Film Review: Elvira: Mistress of the Dark

 "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark"

  *** (out of ****)

The first image we see in "Elvira: Mistress of the Dark" (1988) - which I will refer to as "Elvira" going forward - is footage of the Roger Corman "B" movie "It Conquered the World" (1956). From that moment you may think that is a tip off of what to expect from "Elvira", which will turn out to be an equally bad and campy movie. You'd only be half right.

Movies like "Elvira" are actually smarter than some audiences may give them credit for. It's easy to criticize something like this and not try to meet it at it's level. "Elvira" is much more self aware than "It Conquered the World". Those actors - a young Peter Graves stars in it - play their roles too straight. It makes us in the audience believe these actors are really taking this serious and that's what makes it unintentially funny. "Elvira" knows the Corman movie is bad. And it probably knows it too is a bad movie but it scathes itself with a wink and smile so we don't have to.

"Elvira" is part comedy / horror but also a social satire, which I found to be the more enjoyable aspect of the movie. That was an unexpected move. As many of us know Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) was a very popular cultural figure in the 1980s as the host of a television show airing campy horror movies which she would crack jokes about. Despite a heavy dose of cleavage the character was essentially a horny 12 year old boy. Or I guess we could say a more bawdy version of Mae West with dialogue flooded with sexual innuendos. Given the gothic nature of the character and its association with horror, you would expect Elvira's big screen movie debut to be a flat out horror movie spoof, like what was eventually done in "Elvira's Haunted Hills" (2001). The social satire however I thought gave the movie a little more depth.

The comedic approach here seems to have been lets take the Elvira character and instead of placing her in the natural environment of a horror movie, lets juxtapose her against a real world setting a la 1950s suburbia. Great comedians from the past did this with their well beloved and established comedic personas. Once the audience became familiar with a character, say like Woody Allen, the fun was to then take that character and throw him in different surroundings to see how he would interact. And so you get Woody in the future or as a character in Russian literature. This is what was decided with Elvira. The greatest contrast for this character would be suburban life setting up a conflict of social and sexual morals. In the "Haunted Hills" movie the unlady like manners of Elvira is set against the Victorian age.

Seemingly understanding her limitations, Peterson plays a late night horror program TV host named Elvira who quits her job after fighting off the advances of the station owner. This proves to be bad timing because she needs to secure $50 thousand dollars in order to launch her Las Vegas show. But the God's are smiling down at her when she discovers her great aunt, Morgana Talbot - Talbot was the surname of Larry Talbot, who would become the Wolf Man - has died. Elvira must travel to the small town of Fallwell - a reference to the Moral Majority leader Jerry Falwell - to attend the reading of her aunt's will. Elvira fantasizes she will be the beneficiary of a great inheritance. One large enough to cover the money she needs for her Vegas act. 

When at the reading, Elvira also discovers she has a uncle, Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard) - perhaps a nod to Vincent Price, another king of "B" horror movies and reportedly offered this role. Suspiciously Vincent is left completely out of the will with the majority going to Elvira. However not receiving a flat out large sum of money, she finds the inheritance disappointing. Uncle Vincent meanwhile becomes obsessed with getting his hands on his departed sister's "cookbook". 

If that isn't enough for Elvira to deal with the entire Massachusetts town is at odds with her thanks to the actions of the community leader Chastity Pariah (Edie McLurg) - whose name should say it all. She is appalled by the sight of Elvira and her blatant sexuality. Outside of some randy teenage boys, the only adult Elvira is able to make friends with is Bob Redding (Daniel Greene) - named after a close friend and collaborator of Cassandra's, Robert Redding, to whom the film is dedicated. Bob, who runs the local move theater, and he only permitted to show G rated movies, becomes the love interest, though he too is shy about sex.   

The "horror" element of the story reveals itself in the Uncle portion of the plot. The cookbook isn't really a cookbook but rather a book of spells, which Elvira finds out too late, after trying to impress Bob with her cooking. If the book gets into Uncle Vincent's hands, it could spell disaster, making him all too powerful. 

For me the horror plotline is the weakest portion of the movie with the social commentary being the strongest. I don't know if "Elvira" necessarily means to be a homage to Roger Corman and his horror movies, but I thought of another campy director as I watched "Elvira", John Waters. Waters, who if we are being charitable, also made movies that were social critiques of suburban middle-class morality, as most evident in what his devotees would call his "lesser" movies such as "Serial Mom" (1994) and "A Dirty Shame" (2004).

The reason the horror plotline doesn't work is because the movie doesn't take it serious. There is nothing scary about the Uncle being a warlock. No fear is built around this and we don't fully understand all the implications of Vincent getting the book and his ultimate plans if he should get it. "Elvira" also does nothing in way of atmosphere and working within the clichés of the genre. Which creates a missed opportunity. Elvira could have starred in her own really bad and campy horror movie.

It seems screenwriters Sam Egan, John Paragon and Peterson had the most fun and interest in the social satire and making their own version of a teenage sex comedy. A lot of the humor in "Elvira" is juvenile at best. Because of Elvira's low cut dress and ample bosom there are a lot of breast jokes. The camera almost seems fixated on them. As if to imply they are too big not to be in any given shot.

Because of the juvenile nature of the movie, the adult relationships aren't dealt with in a mature manner either. We don't accept Elvira and Bob really care about each other. In fact it is kind of difficult to see what Elvira even finds attractive about him. What we see on-screen is like an innocent high school romance where kissing is about as far as you're gonna get.

And yet I do like "Elvira" and its comedically broad and silly nature while also appreciating the social commentary, which isn't as compelling and hard hitting as something by Tennessee Williams. It uses a broad brush to mock the social conservatism movement brought on by Falwell and Ronald Reagan. It's clear the performances are meant to be almost cartoon in nature and Peterson is funny and has a good screen presence. Peterson got her comedy start as a member of the improv troupe, The Groundlings which included Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) and Phil Hartman. Other members of that troupe appear in "Elvira" like Edie McClurg, Lynne Marie Stewart (whom my generation will know as Miss Yvonne, the most beautiful woman in Puppetland) and co-writer John Paragon (Jambi the Genie on "Pee-Wee's Playhouse").

Supposedly Peterson wanted Tim Burton to direct "Elvira", as he had directed her friend Reuben's project, "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure" (1985), making his directorial debut. But by the time "Elvira" was in production, he was busy with other projects. Instead Saturday Night Live segment producer James Signorelli was brought in. His only other feature-length directorial effort was the Rodney Dangerfield comedy, "Easy Money" (1983). "Elvira" would be his last feature film as a director. As much as I love Rodney - he's on my Mt. Rushmore of great stand-up comics - I actually prefer Signorelli's work on this film.

Unfortunately, "Elvira" didn't do well at the box-office or with critics. Siskel & Ebert gave the movie two thumbs down. And in a major case of over-reacting, Peterson was nominated for a Razzie Award for "worst actress", which she lost to Liza Minnelli for "Arthur 2" (1988) and "Rent-a-Cop" (1988). 

Younger viewers probably won't like this movie either because of the Elvira character and the overt sexuality. On the website Irish Film Critic, a "critic" wrote a contemporaneous review of the movie and actually stated, "I want to talk about how insanely male-centric the gaze of this camera is as it sweeps back and forth across Elvira's exposed legs and thighs." He goes on to add, "The whole thing exists within the macrocosm of the '80s." I guess I am such a product of the '80s that I hadn't really considered Elvira could be a controversial figure to today's viewers.

