Semiquincentennial Movie Project #32: Car Wash

 

 

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 #32: California -

 

 

The state of California was established on Sept. 9, 1850.

Details about California:

State bird: valley quail

State flower: golden poppy

State tree: redwood

Additional historical trivia:

The name California came from a novel by Garci Rodriguez de Montalvo about a fictional island.

It's the only U.S. state to ever host a summer AND a winter Olympics. 

Fortune cookies originated in either Los Angeles or Chinatown area of San Francisco.

California has an official state "ghost town". It's Bodie and it's an official state landmark.

California has a bigger population than many independent countries in the world.

San Bernadino County clocks in as the biggest county in the whole country.

Famous people born in California: U.S. President Richard Nixon, Steve Jobs, Tiger Woods, Robert Redford, Ray Harryhausen, Madonna, Sammy Hagar, Randy Rhoads and way too many more to name...

  

Movie (1976): 

Note: In my previous reviews of Dazed and Confused and 200 Cigarettes I took a different approach to reviewing the films because, like today's film, those other two didn't really have a coherent straight forward plot. Each of these movies is more along the lines of a series of character studies. Therefore, instead of a review of the plot I chose to focus a brief overview of some of the characters that show up throughout the film (which, BTW, takes place over the span of only one day, much like those other two films).

The setting for the film is the Dee-Luxe Car Wash in Los Angeles. I did a little research, out of curiosity. The car wash that was used to film the movie was one located near MacArthur Park. Unfortunately it was torn down in the 80's and there is a strip mall on the site. (See? OCD does have some uses...)  And notice the buildings in the background... still the same 50 years later.

circa 1976

circa 2026

So the cast includes these. And these are listed in order of my favorites, not necessarily the order of their appearance in the film.  I also include a smattering of what I call Check Him Out In, which is a list of some other films in which to find the actor, as well as a favorite line from the film for each.

T.C. (Franklin Ajaye):

T.C. is a free spirit who sports an afro that the local planes flying in to the airport must have to have clearance warnings for. T.C. has only two abiding interests; disco music and Mona, a waitress at a local dive. His main goal, at least today, is to combine them both. That is he wants to win free tickets to a disco show that the local radio station is giving away, and then get Mona to go with him.

Best line (in response to Mona telling him the special at the restaurant for the day is ribs and wings):

"I've always been a breast and thigh man, myself." (Me too, T.C., me too...)

Check Him Out In: (Convoy, The Wrong Guys)

 

Lindy  (Antonio Fargas):

 

Lindy is the token "gay" character of the film. In as much as he is a caricature of what was typical at the time, Lindy may be problematic for the homosexual community, I don't really know for sure.  I think it's done with at least a modicum of taste. Lindy is always looking good, somewhat like Klinger did when he wore women's clothes on M*A*S*H*.

Best line (in response to a disparaging remark about his masculinity from Abdullah):

"Honey, I'm more man than you'll ever be and more woman than you'll ever get."

Check Him Out In: (The Starsky and Hutch TV series, Foxy Brown, Across 110th Street)

 

Abdullah (a.k.a. Duane) (Bill Duke): 

 

Abdullah is a new convert to Black Muslim theology, and is the essence of a disgruntled black man who has nothing but hostility towards the white race, and by association, anyone of the black race that he thinks of as an "Uncle Tom". As such Abdullah doesn't get any respect from his coworkers, except maybe Lonnie. I like Duke's performance here more than the character he is playing, and I think that is a credit to Duke. He stands out as one of the more memorable characters. And it was Duke's film debut!

Best line (to Daddy Rich):

"You talkin' just like a pimp!" 

Check Him Out In: (Predator, Menace II Society, Payback) 

 

Daddy Rich (Richard Pryor):

 

Daddy Rich is a local bigwig preacher, but not the kind of preacher that spouts hellfire and brimstone. Daddy Rich is a black version of someone like Joel Osteen, a preacher who spouts an entitlement theology (take the money because it's a God-given right to take the money). Except for Abdullah most of the employees look up to Daddy Rich, because he is successful (monetarily). 

Best line:

"There is a good place in this world for money and I know where it is. It's right here in my pocket!" 

 Check Him Out In: (Seriously? There are lots. But just to name a few. Silver Streak, Stir Crazy, Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life is Calling, Uptown Saturday Night)

 

Scruggs (Jack Kehoe):

 

 

Ostensibly the "token white guy" in an all-black comedy, Scruggs is adorable. He plays a guy who is stressing out over the previous night's festivities. Apparently he had stayed out all night partying, failing to show up at home. He still hasn't shown up and is sick to death over what his wife is going to do. And apparently he participated in some extramarital adventures and is now worried he has a memory of the night he'd prefer not to have. (If I have to be more explicit, you are in the wrong theater...)

Best line (while on the phone to a clinic):

"Well, it's just kinda hangin' there, lookin' sick..." 

Check Him Out In: The Sting, The Untouchables, Serpico. 

 

Car Wash is replete with other characters who don't get enough screen time to really make an impact. I particularly like Geronimo (Ray Vitte). Vitte had a very short career. He died at age 33 from, I think, sickle cell anemia. But he was memorable whenever he showed up in film and TV. He was a friend and band member of Pedro (Cheech Marin) in Up in Smoke and he played a DJ in Thank God It's Friday. Lloyd and Floyd are pretty good as a pair of wannabe singers. Lloyd, BTW, was played by De Wayne Jessie, who had a separate career as a singer with Otis Day and the Knights. Otis and the band were created for a couple of scenes in Animal House, but went on to perform for real (much like Spinal Tap). Richard Brestoff is pretty good as the son of the car wash owner, who would rather be a Communist following Mao than be the son of a member of the white establishment. But even the people he really wants to connect with, the black working men, don't take him seriously. And I can't forget to mention Ivan Dixon as Lonnie. Ivan was most memorable as Kinchloe in the TV series Hogan's Heroes. He had retired from acting by this time to direct and produce films, but came out of retirement specifically for this role.

There are numerous other cameo roles throughout the film. Lorraine Gary, who played Chief Brody's wife in the Jaws movies, has a bit part as an overly hysterical upper crust woman worried more about what damage her Mercedes is going to take as a result of her kid throwing up on it than she is about the kid himself. Carmine Caridi, whose biggest impact was as gangsters in movies like The Godfather movies and Bugsy, shows up as a rather loser of a father who leaves his Doberman in the car, apparently just to mess with the attendants.

