The Harvey Girls (1946): A Musical/Western Confectionary…and Scarecrow too!

In honor of one of the most celebrated MGM stars in heaven’s centennial birth year–and as you know there are several, even outnumbering the heavens–this review will focus on The Harvey Girls starring Judy Garland. The film was directed by George Sidney and released in 1946. It became the first film to begin his career of making big technicolor musicals with iconic songs and stars. These included films like Show Boat, and Bye Bye Birdie, along with later youth-marketed pictures like Viva Las Vegas. But the trend first began with The Harvey Girls.

 

This movie seemed to combine two of the most popular genres at the time: musicals and westerns. So, in a sense, it is not only a time capsule for an era when musical movies were en vogue but for the bygone era of western expansion in the way of railroads, land, and franchises. The Harvey Girls gets its name from the Harvey Houses founded by Fred Harvey in 1876. They were a chain of restaurants put along various railroad stops in the west, promising warm meals to travelers, and respectable waitresses serving them (i.e., ‘the girls’). And they were profitable! Extremely so, Fred Harvey is credited with creating the first successful chain business and with “civilizing the west”. The Harvey Houses even outlived him and were a staple of the west until the 1940s.

At a time when nostalgia for the west was being depicted in film and television more often, it seemed a smart move for this film to do so as well and to combine musical numbers led by one of the studio’s most profitable stars, Judy Garland. Judy Garland’s fluttery contralto had a hold on audiences and critics alike. She leaves you in awe with ballads like "In the Valley (Where the Evening Sun Goes Down)” and inspires excitement in ensemble numbers like the “On the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe”. Altogether this film is like being in a candy store. A confectionary of musical wonderment, humor, romance, and spectacle.

 

The technicolor is just the cherry on top of a satisfyingly saccharine sundae. It works best in the service of the period-appropriate costumes. Now the uniform for the eponymous Harvey Girls is rather monotone, keeping in line with how the waitresses were actually dressed in the 1890s. The dance girls at the saloon however are very stylish, with risqué designs and boas. It is a shock to see the leader of the dance girls be played with a lovable ruthless charm by a very young Angela Lansbury. The scene where the colors really pop out is the ballroom scene, as seen below.

                                        Ray Bolger and Judy doing what they did best in a vivid musical sequence

This scene is such a perfect example of delectable costuming, music, dancing, and talent. And the talent! I have already mentioned Judy Garland as the star, she plays Susan Bradley, a young Ohio native who answers a lonely-hearts ad and finds herself on a train going to Arizona with newly employed Harvey Girls. Angela Lansbury is her sort of foil, a local coquettish saloon dancer called Em who has a soft spot for Ned Trent, the male lead played by John Hodiak. These three characters, it’s fair to say have the most character development and personality dedicated to them and are played wondrously by each of these actors. The only deficit is the unnecessary dubbing of Angela Lansbury for Em’s signature song “Oh, You Kid”. But she still plays Em very charismatically even as she is unnecessarily catty to Susan and it’s hard to not enjoy her villainy.


Ned Trent is the saloon owner and, on that basis, alone he and Susan have a conflict of interest since she shortly after realizing her fiancé-to-be was not an ideal match, decides to join the Harvey Girls, his competitors, essentially. Their conflict actually first arose when it was revealed that Ned Trent wrote the letters that had driven her to Sandrock, instead of her actual betrothed. So, she starts off quite angry with him, feeling as though he made a joke of what she thought was a legitimate courtship. She later comes to respect and secretly pine for him, after seeing how he has no animosity towards her and the other Harvey Girls, and how he means for their competition to be amicable, unlike Em and his business partner, Sam Purvis. He develops feelings for Susan as well.


Judy Garland and John Hodiak have great chemistry in this film. He plays Ned Trent, who is written as an incorrigible businessman with a secret romantic side, in a very realistic way. Another actor might have veered too close into caricature, but he delivers his lines with no airs, with complete believability and an arresting smile. Personally, she never found a better match as far as romantic co-leads (though there are definitely some more suitable in the song and dance department) and it’s a shame to this writer that he was not cast opposite Judy again in A Star is Born per her request, but I digress.

John Hodiak and Judy Garland. Judy still was using Dorothy Ponedel, the makeup artist who brought out her natural beauty in Meet Me in St Louis and she similarly does a good job here

 

Judy again along with her vocal strength is quite moving, particularly in the scene towards the end of the picture when Susan implores Em to teach her how to be a dance-hall girl too, believing that that is what Ned Trent desires. Her desperation at that moment felt very raw and real and did not at all match the lightness of most of the film, and as pitiable as it was, the unrequited pangs are relatable and make her reunion with Ned even more blissful. Garland though most beloved for her musical performances was quite adept at tapping into sadness, and one can’t help but wonder if she imbued these performances with her own personal well of sorrows.

She was known for her tardiness and sometimes altogether missing a day of shooting and the filming of The Harvey Girls was not an exception. One character played with deadpan charisma by fellow former child actor Virginia O’Brien had several of her scenes cut as the shooting delays made it harder to hide her pregnancy. Her character Alma is noticeably missing at the end of the film, but she does get a song performed in a scene with Ray Bolger, the Scarecrow himself, reuniting with Garland again since they first starred together in The Wizard of Oz. He and Cyd Charisse get to show off their dancing skills, and they are both a joy to watch in their respective styles. Bolger shines in the aforementioned ballroom scene in a very impressive and humorous tap number. Charisse, who plays fellow Harvey Girl, Deborah dances in an interim to a song performed by Kenny Baker in his beautiful tenor voice. He plays her character's love interest and the song he charms her with is called “Wait and See”. It is such a gorgeous song and performance.


