Film Review: Short Cuts

 "Short Cuts"

**** (out of ****) 

Choices. The choices we make in life will come to define us even though we will wriggle and squirm to justify the bad ones. Whether we like it or not our actions have consequences and seemingly inconsequential moments can create lasting impacts on our lives and the lives of others.

That is what I think Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" (1993) is about. A masterful examination of humanity and morality in America.

This year on the blog, which I have themed "Was I Right?", I'm going to take a second look at movies I had previously celebrated and placed on my various year end "top ten" lists to determine, was I right? Did the movies hold up and were they worthy of my praise. "Short Cuts" is a movie I admire more after viewing it again. It is a stronger film than I remembered and well deserving of my praise and its placement on my top ten list of the best films of 1993.

Altman was a filmmaker that had always tried to capture the country's zeitgeist, as evident in such masterworks as "Nashville" (1975) - which "Short Cuts" is most often compared to - "M*A*S*H" (1970), "Buffalo Bill and the Indians" (1976), and "The Player" (1992). And as in "The Player", I find "Short Cuts" to be a dark cynical view of contemporary society. Altman may have claimed his film made no judgements against these characters but none of them are people I would want to necessarily spend time with. These are flawed humans with few redeeming qualities because they refuse to come to terms with who they are and take responsibility for their decision making. The film's title, I would suggest, bears this out. People looking to cut corners, looking for the easy way out. Looking for "short cuts".

With a total of twenty-two stars, "Short Cuts" was an interconnecting story, looking at the lives of seemingly random individuals living in LA. Nearly all of whom will be placed in a moral conundrum. Each circumstance was the result of a mere coincidence.

One of my favorite stories involves three buddies (Fred Ward, Buck Henry, and Huey Lewis) going on a long planned fishing trip. When they arrive at the site, Vern (Lewis) discovers the dead body of a young woman in the water. What should the men do? Remember this was the 1990s. Americans didn't have smart phones attached to their fingers. Should they cancel the weekend's fishing trip and drive back in to town to alert the police? They've really been looking forward to the trip however. And the girl is already dead. Should they get in a couple of days of fishing and then tell the police? What's the moral thing to do?

Another fascinating story concerns a wealthy couple (Andie MacDowell and Bruce Davison) who discover their son Casey (Zane Cassidy) was hit by a car. The driver of the car, a waitress (Lilly Tomlin) offered to take the boy to the hospital and to drive him back home but the boy's parents taught him never to talk to strangers. After a long walk home, the boy suddenly becomes comatose and is rushed to a hospital. Earlier that day, the mother, Ann (MacDowell) ordered a birthday cake for her son to be picked up the next day. With their child in the hospital the baker (Lyle Lovett) is upset no one has come to pick up the cake he prepared as he leaves a barrage of messages on their answering machine (kids look up what that was). The message being, we often act in insensitive ways when we don't know the whole story.

Next we have an adulterer husband (Tim Robbins) cheating on his wife (Madeleine Stowe) with a woman (Frances McDormand) who has a son (Jarrett Lennon) and a jealous ex-husband (Peter Gallagher). Gene (Robbins) is a cop who uses his job as a way to provide excuses for his whereabouts when he is not home with his wife and children. Sherri (Stowe) doesn't believe his stories and knows he is cheating on her and rationalizes she must wait it out as eventually the other woman will break up with Gene. 

Two more interesting but underdeveloped couples are Jerry (Chris Penn) and his wife Lois (Jennifer Jason Leigh) a phone sex operator who takes on her motherly and professional duties all at the same time. They are friends with Honey (Lili Taylor) and Bill (Robert Downey Jr.). They have been asked by their neighbors to occasionally stop by and feed their fish while they are away on a month long vacation. Bill has no particular interest in helping out his neighbors and rather chase after pretty young women.

