Thursday, November 24, 2011

LEGEND OF THE FROSTY THE SNOWMAN (2005); PUFNSTUF (1970)















 PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *(1) poor, (2) fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *comedy*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *sociological, metaphysical*

Imitation MARY POPPINS, meet imitation WIZARD OF OZ.

LEGEND OF FROSTY THE SNOWMAN is the former.  Since the original children’s song/story tells a very tale of a snowman coming to life and enchanting some kids out their dull routine, this feature-length extrapolation naturally attempts to pad out the original story into a tale with more conflict and theme.


MARY POPPINS centered on the actions of a well-meaning paterfamilias who attempted to force his family into a life of rigid conformity, only to have his eyes opened by the gentle influence of a supernatural nanny.  In LEGEND, a similar paterfamilias, Mayor Tinkerton, uses his authority to compel a whole town into obeying his arbitrary rules.  Later it comes out that the mayor was one of a group of kids who witnessed the original advent of Frosty the Snowman.  Tinkerton lost faith in Frosty’s magic when Frosty disappeared and didn’t come back as promised.  As an adult he overcompensated by becoming an anal-retentive rulemaker.  In contrast to POPPINS, LEGEND comes up with a villain to blame for the transformation: a bad kid stole Frosty’s magical hat and locked it away so that the snowman couldn’t come back.  Later the bad kid grows up to be Mayor’s second-in-command, Principal Pankley, at which point he finally reaps the benefits of his perfidy by usurping the mayor's position.  Thus the mayor’s son and his crew of grade-school friends have to learn how to “fight the power” and free the magical snowman.

LEGEND is, unfortunately, a lot like the laws in the mayor’s town: efficient but not very lively.  The narrator gets the best line as he observes the mayor’s confusion when his well-ordered town breaks down: “It’s when you don’t have all the answers that there’s room for something wonderful to happen.”  But the writers and animators don’t have any concept as to how to make Frosty’s return seem wonderful.  The movie’s heart is in the right place; its head simply doesn’t know what to do about it
.
PUFNSTUF, a feature-film version of a live-action kids’ TV show, comes a little closer to creating a sense of wonder, if only because it isn’t shackled to any particular theme. I’m not familiar with the TV show, but I assume that the feature film pretty much recapitulates the show’s first episodes, as PUFNSTUF starts from square one.  English boy Jimmy (Jack Wild) feels tormented by his feelings of being different from American schoolkids, so he wanders off and finds a magical talking flute who becomes his new best pal.  The flute, Freddy by name, leads Jimmy to a magical land called the Living Island, inhabited by talking trees, owls, clocks, and a big two-legged dragon named Pufnstuf, who’s the mayor of the community.

(Try though I did, I couldn’t find any marijuana jokes in the film.  No one but the villain ever complains of hunger, and she wants to feast on Pufnstuf.)

Just like Dorothy’s first visit to Oz, Jimmy’s appearance on the Living Island provokes the appearance of said villain: Witchiepoo (Billie Hayes).  Witchiepoo, anticipating a big witches’ conclave with the “Boss Witch” in attendance, is willing to kill Jimmy and all the beings of the Island so that she can possess the magic flute and impress all of her witchy friends.  Her first foray is repelled, so she resorts to chicanery to get the flute, and from then on the flute goes back and forth like a bone fought over by two dogs.

None the whimsicalities in PUFNSTUF’s world possess the deeper symbolic resonance of any versions of Oz, but they’re diverting, at least.  The standout scenes take place during the longish climax in which Jimmy must masquerade as a witch to gain entry to Witchiepoo’s party.  There are some amusing bits—Boss Witch (Martha Raye) has for an assistant a talking rat in a Gestapo uniform, and she says things like “for Satan’s sake.” (I’m aware that bonafide modern witches don’t worship Satan, but I can’t imagine any of them taking offense at this batch of  “happy harpies.”)  Ultimately Jimmy and his friends save Pufnstuf by invoking the powers of good—which, in contrast to the world of Oz, seem suspiciously absent.  One of the Island-critters observes that witches are frightened by both angels and good fairies, leading me to note that the film is nothing if not even-handed in this mingling of Christian and pagan presences.  Jimmy and his friends decide to masquerade as angels.  They drive away the witches, save Pufnstuf and the flute, and frustrate Witchiepoo for the time being-- until the next go-round.