There is one minor complaint as far as it goes. I think they underused George Carlin, who makes several appearances in the film. But his sole purpose is kind of lame. He plays a cab driver, and his sole impact is he's just wandering around trying to find a girl who ditched him mid cab ride without paying her fare. That fare girl, as well, is not entirely all that interesting. The movie describes her character as a hooker. She hides out in the restroom changing her outfit for most of the movie and doesn't really have much to do once she finally comes out of it.

Car Wash made a pretty decent profit at the box office, bringing in $14 million against a $2 million budget, and currently holds an 86% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Our old buddy Roger Ebert actually liked the movie, giving it 3½ out of 4 stars, and his cohort Gene Siskel granted it 3 out of 4 stars. 

Interestingly enough (and here's a shocker for you highbrow readers who think Citizen Kane is high art and movies like this are only for the lowbrow masses...), Car Wash was actually a candidate in the final running  for the Palme d'Or  in the 1977 Cannes Film Festival, To be considered along the likes of Paolo and Vittorio Taviani's Padre Padrone, the winner of that year's prize, as well as Wim Wender's The American Friend, Robert Altman's 3 Women and Ettore Scola's A Special Day I think is pretty significant. It even won two awards, for Best Music and the Technical Grand Prize.

From an interesting video I found on Car Wash:

If you saw this on commercial TV,  you saw a slightly different version. There were deleted portions, that focused on the gay character, Lindy, taken out, and instead inserted scenes that had been originally deleted from the theatrical release. These involved, believe it or not, Danny DeVito and Brooke Adams as a couple who owned a diner next door to the car wash. I couldn't find any clips online of the deleted scenes, so I don't even really know how DeVito made out in the role, but I bet he was pretty good.

Another interesting fact in that video. The producers created the soundtrack prior to actually filming the movie. Thus, when the characters are on screen dancing and jigging to songs on the soundtrack they actually ARE dancing and jigging to the actual songs, not just faking it to a music that would be added later. This was at the time a new development. Most movies would only add the soundtrack AFTER production had wrapped. This created a scene that was real, as opposed to just having the people dance to a song that wasn't even there.

And finally: this movie was originally written to be a stage play for Broadway. The writers envisioned a full blown stage play, complete with some working stage props to give it an authentic look. (Imagine all those people in the first few rows getting wet from the on stage action... I don't know about you, but it sounds somewhat like being front row for a Gallagher concert. Google "Gallagher" if you don't get it...) 

Well, folks, that's it for this time. Drive safely. And preferably in a nice clean car... 

 Quiggy

 

Stranger Things Have Happened

 

This is my entry in the It Grew On Me Blogathon hosted by Taking Up Room

 

 

Note: This is actually a stretch for the theme of the blogathon, but I have Rebecca's OK for it...

I don't like Will Ferrell movies. I gave him a shot with Anchorman, which I thought was just stupid and not at all funny. I tried again with A Night at the Roxbury. Still no go. Old School was just a waste of my time, as I didn't even crack a smile. When he was on Saturday Night Live, he was only slightly funny. I admit I like the Jeopardy! parodies, but his Alex Trebek persona had help or it wouldn't have worked for me either. (Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery and Norm MacDonald as Burt Reynolds both saved his ass from being a one and done character in the role of Trebek). I like the Austin Powers films, but only the parts where Ferrell isn't on screen. In fact I came to a conclusion that Farrell needs to have somebody of far greater talent to blur out his lack of such.

In 2006, when Stranger Than Fiction was released on home video, I was having a conversation with an employee, Mark, at my local video rental place and told him that the concept of the movie intrigued me, but I was reluctant to take the plunge since I thought it would end up being the same old same old stupid output that I had seen in previous Ferrell movies. Mark said something I will never forget, and something that I am grateful to him for saying. He said that I ought to check it out because he had discovered that "people who like Will Ferrell don't like this movie, but people who don't like Will Ferrell have been saying they like it."

Based on just that I decided to give it a whirl. And what do you know? I actually found a Will Ferrell movie that I can stand, nay, even like. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Ferrell wasn't trying to be funny, at least not in the usual sense of his attempts when he was doing his standard comedies. So, no, the movie doesn't necessarily qualify, in the strictest terms of this blogathon. I didn't hate the movie at the outset, and then gradually change my mind about it on repeat viewings. And I still will avoid most movies which Will Farrell is the star. But, given that fact, I guess you could say Ferrell "grew on me" in one respect, since I will recommend Stranger than Fiction, especially if you are, like me, rather dismissive of his usual output.

 

 

 

Stranger Than Fiction (2006):

Do you hear strange voices?

Unless you are David Berkowitz (the infamous "Son of Sam"), it's probably not a serious problem if you do.

But for Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), this voice he hears is somewhat problematic. It is not telling him to go out and kill random strangers like the voice that spurred Berkowitz, but it is infringing on his sanity. 

The premise of the movie is that Harold, who works as an auditor for the IRS, begins hearing a woman's voice who seems to be narrating his life, as if he is a character in some novel rather than a normal functioning human being. So how would you react if suddenly it seemed like someone was writing your life? This bizarre story plays out as Harold tries to discover just what the hell is going on.

 

It is complicated by the fact that only Harold hears this voice. Everyone around him reacts as if he is just some nutcase talking to himself. But hearing this voice is indeed happening, even if Harold is the only one who realizes it.

 

It turns out that somewhere else in the city is a frustrated writer who is going through a case of writer's block. Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) has written several novels, most of which ended with the death of her protagonist. 

 

But she has been struggling with her current novel, because she really has no idea how to kill him off. The character in her novel?

Harold Crick. 

Eiffel: "Little did he know that this simple, seemingly innocuous act would result in his imminent death." 

Harold ends up going to a psychiatrist who diagnoses him with schizophrenia. But Harold insists that he is NOT schizophrenic. For some reason, possibly just to get him out of her office, she suggests he see a literary professor, since Harold thinks he is somehow involved as a character in someone's novel.

 

He goes to see Professor Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman), who takes him seriously (or maybe just tries to humor him). Hilbert runs through various scenarios and determines that he is not Hamlet, or a golem or any of the various literary characters that might possibly be a solution. He even tries to determine whether Harold is in the middle of a comedy or a tragedy:  

Harold: "I just met a woman who told me to get bent."

Prof. Hilbert: "Well, that sounds like a comedy..." 

 

The woman that Harold is referring to is a woman. Ana (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who is currently under investigation for not paying enough taxes. She is initially openly hostile to Harold (as probably any one who is trying to skirt regulations on their taxes with the hope of getting away with it would be). But Harold finds Ana intriguing, even if he is a bit reserved in his development of a relationship.

 

Eventually Harold figures out that Karen is the culprit behind it all and tracks her down. Needless to say she is just as shocked as Harold is that the situation exists, that Harold is a real person, not just a figment of her writer imagination.

