The Thieving Magpies of Paradise

TRAPPED IN PARADISE (1994)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Trapped in Paradise" was savagely excoriated by critics when it first opened in December of 1994. I recall that year that Nicolas Cage appeared in the serviceable comedy "It Could Happen to You" and the harmless and deadening comedy-drama, "Guarding Tess." "Trapped in Paradise" is far better than both though it is hardly a Yuletide classic. For my money, it has more laughs and charm than I expected from almost any Christmas-themed movie since 1994.

The Firpo brothers are quite a bunch. Bill Firpo (Nicolas Cage) runs a restaurant and is the most moral of the brothers. The other two nitwits, compulsive liar Dave and kleptomaniac Alvin (Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey) are bank robbers who are let out of jail a little too prematurely. Bill can't stand them and their schemes. Thanks to a letter from a convict, the trio find themselves in Paradise, Pennsylvania during Christmas Eve to help locate Sarah (Madchen Amick), the daughter of the convict. Before you can say entrapment, the Firpo brothers successfully rob a bank wearing silly ski masks but have a lot of trouble getting out of Paradise. The denizens of this town are as polite and forgiving as anyone in Bedford Falls (the name of the town in "It's a Wonderful Life") so stealing their money (they all have a stake in the local bank, not the big corporate ones - a timely gesture in reflection) seems downright wrong to Bill.

As written by writer-director George Gallo (he directed the witty "29th Street" and he co-wrote the fabulous "Midnight Run"), "Trapped in Paradise" heads down the icy, snowy roads with a horse sled in tow in pretty much the way you expect. You know from the first minute that Bill meets Sarah that the two will at least share a kiss in the final reel. You know the townsfolk will be supernaturally understanding when they unsuspectingly take in these three robbers and discover their true identities. In fact, the last half of the film so closely resembles "It's a Wonderful Life's" last ten minutes that I was shocked Jimmy Stewart didn't show up. I could have lived without the endless police cars and FBI units on the robbers' tail (though Richard Jenkins is a hoot as an FBI agent who hates Paradise, hence, the Gallo connection with "Midnight Run" that had its own brand of angry FBI agents). I might also have lived without the subplot of the two ex-cons in pursuit of the Firpo brothers (they are played by Frank Pesce and, former bodyguard for the late producer Don Simpson, Vic Manni, both of whom appeared in "Beverly Hills Cop II"). They simply deter from the fun of watching the Firpo brothers.

Nicolas Cage is always a joy to watch and, here, he is a little more restrained than even in "Honeymoon in Vegas." His opening scenes where he goes to confession and deliberates returning a wallet he found in a train station is classic. Jon Lovitz is also funny to watch, and also a bit more restrained. Dana Carvey does a whole Mickey Rourke bit that is sublime in its comic timing - when he speaks, he can grate one's nerves but his physical body language is a major plus.

"Trapped in Paradise" is a jovial, sweet and warm-hearted comedy, never straining for too much sentiment and never too overplayed or overdone. I laughed a lot more than the critics did at the time, thus I never felt I was trapped in a so-called turkey.

P.S. An imdb user made this following claim: "I saw this movie in a film class I took in Manhattan at the time the movie came out and they interviewed Jon Lovitz as part of the class. Do you know what he called this movie? Trapped In S**T! Says something doesn't it?"

The Lambs are Still Screaming!

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When I first saw "The Silence of the Lambs" on Valentine's Day in 1991, I found it chilling and intense but not much more than a sophisticated slasher film "with a little taste." I re-reviewed it in 2001 after seeing it multiple times, and thought this is an extraordinary thriller, far more supercharged in intensity and psychology than I had thought. Now, twenty years later after its release, "The Silence of the Lambs" is possibly the best suspense thriller ever made, equal parts psychological thriller and character study that often resembles an unusual love story. Let me explain further.

As the film opens, we are introduced to a young, virile woman running in the woods, training to be an FBI agent. She is Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), an ambitious woman eager to study criminal psychology and behavioral science. FBI Section Chief Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) wants Clarice to run a test on Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a psychiatrist who also happens to be a cannibal and is being held in a Baltimore prison surrounded by thick glass walls.

