For the first time in over a year, I revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by sharing my surprisingly contrarian opinion about a comedy classic: the 1975 British film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” You have been warned.] The History In January 1973, shortly after the conclusion of the third season of their BBC television series Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the comedy troupe “Monty Python” made up of six members (in alphabetical order)—Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palim, Terry Gilliam, and Terry Jones—started writing the first draft of a screenplay divided evenly between the Middle Ages and the present. Throughout the writing process, they ditched the present-day storylines by deciding to focus the script’s narrative on the mythology of the Holy Grail. Having never directed a feature film before, Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones embraced the “hands-on” nature of the directing process. However, no major studios expressed interest in funding the project. So, Gilliam and Jones turned to several high-profile musicians and rock bands—Elton John, Ian Anderson, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd—who found the film as “a good tax write-off” due to the top income tax rate in the United Kingdom at the time was “as high as 90%.” In this manner, they managed to fund the film’s entire $410,000 budget. Principal photography was done primary on location in Scotland and heavily featured multiple castles in central and western Scotland (some exterior shots featured castles in England and Wales). More castles than were ultimately included were supposed to be part of filming, but weeks before shooting began the country’s Department of the Environment forbade castles within its jurisdiction from being utilized by the cast and crew out of fear that allowing this would result in damage. For the scene involving the Rabbit Caerbannog, a real white rabbit was used but switched with puppets for the killing scene. The bite effects were pulled by Gilliam and SFX technician John Horton using special puppetry. During filming, the rabbit was covered in red liquid as a blood simulant in spite of its owner’s preference that the rabbit remain spotless (this was done without the owner’s consent). While the liquid was difficult to remove from the animal’s fur, the rabbit was ultimately unharmed. Additionally, due to budget constraints, Gilliam and Jones refrained from the knight characters riding actual horses and chose to have them mime horse-riding while their porters followed them banging coconut shells together to simulate the sound of trotting hooves. Prior to filming, Chapman (who played the Pythons’ version of King Arthur) suffered from acrophobia (a fear of heights), shakes, and bouts of amnesia due to struggles with alcoholism. Thus, Chapman refrained from drinking during production to remain “on an even keel” before achieving sobriety about three years later after completing the film. Debuting in London on April 3, 1975 before premiering to the American public in New York City on April 28 the same year, Monty Python and the Holy Grail earned £2.3 million pounds during its initial theatrical run (and about $5.5 million from subsequent re-releases). Not long after premiering on various television networks in the late 1970s, the Pythons were dismayed to learn that many networks censored the film’s excessive profanity and use of blood. Consequently, they pulled the broadcast rights of the film and only allowed it to be shown on select U.S. networks (namely, PBS and Comedy Central) that ran the movie uncensored. Contemporaneous reviews of the film were mixed, with some revering the “occasionally inspired” comedic gags, its “youthful exuberance” and “rousing zaniness.” Others, however, felt the movie was simply “an excuse for set pieces” that were not uniformly entertaining” or even lacked funny moments for the majority of its runtime. With the passage of time, however, Monty Python and the Holy Grail has developed a more favorably reputation with cinephiles. It has nabbed a high-ranking spot in the several media rankings of the best comedy films and British films of all time. Thus, it has achieved cult status as a noteworthy piece of independent cinema and postmodern comedy (even being adapted into the 2005 award-winning Broadway musical Spamalot that was supposed to be adapted into a feature film before plans were scrapped in 2021). The Cons There are movies, like Citizen Kane or Mad Max: Fury Road, that are considered classics or fantastic films (or both) that I simply don’t get. These films, however, are meaty enough for me to really dive in & elaborate on several reasons why I don’t connect with them or find them worthy of the reputation they have developed over time. And then there’s Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A comedy that, in my humble opinion, isn’t all that funny. The core of my philosophy when it comes to movies (or any entertainment medium, for that matter) is that their primary purpose should be to…entertain (shocking, I know!). Thus, a comedy film or show should make me laugh above all else. And Holy Grail just doesn’t (for the most part). Maybe I’m just not on the wavelength of fans of this film or the Pythons’ comedic stylings, but pretty much all of their bits that make up the runtime of the movie are, in the words of film critic Gene Siskel, “silence.” I don’t laugh with them or even at them; I simply watch them happen, shrug, and move on to the next scene. Then, I get to the final scene and just roll my eyes. An anti-climactic fourth-wall break that was done better a year before this movie came out by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles (a movie that I like better than this one, by the way). It was even done better by John Hughes in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (another movie I like better than Holy Grail). Thus, after just over 90 minutes, I find very little redeeming about this movie. Having not seen a single episode of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, my hunch is that these British comedians’ sense of humor works better in the short-form “sketch” format á la Saturday Night Live than as a feature-length screenplay. The Pros If you were paying attention, you know that I said “most” of the bits in Holy Grail don’t work for me. The one that does (and probably will for most viewers) is King Arthur’s fight with the Black Knight (John Cleese). Aside from the cartoonishly gratuitous violence employed with the villainous knight losing all four limbs during the fight with Arthur, I appreciate how his characterization is an effective satire of the wholehearted chivalry of medieval European culture. In other words, it’s the one and only piece of parody in the entire movie that, in my humble opinion, is genuinely funny (unlike the Knights Who Say “Ni!” who are flat-out annoying or the slaughter of the Rabbit of Caerbannog that comes off as childish). So, what are my final impressions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Aside from a fun, brief scene with the Black Knight, it’s 90 minutes of jokes that aren’t funny with a piss-poor conclusion that John Cleese himself finds retrospectively annoying. Unless you have a full-throated love of British sketch humor or low-budget comedy flicks from the 1970s, then this film probably isn’t for you. What do you think about Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones’ Monty Python and the Holy Grail? What’s your favorite (or least favorite) Monty Python flick? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay For the last time this year, I revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by examining Oliver Stone’s white-collar drama Wall Street thirty-five years to the day that it came to theaters back in 1987.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Wall Street.” You have been warned.] The History As far back as 1981, director Oliver Stone (Born on the Fourth of July, JFK) was thinking about making a movie about Wall Street loosely inspired by his stockbroker father Lou Stone. Coming off of the success of his Oscar-winning war film Platoon, Stone met with friend and screenwriter Stanley Weiser (Project X, W.) to discuss the idea of two investment partners using each other in shady financial deals while being pursued by a prosecutor. Specifically, Stone wanted to tell a story about “a boy…seduced and corrupted by the allure of easy money” who “sets out to redeem himself” in the end. At Stone’s request, Weiser read novels such as Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” as sources of inspiration. However, Weiser found the literature unfit as bases for the screenplay. Instead, Weiser conducted research about the world of stock trading and corporate takeovers; along with Stone, he also spent nearly a month visiting brokerage houses and interviewing investors. Weiser and Stone both wrote their own first drafts (during which they stripped away their protagonist’s Jewish heritage to avoid stereotyping). In crafting the antagonist Gordon Gekko, several real-life investors, bankers, stockbrokers, and financiers served as inspiration. According to Weiser, Stone’s fast-paced manner of speaking on the phone even helped influence Gekko’s speech patterns in the film. Stone always had Charlie Sheen (Red Dawn, Platoon) in mind for the lead role of young, naïve stockbroker Bud Fox because of his “stiff” approach to acting. However, there was some disagreement between Stone and the studio about who should play Gekko. The former wanted Richard Gere (Pretty Woman, Primal Fear, Chicago), who turned down the role, while the latter preferred Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde, Heaven Can Wait, Bugsy), who also turned it down. Against the advice of friends in Hollywood, Stone ultimately went with Michael Douglas (Fatal Attraction, The American President) who really liked Stone and Weiser’s screenplay. For the character, Douglas read profiles of corporate raiders such as T. Boone Pickens. Principal photography began in April of 1987 and lasted until July. Due to Orion Pictures (the studio that distributed Platoon) deeming the project too risky, Stone and producer Edward R. Pressman (Conan the Barbarian, Talk Radio, American Psycho) took it to 20th Century Fox who authorized the 15 million-dollar shooting