Desperately Seeking Susan.

Review #2186: Desperately Seeking Susan.

Cast: 

Rosanna Arquette (Roberta Glass), Aidan Quinn (Dez), Madonna (Susan Thomas), Robert Joy (Jim Dandy), Mark Blum (Gary Glass), Laurie Metcalf (Leslie Glass), Will Patton (Wayne Nolan), Anna Levine (Crystal), Peter Maloney (Ian), Steven Wright (Larry Stillman D.D.S.), John Turturro (Ray), Anne Carlisle (Victoria), José Angel Santana (Boutique Owner), Richard Portnow (Party Guest), and Giancarlo Esposito (Street Vendor) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens)

Review: 

“The city was falling apart and downtown there were aspiring artists because rent was so cheap. So I wanted to populate the film with people who were authentic to that time. I didn’t care whether someone in Kansas would recognize them, but New Yorkers would know they were New Yorkers.” 

Okay, maybe the biggest curiosity isn't the fact that this is the film that followed Susan Seidelman's Smithereens (1982). But I like the films that come after an electrifying debut feature, particularly one that is, well, packed with a few names to recognize from somewhere or another. The film was written by Leora Barish, who had been inspired by the film Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974), which in of itself had references to classic novels such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It was a script that languished for a few years before Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford found it as producers with a new company in tow. After a good deal spent in turnaround trying to get a studio to get behind it (ultimately being Orion Pictures) and a few names tossed around, the "clear visual style” shown by Seidelman with Smithereens was the one that worked to her advantaged. It was Seidelman that had decided on who would be cast as "Susan", which led her to steer away from actresses such as: Ellen Barkin, Melanie Griffith, and Jennifer Jason Leigh (it wasn't the only role with others in the running - more on that later). Instead, she went for a certain presence that lived near her at the time. Madonna had exactly two sorts of experience in film: an indie underground drama A Certain Sacrifice (which had been filmed in the late 1970s) and a cameo appearance in Vision Quest...with each not being released until 1985. As if the stars aligned perfectly, her popularity as a singer (editor note: understatement) was at a fever pitch by the time the film was finished shooting because of the commercial success of her second music album (Like a Virgin). Not surprisingly, "Into the Groove" is heard for the credits, which, well, I dig songs like this. As a whole, the film was a modest hit with audiences upon release and was even turned into a musical a couple of years later. 

Oh sure, the film is a film for Madonna to shine through from time to time, but Arquette is just as adept in proving key to a movie that is a warm tribute to the screwball comedy: mistaken identity and the ever-growing sense of amusement. It touches upon familiar aspects that come through with the experience of someone who craves adventure and finds way more than what they bargained for. Arquette (best known for the TV film The Executioner's Song [1982]) is ideal in that entertaining sense of wonder and befuddlement for antics because the frustration of being a listless housewife that (in the age of newspapers with personal ads that people looked at) we can relate with. That timing is on point through and through for a crisply amusing experience. Quinn was cast after attempts to get a few actors named Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner to read for the role fell to deaf ears. Go figure, it is probably the best relief the film has going for it, because Quinn and his sardonic charm roll right off with Arquette. And then of course there is Madonna, who practically rolls every little movement and sentence as if it was just a flick of the wrist, one for which Seidelman said was a "variation of herself...bringing her attitude to it". She exudes a certain type of aura that has that rightful sense of fun in the pleasures of charades and half-truths in the ideal apex of one acting without the weight of too much superstar status to handle playing some sort of variation of themselves, which goes hand-in-hand in chuckles when paired with that goofy (but totally believable) Joy. Blum is that ideal sense of the doofus too good for Arquette to set up the inevitable when it comes to screwball mismatches. The film manages to be patient enough for its 104-minute runtime to grant each lead their time to shine in a breezy and fairly engaging trip through a certain lens that goes to its location along with the fashion that makes it practically impossible to forget for its time. It is ultimately a solid second effort for Seidelman, packed with enough fair charm to make for a New York-style delight in screwy entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Redux: The Thing (1982)

Review Revised #712: The Thing (1982).

Cast: 

Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review: 

The original review was 276 words. Seven years later, I decided to reconsider and make a revised review in light of the 40th anniversary of the release of this film.

