Film Review: The Terror

 

"The Terror"  *** (out of ****)

Roger Corman's "The Terror" (1963) is a tale about illusion, about the dance between reality vs fantasy. It is about the secrets and lies we live with it and the ways in which we preserve the memory of the dead.

The short paragraph above is probably the most detailed analysis you will read about "The Terror" as you scower the internet for hours at a time. Your search will lead you to sheep (movie critics) or internet movie fans more interested to recite to readers the events of the chaotic production that "haunted" Corman's movie. I believe they use that information to then justify a negative review under the guise of "how could you expect the movie to turn out good when the production was so troubled"? That's lazy film criticism. Are you writing a gossip piece or a review? That's why I'm deciding not to detail what happened during the movie's production. Why mention it at all if I won't discuss it? I don't know who reads my reviews but for those "in the know" that read this, rest assured, I know too. For those that don't know what happened, there really isn't any reason to know. It will only hamper your judgement of the movie.

Corman directed "The Terror" in the midst of his Edgar Allan Poe adaptations (there were seven in total) and had already released "House of Usher" (1960), "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961) and a loosey-goosey adaptation of "The Raven" (1963). Corman, known to squeeze the life out of a nickel, took the opportunity to immediately make one more movie with the sets from "The Raven" and recast two of the movie's actors - Boris Karloff and Jack Nicholson. In true Corman fashion it is also said he shot the bulk of  "The Terror" in four days (supposedly one of the fastest movie shoots of all-time was Corman's original "The Little Shop of Horrors" (1960) which lasted 2 1/2 days).

"The Terror" is not a Poe adaptation but has the look and feel of one with its Victorian setting and macbre subject matter. It also helps that the art director (Daniel Haller) and set decorator (Harold Reif) were Corman regulars. 

Set in the 19th century, the story revolves around a French soldier, Andre Duvalier (Nicholson). He is first seen on horseback along a coastal shore. We assume the soldier has been riding for a lengthy period of time as he looks fatigued and we assume parched as the hot sun beats down on him. He falls off of his horse and his face kisses the sand, only to be awoken by the tide that splashes on him. He begins to collect himself and notices a figure in the distance, a beautiful woman - "I'm a wry, disillusioned soldier and you're the only pleasant sight I've seen in seven months." A flirtation begins and we learn Andre is lost from his regiment. The woman though behaves strangely and the musical score by Ronald Stein confirms something mysterious about the situation. The woman, named Helene (Sandra Knight, Mrs. Jack Nicholson) moves around freely and rapidly. It almost seems otherworldly especially against the music. Their brief meeting is ended when Helene moves towards violent waves. Andre, fearful she will drown, chases after her but is unable to find her due to turbulent waves and a bird attacking him. The meeting last long enough to cause an infatuation on Andre's part. 

Andre however runs into a problem - no one knows who Helene is! After being taken in by a elderly female villager he is told no such person exist and the only Helene she knows is her pet bird. Suspiciously it's the same bird Andre says attacked him. Andre will not be dissuaded, he knows Helene is real and will find her. 

The other prominent detail between Andre and Helene's meeting is the significance of water. After the movie's opening credits the first image we see is of a strong wave clashing against rocks. Helene is standing in water. Andre is awoken by water and later becomes thirsty. Clearly Corman is foreshadowing something and the movie's use of water will take on biblical symbolism.

The soldier's quest for Helene leads him to the castle of Baron von Leppe (Karloff), a lonely elderly man who has isolated himself from the villagers for the past 20 years, ever since his wife Ilsa died. The Baron's only company is his butler, Stefan (Dick Miller) but  Andre believes another is in the castle - Helene! Andre believes he has seen Helene standing in front of one of the castle's windows. The Baron is oddly unphased by this and tells Andre not to believe everything he sees. He points the young soldier to a portrait hanging on a wall and asks if this is the woman Andre claims to have seen. It turns out Helene bears a resemblance to the Baron's wife but that leaves too many things unexplained. Are Helene and Ilsa one in the same? Is the spirit of Ilsa haunting the Baron and the castle, as the Baron believes to be true? Is the spirit now haunting Andre? Is Corman tipping his hat to the noir classic, "Laura" (1944) and Andre is in love with a dead woman?

These questions allow the movie to function as a mystery with supernatural overtones than a horror movie. The questions however have caused many viewers to become confused and criticize the script co-written by Leo Gordon and Jack Hill (his first feature-length script!). The questions don't confuse me. Instead, I feel the script doesn't properly create tension and pull the viewer in with the plot's twists and turns. The plot reveals don't feel dramatic enough. A lot of the movie's questions are answered but they are somewhat simplistic answers that don't feel satisfactory.

If the writers were given more time to fully explore these characters and the dramatic elements of the plot "The Terror" could have amounted to something far greater than what it does here. Boris Karloff  was a step up from Vincent Price, who appeared in nearly all of Corman's Poe adaptations. Price had his own (campy) charms as an actor and is fun to watch but Karloff  could show more restraint in his performances. He could have created empathy for his character in a more sorrowful and dramatic way than Price would have been able to. "The Terror" feels as if it is telling two separate stories forced together - The Baron's story, typical of the Poe adaptations, and Andre's story.

That doesn't mean the movie is a dud. "The Terror" succeeds in creating atmosphere with its gothic sets, use of shadows and lighting, musical score, and use of colors. Yes, this is essentially a "B" movie and genre filmmaking but there is more craft here than in most Hollywood, CGI dominated blockbusters. Give Roger Corman and his crew credit. Don't dismiss these movies as lacking any aesthetic value or thematic relevance.

Pay attention to the sequence between Andre and Helene during their second meeting. Notice how everything comes together and it is far more mysterious and moody than their first meeting. Look at the crooked trees in the forest and their branches as they create obstacles for Andre. Focus on how Helene is filmed in darkness and shadow and how it contrasts with the way Andre is filmed. Take a moment to reflect on how it makes you, the viewer, feel about the characters. If you think these are the words of a young, over-zealous film major eager to show you what a college degree gets you, you are mistaken. Though I do appreciate being thought of as "young". Filmmaking is essentially a tool for manipulating your emotions. A director uses all the tools in their bag to stir you. Every choice is a deliberate one.

For modern viewers the movie is interesting to watch because of Jack Nicholson's performance. It would still be a few years until Nicholson would achieve fame and become one of his generation's greatest actors. Here his performance walks a delicate balance between vulnerability and heroic masculinity with dashes of sexuality (Jack always seems "naughtier" than what any script suggests). He would continue to explore this throughout his performances in the 1970s. Here though it provides a contrast to Karloff's "feeble old man" performance.

Too bad more character development wasn't given to Helene and Stefan. Helene never functions as a real person but as the forest scene points out, at a minimal, the character could have oozed sexuality and been a real seductress. The character Stefan could have been more mysterious and provided more clues to the movie's conclusion. 

"The Terror" isn't a classic but is far from a howling failure. It has the best elements of Corman's Poe adaptations but does suffer from a weak script even though it benefits from Karloff and Nicholson's acting, which is far better than the usual performances in a Corman movie. The movie is worth watching if you are a Roger Corman fan. If you are a newbie to Corman's work you may want to start elsewhere but make this an early stop along your journey.

Film Review: Halloween II

 "Halloween II"  

***  (out of ****)

For a horror movie "Halloween II" (1981) starts off in a strange way. The very first thing an audience hears is the movie's soundtrack. It isn't the famous theme created by filmmaker John Carpenter but the 1950s female a cappella group The Chordettes singing "Mr. Sandman". Why is that interesting? It either speaks to the titillating nature of horror movies combining sex and violence or is an attempt at dark humor. Maybe it's both!

"Mr. Sandman" is a love song. A song about a lonely person wishing and hoping (that's the name of another song) to find "the one". The search for "the one" expands beyond dreams into reality. In "Halloween II", as in "Halloween" (1978), the villainous Michael Myers is doing his own searching for "the one" in Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) though his kiss may prove to be more deadly (did you see what I did there?). 

The first few minutes of "Halloween II" basically reuses the ending of the first movie though replaces its soundtrack (the first movie had better music) and makes some minor edit changes. We see Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) shoot Myers repeatedly causing Myers to fall off of a second floor balcony. By the end of the first movie the audience and Dr. Loomis are aware the body of Michael Myers is no longer in the spot he landed. Part II begins with Dr. Loomis' hunt for the deranged serial killer that same night.

