Film Review: The Great McGinty

 "The Great McGinty"

*** 1\2 (out of ****) 

Preston Sturges spins a wickedly humorous tale about politics, the American dream, and morality in his directorial feature-film debut, "The Great McGinty" (1940).

Preston Sturges was an "auteur" before  American audiences used the term. His brilliant comedies had unique characteristics enabling the audience to recognize the same man was behind them. Few comedy filmmakers dominated the cinematic landscape the way Sturges did during the 1940s. He reigned supreme between 1940 - 1944, writing and directing "The Lady Eve" (1941), "Sullivan's Travels" (1941), "The Palm Beach Story" (1942), "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" (1944), and "Hail the Conquering Hero" (1944). The streak came to an unfortunate end after the release of "The Great Moment" (1944), Sturges' first critical and financial flop. Though he continued writing and directing he was never able to duplicate the success he found in those early years. The sole bright spot during this period would be "Unfaithfully Yours" (1948) which wasn't a success upon first release but developed a strong following over the years. It remains my favorite of Sturges' comedies.

As a teenager, wishing and hoping to one day become a comedy filmmaker, I turned to Preston Sturges for guidance. My admiration for comedy encompassed an extensive range from the physical / slapstick antics of Chaplin and Keaton to the insults of Jack E. Leonard and Don Rickles and to the verbal wit of Groucho Marx and Woody Allen. Writing my first screenplays my instinct was to throw in everything I found funny, blending different comedy styles, sacrificing tone and character development in the process. I could never find the proper balance to incorporate physical and verbal humor but Sturges seemed to be a master at it. He quickly became one of my favorite filmmakers and a prime topic to be discussed during the "year of me" - my year long celebration of my favorite artists and filmmakers, inspired by my 40th birthday.

"The Great McGinty" may have been Sturges' directorial debut but he was not new to Hollywood and movie-making. He was a script writer for several years before making the jump to director. He had written "The Good Fairy" (1935), "Easy Living" (1937), and "Remember the Night" (1939) among others. Legend has it Sturges sold his script for "The Great McGinty" to Paramount for either $1 or $10 (depending upon who tells the story) just so he could direct it. Due to his script writing experience, "The Great McGinty" contains the comedic traits we would come to expect from Sturges throughout his career. Watching the movie retrospectively it is astonishing how immediately he was able to develop his style as a writer and director. 

Dan McGinty (Brian Donlevy) is a derelict that gets involved with machine politics. He agrees to help re-elect Wilfred T. Tillinghast (Arthur Hoyt) as Mayor. The machine is offering soup to "forgotten men" to lure them into voting. To add even more incentive, each man that votes will earn two dollars. McGinty sees an opportunity to exploit the arrangement. Instead of simply casting one vote for two dollars, McGinty offers to vote multiple times in different voting precincts. In total he votes 37 times, earning him $74.

McGinty's tenacity impresses the political boss, credited as Boss (Akim Tamiroff). Despite McGinty's hot-headed ways the Boss decides to offer him a job as a muscle - collecting debts from those who the Boss provides "protection" for. If McGinty can keep it up he may become an integral part of the political operation.

Obviously Sturges and "The Great McGinty" at this point are scathing the political system and figures like "Boss" Tweed and Tammany Hall. Sturges writes the great line, "If it wasn't for graft, you'd get a very low type of people in politics." What I found particularly interesting was Sturges using the formula from gangster movies like "Scarface" (1932) and "Little Caesar" (1931) to tell his story. McGinty is comparable to a small time hood, looking for a way to get ahead in the world. He meets someone who introduces him to a crime boss, who brings him into their racketeering outfit. Then one day the small time hood decides maybe he should be the new boss and take over the territory. Sturges however didn't bother with gangsters but instead focused on the real criminals, politicians!

Staying true to the formula McGinty does indeed grow within the machine, being promoted to Alderman, Mayor and eventually Governor of the unnamed state, though we can assume it is New York. "The Great McGinty" is telling us a rag-to-riches story, exemplary of the American dream. With a little hard work you can achieve anything. And McGinty is content to maintain the status quo. He is doing better than he could have ever imagined. It is when he is elected Governor that he grows a conscience and morality sets in. Does he dare stand up to the Boss and break free from the machine? McGinty decides he no longer wants to be a yes man but actually create positive change for people. He starts talking about child labor laws and tenements. Can politics and a pure conscience mix?