Possibly the oddest thing in PUFNSTUF is not any of the talking critters, but the fact that one of the minor witch-characters, Witch Hazel (Mama Cass Elliott), performs a song for the other, supposedly evil witches—a song entitled "Different" that speaks perfectly to Jimmy’s sense of being different. All of which comes much closer to getting across the Importance of Being Different than one ever gets from the mediocre FROSTY flick.          









Wednesday, November 23, 2011

INVASION OF THE STAR CREATURES (1962)





“From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step”-- Napoleon Bonaparte.

Rarely does one see the opposite assertion: that one can go to the ridiculous to the sublime in one step.  This rarity probably relates to the dynamics of producing both effects, at least in fictional narrative.  When a creator seeks to invoke the sublime—which in my view is essentially identical with sci-fi’s “sense of wonder”—the creator tries to invoke a sense of majesty or awesomeness to some phenomenon.  When the creator fails to do so, the disconnect between intention and execution often has a comical effect.  In cinema, many of the most popular “bad films” are those that suffer such a disconnect, as seen in Ed Wood’s PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and Phil Tucker’s ROBOT MONSTER.

“Bad film” connoisseurs have shown little regard for Bruno VeSota’s 1962 sci-fi comedy, INVASION OF THE STAR CREATURES.  In all likelihood this is because INVASION is intended to be ridiculous from the start—literally, since the first credit of the film is the jokey “R.I Diculous Presents.”  INVASION follows the tradition of broad comedy a la Abbott and Costello, focusing on frenetic slapstick and simple spoofs of “straight” genres.  Such films usually show no insights into what makes the “straight” genre appealing. INVASION is an exception, for it does have such insights.  Indeed, the aggressive stupidity of the film, whose humor shouldn’t be overly funny to anyone out of grade school, makes it a little easier to view said insights.


INVASION opens less like a sci-fi parody than a service comedy, focusing on the misadventures of Penn and Philbrick, two dim-witted army privates assigned to duty on a missile base.  Penn is nominally the “straight man” of the duo, heaping Abbott-like abuse upon his Costello-like partner, a whining child-man who reads comic books.  Specifically, Philbrick reads the space-opera comics of “Space Commander Connors,” who also has his own TV show and marketing campaign.  Later, one of the film’s real aliens asks Philbrick what “comic books” are.  He replies that “they’re our army tech manuals”—a lame joke that may contain more truth than humor.


In contrast to the service comedies of 1940s Hollywood, everyone in the army is as idiotic as the two protagonists, from a sergeant who converses in Beatnik-speak to a wacky, gun-waving colonel.  The colonel whips the plot into motion by choosing Penn and Philbrick to be part of a detachment sent to inspect the site of a recent atom-bomb test.  According to the colonel, seven days have gone by, which is adequate time for the “fallout” to disperse, but aerial reconnaissance spotted a strange natural cave opened up by the bomb.  Later it’ll be disclosed that the “Star Creatures” of the title are camped out in the cave, and have been there for ten years, but said aliens never comment on having weathered any nuclear explosions.  The old force-field trick, perhaps.  At any rate the colonel sends the detachment off to investigate the cave for no particular reason.


Following a few more forgettable comic escapades, the detachment arrives at the cave.  Most of the soldiers are captured and put into stasis by the Star Creatures, but the aliens allow Penn and Philbrick to remain conscious for interrogation.  The aliens take two forms: super-strong mindless plant-creatures called “vege-men” (guys in silly-looking tree-suits) and their mistresses, two stacked space-amazons wearing tight-fitting one-piece swimsuits and high heels.  Penn describes the girls as being “seven feet tall,” but this comment may just be a way of masking how short the two heroes really are.  Jonathan Haze’s script sneaks a ribald reference into the names of the amazons, who are “Doctor Puna” and “Professor Tanga.”  Someone liked the pun so much that those names also appear in the credits, though no other actor in the lead credits has a character-name so referenced.

