Blood Feast (1963)

Blood Feast (1963)

“Well, we’re just working with a homicidal maniac — that’s all.”

Synopsis:
A detective (William Kerwin) seeks clues to a mysterious rash of bloody killings across Miami, while the mother (Lyn Bolton) of his beautiful girlfriend (Connie Mason) arranges to have a party catered by a crazed Egyptian (Mal Arnold), who is obsessed with reenacting a sacrificial feast for the goddess Ishtar.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Egypt and Egyptology
  • Herschell Gordon Lewis Films
  • Horror
  • Serial Killers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this first entry in “goremeister” Herschell Gordon Lewis’s “blood trilogy” — followed by 2000 Maniacs (1964) and Color Me Blood Red (1965) — as “vile trash” and “one of the sickest, most inept films ever made”. He notes that “the acting is ghastly”, “the casting abominable”, and the “camera work clumsy”. (He also adds that “ex-playmate Mason wears too much clothing”, but I’ll let that opinion pass.)


He writes that “ten minutes into the film [he] stop[s] laughing at the picture’s badness and start[s] to get a migraine”:

… and he argues that while the “picture has camp value, to be sure” he “wonders about Lewis cultists who thrill to no-holds-barred violence and disgusting images”.

He ends his review by noting that “if you detest horror films that show how many shocking ways a creative sadist can do away with young women, then Lewis is the man you’ll want to blame and this is the film you’ll want to burn”.

While Peary’s points are all valid, I believe this flick holds more camp value than he gives it credit for. Its ineptitude on multiple levels is so extreme that personally, I couldn’t help giggling throughout its short (60-minute-plus) running time; and while the graphic violence against women is reprehensible, it’s all so shoddily done that — unlike with more recent/modern fare — you simply won’t believe any of it for a second. Along those lines, I’m genuinely puzzled by Peary’s assertion that cultists “want to know exactly how Lewis accomplishes the famous effect” — considered to be “the picture’s highlight” — in which “Ramses rips a tongue out of a woman’s mouth”, given that we simply see Ramses (Arnold) putting his hand in a screaming woman’s red-paint-filled mouth, then a separate shot of Ramses holding up a (sheep’s) tongue covered with red paint. Where’s the mystery, exactly, in how this shoddy “effect” was achieved?

Ultimately, this movie is on a par with what today’s 12-year-olds could easily achieve — and whether it should still be considered “must see” viewing is a point of debate. However, I’m leaning on the “yes” side simply due to its historical relevance for ushering in the era of “splatter films” (a dubious distinction to be sure, but a notable one). For much more information on the film’s Z-grade production history, be sure to listen to the director’s commentary on Something Weird’s DVD release.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Laughably terrible acting, special effects, and direction

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for its cult status and historical relevance.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Mask (1985)

Mask (1985)

“Hey, kid — why don’t you take off your mask?”

Synopsis:
A teenager (Eric Stoltz) with extreme facial disfigurement is raised by his loving but drug-abusing mother (Cher) and her gang of motorcyclist friends.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Blindness
  • Cher Films
  • Coming of Age
  • Disfigured Faces
  • Laura Dern Films
  • Misfits
  • Motorcyclists
  • Peter Bogdanovich Films

Review:
Peter Bogdanovich made a short-lived directorial comeback with this affecting tale of a deeply disfigured yet preternaturally optimistic teenager (based on the real-life story of Rocky Dennis and his biker chick mom, Rusty). Stoltz — perhaps best known by film fanatics at the time for his role in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) — is marvelous if unrecognizable in the lead role; we can’t help feeling authentically inspired by this resilient kid’s ability to joke about his appearance and then quickly move on to demonstrate his wit, intelligence, and all-around likability.

The script is primarily concerned with showing Rocky’s everyday life: he argues with his mom (a sad-eyed, feisty Cher) about her drug use:

… dreams of going on a motorcycle tour of Europe with his best friend (nicely played by Lawrence Monoson):

… bargains for tutoring money from his classmate:

… and, in the movie’s most touching scenes, falls in love with a beautiful blind girl (Laura Dern) he meets at summer camp.

We watch him struggle with his appearance and his disability (which, he’s been told for years, means imminent death), but it’s remarkable how many of his daily concerns could easily be those of other teens in a slightly different context.

