Reviews by Steven Lewis

We all have ‘em: movies that we like, even love, which somehow get lost in the grand shuffle called “posterity”. They may have been hits in their day – or they may have bombed undeservedly – but whatever the case, no one is talking about them anymore, and they are not likely to appear on anyone’s “must see” list as they go trolling the video store shelves, or adding to their Netflix queue. What follows are some random films from my own “overlooked gems” collection, with accompanying reviews.

Funny Farm (1988)

Now, admittedly, I saw this during a period of my life when I believed Chevy Chase could do no wrong (I have since come to my senses), but even so, this is one that holds up, and was unfairly lambasted by the critics. From the ads (if you can even remember that far back!), this looked like it was just going to be a “Vacation” rip-off, sort of “The Griswolds Move To the Country.” Believe me, the humor in this film is much more sly and more charming than anything in the “Vacation” pictures (of which the first is a classic, the second and fourth abysmal, and the third one has its moments).The film is about a sportswriter (Chase) who quits his job in order to move out to the country with his wife (the wonderful Madolyn Smith) and write the Great American Novel. The movie details his gradual comeuppance, as he realizes that neither country living nor his talent is all that it’s cracked up to be.

The film wonderfully skews the convention of the innocent country rubes moving to the big city and being overwhelmed by its meanness and craziness. Here, it’s the cityfolk who move wide-eyed to the country – and are amazed to find there a roll call of crazies, misanthropes, and just plain weirdos. Does this view of rural life have any basis in reality? Probably not, but then the film isn’t really trying to be a satire but instead a pure lunatic comic fantasy. And it gives us a rich array of supporting characters – from the town sheriff who travels by cab because he flunked his driving test, to the Mad Max-like mailman who refuses to stop or slow his vehicle in order to make his deliveries, and even the little old lady who runs the local antique shop, yet who seems to be selling nothing but her own family heirlooms. All these characters are priceless, and the film just keeps coming up with more and more of them – until it has created this pleasantly bizarre and warped Otherworld, of a kind that only comedy can truly provide.

Best of all is the way in which Chase and Smith react to all of this and try to make some sense of it. I very clearly say “Chase and Smith” because the film belongs equally to both of them. It had to be billed as a Chevy Chase Comedy, of course, since he’s the big star here, but this is no star trip; from the very first, the wife is made an equal partner in the trials and the laughs, and it’s the way the two go through their new life together that provides much of the comedy. It also helps take the edge off of the usual Chevy Chase persona: in “Funny Farm”, he’s neither glib and disinterested nor over-the-top silly. He comes across instead like a normal, personable guy who just finds himself caught in insane circumstances.

Finally, the climactic sequence of the film – wherein the townspeople respond positively to a bribe forcing them to put aside their various peccadilloes in order to replicate a bogus “Norman Rockwell” presentation of small-town life – is one of the most brilliantly sustained comic set-pieces you’ll see in any movie, of any era. Funny Farm is the type of movie which gives you a great time and leaves you with a big, dopey grin on your face after it’s all over. Even if you don’t normally like Chevy Chase, you should not have a hard time loving this movie.

Nixon (1995)

I’m not normally a fan of Oliver Stone, but this movie just blew me away. The reason I usually don’t like Stone is that, though he is a great technical director and visual stylist, his scripts are generally heavy-handed and one-sided to the point of absurdity. But not here. In fact, the script is perhaps the most impressive element in this whole movie, not only for how ambiguous and even-handed it is in dealing with Nixon as a character, but also for the brilliant way it moves around in time. It starts with Nixon, feeling embattled in the White House in 1973 as the Watergate hearings are upon him, and uses the device of him listening to his secret tapes to jump back and forth to previous eras, flawlessly moving between past and present to give an impressionistic, kaleidoscopic overview of the man’s life, instead of following the staid and ho-hum linear approach most movie biographies take. You know what I’m talking about – the “this happened … and then this happened” approach which makes the biopic about the most boring type of movie Hollywood produces. (Obviously, for those of you out there who don’t think so, you can probably disregard this review – it’s not meant for you!)

Another reason to see this film is the brilliant, absolutely overwhelming lead performance by Anthony Hopkins; his Nixon may not look or sound exactly like the 37th president (but come on, except maybe for Ed Sullivan, who does?) but he embodies his qualities – strengths as well as weaknesses – to such an enormous degree that he simply BECOMES Nixon, at least for the three hours the movie is on screen.

Cinematically, the film is an absolutely stunning achievement, employing nearly every trick in the filmmaker’s arsenal (montage, quick cuts, sped-up photography, film stock experimentation, etc.). It also contains some interesting stylistic of both “Citizen Kane” (cavernous high ceiling scenes, a “March of Time”-type newsreel on Nixon, a dinner scene between Dick and Pat Nixon set at a long, impersonal table) as well as “The Godfather” (the burnished, half-dark half-light cinematography, several “chamber of power” scenes in tight, dark and claustrophobic rooms) that I found, in context, to be totally appropriate. It paints both Nixon and the times he (and the country) lived through on a grand and mythic scale that was truly awesome and, once again, entirely appropriate. Yes, it’s a film that is at times big, loud and bombastic (because so, after all, was Nixon himself) but, just as often quiet, contemplative and told at an achingly human level. The contrast between these two states is what gives the film a good deal of its overall power and, as I’ve said, I never would have believed that Stone would have been capable of doing the smaller, quieter scenes so well.

This is a good film to own on DVD, in order to go back to again and again. First of all, it’s so long, and so dense with facts, characters and events, that you’re not likely to want to watch it all the way straight through more than once (the first time I saw it was in the theater and though I was held spellbound, I began wishing for an intermission at about the two-hour mark, not so much to stretch my legs but to give my brain a chance to process all I’d seen and heard so far). But the film is so monumentally great, so engrossing and well-acted and visually stylized from scene to scene to scene, that you can pop it in anywhere and have a rich, fully realized cinematic experience. One of the most watched and returned to films in my collection, for sure.

Fierce Creatures (1997)

This film was famously marketed as the “equal” (rather than sequel) to “A Fish Called Wanda”. That is, it was not meant as a continuation of the same characters, but rather featured the same lead actors (John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline and Michael Palin), in roughly the same configuration and relation to one another as in the previous film. Ok, now first of all, before even talking about the film itself: how great an idea is this? I love it! I wish more blockbuster films would take this approach: rather than going the sequel route – which usually ends up being an uninspired retread of the original tale, especially with comedies – take the same ACTORS and put them into a different context. This allows for the benefit of originality and familiarity all at once. For instance, how much better than “Ghostbusters II” would it have been to have taken Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson and found some brand new story to house them all, with new characters to play?

And the sad thing is that “Fierce Creatures” showed how well this type of arrangement could work. Certainly, the movie is not as hilarious or memorable as “A Fish Called Wanda” (few films are). But it works better than most sequels do and, as an audience, we come in primed in a way we normally would not be to like and engage with the characters, due to the spillover effect of our pleasant associations from “Wanda”. Beyond that association, the film has going for it an inspired silliness, as well as a sweetness and general good spirit that I find pretty darn hard to resist.

The story itself is rather convoluted, and one could make a fair claim that it seems more a hodge-podge of stitched together ideas than a seamless thru-line. That is so, and yet since it is a hodge-podge of almost entirely good ideas, it’s harder to find fault with. Cleese stars as an ex-cop who is hired by a huge Rupert Murdoch-like conglomerate to run an English zoo that they have picked up in a mergers acquisition. Needless to say, the zoo has absolutely no inherent interest to the company, but they are willing to keep it going if it can return a profit. Cleese plans to do this is by appealing to people’s bloodlust, and only keeping the most dangerous and fearsome of the animals (the “fierce creatures” of the title). Things change somewhat when Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline show up to take over Cleese’s job (but keep him on as an employee). A brainstorm by Kline (playing a character every bit as hilariously slimy and petty as his counterpart in Wanda) introduces the notion of corporate sponsorship into the zoo-going experience. Eventually, all the employees are decked out in animal costumes (like mascots at a “Zoo Land” amusement park), and Kline has even begun the process of introducing animatronic creatures behind the bars. All the while, a budding romance between Cleese and Curtis is playing out behind the scenes, and the two eventually join forces to try and save the zoo from the clutches of the crass and evil conglomerate.