The choreography was done by Robert Alton, a renowned choreographer at the time. He worked with Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly and choreographed many other musicals. He had his work cut out for him as the film was conceived as a response to Oklahoma, a very dance-heavy musical, and it should be said that he succeeds with both ensemble numbers and solo displays. The dancing perfectly complements the music written by Johnny Mercer and Harry Warren. The song “On the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe” actually became a big hit after the film’s release winning an Academy Award for Best Original Song. Black film actor Ben Carter has a brief role in the film along with a solo in this spectacular number. He was the first Black actor to have a seven-year contract with a major studio and is most known for booking many of the black extras in Gone with the Wind.


It’s understandable that this film is not mentioned nearly as much compared to other MGM musicals, particularly Garland-centric MGM musicals. One might interpret it as a clear cash grab, and true, the story itself is sort of facile. But it functions well as a vehicle to propel the spectacle of cinema, which at the time had to compete with the small screen as well. The colors and the talent and the spectacular eye-popping hues of the period costuming were a major draw. It's a scrumptious feast for the eyes, a sweet blend of genres, just the epitome of a Hollywood movie musical.

 

                                               A gun-slinging Judy Garland and no-nonsense Angela Lansbury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breathless

  

A Bout De Souffle or Breathless was Jean Luc Godard’s directorial debut. I have heard this title often mentioned in film circles and referred to as being the seminal French New Wave film. Jean Luc Godard wrote for the famous Cahiers du cinéma film magazine, along with other directors (Truffaut, Rohmer, Rivette, etc.) who would also become associated with the French New Wave movement in the sixties. So, there is this romantic backstory to it in that sense and prestige, since it started as a passion project by a man who loved movies, who opined them, and it became this revered, pivotal work that every film student is made to watch and write about. So, it is very much a template, a historic one at that too. And often, those types of movies are not so engaging outside of the historical context, because as times change, people’s tastes change. And I admit the first half of this movie was not completely engaging.

 We are first introduced to the protagonist Michel Poiccard played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, a car thief, who shoots and kills a police officer who was in pursuit of him. Michel reconnects with an American Expat named Patricia, played by Jean Seberg, and asks her to go to Italy with him. He is enamored with her and it’s not hard to believe, since Jean Seberg is the epitome of French chicness which is funny considering she wasn’t French. She works for the New York Herald Tribune and likes Michel but also engages in trysts with her boss. Overall, her emotions seem to skew capricious but (at least, this was my interpretation) seemingly because she wanted to be sure of Michel’s true affection for her. He comes across as extremely chauvinistic and in fact, throughout most of the movie, he is just begging her for sex. Apparently, this movie started the jump cut technique and I do see them being used often and with great effect. 

But there’s also this one scene where Michel breaks into Patricia’s flat. She is nonplussed and is just being her charming self while he keeps begging. They have this whole Pepe le Pew chasing a coquettish Penelope pussycat dynamic. And the scene consists of that and nothing else of import or significance to the larger plot (Well, Patricia does reveal she is pregnant by him in this scene but that is not really addressed subsequently.). 

They’re petits riens, little nothings that serve as a short interim to the main action and conflict, which is really just a standard cop and robbers' narrative that becomes tangential and less of a focus in the end. Because this is the focus. This relationship. These people. They’re little things that seem sweet and ineffectual but become grand everythings. I can tell that so many auteurs have been inspired by the simplicity and beauty of this scene. Sometimes, the best answer to the question of what makes good cinema is the simplest: two people sitting in a room talking, listening to music, grooming themselves, and being intimate. It doesn't have to be complex or difficult. 

We’re shown that the police seem to suspect Michel of being the man who murdered their fellow officer, and they continue to search for him with much difficulty. Michel is doing everything in his power to evade. He even adopts a pseudonym Laszlo Kovacs which was actually a reference to a character Belmondo played in a previous film. The movie has many metatextual moments like that. Another is when a woman asks Michel to buy her magazine to support young artists. Which magazine was she selling? Cahiers du cinéma.

After their lovemaking, Michel and Patricia leave the apartment so she can attend a press conference (but not before making a fabulous costume change, in a cute striped dress). Michel drops her off and goes to confront someone about some money he is owed. That actually backfires as his criminal identity becomes more and more known. Michel tells Patricia the worst flaw is cowardice. Despite his arrests probably being imminent, he doesn’t appear to be very much concerned with getting out of dodge. Michel lives for the moment and the moment is Patricia. 

Another favorite part in this movie for me is the press conference Patricia attends for this famous French novelist. These reporters treat this man like he’s an oracle. They ask him the most existential questions and he gives such chauvinistic responses; it verges on satire. He’s like the male gaze personified. When Patricia asks her question “Do women have a role to play in modern society?” He answers with just as much quickness and humor (this time intentional) as the other responses: “If they’re charming and wear striped dresses and glasses.” She smiles in response to the obvious flirting. She also asks him “What is your greatest ambition?” He responds: “To become immortal and then die.” Patricia removes her glasses and ponders that response and stares directly into the viewers' eyes. The score is more raucous now. Vibrating with it’s something to negate the little nothings. This is what I feel is the turning point of the film.

