Classics: Three Reasons Why Nick and Nora Charles Are the Best Couple to Party With

No party is complete without a saucy terrier

New Years is a time in which we reflect upon the previous year and look forward to the new one ahead. In modern times, the day has become a worldwide celebration in which people dance, talk, and drink away the cares of the previous year and welcome the arriving year with a resounding bang. As is the case with many holidays, however, the complications of making plans, inviting friends, and finding an outfit to wear can seem to be more trouble than the party is worth. Fortunately, there is one cinematic couple who are always up for a rousing good time; The Thin Man’s Nick and Nora Charles. Since their film debut in 1934, the pair has stood for the fun, excitement, and revelry that the best holiday seasons are made of. Here are three reasons why the sleuthing sweethearts are the best movie couple to kick off your New Year with.

1.      THEIR WIT: Author Dashiell Hammet reportedly based the Charles’ off of a real life couple who were both near and dear to his heart; himself and his longtime on again off again girlfriend Lillian Hellman. The layabout former detective and his party girl heiress wife at first seem to be an odd choice of counterparts for the former detective turned hard boiled novelist and his award winning playwright and activist lady love. Upon hearing the couple’s constant quips, however, the Charles’ literary origins become obvious. Regardless of whatever dangerous or outlandish situations they find themselves in, neither husband nor wife ever fails to see the humor in the absurdities of modern life. The spouse’s sense of humor perfectly suit each other as Nora’s restlessness and society charm counteracts Nick’s world weariness and blue collar sensibility. Their ability to laugh both with and at each other reveals that marriage has not stamped out the spark of their relationship as they continue to maintain a loving, intellectually stimulating, and above all fun partnership both on and off the mystery trail. Through their wit, charm, and ability to laugh at the madness that is life Nick and Nora remind audiences that monogamy doesn’t necessarily entail monotony and tying the knot doesn’t always mean being tied down.

2.      THE DRINKS: The only thing that sparkles more than the Charles’ wit is their seemingly endless supply of champagne. Throughout the holiday season in which The Thin Man takes place, the couple keeps the harsh realities of Depression-era life at bay with the help of a Prohibition-era invention; the cocktail. There is scarcely a moment, let alone a scene, in which either Nick or Nora are without a drink in their hands or a slight slur in their speech. While today such revelry would be viewed as an obvious indication of trouble ahead, the film instead indulges the pair and portrays them as the light hearted, sharp witted, inebriates that we all wish cocktails could transform us into. As a result, the film feels more like one long eccentric party than a mystery with a missed beat of repartee or a spilled drink carrying higher stakes than any murder that may occur in the couple’s midst.

 

Our heroes in their natural state; severely hung over

3.      THE SUSPENSE: As with all great mysteries, The Thin Man contains enough twists and turns to make even the most qualified detective’s head spin. The plot begins with the disappearance of wealthy inventor Clyde Wynant following the murder of his secretary turned mistress, Julia Wolfe. What initially seems to be a straightforward case of murder and fleeing the scene soon becomes muddled, however, when Wynant’s daughter, Dorothy, begs Nick to find her missing father. Nick reluctantly takes the case at Nora’s urging and soon finds himself caught in a web of deception lined with scorned wives, sinister heirs, treacherous employees, and ruthless gangsters. As the case goes on, each of the suspects reveals themselves to be far more complex and colorful than either Nick or Nora could have expected. With each new revelation into the characters of the suspects comes a new motive for the murder and a new set of dangers for the Charles’ to sleuth their way out of. As a result, there is virtually no way to guess who the murderer is, much less to be sure why they committed the crime. Through the constant changing of alibis, motives, and associations the cast keeps the audience on the edge of their seats and scratching their heads until the last reel.

Through their combination of laughs, thrills, and tipsy spills Nick and Nora Charles know how to throw a first rate New Year’s Eve. The couple’s approach to life, love, and detective work is just the breath of fresh air needed to welcome all that is new. While their sophistication and suspense may be difficult to replicate, their spirit of celebration is always present where there are good friends, good conversations, and good liquor. Join Nick and Nora; you just might solve the mystery of how to make your New Year’s Eve a truly sophisticated soiree.

Bringing sexy back to married life since 1934

Classics: A Review of Rebecca By Lauren Ennis

Marriage: the 1940's cure for no self-worth



On Sunday, December 15, 2013 Academy Award winning actress Joan Fontaine was pronounced dead at age 96 at her Carmel, California home. Fontaine had a successful career that spanned from the 1930’s to her final role in a made for tv movie in 1994. While a versatile actress, she is best remembered for playing a pair of wives driven to the brink of insanity by the secrets surrounding their marriages in the Hitchcock films Rebecca (1940) and Suspicion (1941). Though the two roles were strikingly similar, it is still debated as to in which film she truly produced an Oscar worthy performance, as many contend that her win for Suspicion was given in compensation for her failing to win for Rebecca the previous year. While the question regarding the Oscar remains a matter of opinion, there is no doubt that the film featured in this review, Rebecca, features Fontaine at the height of her star power and acting range. Under Hitchcock’s direction, Fontaine evolves from insecure waif to strong woman amidst the twists and turns of her life as the second Mrs. De Winter.

The film begins as Fontaine’s character, known only as “the second Mrs. De Winter”, is working as a secretary and companion to an elderly English woman (Florence Bates) traveling in Monte Carlo. Although her employer is obviously difficult and condescending, Fontaine mousily follows the woman about without resistance, hanging on her every request. During the course of the trip, she meets and begins a whirlwind romance with brooding widower Maxim De Winter (Laurence Olivier). Although it is obvious to viewers early on that Maxim sees her as his salvation after the loss of his wife, Fontaine remains too in awe of the wealthy sophisticate to believe that he might share her feelings. Just before she is scheduled to leave with her employer, however, Maxim confesses his love and proposes to her. The happy couple relocates to his mansion in the English countryside, Manderlay, bringing the carefree days of their courtship and honeymoon to an abrupt end. Upon her arrival, Fontaine realizes just how deeply both Maxim and the staff remain influenced by memories of the first Mrs. De Winter, the deceased Rebecca. The manor’s imposing housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), possesses a particularly unsettling devotion to Rebecca that quickly reveals itself to be far more sinister than a mere maternal fondness. As the film goes on, Fontaine’s character is faced with a series of disturbing revelations that force her to reexamine her positions as both mistress of Manderlay and as Maxim’s wife.

