Film Review: The Out-of-Towners

"The Out-of-Towners"

*** 1\2 (out of ****) 

Neil Simon meets Franz Kafka in this epic battle between man versus the system in the classic comedy "The Out-of-Towners" (1970).

Neil Simon has long been a comedy hero of mine and yet this is the first time I have reviewed one of his comedies. It took the "year of me" - my year long celebration of artists I admire - for it to happen. I first became aware of Simon through my admiration of Mel Brooks. Both Brooks and Simon wrote for comedian Sid Caesar on the hugely popular and influential television sketch comedy show "Your Show of Shows" in the 1950s. When learning someone was a colleague of Brooks, my thinking back than was, if they know Mel Brooks they must be good. And so with that philosophy in mind I began to watch comedies written by Simon - America's most successful playwright. It turns out he was good! 

I haven't watched "The Out-of-Towners" in years and had forgotten the social commentary it makes and how funny and fluid the story is. Simon's script moves briskly. It is unrelenting in its comedy pacing with seemingly every moment bringing a new catastrophe to our lovely married Ohioan couple, George (Jack Lemmon) and Gwen (Sandy Dennis) Kellerman. 

George Kellerman has been offered a promotion which will make him the head of the New York sales division (what he sells isn't made clear). He and Gwen will fly out for the business trip to the Big Apple, where George expects to have a night of fine dining and dancing before his big interview the next day. George has their schedule planned down to the minute. Their flight will take off at such-and-such time, the plane will land at this time, they will make it to their hotel room and arrive at the four star restaurant at 8:30pm and back to the hotel. That's how it's supposed to go. Instead the plane can't land due to fog and reroutes them to Boston. Their luggage is lost but they haven't got time to think about that because they have to rush to catch an overly crowded train to New York. In New York they are greeted with a garbage and transit strike. The transit strike forces them to walk to their hotel in the rain, where their room has been given away since their reservation didn't include holding it until their arrival. While it sounds like I've given away the entire plot of the movie, I've only described the first 30 minutes. And I even left out one or two things!

There are many that have observed over the decades that comedy has a violent aggression underneath it. "The Out-of-Towners" plays into that. This is a comedy about how helpless we are in an endless bureaucracy. In that sense it is like Kafka. The most obvious Kafka comparison would be to his novel "The Castle". The faster the Kellerman's misery escalates the more outraged we become as viewers. Yes, we laugh, because it is happening to someone else but deep down we can relate to the situation. How often have we felt we have been wronged but have no one to complain to? It is an unsympathetic system readily and eagerly waiting to lay all the blame at our feet as it excuses itself and informs us of our inaction that caused the problem. To have "The Out-of-Towners" take place in Washington, D.C. would have been too on the nose in its indictment but its no accident the story takes place in New York - a place once considered by some as the unofficial U.S. capital.

The Ohio / New York divide is also a commentary on the difference between suburban and city life. The only reason George has their day planned down the wire is because he is a creature of habit. You can set your watch to his actions. We can assume he wakes up at the same time every day. Takes a shower and has a cup of coffee at the same time. And heads out the door precisely at the same time. Some would call it a predictable, mundane life but there is comfort in a routine. Everything runs smooth and there are no obstacles. City life is a different beast altogether! That's the point I believe Simon is making with the garbage and transit strike. People's lives are upended through no fault of their own and must accept it as part of the unpredictability of city life. By presenting this to the viewer, "The Out-of-Towners" becomes an indictment against New York, which at the time was considered an extremely dangerous place to live. 

The glue meant to hold this all together are the performances by Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis. In particular, Lemmon who must serve as the "every man". Lemmon must create George to be sympathetic and relatable. Slowly the frustration and animosity must build. It should be presented as a descent into a labyrinth of madness. Lemmon gets much of this right. When on the plane Gwen would like a cup of coffee. George walks up to the stewardess to ask for a cup. His request is denied. Beverages cannot be served prior to landing. But the plane has been "circling" the New York airport for more than 30 minutes with no end immediately in sight. As George points out, isn't "circling" really flying? And if we are flying, can't beverages be served? And so it begins. Trying to make sense of the illogical system. Each incident pushes George further and further along. 