Elvira was very much a product of the 1980s and has had an enduring legacy and a career that has lasted more than 40 years. Peterson debuted her Elvira character on a local Los Angeles TV show in 1981 before going national. While it is difficult to deny the influence of Maila Nurmi's Vampira, who is credited as being TV's first horror host, Peterson created a distinctly different character. With the passage of time people have forgotten not only Nurmi but her Vampira character - if interested watch Ed Wood's infamous "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (1957) - making Elvira the horror host most are familiar with and influenced by. A modern example would be Sarah Palmer's Gwengoolie, seen on the show Svengoolie. Although Palmer's character isn't sexual.

"Elvira" isn't a great movie or even a great comedy but it is a satisfactory one that manages to succeed in large part because of Peterson's charm and screen presence. The script tries to elevate itself with the social satire but I do wish it would have worked harder on the horror aspect of the plot. "Elvira's Haunted Hills" made a greater effort but didn't fully capitalize on it either. 

Film Review: The Conjuring

  "The Conjuring"

  **** (out of ****)

When I first saw "The Conjuring" (2013) more than a decade ago in theaters, I didn't know there was going to be a sequel. I didn't know it was going to be the beginning of a cinematic universe. What I did know however was that "The Conjuring" was one effective horror movie. I even went as far as to call it one of the best films of 2013! 

To praise "The Conjuring" all these years later may not be such an unusual statement, given the box-office success the film achieved and its cultural impact. But it wasn't such a given back in 2013. The "movie critic" at the New York Daily News ended his "review" stating "If "The Conjuring" were less of a con job, horror fans would not feel equally as trapped." Sullying the good name of film critic Roger Ebert, the "critic" that "reviewed" the film on Ebert's website actually wrote, "There's nothing really scary about Wan's latest because there's nothing particularly mysterious, or inviting about its proceedings." This "critic" even called the film's scenario "thunderously stupid"! Of course these opinions haven't aged well because the overwhelming majority of critics and audience members enjoyed "The Conjuring", leading me to wonder about the ability of these writers to assess film and art in the first place. But given that this is the year of Was I Right - my year long theme of rewatching movies I previously placed on various top ten lists to determine if I was right to chose them - I decided to take another look at the film.

When I think of the golden age of horror movies my mind races back to the Universal monster films of the 1930s and 40s - "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941). I would argue however that around the time of "The Conjuring" was the beginning of another period of horror movies that could be labeled a "golden age". After the release of "The Conjuring" came "The Babadook" (2014), "Lights Out" (2016), "Annabelle: Creation" (2017), and several other films associated with the Conjuring Universe. Practically all of which made my annual top ten lists. The last decade was a real high mark for the horror genre. And like it or not but a lot of that was due to "The Conjuring" and its success. 

What made "The Conjuring" such an impressive horror film was its cinematic approach and sensibilities. It was a throwback to another golden age of horror films, the 1970s, which is the time period "The Conjuring" takes place in. That isn't merely my own observation but was routinely cited by better critics than the ones referenced above as to what made this film work. New York Times critic Manohla Dargis noted in her review, "The Conjuring" isn't just primarily set in the 1970s, it also taps into the paranoia that is both an evergreen American trait and a crucial characteristic of the films of that era, horror and otherwise." While over at USA Today critic Claudia Puig declared "it brings to mind '70s supernatural horror films such as The Exorcist with its stillness, steady build of suspense and handsome cinematography."

I've often said, usually when talking about food at restaurants, so many chefs want to "update" classic dishes and "improve" them. Frequently I find the "improvements" disappoint. My feeling is learn to perfect the dish the proper traditional way and then, if you must, update it. The point is to understand the foundation of something. It is the same thing with movies and directors. So many times filmmakers want to avoid being "old hat" that they want to come along and reinvent the wheel but they haven't perfected the fundamentals. Director James Wan understood this with "The Conjuring". Wan and his film didn't reinvent the wheel. "The Conjuring" wasn't a game changer in terms of its techniques. It simply took the so-called clichés of the genre and presented them in the best way possible. Clichés get a bad name because we more often than not see them presented badly in films. Nothing terribly original is being done in Hollywood. People are still using the old standby clichés but merely altering them around the edges. Gender and racial recasting of roles is an example. Combing tropes from two different genres is another. But the clichés are clichés for a reason, they work. We just don't see directors effectively use them because they want to be edgy. But by simply telling his story calmly, logically and straightforward Wan turned "The Conjuring" into something special. It wasn't a relic. Instead it set forward a new path. Just learn the fundamentals.  

"The Conjuring" like so many horror films before it, is a variation on our fears of the dark and sounds that go bump in the night. Roger Perron (Ron Livingston) and his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) along with their five daughters (Shanley Caswell, Hayley McFarland, Joey King, Mackenzie Foy, and Kyla Deaver) have moved into an old Rhode Island home they bought at an auction. On the surface the home looks fine but slowly things start to go amiss. The family dog refuses to enter the home. All the clocks in the house stop every night at 3:07 am. The home is always chilly despite the furnace properly working. And on and on it goes. Wan is building the tension, almost like winding a clock. And while perhaps some in the audience will say they have figured out the issue, that misses the point. Knowing that something supernatural is causing these disturbances isn't a secret or a plot twist. We knew that even in 2013 before we bought our ticket. It is watching how the tension snaps that will please audiences.

 

The added layer here is the film is credited as having been based on true events, as documented by self-proclaimed demonologists Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren. One of their most famous cases was the inspiration for the movie "The Amityville Horror" (1979) however as the marketing for "The Conjuring" indicated - go and watch the trailer - this case was kept a "secret" because of how disturbing it was. Only now could the story be told.

Yes, that may be an example of gimmicky sensationalism but everything else in "The Conjuring" is simple and well told. And that, in some ways, makes the story believable. We accept these characters as a family. Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor are a realistic couple and parents. Their reaction to the events around them come across as natural. We relate to them. Taylor in particular is a standout and has some great moments.

Pay attention to a wonderful sequence involving the discovery of a basement. Notice the acting, the framing, and Wan's usage of tried and true techniques. The daughters are playing a game and accidentally knock over a board in their closest. The noise gets mom and dad's attention and soon it is realized there is a doorway being hidden in the closet that leads to a basement. The viewer is already ahead of the characters, the basement was boarded up as a preventive measure to keep spirits away. The father goes down the stairs to the basement to investigate. Mom and the daughters back away so what we are seeing in the distance of the shot is doorway of the basement, which is pitch black. Mom calls out to dad to find out what is down there as the uneasiness reveals itself in her voice and her and the daughters' behavior. All the while the audience is waiting for something not only sinister to happen but for something to come through that black doorway. Why else would it be in frame? That's one example of Wan's understanding of the horror genre. We've seen shots like it before in various other films but it works here because it is done well.

In a sense Wan is playing the audience like a piano. He knows how to build anticipation. Not every moment will be like the one with the basement, as the viewer waits for something to to pop out of the darkness. Wan knows he must switch things up. He takes two approaches. On the one hand he will have only the characters be able to see ghosts and spirits and deny the audience of their presence. The characters will describe the horrific site in front of them which is meant to play on our imagination. It is an old technique that was perfected in such 1940s B horror movies as "The Cat People" (1942) and "The Leopard Man" (1943). The idea being what are mind will imagine will be scarier than anything that will appear on the screen. The second approach is to actually show us a demonic spirit. This of course hits us like a jolt and gives us what some might call a "cheap scare". But not knowing which approach Wan will take in any given scene adds to the anticipation. Wan is also smart enough to know there are times he must defuse the situation to give the audience a breather and find humor.

