Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Licorice Pizza

Licorice Pizza, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, is a funny, pleasant comedy that nevertheless harbors a sneakily dark core. It represents, in fact, a return to the thematic focus of Anderson’s early films, by which I mean Boogie Nights (1997) and Magnolia (1999). Those two acclaimed but often misunderstood movies also take place in the San Fernando Valley and explore the brutal, cruel culture of greed and glamour that, in Anderson’s cynical vision, dominates the region.

The protagonist of Licorice Pizza is Alana Kane (Alana Haim); her romantic counterpart is the juvenile Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman). Alana is twenty-five, and Gary is fifteen (and behaves like it), making for an unlikely pairing chock full of laughs, mostly at the expense of the earnest but naive Gary, who, for example, on their first date leads with, “So what are your hopes for the future?” and later pines to see Alana’s boobs. But after some silly scenes documenting the pair’s misadventures, the movie progresses, essentially, into Alana being pursued by a slow parade of older men, all of whom prove disappointing or worse due to varying manifestations of self-centeredness. She finally realizes that Gary’s sincere love for her, despite his goofiness and undeniable immaturity, is a rare thing to be valued, and the romance ends happily.

Anderson’s nostalgic, breezy tone, as in the first half of Boogie Nights, is liable to distract from his disdain for most of the adults that people 1970’s San Fernando Valley. But that disdain, as becomes eventually explicit in Boogie Nights but never quite so in Licorice Pizza, is his major project. Perhaps Magnolia is an even better parallel, since it more obviously cherishes the innocence of the Valley’s children, which invariably comes under assault from egotistical adults. In both early Anderson films, a clear division is marked between earnest, innocent characters and the stern, selfish ones who carelessly damage the first group.

Licorice Pizza is a return to that vision. Alana’s symbolic choice is between joining the egocentric adults and staying behind with the kids. And she chooses the kids. Like the truck that rolls all the way back down the hill, she undergoes not so much a coming of age as a return to origins.

It’s certainly a good movie and at times a hilarious one, but given the similarities between Licorice Pizza and Anderson’s 90’s films, I’m not quite sure what this movie adds to Anderson’s eminent body of work. The one thing I can think of is that Gary, unlike his Anderson predecessors like Rollergirl (Heather Graham) from Boogie Nights and Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman) from Magnolia, isn’t easily bullied. During a live taping, he pillow-whacks the mean, pompous actress who hosts his show, and when he’s condescended to by an unhinged producer, he leaves the mercurial big shot’s water on and beats up his car. Gary emerges from both encounters grinning and proud, a far cry from the misery that engulfs his early Anderson parallels.

Is this the new Anderson? Unfazed, even joyous in his satire against West Coast misers?

Not really. As I said, Alana is the protagonist, not Gary, and it’s with her that Anderson identifies. Like her, he’s emerged from the San Fernando Valley’s fog of self important losers with his sincerity intact, and if he hasn’t quite retained the innocence of a Gary Valentine, then that, too, is for the best, since his most personal films derive their authenticity from the hurt—and the anger—that always lurks just below the surface.

 

— Jim Andersen

For more reviews, see my review of Don’t Look Up.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Don’t Look Up

Few would argue that the ground right now is awfully fertile for a great political satire. After all, the absurdity of our contemporary moment certainly rivals that of the era that produced, for example, Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1963), the sharpest of American political comedies. That film hilariously parodied the then-pervasive notion of mutually assured destruction (MAD) and became a permanent cinematic classic. Isn’t it about time somebody stepped up, as Kubrick did, and painted paint our current world leadership as the farce that it is?

Netflix’s Don’t Look Up, directed by Adam McKay, would like to do just that. But the problem with the comedy of Don’t Look Up—and really with most political comedy today—is that its creators are too horrified by its intended satirical targets to make real jokes. They don’t find their material funny.

Whereas Kubrick saw the genuine humor in the absurd gamesmanship that was bringing our world to the brink of annihilation, and made us laugh (and thereby reflect) by foisting that comic vision on us, McKay and his actors are simply rattled. Don’t Look Up, one quickly realizes with dismay, doesn’t have much interest in comedy, because it’s too saddened, frustrated, and above all angry: angry at the media, angry at Trump, angry at tech companies, angry at old people.

The lead casting of Jennifer Lawrence, queen of the profane scream, is a tipoff that this movie, despite its ostensible purpose, isn’t joking around. True to form, Lawrence’s character spends the film cursing into the void and moodily sulking around, and on several occasions she advances the opinion that depression and panic are the only rational reactions to our current moment. Maybe so, but I’ve never watched a comedy before that argues that now isn’t the time to be laughing.

Besides, by harboring a dismissive view of humor and charging straight for vexed didacticism (“If we can’t agree on that, what the fuck HAPPENED TO US?!”), McKay paradoxically ensures that his film will have no tangible impact whatsoever, beyond further discomposing the already-pissed off liberal base it was made for and by. Humor, when done with conviction, has power. Giving the finger, on the other hand, has very little, especially when it’s done by a bunch of rich people.

I understand the position that Trumpian politics is inherently unfunny, given its clear dangerousness and its sad indictment of American culture. I’d argue back that Kubrick found humor in the apocalypse, and it’s assumedly still there. But regardless of how you feel on that subject, we can all agree that if you don’t find something funny, you shouldn’t make a comedy about it. Comedies that end with their characters morosely saying grace around a dinner table as their inevitable deaths approach might—just might—have missed the mark when it comes to the spirit of farce.

Sapped of its humor by its indignant creators, the only thing Don’t Look Up has to offer is the questionable personal catharsis of a big “Fuck you” to the idiots running our world. Maybe watching that makes you feel better about living in 2021. It didn’t for me. And it didn’t look like it did for Jennifer Lawrence, either.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, check out my review of CODA.

 

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: CODA

Originally published January 2021

CODA, directed by Sian Heder, has the most intriguing and original cast of this year’s Best Picture nominees. However, it’s the least original film of the group, a “be yourself” drama that’s even more saddled with cliché than you’d expect from the premise: a girl with deaf parents who just wants to sing. It’s Disney Channel-inspired in concept and, truly, Disney Channel-adjacent in quality.

In one sense, CODA is a missed opportunity, given that we’ve seen so little of deaf individuals onscreen, notwithstanding last year’s Sound of Metal (my review here). But more accurately speaking, Heder falls into a trap set by that very opportunity, struggling to develop his characters due to a worry of shocking the audience with too much newness. While most movies instinctively focus their exposition on how the characters are unique and worthy of our attention, CODA instead spends its efforts showing us how the characters are totally normal, hoping to preempt the otherness we might have been tempted to assign them.