budget which allowed Stone to shoot on location in New York City. Stone hired multiple investment bankers, such as Jeffrey “Mad Dog” Beck and Kenneth Lipper, as technical advisors on the movie by offering insights about the characters and the production design. Lipper leveraged specific criticisms about the potential one-sided nature of the story, which Stone placated by allowing Lipper to rewrite the script (despite cutting the one scene from Lipper’s screenplay that he shot). Cinematographer Robert Richardson (Platoon, The Aviator, Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight) collaborated with Stone to make the camera “become a predator” because, according to Stone, they were “making a movie about sharks” and “feeding frenzies.” As a result, Stone and Richardson made the camera very kinetic in order to depict Wall Street like a “battle zone” by shooting conversations like physical confrontations and having the camera encircle the actors like “a pool with sharks.” In contrast, the film moves into the world of Bud’s father as a stationary camera to give “a sense of immutable values.” To prepare himself for Gekko’s fast-paced dialogue, Douglas worked with a speech instructor on breath control but also received immersive coaching from Stone himself. Notably, Stone entered Douglas’s trailer one day and insulted his talent (which shocked Douglas) just before performing the “Greed is good” speech. Stone was under his own pressures, such as having to switch from 12- to 14-hour shooting days in order to wrap up filming before the start of a Directors Guild of America strike (Sheen remarked that, while directing, Stone was always looking at his watch). With a final budget of 16.5 million dollars, Wall Street was released on December 11, 1987 to generally positive critical reception. While some reviewers found Stone’s preachiness a bit much, the performances (particularly Douglas) were highly praised. Going on to gross nearly 44 million dollars, the film also won Michael Douglas his first (and, to date, only) acting Oscar. Furthermore, the film went on to become representative of the virtues of greed and excess strongly associated with the 1980s. According to the director and lead actors, it even inspired some people to become stockbrokers and investment bankers. The Cons I made the mistake of watching this movie after already having seen Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street. And, simply put, that movie supersedes Oliver Stone’s Wall Street in virtually every way possible. To try and address all of them in this blog would exhaust me. So, instead, I’ve narrowed down my critiques to a few key points. In a general sense, Stone and Weiser’s screenplay feels more like a “soap box” melodrama than a substantive drama. Its depiction of the greed of 1980s America possesses a rather preachy tone that takes away from its potentially compelling characters. Furthermore, the way that it subverts a well-structured narrative in favor of exploring themes that could make for interesting and important storytelling but never feel like they are being given the conscious attention that they deserve. In my research, learning that Stone cast Charlie Sheen in the lead role specifically for his stiffness as a performer confounded me. Maybe Sheen’s young, naïve presence worked for his role in Platoon. But, it just doesn’t work here. In my humble opinion, the lead character in this kind of story needs to be interesting. To be clear, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Bud Fox should’ve been portrayed as a charming and outgoing social butterfly. But he needs to be magnetic by making everything that he does convince me to watch what he’s going to do next. And Sheen just never really did that. Also, not to shit on Sheen, but his performance is simply outshined by Michael Douglas. The film also has a similar effect to Stone’s film Natural Born Killers. Essentially, in trying to satirize and critique an aspect of late-20th-century American society, he’s managed to glorify what he is trying to criticize. Whereas that movie takes aim at the mass media’s tendency to sensationalize violence by…sensationalizing violence, Wall Street tries (and fails) to warn Americans about the moral corruptibility of greed by showing what people can accomplish by being greedy. Are they good people? No, but it doesn’t really matter within the context of the story because the characters whose greed drives their actions don’t receive the punishments that they assuredly deserve. All in all, these are some of my specific criticisms of Wall Street. But, my general problem with it is that it’s just so damn boring. 😊