Much like a movie western "Halloween II" is about a posse searching for an escaped bandit with Dr. Loomis as a mixture of sheriff and Professor van Helsing. Maybe I've lost my marbles but I also thought there were traces of Brecht's "Three Penny Opera" (of course minus any social and economic commentary) and foreshadows of Carpenter's "The Ward" (2010) and Woody Allen's Brecht inspired "Shadows and Fog" (1991) which also featured Pleasance.

Carpenter's "Halloween" is one of my all-time favorite horror movies delivering real thrills and suspense. I can't quite honestly say "Halloween II" is up to par. Directed by Rick Rosenthal from a script co-written by Carpenter and Debra Hill, "Halloween II" is a movie that knows the melody but not how to play the tune properly. At times this sequel feels like a by-the-numbers horror movie.

However I don't know if my judgement is skewed because of my appreciation for the original. Does "Halloween II" stand on its own? I would imagine I'm partially bias but I can't believe there would be viewers that would feel this sequel is better than the original.

One of the major differences this time around is that Michael Myers has much more screen time. As a general rule I prefer it when the killer is sparsely seen on screen but remains an ominous presence. This, I feel, creates more suspense, keeping the viewer on the edge of their seat. Once you see the killer so often the character loses their fear factor. The viewer becomes too accustomed to their presence. It's not so much the sight of Myers that then becomes scary but the horror clichés i.e. Myers slowly approaches a character in a car that won't start. Will Myers get them?! A character runs away from Myers but falls down. Will Myers catch them?! Myers is seen walking down a hallway but the character has their back to him. Will they turn around in time?!    

We also notice in this sequel that Laurie is not a driving force of the plot. After Dr. Loomis shoots Michael Myers, Laurie is taken to a hospital, where she remains for the rest of the picture. Her character is also heavily sedated for the remainder of the movie. The character is constantly the victim of the plot. Meaning she is always on the defense, always reacting to something happening to her.

The driving force of the movie is Dr. Loomis. The movie is as much of a showdown between the doctor and Michael Myers as it is between Laurie and Myers. Interestingly enough Jamie Lee Curtis gets higher billing. Literally higher billing. Pleasance and Curtis' name appear on-screen together with Curtis' name written higher on the screen. In the original movie Donald Pleasance is billed first with an "introducing" credit for Curtis.

By today's standards the movie isn't very gory either. This was not the reaction movie critics had at the time however. New York Times movie critic Janet Maslin described the gore as "very explicit and gruesome" but added it "won't make you feel as if you're watching major surgery." Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert wrote "It is not a horror film but a geek show." I've indicated numerous times excessive violence in horror movies is not scary. To borrow a phrase from Ebert, it does turn those movies into a "geek show". There is nothing scary about watching a character get sliced and diced and "Halloween II" by and large keeps excessive gore off screen. What does it say about me and society when what we see in this movie is an "acceptable" amount of gore? Clearly in 1981 it was pushing the envelope.

Maybe because of Debra Hill's involvement "Halloween II" doesn't feel like an assault on females either. For a genre usually described by some as misogynistic there isn't anything demeaning here. Yes the male to female ratio in the final body count isn't even and yes there is a scene featuring brief female nudity, but we must remember this is an 80s horror movie. At least there is no scene like the one in "The Evil Dead" (1981) where a tree branch penetrates a woman. 

Refreshingly the movie also doesn't focus around Myers killing a group of teenagers or teenage girls, as had been commonplace in the genre during the decade. In "Halloween II" the victims are adults - a security guard, a head nurse, a doctor, and a U.S. Marshal. The movie, and the genre, can't completely escape the fatalities of young adults but it is drastically toned down.

Using a single primary location reminded me of a device used in Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976) which was inspired by the western "Rio Bravo" (1959). Both of these movies used a single small space to create suspense. The hospital setting in "Halloween II" is a much bigger location but the principle idea is the same. The movie's objective is to get all of the characters to meet in the same location for a shoot-out.

Still "Halloween II" feels a bit like a letdown with no big scares. Whatever does get a reaction from an audience will be due to the way the movie builds suspense as the zombie-ish Myers approaches his potential victims. The movie only starts to kick into high gear in the last third of the picture as the first two-thirds establish the final battle.

Forty years after this sequel the "Halloween" franchise is still a cash-cow. In a couple of weeks the latest installment, "Halloween Kills" (2021) will be released and in the following year there are plans to release "Halloween Ends" (2022) which would bring the total number of movies to lucky 13. Even director Rick Rosenthal would return to this material in "Halloween: Resurrection" (2002).

At the end of "Halloween II" the closing credits bring us back to the song "Mr. Sandman". Maybe the writers were on to something even though they didn't know countless sequels and remakes would follow. Maybe these two characters are made for each other. Maybe Michael Myers is the man Laurie sees in her dreams. Sleep tight!

Film Review: The Evil Dead

 The Evil Dead 

** (out of ****) 

In his review of "Halloween II" (1981), released the same year as "The Evil Dead" (1981), former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic Roger Ebert, quoted author John McCarty from his book Splatter Movies to describe the definition of the term "splatter film" -     "[They] aim not to scare their audiences, necessarily, nor to drive them to the edge of their seats in suspense, but to mortify them with scenes of explicit gore. In splatter movies, mutilation is indeed the message, many times the only one."

I thought a lot about that quote not only while watching "The Evil Dead" but while watching movies of today.

There is a preoccupation among artists and filmmakers with the concept of "pushing the envelope" to the point many movies, not just horror movies, are disturbing to watch. Comedy changed for the worst after "There's Something About Mary" (1998) as comedies no longer focused on making us laugh due to enjoyment but rather pushing the limits to see how far they could go with gross out humor. Many times we don't laugh out of pleasure but awkwardness and discomfort. Today's action movies - "Gunpower Milkshake" (2021), "Suicide Squad 2" (2021), and "Kate" (2021) to name a few, have substituted pulse racing action sequences for violent death scenes. Good ol' fashion car chases aren't enough for audiences anymore! I hate to sound like one of those right-wing evangelical nutjobs but we've become desensitized to violence. What have we gained in exchange? iPhones? Keep 'em!

I've long been of the opinion violence, in horror movies, isn't scary. I am not scared watching a character get sliced and diced by a killer, as it's shown in gruesome detail. At best it is disturbing and disgusting but not scary. "The Evil Dead" is an example of this trend in horror movies popularized in the 1980s.

"The Evil Dead" is considered a cult-classic and an influential movie within the horror genre. On the website imdb.com the movie has a score of 7.5 (out of 10) from a total of 195,000 votes. User comments gush praise at the movie calling it a "masterpiece", "a horror classic", and an "ultimate experience". I'm not sure what the gender is of those making these comments but I have a suspicion they're men. I'd love to hear however what women think of this movie and movies like it. Too bad Pauline Kael didn't review it when released in 1981. However, one of my favorite critics, Elizabeth Weitzman, wasn't very impressed with the 2013 remake in her review for the New York Daily News. Nor was Manohla Dargis in her New York Times review.

If you've been reading my blog these past 10 plus years you know I'm not afraid of going against "prevailing wisdom" and often scratch my head trying to figure out the public's movie preferences and logic to life. I'm not sure what makes "The Evil Dead" so celebrated and influential. There isn't anything here I haven't already seen in  "Night of the Living Dead" (1968), vampire movies, "I Walked with A  Zombie" (1943)  or "The Exorcist" (1973). If your response is, yes, but it took those movies and pushed the genre forward by updating them. Really!? How? Just by adding excessive violence? All any modern adaptation of older movies can "contribute" to a story is adding graphic sex and excessive violence. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! EITHER DO BETTER OR DON'T TOUCH THE CLASSICS! It's a simple rule to follow.

As for "The Evil Dead"'s influence, it gave us "Cabin Fever" (2002) and "The Cabin in the Woods" (2011). Goody, goody gumdrops! Two movies that made my top ten list of the worst movies released in their respective years. That's the kind of influence I can live without.

The movie revolves around five college age students (one has a Michigan State sweater on) on a road trip, headed to Tennessee, where they have rented a cabin in the woods. Director Sam Raimi wastes no time immediately establishing a spirit following the group in the first scene.

