Razzle-Dazzle Jazzle

CHICAGO (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Originally viewed in 2003

"Chicago" is one of the purest, most entertaining musicals I've seen in quite some time. This is a biased review to some degree since I am not a lover of musicals, but I do love jazz set against the backdrop of Chicago. Therefore, considering this is set in Chicago and there are jazzy musical numbers with the ably cast Richard Gere, Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones, then count me already a fan. It helps that the movie is great, too.

Set in the Windy City during the Roaring 20's, Renee Zellweger stars as Roxie Hart, an aspiring musical talent who can't seem to find the right connections to perform at any club. She is promised a meeting with Velma (Catherine Zeta-Jones) but her acquaintance is only interested in getting in her pants (he is a furniture salesman). Lo and behold, feeling betrayed and used, Roxie guns down the furniture maker and goes to jail. Her husband, Amos Hart (John C. Reilly), refuses to lie to protect her, especially since he is fumed that she was having an affair. Roxie is put in jail in the control of "Mama" Morton (Queen Latifah), the matron in charge of the female prisoners on Murderer's Row. Mama can help Roxie for a fee of a hundred dollars, even if it is just to make a telephone call. Roxie wants the sensationalistic, flashy, media-hungry lawyer, Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), to represent her though his fee is 5,000 dollars. Her husband is able to procure his help and defend Roxie in court through his specialized talent of "razzle dazzle." Billy is so cocksure of his charisma and persuasiveness that he calls objection before the prosecutor even utters a syllable.

Roxie faces some stiff competition from Velma. Velma is in the same prison and is also being represented by Mr. Flynn. Who can vie for the most attention in the media? Well, Roxie gets her shot of fame as she speaks out to the press, despite Flynn's objections. Before you know it, Roxie is a celebrity, garnering more attention than she thought possible (women start wearing her hairdo, dolls are made in her image, etc.) The point is made clear that in Chicago, if you want to be a celebrity and you happen to be a woman, kill your philandering husband if he is caught in bed with someone else. A sly bit of casting occurs when Lucy Liu plays a heiress who finds her husband in bed with two women and shoots them all - a definite celebrity in the making.

Though most of the musical numbers are electrifying and show stopping, the real show-stopper is Catherine Zeta-Jones as the haughty Velma. Zeta-Jones radiates the dynamic energy and glow of a real singer and dancer (she obviously had experience prior to acting). Her opening number, "All That Jazz," is a classic bit of real razzle-dazzle - it sets the tone and atmosphere for the rest of the film. Renee Zellweger is the more uppity, frightfully emotional woman who longs for attention from the world. Her morose expressions may test the patience of some moviegoers but it is in keeping with the character. She can also sing and dance though her talent is squandered next to the real dynamo, Zeta-Jones.

Richard Gere and John C. Reilly are surprisingly a great match for Zeta-Jones. Gere keeps the wit and humor at a relatively low level, letting loose only when he has to. His "Razzle-Dazzle" number is exquisite, as is his tap-dancing routine. It is a pleasure to see Gere vibrant and on his feet in lieu of the usually glum roles he plays. O'Reilly has a great number, "Mr. Cellophane," that shows loneliness in a way that is sure to elicit an emotional response. And finally, there is Queen Latifah as the big, boisterous Mama. Her tune, "When You're Good to Mama," is sexy, juicy stuff - proof that Latifah has been hiding her genuinely musical talents on screen for far too long.

I confess I have not seen the Broadway show though I have admired the late Bob Fosse's choreography ("Cabaret" being one of them). Rob Marshall (a choreographer turned director) does a fantastic job of directing what must have been a difficult transition from stage to screen. The editing, choreography, lighting and performances are frenetic and souped-up in a way that recall the way musicals used to look and sound. It may not be Technicolor, but it is theatrical and appropriately over-the-top. I am told the show has its differences (like any adaptation would) but it was a great idea to have wildly imaginative musical numbers made to appear as if it was all in Roxie's imagination. What a vivid imagination indeed. And that's "Chicago."

Briefly Devilish, Clever Additions

THE EXORCIST (2000)  THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN By Jerry Saravia
Originally viewed and written in 2000

It is rather unfortunate and saddening that younger people today feel The Exorcist is either a laugh riot or a horror film that has lost its shock value. That is if you consider "The Exorcist" to simply be a horror film, or the William Peter Blatty book to simply be a horror novel. "The Exorcist" is definitely horror, but not simply. Part of its power after all these years is derived from the strong sympathy and empathy towards its main characters, including the grief-stricken Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn); the loss of faith in the gruffly Father Karras (Jason Miller); the sickly, strong believer in goodness over darkness, Father Merrin (Max von Sydow); and of course, the little 12-year-old girl Regan MacNeil, possessed by a demonic force or forces.

It's been said before but let it be said again, the underlying principle in any horror film is identification and empathy with the protagonists and that is especially true in "The Exorcist." That makes the shocks and the force of evil in the film that much more effective, afflicting the very people we grow to care about. If you do not care about the characters, the horror will have no genuine purpose. The film's slow pace is therefore essential, evoking the different personalities in the story and thus documenting in minute detail their fears, anxieties, desperation, etc.