The Thing from Another World (1951), if you remember, was a loose adaptation of the novella Who Goes There?, which had been written by John W. Campbell in 1938 (it was only discovered in 2018 that Campbell had actually wrote an entire novel before cutting it down to the novella published in 1938; the manuscript, called "Frozen Hell", was published in 2019). Howard Hawks had supervised the production while Christian Nyby served as director (while Hawks denied that he served as director, his uncredited contribution to writing alongside the fact that Nyby never directed anything as good as this movie ever again makes for an interesting argument). Producers David Foster and Lawrence Turman had wanted to do a remake more faithful to the original novella, as opposed to the plant-like creature of the 1951 movie. Several directors and writers came and went in consideration from Universal Pictures in the late 1970s and 1980s before John Carpenter was hired to direct and Bill Lancaster (writer of The Bad News Bears (1976)) was hired to write; this was the sixth feature film directed by Carpenter, who had just finished Escape from New York (1981); it happened to be the last screenplay written by Lancaster, who died of a heart attack at the age of 49 in 1997. Rob Bottin (who had worked with Carpenter on The Fog in 1980) was hired to help provide effects for the creature (with one exception in a dog cage, which was done by Stan Winston to help an ailing Bottin), which his team helped do out of chemicals, food, rubber, and mechanical parts that made the budget go to $15 million; while Bottin's effects received mixed attention at the time, he would continue to hone his craft and wound up with two Academy Awards for his contributions to visual effects. Released on June 25, in a month and year that saw movies come out such as Blade Runner (same day as this movie) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (released two weeks prior), The Thing would not be a major success nor a failure. Coming off the heels of movies like Alien (1979) probably did not help either, although this movie tries to go with a creature that isn't a man in a suit (as guided by Carpenter). Of course, the reactions that the movie received would make you think that they killed a dog on film, where even Nyby talked about the film negatively, saying "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch" (now you see why I mentioned Nyby earlier when I relate the irony of a guy famous for "directing" one good movie trying to trash a movie that is way better than his). Years after the film was described as a cult classic, a 2011 version of The Thing was released that apparently serves as a prequel to this movie, and I cannot imagine how anybody really gave a crap about seeing what happens before you see Kurt Russell in a movie.

I haven't seen the 1951 movie in a number of years, but my recollections of seeing it as a straightforward tense movie probably seems right. The 1951 and 1982 movies are set in completely opposite locations and have tones that reflect the age they were made in when it relates to dealing with a threat from within, but the latter movie is especially more striking in its nihilistic execution. Carpenter has said that it is his favorite film from his line of work, even though the results of the film did not help his career the way he thought it would. I said the movie "flat out rules" a long time ago, but now I am even more appreciative of what was accomplished by Carpenter and company that has proven to be one of his most enduring works. The title creature is a ruthless being that pervades whatever it imitates without hesitation, and it makes for one hell of a spectacle and threat to watch on screen. To me, thinking effects are disgusting is like a compliment rather than a criticism, as if the only way to make a tense horror movie is to do it without a hint of cynicism. The best sequence might be the one where a desperate scramble to save a person by pressing on their chest that results in the ripping off of arms. Yes, the movie is a triumph of special effects, but it also is a triumph of paranoia with an ensemble cast that completely sells what is needed. Generally, it is easy to say that Russell does well with the material, because we have seen him do well in other productions before. But he has an effortless charm to him that makes him the kind of actor to just seep into a role without hesitation in everyman sensibilities, which happens in a movie where sanity hangs in the balance. The other members of the cast help in lending fear and irrationalities that doesn't drag the 109-minute run-time any further than it needs to. It seems fitting that two actors making early appearances in film before they became more known excel best: David (in his credited film debut) serves well in the tense glares to not get lost among the group while Brimley (who had a few film and TV credits) makes a stodgy and fierce presence in the face of futility and gruesome gore. The others contribute to the cold tension that bubbles slowly to the surface beneath the early little character quirks in a movie where danger can lurk by what is hidden just as much as what you see.

The music by Ennio Morricone is used selectively by Carpenter to great effect, present in terror without overwhelming you. The movie builds up to the handling of its chameleon-like monster with great planning that doesn't fall privy to the worst type of cliches seen in the lone location type of horror movies (namely dumb characters). The climax lends a welcome deal of futility and ambiguity that fits for a certain audience sensibility that doesn't turn out to be a cheat when you have tired characters that sit there and look at each other while a fire burns in the background. In other words, the movie sets itself up well for how it has to end without straining for it (so yes, ambiguity isn't everyone's thing, but at least it is a contrived ambiguity). In the end, there are a handful of Carpenter movies that could be argued to be his best work in the countless movies he made, and The Thing has certainly had its case strengthened in the four decades since its release with its handling of effects with tension and a great ensemble cast. Now more than ever, one should really check it out for those who are interested in science fiction and horror as it is a triumph of filmmaking from John Carpenter, a director who certainly deserves the credit for making classics of American cinema.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.