Health.

Review #2061: Health.

Cast: 

Carol Burnett (Gloria Burbank), Glenda Jackson (Isabella Garnell), James Garner (Harry Wolff), Lauren Bacall (Esther Brill), Paul Dooley (Dr. Gil Gainey), Donald Moffat (Colonel Cody), Henry Gibson Bobby Hammer), Diane Stilwell (Willow Wertz), MacIntyre Dixon (Fred Munson), Alfre Woodard (Sally Benbow), and Dick Cavett (Himself) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville, #1433 - M*A*S*H, and #1890 - The Delinquents)

Review: 

"HealtH could have only been made when it was made, and that was the end of the Carter era."

Somehow, at the end of this little blurb about talking about a film that did not get a proper release is a joke. But I'm sure you already came into that with a film made by a director as noted as Robert Altman that has the dubious achievement of having never received a proper home video release. You may or may not already know that Altman was an interesting presence amongst filmmakers you could say have their own style of filming. He may not have had the best of times with his initial feature efforts such as The Delinquents (1957), but his lengthy time spent in television work would shine well when he got to do regular film work after the massive hit of M*A*S*H (1970). Over the next ten years he would direct in a variety of genres that went from the Western (McCabe & Mrs. Miller) to horror (Images) to psychological drama (3 Women). Some films ended up better than others, as evidenced by Quintet (1979). Altman had at least one film released from the year of 1969 to 1980 that went from That Cold Day in the Park (1969) to Popeye. Now back to this film (sometimes referred to as HealtH or H.E.A.L.T.H.): it was shot in the Don CeSar Beach hotel in St Petersburg Beach, Florida for a number of months in 1979. He rushed the film to production just to make sure that it could be done for 20th Century Fox while Alan Ladd Jr was still around. He wrote the script in collaboration with Frank Barhydt and Paul Dooley. It was planned for a released in the winter of 1979, but changeover at the studio led to shuffling for test previews in the spring of 1980 with ideas of getting it seen in full by the summer (the aforementioned Popeye film somehow went better despite being filmed in 1980 for release in the winter, incidentally). It did not end well, and Altman had a falling out with personnel, particularly with one that didn't return his calls for weeks on end that led to being labeled as "scum" by the director. Long story short, there was no public release of the film until New York’s Film Forum showed in 1982, but there were enough film festival showings to account for a knowing of it. It certainly did not come from 20th Century Fox, who had decided the film was not commercially viable enough for release in 1980. So, what did they decide was a better candidate for release than an Altman film? Oh! Heavenly Dog.

I can't promise you a good punchline for the end of this review, but I thought it tickled me. There are two sides that can come with talking about a film not appreciated in its time: the part where you call it a hidden gem that deserves your attention or one that you believe was best left to rest in the dustbin. This is a film that at least one person liked watching on the Fox Movie Channel enough to record it and try to put it online. As for me, I enjoyed it about as much as I thought would happen for an attempt at a satire of politics of the time that is a frenzied hodgepodge of observations that come from looking at a health food convention that really is looking at the conventions that come with America. In other words: showmanship has run amok, and one can still see the carnival atmosphere that we call politics now more than ever. Granted, it isn't exactly packed with a developed story, and it definitely isn't on the same level as, say, Nashville (1975), but it really did deserve an audience to judge it for themselves rather than letting it being thrust into the shadows (for the decade of the 1980s, Altman was left with making films on small-scale budgets, with varying respect). To me, the movie stumbles around two timelines to make light of: the end of the Jimmy Carter era (beaten in a landslide by Reagan in the fall of 1980) and the Dwight Eisenhower-Adlai Stevenson elections of the 1950s that incidentally saw the candidate with vast media drawing Powe win each time. Life is messy, and Altman made a whole movie about the odd carnival of hucksters in health and beyond. The film isn't really wrapped in an involving plot of note, so it really does verge its entertainment on just how much you like the people involved in said film. This namely involves folks who can be pegged to sentence-descriptions such as Garner and his general huckster observer persona or Jackson in a spry and uptight impersonation of Stevenson right down to the speeches. Of course, those 50s elections didn't have a third-party worth mentioning, so Dooley is more just there as the ignored option, but I like Dooley and his huckster self that seems too much for these fellow hucksters, so it shouldn't surprise me that he had a hand in writing this. Woodard is probably the only sane observer of said proceedings, which includes a man of great bluster in Moffat or the always enduring presence of Gibson. Burnett is basically there as the wishy-washy presence that is mildly funny in tension, but one wonders if there was more one could do with this role (this reflects perhaps most on Cavett, who might as well be trying out a mild sedative). At least Bacall and her slogan-happy presence of feeling oneself is amusing in just how much of a puppet one can be with slogans (in being used and using others). It is interesting to make a film about two women running for president and have one of them go on to win to form a new leadership of sexless strength. As a whole, the movie is merely fine, but 20th Century Fox should have known better than to think that it was going to work out nicely to skip over releasing this film (one that cost $6 million!). It isn't a great sort of missing gem or far from easy to ignore, instead falling along the middle with a few amusing moments that with a proper release would've nurtured a possible cult favorite. As it stands now, the only way to enjoy it is for those who enjoy digging further into Altman films or for those who like to watch bootlegs.  But hey, don't take my word for how the film worked when it came to satire and its targets, take it from Ronald Reagan, who was reported to have seen the film in 1982 and called it "the world's worst movie". That I think tells you all you need to know about Health.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Touch of Class.

