Views From The Screening Room

________________________________________________________

“Heaven Help Us”   (1985)

     When considering the curious slide in quality in the most popular film genres of the past, if there is a source of more continuously disappointing results than the American comedy, it is certainly that more odoriferous of sub-genres: the teen comedy. So imagine 00000000HEAVENosthe odds of such an adolescently inspired opus managing an unexpected but precarious tightrope walk between the expected elements of lascivious gross out pranksterism (displaying a genuinely funny brand of comedy) and an unexpectedly touching subplot which manages to capture the hesitant vulnerabilities and insecurities of first love.

     That “Heaven Help Us” also exists within the generally unsatisfying group of films which immerse themselves in the ripe but easy parodic target that is the piety of organized religion (herein identified, as is the case with most films of this sort which rely upon what is considered an easily mockable, as Catholicism), a subject often met with a crassly insultingly disrespectful and stereotypical exaggeration (despite the fertile indigenous possibilities which might nurture genuinely biting satire), “Heaven Help Us” expands upon its own modest achievement through an intelligent (and mature) compilation of the type of details which reveal substantive character depth in an unobtrusively unforced cumulative00000000heaven3 manner. In fact, despite the sometimes outlandish antics of the youths involved, even the most provocative actions feel completely organic to the characters within the limited context in which the film takes place. Thus rather than the humor feeling forced for the sake of randomly convenient insertions of typical adolescently randy humor, it emerges as natural reactive consequences of the the particulars of situation and the specifics of character. The film also manages to poke at the abuses of institutional religion without engaging in a callous devaluation of the spiritual value of faith, and it’s this resistance to an easy acquiescence toward pubescent coarseness that makes “Heaven Help Us” stand a cut above the average film of its kind.

      Taking place in the autumnal days of American youth’s innocence in 1965, the film follows the experiences of transplanted Bostonian Michael Dunn (Andrew McCarthy) at Brooklyn’s St. Basil’s Academy for Boys, and his association with a quartet of fellow students who although initially seemingly light years apart in behavioral temperament seem to find a bonding common core with a like-minded resistance to the institutionalized0000000000heaven9 authority under which the students find a constant test of their natural desire for expression of autonomous individuality. However, while rebelliousness is an expected aspect of the teen comedy, it is generally presented as a witless anarchism in the service of sexual prurience; characteristics of which are in trace attendance, but are intelligent modified with a far rarer inclusion of a more compelling formative aspect in regard to actively budding maturity: genuine growing  pain-  a legitimate and identifiable anxiety beneath the surface of the students’ anarchic spirit. It is this palpable undercurrent of teen angst which lifts the film above its more scatological infantile genre brethren, as the film is wise enough, without overt declarations, to identify the primary source of adolescent anxiety, not from the more casually asserted and excepted excuse of peer pressure, but from the influence of the inherent anxieties expressed by the adults surrounding them and to whom the youths are forcibly attentive enforced to influences irrelevant to whether or not that influence advances a nurturing stability. The film illustrates that this often critically damaging developmental smothering can be the result 0000000000heavenof both emotionally fractured familial settings and (in the case of St. Basil’s) institutional persecution, and it is to the credit of the surprisingly nuanced screenplay by Charles Purpura that the adult antagonists are treated with an equal sympathy and (with the exception of an extremely funny cautionary speech against Lust by Father Abruzzi (Wallace Shawn) preceding a school dance) never reduced to cartoon stereotypes.  It is the reaction to the perception of the stifling of organically spontaneous expressiveness through relentless appeasement to the demands of the adult world which provides the film with its comic tension and its dramatic potency; most delicately balanced with grand gestures of humor, and without the embarrassing histrionics of more acclaimed portrayals of teen angst, such as the mawkish “Rebel Without a Cause”.

       For a film intended as a comedy, the narrative intersects with acutely felt traces of deeper emotional issues, such as unresolved loss and grief; the domestic tranquility of both Dunn and his girlfriend Danni (Mary Stuart Masterson) tragically disrupted by close deaths, Dunn’s loss of his parents and Danni’s father’s mistress committing suicide, an act which spirals the parent into a catatonic melancholy. The direct consequences of these deaths upon Dunn, his sister Boo (Jennie Dundas) and Danni result in their being cast into premature roles of adult responsibility and-  in essence  -the familial providers of 00000000heaven1strength and consolation; roles which are unfairly demanding considering their youth and, more importantly, unaccompanied by any compensatory assurances that they might exercise that burden of responsibility with autonomy, absent of withering adult scrutiny. This is nowhere more movingly demonstrated than in the relationship between Dunn and Danni, which is initially sparked by the attraction of mutual gestures of resistance to the delinquent behavior of the academically challenged bully Rooney (Kevin Dillon), blossoming with a depth of romantic sensitivity rare in modern American films (almost unheard of in teen comedy) until the sudden interference of threatened adult authority rudely brings about their separation. The fleeting corporeal punishments resulting from the students’ mischief is exposed as trivial in stark contrast to the more harshly felt endurance of pain born of more intimately felt emotional rending.