The primary characters in the film are Chris MacNeil, her daughter Regan, and the two priests, Karras and Merrin. I've heard someone say that the first hour could be eliminated without much intrusion to the last hour - really? So I guess what this person is saying is that character development is nonessential - we need chills and thrills every second to be scared. We want Stigmata, or something like Scream - we need to be constantly shocked to be scared. Those of you who prefer the latter as cause for something "truly scary" - well, you know who you are. Amazingly, back in 1973, "The Exorcist" was described by Pauline Kael as the kind of film that delivers bloody shocks and thrills every few minutes to keep the audience enthralled. Imagine if this film was made today. Under lesser hands, it would have been exactly what Kael mistakenly described it as. Rather than giving yet another review of the film, let us examine this new re-release supervised by director William Friedkin and writer William Peter Blatty. This new "Exorcist" has 11 minutes of previously unseen footage, restored to a film that now runs 132 minutes. Are these new changes necessary? Do they enhance the story in any way? Let's take a look at what has been added, and why, and what the end result has become.
A LOOK AT THE NEW DEVILISH FOOTAGE 1.) The film starts. First we get a Warner Brothers logo that is a mint green color segueing to an entirely new opening sequence. We see a night shot of the MacNeil house on 36th and Prospect St. in Georgetown where the lights are on. Regan's bedroom light is then turned off, as the camera pans to the street where a couple walk by. There is then a dissolve to a close-up shot of the statue of Virgin Mary. We hear the familiar strains and shrieks of the musical score, and then comes the red letters on a black background reading "William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist," thus leading to the Northern Iraq sequence.

2.) The first major deleted scene restored is an important one - Regan's first medical examination. Regan is at some hospital undergoing tests for hyperkinesis - a condition where the patient twirls, hums, is temperate, and has problems with math. The first shot is of Regan's mother, Chris, seated in a waiting room knitting a sweater. Two boys are seen in the foreground wrestling. Dr. Levin (Barton Heyman) is giving Regan shots, causing Regan to get rather hostile. There is also a subliminal shot of the white-faced demon as Regan lays in bed undergoing more tests. Then Dr. Levin meets with Chris MacNeil to discuss Regan's condition. He prescribes Ritalin, a stimulant to which Chris responds, "She is higher than a kite now." Levin suggests Regan may be depressed, and has used rather sophisticated foul language while he examined her.


Chris: "Well, what did she say?"  Dr. Levin: "She said to keep my goddamned fingers away from her cunt."
They both laugh, and naturally Chris is also rather alarmed. Dr. Levin then tells her that the best explanation for her behavior is the simplest one.


Dr. Levin: "In the meantime, try not to worry."  Chris: "How?"
This scene is significant on many levels. Number one it establishes early on, prior to Regan's later temper tantrums, that she is a sick girl, prone to being temperamental and quite hyperactive. This scene also supplies an explanation for a later scene where Chris soothes Regan, (after Regan had urinated on the carpet during a house party) that as long as she takes her pills, she will be fine ("It is just nerves, that's all.") Blatty has spoken at length of his dismay that Friedkin cut the scene to keep the length of the film to two hours. Blatty's argument was that Chris's line to her daughter would make no sense, especially since Regan seemed happy as a clam at the party. There was nothing to suggest that anything was wrong with her, or that she was remotely sick. This leads to something you might not expect from this new version: ironically, a shot from the original cut has been deleted to preserve this continuity. The close-up shot of the happy, giggling Regan at the party is now gone! This shot of Regan originally preceded the shot of the astronaut having a conversation with Father Dyer. This gives the impression that Regan has been sleeping in her bedroom through the whole party! Now the surprise of the few remaining guests at the party singing while Dyer is playing at the piano makes more sense too, as Dyer sees Regan approaching them.


Dyer: "Hey, look who has decided to join us."Regan (looking at the astronaut): "You're going to die up there." Then she urinates.

3.) After Chris MacNeil arrives back at the house from seeing Dr. Levin, she hears the telephone ringing in the kitchen. She answers it but nobody is on the other line. The lights are flickering on and off and they finally go completely off. Then they turn back on again, and when they do, the second subliminal shot of the white-faced demon can be seen on the right side of the screen. It is a very sudden flash. When Chris goes upstairs to Regan's bedroom, she opens the door and just before she opens it, another subliminal flash of a demon mask is seen. Chris runs to close the window, and leaves. In the long shot of her walking downstairs, we see a gradually forming subliminal shot of the green-toned Pazuzu statue superimposed on Regan's bedroom wall. This whole scene also has new music playing where it was previously silent.