Once the students (consisting of Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, and Richard DeManincor) arrive, a porch swing violently bangs against the side of the cabin, an indication that evil lurks around it, but when Scott (DeManincor) finds the key placed above the front door and opens it, the ominous banging stops. It would seem we are substituting the scary old mansion in haunted house movies for the small little cabin, engaging in the same horror movie tropes associated with the genre. But then things take a turn when Ash (Campbell) discovers a book and a tape recorder seeming to warn the listener of evil goings-on and then "The Evil Dead" becomes a demonic possession movie.

At a lean 85 minutes "The Evil Dead" actually wears out its welcome when the movie's obvious conclusion - the killing of the evil dead in grisly fashion - is delayed. Raimi, as the movie's writer and director, appears to be playing around with the character archetype I've referred to as "the cowardly liberal" - a passive individual who gives grand speeches on justice and equality but is placed in a situation where their masculinity must be proven, usually signified by committing violence and clashing with their prior beliefs. Examples of this character can be seen in Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs" (1971), Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) and the classic western "The Ox-Bow  Incident" (1943). This time around it is the Ash character who freezes in the movie's frenetic, violent sequences. Ash will eventually need to "prove" himself by the destruction of these beings.

The problem however is  Ash and the rest of the characters are underwritten. They have no distinguishable personalities. They are merely generic plot devices disposable to the mechanics of the movie's plot. We know one by one each will fall victim to the spirits haunting them, with the exception of one. Ash, as the movie's hero, is not clearly defined. Not enough is done to establish he will be "the cowardly liberal". Half-ass implications aren't enough (i.e. freezing during fights)! We need to know Ash is a weakling, a pacifist, opposed to violence, has a religious background. His "set-backs" and his alleged "weaknesses" need to be defined early on so that the audience clearly understands the "inner obstacles" he must overcome. Once we get to his final violent act it will pack a punch and we can see there has been a transformation.

This is to say nothing about the acting and the dialogue. Has a horror movie had more bland acting than what we see by Bruce Campbell and the rest of the cast? They witness horrific events and more often than not they stand there with blank expressions on their face, completely oblivious to what they have seen. Performances in Ed Wood movies are more animated. How can the audience be afraid when the characters just stand around like a bunch of dummies? And the dialogue! Sam Raimi couldn't be bothered writing it. Characters engage in actions and never explain to the others what they are doing. It's not only dialogue but characters don't even scream when they see danger at certain moments.

Then there is the usual criticism of horror films as being deeply misogynistic and having unnecessary sexual overtones. Lets take for example the bizarre tree rape scene (pictured above) where tree branches begin to not only tear off a woman's clothes, knock her down to the ground and tie her down, but a tree branch slides up her thighs and inserts itself in her, causing her to moan in what seems to be momentary delight (!). Go ahead defenders of  "The Evil Dead", explain the necessity of this sequence to your dumb Hungarian movie critic friend! 

And it's not just that one particular scene but the entire sweep of the movie. The function of the female characters seems to be to get the stuffing beat out of them by the male characters. It is the female characters that are the ones first possessed by the demonic spirits and it is the male characters that slap, punch, and ultimately chop up with an ax the female characters. Not to mention, when the female characters are killed a white liquid substance oozes out of their mouths, resembling semen. Something far more disturbing than demonic possession is going on here!

At this point I have to take a step back and get into social politics a bit to point out what a bunch of hypocrites the woke left crowd is. This crowd goes after the low hanging fruit of cinema from the 1930s and 40s, complaining about the representation (or lack thereof) of minorities. Classics from Hollywood's past now need "trigger warnings" while everyone turns a blind eye to movies like "The Evil Dead". Why? Because you grew up with it? This crowd wants to say movies from the 1930s don't reflect the values of today (duh!). Movies of today don't reflect the (pretend) values of today! Mind you, I'm not part of the cancel-culture left and I don't want to ban Sam Raimi or "The Evil Dead" but movies from the 1930s never showed a woman getting penetrated by a tree! Aim higher wokesters!

Yes, there is a small amount of craft to what Raimi is doing here. There are some nice framing shots with open doors that lead out to darkness, where we suspect danger will come running towards us, and some minimal attempts at creating atmosphere by way of thick fog. But I must point readers in the direction of classic "B" horror films from the 1940s by producer Val Lewton like "The Cat People" (1942), "The Leopard Man" (1943) and "I Walked with A Zombie". Those movies did a far better job creating atmosphere by playing around with lighting and shadows. Some even talk about "Evil Dead"'s make-up. It looked somewhat decent but resembles "The Exorcist" to me. What was that about "The Evil Dead" being original? I'm still waiting.

Early in this review I mentioned violence in horror movies isn't scary. It occurred to me there is probably an entire generation that knows nothing but excessive violence in horror movies. It has become synonymous with the genre. To them I say watch "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby" (1968), or "Psycho" (1960). For examples of craftsmanship in creating atmosphere watch the classic Universal Monster movies of the 1930s & 40s. For effective modern horror movies watch "Dark Waters" (2005) and "The Conjuring" (2013). I like psychological horror movies, movies that activate my imagination. I don't need to see blood and guts.

Others will say, I just don't get it, I don't understand what makes "The Evil Dead" so good. No. You don't understand. You don't understand the movie isn't original. It's not scary. The characters are boring. It isn't remotely funny. It's repetitive. I've seen it all before and I've seen it done better. If you wanna say you like it, that's your prerogative but don't feed me this garbage that "The Evil Dead" is original. It's a bloody freak show.

Film Review: The Slumber Party Massacre

"The Slumber Party Massacre"
*** (out of ****)

After the success of John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978) and "Friday the 13th" (1980) audiences saw a significant increase in low budget slasher movies and they may have reached their peak in the 1980s.

The horror movies of the 1970s and 80s would begin a new trend in the genre - violence against teenagers. Looking back at horror movies from the silent era through the 1960s we notice those movies dealt with adult characters, some with an emphasis on adult females. One of the guidelines of the Motion Picture Production Code prevented violence against children and animals. Once it ended in 1968, and was replaced by our current film rating system, we begin to notice horror movies centering on teenage characters. What was at one time considered unconscionable was now a reflection of society's systematic lowering of standards.

The slasher movie was not a new concept. Many film historians cite Mario Bava's Italian giallo film, "Blood and Black Lace" (1964) as an early example that helped established this sub-genre of horror movies. What was unique however was the contrast between titillation and violence presented in these movies. It has lead many to interpret these horror movies as cautionary tales warning against premarital sex. Look at "Blood and Lace" (1971) as an early American example.

This  would come to be a defining characteristic of 1980s horror movies making "The Slumber Party Massacre" (1982) typical for the time period. Revolving around a group of female high school seniors, it was one of many similarly themed movies such as "The House on Sorority Row" (1982) and "Sorority House Massacre" (1986). "The Slumber Party Massacre" however is be the best of these examples.

First take a moment and bring your attention to the movie's poster. Notice how before anyone has even seen the movie its makers immediately initiate the concept of sex and violence with imagery. A group of women (in lingerie) on the floor, looking up at a man standing above them. His legs are spread apart as a power drill dangles between them. It looks as if the man is exposing himself to the girls. That was no accident. It was a deliberate move meant to objectify the women and get the male audience thinking about sex. Isn't it a strange combination? Movie fans today may not think much of it as it is commonplace but take a moment to let it sink in. Ultimately what kind of commentary does it make regarding society's attitude towards sex and violence?

Upon its initial release "The Slumber Party Massacre" was a box-office hit, inspiring two sequels, though it opened to mixed reviews. Today it is considered a "cult classic". It has the distinction of being directed by a woman, Amy Holden Jones (who unfortunately didn't have much of a directing career) and written by one as well, Rita Mae Brown, a noted lesbian activist and feminist who reportedly did not approve of the final product. Brown intended the movie to be a parody of horror movies  with a dash of feminism thrown in. The end result was your standard female teenagers in jeopardy slasher movie.