      Early on in the relationship, there is a wonderful moment which subtly explains the entire behavior/consequence dynamic between the teens and the school authorities (representing the actively judgmental but disaffected side of  the adult world), disguised with flippancy, in which Danni observes that Dunn is not like the other students, to which he casually replies “I just got here.” That off-handed remark succinctly illustrates the film’s raison d’ètre: that despite the surface preoccupation with youthful irreverence, the undercurrent of gravitas reveals the teen’s anarchic spirit to be as much a coping and survival mechanism as much as a natural expression of spontaneously eruptive iconoclasm.movie

________________________________________________________

0000rockyhorror4

     “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”  (1975)

    Frank N. Stein:  There’s no crime in giving yourself over to pleasure.

    Audience Response (Boston):  There is in Massachusetts.

    Long a staple of the disappearing urban Midnight Movie circuit, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is a movie discussed in terms of its post-initial release cultural phenomenon rather than as simply a film; albeit one which has profited by taking advantage of a novelty scheduling strategy with each screening’s unashamed encouragement to engage the full range of its audience’s exhibitionist participatory propensities: to, in0000rockyhorrorOS
essence, become a member of the cast, and thus a culprit in obscuring the genuine merits or demerits of the film on an unpolluted aesthetic level. Cultism run amok-  especially when coupled with novelty populist enticements  -is bound to generate a great deal of misplaced emphasis on disingenuous critical assessment based on an artificial cultural impact which has more to do with the emergent in-theater pageantry rather than with any intrinsic value in the film: the seduction of empty Populism as an easy and thoughtless substitution for critical acumen.

     Every area of cultural endeavor demands a certain amount of popular reactive observant filtering, not only for the necessary promulgation of said endeavors (unfortunately the pursuit of culture is shackled with the necessary evil of some form of patronage, were Art to exist in a vacuum it would lose all meaning) rather than the very idea of Art which is the result of efforts beyond mere craft and into the purview of certain indefinable tangents of humanist instincts. However, when that same audience patronage intrudes on the attended work’s intention-  as designed  -the resultant deliberate alteration for the sake of the audience’s own self-generated idiosyncratic amusement, a breach is created between artistic intention and mere 0000rockyhorror3populist utility, and when the critical estimation of a work is entirely regenerated with this altered form is prominently evaluated above that of the original form-  allowing the individualistic interests of public patronage counter the original , a schism is created beyond the mere empty idolatry of cultism, with the work overwhelmed by popular external stimuli; thus not being in actuality what the creative artists intended, but instead becoming a substitute wish fulfillment for the audience: an intentionally calm body of water may be given active ripples by a bystander throwing a rock into the surface. Unfortunately, in critical terms, a puddle is often just a puddle.

     Based upon the  theatrical musical by Richard  O’Brien which mixes a peculiarly slight parodical homage to horror and science fiction films with an aggressively smirky attitude that anchors to the eneterprise an entirely unmerited satisfaction with its own imagined sense of the outrageous, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” is a problematic film fundamentally due to its own toothlessness as both film parody and sexual counterculture satire. The film traces (the plot, what there is of it, is tissue thin) the experiences of Brad (Broadway’s Danny Zucco, Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) who find themselves stranded outside of the stately exterior (actually the Bray Studio Mansion, home to the Hammer horror legacy) of the home of one Dr, Frank N. Stein (Tim Curry), an abode 0000rockyhorror9which seems to play perpetual host to an unceasing parade of masquerade ball/prom night celebratory excesses the nature of which seem to be strictly an excuse to give the illusion of an energetic backdrop to the rather dull proceedings, yet the nerdy nature of the celebrants- meant to appear outrageous -seem hardly more bohemian in nature than Brad and Janet; which upends later scenes which are meant to introduce the innocents to stimulative spontaneous carnal encounters.  It is only with the introduction of Frank. N Stein himself that things ratchet up a notch or two, however this too is limited to Curry’s outlandishly enthusiastic performance, as the script000000rocky1 quickly reveals itself to be a splice job assuming that the constant suggestion of B-movie references is sufficient substitution for a clear and coherent script: the film brims with recognizable props from Hammer horror films as if their presence  and the nostalgic memories they might conjur, might confer elevated legitimacy to the scenes. Instead of a narrative which introduces, clarifies and develops characters with lucid interaction, we are instead presented with stale and sheepishly familiar Halloween pageantry (which explains the ease  with which nonprofessional audience members are able to expertly mimic the onscreen antics without a sense of irony that their source of cultural idolatry is so easily purloined by anyone with pancake make-up and a sewing machine). 

