Matinees at the Bijoux

______________________________________________________________

0000zotz1

        “Zotz!”   (1962) 

     Timing is everything in comedy. Tom Poston is effectively eccentric in”Zotz!”, a daffy little film with supernatural overtones that is part of a particularly overlooked 0000zotzOSand all but abandoned mini-genre of film-  the college comedy  -which enjoyed a brief but major resurgence during the early years of the Space Race, when the forum for academia wasn’t the cyncically dirty joke it was perverted into by the end of the 60’s (see: Make Light, Not War: “Getting Straight”), as in 1962 the walking pillars of higher education were more likely admired than scorned and thus when given a satiric poke, it usually meant-  as in the case of “Zotz!”, a gentle poke with a portrayal of eccentricity rather than one of dangerously clueless demagoguery. 

      In “Zotz!”, Poston plays Professor Jonathan Jones, a brilliant educator in the field of ancient Eastern languages; a seemingly limiting field for comedy except when in comes in particularly and suspiciously handy (Castle’s  films seem to be consistently constructed on  absurdly precarious towers of unlikely circumstance and coincidence) in a plot involving the discovery of an ancient coin which unleashes extraordinary power to0000zotz2 its holder, once the properly translated incantations are spoken. Suddenly endowed with the power to cause pain, retarded movement (the targeted person – or object  -suddenly moves in slow motion) and death-  a bizarre triumvirate of abilities, but who are we to question the judgments of ancient civilizations and the thought process of their prankish Gods?  -Jones busies himself with  such essential activities one might associate with the sudden empowerment of virtual omnipotence, such as chasing his niece about town (who is now in possession of the mysterious disc since he has foolishly left it laying around) and engaging in an ill-advised plan to demonstrate his powers to the Dean (Cecil Kellaway) in his home during a party;activities laced with such predictable disaster, they stop the film dead in its tracks. 0000zotz4Castle proves himself neither a master of broad physical comedy (his set-ups are far too clumsy and the rhythm of the scenes always seem several beats off) nor does his directorial finesse (in this case, an oxymoron) seem more refined (or even in existence) than in previous films. The lengthy and deadening party scene (outside of which the identity of the female lead is revealed) seems to exist only for every character to repeat the same behavior already exhibited in earlier scenes. (The appearance of Margaret Dumont as the wittily named Dean’s spouse Persephone Updike makes one long for the sudden gate crashing appearance of Groucho as an anarchic antidote to Castle’s otherwise staidly restrained sense of hilarity.)

      Jones next attempts to contact the military to pass along the resource of his powers, a development which only momentarily reconciles Ray Russell’s screenplay to the Walter Karig source novel; a far more directly satiric stab at endless government bureaucracy, though still ignoring the book’s observation of the mordant historic paralysis of Man to move beyond its inclination to develop and bear weapons with which to destroy itself. However, typically absent of any mastery of subtlety (Castle’s films always have the feeling of someone given the assignment to read a Shakespearean love sonnet, instead choosing to recite the menu at IHOP: there is no perceptible hint in 0000zotz6the director’s oeuvre of an awareness of gradations of human expression exist.), the Pentagon scenes culminate with the talented Fred Clark being offered up as a sitcom buffoon as a substitute for less irreverent comic invention. The subsequent tired Cold War plot developments involving abductions by (presumeably) Soviet spies is predictably forced and uninspired (why do so many comedies feel compelled to abandon the natural development of plot and character with the introduction of villains, spies or thugs who generally have little to do with what has elapsed previously?), essentially abandoning all0000zotz5 of the previous plot points (the collegiate setting and all complimentary interdepartmental power grabs between Jones and Horation Kellgore [Jim Backus]) and characters (the compliment of assumedly important [given their lengthy expository exposure] female characters, Jones’ niece Cynthia [Zeme North] and love interest Virginia Fenster [Julia Meade], both reduced to ) to pursue an eleventh hour espionage spoof complete with the inevitable extended pursuit, enlivened by the one clever use of Jones’ powers in the film: a leap from a tall building resulting in an amusing series of slow motion somersaults to the sidewalk, though this too is overly extended.

     As is with the case of many of Castle’s films, the most measureable pleasure to be enjoyed is from the performance of his lead actor, in this case the inimitable Tom Poston who invests the role of Professor Jones with his signature enervated wryness which accomodates both the humorously oddball aspects of the character with a genuine0000zotz3 talent for conveying superior, if haltingly considered intelligence. On the opposite end of the acting scale, Jim Backus seems content with limiting his role to that of a bleating bag of humbug, not exactly the most flattering nor effective choice even for the stock role of intellectual rival; the kind of role played to peerless perfection by the vastly underappreciated Elliott Reid in “The Absent Minded Professor” and “Son of Flubber”, The one performance to match Poston’s, in accomodating the potential of even a small role, is that of James Millhollin  whose brief appearance as psychiatrist  Dr. Kroner is a textbook in comedically contrapuntal discourse. 

      However, as previously stated, timing in comedy is everything; an observation which ultimately leads back to the self-defeating  and rhythmically inert primitivism that is an aesthetic trademark of William Castle’s film output, so ham-fisted and bluntly stilted  in execution, it becomes apparent that he may have discarded all of the progressive developments of cinematic vocabulary evolving over the preceeding forty years of filmmaking. Regardless of the intent of the scene-  comedy, drama, suspense  -in a Castle film, the feel of the scene is the same,  perhaps explaining the producer-director’s insistent preoccupation with insuring a popular acceptance of his creations with the installation or distribution of gaudy joke shop novelties.movie

______________________________________________________________

0000littleshop2            “The Little Shop of Horrors”    (1960)    

     “The Little Shop of Horrors” is a more broadly freewheeling horror-comedy than Roger Corman’s savagely on target beat counterculture satire “A Bucket of Blood”, a film with a far more ambitious agenda as it was satirizing a then contemporary cultural movement whereas, this minor opus concerning a pesky carnivorous plant is more of a gentle poke at both crummy horror films (which at the time of production usually involved a somewhat wince inducing, low-budget menace interrupting the hero’s attempts go get into the ingenue’s skirt- think the Hays Office as supernatural guardians of chastity and you get the idea) and while Charles B. Griffith’s screenplay isn’t as observationally sharp as his work on 0000littleshopthat film, nor as smart- the newer film is also less controlled in it’s focus (it has a tendency to drift when the location shifts from the flower shop) ,  it is still a sufficiently inventive, often hilarious film which works best when the remarkably fine interplay between Jackie Joseph, Mel Welles and the irrepressible Dick Miller is front and center, building the completely loopy premise of the nurturing of a talking, mind controlling, man eating plant into a skid row version of the popular film satires of the day which had Madison Avenue hyperbole as their nurturing agar: success through trendy novelty as a source of public sensation. Less successful is the patently appropriated rhythmatic staccato of investigating detectives Joe Fink (Wally Campo) and Frank Stoolie (Jack Warford) as a deadpan parody of the deadpan “Dragnet”, though this does emphasize-  among other things  -the rich bouillabaisse of pop culture influences from which this little film draws; it’s a virtual cinematic realization of Mad parodies during the Harvey Kurtzman era. However, such a scattershot approach-  additionally the film’s comic tone is a crazy quilt of show biz traditions, including burlesque, vaudeville, Yiddish theater, black comedy, (perhaps) unintentional camp parody and commedia dell’arte  -also creates an inconsistency within the film that can be both disappointing and frustrating.

     As noted, as long as the film remains within the confines of Mushnick’s flower shop, the wit is sharp and rapid fire, though appreciably losing much of its comic zing when focused solely on the plant’s inventor Seymour and his alcoholic, hypochondriacal mother. Neither character is sufficiently conceived without a palpable whiff of mothball staleness and the 0000little2performances by Jonathan Haze and Myrtle Vail fail to jell into the ensemble: Haze lacks the true comic’s confidence to envelop his role (he seems to be thinking too much as to how to throw out his lines and his timing suffers accordingly), whereas Vail’s vaudeville background emerges as she seems to be playing to the upper reaches of the balcony; a singularly annoying presence who cavorts like the lowest of burlesque comics, lacking only a pig bladder and seltzer bottle. The problem with these scenes is not only their tired spate of boozy mother jokes, but the fact that they are irrelevant to the main plot and therefore take us away from where the real core of the narrative is developing.

    So too is a problem with the extended dental sequences (this is inclusive of the pain loving patient played by a young Jack Nicholson, whose later fame is the only reason his role is recalled with any measure of nostalgia) which contributes nothing of substance except to immerse the film momentarily exaggerated performances that virtually perspires onscreen, relegating material that if played at a far less feverish pitch might have0000little retained some of the bite of black humor inherent in the dialogue if one resists distraction by flailing arms and bulging eyes. Somehow meaningful peripheral developments of the story, beyond the confines of the central location, appeared to stymie Griffith and Corman, which is odd since the community interplay within the florist shop is written and executed with a surprisingly elemental proficiency: the script in these major portions is constructed like a surrealist situation comedy, complete with complimentary multiple camera set-ups which rarely veer from master shots,  granting the advantage of the entire cast being visually present in the frame at most times so we might enjoy the tidy bits of atmospheric business commensurate with a happily resourceful cast. The ease of comic presentation is so fluidly achieved by Corman in these sequences it makes the less polished exteriors directed by Welles and Griffith pale in comparison: there is a lack of comic tension in these scenes and they are far too reliant on the strained efforts of Haze.

       Yet despite some unfortunate variations in the quality of writing, directing and performance, there is nothing to conceal the joys of the Borscht Belt exchanges between Jackie Joseph’s deliciously dim innocent Audrey, the object of Seymour’s shyly budding romantic attachment; Dick Miller’s eccentric horticultural  gourmand Burson Fouch and most importantly, Mel Welle’s Gravis Mushnick, who turns his role into a delightful cavalcade of  bafflement, suspicion, derision and anxiety; a classically comic invention which gleefully borders on the precipice of ethnic caricature while engaged in a percolating internal struggle between blind avarice and the blind panic of imagined authoritative encroachment. Wonderful stuff.movie

________________________________________________________________

0000magictown       “Magic Town”      (1947)

    By the time director Frank Capra created his series of unrelenting Man of the People populist fantasies, it was clear that although he didn’t invent this particular genre (though even a cursory glance at the filmmaker’s autobiography cum declaration of divinity The Name Above the Title might certainly suggest otherwise), he certainly0000magictown5 perfected an archetypal formula by which a single individual imposes his ideals onto a greater citizenry to the exclusion of anyone daring to suggest alternative opinions lest they be pegged as (surprisingly without irony) demagogues or corrupt power brokers. The fact that the Capra formula was also steeped in a creepy masqueraded fascism that sugarcoated the proposition of a singularly enforced populist view being as unhealthy for the social collective with an abundance of aw shucks eccentricity-  generally identified as Capracorn  -that gives the impression a genuine philosophical difference in the division between opposing but ultimately similarly odious enforced ideas. Regardless from which side the populace is viewed, in a Capra film (and his resulting formula), the people are always portrayed as lemming-like rubes, instantaneously enamored of the most simplistic of societal constructs; a communal perception which reaches its zenith in the 1946 fantasy “It’s a Wonderful Life” which blatantly promotes the importance of one individual by the uncharitable sacrifice of everyone else in the town as being portrayed as grossly incapable of formulating neither a positive lifestyle nor personality.

    This formula is perfectly mirrored in the William A. Wellman film “Magic Town” which was not so coincidentally produced and written by none other than Capra’s important thematic collaborator Robert Riskin without whom it might be confidently stated there would be no “Capra touch” as we know it, which is actually in evidence in almost every frame of Wellman’s film, though the script diverts from the purest extension of the Capra formula in one important (and revealing) way: the results of a0000magictown3 singular intrusion are allowed to run their manifest course, that is, the audience is allowed the spectacle of the inherent consequences to the populace when the singularity of the intrusive ideal is not only grasped at by the community at large but is escalated and given momentum by their own ill-considered (recalling that the mob is generally-  as is certainly the case here  -depicted as a mass of gullible dopes) hubris. The resulting collapse of the people’s essentially paradisical existence-  being that their town seems to exist in some sort of Peter Pan-syndrome in which the ravages of neither the Great Depression nor World War Two seem to have had any effect (Perhaps a reference of the previous CapraRiskin collaboration “Lost Horizon” and its manifestation of the very idea of Shangri-La?) -the film’s comedy coating quickly relents to a far darker tone (also interestingly reflected in the visual aesthetic which, not unlike the aforementioned “It’s a Wonderful Life”, takes on a forboding shadowy noirish aura) that temporarily brings the townspeople to a self-realization of shame and ruin, until the introduction of convenient narrative contortions which are an unfortunate staple of the same populist formula.

    James Stewart plays “Rip” Smith (a veiled reference to Jefferson Smith?) , a professional pollster who is intrigued by a survey taken by a former Army acquaintance Hoopendecker (Kent Smith) in the town of Grandview (how’s that for subtlety?), the results of which, according to Smith, may indicate the town as a kind of opinion Rosetta Stone where the pulse of average America can be instantaneously collected, though five minutes with the citizens of this particular rural berg might have even the least hardened0000magictown2 urbanite screaming for the nearest hint of common sense or setting up a concession for butterfly nets. That Grandview is populated by a citizenry entirely the most (to borrow a reference from “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”) pixilated roster of characters since those unfortunates comprising Bedford Falls, renders a jaundiced view of what impresses Smith that such a berg might speak for the entirety of the United States outside of a convenient necessity for the plot to turn in that direction strictly so the filmmakers might a barely veiled contempt for the common man: the very antithesis of what one might presume would be a charitable eye to the so-called traditional hometown values such a film champions on the most flimsy of surfaces.

     Hardly aiding in the film’s duplicitous sympathies is the character of newspaper editor Mary Peterman (Jane Wyman) filling the popular role of journalist whose professional ethics are unceremoniously flexible to wherever her romantic longings obscure her judgment. Thus, even the society’s sacred watchdogs of the Fourth Estate demonstrate (as0000magictown4 is uncomfortably common in the populist formula) an absence of dedication to the truth for its own sake. This emotional corruption is strictly convenient only in advancing the expected romantic subplot, but only obscures the film’s greater populist theme. Yet despite these unfortunate formulaic obstructions, “Magic Town” does have the conviction to actually demonstrate the logical (in its own calculated terms) progression of consequences to the people targeted by Smith’s self-interested goals rather than just those toward Smith himself,though the film certainly takes the time to underscore that the resolution of his romantic problems to be equally on par with the solution of the town’s woes, though in keeping with tradition, both are managed with the maximum of eyebrow raining contrivance possible only in the purest of Hollywood hokum. Stewart, Wyman, Kent Smith and  and the invaluable Regis Toomey all perform their appointed roles with a remarkable dignity (considering the nonsensical occasion) but none can make make legitimate an increasingly cynical formula which wishes to simultaneously elevate and emasculate its vision of the “common man”.movie

________________________________________________________________

13_west_street3          “13 West Street”      (1962)

     “13 West Street” is an example of the juvenile delinquency movie of the later 50’s and early 60’s, which purports to caution against the roving teen and his natural inclination to violent antisocial behavior, while thoroughly frustrating the available arms of law enforcement, adult authority and, in this case, the hapless victims of such mayhem. With such homegrown menace terrorizing the suburbs of Everytown U.S.A. was it any wonder13weststreetOS that the threat of something slightly more sophisticated as Soviet missiles pointed at your neighborhood Dairy Queen might generate a slightly elevated sense of paranoia?  Further still, films like “13 West Street” proffer the anxiety generating threat of dangerous youthful hoods not emanating from areas of poverty and presumed social corruption (the wife of a victim is explicitly surprised to find that the gang fails to come from “black leather jackets, Levis, the slums…you know, the underprivileged”) and instead from “nice homes.” However, more importantly, though a minor feature of second-tier status, “13 West Street” (based on the novel The Tiger Among Us by Leigh Brackett) actually moves beyond the seduction of easy criminality on unlikely teens alone by demonstrating the possible corruptive influence of unjust victimization upon an average citizen, thus anticipating by a decade the more literal wave of films advancing the attraction of vigilantism as a curative against what are perceived as weaknesses in American justice.

      The film rather unflinchingly shows aerospace engineer Walter Sherill (Alan Ladd), a victim of a random savage assault by five passing teens, degenerate within the boundaries of a rather obsessive personality (admirable when focused on his work, though with subtly placed hints that this has led to a childless distance in his marriage despite the outward 13_west_street1gifappearance of domestic contentment) that cannot see beyond a blind quest for a vengeance, a search which descends reckless endangerment to his devoted wife Tracey (Dolores Dorn, typically coiffed in an extension of Eisenhower Era fantasy domesticity, looking as though ready to attend a cocktail party while dusting the drapes) and himself, not to mention fouling up the legitimate investigations of Juvenile Division Detective Sergeant Pete Koleski (Rod Steiger) whose quiet, observant manner is impatiently mistaken by Sherill for professional complacency.

     The group of five teen hooligans, roles which are unsurprisingly inhabited by actors in their mid twenties, are led by the slickly persuasive Chuck Landry, played by familiar lightweight actor Michael Callan who rather impressively inhabits the spirit of the unrepentant high society sociopath with the appetite of an actor eager to make a memorable impression outside of the more insubstantial shadow of Gidget. Callan makes for a formidable opponent: his narcissistic, youthful arrogance used in interesting counterpoint to the faded image of Ladd’s matinee idol looks gone puffy and prematurely13_west_street4gif to seed, his head seeming to get heavier as the film unfolds as if the weight of the world is becoming an unbearable stress on the fracturing of what he took to be tranquility. The film lacks a more substantial balance between Landry and Sherill-  Callan disappears from the film for far too lengthy periods and this allows the tension of the film to sag  -which would accelerate and emphasize the growing sameness between the two characters; perhaps climatically separated by only the barest of moral impulses. The film has a potentially powerful dramatic arc which it fudges on by spending far too much time following the investigative efforts of Koleski, despite the interesting conception of his character (we await an explosion13_west_street8 in the man which is never forthcoming)) and the uncharacteristic charm which Steiger infuses the role: a diligent, purposeful but politely civilized performance. Still, it seems that the detective is in a constant game of catch up as Sherill’s aggressively mulish efforts seem to unfailingly attract the attention of Landry who continually seeks to up the ante on his unshakeable nemesis by placing greater and greater pressures on Tracey, a tactic which seems to cause increased consternation in Sherill-  not for the peril under which his wife is exposed  -but as a continued caustic snorting retort to his own masculine authority. It is the battle between these intensifying egos which is at the heart of 13_west_street7gifthe film (interestingly both antagonists are cautioned by their allies, Landry by his gang members, Sherill by both Koleski and Tracey, to suspend the course of their mutual antagonisms with no success) interpolating the noirish attribute of the good man corrupted by the lawlessness of the world about him, except that-  as depicted by the film  -the world is not festering in polluted moral disorder, but-  with the exception of the expectedly defensive parents  -most of the characters within the film are fairly decent and reasonably honest; it is only Sherill’s fixation which magnifies his existence into a delusional noir-like vortex, resulting in far more damage-   through his stubborn investigative interference  -than would have been caused by Landry alone. Sherill stimulates Landry into greater and greater impulses to do harm which in turn intensifies Sherill’s impulse to exact vengeance: an absurdist exercise in tail chasing which has the ability to reach nightmarish  except for the base timidity of director Philip Leacock and screenwriters Robert Presnell, Jr. and Bernard C. Schoenfeld who continually shy away from the logical direction of their own story by backing away from the seamier progression of the film’s theme by a continuous reintroduction of Steiger’s righteous portrait of honorable law enforcement and the mini-lessons in civility which which these scenes wear like a wreath of garlic against anarchistic interlopers. (What an experienced hand with such material as a Don Siegel might have accomplished, one might only speculate.)

     By the filmmakers backpedaling against their own material, the movie implodes in both theme and execution by falling back on the sorriest indicators of spineless crime dramas: a narrative dependence on both the villain suddenly acting with convenient  last-minute irrational self-endangering stupidity and the police suddenly becoming almost saintly in their forgiving dismissal of recklessly fatal breaches of lawfulness.  movie

________________________________________________________________

Cheap hood Timothy Farrell teaches moll Theodora Thurman a lesson in economics as she walks about their crummy apartment in a posh variety of fashion wear (What? No angora??) guaranteed to explain his need to compulsively commit robberies in the 1954 Edward D. Wood, Jr. crime drama “JAIL BAIT”.

            “Jail Bait”    (1954)

    “Jail Bait” is the most accomplished film from the fertile mind of Edward D. Wood, Jr., which is like saying the maiden voyage of Titanic is the most famous of sea disasters: it may technically be true, but it’s still not an enticement to buy a ticket and experience it for yourself. The difference from Wood’s usual seven-layers-removed-from-reality oeuvre may be found in that the screenplay is co-written by actor Alex Gordon, which may account for those moments that sneak through the usual Woodian twists of expression and almost resemble human dialogue. There is also a greater reliance on location shooting, (which gives the illusion of a greater immediacy consistent with Wood’s favored and still present “Dragnet”-like  voiceover  narrations), with the film approaching something resembling a Poverty Row lustre as well as removing the film from jailbaitOShis usual studio bound reliance which serves to emphasize the worst characteristics of his deadly, stilted writing. (During those moments, it becomes crystal clear, the importance of possible distraction by clever art direction.)

    Make no mistake about it, this Ed Wood vehicle contains the same bare bones production design, the same lack of the use of editing to enhance a scene’s dramatic rhythm and the same (to be charitable) mixed bag of performance competence, but it does have a structured narrative that follows a  genuinely logical advancement of plotting, something completely foreign to the Wood canon, in which budgetary woes, amateurish casting  or sparks of ineptly seized upon “inspiration” were the standard influences on the construction of the auteur’s scenarios. The film even goes so far as to feature an amusing twist ending, without the usual narrated moralizing coda which tends to dampen any sense of enjoyment- sober or inebriated -the viewer might be experiencing. This is not to say the film is good; simply that in comparison to Wood’s other cinematic curiosities, it comes closest to achieving that which might be comparable to a bad B-movie noir, though the salacious suggestiveness of the title certainly promises a more lurid content than the film delivers (Wood’s sense of sexual provocation, despite the later dips into the pornographic pool, is among the most arid, immature and undeveloped of Hollywood filmmakers until the emergence of Steven Spielberg.)

     Don Gregor (one-shot wonder Clancy Malone) is bailed out of jail by his sister Marilyn (top-billed Wood regular Dolores Fuller) after being picked up for suspicion of robbery by Police Inspector Johns (Wood regular Lyle Talbot) and Lt. Bob Lawrence (muscleman and future peplum “Hercules” Steve Reeves). The male Gregor shows his gratitude by, immediately upon returning to his father’s house, mixing a drink (which he drops on the floor, shattering the glass and soaking the carpet, but in true Woodian “The jailbait4Show Must Go On!” fashion, no one notices and the scene continues) and recklessly absconds with his father’s gun (though what the father is doing with a gun- except for the purpose of narrative contrivance -is never explained). That Don is a punk, susceptible to the influences of underworld ne’er-do-wells may not be suggested by his alarmingly ill-fitting clothing (Is that a zoot suit?), but is more evident by his criminal partnership with Vic Brady (Timothy Farrell), an unrepentant hood who speaks with a perpetual film noir sneer: a tough talker who turns to jelly when confronted directly by the police, which occurs when Inspector Johns and Lt. Lawrence happen upon Vic and Don at a local watering hole. The felonious duo rob a theater-supposedly after hours, though the intercutting of a stage jailbait8performance makes the continuity highly suspect -where Don, in a fit of panic (clearly, under pressure he’s as big a marshmallow as Vic), fatally shoots the night watchman (Bud Osborne), while Vic wounds a witness, the theater’s bookkeeper (Mona McKinnon). The pair elude arrest by the police after a car chase which is probably the only actual example of an action sequence in a Wood film, a surprisingly competent bit of darkly lit, though atmospherically visible, nocturnal location shooting and editing that manages the slightest modicum of genuine excitement that, for a brief moment, immerses the audience’s attention to the point of imagining they’re watching a real Poverty Row studio picture, the antithesis of the usual Wood viewing experience where the audience is inescapably drawn into the conscious sensation of watching an unfolding freak show through aquarium glass. Though his fate seems fixed in granite, Don finally sees the errors of his path and confesses his actions to his father, the eminent plastic surgeon Dr. Gregor (Herbert Rawlinson), who convinces his son to turn himself in, which Don intends to to but- showing that conscience is never a substitute for brains -first makes a pointless but fatal trip to Vic’s home.

      However crudely conceived, “Jail Bait” is unique in Wood’s filmography for the number of scenes which attempt a development of character, proportionate to those scenes which exist simply to advance the plot; typical of Wood’s scenarios are scripts which most resemble television soap operas- with dialogue functional strictly as constant plot synopses -though without the density of configured relationships that helps obscure the poverty of incisive expression. The script here, while never to be mistaken for accomplished authorship, is a gigantic leap forward from the director’s expected level of language and ideas so inexactly articulated, they often become low-grade parodies of the simile. Certainly, there is an abundance of the typical Woodian howlers-

    “This afternoon, we had a long telephone conversation, earlier in the day.”

– but the influence of co-writer Gordon can be felt, not only in the tighter structuring of the script (there isn’t an extraneous scene in the film, except for the inserted theatrical performance footage) but in the greater definition of characters, rather than the typical creations of Wood’s imagination who are mainly defined by their career “types” (policemen, reporters, etc.) rather jailbait than as flesh and blood people (and in the case of “Glen or Glenda”, the characters were even more indistinctly conceived, defined only by gender). It’s a pretty safe bet to observe that for all of the cult attention lavished on the films of Edward D. Wood, Jr.– both perversely positive and justifiably negative -there are no memorable characters anywhere in view. (To recognize and iconic image, such as that of Tor Johnson and Vampira standing mute and menacing in “Plan 9 From Outer Space” is not the same as a written portrayal which gives full measure to human complexities.) That Wood had an enthusiasm for films and filmmaking is undeniable, but his attention to those cherished films seemed to be limited to the form and not to the content: his results of his efforts merely mimicking the elemental characteristics of genre types but with no evident attempt to advance or move beyond the most recognizable (and, therefore, banal) categorical boundaries. That being said, the slight structure of the story does afford the opportunity for a fair amount of character exploration, though this development is almost completely sabotaged by the crudity of the performance levels, an unfortunate constant injailbait5 Wood films- his performers seemingly taking misplaced inspiration from his surname -that is far more damaging to this than any of his other films, not simply for the wasted opportunity while working his most accomplished script, but because the level of character exposition is still shaky and requires the refinements of solid, interpretative invention by the actors to mold the present, but diffuse, elements of their individual roles into a substantial level of histrionic exceptionalism that might raise the dramaturgic dynamism to its greatest potential, even in the face of the script’s myriad syntactical deficiencies. For once, moral questions are raised and faced as exercises of character rather than the director’s standard narratives built on sequential occurrences with the participation of stock cardboard figures resembling people but actually mere suggestions of characters defined only by the most patently stereotypical genre types. Worse yet, are his films which obfuscate human drama even further and act as faux social documents steeped in maddeningly convoluted (by way of building foundations of illogic and contradiction) but sincere alarums pleading for societal equanimity. This may be the only instance in an Ed Wood film where events are entirely driven by the character of the portrayed characters.

More than his more-confused-than-controversially-pronounced love affair with angora in

More than his more-confused-than-controversially-pronounced love affair with angora in “GLEN OR GLENDA”:, Ed Wood manages to walk into a territory of questionable taste with his use of minstrel show footage cribbed from Ron Ormond’s 1951 film “Yes Sir, Mr. Bones”- though without the specific show business context of that film, the footage is a needless distraction -featuring Cotton Watts and Chick (Watts). The sequence is awkwardly inserted with the escuse of establishing the location of Don & Vic’s robbery, but that’s merely a feint. There is no reason for the footage except to pad the running time of the film or for Wood to lend pathetic pretense of grandeur to his bare bones production. His selection of stock footage, however, remains suspicious, as the potentially inflammatory material works against Wood’s pedestrian handling of gritty crime drama, which by comparison, this provocative material makes the tired gun play seem undeniably  tepid.

The performances are almost universally flat, with Dolores Fuller “performing” with such paralyzed facial inertia that, except for the vintage of the film, there would be serious reason to assume she was administered a head full of Botox injections. As the senior Gregor, Herbert Rawlinson is a more seasoned performer, but heruns through his lines as if he’s late for a bus, his mind preoccupied -his tell-tale gasps for breath contribute a particularly odious note to the proceedings since it is widely known that Rawlinson perished of lung cancer a mere day after completing his role. Clancy Malone’s affliction is of a less distressing but far moreimmediately dislocating type: he is of such a limited level of acting ability that he is outperformed by his amusingly outsized suits. Malone also distinguishes himself by portraying “The Least Believable Corpse in Hollywood History”, though, to be fair, it probably was the suggestion of the director for the dead Don Gregor to stand erect and unsupported in a kitchen closet. Timothy Farrell barks his lines as if channeling every mustachioed bad guy from Republic serials, though Theodora Thurman makes a credible stab at replicating Lauren Bacall’s early career awkwardness, in her role as Loretta, the girlfriend and ersatz gun moll of Vic Brady, who spends most  of the film either parading about in a succession of fashionable nightwear or waving a gun (perhaps to keep the “fashion conscious” director away from her wardrobe trunk). However, both Lyle Talbot and Steve Reeves make credible police and even manage an enjoyable, if gruff, chemistry, though the odd moment in which Wood finds it necessary for future “Hercules” beefcake Reeves to shed his shirt in the office, while his partner looks on interestedly, seems to be moving the film in a  pioneering direction, though it turns out be just another of the director’s oddball moments, and no new territory is traversed.

Events spin wildly out of control after Brady is betrayed, and Don is dispatched, with plastic surgeon cannily using his professional skills to affect a twisted act of revenge, and a blackly ironic act of justice. Though the execution is pure Ed Wood, the premise is heavily jailbait7lifted from Sam Wood’s superior 1935 gangster drama “Let ‘Em Have It”; an act of creative “borrowing” not uncommon in exploitation cinema, with “Jail Bait” also featuring creative heists in the form of an off-color minstrel show film sequence from Ron Ormond’s 1951 “Yes Sir, Mr. Bones” and, even more offensive, the maddeningly monotonous piano-guitar score by Hoyt Kurtain, originally composed for and featured in the 1953 Ron Ormond & Herbert Tevos misstep “Mesa of Lost Women”: a grating, torturous atonal composition whose infinitely repeated one bar of music works against the film in every conceivable way- it’s not even charitably used to obscure Wood’s existent arcane dialogue -except as the basis of a sick endurance test.movie

Advertisements

2 Responses to Matinees at the Bijoux

  1. I agree that “13 West Street” mostly sets up an interesting premise and then shies away from really exploring it, but then that it mostly the same trajectory of the source novel “Tiger Among Us” by Leigh Brackett

    • True, but that should have tipped off the filmmakers ahead of time as to a fundamental weakness in the narrative. I admire fidelity to a source but not if it weakens an entirely fixable problem inherent in that source. However, despite my stubbornness, I truly appreciate your informed comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s