Michele Michaels stars as Trish Devereaux, an 18 year old high school senior who will be left home alone while her parents are away on vacation. To celebrate the occasion Trish has invited some friends over for a slumber party; Kim (Debra DeLiso), Jackie (Andree Honore) and Diane (Gina Mari). Trish would like to invite a new girl, Valerie (Robin Stille), who isn't very popular but the objections are too strong. According to Diane, Valerie is a bit too perfect. This also happens to be the same day a mass murderer has escaped from prison, Russ Thorn (Michael Villella). Will these two events somehow become linked during the course of the movie?

The movie begins with Trish throwing away some of her childhood toys  (stuffed animals and a barbie doll) which is meant to signify she is no longer a child but an adult (which is good because this opening sequence also requires her to get naked). However there is one stuffed animal she cannot part with, suggesting she still has a bit of childhood innocence in her. This will become useful information as I have already indicated how these movies are usually interpreted.

The objectification of women continues in what has to be the most blatant gratuitous nude sequence in the entire movie as female students head to the showers after playing basketball. The sequence begins with one of the girls removing her towel exposing her rear end as the camera pans over to Trish (who has her back to the camera) and pans down on her rear end. What is actually interesting about this sequence is the contrast between the images and the dialogue. The girls are talking about how they enjoy watching sports so they can stare at the male athletes thus illustrating how women can objectify men however at the same time the camera is objectifying women.

This sequence also serves the purpose of showing the majority of the characters naked. Although gratuitous nudity was a staple of 80s horror I suspect it was done for more than the obvious reasons. Yes, it was meant to appeal to male teenagers but I think it was also done to mask poor character development. These aren't the most fascinating characters and the nudity will help endure the characters to male audiences while making them randy. You aren't going to want to see any of them die after you've seen them naked! You are going to cheer on their survival and hope for more nude scenes. That is the best shot at creating an emotional investment from the audience.

Gender objectification, in particular male objectification, is further presented by posters shown in Trish's bedroom of male athletes on the walls and in a scene where Valerie's younger sister Courtney (Jennifer Meyers) snoops around in Valerie's room to steal her copy of  Playgirl magazine. Valerie knows what Courtney is up to and only tells her not to tear out the centerfold again.

Sequences like this create a persistent feeling of sex and violence lurking everywhere. Two of the girls' male classmates, Jeff (David Millbern) and Neil (Joseph Alan Johnson), decide to spy on their slumber party. They happen to arrive at the exact moment the girls are undressing however we have already witnessed characters being killed which makes us wonder if these two boys are next. In another scene Diane and her boyfriend are making out in his car. Diane leaves to let Trish know she is going to her boyfriend's place but things don't go as expected. In any number of scenes we don't know if we are going to see nudity or violence.

It falls in line with interpreting these movies as cautionary tales. Whenever a character is presented as sexually activate they will end up being next on the killer's victim list.

Much like "Halloween", which clearly inspired this movie, the identity of the killer is not a mystery. The movie doesn't try to falsely make the audience suspicious of one character or another. There also isn't any motive explained for the killer's actions. Interestingly however we are told the killer has been in jail since 1969 which also happens to be the year the Mason family murders took place. Supposedly Michael Villella read about Helter Skelter prior to playing the role of the killer.

The killer isn't given too much screen time either. I like this approach more than having the killer be a dominant character. Unless you are trying to make a social commentary about the killer's motives it is better to keep the character off screen for the majority and instead make the killer represent the threat of evil forever present. It becomes much more suspenseful.

That's what makes "The Slumber Party Massacre" work. It is suspenseful. I can't say I found the movie to be scary but I was happily surprised it wasn't excessively gory, as slasher movies tend to be. A lot of the violence is off screen. It is formulaic in the way it kills the pretty young things one by one but the story is told with a lot of energy and is well paced. The movie doesn't over stay its welcome, running roughly 80 minutes. Credit must be given to director Amy Holden Jones.

If there is a downfall to the movie it is the effectiveness of the performances. The worst is Michael Villella. He isn't much of an actor and doesn't look very menacing - he sort of resembles comedian Fred Armisen. While the acting in "Portlandia" may have been scary at times, Armisen wasn't necessarily scary looking. The best performances would be the ones given by Michele Michaels and Robin Stille with Stille slightly ahead (sadly Stille died in 1996 as the result of suicide). However, none of the characters are very engaging or well written. We don't sense these are real people. They are only pawns to be added up for the killer's final body count.

"The Slumber Party Massacre" is no classic but within the 80s horror genre it stands out for its minor attempts at gender commentary. Pay attention to the casting of minor characters like a phone repair person or a home repairmen, they are played by women but some of these characters are also victims of the killer. One step forward, two steps back. Still, "The Slumber Party Massacre" is worth seeing.

The Big Picture: The Comic Review

The on-line film magazine, The Big Picture, recently published a review I wrote for the Carl Reiner movie, The Comic (1969). Click here to read the review. 

Nostalgia Digest - Olsen & Johnson Article

Comedy, in particular classic comedy, has always been a favorite subject of mine to discuss and write about. The first article I wrote for the magazine Nostalgia Digest was on the forgotten comedy team of Ole Olsen and Chic Johnson.

Unfortunately, the magazine doesn't have much of an on-line presence so I cannot provide readers with a link to the article. Here is scanned copy of the article as it appeared in the magazine.

Nostalgia Digest is the official magazine of the radio show Those Were The Days, a staple of Chicago radio. If you would like more information on how to subscribe to the magazine please click here.

Film Review: The Comic (Revisited)

 "The Comic"

*** (out of ****)

It was the end of June last year that comedy legend Carl Reiner died. Reiner was a comedy hero of mine and I still haven't gotten over his death. I continue to think about him and his movies. Rewatching and studying them. 

Reiner was never universally recognized as a brilliant filmmaker in the same manner some of his contemporaries were like Mel Brooks or Woody Allen. None of his movies were ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and Reiner himself was never nominated for his directing. None of his movies became embedded in pop culture. Reiner never directed his equivalent of "Blazing Saddles" (1974) or "Annie Hall" (1977). Because of this his movies didn't seem to warrant a critical analysis. You'll never hear a college film professor interpret deeper meaning into one of Reiner's comedies.

Were Carl Reiner's movies actually about something? Can we apply the "auteur theory" to his catalog of movies? I dare say we can. There was a constant theme ever present in Reiner's work. It wasn't deep or philosophical but it reflected Reiner's own passion and interests. He didn't make movies about the relationships between men and women. His movies weren't existential either, commenting on the meaning of life and the existence of God. Reiner made movies about show business. You may thumb your nose at that and deem it "unimportant" but the desire to become a performer was something that struck Reiner at an early age. He often credited his older brother as the reason he stopped working as a machinist and entered a drama workshop when he was a teenager. He even thanked President Franklin Roosevelt for the WPA (click here).

After his initial brushes with fame, thanks to working with another legendary comedian (Sid Caesar) on two of his television shows in the 1950s and his partnership with Mel Brooks (who wrote for Caesar) on the comedy album "The 2000 Year Old Man", one of the first things Reiner did was write a semi-autobiography called "Enter Laughing". It was the story of a young machinist who wants to break into acting (!). The novel was turned into a play and eventually a movie in 1967. Reiner would direct the movie adaptation, making his directorial debut. We would see this desire to become famous in subsequent movies like "The One and Only" (1978), "Bert Rigby, You're A Fool" (1989) and "The Comic" (1969).

"The Comic" was the second movie Reiner directed and starred Dick van Dyke, whom like Caesar and Brooks was a name closely associated with Reiner. The movie came three years after "The Dick van Dyke Show" ended its TV run (which was created by Reiner and based on his experiences writing for Sid Caesar and originally intended to star Reiner) and would be the only feature film Reiner and van Dyke would collaborate on.

Van Dyke played Billy Bright, a vaudeville comedian hoping to become a silent comedy movie star. Bright never reached the level of fame he believed he should have and as the years went by he became a forgotten name in the history of cinema. The tragedy of the situation is he lived long enough to see his star fade. Looking back on his life all he can do is blame others for his misfortune like his co-star and wife Mary Gibson (Michele Lee, practically a Mary Tyler Moore lookalike), best friend (?) and comic foil "Cockeye" (Mickey Rooney) or his agent Al (Reiner).

I have watched "The Comic" three times. The first two times I saw it, I didn't like it. I reviewed it previously back in 2018 and wrote I didn't like the musical score (especially the jarring theme played over the credits). I didn't find it to be a biting Hollywood satire or a loving tribute to the silent era. I still believe all of that to be true and yet I changed my mind on the movie. Whether you agree with my reviews or not let it never be said I don't try to understand a movie!