Like the best horror films of the 1970s, "The Conjuring" also adds a religious undertone to the film, solidifying this battle between good and evil. Ed Warren is not a priest or a member of the church in any compacity. Nor is Lorraine. But they are presented as believers. Making them kind of the moral center of the film. Lorraine is seen with a rosary in her hand. They even suggest to Roger and Carolyn that they may want to baptize their children. 

Personally I've always appreciated the religious undertone in films such as "The Exorcist" (1973), "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), and "The Omen" (1976). In fact you could make the case Christianity and the horror genre go hand in hand. What's one way to stop Dracula? Show him a crucifix. If you are a believer, these films play to your perception of reality. And that's what makes them scary. The notion that this could happen. A person could be possessed by a spirit. Exorcism is real. "The Conjuring" plays into this. Ed and Lorraine Warren aren't presented as frauds. They are well meaning people. In the decades following the '70s there was sometimes a tendency to make the religious characters the villains instead of the heroes or try to make the films as secular as possible - think  "Scream"  (1996) and the teen horror films that followed.

And just as convincing as Livingston and Taylor are as a couple so too are Wilson and Farmiga and once again it is the female that turns in the more effective performance. While the Ed and Lorraine characters are the moral center of "The Conjuring", Lorraine is in many ways the film's heart. In Farmiga's hands she presents Lorraine as a nurturing mother figure. In fact much in the film's plot revolves around mothers and children. Which may explain why Carolyn and Lorraine are such intricate characters. In Sarah Mankoff's review in Film Comment she also picked up on the strength of the female characters phrasing it as "the men are mostly relegated to the observation deck, while the women prove to be far more empathetic and therefore more appealing souls for the demons to invade."

As a filmmaker James Wan can sometimes swing wildly at both ends of the spectrum. In addition to "The Conjuring", I really admired one of his prior films, "Insidious" (2010), also with Patrick Wilson. And "The Conjuring 2" (2016) got another four stars out of me. But I was put off by "Saw" (2004) and his most recent work, "Malignant" (2021), another 1970s, Dario Argento-ish inspiration. I actually placed "Malignant" on my worst films of 2021 list! Through it all though Wan has shown he has a good eye and knows how to create suspense and atmosphere. There were moments in "Insidious" that could only be described as eerie. 

"The Conjuring" is the kind of horror film I personally like best. It has a psychological element to it. It isn't a slasher movie, slicing and dicing characters. That never scared me. I just found it disgusting. I also liked films like "The Conjuring" that created a sense of impending doom with the threat of evil in the air. They didn't need to shock us by over using the presence of the villain, to the point we are immune to the sight of the character. A mistake I feel the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series and "Friday the 13th" make.

After taking another look at "The Conjuring", was I right to place it on my top ten list in 2013? Yes. Each and every time I have watched it I have found it effective. The style and atmosphere it creates always pulls in me and the performances always seem convincing.

Horror movies, to some Hollywood insiders and film critic snobs, lacks the cache of great cinema but there were some critics willing to recognize "The Conjuring" on their top ten lists including publications such as Entertainment Weekly, Time Out New York, and Variety. It was not able however to secure nominations of any major awards instead getting nominated by originations like Critics Choice Award, MTV Movie + TV Awards, and a People's Choice Award. The greatest indication of its success may have been its box-office. Made on a $20 million dollar budget, it grossed domestically more than $130 million dollars and over $300 million worldwide.   

And of course it was the beginning of The Conjuring Universe which has included films such as "Annabelle" (2014), "The Nun" (2018), and two additional "Conjuring" sequels. There can, understandably, be a tendency to view this "Universe" as nothing more than a cash grab. Normally I would agree but the difference is, I find each one of these films to be well made. It really did rejuvenate the genre and make the last decade a golden age for fans of horror films. I had never before placed as many horror films on my top ten lists as I did during the decade. I even had to include the "Universe" as a whole on my list of the best films of the last decade.

"The Conjuring" was a welcomed addition to both the demonic possession and haunted house genre. Wan expertly tells his story relying on the fundamentals of the genre. Carefully crafted there are effective performances from Vera Farmiga and Lili Taylor - who was in another haunted house movie, "The Haunting" (1999) - adding emotional depth to the story. Some may say it is predictable but I say it is an excellent example of genre filmmaking.

Film Review: Labyrinth

  "Labyrinth"  

** (out of ****)

Jim Henson's "Labyrinth" (1986) is a dizzying children's fantasy centered around themes of maturity and the balance between imagination and responsibility but it never sets off on a proper path.

"Labyrinth" was Henson's follow-up to "The Dark Crystal" (1982) a surprisingly dark movie, devoid of the playfulness and lightheartedness often associated with Henson's productions such as Sesame Street and the Muppets. As such it was a box-office flop and poorly received by critics. Seemingly eager to duplicate the experience, Henson and company made "Labyrinth", another visually and thematically dark and joyless movie. It too was a box-office flop and critically unpopular.

The late movie critic Gene Siskel, of Siskel & Ebert fame, for example awarded the movie one star in his Chicago Tribune review. When mentioning "The Dark Crystal" and "Labyrinth", Siskel described both of Henson's efforts as "really quite awful, sharing a much too complicated plot and visually ugly style." He further went on to compare the look of some of Henson's creations to the Garbage Pail Kids dolls. Which is not an inaccurate comparison, if we are being honest. Siskel's partner, Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, Roger Ebert felt the movie never came to life and really hit the nail on the head writing, "The movie is too long. Without a strong plot line to pull us through, all movies like this run the danger of becoming just a series of incidents."

Ebert's point illustrates why I always not only respected him as a movie critic but trusted his judgement. We often "saw the same movie" and picked up on similar flaws. It's why I sometimes dislike quoting him because I am afraid some readers will think I am merely copying his opinion. As I watched "Labyrinth" there is a sequence where David Bowie, who plays the Goblin King Jareth, begins to sing and dance with his legion of goblin muppets to a song called Magic Dance. Narratively the sequence serves no purpose. It primarily was an excuse to have Bowie sing a song but it is really filler. It helps to make the movie's running time longer. As I sat there watching this I thought to myself, nothing is holding this movie together. It's just a series of vignettes.

Over the years however both movies have gained a following and acquired defenders - I actually think "The Dark Crystal" was an ambitious and artistic undertaking - and yet at the risk of upsetting a lot of '80s babies (which I am one of) I must admit the "movie critics" were correct, "Labyrinth" is not a very good movie. It seems between both movies "Labyrinth" has the more devoted fan base, especially among my generation, which considers it a "beloved classic". Something I never regarded the movie as. My childhood memories of "Labyrinth" take me back to elementary school where almost every Halloween we would watch it in class, to my dismay and the rest of the class' delight.

"Labyrinth" is either an agglomeration or loving homage to a barrage of well known fairy tales and children stories such as The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Where The Wild Things Are, and Victor Herbert's Babes in Toyland. A discontented, bratty teenage girl, Sarah (Jennifer Connelly) is forced to babysit her brother while her parents go out for the evening. As the baby, Toby ( Toby Froud) begins to cry, Sarah can't handle the situation and wishes goblins would come to take away her brother, sparing her from a life of inconvenience.

There is a back story to Sarah that is never told in a forthright manner, only hinting at things. It is implied Sarah has a stepmother (Shelley Thompson). My impression was her biological mother died and was a actress, which would explain newspaper clippings on her mirror. Sarah, again merely implied, would like to become an actress and has a great interest in fairy tales. When we first see her she is reciting lines to a story involving a princess, magical kingdoms, goblins and a goblin king. Soon the realization she is late returning home causes her to run in the rain.

