By 1976, a English teacher from Maine had published two novels. His first, about a bullied teenager with telekinesis, sold slowly in hard cover but became a best seller once published as a mass-market paperback. His second, about vampires emerging in a small town, was an immediate success. As the author prepared his third novel – about a haunted hotel – he revised a nasty little story he wrote back in high school entitled “Getting It On,” about a homicidal teen shooting his teachers and taking his classroom hostage. At the time, his publisher would only put out one book a year from the same author. At the same time, Steve was starting to wonder if he truly deserved his rapidly growing success or if it was all a fluke. He decided to publish “Getting It On,” now called “Rage,” under a pseudonym and have it released with little publicity. This is how Stephen King became Richard Bachman. The two wrote the same sort of fiction but Bachman was meaner, without happy endings. The second Bachman book, “The Long Walk,” was the first novel King ever wrote and was published in 1979. After the truth about the author was revealed, “The Long Walk” became a favorite among fans of the author. Despite largely being devoted to teenage boys walking and being killed, numerous high-profile filmmakers have attempted to adapt it over the years. After George Romero, Frank Darabont, and André Øvredal couldn't get it made, screenwriter JT Molner and director Francis Lawrence would finally bring “The Long Walk” to theater screens this September.
Following a civil war and economic collapse, America has become a military dictatorship. As part of the new regime, a contest is held every year. The Long Walk is a simple marathon. Teenage boys from all over the country enter the lottery to join. Those that are selected are asked to walk for an undetermined amount of time. Their speed is constantly tracked by machines on their wrists. Should they drop below a specific feet-per-minute pace, they receive a warning from the military convoy trailing alongside. Should it happen again, a second warning. Should it happen a third time, they are executed on the spot. The winner of the Long Walk is the last boy standing and, supposedly, he will receive whatever wish his heart desires. The event is watched over by The Major, who will greet the final survivor at the race's end. Ray Garraty joins the Walk because he has a personal grudge against the Major. He's not the only one in this year's lot. As the walking goes on and on, and more boys die, bonds are formed, wills are tested, and secrets are revealed.
In such a totally fucked-up situation, what keeps you going? What, befitting the metaphor of an endless foot race, keeps you moving forward? Ray is ultimately seeking revenge on the Major, who executed his father for the crime of distributing banned books and music. Stubbins, among the more mysterious walkers in the race, similarly has his eyes on the military leader. Others among them, such as the loud-mouthed Hank, simply desire to take care of their loved ones. McVries, the closest companion Ray finds on this journey, tries to encourage his new found friend not to pursue the path of violence. To try and make the world a better place, not merely add more bloodshed to it. However, in a place where the cards are stacked against you so severely, what else can you do? “The Long Walk” is partially a film about the value of political violence, if such acts can truly bring about a better tomorrow or if kindness is the only true path forward. It comes at a time when such questions are very much worth asking, here in America. Do you keep walking to make a better tomorrow? For a chance to dent an evil so great you can hardly imagine it? Or do you only hope to protect those you love and ensure a future for them? All troubling, complicated questions that need asking.
Such political and social concerns aside, “The Long Walk” is simply a relentlessly effective piece of storytelling. The cinematography, from Jo Willems, is both wide and intimate, never getting in its own way. The focus is mostly on the faces of the boys as they walk and the desolate landscape – really, could be any small town, rural part of America – they journey through. The title screen is held off until the first bullet rips through the first victim, a brutal moment that sets up the level of violence and realism on-display here. “The Long Walk” is an often brutal film, full of bodily fluids, that makes every gunshot hurt. When walking uphill during a rain storm, the amount of guns going off recalls a military battle, leaving the same sort of trauma response on the boys as war time would. The titular contest is one designed to break its participants and it does. Minor injuries and unavoidable biological needs become killers. Ankles shatter, faces scrap on concrete, shoes are worn through, lungs strain, blood vessels burst, but mostly minds and wills are broken by the relentless, unending walking. The film follows that same path and the violence within is fittingly brutal, the tone utterly grim.