Unfortunately, Bogdanovich — working from a script by Anna Hamilton Phelan — pads his storyline with extraneous material regarding Cher’s romance with a stoic biker named Gar (Sam Elliott, wasted in an undeveloped role):


… and Rocky and Rusty’s participation in a close-knit motorcycle community. While it’s refreshing to see motorcyclists portrayed in such a positive light — I particularly like the scenes showing a biker named Dozer (Dennis Burkley) dropping Stoltz off at school like a protective mama bear:

— their presence ultimately eats up too much screentime. With that said, more scenes could easily have been prioritized for Stoltz’s touching romance with Dern, who does a fine job portraying a sweet girl deserving of Rocky’s affections. This one remains worth a one-time look for Stoltz’s performance, as well as the impressive, Oscar-winning make-up (which seems to emulate the real Rocky’s face quite accurately).

Note: Click here to read an archived People magazine article about the film’s real-life inspirations. Also, be sure to check out TCM’s article for more insights into Bogdanovich’s struggles during the making of this film, particularly regarding his fight to include songs by Bruce Springsteen; they’ve been restored in the recent Director’s Cut, though they don’t really come across as integral to the storyline.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Eric Stoltz as Rocky
  • The touching romance between Stoltz and Dern
  • Excellent make-up

Must See?
Yes, once, for Stoltz’s performance and as a sweet tale of a remarkably empowered young man. Listed as a Sleeper and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

My Dinner With Andre (1982)

My Dinner With Andre (1982)

“We can’t be direct, so we end up saying the weirdest things.”

Synopsis:
When a struggling playwright (Wallace Shawn) meets an old friend (Andre Gregory) for dinner, a surprisingly rich conversation ensues.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Friendship
  • Get Togethers and Reunions
  • Louis Malle Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of this Louis Malle-directed film (co-written by Shawn and Gregory) by admitting he’s “0 for 2 at staying awake through the entire talk-a-thon”, but he eventually admits that “the two men are engaging, and much [of the] conversation is funny and/or incisive”. He writes that “anyone who has been to a party of artistes can identify with Shawn”, who at first “feigns interest” and “asks follow-up questions so he doesn’t have to contribute to the conversation”, but eventually “joins the intellectual discourse”. I’m only partially in agreement with Peary that it’s “hard to maintain interest through Gregory’s long monologues”, and in general am more enthusiastic about the film than Peary seems to be. The friends’ conversation feels both authentic and provocative, representing the type of perspective-shifting discourse that one occasionally longs for. Gregory’s soul-searching adventures (oh my, the stories he tells!) are perfectly indicative of the Baby Boomer “me” generation run amok, and nicely balanced by Shawn’s more grounded philosophy of finding joy in seemingly mundane moments. By the end of this meaty discussion, you can’t help feeling like you’ve been asked to take a deep look at your own perspective on life, happiness, and the search for meaning.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A fine screenplay and natural, engaging performances

Must See?
Yes, once, as an oddly compelling cinematic venture.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Dr. No (1962)

Dr. No (1962)

“East, West — just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other.”

Synopsis:
British secret agent James Bond (Sean Connery) is sent to Jamaica to investigate the mysterious death of a colleague, and soon learns that a villainous Chinese scientist named Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is secretly working on a plan to prevent American rockets in Cape Canaveral from launching.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • James Bond Films
  • Sean Connery Films
  • Spies
  • Ursula Andress Films
  • World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “the James Bond series started in great style with this cleverly conceived adaptation of Ian Fleming’s enjoyable spy thriller“, directed by Terence Young; in hindsight, seeing “how much the series has changed” over the years, it’s clear (as Peary notes) that “bigger isn’t better”. Peary points out that “little-known Sean Connery became a superstar as the dashing, debonair British agent 007”, who was “a great new type of hero”, a man who “knew judo; was a well-educated gentleman; had great taste in clothes, food, and wine; … traveled to exotic locations; didn’t panic when the fate of the world rested on his shoulders; [and] had charm and a subtle sense of humor” — all in addition (naturally) to bedding beautiful women and causing “John Barry’s famous Bond theme song to play just by giving his name”. Indeed, Connery is — as many have argued over the years — simply the best (and perhaps the most handsome) Bond around; he’s consistently compelling to watch onscreen.

The film itself — despite what Peary refers to as a “slow stretch in the middle” (I’m not sure I agree) — is great fun and “works marvelously”; it may be “material for an old-style serial” but never deteriorates to a “juvenile level”, and marvelous use is made of location settings in Jamaica.