Ruby (Emilia Jones), the protagonist whose family is deaf, sings along to the radio, gets bullied by jerks, rolls her eyes at her parents, and talks sex with her girlfriend. Given the overwhelming normalcy highlighted by these early scenes, why, other than the deafness of her family, are we watching an entire movie about her?

And the script is even more mediocre than she is. The music teacher (Eugenio Derbez) happens to need two students to sing a duet for the fall concert, and he chooses Ruby along with—wait for it—her secret crush. The song is a love song, and the two singers lack chemistry at first, but the teacher berates them: “It’s a duet! That means ‘do it’ together!” Hmm… Where could this be going??

When we were kids, movies like High School Musical (2006) and shows like Hannah Montana were helpful to us, because they gave us a foothold on what was expected socially, on how to be ordinary. But as adults, we need the opposite: how to be extraordinary, how to tap into what’s odd or strange about ourselves without letting society sand off our edges. CODA, with its commendable aim of providing a fresh glimpse into the experience of deaf families, had a lot of edge to start with—but sanded it all off before it got to the screen, trapping its interesting cast in the most mainstream content imaginable.

The movie’s better moments—most of them featuring Ruby’s parents, who, like Disney Channel parents, have to provide all the entertainment to compensate for their dull children—are infrequent and non-central. And the parents’ main dilemma, the lack of a sign language interpreter for their fishing boat in Ruby’s absence, goes totally unresolved. Is this really Best Picture material?

In an early scene, Ruby’s teacher casually wonders if his students have been watching too much Glee, a Disney-style spinoff if there ever was one. It’s a revealing slip. Why make the reference as a screenwriter, if not as a subconscious admission?

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, check out my review of Dune (2021).

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Dune (2021)

Dune is out in theaters, and it’s hyped. Director Dennis Villaneuve (Arrival, Blade Runner: 2049) seems to have the perfect credentials for the job, and fans of Frank Herbert’s seminal 1965 novel have waited quite some time for modern special effects to be applied to their beloved classic of interplanetary action, politics, and warfare.

I haven’t read Herbert’s Dune; take that as you will. But as a moviegoer being introduced to the story for the first time, I found myself admiring the effects and scale of this adaptation—while ultimately struggling to care much about it.

The reason to see Dune is that everything in the movie is big. Big spaceships, big deserts, big weapons. Big explosions. A big score from Hans Zimmer, although his blaring, discordant thunderings, I’ll admit, I’m starting to find a bit tiresome. And big sandworms that function as mobile sinkholes. All this bigness succeeds in its intention: to create compelling spectacle. The assault on the city midway through the film, especially, felt pretty awesome.

The problem, though, is with the small. In particular, Villaneuve fails at his most important task: to convey the harshness of the desert, which is the central driver of the entire plot.

To be sure, Dune‘s characters talk plenty about the desert and how dangerous it is, and their actions—wearing moisture-preserving suits, walking irregularly in the sand, shying from the daytime sun—do reflect the proper reverence. But it’s not enough for characters to say that the desert is brutal, or even to act like it is. We have to feel the harshness of the desert. And in this movie, we don’t.

This is because none of the characters seem all that uncomfortable walking around in it. Timothee Chalamet plays a sort of pampered prince, but somehow, the notoriously unlivable sands of Arrakis don’t visibly faze him at any point in the movie: he trots around—hair styled to perfection, makeup Twilight-esque—with his mom, and neither appear labored whatsoever. Isn’t this desert supposed to be…hot? Why is everybody handling this so well?

This one shortcoming is enough to crater the film, since, as I stated, fear of the desert is the focal point of the storyline. In retrospect, Villaneuve may not have been a wise choice to direct, with his cerebral, sci-fi background. What this film needed, I realize now, is a director of nature movies.

Villaneuve also struggles to carve out an original niche for Dune, especially since many of the novel’s inventions were looted by Star Wars and other familiar films. One can’t really blame him; the story is what it is. I do wish that he could have avoided falling back on the ubiquitous influence of the completely overrated Lord of the Rings trilogy, especially two of its qualities that for some reason have become near-requirements for any fantasy saga:

  1. Everyone must speak with stately, stilted diction; as if they just arrived in a time machine from the royal palace in Victorian England
  2. Regardless of technological advances or available magic, armies must at some point run at each other with swords

For God’s sake, it’s the year 10,191! We don’t even do that now! Put the damn swords away!

I get it, people are thirsty for a big budget cinema spectacle, and Dune is one. It’s certainly better than the last three Star Wars chapters. And there’s nothing wrong with finding a reason to get back to the theater after a long, frustrating hiatus. I just feel that this movie could have been more just than another effects-driven saga. Guess I’ll need to read the book for that.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more movie reviews, see my review of West Side Story.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: West Side Story

Everyone has their favorite song from the original West Side Story (1961), but mine is “Gee Officer Krupke,” which consists of a few errant youths making fun of a policeman’s—and by extension, America’s—obsession with tracing their delinquent behavior to cliché childhood misfortunes:

“My daddy beats my mommy / My mommy clobbers me / My grandpa is a commie / My grandma pushes tea / My sister wears a mustache / My brother wears a dress / Goodness gracious, that’s why I’m a mess!”

The point of the song isn’t to dispute the idea that people are influenced by their environments. Rather, it’s to mock the establishment’s fetish for speculating on the causes of behavioral problems while neglecting to give badly needed help to those caught in the cycle of degeneracy. To the boys singing the song, the question of how they got where they are is irrelevant. What matters that Krupke and others won’t lend a desperately needed hand. Since this point is implicitly made at several other moments, I’ve always viewed it as the film’s central social thesis.

Somehow, though, Steven Spielberg seems to have missed that message entirely, because the updates he’s made in his remake of West Side Story, now in theaters, are in direct contradiction to it. Like Officer Krupke, Spielberg in this version has a shallow, pointless explanation for everything. For instance, the two gangs are fighting because their neighborhood is being razed for a shiny new development. Ah, so that’s it! And Tony wants out of the Jets because he had some time in prison to reflect, and besides, he can’t break his parole. Makes sense! Also, it’s emphasized that the aimless Riff has no family, and it’s hinted a few times that his dad may have been killed, a fate that awaits him, as well. How logical! On and on.

Spielberg is trying to treat his characters with love, trying to help the audience see where they’re coming from. But this does nothing for the film and, perhaps more importantly, nothing for young people on the margins of society. Again, this is the point of “Gee Officer Krupke”: that without the intention to give concrete assistance, tracing social evils is merely an academic exercise. Spielberg has so ignored the song’s warning against cheap psychologizing that when “Gee Officer Krupke” is eventually performed, it’s genuinely confusing for a minute whether the boys are being ironic, as in the original, or whether they’re actually serious in tabulating scapegoats, since the latter would seem to be more congruent to the aims of the director.