That's a good example of what a textured film “The Good Walk” is. It never burdens itself with the background of its setting. However, this dystopian alternate universe – really not that different from the one we have now – feels alive and detailed, people having lived sad and desperate lives in this crumbling empire. The philosophical discussion of the material border on the melodramatic at times. With a less talented cast, it easily could've been. Thankfully, the film has assembled a hell of a group of young performers. It's a serious downer of a film but a powerful one. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised the movie got made at all, during the time that it did. Lawrence and Mollner certainly impress with this one on a level far above their previous output. It's an excellent adaptation – the ending is actually better than King's – and a strong film in its own right, distressing and thought-provoking in all the right ways. So get used to it cause Trump is probably going to introduce the real thing in like six months. [9/10]
Robert Aldrich had us questioning what ever happened to Baby Jane in 1962 and telling Sweet Charlotte to hush, hush shortly after that. Theater audiences were then bombarded with a whole succession of aging actresses doing horrible things to each other, being tormented by the next generation, gaslit by their companions, or occasionally going on axe murdering sprees. We said die die to my darling, pictured Mommy dead, told Pretty Peggy to scream, wondered what's the matter with Helen, asked whoever slew Auntie Roo, observed that Aunt Martha sometimes does dreadful things, and proclaimed Dear Delilah dead. Most of these so-called hagsploitation flicks came along nearly a decade after the progenitor, kicked off by Aldrich's much later capper to his quasi-trilogy. Which he would only produce but the connection to his earlier hit was evident in the equally salacious title. That would be "Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?," which actually opened at number one at the box office in July of 1969.
Claire Marrable used to be the wife of a very rich man. "Used to be" being the key phrase there. She is informed that her late husband's estate has had all its assets seized, leaving her with nothing but a moldy old stamp collection. She moves out to the Arizona desert, next door to a single mom and her nosy kid. After an argument with Rose, her housekeeper, she beats the other woman to death and buries her body underneath a palm tree. Shortly afterwards, she hires another live-in maid. After learning old Edna actually has some money in the bank, Claire kills her as well and empties her account. While at a party her nephew is throwing, Claire meets Alice, a retired nurse and widow to a stock broker. Claire hires Alice to be her next companion... But Alice is not all she seems. She's actually there to investigate the disappearance of an old friend, Claire's previous victim. The two women sneak around each other's backs, plotting against one another, and trying to uncover the truth. It won't be long before Claire is compelled to kill again.
The psycho-biddy trend gave a number of actresses unexpected last acts of their career, usually giving them one more chance to ham it up to high heavens in frequently campy material. Geraldine Page was only 44 at the time she filmed “Aunt Alice” but that did not stop her from absolutely devouring the scenery. While most films patterned after “Baby Jane” made some attempt to make their unhinged old ladies at least a tiny bit sympathetic, Page as Mrs. Marrable is utterly unforgivable. She begins the film harassing the estate agent. She spends most scenes belittling everyone around her. She is, in a sense that I would consider complimentary, a bitch. Page attacks the role with such irresistible venom. Claire is a wicked woman, an unrepentant murderer who never acts anyway but selfishly. Yet she's so entertaining while doing it. That makes her exactly the kind of cinematic villain that we love to watch, no matter how devious she might be.
Starring opposite Page is Ruth Gordon, fresh off “Rosemary's Baby.” Before the film reveals that Alice has a secret of her own, the audience can tell something is up with her already. When the reveal arrives, it sets a nicely suspenseful premise. We the viewer know Alice is there to uncover Claire's murderous tendencies. It's also evident that Claire has her suspicions about the new maid, while also intending to disguise her homicidal habit. That means there are multiple layers of suspense at work, the audience constantly left to wonder who knows what and how much they know. Director Lee H. Katzin knows how to tighten the screws too. There's a fantastically framed sequence where Alice is digging through her employer's papers, before Claire arrives unexpectedly and nearly catches. That suspenseful undercurrent builds towards a nicely lurid last act, where the old ladies seem to genuinely beat the crap out of each other. A moment in a car, Page wearing a distinctive red wig, goes in a similarly wild direction.
“Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?” has a lot going for it, in other words. Gordon gives a naturalistic performance as Alice, in contrast to Page's theatricality. The southwest setting provides a good sense of isolation, the home standing out in the flat landscape. Joseph Biroc's cinematography – second time that name has cropped up this September – further emphasizes this. However, “Aunt Alice” is kept out of the top-tier of hag horror standards by an unnecessarily junked up screenplay. The film simply has too many subplots, a number of supporting characters that never quite come into focus. A romantic story line is especially unneeded. It distracts from the central dynamic between the two women. Still, Theodore Apstein's screenplay does pack in some fabulously ironic swerves. The role of a stray dog comes around nicely while the final scene features an amusing twist.
The film definitely has some major flaws. However, an deliciously evil performance from Geraldine Page easily keeps the film afloat. Moreover, the film shows a fine understanding of Hitchcockian suspense, often putting bombs under tables and letting them tick away while the characters go about their bloody business. Page would continue to have a fine career for the next twenty years, popping up in a few other horror related projects here and there. (Three episodes of “Night Gallery” and “The Bride.”) Director Katzin would make a few other notable films – a Steve McQueen race car movie, a wacky sci-fi flick with Bruce Dern – but would mostly work in television. That's a shame, as this film suggests he certainly had some talent for thrillers. Assuming we can give him credit for this one and not attribute the whole movie to Aldrich. Anyway, “Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?” is a pretty good example of this type of thing. [7/10]
Claire Marrable used to be the wife of a very rich man. "Used to be" being the key phrase there. She is informed that her late husband's estate has had all its assets seized, leaving her with nothing but a moldy old stamp collection. She moves out to the Arizona desert, next door to a single mom and her nosy kid. After an argument with Rose, her housekeeper, she beats the other woman to death and buries her body underneath a palm tree. Shortly afterwards, she hires another live-in maid. After learning old Edna actually has some money in the bank, Claire kills her as well and empties her account. While at a party her nephew is throwing, Claire meets Alice, a retired nurse and widow to a stock broker. Claire hires Alice to be her next companion... But Alice is not all she seems. She's actually there to investigate the disappearance of an old friend, Claire's previous victim. The two women sneak around each other's backs, plotting against one another, and trying to uncover the truth. It won't be long before Claire is compelled to kill again.
Starring opposite Page is Ruth Gordon, fresh off “Rosemary's Baby.” Before the film reveals that Alice has a secret of her own, the audience can tell something is up with her already. When the reveal arrives, it sets a nicely suspenseful premise. We the viewer know Alice is there to uncover Claire's murderous tendencies. It's also evident that Claire has her suspicions about the new maid, while also intending to disguise her homicidal habit. That means there are multiple layers of suspense at work, the audience constantly left to wonder who knows what and how much they know. Director Lee H. Katzin knows how to tighten the screws too. There's a fantastically framed sequence where Alice is digging through her employer's papers, before Claire arrives unexpectedly and nearly catches. That suspenseful undercurrent builds towards a nicely lurid last act, where the old ladies seem to genuinely beat the crap out of each other. A moment in a car, Page wearing a distinctive red wig, goes in a similarly wild direction.
The film definitely has some major flaws. However, an deliciously evil performance from Geraldine Page easily keeps the film afloat. Moreover, the film shows a fine understanding of Hitchcockian suspense, often putting bombs under tables and letting them tick away while the characters go about their bloody business. Page would continue to have a fine career for the next twenty years, popping up in a few other horror related projects here and there. (Three episodes of “Night Gallery” and “The Bride.”) Director Katzin would make a few other notable films – a Steve McQueen race car movie, a wacky sci-fi flick with Bruce Dern – but would mostly work in television. That's a shame, as this film suggests he certainly had some talent for thrillers. Assuming we can give him credit for this one and not attribute the whole movie to Aldrich. Anyway, “Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?” is a pretty good example of this type of thing. [7/10]
Though I'm rather fond of Roald Dahl's fireside host segments, the author only hosted the episodes of “Tales of the Unexpected” based on his own writing. This amounted to about 26 installments, mostly in the first two seasons. Some of the later “Tales” are also well regarded though. Such as “A Harmless Vanity,” from the fifth series. The episode follows Mary, a dowdy married woman who suspects that her husband, a boat salesman, is having an affair. After talking with Liz, a friend and co-workers of George's, she learns this is true. Her husband is sleeping with a younger, sexier woman named Carol. Mary wants to meet the woman. Despite Liz' objections, she talks Carol into going to the beach with Mary. First, Mary dyes her hair blonde and buys a revealing bikini, to make herself feel younger. A tense afternoon follows, the younger woman unaware of her connection to Mary. All of the women are also unaware of a man in a scuba suit, sitting on the hill and watching When Carol goes for a swim in the sea, the diver attacks and drowns her. This is not exactly what Mary wanted and she feels a sense of guilt over the death... Until she goes back home.
“A Harmless Vanity” is based on a story by Theda O'Henle, an author I am otherwise unfamiliar with. However, the episode does grapple with a surprising amount of themes. The title suggests this is a story about a woman feeling insecure in her appearance. That she wants to compete with the younger woman by getting a brighter hair color and putting on a sexy suit. Upon seeing Carol on the beach, however, it becomes apparent that she can't compete with the perky breasts and fresh-faced youth of her competition. This moves the story into more of a melancholy direction, the wife left to wonder about how she's wasted so much time on a man that would trade up like this. Or that the man she loves is exactly that shallow. Sheila Gish conveys a lot of those stormy and complicated emotions on just her face and with the sad undercurrent she adds to her dialogue.
“The Addams Family” would not often be described as a plot heavy series but this episode is an exception. “The Great Treasure Hunt” begins with Morticia and Gomez having a romantic evening up in the attic during a thunderstorm. After a dripping leak ruins the mood, they discover a chest that once belonged to Peg-Leg Addams, a pirate descendant. Included is half a map supposedly leading to his greatest fortune. The family goes searching through the home for the other half, Gomez soon discovering it. Afterwards, it is decided that they will charter a boat to the Caribbean and find the treasure as a family trip. First they need a boat though. Unfortunately, the duo they hire for the job – Captain Grimby and his pal, Mr. Brack – are more interested in the amount of cash the family has laying around than the treasure. They return in the middle of the night with the intention of robbing the place, Fester becoming their most uncooperative hostage.
“The Great Treasure Hunt” sees the “Addams Family” returning to the central joke of the program, that the series has mostly been avoiding in season two: Outsiders arriving at the Addams' abode and being freaked out by all the weird shit they see. Shortly after the would-be boaters arrive, Fester drives his motorcycle through the living room while wearing a diving helmet, Morticia makes kissy-faces at the pet piranhas, and Cousin Itt emerges from an iron maiden. (You would think a guy named Brack would be more accustomed to wacky shit.) Otherwise, this episode does feature stronger sight gags than that. A bit involving an anchor and life-saver Fester has prepared for the trip got a chuckle out of me. As did the family vault being hidden behind a series of googly-eyed portraits. A nice silly moment has the gong usually used to summon Lurch being out-of-order, causing Gomez to rely on a more sensitive back-up. There are good, weird bits involving a wine bottle cork and a piggy bank. This episode also features an instance of antagonistic outsiders attempting to torture a member of the Addams family, with them responding with delight. A scene that benefits from Jackie Coogan's odd-ball comedic timing.
No comments:
Post a Comment