Unfortunately, this presents one of the flaws of the movie. It provides little for Sandy Dennis to do. If Lemmon's George is the one that is going to go berserk, Dennis' Gwen has to be the steady rock to create a contrast. By doing this though, Dennis' performance can be overshadowed by Lemmon's which is far more attention grabbing. Dennis / Gwen is regulated to the role of being George's only outlet to air his anger. But sometimes even she takes the side of the system. It's part of that cliché Midwestern politeness.

To my dismay I discovered "movie critics" (AKA sheep) hold an unfavorable view of this comedy. Former Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel for example went as far as to declare it one of the worse movies of 1970! Andrew Sarris wrote in his Village Voice review that Neil Simon makes "textbook errors" and claimed the result of the movie is exhausting rather than exhilarating. Sarris' wife, Molly Haskell, in her review in the same paper stated "We feel the boredom of anticipation rather than the shock of recognition, and sometimes the jokes themselves ring false." Taking a retrospective look at the movie, one "critic" (his name isn't worth mentioning) dared to suggest the movie "never finds its rhythm". The entire movie is an exercise in rhythm and comedic pacing! Even though I write about movies, I often wonder do other critics actually watch movies they review? You can say the movie and the jokes are predictable. Fine. But the movie doesn't have a rhythm!?

This is the sad thing about comedy. So many people can watch what Neil Simon has created with this script and not understand the difficulty involved. Everything in "The Out-of-Towners" flows. It carries a logic to it. One mishaps could easily lead to another mishap. The daunting task however is to concoct these scenarios. Because Simon is so good at what he does, he makes it seem effortless. 

"The Out-of-Towners" has a structure that can be described similarly to what I wrote about the Buster Keaton comedy "Seven Chances" (1925). It takes a simple concept and builds on it. Each scene is meant to top the previous one. Momentum is constantly building. If that's not setting a rhythm and pacing, I don't know what does! I will admit in the case of the Keaton comedy it is a series a time bombs that lead up to a major climax. "The Out-of-Towners" doesn't have such an ending and remains a series of time bombs. I recommend the movie because enough of the jokes land and pack a punch.

While I have been crediting Neil Simon for the movie's success, I should also clarify, Simon didn't direct the movie. In fact, Simon has admitted he never had an interest in directing despite being offered the opportunity many times. The movie was directed by the Academy Award nominated filmmaker Arthur Hiller. Perhaps best known for his follow-up movie, for which he received his sole directing Oscar nomination, "Love Story" (1970). He reunited with Simon a year later on "Plaza Suite" (1971). Which interestingly enough, "The Out-of-Towners" was originally supposed to be a one-act story as part of Simon's play version of "Plaza Suite" but was dropped. 

The cinematography was done by Hungarian Andrew Laszlo. In the early moments of the movie some of the shots are questionable to say the least. For example, the camera isn't on the characters that are speaking. Laszlo worked with Hiller previously on the television show, "The Naked City" and the movie "Popi" (1969). Fans of 1980s movies will appreciate knowing he also worked on "First Blood" (1982). Music was done by Quincy Jones. While I like the piece that plays over the opening credits, it does seem inappropriate in that I don't believe it sets the right tone. It almost sounds like something from a horror movie. Did Jones interpret the movie as a "nightmare"? 

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis were both nominated for Golden Globes in the best actor and actress categories for a musical / comedy. Dennis lost to Carrie Snodgress for her performance in "Diary of a Mad Housewife" (1970). Snodgress also received an Oscar nomination for the performance. Lemmon lost to Albert Finney in "Scrooge" (1970). Meanwhile Simon won the Writer's Guild award for best comedy written directly for the screen. That was a nice accomplishment considering this was Simon's first script written directly for the screen. The majority of his movie work was adapting his own plays for the movies.

One of the reasons I quickly became drawn to Simon's style of comedy was become it was based in a reality I could relate to. As much as I admired Brooks, I could never come up with the jokes he created. But writers like Neil Simon and Woody Allen shared a sense of humor that was closer to my own natural instincts. I could (and have) written similar one-liners. Their world view matched my own. Whenever professors in college or high school would read my work, they would tell me this sounds like something Simon or Allen would have written. Sometimes that was on purpose, other times it wasn't.

"The Out-of-Towners" is a fast and sharply written comedy. Lemmon dances a fine line between believable and manic but it is delightful to watch. Despite what some "critics" may say, I believe the movie is wonderfully paced. If you want to see Simon address similar themes watch "The Prisoner of Second Avenue" (1975) also with Lemmon.

Film Review: Jurassic Park - 30th Anniversary

 "Jurassic Park"

** 1\2 (out of ****)

Thirty years ago today Steven Spielberg released one of the most eagerly awaited movies of the summer of 1993, "Jurassic Park".

Although I wasn't a fan of Steven Spielberg at the time, 10 year old me was filled with anticipation to see what "Jurassic Park" would be all about. As most children have a fascination with dinosaurs, the movie was heavily marketed towards kids. I vividly recall McDonald's tie-ins and toys. The movie played on the imagination of all children and the general public - what would be it like if dinosaurs came back? How thrilling would it be to see an actual dinosaur up close?

Without jumping too far ahead, that's a very minimal part of what "Jurassic Park" is about. And it is not for children! I can attest to this. As I sat in a movie theater with my father, I will never forget the amount of fear that overcame me. I held a napkin in front of my eyes practically every time a dinosaur appeared on-screen. "Jurassic Park" was an intense experience for 10 year old me. Looking back on the movie 30 years later, I still found it to be an intense, roller coaster experience. But this time I didn't need the napkin. That's called growth!

Based on a novel published in 1990 - of the same title - written by Michael Crichton, "Jurassic Park" would have seemed to be a perfect vehicle for director Steven Spielberg, the man who created such fantasies as "E.T." (1982), "Hook" (1990) and "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981), making him the most financially successful filmmaker of his generation. At this point in Spielberg's career he was identified with childhood fantasies. Yes, there were outliners like "The Color Purple" (1985) and "Empire of the Sun" (1987), which were meant to show an emotional and thematic maturity but Spielberg was a mainstream Hollywood hit maker. On paper, without knowing the plot, "Jurassic Park" could have been filled with a child's wonderment about dinosaurs.

The movie follows a wealthy businessman, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) who has created an amusement park where dinosaurs have been brought to life. This was accomplished by extracting dinosaur DNA from a prehistoric, amber preserved mosquito. To satisfy shaky investors however Hammond has invited two experts to sign off on the park - paleontologist  Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and his girlfriend paleobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Meanwhile an attorney, representing the investors, has brought a mathematician versed in chaos theory, Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to inspect the park as well.

And so we have a story of man playing God, recalling the Universal horror classics like "Frankenstein" (1931), "Dracula" (1931) and "The Mummy" (1932)  Those movies had anti-science messages dealing with characters trying to push the limits of science while showing an utter lack of respect for tradition and different cultures. "Jurassic Park" could have used a "mad scientist" character. Logically that would have been John Hammond but the movie doesn't take that route instead opting to settle to make the character a concerned grandfather, whose grandchildren have also come to visit the park - Tim (Joseph Mazzello) and Lex (Ariana Richards).

"Jurassic Park" also owes something to the creature features before it such as "Kong King" (1933), "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" (1956) and the sadly oft-forgotten silent movie, "The Lost World" (1925) about a land where dinosaurs still roam and a group of adventurers who go out to confirm its existence.

The movie also attempts to make very brief comments on evolution, man vs nature, morality and commercialism. But what seems to be the most significant throughline in the plot is a story about fatherhood and learning to embrace the concept of children. Why this theme was mixed up in a movie about dinosaurs is anyone's guess. Much emphasis is placed on the arc of the character Alan Grant and his slow acceptance of children. 

This is a big flaw of "Jurassic Park". It doesn't say much. The character that is suppose to represent the "heart" of the movie, Ian Malcolm, is unfortunately tossed aside after making a few good cautionary speeches on the potential danger Hammond may have done. Then the character becomes wallpaper as everything - themes, characters...etc - take a back seat to the technology and special effects of the dinosaurs. There may be some viewers that don't even notice the movie is about fatherhood. While they may want to write to me and tell me I'm crazy to think the movie is about any such thing, they are actually proving my point. No message is able to break through the movie. Only the special effects are memorable.