With plenty of “sex, violence, wit, terrific action sequences, and colorful atmosphere”, one can’t help staying happily engaged throughout — especially since “Connery, bikini-clad Andress (who became a sex-symbol star), and Wiseman:

… all give memorable performances”. In his review, Peary accurately points out some of the film’s most notable highlights, which “include the ‘three blind mice’ opening:

… Bond having a tarantula crawl on him:

… Honeychile’s [Andress’s] first appearance:

… and “Dr. No’s demise”. Speaking of Honeychile, bodacious Andress in her skimpy white bikini is a true stunner — a cinematic goddess whose character may be a bit too calculatedly primitive, but is ultimately a fitting companion for Bond as he navigates his way through Dr. No’s lair. Though Bond beds two girls before her — brunette Sylvia Trench (Eunice Gayson):

… and alluring Eurasian “Miss Taro” (Zena Marshall):

— she wins full points as the first official “Bond girl”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Sean Connery as James Bond
  • Ursula Andress as Honeychile
  • The iconic title sequence
  • Monty Norman’s unforgettable theme music

Must See?
Yes, of course — for its historical relevance and cult appeal.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Three Faces of Eve, The (1957)

Three Faces of Eve, The (1957)

“Sometimes I don’t know whether you’re crazy or think I am.”

Synopsis:
A meek housewife (Joanne Woodward) who suddenly starts acting strangely is taken by her husband (David Wayne) to see a psychiatrist (Lee J. Cobb), who diagnoses her with Multiple Personality Disorder.

Genres:

  • Joanne Woodward Films
  • Lee J. Cobb Films
  • Multiple Personalities

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his review of this “enjoyable but often silly” film — directed, produced, and written by Nunnally Johnson, and based on a non-fiction book about Chris Costner Sizemore — Peary notes that “Joanne Woodward won a deserved Oscar for her portrayal” as three separate facets of one woman: “dowdy Eve White, a dull and passive wife and mother”; “Eve Black, who’s sexy and hedonistic (and unmarried)”; and “Jane, a third, more confident, intelligent, and calm personality”. He writes that “the most interesting aspect of the film is how Eve Black is presented as a manifestation of Eve White’s rebellion against the sexual repression her simpleton husband (David Wayne) subjects her to”. He argues that while “this film [now] seems tame”, “when it was released, it was like a horror film that scared even adults”, and “held fascination for individuals who imagined that everyone has a second personality somewhere inside”; he notes that perhaps it mirrors “the fascination we felt at the time — because of the Bridey Murphy case — about the possibility of having been reincarnated”.

In retrospect, TTFOE does come across as both quaint and somewhat silly, with a couple of scenes in particular straining credulity. Early in the film, Eve Black tries to strangle her daughter with a curtain pull (a truly freaky scene to witness, as we see the girl with the cord around her neck), but no consequences emerge other than Eve being taken to the doctor. Then, during her initial meeting with Dr. Luther (Cobb), Eve mentions having lost a second child four months earlier; Dr. Luther pauses for nary a second before launching into another topic, without even a cursory, “I’m so sorry for your loss”, let alone exploration of how this might be contributing to her current state of psychological affairs. Meanwhile, the film’s denouement — when we learn through flashback why Eve is so damaged — is simply laughable in its implausibility (and nowhere close to the truth of what actually happened to Sizemore).

With all that said, TTFOE remains worthy viewing for Woodward’s impressive performance. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary agrees with the Academy that Woodward deserved her award as Best Actress of the Year, and writes that regardless of the foolish script, “Woodward is still compelling, whether she is quiet, hysterical, naughty, flirtatious, creepy, sweet, weak, or strong”. Apparently Woodward “wasn’t fond of her own performance because she felt she couldn’t devote enough time to any of Eve’s three personalities”, but the role was nonetheless “an ideal showcase for this versatile actress whose talents [at the time] were still a secret”. As Peary points out, “it’s significant that [Woodward] even makes us feel sorry for Eve Black when she starts to fade away”, given that “whatever her faults, [she] was essentially a real person, with fears and worries of her own” — a woman who, when she “wasn’t destroying Eve White’s life”, was “actually helping her” by rebelling against her “unhealthy marriage” and terrible husband (Wayne). Speaking of Wayne, I’ve never really been a fan of his work, but find his character here entirely plausible; it’s frighteningly easy to imagine a man reacting exactly as he does — with both hostility and confusion — to his wife’s breakdown.