  The space amazons are, in essence, the element of Haze’s script that most pushes the crude humor from the ridiculous to the sublime.  Sci-fi cinema of the 1950s sports a fair number of stories about alien worlds ruled by women, as seen in 1954’s CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON and 1958’s QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE.  In these films the females possess technology superior to that of Earth, but their feminine emotions make them vulnerable to the charms of hunky Earthmen.  INVASION follows this basic pattern, but Tanga and Puna are scientists who are far more intelligent than any Earth-denizen in the story, rather than simply inheriting technology from their culture.  Their ability to loom over the short soldiers is of course exploited for sex appeal—lots of shots of Philbrick looking straight up into Puna’s cleavage—but it also allows an interesting reversal, in that Puna and Tanga can and do frequently push or knock the two males about with impunity.  To be sure, one line suggests that the males back home may be equally big, since Haze’s script devotes a few sentences to describing their culture as a “three-phase society,” in which men are the warriors, women are “the technicals” (implicitly the rulers?), and vege-men are the slaves.  Haze says nothing further about the male natives of the alien world, but curiously takes the trouble to relate the history of how the women took control of the vege-men by killing off their leader (Che Gherkin, perhaps) and confining future vege-men to grow only from their “pastures.”  To be sure, this mini-history is used as a cue for a lot of dopey vegetable jokes, as well as one of many witticisms about how much the vegetable slaves are treated like the army’s “yardbirds.”  Still, the conquest and neutralization of the vege-men sounds a lot like standard tropes concerning amazon-societies conquering and neutralizing the male sex.


The “Star Creatures” originally came to Earth as scouts for possible invasion.  As noted earlier they’ve been stuck down in this cave for ten years, stranded by damage their spaceship sustained on landing and unable to communicate with the home planet.  That damage has just been repaired, however, and the amazons are making ready to blast off, taking Penn, Philbrick, and the rest of their detachment along as specimens into “the black voids of space.” 


For some reason everything the space-babes say starts to sound dirty after a while.  Maybe it’s those names…


The big girls have a chink in their armor, though:  ten years is a long time without a man.  Tanga doesn’t seem particularly charmed by their captives, and has issues with the male sex generally: “Stupid arrogant braggarts, all of them, with their illusions of superiority!”  Her subordinate Puna, however, seems receptive to Philbrick’s attentions, and Tanga tells her that the Earth-man has merely stimulated her “maternal instincts.”  This effectively turns the sci-fi trope of the “invading virile Earthman” on its head; in INVASION it’s the men who must “stoop to conquer,” seducing the superior females with their childlike weakness.


True, Penn does try one show of force: ambushing Puna to take her gun.  She puts his lights out with a handy judo-toss, so Philbrick must fast-talk the amazon into receiving a cultural education on the human custom of kissing.  In a schtick probably swiped from some Three Stooges short, the human-alien kiss creates electric-spark sounds and both of them are semi-paralyzed with ecstacy.  Penn manages to drag Philbrick away from his conquest and the two escape.


Back at the army base, the two doofuses fail to convince their chicken colonel of the impending danger—that is, until Philbrick reveals that he is a member of “Space Commander Connors’ Secret Squadron.”  The colonel is a member too—“Space pals forever!”—and so he and his two new buddies lead another (very small) detachment against the alien cave.  This ersatz “cavalry” promptly gets detained by a group of roaming Native Americans who happen to be in the neighborhood.  Philbrick explains their mission, only to once again invoke the name of Commander Connors, whereon the Indians’ leader reveals that he too is a member of the squadron. In fact, he has a superior rank to both Philbrick and the colonel.  “Outranked by a savage,” grouses the colonel.  The cavalry and the Indians both get drunk on firewater, leaving Penn and Philbrick once more alone to plumb the perilous papier-mache cavern.


By the only kind of luck such heroes ever have—the dumb kind—the soldiers not only sneak into the cave without being torn apart by vege-men, they manage to launch the amazons’ spaceship without anyone aboard, where it will be lost in space.  Soon Puna and Tanga learn they’ve been marooned on Earth, and conclude that when they don’t return to their homeworld the invasion will be called off.  Tanga doesn’t take it well, beating up both men and threatening to shoot them.  Puna draws her own weapon and forces Tanga to surrender.  She suggests that they throw themselves upon the Earthmen’s mercy.  Penn gives Tanga the requisite electric lip-job and the two men propose marriage.  “It sounds like slavery,” says the bemused Tanga.  “That’s exactly what it is,” responds cagey Penn.  INVASION then concludes with the two soldiers getting medals for their heroism.  They go to their car, where their amazon wives-- now clad in Earth-garments-- are seated atop the rumble seat like two tremendous trophies.  Off the two dopes drive with their prizes, and so ends the INVASION.