My problem the first two times I watched "The Comic" was I focused too much of my attention on the fact the character was a silent movie comedian. I expected it to be a Hollywood satire. I also kept thinking what real life figures could have inspired the Billy Bright character. I was disappointed the movie didn't get the feeling of the times correct. It seemed like they didn't even try. There was no emphasis on the hard work making movies is or the joy to be found in making them.

After watching "The Comic" a third time I now come away feeling none of those complaints matter and miss the larger point. "The Comic" is the story of a man that wanted to achieve greatness. He saw himself as destine for fame and fortune but became bitter when it wasn't achieved. Rather than face the grim reality he made bad choices and live with those consequences he chose to blame others. The fact Billy Bright was a silent screen comedian is relevant. The fact the story is supposed to take place in the 1920s is immaterial. It is meant to give the movie "color" but is not a defining aspect of the movie. 

"The Comic" was really a melodramatic movie and not a flat out comedy. Billy Bright was the dark side of fame and not a lovable comic. The movie's poster states "A Funny New Motion Picture That Tells Hollywood Like It Was!" That was either deliberately misleading or woefully ignorant of what "The Comic" really was. The darker aspects of the story are what leaped out at me the third time watching it. Reiner has twisted his innocent view of the desire for fame from "Enter Laughing" with its protagonist David Kolowitz. Both Billy and David are indeed variations of the same character and perhaps Reiner himself - young men eager to take the world by storm. One has an outward confidence and the other is a bit intimidated. They both have passion and similar motives. Billy may have started out like David - underconfident and uncomfortable on stage and David may grow into Billy - overconfident and egocentric. It would have been interesting to see a young Billy struggling on the vaudeville circuit honing his craft as his confidence (and ego) grows and grows.

As a character study "The Comic" is not dissimilar to Billy Crystal's "Mr. Saturday Night" (1992) focusing on two men that believed they were the funniest one in the room and never got the breaks they deserved. They each had foils to blame their misfortune on and became bitter. Both were a collection of real-life figures.

For their own sources of inspiration, Reiner and van Dyke had said they turned to silent era comedians like Buster Keaton and Stan Laurel (both of whom van Dyke met) and throw in references to other comedians like Harry Langdon (Billy's wardrobe) and Ben Turpin (the character "cockeyed"). They even "borrow" gags like when Billy tries to pick up a grape with a spoon. It is awfully similar to a gag Stan Laurel did in "The Second 100 Years" (1927). Or a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" spoof that recalls a Stan Laurel solo comedy, "Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde" (1925). They even have fun with Hollywood lore like when Billy, in a drunken rage, breaks into his ex-wife's home causing damage only to be told he is in the wrong house. This is a reference to a story producer Hal Roach told regarding production on a Laurel & Hardy comedy, "Big Business" (1929). Allegedly owners of a home were paid for the use of their house but the crew accidentally shot in the wrong house destroying it! The way Billy causally selects his character's wardrobe while on a movie set is a reference to the way Chaplin described his selection of the Tramp's costume in his autobiography.

Reiner and van Dyke also seem to have a lot of fun creating their own silent comedies showing Billy's output. These sequences are shot in black & white and provide van Dyke the opportunity to show off his physical comedy skills. Some of the sequences are funny and could have been in actual silent comedies. Mickey Rooney shines in these silent comedy reenactments too. 

By and large acting wise "The Comic" was Dick van Dyke's movie. His performance is the most effective and the character Billy the most developed. Unfortunately, I never felt there was much chemistry between van Dyke and Michele Lee. Much of that is due to the movie having little to nothing for the Mary character to do. It would have been nice if Mary was incorporated in the silent comedy skits creating a Mabel Normand-ish character. It was probably what Carl Reiner had intended as the first time we see Mary she is a kind of "bathing beauty" character seen in Mack Sennett comedies. The Mary character starts off promising and then peters off. 

Presenting Billy Bright as a bad guy - he cheats on his wife, is an alcoholic...etc, Reiner and "The Comic" could have asked, can a flawed man create great art? Reiner never directly asks the audience to consider that question and "The Comic" didn't create a world where the audience understands just how talented and successful Billy Bright was. Look at what Woody Allen did with similar material in movies like "Deconstructing Harry" (1997) and "Sweet and Lowdown" (1999). Watch "The Comic" and then watch "Sweet and Lowdown". You tell me which better presents the artist as a flawed man and shows how his art can serve as his redemption. When I say "The Comic" doesn't fully succeed I am judging it against something like Allen's movie.

"The Comic" suffers from made-for-TV or "B" movie production values. The costume and production designs didn't help create the 1920s time period. The make-up showing Billy and "Cockeyed" as elder men is cheap looking at best. Jack Elliott's musical score doesn't compliment the dramatic scenes as it could have or the comedic ones. Reiner would however continue to use him on nearly every following feature film he directed up until "Sibling Rivalry" (1990). Perhaps because Reiner was still a beginning filmmaker the studio wouldn't give him a big budget and A-list Hollywood production. Most of the crew had in fact mostly worked on TV shows while others had little experience. The costumer designer for example had only worked on one prior movie. What could Reiner have done with this material had he made it a few years later with a bigger budget and more directing experience? 

Some of the veterans on the crew; editor Adrienne Fazan and cinematographer W. Wallace Kelley don't impress either. Fazan had edited movies like "Singin' in the Rain" (1952), "Gigi" (1958) and "An American in Paris" (1951). Sometimes "The Comic" feels chopped up. You get the feeling a lot of good material ended up on the cutting room floor. This was the second to last movie Fazan worked on. Kelley worked on a lot of comedies, almost exclusively with Jerry Lewis - "The Ladies Man" (1961), "The Nutty Professor" (1963), "The Patsy" (1964) and "Which  Way to the Front?" (1970). Astonishingly he displays no visual flair. Nothing here helps visually add to a joke. It was also Kelley's second to last movie.  

But the movie's real problem was the script by writers Reiner and Aaron Ruben (who also wrote for Sid Caesar). The movie's screenplay felt inconsistent. Part melo-drama, part comedy, the melo-drama is the stronger aspect of the movie and should have been the dominant tone of the movie. This would have better exemplified what Reiner and van Dyke wanted to achieve - a sort of tribute to men like Keaton and Stan Laurel, showing their struggles working in the Hollywood system, how badly they were treated afterwards, and their personal failings.

There are a lot of ingredients to make a great movie in "The Comic" but the final product doesn't fully utilized all of them. Pull back on the modern-day comedy (as oppose to the silent comedy sequences), heightening the dramatic elements, look more deeply into the bitterness of the Billy character, and create more of a feeling for the times through a better musical score, costume and production designs and make-up. 

Throughout his career Carl Reiner's movies fell into two categories - lighter comedic fare - "Enter Laughing", "Summer Rental" (1985) and "Summer School" (1987) - or dark comedies - "Where's Poppa?" (1970), "Sibling Rivalry" and "The Comic". It is with "The Comic" Reiner shows the audience there is sadness just beneath the laughter. Sadly Reiner and Ruben don't fully explore this concept but "The Comic" doesn't end happily. There is no great comeback in Billy Bright's old age. No honorary Oscar to be presented to him. Just bitterness and the constant disappointment he should have been a bigger star.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter van Dyke and Reiner say they were going for authenticity in "The Comic". It would have help make "The Comic" a great movie. Too bad they didn't follow through on that promise. "The Comic" is about as realistic a portrait of making movies as "Hollywood Cavalcade" (1939) starring Alice Faye and Don Ameche was. It actually covers roughly the same time period and was supposedly inspired by the life of Mabel Normand. Because it was made in the 1930s some of the great comedians of the era were involved with it - Buster Keaton, James Finlayson, Chester Conklin, and Ben Turpin.

"The Comic" is not a great movie but I now see there is something of substance lurking around the background. Dick van Dyke gives an energetic performance that spotlights his physical comedy abilities. Too bad "The Comic" didn't dig a little deeper. Like Billy Bright it coulda been a contender and that's no laughing matter. 