Finally there is Dr. Ralph Wyman (Matthew Modine) and his artistic wife Marian (Julianne Moore). They meet another couple at a music recital; Claire (Anne Archer) and Stuart (Ward) and impulsively invite them to dinner. The good doctor is aloof. Does he not like the couple or is there something simmering between he and his wife? Being an artist she is presented as outgoing but is she masking and avoiding their issues?

Bringing this all together is the fact the doctor is the one taking care of Casey at the hospital and Marian is Sherri's sister.

These characters and their situations were inspired by the writings of author Raymond Carver. Some have taken umbrage to this claiming Altman was not faithful to Carver's work. In the book  Altman on Altman - a film by film conversation with the director - Altman addresses this criticism by explaining "Everything that was in there was his stories or pieces or lines from the stories, which is why it says in the credits 'Based on the writings of Raymond Carver', not any particular story." I like the way the late and brilliant movie critic Michael Wilmington defended Altman's interpretation of Carver's writing by comparing it to music, writing "It's as if, listening to Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, or Art Tatum riff through versions of "I Got Rhythm," critics started complaining that Gershwin's melody was being lost."

And the musical comparison is an apt one. As was the case with "Nashville", Altman uses music as a way to weave these characters and their struggles together, creating a kind of musical interplay. In "Nashville" the emphasis was naturally on country music while in "Short Cuts" everything pulsates to the sounds of jazz. Altman and co-writer Frank Barhydt have created a character named Tess (Annie Ross, the famed jazz crooner from the trio Lambert, Hendricks, & Ross), an alcoholic jazz singer and mother, who emotionally intertwines the pain, disillusionment, and bitterness washing over these characters through the songs she sings.  

Altman and "Short Cuts" made a strong link between sexual frustration and dissatisfaction and its ability to manifest itself onto a society and fill it with violence, denial, and isolation. It is like a fog hovering over humanity. Much like medfly "war" the city is engaged in as helicopters fly above in the nightly skies spraying chemicals which may or may not be protecting the citizens.

One of the most powerfully charged scenes in the film had the doctor confronting his wife about a possible infidelity. While Marian is being confronted she spills wine on her clothes. Taking off her skirt to remove the wine stain she stands there fully naked from the waist down as she must ultimately confess to her indiscretion. The scene caused a stir in 1993 but it perfectly illustrates the vulnerability and intimacy within a marriage. In the Altman book, the filmmaker states "I think it is really the best thing in the movie." 

Jack Lemmon is involved in another powerful scene as an estranged father to Howard (Davison) and explains why he and his wife separated, after he was caught with his sister-in-law. Once again here is a scene showing vulnerability but Paul (Lemmon) isn't so much interested in reconnecting with his son instead preferring to defend his reputation.

There are a handful of other scenes that struck me because of their raw emotion. The moment Howard and Ann confront the baker is filled with tenderness and sensitivity. A scene when Stuart reveals to Claire what happened during their fishing trip is interesting as we watch the gradual disappointment and judgement in Claire grow towards Stuart, with him desperate to explain his actions. And a scene between a daughter (Lori Singer) hopelessly trying to connect with her mother (Ross).

It all culminates with an "act of God" conclusion, as if nature is literally trying to shake humanity up. It further reminded me of just how much Paul Thomas Anderson stole from this movie when making "Magnolia" (1999). However "Shorts Cuts" feels much more satisfyingly with its ending. We will all experience devastation but it will pass and we must strive to move on. To quote the famed composer Irving Berlin, "the song is ended but the melody lingers on".

Like for so many other great American filmmakers from the 1970s, the corporate takeover of Hollywood in the 1980s saw a decline in Altman's creative and artistic influence. The 1990s however were a time of rejuvenation and vitality. Just as the 1970s saw Altman at, presumably, the height of his powers, the 1990s was an equally strong creative period which "Short Cuts" helped solidify and restore Altman's reputation as one of this country's finest filmmakers. The one-two punch of "The Player" and "Short Cuts" exhibited a filmmaker at the top of his craft. Throughout the 90s and up until his death Altman seemed unstoppable. Practically every film he released I thought was spectacular - "Kansas City" (1996), "The Gingerbread Man" (1998), "Cookie's Fortune" (1999), "The Company" (2003), and his final film, "A Prairie Home Companion" (2006). 