The Pros If there is one silver lining in Wall Street, it’s Michael Douglas. I know this isn’t news, but Douglas is a great actor (much like his father Kirk Douglas). And his portrayal of the megalomaniac stockbroker Gordon Gekko is easily the most interesting character in the entire film. Not only did he typify the greedy American banker for the time (and generations to come), but he more than deserved the Oscar that he won for his performance. That’s it. ☹ So, what are my final impressions of Wall Street? It’s boring and largely unforgettable, and is not worth watching since Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street now exists. Just go and watch that; it’s a far superior film that targets similar societal culprits but actually does so well. 😊 What do you think about Oliver Stone’s Wall Street? What’s your favorite (or least favorite) Oliver Stone flick? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Jumping decades ahead from the 1984 “slasher” hit A Nightmare on Elm Street, today’s blog is about a more recent horror movie listed in Steven Jay Schneider’s book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.” And that movie is none other than the 2012 horror comedy The Cabin in the Woods, directed by Drew Goddard.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “The Cabin in the Woods.” You have been warned.] The History Co-writing the screenplay in three days with director Drew Goddard (Cloverfield, World War Z, The Martian), Joss Whedon (Serenity, The Avengers) described this film as a “loving hate letter” to modern horror movies. Specifically, he and Goddard aimed to critique both what they love and hate about horror films in the modern era: a mixture of thrills and horror for the former, and these types of movies leaning into “torture porn” for the latter. Principal photography lasted from March to May of 2009 in Vancouver, Canada. While much of the underground complex featured in the movie is made up of sets, the crew did shoot in the Aerospace building of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. Production designer Martin Whist, inspired by Kubrick, wanted the space to look and feel “industrial,” “utilitarian,” and “institutional.” Visual effects work began in December of 2008 (several months before shooting even started) in order to digitally create sixty different monster types based on performances from “close to a thousand” people. According to Oscar-winning make-up artist David LeRoy Anderson of AFX Studio, the only way that him and his team were able to complete the creature visualizations before production began due to their crew of about seventy employees working “at least two jobs.” Despite the pressure, Anderson reported that they had “an incredible time.” With a production budget of 30 million dollars, The Cabin in the Woods was released in April of 2012 to generally positive critical reception. In addition to grossing more than double its budget worldwide, the film was praised for its humor, screenplay, tone, and effective yet endearing satire of the horror genre. The Pros When it comes to some of the best horror movies ever made (like Rosemary’s Baby or Get Out), a “slow burn” pace involving a compelling mystery is often effective at pulling me in for an entertaining thrill-ride. And, in a sense, The Cabin in the Woods is that. Its first act centered on five archetypal college students staying in a spooky cabin evokes films like Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead. Of course, it wastes very little time foreshadowing the mystery while simultaneously pulling the rug out from under the audience with monster attacks. Admittedly, this initial sense of familiarity was trying when I watched this movie. But, its effective scares and intriguing mystery kept me interested long enough to feel won over by the peak of the second act, which leads into…well, I’ll get to that. 😊 When it comes to the writing, Goddard and Whedon offer up more than a smart satire of horror tropes but a thoroughly agreeable critique of modern horror. Its focused spotlight on what makes horror movies both revolting and enticing serves the film’s greater purpose that any great movie should have: entertainment. Strip away the social and genre commentary, and The Cabin in the Woods is still a more-than-adequate thriller with plenty of scares and monster antics. But their screenplay, injected with poignantly inspired moments of humor for the cast to bite into, layers its commentary as the frosting on a tasty cinematic cake to elevate the movie to the status of modern classic. And while most horror movies tend to de-emphasize the importance of its protagonists in favor of focus on the villains, I did very much appreciate this early Chris Hemsworth before he became fully immersed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as Thor. He fully embraces the “bimbo jock” mantra but sprinkles his undeniable charisma with every look and movement to the point where the second act’s lack of sufficient action is more than made up for with his noble yet foolish heroics (and laugh-out-loud death scene). All that being said, however, The Cabin in the Woods is most memorable for its final thirty minutes. Not only is the mystery of the cabin itself finally solved, but Goddard and Whedon’s no-holds-barred third act oozes with monster chaos and bloody insanity that makes up for any minor gripes or criticisms that I have for what comes before. Simply put, the movie is worth watching on this fact alone: it gets better from start to finish, which (in my humble opinion) is certainly preferable to the alternative. The Cons Speaking of the flaws of The Cabin in the Woods, I do not think by any means that the writing is perfect. In fact, I was not super impressed by Goddard and