Crawford: "Do you spook easily Starling?"
Clarice: "Not yet sir."

Clarice is determined to question Dr. Lecter and decipher any knowledge he might have about a serial killer on the loose known as Buffalo Bill aka Jame Gumm (Ted Levine, a chilling and underrated performance). This killer likes to skin the humps of heavyset girls and may possibly be a transsexual. Apparently, Lecter knows him very well. The initial meeting between Lecter and Clarice is enough to give people goosebumps and nightmares for weeks. We enter a cavernous prison underground surrounded by some obscenely red lighting and red gates, as if we were entering Hell (a heavy murmur that gets louder and louder is heard on the soundtrack). She meets Lecter who stands motionless in his cell whispering, "Good Morning." Their conversation is so memorable that it stands as one of the most classic introductions of evil characters to grace the silver screen since Bela Lugosi's Dracula. Lecter analyzes Clarice to the fullest, fully aware of her second-rate shoes, the disguising of her West Virginia accent and knowing she would do anything to keep away from her homely existence by going so far as to join the FBI. In this scene, we see how Jodie Foster's Clarice works - she maintains her cool and composure without crying, though she wants to. Then she turns the tables on Lecter, asking if he has the temerity to look at himself and analyze his own behavior. This gets to Lecter who has finally met his match in the form of an ambitious FBI trainee, who also happens to be a woman.

Based on Thomas Harris's novel, "Silence of the Lambs" involves and engages us from the start, closing in on an investigation of murders in the midwest of women found in ditches or lakes with their skins removed. It is all part of the Buffalo Bill murder spree and Clarice needs Lecter to provide crucial details, such as Buffalo Bill's real name and whereabouts. An exchange has to occur as she fools Lecter into thinking he can be moved from Baltimore to a pleasant island known as Plum Island where he can roam the beach freely "under Swat team surveillance, of course." (Plum Island is an animal testing center, very charming indeed). But the film is not just interested in grisly details of murders or scamming jailed killers. Each passing event and sequence invites us to see how Clarice Starling is affected and changed by them. And we also see how she is affected by Lecter and how he gets inside her head. After their initial meeting, Clarice walks to her car, reminded of memories of her father and cries.

Clarice Starling is also the focus of "The Silence of the Lambs" as we see how a woman lives and breathes in a man's world, and how she copes with her slain father who was a cop killed in the line of duty. We see two brief flashbacks of her as a child, one where she is greeted by her father and another where she is at his funeral. They pinpoint to a woman who has her emotions in check but is unable to forget her past thanks to Lecter's intervention in her psychological makeup.

And how can a short, ambitious, sincere woman survive in a man's world? Several scenes indicate that her every encounter with a man results in romantic interest. For example, there is her initial encounter with the leathery sliminess of Dr. Chilton (Anthony Heald), Lecter's psychiatrist who is hoping for a little fame, who reminds Clarice that the town of Baltimore is fun "if you have the right guide." One entomologist asks her to go out for "cheesburgers and beer."

More often than not, Clarice is reminded that she is a minority. There are several examples such as when Clarice enters an elevator of tall, imposing men. At the mortuary where a slain victim of Buffalo Bill's is being autopsied, Crawford tells the sheriff that certain elements of the sex crime should not be discussed in front of Clarice. Yet she maintains her cool and shows determination and persistence, no matter who gets in her way. It is doubly ironic that Hannibal Lecter is the only man who shows her some level of respect.

The film is directed by Jonathan Demme ("Beloved," "Melvin and Howard") and he has a fascinating device in the film that is used sparingly in "Philadelphia." He shows us mostly close-ups of his characters and shifts in reverse angle shots by showing another character off-center. Often the characters seem to be looking straight at us - a subjective device that would often seem distracting is cleverly used in the film, particularly the meetings between Clarice and Lecter. The subjectivity forces us to study their faces and understand what they are thinking and feeling.