The infamous "Spider-Walk" scene follows, and it was first glimpsed in the 25th anniversary video and DVD edition of the film. It showed a possessed Regan walking on all fours backwards like a spider, resulting in her chasing Sharon, the nanny, with her serpent-like tongue. This new cut does not exactly show this. It has Regan climbing down the stairs on all fours, and we then come to a close-up shot of Regan opening her mouth, which is full of blood. The other difference is in Chris's reaction to what she is seeing. Originally, the scene had Chris reacting in shock at the death of her good friend, Burke Dennings (Jack MacGrowan). In a close-up shot, she pounds her fists on the wall and there was a fade-out to black. Now there is a long shot where she gets the news from her friend who then leaves after trying to console her. She turns to Sharon and, in a close-up shot, cries out Sharon's name as she looks up at the stairs and sees Regan. Following this new scene is the hypnosis where another minor change occurs, through the intervention of CGI effects. When Regan begins to growl as she menacingly looks up at the hypnotist, her face briefly morphs into a demon's face, particularly noticeable are the nose and the eyes. This was not visible in the original version.

4.) Another deleted scene that I never knew was even shot is of Father Karras listening to Regan's giddy taped recording to her father in Europe. The scene is set in a dark audio-visual room where Karras hears her words, which seem so innocent and harmless. It is a very significant scene, nicely contrasted with the scene where Karras listens to a recording of her demonic voice. I love the shot of Karras's reflection in the glass compartments which is multiplied many times, evoking the shot of Charles Foster Kane's reflection in the mirrors from "Citizen Kane."

5.) There are additional shots just a few minutes prior to the infamous exorcism sequence that lend a more human dimension to the film. When Father Merrin first arrives at the MacNeil house, he has a brief exchange with Chris. While Merrin is saying his hail marys, Chris offers to put brandy in his tea. Merrin says he can't have brandy yet offers a mildly humorous reason why he should: "Thank God, my will is weak." Chris smiles and brings him some brandy. Just before Merrin and Karras go up the stairs to Regan's bedroom, Sharon, the nanny, is seen listening to her radio with her earphone to drown out the noise of devilish moans and groans from upstairs. Before Merrin enters the room, he asks Chris what her daughter's middle name is.


Chris: "Theresa."Merrin: "What a lovely name."
Chris is more tearful in her reaction to Merrin and Karras, and this scene strikes a more sympathetic note from Merrin, who shares her fears about her daughter's life. I have a feeling that this minor exchange at the top of the stairs was cut because it seems Chris is wearing an obvious fur coat, which does not match some of her other reaction shots. For example, just before Karras closes the door to Regan's bedroom to perform the exorcism, Chris is shown in close-up wearing just a sweater over a corduroy shirt. The slow zoom-in shot to Chris sitting in the den in contemplation unable to knit the sweater she was previously knitting in the first medical examination scene, while Merrin explains how the Devil would like to fool them, shows Chris wearing a sweater over a corduroy shirt as well.

6.) The film's message of faith is made clear during a break in the exorcism where Karras and Merrin sit restfully on the hallway steps (this scene can also be seen in the video/DVD version). Initially, it was a moment of silent glances between the two men. Now there is a dialogue exchange where Karras asks Merrin why this girl had to be possessed. Merrin responds that the idea is to make them despair - to make them appear as animalistic and ugly, and to reject the possibility that God loves humanity. This philosophical passage also makes us understand that the Devil's target is not Regan, it is the priests.

7.) The final sequence where Karras struggles with the demonic Regan on the floor, punching her and asking for the demon to drive itself away from Regan and into his soul, has one slight change. As Karras looks up at the window where the force seems to have escaped to, a subliminal superimposed shot of Karras's mother is shown before he becomes momentarily possessed.

8.) The alternate ending is now in place between Kinderman and Father Dyer, but there are also some other minute changes. The scene where Chris and Regan are in the car driven by their servant Karl has some new shots. Dyer sees them off, after which Regan kisses him and leaves in the car. Dyer says his goodbyes to Willie, the other servant who stays behind. The car stops as Chris calls Dyer over. He runs to the car and she hands him the St. Joseph's medal that Sharon found in Regan's bedroom. There is a medium shot of Dyer standing by the car looking at the medal, which was not in the original cut. His hand closes over it, but instead of keeping it as he did in the original, he hands it back to her and tells her to keep it. The car leaves, and suddenly we see Regan waving at him. Dyer waves back and smiles. In the original version, we only see the back of Regan's head - she never turns around and waves. Initially, Dyer looked on with a glum face and walked to the top of the Exorcist stairs on Prospect St, looking down where his friend Karras had fallen and the film faded out to black. This time, as Dyer walks back, he sees Detective Kinderman looking through the fenced gate of the MacNeil house. He asks if the girl is alright and they strike a conversation about movies, namely "Wuthering Heights." Kinderman jokes that it is a version starring Jackie Gleason and Lucille Ball. Dyer remarks he has seen it and smiles, obviously in recognition of Karras. If you recall, the scene between Kinderman and Karras earlier in the film also dealt with a movie discussion, that being Othello, where Kinderman jokingly states that it stars Groucho Marx. Karras remarks that he had seen it. Kinderman asks Dyer if had his lunch, and they walk across the street in long shot as we see the boarded up window of Regan's bedroom, followed by the chants of Iraq on the soundtrack.

