The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2022: A New Leaf (1971), directed by Elaine May

 

The Trailer

and

The Appropriate Tune: 'A New Leaf' by Jimmy Reed

       Elaine May isn’t really a household name these days, but that certainly isn’t for lack of talent. At one time, that being the 1950’s, you could even call her cutting edge, as she and her Mike Nichols took the burgeoning world of TV by storm with their heavily satirical, largely improvisational sketch comedy. When the team broke up May would still have a presence in TV and theater, but most importantly for this blog she would also move into the movie business. Originally just an actor, she would quickly move into the writing game, and even get a shot at directing a couple times as well. Sometimes that didn’t end up too well, like the infamous Warren Beatty/Dustin Hoffman flop Ishtar that put the nail in the coffin of her directorial career for good, but she also co-wrote Labyrinth so let’s see what else she’s got in the tank.

       Released in 1971, A New Leaf was written and directed by Elaine May and produced by Hillard Elkins, Howard W. Koch and Joseph Manduke, based on the short story “The Green Heart” by Jack Ritchie. Walter Matthau, the world’s youngest senior citizen, stars as Henry Graham, an unrepentant trust fund leech that has just recently learned that he is completely broke. With no skills or ambitions Graham is horrified to discover that the only hope he has to continue his life of luxury is to get married, but as long as he murders his wife after the money is secured then it shouldn’t be an issue. After some searching he stumbles upon Ms. Henrietta Lowell (Elaine May), a clumsy and bookish botany professor with no relatives and a big fat bank account, and immediately gets started on his devious plot. Who knew that both marriage and murder could be such hard work?

       We’ve covered another comedic film about spousal murder earlier on this list, Danny Devito’s The War of the Roses, and I’d say the main point of difference between the two is in the tone. War of the Roses is about the end of a relationship, and the increasingly petty and insane ways they try to get rid of each other. A New Leaf is about the start of a relationship, and a man so labor-averse and so disinterested in other people that he’s willing to murder a wife he barely knows being forced into so much work in order to achieve his goal. Both have elements of gallows humor but Roses is of a negative bent, while Leaf is a positive one, and between the two I find the latter far more entertaining. Not that I can’t enjoy cynical humor, I just find more enjoyment out of seeing someone confident in their own abilities suffer because of those same abilities. It’s the same reason I’ve watched more Wile E. Coyote cartoons than I’ve watched episodes of Rick & Morty.

       Also similar to Roses is the fact that this film is built on the strength of the leads. I roasted Walter Matthau a little bit before but he is really damn good here, gifted with a Leslie Neilsen-like ability to play the fool with utter sincerity. Elaine May’s Henrietta is far from a high-society beauty, she’s a frumpy homebody with the hand eye coordination of Mr. Bean. The two don’t make for a Hollywood romance, and that’s what makes it work.

       A New Leaf gets the recommendation. It’s a little devious, a little silly, and as a comedy from the early 70s the humor holds up a lot better than I thought it would. Married couples are an obvious target, but I think that anyone who is a fan of the golden age revival comedies like Mouse Hunt or Brain Donors would also appreciate A New Leaf, although the humor is primarily dialogue based rather than slapstick. Maybe John Hughes fans as well, although those are far less farcical. In any case, it’s certainly given me incentive to engage with more of Elaine May’s films, and I hope it eventually does the same for you.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2018: Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971), directed by Don Taylor

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Born to Run", by Bruce Springsteen

     In 1968, 20th century Fox released a Franklin J. Schaffner-directed film written by Rod Serling based on a book by Pierre Boulle which, ultimately, was known as The Planet of the Apes. In the film, human astronauts crashland onto a wasteland of a world, a bizarre land where intelligent apes (gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees to be specific) rule and humans are mindless beasts. The astronauts, by which I mean Charlton Heston, try to survive this madness while being hunted by the apes, first as sport, and then once they discover his sapience, as a living blasphemy to their apes laws. At the end of his journey Heston finds out the awful truth that has been spoiled to everyone who has ever heard of a movie in the last 4 decades, and we are left only to imagine his ultimate fate as arguably the loneliest person in existence. Hope he’s not allergic to bananas.

     Planet of the Apes was an explosive success, thanks in part to the phenomenal make-up work by John Chambers, and two years later we got a sequel, Ted Post’s Beneath the Planet of the Apes. In the film, another group of astronauts, by which I mean not Charlton Heston, crashlands onto a wasteland of a world, a bizarre place where intelligent apes (gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees to be specific) rules and humans are mindless beasts. This time around however, the astronauts that aren’t Charlton Heston must navigate a world of murderous apes but also a race of psychic mutants who have established their own society within the underground ruins, who aside from worshipping an ICBM are kind of assholes in their own right. At the end of his journey the astronaut who isn’t Charlton Heston already knew the awful truth from a while back, and while this time he’s not the loneliest person in existence, there isn't exactly that much fate left to imagine. Hope he’s not allergic to nukes.