The casting is impeccable. Jodie Foster is unequivocally seamless as Clarice Starling - tender, tough, sincere, argumentative, vulnerable. She has her flaws but shows fierce ambition and all the characters in the film know it. Anthony Hopkins (thankfully not typecast, though he might have been) is sheer excellence as Lecter. He has remarkable stillness and a quiet, calm voice that carries a sense of understated malice - he has a way with words and can tell what kind of fragrance a woman wears by sniffing through the tiny holes of his glass cell. More than that, he can get inside your skin and rattle your nerves. Lecter also has a way with biting people's cheeks while listening to Bach's "Goldberg Variations." Amazingly, Hopkins is only on screen for twenty minutes but his presence looms large throughout. Both actors won deserved Oscars for their roles.

There are so many memorable moments in its 118 minute running time that remain etched in one's memory. Clarice's meetings with Lecter are all exceptionally shot and edited. I love her story of the screaming lambs and the one lamb she tried to save (not to mention the priceless shot of Lecter's tears after hearing her story). The moment when Clarice shakes Crawford's hand after getting her official FBI badge. The intricately shot scene in a building where Lecter makes his extraordinary escape while FBI agents circle his cell. The unquestionably suspenseful climax where Clarice hunts for Buffalo Bill in his subterranean lair (look closely at shots of moths and swastikas). The autopsy scene of the slain girl which is quite heartbreaking to watch, thanks to Foster's controlled yet emotional observations. And there is so much more.

Another exceptional aspect as to why "The Silence of the Lambs" works is because it chooses to be uniquely disturbing without showing much gore. A film about a cannibal and a serial killer with a predilection for skin could very well show plenty of gore and bloody executions. Instead, director Demme implies as much as he shows, forcing us to imagine certain unseen events. My favorite moment is when Dr. Chilton shows Clarice a picture of what Lecter did to a helpless nurse - a close-up of her reaction to the photo says so much more than what is actually in the photo. Directors Ridley Scott and Brett Ratner did not seem to follow suit with Demme's high standards in "Hannibal" (a fascinating misfire of a sequel) and the mediocre shimmerings of "Red Dragon," itself a remake of Michael Mann's vastly superior "Manhunter."

At its base, "The Silence of the Lambs" is really about the relationship between Lecter and Clarice, resulting in a love story of sorts between a monster and his mate. "People will say we are in love," says Lecter. Of course, it is more of a mutual respect for one another, not a literal love story of a sexually attractive couple. Clarice and Lecter both test and size each other up, and continue being personal and up close. It is only fitting that this film was released on February 14th.

Singing and dancing at the Chicken Ranch

THE BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Infectious, over-the-top, and sillier than expected, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" is a fun, innocent musical of sexual freedom in a brothel and Texas politics where politicians expound on nothingness and alleged moral pride. It is nothing more than a goofy parody of madams with big bosoms (Dolly Parton), a Moral Watchdog TV interviewer who wears a little too much sparkle and a bad toupee (Dom DeLuise), and politicians who have nothing to say (a hysterical, scene-stealing Charles Durning plays one such politician). In other words, even today with egotistical politicians running the White House or running Texas, nothing much has changed.

Dolly is Madam Mona, the owner of the long festering 100-year-old Chicken Ranch, a whorehouse where the only sexual play we see is a silhouette through a bedroom curtain. Otherwise, this place is inhabited by merry women who sing and dance in lingerie. The Chicken Ranch itself is about to be closed down by Mr. Moral Boundaries, Melvin P. Thorpe (DeLuise), and he will go tootin' all the way to the Texas governor to make it a reality. It is up to the sharp Ed Earl (Burt Reynolds), the local sheriff who is in love with bosoming, er, blossoming Mona. Can Earl convince the governor not to close it down? Will Earl prove he can right his wrongs when he demeans Mona by calling her a whore? These questions are not answered the way you might expect.

