back to the Future, Wizard, The Last Starfighter,  and SpaceCamp in sci-fi settings, as well as kid-centric fantasies like Labyrinth, The Neverending Story, The Goonies and The Monster Squad.

The movie opens with Ben (Ethan Hawke) fast asleep and dreaming of flying over a circuit board that reminds me of nothing so much as the virtual world in the movie Tron. When he wakes up he hurries to his desk to sketch out a part of his dream, a diagram of the circuit board. Even though it is 3am, he calls his best friend, Wolfgang (River Phoenix), who is some sort of child prodigy... (and if you are having trouble picturing River Phoenix as a nerd, you and I are in the same boat...)

 

The next day at school Ben is getting the crap beat out of him by the school bully, Steve (Bobby Fite).  A fellow classmate, Darren (Jason Presson), jumps in to help Ben and as a result gains an initially unwanted friend. All three are sort of outcasts, and thus in terminology of the day, "nerds". Thus the three naturally develop a friendship.

 

Wolfgang has been hard at work trying to program the stuff that Ben gave him. (Firstly, let me point out what may be a nitpick. Wolfgang is working with a primitive, by today's stands, 128K computer. You have to suspend any disbelief that what he accomplishes here could even be done with that limited capacity of power, but then the whole movie does require some suspension of disbelief in order to watch, so...) Wolfgang creates a self-contained sphere, but then the computer starts working by programming itself.

 

 Eventually the three make the sphere big enough that they can crawl inside of it, but with limited oxygen, they can only stay in it a short while. But dreams to the rescue because Ben has another dream that night which solves the oxygen issue. Now they can actually use the sphere and navigate it around. To which they include making a seating arrangement by building a spaceship out of junkyard parts, which include a left over seat from a carnival Tilt-A-Whirl.

 

Thus seated in the Tilt-A-Whirl and surrounded by the sphere the three take off. among their first encounters is a jet that investigates this "U.F.O." Charlie (played by Dante film regular Dick Miller) gains a particularly strong motivation to investigate. (Charlie essentially becomes the comic relief in a movie that already had comedic elements, but...)

 

Eventually the kids make it into space and then the weird stuff starts to happen. Something takes over the computer controls and the boys are suddenly rocketed into deep space, where it appears aliens have commandeered the fledgling ship. And here's where it really gets weird... For the next 20 or 30 minutes the kids interact with the aliens, whose primary form of communication seems to be using stuff from old TV and radio shows.

 

It turns out that the aliens way of learning about Earth had been from intercepting the broadcasts of American TV and radio. (Just so you know, from a scientific standpoint, those broadcasts continue on indefinitely in a straight line after leaving Earth. But the question that comes to my mind is why only American TV? Didn't they intercept any signals from the other nations?) 

(As a side note: One of my favorite science-fiction authors, Jack L. Chalker, wrote a short story "Adrift Among the Ghosts" which had a similar theme. In that story an alien who was convicted of a crime is sentenced to a life in space collecting some of these old radio and TV signals for posterity in the alien's own society. Check out Dance Band on the Titanic which collects the entire short story output of a prolific novelist, but only rarely short story writer.)  

The comedy of this part is relentless, but at some point the boys are finally able to communicate with the aliens on some level. But you get the idea that these aliens are a couple of rocks short of a riot.

It turns out that these particular two aliens are not the ones in charge. And they aren't exactly supposed to be playing around with the controls of the spaceship they are on.

I'll leave it at that for now. 

Explorers had several unfortunate details in it's history that made it a less than stellar box office bonanza. For one thing, it was released only a week after Back to the Future and we all know what a blockbuster that one was. Secondly, it was also released just the day before the broadcast of the first Live Aid. 

The film ran into several problems during it's production. One of the excuses for it's slapdash finish was that the studio told Dante to wrap it up forthwith because they wanted to release the film much earlier than planned. A director's cut of the film was never released primarily because much of the footage that could have been used was lost or no longer available. It was not the film that the director wanted to release, so much as the movie the studio demanded on a shorter timetable, then.

The hurried release as well as the competition from movies still in the theater as well as those released shortly after (In addition to Back to the Future, Cocoon was still in the theaters, and E.T. The Extraterrestrial had been re-released) served to help sink it. It only managed to make about half of it's budget back while in theatrical release. 