     Not unlike the film canon of John Waters, “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” seems quite content that its own brand of self-congratulatory “excesses”, though even  within the genre mocking context of the film, the inclinations toward finding a naturally outrageous nature to any sexual proclivity outside of square-headed heterosexuality is pretty tepid 0000rockyhorror1territory without a truly provocative goal. For a film which is confident in its outrageousness, its essential toothlessness  embarrassingly asserts itself at every opportunity in which the narrative might take a road less traveled while instead engaging in a self-defeating spineless restraint. Thus, the possibilities inherent in Frank N. Stein’s “obsessions” are given no attention ultimately making all of Curry’s delighted, lip smacking decadence a disappointing come-on with the film continually backing away from any narrative developments flavored with genuinely enjoyable lascivious content.

    The middling content and presentation of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” makes the performance of Tim Curry stand out all the more. The film itself never delivers the goods: it’s all tease without any payoff (as opposed to the failure the aforementioned Waters’ films which are entirely comprised of payoff without any practical foreplay), possibly making Curry’s appearance initially seem over-the-top, though this is simply an 0000rockyhorror5example of dedicated performance in the midst of a desert of performers suffering from the laziness  of undeserved overconfidence that the supposed (but invisible) provocative edge of the material could be used as a crutch sufficient to carry the film. The film is peppered with amusing narrative inserts featuring Charles Gray as the unnamed Criminologist whose presence is a witty virtual reinvention of the bouncing ball from the Fleischer Studios’ Song Cartoons, however, even this humorous device is used unevenly and without ultimate purpose. The songs are often bright and inventive, better appreciated on a soundtrack album than with dilution through the unimaginative staging of director Jim Sharman whose bluntly uncinematic approach to the material belies his theatrical background but discloses no apparent natural instinct for the most basic film aesthetic. Sometimes a puddle is merely a muddle.movie

______________________________________________________________

0000pale4

Richard Dysart plays greedy landowner Coy LaHood and John Russell plays his hired gun Marshal Stockburn, both representing a metaphorical darkness in the Biblically tinted Clint Eastwood Western drama “Pale Rider”.

   “Pale Rider”    (1985)

     In “Pale Rider”, director Clint Eastwood has fashioned not so much a remake of “Shane” as a reinterpretation of the story’s key elements mixed with a retooling of the basic supernal retributive conventions of his own 1973 “High Plains Drifter”; an amalgam of styles both aesthetic and thematic that while not an entirely successful mesh, does often0000paleOS yield interesting results in the continuation of Eastwood’s personal directorial style; an aesthetic which stresses the spare leanness of storytelling (virtually commiserate with docudrama in its lack of trimmable narrative fat) that is highly reminiscent of his mentor Don Siegel, as opposed to the overtly flamboyant and self-consciously stylized visual histrionics of his other more invisible influence, Sergio Leone; though such storytelling austerity places greater demands on the written material to be complimentary in its lack of sagacity by making every word and gesture carry a contributory value of significance: a trait of certain films which is often mistaken as profundity when, in fact, it might be more practically suggestive of a formal emptiness.

     This emptiness actually factors into the true Leone influence as once again, Eastwood’s character is portrayed as a type of nomadic cipher, though in actuality rather than The Man With No Name, is more accurately The Man With No Story: we know no more about him by the end of the film than we do at the beginning, despite the fact that there are myriad opportunities for intimate exploration that are met with frustratingly stony silence. That the true nature of his character remains undefined (not to mention possibly phantasmagorical) is a result of 0000pale5deliberative design, and thus one must ascribe as a calculated pattern in the Eastwood directorial oeuvre. The characters played by Eastwood remain existential ciphers; rather than originating as provocateurs, they seem limited to entering an already embittered arena requiring a moral cleansing by way of a six-shooter; Eastwood plays the avenging angel in Western garb obliterating the frontier Sodom and Gommorah. The religious overtones (rather than purely supernatural echoes which invested “High Plains Drifter” with a sense of Hellbound retribution but without a sophisticated enough development to suggest whether or not that “avenger” was intended as supernal or merely supernatural) of the story are developed commensurately with the film’s swing toward a feminine (not feminist) perspective: something completely new in an Eastwood Western, though it is interesting to note that even this gentler presence is substantially limited to Sarah (Carrie Snodgress) and her young daughter Megan (Sydney 0000pale9Penny), whose early whispered plea for help seems to initiate the appearance of the mysterious Preacher (Eastwood). There is a dual romantic dynamic at play with both Sarah and daughter expressing romantic longings for the enigmatic stranger-  suggested by his unflinching willingness to confront menacing antagonists  -despite the fact that Sarah is also involved in a tentative relationship with Hull Barret (sensitively played by Michael Moriarty), a propector who rather bravely takes on a role of  reasoned leadership among the settlers and becomes an ersatz sidekick and ally to Preacher. However, with the film’s elemental Biblical charged stand of Good vs. Evil, Eastwood boxes himself into a creative paradox: what works to inform the film with this limiting moral primitivism is also what causes the film to fall short of a fully realized vision.