Playing an ‘everyman’ character is never an easy task for any actor. These parts often force actors to remain likable and unexceptional in contrast to the challenging and colorful characters that put the story’s plot into motion. As a result, while audiences are meant to relate to and root for ‘everyman’ heroes, it is often difficult for such characters to be truly memorable or original. This dilemma was made even more difficult for Fontaine as her character was not only relegated to a ‘type’ but was also denied a back story, or even a name, with which to enrich the role. The fact that the story was told from the unnamed heroine’s point of view ensured that, for better or worse, the film would hinge upon Fontaine’s performance. Fortunately for the cast and crew, Fontaine was more than up to the task and portrayed the mysterious heroine with a nuance and depth that proved crucial to the film’s success. Although already twenty three at the time of filming, Fontaine imbued her heroine with a childlike naivete and innocence that add a level of wonder and awe to her romance with Maxim and change of fortune early in the film. As the manipulations of Mrs. Danvers and stifling atmosphere at Manderly begin to take their toll, however, she acquires a weariness and skepticism that prove she is far from the “funny, young, lost” girl that Maxim once described her as. Later, when she is faced with the possibility of losing Maxim after the truth of Rebecca’s death is revealed, she is shown to be a capable and intelligent woman as she quickly adapts to the situation and immediately plans a course of action. In each of the film’s three acts, the heroine is at very different stages of her emotional development, which Fontaine not only portrays, but does so in a way that demonstrates the haunting effects of her life at Manderlay. Thus, Fontaine’s understated performance not only brings the heroine to life, but also elevates her beyond the ‘blank slate’ status that the script nearly restricted her to.

Stop upstaging me!!

Like all Alfred Hitchcock films, one of the chief assets of Rebecca is its atmosphere. Although the film’s beginning in a glamorous resort initially seems to be a break from the director’s trademark  chills, the setting is expertly used to cue viewers in to the characters’ idyllic emotional state. Upon reaching Manderlay, however, the film takes a turn for the ominous as the viewer is introduced to the suffocating world of Rebecca. Like the novel upon which it is based, the film relies upon the implication and possibility of danger, rather than shocking images, to create suspense. This technique allows viewers to step into the heroine’s place as we try to navigate between real threats and paranoid fears while the plot unfolds. This distinctly threatening atmosphere also raises the stakes of a largely action free plot, keeping viewers engaged in the characters’ struggles until the shocking twists set in. Unfortunately, the film’s third act reverts to a courtroom drama, eliminating all of the suspense and menace that was so effective at Manderlay. As a result, the film’s pace begins to drag at the point in which it should be at its most riveting.

While the film rests primarily upon Fontaine’s Mrs. De Winter, the supporting cast is equally excellent. Laurence Olivier portrays Maxim with the ideal mix of brooding, tenderness, and internal torment that brings credibility to each facet of his mysterious character. Similarly, George Sanders is perfectly cast as Rebecca’s smarmy cousin/lover Jack Favell and plays the scoundrel with equal parts sleaze, sophistication, and humor. By far the most memorable character in the film is the wicked Mrs. Danvers, who is able to manipulate those around her with calculated efficiency. In Judith Anderson’s hands, the character develops beyond stock villain into an omniscient, malignant, presence that stands in for the decaying influence of Rebecca upon the De Winters’ lives.

Rebecca is a genuine classic that is often considered the “first true Hitchcock film”, and the unforgettable villain and atmosphere leave little reason to wonder why. The film marked a major turning point in the careers of both director Hitchcock and leading lady Fontaine, which provided both with an essential stepping stone to future successes. The film excellently mixes genres in its unique take on the modern ghost story and offers a warning against the dangers of failing to assert oneself and pleasing others at one's own expense. I highly recommend this film for those interested in the careers of Hitchcock and Fontaine, and those who appreciate a bit of psychological suspense; but be warned, the memories of Rebecca have been known to remain long after the ashes of Manderlay fade to black.

Even the furniture is loyal to her

Cinema Debates: What is the Best Christmas Movie?

Confessions of a Film Junkie: Cinema Debates “What is the Best Christmas Movie?”

A Joint Review By: Lauren Ennis & Brian Cotnoir

     Oh it’s that wonderful time of year again.  The trees are covered in tinsel, the halls are festively decked, the eggnog is roughly 80% Kentucky Bourbon, and of course all those timeless Christmas Classics are running on TV.  But what is the Best Christmas Movie?  Miss-E and I have decided to present our arguments and let you our audience decide who is right this week as we debate what we believe is Best Christmas Movie.

It’s a Wonderful Life (By Lauren Ennis)

The holidays are a time in which people come together with their friends and families and celebrate traditions both established and emerging. One tradition that many seasonal celebrations share is the viewing of holiday movies that convey the meaning of the season in original and timeless ways. Personally, I enjoy a variety of Christmas themed films every year ranging from children’s cartoons to the more risqué humor of A Christmas Story. Amongst the numerous picks that I refuse to miss each year, one film stands out for its ability to tell a truly unique story that has continued to resonate for generations; It’s a Wonderful Life.

Someone's lost their Christmas Spirit :(

    The film begins in an unusual manner with two angels watching from heaven as small town banker, George Bailey, contemplates suicide. The story then flashes back as novice angel, Clarence, reviews George’s entire life story in hopes of finding inspiration as to how to reach George before it is too late. The flashbacks show how George began his life as a hardworking, enthusiastic, boy, and grew up to become an ambitious and restless young man. As the flashbacks continue, however, it is revealed that George spent most of his life sacrificing his own desires and ambitions in order to help others and maintain his personal integrity. Clarence soon learns that it is this life-long accumulation of chances missed and dreams sacrificed that has ultimately led George to his hopeless state. Clarence then comes down to earth and uses his new insight into George’s character to show George that there is always hope, and despite his regrets, he really does have a wonderful life after all.