As it happens in so many other movies, it is a woman that inspires a man to change. In "The Great McGinty" that woman is his wife, Catherine (Muriel Angelus, in her final film role). Initially a marriage of convenience - she consents to marry McGinty before his run for mayor, so he can get the women's vote. They won't vote for an unmarried man! The two end up falling in love as she begins to express how McGinty is not living up to his potential. He is a good man that can accomplish great things. She is the one to first speak about child labor laws and tenements. McGinty doesn't want to let her down and is now faced with a moral question. It is not only a question of what type of politician does he want to become but what type of man does he want to be?

"The Great McGinty", like nearly all of Sturges' films, benefits from a terrific cast. Today, Donlevy may be known for his roles in various noir films but he actually started off as a "B" movie actor and got he first real taste of success after appearing in "Beau Geste" (1939) for which his performance earned an Academy Award nomination for best supporting actor. But the real pleasure in watching a Preston Sturges comedy is the eccentric cast of character actors in supporting roles. These actors would become the most significant actors in Sturges' "repertory company". Many of those familiar faces are seen in "The Great McGinty" - William Demarest, Arthur Hoyt, Thurston Hall, Jimmy Conlin and Frank Moran. And though he wasn't one of Sturges' stock actors, Tamiroff is an absolute delight to watch as well. You may not recognize these names but you will know their faces. In this sense Sturges was like Federico Fellini in his affinity to cast those with unusual faces.

For a movie made during the enforcement of the Hays Code - a series of moral guidelines that motion pictures had to adhere to - "The Great McGinty" addresses topics which were a bit ahead of their time. Like all great filmmakers however Sturges found ways to dance around this censorship. One didn't often find characters in marriages of convenience. Characters like Catherine - single mother with two children - were not typical for the time period. A successful single mother was not something the Hays Code wanted to promote since that was viewed as an indecent lifestyle. The movie also implies our government leaders are dishonest and politics is a crooked business - pay attention to a speech about cement. But notice how Sturges was able to slyly acquiesce to the censorship board without really compromising on his vision. Yes, McGinty and Catherine couldn't continue their arrangement of a loveless marriage and had to allow Cupid to strike. McGinty couldn't remain a tough, crooked politician and needed to show a soft side. He's the male variation of the trope "the hooker with a heart of gold", a crook with a heart of gold. For example he accepts Catherine's children as his own.

But look at all "The Great McGinty" got away with. Just beneath the laughs this is a cynical story that warns us that the only time a man truly gets in trouble is not when he breaks the law but when he tries to be honest. Sturges even manages to avoid the mandatory admonishment of  "crime doesn't pay". Yes, some sacrifices were needed to be made by some characters but the long arm of the law doesn't prevail. 

Granted it was not all smooth sailing for "The Great McGinty". By the third act the movie was beginning to lose my vote. Sturges didn't seem to know how to resolve his story and rushes to a conclusion that is disappointing and unsatisfying. It could have worked if there was more of a build-up to it. It could have followed in the tradition of pre-code melodramas like "The Sin of Madelon Claudet" (1931). But a particular character's noble gesture didn't feel as noble or sacrificial as what Helen Hayes did in "Claudet".

Despite whatever my objections may be to the movie's screenplay, "The Great McGinty" was the only screenplay Sturges ever won an Academy Award for. Throughout his career Sturges was nominated three times for best original screenplay with two of those nominations in the same year. And yet movie critics (AKA sheep) never acknowledged "The Great McGinty" as one of Sturges best - that praise was reserved for "The Lady Eve" and "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" - but they did admire it.

With so much to enjoy watching "The Great McGinty" to focus on the movie's faults is a fruitless exercise. For me "The Great McGinty" ranks as one of Sturges' best comedies, alongside "Unfaithfully Yours" and "Hail the Conquering Hero". In a world where Donald Trump was indicted on RICO charges, "The Great McGinty" also proves its relevance and serves as a reminder that politics (not crime) doesn't pay.

Film Review: You and Me

 "You and Me"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

It's a relatively simple question, when has a person repaid their debt to society? Fritz Lang's Depression era drama, "You and Me" (1938) - a socially liberal message movie - poses the question.

Mr. Morris (Harry Carey) is a department store owner who has hired 50 ex-convicts as part of his staff to the dismay of his wife. He believes these individuals, primarily men, have repaid their debt to society. Understanding the social stigma and financial struggles these men will face as they re-enter society and the work force, Mr. Morris feels compelled to assist them during this transition.

One of the men is Joe Dennis (George Raft). Joe served time in prison with some of his co-workers at the department store. What a coincidence! Perhaps this creates too much temptation to fall back into his old life because very early into this movie, Joe is discussing plans to leave town and head to California. Or could Joe be leaving because he has developed feelings for one of his co-workers, Helen (Sylvia Sidney)? Any romantic entanglement may lead to a violation of his parole, which prohibits marriage.