Patricia is questioned by the police the following day about her knowledge of the whereabouts of Michel, but she doesn’t give him up. Instead, she sneaks off to rendezvous with him at the cinema. They steal a new escape car and hide out at Antonio’s, a friend of Michel's. But Patricia unexpectedly decides to betray Michel and reveal his location to the police. She admits this to him, saying in essence, that she did it because she no longer wishes to be in love with him and believes this can sever her attachment. He is incredulous at first but then resigns to his fate, and immediately after tries to make a run for it. When he is shot by the police, Patricia saunters into the frame, emotionless. “You disgust me”. He tells her. But she doesn’t know the meaning of the word. She traces her lips with her thumb the way Michel always does, which was apparently a tic of Humphrey Bogart, and stares into the camera again. It reminded me of a quote her character spoke in an earlier scene: “We look into each other's eyes, but what for?”  

What was the final glance for? And the emulation of her fallen lover, what was the point? The questions raised by A Bout de Souffle might leave one perplexed and annoyed, but I love that its profundity is so ambiguous. It definitely poses questions about the nature of men and women. And the desire to pursue your desires and dreams even if it results in perilous consequences. Maybe I’m projecting, but I can imagine the production of this film mirrored in a lot of ways Michel’s tireless pursuit of Patricia. Except for the former, it paid off! A Bout de Souffle has cemented itself in film history, it has become immortal and evaded death. I really enjoyed my viewing experience of it, overall.

The Last Duel

Named thusly because two of the leads quarreling throughout the movie, mostly with Matt Damon’s De Carrouges instigating and Adam Driver’s Le Gris retaliating. So, the culmination is of course this big fight to the death in an unnecessary show of their masculinity. Even Jodie Comer’s character Marguerite, wife of De Carrouges points this out: it didn’t need to be done this way, but Jean’s pride and I believe his desire to blot out Le Gris, his nemesis, meant more to him than his wife. Margueritte never wants to blot out Le gris. She merely wants justice. 

 

I think each man represented the spectrum of toxic manhood that can exist in this setting. Each man sees himself as a hero in his retelling while Marguerite sees them as brutish in his own unique way. A medieval Chad and Nice Guy squire if you will. We get their three perspectives. I never saw Rashomon before. My introduction to this storytelling device was through The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby. So yes, I have endurance. I can sit through 3 full-fledged movies told from different perspectives (although the inclusion of Chastain, McAvoy, and Hader helped) and I got what the movie was trying to convey. It is an interesting portrayal of a woman's plight to maintain humanity in an inhumane society. Everything about it betrays your expectations. There isn’t much dueling to be had. And I mean sure we all expected a rape, but the presentation was unique both times. It’s presented as a story about two men’s bitter feud, but it really focuses on the woman who is just a pawn thrust in the middle of it. 

 

It’s like the inverse of the Godless Netflix series controversy. A show presented as a female western utopia that really focuses on the feud between two male outlaws who were nearby. But I digress. I just felt very meh about this movie despite all the great themes I’ve deciphered. I can’t really articulate why. It’s not the accents. (Marie Antoinette is one of my favorite films) I found myself wondering if this would work better as a stage play or perhaps if they didn’t play it straight. Though the performances were fine, especially Jodie Comer who got to show off her polyglot skills, I found myself wishing that I was watching whatever movie Alex Lawther was in instead (He played an eccentric and underutilized King Charles VI). His mannerisms brought unexpected humor that I think could’ve done the film good if it just leaned into it.  

 

Hear me out. The subject matter is truly grim but the tone to me seems self-aggrandizing as well and too austere for its own good. I know men and women even those you love and are close to can be complicit in rape culture. Especially in medieval France. And I know its release during this reckoning moment is an indictment against the sort of subdued treatment against women that persists. Especially in Hollywood. But it still rings kind of hollow for me.  Or at least, not novel. And I think I love good satire that does these things more than a drama.  Something like Galavant but more politically conscious. Hell, Measure for Measure is considered a comedy despite Isabella being propositioned by Lord Angelo against her will…But you know, that’s just one millennials’ opinion.

Deep Water

 

Do not be fooled by what this film presents itself as. It is anything but an erotic thriller. It is comedic at times. Several times, in fact. (My favorite moment is the climax when a character utters the words: ‘goddamn fucking autocorrect’) It is apparently humanitarian as this report seems to insinuate: IndieWire.com On Affleck’s part, at least. And it is all publicity. This is like the fourth film in Ben Affleck’s career that I know of that seems to want to draw viewers in using allusions to his personal life. That might be starring alongside a girlfriend at the time or working with an auteur who found the perfect casting choice for their domestic thriller. This movie so wishes it was Gone Girl. But it’s like it knows it can’t live up to that level of complexity, so it resigns itself to just be gossip fodder. I mean there are so many allusions to Affleck’s personal life in this movie that must be intentional. His first rival is played by an actor who seriously favors Matt Damon, which is… a choice. Choices like these seem to exist only to make viewers speculate about the actors’ personal lives instead of the really weird but somehow banal lives of the characters. It solidified this opinion in my mind that Affleck’s celebrity status seems to hinge on his celebrity which only obscures his actual talent. I guess they both (Him and Ana de Armas) do a good job playing these characters, but the script really never allows us to explore why and how these characters got to be the way they are, so it seems really pointless. That being said, I kind of enjoyed how ridiculous this movie was. Again, it was very funny. Basically, that Sound of Silence meme personified with some gratuitous sex scenes and snails. The Room with greater production value and... everything. If that's your jam, I sincerely recommend Deep Water.