Note: It’s interesting and a bit odd that Peary doesn’t mention the other film about multiple personalities released that same year: Hugo Haas’s Lizzie, starring Eleanor Parker and based on a novel by Shirley Jackson. It’s a worthy, must-see film in its own right.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joanne Woodward as all three Eves

  • David Wayne as Ralph
  • Stanley Cortez’s cinematography


Must See?
Yes, for Woodward’s performance.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986)

Down and Out in Beverly Hills (1986)

“I ate garbage for dinner last night, Barbara — and I liked it!”

Synopsis:
A suicidal homeless man (Nick Nolte) befriends a wealthy hanger manufacturer (Richard Dreyfuss) and eventually becomes a part of his Beverly Hills household — which consists of his neurotic wife (Bette Midler), his cross-dressing son (Evan Richards), his eating-challenged daughter (Tracy Nelson), and his sexy maid (Elizabeth Pena).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bette Midler Films
  • Bourgeois Society
  • Catalyst
  • Class Relations
  • Comedy
  • Do-Gooders
  • Homeless
  • Nick Nolte Films
  • Paul Mazursky Films
  • Richard Dreyfuss Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, Paul Mazursky’s “remake of Jean Renoir’s 1932 classic Boudu Saved From Drowning” (based on René Fauchois‘ 1919 play) has been updated, transplanted, and “injected [with] many ingredients”, including “the nice but screwy family from My Man Godfrey“. He argues that while “the acting by Nolte, Dreyfuss, and Midler is the picture’s main plus”, the “humor is so erratic that Mazursky repeatedly cuts to dog reaction shots to get easy laughs”. He adds that while “the entire family is obnoxious at the beginning”, “Mazursky obviously likes them and simply assumes that we’ll soon share his warm feelings just because they grow more tolerant of each other and Nolte”. Indeed, the film’s narrative trajectory depends upon each member of Dreyfuss’s household becoming humanized and/or liberated due to Nolte’s influence — and the running message seems to be that a caring outside perspective is often enough to function as a catalyst for personal growth and increased self-confidence.

I agree with Peary that the film’s humor is often overly broad (those dog shots certainly feel gratuitous and repetitive) — but overall I find this to be a rare example of a (mostly) successful updated remake. There are quite a few scenes that ring true and seem to respectfully highlight important nuances in class relations. In one scene, for instance, a cleaned-up Nolte is having lunch with Dreyfuss at a swanky Beverly Hills restaurant when he notices his homeless buddy Al (Felton Perry) walking by. Perry and Nolte are thrilled to see each other, and Perry comes inside to join them — but, to Dreyfuss’s astonishment, he politely refuses an offer of lunch (though he does steal bread rolls from various tables on his way out). Dignity of a sort is maintained, with Nolte openly acknowledging his humble origins (rather than maintaining a new facade of wealth), and Perry demonstrating self-sufficiency in the face of charity.

Indeed, part of what makes Nolte’s character so oddly appealing is his refusal to “take advantage” of anything offered to him: he accepts Dreyfuss’s offer of food, clothing, and shelter, but it’s understood that he’ll leave whenever he pleases, and is unwilling to become the object of anyone’s pity or derision. He’s a refreshingly unique protagonist, and makes the film worth a one-time look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Nick Nolte as Jerry
  • Good use of The Talking Heads’ “Once in the Lifetime” to open and close the film

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable updated adaptation of a classic story.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Cocoon (1985)

Cocoon (1985)

“Men should be explorers, no matter how old they are.”

Synopsis:
A man (Brian Dennehy) and his companions (including Tahnee Welch and Tyrone Power Jr.) charter a boat run by a down-on-his luck captain (Steve Guttenberg), intending to rescue alien-filled cocoons from the ocean floor and nurture them in the pool of a mansion near a retirement home. When a group of elderly friends (Hume Cronyn, Don Ameche, and Wilfred Brimley) go swimming in the pool, they find themselves mysteriously rejuvenated and healthy, and invite their partners (Jessica Tandy, Gwen Verdon, and Maureen Stapleton) to join them — but will they be able to keep their “fountain of youth” a secret from others?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Don Ameche Films
  • Elderly People
  • Hume Cronyn Films
  • Jessica Tandy Films
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “popular sci-fi fantasy” about “four friendly aliens who have come to earth to take back members of a crew that was left behind centuries before” is “well-intentioned and has an undeniable sweetness”, but feels “endless and disjointed”. He points out how problematic it is that “the original premise about rescuing the alien crew is… exchanged for [a] storyline in which old people go off with the aliens”, given that “we’re never convinced that these old people will be better off going out into space”. Indeed, while we come to care at least somewhat for the core group of elderly characters — who respectfully ask permission to share the life force generated in the pool:

