Rock's Cheapo Theatre of the Damned

What does it say about me that the first thing I noticed was "directed by Lawrence Talbot"?

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

If I watch it, I'll be sure to review it in this thread.

I've been thinking a bit about how some movies are hurt by their stature. Perhaps the stature is deserved because the movies are of sufficient quality, but I wonder if approaching a film known for its greatness might blind you to its pleasures if its power comes from its ability to disarm and surprise. The question has been on my mind thanks to the marketing for Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a movie I don't feel particularly eager to see. To me, much of the power of the original movie comes from how it subverts the special effects blockbuster, with a group of absolutely ordinary heroes taking on great cosmic forces. Plenty of movies have borrowed its mixture of wisecracks and spectacle (think of all the programmatically deployed quips in the Marvel movies), but fewer grasp the underlying tension and irreverence that make it work.

Animal House, a earlier product of the same SNL/SCTV/National Lampoon ecosystem (Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis were involved in both pictures), is another movie that I think suffers accordingly. Its slobs-vs-snobs plot has been absorbed so thoroughly into the comedy genre that it can be hard to grasp what might have been so fresh about this material initially. (I certainly had this problem the first time I watched it, having seen multiple movies that studiously copy its exact beats.) And there's certainly been a lot of (well justified) rumination about how this movie has held up in relation to the more toxic dimensions of its sense of humour. What I'm going to suggest is that this material was always supposed to be abrasive, even troubling. The movie is packed wall-to-wall with the kind of things right-thinking people aren't supposed to laugh at. What's the worst possible thing that could happen when you're trying to get laid? What if your date passes out? And then turns out to be underage? What if a bunch of white guys wandered into a black bar and some of the patrons stole their dates? What would happen if you tried to play a prank with a horse and it died of a heart attack? The punchlines resonate because taboos have been breached. This is a pure lizard brain movie.

The movie is full of pitch perfect performances, from the pathological stiffness of John Vernon to the apoplectic rage of Mark Metcalf (a quality he deployed later in two memorable videos for Twisted Sister) to the rich, sinister baritone of Cesare Danova, and the movie brings them together in a shambling, episodic, anarchic structure. Yet I'd like to direct your attention to the two that I think are most key to its effect. The first, obviously, is John Belushi. Much has been said of the bracing, animal impact of his presence, of the way his onscreen excess perhaps mirrored his troubled personal life, and of the many iconic moments he has during the proceedings. But there's something to his total lack of dignity, the fact that he appears at almost all times to be unkempt, in dirty clothes, belching when he's not jamming something in his mouth. It's hard for me to see anything he does as an endorsement. Contrast this with the warmth directed towards the heroes in Revenge of the Nerds, one of this movie's better known progeny, where we're supposed to root for the titular nerds as they commit a bunch of sex crimes. (I do like the movie, mostly because how jarring the contrast is between its moments of sweetness and its uglier elements. And hell, that climactic musical number is a lot of fun. "Clap your hands, everybody, and everybody, clap your hands.")

The other is Tim Matheson, the smug, somewhat charismatic, somewhat unctuous leader of the Deltas, who adopts the language of the aspirational only to highlight its hollowness. The caption during the coda gives him another fate, but it's easy to see this character going on to become a used car salesman. Consider his speech in defense of his fraternity during a sham hearing (during which he wears a fittingly hideous plaid sportcoat):

"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America."

The fervour with which he delivers this doesn't mask the transparently flimsy reasoning, and in pitting him and his debased friends against a group of junior authoritarians, the movie posits that all of the supposed good vibes we're supposed to feel about the college experience, and the sanctity of the related institutions, is actually a whole lot of bull****. The total lack of good intentions behind the climactic gesture (ruining the big parade) are especially revealing. (And isn't that an indictment of our entire American society?) In light of all this, the most dignified thing one can do is to get ****faced and sing along to "Louie Louie".

__________________

Lots of good insights here, and I agree that the cultural context is significant to understand. The 70s reveled in transgression in a lot of ways, and this is a pretty direct reaction to the social restrictions of preceding decades which most subsequent generations have had the luxury of not experiencing, and thus not appreciating the catharsis of the transgression. We still have plenty of taboos today, and a sizable minority very eager to impose the old taboos once again. Irreverence for irreverence's sake doesn't quite have the currency that it used to.


Writer Doug Kenney's seminal issue of National Lampoon which parodied his high school yearbook from 1964 is an important key to this cultural understanding. More 'war baby' than 'boomer', this document of the white bread suburbs makes a good case for why such transgressions were necessary, maybe not a counterculture as such (which is a dumb word anyway) but a more liberated and permissive culture. The impact of the sexual and civil rights revolutions can't be overstated. The scene at the black club may seem awkward and condescending today, but in the setting of the mid-60s, such intermingling was illegal in much of the country. Even when Animal House was released, there was still segregated theater sections in places in the American south. (My father was told that he couldn't sit with his black friend at a showing of 10 in 1979 in Nashville.)