The movie starts with neat little intro to the Chicken Ranch's history and its clientele, with Jim Nabors as Deputy Fred talking directly to the camera. The rest of the movie is packed with wild, busy musical numbers, some more infectious than others. There is sweet chemistry between Reynolds and Parton, particularly when they sing in the bathroom, and their final scenes are tinged with an emotion that is not forced and very honest. The resolution of the Chicken Ranch's future is also handled with emotional restraint, unusual even in the 1980's when Hollywood films went for bigger emotions and sentimentality (which they still do in the 2010 era).

The cast is about as much fun and up to the task of the movie's slight ambitions which, if you think about it, are aimed at being nothing more than a mature love story. Nabors is often unwatchable in most other films (Reynolds' "Stroker Ace" comes to mind) but here he is loose and goofy enough to warrant a few chuckles. DeLuise is precious to watch and never overbearing, which he can be in other films. Reynolds and Parton are a dream team, and Charles Durning (in an Oscar-nominated turn as a tap-dancing governor whom you can't help but love) brings a satirical bent to the material that the movie could've used more of.

"Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" is a wholesome movie musical with its heart in the right place. I am no fan of movie musicals but this one is playful and joyous.

Fatal Errors in Bloodsoaked "Attraction"

FATAL ATTRACTION

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In 2012, "Fatal Attraction" will celebrate its 25th anniversary as a pop-culture moment in film history. I do not begrudge those who like this picture but I have been on the fence as to its dubious popularity and what the film actually says about marital infidelity. The surprise is that it says nothing at all. It takes a serious issue that many marriages face, turns it and twists into thriller dynamics on the order of the Grand Guignol of Horrors, and ends with a horribly misguided slasher film finish! The whole film is misguided.

Let's go back to 1987 for a moment. I first saw "Fatal Attraction" in theaters back in a cold December evening in that year, and I came away agreeing completely with Roger Ebert's pan of the film. The ending was dishonest and disgraceful, and a disservice to what preceded it. Let's backtrack for the moment to the plot of the film. Dan (Michael Douglas) is a successful New York attorney who is happily married to Beth (Anne Archer, in one of many thankless roles she has played). They also have a cute daughter who wants a bunny rabbit! Dan meets a sophisticated book editor, Alex Forrest (Glenn Close), at a business meeting where she notices he has cream cheese on his chin. They have dinner and before you know it, they are boinking in the kitchen sink and in elevators! Dan doesn't take this fling seriously, though he admits he is happily married to Beth and repeatedly meets with Alex. "Then why are you here?," asks Alex. Good question because the marriage between Dan and Beth is not shown to have any flaws at all. Dan and Beth are shown to be happy and they have a cute happy child (one of the cutest shown in a film in a long time). So did Dan do this to have a thrill because the wife was out of town with the in-laws, or did he do it to see if he could get away with it? He doesn't use any contraception, nor does Alex since she makes the claim she is pregnant! Before you can say "she will not be ignored," we have Alex threatening suicide by cutting her wrists, attacking Dan with a knife, throwing acid on Dan's car, and, well, then she becomes a raging psychopath with a butcher knife who cuts herself in the leg when threatening Beth!

SPOILER ALERTS but you knew it was coming. Dan practically drowns Alex when Alex invades their home. Alex wakes up from her brief bathtub coma and Beth shoots her in the heart! So two lives are claimed, technically, Alex and Dan's future baby. Amazing how, at the time, this was completely avoided in any criticism whatsoever, aside from Ebert's review. The original ending that was shown in Japan and in previews in the U.S. had Alex committing suicide to the musical strains of  "Madame Butterfly" by slicing her neck with the butcher knife. The knife had Dan's fingerprints thus framing him for Alex's death. What was also shown was a later scene of Beth finding evidence that could get Dan free. This apparently was not the ending that the American audience wanted. Frankly, it could have ended with Dan's arrest and that would be fitting for a film noir story but "Fatal Attraction" does not develop as a noir story. The bloodbath ending that was shot and used has nothing to do with what preceded the film either since Alex was turned into a Jason Voorhees villain who can rise from the dead. Such an ending also plagued and trivialized a Julia Roberts supposedly psychological thriller from 1991, "Sleeping With the Enemy."