Nostalgia Digest - Clark & McCullough Article

 As evident by this blog, one of my favorite things to write about is classic Hollywood movies, especially classic comedies. That's why I take great pleasure submitting articles to the magazine Nostalgia Digest, the official magazine of the radio show Those Were The Days, a staple of Chicago radio.

Unfortunately, the magazine doesn't have much of an on-line presence, so I can't provide readers with a link. Instead I have scanned the article. This was the last thing I have written for the magazine, a bio piece on the forgotten comedy team Clark & McCullough. 

          

 If you would like to subscribe to Nostalgia Digest magazine, please visit their website by clicking here.

#Oscarstoopolitical

Did you watch the 93rd annual Academy Awards? Preliminary numbers would suggest you didn't as ratings for the award ceremony dropped 58% compared to last year, resulting in 9.9 million viewers, a new all-time low!

What could explain this decline? Covid-19 some will yell. And why not? It has been blamed for everything else from slow mail delivery to being responsible for our rigged presidential election (I don't believe the election was rigged). Why shouldn't the Academy use it as a crutch for their failure just like everyone else! But how does that explain last year's (then) record low ratings?  In fact, what did Covid -19 have to do with the yearly Oscars ratings decline between 2014 - 2018? Others will try to justify it by reasoning it is because no one saw or heard of the nominated movies. Could be. The audience didn't have an emotional interest and therefore had nothing to root for. But, are we all ignoring the elephant in the room? Could the ratings decline and by extension society's lack of interest have something to do with the perception that the Oscars have become too political? A couple years ago (2018) many articles were being written about this very subject - (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/movies/oscars-more-political.html)

Since I have begun writing this blog, back in 2008, I have written about the politicization of cinema. It slowly began in 2004 with Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and really kicked into high gear during the last two years of George W. Bush's administration. I have also written about my disappointment with the Academy, as I did in this piece from 2011! Unfortunately, nothing has changed.

The problem with the Academy is it has become too image conscious. It has bent at the knee to political and social demands forsaking any grandiose notion that the purpose of the award ceremony is to recognize "artistic merit" and to celebrate and honor those that are the best of their craft. I started this article pointing to the show's rating. It doesn't matter much to me but it is very important to the Academy. Seeking to capture the largest audience possible, there has always been a pressure to nominate more mainstream titles but many of those movies never had the cachet associated with them to be deemed "Oscar caliber". How many of you remember why the Academy expanded the number of nominees in the best picture category? It was because fan-boys were greatly upset the Christopher Nolan comic book movie, The Dark Knight (2008) wasn't nominated for best picture. Eventually their wet-dream came true when Black Panther (2018) became the first comic book movie to receive a best picture nomination. Succumbing to this pressure was evidence the Academy was not interested in maintaining its illusion that the awards represented artistic merit.

Next there were political and social demands by liberal activists. They believed the Academy was racist because not enough minorities had been nominated or won awards, hence various boycott movements like #Oscarssowhite. The liberal activists seemed to have had their demands met during the 74th annual ceremony when Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won the top acting prizes. Of course things reverted back to their old ways the next year when the Academy had the temerity to nominate male actors like Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Paul Newman, Christopher Walken, Ed Harris, John C. Reiley, and Daniel Day-Lewis at the expense of black actors. And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole, you don't understand how liberals react to these things. Pay attention to the reaction on social media to Anthony Hopkins winning the best actor award this year. Pay attention to the clickbait headlines written and the angles writers took covering the event. Articles like this one imply Chad Boseman, for his performance in Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020), was entitled to the award. Even the Chicago Sun-Times (my hometown paper) movie critic, Richard Roeper, a man I thought would know better, took the same approach in his article. It would seem to imply, at least from Roeper's article, if all the acting awards aren't given to black actors, the perception is the Academy is racist.

Liberal activists will jump to conclusions (they always do) and retort that I have a problem with minorities winning awards because I am a racist. They will also point to my comment "jump to conclusions" as evidence that I am a radical, right-wing, conservative culture warrior. Trust me, if you knew me, you would know how ridiculous that statement is. I will clarify though to provide comfort and solace to political activists reading this (whom I am sure aren't!) Activists, right or left, jump to conclusions because they feel they are in a constant position having to defend their political agenda. They have a heightened defense mechanism which causes them to jump to conclusions. It also helps them to immediately define a conversation and their perceived "opponent's" position. But my position does not stem from racism, a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Had I said that I believe black, Hispanic, or Asian actors are incapable of acting because their skin color or ethnic background makes it difficult for them to express the emotional range needed for an actor, that would be racism! 

My disillusionment with the Academy stems from my own naive belief that the Academy actually cared about artistic merit. While I have been writing about my problems with the Academy for years, it is difficult for me to ultimately concede that I was manipulated, even brainwashed, into buying their line. I even stopped watching the show twenty years ago but it remains hard for me to fully accept that the award ceremony is nothing more than a pop culture event, that bedazzled us with glitz and glamour, but was never able to live up to artistic standards. When the most popular question at the Oscars became "who are you wearing"?, it should have immediately opened my eyes.

My problem is I love movies as an art form. My earliest childhood memories involved watching movies with my grandparents but my grandmother in particular. The arts were important in my family. My father is a musician. Culture was all around me growing up. While the idea of going into the arts is a sign of mental derangement in most families, my family viewed it as honorable. As a teenager I made up my mind that I wanted to make movies and restore the sophistication Hollywood was once known for. Can you now understand why I bought into artistic merit and why it bothers me that the Academy Awards and the movie industry, in general, has become so political?

The liberal activists, it would seem, never bought into (or cared about) the concept of artistic merit. Their first priority was the advancement of their political agenda. With that mentality, the Academy Awards were viewed as a cultural event, a symbol of social importance. A symbol recognized worldwide. At one time an Academy Award ceremony could garner somewhere between 30 - 40 million viewers in the U.S. alone! If the liberal activists could infiltrate the Academy and put social pressure on them it would be a major advancement for their causes. That, I believe, is all they saw when they looked at the Academy Awards -  the potential to have their message exposed to millions of people. How many political activists do you think spend their time watching movies? How can you be an activist, sitting at home, in front of a screen?

Because of our fundamentally different viewpoints on what the Academy Awards represents, it creates a contrast and an inability for myself and the activists to understand the other's point of view. Remember, we don't really have conversations with one another in this country. We "hear" one another but we don't "listen". Have you ever spoken to a political activist or someone with a different opinion than yours? You aren't having a conversation, an honest exchange of ideas between people. What you have are two people repeating talking points to one another that they heard or read in mainstream media, social media, or their political organization. The activist will have the aim of trying to persuade you to their side, having no intention of ever conceding a point to you. The objective is, you come to my side. The non-activist wants to make sure their talking points are heard loud and clear. Depending upon the individual's personality, it could also be a matter of "putting you in your place".

The cultural war within the Academy, I concede, have resulted in the liberal activists winning, but it has had an unintended negative effect. Politics has tarnished the reputation of the Academy Awards, as evident by the decline in ratings over the years. The Academy, and Hollywood as a whole, have become too polarized. The outside pressure from the liberal activists hasn't just affected ratings but box-office attendance, perhaps a better indicator of the public's indifference to movies. We can't gather information from 2020 attendance because of Covid, so lets look at 2019 numbers. There was a 4.6% decline compared to 2018. While 2018 saw an increase in attendance, that was only because 2017's numbers were the lowest in 23 years, domestically. We can again come up with a multitude of reasons to explain this: bad movies were made, ticket prices were too high, it rained...etc. We can come up with rationale after rationale but at one point we must admit, politics and movies are too intertwined. If I admit to you that I like the movie Gone with the Wind (1939), I've just made a statement that can be interpreted as political and not just an expression of a movie preference. At least to the liberal activist's mentality.

Although it has been an on-going trend, 2020 was a noteworthy highlight in the ways liberal activists have used political and social issues to further attack art. One of the year's major social and political movements began after the death of George Floyd. This was after previous movements like #MeToo and Black Lives Matter. Note how #MeToo only seemed to attack the entertainment industry and not corporate America. Taking their cue from former Chicago mayor (sadly) Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, "never let a crisis go to waste", it created a perfect storm for liberals to begin their crusade that the films of yesterday do not match the values of today. Now classic movies needed "trigger warnings", a new term I learned last year that I wish I hadn't. Warnings meant to provide a film within its historical context. It created a snowball effect with liberals seemingly attacking all movies and art made before the invention of the smart phone. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) even had to make an attempt to appease the liberal mob and bite the hand that feeds them by creating a show in which they discuss how "problematic" the films of yesterday are for today's viewers.