When I first viewed this film as a kid, I thought most of its humor was pretty lame, especially the parts where grown men were playing some sort of Buck Rogers-Captain Video space-opera games.  I still think the humor itself is lame, but it’s interesting that writer Haze and director VeSota end up depicting all the patriarchal societies seen in the film as no better than a “secret squadron” based on a television show.  For male juveniles of that time period, such merchandise-related “societies” functioned as “boys’ clubs” in which males could fantasize about performing the deeds of men.  Such deeds included conquering alien princesses as a substitute for fraternizing with real girls.  The two dunces do indeed conquer a pair of space-babes, but the way they do so undercuts the heroic element of such fantasies.  Given that INVASION doesn’t work that well as a comedy, it’s surprising that it has such a comparatively high level of mythicity, mostly within the sociological and cosmological functions. 
 






Tuesday, November 22, 2011

HOME ON THE RANGE (2004); A CHRISTMAS CAROL (2009)




PHENOMENALITY: (1) *marvelous,* (2) *uncanny*
MYTHICITY: *(1) poor, (2) fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *(1) comedy, (2) drama*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *sociological, metaphysical*


The only thing that I'm grouping these two animated projects together is that I happened to have seen them within weeks of one another-- though as it happens, both happen to be Disney films.

HOME ON THE RANGE is the first film I've reviewed here which is "marvelous" in one restricted manner: its heroes are animals who resemble their real-world counterparts in every way except that they can think just like human beings, and can carry on fluent conversations in humanspeak with other animals though never with humans.  The fantasy-critic Todorov claimed that he didn't think that fables about talking and/or thinking animals should be labeled as "marvelous" works, but I take the opposite stance.  With this in mind, I rather wonder why none of the fantasy-film concordances have ever considered entries for the various PEANUTS films, or at least the ones in which Snoopy appears.

RANGE is perfect for small kids in that it presents a ranch way out west where the animal stars are part of the ranch-family, rather than sources of revenue and/or dinner.  The plot is pretty standard: the ranch "Patch of Heaven" is in dire straits financially.  Three cows-- Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench), Grace (Jennifer Tilly), Maggie (Roseanne)-- decide that the only way they can save their owner's property is to go out and capture noted outlaw Alameda Slim.  I suppose the writers thought that it would be intrinsically funny to see these cows-- who comprise sort of a "Joy Udder Club"-- trying to perform heroic deeds, but in my opinion all they did was to prove that cows don't make good animated film-heroes.  Borrowing a trope from the "Jack and the Beanstalk" folktale, the villain whom the heroes pursue turns out to be responsible for their financial woes, as Slim is not just an outlaw, but an evil banker set on buying up all the land in the state, with "Patch" being the only holdout.

The voice-work is skilled and the traditional animation is fairly attractive, but neither can save the unremarkable script.  Only Slim's assistants, his three dumbell nephews, are a little funny, but that's just because dumb is easy to make funny.  Real comedy, as others before me have said, is hard.

Genre-wise Dickens' CHRISTMAS CAROL in some ways feels halfway between drama and comedy.  Certainly Scrooge's reprieve from a meaningless death (though not, obviously, from death as such) has a comic feel to it.  But on the whole the story of Scrooge's haunting is generally serious, and this version (starring comedian Jim Carrey as Scrooge) emphasizes the dark, forbidding aspects of Dickens' tale with no comic relief throughout the bulk of the film.

As with other "capture animation" projects, one ought to speak of the "voice actors" (Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth) as "voice-and-body actors," since the performers act out some if not all of the actions of their animated personages.  Carrey's Scrooge sports a craggy face with a nose like an icicle of flesh, as well as playing younger versions of Scrooge and all of the Ghosts of Christmas.  This is a nice conceit, as one could interpret the ghosts as elements of Scrooge's own psyche, though thankfully the film doesn't dwell on the matter.  By and large it's a faithful retelling of the original, though to liven up the film for modern audiences, Scrooge is put through some over-the-top ordeals, like being rocketed into the sky or shrunk to the size of a mouse.

Precisely because CAROL is a faithful adaptation, there are no real surprises aside from those inherent in the capture-animation technology.  While it's not to my taste, director Zemeckis and his team did a much better job of "humanizing" these computer-figures than they did in the previous POLAR EXPRESS, which I found nearly unwatchable.