— the remaining old-age home residents (who we know almost nothing about) simply act like selfish “jerks” with “a total lack of compassion”. Ultimately, Peary argues that this film is “not bad, but overrated and filled with Spielberg cliches” — though it was actually directed by Ron Howard after his blockbuster success with Splash (1984).

I agree with Peary’s review, and would add that it’s troublesome how the script fails to sufficiently develop any of the lead elderly characters: we simply learn that Cronyn has cheated on his wife (Tandy) for years (a trait which becomes even more pronounced once he’s given renewed vim and vigor and is freed from cancer); that Ameche finally feels confident dating a sexy dance instructor (Verdon); and that Brimley — shown several times fishing with his doting grandson (Barret Oliver) — will regain his failing eyesight and be able to drive again. We also discover that Guttenberg, lo and behold, will fall for the sexy female alien (Tahnee Welch — Raquel Welch’s real-life daughter, who “looks like a young Ali McGraw with short hair):

and will get to experience alien sex (imagine a special-effects laden version of Woody Allen’s Orgasmatron in Sleeper (1973), taking place in a pool).

But, as Peary notes, all of this simply diverts our attention from the much more intriguing story of the aliens’ rescue mission; their lives and home context are glossed over quickly, with two of the aliens never even saying a word.

Speaking of the aliens, Dennehy gives the best performance in the film as a potentially formidable presence, bulky and domineering yet ultimately an intriguing and kind leader.

Of the elderly folks, Cronyn’s performance as a man given a sudden second chance at life is the most nuanced (though we dislike him for fooling around on Tandy). Ameche won a Best Supporting Actor award, but I’m not exactly sure why he would be considered a better candidate for this than Cronyn.

[On a side note, Ameche gives a wonderful lead performance as “Gino” in David Mamet’s Things Change (1988) — this is the film his fans should watch if they’d really like to see him in a worthy swan song role.] Ultimately, as Peary points out, “it’s great seeing so many fine veteran actors work together, all in good parts”, and “some of their scenes are perceptive and heart-warming” — but Cocoon itself is a minor disappointment.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Brian Dennehy as Walter
  • Hume Cronyn as Joe

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look.

Links:

Gates of Heaven (1978)

Gates of Heaven (1978)

“There’s your dog; your dog’s dead. But where’s the thing that made it move? It had to be something, didn’t it?”

Synopsis:
Pet cemetery owners in California discuss their motivations and business protocols.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Death and Dying
  • Documentary
  • Pets

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “intentionally bland” debut documentary by filmmaker Errol Morris “isn’t as bizarre as one would guess from its cult reputation”, or “as revelatory as one would expect”. He describes Morris’s stylistic use “of a stationary camera” and “medium shots of his seated subjects, who are positioned so precisely within the frame that they might as well be lamps”, and points out that they “deliver lengthy monologues about animals, about life” instead of responding to interview questions. He argues (I disagree) that since the “real people” we see here are “the kind you meet every day, what they say sounds familiar”, so “you don’t react to them in one way or another” — and “if you laugh, it’s at the pathetic human condition”. Peary’s clearly not a big fan of this cult flick, though he does concede that “the montage in which we see tombstones which have animal photos and owners’ dedications comes across not as either stupid or outrageous… but as oddly touching”.

I find Gates of Heaven more inherently intriguing than Peary — though I am troubled by the fact that Morris seems to be presenting his participants in the quirkiest possible light, strategically editing and interweaving their interview clips so that they all come across as either deluded, arrogant, or ridiculous. It’s no surprise that the main cemetery on display, Bubbling Well Pet Memorial Park in Napa Valley, makes no mention whatsoever of the documentary on its website. One scene in particular — in which Bubbling Well’s founder fawns over a photo of a couple’s unusual-looking dog (“This is a most unusual, most unusual [dog] — I just can say I’ve never seen anything like it…”) — stands out as especially mean-spirited on Morris’s part.