Within this environment what could the Academy do? How could it not grovel at the behest of the liberal activists? It wasn't just an issue of nominating a more diverse field of actors, the academy also needed to legitimize the liberal's message regarding older films. How could they do this? Look at the movies that were nominated. Many of the nominees were set in the past - Mank, Judas and the Black Messiah, The Trial of the Chicago 7. The messaging being, we must question and correct the past in order to move forward. David Fincher's Mank is an ideal representation of this. Nominated for 10 awards, it is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, the co-writer of Citizen Kane (1941). The movie suggested Mankiewicz was really the writer of the movie, not Orson Welles. It becomes a story of authorship. This can be expanded to suggest, who is the author of our past? This also legitimizes liberal's use of the expression "my truth". There's Orson Welles' "truth" of what happened regarding Citizen Kane and Herman Mankiewicz's "truth". By purposely redefining our definition of words, liberals are also able to redefine the conversation. There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth". What you mean to say is "experience". Our experiences in the world affect our viewpoint and thus our understanding. But we only live in a world of truth and lies, not multiple truths. We are seeing liberal activists use this tactic again in relation to the word "infrastructure". It is no different than when conservative communication consultant Frank Luntz came up with the term "job creator" to replace usage of the word rich. Who do you want to raise taxes on, the job creators or the rich? We are talking about the same group of people but the word changes our perception. The Academy countered these nominations with movies like Promising Young Woman, a modern day story set in our #MeToo world. Where one set of movies question our past, the other "corrects" our present and provides the new path forward.  

And so we clearly see the Academy making the nominations within themselves political and thus we can't expect anything honorable from the Academy. Do you know why the Academy Awards were created in the first place? Louis B. Mayer (one of the M's in MGM) created the "Academy" as a way to prevent actors and filmmakers from creating a union. That's right. The invention of the Academy Awards was a union busting effort. With a beginning like this, how could something honorable come from it? It takes no time at all for scandal to hit. By the Academy's second year, actress Mary Pickford had starred in her first "talkie", Coquette (1929). Pickford had high expectations for the movie. For younger readers, Pickford was a major star in the silent era. Having begun acting as a teenager, she achieved stardom after appearing in movies like Pollyanna (1920). She would go on to be one of the four founders of United Artist studios (along with D.W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin and Pickford's husband, Douglas Fairbanks). Fairbanks was the Academy's first president and Pickford wanted a best actress award. Even though Pickford received mixed reviews, some said she was too old for the part (a coquette is generally identified as being a young, flirtatious woman). Pickford ended up winning her Oscar but allegations of bribery and pressure on the Academy's Board of Judges tainted her win. For the record, I am both a fan of Pickford's performance and Coquette. 

This also helps illustrate that when I say the Academy is "political", it doesn't mean I am always talking about race. I think society has been conditioned to associate words like "political" and "social" as synonyms with race (again, control the language, control the debate). By political, I mean behind the scenes campaigning that goes on, which is not unlike the ugliness of a political campaign, as  Academy members are pressured to vote for one film or another or one actor over another. Artistic merit often isn't a deciding factor in their decision. Many times decisions are made based on a movie's popularity, the social relevance of a film, the life story of an actor...etc. Even great white artists have never won a competitive award (not counting honorary awards) - Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant, Buster Keaton, Fritz Lang, Luchino Visconti, Charlie Chaplin, Carole Lombard, Gene Wilder, Robert Redford, Kirk Douglas, Greta Garbo, Steve McQueen, Harvey Keitel, Richard Harris, Max von Sydow, Veronica Lake, Peter Sellers, Richard Burton, Robert Mitchum, Gene Kelly, Irene Dunne, Fred Astaire, Tony Curtis, Mikey Rooney, Judy Garland, Bob Hope, Ingmar Bergman and Jack Benny! So much for artistic merit!

Being as image conscious as the Academy is,  they do realize this problem and have tried to "correct" it in one of two ways - either presenting an individual with a lifetime achievement award or with what is known as a "pity Oscar" - an Oscar win for a lesser work meant to be symbolic of the artist's body of work. For years a reason  people would give as a shining example of the Academy not always celebrating its finest talent was the fact that Martin Scorsese never won a best director Oscar and none of his movies were ever named best picture. Some called Scorsese's Oscar win for The Departed (2006) a pity Oscar. Another example was Al Pacino. Pacino never won an Oscar until his performance for Scent of a Woman (1992). Many people thought that year the real winner should have been Denzel Washington for Spike Lee's Malcolm X (1992) but the Academy needing to rectify their misjudgment presented the award to Pacino. Fittingly when Denzel Washington did win the Oscar for Training Day (2002) it was thanks to a similar campaign by Hollywood insiders feeling Washington should have received an Oscar by now. It also helped with the Academy's perceived race issue. A final example I'll give you was Peter O' Toole. Widely regarded as one of his generation's finest actors, whether on stage or film, O'Toole never won an Oscar, despite multiple nominations. In 2006 the Academy wanted to present O'Toole with the lifetime achievement award. Initially O'Toole wanted to decline. He had given a performance in the film Venus (2006) and was nominated for another Oscar. He understood what the lifetime achievement award meant and publicly said he still believed he could win a competitive Oscar. He didn't win that year, losing to Forest Whitaker for his performance in The Last King of Scotland (2006) and he eventually agreed to accept the lifetime achievement award.

Desperation for TV ratings, kowtowing to political and social pressure, lack of artistic merit judgement - it is a shame what the Academy has done to itself. There is no sign of a correction course and quite frankly after 93 years, it's too late. Liberal activists now have too strong of a grip on the ceremony and the demands won't cease, they will only push the Academy further, like this writer does in her article. Notice, no mention of artistic merit. In the writer's judgement wins and loses should be based upon race and the symbolic effect these Oscar wins will have on society. It was the same logic liberals came up with back in 2008 for voting for Barack Obama. A vote for the first black man for president would be good for the country because of what it represents, it would "heal" the country. Note it had nothing to do with policy. 

I question exactly how large of an audience these writers speak for. I would venture to say it is not a majority of the country but they definitely represent the echo chamber of social liberalism. I see I have been defending an out dated position regarding the Academy Awards. I also see how effective these liberal activists are at instituting change. Not change at the governmental level, where it is sorely needed but low hanging fruit change - changing the names of statues, trigger warnings for classic films, turning the Oscars into a political social event, getting businesses to display Black Lives Matter signs, promoting gender ambiguity...etc. It really does impact society and adds up to the illusion of change. It's almost better than the real thing. Great taste, less filling. It really makes me look forward to next year's Participation Awards...er I mean Academy Awards. 

Top Ten Films Of 2020!

The arts. Art can have a high falutin connotation associated with it. What is great art? Who is it for? What is so special about it? What value, if any, should a society place on its artists?

Art is important. It is important if for no other reason it introduces us to other cultures and helps us put in perspective the vastness of the world we live in. My father is a musician. He primarily plays Hungarian folk music and the folk music of neighboring Eastern European countries. It was initially through music I was introduced to different cultures. The arts made me realize there was more to life than listening to my family argue. There was a great big world out there and I wanted to see it.

What about film history? Is it important? Should it be preserved? I ask these questions about film and the arts in general because art was under attack. It saddens me that it was under attack by the political left but I cannot deny or ignore it because of that. I must live in the world with both eyes open and both ears listening.

Movies are a reflection of our society. The arts but especially movies are society's eyes and ears. Great movies do many things and one of those things is hold a mirror up to society and show us our faults and accomplishments. If we can celebrate anything from 2020 lets celebrate cinema and its history. Lets celebrate the power of movies. 

As our world becomes increasingly politically polarizing, political opportunists and bandwagon propagandists set their sights to the arts. The movies of yesterday, they complained, don't reflect today's values. Imagine that! And so Gone with the Wind (1939), Birth of a Nation (1915), Blazing Saddles (1974), Peter Pan (1953), The Muppet Show (1976 - 1981), books by Dr. Seuss, and Woody Allen among many, many other things came under attack. If the political left had their way all of these things would completely disappear. Just ask Queen Latifah or the self-righteous filmmakers of Antebellum (2020). Or those that wanted to make sure Woody Allen's autobiography wasn't published.