The rating for CAROL's mythicity is "fair" only insofar as it reproduced elements of the Dickens story, not because of anything Zemeckis and Company brought to the table.

Monday, November 21, 2011

ELLIE (1984)




PHENOMENALITY: *naturalistic*
MYTHICITY: *low*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *comedy*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *psychological, sociological*

"Ellie may... or Ellie may not..."

This line from the theme song playing over the credits of Peter Wittman's ELLIE (1984) is probably the height of the film's cleverness.  That, and the base idea of taking the rough plot of the Greek myth-tale of ELECTRA and updating it for the purpose of a cornpone comedy.
Most of the time this blog won't cover films which are obviously naturalistic in terms of their phenomenality.  For the most part the only time I'll cover them will be if there seems to be some doubt as to their nature; for instance, I view the phenomenality of Hitchcock's FRENZY as naturalistic, but it often does get listed in fantasy-films books alongside Hitchcock films that do deserve to be there, like PSYCHO.  No one would ever mistake ELLIE for a fantasy-film.  However, a fair number of hillbilly-horror films do create a sense of the uncanny, as seen in my review of CABIN FEVER. So I elected to use ELLIE as an example of the "weird families and societies" trope in its naturalistic mode.

In myth Electra's story revolves around her attempt to revenge her fatherAgamemnon, slain by her mother Clytemnestra and her lover Aesgistus.  Because Electra makes known her hostility to Clytemnestra, in some versions (like the Euripides play named after the heroine), Electra is married off to a low-class farmer so that she will bear no noble children to seek revenge; however, the farmer allows the marriage to remain in name only.  Electra doesn't have to wait for kids, though, because her grown brother Orestes returns, and the rest of the play concerns her persuading Orestes to kill the murderers of Agamemnon.

Wittman's ELLIE (which actually sports a pretty diverse cast of familiar faces, such as George Gobel and Pat Paulsen) is "Electra" told without an Orestes.  "Black widow" murderess Cora (Shelley Winters) persuades Ellie's aged widower-father to marry her, even though Cora comes with a pretty heavy retinue-- three grown sons and a "brother" who is actually not a relation, but Cora's secret lover.  The four men all pant like so many dogs after the virginal daughter of their new "dad," but the widower barely has time to register a protest before Cora dumps him in a lake and sits on him until he drowns.  (Agamemnon never had to tolerate that kind of abuse!)  Ellie accuses Cora and her sons of murder but the incompetent sheriff (Paulsen) is sweet on Cora and refuses to take action.

Ellie then uses her charms to lure all four men to their respective deaths.  Most of Ellie's plots are pretty ordinary, with one exception that justifies my assigning this film the trope of "bizarre crimes" in its naturalistic mode.  Having directly or indirectly offed the three sons of Cora, Cora's lover Art (the "Aegisthus" figure) faces her off with the intention of killing her.  As Ellie happens to know that Old Art has hisself a real bad heart, she talks him into taking her virginity before she dies-- which leads to a "heart-pounding" conclusion where she lives and he dies.

The conclusion is probably the oddest aspect of the film.  Ellie and Cora scrap a little when Cora tries to kill the heroine with a shotgun.  Yet Cora, already a murderess several times over, is spared by the film's script, in what seems like a riff on the Euripides ELECTRA.  In short, Cora is forced to marry a man she deems beneath her-- the amorous sheriff-- just as Electra was forced to marry a low farmer.  I gather that means that the filmmakers considered marriage to Pat Paulsen a punishment worse than death.

As for the "weird families" trope, Cora's traveling entourage of three sons and a lover is probably swiped from a similar role Winters played in 1970's BLOODY MAMA.  The three brothers lusting after their "sister" gives the film a quasi-incestuous tone, though oddly the script has one of them killed not by Ellie, but by a trap set by Cora for Ellie: a poisonous snake that bites the fellow to death just as he's preparing to rape the heroine.  So in this farcical rewriting, the evil mother and virtuous daughter both live; it's just the menfolk who get chopped off at the knees.

Friday, November 18, 2011

THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924)



PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *good*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *metaphysical*

I finally got round to reading the Starblaze Classics Illustrated reprint of THIEF OF BAGDAD, which was the contemporaneous novel-adaptation of the 1924 Douglas Fairbanks fantasy-film.  I'm not well-versed as to the genesis of the original film, though it's been said that Fairbanks, writing under the psuedonym "Elton Thomas," was most responsible for the overall shape of the film.  The book-adaptation is written by one of the film's screenwriters, one Achmed Abdullah (actually a Russian-born subject of Great Britain), and sports lush illustrations by esteemed comics-artist P. Craig Russell.