So why do I dislike "Fatal Attraction"? Because the film starts strong as a psychological and moral story about a woman who clings to a married man who wants nothing to do with her, but it does not develop the characters along a psychological plane. We never truly know what makes Dan tick or Alex, or the far too underdeveloped role of Beth. The film, written by James Dearden, goes for the obvious: it amps up the feverish pitch of a thriller with a cop-out ending that is more troubling than germane to the story. Glenn Close is absolutely excellent in the early part of the film, especially in the dinner sequence that is handled with sublime restraint. I also like some of the early scenes between Alex and Dan as they sit in the park. But the movie is in a rush to get a roller-coaster ride mentality going, opting for needless and perfunctory scenes of an actual roller-coaster ride with Dan's kidnapped child; the gratuitous bunny boiled scene (Stephen King argued that one of the staples of Gothic horror is animal mutilations, but it shouldn't be included in a seemingly psychological drama); Alex arriving unannounced at Dan's apartment, which is a startlingly intense scene but, again, feels perfunctory; Beth getting into a car collision that would be at home in an action flick; and all the trimmings in the last half of the film that belong to the slasher film genre. Director Adrian Lyne (who helmed the stylish "Flashdance" and the haunting "Jacob's Ladder") loses all patience with subtlety after a while and gives the audience what they want: a bloodbath tinged with a psychological bent so that no married men or women ever consider having an extramarital affair. Sorry, the TV show "Maury" has proven that married couples still engage in affairs and the divorce rate is higher than ever. With regards to what should've been a controversial ending, Glenn Close, in a recent Entertainment Weekly article, claims she did not understand why Alex was made into a psychopath. I also want to point out that though Close's character, Alex, is pregnant and refuses to have an abortion, it is her choice and she is entitled to it so the double whammy of having her killed and along with her unborn baby leaves me feeling queasy. "Fatal Attraction" is ultimately a morally problematic film. 

I held my tongue for many years on the pros and cons of "Fatal Attraction." I have seen it more than once and still feel that the film is simply gibberish, a supposedly moral tale of adultery that has no real morality to it. It starts off as a great film, and betrays every single idea it started to develop by soaking it with blood. The blood gives the audience a visceral, adrenaline rush, but it is hardly an intellectual rush.

(An Interview with Scott Schwartz): He sticks out his tongue for no one!

An Interview with Scott Schwartz

By Jerry Saravia

Scott Schwartz is a child actor of the 1980's whom many will find familiar as Flick from A Christmas Story. Yep, he was the kid who stuck his tongue on a pole on a double-dog-dare - a heartbreakingly real, terrifically funny and memorable moment from one of the best Christmas films ever made. As a child actor, he also appeared in The Toy, a less engaging film with Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason which nevertheless features a winsome performance by Scott. 1984's Kidco was barely released theatrically and it seemed as if the same old cliches about child stardom applied to Scott Schwartz [he has returned to the movies in some low-budget films, such as Community College].This interview will shed light on what he has been up to since the heyday of the 1980's, some behind-the-scenes insights, his brief foray into the adult-film world, his successful sports and movie memorabilia store, and his forthcoming memoir.

1.) How did you get into acting? Were you discovered by someone or you auditioned for some film or TV show?

Scott Schwartz: "I got into acting when I was almost 9. A gentleman who knew me from going to the movies with my dad asked if I wanted to do a commercial... I did and the rest is history."

 
1.5) I've got to ask the most obvious question: how did "A Christmas Story" happen? And is this perennial holiday favorite watched at Christmas time in the Schwartz household?
 
SS: "I had just finished up shooting 'Kidco' and the director of the film Bob Clark had just seen 'The Toy' ... and he wanted to meet me for one of the kids, he wasn't even sure which character until we met and talked. My 'audition' was just a 1 hr conversation, then lunch and later that day I got the film.  I used to watch it [A Christmas Story] about 15 years ago, now I just switch channels unless a part is on I enjoy, which is never my scenes."