Knowing the unique direction Morris would eventually take with his documentaries (i.e., his use of an “Interrotron” machine, allowing his subjects to look directly at him while speaking to the camera), this early film feels quaint, stylistically-speaking, in comparison. Yet Morris’s characteristically droll, highly philosophical approach to his material is in clear evidence: as Roger Ebert noted in his overview of the title on his “Top 10 Favorite Films” list, “Morris is not concerned with his apparent subject. He has made a film about life and death, pride and shame, deception and betrayal, and the stubborn quirkiness of human nature.” Whether one agrees with Peary’s more cynical perspective, or Ebert’s loftier one, this cult favorite should be seen at least once, simply for its notoriety.

Note: It’s interesting that Peary fails to mention that this film was the basis for Les Blank’s short documentary entitled “Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe”; click here to read more about the bet that led to this event, as well as Morris’s eclectic background in general.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A revealing, often unintentionally (?) humorous peek inside a niche industry

Must See?
Yes, as a cult documentary with a notorious production bet attached to it.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Important Director

Links:

Horse’s Mouth, The (1958)

Horse’s Mouth, The (1958)

“I’ll tell you something, straight from the horse’s mouth: you have to know when you succeed and when you fail, and why. Know thyself, in fact. In short, you have to think.”

Synopsis:
An irascible painter (Alec Guinness) with an aging patron (Ernest Thesiger) elicits help from his cranky girlfriend (Kay Walsh) in trying to secure a painting he gave to his wily ex-wife (Renee Houston). Meanwhile, accompanied by an eager groupie (Mike Morgan), Guinness remains continually on the prowl for a location to paint his next epic masterpiece.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Alec Guinness Films
  • Artists
  • Black Comedy<
  • Misfits

Review:
Peary doesn’t review this adaptation of Joyce Cary’s 1944 novel in his GFTFF, but he discusses it at length in Alternate Oscars, where he names Alec Guinness Best Actor of the Year for his performance as the iconoclastic painter Gulley Jimson. He asserts that “Guinness gives one of the best, if not the best, sketches of an artist (the suffering, the creative process of any kind) in all of cinema” — portraying a man who “constantly revives himself through his art”, which is “what cheers him, keeps him alive, motivates him to attempt absurd endeavors”. Peary provides a detailed description of all the ways in which Guinness’s Jimson is unappealing: he “has a distinctly dry, unpleasant voice, coughs incessantly and annoyingly”, and is “self-destructive and self-pitying”, in addition to being “usually grouchy” and tolerant only of “self-criticism of his work”. Yet it’s the fact that “he’ll try almost anything to keep painting” that puts Guinness “at his most hilarious: lying, flirting, flattering amateurs about their artistic gifts, audaciously confiscating the rich vacationers’ apartment, charging art students to paint his artistic vision on a wall”.

Indeed, it’s to Guinness’ enormous credit that we find his deceitful character so oddly “appealing” — and even charming (almost!) in his single-minded pursuit of his craft. As Peary argues, “We’d almost think Gulley insane if it weren’t for several moments when he talks about art and what it means to him”, at which point his “character is suddenly clearheaded, wise, inspired and inspiring”, evincing “an intellectual approach to his art” that leads to numerous expressive quotes — as when he enjoins Walsh to “feel the picture with your eyes… the lights and the shades, the cool and the warm”. As Peary points out, however, this film is ultimately concerned with demonstrating how “no one but another great artist could grasp how [Jimson] feels, what he sees, or what he paints” — and thus, “he must remain alone and isolated, an irritant to society, an idol to aspiring young artists, an outsider, a visionary with a great new, but probably impossible, idea in his head”.

Peary’s articulate review of Guinness’s “marvelous” performance does justice to the film’s unique portrait of an artist who may be permanently unhinged, but whose single-minded pursuit of creative expression is truly a feat to behold. We see the humor in Guinness’s actions even as we cringe at his overtly critical manipulation of others, given that we can sense what a vital role he plays in “an England that was changing socially and politically”. After all, he does possess legions of adoring fans — not just bright-eyed young aspiring artists and critics (including the hilariously obsequious tag-along Morgan), but high-society admirers such as Lady Beeder (Veronica Turleigh), who seems not-at-all perturbed by Guinness’s destruction of her manor while she’s gone on vacation, though her husband (Robert Coote) is a bit less tolerant.