Any one of the comic scenarios the film-makers bring up would be worth exploring to the end. The fact that they cannot seem to keep one satirical conceit going for any stretch, and feel the need to overhaul the plot in a new direction every twenty minutes or so, definitely lessens the impact the movie could have had (and of course stands in marked contrast to the airtight construction of “Wanda”). And yet, for example: just because the writers beg off early on the “fierce creatures” idea doesn’t make it any less hilarious – both as a concept and in execution. The scenes of the kindly zookeepers trying to sell their individual cute little animals as dangerous is one of the funniest scenes in the movie. But then, later, when that concept has been forgotten, and we instead see Kevin Kline leading around a group of potential financial backers, giving them his notions of how corporate sponsorship could work at the zoo . . . well, that’s one of the funniest scenes too. What I’m saying is, though a strong focus is something the film lacks, it makes up for it by filling its running time with enough entertaining and well devised comic moments to make you feel like you got your money’s worth.

The performances help. As in “A Fish Called Wanda”, Jamie Lee Curtis is not particularly noteworthy as an actress or a comedienne, but she gets by on her general sultriness and willingness to play cheerfully along. Most importantly, she keeps out of the way of the big boys and lets them do their stuff. Cleese seems a little moldier here than usual, but there’s still no one who does high-strung fussiness better, and he holds down the screen nicely, particularly in several madcap scenes reminiscent of “Fawlty Towers.” As with Wanda, though, it’s Kevin Kline who really steals the show – this time in a dual role, as the Murdoch-like head of the conglomerate and his stupid slimeball son who has big plans for the zoo (as well as getting into Curtis’s pants). The sheer energy he throws out is infectious, and his ability to “play off” himself – in the scenes between father and son – is nothing short of superb. Blessedly, the dual role bit is revealed as more than just an actor’s stunt by the way the movie is resolved: had Kline not been playing both roles, the movie could never end the way it does. That, too, was a nice touch.

Genial, breezy, good spirted – this is “Fierce Creatures”. Nothing in the masterpiece league but, especially if you’ve seen “A Fish Called Wanda”, it’s a nice evening spent with old friends – with some new and well devised jokes thrown into the mix.

All the above titles are available on DVD. “Nixon” is also available on Blu-Ray.

SINS OF THE MOTHER

Psycho

Rant by Mary Markham

RANT CONTAINS SPOILERS

I’m taking a deep breath now because I am about to enter the delicate and ferocious world of the movie geek, or cinephile, if you must. But I don’t care. I love Hitchcock. I may not have seen ALL of his films but I hold him close to my heart. So settle down little cinema creeps, I’m going to talk about this film and it isn’t going to be some scene anatomy breakdown, or secret editing formulas. It’s just going to be about why I will always love this film.

It is a mythical and historical notion, a mother’s fervent love of her son. Throughout the elements of time, legendary bonds have been formed. One notorious example was Jocasta, Greek mother of Oedipus, who returned to Thebes to kill his father and then proceed to marry his mother. Four children were born to them and once the knowledge of their parent’s incest was revealed, Jocasta hung herself. Or Shakespeare’s tragic “Hamlet”, who, after his father’s death, witnesses his mother’s remarriage to his Uncle Claudius, which drives him mad. It seems to me that in many of Hitchcock’s films, the mother figures, if they exist, are represented as cold and distant (i.e. “Marnie” and “The Birds”), absent altogether (“Vertigo”) or completely naive (“Shadow of a Doubt” – my other Hitch favorite!) I could go on and on but this is not a term paper for some Freudian graduate class. This is about Norman Bates. Mother-hater extraordinaire.

