Sherlock Holmes vs. "The White Devil"

 

This is my entry in the Robert Duvall Blogathon hosted by Taking Up Room.

 

 

The Seven-Per-Cent Solution started out life as a novel written by Nicholas Meyer. Meyer, by the way, is also a director of movies, having been at the helm of my two favorite movies in the Star Trek movie franchise, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. He also directed Time After Time. He was not, however, the director for this movie. Instead, this film was directed by Herbert Ross. 

But this piece is not about Meyer, it's about Robert Duvall, whom we lost earlier this year. Duvall had a career that spanned from the early 50's, where he started out as a stage actor, through to his last film, The Pale Blue Eye in 2022. He was nominated 7 times for Oscars, winning only one of them, as the star of Tender Mercies. The first of those nominations, for Best Supporting Actor, came as a result of his portrayal of Tom Hagen in The Godfather. Unfortunately neither he, nor his co-star nominees, James Caan and Al Pacino, won the award. It went to Joel Grey for Cabaret. (And I'll just bet that, like the win for Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny a few years later, that Grey got the Oscar because the majority of the voters were split between those other three. My vote would have gone to Caan, if you're interested...)

An early window into what Duvall would become is his role in To Kill a Mockingbird. where he played Boo Radley. It was his first screen role ad, although he had no speaking lines in the film, his brief presence was somewhat impressive.  It was the beginning of a screen career, but he didn't just pop out of the ether: few actors do. He had about 10 years under his belt doing on stage acting and bit parts on TV. Just one TV episode worth checking out: In an episode of Combat!, he was a captured German officer and had a significant part in the episode.

 

Over his film career Duvall played many great roles. Check out his portrayal of Gus in the TV miniseries Lonesome Dove, which I watched as a part of a Film and Prose Fiction English class when I was a student at Southwest Texas State University. And although my vote is on record for Peter O'Toole in The Stunt Man for the 1980 Best Actor Oscars, I have to admit that Duvall was pretty good in The Great Santini. (They both lost to Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull, BTW).

My favorite outings for Duvall would have to be as Major Frank Burns in M*A*S*H* and as the bad guy Ned Pepper in the John Wayne classic True Grit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1976): 

Dr. John Watson (Robert Duvall) has a problem. His good friend, Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson), has become very obsessive about a perceived threat from the most diabolical man on Earth, Dr. Moriarty (Laurence Olivier). As described by Holmes, Moriarty is basically King Spider, sitting at the base of his web and directing every evil and unorthodox act that is being committed, not just in London, or even the UK, but the world.

 

However, it would seem that Holmes' obsession is merely a part of his imagination. In reality Dr. Moriarty is just a humble teacher at a boys' school. His connection to Holmes is only that he was once a mathematics tutor to Sherlock and Mycroft when they were boys. And, as he points out to Watson during a private consultation, Moriarty has come to the conclusion that either Watson use his influence to get Holmes to leave him alone or he, Moriarty, is going to initiate legal action against Holmes. 

 

(The story diverges from the classic Conan Doyle story at this point. In "The Final Problem" Moriarty REALLY WAS a diabolical criminal...)  

The real problem is that Holmes has become unstable because he has become a victim to his seven percent solution of cocaine. In  other words, Holmes is now an addict. And since Cocaine Anonymous is still half a century in the future, other means are needed to engineer Holmes' release from the captivity of the white devil.

Watson knows of a man in Austria, Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin), who has had some success with helping others overcome their addiction to drugs. The problem is Watson knows Holmes will not admit that he is addicted, much less go to Austria, because that would leave his nemesis to run amok in London without Holmes' watchful eye. So some subterfuge is needed to get Holmes to go to Austria in the first place. With the help of Holmes' brother, Mycroft (Charles Gray), and Moriarty himself, a ruse is developed. Moriarty will go to Austria and hopefully Holmes will follow.

 

Of course, the ruse is a success, although when Holmes discovers the real reason for getting him to come to Vienna he is not at all happy. Such is the essence of the addict: he refuses to admit that he is addicted. (I like the way the first part of this film plays out. Even though my own addiction, to alcohol, never really got to the point that I was refusing to admit I had a problem, I have seen that played out in the form of fellow members in my dealings with my own recovery through Alcoholics Anonymous). Freud's process of curing addiction involves a combination of hypnotism and abstinence.

 

The D.T.s that Holmes goes through during the abstinence part are probably very graphic and shocking to anyone who has never dealt with such issues, either with a loved one or with one's own experiences. The movies do a pretty decent job of it, although mostly it can come off a little melodramatic on screen. A better portrayal of the experience, in my opinion, is Ray Milland's Oscar winning role as Don Birnam in The Lost Weekend. And, although I haven't actually seen the movie yet, I understand that a scene with Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas is one of the best. 