     Within the figure of Preacher, there is no flexibility of character (even in “Shane” there exists a tension tension as to whether the title character will hang up his guns or find a more immediate solution to the homesteader’s dilemma) or possibility of a psychic salvation (oddly, Eastwood’s character seems perfectly at peace, especially when in direct, violence-prone confrontations (the one distinguishing feature to “Pale Rider” is the placidity of Preacher’s demeanor, which seems more a 0000pale11product of a Zen-like calm rather than an aggressive certainty of his own superiority with killing, as in the director’s previous two westerns) since-  despite the inexorable path to exercising the law of retaliation  -Preacher doesn’t even begin to show signs of a tortured psyche igniting a compulsion for vengeance, but rather follows a morally simplified Guardian Angel ethos: shoot or be shot. However, cloistered in this rigidity of conception, Preacher becomes less a character than a force; but of what? Empyream scorekeeping? The Flying Finger of Fate? Despite the allusions to phantamagorical origins, Preacher remaining an enigma leaves an unfortunate vacuum at the center of the film

     If there seems a rare complexity of character (in the context of director Eastwood’s western efforts, to this point), it is limited to a few select supporting roles-  those which correspond to the familial characters drawn from “Shane”  -and that complexity is merely illusionary, since  not one of the supporting characters is allowed to cast an influence as to the destination of the story, the central core of the narrative being a violent retribution which has nothing at all to do with the people supposedly championed by the Preacher. The progression of the plot is as fixed as if it were determined by intelligent design by way 0000pale10of a dusty blueprint rather than be left to the rolling dice of Destony. Unfortunately, what is missing from “Pale Rider” is the imaginative contribution of a screenwriter interested in more than an imitative recipe for what has already proven workable in both “High Plains Drifter” and “The Outlaw Josey Wales” (though certainly with its genesis as far back as his original Leone collaborations), and which by this film might concisely be identified as The Western Gospel According to Clint.

     This central problem of enigmatic portagonist extends to Preacher’s ultimate antagonist; not the greedy businessman Coy  LaHood (how about that for an unsubtle hint at a character’s deplorable nature?) played to perfection by Richard Dysart, but his mail-order gun-for-hire Marshall Stockburn (well cast with former TV “Lawman” John Russell, who despite a stony countenance that could freeze a bonfire, manages a few0000pale6 precious and telling moments that even the most ruthless of killers have their reachable points of anxiety) who arrives with a half dozen”deputies”, although by all evidence they are merely hired assassins. Yet, the true nature of Stockburn’s larful status is never addressed. Is he a n appointed hand of the law gone wrong? Merely a hired killer? Answering such questions might inevitably lead to unraveling even one string in the great tarn ball of mysteryu surrounding Preacher, especially with their former association-  which again is only teased at, though the existence of which is obvious.

     This is important as, in the end, the true nature of conflict in the film isn’t Preacher as prospector protectorate versus the landowner LaHood (thus making the bulk of the film rather pointless and simply an extended introduction to the real intended action), nor is it 0000pale3even an matter of a transparently affixed “modern” message about the abuses of environmental rape versus properly respectful homesteading. Rather, the film is simply about Preacher exacting his justice against Stockburn; a conclusion which undermines Megan’s opening plea for holy intervention over her slain dog’s grave (a nod to another iconic 50’s film “Jeux interdits” perhaps?) since the resultant “guardian angel” seems to be acting with complete self-interest, also belying the sincerity with which 0000pale7Preacher’s actions against LaHood’s bullying tactics (certainly a break from the purer inentions of Alan Ladd’s eponymous hero in “Shane”) since he doesn’t take direct preemptive action against the man’s interests until Stockburn enters the picture. Several more gaping holes in the logic of the movie demand attention: if the simple prospectors are taken with Preacher as they see him as not only fearless but a soulful man of the cloth, why doesn’t anyone question the fact that his strength comes from violence and never by argumentation based on any conviction with reliously based moral doctrines? Also, unless such presumed apparitions are equipped with farsighted gifts of precognition, how does Preacher know that Stockburn will eventually be called to this desolate location?

     The central problem of a continuing core enigma in the westerns directed by Clint Eastwood rejects the essential need for empathetic responses to a narrative’s protagonist (or even an antagonist, depending on the material) by the audience, a situation which might be understandable were the films intended as untraditional exercises in alienation à la Antonioni though this seems an unlikely intention on the Eastwood agenda. Rather, it is another manifestation of his cultivation of a signature spareness of style, though unlike his directorial aesthetic, it is a minimalism which fails to enhance the substantive dramatic scope of this production.movie

 

 

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