 

2.) "Kidco" is a favorite of mine, and my wife's. It was shot in 1982 and was barely released in 1984 [The plot deals with kids living on a horse ranch who decide to sell the excess manure as fertilizer, but their new company soon comes under fire from the state tax board]. What happened with the film that it didn't get the distribution that it deserved? And what was it like working with director Ronald F. Maxwell of "Gettysburg" fame in the 90's? I am wondering if that two-year gap is not a result of Maxwell's perfectionism since he has been described as having work habits similar to the late Stanley Kubrick.

SS: "The film was finished up in late '82, the film sat for a year but Ron Maxwell had some pull and we got a 'courtesy' release in Alabama the spring of '84, the same weekend as this 'little' movie called 'Splash' was released.. needless to say, we didn't get many viewers and the movie was buried. It was a small $4 million dollar budget and 20th century fox had no faith in the film, so that was that. Ron Maxwell was a terrific director, really enjoyed working with him. He was direct to the point and never treated us kids as kids, he treated us as actors, the same as he treated Charlie Hallahan (the dad) and the other adults. Would enjoy working with him again sometime too."

2.5.) I also understand "Kidco" was based on a true story. Can you tell us more about it and its influence on "Kidco"?

SS:  "Kidco was based on the Cessena family of southern California. They really built an empire cleaning up horse manure and killing gophers. Really sounds like a fairy tale, but it really did happen. Got to meet them when we did the film, they were in their 20's, NICE people !"
 3.) "The Toy" is not one of my favorite Richard Pryor comedies but I do think you were the most appealing thing in it. How did this project come about, and was it fun working with Pryor and Jackie Gleason or was there tension since they were both comics?

SS: "I got the film after 7 auditions and 3 screen tests. Richard was amazing, one of the most incredible people I've ever met, he was my muse from the day I met him till the day he passed away. It was a remake of a French film with the same name, at the time both Pryor and Gleason were HUGE names and someone at Columbia thought they had a good concept for them to work together. Mr. Gleason was just a professional. NO real tension on the set to speak of, it was a very professional set with the 2 of them however, Richard Donner the director (The Goonies, Superman, Lethal Weapon franchise) kept us laughing and having fun everyday. IF people think Richard Pryor is funny on-screen, off-screen he was quiet and very studious however when he got 'the juices flowing', he was hilarious."
 
4.) I read that you worked in the adult film industry and left claiming you got "tired of the industry." Did you want to branch out a bit, beyond Hollywood conventions, or was finding work as a former child actor difficult since it happens to many? Also, in what capacity did you work and why for such a short time? 

SS: "In the adult film industry, I worked for a talent agency, a production office, a video salesman... about any job you can think of I did but truly I don't speak of it too much but I will when I write my book. It came down to dollars and cents, it was paying my bills and it was whatever it took to take care of putting a roof over my head and food on the table, that's what I did. Being a child actor, while rewarding, is truly a bad job, we all grow up and IF the right people don't take to us and keep us working, most are out of work by 15-18 and have no idea what the real world is about. Not everyone at every job you have/get brings you coffee and a bagel in the morning, asks what you would like for lunch and takes you out to steak/lobster dinners."

5.) Any projects you had turned down that you wish you hadn't, and is there one project past, present or future you would like to see made with your name on it in any capacity?

SS:  "I never had the opportunity to 'turn down jobs' and I don't believe in that concept UNLESS it's just bad. I have turned down quite a few 'reality' tv shows as for the most part they aren't positive. IF someone wanted to do a reality show based on myself and our family collectibles business, that I would do. But 'child star gone bad' or something along those lines, no interest what-so-ever. And a book that I'm working on currently, I look forward to people reading it and really knowing and understanding what it means to be a 'child' star, advice about getting your kid into the business and my own life experiences along the way. It will really make people think and be more understanding and compassionate towards those they loved as 'child stars'... and a few other surprises as well." 