It just gives you a case of the "warm fuzzy's"

My favorite aspect of this film is the way in which it places the importance of its story first and holiday sentiment second. While the film begins and ends on Christmas Eve, the majority of the film takes place across various seasons, which allows the film’s primary focus to remain on George and his predicament. Unlike many holiday films that feature stereotypical heroes and villains, Wonderful Life is consistently honest and three dimensional in its portrayal of small town America and the people who inhabit it. It is this approach that ultimately wins viewers over and makes them care about the utterly unremarkable George, while reminding them to see the hope and promise in their own lives. Similarly, the film’s refusal to soften its dark themes adds poignancy and urgency to the plot’s proceedings. The film also avoids the common holiday film trope of either evading controversial topics or overemphasizing them to boost an otherwise mediocre plot. Instead, the film utilizes George’s contemplation of suicide to examine the often discouraging trials and tribulations of everyday life and the fulfillment that makes them all worthwhile. This film is excellent family fare that challenges its viewers to look at the regrets in their own lives and while reminding them of the simple wonder in each and every life.

Merry Christmas too all :)

    Although the film was written with the struggles of Depression and World War II era America in mind, It’s a Wonderful Life is a true holiday classic for all nations and generations. It is a modern fable of small town life that highlights the importance of each person to the lives of those around them in such a way that audiences can reconsider the often underestimated value of their own lives. The film also provides lessons in the importance of maintaining one’s values despite the short term benefits of doing otherwise; lessons that remain essential from childhood to old age. Above all, It’s a Wonderful Life is a film that reminds both the young and old that “no one is a failure who has friends” and each life, no matter how seemingly ordinary, is truly important.

Hobo With a Shotgun (By Brian Cotnoir)

     Now I know so many of are probably saying that “Hobo with a Shotgun” isn’t really a Christmas Movie, but I ask you to look at this film more closely you will notice this film is just a Metaphor of the Bible.                                           

Let’s look at the Hobo (played by Rutger Hauer).  He clearly represents Jesus Christ.  He is a man who enters a world of sin and looks to rid the world of that sin.  However, instead of educating the world through proverbs and other important messages he uses a shotgun.  During one scene in the film when he is an innocent bystander to a violent armed robbery at a Pawn Shop, he grabs a shotgun off the shelf and opens fire on the robbers.  During this massacre we see the Hobo make the sign of the cross and says “hallelujah”.  The Hobo is aided in his quest to rid the world of sin by a prostitute named Abby, who represents Jesus’ close ally and friend Mary Magdalene—who was also a prostitute.  In one scene, we see the Hobo approaching a man in a car dressed as Santa Claus where he shouts “Jerk on this you child molesting shit-licker!” before blowing his head off with the shotgun.  To me that line represents the idea of Corporate America using Santa Claus to “molest” children’s minds with the idea that Christmas is more about toys and other material goods rather than the ideas and teachings of Jesus. At the end of the film the Hobo dies in a bloody execution (much like Christ), and I think it represents the Hobo is dying for the sins of the people of Hope Town in order to make it a better place.                         

Ridding the world of Sin (...one shotgun shell at a time!)

SYMBOLISM!!!!!

That’s not the only similarity between the films plot and what occurs in the bible. Let’s look at the character “The Drake” who I believe is a representations of the Roman Emperor Pontius Pilot.  The Drake is a crime boss, and he is the person in control of the fictional town of Hope Town (or “F*ck Town” as so many of its residents crudely call it).  Whatever he says, is law, he is the towns Judge, Jury, and Executioner and he even has his own preferred method execution: “The Glory Hole”.  The Glory Hole, in some ways, is like crucifixion, but a lot messier.  Those unfortunate enough to be sentenced to the Glory Hole have a barbed wire noose placed around their neck (very similar to the crown of thorns that was placed upon Jesus’ head during his crucifixion). The Drake is aided in his quests for mayhem and destruction by this two sons Slick and Ivan, who are every bit just like their father. 

The Glory Hole

    During our first introduction to Ivan in Slick as they aid their father in the public execution of their Uncle Logan, Slick and Ivan reminisce about their dislike for their uncle.  Ivan says to slick “You know, I remember that this f*cker used to give me the sh!ttiest Christmas presents”, at that moment Slick brandishes a switchblade and irks this phrase: “I hate Christmas”.  Slick openly admits to hating Christmas, and by that admission admits to hate Christians as well.  Later when the Hobo and Slick have their first one-on-one encounter Slick brandishes a large knife and tells the hobo “Well you better cut [a welfare check] to Mother Theresa, so you can give it to her while she’s finger-banging you in Hell!”.  This sends the Hobo into a blinding rage as he attacks Slick while exclaiming that Mother Theresa “is a God Damn saint!”; further supporting my earlier argument that the Hobo is actually Christ and knows Mother Theresa personally.  Slick despises the Hobo so much that there is a scene where he’s sitting a table with his brother Ivan and their father, with a bunch of dummies re-enacting the scene from “The Last Supper”, and Slick expresses his desire to “crucify [the Hobo] to a homeless shelter”. Upon hearing this notion, the Drake suggests him to not search for revenge and instead attempt a more terrifying method of terrorism.             

    If these reasons aren’t enough to convince you that “Hobo with a Shotgun” is the Best Christmas Movie Ever, then I seriously suggest that you re-watch this film and count how many references to the Bible and Jesus that there actually are in this film.

HE IS JESUS!!!

Classics: A Retrospective of Hedy Lamarr By Lauren Ennis

“Glamour girl by day, revolutionary scientist by night” sounds like the sort of description reserved for a Bond-girl or a character in a particularly ridiculous romantic comedy. In actuality, the description would make an excellent and entirely accurate tagline for the story of 30’s and 40’s cinema icon Hedy Lamarr. Stifled by the gender restrictions of her day, Lamarr used the profits from her ditzy screen persona to pursue personal fulfillment in the form of scientific research and technological inventions. While she is best remembered for her truly exquisite appearance and several light-weight performances, it is the efforts of her beautiful mind that have left the deepest impact upon modern society.