 

Holmes struggles are stark, to say the least. He goes through the stages of his addiction which parallel the classic stages of grief. At first he denies he has a problem with cocaine. He is angry at both Watson, for bringing him to Freud in the first place, and at Freud for his insistence that, despite Holmes' denial of a problem, insists that he is indeed an addict. The bargaining he attempts in trying to get his friends to leave him alone and  the depression and resignation that he will never become cured play out in the later scenes of the recovery process. It is only when he finally accepts his addiction and works with Freud to overcome it that he finally starts to achieve some success.

 

The second part of the film is when the classic Holmes mystery starts to come into the story. There is a woman under the care of one of Freud's colleagues has her own issues. She has tried to commit suicide. Lola Deveraux (Vanessa Redgrave) had previously been a patient of Freud whom he had cured of her addiction, but Freud believes she has relapsed. Instead, Holmes, now with his deduction capabilities on full alert, deduces that she had been kidnapped, given drugs by her captors against her will, and had attempted suicide as a result. 

 

Lola is kidnapped from the hospital and Holmes and company are on the trail. A capture  of one of the abductors reveals a sinister plot. Lola's former lover, a Baron (Jeremy Kemp), has engineered her kidnap with the intent of delivering her to a bigwig of the Ottoman Empire, who wants her for his harem. The reason behind the Baron's evil plans is that he owes the bigwig big money for gambling debts and is going to use Lola to get them dismissed.

 

Ultimately the finale involves a train chase across the countryside as Holmes chases the Baron, trying to stop him before he can reach Istanbul. Success is imminent, of course. (Did you expect otherwise in a Holmes adventure?) 

 

After the adventure is over Freud performs one last session of hypnotism with Holmes to get to the bottom of why he has such an animosity for Moriarty. After the session is over Holmes decides to take a vacation, and gives Watson a suggestion for his disappearance; tell his readers that Holmes and Moriarty died in a hand-to-hand battle (thus explaining why the story of "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House" were written but do not fit the real events).

Duvall has had a varied response for his characterization of Dr. Watson. Many reviewers have disparaged his accent, saying it's not entirely believable that he is a Brit. I personally didn't have a problem with it, for the most part. Only once or twice did it sound false to me. But then, you must know my only experience with people of British descent is either with films from that part of the world or the occasional online AA meetings I have sat in on on Zoom. It should be duly noted that the National Society of Film Critics, a British organization, had Duvall coming in 3rd in the voting for the Best Supporting Actor award, proving that at least some people thought he did a good job.

My main problem with the movie was that the mystery surrounding the second half of the film was rather mundane. Even compared to the outings which had Arthur Wontner in the Holmes role (which I rank as the worst Holmes, BTW) have a more intriguing mystery playing out on screen. At least the film stuck to the traditional setting, the late 19th century. Nothing in the film tries to put anachronistic aspects into the story. The Basil Rathbone Holmes stories sometimes tended to have Holmes doing battle with Nazis... (And, BTW, I do like the recent BBC series, Sherlock, which puts Holmes in the 21st century. It's just that, as a traditionalist, I tend to like my Holmes in a gaslight, hansom cab milieu as opposed to trying to make him relevant to the times, given a choice).

It's interesting to note that when the film was reviewed by the critics of the time that The Seven-Per-Cent Solution garnered good reviews from American reviewers, but British reviewers came down a little harder on it. One of the British reviewers said it was "a turgid concoction which draws no life from the Holmes/Freud confrontation and seems particularly ill-plotted". 

The film was nominated for two Oscars. It was nominated for Best Screenplay from Another Medium (which it lost to All the President's Men) and for Best Costume Design (which it lost to Fellini's Casanova). Somehow it also got nominated for a Saturn Award for Best  Fantasy Film (???), but it lost that one, too.

Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 78% Fresh rating, which I think is fair. However, as I intimated earlier, the best part is the first half of the film. The second half could have been much better, if you ask me. 

That wraps it up for this entry. Time to hail the hansom cab and head home. Have a safe trip, folks.

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

 

 

 

 

Don't Fear the Reefer

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

Drugs are bad for you.  You don't need me to tell you that.  But some of those 30's movies that supposedly exposed the dangers of illicit narcotics are just plain weird.  And we can blame Dwain Esper for many of them.  Esper directed such "classics" as Sinister Harvest (about opium), Narcotic (about drug addiction) and Marihuana (about you-know-what).

He also had a keen eye for the exploitation of other movies.  He came across a movie called Tell Your Children!, which he didn't direct.  It was directed by a man named Louis Gasnier.  But Esper took it  and edited it and sent it out on what was known as the exploitation circuit.  The movie went by several names, depending on in what region of the country you saw it.  My favorite title is, undoubtedly, the one they used in the Pennsylvania area; "The Burning Question".

The original film had been seriously made and produced by a church group to warn parents of the dangers of marijuana.  But even with out the salacious edits and insertions Esper added to the film for his exploitation round, the movie is pretty ridiculous.  And I say that even if the viewer has never partaken of the evil devil weed in question.  But if you have experienced the sensations from trying it at least once, you will see that the assertation of the film about the effects of smoking border on the insane.

You probably won't recognize any of the people in this movie.  Many of them did go on to make other movies, but I found out if you click on the links available in the wikipedia entry for Reefer Madness, each of the entries that actually has a picture of the actor or actress in question is a still photo of a scene from this movie, which suggests it is the only film of note in which they were ever involved   The exception may be Carleton Young who, according to IMDb, has 258 film and TV credits.  Personally I remember him as delivering the final line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:  "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend".

Reefer Madness (1936):

From the opening crawl at the beginning of the movie:

The motion picture you are about to witness may startle you. It would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth of America in alarmingly increasing numbers. Marihuana is that drug - a violent narcotic - an unspeakable scourge - The Real Public Enemy Number One! 

It's worse than that!  As Dr. Carroll (Josef Forte, not even a real doctor, mind you, just an actor) states it's even  more vicious and more deadly than opium, morphine and heroin! (Really!)  Just witness what it does to people in the movie.  One puff (and apparently not even having to inhale it... Bill Clinton, anyone?) turns normal people into raving lunatics.

Dr. Carroll  relates a story that happened right here in "your city".  There is a band of drug dealers, headed by Jack (Carleton Young) and Mae (Thelma White).  Mae harangues Jack.  As opposed to Mae, who prefers to deal only to adults, Jack has an affinity for dealing with teenagers.  (Not sure if these "teenagers" are high school kids, or already out and going to college.  They sure look old to my eyes.)

Helped along in Jack's scheme is Ralph (Dave O'Brien), who is a college dropout.  Apparently Ralph  smoked one too many joints and decided he liked that life better.  He and his own lady friend, Blanche (Lillian Miles) help host weed parties, where dancing and smoking are de riguer.

At these parties, a regular is a character, known as "Hot Fingers" (Ted Wraye), who can tickle the ivories like nobody's business.  But after each set he has take time out for a smoke break, which he does in a closet with a hilarious looking paranoid face.  (Question:  Why is he hiding when everyone else in the place is smoking, too?  Your guess is as good as mine.)

In one scene young Jimmy (Warren McCollum) is playing chauffeur to Jack, who has gone to pick up more joints from his distributor.  Jack leaves Jimmy alone with a reefer (marijuana cigarette) and when he comes back, Jimmy takes off in the car like a rocket sled on rails.  He ends up hitting a pedestrian, but doesn't stop, apparently not noticing it.

Back at Mae and Jack's apartment, Bill (Kenneth Craig), who has come to the party unaware of the illicit aspect of it, begins to talk with Blanche and she convinces him to smoke one of her kind of cigarettes.  You can see the immediate effect and transformation of Bill in his expression.

Bill's transformation from a clean-cut, top student comes to the attention of the authority at the school,  our Dr. Carroll, whom I can't decide whether he is a guidance counselor or a principal, but he addresses the change in Bill.  But Bill denies there is anything influencing him, so the doctor lets it go.  But Mary is distressed and seeks out Bill and ends up at the pot house.  Where Ralph tries to get her high and puts the moves on her.

This being a moral tale and an exploitation film, some serious repercussions occur, not the least of which is Mary being accidentally shot and killed.  Jack tries to frame Bill for the shooting and Bill goes on trial.  How it all plays out in the end is typical of these types of moral films, and Dr. Carroll ends with the admonition to his audience that vigilant observation of your children is the only solution because what happened to Bill could happen to "yours, or yours, or yours or YOURS" (while significantly pointing to the screen audience.)

Who knows how effective the film was on audiences of the day, but it is significant that the "menace" of the dangerous drug was never eradicated.  And it's overblown hyperbole has been refuted.  For those of us who turned out all right despite the danger, it becomes a humorous look at history of drug control.  (And, just so you don't get the wrong idea, your humble blogger no longer indulges, but I do stand with those who seek the complete legalization of marijuana).

Well folks, time to fire up the old Plymouth and head home.  Drive safely, folks.  Especially if you have been indulging yourself.

Quiggy

Sex, Drugs and Rock'n'Roll; 70's Style

This is my entry in the Back to School Blogathon hosted by Pop Culture Reverie

The last day of school.  Anything and everything can happen.  If you were alive in those post Nixon times, with a new president from Georgia on the horizon (even I, a simple high school freshman saw that then-President Ford wasn't going to be re-elected), and gas hovering around 60 cents a gallon.