Rotten Tomatoes currently holds the movie as "48% fresh". A blurb on the website claims that "Despite dazzling effects, a terrific young cast, and tons of charm, Explorers fails to soar past its '80s kiddie flick competitors." That cast, by the way, was full of first or early castings. Ethan Hawke and River Phoenix made their feature film debuts here. Both Amanda Peterson and Jason Presson had appeared in a couple of TV movies, but were also first timers in a theatrical release. Robert Picardo, who most people will recognize as The Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager got an early role here too, although you won't recognize him... he was the alien Wak and Wak's father. But he was also the character "Starkiller" in the movie playing at the drive-in when the boys fly by, so you might recognize him there...

Explorers  did not have the profound effect that people behind the scenes hoped it would have. It comes off a lot like a knock-off of a classic Spielbergian kids movie, and even the soundtrack has that feel. Jerry Goldsmith, the multi-time nominee for Oscars in the category of music, did the honors, but even that feels like something from a Spielberg movie.

Still, all in all, it's not a bad movie At least, not until they actually meet the aliens... I thought that part was a little ridiculous and a bit too long. I wish I could see the movie that Dante originally wanted to make. I have warm feelings for Gremlins and Matinee, and his segment in The Twilight Zone: The Movie ("It's A Good Life") is not at all bad. 

Well folks, until next time drive safely.

Quiggy 

 

 

 

 

 

Going Ape

 

 

 

 

 

This is my entry in the So Bad It's Good Blogathon hosted by Taking Up Room

 

Star Wars people are bonkers. I've heard that quite a number of Star Wars fanatics will buy a ticket to a movie that is going to have a preview of the newest Star Wars  movie during it's opening previews, watch the preview, then leave the movie without watching the movie they paid good money to enter the theater. That's just nuts, if you ask me.

And yet, I paid good money in 2001 to go to see Swordfish, a movie I had no desire to see, in actuality. I paid my admission with the express intent of seeing the preview of Tim Burton's new movie, Planet of the Apes. The difference is I actually stayed to see the movie. (I'm a fanatic, but I'm not insane...) Swordfish, BTW, is a terrible movie, and the only highlight, for me, was seeing Halle Berry topless. Swordfish might be someone's idea of a good entry for the So Bad It's Good blogathon, but definitely not for me.

On the other hand, the preview of Planet of the Apes was a success. that is if it was meant to attract me as a patron. Having been a fan of the older five movies, and having great hopes for the advancement of technology to make the apes look even more realistic than those of the 70's Apes  movies, I have to say I was totally entranced by that brief three or four minute preview.  And, of course, I was first in line to buy a ticket to the first showing when the movie finally hit the theaters... Literally, I was there about 30-40 minutes before the box office even opened.  

The road to this remake was a bit rocky. It had originally been slated to be produced in 1988. The original idea was to produce a sequel to the first 1968 Planet of the Apes, apparently ignoring the four sequels that followed that first movie.  The story would have taken place in a future of that timeline, with a character named Duke, who was a descendant of Charlton Heston's character, Taylor, leading a human revolt.  Thankfully we were saved from having Tom Cruise in the lead role of that pre-production. It was ditched because of a shakeup in the studio executives of 20th Century Fox Studios.

Future tries at creating the movie went through some interesting changes. Both Sam Raimi and Oliver Stone were interested, and one of the more intriguing ideas about a plot involved everything having been predicted, including the rise of the apes to power, through some kind of interpretation of a Bible Code. (Remember the popular 1997 book by Michael Drosnin, The Bible Code? Apparently this plot drew some inspiration from that book...) This version would have had Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead role.

Through the various tries at getting the film off the ground, both Roland Emmerlich and James Cameron were in talks to direct. Eventually the director became Tim Burton. The script itself, however, was not completely set in stone. According to wikipedia the script was still being hashed out even as sets for the movie were being built. The good thing is that Rick Baker, makeup genius extraordinaire, had been on board from even the earliest tries at the remake. Having been a fan of Baker ever since An American Werewolf in London, I personally had high hopes for convincing prosthetics.

 

 

 

Planet of the Apes  (2001): 

Captain Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) is the liaison between the experimental chimpanzee trainees for the space program. Basically, he works with one chimpanzee, Pericles, training him how to operate the controls of the scout ship of the space program. He has an affinity with  Pericles, much more than he really has with his co-workers, or even his commanding officers. On the space station Oberon, Leo is the connection with his charge and is Pericles' guide.

When a strange anomaly appears in the vicinity, Leo's superiors tell him to send his chimp out in a space pod to investigate. Leo objects, insisting that he be the one sent out instead of the guinea pig chimp, but is overruled. Pericles disappears. Ostensibly to do some work to try to figure out what happened Leo goes to another pod, but ultimately takes command of the situation and launches the second pod. And he too ends up losing contact with the Oberon.   