Now we know why she always looked so bored

Lamarr was born Hedwig Eva Maria Keisler on November 9, 1914 in Vienna Austria, to banker Emil Keisler and pianist Gertrud Keisler. She grew up with a largely uneventful and comfortable childhood, and went on to study acting under renowned director Max Reinhardt in her teens. In 1933, she attained her breakout screen role as a neglected young wife who finds fulfillment in a heated affair in the controversial art house film Extase. Although the plot was slight, the film went on to become a notorious hit, largely due to Lamarr’s nudity during a skinny dipping scene and close-ups of her face in what would today be considered a tame sex scene. Following the film’s release, she embarked upon what would later prove to be a disastrous marriage to her first husband, munitions dealer Fritz Mandl. In her biography, Lamarr describes Mandl as controlling and recounts how he attempted to seize all existing copies of Extase in order to prevent any viewers from seeing her risqué performance. According to her account, Mandl was more than a mere arms manufacturer and actually possessed close financial ties with dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, who had attended several parties at the couple’s castle home. During the couple’s regular social gatherings, Mandl would often discuss business with his fascist associates who were very much interested in ways to improve upon and implement military technology. Unbeknownst to Mandl, Lamarr paid great attention to these discussions and used them as the basis for her knowledge of applied science. Eventually, Mandl’s fascist support became too much for the Jewish Lamarr to bear and she escaped to France. Her method of escape remains up for debate to this day, with one version stating that she drugged her maid and stole the girl’s uniform to disguise herself, and another saying that she hid in a brothel where she worked as an escort until she had saved up enough money to secure passage out of Austria. In either case, the trip proved to be a fateful one, as she began an acquaintance with studio mogul Louis B. Meyer in Paris, marking the start of her second life as a Hollywood screen siren.

Upon arriving in the United States, Meyer rechristened her with the stage name ‘Hedy Lamarr’ (a combination of her nickname and the last name of silent star Barbara La Marr) and ordered that she undergo the required studio makeover, which primarily consisted of a regimented diet. She later met and made a strong impression on leading man Charles Boyer while at a Hollywood party. Boyer reportedly took one look at Lamarr from behind and determined that she “must be a beautiful woman” even though he had yet to see her face. He quickly began a conversation with the still unknown starlet and demanded that she be cast in his new film, Algiers. The film was released as Lamarr’s first American feature in 1938 and received rave reviews from both critics and audiences. Although she had minimal screen time in the film, her role as a jewel thief’s kept-woman love interest nearly won her the strikingly similar role of Ilsa Lund in Casablanca four years later before a scheduling conflict led to the casting of Ingrid Bergman. She went on to star in a series of successful films for the remainder of the 1930’s into the 1940’s in which she acted alongside such legendary stars as Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy, John Garfield, Lana Turner, and Judy Garland. Despite her success, she was unfortunately often relegated to parts that emphasized glamour over substance and failed to utilize her acting talent. As a result, she often found herself bored while working long hours on films that required little artistic effort and returned to her other creative outlet; applied science. During the lengthy breaks between scenes, she would lock herself in her trailer and create blueprints and outlines for various inventions. While other stars occupied themselves by chatting with their costars or other, trivial, pursuits, Lamarr used the free time to create, amongst other inventions, improved traffic signals, a fluorescent dog collar, a redesigned Kleenex box, and modifications to the Concorde jet.

The days when it was still shocking to strip on camera

By far the most substantial of her inventions was the Frequency Hopping spectrum. Lamarr’s Austrian-Jewish heritage made the World War II Allied cause particularly close to her heart, and led her to dedicate herself to finding a way to aid the war effort. During and prior to World War II, torpedoes were controlled by radio signals that were prone to being jammed by broadcasting inteference. The widespread use of radios in the 1940’s caused consistent signal interference that limited the accuracy and efficiency of torpedoes.  In the early 1940’s, Lamarr began a friendship with her neighbor, avant-garde artist George Antheil, who was working with a series of experimental instruments, including a set of synchronized player pianos. While observing Antheil’s pianos, she noted how their programming caused each piano to ‘hop’ from one note to another in unison and began to wonder why radio signals couldn’t do the same. She theorized that synchronizing radio signals to jump from one frequency to another would make it much more difficult for the Axis to pinpoint the signal’s location and jam it with broadcast interference. After countless hours of work, Lamarr and Anthiel completed their invention and brought it before US naval intelligence. Despite the fact that the invention would have served its purpose and prevented the enemy from detecting torpedo signals, military experts rejected it. Adding insult to injury, the navy told Lamarr that the best way for her to serve the cause was by using her looks and celebrity status to sell war bonds. The device was not implemented until the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and by that time Lamarr and Anthiel had unfortunately let their patent expire. Frequency Hopping went on to become the basis for Spread-Spectrum Communication technology, which is utilized today in Blue Tooths, GPS systems, internet WiFi, and the majority of modern military technology. Lamarr finally received recognition for her work when she received the 1997 Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneers Award, but Anthiel had unfortunately died nearly forty years earlier in 1959.

Despite Lamarr’s scientific and cinematic success, her personal life was rife with complications. Following her marriage to Mandl, she was married five more times, with each marriage ending in divorce. She adopted son James Markey with her second husband, Gene Markey, and gave birth to another son, Anthony Loder, and a daughter, Denise Loder during her marriage to her third husband, John Loder. By the 1950’s, her career began to decline as younger stars were cast in the ingénue roles that she had been restricted to for so many years. Over time, she spent her considerable fortune and was arrested on charges of shoplifting in 1966 and 1991. She also sued director Mel Brooks in 1974 for invasion of privacy (for unauthorized use of her name) after he named the male villain in Blazing Saddles ‘Hedley Lamarr’. The case was eventually settled out of court and the character’s name remained intact. She filed a similar lawsuit against CorelDRAW Software after they used a Corel-drawn image of her as a cover design without her permission in 1996. Corel argued that Lamarr did not own the image, and that case was also settled out of court in 1998. As her star began to fade, she regarded her career bitterly saying, “The ladder of success in Hollywood is usually agent, actor, director, producer, leading man. And you are a star if you sleep with them in that order. Crude but true”. She also dismissed her glamorous persona and resented the fact that it was her looks rather than her intelligence that she was best remembered for, saying, “Any girl can be glamorous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid”. After becoming increasingly reclusive starting in the 1960’s, she died of heart failure at age 85 on January 19, 2000 at her home in Cassleberry, Florida.