Whedon’s approach to world building with regards to “The Facility.” While I understand the satirical purpose of it, I just found the amount of time spent on the employees and infrastructure of this group of masterminds to be less about serving the film’s social commentary and more there to simply service the plot. On another note, while I gleefully enjoyed Hemsworth fully embracing his “jock” archetype I’m afraid that his presence overshadows the other four members of the cast of “killables.” None of their lines, relationships, or arcs are memorable when put up against the nature of their deaths. And while this doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of the film as a while, it does keep it from achieving a degree of timelessness that other horror movies with unforgettable leads or villains (like Halloween or A Nightmare on Elm Street) have. So, what are my final impressions of The Cabin in the Woods? While not necessarily one of the greatest horror movies ever made, it’s definitely one of my favorites. Its sensitive blend of genuinely funny and scary moments mixed with a compelling mystery and an over-the-top third act that will burn itself into your memory makes for a very fun time. Despite its flaws, I highly recommend checking it out this spooky season. What are your thoughts on Drew Goddard’s The Cabin in the Woods? What modern horror movies do you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by iirliinnaa from Pixabay I’ve shared my unexpected love of many horror films from Steven Jay Schneider’s book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.” From 60s and 70s classics like Psycho, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist and Carrie to modern iterations like Get Out and The Invisible Man, these are just some of the horror flicks that helped me gain an appreciation of this genre. Today, I will be examining the making of an 80s standard of the “slasher” subgenre: Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” You have been warned.] The History The core inspiration from the project came from several unrelated newspaper articles in the Los Angeles Times during the 1970s that director West Craven (The Hills Have Eyes, Scream) came across. The articles in question told stories of several Hmong refugees from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam who suffered horrible nightmares and thus refused to sleep. Some of them died in their sleep, and medical officials coined the term “Asian Death Syndrome” as they diagnosed some of these men with a potential combination of Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome (SADS) and Brugada syndrome. In conceptualizing the film’s villain, Craven took inspiration from a strange encounter the director had in his childhood wherein an elderly man glared at him while walking past his home one night before walking off. Initially conceived as a child molester, Craven decided to make him a child murderer so as to avoid accusations of being exploitative of contemporary child sex crimes cases that occurred in California around the same time. Ultimately, Craven thought of the film’s villain as “the worst of parenthood” and “the worst fear of children.” He came up with the name Freddy Krueger based on his childhood bully and clothed him in a red-and-green sweater because, according to a 1982 article in Scientific American, they clash the most to the human retina. Due to the project coming a handful of years after other notable slasher flicks like Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and John Carpenter’s Halloween, Craven knew he wanted Krueger to stand out alongside Leatherface, Michael Myers, and other notable slasher monsters. Instead of Krueger wearing a literal mask, he made him burned and scarred so that he would “be able to talk…taunt and threaten.” Furthermore, Craven found a knife as a slasher’s weapon to be too common and thus considered arming Krueger with a sickle before ultimately deciding on giving him “a glove with steak knives.” By 1981, once he completed production on the comic book horror movie Swamp Thing, Craven began writing the screenplay for this project. Funny enough, the first studio to express interest in the project was Wat Disney Productions but Craven ultimately rejected them because of their request that he tone down the content for children. After both Paramount Pictures and Universal Studios passed on the script, Craven’s dire straits were temporarily resolved when New Line Cinema (at that point only a distributor) agreed to finance and produce the project. However, the studio struggled throughout pre-production with financing the project and thus had to turn to external financiers (all of whom backed out and came back in at one point or another). Despite going on to finance far more profitable and noteworthy films (notably Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies), this project being the studio’s first commercial success cemented New Line Cinema as “The House That Freddy Built.” David Warner (Tom Jones, The Omen, Titanic) was originally cast to play Krueger, but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts. While looking for his replacement, Craven met with Kane Hodder (who would