Though the film influenced the book rather than the more usual reverse-situation, I note in passing that the metaphysical themes of the story-- the rogue reformed by love-- receive more expanded treatment in the novelization.  Some episodes may have been present in the film-script and excised.  In the book the Thief's encounter with a "tree-man" is an episode in its own right, while in the finished film the tree-man is a minor matter quickly overshadowed by more dazzling wonders. However, the film outshines the book in terms of visual presentation.  The comic moment wherein the Thief's horse tosses him into a rose-bush is desultory in the book, but in the film it serves to heighten Fairbanks' gift for both stuntwork and visual comedy.

I concur with the standard view that THIEF remains a classic, though as a longtime devotee of the 1940 remake by producer Alexander Korda, there are times I found myself regarding the 1924 work (directed by the famed Raoul Walsh) as something of "raw material" for a greater work.  I admit this is unfair to the Fairbanks film, which has its own distinct identity-- for one thing, possessing a more earthly sensuality to the love-scenes between Fairbanks and his princess bride (who's actually given the name "Zobeid" in the book, yet is left unnamed in both films).  Still, there are times when the second film just does more with elements of the first one.  In the Fairbanks film, the Thief's battle with a sea-spider and a man's scaling a huge idol to gain its eye-gem are two unrelated scenes.  In the Korda film, the two become fused into one grandiose scene in which Thief Sabu both scales a giant goddess-statue AND fights a giant spider.  The two separate scenes from 1924 are enjoyable but not very complex, while in the 1940 work they take on qualities I can only term "archetypal."

I term this film "metaphysical" because from the first it's suggested that the Thief's growth from a simple atheistic robber ("What I want I take," "Allah is a myth") to a self-sacrificing lover has a deeper spiritual dimension beyond the level of "who gets the girl."  Of all the dangers the Thief faces in order to gain the hand of his beloved, the most visually arresting are his moments wandering through the Valley of Flame, which suggest a purificatory ordeal.  Again, I have to remark that the book enlarges better on the framework of this wild psuedo-Islamic universe, and the princess' other three suitors are more rounded characters.  Here too it's interesting to see how the Korda film took various elements-- the seeing-crystal, the flying carpet-- but reworked others (the Princess of the first film is poisoned by the villain so that he can bring her back to life and wed her; in the second film she falls into a long-lasting sleep by her own volition).

Of the principal actors here, only Fairbanks and Anna May Wong (playing a treacherous Mongol slave girl) went on to much fame, though Noble Johnson, one of the rival princes, enjoyed a long and varied career, especially in horror films like the 1932 MUMMY.

I confess that I did find the film rather slow going at times.  But in terms of the film's technical achievements and Fairbanks almost giddy athleticism, THIEF steals the game from any of its silent-era competition.




Thursday, November 17, 2011

MOTEL HELL (1980)



PHENOMENALITY: *uncanny*
MYTHICITY: *high*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *irony*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *sociological*


"It takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent Fritters!"

Of course the great joke of this memorable movie-tag-line is that only *one* kind of critter provides the "mystery ingredient" that makes Farmer Vincent's smoked meats so popular.

I've seen MOTEL HELL termed a "parody" of earlier "hayseed horror" films like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.  I agree that director Kevin Connor and his writers infuse a great sense of black humor into the proceedings, but strictly speaking, I wouldn't consider MOTEL a parody.  When Farmer Vincent (Rory Calhoun) proposes that his method of human-harvesting at once alleviates the population problem and feeds the hungry, it's done with dark Swiftian irony.  But though I found that and many other moments in MOTEL pleasantly absurd, I personally didn't find them funny in the sense I associate with true parody.