I’ve been beaten to this point, unfortunately, by Richard Brody of The New Yorker, with whom I rarely agree but who has precisely zeroed in the misguidedness of the new West Side Story:

Brody: “Spielberg… delivers the very kinds of diagnoses that the song is meant to mock—he himself Krupkifies the film. He leaves no loose ends, no ambiguities, no extravagances, no extremes. Instead, he enumerates topics and solutions dutifully and earnestly, creating a hermetic coherence seemingly rooted not in the positive shaping of drama but in the quest for plausible deniability in the court of critical opinion.”

Indeed, the “court of critical opinion” is Spielberg’s true audience, and it will surely grant him his desired approval. That’s because many who evaluate movies today perceive themselves, essentially, as academics—not academics of film, but rather academics of social forces; and for these viewers, it may well be satisfying to discover Spielberg’s “hermetic coherence,” to find that he has scrupulously supplied, if only in passing, the unseen root of each evil portrayed in the film.

Thus, the self-gratifying pontification lambasted in “Gee Officer Krupke” is sadly a dominant mode of art criticism today. Its purveyors want everything put explicitly into context: they’re interested in what’s off the screen, such as the villainous property developers, rather than what’s on it. What a strange way to watch a film!

It’s a shame that Spielberg has been caught up in trying to please these folks, because he has made, otherwise, a very good film. Several musical numbers pop. New actors and actresses give excellent performances. The set design is mostly top notch. Nevertheless, when this movie is watched fifty years from now (perhaps upon being remade again), it’ll stick out oddly for its obsession, so traceable to our current moment, with emphasizing the larger forces impacting the characters, such that every misfortune and misdeed is made to seem logical rather than dramatic. Hamlet in 2021, I’m sure, would be about a Danish hunger crisis that spurred a few innocents to murder.

Somehow I don’t think that would do well at the box office, either.

 

–Jim Andersen

For more reviews, check out my review of The Power of the Dog.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: The Power of the Dog

The Power of the Dog is a country drama that reaches back to filmmaking basics with great success, thanks to the skill and patience of its director, Jane Campion. Invoking picturesque masterpieces like Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven (1978) while at the same time injecting contemporary rage and torment, Campion has given us a revision to frontier mythos: the big tough cowboy, it turns out, maybe wasn’t so tough after all. Considering American cinema’s continued lionization of the John Waynes and Clint Eastwoods who played such characters with one-dimensional charisma, that’s an original and useful artistic statement.

The actor charged with showing us the dark, damaging side of that Western stoicism is Benedict Cumberbatch, and he’s the right man for the job. When brother George (Jesse Plemons) presumes to ask Phil Burbank (Cumberbatch) to wash up before some distinguished guests arrive for dinner, it takes him several minutes to get the words out, so scared is he (and everyone) of Phil’s reaction to being even the slightest bit insulted. It occurred to me watching this scene that I’ve never actually seen Clint Eastwood live anywhere (not permanently, anyway), nor thought about, if he did, what his housemates would think of him.

The main target of Phil’s meanness is George’s new wife Rose (Kirsten Dunst), who succumbs to alcoholism and infirmity under Phil’s ferocious psychological warfare. But why is he doing this? Why can’t he stand to have her in the house? Early on he professes that he’s taking a stand against her supposed gold digging, but no one’s buying that.

The answer, rather, appears to lie in revelations about the nature of Phil’s relationship with his deceased mentor, Bronco Henry. Rose, it seems, is a reminder to Phil of what he had, what he lost, and what he can never have again. He’s Yale educated (it’s pointedly emphasized) and thus free to make a living elsewhere, but he wants to be alone with his thoughts on this ranch, and Rose has unwittingly invaded the isolation he’s crafted for himself. In this portrayal, then, the stoicism of the Western hero doesn’t lead to loneliness, as The Searchers (1956) or Unforgiven (1992) would have it; rather, stoicism is an intentional technique to preserve loneliness—for reasons likely dark and ugly.

Campion only falters in her final act, when Rose’s son Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) becomes the focal point. This isn’t quite up to par with the rest of the film, partly because Peter, who is awkward and skinny—the cowboys yell “faggot,” in case the perception wasn’t clear—isn’t as compelling a character as Phil or Rose. Mostly, though, it’s because the hard logic of Peter’s plan departs from the unruly emotional torment that had dominated the earlier sections and provided the main interest of the film. Campion, I think, knows her material is weaker here, judging by the rushed pace of the last few minutes: she knows Phil was more interesting when he was running the show.

Overall, I’m a fan of this movie: what critic wouldn’t be? It delivers on the technical merits—acting, cinematography, structure of screenplay—, it has interesting symbolism (Bronco Henry taught Phil how to ride…and how to do other things), and it looks toward classic films for inspiration while providing interesting criticism of those same films.

I have my qualms: the weaker final act, why George disappeared for nearly the entire film, why Rose was able to access a seemingly unlimited supply of whiskey, why Phil didn’t take revenge for Peter discovering his hideout. But most of these are minor complaints. The Power of the Dog is old school, character-based filmmaking from a thoughtful and experienced director.

 

— Jim Andersen

For more movie reviews, check out my review of Belfast.

Categories
Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Belfast

It’s hard not to love Belfast, the coming of age drama that follows young Buddy (Jude Hill) and his family through political upheaval and violence in Northern Ireland in the 1960’s. Written and directed by Kenneth Branagh, the film is notable for its excellent black and white cinematography, some wonderfully subdued but powerful performances, and its coverage of interesting historical terrain.

Ultimately, Belfast is a film about how family works, and it has a lot to say on the subject. A surprisingly large number of Buddy’s kin receive their dues in nuanced characterization, thanks to Branagh’s wise yet emotional screenwriting. By movie’s end we’ve been presented with what feels like a complete portrait of three Irish generations.

I found especially compelling Buddy’s older brother, who receives comparatively little screen time but whom Buddy always seems to be watching with great interest. He’s more introverted than Buddy and tends to react sourly to Buddy’s antics, but he appears to have an inner strength and resilience that Buddy initially lacks. Slowly, though, Buddy comes to emulate his brother, such that by the end of the film Buddy has become far more stoic toward the chaos around him, in part by following his brother’s example.

In fact, Buddy seems to absorb something from each of his loving family by movie’s end, and this may be where the interest lies in re-watching: how does the nature of Buddy’s personal growth trace back to interactions and observations with his separate family members?

While the bond of family may be powerful, Branagh shows us that it can be disrupted by a community out of control. In my favorite scene, Buddy is coerced into joining a gang of looters who destroy a supermarket. When he proudly returns home with a stolen box of cereal, clueless about what he’s done, his Ma (Caitriona Balfe) is having none of it and drags him back to return the stolen item.