 

She ends up giving him a copy of the novel she has written, which he takes to Hilbert. Hilbert tells him that it is the greatest novel he has ever read, but that Harold's death at the end of it is the only way the novel could end with a satisfying conclusion.

 

I won't tell you how this all wraps up. I will tell you that, aside from Old Yeller, this is only the second movie that has ever brought me to tears at the end. And, despite the fact that I think Ferrell is still a subpar comic actor, he pulls off what I think is his absolute best ever performance.

Ferrell was recognized in the critical community for this role, which in my mind goes a long way in redeeming himself as an actor. Ferrell was nominated for a Golden Globes Award in the category of Best Actor in a Motion Picture: Musical or Comedy (which he lost to Sacha Baron Cohen for Borat). He was nominated for a Satellite Award for Best Actor- Musical or Comedy (which he lost to Joseph Cross for Running with Scissors). And, once again, he was nominated for a Best Actor Saturn Award (and that one he lost to Brandon Routh for Superman Returns). 

Could he also have qualified at least for a nomination for an Oscar? Hard to say. With the competition that year I find it difficult to find a spot for him. His competition would have included Forest Whitaker (the ultimate winner for Last King of Scotland), Peter O'Toole (Venus), Leonardo DiCaprio (Blood Diamond), Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness) and Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson). I don't say he would have won that either because, if you haven't seen Whitaker's performance, it was outstanding. But like Jim Carrey's performance in an earlier role in  The Truman Show, I think Ferrell's role at least deserved a nod. (Maybe substitute him for Ryan Gosling...)

Whether it was because Ferrell was playing against type, or there were other factors involved, the movie only did moderately well at the box office. With a budget of $30 million it only pulled in $54 million in ticket sales. It got some good reviews, however. It has a 73% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. My old standby critic Roger Ebert gave it 3½ out of 4 stars, saying it proves that "he has dramatic gifts equal to his comedic talents". (Obviously Ebert had a better opinion of his comedy than I do...)

So, to sum up, I will leave you with this. Perhaps it is a good idea to take my friend Mark's advice: if you like Will Ferrell then approach this film with an open mind, but be expecting a different Ferrell, and if you don't like him, by golly, you are missing out by NOT watching.

Time to fire up the old Plymouth and head back to the house. Drive safely.

Quiggy

  

Selling America: Iconic Commercials (Pt 1)

 

If you are a child of the 70's, like me, you probably watched a hell of a lot of TV. These days, with DVR and the like, you can fast forward through the commercials, but in the 70's (as well as earlier, in the 50's and 60's, and later into the 80's and 90's) commercials were a part of the experience when watching TV shows.

To be honest, there wasn't a big attraction to most commercials. They were, after all, only designed to sell a product, and often not a whole lot of thought went into making them anywhere remotely "memorable". 

And yet... Every so often one commercial would crash the gate of just being an unwanted nuisance in the TV watching experience.  One that became a sort of cultural phenomenon in itself. Surely any child of the 70's remembers such classic commercials as these, proof that even commercials could impact the viewer if they could reach that plateau.

Note: After coming up with the idea for this post I realized there were WAY too many memorable commercials for just one post, so I decided to keep it smaller by just focusing on a specific topic for each of what will be several entries. This one will focus just on soda pop commercials. Future commercial memories will cover other products. 

The inspiration for this post came as a result of a couple of guys (both of us in our 60's now, BTW) sitting around reminiscing about our childhood when the topic verged into classic commercials of the day. Whenever I start discussing memorable commercials from the 70's, one in particular always comes up. And, once again, if you grew up in the 70's you will remember this one.

(A preface for the videos included here: I made an effort to try to find good examples with quality reproduction, but many of them look like they were recorded off a TV broadcast, and even then a TV broadcast circa the 70's. My apologies for the quality).  

Hey, kid! Catch! (for Coca Cola): 

 

This classic commercial first aired during a Monday Night Football game in October of 1979, a game between the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots. It aired several times over the next few months. 

But it probably really gained recognition when it aired as one of the commercials during Super Bowl XIV (which featured Mean Joe and the Steelers pitted against the Los Angeles Rams). The producers wanted to use someone from the then current Super Bowl winners, since that would be the freshest football celebrity to the public.  

Interestingly enough, in an interview I watched, the creator of the spot, Penny Hawkey, admits that she was unfamiliar with Greene's nickname, but upon hearing he was called "Mean Joe", immediately decided that he was the football player she wanted to use. The commercial made its way into the zeitgeist.

I remember seeing a blooper reel on a special of America's Funniest Videos, hosted by Dick Clark and Ed McMahon. Outtakes from the filming. One of them you can find in some videos of the filming, in which Greene guzzles the Coke as per the script. He is supposed to do the "Hey, kid! Catch!" line and throw his jersey, as it shows in the above video, but he inadvertently burped, blowing the take. In another outtake, which I can't find, he throws the jersey but it lands on the kid's head.

The commercial won a Clio Award, given out to the best commercials of the year. (An award for "best commercials"? Go figure...) It has continued to impact the zeitgeist over the years. There was a parody/homage of it not long after, during an episode of Sesame Street, in which one person, playing a football player called "Big Murray" gives another character a towel with the number 7 (the segment was about teaching kids about the number 7).  And the theme has cropped up in episodes of Newhart, The Simpsons, Family Guy and Futurama. There was even a made-for-TV movie which featured Greene taking on a father figure role for a kid the Steelers adopted.

No one who has seen the original will probably ever forget it. And even newcomers to the clip, people who weren't even born at the time of it's production, can't come away from watching it without it having some impact. Which only goes to show that not all commercials are a waste of time. And Greene, who wasn't necessarily the biggest name on the 1979 Steelers team (those would be quarterback Terry Bradshaw, Lynn Swann, Franco Harris and John Stallworth), became a much bigger presence as a result of this commercial.

But that one wasn't the only time Coca-Cola managed to work it's way into the culture...

 

Hilltop (for Coca-Cola):

The original song, believe it or not, started out as a jingle for Coca-Cola. The writer, Bill Backer, jotted down the line "I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and keep it company" on a napkin while stuck at an airport during a flight delay. The tune for it was based on a previous melody, but the original song we 70's kids remember is this one. (I certainly don't remember that original song, which BTW, was called "True Love and Apple Pie". You can google that title if you want. It is somewhat different from the song that dwells in your memory). 