6.) I understand you are quite the sports and movie memorabilia collector, including having your own store called "Baseball Cards, Movie Collectibles, etc." This has been a love of yours since the 1980's. What is it about sports and movie memorabilia that excites you?

SS:  "I have always been a collector and a movie buff, so it just fell into place. My dad has had the business since 1987 and I've just come and gone from there over the years but the past 6 months or so I've really concentrated on the store as we just moved locations to Woodland Hills, CA. Our name didn't change but it's so long, the sign outside just says "Sports and Movie Stuff". It's nice to have a 4,000 sq. foot store to go to. I just really enjoy collecting things on people I know or have worked with as well as Star Wars (Darth Vader was my fav), Pride of the Yankees, Barry Bonds and Julius Erving (both have been good friends for several decades), Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles (Mel Brooks I can't wait to meet) and William Shatner, who I have met several times and just really enjoy most all of his work.

7.) Finally, name one film that is your favorite, or maybe one that everyone asks you about. 

SS: "IMPOSSIBLE to name 1 but... Blazing Saddles, The Pride of the Yankees, The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh, Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band (w/the bee gees), Rocky & Galaxy Quest ! The characters in that film are like myself and the kids from 'A Christmas Story'.  A lot of people ask me why I don't say one of my films ... I let others be fans of my films and I want to be a fan of others."

Finishing touches on "Psycho" and "The Departed"

CONTROVERSIAL ENDINGS in PSYCHO and THE DEPARTED

By Jerry Saravia

The endings of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" and Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" have created some furor among fans and critics. They are, in hindsight, not too dissimilar. What? They are obviously two different films but their endings shift and complicate what might be studio-imposed finalities into something more obscure, more ambiguous, more despairing. 

Hitchcock's 1960 horror classic "Psycho" ends with a psychiatrist (Simon Oakland) telling the family of the slain Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) that Norman Bates was not exactly a transvestite but a man who wore women's clothing to become his mother. He also interjects that Norman is his mother. Obviously, this psychoanalytic speech is silly and technically spurious. I sense it was put in there as Hitchcock's and writer Joseph Stefano's joke on the audience who need everything wrapped up into a tidy ending that put closure on the Norman Bates insanity. It also gives the audience comfort that such a killer can be categorized and explained away so that we know better than to enter a desolate motel in the middle of nowhere where a strange, childlike, candy-consuming, forlorn and androgynous motel owner exists.

Hitchcock doesn't quite end it there. We see Norman in his cell, staring away at the walls while Mother narrates. A housefly appears on his hand and Mother makes it clear she will not harm that fly, sensing that an eventual release from the nuthouse will be fortwit because Norman is insane (naturally, this was the case of the opening of "Psycho II"). Norman looks up at the audience and we have a superimposition of his smiling face with his mother's skull and Marion Crane's car being dragged from the swamp. This adds a sense of discomfort and proves Norman isn't exactly insane; he knows what he is doing and thinking. He is aware Mother is a distinct personality and he knows he is not Mother. But maybe he can keep fooling the psychiatric community. This is the ending that a lot of critics, including Roger Ebert, ignore or don't acknowledge. Sometimes evil can't be explained away with a stuffy psychoanalytic speech, hence the chilling last scene.

Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" has a fatalistic finish where the presumed bad guy, Colin Sullivan, the duplicitous villain (a superbly controlled performance by Matt Damon), a cop who has ties to the slowly derailing Boston mob boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), is executed at point blank range by another cop, the ferocious Dignam (Mark Wahlberg). Most would concede that this very Americanized ending was appropriate (it differs from its source, Andrew Lau's "Infernal Affairs"). After all, the dirty, corrupt Colin had it coming. And Scorsese could have ended it there, but he took it one step further. When we pan up from his body in a pool of blood, we see a rat running along a window sill and the shot rests on the Massachusetts State House (a place Colin is enamored of). This shot is foreshadowed earlier by Costello who is plaguing the undercover cop, Billy (Leonardo DiCaprio) with questions, making rat-like faces and drawing rats running rampant around the, you guessed it, Massachusetts State House. The implication being that the rats, the dirty cops, will continue to run and control everything.