In a typical film, this episode might end there, presented as an admirable and humorous example of tough parenting—but not in this one, as the anti-Catholic looters won’t allow the mother and son to return the cereal, and instead the situation becomes gravely dangerous. The wild spectacle of Buddy’s Ma attempting and failing to teach a traditional moral lesson amidst a backdrop of viciousness and amorality makes this moment stick in the mind long afterward.

It’s useful to compare Belfast to Jojo Rabbit (review here), the Best Picture nominee from two years ago with a nearly identical premise. Belfast, of course, is the better film by light years, but it sometimes veers too close to the unwelcome whimsy of its predecessor. For instance, Buddy, like Jojo before him, is a bit too precious, his character needlessly losing some believability in the name of cuteness. And also like Jojo, Buddy has an extravagantly tolerant, sagelike, speechmaking parent: his Pa (Jamie Dornan). A deus ex machina moment at Belfast’s climax and the Van Morrison soundtrack that hints at fun that nobody appears to be having, recall Jojo Rabbit by sapping gravitas from key sequences.

Nevertheless, the craft of Belfast bolsters it to the cream of this year’s crop, and if it wins the Oscar for Best Picture, as some predict it will, it’ll be a far worthier choice than last year’s Nomadland or even the prior year’s Parasite. I’m skeptical it has the power of a permanent classic, because, for all its great insight into family dynamics, it can’t quite look at its historical material head on: it retreats to a child’s ignorance when convenient, substituting feel-good lessons for the authentic images—however ghastly—we deserve. Branagh’s Belfast can be mentioned in the same sentence as Schindler’s List (1993), but Spielberg showed us his atrocities, whereas in Belfast we only hear of them.

Are children are too innocent to see death and gore? No. The slightly too innocent one, sadly, is Branagh.

 

— Jim Andersen

For more old reviews, see my rankings of the 2020 Best Picture nominees.

Categories
Movies Explained

The Master Explained

No viewer can be blamed for coming away from Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master (2012) confused. But fear not, because Movies Up Close is about to thoroughly explore the thematic meaning of this intricate work of cinematic art. The following essay will explain the motivations of the film’s two main characters, the friendship between them, and, of course, the cryptic ending.

Our story begins with Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a soldier in World War II. Freddie is socially isolated from his rowdy mates, and when he finally joins the fray, he makes everyone uncomfortable by miming sex acts on a sand sculpture and masturbating into the ocean. Relatedly, when he undergoes psychological testing for employment placement, he interprets every inkblot as male or female genitalia, again indicating an abnormal sexual obsessiveness. And this mysterious issue hinders him from successfully rejoining postwar society: the day after passing out on a dinner date from drinking too much, he takes out his sexual frustration on an unsuspecting customer and promptly loses his photography job.

Why does Freddie have this problem with sex and women? The answer is soon unearthed by Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the leader of a scientology-like cult known as The Cause. During an intense “Processing” question-and-answer session, Dodd gets Freddie to admit that he was sexually molested by his Auntie Bertha as a child. Such a traumatic early experience would be the very thing that would leave one emotionally stunted as an adult in the manner that Freddie displays.

Dodd also discovers that Freddie killed Japanese soldiers during Naval combat, indicating that Freddie’s war experience was perhaps uncommonly intense and violent. The revelation of this additional trauma provides insight into why Freddie, in addition to his issues with women, engages in aggressive physical outbursts throughout the film. A prescient official, in fact, warns the outgoing soldiers that due to their experiences, their reintegration with society may not be perfectly smooth:

Official: “There will be people on the outside who will not understand the condition you men have. Some may think it a rather shameful condition. If the average civilian had been through the same stresses that you have been through, undoubtedly they too would develop the same nervous conditions.”

This connection between traumatic experiences and individuals’ maladaptive behaviors is well recognized today. And it’s to Dodd’s credit that he’s able to hone in on the crucial internal sources of Freddie’s outward issues. But he veers off course in applying the information he extracts. As a typical example, he lectures to Freddie raging in his prison cell: “Your fear of capture and imprisonment is an implant from millions of years ago…. Your spirit was free for a moment, then it was captured by an invader force bent on turning you to the darkest ways.”

Now, these ramblings are kind of similar to the contemporary understanding of the effects of trauma. After all, Dodd is attributing human problems to prior experiences that have pernicious and unexpectedly far-reaching consequences. And he encourages members to open their minds so that they may relive these events, thereby wrestling free of their stifling grips—a practice that evokes conventional Freudian theory.

But although Dodd may be commended for generally understanding an important psychological truth, his eccentricity and grandiosity have warped the concept into a bizarre, laughable dogma. When a cynic challenges him at a party, Dodd sputters that his methods can cure leukemia and that the world is trillions of years old.

Despite the flaws in his methods, Dodd’s grasp on trauma and its significance is enough to hook the aimless and desperate Freddie. Although Freddie admits in his first Processing session that he had initially perceived Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) as “fools,” this view changes dramatically after a few more sessions. The pivotal moment occurs when Dodd encourages Freddie to revisit the memory of his former girlfriend Doris, whom Freddie abruptly left to go to sea, a memory that haunts him with regret and shame. From flashbacks we can infer that Freddie’s aforementioned childhood sexual trauma was likely a major contributor to his sudden departure: Freddie and Doris, too, have a wide gap in age, and Freddie is seen to become uncomfortable upon realizing this.

After the Processing is over, Dodd asks Freddie how he feels, and Freddie replies with noticeable relief: “I feel good.” Dodd in turn supplies impressive compassion: “You are the bravest boy I have ever met,” leading Freddie to crack a wide smile. From this moment on, Freddie becomes viciously loyal to Dodd. Thus, by giving Freddie a precious forum to confront his many traumas, Dodd converts Freddie into a fierce supporter.

Despite being a loyal soldier of The Cause, though, Freddie doesn’t really understand most of what Dodd says. In fact, several scenes demonstrate that Freddie’s own behavior contradicts or disproves Dodd’s ideas. For example, Freddie is made to listen to a tape that insists, “Man is not an animal,” but, far from absorbing this high-minded mantra, he instead passes a note to a woman that reads: “Do you want to fuck?” In a separate scene, Dodd strikes up a rendition of an old-timey singalong, but Freddie, rather than enjoy the folksiness of Dodd’s performance, imagines every woman present completely nude.

Since Freddie’s behavior is so at odds with the values of The Cause, most of the members, especially Peggy, don’t like him very much. But Dodd won’t get rid of him. In fact, it seems that Dodd is actually drawn to the very characteristics in Freddie that he outwardly denounces as “animal”-like.