The commercial features a crowd of young people on a hilltop (thus the title of the commercial), singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and keep it company." The jingle was so popular, according to legend, that folks would call up radio stations requesting the jingle (as if it was a literal song being played on radio stations). The powers that be saw it's potential as a valid song and released a version sans the Coke reference. It was performed by The New Seekers and even made it into the AT40, topping out as the #7 song, and lasting in the top 40 from December of 1971 to February of 1972.

I think it might even be a case of what is called the Mandela Effect for some. Even I am guilty of that, because I thought the radio song came first and the jingle was created later. But, in fact, the jingle came first. The thing that really made this commercial memorable was the message that it presented. At a time when the youth of America were advocating the end of a very unpopular war (Vietnam) and having instead worldwide peace, the commercial focused on an event that featured 100 young people gathered together, representative of the world since it was supposedly a multinational group:

"On a hilltop in Italy,
We assembled young people
From all over the world...
To bring you this message
From Coca-Cola Bottlers
All over the world.
It's the real thing. Coke."

Despite the fact that it is in essence a ploy to sell a product by using the "peace movement" as it's marketing strategy, I think this commercial ultimately had a good underlying message. And that's what makes it stand out in my memory. (As a side note, I was just 9 years old at the time, so all I really knew about the signs of the times came from whatever I managed to see on the local news programs. I wasn't involved in any active protest movements of the era; hell, I probably would have just ignored any if they had even happened around me... for all I know, maybe they did and that's exactly how I reacted).  

 

I'm a Pepper (for Dr. Pepper):

From the late 70's into the early 80's the face of Dr. Pepper would undoubtedly have been David Naughton. The commercials that Naughton made were memorable because of his happy-go-lucky demeanor as he danced and sang his way through the jingle: "I'm a pepper. He's a pepper. She's a pepper. We're a pepper. Wouldn't you like to be a pepper, too?" It was a catchy jingle. (And having been a devotee of Dr. Pepper since the mid-60's, I was a "pepper" along with him).

Unfortunately this situation became a subject of controversy in 1981. See, David Naughton had committed an unpardonable sin in 1981. He had appeared naked in a film, An American Werewolf in London. Well, that's the legend. And it turns out to not be true. But I believed it when I first heard it, because after all, there is no bugaboo greater in my own catalog of "unpardonable sins" as censorship and moral judgement. It turns out that Naughton just left Dr. Pepper so he could focus on his acting and musical career. (To that musical side, he did have a one-hit wonder with a song titled "Makin' It"...)

As far it's effect on the public, these spots are credited as helping Dr. Pepper become a bigger name in the soda pop industry. The jingle itself was catchy. Unlike the previous commercials it wasn't all that impactful on the horizon, but people of my generation are bound to remember them.

 

And, finally, this post would be incomplete without mentioning Geoffrey Holder.

 

The Uncola... aah hah ha! (for 7Up):

Geoffrey Holder, a much more exotic voice and je ne sais quoi  than his contemporary James Earl Jones, made watching 7Up commercials worth watching just by his presence. Always snazziily dressed, Holder came on screen extolling the virtues of not going with the standard of using cola nuts in the drink called "7Up". 

There was nothing about the presentation of a 7Up commercial that one would think of as iconic. Holder never sang about the virtues of the soda, although he did have a musical background. That was mostly as a dancer and choreographer, however. But then, as far as I remember, he never did a dance during his commercials, either.

No, Holder just showed up and promoted the difference between those less than exquisite "normal and boring" cola drinks in favor of the uncola of a lemon-lime concoction. But what sold the commercial was his delivery, and it almost always ended with the what I think of as "iconic" chuckle. A 7Up commercial with Holder probably would have been memorable anyway just because of his delivery of the sales pitch, but I think what makes them really good is they always ended with that "aah hah ha". 

Try it some time with a friend who grew up with the commercial. Just ask "What commercial was this from?" and then do your best "aah hah ha!" I'll bet at least 75% of your friends, assuming they were around during the commercial's heyday, will immediately respond with the right answer. Just goes to show you don't need a dramatic subplot of some starstruck kid and a sports icon or an elaborate chorale group or a song and dance number to be memorable.

So, which of these was your favorite? For me it will always be the Mean Joe one. I might add here that if the producers had gone with Randy White or Hollywood Henderson or any of the rest of The Devil's Favorite Team (which they could conceivably have done, since that team had also been in the previous year's Super Bowl)  I wouldn't be so near enamored of it, but fortunately they went with Greene.

 

Commercial break over. Now back to our features.

Quiggy 

 

 

 

 

 

Semiquincentennial Movie Project #31: The Giant Spider Invasion

 

 

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 #31: Wisconsin -

 

 

The state of Wisconsin was established on May 29, 1848.

Details about Wisconsin:

State bird: robin    

State flower: wood violet

State tree: sugar maple

Additional historical trivia:

Two Rivers is the birthplace of the ice cream sundae. Note: this claim is contested, but the city does date the invention of the sundae at it's earliest date here.

The iconic cheese head you see at Green Bay Packers games actually debuted at a Milwaukee Brewers game.  

You can thank John J. Blaine, a senator from Wisconsin, for introducing the bill that finally repealed Prohibition, making it legal to sell alcohol again.

Quite possibly an intentional marketing ploy if you ask me, but for a brief time in 2009 an exit sign in Wisconsin had every word on it spelled wrong except "exit".  (Might not have even been exit #185, for all I know...)

 

On the "beware your neighbor" side, both Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer, two infamous serial killers were from Wisconsin. 

 The iconic TV shows Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley were set in Milwaukee. (Additionally, That 70's Show was set in a fictional town in Wisconsin.) 

Famous people born in Wisconsin: Orson Welles, Gene Wilder, Laura Ingalls Wilder (of Little House on the Prairie fame), Liberace, astronaut Deke Slayton, Oscar "Happy" Felsch (one of the infamous "Black Sox" who threw the 1919 World Series) and Bob Uecker.  

 

The Giant Spider Invasion (1975): 

What's scarier than a little spider?

A bigger spider.

And what's scarier than a bigger spider? 

A spider that's grown to gigantic proportions, of course.

But you know what's not scary?

A Volkswagen Beetle decked out with legs to look like a giant spider....

I honestly don't know if this movie was meant to be taken seriously as a horror movie or not. After all, in the opening scene, we witness a cheesy shot of what is supposed to look look like a UFO (but actually more resembles a blue PEZ pellet) flashing across space. 

 

we zoom in on a small town where the sheriff, Sheriff Jones (Alan Hale, Jr.) is working at his desk, when in walks Dave (Kevin Brodie). The Skipper (I mean "the sheriff") greets him with a "Hi, little buddy!" and Gilligan (I mean "Dave") and he talk about a revival going on later.