Another consideration is that as with CHAINSAW, there are scenes of genuine peril that are too grotesque to function as pure parody.  Any of the scenes in which Vincent and his batty sister Ida (Nancy Parsons) are extracting ingredients from their many human captives (most of whom have had their vocal cords cut) have this quality.  Though both Calhoun and Parsons have some over-the-top moments, they're reasonably serious when they project the idea that both of these mad mulchers really believe that they're being humane to their livestock.  The strongest such scene shows Vincent "humanely" using a gimcrack hypnotic device to lull several victims into a dazed but pleasant stupor before he and Ida kill them off.  Most of the other characters aren't much more than amusing cannon fodder.  Heroine Terry (Nina Axelrod) is theoretically the Final Girl who ends up exposing everything, but her character proves rather weak and inconsistent.  A cameo by then-celebrated DJ Wolfman Jack adds a little spice to the mix.

In addition to the tropes "perilous psychos" and "enthralling hypnotism," which should be self-explanatory, this film also includes the trope of "weird families and societies," with emphasis on the former, even though unlike most hillbilly horrors, the family's a rather small one, consisting of just Vincent and his sister.  I'm not sure whether or not Ida's jealousy of Terry, who tries to marry Vincent, was supposed to imply some quasi-incestuous bond or not, though that too would be one of the routine canards tossed at country-folk.

Given that director Connor had most recently done a host of Burroughsian and Arabian Nights fantasies, it's a small miracle the fact that MOTEL HELL, almost the polar opposite in the fantasy department, is as good as it is. 

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

TARZAN AND THE GREAT RIVER (1967); TARZAN AND THE JUNGLE BOY (1968)









PHENOMENALITY: *uncanny*
MYTHICITY: *poor*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *sociological*

These two films comprise the last entries in Tarzan's long career as a serially-produced cinematic attraction.  After this, his appearances would become increasingly sporadic, and subject to interpretations as wildly apart as those of John Derek and the Disney Corporation.

Often, long-running serials die with a whimper rather than a bang.  RIVER and JUNGLE BOY are no exceptions.  Both are modest, reasonably watchable entertainments, but there's considerably less sociological myth-content than was typical of earlier films in the series, even in lesser works like TARZAN GOES TO INDIA.

RIVER is the last of Tarzan's globe-hopping episodes in the series, taking the ape-man to Brazil.  As with India, Brazil boasts a fascinating culture that might have made for considerable sociological tensions, but the script by Bob Barbash (veteran of mostly TV shows) simply slots in a generic devil-cult like that of the leopard-men in 1946's TARZAN AND THE LEOPARD WOMAN.  The cult's leader Barcuna is played by Afro-American Rafer Johnson, but since Brazil does have Black African elements in its culture, his presence isn't quite as eyebrow-raising as the apperance of Woody Strode in the Thailand of TARZAN'S THREE CHALLENGES.  Mike Henry's Tarzan has a reasonably good end battle with Barcuna.

Sadly, too much of the film is devoted to cute kid Pepe (Manuel Padilla Jr.) and his scalawag-mentor, raffish boat-captain Sam Bishop.  Kids had been evident in the Tarzan films for several years, but RIVER and JUNGLE BOY seem to bend over backwards to make the stories kid-friendly.  Pepe, outcast from his own Brazilian tribe for the crime of being an orphan, is taken in by kindly if devious Captain Bishop.  There may be an imperialistic metaphor in there somewhere, particularly when Pepe is called upon to demonstrate the efficacy of modern medicine to his tribe so that beneficent Doctor Phillips (Diana Millay) can do her job.  There's one decent joke here, though, in that Pepe, having learned the white man's ways very well, won't do the job for altruism, but requires some folding green from Captain Bishop for the service!

JUNGLE BOY is even thinner plotwise, as photojournalist Myrna (Alizia Gur) enlists Tarzan's help to look for yet another white foundling-boy lost in the African jungle.  It's modestly appropriate that at least the last of the serial Tarzan-tales returns him to his African home, even if, as was always the case, it's an Africa constructed out of pulp-stories.  Tarzan's search for the lost kid is complicated because the kid has gone missing in an area dominated by a tribe hostile to incursions.  On top of that, Tarzan shows up just as two royal brothers are contesting one another's right to the tribal throne.  Tarzan manages to get on the bad side of the villainous one, again played by Rafer Johnson, and he and the "jungle boy" end up helping the good brother, played by Rafer's brother Edward.  Tarzan has a somewhat better fight with the villain this time but in the film's best moment, the "good brother" is allowed to mete out justice.

Thus ends the long-running Tarzan series.  Neither of the last two films is especially good, but it must be admitted that they could have been much worse-- as evidenced by both John Derek AND the Disney Corporation!