Film history, like any history, should not be forgotten. It shows us who we were as a society. It is a marvel that we can see how people lived, dressed, spoke, their fears...etc. Movies are time capsules to be cherished. I also don't like political activists having a say about film history. They don't look at the history of cinema with artistic eyes but rather through a political agenda. What do they care if people aren't allowed to see certain movies anymore? They are helping to contribute to the politicization of movies and weaponizing it. That's what happens when you choose to see everything through a political lens. And 2020 provided the political activists the perfect opportunity to latch on to the arts.

Politics and the movies have shared a long history. Unfortunately, movies have long been politicized. Some may believe it all started with D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation because that's what they have been told. But, political commentary in movies dates back even further than that. Take Wallace McCutcheon and Edwin S. Porter's The 'Teddy' Bears (1907), a political satire on President Theodore Roosevelt, as an example. World governments immediately became aware of the potential power movies could have to push propaganda. The political left and right have always viewed the arts as dangerous. Each side has tried to ban one thing or another over the years. For example, the political left and Feminists in the U.S. tried to have various songs banned in the 1960s which they viewed as sexist. On the right, the most famous example would be book burning in Nazi Germany.

As we look back on the best films of 2020 it is a perfect time to embrace the history of cinema and to fight back against those that want to censor it. My film choices express the frustrations and joys individuals experienced throughout the year - the economy, social media, losing yourself in the movies, human interaction, the importance of family, and dolls coming to life trying to kill us.

Before revealing my list, let us also remember the great artists we lost in 2020, those that have contributed to the richness of cinema. One of the biggest loses for me was legendary comedian and filmmaker, Carl Reiner, a comedy hero of mine. We also lost Kirk Douglas, Olivia de Havilland, Rhonda Fleming, Max von Sydow, the brilliant Czech filmmaker Jiri Menzel, composer Ennio Morricone, Ian Holm, Sean Connery, Diana Rigg, comedian Jerry Stiller, Michel Piccoli, Terry Jones, cinematographer Michael Chapman, director Joel Schumacher, Reni Santoni, actress Daria Nicolodi, Wilford Brimley, Buck Henry, Fred  Willard, and Brian Dennehy.

Here are the best films of 2020!

1. SORRY WE MISSED YOU (Dir. Ken Loach; U.K.) - Ken Loach, the British maverick filmmaker, whose work dates back to the 1960s, has been going through a resurgence. Goody! His one-two punch of social-dramas I, Daniel Blake (2017) and Sorry We Missed You (2020), were two of the most powerful and realistic statements released within the last five years on class conflict. What does it say (if anything) that no American filmmaker could have provided us with two more honest depictions of the class divide in the richest country on Earth? I guess we were too busy trying to erase film history and salivating over the Snyder cut of Justice League on HBO Max.

Loach's I, Daniel Blake, the filmmaker's most successful film at the U.K. box-office, was responsible for a political movement! It even won the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival (Loach's second film to win the top prize). I declared it as the best film of 2017 and the best movie of the last decade. 

Throwing such lavish praise at Daniel Blake I was doubtful Loach would be able to surpass it and deliver another devastatingly truthful film. While I don't believe Sorry We Missed You is better than Daniel Blake it is a worthy companion piece. With Loach focusing his attention on the fraud known as the "gig economy" and the ways the system exploits the worker, it was the most relevant film released in 2020. 

2. CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY (Dir. Justin Pemberton; France) - Based on a book of the same name, written by French economist Thomas Piketty, this documentary explores how capital has caused wealth inequality throughout time, leading to our current system. It is a system that has let down people like the characters in Sorry We Missed You.

3. THE SOCIAL DILEMMA (Dir. Jeff Orlowski; U.S.) - This Netflix documentary explores the ways in which social media manipulates our behavior, creating a dependency upon it, and shines a light on the corporate control behind it, as all of your activities are being tracked for the sake of advertisers.

Corporate and government surveillance has long been an important issue for me. An issue I believe hasn't grabbed the public's attention as it should. Social media is the downfall of our society. That's not open for a debate. There aren't two sides. Tech companies have turned social media into nothing more than an advertising tool and a meeting place for bots to engage in political discourse. 

I get a good laugh from people who have been bitching and complaining about their rights being taken away because they have to wear a mask. For one thing, these were the same "people" (Republicans) that supported George W. Bush and the passage of the Patriot Act, which allowed government surveillance. Our lives are being tracked! You think wearing a mask was the beginning of our government taking away your rights! Fucking morons! Millennials can't understand how elderly people don't know more about social media meanwhile I can't understand how millennials could be such sheep and not question the need for these products. Too bad it wasn't made in the 1930s, then we could condemn social media for not reflecting the values of today and try to have it erased.

4. RIFKIN'S FESTIVAL (Dir.  Woody Allen; Spain / U.S.) - Master comedy filmmaker, Woody Allen, has given us a comedic delight that not only is a glowing love letter to the history of cinema but is Allen's interpretation of the famous Socrates quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living". Allen's surreal invention this time around has his lead character transported to famous scenes from his favorite movies, which end up teaching him about himself and life. Is it a comment on our relationship with movies and how through movies we interpret our own lives? 

If any other filmmaker had brought us this movie, it would be celebrated as a charming surreal fantasy. But the political left is taking their cues from the Fascist right and want to ban art. It is shameful U.S. audiences aren't allowed to see this movie! This was the most fun I had watching a Woody Allen movie since Magic in the Moonlight (2014).

5. THE VAST OF NIGHT (Dir. Andrew Patterson; U.S.) - Marking the feature-length directorial debut of Andrew Patterson, The Vast of Night is an affectionate homage to the 1960s TV show The Twilight Zone. Taking place in 1950s New Mexico, where a possible alien landing may occur, this sci-fi movie starring Jake Horowitz and Sierra McCormick, is effectively eerie. The highlight may be an opening sequence film buffs will want to compare to Orson Welles' Touch of Evil (1958). The rest of the cinematography is equally impressive creating a claustrophobic feel. Director Patterson displays a real talent with two strong performances from Horowitz and McCormick.

6. DRIVEWAYS (Dir. Andrew Ahn; U.S.) - One of the last movies to feature Brian Dennehy before his death. This is a small, personal movie about human interaction and friendship. Dennehy stars as a Korean War vet who befriends a young Asian boy and his mom. Initially you might suspect this will turn into an  All in the Family type story of bigotry. It isn't. In only his second feature-length film, director Andrew Ahn, proves to be another young talent movie audiences should keep an eye out for. 

7. CORPUS CHRISTI (Dir. Jan Komasa; Poland) - Nominated for an Oscar at last year's show in the Best International Feature Film category, filmmaker Komasa gives us a story about spiritual awakening. What makes someone a "man of God"? Can God speak through all of us?

8. THE FATHER (Dir. Florian Zeller; U.K.) - Nominated for six Academy Awards The Father may be the most realistic portrait of dementia ever put on film. Directed by Florian Zeller and based on his own play, the movie stars Anthony Hopkins, in a justified Oscar nominated performance. He is a man who is unaware of what is real and what isn't. It culminates to an absolutely heartbreaking ending.

The movie is told from the point of view of the Hopkins character, creating a confusion in our own experience as well. It almost functions as a thriller (think Memento). Olivia Colman co-stars as the understanding daughter, delivering a very effective performance as well.

9. ONWARD (Dir. Dan Scanlon; U.S.) - I know what you're saying, Alex, you picked the wrong Pixar movie to champion. Society has indicated Soul (2020) was the better animated movie. Granted, Onward may not be viewed as emotionally complex as Soul but I simply had a better time watching this heartwarming adventure of an elf that comes to learn the importance of family. 

10. BRAHMS: THE BOY II (Dir. William Brent Bell; U.S.) - Now you're thinking, what is wrong with this guy? How could I defend the universally panned, Brahms: The Boy II!

This sequel to the simply titled The Boy (2016) worked for me as an eerie horror story. Telling the story of a family terrorized by a blood thirsty doll, that has befriended the family's son, director Bell creates a lot of atmosphere. I liked this movie more than the original movie. I guess we can file this one under a guilty pleasure of mine.