Of all the changes in "The Exorcist," the best are the ones that help improve the film and its message of faith. I think the additional dialogue between Karras and Merrin is an improvement on Blatty's original intentions in the novel. I also think it was appropriate to show Merrin's concern for Chris and Regan's health in particular - he knows the exorcism might kill her if not himself. The first medical examination of Regan provides a necessary narrative order of events to Chris's crucial line to Regan about taking pills. Lending even more pathos to the film is the extraordinary scene of Karras listening to Regan's taped recording - a scene that is also in the book. I do have to nitpick though and say that the subliminal shots of the demons should not be there. In the first medical examination, it was unnecessary to have a subliminal shot of the white-faced demon simply because it is too soon to introduce the idea that poor Regan may be possessed. The other demon faces that appear when Chris arrives at the house after Burke Dennings is found dead are also distracting, though I liked it when the face shows up while Chris is in the kitchen. I still feel that the white-faced demon in Karras's dream and in the final exorcism were ample, and enough to show the presence of evil existing in their lives. Too many other subliminal shots is to stretch a rather novel device where brevity is needed.

As much as I like the "Spider-Walk" scene, it seems redundant in retrospect especially since it comes before the hypnosis scene where Regan is momentarily possessed. I am glad Friedkin did not use the extra footage from the "Spider-Walk" where Regan crawls after Sharon with her serpent-like tongue - it is eerie but also rather tongue-in-cheek in a way. The bloodied mouth opening and growling is much more effective, but still not nearly as scary as the hypnosis. I also object to the morphing of Regan's face - that initial shot of her mean, glowering stare said it all. To then briefly shape-shift it to a demon with green eyes is to destroy Linda Blair's extraordinary acting ability.

The final scene of Kinderman and Dyer is a take-it or leave-it deal. I think this change is mostly Blatty's idea and I still refuse to believe that Friedkin would approve of it now (he said he still didn't in the 1998 video/DVD version). Blatty's original novel ends with this scene and it does set up the relationship between the two men in Blatty's sequel "Legion," later filmed as "The Exorcist III." The new ending lends a warmth to the film it did not have it before, and though I approve of the shot where Regan is smiling and waving in the car, I also think that this Kinderman-Dyer epilogue is not needed for precisely the reasons that Blatty stated before. We knew all was right with the world when Regan was back to her innocent self after the demon was driven out by Karras, who sacrifices his own life to save the poor girl. The barely alive Karras also gets his absolution from Dyer. We sense that good has triumphed over evil in at least its perhaps temporary removal. It's made clearer with the new shot of Regan so why push it with this final dialogue exchange.

I will always treasure "The Exorcist" no matter what - to me, it is a rich character study of the meaning of faith in today's world, and how close to home evil can make itself known. Seeing it in a theatre for the first time was a glorious event, as was the surround sound system, the new music and some subtle sound effects (like the bubbly sounds of Regan's fish tank). This film is an experience to be witnessed in a theatre, and should be seen for that reason alone. One can appreciate some of the minor changes in this new version, but the original still stands as the horror classic it was and always will be.

Newman brings panache to age-old noir tale

TWILIGHT (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Twilight" is as much about growing older with grace and wisdom than it is about its fairly tame noir plot, which could be written in the back of a napkin in one sentence. You know, there is a dubious suicide that has frustrated a cynical detective and it is about to be solved as a murder with probable suspect(s). Nothing new here nor does "Twilight" bring anything new into the mix - there is no Tarantinian or Coen Brothers mix of urgency and neo-noir twists in its plotting at all. What it reminds us of is the noir tales from the 40's, its only updates being that it was shot in color and it has a little more graphic violence, yet all told with Paul Newman's voice-over as the retired detective on one last call to right some wrongs.

It makes little sense to divulge much of the slim plot beyond a 20-year-old suicide of a man who was Catherine Ames' first husband, Catherine played by the always stunning Susan Sarandon. Catherine is a former actress married to former actor Jack Ames (Gene Hackman), who is dying of cancer. Jack asks Harry (Paul Newman), retired cop and detective and living with the Ames rent-free, to deliver a package to some address. This turns out to be payoff money that leads to the murder of another detective (M. Emmett Walsh, one of the shortest cameos he has ever given in a movie) who had investigated the decades-long suicide. The bare-bones plot involves some silly business with Harry's former Mexican sidekick who is more than a little inept, a fight in the beach that is awkwardly shot, some random shootings and a guy's head thrust into a plate of chicken wings.

The best parts of "Twilight" are the conversations between the real pros, the consummate actors of our collective film history, playing characters we love to listen to. Gene Hackman is always watchable despite not having much of a role to play here. James Garner is a magnetic actor who can make any line of dialogue sparkle - his last scene with Newman is a revelation in its subtlety. Same with Susan Sarandon, though her one scene of rage comes off a bit forced. The whole film could've chucked its plot and been about older people reminiscing about the good old days and that would've been right at home with writer-director Robert Benton (who previously helmed the wonderful "Nobody's Fool" with Newman, another graceful role about aging). But this movie truly belongs to Paul Newman, at the time 73-years-old, who brings finesse and grace to a tired detective who has seen it all. He is like fine wine and gets better with age, giving a slightly mediocre script and perfunctory murder plot a dose of real style and panache.  