I mentioned the ending is still fatalistic because I had sympathy for Colin, no matter how rotten a person he is (forcing his live-in girlfriend not to hang pictures of her as a kid is an example of a man not comfortable with identity or sentimentality). I feel sympathy because he grew up in a tough environment where he was possibly molested by priests as an altar boy, and had to succumb to Costello's control rather early on. Costello expresses hate towards everyone, especially priests with which he makes consistent references to with sexual and violent analogies. Colin wants to get away from the city life, as expressed to Madolyn (Vera Farmiga) in a bedroom conversation, but he is embroiled in his loyalty to Costello (Costello betrays Colin when he admits he is an FBI informant). Colin is a man without shame, remorse or identity - he was shaped and lured into a criminal life and environment that Costello helped nurture. So Scorsese could have ended with the assassination of Colin and showed us the courthouse. The rat adds an extra dimension and a touch of black humor, creating a fused symbol of corruption never dying.

Scorsese and Hitchcock have fundamental similarities in the films they have made.Their films are strewn with Catholic guilt, immorality, sexual inadequacy or limitation, occasionally graphic violence, a virtuoso display of camera moves, and antiheroes who refuse to justify themselves. "Psycho" and "The Departed" also play the audience like a piano, showcasing an element of surprise and unexpectedness in fashioning a genre attempt to fit their respective personalities. Seemingly obligatory, tidy endings, indeed, are more complicated than expected when it comes to Hitch or Scorsese.

The Legend doesn't hold up

THE 13TH CHILD: THE LEGEND OF THE JERSEY DEVIL

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia (original review written in Oct. 2002)

I do not know what is worse: knowing that Cliff Robertson appeared in this film or that low-grade shockers like this still exist. Back in 1996, we had the phenomenally funny "Werewolf," a movie so bad that Mystery Science Theatre even took a stab at mocking it. I wish they were still on the air because, without a doubt, they would have a field day with "The 13th Child."

Set on Halloween, and the days preceding Michael Myer's holiday, we are told that the Jersey Devil is out in the Pine Barrens of the good old Garden State killing and mutilating folks, including escaped mental patients! Lesley Ann-Down appears in this travesty as some attorney who hires an assistant D.A. (Michelle Maryk) to find the Jersey Devil and her long-lost father in the Pine Barrens. The assistant D.A. finds an old hermit named Woody Shrouds (Cliff Robertson) who knows of the legend of the Jersey Devil, and hates humankind since he serves to protect his insects and other species from humans at any cost. This protection of insects and animals does not extend to deer, who are shown in numerous close-ups as either dismembered or disfigured.

Shot on digital video, "The 13th Child" is a load of hokum with cheesy sound effects and the usual rumblings in Dolby Digital sound to remind you that something scary is about to happen. There is one tense, well-edited sequence in which a hunter sits in his truck chewing tobacco after killing a hapless deer left hanging by a hook in his trunk. There is no music or any of those synthesizer sounds - instead, we just hear the radio announcements of the Jersey Devil nearby. It works, and it is the only decent scene in its entire 100 minute running time. The rest is on the level of an advanced high school play at the tenth grade level. Amateurish only skims the surface - the actors on hand are puerile. Sadly, Robert Guillaume, playing some former cop in a mental hospital, would have done better appearing in a sequel to "Lean On Me." The dialogue is edited in such a slipshod manner that, at times, Guillaume seems to be speaking the lines without moving his lips.

Cliff Robertson displays some dignity and presence - he is a reliable actor who once played John F. Kennedy in the film "P.T. 109" and even appeared as Peter Parker's dad in "Spider-Man." By the way, he was also cast in "Charly" and in Brian De Palma's "Obsession." Since he co-wrote this garbage, he can be partly blamed for this atrocity. My advice: ignore the Jersey Devil and rent any of these other films. You'll have a better time.

P.S. I saw this in a theatre in East Windsor, NJ and there was only one other occupant in the theatre. He hated it as much as I did. 'Nuff said.