     Beneath the Planet of the Apes wasn’t as big of a success as the original film, although they still got a lot of use out of Chambers’ make-up, but apparently the franchise was still big enough to warrant a sequel, which is why one year later we got Don Taylor’s Escape from the Planet of the Apes. In the film, yet another group of astronauts crashland onto a wasteland of a world, only this time the wasteland is known as Los Angeles, and the astronauts are actually intelligent apes (chimpanzees to be specific). As it turns out, right before that whole ‘nuke blowing up the entire planet’ thing, Cornelius, Zira and everyone’s favorite redshirt Dr. Milo managed to squeeze into a half-built spaceship and somehow got shot through the timespace continuum onto 1970s Earth. The world at large is, perhaps understandably, crazy about these wild talking apes from the future, and they instantly get sucked into celebrity status. Attending lavish parties, speaking at women’s club meetings, drinking booze, the whole shebang. Sure, humanity treats them more as fancy props rather than fellow sapient beings with their own unique culture, but what more do you expect from Americans?

     The one person who isn’t a fan of apes is Otto Hasslein, your run-of-the-mill German antagonist/scientist who happens to be on speaking terms with the President and the CIA. A man with very vague theories on time travel, Otto is convinced that not only are these apes from a future Earth, but that said apes represent an existential threat to humanity. You can’t let them just walk around free, let alone breed with any other apes, or else we’re going to be looking down the wrong side of the gun in about a couple thousand years. How exactly we get to a world of three distinct ape species when there are only two chimps is left conveniently unsaid. It’s also left unsaid why he doesn’t use this knowledge of the future to help steer man and apekind away from mutually assured destruction, but I guess you can’t bring up predestination paradoxes if you’re planning on the dramatically ironic ending.

     The first two Apes films are far from what I would call perfect films. Planet of the Apes was too goofy at various points, an issue with people meddling with Serling’s original script I imagine, and Beneath had an issue with lack of energy, but they both balance it out with the suspense of the stranger in a strange land, against all odds premise. Escape takes the awkward goofiness of the former and the lack of energy from the latter and then forgot about that whole suspense thing. The titular escape is the most dramatic part of the movie, but that comes in at the end, so the rest of the movie is taken up with talking. Minutes upon minutes of people talking to each other. Throw in some weird lounge music and some credits and you’ve got yourself a movie, according to Don Taylor.

     Escape having an excess of dialogue wouldn’t be too much of an issue if it were centered around Cornelius and Zira, since these are the characters the audience are familiar with and presumably care about, but it’s not. A lot of people talking about Cornelius and Zira sure, but the apes are almost afterthoughts in their own film, and aside from the opening and ending of the film are mostly relegated to vaguely comedic bits. Why this was the way they went with this is unclear, since Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter are easily the most charismatic actors in the cast, and most of what they’re given to work with is tone-deaf or just plain stupid. Cornelius and Zira are doctors and academics, and yet they act like they’ve never had to read a damn room in their lives, despite engaging in several acts of deception and subterfuge across two fucking movies. They might not be accustomed to man’s worlds, but I’m pretty sure if I get chained up and put up in front of a council I’m going to figure out now is not the time to act like the Dick Van Dyke Show.

     Planet of the Apes movies always have a meaning more than just seeing people in rubber masks walking around, and to me it appears that Escape from the Planet of the Apes is meant to be an allegory for the way countries (especially America) treat undocumented immigrants less as living, breathing people and more as props to push political agendas, as well as establishing the foundation for the inevitable ape-human conflict. Which is a fine plot for a movie, and it’s basically what we get here, but Escape fails to make it compelling. What we should have got was a film dealing with Cornelius and Zira’s culture shock upon entering human society, seeing first-hand the misery we inflict upon ourselves, perhaps starting off as celebrities and then becoming pariahs as they start to question the current order of things, ultimately coming to the conclusion that history will repeat itself because mankind’s vain self-interest will not allow apes to coexist on Earth. Not old white guys talking to each other in various rooms. Hell, even the damn ‘escape’ has more people talking in rooms than the physical act of escaping. It’s almost like this movie was made on half the budget of the previous film and they’re really bad at hiding it.