Fantastic Tales of The Boy Wonder Who Grew Up

SPIELBERG (2017)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

In the 1970's, Steven Spielberg was the new boy wonder of filmmakers - an assured, enthusiastic, talented and young Hollywood film director who brought the house down with 1975's "Jaws" and 1977's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," the former being a genre movie that redefined suspense and thriller mechanics of B movies and the latter with a certain wondrous, exhilarating take on aliens visiting Earth without zapping to us to death. In the early to mid-1980's, however, he reached stratospheric heights as the King of Popcorn movies, blockbusters that in retrospect prove he knew not just how to entertain the audience, he had reached the populist movement that was once reached by Frank Capra. Whether it was Indiana Jones' swashbuckling adventures that redefined the summer escapist movie model or another alien tale of a lonely extra-terrestrial on Earth who wants to phone home, Spielberg wowed us with eye-popping spectacles and sentiment and genuine emotion. But his filmography started to include more serious work even in the 80's with his superb and controversial adaptation of Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" or his epic "Empire of the Sun." The tone changed extensively in the 1990's with "Schindler's List," a profoundly moving Holocaust story of a Nazi businessman who decided to save 1100 Jewish lives. Ever since then, Spielberg occasionally dabbled in escapism but his pop movies also had remnants of real-life terror using the prism of 9/11 with respect to aliens and privacy invasion namely the deliriously entertaining "Minority Report" and the frantic and effectively downbeat "War of the Worlds."

"Spielberg," which is written and directed by Susan Lacy, traces Steven Spielberg's career from his early days in suburbia making home movies, to his parents' divorce (reasons which were revealed only recently), to his days of making TV movies like "Duel," to hanging with the Movie Brats club (which included Brian De Palma, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, to name a few), to making films that either were thrillingly escapist or serious-minded or both. Spielberg admits to not being the right director for "The Color Purple" (he was shy of showing some sex scenes, which he later depicted in films like "Schindler's List" and "Munich") though he doesn't share his thoughts on one of a couple of colossal disasters in his career, the dull and frenetic "Hook." He is shocked that nobody caught on with "1941," a bizarre comedy of Pearl Harborian proportions (one that John Wayne turned down due to its un-American attitude).

What is most fascinating aside from his films is Spielberg's upbringing as a Jewish kid who faced more than the occasional anti-Semitic remark. Therefore, as a result, Spielberg rejected his Judaism only until he made "Schindler's List" in 1993. Even more startling is that his parents divorced due to his mother having an affair with his uncle! This fact was unbeknownst to Spielberg and his sisters until very recently - their father claimed he was divorcing her but nobody knew Mama Spielberg was the real culprit. Considering Spielberg's films have touched on personal themes of divorce and father-son estrangement, this may have all played out very differently had the truth come out early in his childhood instead of when he reached his 60's.

 As for select film choices, the behind-the-scenes panic of trying to make the fake shark work in "Jaws" is the stuff of legend where Spielberg had to prove himself as a director by physically shooting in the water as opposed to a soundstage. His defense of the moral ambiguity of "Munich" is compelling, more so than the rather uneven though well-made depiction of that terrorist tragedy in 1972. It is fun to see a restored print of Spielberg's first major short film, "Amblin," and to hear Lucas describing this new boy wonder as a little too Hollywood-ish. I also love never-before seen photos of Kate Capshaw, current wife of Spielberg's, standing by the Bearded One's side while making "Schindler's List." Also of note is the personal connection he had to making "Close Encounters," especially the young kid in it who screams "Crybaby!" at his father (Richard Dreyfuss). This was the same word Spielberg used at his teared-up father when divorce was announced.

At the end of day, director Susan Lacy (who interviewed many people in his life, including Spielberg himself) shares Spielberg's own words as the filmmaker who is a "patriot," a man who is concerned with "separation and reconciliation." I always think of Spielberg as the artist who evokes the working class Everyman from suburbia as the hero, a hero from a time when America was Exceptional but also where the hero always wanted to go home. Spielberg applied it to fantastic thrillers and adventure stories, wondrous tales of aliens (both peaceful and antagonistic), and then eventually migrated to real-life historical tales of missing boys during WWII, American soldiers fighting the Great War or U.S. Presidents trying to work within the confines of a democracy for the greater good. Sure, Spielberg did it with sentiment, style and audience manipulation at its very core but those are tools of American and sometimes European cinema. He is not just an artist of populist cinema, he also makes the best mainstream movies. He is our Frank Capra and our Cecil B. DeMille.

Screenwriter Guidance Suggested

MR. MOM (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When "Mr. Mom" ended, I felt a certain emptiness. Ostensibly a comedy-drama about a married couple with one partner laid off while the other is forced to work, the movie is a mildly comical trifle, an innocuous film that treats its subject matter with far too much innocence. And yet, even for its early 1980's timeline, I am sure most audiences watched this film and said, "Eh, I have been thru that and it is much harder work." The urgency is missing in "Mr. Mom" because the film is a cartoonish comedy, not a real-life evocation in the form of a solid comedy-drama but hey, the movies glamorize just about everything.