It's nice to finally be off that island

 

Dave has a date with Terry (Diane Lee Hart). The Sheriff warns him that fooling around with Terry might not be a good idea because her brother-in-law Dan (Robert Easton), is not one to get on the wrong side of. But Dan is a good guy... he actually went to a revival. Ummm... no he didn't. But that's what he told his wife, Ev (Leslie Parrish).

Not tonight, honey. I have a bug...

 

When he comes back home, Ev doesn't believe his story.  But Ev has been doing exactly the same thing that Dan has been doing... fooling around with someone else. While they are discussing their fictional evenings the UFO from the opening sequence crashes in their back forty. But Dan says whatever it was will wait until morning.

Dan and Ev are not the typical happily married couple. Some of the best lines come from one or the other during this film.

Ev: "Sometimes the only way I know you're alive is when I hear you flush the toilet!" 

Dan: "You're so dumb, you wouldn't know rabbit turds from Rice Krispies."

 

These Rice Krispies taste funny, Ev...

Meanwhile a physicist at the nearby observatory notices some peculiar increases in gamma radiation in the area. Dr. Langer (Barbara Hale) calls in help to investigate this mysterious phenomenon. NASA sends out Dr. Vance (Steve Brodie, who, BTW, is the father of the actor playing Dave, in case you were wondering...). 

Just a typical family get together

 

Out at the farm Ev and Dan check out where the crash occurred. They don't find a UFO, but they find a couple of mutilated cows, which the unscrupulous Dan plans to chop up and sell to the owner of the local diner. They also find a bunch of meteorites. When Dan opens one up he finds... diamonds! (And a tarantula, but he doesn't see that). And quicker than you can say Spider Robinson Dan gets $$$ in his eyes.  

Later, when searching for more meteorites, Dan finds a dead body. He secretly buries the body, but he tells Ev they can't tell the sheriff because he'll find  out about the meteorites and diamonds. Of course, he'll also find out that one of their cash crops is a kind of grass that the sheriff would find not entirely orthodox...

The movie trudges along as just a normal spider movie (well, as normal as a "spiders from space" can hope to achieve. But the problem is we have a movie called The GIANT Spider Invasion. So, unless there are thousands of meteorites, that invasion is going to be pretty tame, don't ya think?

But (finally)  40 minutes into the movie we get some larger spiders. And the jump scares for this portion are worthy of pushing this movie from the "laugh riot" side of film into horror/monster film, as Ev is attacked in her farm house by a couple of big bear sized spiders. 

Meanwhile our intrepid doctors are scoping out the area and theorize that a miniature black hole crashed into Earth outside Dan's farm. (And every real scientist watching this movie is about to have a brain hemorrhage.) The whole theory is that that is where this invasion of spiders is coming from; essentially this miniature black hole opened a rift in the space-time continuum, I guess. What it looks more like to me is that the scriptwriters just did a scan of a few scientific articles and took words that sounded "science-y" and molded a story around it.

(Now, I will interject here that some scientists theorize that the Great Tunguska Fireball was the result of a miniature black hole falling to Earth, but to date no one has seen gigantic spiders in the region).

It takes 50 minutes before we see the really large spider come out of the ground. At first, the spider looks halfway decent. But as hinted in the introduction, eventually the film has to give us some long shots of the spider, and despite some fairly decent music to enhance the scare tactics of this "spider from Mars" (or wherever it's supposed to be from), it basically looks like what it is; a car with spider legs attached to it.

Well, a "beetle" and a spider are both insects, anyway...

 

Of course, when it becomes known that there is a giant predator on the loose, every redneck in town with a gun or a slingshot starts thinking, "hell, that's nothing we can take it", despite the Sheriff trying to convince them to let the authorities take care of it. And then, from out of nowhere, there's a....

CARNIVAL!

You heard that right, folks! Smorgasbord for the giant spider made to order, I guess....

Panic at the carousel

 

Ultimately the scientists decide that the solution is to set up some kind of device that will (hopefully) seal off the black hole so that nothing else can come through, and in the process kill any of the creatures that already have come through.

This movie is absolutely bonkers. The highlight for me is the preacher (Tain Bodkin). Remember the revival that Dan was supposed to be going to? Well, that preacher keeps popping up now and then spouting end of the world predictions. The final line from the film is the preacher expostulating:

"When pharaoh refused the children of Israel their right to exist, the heavens opened up and deluged the land with flies, frogs, lice and locusts! It happened before and it will happen again!" 

 Believe it or not, this film actually made a profit. Not entirely unreasonable since it was made for only about $300,000 (and most of that was probably spent on the spiders...) It made, by different accounts, either $3 million or $15 million at the box office. It doesn't have enough reviews to receive a rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but another website, the Popcornmeter, rates it at 14%. One review quoted on wikipedia calls it "self-subconsciously ludicrous". 

For entertainment value, it's a hoot (if you look at it as a comedy). But since I think it was actually supposed to be a serious horror movie I'd have to say, except for a serious sufferer of arachnophobia, it's not all that scary. The music does try it's best to enhance the scary parts, but even then it's sometimes lacking. However, give it a try. 

Until next time folks, drive safely.

Quiggy

 

 

Bingeworthy: Episode 2 (Sherlock)

 

The Bingeworthy series was created in 2026, as an homage to some of my favorite TV shows, ones that I can sit through multiple episodes in one sitting (what the cognoscenti call "binging"). Each entry will cover several episodes that I think make the series worth binging. Sometimes I will vary it by picking one episode per season to highlight and other times I will just select a few outstanding episodes. (This will be especially important if a series went on for many years... I don't think ANYONE wants to see a 10+ episode post of a 10+ season highlight...) 

 

 

Bingeworthy: Episode 2: Sherlock (2010-17)

Note: I gave some brief thought to just reprinting an earlier blog entry dedicated to Sherlock, but after reading it I decided to go this route instead. If you would like to see that earlier entry, then have at it through the link above.

 

Most everyone knows about Sherlock Holmes. Over the years there have been numerous movies and TV shows featuring the beloved character. Count Dracula holds the record for most appearances in film (about 270, according to AI). But Sherlock comes in at a close second (with 254, again according to AI). As I stated in the fist blog entry I did for this series, the Holmes character was often subject to the whims of the film industry, sometimes being wedged into more modern (at the time) scenarios. 

I have in my book collection a book titled Sherlock Holmes on Screen. My copy is a first edition published in 2001, but a newer edition, updated in 2012, is available. (My first edition copy came out before the Robert Downey, Jr. iteration of the character and the BBC TV series I will discuss today.) 