For example, when Freddie farts during processing and laughs, Dodd can’t help but be amused, and he admits, “Laughing is good during processing. Even if it is the sound of an animal.” When Freddie hunts down and beats up Dodd’s cynical challenger—an alarming turn of events—Dodd merely scolds Freddie as a “naughty boy” and takes no corrective action, a clear condoning of the act. And when Freddie returns from prison and the two reconcile, they wrestle on the lawn laughing, a rowdy scene at odds with Dodd’s usual emphasis on cultivated manners.

The two also bond over their love for alcohol. Of course, it’s no surprise that Freddie, a damaged individual, would be drawn to drinking as a way to calm his inner demons. When Dodd asks him what’s in his highly potent concoctions, Freddie responds, “secrets,” underscoring that he uses alcohol to quiet the sort of private, painful memories that Dodd uncovers in Processing. It may be surprising, then, that Dodd, who contrastingly doesn’t share traumatic or harmful memories during the film, also favors drinking—but perhaps it shouldn’t be. After all, Dodd is fairly unstable himself, sharing Freddie’s tendency toward volatile outbursts (“Pig fuck!”). Perhaps his inventing of The Cause reflects a yearning to confront a difficult, hidden past of his own.

Regardless, Dodd certainly sees himself in Freddie, and when his family pressures him to drop Freddie for good, he instead ratchets up the treatment with new methods to prove that The Cause is for real. These methods are strange to say the least, involving such tactics as Peggy reading erotica to Freddie, as well as Clark taunting Freddie with sensitive personal details that were documented during earlier Processing sessions.

The goal is for Freddie not to react to what is presented to him, thereby proving his distance from animalistic “negative emotions.” These scenes, in fact, are reminiscent of the sequence in A Clockwork Orange (1971) when Alex is subjected to provocative stimuli to prove that his impulses have been stamped out of him—except Freddie hasn’t undergone the Ludovico Technique, and it shows.

To be fair, Freddie does achieve some eventual success in controlling his behavior during the new sessions. But concurrent flashbacks indicate that even in these instances, he’s actually experiencing quite a lot of emotion. For example, when Clark bitingly suggests that Freddie belongs “away from people” like his mother, who resides in an asylum, Freddie involuntarily recalls a cold, lonely night, smoking a cigarette on the deck during the war.

Another prominent new treatment method is to have Freddie walk back and forth in the study, with Dodd encouraging him to use his imagination when interacting with the wooden panel and the window. At first Freddie is frustrated at the inanity of this pointless task, but, forced to repeat it over and over, he eventually uses the time to imagine himself having sex with Doris, which Dodd dubiously considers a success.

The point of this extended treatment montage is that Freddie is deriving less benefit from The Cause’s methods than before. Yes, he’s still recounting emotional moments from the past, as he did during the early Processing sessions, thereby providing some form of the catharsis that initially hooked him. But this is mostly despite, not because of The Cause’s methods, which are becoming increasingly mangled by the eccentric beliefs of Dodd and his family, dampening any positive effect that might be achieved.

For example, Clark’s taunting causes Freddie to recall dark memories, but Dodd discourages Freddie from reacting to them, diminishing any therapeutic benefit. Freddie can sense that it isn’t working, wondering out loud several times how the odd activities Dodd prescribes are going to help him—a far cry from his initial enthusiasm for basic “Processing” with Dodd.

So it’s no surprise that when The Cause travels to Phoenix for its first conference, Freddie doesn’t appear improved in the slightest, predictably assaulting an editor who opines that Dodd’s new book “stinks.” In addition, subtle visual clues during the conference indicate that following his barrage of mostly ineffective treatment, Freddie is losing faith in The Cause.

For instance, Freddie is seen struggling to appreciate Dodd’s keynote speech at the conference, whereas formerly, he appeared to enjoy Dodd’s oration. He appears particularly miffed by Dodd’s privileging of “laughter” as the “secret to living in these bodies that we hold”—likely recalling that in their first Processing session together, Dodd referred to laughter somewhat dismissively, calling it “good” but still “the sound of an animal.” And after fighting with the editor outside, Freddie sits down and puts his head in his hands, appearing tormented by the possibility that the man’s offending view of Dodd as a “garbled, twisted mystic” is in fact accurate.

Having thusly outgrown The Cause, Freddie takes his recovery into his own hands. He has apparently concluded that he feels better upon confronting painful memories, as he did in simple Processing, rather than upon blocking out emotions, as the later techniques emphasized. So he departs suddenly during the “Pick a Point” game with the aim of finally reuniting with Doris. This is a major step for him, and it’s perhaps a testament to Dodd’s work that Freddie has built up the confidence to do it, since, as previously mentioned, his leaving Doris had been a source of shame for him. Unfortunately, Freddie has taken far too long: Doris is now married with children.

Freddie’s reaction to this news, however, is heartening to watch. He’s sad, of course, and his awkward mannerisms are as prominent as ever, but overall he takes it in stride. He confirms with Doris’s mother that Doris was upset when he left seven years ago, making sure that his memories of a mutual romance weren’t illusory. His conclusion is admirable: “She’s happy, and that’s good.” And at the end of his conversation with Doris’s mother, he asks how her husband is doing, a surprisingly well related gesture. It seems that revisiting this key moment in his life has indeed helped heal his wounds somewhat, and has afforded him some degree of calm.

But now we reach the movie’s final act, and this is where things get truly difficult.

Freddie is summoned by Dodd to The Cause’s new school in England, where we see that Dodd is not doing well. He’s housed in a huge office that resembles, surely symbolically, a church with no congregation.

And Peggy, seated creepily in the shadows to his left, preempts him by grilling Freddie herself, suggesting that she, not Dodd, is truly in charge now. This isn’t too surprising given Peggy’s earlier zealotry and manipulation of Dodd: she dictates propaganda for her husband to disseminate (“We must always attack”) and gives him a matter-of-fact hand job to diminish any extramarital urges that could weaken The Cause. She had always been a driving force behind the scenes; now she runs the show.

Dodd’s dialogue to Freddie subsequent to Peggy’s leaving the room demonstrates that he isn’t enjoying the England iteration of The Cause. Tied to an institutional location for the first time and smothered by Peggy’s influence, he expresses jealousy over Freddie’s comparative freedom and pines for a life with no “master”:

Dodd: Free winds and no tyranny for you? Freddie, sailor of the seas. You pay no rent, free to go where you please… Good luck. For if you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know. For you would be the first in the history of the world.

So while Peggy sneers at Freddie, “This isn’t fashion,” Dodd’s speech suggests that, in fact, that’s exactly what it had been to him. Dodd had styled himself as “the Master,” but now that he isn’t, it isn’t fun anymore. Sitting at a lonely desk with his wife whispering in his ear, he’s lost the former twinkle in his eye; his growing responsibilities have dimmed the magic of his charisma. This claustrophobic frustration can be traced all the way back to the Phoenix conference, when Dodd explodes at Helen, who questions some of the language in his new book: “What do you want from me?!”