In the hands of another filmmaker I suppose "You and Me" could have been the story of Joe and Helen falling in love and the dramatic buildup of whether or not Joe will reveal his criminal past. All of that has already happened even before the movie has begun. Helen accepts Joe and we can tell they are both in love with each other. Lang however has other tricks up his sleeve.

To me one of the themes at work in "You and Me" and practically all of Lang's movies is morality. Yes, Joe and his co-workers are criminals but they live by their own moral code. Joe felt an obligation to reveal his past to Helen and not be a man with a mysterious past. Mr. Morris believes it is his moral responsibility to help ex-convicts get on the right path to start over again. In Peter Bogdanovich's invaluable book, Who the Devil Made It - a collection of interviews with Hollywood's most distinguished filmmakers from the Golden Era - Lang states, "the main theme that runs through all of my pictures - this fight against destiny, against fate." I can see Lang's point but initially the most alluring aspect of  "You and Me" was the potential of a social conscience that the movie alluded to.

That potential was suggested by having Kurt Weill compose the movie's score. Weill was a highly accomplished German composer best known for his collaborations with Bertolt Brecht, the well known socialist playwright. Together the two men worked on "The Threepenny Opera" and "Happy End". Once the Nazi Party gained control both men fled their homeland. 

The Brechtian influence is most prominently seen in the movie's opening sequence. It is a montage of images set to music explaining "you can't get something for nothing" as we see all the things money can buy you and the lavish lifestyle great wealth can bring.

But the "you can't get something for nothing" message isn't really an economic critique of the Capitalist system. Instead it's a variation of the message "crime doesn't pay", and that weakens the movie a bit in my eyes. It isn't a bold piece of ambitious filmmaking but instead results in a playing-it-safe Hollywood product. As Hollywood began making more and more gangster movies in the 1930s - "Scarface" (1932) - featuring Raft's breakout performance, "Little Caesar" (1931), "The Public Enemy" (1931), and "The Roaring Twenties" (1939) - some in the U.S. Government felt these movies were romanticizing gangsters. That somehow the public would find the characters to be symbols of the American Dream gone wrong and relatable during the economic hardship of the Great Depression. Desperate men driven to desperate means. Within this environment the "crime doesn't pay" message was hit hard and hit often. On top of that the Hays Code - a Motion Picture code of moral guidelines - was being enforced. What could Lang do?

Unfortunately, what "You and Me" becomes is a standard love story following the old formula of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in the end. The movie abandons an economic / social message in the process and even goes so far as giving us a mathematical explanation on why crime doesn't pay.

Without revealing too much, another character is revealed to have a secret in their past. Lang however never plays this up for suspense. There is no sequence creating a heightened sense of anxiety that the secret will be revealed. Disappointingly, the character doesn't go through a moral dilemma contemplating their decision not to come clean either.

What "You and Me" does however is try to find humor within this story. In Bogdanovich's book, Lang confesses to always striving to find humor in his movies. One sequence working on multiple levels involves the ex-convicts reminiscing about Christmas time in prison. It would be the only time they would get a turkey for dinner. Now that they are free and can get a turkey any time they wish, it is no longer as special. It is funny to hear inmates have fond memories about their time in jail and it serves as a commentary on freedom.   

The casting of George Raft was within itself a self-referential joke. Raft was a very popular actor in the 1930s, known for playing gangsters. Years later Billy Wilder would cast him in "Some Like It Hot" (1958) for the same purpose as here, to have Raft play against type. The first time we see Raft he is in a close-up praising a "racket". Is his character getting ready to go back to his old ways and plan a final score? Nope. The camera pans back and we discover he's talking about a tennis racket. Perhaps unknown to many, George Raft's greatest contribution (?) to pop culture may have been his influence on the Batman villain, Two-Face. In "Scarface" Raft's character has a habit of flipping a coin. This gesture would become identified with the Batman villain. 

Additionally, Lang casts a colorful cast of character actors in supporting roles - Roscoe Karns, George E. Stone, Warren Hymer, and Robert Cummings, who would go on to great fame. All of these actors had a light comedic touch and knew how to stand out in a crowd. That's something that has been sorely missing in Hollywood over the decades - great character actors. I'm not sure who the modern day equivalents would be but men like Karns and Stone were reliable hands the studios could always turn to, to add a little flavor to otherwise unmemorable roles. 