MATRICIDE: n. murder of a mother by her son or daughter.

The story of Norman is a familiar one. Domineering mother creates clingy son who doesn’t have relationships outside of her. She then meets a man who Norman feels has replaced him, which then leads him to murder both his mother and her lover. This horrific act steers Norman down the dark hallway of madness. His mind splits off and creates the mother figure who, in the end, dominates the little bit of Norman that is left. I love this story. It shows us an aspect of one of the basest of human behaviors: Dominance. The power structure in the animal kingdom is inherent. In rational human beings, it is challenged. Why a mother’s love for her son is all consuming, is strange but bittersweet and natural. He will carry on her legacy. In Norman’s case, she took advantage of his love for her and used it to control him. He was discouraged from having other female acquaintances. He was under the impression that women were lewd, whorish and sneaky creatures that were only capable of seduction. As a result of his repression, his lust for the female flesh would take over, but Mother’s voice was louder. She would force Norman to do her bidding and rid the world of these “women of loose morals”, these tramps, these sluts. And he would.

Marion Crane, potential womanly threat, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Janet Leigh is so brilliant in this role. You will never forget her somewhat cold and unnerving creation of Marion. You just don’t feel completely comfortable with her. At certain points I feel that the choices she makes can only lead to her demise. But the minute she pulls into the Bates Motel and its raining and dark my heart softens towards her and I feel compassion. The same compassion I feel towards Norman. Here are two lonely people whose paths cross for a moment in time and both are trapped in their own private hells. It could’ve been a beautiful moment, however, desperate feelings can lead to desperate measures.

An interesting observation: You will notice that when Marion tells him she is from Los Angeles, his hand moves from the key rack to the key for room #1 (next to the office). Apparently Los Angeles equals deviant behavior (wink, wink!).

What happens next is cinematic history. Dinner, conversation, a little peepshow, internal struggle and then penetration of the female flesh. A date of sorts. The penetration isn’t sexual of course, but the brutal murder of Marion Crane in the infamous shower scene. And what a breathtaking scene it is, both aesthetically and horrifically. It is executed with the eye of a true artist (as a side note, this scene consumed one week of the month long shoot). This was also renegade filmmaking in the sense that Hitchcock tricked us into thinking that Marion Crane was the central character. At that moment we realize that this story is about Norman.

The rest of the film is a detective story. The sister Lila (Vera Miles) confronts the boyfriend, Sam Loomis, who then are questioned by a private investigator, Arbogast (Martin Balsam). We already know that Marion has run off with $40,000 stolen from her boss. So the next hour of the film is the three of them trying to find her. Arbogast has a run in with Bates and in a fantastic piece of cinematography meets his grisly death in the Bates house. Lila and Sam proceed to pay Norman a visit and find out the truth about the invalid mother. Another scene that is so elegantly crafted is when Lila finds the mother in the fruit cellar only to realize it is her corpse propped up in a chair with a single light bulb above her head. This is the milestone of the film. The ghoulish skull of the mother teemed with Norman entering the room dressed as a woman carrying a butcher knife and screaming in his mother’s voice. Chilling.

This may not be in some opinions Hitchcock’s best film but it is certainly his most terrifying. It holds up to today’s standards as a masterpiece of horror. Norman Bates has become iconic in the film world. And no one but Anthony Perkins could ever become him. It was the pinnacle of his film career. Unfortunate for Perkins for he never talked about Norman Bates until the eighties when he finally made peace with the monster he had created. Lesser directors have tried but will never be able to recreate the simple malevolence that Hitchcock created with “Psycho”.

“Mother, mother oh god the blood!”

“Psycho” is available on DVD.