Luckily for Altman some movie critics were able to recognize his as well as "Short Cuts" genius. Movie year 1993 was essentially defined by Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" (1993), which is a masterpiece. But even within the presence of such a film by Spielberg, critics were able to praise Altman's film just as enthusiastically. Writing for the Chicago Tribune, Michael Wilmington declared it the best movie of the year. Meanwhile his colleague, Gene Siskel, placed it in the number two spot on his year end list, only behind Spielberg's film. The great Andrew Sarris mentioned it among the year's best English language films in the New York Observer. And in Vincent Canby's New York Times review he wrote "When future social historians want to know what the temper of life was like in one corner of American in 1993, "Short Cuts" will be the mother lode of information." In addition Altman scored his forth (of five) Oscar nomination for best director. It was back-to-back nominations for him as he was also nominated for "The Player". Sadly, it was "Short Cuts" only nomination but a worthy one and a sign Hollywood was eager to once again embrace the maverick director.

Despite such accolades given to "Short Cuts" these pass thirty-plus years demonstrate outside of some cinephile circles the movie hasn't had much of a cultural impact and influence - with the exception of "Magnolia" - the way other Altman films like "M*A*S*H" and even (sigh) "Popeye" (1980) did. Did anyone care last year was its 30th anniversary? Financially the film did poorly at the U.S. box-office, not even able to bring in a profit or break even against its twelve million dollar budget.

But box-office isn't an indicator of great art and "Short Cuts" is great art. I am happy this year of "Was I Right?" inspired me to take a second look at this film and reacquaint myself with it. 

"Short Cuts" was a richly conceived, thoughtful examination of humanity, human behavior, and morality in America. It ranks among the best films of 1993, the best of the decade, and Altman's all-time greats.

Film Review: Unforgiven

 "Unforgiven"

**** (out of ****)

The American Western has usually been defined by its moral simplicity - the sheriff shoots the bandit. How each man lives with the blood on their hands and soul is never discussed. There was never a need to consider the ethics of the bandit or the righteousness of the sheriff. Clint Eastwood's revisionist Western, "Unforgiven" (1992) asks us to follow a man with many sins from his past and question if he is truly a changed man.

"Unforgiven" is a sobering contemplation of themes Eastwood has spent a career redefining - Western mythology, redemption, heroism, morality, and justice. When it was released in 1992, it may have been Eastwood's greatest statement on these subjects. It is no small wonder it won the Academy Award for Best Picture and earned him his first nomination and win for Best Director. 

Eastwood is an actor best known for his roles in spaghetti Westerns and for playing Dirty Harry. Turning in performances characterized for their interpretation of rugged individualism and masculinity. With each new movie and each portrayal Eastwood brings that screen history with him. That's what makes it so important he play the role of Bill Munny, the hero (?) in "Unforgiven". Eastwood, a case study in virility and brutality, allows himself in this movie to display moments of vulnerability, reflection, aging, and weakness. And that's what makes us question if Bill has truly turned over a new leaf. We never see the cruelty Bill and others say he engaged in and yet because Eastwood is in the role, we believe it to be true.

For if Bill was truly a changed man why does he want to join the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) - a young and eager gunfighter desperate to make a name for himself - hunt down and kill a man, with a $1,000 bounty on him, for beating and cutting a woman (Anna Thomson), one of the town's prostitutes? Does the man, known as Quick Mike (David Mucci) have it coming to him for what he did? Is this justice? Or are we unable to escape our past? Bill says he's changed but is the temptation to go back to his old ways too strong? Bill says he'll kill the man strictly for the money, so he can provide for his two children, after his wife has died. She, Bill says, was responsible for his change. But how can a reformed man leave behind his two very young children and go out to kill a man and then come home to play daddy?