It is often said that one cannot judge a book by its cover; a statement that Hedy Lamarr’s story undoubtedly personifies. While dismissed even at the height of her popularity as a ‘dime a dozen’ starlet, she was far more interesting and complicated than the pretty faces that she was surrounded by in Hollywood. By using her intellectual gifts, she was able to defy the constraints of her era and create a truly innovative invention that has shaped modern technology as we know it.  Next time you use your Bluetooth, GPS, or cellphone, I hope you take a second to think of Hedy Lamarr, a woman who was truly ahead of her time.

The inventor in her unnatural habitat; a film studio

A 2-4-1 Special of "Jaws" rip-offs

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A 2-4-1 Special of “Jaws” rip-offs

By: Brian Cotnoir

"Jaws”; not only is it one of my Favorite Films of All-Time, but it is one of the Greatest Films Ever Made.  Seriously, how many times have I made references to “Jaws” on this blog?  I can’t even count.  “Jaws” is one of the three most common references/influences that I’ve seen in Horror films (the others being Serial Killers and Movie monsters).  If you go to Netflix right now there are over 10 Films about Shark attacks.  However, for every good Shark Attack film you get like a “Jaws” or a “Deep Blue Sea”, you get a dozen films like “Sharknado”.  And then every now and then you get a good “Jaws” spoof like “Sand Sharks” or “Jersey Shore: Shark Attack”.         But if Hollywood has taught us anything about films it’s this: when any idea in film is overly successful, just try to copy exactly what they did.  So just three years later, in 1978, after “Jaws” left an entire generation “too terrified to go back into the water” audiences were treated to not one, but two films that were blatant rip-off’s of “Jaws”, both film opting to use another creature from the deep, in lieu of a shark.  These are the two films that I am reviewing today, “Piranha” and “Barracuda”.  So how badly did these two films taint the legacy of “Jaws”?

“Piranha”

“Piranha” is the story of an insurance investigator named Maggie McKeown who is sent to the Lost River Lake to investigate the disappearance of two missing teenagers.  While searching through the mountains she comes across a mountain man named Paul Grogan, who Maggie recruits into helping her try to locate the missing teens.  Maggie and Paul come across and abandoned Army testing site and suspect that the teens may have drowned in a giant water tank on the property so they decide to drain it, in hopes of finding the teens remains.  Unfortunately, for Maggie & Paul they have just released a super-breed of killer piranha that can survive in cold waters, into the local rivers that serve as tributaries to a new beach resort and a children’s summer camp.  Now Maggie, Paul, and the United States Army are in a race to stop the killer piranha from spreading out and saving as many lives as possible. 

Our Heroes(?) ladies & gentlemen

    So I wouldn’t necessarily call this film a complete “rip-off” of “Jaws”, because it does do something’s that I actually enjoyed.  “Jaws” gave people the idea in your mind that the ocean is not safe; “Piranha” gave people the idea that the lakes and rivers are not safe, so they managed to tackle a new demographic.  Although, there are no (confirmed) reports of a human being eaten/killed by a school of piranha the films story actually does a very good job explaining why the  piranha are more aggressive.  According to the films plot, the Army was performing an experiment on piranha’s called “Operation: Razorteeth” in which the piranhas were being bred to survive in cold water and eat everything in sight.  The Army had hoped to release the piranha in the rivers of North Vietnam to combat the Vietcong, but when the war ended so did Operation: Razorteeth.  The Army tried poisoning the piranha, but a small group managed to survive their strongest poisons and began rapidly breeding.   

So Much Blood :)

The one thing that “Piranha” has on “Jaws” is that it’s more violent.  There’s more blood, more guts, more stuff shown as opposed to “Jaws” where some of the scariest parts were the things you didn’t see.  I did see the 2010 re-make as well, and although I didn’t find it to be all that good, I didn’t totally despise it.  The one thing that the original “Piranha” has on the re-make is it was scary.  Look at who a majority of the victims in “Piranha” (1978); they were children at a Summer Camp and families who were on vacation.  Who were the victims in “Piranha” (2010); A bunch of drunk, moronic, and naked college students.  Who are you going to feel more sympathetic towards?  The children and families, I’d hope.  So right away the re-make is less scary and more exploitative than graphic.  “Piranha” (1978) did contain some nudity, but compared to the amount shown in the re-make it’s like a freaking Disney flick.                    

    “Piranha” does have its faults though.  Most of the time you only see the silhouettes of the piranha traveling through the water, it’s a pretty cheap effect.  At least “Jaws” had the benefit of a mechanical shark in their film.  The film also does make a few references to “Jaws” in the film, but it’s more like they’re paying tribute, rather than ripping off or making fun of the film.  So is this a good film?  Yes, it is.  I think if you’re a fan of a “Jaws” than you most certainly will be a fan of “Piranha”.

“Barracuda”

     Now you want to talk about a bad film that is a rip-off of “Jaws”; then let’s talk about “Barracuda”.  Released the same year as “Piranha”, “Barracuda” is the story of a young marine biologist named Mike Canfield who believes that a chemical company in Palm Coves is polluting the oceans and contaminating the water.  He’s trying to get the Chemical plant shut down for pollution, but he accidentally ends up uncovering a massive government cover-up that could mean even worst news for him and the residents of Palm Cove.      