Fritz Lang is one of my favorite filmmakers. For me his greatest achievement was "Metropolis" (1927), which I place among my all-time favorite films. He was an exemplary figure in German cinema during the 1920s and early '30s with the release of such masterworks as "Metropolis", "Spiders" (1919), and "M" (1931).  After leaving Germany in 1933, Lang arrived in America in 1936. Although his  American films sadly weren't as celebrated, these films had a harder edge to them and were piercing looks into human behavior. I personally respond to the themes Lang was working with in these films and the moral quandaries the characters found themselves in. It is why over the last 15 years on this blog I have often come back to Lang's work. Naturally I wanted to include him in my year long tribute honoring my favorite artists and filmmakers, which I have dubbed "the year of me".

I therefore find it maddeningly infuriating that Hollywood has not honored the legacy of this distinguished filmmaker. Fritz Lang has not only never won a competitive Academy Award, he has never even been nominated! Usually in such cases when Hollywood has shamefully ignored the work of a great artist, that artist is presented with a special honorary award (i.e. the lifetime achievement). Lang has not even been the recipient of this kind of award. Nearly all of his contemporaries have received such awards. But not Lang. It has contributed to Lang's diminished reputation among modern movie fans. 

Could this have to do with movie politics and Lang's notoriety as a cruel director? In two of Roger Ebert's Great Movie reviews he references Lang's behavior when discussing his work. In his review of "M", Ebert writes of Lang "He was often accused of sadism towards his actors; he had Lorre thrown down the stairs into the criminal lair a dozen times". As he reviews "Metropolis" Ebert comments on the movie's production stating "the extras were hurled into violent mob scenes, made to stand for hours in cold water, and handled more like props than human beings." If it is because of such behavior that Hollywood has turned its back on Lang, I can assure you he was not the only filmmaker to have acquired such a reputation. Alfred Hitchcock was another notorious figure with a cruel streak and yet he is still celebrated today.

Watching a movie like "You and Me" however shows the error of the Hollywood community in not recognizing Lang's talent. "You and Me" isn't a perfect movie. It has flaws. But when the movie works, it works. For as much as it is a product of its time, it remains relevant today. Gen-Z viewers, who are immersed in identity politics and social issues, would probably find much to echo. For example in 2023 there are several states - 9 in total - where voting rights are not restored to ex-convicts. In 1938, for Lang and "You and Me" to make such arguments about repaying a debt to society, was ahead of its time. It wasn't a common issue being brought up in movies. Changes in voting rights for ex-convicts didn't occur in the U.S. until the 1950s!

That's what makes "You and Me" a frustrating experience. It starts off as a strong critique about society and economics but because of the restrictive environment in which it was released, it had to cop out and lessen its blow. Lang still finds much to target and comment on and succeeds in making a thought provoking movie. I wouldn't consider "You and Me" the best starting point to delve into Lang's work but it should be one of the two or three American movies he directed you immediately watch, along with "Fury" (1936), my choice for his best American movie and "You Only Live Once" (1937). Coincidentally Sylvia Sidney stars in all three of these movies. 

Film Review: Streamers - 40th Anniversary

 "Streamers"

*** (out of ****)

Robert Altman's "Streamers" (1983) is a movie about dead people. Mind you the characters in "Streamers" are physically alive, walking and talking, but they are dead inside. "Streamers" is, at times, an emotionally painful movie that stirs you about war, PTSD, self-identity, masculinity, homosexuality, alienation, trauma, guilt, and racial tensions in 1960s America at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

As we are more than half-way through the "year of me", a year long tribute to my favorite artists and filmmakers - as I celebrate my own 40th anniversary of being alive, I wanted to make sure to discuss the work of filmmaker Robert Altman.

Altman was one of the great filmmakers working in American cinema in the 1970s, which may have been the peak of the American independent film movement brought on by a wave of young filmmakers representing "New Hollywood" - Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Woody Allen, and Peter Bogdanovich among them. Altman actually proceeds their filmmaking careers by a decade, working in television in the 1950s and directing his first feature length film, "The Delinquents" in 1957. It wasn't until "M*A*S*H" (1970) however - his fourth feature film - that his career began to take off. For many movie lovers the 1970s may have been Altman's creative and artistic peak. In addition to "M*A*S*H"  the decade saw the release of "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971), "Nashville" (1975), and "3 Women" (1977). Others admire works such as "Brewster McCloud" (1970), "Images" (1972), "The Long Goodbye" (1973) and "California Split" (1974). Unfortunately, by the 1980s the corporate and commercialization takeover of Hollywood killed the independent spirit of "New Hollywood". Altman, like Scorsese, Coppola, and Bogdanovich, fell into career slumps. The studios, the public and the critics largely turned their backs on Altman. Few movies, in my opinion, should be considered career highlights during the 1980s. Fortunately, Altman's career made a significant rebound in the 1990s after the release of  "The Player" (1992). If you consider the 1970s Altman's best creative period, the 1990s is a close second. Practically everything Altman made from "The Player" until his final film, "A Prairie Home Companion" (2006), is exceptional.

This led to the dilemma of which Altman movie should I review? I had a lot of good options. I rewatched "Nashville" and "Short Cuts" (1993) as possibilities but for one reason or another I didn't feel compelled to write about them. For the last 15 years on this blog I have mostly reviewed the oddities in Altman's career. It wasn't something I set out to do it just happened naturally. I've written about "Health" (1980), "Images", and "Quintet" (1979). In a certain way it is fitting that I have chosen the off-beat path for a filmmaker that spent his career working outside the Hollywood system. Bringing us to my decision to discuss "Streamers" which also allowed me the opportunity to recognize it for its 40th anniversary.

"Streamers" fits nicely in the Altman cannon of films. It is a look back at a significant moment in American history, which was an important element in Altman's films. Films such as "M*A*S*H", "Buffalo Bill and the Indians" (1976), and "Secret Honor" (1984) are examples of films that were critiques of America. In "Streamers" Altman would take society and put it under the microscope to examine war and American viewpoints on race and sexuality.

The film, written by David Rabe, was a screen adaptation of his Tony nominated stage play. The play was directed by Mike Nichols and the conclusion of Rabe's Vietnam Trilogy. Altman's film adaptation feels very much like a stage play centering practically all of the action not only in a single room but in the corner of that room. It was a deliberate choice by Altman and cinematographer Pierre Mignot to establish a feeling of claustrophobia. Tensions fly high as our four main characters are isolated in this small space forced to confront each other.

The lead characters are Billy (Matthew Modine), Roger (David Alan Grier), Richie (Mitchell Lichtenstein) and Carlyle (Michael Wright). They are four young soldiers who may be deployed to Vietnam any day. Three of the young men - Billy, Roger, and Richie - have a camaraderie between them. Billy - white - and Roger - black - appear to have a genuine friendship and similar expectations about what the army is going to provide them. Richie is a bit of an outsider within the group. This is mostly because he keeps making "jokes" and comments about being homosexual. Billy - usually the butt of the "jokes" - is greatly disturbed by this. He repeatedly asks Richie directly if he really is gay. Richie always finds a way to dance around the question. The viewer however has no doubt that Richie is gay and means the "jokes" he tells. However Richie isn't sure the army, society or Billy and Roger will be able to handle the truth.

 A  storm begins to brew with the appearance of Carlyle - a newly enlisted recruit that finds comfort in the company of Roger since they are both black. For both Roger and Carlyle the appearance of the other recalls home. But there is no personal bonding between the men beyond their skin color. This is illustrated by Carlyle never learning Roger's name but only referring to him as the "black one" whenever inquiring about him. On a social / political spectrum moreover each represents something different. Carlyle is a radical. Racial change can't happen fast enough. He is the stereotypical "angry black man". Roger is more accepting of "incremental change". As he tells Carlyle there is even a high ranking black officer. Progress is slowly being made. 

And Carlyle is the catalyst that moves the plot forward and raises the stakes between the other three soldiers. Billy doesn't like Carlyle and Carlyle constantly baits Richie about his sexuality. This leaves Roger to act as a mediator between Carlyle and the others. The four of them however are at odds with officers Cokes (George Dzundza) and Rooney (Guy Boyd). Both are alcoholics and clearly suffering from PTSD. They saw combat in Korea and claim they can't wait to go to Vietnam and be there in the jungle. It will make them feel "alive" and like men. But Cokes also suffers from guilt over a man he killed during that last war. As Cokes faces his own mortality the trauma from this event explains his drinking. It is a sad reminder of the mental health issues these men had to endure when they returned home. The four young soldiers must wonder, is this the fate that awaits them if they are called to go to Vietnam? None of them seem particularly eager to go. One of the soldiers even makes a disparaging remark about President Lyndon Johnson.

For most of "Streamers" I was willing to go along with the movie and kept waiting for the ticking time bomb to explode. It has moments when it bursts but I never found myself captivated by anything I saw on-screen. A final declaration from one of the characters at the end of the movie didn't feel emotionally satisfying to me. It wasn't the pay-off  I was looking for. In a very critical review of the film, critic Dave Kehr stated in his Chicago Reader review "You leave the theater feeling shaken, upset, and without the slightest idea of what all the screaming was about."

That leads me to my other issue with the movie, the dialogue. It is far too subtle. The characters do a lot of talking but they don't say much. They dance around everything. None of the four lead characters has the courage to say what they mean and mean what they say. Perhaps that is a commentary in its own right. Our inability to express ourselves. To watch "Streamers" however you as the viewer must be an activate participant and interpret what these characters are saying. I may have been up for the challenge if I cared a bit more about the characters. Even though the script was adapted by Rabe maybe something was lost in the transition from stage to film. In his NY Times review of the film, critic Vincent Canby wrote, "much of Mr. Rabe's quite stunning dialogue, so startling on the stage, comes out sounding like much too much typewriting. Even though the film, which follows the stage script closely, has been cut, it seems three hours longer to watch."

What I like best about "Streamers" are the actors and Altman's directing. Though criticized by some (Canby for instance) I found Altman's visuals choices to effectively heighten the drama of several scenes. The camera does at times stay back, allowing the viewer to soak in the barracks but at other times zooms in to create the sense of claustrophobia and fear. Fear was one of the elements Altman himself thought the film was about.

Michael Wright brings a lot of intensity to the role of Carlyle and his performance creates the largest contrast from the others. He has a few powerful scenes. One involves a confrontation with Richie, insinuating he is sleeping with everyone in the barracks and another moment where he is drunk and falls asleep on the floor. Mitchell Lichtenstein's Richie is the other key character because of what he represents and brings out in the other characters. Where Wright is loud, Lichtenstein is quiet. He can blend into the background and at times, with the smallest of gestures, take command of the room.

Looking back on "Streamers" 40 years later a lot of the themes it brings up are still relevant. Self-identity is a big issue in the political sphere and some claim gay rights are under attack thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings. War is always a topically subject because we are constantly engaged in it, one way or another. But I have come across some comments indicating "Streamers" is dated particularly in its depiction of homosexuality. One commenter called out Lichtenstein's performance and labeled it "retro". I found this confusing. Was it "retro" in 1983 or by 2023 standards? Unlike other Altman movies though "Streamers" has never been rediscovered by the general public. If it is possible, somehow I feel it has fallen further into obscurity. I'm sure many people will wonder why I have chosen to spotlight this film for its 40th anniversary. 

"Streamers" does have strong and compelling moments that hit on many themes though I don't believe it often makes the most forceful commentary on those themes. The performances are good but the dialogue is too subtle. It feels "stagey" at times but Altman visually captures the characters emotional turmoil effectively. This is not one of Altman's great films but considering his output during the 1980s this is one of the highlights, along with "Secret Honor". If given the choice between "Streamers" and "Popeye" (1980), I'll take "Streamers" every time.

Film Review: Peggy Sue Got Married

 "Peggy Sue Got Married"

**** (out of ****)

Francis Ford Coppola. When I was growing up that was the name of a giant. He directed "The Godfather" (1972)! Even though the movie was released 11 years before I was born it was revered as an American classic. A masterpiece. It belonged in a rarified air with "Casablanca" (1943), "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Gone with the Wind" (1939) and "Singin' in the Rain" (1952).

It was sad for me to learn of the difficult times a great artist such as Coppola had to endure during the 1980s. Not only did Coppola direct "The Godfather" but he also directed the Academy Award winning best picture sequel, "The Godfather Pt. 2" (1974) along with "The Conversation" (1974) and ended the 1970s with "Apocalypse Now" (1979). Each of those films were nominated for a best picture Academy Award. Two of them ("The Godfather" movies) did win. Coppola received three best director nominations - only for "The Conversation" was he not nominated. He was an auteur. A force in American cinema. And then the 1980s happened. The new decade didn't start off well. Coppola was practically immediately met with financial ruin in preparation of his movie "One from the Heart" (1981) He made the mistake Mel Brooks warned us about in "The Producers" (1968) - never put up your own money. "Apocalypse" had its own notorious production problems but the bad luck kept following Coppola. A few years after the troubles of  "One from the Heart" came  "The Cotton Club" (1984) which brought about lawsuits and was a box-office disappointment. In-between those two films were "Rumble Fish" (1983) and "The Outsiders" (1983). They were met with mixed reviews - back in the days when reviews mattered - and neither did anything to restore the name of Francis Ford Coppola.

And then came a charming time traveling comedy, "Peggy Sue Got Married" (1986). Here is a film about the past, disillusionment, age, destiny, and second chances. How fitting Coppola would direct this film and he wasn't the original choice. The film was a box-office success grossing more than 40 million in the U.S. and went on to earn three Academy Award nominations, including one for Kathleen Turner's performance. Turner was also nominated for a Golden Globe where the film was nominated for best picture as well. Famed movie critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert both declared it one of the best films of 1986!

Some of the thunder was stolen from under "Peggy Sue Got Married", having been released one year after "Back to the Future" (1985),  that other time traveling nostalgic comedy. That movie was the highest grossing movie at the world-wide box office. It's doubtful Coppola's movie would have been able to match the $300 plus million "Back to the Future" grossed but the two movies were compared to each other by the critics (AKA sheep). That may have painted "Peggy Sue" as an attempt by Hollywood to cash in on the success of "Future". But dare I say, "Peggy Sue Got Married" is an emotionally richer and more complex film. 

Of course the time traveling concept wasn't anything new - Mark Twain published "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" in 1889 and like that novel, "Peggy Sue" makes social commentary contrasting modern day 80s society against a 1960 back drop that already had social customs that seemed outdated.

The movie begins with Peggy Sue (Kathleen Turner) preparing to attend her 25th high school reunion. She and her husband, Charlie (Nicolas Cage) were high school sweethearts that are now getting divorced, after Charlie cheated on Peggy Sue with a younger woman. All of this dampens Peggy Sue's mood as she doesn't feel like explaining to all of their old high school friends she and Charlie are done. But her daughter, Beth (Helen Hunt) encourages her to go. Beth will be her mom's date for the evening.

At the reunion Coppola displays the balancing act between nostalgia and disillusionment. We have a tendency to bask in the thought the world was a little better when we were younger. Times were simpler. But there are also the memories of the pains of fitting in high school and the ways kids treated one another. We also see what the lives of others have become and how sometimes everything has worked out as planned. We see who became a "success" and who rolled snake eyes. And would we have treated people a certain way knowing now what they became? How would our lives be different if we could change the past?

As this dichotomy of emotions is taking place a king and queen is crowned at the reunion with Peggy Sue being named queen. It is all too much of a spectacle for Peggy Sue looking out at all of her friends and Charlie. As she stands on stage, she faints. When she awakens it is 1960. She is a teenager in high school who has just participated in her school's blood drive. This may help explain why Peggy Sue is not acting "normal" as if everything is new to her.

Of course what Peggy Sue and the audience is thinking is, is this real? Did Peggy Sue actually go back in time or is this a dream? Once the gimmick of the situation wears off then the emotional and dramatic possibilities of such a scenario set in. If we were to be able to go back in time, and still have our adult brain, not only are we younger but just think, you'll be able to see your family again. You'd be able to see relatives that have passed away over the years. These moments would now have deeper meaning as you may find yourself giving them a bit of a longer hug. You'd be able to met your first love and experience the joy (?) of teen love again. Relive the the moment of your first date and first kiss. In the case of Peggy Sue, she will decide if she should marry Charlie again knowing that their marriage ends in divorce.

It's not all sentimental hogwash in "Peggy Sue Got Married" however as Coppola and the movie are able to have fun with the time traveling plot device. It is frustrating to be a woman trapped in a teenager's body. In your mind your an adult but to the world you are a child. It gives you a whole new appreciation for adolescence! This creates a lot of comedic situations. Then there is the fun of looking back on 1960 fades that generated so much excitement but by 1986 we knew didn't last and became pop culture failures. In one scene dad (Don Murray) surprises the family with a new car purchase. What could get a big laugh from a 1986 audience that screams auto manufacture failure? You guessed it! He brings home an Edsel. Which if we are being factually accurate was already on the downslide by 1960 - the last year the vehicle was produced. But I digress! There's also the fun of  becoming the "inventor" of things to come like pantyhose, hi-tech or songwriting. When Peggy Sue gives musician boyfriend Charlie lyrics to a song she has "written" Charlie makes some edits. The song was the Beatles' "She Loves Me". Charlie's brilliant edits? Change the "yeah"s to "ooh"

But it is the more serious side of the story and the themes it presents that make "Peggy Sue" such a rewarding experience. By the end of the movie I was left with two thoughts. The role of destiny in our lives - we have ended up where we are in life because that is where we were meant to be. And two, the trick of life is to learn from the past not to be stuck in it. The past can't change the present but the present can change the future.

For as much I may want to lavish all praise on Francis Ford Coppola and regard him as responsible for the success of "Peggy Sue Got Married" most likely that isn't the case. A lot of credit must be thrown towards Kathleen Turner. She was a hot commodity in the 1980s. Some of her on-screen successes included "Body Heat" (1981), "Romancing the Stone" (1984) and "Prizzi's Honor" (1985). She would end the decade doing voice-over work in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (1988) as Jessica Rabbit and appeared in "The War of the Roses" (1989). She was in the right place at the right time. Who knows what would have happened if the original choice, Debra Winger, had remained in the role.

This is not to suggest merely box-office appeal made Turner correct for the role. Turner delivers a great performance. She essentially is playing two characters and manages to capture the complexities of each. Each character has their own personality traits and mannerisms. Turner's teenage Peggy Sue has a certain innocence to her. The adult Peggy Sue learns to function as a teenager and knows what is expected of her. Peggy Sue starts to behave like a teenager, hiding cigarettes from her parents for example and swooning over the school's rebellious bad boy - a beatnik. Turner creates a rich character that becomes instantly relatable.

For as wonderful as Turner is to watch, the weak link is Nicolas Cage - nephew of Coppola. According to Cage he turned down the role of Charlie several times. Why on earth would Coppola insist on casting him? Familial loyalty? It most certainly wasn't name recognition. Cage wasn't a name yet. It was through films like "Peggy Sue" and "The Cotton Club" that Coppola hoisted Cage onto the American movie going public, just as he did his sister (Talia Shire) and his daughter (Sofia Coppola, who also has a role in this film). Cage makes the unusual decision to play the character as Jerry Lewis in "The Nutty Professor" (1963) but not as Buddy Love but as the nerdy professor. Cage delivers his lines with a weird nasally voice. It isn't believable at all. In Cage's hands it is easy to look past any dimension to the character. In another actor's capable hands "Peggy Sue Got Married" could have been a lovely movie about two people learning to love each other again. Luckily Turner can carry the film on her shoulders. There is also the issue of Cage's make-up. I am now around the age of Cage's character. Do I look this awful and no one is telling me? They have him almost balding and with grey hair. He must have lead a hard life!

Reading contemporary reviews and viewer comments on Coppola's masterpiece, one comes across some negative critiques. This has to do with politics and I believe a misreading of the movie. Some viewers miss Coppola's social commentary. It is subtle and a wonderful example of why artists like Coppola are vastly superior to any "artist" working today. Pay attention to the way Coppola presents Peggy  Sue's mother (Barbara Harris). Notice the action in the breakfast scene as mom is constantly serving and never has a moment to sit and eat herself. Peggy Sue calls this out. Notice the relationship between Peggy Sue's parents. Notice how Peggy Sue's friends (Joan Allen and Catherine Hicks) have their lives all planned out based upon their understanding of what society expects of them. Listen to the dialogue between Peggy Sue and Charlie as teenagers arguing. Check out the moment in a R&B club when Peggy Sue and a date are toasting she makes a comment about freedom for all of us. Peggy Sue is sitting in a club surrounded by black characters. No need to mention the Civil Rights movement or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We got the message. Moment after moment Coppola is contrasting the 1960s to the 80s indicating how far we have come. Two years prior to the release of "Peggy Sue" for example Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman ever on a "major political party's" presidential ticket. She was selected as Walter Mondale's VP.

The difference between Coppola and "Peggy Sue Got Married" compared to what a modern day "artist" would do, is today the film would be a piece of social activism. It would hit the audience hard, repeatedly, with its message of how awful the 1960s were and don't live up to the values of today. "Peggy Sue" would make forceful, heavy-handed commentaries on women's rights and minority rights. Gone would be any notion of joyful nostalgia for the time period. It would be a social satire reinforcing perceived negative stereotypes about the past. Coppola, being a true artist, doesn't need to beat us over the head with messaging. Unfortunately, it seems, a modern day audience needs everything spelled out for them. Subtly isn't their strong suite. 

Coppola also has something else up his  sleeve and a different, more positive message to leave audiences with. Coppola wants to give us life lessons. "Peggy Sue Got Married" wants to be the 1980s version of "Our Town", Thornton Wilder's Pulitzer Prize winning stage drama first performed in 1938. The play, which was later adapted into a feature film in 1940, teaches us the importance of learning to appreciate life. To make every moment count. We mustn't hold on to pain but learn to accept and adapt to the choices we make in life. That is a lesson for Peggy Sue, Coppola and the audience.

Like nearly every movie from the past, "Peggy Sue Got Married" is a smarter and more observant film than today's audience may give it credit for. This is a charming, heartfelt, humorous, sweet film carried by a wonderful performance from Kathleen Turner. It is among Coppola's best films.