Exploring the background story a bit more, or at all, could have potentially made Sarah a sympathetic character, especially to a pre-teen audience, who may be the audience this movie is geared towards. Unfortunately, the impression Sarah gives is that of an overly dramatic, self-centered brat. It doesn't come across as your typical teen angst, just entitlement. The Sarah presented to us is at an awkward stage between child and adulthood. She likes her stories and stuffed animals and at the same time her parents expect her to accept responsibility, which she is reluctant to take on. By the end of the movie the character, we assume, will grow. 

It just so happens there is a group of goblins in the walls of Sarah's home waiting attentively for her to utter the words, she wishes the goblins would take her baby brother. And here we must stop again. Why are goblins in her home? Have they been following her for a while? Do all homes with children have goblins assigned to them? Are the goblins capable to doing household chores and what would be their rates?

As luck would have it - for the goblins anyway - Sarah does wish for them to take her brother. Within an instant, Sarah not only notices her brother is gone but also regrets her wish and wants her brother to return. This she learns cannot be after the Goblin King swoops into her home disguised as an owl (which for some reason made me think of Harry Potter). After he transforms into a man with Tina Turner like hair, he informs Sarah her actions have consequences and should accept her brother is gone. Her persistence however leads the Goblin King to present Sarah with an opportunity. She can have her brother back if she can reach his castle, located at the center of an elaborate labyrinth in 13 hours.

Everything I've described happens rather quickly in the movie. So quickly in fact I don't believe Sarah learned her first lesson, actions have consequences. The plot is being rushed. Sarah's growth is too sudden. She quickly feels remorse and concern for her brother. This is all done to immediately take us to what Henson must believe is a magical world.

But nothing in this Labyrinth world feels magical. Surreal, yes but I never really felt I was watching a truly magnificent spectacle. Not that I doubt the level of craft that the production team put in to create it. When Dorothy entered the land of Oz, you knew it was special if for no other reason the lavish colors. It presented such a contrast to the drab black & white world of Kansas. The Labyrinth world Sarah enters looks dreary and depressing. I wonder if this was an inspiration for Guillermo del Toro and his masterpiece "Pan's Labyrinth" (2006) a fairy tale gone wrong. The difference is del Toro's movie was for adults and he could lean into the nightmare qualities of his story. Henson is trying to have it both ways. He can't create such a nightmare-ish scenario and not scare children away.

One of the first creatures Sarah meets in this world is Hoggle, whom at one point Sarah mistakenly calls Hogwart, our second Harry Potter reference. He is a dwarf character who is crafty, cowardice, self-centered, and untrustworthy. He knows his way around the Labyrinth and could help Sarah if he chose to. There is a minimal level of suspense created making the viewer question if he works for the Goblin King or if he is befriending Sarah. It serves the purpose of creating another lesson for Sarah, not to take things for granted like her family and friends.

Sarah befriends two more creatures Ludo, a giant monster like character that recalls Where The Wild Things Are. Despite his appearance he is friendly. Then there is a fox terrier named Sir Didymus, who despite his diminutive size regards himself as something of a great medieval knight. In a scene recalling "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), the fox will not allow Sarah and her friends to cross a bridge without permission.  

This sequence with Sir Didymus is another example of filler. When the gang meets Didymus they are in the "Bog of Eternal Stench", a kind of flatulent island. Perhaps it is meant to make really small children laugh but it serves no purpose and wears out its welcome. Establishing that "Labyrinth" is little more than a series of "adventures" strung together by a flimsy plot.

Besides the Magic Dance sequence and the "Bog of Eternal Stench" the most egregious of these mindless filler sequences is a ballroom sequence. Between this and Magic Dance it feels like we have placed two music videos in the middle of a movie.

This may also present a new issue with "Labyrinth" when watched with modern eyes, as it nears its 40th anniversary. The creepiness of the relationship between the Goblin King and Sarah. Is this man hitting on a teenage girl? Is she in some weird way attracted to him? Is this part of becoming a woman for Sarah? It may explain why in the Magic Dance sequence another older movie is invoked, "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" (1947) with Cary Grant and Shirley Temple, in her first role as a teenager. In that movie she has a crush on a older man (Grant) who is ordered by a court to take her out on a date, as a way to lessen her attraction. The movie has a famous exchange of dialogue:

You remind me of a man.

What man?

The man with the power

What power?

Power of Hoodoo

Hoodoo?

You do?

What?

Remind me of a man

At the beginning of the Magic Dance song the Goblin King recites this dialogue. But who is going to notice this? I didn't come across any reviews that pointed this out. With Jim Henson and David Bowie gone, research has shown I'm the only person alive that remembers "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer". Which leads to the question, who is this movie for in the first place?

Performance wise, David Bowie seems to be having a good time but it isn't what I would necessarily call a "good performance". Gene Siskel said of Bowie, "(he) looks as out of place in this film as if he were hosting the Grand Ol' Opry." Connelly, whom Siskel described as "forgettable", does seem a little stiff and doesn't play a full range of emotions convincingly. She had made her acting debut two years prior in Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In America" (1984) and also had a role in one of Italian horror maestro's Dario Argento's better films, "Phenomena" (1985). Nothing in "Labyrinth" however suggest to me she would go one to become a terrific Academy Award winning actress. For a while she was a hot commodity situating herself as one of our finest actresses.

I don't know if "Labyrinth" is a suitable movie to watch this "spooky season", as I don't consider it a horror movie. But it is often associated with Halloween. "Labyrinth" is a dismal movie not really meant for younger children and I wouldn't think interesting enough to hold the attention of teenagers and adults. There will be a nostalgia factor for some that saw this as kids in the '80s but with adult eyes, I really can't imagine many people finding this to be a great or worthwhile movie. It doesn't compare to the classic family movies before it, some of which it pays homage to. The characters aren't likable, the moral isn't obvious, and the plot is confusing at best and too weak for a feature-length movie. 

Film Review: I, Daniel Blake

 "I, Daniel Blake"

 **** (out of ****)

Ken Loach is a British filmmaking icon and his "I, Daniel Blake" (2017) has had the most profound effect on me these past seven years since I first saw it. Back then I declared it as not only the very best film of 2017 but a few years later would name it as the best film of the last decade. With this year's theme of Was I Right? - a year long re-examination of my previous "Top Ten" choices - now felt like an appropriate time to take another look at Loach's film to determine if I was right to lavish such acclaim at the film.

"I, Daniel Blake" is a masterpiece plain and simple. It remains relevant and continues to serve as a powerful statement on the every day living conditions of the working class. Not just in the U.K. but throughout the Western world. "Blake" easily ranks among Loach's most accomplished works. It is no wonder it won the Palme d' Or at the Cannes Film Festival - Loach's second film to do so - and was also responsible for a social movement in Loach's U.K. homeland. I suspect this would be more meaningful to Loach than winning the Palme d'Or.

After I saw "I, Daniel Blake" the first time it reminded me of Loach's talents. Oddly, Loach had fallen off of my radar following his film "The Wind That Shakes The Barley" (2007) - his first feature to win the top prize at Cannes. Although I placed that film on my year end best list  I can't recall his subsequent films such as "Jimmy's Hall" (2014) and "The Angel's Share" (2012) being reviewed in either of my hometown newspapers. "Blake" however reignited my passion for Loach's films and this period showed a vitality in his work. His next film, "Sorry We Missed You" (2020) was another masterpiece, a critique of the gig economy that just happened to be released during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. It also topped my year end list. Sadly Loach has announced he may retire from making feature-length films with "The Old Oak" (2024) being his final cinematic declaration. I decided to stop commenting on current films on this blog two years ago but if I was still in the "top ten" business, it surely would secure the top spot.

