Cast:
Tom Laughlin (Billy Jack), Delores Taylor (Jean Roberts), Victor Izay (Doc), Teresa Kelly (Carol), Sara Lane (Russell), Geo Anne Sosa (Joanne), Lynn Baker (Lynn), Riley Hill (Posner), Sparky Watt (Sheriff Cole), Gus Greymountain (Blue Elk), Sacheen Littlefeather (Patsy Littlejohn), Michael Bolland (Danny), Jack Stanley (Grandfather), Bong-Soo Han (Master Han), Rolling Thunder (Thunder Mountain), and William Wellman Jr (National Guardsman) Directed by Tom Laughlin (#1196 - Billy Jack and #1860 - The Born Losers)
Review:
"I got too preachy. Got too inflated with my own opinions and my own ideas and put 'em out too heavy." - Tom Laughlin
Okay, you remember The Born Losers (1967). That was the film that Tom Laughlin made with American International Pictures in that attempt to crack into making some of what he wanted to do with the character of his own creation in "Billy Jack", the ex-Green Beret with a bit of Native American heritage that deals with people who don't care for his way of thinking with a few kicks. The self-described "Stanislavsky actor" had spent time running his own Montessori preschool with his wife Delores before the second return to film (remember that he had done a few little-known film appearances and two features). AIP stepped in when Laughlin's slap-dash production made for under $500,000 ran out of money in post, promoted it as one of those biker exploitation films and made a reasonable hit. Of course, when it came time for another film, Billy Jack (1971) was aimed for a true approach by Laughlin at the plight of Natives that he saw mistreated in the 1950s in Winner, South Dakota. Oh, and something about freedom schools and maybe a bit of hapkido and uh, having a scene involving the co-star of the film (played by the wife of the director/star) is raped. No, really. The distribution was taken over by Laughlin in basically a game of hot potato when AIP rejected distributing the film; the result of Laughlin booking it himself in theaters was a rocket hit (Warner Bros. had done their ownattempts, but regardless, Laughlin had his winner), The film and Laughlin's performance had a modern successor with Quentin Tarantino and Brad Pitt, who used it as an influence in the development of the character of Cliff Booth in what became Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019). The sequel of Billy Jack, directed by Laughlin with a script by Laughlin and Taylor (who for whatever reason used pseudonyms) would have its own brand of wall-to-wall nationwide pushing to its own type of notability, because there just weren't that many movies that could say they were in 1,000 screens at the same time. Prior films with a certain type of push in "wide release" was stuff like Duel in the Sun (1946), which apparently did a "blitz" of releasing simultaneously in a number of theaters in an area, while The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) opened in over 1,000 theaters within the first week of release. Anyway, Laughlin would have two more films in his directing arsenal: The Master Gunfighter (1975), which he also starred and produced with the belief that his nationwide strategy would work well again...it failed. Oh, and Billy Jack Goes to Washington (1977), a film that couldn't even get a proper theatrical release even when Laughlin cut forty (!) minutes it to make run under three hours. Filming was done around Arizona and Utah, whether that involved Coronado National Forest or Monument Valley. It was reported after the release of the film that Laughlin, miffed by hearing critical reviews of his film, started a critics cash prize contest that invited the public to tell the critics how they really felt when it comes to being "out of touch". I especially like the part where he highlights some of the highest grossing films made to that point (read: 1974) and implicates that the critic somehow hated those big box office hits such as Gone with the Wind and The Sting. Truly, we are dealing with an actor/director/writer who is really not mad, no, really, he's not mad at the paper saying his film may be a tad, well...
Oh hell, let's get this out of the way quick: this is a steaming piece of bleeding-heart crap. My views don't matter that much when it comes for film a good chunk of the time, but even a guy like me rolls eyes at stuff like this. If you thought the last film was a meandering mess that refused to simply play ball with the hapkido first and stop playing the card of trying to being socially relevant with characters as likable as a rake in the head, wait until you get to this one. If you want a test of how long 173 minutes can feel, here is your chance with a movie that meanders so much in its elements of the Freedom School that you swear time will have stopped. I actually wonder if the biggest influence on Neil Breen and his meandering qualities of filmmaking and self-savior character (complete with being in his forties when doing them) movies is really Laughlin. That martyr stuff worked with the earlier film, but it comes to the most crashing of stops with a movie that continues all of the contradictions from before but with even less to offer here. Born Losers may have been a bit unpolished, but at least it felt like a film attempting to do entertainment. This is a movie that tries to go spread eagle in social news bulletins that go from mentioning the Kent State shootings to the My Lai massacre while being presented mostly in flashback form (because hey, being told the death and injury count on a massacre that has yet to be shown is part of The Laughlin Way, right next to having characters speak in platitudes). Taylor is left to hold the parts of the film that can't be bothered by Laughlin, who at one point is shown in full body color paint...of red, and also one time is spent in blue. The less said about Hill being the little covered villain (kick throat is kinda cool though), the better. Taylor's withering monotone voice of "reason" (I use quotes because it is debatable that reason exists in this film) is as weird as it was before when it comes to middling interest. Laughlin talks the same platitudes as before, and I would like to point out that he really thought of this character as a hero for the youth alongside Ralph Nader despite the fact that Billy Jack just meanders around with the same dilemma again and again about violence. The damn hapkido parts are the drawing force when it really boils down to what made those last two films even remotely tolerable as "average, not good", not the Jungian pop psychology. He may believe the stuff he is spewing (as quoted by him when it came to saying in interviews that no, no, no, the public really did go for the pacifism and not the kicking), but that is not a point in his favor when I find it tedious. The villains in the movie are no more complex than what you would find in a Saturday morning cartoon, but because the film wants to be taken so seriously, it comes off as hilarious to be subjected to such tedious slop. Even seeing the students get into the idea of fighting brute savagery with, uh, bombing, is more interesting than vision quests or kids that eventually bring themselves to play guitar.
You know that old stereotype of hippies being, well, annoying? This is basically red meat for jokes in that regard. You can say the film has a worthy look to it when it comes to production value, but all I see is a waste of space. Being the drunk uncle of Gas-s-s-s (1970) is not a compliment, especially when you find that there were *five* editors credited for this film. I can't even fathom the time it took to edit those sequences of vision quests. I think there is a sort of amusing irony that a film that features a white guy playing a character with mixed Native heritage happens to have appearances by Sacheen Littlefeather and Rolling Thunder, two people with dubious claims of Native American ancestry (Littlefeather is so much a fraud that it was her sisters that said how much of a fraud she was). The movie actually has the balls to show an ending title card of notes addressing the idea the film may be "too violent" and to, uh, "give peace a chance...". In the end, this is a sermon that preaches to the choir for all of the cliches in the world that won't win any new curious viewers, particularly for those without the stomach for movie-made massacre of children. This is a film that fails the basic rule of clarity and "action" and only stands as a testament to what one could do in the 1970s when it came to vision and distribution. The 2020s has its own methods of getting films to somewhere in time, but nothing may be as deluded as this film when it comes to tenacity, for better or worse. It seems perfect for the turkey celebrations: it has Native Americans (real and the dubious), a long boring lesson from white folks, and it feels like it takes all day to end.
Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.
Next: After a fresh offering of Thanksgiving slop, enjoy your Black Friday with Baby Geniuses.
No comments:
Post a Comment