Holmes, it turns out, is not just limited to appearances in British and American film. He has appeared in German productions, such as Der Hund von Baskerville (The Hound of Baskerville), Danish productions, such as Det Hemmelige Dokument (The Secret Document), Chinese productions, such as Fu Er Mo Si Yu Zhong Guo Nu Xia (Sherlock Holmes and the Chinese Heroine), Russian productions, such as Priklyucheniya Sherlocka Kholmsa i doktpra Vatsona (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson) and Portuguese films, such as O Xangô de Baker Street (The Baker Street Tango) {Gotta see if I can track down that one for next year's Luso World Blogathon}.

As for TV, many versions came from the UK and the BBC, including the lauded Jeremy Brett version from the 80's and one that featured Peter Cushing in the role of the great detective. There was an American TV version from 1954 featuring Ronald Howard, but that only lasted one season. Recently on American TV there was Elementary, with Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes living in New York, albeit without the traditional male Dr. Watson; in this case Lucy Liu played a psychiatrist hired by Holmes' father to keep an eye on him.

But my favorite iteration of the Holmes character, by far, is the 2010 BBC series, which pitted Holmes and Watson in modern day London. As I said before elsewhere, this is an interesting development, because usually I prefer my Holmes and Watson in Victorian England, rather than what I perceive to be manipulation in making them modern. And, although that's exactly what happened, it doesn't actually make me wince. The kudos for this lie mostly on the actor Benedict Cumberbatch to make it work for me, although I can't ignore the scriptwriters who "foisted" this change.

There were only four seasons of the series, and only 3 episodes in each season. I recommend ALL of the episodes, but I am going to highlight my favorite episode from each of the seasons. If you decide to dive in, however, I highly recommend you watch it from episode one, as there is a thread running through the entire series, especially the season 4 series.  

Sherlock quite often injected little "Easter eggs", sly winks to the original stories which helped make the series more acceptable to purists (at least to ones who were amenable to that whole concept of Sherlock in the 21st century, anyway...) So you will see references below to where the stories got some inspiration from the canon.   

 

 

"The Great Game" (Season 1 Episode 3; original broadcast Jan. 1, 2012) {Note: the "original broadcast" dates for these are the UK dates, not the US dates...}

In this episode we finally get to meet Sherlock Holmes' (Benedict Cumberbatch) arch-nemesis, Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott). {BTW: You can start with this one, if you wish, instead of the first episode "A Study in Pink". In the first two episodes there are hints to his existence, but he isn't really on stage until this one}.  

The references to the original stories:  

This episode brings out elements from "The Five Orange Pips" and "The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans". The five Greenwich time signals parallels the pips, and, of course, the stolen plans by the Andrew West character are directly related to the Bruce-Partington story.

The episode starts out in typical Sherlock fashion. Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) is frustrated because there are no crimes worthy of his intellect to solve. But that's about to change.

Maybe not from the visit from his brother, however. Mycroft (Mark Gatiss), an upper level figure in the government wants Sherlock to investigate the death of a functionary, a man who may have stolen some secret plans for a missile defense system. (This is a direct parallel to an original Holmes story "The Adventure of  Bruce-Partington Plans") But the mercurial Sherlock declines, mainly because he and Mycroft are rather competitive, as brothers will be. 

The real meat of the episode involves Sherlock getting a mysterious message from  a caller. It turns out that the caller is not the villain; it is someone that the villain has briefly kidnapped and then wired up with explosives. Through the voice of the victim the villain relays the parameters of the "game" he is playing.

Sherlock is given a brief period of time to solve the mystery or the villain will set off the bomb. This happens several times over the course of the episode. As Sherlock solves each crime, he lets the villain know of his solution through his blog and the original caller is allowed to reveal his or her location so the bomb can be dismantled. 

The intense mental battle between Sherlock and the villain are what makes this episode click, but it would hardly be so worthy if the mysteries weren't intriguing themselves. Ultimately, it turns out that the villain is our nemesis who had only been hinted at in the previous two episodes; Moriarty. 

And the final confrontation ends in a cliffhanger that hints at the next season. If you are old enough to remember the "Who shot J.R.?" cliffhanger from the TV series Dallas, I would bet that in the UK this was one of those water cooler moments, similar to that, that often happens in such shows. (This part of the episode is somewhat related to another story in the Holmes canon, "The Five Orange Pips")

The mystery of the death of the functionary from the beginning also plays into the story, and it's connection to the mysterious bomber fits in rather well. This episode also, more than most of them, really encapsulates the dichotomy of personalities between Watson and Holmes, with Holmes being adverse to showing any kind of emotion while Watson actually cares about the victims the villain has chosen to inflict his plans upon.

 

 

"The Hounds of Baskerville" (Season 2 Episode 2; original broadcast Jan. 8, 2012):

Note: It would be entirely to easy just to fast forward to the cliffhanger episode from season 2 as my choice. It is good. But then all three of them are, for that matter. But really, the most intriguing one touches upon another abiding interest of mine, that of secrecy in the government shadows...  

The references to the original stories: 

Obviously the primary source of inspiration for this episode is the novel "The Hound of the Baskervilles".  The titular dog is a key to the mystery, But there are subtle references to other stories, including "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot", which featured a similar mysterious gas. (And where else but at a secret government laboratory would you find such an insidious development...?) Also, a "bet" that Holmes claims to have with Watson to induce a guy to reveal knowledge that he is reluctant to give comes from an incident in "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle". 

The basic story involves a character named Henry Knight who has come to Holmes for help. Henry has been having nightmares related to the death of his father years earlier. Henry's father, at least by his memory, was attacked by, in his words, a "giant hound". Initially Holmes is reluctant to get involved, but the word "hound" intrigues him. 

This leads to an investigation which results in Holmes and Watson going to a high security location called "Baskerville", which has parallels not only with secret government facilities in the US, but also in Great Britain. Holmes uses an ID of Mycroft, his brother, who is, as Holmes has noted, not only a bigwig in the government, but he actually "is the British government". Note: We get a hint of that in previous episodes, including the first episode in season 2.

There is quite a bit of intrigue involved in the case. Apparently at the base of it is the fact that the Baskerville facility is involved in some sort of hallucinatory drug meant to be used in chemical warfare with Britain's enemies. The solution hinges a lot on the fact that the word "hound" is an odd word to use, when just "dog" would be more appropriate in the common vernacular.

 

 

 

 

"The Empty Hearse" (Season 3 Episode 1; original broadcast Jan. 1, 2014):

Note: The episode picks up where season 2 left off, with Holmes having supposedly died by leaping off a building). 