"Blake" shares a common through line within Loach's work, the ways in which government institutions are heartless and seem to only succeed in belittling and abusing working class people by creating a maddening labyrinthine of bureaucracy. In that regard "I, Daniel Blake" recalls Loach's "Ladybird, Ladybird" (1995), the story of government social workers who repeatedly targeted a poor woman, taking away four of her children. What the characters in these films have in common is if they were wealthy, government institutions wouldn't get away with treating them so poorly.

Daniel Blake (Dave Johns) is a middle-aged carpenter that suffered a heart attack on the job. His doctor has advised he is not fit to return to work. As part of a mandated assessment to keep disability benefits, however, a "healthcare professional" - who refuses to identity herself as either a nurse or doctor - has deemed that he is fit for work after not scoring enough points on a Work Capability Assessment test. This sets off a chain reaction causing his financial benefits to be denied. Outraged Daniel would like to file an appeal but that process could potentially take years meanwhile he needs a source of income and so he must prove he is actively looking for work if he wishes to receive unemployment benefits. But since his doctor has advised him not to work, he couldn't accept an offer of employment if given one. Which would in effect cause his unemployment benefits to be suspended. Sound confusing? Annoying? Irrational? Good! That means the system is working as it's supposed to.

The very first thing we hear in "I, Daniel Blake" is the conversation regarding the Work Assessment test. The lady on the other end must ask Daniel a series of questions. Questions that he has already answered on a form. This agitates Daniel but the woman speaks in a cool and calm (and disinterested) voice explaining she must ask these questions. The questions also have nothing to do with Daniel's heart attack, which is the issue he would like to address. In a later scene, Daniel is put on hold for nearly two hours - longer than a rugby match he exclaims, just so he could speak to another disinterested voice.

We have all been in situations like this, which is what makes "I, Daniel Blake" such a relatable and frustrating experience. Having worked in "customer service" I actually understand both sides. The disinterested voice is a coping mechanism. Do you have any idea the mental toll of listening to people complain 8 hours a day, five days a week has on a person? I did it for years and can tell you, it made me anti-social. After a day's work I didn't want to speak to anyone and just wanted to be left alone to build up strength for the next miserable day of having to deal with the general public. Keep in mind, you're not speaking to CEOs, shareholders, or other mover and shakers, when you are on the phone. You aren't speaking to anyone with any power within the company. You are speaking to someone that if they are lucky is making more than minimum wage and just wants to get through the day. We aren't supposed to really consider that in "I, Daniel Blake", as our sympathies are supposed to align with Daniel, which they do, but I wanted to share my experiences to shed some light on the situation. Some of you might say but Alex, you're talking about corporations, these are government workers. They have a responsibility to aid people. That's cute. You think they are run differently.

And I believe that is one of the points Loach is making in "Blake". The world is run as one giant corporation and in that world, your needs (the consumer) are secondary. The system almost seems designed to wear you out so you'll give up in your efforts to receive your benefits. This is despite the illusion everything is simply a click away on the computer. Which of course presents another issue, as it does for Daniel Blake, what about the individuals that don't have a computer or a personalize tracking device (AKA "smart" phone)? The system becomes much more difficult and burdensome. But in the end all it really means is one less person for the workers to have to deal with. There is even a scene where an employee is admonished by her supervisor for helping Daniel access the online form. Because she is told it will set a precedent. The employees in the office are actually quicker to throw people out rather than assist them.

One of the people being thrown out is a young single mom, Katie (Hayley  Squires). She was a bit late for her appointment and becomes irritated when no one in the office is willing to help her. Her time is up and now she must await a response from the "decision maker". Daniel, over hearing the woman's predicament, steps up to defend her. While they are both thrown out, they do become friends.

This is a second point in "I, Daniel Blake". The only help we are going to get in life is from each other. We, the people, are all we've got. Some people, like Daniel Blake, take joy in helping others. Without these individuals, how would we get a long? Daniel agree to help Katie with various things around the house...i.e. plumbing and electrical issues. Along the way we discover Katie has no money, hasn't paid her utility bills, and hasn't eaten in days, in order to make sure her children have enough. In one heartbreaking scene Katie is humiliated after being caught shoplifting tampons and razor blades.

Although the name Daniel Blake is in the film's title, "Blake" is actually a combination of Katie and Daniel's story, making each of them the heart and soul of the film. Katie was originally living in London but got priced out. The only housing assistance she could find would be in Newcastle, keeping her away from her family. Of course this speaks to another issue all working class people face, gentrification. It is truly sad how income affects where we live and the level of safety we should expect based on our income.

Some American viewers may incorrectly assume Loach is setting up the attractive young woman with the middle-aged man so a romantic relationship may form. I understand age differences in relationships is a very uncomfortable and scary topic for American viewers but that is not Loach's intention. I believe if anything the age difference between the characters demonstrates the life long cycle of struggle individuals must endure and the multiple ways it affects our lives.

What makes much of "I, Daniel Blake" so emotional is the wonderful performances Loach is able to get out of his actors. What is even more remarkable is the lack of acting experience his cast has. Dave Johns for example is a stand-up comedian. He made some appearances on various TV shows but "Blake" was his theatrical acting debut. Squires also had a thin acting resume. And yet their acting is natural and believable. It is reminiscent to what is found in fellow compatriot Mike Leigh films. We accept these actors as their characters.

A lot of this may be due to the script which was written by Paul Laverty. Laverty and Loach have been a dynamic writing / directing team having almost exclusively working together since their first collaboration, "Carla's Song" (1996). In each of those films Laverty's dialogue rings true. There is never a false note. The script earned a well deserved BAFTA nomination in addition to being nominated for a British Independent Film Award.

I like the way the great Stephen Holden at the New York Times described Loach and Laverty's approach to the script in his very favorable review writing they are "masters of a dour, clinical neorealism that conveys their feisty resilience in a conservative climate in which struggling workers are demonized as little better than parasitic social refuse."

As a filmmaker Loach was part of the British movement known as kitchen sink realism in the 1960s. It burrowed its visual style from social realism, depicting the struggles of working class life. Loach's directorial debut was "Poor Cow" (1967) however it was his second film, "Kes" (1969) that may have been his greatest early success. The British Film Institute (BFI) included it in its list of the top ten best British films. However it also marked the beginning of a strenuous relationship Loach has had with American audiences. The film was heavily criticized for the Yorkshire dialect spoken in the film, leading many Americans to claim they couldn't understand the film. As the year's have gone on, Loach was never able to achieve crossover success in the U.S. with his films either being completely ignored by the American sheep (AKA "movie critics") or negatively received. In Christy Lemire's review of  "I, Daniel Blake", published on the website rogerebert.com, Lemire described the film as "relentlessly bleak and not terribly subtle". In the New Yorker magazine the "critic" characterized the film as "The emotional wallop grow more zealous with almost every sequence, and Loach's refusal to go easy on us is as stubborn as when he made "Cathy Comes Home". 