That Dodd is frustrated by his increasing responsibilities is significant, because this directly contrasts with Freddie’s attitude. Whereas Dodd apparently seeks freedom from obligation, Freddie craves the feeling of connection. He doesn’t want to be an untethered “sailor of the seas,” as Dodd idealizes, perhaps since he has already experienced this lifestyle, and it didn’t go well. He wants to belong to a place and a person.

It seems undeniable that this is the more sustainable goal, as even Dodd professes to understand that, in truth, no man can go without serving “any master.” Thus, not only has Freddie outgrown The Cause, but he has now outgrown Dodd, who can’t bear the ordinariness of everyday life and whose own movement has failed to deliver him the total freedom he desired. Perhaps all along Dodd was drawn to Freddie for his apparent transcendence of mundane daily duties; however, Freddie desired no such thing.

Given his discontentment, Dodd implicitly discourages Freddie from returning, believing that Freddie is better off on his own. Before they part, he spins an absurd yarn of the two men working together with the Pigeon Post in a past life. It’s detailed and dramatic, the kind of compelling fabrication that Dodd used to deliver so routinely. But now he’s reduced to announcing it quietly from his desk, and it’s clear to both men that things aren’t what they once were.

A pivotal moment then occurs. Freddie states his intention to leave and makes a winking jab at Dodd: maybe he’ll stay with Dodd “in the next life.” Dodd maintains his poker face, but the comical bravado of his response belies that he’s in on Freddie’s joke: “If I see you in the next life, you will be my sworn enemy, and I will show you no mercy.” Freddie laughs in reply, and Dodd smiles wryly.

This exchange is a brief mutual recognition between the two friends that The Cause’s dogma is merely Dodd’s fantastical invention. As Dodd’s son Val (Jesse Plemons) had stated in an earlier scene, Dodd is “making this up as he goes along.” With Freddie departing, Dodd momentarily tips his (empty) hand.

Dodd concludes the meeting by suddenly singing “Slow Boat to China,” which for many viewers is a mystery too far. But since we’ve analyzed the full conversation thoroughly, we can see that this is just another example of Dodd communicating through his characteristically flourishing rhetoric that he has grown unhappy, and that he wishes he could travel away freely with Freddie. As we’ve stated, this is solely Dodd’s fantasy: Freddie wants to rejoin society, not escape it. Nevertheless, Freddie is also emotional during Dodd’s performance, as he, too, likely misses the bond that the two shared before The Cause increasingly interfered.

After all, Dodd was responsible for first encouraging Freddie to relive some of the traumatic experiences that had damaged him so badly, and for supporting him along the way (“You are the bravest boy I have ever met”), ultimately setting Freddie on the long path to fighting back some of his demons and becoming a functioning member of society again.

As proof of Freddie’s progress, after leaving Dodd he picks up a girl in a pub, and they have casual, normal sex—certainly an impossibility for Freddie before meeting Dodd. And to emphasize Dodd’s contribution, Freddie is shown repeating some of very questions Dodd posed in their early Processing sessions, perhaps trying to seduce this woman in the same way Dodd, as it were, seduced him: by encouraging open, honest dialogue about any subject. And it seems to be…kind of working.

Finally, we see a flashback of Freddie laying down next to the sand woman from the beginning of the film. What is the meaning of this image?

It conveys that Freddie, after all this time, has finally achieved what he desperately wanted from the start: a female companion. Previously, his jarring experiences from childhood and the war had left him unable to interact in a properly calibrated way in society; but after years with Dodd, unhelpful and bizarre though much of that time was, he goes to bed happy with a woman—who isn’t made of sand.

Let’s return to the opening shot of The Master. We see the ship’s wake: turbulent, strong, vast. This image, which recurs numerous times, summarizes Paul Thomas Anderson’s incredible film, which is about trauma—the “wake” of destructive, devastating events—and the lengths individuals will go to heal it. Freddie Quell, to quiet his own accrued demons, goes to war, leaves the love of his life, drinks paint thinner, joins a cult based on science fiction silliness, physically attacks the cult’s enemies, and subjects himself to ridiculous and even dangerous therapeutic methods.

The Master therefore provides insight into many of the seemingly bizarre things that humans do and try; after all, to “quell” the torturous pain of trauma, anything is fair game. And after several years, Freddie is in fact able to rejoin society and live independently, thanks to the one true kernel in all of The Cause’s teachings: that the only way to heal the effects of trauma is to courageously confront the events themselves.

 

— Jim Andersen

More movies explained: The Big Lebowski

Categories
Commentary and Essays

How the Worst Movie of the Decade Came to Be

We’re safely into the 2020s now, so I don’t think it’s jumping the gun to look back on the previous decade and contemplate its cinematic output. For example: what’s the best film of the 2010s? I personally suspect it’s The Tree of Life (2011), but I’m also partial to Moonlight (2016) and Under The Skin (2013), and there’s certainly no shortage of admirers for Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or Get Out (2017), among many others.

The worst film of the decade? That’s easy.

Tom Hooper’s 2019 adaptation of Cats is not only the biggest flop of the 2010s, but has a decent claim to being the biggest movie flop of all time. The pre-release hype for Cats was insane, and for good reason: the cast may well be the most exciting group of stars ever assembled for a single picture. A-listers in their primes like Idris Elba and Jennifer Hudson had signed on. Veritable acting legends like Judi Dench and Ian McKellan were committed. Hot comedians like Rebel Wilson and James Cordon promised to add levity. And even chart-topping musicians like Jason Derulo and Taylor Swift agreed to play significant roles.

With such abundance of diverse talents, what could go wrong? Oh, everything?

The word that best summarizes Cats is “disturbing.” Cats is not merely a disappointing film; it’s a film that misses its mark so badly that its ostensible aim—of providing a whimsical good time—is completely buried by the movie’s end. We not only don’t have a good time, but we seriously wonder whether the filmmakers truly wanted us to: whether they didn’t, in fact, intend for their creation to be eerie, unsettling, and grotesque.

These adjectives are primarily attributable to the film’s most egregious mistake: the decision to use motion capture animation to creepily meld the actors with cat bodies, turning them into…what, exactly? Not cats, since cats don’t walk on two legs or have ballerina cheekbones. But not humans, either, since humans don’t have furry bellies and don’t strut around totally naked.