Follow me on this simplistic tale. Michael Keaton is Jack, a Detroit car engineer fired by his company, or more appropriately, laid off to save money. He is married to Caroline (Teri Garr, always appealing) who, once she discovers that her hubby is unemployed, decides to pursue her dream of working in advertising. Caroline is trying to help a tuna company sell its expensive product to regain its profits - her radical idea is to reduce the price of tuna by half. This delights the CEO which I found hard to swallow.

Meanwhile Jack is Mr. Mom, a stay-at-home dad who is struggling to find an engineer job. No surprise that hiring is practically nil in Detroit in the early 1980's when car manufacturers started belly-flopping. So Jack watches three kids who make a mess of the house while the vacuum cleaner operates on its own, the washer acts up thanks to Dad mixing powdered laundry detergent with the liquid detergent, burns breakfast for the kids in the kitchen, and plays card games with Caroline's female friends. Oh, he grows a beard and lays low in the couch all day fantasizing about a soap-opera love affair with one sizzling friend of Caroline's (Ann Jillian). Before you know it, thanks to Bill Conti's rousing "Rocky" score, Jack becomes a fastidious Mr. Mom, cleaning the house top and bottom and making fantastic candlelit dinners while Caroline is working long hours and never makes it home in time for a meal. Do you see where this is going?

"Mr. Mom" is a laid-back, respectable enough comedy but it fails at being a comedy of manners. Michael Keaton does not milk the role for wildness and true comic fervor the way Chevy Chase might. The film needs a real dose of adrenaline as well, never quite going the extra mile. It plays it far too safe and although the main performances by Keaton and Teri Garr are sincere enough, the movie doesn't feel like it is enough. The foreseeable ending makes one wish that the whole screenplay by John Hughes was rewritten with more genuine heart than the slight pathos of a TV sitcom. "Mr. Mom" (a great title) never really cuts loose.

Interview with Catherine Mary Stewart: Seeing Beyond the Horizon

An Interview with Catherine Mary Stewart: 

Seeing beyond the horizon 

By Jerry Saravia
Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

Back in the 1980s, you could call Catherine Mary Stewart the girl-next-door type. You could also call her the woman with dreams and aspirations, someone who saw beyond the horizon and caught wind of some sort of indiscernible future. That defining quality is omnipresent in most of her films, ranging from her acting debut in the bizarro, truly magnifique musical “The Apple” to her cult status in 1984’s subversive “Night of the Comet,” to even something as mindless as “Weekend at Bernie’s.” Even as the girl-next-door type in 1983’s “A Killer in the Family” or “The Last Starfighter” (a far meatier role), I always sensed Catherine as a woman who had ambitions, who sought some meaning beyond her current status in life. She has penetrating, sincere eyes and a wide grin -- the impression being that of a soul searching for something deeper in the universe (now that I think about it, the ending to “The Last Starfighter” is far more fitting than I thought). That is my impression and when you listen to her words about her career, past and present, you can’t help but think Catherine Mary Stewart is looking forward.

Robert Hays and Catherine Mary Stewart in 1987 TV-Movie Murder By the Book

Jerry Saravia: I looked through “Murder by the Book” with Robert Hays again. I am guessing I had seen it back in 1987, and I found it remarkable how innocent and playful it frequently was. You sort of play a femme fatale to a certain extent and you got to work with Fred Gwynne, Christopher Murney and Robert Hays. How did this project end up at your doorstep? 

Catherine Mary Stewart: I don’t remember the exact circumstances of how “Murder by the Book” landed in my hands, but I believe it was an offer. Believe it or not, I had to refamiliarize myself with who Robert Hays was. I quickly remembered him from “Airplane”, one of the funniest movies ever. Bob is an absolute doll. I grew up with Fred Gwynne as “Herman” in the “The Munsters.” It was one of my favorite series so it was surreal to actually work with him. What a presence. Christopher Murney is hilarious! He played a sort of “Columbo” character in “Murder by the Book.” He had us cracking up all the time.

JS: Aside from “Murder by the Book,” you have a host of television credits to your name. One I found noteworthy is the canceled soap, “Guiding Light,” where you played Naomi. Expand on the colorful character that you played in two episodes -- it must be the first time I have seen you speak with a Southern accent (“Has the butter slipped off your biscuit?”)

CMS: I believe I did 10 episodes of “Guiding Light.” That role was a lot of fun for me because it was different from any other role I’d played up to that time. “Naomi” was a shady kind of con-woman who mysteriously appears claiming to be friends with “Lorelei”, actress Beth Chamberline’s character. It was very liberating playing this broad southern character. My husband is from Virginia, so I borrowed some sayings from his family and him. The producer was pretty flexible about letting me play with the script so I would call up my in-laws and incorporate some of their flip little sayings in my dialogue. I wish I’d written them all down. They were hilarious. It was fun!