When Leo gets out of the space anomaly he has somehow been sent some 3000 years into the future. He crash lands in the jungle on a strange planet. "Strange" is the key word. He finds himself caught up in a chase as native humans are running in terror. What are they running from? Why, militaristic apes of course.

Leo

 

Leo, along with several others, ends up being captured. Limbo (Paul Giamatti), an orangutan who is a slave trader, is the ape in charge. He is not impressed with this new collection, and is especially not impressed with Leo, who doesn't seem to be as fatalistic towards his capture as the others. 

Limbo

 

Ari (Helena Bonham Carter), a chimpanzee with a decidedly liberal "all species should be treated equally" attitude, buys both Leo and a native girl, Deanna (Estella Warren), to work in her house. Ari is the daughter of a political bigwig, Senator Sandar (David Warner).

 

Deanna

Ari

 

Sandar

 

 

 

Ari is also the source of attraction for the military bigwig, General Thade (Tim Roth), although she has no love for him. Politically they are on opposite ends of the spectrum as Thade hates all humans, and would be entirely at home with the idea of exterminating every human from the planet. 

Thade

 

Leo. independent soul that he is, works at trying to escape from his captivity. He eventually succeeds, in the process taking Ari and her friend, General Krull (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), as hostages. Leo finds a device from his own time that seems to indicate that a rescue party from his old ship is somewhere nearby. It turns out that that somewhere is also the location of the legendary "Calima", the place where the religious sector of the ape society believe life began.

Chased by Thade and his adjutant, Attar (Michael Clarke Duncan), Leo heads to the remote area. There he does not find the hoped for rescue party; instead he finds the remains of the Oberon which seems to have been there for thousands of years. And the source of the name "Calima"... 

 

Ultimately, it turns out that the Oberon tried to follow Leo into the anomaly, but this anomaly is some kind of unstable wormhole that transports people through time, but cannot be controlled enough to say where the people will end up.

 

In the end, many humans come to follow Leo, whom they think is some kind of hero, and do battle with the entire ape army. That is, until Pericles arrives in his space pod.

This film was disparaged viciously on it's release. Right wing political stooges like Rush Limbaugh got in the fray by claiming the film was anti-American. At least one report I heard made a big deal out of the ending of the film. (Spoiler alert! If you want to watch this film first stop reading and come back after you've seen it.) 

You see, at the end of the movie Leo manages to escape and pilot the space pod back to his own time. Or so it would seem. But when he crash lands on Earth, he ends up near what looks like the Lincoln Memorial. Only instead of Lincoln, it is General Thade.  The ending was made a bit confusing (like how did Thade escape from his "prison" at the end and somehow also travel back in time?) But the big whine that I heard was from those same right wing stooges, like the aforementioned Limbaugh, who howled bloody murder over making their hero, Lincoln, into an ape.

The ending was the only part of the movie that was in tune with the original novel, however. Every one knows the iconic ending of the 1968 movie, but in the Boulle novel the main character also escaped from the planet, only to arrive in his own time to find that the apes were in charge there, too. I think the ending of the film was supposed to be meant as a cliffhanger, and the next film in the series would have explained what happened (as in how Thade escaped from the planet to go hrough his own time portal and create another alternate universe). . However, due to the negative reception of the first one, a follow up movie was trash canned.

There are several callbacks in this film to the original, including a cameo (uncredited, by the way) of Charlton Heston, who plays General Thade's father. He utters a line: "Damn them! Damn them all to Hell!". And Attar gets to be the center of another callback when he tells Leo "Get your stinking hands off me, you damn dirty human!"

The film, believe it or not, was actually a success, financially. It made about $250 million more than it's budget. Which means it cracked the top 10 of money makers for 2001. Not bad, considering that this year's output included the first installments of both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, the top money makers for 2001.

But critical reception sunk the film. Most critics gave it negative reviews, and John Wilson and co, at the Razzies named it the worst sequel or remake of the year. The Rotten Tomatoes rating for the film stands at 43%, but admits "this remake...can't compare to the original...but the striking visuals and B-movie charms may win you over." And that basically is how I feel. The plot leaves a little to be desired, but it was effective as a visual form. Until the CGI enhanced trilogy of recent years came along, it was a fairly good presentation of apes. Thanks to Rick Baker for his work there.  

Well folks, time to fire up the old Plymouth. Hopefully I won't run into some time portal on the way home, but just in case, I think I'll stop at the store and buy some bananas...

Quiggy

 

 

(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