Should have been called "Garbage"

The major problem with this film is that it tries to have an “Environmental Message”.  The chemical dumping in the ocean is what causes the barracuda to attack humans, and yeah that’s their motivation, I guess.  See, want to know what’s great about “Jaws”, it’s just a hungry-freaking-shark! It’s not a genetically mutated or new super breed of shark.  It’s just a big great white shark that eats people.  Even in “Piranha” the reason why they were aggressive was because they were bred that way as part of an experiment.  The barracudas in “Barracuda” are attacking because the chemical company is dumping waste from a new medicine developed by the town’s physician and mass produced by the chemical plant.  This causes the barracuda (and most of the town’s residents) to suffer from “Hypoglycemia” (?) and it causes people and the barracuda to act very hostile.  The only reason why the barracuda are attacking people is because they’re a little angry.  That’s not scary.   
     Not only that, but I’m just not going to be that scared of a barracuda.  Yes, I’ve read that some barracuda can grow to over 7 feet in length and have been known to attack human beings from time to time, but like the piranha’s I have found no reports of a human being ever being killed by a barracuda.  I think I’d be more scared of a swarm of piranha because they are smaller and there are many of them.  If I had a choice between rather taking on a swarm of piranha or a barracuda, I’ll take my chances with the barracuda.                                           

Not only that, but the effects in “Barracuda” are incredibly cheap and lousy.  “Jaws” had Bruce, a bada$$ mechanical shark, “Piranha” managed to scare people without having to show actual piranha’s (they just showed gratuitous amounts of blood instead).  But the effects in “Barracuda” are really bad.  The barracuda looks like a rubber puppet.  The best way I can think to describe “Barracuda” is it’s like if Ed Wood tried creating his own version of “Jaws”.  It’s just really boring, really cheap, and not even worth wasting your time on.  Just do yourself the favor and see “Jaws” and if you liked that then maybe check out “Piranha” when you’re done. 

A review of "Darkroom"

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A review of “Dark Room”

By: Brian Cotnoir

     Is it just me or are low-budget Horror films getting lazier and lazier? Are film studios even trying anymore?  I mean, what is the point of going through all the work of setting a shooting schedule, hiring actors, not to mention all the work that goes into designing the DVD cover and marketing the film on Netflix, if you’re not even going to put in any effort?  Let’s use the film I’m reviewing today, “Darkroom” as the case-in-point.          

“Darkroom” was released in 2013 and is the story of a young girl named Michelle (played by actress Kaylee DeFer) as she works towards her ultimate goal of leaving the rehab facility where she was sent to after she was involved in a drunk driving accident that killed her boyfriend and her two friends.  Upon being released from the facility Michelle get’s a small modeling gig in town (yeah, apparently she was a model before she went to rehab, but I digress).  So Michelle goes to the modeling job at his huge mansion that turns out to be an elaborate cover for a trio of siblings (led by the director the rehab center where Michelle was staying) to re-enact scenes from the film “Hostel” in order to “purge” the bad sinners of the world.                      

She doesnt look very invested in this role

   The first problem, I have with the film is this:  The plot is so freaking inconsistent!  I swear the person editing this film must have been a 7-year-old boy with severe ADHD and the attention span the size of a gnat because the plot is all over the place.  When every other scene is a flashback, you are not telling a good story, you are a just confusing your audience!  One flash back in your film is fine, two is okay, three is pushing it.  Don’t do it every other scene!  It really makes it difficult to establish things like plot in character when you have no idea what the hell is going on in the film.  I’m really not a fan of telling a story in a film like this, because it is so easy for the audience to get confused.           

   Let’s look at the motivation of our films villains.  They were horrifically abused by their psychotic mother...that’s it.  At some point while trying to escape through the mansion Michelle comes across a video tape of her three captors as young children being beaten, burned, maimed, and abused by their mother.  In the video the mother claims she is doing this because her children are “sinners”, but she is over-the-top with her abuse that it’s just not believable.  This lady makes the mom from “Carrie” look June Cleaver, she is that cruel.  Besides that, who the hell keeps a videotape of them self abusing their children?  What if the police got a hold of that tape, huh?  That’s evidence you dumb b!tch!.  I would have much preferred one of her captors telling the story of the abuse rather then something stupid like Michelle stumbling across a videotape.          

Foreshadowing!

Actress Kaylee DeFer isn’t terrible in this film, but the character she’s playing is.  There is nothing likeable about Michelle.  She’s not a strong character; she’s not a likeable character.  In fact, the only character in this film who is more detestable then her is the youngest of the three villains, Daniel.  Daniel is loud, he’s whiny, he’s pathetic, and I can’t tell if actor Tobias Segal was trying to portray him as being—shall we say—a little slow, or if he’s really just that bad of an actor.                                                   

    If I were to classify “Darkroom” in a genre of films, I would put it under the “Skip Entirely” section.  It’s a garbage film, and is simply too bad a film to be watched by human eyes.  Don’t even bother wasting your time with it folks.  You have much better things you can do with your life then watch “Darkroom”.  

Classics: A Retrospective of Jean Harlow By Lauren Ennis



In The Public Enemy with James Cagney

Long before Betty Grable, Marilyn Monroe, Pamela Anderson and Scarlett Johannsen, there was a wisecracking dame who brought the words ‘blonde bombshell’ into the American vocabulary. From 1931 to 1937, Jean Harlow ruled the silver screen, combining seductive looks with comedic talent to become one of cinema’s funniest sex symbols. With her signature wit, Harlow broke the Hollywood mold by becoming the ultimate screen siren without sacrificing any substance. Behind Harlow’s sassy smile, however, lay a complicated life filled with trials, tribulations, and tragedy.

Jean Harlow was born Harlean (an anagram of her mother’s maiden name) Carpenter in Kansas City Missouri on March 3, 1911. Contrary to the rough and tough image that she often portrayed on screen, Harlow was actually born to a well-off family; her father, Mont Clair Carpenter, ran a successful dental practice and her mother, Jean, was the daughter of wealthy real estate broker Skip Harlow. Skip had reportedly arranged the marriage against Jean’s will, leading her to resent her husband and rely upon her daughter for comfort in her empty marriage. As a result, young Harlean grew up with an extremely close relationship with her mother that bordered on codependency. When Harlean was eleven years old her parents finally divorced, which resulted in Jean winning full custody and Mont Clair disappearing from their lives.