Perhaps untrusting of the Kid or merely seeking the comfort from the ol' days, Bill approaches his old partner Ned (Morgan Freeman) to ask if he will join him. Ned has similar skeletons in his closet but maybe not as plentiful as Bill. Ned agrees to travel along but not before hitting Bill with a key observation, he (Bill) wouldn't be doing this if his wife was alive. If revenge for the prostitute is the moral and just thing to do, what difference would it make if Bill's wife were alive or not? But we can tell on  Bill's face he knows what Ned says is true.

As the three men travel cross country, there are other men willing to cash in on the bounty. One of those men is an old and notorious gunfighter himself, English Bob (Richard Harris). He is currently travelling with a writer, Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek), who he regals with stories from his past to be written into his biography. And here Eastwood comments on the mythology of the Wild West. It made me think of the classic Western, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962) - also about Western mythology - and the famous line from the movie, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". What has influenced our perceptions of the Wild West? Most likely stories like the ones English Bob told men like Beauchamp who published them in books. But were the stories true? Men like English Bob live on their reputation from the stories passed along.

"Unforgiven" creates a darkly comical contrast between English Bob and Bill Munny. Whereas English Bob, we come to learn, has embellished his stories, Bill Munny downplays his. When the Kid asks Bill if it's true he shot two men by himself, Bill confirms but it isn't until later that Ned confronts Bill to clarify, wasn't it three men? Beauchamp becomes the symbol for this commentary as we see both his horror and wide eye fascination with men like English Bob, Bill Munny, and Little Bill (Gene Hackman), the town's sheriff. His eyes almost glisten as he trades in one gunfighter's stories for the next. For ever on the lookout for the bigger and better story.

When English Bob arrives in town it captures the attention of Little Bill and his deputies. They are aware of he bounty the prostitutes have placed on Quick Mike and are fearful of men riding into town to stir up trouble. The appearance of English Bob may signify trouble. Little Bill sets out to make an example of English Bob and offer  warning to the prostitutes. They better not expect someone to cash in on that bounty. As far as Little Bill is concerned the beating of the prostitute is not worth killing a man. The prostitute isn't viewed as human but rather as a piece of property, belonging to the saloon keeper. What kind of justice is this sheriff engaging in?

In addition to Western mythology, Eastwood also uses these characters to remark on changing times and the death of the Wild West as it once was. English Bob, Little Bill, and Bill Munny are relics from the past. After a shootout scene the Kid asks Bill, is that what it was like in the old days? Meanwhile Little Bill may have once been a tough customer but today he tries his hand on carpentry and building his own home. Rugged masculinity mixed with respectability. A modern frontier lies ahead. Men like English Bob and Bill won't be around forever and the younger generation really doesn't want to follow in their footsteps. Pay attention to the relationship between the Kid and Bill. The Kid gets a feeling for what Bill must have been like in the past and after a small taste of it, realizes the stories aren't all they are cracked up to be.

That doesn't make "Unforgiven" a pacifist film by any means. While Eastwood's Bill may repeatedly say he's not the man he used to be - is he trying to convince others or himself? - he is not really the archetype I have described as the "Cowardly Liberal" either. A man of liberal ideals who when pushed into a corner must prove his masculinity in a brutal display of violence - "Straw Dogs" (1971), "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943), and "Saving Private Ryan" (1998) all have examples of this character. However it is a final act of violence the film leaves us with. Suggesting Saintly Bill was simply provoked too far. "Movie critic" Godfrey Cheshire, who gave a very lukewarm review to the film, summed up this element of the story in his New York Press review by writing, "Eastwood proves his storied prowess by trashing the remnants of his wife's pacifist code - an irony that would be cruel were it not lost in the roar of gunfire and the heart-pumping reward of revenge."

And so we come back to the morality of the Western genre. True, the characters are switched, this time it is the bandit that shoots the sheriff however the "justice" in the final shootout remains the same. The more "moral" man is victorious. Some things will never change.

"Unforgiven", I believe, was truly the start of a new chapter in Eastwood's career. He had become an accomplished filmmaker. Some of his greatest directorial efforts where still to come - "Mystic River" (2003), "Million Dollar Baby" (2004), "Changeling" (2008), and "American Sniper" (2014) - proving naysayers wrong that feel with age, talent diminishes. Film critics such as Roger Ebert, Michael Wilmington, and Andrew Sarris all named "Unforgiven" as one of the best films of 1992.  It scored a total of nine Academy Award nominations, winning four (Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Hackman), and Editing) and in an amazing display of good taste, was a financial hit, grossing more than $150 million at the domestic box-office.

Last year on this blog I declared it "the year of me", as a way to celebrate the 15th anniversary of this blog and to honor my 40th birthday. From that celebratory tone we switch this year to a more critical one. This year I have dubbed "Was I Right"? I will periodically look at movies I placed on various top ten lists throughout the years to answer the question, was I right? Does a movie hold up. "Unforgiven" was placed on my top ten list of the best films of 1992. I ranked it in the number 10 spot as part of a three way tie with Spike Lee's "Malcolm X" (1992) and Neil Jordan's "The Crying Game" (1992). I was both right and wrong. I was correct to include the film on my list but wrong not to give it its own individual spot, which I have now rectified.

"Unforgiven" is a richly entertaining, contemplative study of themes Clint Eastwood has spent a career examining. At its time of release, "Unforgiven" was a highlight in Eastwood's long celebrated career and his greatest statement yet on these issues. It remains one of the great modern American Westerns.

Film Review: Summer Rental

 "Summer Rental"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

[Warning: This review will reveal plot points without proper notice]

Carl Reiner's "Summer Rental" (1985) sets sail as a delightful comedy with John Candy at the wheel.

My memory told me after Carl Reiner's collaboration with Steve Martin it wasn't smooth sailing for Reiner's career. He never directed movies quite as funny or as enduring to the American public's taste. It has been years since I watched "Summer Rental" but I recall it from my childhood since my parents had it on VHS. For some reason I remember it being a rather bland comedy that didn't appeal to my five or six year old sensibilities.

"Summer Rental" is a truly amusing warm human comedy. It may not offer pound for pound as many laughs as the Reiner / Martin comedies - "The Jerk" (1979), "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" (1982) and "The Man With Two Brains" (1983) - but "Summer Rental" by far exceeds them for one reason - John Candy. It's a debatable point, who was funnier Candy or Martin? But Candy is a much more likable character in "Summer Rental" than Martin was in any of the four movies directed by Reiner. Candy has an everyman quality to him that turns this predictable comedy into something thoroughly entertaining. What a downright shame it is that Candy and Reiner never collaborated on another comedy!

Candy plays air traffic controller Jack Chester. Overworked, one day he has a meltdown. His supervisor demands he take a vacation since he hasn't had one in 13 years, when he and his wife went on their honeymoon. And so off Jack goes to Florida with his wife Sandy (Karen Austin), daughter Jennifer (Kerri Green) and son Bobby (Joey Lawrence) to a resort town called Citrus Cove.

This fits in nicely with a theme Carl Reiner's comedies usually follow - men faced with disillusionment over their mundane lives. Normally those men seek fame and fortune and want to enter show business but with "Summer Rental" Candy finds fulfilment in sailing.

After the family arrives in Florida they have an encounter with one of the town's most popular residents, Al Pellet (Richard Crenna), a seven time sailing champion. First Al and his guests are seated before Jack and his family at an upscale seafood restaurant. Next Jack and Bobby get into a sailing accident and smash Al's boat. Finally, Al becomes Jack's new landlord, after the previous landlord dies, and demands Jack and his family leave the summer rental home in a couple of days.

With his family distraught their vacation will be cut short, Jack gets an idea. He will enter the town's Regatta to challenge Al and make a side wager. If Jack wins the race, he and his family get to stay in the vacation home rent free for two weeks. If Al wins, he can keep the rent owed and Jack and the family leave two weeks earlier.

"Summer Rental" becomes a working man comedy with the class conflict between Al and Jack. This is new territory for Reiner and kind of, sort of feels borrowed from "Caddyshack" (1980) though Jack is never presented as a loud vulgar slob the way Rodney Dangerfield was. Candy however is well suited as the working man hero thanks to his on-screen charm and non-leading man looks. Crenna plays the arrogant snob a bit like a caricature but in a comedy such as this it works. 

There is also room for some terrific supporting characters with Rip Torn as Scully, the owner of a local seafood dump, The Barnacle. Is Scully a great seaman or a con-man? He teaches Jack how to sail, so he may know his way around a boat but most likely he's also a con-man. His restaurant's "catch of the day" is in reality frozen fish sticks. Torn takes this minor character and makes him memorable and very funny. Another memorable character, for a completely different reason, is Vicki (Lois Hamilton). She recently had her breasts augmented and goes around exposing herself to men, Jack included, asking for their opinion about her breasts. Adding to the joke is that her husband doesn't get mad at her but actually encourages the men to tell Vicki everything looks fine. 

For as much as I like "Summer Rental" there are problems with the movie. One of those problems is the third act. Events feel a bit rushed to get us to the big race but once we are there the movie runs out of things to say. We get the drift of what will happen but the movie cuts things short. There is also a sub-plot introduced involving Sandy and a recently divorced man (John Larroquette). When Sandy takes the kids to see a movie - after Jack has broken his leg - she realizes she doesn't have any money when a man appears and agrees to pay for her and the kids. Then there is lots of dialogue of all the things Sandy and the kids are doing with this man while Jack recuperates. At no point however is Jack ever presented as jealous and we never get scenes of the family outings with this man. What was he after? Clearly something was left on the cutting room floor. In an interview with Chicago Tribune movie critic Gene Siskel, Candy called "Summer Rental"'s script "threadbare" but says he didn't want to pass up the opportunity to work with Carl Reiner. He goes on to state the shooting schedule was rushed because of Paramount.

Despite these flaws, I must reiterate "Summer Rental" does have a lot of good comedy moments. I laughed out loud as Jack is walking towards his family at the beach and he manages to annoy and sometimes harm each and every person he walks pass by stepping on someone's hand, squirting someone with sun tan lotion, spilling water on someone else and stepping on yet another person's lunch. I also enjoy a scene concerning a mix-up with the rental house - which is too precious to spoil - and finally the scenes between Jack and Scully.

Therefore I find it so hard to believe the sheep (AKA "movie critics") didn't like this movie when it was released. In the Chicago Tribune, the critic Richard Christiansen, who served as the paper's long running theater critic, panned the movie writing "Summer Rental" wasn't even as good as Candy's old TV material and went on to trash the movie declaring it was cheaply edited. In her New York Times review Janet Maslin was much kinder. As a side note, have movie lovers given Maslin the respect and admiration she deserves? I personally never come across her name listed as one of our finest movie critics. She praised Candy's performance but called the script "largely uneventful" and pointed out Rip Torn wasn't given much to work with. Other "critics" I have come across all refer to "Summer Rental" as "forgettable". This I find rich. Practically every comic book movie blends together in my mind. For me they are all routine and forgettable and yet some of these same "critics" heap loads of praise onto these movies. Are the critical expectations higher for a Carl Reiner comedy than a comic book movie? I don't think they would admit to that but it just goes to show you the inconsistent "standards" and "logic" they apply to justify their opinions. I would rather watch "Summer Rental" five nights a week than any modern movie the sheep praise.

Of course the ultimate test for any movie's worth is time and after nearly 40 years (39 to be exact) "Summer Rental" still has its defenders. The movie managed to resonate with a small group of viewers and is fondly remembered today.

Now that I have rewatched "Summer Rental" I have seen all 15 feature-length movies Carl Reiner directed, which was my goal after his death in 2020. And I can now say "Summer Rental" ranks with his best - "The Jerk", "Dead Men", and "Where's Poppa?" (1971). I must admit for my generation (80s babies) the Carl Reiner comedy that is probably most nostalgic for them - and they don't even know it was directed by him (!) - would be his next comedy, "Summer School" (1987), the only Reiner comedy I would ever dare say I hate!

"Summer Rental" is a sweet and human comedy. It isn't Carl Reiner's funniest movie but it has qualities - namely heart - that make it equally enduring. John Candy proved he had the ability to carry a movie - this was his first lead role - and it is largely because of him "Summer Rental" succeeds. Thirty years after his death here is a movie that demonstrates what a talent he was.

Film Review: Police Academy - 40th Anniversary

 "Police Academy"

** (out of ****)

Watching "Police Academy" (1984) for its 40th anniversary, I was struck by how relevant aspects of it felt. Without trying to give the movie too much credit, here is a story about changing times and smashing down the old guard. About Liberal ideology versus Conservative thinking. It's a shame however, after setting up these themes eventually "Police Academy" does nothing with them.

There is a new Mayor in this unspecified town - I assume it's New York - and as a result a new hiring practice put in place for the Police department. No longer will height, weight, sex, education or physical strength be a determining factor into who can apply to become a police officer.

The new Mayor is a woman and the current higher ups at the unspecified police department don't like the ideas of this new mayor. Chief Hurnst (George Robertson) seems particularly displeased with the sight of women at the training academy. He would like Commandant Lassard (George Gaynes) and his right hand man, Lt. Harris (G.W.Bailey) to apply extra pressure on the new recruits to deter them from becoming police officers.

We can see the parallels to today's times, in a world of defund the police and inclusivity. The world presented in "Police Academy" is one Dirty Harry feared. It's his nightmare come true. The Liberals have taken over and now anyone can become a cop. But than an unfortunate thing happens, the movie continues. Any social or political messaging is pushed aside to make way for infantile, sometimes vulgar humor.

In his Chicago Sun-Times movie review, the late critic Roger Ebert blasted the movie, suggesting it was the result of the financial success of  "Airplane!" (1980) and is in some way a satire of police movies. "Police Academy" is definitely an attempt at a cash-in but I don't think "Airplane!" was its source of inspiration. I'd suggest "National Lampoon's  Animal House" (1978) and "Porky's" (1981). "Police Academy" is a teenage sex comedy without the teenagers or high school/college setting.

While there is a basic concept of a plot - keep the weirdo, ill-equip police recruits from completing their training - the structure of the movie feels like vignettes drawn together. The movie doesn't feel well thought out, advancing a strong narrative.

Thirty minutes into the movie, once the training begins, the movie slips apart and the narrative breaks down. From this point on the movie's screenwriters - Neal Israel and Pat Proft among them - break the movie down into their idea of funny sequences. The sequences are "pay offs" but no real set-ups. The recruits are going on the first weekend leave. Lt. Harris suspects there will be a party and most likely bad behavior. He would like to trap them by sending two informants to the party. But the two are given the wrong location and end up at a gay bar. One of the recruits, we suddenly discover, doesn't know how to drive and gosh darn it, wouldn't you know tomorrow is the big driving test, so he needs a crash course lesson overnight. The only female commanding officer catches a male recruit sneaking into the female barracks at night. After she catches him, they have wild sex. Commandant Lassard is going to give a slide show presentation but doesn't realize a hooker is hiding in the podium. When the Commandant approaches the podium, she unzips his pants to perform fellatio. These are random scenes thrown together with no glue keeping everything in place.