The cliffhanger at the end of season 2 showed Watson walking away from the grave of Holmes, with Holmes looking on from just outside of Watson's vision, thus everyone watching the series already knew that Holmes didn't really die, but it probably also became another of what is known as a "water cooler" moment (referenced above). 

At the beginning Watson has moved on with his life. The story picks up two years later. Watson is about to ask Mary Morstan, his current girlfriend, to marry him when Holmes shows up. Unlike the ecstatic Watson in the  classic "The Empty House" story that brought Holmes back from the dead in the canon, Watson here is incensed that Holmes didn't let him in on the truth, leaving him to grieve and eventually come to terms with the loss.

Holmes hasn't been entirely "on vacation" all this time. He was busy trying to dismantle Moriarty's evil empire. (Moriarty himself had died in the season 2 finale). But Holmes is back because Mycroft has information about an impending terrorist attack. Meanwhile many conspiracy theories have cropped up surrounding Holmes' "death", including a fun one proposed by one of Holmes' detractors in Scotland Yard. (The conspiracy theories are sort of a humorous jab, it seems to me, at the comparative conspiracies surrounding the death of John F. Kennedy, some of which imply that JFK did not actually die in Dallas on that fateful day).

More than any other episode in the series, this one throws a plethora of references to stories from the original Doyle stories. Besides the return of Holmes from the dead,  there are either brief or sometimes even overt callbacks to such classic can as "The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle", "A Case of Identity", "The Adventure of the Gloria Scott" and above all, a peek into how Mary Morstan from "The Sign of Four" and Dr. Watson came to be together.

A lot of the story is centered on a celebration of an entirely British tradition, November 5th, the anniversary of the Guy Fawkes plan to blow up the House of Lords that was foiled back in the 17th century. As the new 21st century dawns, there is a new plan to do the same thing. In fact, the reason that Holmes makes his reappearance is because Mycroft brought him out of his "vacation" to look into a new terrorist plot, of which Mycroft only knows that there is something nefarious in the works, he just doesn't know what.

Aside from the intrigue of the terrorist plan, what really sets this episode apart is the introduction of  Mary Morstan (Amanda Abbington). If you get involved in Mary's arc in the series you are going to be caught up in a very intriguing character. Mary is not just an afterthought in the story line in the TV series, unlike the canon of stories. She eventually becomes one of the key ingredients in a story that will knock the traditionalist Holmes aficionado for a loop.

"The Final Problem" (Season 4 Episode 3; original broadcast Jan. 15, 2017):

The what turned out to be (so far) the last Sherlock episode of the Cumberbatch-Freeman era turns out to be one of the most intriguing and convoluted stories in the entire series.  It has all been leading up to this, although it ends up feeling somewhat like the producers tried to throw as much stuff into one episode because they knew it would be their last one. 13 episodes in (the side project "The Abominable Bride" is included in the pantheon, even though technically it is an independent project) and we get to see more bizarre twists than all of the other episodes combined.

A word of warning: If you don't commit to watching this series from beginning to end in order you may get lost with this one. Not only is it a wrap up of the arc of season 4, but it contains elements that extend from season 3, as well as some information that has been revealed since the beginning.

The episode opens with a little girl waking up on a plane where everyone, including the pilots, are passed out. A cell phone rings and she answers it and our old friend Jim Moriarty says "Welcome to the final problem". But, since Moriarty is, by this time, dead, there is something else entirely going on.

What is going on is Sherlock discovers that Mycroft has systematically eliminated Sherlock's memory of a sister, Eurus (Sian Brooke). See, years ago when they were kids, Eurus had been born a year after Sherlock. And Eurus turned out to be someone that makes Moriarty look like Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Eventually Mycroft had put Eurus in a high security prison because Eurus was a danger to polite society.

Except somehow Eurus has figured out how to circumvent the security system. And, it turns out, a few years prior to the current situation, Mycroft had made an egregious error by granting an unsupervised meeting between Eurus and Moriarty (who was still alive at the time). You know this can't be good. 

Really, to get any deeper into this complicated story would be depriving you of the experience. Just to entice you however, think of Eurus as being much more devious and also much more intelligent than Hannibal Lecter (although I don't THINK Eurus ever dined on brains "with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti"...) 

This episode takes elements from several stories in the canon, but most of them are just veiled references to brief mentions of characters found in the stories. The title itself is the same as the one in which Conan Doyle originally killed off Holmes, and since this is the final episode of the BBC series it is somehow fitting. Spoiler alert! Holmes doesn't die at the end of this episode however. 

Ultimately, as I have stated, the Sherlock series is best watched in order, since the story arc presents details throughout that fit together as one major puzzle. Even though I chose the third episode of season 1 to highlight instead of the first episode, I usually recommend you start with the first episode as an introduction. If you aren't completely hooked (as I was) after the first one, then possibly it may not be your cup of tea. 

 

That's it for this Bingeworthy episode. Keep coming back for more. 

Quiggy

 

 

Body of Evidence

 

This is my entry in the Master of Suspense Blogathon hosted by Classic Film and TV Corner

 

 

 

I think there is something wrong with me. But if there is, it's a good bet I'm not alone in the world. 

In that I mean that I absolutely enjoy when a movie takes a despicable act of real life, and turning it into a dynamic tension filled drama on the big screen, without any apparent apologies from the makers for what they are perpetrating on the public. In the case of Rope it was the real story of the murder of a boy by two of his "friends". In 1924 two college students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, had killed an associate of theirs, Bobby Franks.

For the time (the 1940's), it would seem that the basic background story would have been controversial to put to film. Not the murder itself... Everyone knows that murder was a subject that was always a useful and entertaining subject for film, dating back to the early days of cinema. (The Great Train Robbery from 1903 is sometimes credited as the first film to ever depict someone actually being killed on screen). And murder had happened countless times in films since then. So, by 1948 it wouldn't have been outlandish to see someone killed in a movie.  

The part that was controversial, and the part the makers of Rope had to work around, was the homosexuality of the two main characters. In 1948 it was still taboo to come right out and say anyone was homosexual in a movie. This despite the fact that a character had been established as such elsewhere. (I am always intrigued by the fact that Joel Cairo, one of the villains of Dashiell Hammett's original novel version of The Maltese Falcon, is unabashedly designated as one, but when it came time to film the Humphrey Bogart version of the story the producers had to tread a very thin line when portraying him).

In Rope, the main characters are very much supposed to be lovers, but the Hays Code that was in effect at the time forbade anything that might outright establish this relationship. Again, this despite the fact that the characters they were based on, Leopold and Loeb, were indeed in that kind of relationship. Now, even though Hitchcock couldn't come right out and state that the two were gay, there were several scenes throughout that could hint at this relationship. But under no circumstances was it allowed that the audience could definitively say "yeah, those two are lovers". At least overtly.