Catherine Mary Stewart in 1983's A Killer in the Family

JS: I want to ask, as a precursor to “The Last Starfighter,” about working on the intense 1983 TV movie, “A Killer in the Family.” You played James Spader’s girlfriend in it, a rather brief part where you are also a waitress at a pizza restaurant. Mr. Spader wasn’t really well known yet -- I am assuming you had a good rapport with Spader? And did you get to meet Robert Mitchum, playing the title role?

CMS: “A Killer in the Family” was one of my very first jobs in LA. One of the best fringe benefits of being an actor is the opportunity to work with or at least meeting acting legends. I don’t think we actually had a scene together but I met Robert Mitchum. It’s hard to describe how cool that is. James Spader really wasn’t the established actor that he is today, but it was evident that he was going places. He was very serious and focused. He was very kind to me.

Catherine Mary Stewart in 1984's The Last Starfighter

JS: I find it interesting that in the Reagan-era of the 1980s, a little movie about a sweet couple living in a trailer park, “The Last Starfighter,” became a sci-fi picture with a lot of heart. Most fascinating to me is the idea that Maggie joins her b/f in a space adventure at the end. He hints that they will come back. It seems to me that a lot of teen movies and/or teens in genre pictures featuring your first love resulted in being together eternally. Cameron Crowe’s “Say Anything” had the same notion. Looking back, would the movie have worked just as well if he said his goodbyes to Mags and took off. Did Mags have to be in the ship or was this a way of showing Mags was willing to move on?

CMS: I think the theme of “The Last Starfighter” spoke to the notion of possibility. This is what I love about the movie. It inspires those who are young and impressionable to reach for the stars and hold on tight, to paraphrase “Otis” (Vernon Washington). “Maggie” goes with “Alex” because she loves him and wants to be with him. “Granny” encourages her to go for it, to get out of the safety of the trailer park and explore her own potential. What I also love about “The Last Starfighter” is the
characters are not cartoons, which leaves them available to the young audience. The audience can relate.

JS: On a side note, ever play the Atari game of “The Last Starfighter” and, perhaps a silly question, was the actual game playable on the set?

CMS: I have not played “The Last Starfighter” game and, no, it was not playable on the set. All that digital stuff was put in later. Nick Castle just explained to us what was happening, basically. I believe he was off-stage giving us directions as to how to react to a blank screen.

Catherine Mary Stewart in 1980's The Apple

JS: We have to talk about “The Apple,” a sci-fi, supernatural, Faustian musical with Biblical overtones that I find hard to put out of my mind. I think it is quite good with a nervous, frantic energy about it, hardly a good-bad movie in my opinion. Working with such solid, magnetic actors like Joss Ackland and Vladek Sheybal is amazing for your debut film -- did they provide sage advice on how to proceed with your acting career?

CMS: “The Apple” was a wild and crazy ride. I was studying dance in London, England when I
auditioned as a dancer for the movie. I had no previous experience as a professional actor so when I was offered the lead role I had no idea of what to expect, nor did I really worry about it. There is a certain freedom to innocence. By the time we shot the movie I knew it inside out. I could have recited everyone else’s lines, so I don’t remember really feeling nervous. I was as prepared as I could be and I just took it one day at a time. I didn’t think about what it meant in terms of my career or the impact of the movie itself. I don’t recall Joss Ackland or Vladek Sheybal giving me sage advice. Joss was lovely and is an amazing actor, as was Vladek. They both had enormous charisma and talent. It was a pleasure to watch them work.

JS: Why did you have such a small part as Amy Smart’s aunt in “Love ‘n’ Dancing?” A movie about dancing, which you had studied, and you barely get to strut your stuff?

CMS: I guess it was the extent of the character within the confines of the story and script. It was a lot of fun to learn some ballroom dancing with the handsome Gregory Harris. I enjoyed the sort of stuck-up ballroom dancer character. My daughter Hanna made her film acting debut in that movie.

JS: I always ask of every actor the following: Is there a defining role or project that you would love to be part of in the future, especially now that you are taking up directing?

CMS: I want to be a part of making this industry more available to women of on every level. It is high time that there are stories about women of all ages, more women directors, writers and producers. I see it slowly evolving. I want to use whatever influence or power to help make that happen. I think audiences are starving

Catherine Mary Stewart and Jonathan Silverman in 1989's Weekend at Bernie's

JS: Lastly, you often play women who cannot be controlled by the man, nor do you play women who actively seek control in a relationship either -- which I find fascinating and noteworthy. Even with “Weekend at Bernie’s,” you stormed off from Jonathan Silverman’s advances when you discovered what a creep he was (of course, things change at the end). Did you actively search and hope throughout your career to play women, not girls, who were not victims?

CMS: I’ve never felt like a victim in real life and perhaps that comes off on screen or in auditions. I certainly come from a long line of very strong, intelligent, independent women. I have had the opportunity to play such a huge variety of characters and that is what I strive for. If I can encourage girls or women to believe in their own strengths and power through the roles I play, then I’m very happy. I find that the male audience enjoys strong female characters at least as much as the female audience. The idea that a female character is always subservient to a male character is an antiquated notion.