The Knick

It’s not exactly a new concept. An acerbic but brilliant doctor with an addiction. The only thing that makes it stand out is it’s setting and time and of course Soderbergh's involvement. There is also a modernity to the period piece that I think we can attribute mainly to the music composed by Red Hot Chili Peppers’ member Cliff Martinez. This show however is no Downton Abbey or Grey’s Anatomy  for that matter, as it makes explicitly clear with gruesome shots of  blood and bone and suffocated fetuses et cetera. When I began watching, I wasn’t certain if I liked it. It drew me in with a kind of bile fascination or maybe more apt would be to call it a bloody fascination, but not for the reasons I’ve expressed. You see, nothing could prepare me for the moment when a character uttered the words ‘ dusky coon’. And that should tell you a bit about what we’ve come to expect in our period pieces now. Even with the presence of black people,   there seems to be two modes: a revisionist utopia or at least one where our mains are progressive enough to ‘see past color’. 

As much as I appreciate the Knick  for not sugarcoating the facts of the time( not going the white savior route)I can’t help but suspect that its authentic cinema verite vibe and historical accuracy is a ruse for the free license of using racial epithets much in the same way I feel similar shows have excused female debasement. Hence, the bile fascination. I don’t like Chief Surgeon John W. ‘Thack’ Thackery(I don’t recall ever hearing anyone call him Thack), but I know we’re also not meant to like Thackery, we’re just meant to see his genius in spite of his moral and behavioral failings. I prefer to see neither. I see him as entertainment. But at times his schtick can be so terribly hackneyed and that sort of ruins the enjoyment. I knew at once she was introduced, he would woo and corrupt the bland Nurse Elkins, and I rolled my eyes at flashbacks where he was introduced as a plucky young doctor with a lost Lenore. As a very wise woman once said ‘ am I supposed to feel sorry for that bitch? Because I don’t!’ The best parts of House M.D.  in my opinion, were the sick burns that House dished out indiscriminately and so is the case for this fictional physician. It is really captivating to watch a show set in a time where medical advancements were unfolding and slowly becoming what we know today. 

It was hard to watch the sole black physician, Algernon Edwards, endure everything he did and still soldier on for these people. But boy did I relish in his small victories. And I suspect that was the point. His hardships are compelling and unfortunately historical. He and Dr Thackery have an Iago/ Othello dynamic at first, which wanes less and less once Thackery discovers Edwards work and begins to see him as a worthy member of his team. All of the surgeons at the Knick have their own vices:Thackery’s is drugs, by far the most lethal, Gallingers is prejudice, Edwards is brawls and Bertie’s is a crushing naïveté and adorable-ness that I do not look forward to seeing dissolve. And of course, Bertie also had the misfortune of crushing on the same bland nurse.  

I should make clear that Clive Owen is brilliant in the role. I just find the character largely unimaginative and a little bit inimical. With his manly physique and good looks and toxic manly ways everything about the character of Dr John Thackery again seems to be designed to be critic proof. Smart viewers will see him for what he is. Less smart viewers might say ‘He's not an asshole, he’s a genius.’  And knuckledraggers might offer that ‘The two aren’t mutually exclusive’ and in fact  the plethora of stories like these seems to insinuate that there is a correlation. But I’d wager that it does not mean causation. And it especially doesn’t excuse it.  And then there is the fact that Thackery does suffer from a cocaine addiction, back before his disease was even classified as such. Already I imagine another chorus shouting: ‘Dr Thackery cannot be an asshole! He was making history!’ I wonder what Darwin would’ve called that bunch?

Drawing on the oft repeated circus theme, can you imagine a musical based on this show in the vein of the Greatest Showman, but you know actually good?  After all, Thackery was based on a real physician. Now there’s a novel concept. 

Scream(5)

The following review contains spoilers

I could not mask my joy attending a real theater again to watch this movie, no pun intended. And though inclement weather thwarted my plans to experience this film at an early showing with what I assume would be a much livelier audience, I still enjoyed this movie a bunch. I just had to stifle some of the moments that made me squee a bit, like hearing Dewey's theme when he decided to help our new main girl and learning that Sid is happy with babies and McDreamy. This is one film at least for me, where nostalgia alone could carry my enjoyment(But it is an exception. Movie execs please stop milking my cherished media memories for a buck. Thanks. Sincerely, Everyone) And while I assumed by the title alone which implies reboot that Sidney and the gang would not be the central focus, I was not expecting Cox and Campbell to be so relegated to cameos. (I did anticipate it with Arquette though. RIP Sheriff Reilly). But again, that did not make the movie a miserable experience, just not on par with any of the other Scream movies.