While Guinness’s performance clearly dominates the proceedings, equally impressive is Kay Walsh — perhaps best known by film fanatics as “Nancy” in David Lean’s Oliver Twist (1948) — as his reluctantly loyal on-and-off-again girlfriend. She epitomizes our collectively begrudging support of artists in general: they may be intolerably narcissistic and infuriating, but we need them to push the limits of our creative vision, and Walsh senses this on some level; meanwhile, her level-headed rationality is a crucial counterweight to Guinness’s flighty temperament (what would he do without her?). She’s given plenty of meaty lines (courtesy of the fine script, by Guinness himself), and the entire proceedings are filmed in wonderfully expressive hues by director Ronald Neame and cinematographer Arthur Ibbetson. The Horse’s Mouth isn’t always easy to watch — Guinness’s Gulley Jimson is an undeniably hard pill to swallow — but it should be seen at least once by all film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Alec Guinness as Gulley Jimson
  • Kay Walsh as “Cokey”
  • Fine sets

  • Arthur Ibbetson’s cinematography
  • Guinness’s screenplay and dialogue (courtesy of Cary’s novel)

    Guinness: “Not what I meant; not the vision I had. Why doesn’t it fit — like it does in the mind?”

    Walsh: “I’ve got things to be thankful for, haven’t I? Here I’ve come in my life, face like an accident, kicked all around the place by my auntie and uncle when I was a girl — but I’ve got both legs the same length and I don’t squint! It’s a sort of miracle. That’s something to be grateful for, isn’t it?”

  • Kenneth V. Jones’ score (heavily inspired by Prokofiev)

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual classic and fine vehicle for Guinness. Listed as a film with Historical Importance, a Personal Favorite, and a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Splash (1984)

Splash (1984)

“All my life I’ve been waiting for someone — and when I find her, she’s a fish.”

Synopsis:
A lonely produce vendor (Tom Hanks) with an overbearing brother (John Candy) finally meets the love of his life (Darryl Hannah), not realizing she’s a mermaid being relentlessly pursued by a determined scientist (Eugene Levy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fantasy
  • Mermaids
  • Romantic Comedy

Review:
I’ve now seen three of the four “mermaid films”* listed in Peary’s GFTFFMr. Peabody and the Mermaid (1948), The Mermaids of Tiburon (1962), and this blockbuster romantic fantasy, directed by Ron Howard — and have come to the conclusion that this limited “subgenre” is almost exclusively concerned with fulfilling male fantasies. In each film listed above, mermaids function primarily as exotically alluring sexual creatures who demand little of their partner; in Splash, the modern “twist” is that Madison (Hannah) is apparently bright enough to teach herself English after just a few short hours of watching television, but this is the extent of our understanding of who she is or what she wants out of life, other than to be a “perfect” (if quirky) companion for Hanks. [Disney’s 1989 animated version of The Little Mermaid raised the bar for mermaid flicks in terms of quality and creativity, but the storyline was still primarily centered on a mermaid desperately in love with a human male, struggling to choose between two worlds.] Hannah is appealingly natural in a tricky role (she’s well-cast), but Hanks’ character is a bit of a dullard, and his loud-mouthed brother (Candy) couldn’t be more obnoxious — I’m flummoxed by the consistently positive reviews he’s received for his role here.

Splash‘s script (co-written by four males) is, despite its Oscar-nominated status, both lazy and unsatisfying: What kind of world does Hannah come from? Why is she hanging around Cape Cod? Who are her family members, and why is Levy solely interested in capturing Hannah? Other logistical concerns abound as well — i.e., why Hannah has just six days to live as a human before deciding permanently between worlds, or why water instantly transforms her back into mermaid form — though these would feel less important if the film itself were more satisfying. The best scenes are those filmed underwater, but they’re too few in number, and fail to open up our understanding of Hannah’s normal existence. Meanwhile, countless lines and scenes are either juvenile (i.e., the running “joke” that Candy likes to drop things on the ground in order to look up women’s skirts) or offensive (a saleswoman helping Hannah casually remarks, “My daughter, on the other hand, is lucky — she’s anorexic.”). Feel free to skip this one unless you’re curious to check it out for its cult appeal.

* The fourth title is Night Tide (1961), which I haven’t yet seen, but I’ll report back…

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Darryl Hannah as Madison
  • Effective costume design/special effects

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look simply for its cultural relevancy. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links: