April 8, 2021

A Boy and His Dog.

Review #1665: A Boy and His Dog.

Cast: 
Don Johnson (Vic), Tim McIntire (voice of Blood), Susanne Benton (Quilla June Holmes), Jason Robards (Lou Craddock), Alvy Moore (Doctor Moore), Helene Winston (Mez Smith), Charles McGraw (Preacher), Hal Baylor (Michael), and Ron Feinberg (Fellini) Directed by L. Q. Jones.

Review: 
I will admit that this film has piqued my curiosity for quite some time, mainly because of its interesting place within science fiction - namely the fact that it is a black comedy in the middle of a decade with plenty of distinct features that has a collection of useful presences for a cult favorite. How many weirdo dystopia movies are there? There may be several of these films, but one cannot deny the irresistible amusement that comes from its depiction of a wasteland - both in material and in its ethics. As one might expect, it is an adaptation of previous material, in this case it is an adaptation of the novella of the same name that was written by Harlan Ellison in 1969. It would soon evolve into a narrative cycle, as Ellison would write further stories in the timeline over several years; for example, Ellison would also write stories that took place before and after the original novella, such as with his graphic novel collection Vic and Blood, but Ellison had apparently written another section that would be collected for a book (called Blood's a Rover), which was in his words in "screenplay form". Jones had ideas to do a follow-up film, one that would take place through the eyes of a woman (named Spike, which incidentally was the same name of the character Ellison used in his follow-up story), but funding issues and the death of the dog hindered any serious thoughts. In 2018, Blood's a Rover was published by Ellison, which collected the stories from before alongside a teleplay that he had written for a failed-to-launch television series. Oh, right, who is Harlan Ellison? To describe Ellison is something I'm sure those who have read his works or heard of his exploits can do better, so the best way to say it is that he was a prolific writer that described his work as "foursquare for chaos." The Cleveland native wrote the gamut when it came to speculative/science fiction that ranged from short stories (over a thousand) to screenplays (for which just one was filmed in The Oscar...no joke) to teleplays (such as "The City on the Edge of Forever", which true to form had Ellison griping upon the changes made for what ended up being one of the best Star Trek episodes of the original series) before his death in 2018. Ellison was favorable to the film, although it was the final line that caused him considerable consternation; the film ends the same way the novella did in its shocking (but darkly humorous) conclusion, with the novella ending on a title reference and the film ending on a spry pun - he called it a "moronic, hateful chauvinist last line, which I despise", although he mellowed slightly over it in later years. Given that Ellison had his share of causing/being involved in contentious disputes that ranged from Texas A&M University to James Cameron, it certainly seems quite amusing to note. 

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that this proved an inspiration to a subsequent dystopian work with Mad Max (1979). This was the second and last film that was directed by L. Q. Jones (who had changed his name from Justus McQueen to the name of the character he played in his first film - Battle Cry), who had directed The Devil's Bedroom (1964). Ellison had started work on the screenplay for the film before having writer's block that resulted him turning it over to Jones (who Ellison described as "fiery" in independence) to write the screenplay, which he would do for over a year. Jones was a character actor in film and television for five decades until his retirement in 2006. He certainly has an interesting foresight when it comes to the future of depraved weirdos, even if it didn't exactly come out with an apocalypse; instead, one will settle with a weird R-rated version of a buddy movie that is certainly not for the faint of heart, where the only thing worse than glowing people in the dark is not having enough to eat or women to have sex with. And that is a good thing, because who needs their dystopian movies to be routine and quiet? I adore irreverent movies that engage for 93 minutes with no easy out answers or effects plays. Our star is Johnson, appearing in his fifth film role. The Missouri native had first done his share of acting within high school in the theater program before doing a spell of study at the University of Kansas and the American Conservatory Theater before getting into work within the theater and film/television. I'm sure most of you folks know that this features Johnson years before he became a household name with Miami Vice (and I would too, since it is on my schedule), but one can't forget the fact that he is quite effective here. He drives the film with dog in tow with good timing, doing so with a craven energy that resonates with the offbeat energy of the movie in a way that would have felt off-kilter with perhaps any other actor. When one needs an actor to play a strange savage that is nevertheless quite watchable, Johnson delivers. McIntire makes up the other part of the duo, and he was cast after hundreds of auditions (with one reported voice in name being James Cagney, but the filmmakers felt he was too recognizable a voice). He was a character actor that had a handful of roles within television and film, although others might recognize his contribution in the music department to films such as this one and Jeremiah Johnson (1972). He and Johnson make for some quality timing when it comes to their time spent together, an unlikely pair in terms of cynicism meeting amorality that make for a different kind of road movie. In other words, he chills the surface in misanthropy that we gravitate to (besides playing a dog, obviously) that makes a diverting time in the not-too distant future of 2024. Benton manipulates her way through with enough flourish to make a worthwhile contrast to the main duo - in a different movie she might have been the scheming focus of a cold underground, but we are talking about a movie that focuses on survival of the nuttiest rather than just survival of the smartest. In that sense, she does well for what is needed in the balance between the duo and the overall underground. Robards makes his extended appearance midway through the movie (in a place where everyone is caked in white makeup), and he handles the proceedings of rural caricature with what you would see from a key presence in cinema as Robards was, where he does not need big speeches or action shots but instead just needs to drive odd moments forward. By the time it gets to the underworld, one is curious to where else can it go in the varying perspectives of folks "surviving" the apocalypse and the craven ways to maintain it. At the end of the day, it proves charming enough in its shock value or those who like movies with irreverence and the guts to follow through all the way in its details to make for a grisly and capable good time, if one has the time, taste, and stomach for its trek into the wasteland.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

No comments:

Post a Comment