And, if you believe what's going on in this movie, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in high school lit up a doobie now and then.  (Note:  I don't have any clue whether this was true about my high school, but I attended a very small high school; my graduating class numbered only about 40, and there was only 120 in the entire 4 grades of high school when I graduated. And I didn't partake of any drugs, legal or illegal until after I turned the then legal age of 18.)

Dazed and Confused (1993)

Like my previous post for The Great Escape, I have decided that this review is better served by addressing each character in the movie, rather than an overall view of the plot.  Besides, there REALLY isn't much of a plot in this one in the first place.  It's just about the last day of school and the night AFTER the last day of school in the life of the students at (the fictional) Lee High School in Austin, Texas.  Most of the action centers on initiation rituals by the incoming seniors for the incoming freshmen (paddling for the boys, and a strange ritual that has to be seen to be believed for the girls), and a beer bust party in which the entire gang is involved in various unrelated antics.

Randall "Pink" Floyd: (Jason London)

Pink is the star football quarterback for the high school.  He is an independent soul who values his friendship more than fitting in with what is expected of him by his coaches and teachers.  In particular, his head coach, Coach Conrad (Terry Mross) who is extremely disapproving of his choices for friends, particularly those who are not his football teammates.  Pink is also the friendly "big brother" figure to incoming freshman Mitch Kramer.

Mitch Kramer:  (Wiley Wiggins)

Mitch is an incoming freshman, and, initially, the prime target for the initiation proceedings by the seniors, primarily because his older sister, Jodi, tries to protect him by asking that her friends go easy on him, which only makes them that much more determined to single him out.  After his initial paddling from a few of the seniors, Pink takes him under his wing and lets him hang out through the night.

Jodi Kramer: (Michelle Burke)

Jodi is Mitch's older sister, and one of the incoming female seniors.  She also takes one of the initiated freshmen under her wing, Sabrina, after the girls perform their own initiation ritual.  She is one of the more friendly and likable girls in the senior class.

Sabrina Davis: (Christin Hinojosa)

Sabrina is one of the incoming freshmen girls, and the only one on whom any focus is made after the initiation ritual.  The movie hints that she and Mitch may end up hooking up in the future, but that is open to speculation.

Danny Wooderson and Ron Slater: (Matthew McConaughey and Rory Cochrane)

Wooderson is a dropout who still likes hanging out with the high school kids, especially the girls...("That's what I like about high school girls.  I get older, they stay the same age"  A dirty old man in the making...)  Wooderson is the "brains" behind the keg party tha happens in the second half of the movie.

Slater is the ultimate dope head.  Personally, I'm thinking he probably lights up in the classroom, since he is always stoned.  Always trying to hook up with the doobie crowd, he is basically just a hanger-on.

Fred O'Bannion:  (Ben Affleck)

If there is a villain in the movie, it's O'Bannion.  Hostility is his middle name, and he is a sadistic jerk, taking great pleasure in the initiation procedures for the freshmen.  He is going to be a senior for the second time, since he failed, and some think he failed on purpose so he could be a sadist to freshmen two years in a row.

Mike Newhouse, Tony Olson and Cynthia Dunn:  (Adam Goldberg, Anthony Rapp and Marissa Ribisi)

These three are bosom companions, probably the most intellectual of the entire school.  They hang out with each other and have deep philosophical conversations, such as Mike's weird dream of having sex with a girl with the head of Abraham Lincoln.  Plus Mike has determined that he has changed his goal in life and wants to be a dancer.

Don Dawson and Benny O'Donnell:  (Sasha Jensen and Cole Hauser)

Dawson and O'Donnell are Pink's buddies from the football team.  They encourage him to sign the sobriety contract the coaches want him to sign, but Pink remains aloof.  They are also his partners in crime when hunting down incoming freshmen.

There are plenty of other characters in this movie, and, as well, more future stars who were still basic unknowns in this movie, including Milla Jovovich, Parker Posey, Joey Lauren Adams, Nicky Katt, and if you don't blink, Renee Zellweger.

So, do you wonder which character best represents your humble blogger?  I would have been an incoming freshman in 1976, so the obvious answer would be Mitch Kramer, but I think I identify most with Mike Newhouse.  Watch the movie and see how this character is played and you'll get a good idea of how my high school experience played out.  (But no, I never dreamed I had sex with a girl who looked like Abraham Lincoln...)

If you are going to drive home, folks, be sure to hide the empty beer cans, and for God's sake, air out the interior so it doesn't smell like  Cheech and Chong's apartment.

Quiggy