go on to play Jason Voorhees in the Friday the 13th franchise). However, Craven felt that all the actors he met with were “too quiet” and “compassionate towards children.” It was not until Robert Englund (Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, Stranger Things) that Craven found his Freddy because, according to the director, Englund was “comfortable with [the] idea” of getting “malicious and malevolent.” In reading for the role, Englund acted “rat-like” based on descriptions of real child abusers and molesters not as physically intimidating but as “weasels.” Principal photography lasted for just over a month, starting in mid-June of 1984, utilizing various locations in and around Los Angeles. To film the blood geyser sequence and Tina’s death scene, Craven and his cameraman were strapped into seats from a Datsun B-210 which were mounted on a custom frame that rotated. The set itself was inverted so that the room appeared right side up, and ended up using water dyed red rather than fake blood because the latter didn’t have the right look for the geyser effect. However, while filming the water’s flow went in an unexpected manner resulting in the rotating room to spin and both Craven and actress Heather Langenkamp (who played the “final girl” Nancy Thompson) being covered in the red water. Throughout production, over 500 gallons of fake blood were used in the special effects. For the film’s ending, Craven originally intended for Nancy to drive off with her friends through the fog without any clear indication of the truth behind Kruger surviving or not. However, after coming up with several alternative endings to replace it, Craven and his team were “so amused” by ending with Krueger pulling Nancy’s mother through the door that they ultimately went with that one. Ultimately made on a budget of 1.1 million dollars, A Nightmare on Elm Street was released in November of 1984 to critical and commercial success. Not only did it earn 57 million dollars at the worldwide box office, but many critics singled out Craven’s direction and screenplay, Krueger’s performance, the cinematography, and the special effects as the best aspects of the movie. The film has gone down as one of the best horror films of all time, and was one of last year’s twenty-five additions to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress for its cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance. The Pros To be perfectly honest, I’m not the biggest of Wes Craven’s movies. There are a select few that I enjoy, like the Meryl Streep-led biopic Music of the Heart and the mid-2000s thriller Red Eye starring Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy. However, I’ve found myself underwhelmed by some of his notable horror flicks like The Hills Have Eyes and Scream. But the one Craven horror movie that, more than thirty after being released, remains both scary and entertaining is A Nightmare on Elm Street. For starters, Craven’s premise for an original slasher flick is simply inspired. It feels unique within the historical context of other slashes of the time like John Carpenter’s Halloween and Sean S. Cunningham’s Friday the 13th. Whereas both those movies (uncoincidentally) have similar plots, A Nightmare on Elm Street has something to say about adolescence with its take on the slasher. Furthermore, Craven embraces a dark version of fantasy by utilizing the story to blur the lines of reality in an incredibly engaging manner for this kind of manner. But what’s perhaps most impressive about the film’s central idea is that few (if any) movies in the slasher genre in the years since have even come close to this level of conceptual creativity. Of course, you don’t have a good slasher movie without an iconic slasher villain. Without a doubt, A Nightmare on Elm Street is greatly enhanced by Robert Englund’s portrayal of the witty but deadly Freddy Krueger. Rather than a masked killer with a mysterious backstory that lacks any sense of personality, Krueger defies this archetype by being an expressive, emotional, and captivating person behind the facial scars and sharp leather gloves. While the film might suffice on the back of Craven’s direction and screenplay, it is the way that Englund terrorizes the teen characters and terrifies the audience that seared the movie into my memory. But the most underappreciated aspect of A Nightmare on Elm Street, in my humble opinion, is the special effects. From the bathtub scene to the creative kills, Craven’s crew wastes no ounce of ingenuity and talent making the dream world crossing over into the real world utterly believable. Furthermore, it adds to the immersive nature of the film’s horror vibes by making the situations that the characters find them in “feel real” despite the fact that they’re questionable even in the context of the movie’s fictional universe. While I’m not always impressed by the use of practical effects in movies from this time, I’ve found that when it works (in cases like this)—it really works. The Cons Surely, all those aforementioned strengths of A Nightmare on Elm Street outweigh any flaws, right? While (in my humble opinion) they do, the flaws on display here are still significant enough to mention. So, let’s get to it! 