These issues of cultural progress have been heightened as a new generation learns about them for the first time, and has to calibrate and adjust their understanding and expectations for the cultural products of the past. It's an important lesson and as ridiculous it seems to think of Animal House in the clinical sense as a 'cultural product' (*Bluto burp*) the phenonmenon of its success has to be seen in this transgressive light, as much as Blazing Saddles, Rocky Horror, hell even Hair. They say that we can't make films like Blazing Saddles anymore, but that's an empty complaint because what that means is that the transgressive impact of Saddles is no longer necessary. I think the same could be said for Animal House.


I'm actually not the biggest fan of the film. I hate frat culture intuitively and I find Matheson far less charming than a Chase or a Murray or even a Rudd, and Belushi is basically used as a gimmick. The "animalism" of Belushi was solidified here as his stereotype, and as such his keen intelligence as a comedian has become eclipsed in his myth. I see the film as more of a hybrid of American Graffiti and Zucker brother absurdity. But after the context of the social upheavals of the 60s and 70s, it's little wonder that this formula would sour into the likes of Hardbodies and Soul Man in the 80s. Personally, I'll take Rodney's Back To School instead. It's a good answer.

Thanks for the link, I'll have to check it out soon.


I share some of your disdain for frat boy culture (my own college experience was of commuting 2 hours each way from school to home daily and being surrounded by a lot of people I didn't like, some of that was me but it was also business school, which attracts certain personalities). But one thing I appreciate about this era of comedy is the extent to which it's willing to savour character and performance. I don't necessarily like these characters, but I appreciate that movie sketches them out as thoroughly as it does. This is perhaps not the most well rounded Belushi performance (and you're probably better versed in his work than I am), but I do think he finds grace notes in the carnage (consider the way he cocks his head before smashing the guitar), while Matheson's relative lack of charisma is an asset. A Murray or a Chase in the role might have us rooting more strongly for these guys, Matheson is too obvious for that to work. Also, Facebook was telling me to add him as a friend the last time I watched Fletch.

There aren't too many Belushi films to choose from, but I think there's a lot more range and depth in his Jake Blues, and I'm also an unabashed fan of Neighbors, where Belushi and Aykroyd switched roles to avoid the typecasting.

Easily the best part of the movie.

And they would have been way too old at that point anyway (although Belushi is older than Murray, Bill has that aged face of his). I think Jeff Bridges would have been optimal.

Animal House is a top 5, at least top 10 comedy for me. I was recently put into defending it (not on morale reasons, just on how unfunny they thought it was) and I didn't really know how to make a good case for it. I got their point. As stated above, much of the comedy has become invisible over the years due to constant retreading. But it has a vigor and a sense of place most of those don't.


The only joke I thought to use in its defence was in the beginning where Pinto and Flounder keep getting dropped off with the undesirable pledges. But they didn't agree that was any good either.


My personal favorite Belushi moment in it is where he is indifferently giving them their pledge names. "Why Pinto?" "Why not?" Always cracks me up and it's purely through delivery.

Emmanuelle is a story about a woman who likes to make love. Okay, that's oversimplifying it a bit. It's a woman who likes to make love, but only with her husband (unless she's on a plane), but over the course of the movie, with both encouragement and hesitation from her husband, learns to expand her erotic horizons. You'll notice I said "make love", for this a classy (read: softcore) affair. This was a massive hit in France and had international popularity as well, getting a release from Columbia Pictures in the US, and spawned several sequels. The star, Sylvia Kristel, reprised the role in two of them (Emmanuelle 2 AKA Emmanuelle, the Joys of a Woman and Goodbye Emmanuelle: Her Last Game of Death...okay, the third one doesn't have a subtitle). It also spawned a series of unauthorized cash-ins, with Emanuelle spelled with just one M to skirt copyright laws, starring Laura Gemser. (I've seen two of them and they are WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILD.) If the success of a movie with this plot seems baffling in a modern context, it helps to appreciate that this was released in the porno chic era, when sexy and explicit movies could find mainstream popularity.

Now, as I alluded to earlier, the plot of this movie concerns the heroine's erotic awakening, first exploring her desires with female friends and falling in love with a sexy archaeologist (Marika Green, who the back of my Blu-ray copy notes was also in Robert Bresson's Pickpocket, a less sexy but still intriguing picture), and then under the guidance of an older man (Alain Cuny, who the back of my Blu-ray copy notes was also in Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita, a less sexy but still intriguing picture) who pushes her out of her comfort zone. Now, this is softcore porn, and when reviewing the genre, I don't think it makes sense to approach this impersonally. What I'm leading to is that I found the stuff with women much more engaging than the stuff with men. I suppose it shouldn't matter to a straight dude such as myself, but the movie casts some really good looking women alongside some remarkably unsexy dudes. France has produced such deliriously sexy men as Alain Delon, but judging by the mustachioed husband in this movie, you wouldn't know it. Cuny plays his older man role with a certain conviction, but his dynamic with Kristel plays more like a life coach rather than someone who might be her partner, even in a non-traditional sense.