     Escape from the Planet of the Apes feels like the first part of a much more exciting movie that for some reason was excised and put into theaters on its own. While it’s nice to see Roddy and Kim again this movie fails to either excite or enjoy, and with the haphazard way it came into being it’s a wonder why it should even exist at all, besides setting up a potentially more interesting film down the road, which after having seen this film reeks of unfounded confidence. Unless you’re a completionist or a film blogger there’s very little reason to turn on Escape from the Planet of the Apes, especially if it’s your only film of the evening. For everyone else, you’re much better off sticking with the original or Beneath this Halloween. Chimp-tested, gorilla-approved.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2018: Shaft (1971), directed by Gordon Parks

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Theme from Shaft", by Isaac Hayes

     In the late 60s through to the 70s, the struggle for civil rights and an increased political consciousness lead to the widespread adoption, fostering and popularization of a unique Black culture, distinct from the Anglo-centric, exclusionary American culture of the time. Not only did you have breakout Black political parties and figures, but you had Black fashion, Black art, Black slang, Black music, Black television, and of course Black filmed starring Black actors. While these things certainly existed prior the 60s and 70s, and they are more than worthy of attention, this was the time when things finally fell into place and it was finally able to land in the mainstream. Issues like racism still existed, and in fact they never went away, but as a step towards equity and equality it was an extremely important and necessary step.‘We’re here, we won’t be ignored, so you better get used to it’ as a vast generational statement.

  Of all the films that make up the so-called ‘blaxploitation’ genre (a name which I don’t much for, unsurprisingly), The Mack, Superfly, Dolemite to name a few, the biggest and most influential of them all is quite probably Gordon Parks’ Shaft, released in 1971 by MGM. Based on the novel by Ernest Tidyman, who also co-wrote the screenplay, Richard Roundtree stars as the titular John Shaft, a private investigator living on the streets of Harlem. A friend and lover like none other (just ask the ladies), Shaft is also a man who doesn’t take any shit. Not from the cops, and not from crime lords like Bumpy Jonas either, especially when he does things like sending armed, window-adverse thugs to his office. Ol’ Bumpy has a method to his madness though, as it seems that someone has kidnapped his daughter Marcy and in a roundabout way he’s looking to hire Shaft to find her. Shaft accepts, because helping an innocent woman in distress and getting a fat paycheck are a nice combination, but of course things are never as simple as all that. Very quickly it is revealed that this isn’t a simple case of kidnapping, but something which has far bigger, and far deadlier, implications for the people of Harlem. Radicals, gangsters, lovely ladies, and in the middle of it all is everyone’s favorite Sex Machine, John Shaft.

     Generally speaking, modern pop culture has tended to treat blaxploitation in something of a negative light. Undercover Brother, Pootie-tang, Black Dynamite, the general impression seems to be that this era of filmmaking is something of an embarrassing relic of the time, suited mainly to be the fuel for jokes than anything else, much like the slasher films that eventually fueled the post-Scream ironic horror craze. While I’m not going to say that ‘blaxploitation’ is above satire, as it’s pretty much impossible to take Dolemite seriously, I feel like the idea of ‘blaxploitation’ has overshadowed the actual films, which is a disservice to the actors and filmmakers who made it happen. Which of course ties into our film here because Shaft, despite it’s notoriety, is nothing like that at all. No karate, no cardboard villains, no gaudily dressed pimps, why you’d scarcely believe it’s exploitative at all. If anything Shaft has more in common with the works of Raymond Chandler and Mickey Spillane, taken from sunny San Francisco and placed in bitter New York. ‘Streetwise, roguish P.I. with a contentious relationship with the police takes case which turns out to be more complicated than expected’ sounds as much like Philip Marlowe as it does John Shaft.

     Which isn’t to say that the movie doesn’t have flaws, because obviously when you’re making a movie on 500,000 dollars things aren’t going to be as polished as one with 5 million. Some of that is reflected in the acting, the major culprit being Shaft’s monotone girlfriend, but I think the biggest mark against the movie is the sound. Just outright bad audio restoration at times, whether characters sound louder then they should or the lip sync doesn’t match,that’s prominent in the early parts of the film but never really go away. It’s not so bad that it affected my enjoyment of the movie, as it’s still easy to understand and follow, but you are just constantly made aware of it.

     Of course a review of any ‘blaxploitation’ movie wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the music, and Shaft’s soundtrack, composed by the late great Isaac Hayes and The Bar-Kays is a pinnacle of the genre. The “Theme From Shaft” is the obvious highlight, capturing the essence of who Shaft is as a character by just straight up telling us, but the entire film is filled with the majestic strings and smooth soul that Hayes is known for (“Soulsville” is also great). Often times I don’t really comment on music in films in these reviews, not because I don’t care about music but because I feel I don’t have an opinion strong enough to vocalize, but every once in a while you stumble across a film where the soundtrack is truly integral to the viewing experience, even more so than the plot and the characters in some cases. While I might personally prefer the more dynamic sound of Curtis Mayfield’s Superfly, it is simply a fact that you do not have Shaft without Isaac Hayes and The Bar-Kays. You might have a movie, but you don’t have Shaft.