😊 I think the most evident flaw of the movie lies with its characters (aside from Freddy Krueger, of course). Whether it’s the largely forgettable teens or the cartoonishly idiotic/malevolent adults in the town, I just found them to be too evocative of the worst tendencies of Stephen King when he writes bullies and unrealistically flawed adults. In other words, the inclusion of these sensibilities keeps the movie from achieving a certain degree of timelessness that I hoped it would have. Specifically, I just never found Nancy Thompson’s (Heather Langenkamp) rivalry with Freddy Krueger to be nearly as compelling as the other iconic slasher pairings like Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise or even Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and the Ghostface killers of the Scream series. So, what are my final impressions of A Nightmare on Elm Street? Despite some generally lackluster characters, Craven and his cast and crew brought into existence a very iconic slasher villain with smart writing, great direction, timeless special effects, and an overall vibe that embraces its primary objective while embracing the best of classic horror. If you haven’t checked it out before, give it a watch! I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. 😊 What are your thoughts on Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street? What other 80s horror movies do you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Of the seemingly endless list of the films in Steven Jay Schneider’s book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die,” there are many that come to mind that stunned me in how much I enjoyed them. Whether it be due to how old they are, the style of filmmaking, or the genre, there are just some movies that completely subverted my expectations in the best way possible.
One of the subgenres that I’m surprised by how much I enjoyed are low-budget, science-fiction B-movies from the 1950s that are now considered genre classics. From Invasion of the Body Snatchers to The Blob, I’ve consistently found myself thoroughly entertained by these old-school sci-fi flicks. So, today’s blog is about another 1950s sci-fi movie that I assumed would be boring and outdated but instead impressed me by how much I enjoyed. The film in question? Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still from 1951. [NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” You have been warned.] The History Wanting to develop a film that captured the fears and suspicions of the early Cold War era, film producer Julian Blaustein (Broken Arrow, Khartoum) read through hundreds of science-fiction short stories and novels due to the genre being well suited for a metaphorical exploration of that topic. After the project was approved by studio executive and co-founder of formerly-named 20th Century Fox Darryl F. Zanuck (The Grapes of Wrath, Gentleman’s Agreement, The Longest Day), Blaustein hired screenwriter Edmund H. North (Patton) to adapt elements of Harry Bates’s short story “Farewell to the Master,” written in 1940. In writing the screenplay, North admitted that he intended the metaphor comparing the extraterrestrial Klaatu to Jesus Christ to be subliminal; he considered it his “private little joke.” However, Blaustein was confronted by censors from the Motion Picture Associated of America (MPAA) about Klaatu’s seeming immortality and resurrection. As a result, a line was written to explain that Klaatu’s revival was only temporary. Following some uncredited input from science-fiction author Raymond F. Jones, the screenplay was completed in February of 1951. In preparation to shoot the movie, architect Frank Lloyd Wright was consulted on the design of Klaatu’s spacecraft with the vehicle’s interior being possibly inspired by Wright’s Johnson Wax Headquarters building in Racine, Wisconsin. According to architect Paul Laffoley, Wright described his consultation as attempting “to imitate an experimental substance” that “acts like living tissue” and “If cut, the rift would appear to heal like a wound.” Principal photography lasted from April 9 to May 23, 1951, occurring on the studio sound stages and back lot in California (a second unit shot background scenes in Washington D.C. and Maryland). After making two dramas in 1950, Robert Wise (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) was hired to direct the film. Despite the U.S. Department of Defense refusing to participate in production after reading the script, the military vehicles and soldiers shown in the film were provided by the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment stationed at Ford Meade. However, the principal actors never actually traveled to Washington, D.C. for filming. Lock Martin, a seven-and-a-half-foot-tall usher at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, was hired to play the robot Gort. However, due to the incredibly uncomfortable nature of the suit he wore on set, Wise minimized his on-set shooting to thirty minutes at a time to make the experience as tolerable as possible. In post-production, Wise’s team were charged with editing Martin’s shots together into a cohesive whole. Made with just under one