Mother and daughter moved to Los Angeles in an attempt to begin the acting career that Jean had always dreamed of, but had been forced to put aside when she married. Unfortunately, Jean’s age (she was thirty-four upon her arrival) proved to be too much of a career handicap, and the pair was forced to return to Kansas City the following year. While Harlean did attend the Hollywood School For Girls where she met Hollywood royalty and future stars such as Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Joel McCrea, and Irene Mayer Selznick, she did not share her mother’s interest in show-business, and considered her acting career over before it began. By 1926, Jean began seeing Chicago native Marino Bello and enrolled Harlean in the Ferry Hall School near Chicago. It was at Ferry Hall that Harlean met and began a relationship with her first husband, Charles McGrew. In 1927, at age sixteen, she married the wealthy McGrew and the two moved to Beverly Hills where they lived a life of leisure in high society. It was during her time as a Beverly Hills socialite that Harlean was given the opportunity to become the actress that her mother, Jean, had always wanted to be. While waiting for an actress friend she was picking up at the studio, she was approached by a Central Casting agent at Fox Studios and asked to audition. Although she had never given acting serious consideration, she agreed to attend the audition after being pressured by both her friend and her mother. The audition was a success and she began working as an extra at Fox Studios and Hal Roach Studios under the name Jean Harlow, despite the strain that her career put on her marriage. McGrew was already a heavy drinker when Harlow auditioned, and the tension caused by her mild success led him to rely even more upon drinking. The marriage finally reached its breaking point in 1929 when the couple divorced and Harlow moved in with her mother and stepfather, (Jean and Bello had married in 1927) who had recently moved to Los Angeles.

Harlow received her first major role in 1930 in Howard Hughes’ World War I aviation epic, Hell’s Angels. In the notoriously risqué film, Harlow debuted her newly dyed platinum blonde hair and the infamous line “Would it shock you if I were to put on something more comfortable”. Although critics panned her performance, audiences couldn’t get enough of the snappy blonde and she quickly developed a devoted following. Her famous hair color proved to be just as popular as her acting, prompting fans across the country to dye their locks despite the damage that early hair bleaches often inflicted. She followed-up the next year with the gangster classic The Public Enemy, bringing a touch of class to the role of James Cagney’s moll that had been previously turned down by silent star Louise Brooks. She went on to appear in a series of films that capitalized on her newfound fame as a screen vamp, but quickly grew tired of the brash persona that the studio had labeled her with, saying “must I always wear a low-cut dress to be important?”. She also seemed to find success in her personal life by marrying MGM executive Paul Bern in 1932, and attaining a contract at MGM with his help. This early success was quickly shaken, however, when Bern was found dead of a gunshot wound in the couple’s home during the shooting of Red Dust . Although Bern’s death was officially ruled a suicide, speculation abounded that Harlow may have been involved. MGM had already been attempting to alter her sexy persona to conform to the studio’s glossy but wholesome image, and doubled its efforts after the scandal surrounding Bern’s death. Harlow shocked the studio when she maintained her production schedule and not only survived the scandal, but thrived as one of America’s favorite screen comediennes.

 Despite her screen success, Harlow found herself in professional hot water again after she was involved in yet another personal scandal. Following Bern’s death, Harlow had begun an affair with married boxer Max Baer and was cited in Baer’s divorce proceedings, despite the fact that he had been legally separated from his wife when they began their relationship. In order to prevent a possible backlash, MGM arranged for Harlow to marry her friend, cinematographer Harold Rosson in 1933; the two amicably divorced once the story had ceased to be of public interest one year later. Over the course of the next three years, Harlow went on to star in a series of diverse films ranging from melodramas to slapstick comedies and became the fourth highest grossing actress at the box office. In an interesting twist of fate, one of her most notable roles, actress Lola Burns in Bombshell, was actually based in part off of her personal experiences supporting her mother and stepfather as a cinema sex symbol (combined with facts from the life of 20’s star Clara Bow). She was finally able to rise above typecasting when the advent of the Hay's Code in 1934 prevented studios from writing the racy parts that she had previously been relegated to. While the restrictions of the code hampered the careers of many 30’s stars, those same restrictions actually provided Harlow with the artistic freedom that she had been craving, and enabled her to improve upon and test her range as an actress. The films she made during these years prove that she was far more than a mere pretty face with a striking hairstyle and was actually a gifted comedic actress.

Throughout her career, Harlow was known for being pleasant to work with and well-liked by her costars. She became close friends with frequent co-star Clark Gable, who was known to look out for her much in the same way he would a younger sister and even nicknamed her ‘Sis’.  She also formed lasting friendships with actresses Myrna Loy, Rosalind Russell, and Carole Lombard. In 1934, she began a relationship with fellow MGM star William Powell and the couple reportedly became engaged. Despite their seemingly happy romance, the two were prevented from marrying by pressure from studio head Louis B. Meyer and their inability to agree on whether or not to have children (she wanted children but Powell didn’t). By 1936, Harlow began complaining about health concerns such  as weight gain, sunburns, fatigue, nausea, and abdominal pain, but her doctors concluded that she was simply feeling the after effects of a particularly serious bout of influenza. By 1937, her health began to seriously decline, as her body swelled to twice its normal size and she became so fatigued that she was barely able to maintain her work schedule. After being in and out of hospital care for several months, Harlow entered a coma while shooting her final film, Saratoga, and was admitted to Good Samaritan Hospital where she was diagnosed with kidney failure. It is now believed that the dye she used to obtain her infamous hair color may have contributed to her illness, as its mixture of bleach and ammonia combined to create hydrochloric acid, a chemical that is poisonous after chronic exposure. Harlow was pronounced dead on June 7, 1937 at age twenty-six.; even if she had been diagnosed earlier, the limited medical treatments of the 1930’s would not have been able to treat her condition.

In her twenty-six years, Jean Harlow lived through more triumphs and tragedies than many people do in a century. She was a woman who lived life according to her own rules and to the fullest of her ability. She was also a multifaceted artist who left behind twenty one starring films ranging from drama to slapstick, as well as a posthumously published novel. Her image went on to inspire generations of fans including a young Marilyn Monroe, who reportedly referred to Harlow as her “idol” and comic artist Bob Kane who cited her (along with actress Hedy Lamarr) as the inspiration behind his iconic anti-heroine Catwoman. Harlow once said, “I’m not a born actress. No one knows that better than I”, whether she was born with her talent or cultivated it, there is no denying that she was an endlessly fascinating actress without whom cinema would be much less entertaining.