Furthermore "Police Academy" makes the mistake of not giving us characters we can care about. No one is fleshed out. Just like the plot structure, these are a random assortment of individuals thrown together but given nothing to do. It is merely supposed to be the idea of them that is funny. That's the joke. They exist. There is no character development. Each character is given at least one trait, to create a distinction between them but there is never any sense these are real people. Hightower (Bubba Smith) is a tall and strong African-American male. Hooks (Marion Ramsey) is a short, soft spoken woman. Tackleberry (David Graf) is an over-zealot gun nut. Jones (Michael Winslow) is a human sound effects machine. Sgt. Callahan (Leslie Easterbrook) is a no-nonsense masculine female. Karen (Kim Cattrall) is the rich girl, and Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg) is the lovable smart-ass. After their trait is revealed to us, very little is than added upon it. "Police Academy" wants to be a feel good story of the underdog but there is nothing here to cheer for because we have no emotional connection.

What a wasted opportunity to not take time and explain some of these characters. Why on earth would a young woman from a wealthy family want to become a police officer? What does she learn about herself and those around her? It could have provided a moment for "Police Academy" to make a commentary about class. How did Sgt. Callahan make her way up the ladder in this all-boys club? Is she really accepted as "one of the guys"? What purpose does the Jones character serve? Someone clearly thought Winslow's noise mimicry was funny but how do you capitalize on it in a movie? In Mel Brooks' "Spaceballs" (1987) he limited Winslow to one scene. Unless the man had amazing acting ability, it is difficult to build a character around this one talent Winslow had. The "character" didn't belong in this movie. Or any movie. 

I would have liked to believe someone with Pat Proft's writing experience would have understood this. Proft may be best known for his involvement with the Zucker Brothers and Jim Abrahams. Proft wrote two episodes of the unfortunately short lived comedy series "Police Squad!" (1982) and co-wrote the screenplays for the following "Naked Gun" movies. He collaborated with Abrahams on the "Hot Shot" movies before finally writing and directing his own spoof comedy, "Wrongfully Accused" (1998) starring Leslie Nielsen. All of which I find extremely funny. So how could the script for "Police Academy" go so wrong? Could it all be blamed on the movie's director, Hugh Wilson, who would go on to direct "Dudley Do-Right" (1999)?

From a critical standpoint, my view of "Police Academy" is in line with what other critics were saying at the time however audiences really seemed to enjoy the antics here because "Police Academy" would become one of the highest grossing movies of 1984, taking in more than 81 million at the domestic box-office. In addition to which six more sequels would follow as well as a short lived live action television series.

It is indeed a mystery as to why such a movie should resonate with audiences. Of course, making fun of authority figures has always been a crowd pleaser. Comedies about inept police officers go back to the early days of silent cinema with the Keystone Kops. But "Police Academy" isn't using veteran police officers as a punching bag. It is making fun of recruits. What is the ultimate message here besides with a little hard work even underdogs can achieve their dreams? 

Although it is no longer the "year of me" - my year long celebration last year - I will share with you that as a child I was a big fan of the "Police Academy" movies with the exception of this first movie and the last one, "Mission to Moscow" (1994) which I have yet to see. Perhaps other children watched this movie and an unexpected kid following began. I had a friend growing up that also enjoyed "Police Academy" movies. This may explain why this was the only movie in the series to earn a "R" rating. In 1988 an animated series was created with a toy line following. The series and the toy line ended too quickly but it possibly helped draw in other children to watch the live action movies. The toy line was one of my all-time favorite lines on par with the Ghostbusters, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and wrestling figures. It was largely because of the toys I began to watch the live action movies.

"Police Academy" is a scattershot comedy that had a real opportunity to be something more and become a social and political satire. Its characters are useless and aren't even plot devices used to further the story. They are meant to be punchlines to set-ups never explained. It all feels like a random assortment of half-baked ideas. I confess to having laughed once or twice but I'm an easy target. This movie is a mess. How did it manage to live on 40 years later?