 I think one character even specifically says this new whodunnit is fanfiction and it did not surprise me to learn afterward that the directors were Scream fanboys. I knew Kevin Williamson was involved in the production and I had mistakenly hoped he would be involved more in the writing, although I can imagine his apprehension in writing for high schoolers nowadays. It was definitely a pale imitation of Williamson's clever writing who I think we can attribute to inventing the once novel trope of self-aware precocious teenage dialogue that has become hackneyed now due to overuse on shows like Riverdale. I just didn’t like any of the new cast except for Jenna Ortega’s Tara and Jack Quaid’s Richie. Tara especially employs the precocious self-aware teen speech to a T but wins favor from me in how well-acted her part is by Jenna Ortega. Many other viewers have noted that she is the true final girl, the survivor we’re all rooting for. She has the same tenderness and raw fighting spirit as Neve in Scream 1996. She evades death even though she’s framed as the film’s Casey Becker! But instead, the movie positions her sister, Sam as the heroine of this franchise. 

I actually like Sam’s backstory, it's an interesting one that mirrors Sidney’s.  The daughter of a town harlot becomes the illegitimate daughter of a serial killer, Billy Loomis(Carol J Clover would be impressed). She confesses this secret to her half-sister Tara in the hospital and it expectedly causes her to feel at odds with her identity much in the same way Sidney did after learning of her mother’s past. When she receives news that her sister has been attacked by Ghostface, she brings her beau Richie to Woodsboro, who is so obviously the killer, even the not so sharp Dewey, calls it. I also had my suspicions about Tara’s friend Maya the whole time who had surprisingly little screen time.
 

All of the new Woodsboro residents did and I wonder if that was the sacrifice that needed to be made to grant sufficient time for the legacy characters. I appreciated that but it does nothing to endear the newbies to me. For example, Mindy, one of the twins of  Randy Meeks, the beloved movie expert, and comic relief is positioned to fulfill the same role in this franchise but fell short for me in the humor category. Most of Tara’s friends had such little screen time, I can barely form an opinion about their character besides the gruff archetypes they obviously were meant to subvert at some point, but the subversions never really happened, unless you count their attacks/deaths being one. One exception is Dylan Minette’s Wes, while knowing very little about his Nice Guy character I was in constant dread in the scene following his mother’s death(RIP Sheriff Judy. RIP Lemon squares) thanks in large part to the score, and me watching 13 Reasons Why for way too long and being trauma bonded with any character played by Minette as a result. His existence and later death created an in-universe excuse for the characters to celebrate a  house party in his honor which was really an excuse for the filmmakers’ to celebrate Wes Craven(I have to give them mad props for that. It was a clever homage) 

The party is hosted by Amber whose parents just happen to own Stu Macher’s old house.  This house predictably is the climax of the film where we have our showdown with the big reveal: Ghostface is two and also fanboys. To quote the Sidney Prescott, it is very derivative. With all the Rian Johnson’s Last Jedi references the film makes, forgive me for having a similar response as Star Wars fans when I question the decision to make Richie and Amber nobody’s. They are once again motivated to kill so that they can inspire better material for the Stab franchise…? All around I enjoyed myself. I thought Jack Quaid and Jenna Ortega did a bang-up job. The direction evoked suspense in many scenes which have always been a Scream staple so kudos for that( I don’t know why people were acting like the Scream movies weren’t dark already.) and a few good laughs and heartwarming moments. I even like the backstory for the new final girl and I hope to see the actress’ performance improve in future movies. I hope my criticisms were not too cutting. I’d hate to be mistaken for Ghostface…

Cursed

 

The jokes are in the title card.  And seemingly lacking from most of the movie, apart from a very meme worthy moment of a werewolf flipping the bird. I was only recently introduced to this movie, and I have no idea why it’s escaped my notice for so long. It’s become a favorite addition of mine in the So Bad It’s Good category.  But I know you may be wondering yourself: What is Cursed and why does nobody remember it? Cursed is another brainchild of screenwriter Kevin Williamson and director Wes Craven, the horror dream team at the time. It also included many well-known actors like Christina Ricci and up and comers like Jesse Eisenberg and Milo Ventimiglia. A creative team like that should’ve guaranteed success, right? Well, Enter Weinstein.  

I guess Harvey Weinstein wasn’t getting enough satisfaction from coercing women, so he decided to screw up what could’ve been a perfectly formidable franchise. Apparently, the original cut of the movie differed greatly from the final cut and tested well with test audiences too but for some reason, the Weinsteins weren’t happy. They wanted Joshua Jackson’s character to be the bad guy to kind of emulate Scream’s plot and the success that followed its release. This is just stupid reasoning to me. Scream wasn’t successful because it was so surprising for the boyfriend to be the killer. It was successful because it subverted your expectations. One minute you think it’s Billy, the next you don’t, and in the next scene other characters start to look suspicious… in this film, or at least this version, Joshua Johnson’s Jake always looked suspect. Maybe you could consider Judy Greer’s snide comments to Christina Ricci foreshadowing but that’s a stretch. The changes Weinstein enforced caused another Scream alum, Skeet Ulrich to drop out of the role and get recast by Jesse Eisenberg.

 According to Eisenberg, the original script was much better. It was gorier too. Originally intended to be R rating, Weinstein later decided that PG-13 rating would ensure better box office success. (You can still find some of the r rated kills online. They’re really gruesome) But yeah...it's not Scream quality film. It's not even I Know What You Did Last Summer quality. That being said...I kind of like it? Maybe. It has this indescribable charm.