Review #1443: A Touch of Class.

Cast: 
George Segal (Steve Blackburn), Glenda Jackson (Vickie Allessio), Hildegarde Neil (Gloria Blackburn), Paul Sorvino (Walter Menkes), K Callan (Patty Menkes), Cec Linder (Wendell Thompson), Lisa Vanderpump (Julia Allessio), Michael Elwyn (Cecil), Mary Barclay (Martha Thompson), Nadim Sawalha (Night Hotel Manager) Produced and Directed by Melvin Frank.

Review: 
"Acting is not about dressing up. Acting is about stripping bare. The whole essence of learning lines is to forget them so you can make them sound like you thought of them that instant."

Do you like a comedy of errors? One that wants to have a share of amusement with (presumably) mismatched characters who find their way towards some sort of romance? Welp, this might work out well for you, I suppose. You know the type: one's American while the other is British, one is high-strung while the other is high-tempered, one's married with kids and the other is divorced (with kids too, although they basically disappear from the film pretty quickly). It definitely seems like a film with old-fashioned roots to it (where adultery could not be as broadly covered). Technically this is correct, since Melvin Frank was a co-writer/director for over four decades, with notable co-writing credits including My Favorite Blonde (1942, his debut script with longtime partner Norman Panama), Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), and The Facts of Life (1960, co-written, co-directed, and co-produced with Panama). The last one is interesting to note, since that film (featuring Bob Hope and Lucille Ball) also featured an affair that unwittingly turns into a romance, although this occurs during a trip between neighbor couples; Frank and co-writer Jack Rose adapted this film from Frank's short story "She Loves Me, She Told Me So Last Night". Frank, alongside Rose and some of the production crew would return with Segal, Jackson, and Sorvino for Lost and Found (1979), which also dealt with the struggles that develop with lust and love between an American and a British person (although this results in marriage as opposed to an affair).

In other words, one might be thinking that they are seeing something familiar when it comes to a romantic comedy like this, particularly when it comes to the bickering. It generally works best when it is set on the chemistry between its main stars and less so when it tries to go farther than cute scenarios for its last third, with an ending that might make you shrug either out of mild acceptance or apathy as opposed to being successfully bittersweet. On the one hand, there is plenty of talent present: Segal, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s with dramatic and comedic roles with Jackson, who had risen from work in television (1957) and the theater (1964) to add film to her respected body of work that resulted in numerous accolades (starting with Women in Love (1969), which along with this film resulted in an Academy Award for Best Actress). Not to be forgotten in the fracas is copywriter-turned-actor Sorvino, however (an underrated supporting man, particularly here). One finds plenty to find interest with the main couple, with Segal proving fair in resilient smarminess with occasional quips that make for quite a match with an amusing and passionate Jackson that is filled with just as many retorts and allure that makes one almost think they are watching a Tracy and Hepburn film. Sorvino chimes in at times with persistence and some humor (such as going out to walk the dog and returning without the dog), which makes up for an otherwise quiet supporting cast. While this can be an amusing little film with some useful views on looking transparently at a love affair, one always gets the feeling that there is something missing to really make it mean something. Sometimes one cares about the situations with these folks, and other times you are left there shrugging your shoulders, as if it somehow couldn't quite balance comedy and drama for 106 minutes. It is like if a 1940s script escaped from the lab and only changed its pants before it got caught. Does it even matter to know how their affair will turn out? Is it really something with meaningful realism if it comes off as a fitting capstone of mediocrity for a film? Of course I fall into the line that seeing someone with wife and children having an affair only to eat crow by having the affair fall flat is amusing enough, as opposed to seeing them somehow get away with it. This is a film that only seems to be there 70% of the time to make fair wit and a look upon the pitfalls of falling in love - the ultimate take-it-or-leave-it film fitting perhaps with other mediocre romances like Love Affair (1939) with a capable pair in search of much more than they ultimately get.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.