And the effects are an amazing sight! Every bit of credit that has been thrown at the special effects team is well deserved. The movie won the Academy Award for best visual effects, one of the movie's three Oscar nominations.

But besides the effects there is little else to enjoy watching the movie. The late movie critic Roger Ebert in his Chicago Sun-Times review praised the effects as well but wrote "the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values." Across town in the Chicago Tribune, critic Dave Kehr stated, "Jurassic Park" is effective but emotionally detached, as if Spielberg hadn't invested much of himself in the characters and the challenges they face." 

While "Jurassic Park" is a roller coaster adventure, one thing I immediately noticed watching the movie again, in preparation for this review, was the cheap way the movie goes after thrills. On an almost consistent basis the movie exploits the children characters always placing them in peril. The most elaborate of these sequences involves our first sight of T-Rex and the first major confrontation the characters have with the dinosaurs, after the electrical power has went down in the park.

Yes the sequence kept me on the edge of my seat but what am I watching? I am watching adult characters look on as T-Rex destroys a vehicle with two children inside of it. If those adults don't act quickly, they are going to be witnesses to the death of those children. It is the cheapest way to create suspense and tension in an audience. We are already dealing with such a grand story of dinosaurs vs man, couldn't it only be the adults that find themselves in harm's way? Isn't anything else just a cheap ploy to exploit those child characters?

But exploiting those children is the only way the movie knows how to to comment on the theme it is most interested in - fatherhood. When we first meet  Alan Grant it is made clear he does not want children nor does he like them. This is expressed both verbally and by action. While on a dig, for some reason, a child was brought along. And when the child compares the dinosaur to a turkey, Grant uses it as an opportunity to scare the love of Jesus Christ into the child by explaining how advanced the dinosaur was and the way in which it would attack him. Where is this boy's parents to tell Grant stop scaring my child?!

In the sequence with the T-Rex, just before the attack, Grant walked over to the car with the children, which the attorney is also in, to confirm if their radio is working. When he sits back down in his car, Malcolm asks how are the kids? It never occurred to Grant to inquire. The kids are an afterthought. This explains why it is Grant that is the only adult with the children as they try to escape the park. It creates a bonding experience between Grant and the children. He is their guardian. He must protect them. And by doing so learns what fatherhood is about. One of the last images of the movie has the children nestled comfortably napping in Grant's arms. My, my, my, how things have changed. That is what "Jurassic Park" is about. Leading us up to that moment.

"Jurassic Park" has endured these past 30 years sparking sequels and an eventual reboot of the franchise. Of all of the movies that have proceeded it, this "Jurassic Park" movie may be the best. But is that saying much? "Jurassic Park" has entertainment value but is it "great art"? Yes, that makes me sound like a film snob to the average Jane and John Doe but isn't that what a movie critic does? Evaluate the artist merit of a movie? People seem to confuse congenial, crowd-pleasing movies as examples of great cinema. "Jurassic Park" isn't a masterpiece. "Home Alone" (1990) isn't a masterpiece. "Ghostbusters" (1984) isn't a masterpiece. That doesn't necessarily mean they are bad movies but they are not "classics", "masterpieces" or examples of great art. I mention this because I just know someone is going to read this review and say how could he not like "Jurassic Park"? It's a classic!

"Jurassic Park" would represent the beginning of a turning point in Spielberg's career. Later in 1993 he would release "Schindler's List". This would mark the beginning of a maturity and growth in Spielberg's movies tackling more adult subject matters - "Amistad" (1997), "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), "A.I." (2001) and "Munich" (2005) would follow.

Despite its status among some as a "classic", "Jurassic Park" is a movie with little to say. It has undeveloped characters that take second place to the movie's special effects. The effects are spectacular however. Janet Maslin in her New York Times review declared "Jurassic Park", "a true movie milestone". If we are only talking about the special effects, I would agree. Yes, there is some entertainment value to the movie but I personally couldn't watch the movie multiple times. I tried to watch it twice before writing this and during the second viewing was becoming slightly bored. The events of the movie were too fresh in my head and lacked the same adrenaline rush one would expect from such a movie. In the end, "Jurassic Park" is a technical achievement but little else.