 So, the movie starts at some sort of amusement park or fair with these two girls and Portia deRossi playing a fortuneteller. Bowling with Soup performs this song about wolves at the fair. That’s not relevant to the story at all, I just thought I’d mention it because it really made me start to view this movie as an unintentional period piece. One of the girls is also played randomly by 2000s pop singer Mya. And she is convincing her friend to leave her boyfriend when they come across deRossi's stand. She tells them some mysterious prophecy thing that basically lets us know they are redshirts. Portia's character honestly feels kind of superfluous. She just exists for this scene and to tell Christina Ricci a similar warning later and then just dips. That alone makes this movie a failure in the horror genre. If you're not going to develop a character, then at least have them stick around for an awesome kill scene.  And the names in this movie! I know it’s nitpicky but even the names in this movie seem like stock character names: Jenny, Becky, Zipper, Jimmy. Where’s Dick and Jane? But I digress. After the werewolf warning scene with these three disposable characters, we're introduced to one of our leads again played by a young Jesse Eisenberg. And I got to say, he really stepped out of his typecast here. Nerd, yes but not an especially smug or even smart one. 

 His sister is Christina Ricci. Not in real life. Just this movie. His real-life sister is the Pepsi girl. She is a workaholic industry suit person, and we know this because her hair is in a perpetual bun and she can’t make time for her orphaned teenage brother who has some intense paranoia of happenings on Hollywood boulevard. We know that she and Jimmy are brother and sister because he says to her over the phone after she’s running late to pick him up ‘But I’m your brother!’ as if to remind her. Maybe it really was intended to remind his sister, not his real-life sister but Christina Ricci as his sister seeing as I don’t believe Jimmy and Ellie were siblings in the original draft. She's running late because she had to go see Jake as played by Joshua Johnson, her boyfriend with a reputation. I guess he’s opening a Planet Hollywoodesque club, and I also guess he works in the industry like Ellie but somewhere behind the scenes, most likely prop design. He has the cliché ‘I need space’ conversation with Ellie which really sucks for Ellie because she blew off her own brother and subjected him to almost get picked up by Richard Gere. 

 So, she and Jimmy take for home where he complains again about having to wait (I don’t understand why he can’t just take the bus?) and then they get into this car crash that comes out of nowhere. Incidentally, the girl in the other car is the Becky from the beginning. Ellie and Jimmy try to help her out of her demolished car, but she is yanked by and viciously mutilated and killed by some unknown creature. Jimmy mentions that AT&T is shit which is so very true and that they’re on Mullholland Dr, which is so very lame. Becky’s last words are: “It wasn’t a dog, was it?” So I’d like to think she was an ardent animal lover (Hey, my headcanon is more characterization than the script ever gave her). When police and EMT finally arrive Ellie asks, “What kind of animal could do that?” As though she’s unaware of the existence of bears or mountain lions. Even the explanation of a wolf or dog should suffice. Especially one infected with rabies. Considering the circumstances that led to the crash, I’m surprised that the police didn’t take them in for custody. I guess her questioning would make sense if the original cut of Becky’s demise was included(I highly recommend searching for it on YouTube for better context

It would make a little sense, but not much. They show Zipper bite Jimmy uncharacteristically so we know he’s been bitten by the werewolf, and they will now both be ‘cursed’. As for how Ellie's transformation occurs, I guess it’s implied that it’s transmitted sexually by her werewolf boyfriend Jake. I don’t know if that’s a new concept in werewolf lore but it’s something that I definitely have never heard of before and I really like it. It’s weird though, that it’s precluded by Jake breaking into her house and saying that he was scared. Mind you, moments before that he was telling her ‘We need space’. Can you say red flag? 

Anyway, Jimmy seems intent on believing the animal that attacked Becky is a werewolf. He says he’s been cursed by the Mark of the Beast, which like okay… Ellie manifests her mark of the beast by looking ‘‘different today…saucy’. Honestly, the hair down hair up thing is a more legitimate makeover than the glasses off/on romcom trend. I guess it’s the Teen wolf formula of werewolf powers that make you cool or desirable while also bloodthirsty: Ellie is attracted to the smell of nose bleeding coworkers who could not be bothered to go to the bathroom. She also attracts Scott Baio, but come on, it’s Christina Ricci bun or no bun, that’s not really shocking.

 Jimmy’s powers manifest with… canine suspicion, flipping Milo Ventimiglia in the air, and ….a perm? There’s this subplot with Milo Ventimiglia’s bully character constantly picking on Jimmy with homophobic insults but as luck would have it–gasp–he himself was gay. The homophobic closeted gay man has practically become a staple in pop culture, but this might actually have been one of the first instances of it. 

 One thing that doesn’t help the movie is the rules it set for itself. In this universe, werewolves can only be destroyed if you separate the head from the heart, silver just hurts, and some ‘experts’ apparently can’t agree on when the actual wolf transformation should take place (I am quite certain these experts have made appearances on Ancient Aliens.)It’s never explained where Jimmy got this book or how he’s certain that this is the official werewolf book.

 There’s a really cool chase scene with Mya in a parking garage.  I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure that scene was also supposed to be gorier. My favorite part of this scene is when the werewolf pulled the car alarm out of a car that was going off (I suspect she had misophonia). I just love how the werewolf knew exactly which part of the car produces the alarm.