Now, there's some stuff in this movie that would definitely be considered Problematic (although I chuckle at the thought of a thinkpiece advocating for this movie to be canceled). I don't have an issue with this in theory, as I don't think human desire necessarily reconciles neatly with politically correct notions, but I do think it hurts the movie from a dramatic perspective. Namely, in the movie's worst scene, Cuny takes Kristel into a shack to smoke opium and then has her raped by two of the men present. Perhaps there was a way to have this blend more easily into her character arc, but the scene just feels jarring. Compare this to a subsequent scene where she rewards the winner of a boxing match, and that feels a lot truer to her desires. (For what it's worth, the scoring during the rape scene is terrific. Probably the wrong thing to focus on, but oh well.) However, I suppose I should reward the movie some points for acknowledging the lame-o husband's hypocrisy in advocating for an open marriage and then getting jealous when she follows through on it. I do not write these movies, but I think it would have been a marked improvement had he been taken out of the picture and the heroine gone away forever with the sexy archaeologist. I also would have added car chases and explosions...and it's probably a good thing I don't write these movies.

It's also of interest that the real Emmanuelle, Marayat Rollet-Andriane AKA Emmanuelle Arsan, upon whose novel this movie is based, is of Thai descent. (I understand that her husband might have also written the novel, but I'm just gleaning Wikipedia and too lazy to dig further.) If anything, Gemser, the off brand Emanuelle, resembles her more than Kristel, although I suspect she didn't have any notable run-ins with weapons smugglers and snuff movie rings. I bring this up not just to reminisce about those plot points from Emanuelle in America or the chimpanzee reaction shots in Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals, but to note how it affects the overall dynamic of the movie. In the movie Kristel's character comes to Thailand to stay with her husband (Rollet-Andriane was married to a diplomat on a similar posting), and the Thai people are viewed from an outsider's perspective, heavily exoticized and given little personality. (An early scene has two servants get worked up watching Kristel make love to her husband and decide to imitate them.) Were the lead character also Thai, I suspect there would have been a more complex dynamic to the proceedings.

That being said, the exoticism does mean the movie has an appealing travelogue quality, even if the locations aren't necessarily places the tourism board would want you to see. (Exhibit A: a trip to a brothel where an exotic dancer smokes a cigarette with her private parts, which is definitely not something I'd seen before. And also pretty hot. Judge not that ye not be judged.) The direction by Just Jaeckin (whose surname helpfully suggests one way to enhance your viewing) renders the proceedings with a nice visual style a bit more sophisticated than I expected. The opening has the gauzy softcore look that I expected, but you can see him taking similar lighting and turning scenes like the one in the squash court into sensual dreamscapes, and he takes a more clear-eyed shooting style to the jungle scenes, the lush greens of which really pop on the Blu-ray transfer. And while I had issues with the story, I think Kristel really sells the material with her performance, playing the role with a certain innocence that makes her easy to sympathize with.

About time I got this thread back on track.

Funny, I've been meaning to ask if you knew anything about the Emmanuelle series. I haven't seen any of them, but have always wondered why there were so many of them. I was kind of just assuming that maybe Gemser was really popular or something, so I'm surprised to learn that she wasn't the original, or that hers were considered rip-offs.

I mean, I've been aware of these films seemingly forever, and as someone that did not grow up having access to vintage softcore, they must have been pretty prominent to have ended up on my radar back then.

The Gemser ones I understand are closer to general exploitation than softcore and turn the heroine into a journalist rather than...lady who likes to make love. Their popularity might be due to the fact that some of them were directed by Joe D'Amato. I've seen two of them: Emanuelle and the Last Cannibals, which is one of the more palatable cannibal movies I've seen (no animal cruelty, if I remember correctly), and Emanuelle in America, which feels like someone dumped in the most exploitative stuff they could think of into a blender. I understand one of the scenes inspired Videodrome. I also picked up a copy of Emanuelle and the White Slave Trade recently, so hope to get to that soon.


As for the "main" series, Kino released the Kristel ones on Blu-ray. I can attest to the fact that this one looks really nice. From what I've gleaned from different Letterboxd reviews, the sequels address some of the issues I had with the original, so want to check them out at some point. I understand they kept churning these out after she left the series, and that they eventually started going DTV, so I suspect there aren't too many later entries worth checking out.

I should add that the character makes an unofficial appearance in The Dragon Lives Again, the Brucesploitation flick where Bruce Lee goes to the underworld and fights James Bond, the Godfather and the Man with No Name, among others.

I bailed on this one pretty early, shortly after Popeye shows up.

Sylvia Kristal isn't too bad an actress. Lady Chatterley's Lover is better than its reputation suggests.

SPOILER: He does not kung fu fight Emmanuelle, but does save his friend from a sex-induced heart attack.

Will have to give that a shot, especially as it's from the same director. I see he also did a BDSM movie with Udo Kier, and there's no way in hell I'm not watching that eventually.


As for Kristen, I think I've only seen Private School, which is fine, I guess.

I see Private Lessons is on Tubi. Can anyone vouch for that one?