When I saw this film, the nudity issue rattled me for the entire runtime. The handling of clothing in Cats is baffling: most of the cats don’t wear clothes at all, which makes sense, because they’re cats; but some of them, especially the major characters, do wear clothes—but then during a dance, they might dramatically take the clothes off, giving the alarming impression that they’re completely exposing themselves. And some of the actors’ dancing exacerbates the issue: Rebel Wilson, for example, brings her usual brand of physical comedy, throwing her weight around in striptease-type poses—but there’s a problem with this, because her character has no clothes on to enable the tease! There’s nothing to tease when there’s nothing to hide! There’s also nothing to tease when you’re a cat, or at least the teasing shouldn’t consist of the same poses, since cats don’t have the same features or sex characteristics as humans do. The dance sequences (Wilson’s in particular) viscerally repulsive for a reason: they make no visual sense.

In the stage version, actors wearing crazy makeup and wild costumes parade around, and, as in the movie adaptation, there are sexual overtones throughout. But sexual overtones are fine when we’re watching people in costumes, because the humanness allows us to still relate to what we’re seeing. Humans can still be sexy when they’re dressed as animals. But when the characters have been turned by a computer into actual animals, things suddenly become gross: there’s a crucial boundary that separates kinky fun from an episode of Planet Earth, and this movie crosses it. Or worse, sits on it.

The faces aren’t much more watchable than the bodies. At times, for instance, it’s clear that we’re no longer viewing motion capture animation but rather extremely sloppy CGI that has pasted the actors’ faces on to stunt doubles’ limber, catified bodies. Munkustrap (Robbie Fairchild), especially, often looks like a product of the same technology that created Annoying Orange. How was this allowed to stand through postproduction?

Another unforced CGI error is that the cats fluctuate wildly in size throughout the film in comparison to their backdrops. The number “Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat” is one of the better sequences in the film, but it’s marred by the apparent shrink ray that has suddenly brought the characters to approximately the size of mice. Speaking of mice, there are some in the film, but based on what we can see, they’re closer in size to bugs. They’re also played by children, and Wilson’s character implicitly threatens to…eat them if they don’t dance correctly. The child actors seem a little too genuinely scared of this possibility.

Let’s take a step back and talk about Andrew Lloyd Weber’s original Broadway version of Cats, which, to be fair to Tom Hooper, doesn’t exactly lend itself to box office dynamism. For one, Weber’s plot is largely nonexistent, consisting only of a vague contest to determine which cat goes to some sort of cat heaven, allowing the characters to sing about themselves and each other for the duration of the play. But this has the potential to work onstage, because singing and dancing alone can thrill us when we’re up close to the performers in person. Movies can’t offer that type of thrill, making Cats an especially difficult experience to adapt for the cinema.

Hooper, though, was still riding high in 2019 following the success of his 2012 adaptation of Les Miserables, also previously a landmark stage musical. For that film, Hooper had been trusted with an ensemble cast of top talent, and he scored big: Les Miserables was a box office smash and critically acclaimed. It earned Hugh Jackman a Best Actor nomination and Anne Hathaway an Oscar win for Best Supporting Actress. On top of that, let’s not forget that back in 2010, Hooper managed to nab Colin Firth a Best Actor victory for The King’s Speech, as well as a (ridiculously undeserved) Best Picture win and Best Director win for himself.

To those who say that Academy Awards aren’t as important to actors as they used to be, I give you…Cats. Because it’s fairly clear that the general feeling was that if Hooper could get Hathaway—who in 2012 was most known for The Princess Diaries and playing a forgettable Catwoman—an Oscar, and if he could get Hugh Jackman of Wolverine fame a nomination, too, and if he could defeat The Social Network for Best Picture in 2010 (nice one, Academy), then, well, what couldn’t he do for his next batch of stars?

They all saw, of course, Hathaway’s Oscar acceptance speech for Les Miserables. Many casual viewers saw it, too, and didn’t like it: her suspiciously breathless, awestruck delivery helped spark a fairly widespread backlash against her that persists to this day. The clip forcibly reminds me, at least, of Eve Harrington, the titular character from the classic film All About Eve (1950) who engages in cutthroat behavior to achieve her ambition of acting stardom. Eve accepts an achievement award and is subsequently criticized by the other characters, who have learned to see through her façade of graciousness. But famously, the film ends with a young woman posing in the mirror with Eve’s award after the ceremony, apparently dreaming of attaining Eve’s success—and implying that she, like Eve, will do anything to reach it. So although the other characters do condemn Eve’s phoniness and masquerading, many remain enamored by her studied affectation.

How prescient. As All About Eve portrays, the allure of acting glory can be irresistible to some. And for them, it didn’t matter that Cats’ source material didn’t have a plot or that the visual concept for the film clearly hadn’t been thought through: if Mia Thermopolis could be on that stage gushing oh-so-humble thank you’s, then, dammit, they could, too! The talent swarmed in. And Universal Pictures, eagerly awaiting the surefire windfall—after all, the Broadway Cats’ fan base was far larger than Les Miserables’ had been—readily paid up for the big names.

Well, Universal lost a reported $114 million. Impressive. But the cast members were hit, too: each one of them will live with the mistake forever. I’ve noticed that critics and casual fans alike when discussing this movie have a habit of trying to rescue their favorite star from its wreckage: “Well, Taylor Swift was pretty good, at least!” “James Cordon was kind of funny!” “Idris Elba tried the best he could!” Admirable tries, but no. The “best they could” would have been to avoid this film and go do something with lesser fanfare that would have been worthy of their various gifts. But they got greedy, and now this clip and this clip and this clip and this clip are at everyone’s fingertips indefinitely. I can’t help but notice that Taylor Swift, for one, hasn’t been quite as ubiquitous since her contribution to Cats—the aura of infallibility has been wiped away.

I think Jennifer Hudson, though, in the coveted role of Grizabella the Glamour Cat, fares worst of all. In an alternate universe where Cats was good and won awards, Hudson would have been first in line; after all, she gets the chance to lend her considerable vocal abilities to “Memory,” which is the climax of the story and one of the greatest numbers in Broadway history.

But Hudson comes up incredibly flat. In the stage version of Cats, Grizabella has dignity and grandeur, trying and failing multiple times to rejoin the tribe that ostracized her, until she summons the courage (aided by the young cat Jemima) to sing “Memory,” summarizing her lonely experience. But in the movie version, inexplicably, Grizabella repeatedly slinks away from the Jellicles and has to be dragged into the contest by Victoria (Francesca Hayward), who then prods her to sing her famous melody. In accordance with this new approach to the character, Hudson’s acting performance is mopey, meek, and helpless; and her performance of “Memory” reflects none of the resilience and grit that make the song so famous.

For instance, the stage play’s signature moment is a faltering Grizabella mustering the strength to pick herself off the ground and belt out the final verse (wow!), but Hooper maddeningly decides instead to have Victoria physically help Grizabella off the ground, such that the lyrics of the ensuing verse—“TOUCH ME!”—no longer make any sense. Um, she just touched you, Grizabella. Calm down.

So yes, it’s Hooper who’s ultimately responsible for Hudson’s awful performance. But the performance is what it is, and it’s still awful. You don’t get to take the credit for the successes while blaming the director for the failures.

Hooper won’t get off scot-free, though. He may have been behind the camera and thus hidden from the public outcry, but Hollywood is a small world. When studio executives, sore from their huge monetary loss, and noteworthy actors, fearful of being caught up in the next pop cultural trainwreck , inevitably turn down his next big idea, I imagine he might feel a little bit like Grizabella the Glamour Cat: yearning for better days of popularity and adoration, shut out of the party he once energized.

I wonder if he’ll realize then that being unwanted doesn’t make snot come out of your nose.

 

—Jim Andersen

For related criticism, see my analysis of the flawed Slumdog Millionaire.

Categories
Commentary and Essays

The Greatest Slasher Movie Ever

Originally published October 2021

It’s almost Halloween, which means ‘tis the season for “slasher” flicks, the movies about insane killers murdering dumb, attractive teenagers.

The slasher formula is actually a little more complicated than that but still has some instantly recognizable tropes:

  1. A group of teens or young adults who typically wander into an eerie, remote area
  2. A killer, usually masked but not always, who kills off the kids in succession, often using a knife or other brutal means
  3. A “final girl” who outlasts the others and may ultimately overcome the killer
  4. A pattern in which the characters who have sex are typically murdered shortly afterward; by extension, the final girl is often a virgin

So which films fit the bill? In my view, these are the staples:

  • Friday the 13th (1980)
  • Halloween (1978)
  • The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Later hits like Child’s Play (1988) and Scream (1996) would use slasher elements, too, but with modern twists or alterations. And each of the four films I listed spawned several sequels, all with the same basic premise.

The big question, then: which slasher film is king? To me, there’s no contest:

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the best slasher movie ever made, and not only that; it’s one of the most terrifying movies of all time, a true American masterpiece. I didn’t bother to see it until recently, because I had inferred by its title that it would be a simple, mindless gore-fest not worth the time. If you’re of similar thinking right now, you’re wrong, and you need to watch this incredibly dark, disturbing movie, which actually isn’t gory at all.

You’ll notice that TCSM, directed by Tobe Hooper, is chronologically the earliest of the four movies I listed; it can therefore be said that it “invented” the slasher genre. It may not be surprising, then, that it’s superior to the others: the original is usually the best. Of course, prior landmarks like Psycho (1960) influenced TCSM heavily, so it’s not as if TCSM’s aesthetics appeared out of thin air. But it crystallized the concept, in particular, of a relentless, masked killer picking off teenagers, and apparently, it did so memorably enough that endless franchises and box office revenues were to follow in its wake.

The second best film of the four I listed is Halloween, a great film in its own right due to excellent craftsmanship, solid acting, and a classic score. But the key difference between Halloween and TCSM is that TCSM seems to suggest a broad, expansive horror just beneath the surface of normal American life, while Halloween treats its bloodshed as only an aberration. Michael Myers is so wildly demonic that he scares even a seasoned forensic psychologist and is repeatedly compared to the Boogeyman. TCSM‘s Leatherface, on the other hand, seems only to have a developmental disability and a sadistic family. Who do you think you’re more likely to run into?

Many have noticed that the film appears to contain a statement of sorts about animal cruelty: Leatherface and the Sawyer family treat their victims as mere animals ready for butchering. This pushes us to reconsider these practices. I’d add that this conceit is also inherently frightening in that it allows Hooper to question how much higher, evolutionarily, we really are than the animals we eat. After all, before Leatherface arrives, the gang of teens is mostly preoccupied with sex and isn’t very kind to a member of their group in a wheelchair, at one point carelessly allowing him to fall on his face while he tries to urinate. Is Leatherface on to something by treating us like mere beasts?

Now that’s a scary thought.

The issue of resenting sex is an interesting one in TCSM, especially since its many knockoffs, especially Friday the 13th, would center it so obviously. What’s notable about TCSM’s treatment of the topic is that the first person to express jealousy or resentment isn’t one of the villains but rather Franklin, the wheelchair-bound boy who can’t partake in the shenanigans of the others.

This jealousy is only echoed later by the Sawyers, all of whom are male and defer to a barely-alive patriarch, and who clearly enjoy watching women suffer, judging by their treatment of Sally at dinner. The Sawyers’ boorish jeering recalls Franklin’s show of sarcastic anger with his peers when they leave him downstairs at the old house. And Leatherface, like Franklin, appears to have a disability. Is the fact that we can’t see the killer’s real face a subliminal way of linking him with Franklin?

Again, these sorts of ideas create more terror than a simple Boogeyman does.

But I think the key insight into the film’s themes involves industry and capitalism. The hitchhiker early in the film reports that technological advances have led to job losses in the slaughterhouse, meaning, like Norman Bates, whose interstate moved away, the Sawyer family has been cut off from American prosperity, stranded in a dilapidated rural wasteland—the water hole metaphorically dried up. We may not think much about what happens to people like this, but Hooper, like Hitchcock before him, has thought about it, and he’s concluded, like his predecessor: very possibly, madness.

The Sawyers are very clearly a nightmarish rendition of the average American family. They show us our own folksy customs mangled by poverty and isolation. For example, the dad—if he is the dad; it’s never confirmed—chatters amiably to a bound Sally in the car while also laughing maniacally and beating her with a stick. The hitchhiker acts out and talks back like a typical deadbeat son—while simultaneously torturing Sally at the dinner table. To complete the nuclear family, Leatherface is made to dress up as a housewife.

The point seems to be that our traditions and culture, which we take such comfort in, are entirely corruptible given the wrong circumstances. And TCSM subtly suggests that depraved crimes are occurring all over: we hear stories over the radio of nasty deeds, not all of which could have been committed by the Sawyers. And why wouldn’t there be similar families? The Sawyers can’t be the only ones cut off from prosperity due to technological changes.

TCSM ends in spectacular fashion, with Sally riding away on the back of a pickup truck and Leatherface raging (dancing?) with his chainsaw as the sun rises. This final image grants him the aesthetic grandeur that he deserves. The symbolism of the rising sun is open to interpretation, but I view it, circa 1974 following Vietnam and Watergate, as a warning from Hooper that there’s a new day in America, and the Leatherfaces of the country, out for blood and swinging savagely, are going to be a part of it. Watching the scene in our current era of politics only heightens the resonance.

So don’t let the campiness and predictability of the slasher genre that formed years after the release of this film lead you to dismiss it. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a rightful classic with a disturbing, uncomfortable view of the American way, and there’s no better time to watch it than this fall season. Happy Halloween!

 

–Jim Andersen

For more analyses, check out my look at the visuals of Avatar.