 There’s this part where Christina Ricci sucks Craig Kilborn’s bleeding finger and I really do not know the relevance of that scene or why it made me so uncomfortable. Does anyone else feel similarly?

 You can tell that this was a long production by many things but there is one scene between Judy Greer and Christina Ricci. They are just having a normal conversation outside a studio with hedges and for some reason, it’s green screen, almost like they had to call the two actresses back for reshoots and couldn’t get access to the generic outside studio area again.

 For plot contrivance, Jimmy decides to confide all of this in obvious bad guy Jake (And it’s suspending my disbelief that he nor Ellie’s coworkers or Jimmy’s classmates knew about the accident. I would think that level of damage and eventual carnage would make at least local news) which of course comes back to bite (pun intended) our protagonists. And here’s the thing, I don’t think the original script intended it to be so obvious that Jake was a bad guy. I think the final twist was that Judy Greer was the baddie all along and Jake was a red herring, to subvert the expectation of it being Ellie’s beau like it was in Scream. Williamson had really made subversions his calling card in the Scream franchise, and this would have been a pretty good twist alone but instead of Weinstein following that clever trend in Scream he opted instead to copy-paste the end of movie instead, which is so dumb. 

 The big showdown happens at Jake’s club called Tinsel. Ellie suspects that Jake is the werewolf at this point and calls Jimmy to let him know this, so he and Milo are hiding from Jake now. This scene has many unintentionally funny moments, one of them being a moment where Jake is describing Jimmy to a bouncer and describes him as ‘a little jumpy with brown hair.’ Dude this is an LA club, you will never narrow down that list. This film does have another potential suspect Kyle that it tries to insinuate guilt on only towards the climax. But Judy Greer quickly disproves that theory when she grabs a surprisingly mute Kyle and quietly demolishes his body. So, the twist is that she and Jake like everyone other women in the industry, apparently, hooked up but he was not interested in committing to her. So even though technically Jake was the original werewolf (which still would make him culpable. I mean you should really reveal to a woman that you’re a canine before you sleep with her, but hey, that’s just my opinion) Judy Greer 's character Joanie, the passive aggressive ' hyper skinny publicist’, was the one killing those girls, a scorned werewolf ex murdering the competition. It’s a bit clever, because not only would it make sense for her to off Mya since she was coming on to Jake heavily at a previous party, but it was strongly hinted that Jake and Becky had also dated.

 The meme moment happens after the police have arrived at the scene and in an effort to draw Joanie out of hiding, she describes her as someone with a ‘bony ass and fat thighs and bad skin’. It’s simply a glorious moment.

 The cops shoot Joanie down but there’s one last showdown between Jimmy and Ellie and Jake, that does really feel tacked on. I guess for some reason after the defeat of Joanie, Jimmy and Ellie incorrectly assumed that that was the end of their being werewolves. Shortly after they get home, they start to begin the transformation that the experts couldn't agree upon (I guess the answer was the last 20 minutes of the movie all along) while Jake monologues. He says a lot of boring villainy-type stuff, but the only things of importance are that 1. Jake must die for them to go back to normal and 2. He’s going to kill Jimmy. I really don’t know how Jake thought Ellie was going to react to him telling her all this. I mean, it’s not only dumb to tell a girl that you’ve cursed her but also that the only way to reverse it is to kill you and that you’re going to put her brother out of his misery. Where’s the incentive for her to accept that?! Now, I’d understand the temptation if it was Billy Loomis delivering all but this is Pacey we’re talking about! 

 And then to top it off he changes his mind about keeping Ellie alive when she starts to attack him. The writing of this character just makes zero sense. In one scene he just says ‘I am going to kill you’ in the most lackluster way that is again, so unintentionally funny. It is also kind of incredible Jake opts to kill Ellie in his human form by strangulation instead of his werewolf form. It just doesn’t make sense from a criminal perspective unless werewolves don’t leave DNA. Plus, I’m pretty sure he’d get the job done quicker in werewolf form. But he has a case of plot contrived stupidity which results in Ellie and Jimmy overpowering him. Brooke--is another character I forgot to mention probably because she is the least developed love interest in movie history-- drops off Zipper and she and Jimmy share a kiss out of nowhere while Milo stands uncomfortably nearby (Okay, I know I keep switching between character and actor names, but the former is so generic, it’s hard to keep track). And then you know the rest…fade to black. A franchise was definitely not born with the release of this film, but I don’t think I speak for myself when I say a cult film following was inevitable. And I think we can all agree on this: Release the Craven Cut!

 

 

Beast

(Spoilers ahead)

This movie has been an insomnia cure for me. An evening way to unwind and lick my earthly wounds. Now I don’t even want to go into why that is. The only other movie that I can recall giving me similar satisfaction was A Panic in Needle Park(And I have no damn clue why that is). When I first watched this movie I thought it was about a woman who wanted to be bad. Who was duplicitous, unreliable. Maybe she envied the beast’s nature? Maybe she was secretly the beast. Some scenes suggest as much. But thank God there wasn’t some reveal as trite and redundant as that.