There are hints, to be sure. At one point the two murderers are discussing the murder (at least that's what the implication of the scene is supposed to convey):

 

Phillip: "How did it feel... during it?"

Brandon: "I don't remember feeling very much of anything... until his body went limp and I knew it was over. I felt tremendously exhilarated. How did you feel?"

Hitchcock got away with quite a bit in that respect. 

Arthur Laurentz, the screenplay writer. in an interview of a documentary, The Celluloid Closet, says :

"I don't think the censors at that time realized this was about gay people. They didn't have a clue what was and what wasn't, that's how it got by." 

It is interesting to note that Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift were both considered for parts in the film, but both turned down the roles because they didn't want to play characters that may or may not be homosexuals, even though both had reputations within the Hollywood community as having an affinity for that kind of relationship. (The original character of Cadell had had a relationship with one of the boys prior to the events in the film in the original play, but that relationship was removed when Stewart took over the role). 

There is another subtext that may or may not be all that obvious, at least to modern audiences. The characters of Brandon and Phillip feel that they are above the law because they consider themselves superior to the common man, on an intellectual level. Therefore they consider the act of murder at least condonable because their victim is less than superior. Thus Brandon and Phillip could almost be seen as mirrors of the Nazi ideology of a superior or "master race". I also think that there is some hint at the Russian red communistic ideal that replaced the aristocratic bourgeoisie with the intellectual bourgeoisie to them.

And in fact, during the denouement of the film, Stewart's Cadell attaches much of the Nazi ideology (via Nietzche's Man and Superman philosophy)  to Brandon and Phillip:

"By what right do you dare say that there's a superior few to which you belong? By what right did you dare decide that, that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed? Did you think you were God, Brandon? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him? Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave? I don't know what you thought or what you are, but I know what you've done. You've murdered!" 

 

 

 

Rope: (1948):

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to make an appearance. Since 99% of the film takes place inside Brandon and Phillip's apartment, Hitch's cameo came during the opening credits. You can see him walking on the sidewalk just outside the apartment building.

 

The movie itself opens with the murder, as Phillip (Farley Granger) does the dirty work of strangling David (Dick Hogan) as Brandon (John Dall) watches with undisguised glee.

The two hide the body, along with the rope in a trunk in the living room, and proceed to prepare for a dinner party they are going to host. Despite Phillip's objection Brandon insists that they convert the trunk into the serving table for the party. Brandon has a macabre sense of humor, to say the least.

 

In fact, not only are the guests to include David's parents and David's fiancee, Janet (Joan Chandler), but Brandon has also invited Kenneth (Douglas Dick). Kenneth was a former lover of Janet, but the two are no longer an item, since Janet left him for David. This, of course, creates a bit of an uncomfortable situation for Janet and Kenneth. But being the essence of a person who lacks the scruples of polite society, Brandon finds the situation enthusing.

 

 

Also invited, unbeknownst to Phillip, is their former schoolteacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). It was because of some very controversial opinions of Cadell that Brandon and Phillip initiated their experiment with murder in the first place.

 

The situation gradually starts to come apart mainly because Phillip has regained some of his conscience and feels guilt as well as fear of exposure while Brandon continues to hold on to his intellectual superiority. It's not hard to tell which one is going to crack.

 

The whole coverup really starts to fall apart as Cadell realizes that David's continued absence is not because David, all of a sudden, has developed a change of approach to his usual habits. David would not have, by Cadell's, (as well as his fiancee's and his parents') way of thinking just not show up for a scheduled date. And Cadell realizes that the way to get at the truth is to work on the insecure Phillip.

 

Eventually the part breaks up, but Cadell, whose suspicions have forced him to reach a conclusion that the pair have committed some unorthodox  actions comes back, under a ruse that he left his cigarette case behind. He confronts the two. The emotionally fragile Phillip eventually breaks, but the solid and "intellectually superior" Brandon holds onto his convictions; that some are just superior to others and have the right to do and act as they please. 

 

Cadell is not without sin in the matter itself. Earlier in the movie he had carried on a conversation with the guests about the benefits of committing murder. Only Cadell is speaking only intellectually, he is only proposing his ideas for a philosophical discussion. The problem is that by proposing the ideas he has inadvertently given Brandon and Phillip a "justification" for their actions. And words, despite what some people might believe, can be just as damaging as actions.

 

"Brandon, till this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me. I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect. And you've thrown my own words right back in my face, Brandon. You were right, too. If nothing else, a man should stand by his words. But you've given my words a meaning that i never dreamed of! And you've tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder! Well, they never were that Brandon, and you cant make them that. There must of been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there's always been something deep inside me, that would never let me do it - and would never let me be a party to it now." 

 

You know, for the most part I thought, like other reviewers I read, that Stewart was miscast in the role of Cadell. He never really came across as the cynical professor that the part seemed to indicate that he was. It is only in that final confrontation that I think Stewart really shines. Granger and Dahl. on the other hand, really came across as the characters whose roles they inhabited. Especially Dahl. I couldn't help but feel pity for Phillip because he seemed to be ripe for domination from Brandon, but Brandon was basically the essence of Machiavellian, and Dahl probably was the best available actor in Hollywood at the time to pull it off.

Rope was not a huge hit. It was Hitchcock's first film without a studio backing him (he had created Transatlantic Pictures for the sole purpose of producing films his way, and this was his first foray). It barely made back it's cost in terms of box office receipts. What may have had an effect on it's commercial viability may have been that whole "gay subtext", but I also think that what might have affected it's success is there is not much really going on in it. You get the murder in the first 2 minutes and then the rest of the film is just a bunch of people rambling on. It's essentially a stage play. And Hitchcock didn't help matters, in my opinion, by making every effort to hide the fact that it was a movie (making it intentionally look like a stage play, in other words).

Rope is no where near the worst of Hitchcock's output. (That would be Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in my opinion). But on the other hand, it's not one of his best either. The thing that really hampers the film in my opinion is the subpar cast of characters other than Granger and Dahl. Even Stewart really doesn't shine until the final 5 minutes of the film. To be fair the rest of the cast are just there as set decoration for the story, but none of them really make their characters seem like real people.

I think Rope is worth a watch, to be sure. But if I had a choice between it and a half dozen other Hitchcock films, (and you get to pick which ones those other five would be), I would probably choose at least 2 of the others in the choices over Rope. 

Well folks, time to get this old Plymouth back to the garage. And despite the rumors floating around, there is no dead body in the trunk. Really.

Quiggy