In Red Dust with Clark Gable

Classics: A Review of Throw Momma From The Train By Lauren Ennis

Every great romance, mystery, and murder includes a train

The expression goes that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”. While imitation in the arts can range from lazy clichés to outright plagiarism, one form of imitation is truly flattering and innovative when executed properly; the spoof. In spoofs, a popular creative work that audiences are familiar with is parodied and altered to comic effect. The most deft spoofs manage to balance between poking fun at and paying tribute to their original sources. Many spoofs take the more assured route and utilize classic genres and sources that have since become overused or outdated and will easily lend themselves to a comic reworking. When a spoof opts for the more difficult approach by referencing well respected and/or dark source material, however, the risks can prove hilariously rewarding. One such spoof, Throw Momma From the Train, succeeds in the unlikely task of making a classic Alfred Hitchcock thriller into a slapstick comedy while offering commentary on the absurdities of writers and the creative process.

The story begins as struggling writer, Larry Donner (Billy Crystal), makes ends meet by teaching creative writing at a local community college. It is quickly revealed that despite his talent as a writer, Larry is forced to maintain his day job teaching a class of assorted misfits after a messy divorce that resulted in his ex-wife, Margaret (Kate Mulgrew), gaining possession of most of his assets. To make matters worse, Margaret plagiarized his latest novel and used it to become an exceedingly wealthy best-selling author. The combined loss of his marriage, financial assets, and creative work has led Larry to become obsessed with Margaret and the life of critical and commercial success that she stole from him. This obsession eventually becomes so consuming that he is unable to focus on any other aspect of his life including his neglected love interest, Beth (Kim Greist), and his failing writing career.

Meanwhile, one of Larry’s students, Owen Lift (Danny Devito), faces a similar problem in that he is also unable to lead a full life because of his obsession with wanting to kill his cantankerous mother (Anne Ramsey). Unlike Larry, who is dwelling upon events from his past, Owen is forced to endure his mother’s abuse on a daily basis. Mrs. Lift’s constant barrage of insults, demeaning requests, and physical assaults takes such a toll on Owen that he is unable to separate himself from his stressful situation in order to see how irrational his obsession is.  In an attempt to combat his matricidal tendencies, Owen begins writing gruesome murder mysteries in Larry’s class, hoping that vicariously killing in fiction will alleviate his fixation. Unfortunately, Owen’s stories lack believability and complex plots. Desperate to find some success in his life, Owen becomes fixated on becoming a competent writer and harasses Larry into teaching him how to improve his mysteries. At one point, Larry tries to use a hypothetical premise of killing Margaret to explain the intricacies of planning  a murder in fiction and in the process bonds with Owen, who reveals his similar desire to kill his mother. Exhausted by Owen’s relentless questions, Larry finally gives up and tells Owen to watch Alfred Hitchcock movies to understand the structure of a mystery. Owen eagerly follows Larry’s advice and views the Hitchcock classic Strangers on a Train. The film takes a hilariously zany turn when Owen takes his notes on Hitchcock a bit too literally and proceeds to follow the example of Strangers on a Train by pushing Margaret overboard on a cruise ship and using the murder to blackmail Larry into trying to kill Mrs. Lift.

Like mother, like homicidal son

One of the most entertaining aspects of the film is the way in which it balances parody and tribute. While the outrageousness of Hitchcock’s initial premise would seem to lend itself to a comic send-up, the reality of turning the director’s signature thrills into slapstick laughs could not have been an easy task. The character of Owen, for example, had to be likable enough to make audiences look past the fact that he is bent on committing matricide. In Strangers on a Train, Robert Walker’s expert combination of cunning and charisma made psychotic Bruno an intriguing and unsettling, but far from relatable character. In order to ensure that Owen would be sympathetic, the film’s makers used the originally deviant image of a grown man living like an adolescent and turned it on its head to make Owen the likable loser that he is on screen. Similarly, while Throw Momma closely followed the original film's sub plot of protagonist Guy Haines in Larry’s struggle with Margaret, the crucial change of Bruno’s stern father to Owen’s abrasive mother opened the story up to an array of comic possibilities. The film also highlights the complexity of the plot in the original film by showing how easily that same plot would be muddled when in the hands of modern characters. The juxtaposition of retro plot and contemporary setting enables the film to poke fun at the way in which Hitchcock’s film tended to take themselves too seriously, while bringing one his most beloved classics to a new generation. Thus, its innovative approach to Strangers’ original premise allows Throw Momma to be a success in its own right while paying homage to its source.

Although the screenplay is filled with hilarious action and clever dialogue, the film would not have been the unique success that it is without its cast.  Billy Crystal’s deadpan delivery adds a biting element to Larry’s everyman persona, making him an excellent stand-in for the audience point of view. Similarly, Danny Devito’s unassuming portrayal makes Owen a paradoxical character in that he’s a killer that audiences can’t help but root for. Anne Ramsey’s uproarious performance as the caustic Mrs. Lift keeps the laughs coming while adding believability to Owen’s obsession with killing her. During shooting, Ramsey was undergoing treatment for throat cancer, but reportedly refused to miss a day of shooting as she didn’t want to hold up production for the cast and crew. Her dedication paid off in a performance that was so memorable that she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress; a rare feat for a performance in a comedy. The supporting players all lend apt support, particularly Branford Marsalis who makes a lasting impression in his brief part as Larry’s wisecracking friend, Lester.

Through its combination of black comedy, slapstick, and parody Throw Momma From the Train is a truly innovative film experience. The expert casting and writing enable the film to balance dark themes with light comedy in a way that keeps audiences entertained and on their toes. The film’s simultaneous sending up of and respect for Strangers on a Train demonstrates the very best in comedy spoofs. In this instance, imitation just might be the sincerest form of flattery; even if you won’t look at Hitchcock the same way again.

Let me tell you 'bout my best friend...