For more on Catherine, check out the following: Catherine Mary Stewart’s website: http://www catherinemarystewart.com Twitter: @cmsall FB: https://www.facebook.com/catherinemarystewart/

Bearing witness to the scream

THE WITNESS (2016)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
Reprinted with permission by Steel Notes Magazine

38 witnesses in an apartment complex claimed they saw and/or heard a woman screaming in agony after said woman had just suffered the first of two stabbings in the street below. Nobody did anything, nobody called the police. This became a moral lesson for an adage that is now spoken and distributed ubiquitously: If you see something, say something. In the case of Kitty Genovese, a young 28-year-old woman who was brutally stabbed outside of her apartment in Kew Gardens, NY back in 1964, if you hear something, say something. In the entrancingly disturbing, emotionally draining and very moving documentary “The Witness,” people did in fact hear her screeching screams of help yet, allegedly, nobody saw her. What is most revealing is that witnesses did in fact call the police and someone did help her during her last remaining moments she had left. This is the first of many disclosed truths that were ignored at the time.

Told from the point-of-view of Kitty’s youngest brother, Bill Genovese (a Vietnam Veteran),“The Witness” is a full-throttle attempt to find out the truth, the whole concealed truth of Kitty’s murder. Bill Genovese takes on the obsessive and difficult task of finding the truth to a 50-year-old murder. He is a double amputee riding around in his wheelchair, sometimes at the crime scene and often visiting those who bore witness to the crime during the aftermath (many other witnesses have long passed). It is the work of a top-notch sleuth -- he even goes so far as to interview “60 Minutes” own Mike Wallace (who did a piece on it back in the day); Abe Rosenthal, former New York Times editor (who helped to craft the alleged myth of witnesses’ anomie); Gabe Pressman, an NBC reporter who said the Times, the paper of record, would not be challenged by the news organization, and of course the surviving witnesses. One witness, Sophia Farrar, a close friend of Kitty’s, was there to comfort the dying Kitty in the hallway of the apartment building. We also learn from a witness who knew Kitty as a young boy that the blood hand prints on the walls were not Kitty’s but his mother Sophia’s, the one who was trying to comfort Kitty. New York Times would not hear of it, claiming it was Kitty’s and photographs of the hand prints were taken.

Most fascinating is the coverage of Kitty’s life as a celebrated barmaid who was loved by many, a free spirit who loved life. Kitty was romantically involved with Mary Ann Zielonko and they were roommates in the Kew Gardens apartment they shared. Kitty is also shown in various photographs and home movies as an exuberant, spirited woman who longed to spread love around. In a touchingly tactile way, “The Witness” depicts an angelic presence who was compassionate and possibly empathetic. This makes her murder that much more disturbing -- a life taken away without any justification. The murderer, Winston Moseley (who died in prison in 2016), stabbed her repeatedly without any real provocation (allegedly, Kitty used a racial slur against him), disappeared and then promptly came back to stab her again. It was a vicious crime that should never have happened. This is what drives Bill Genovese’s search for the full truth. Could something have been done to help Kitty sooner? Were the police contacted promptly?

We learn the New York Times’ writer Martin Gansburg may have embellished the truth about the witnesses, and certainly misrepresented the facts which were dependent on the information supplied by police commissioner Michael Murphy (the opening paragraph of the original Times article states that witnesses viewed the murder in its entirety when, in fact, nobody saw the murder in its entirety since the killer walked away and then came back around to poor Kitty. Case in point, here is how the article’s paragraph read: “For more than half an hour, 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.”) Apathy, however, was not part of the equation on that dreadful night. Bill finds that his older sister’s screams were heard by many in the apartment building yet (despite a couple of crucial witnesses) nobody saw the crime, and calls were made to the police though it is never established how many people actually called in. One certifiable fact is that 38 or more witnesses definitely heard the commotion and some looked out their windows, one even shouted at the killer to stay away from her. Still, when Bill hires an actress to relive Kitty’s last moments by delivering the high-pitched screams that couldn’t possibly be mistaken for anything other than the agony of a wounded, dying animal, you wonder how anyone could think differently and not respond. It is a scene of undeniable power, making us feel more empathetic for Kitty than ever.

Director James Solomon has assembled a riveting documentary that serves as revisionist history, righting the wrongs of perceived anomie in NYC. Of course, if the New York Times article had been rewritten differently with more clarified accounts from witnesses, then Kitty’s name would not mean as much as it does today more than 50 years later. When Bill Genovese goes so far as to interview Moseley’s son, he still doesn’t get real satisfaction considering Moseley's son was unsure about meeting Bill whom he assumed was Mafia-related, hence Bill's last name! The conclusive irony is that Bill arrives at something much more fulfilling -- the Genovese family has finally embraced and celebrated Kitty rather than trying to forget her namesake via a headline-making murder. It is how she lived that spreads joy -- her name has been restored to the loving family member she always was. That is Bill’s satisfaction, and ours.