Our story takes place on an island. An English island. On the outside, it appears quaint, idyllic. It's like a fairytale. But it's all façade. Even this fairytale's heroine who initially was presented as your typical downtrodden Cinderella figure turns out to have her own beastly past. At the age of 13, she assaulted a girl and has been atoning for her sins ever since by being the family doormat. Played masterfully by Jessie Buckley, she almost quite literally is the redheaded stepchild. Even her name, Moll or 'maul', suggests violence. But despite all this context, it's apparent that her demons weren't created in isolation. Her family doesn't see her. She gets the spotlight pulled from her even on her birthday. After being upstaged by her expecting sister, Moll pulls away and escapes her façade of a celebration. She instead goes to a local club off the beach and loses herself in dance and drinking until morning.

When another club-goer attempts to force himself on her, Pascal intervenes. He aims a gun at the would-be rapist and scares him off like a hunter scaring off small game. The viewer, like Moll, isn't sure how to perceive this new stoic man with dirt-encrusted in his nail beds. Friend or foe? But another option emerges as well: benevolent misfit. He did save her, after all. He can't help being an orphan and general recluse. And his looks are certainly not a deterrent. Director Michael Pearce mentions in a BFI panel for Beast having reservations about casting Johnny Flynn in this role and I would too if I were him. Before Beast, I'd only seen him in romcom roles like the Netflix series Lovesick. But in a way, I think it works well with the movie's themes. Pascal isn't all that he appears. He's a composite, just like Mol. It's what she believes draws her to him. The whole movie hinges on the dubious nature of Pascal. And maybe Moll herself since she sees so much of herself in him.

Pascal drops Moll off at her home where she is confronted by her mother, also played masterfully by Geraldine James, who I am familiar with most from Anne With an 'E'. She plays a very manipulative Marilla type of character here. She guilts her for leaving after 'all the effort she put into making it special' which prompts Moll to immediately go into apology mode. There's something very off about this dynamic. It's as if her mother's and by extension her whole family's happiness is predicated on Moll doing precisely what is expected of her. After a flipped role of the daughter soothing the mother, Moll's mother instructs her to eat the leftover birthday cake she already was starting on when she arrived. So she does. Moll inhales the lemon cake. Quickly, she lodges a piece down her gullet like cough medicine. I could taste the goodness and the cruelty of that cake. No better metaphor for the feeling one has after being caught in parental rebellion. It's no longer enjoyable when encouraged. By this point, the viewer can’t help but understand how she would gravitate to Pascal. 

Her eyes seem almost to prey on him. Jessie Buckley herself admitted that Moll and Pascal are very animalistic people. They act instinctively and they act against perceived appearances as well. If Pascal is the beast in question, he never directly lets this on. It’s a common abuse tactic to let the victim think they’re in control. Moll feels for once in her life that she has some agency when she’s with Pascal. She ignores the red flags. I wonder how many times she could’ve easily become another casualty for Pascal. I think of the night they first slept together as the most likely time for him to expose his nature. If Moll were to walk away or go into that dark expanse with him skeptically, she could not win. Instead, she exposed her nature by having sex with him in the woods. But that’s ridiculous, isn’t it? For her once savior to flip and become a man capable of violating her? In a way, he reminds me of Travis Bickle. I hear the words of Cybil Shepherd saying ‘he’s a prophet and a pusher. Partly true, partly fiction. Walking contradiction’. But this story is not from the perspective of a deluded antihero like Taxi Driver but a deluded antiheroine. 

 It’s clear to me now that Moll never wanted to be the Beast. As drawn to him as she was, she didn't want to be defined by her macabre past or make excuses for it. She wanted atonement, acceptance. She quite literally wanted to bury those pieces of herself. But first, she needed to confront them in Pascal. Her rebellion leads her to accept what she was formerly taught was wrong but she can't escape the truth of the Beast's proximity. Not even in her dreams. In a town as small and tribal as this truths and lies collide easily. But his indifference to the victims is what finally sets her off.

The killing of the rabbit mirrors the killing of Pascal. He's taken completely off guard and still alive after the initial blow.  'We're the same'  he lets out in a raspy voice. Moll nods her head and begins strangling him, burying the existence of the beast.

I can't get over this movie and its complexity. So many layers! It's a character study masquerading as a fairytale. There are little subtleties that I observe after repeated watches like in the scene where Pascal tries to calm the father of one of the murdered victims almost like he's trying to placate a wild animal. He does not see the beast is himself and neither do the other Jersians, preferring to act on instinct and xenophobia when it turns out the culprit was one of their own.

This story was partly inspired by a serial rapist dubbed the Beast of Jersey that attacked residents of this island in the 60s and 70s. And in that case, also, a man was wrongfully presumed to be guilty. It drove him off the island. The true Beast was found and convicted in 1971. I suppose Pearce, a Jersey native was inspired to create this story after ruminating on how it must've been for the perpetrator's wife. What must it be like for any wife or partner of an alleged monster? It's a question that I don't think is explored often in fiction these days. Antiheroes today are praised more and presented with more insight and nuance than their less culpable wives. I think it's not sufficient to say that this is purely owed to misogyny but because we naturally like to assume like attracts like. Good people attract other good people. Rich finds rich. Poor finds poor. The princess will find her prince. Even though history has shown that humans aren't very good judges of character, we perceive life existing this way. We choose to bury the thought that perhaps several beasts are looming in our collective midst. Perhaps even within.