I've always scratched my head at this type of "logic" exhibited by these "critics". They sharpen their blades on films like "I, Daniel Blake" yet throw out the red carpet for movies such as "Parasite" (2019) and "Nomadland" (2020). Those didn't have bleak moments? Were they laugh riots? I actually believed both were inferior to "I, Daniel Blake". Neither was able to convey the same emotion for me. The beauty of "Blake" is in part its simplicity and straightforward storytelling manner. It is a sincere depiction of life. I suppose that is what makes it more threatening to the system and why it was able to start a movement. By contrast, that is probably why American sheep flocked to "Nomadland" and "Parasite" - which became the first foreign film to win a best picture Oscar. Those movies don't challenge the system. At best one could say they dim a light on a social issue but as artistic works featuring injustice, they don't provoke or ask anything of us in return. That makes them easier to digest and celebrate. They create an illusion of being about something without really challenging anything or demanding structural change. If Ken Loach's films seem "bleak" to someone, that should tell you all you need to know about the daily struggles of working class people. Life is bleak and their struggles are real. 

We can further see this lapse of judgement on display in the sheep's annual top ten choices. "Blake" was initially released in New York and California at the end of 2016, in an attempt to secure some Oscar nominations, which it didn't. Because of this however, some "critics" refer to it as a 2016 film. On the website Metacritic, which compiled 256 top ten lists, 14 placed it on their year end list from publications such as Film Journal International, The Guardian, The Irish Times, The Observer,  and Time Out London. In 2017, when it opened in wider release, 2 additional critics placed it on their lists. For context, the following films appeared on more top ten lists in either '16 or ' 17 - "Zootopia" (2016), "Kubo and the Two Strings" (2016), "Deadpool" (2016), "Wonder Woman" (2017), and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (2017). Go ahead and sing me a song about high critical standards!

But as I had indicated the film did receive a much more positive reception overseas winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes, scoring five BAFTA nominations and winning the Outstanding British Film of the Year award, earning seven British Independent Film Award nominations with both Johns and Squires winning awards for their performances. As well as winning the Best Foreign Film award at the Cesar Awards in France.

Was I right about "I, Daniel Blake"? I believe so. Watching it again it still retains its power and speaks to universal truths. The performances are sincere and emotional and Loach's storytelling direct and compelling. It baffles me American sheep are deliberating unwilling to recognize Loach's talent and in many cases ignore him. Since Roger Ebert's death I have not come across one review in the Chicago Sun-Times for a Loach film by Richard Roeper, as an example. "I, Daniel Blake" was the best film of 2017 and ranks as one of Loach's finest films of his career. If he decides to follow through with his talk of retirement, it will be a major loss for world cinema.

Film Review: Deconstructing Harry

 "Deconstructing Harry"

**** (out of ****)

With very few exceptions has there been a filmmaker - comedy or otherwise - that has been more closely associated with his screen persona than Woody Allen? In "Deconstructing Harry" (1997) Allen blurs the lines between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality even further. It's what makes "Harry" one of  Allen's comedy masterpieces and the reason I chose it as one of the best films of 1997. During the year of Was I Right? - my year long re-examination of films I placed on previous "top ten" lists to determine if I was right to choose them - I thought now would be a perfect time to revisit the film. 

Allen plays novelist Harry Block, whose latest work of fiction exposes his several extramarital affairs. Besides perhaps shaming himself it also effects the lives of the others involved. In the opening moments of the film Lucy (Judy Davis) storms into Harry's apartment to angrily confront him. The two had an affair when Harry was married to Lucy's sister. Now with their secret out, Lucy's husband has left her. Enraged, she plans for revenge, which consists of killing Harry - "you take everyone's suffering and turn it into gold." she says before taking out her gun. And even within this heightened exchange Allen is able to find the humor in the situation as Harry and Lucy confuse the real life names with the fictional ones, such as Harry's ex-wife Jane (Amy Irving) and her fictitious version, Janet (Stephanie Roth).

Right at the start of "Deconstructing Harry" the film is hitting at the themes the rest of the film will center on - does life imitate art? Can a great artist still be a lousy person? The latter reflects public opinion of Allen at the time. The film was released a few years after  Allen and Mia Farrow's very public breakup that resulted in his marrying Farrow's stepdaughter, Soon-Yi Previn (the famed pianist and conductor Andre Previn was her stepfather). Never a truly beloved national figure the scandal nevertheless affected the public's perception of Allen with many misleading accusations being hurled at him such as he married his daughter, even though such a thing is against the law. That's what gives "Deconstructing Harry" its bite. Since many people often try to interpret Allen's films as justification for his life choices, "Harry" argues artists don't have to be nice people. There is a separation between art and the artist. It is a concept Allen explored prior in "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) and would further examine in "Sweet and Lowdown" (1999).

As the film goes on we learn Harry divorced Jane but not to be with Lucy. He had instead fallen in love with a younger woman named Fay (Elisabeth Shue), who was a fan of his writing. However karma caught up with Harry when Fay dumped him for his friend Larry (Billy Crystal). Next there was Harry's second wife, Joan (Kirstie Alley) whom he cheated on after the birth of their son Hilly (Eric Lloyd). And finally there is Harry's sister, Doris (Caroline Aaron). They have an estranged relationship after he disapproved of her choice for a husband, Burt (Eric Bogosian), whom Harry believes is a religious zealot and has negatively influenced Doris into becoming one too.

These stories will be contrasted with their fictionalized versions (played by different actors including Demi Moore, Stanley Tucci, Richard Benjamin, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus) illustrating not only how Harry's life turns up in his art, which he uses to vindicate his beliefs, but his carelessness in the way he doesn't bother to even disguise the identity of the real life people involved. All of these individuals are displeased with Harry's interpretation of them and his description of events.

But  Allen takes things one step further. Not only do we see what Harry has written in his novels, those same fictional characters appear face to face with Harry, providing him with life lessons, showing him the error of his ways. It may recall what  Allen did in his later film, "Midnight in Paris" (2011)  where a young writer is transported back in time to meet his literary idols, while they help him with his own work.

The structure of the film is reminiscent to Ingmar Bergman's - one of Allen's cinematic heroes - "Wild Strawberries" (1959), the story of an aging professor who travels back home to be honored by his old university. In "Deconstructing Harry", Harry will also be honored by his old university for his literary accomplishments. Both men learn about how others view them and are confronted by their mistakes. In "Strawberries" the events serves as a moment for the professor to redeem himself. Harry on the other hand I'm not positive learns anything. In Eric Lax's book, Conversations with Woody Allen, Allen doesn't cite Bergman's film as an inspiration. He describes simply conceiving the idea as "you watch the guy and learn about him, but learn about him through what he wrote. You'd see his short stories and excerpts from his novels and that would tell you about him." Allen also goes on to claim the film is not based on his life, "I think that is funny because the film's not remotely about me." It should be noted though that  Allen has always been reluctant to reveal what in his films are autobiographical.

The format of "Deconstructing Harry" is also episodic which allows  Allen the opportunity to really pepper his film with very funny skits that otherwise wouldn't be strong enough to be developed into feature length ideas. Two such skits really standout with one centered around a young man (Tobey Maguire) who cheats on his wife with a prostitute. Unable to afford a hotel room he uses a friend's apartment, resulting in a hilarious mix-up. The other skit is about an actor (Robin Williams) who is literally out of focus, causing major disruptions on the movie set and in his personal life. Making it a perfect symbol of Woody Allen the man and his alter ego Harry.

This material rates with some of the funniest  Allen had put on-screen in many years. Some of its silliness, surreal, and ethnic (Jewish) nature recalls Allen's work from the 1970s, which some would consider his greatest creative period. Although I contend, controversies and all, the 90s was an equally successful decade. When I saw "Harry" opening day (on Christmas) in theaters, I was only 14 years old and yet I don't remember ever laughing so hard at a movie, including one of Allen's, as I did at this. Granted I was already a devoted follower. I wasn't alone however in that feeling. Former  late and great Chicago Tribune critic Michael  Wilmington referred to "Harry" as "one of the funniest (and maybe bravest) pieces he's ever done".