     If you’re a fan of Chinatown, The Long Goodbye or any of the neo-noir mystery movies, then Shaft should already be in your watch queue. For anyone else Shaft gets the recommendation for being a exciting, damn good popcorn movie. John Shaft is the kind of person we all wish we could be at least once in our lives, so until then you’ll have to settle for watching his movie. Dig on that and help make your Halloween that much more special.

The Long Dark Marathon of the Soul 2018: Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971), directed by Roy Ward Baker

The Trailer
and
The Appropriate Tune: "Lady Godiva's Operation", by The Velvet Underground

     It’s been a while since we’ve seen a film by the infamous British film company Hammer Productions. Years in fact, with Horror of Dracula back in Marathon ‘15. It’s an unfortunate case of only having so many spots available on the list, yet so many interesting movies to see, and don’t bring up something crazy like ‘reviewing movies outside of October’. This year I’ve tried to strike a balance between old and new faces, so it felt right to return to Hammer as well. However, since this was a relatively...weirder list of movies than we’ve had in previous years, I decided to dig a little deeper into Hammer’s filmography as well, beyond the Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing fare that the company built its legacy. Which ultimately leads us to this little number from the early 70’s, Roy Ward Baker’s Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, which would eventually prove to be the decade of Hammer’s demise. It probably wasn’t this movie’s fault though.

     I assume that most of you readers out there are probably at least slightly familiar with the concept of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde, born from the 1886 novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. Doctor Jekyll, engaged in strange medical research, devises a formula that when consumed transforms him physically and/or psychologically into Mister Hyde, and the subsequent battle for control. The story has been reiterated and reinterpreted hundreds of times since the original publication, from Pagemaster to the Nutty Professor to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but this is the core idea that remains. Potions, personality changes, and so on.

     Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, like those numerous others takes liberties with the source material, the most obvious being that the transformation is not only from Jekyll to Hyde but from man to woman. Which is apparently a side-effect of the elixir of eternal youth that Jekyll came up with, which is made primarily of female hormones. And since these are the days before estrogen tablets, you have to cut out the hormone-making parts yourself, from the abundant amount of corpses or, if they’re not available, from some more energetic ladies. Of course this is Whitechapel, the place where nothing bad ever happens to women, but you never know what could happen when you decide to throw an extra person into your brain like that. Also there’s a love interest or something but who cares?

     So there’s a lot of implications in the line ‘man uses science and hormone treatments in order to become a woman’, but if you’re expecting this movie to be breaking down barriers then I think you’ll be disappointed. In fact, that Hyde is a woman seems rather superfluous outside of a couple scenes, and puts a bit of a krimp in motivation. I mean in the original story, point of the formula was to create Hyde so that Jekyll could act out hidden vices without inhibition, but considering the fact that Jekyll is Jack the fucking Ripper (another returning idea from Marathon ‘16s Time After Time) it undercuts the evil of Hyde. Also if you count making out with two different men as uninhibited, which it may have been in 1886, but seems rather tame given what movie audience had in the 1970s. I dunno, given the changes from the original plot there just isn’t that much of a point for Hyde to even exist much less be the ‘evil’ one in this sense, or for Jekyll to even bother taking the serum at all, considering that whole ‘eternal youth’ thing seems to be unceremoniously dropped before we’re halfway in. There’s so much potential with the original concept and specifically this version of it, but it just seems to be vastly underutilized.

     Speaking of underutilized, we’ve got Susan Spencer, the girl who feels like she was shoehorned into the story to fulfill some sort of quota. Not much to say about her, because she doesn’t really do anything. She’s not really a romantic interest, because she only has one conversation with Jekyll that isn’t her being quickly rebuffed, and she spends most of her screen time defending Jekyll despite having literally no reason to do so. At least her brother Harold serves the concept as the romantic interest of Hyde, Susan fails to do the same with the almost asexual Jekyll. They even try to push her into the realm of importance near the finale, having Hyde want to kill her to punish Jekyll, but it just falls flat considering he’s barely interacted with her the entire film and has shown no romantic interest in her whatsoever.

     That all being said, it’s a nice looking film (rocking the technicolor period piece look) and the acting is fine, so if you can put aside your lofty expectations you’ll find a serviceable Gothic horror film. I’d hesitate to call it a hidden gem but if you’re a fan of that era or look of scary movie than you’ll be fine with Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde. Those who are interested in seeing the best of what Hammer had to offer this Halloween however, would be better served looking into their Dracula, Frankenstein or Mummy series.