million dollars, The Day the Earth Stood Still grossed approximately 1.85 million dollars in domestic theater rentals. Contemporary reviews were largely positive, with much of the praise going towards the story, direction, tone, and special effects. Retrospectively, critics and cinephiles have deemed it one of the best movies of the 1950s and one of the best science-fiction films of all time. More modern praise has highlighted the film’s social conscience, themes, and entertainment value. In 1995, the film was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress for its cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. The Pros While The Day the Earth Stood Still may not have the most memorable characters, it doesn’t need that to be memorable in general. As a fan of history, I particularly enjoy when films manage to date themselves within a specific historical context without that detracting from its overall quality and potential for timelessness. And, in my humble opinion, this movie pulls that off surprisingly well. Due to the nature of its story, the film is an overt allegory for the fear and paranoia of the early Cold War. The way in which the American people respond to the arrival of an extraterrestrial traveler is highly reminiscent of the nature of our society during the Red Scare of the late 1940s and 1950s. That being said, the film’s depiction of human nature as being inherently suspicious of what we do not understand (which, in turn, transforms into fear of the unknown) is an idea that movies continue to explore to this day. Furthermore, its call for peace and understanding as a way of fighting said fear and paranoia can be applied to any time in human history as well as artistically explored within many kinds of stories. As a result, The Day the Earth Stood Still pulls off the rather difficult feat of being both an old-school hit and a timeless classic by balancing the qualities that makes it both without hindering itself in either direction. Beyond that, the movie surprisingly holds up well in terms of its production values. Specifically, the creative team working with Robert Wise seemed to recognize the limitations of their time when it came to crafting visual and special effects that keep the audience’s disbelief suspended enough to prevent them from losing interest in what they’re seeing. I particularly enjoyed the portrayal of Klaatu as humanoid, which works both to enhance the metaphorical aspects of the film’s message and avoid the movie becoming overly silly or a parody of itself. Instead, its small-scale storytelling forces the relatively small special-effects budget to work for Wise’s creative goals rather than against them. Something else that makes The Day the Earth Stood Still work in spite of its obvious age is the brevity of the runtime. Like I said about Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers from 1956, directors working within the black-and-white, sci-fi genre at this time apparently understood that the primary goal of any filmmaker should be to not waste the audience’s time. Thus, they stuck more to the universally true mantra of storytelling: “less is more.” This movie is no different, as Wise and his editing team keep the film to a brisk 92 minutes that is paced well to prevent you feeling rushed or bored while watching it. Every minute of screentime is used to tell the story, enhance the themes, and satisfy the viewer by making them feel that all has been resolved by the final shot. What more can you really ask for? 😊 The Cons The only major criticism I have of The Day the Earth Stood Still has to do with screenwriter Edmund H. North’s “private little joke” wherein he made subtle allusions to the alien Klaatu (Michael Rennie) being a Jesus Christ-like figure. To be honest, I did not pick up on this subtext while watching the movie; I only discovered this interpretation afterwards when I read online about it. That being said, I can see how other viewers could be easily distracted from what is (in my humble opinion) the filmmakers’ primary social commentary by focusing too much on this. Honestly, it’s a matter North’s inside humor that he may not have wanted audiences to focus on so intently this many years later. Nevertheless, it remains a valid interpretation of the film despite this understanding not coming out very strongly in the writing aside from a few subliminal hints to the prophet figure of Christianity. In the end, I wish most of these were edited out in favor of the film investing its 92 minutes on what it ultimately was trying to say. So, what are my final impressions of The Day the Earth Stood Still? Simply put, any criticisms I have of the movie are not enough to undo my generally favorable impressions of it. If you’re a fan of old-school sci-fi flicks or movies with timely and timeless sociopolitical allegories, then I definitely think you’ll enjoy it. But if you just want a watch a short and entertaining alien story that doesn’t rely on action, I assure that you’ll appreciate it on that level, too. What are your thoughts on Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still? What other old-school sci-fi movies do you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|