While this may sound terrible to say, what makes "Deconstructing Harry" so enjoyable is that  Allen isn't making his usual commentaries on the meaning of life or does God exist a la "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) or "Hannah and Her Sisters" (1986). The purpose of "Harry" is strictly to be funny. The Allen we see here is the hand gesturing maestro, the neurotic, stammering, wise-cracking working class lovable loser of "Broadway Danny Rose" (1984) or "Bananas" (1971). This results in the film having aged better than some of Allen's other comedies since it lacks a political or societal message. "Annie Hall" (1977) is unmistakably the '70s. "Deconstructing  Harry" could be of any time. Though there is one joke about a President's sexual appetite that will be lost on today's viewers. You must remember Bill Clinton was President at the time.

Yet there is much in "Deconstructing Harry" that makes it typical of what a Woody  Allen comedy used to be. The film is full of characters with neuroses and in dysfunctional relationships. Harry in particular is full of insecurities and in passing mentions a fear of dying - a standard fear of  Allen's characters - and even finds a way to name drop Sophocles. In many ways Harry may be the most complete character  Allen had written for himself in years. It could possibly be as quintessential a "Woody Allen" character as Alvy Singer was from "Annie Hall". Namely because both are based on the public's perception of him.

If Harry is the best written character it would also be because he is the one constant in the film. "Deconstructing Harry" is an ensemble piece but unlike "Crimes and Misdemeanors" or "Hannah", "Harry" doesn't have a cast of strong characters. During this period in Allen's films the large cast was kind of comprised of the equivalent of cameos. Big stars would come in shoot there sequence and be gone. If anyone else makes an impression in "Harry" it might be Judy Davis. Her opening scene with Allen is magnificent, demonstrating her intense, dramatic capabilities. And in a later scene she is allowed to show off a much lighter, comedic tone. No one else to my mind is given as equal an opportunity to shine to the degree Davis does.

Visually the film is unlike many of  Allen's previous films due to its editing. Allen copies the same techniques he applied to "Husbands and Wives" (1992) - though the aesthetic is much more conventional here - with its shaky camera work and jump cuts. In "Husbands" this was meant to invoke a naturalistic documentary feel. This time around I believe it is meant to suggest the chaotic personality of Harry. For example the film begins with the usual title credits Allen's films have become known for but this time there are cutaways to same repeated image of Lucy exiting a taxi, while we hear Annie Ross sing Twisted. This may be Allen's way of paying homage to another filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard.

When the film was released Allen was 62 years old and yet "Harry" has a savage wit and rawness you may not identify with an older filmmaker. The humor is a lot more vulgar than we are used to from Allen, though at this particular period in his career Allen was tip toeing in this direction with films like "Mighty Aphrodite" (1995), "Celebrity" (1998), and "Husbands and Wives". Its frankness and energy is probably why the former Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert described it as "his most revealing film, his most painful, and if it also contains more than his usual quotient of big laughs, what was it the man said? "We laugh, that we may not cry."

But of course as with any Allen film there are always detractors such as the "movie critic" Jonathan Rosenbaum who in his Chicago Reader review stated, "this runs a close second to September as his worst feature to date". Which has led me to always wonder, while we ask how much of Allen is in his characters, how much of a "critic's" personal contempt for  Allen is in their reviews? It wouldn't be hard to imagine many of them felt insulted by  Allen and his attacks aimed at them. In one terrific sequence taking place in hell, Harry is in an elevator with each floor being called out. One of them has been designated for media but it's all filled up!

And yet despite mixed reviews "Deconstructing Harry" earned one Academy Award nomination for Allen's screenplay, making it his than 13th nomination in the category. It was also named as one of the year's best films by the great New York Times critic Janet Maslin who wrote, "Mr. Allen wins no popularity contests here but delivers a structurally sophisticated, newly imaginative recapitulation of his own most personal work." As well as appearing on New York Press "critic" Godfrey Cheshire's list of the year's best films.

As I began brainstorming titles by  Allen that I could have included as part of Was I Right? I had a few options as I have celebrated many of his films over the years. Watching "Deconstructing Harry" though a couple of thoughts dawned on me. One is I almost forgot the joy of seeing Woody Allen in his movies. His presence added not just humor but contributed to the idea of what a "Woody Allen movie" was. He was the film. I'd forgotten the ritual of once a year going to a movie theater to see Allen on-screen. "Harry" really shows us what we have been deprived off all of these years. Allen's last role in one of his films was "To Rome With Love" (2012). Which led me to my second observation, there is probably an entire generation that doesn't identify Allen with acting in his movies. They also wouldn't even realize a Woody Allen film, at one time, meant a "New York comedy". That concept is completely loss on Gen Z. Allen's latest film for example, "Coup de Chance" (2024) was filmed in France and is his first non-English language film.

To answer the question of whether I was right or not about "Deconstructing Harry", the answer is a resounding yes! This is such a comfort to me especially after having the slightly disappointing experience of rewatching "The Ice Storm" (1997), which I initially called the very best film of 1997. On a second viewing it didn't hold up for me during the year of Was I Right?.

"Harry" is still able to pack a punch, remaining as fresh and bold as it did back in 1997. I still believe it remains one of the best films released that year. "Deconstructing Harry" stands as one of Allen's great comedies and reminded me of what a Woody Allen film used to be.

Film Review: Bugsy

 "Bugsy"

**** (out ****)

Barry Levinson's "Bugsy" (1991) is part gangster movie, part bio-pic, and part Hollywood romance. Who would have ever thought such a thing when telling the story of one of the world's most famous gangsters, Bugsy Siegel?

"Bugsy" almost seems more interested in mythology than facts. That makes it difficult to believe anything is factual in James Toback's screenplay adaptation of Dean Jennings' book We Only Kill Each Other. But when a film is directed this expertly and is this finely acted, what difference does it make? "Bugsy" is one of the great unappreciated gems of the 1990s. Because of that I wanted to include it as part of this year's Was I Right? theme, my year long re-examination of previous top ten choices to determine if I was right to choose them. "Bugsy" was my pick as the best film of 1991.

When "Bugsy" was originally released much critical acclaim was being thrown Warren Beatty's way with the critical consensus being only Beatty could have played the role. Or as the great New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote it in her review, Beatty "found the role of his career in this sly, evasive schemer with the manipulative instincts of a born ladies' man." For his performance Beatty received his fourth - and so far final - Academy Award nomination as best actor.

What "Bugsy" also became known for was Beatty and co-star Annette Bening's romantic relationship off set, which has led to a (so far) 32 year marriage. However this may have been responsible for why the romance is the strongest element of the film. As a gangster film and a bio, it fails, not matching that "insider" feel we get from something like Scorsese's "GoodFellas" (1990). This also isn't a birth to grave story of the man either. "Bugsy" seems to primarily view itself as a love story. Look at the film's poster with the two characters embracing.

And that romance is key to accepting this movie. It's immaterial that Beatty's character is Bugsy Siegel. It could be John Doe and the integral parts of the story wouldn't change. With its art deco production design, the film plays like film noir where a woman, mixed with a man's jealousy, may lead to his downfall. "Bugsy" is about two damaged people finding each other and the not-so-positive effects they have on one another. In prophetic fashion the woman warns the man of the consequences their love may have.

The woman is Virginia Hill played by of course Bening. The two meet in Hollywood, a place Bugsy is instantly attracted to, as he visits an acting friend George (Joe Mantegna) - whom we can assume is based on George Raft - on the set of the movie "Manpower" (1941). She is a movie extra but she catches Bugsy's eye, despite the fact that he's a married man with two daughters, and she's dating an "associate".

Virginia possesses some of the same qualities as Bugsy. Both can be quite charming and at times demanding, with each commanding respect. She may not be like the other women he has known. She certainly is much different than his wife Esta (Wendy Phillips). Is that what makes Virginia so alluring to Bugsy? Does he love a challenge?

In typical noir style Virginia is a woman Bugsy can't control. She can see through his suave demeanor and has no problem walking away from him. This leads to Bugsy's jealousy and perhaps inevitable demise. He can never tell what she is thinking. Does she love him? Is she using him? Can he trust her? Whenever he receives contradictory information about Virginia he chooses to pretend like he doesn't believe it, only to confront her in private. Because more than anything else Bugsy doesn't want to be made a fool of in front of people. These moments nearly rise the material to the level of a psychological thriller. 

In Warren Beatty's hands, Bugsy is a street smart guy that seems to have all of the angles figured out. He exudes charm and confidence and yet there are moments when Bugsy shows vulnerability when he is in private. The vulnerability usually revolves around his feelings for Virginia and Esta. Virginia demands Bugsy divorce his wife if they are going to be together. He says he will and yet I suspected a reluctance on his part. He seems to revere his wife but I thought felt pressure to leave her in order to prove his love to Virginia. And while Bugsy may love Virginia, he also loves himself. He's a dreamer. He doesn't just dream of building a city in a desert, he also sees himself as a movie star and as a man that could possibly assassinate Mussolini.

Toback's screenplay draws a lot of parallels between Hollywood and Bugsy's aspirations of fame and his life as a gangster. Not only is Virginia a wannabe starlet but Bugsy even gets a chance at a screen test, which he watches in his home on a projection screen. And notice how director Levinson shoots Bugsy and Virginia's first kiss, where the viewer only sees their shadows behind the screen. It creates the illusion they are being projected onto a movie screen.

A lot of their romance however doesn't have the glitz and glamour of a Hollywood story. Take for example a scene I once believed was out of place in the film but watching it again I focused on Virginia's reaction and positioning in the sequence. The scene is meant to represent a power struggle. Bugsy has discovered Jack (Richard Sarafian) has been stealing money. In order to exert his dominance over Jack, Bugsy makes the man grovel, barking like a dog. This "conversation" can be heard by Virginia in another room. While it looks as if fear has taken over her face, after Jack leaves, Virginia and Bugsy begin to have dinner. Bugsy acts as if nothing unusual has happened. Virginia begins to kiss him. Is she attracted to his power? Or is she fearful of it? With Beatty in the role this dynamic between the two characters makes us naturally think of "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) where robbing banks served as a kind of foreplay.

Soon Bugsy's obsessions grow beyond Virginia as he juggles his attention between her and building a hotel in the desert, The Flamingo, supposedly named after a nickname for Virginia's legs. But Bugsy has a difficult time trying to convince others to share in his dream. Men like Meyer Lansky (Ben Kingsley) and "Lucky" Luciano (Bill Graham) are more interested in the cost of the project. Here is where Bugsy and Virginia's relationship will be tested as well as the limits of Bugsy's charm. Bugsy and Lansky were childhood friends but Lansky can only do so much to protect Bugsy. This relationship is meant to mirror one between Bugsy and Harry Greenberg (Elliott Gould) ending in similar ways.

During the Flamingo scenes we see the power balance between Bugsy and Virginia begin to tilt. Virginia ends up taking a more active role in the building of the hotel, morphing herself into Bugsy, imitating his speech. Just like Bugsy previously imitated being a movie star. Bugsy puts Virginia in charge of finances for the hotel, a move those closest to him question. Is it a test or a true act of faith? 

In the end unfortunately it doesn't matter. Bugsy Siegel was murdered - in a case that still remains unsolved - before Siegel's vision for the Flamingo became a success and Las Vegas became the city he imagined it could be. In critic Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he describes Bugsy as "if he were not a gangster might have been honored on a postage stamp by now, as the Father of Las Vegas." It all suggest amazing potential and unfulfilled dreams.

Director Barry Levinson, who was coming off great acclaim for films such as the best picture Oscar winner "Rain Man" (1988) and "Avalon" (1990), treats this material as if it is his version of The Great Gatsby. In its own way "Bugsy" is the story of the American Dream. Like "Avalon", Levinson is also able to make Jewishness a fixture within this story. As has been mentioned by several critics, unlike most other mob stories the characters here are primarily Jewish - Lansky, Greenberg, and Mickey Cohen (Harvey Keitel) - and not Italians.

That may be Levinson's most significant personal imprint on the film. I haven't spent much time discussing his work over the last 16 years of this blog but Levinson is a talented filmmaker - twice nominated for a Best Director Oscar - that has sadly been ignored by the Hollywood system for some time now. Some of his last couple of films were made for TV - "The Wizard of Lies" (2017), "Paterno" (2018), and "You Don't Know Jack" (2010), which made my runner's up list as one of the best films of the year. Unfortunately, a couple of critical and financial misses - "Toys" (1992), "Sphere" (1998), "Envy" (2004), and "Man of the Year" (2006) - have made "Bugsy" perhaps the last truly meaningful film he was behind.

To answer my own question of was I right to place this on my list as one of the best films of 1991, I'd say yes. "Bugsy" holds up after multiple viewings and I believe is one of those films you pick up on something new each time you watch it. Should I have positioned it in the number one spot? Too many years have passed for me to fully remember the quality of all the films released that year to reasonably say.

Still it is hard to believe the film has dropped out of the public's conscious. Here is a film that received 10 Academy Award nominations, more than any other film that year. It was nominated for eight Golden Globes, winning best picture. It received "two thumbs up" from Siskel & Ebert. And yet it takes a backseat to "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) which went on to win the top major categories at the Academy Awards that year. To me "Bugsy" is a far superior film. As the cliché goes, this is the kind of movie they make Oscars for. I suppose like the Bugsy in this film, the movie didn't live up to its potential success. Of all those Oscar nominations, it walked away with two wins - Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. It only won one of its eight Globe nominations and never became the box-office hit some hoped it would have been.

Could it be because it isn't recognized by movie fans as a true gangster movie? In the 1990s alone you had titles like "GoodFellas", "A Bronx Tale" (1993), "Casino" (1995), "Carlito's Way" (1993) and "Donnie Brasco" (1997) to name a few. Those movies seem better remembered. They still play on TV. Doing a quick on-line search you can't find "Bugsy" on Blu-ray and the original theatrical version on DVD - which is what I own - seems to have fallen out of print. Only used copies are available. There is an Extended Cut which is easily available however.

There is probably an element of truth to that. "Bugsy" may not be the best screen version on the life of Bugsy Siegel. It's not steep in Mafia lore. This is a character study of a man in constant conflict within himself and his public image. Violence and glamour. Virginia and Esta. Movie stars and the Mob. This is most likely what attracted Warren Beatty to the project in the first place. The character seen here, whether it is the real Bugsy or not, is a rich, fascinating character because of these conflicts. There is a lot for an actor to grab hold of.

"Bugsy" is a strong film filled with terrific performances. The chemistry between Bening and Beatty is practically palpable. It is a career highlight for Beatty in particular and Barry Levinson may not have directed a better film since this. "Bugsy" truly is one of the best films of 1991 and was deserving to be on my list as one of the best films of the 1990s.