(An Interview with Mitchell A. Hallock): A Man of Many Talents

AN INTERVIEW WITH MITCHELL A. HALLOCK: A MAN OF MANY TALENTS By Jerry Saravia So who is Mitchell A. Hallock? He is an author, ran twice for political office, a cartoonist, a pop culture writer, and created COMICONN to name just a few of his talents. His most notable achievement is helping to get the Indycast Podcast off the ground, and he certainly has a love for the iconic character of Indiana Jones.   1.) What first drew you to Indiana Jones and what motivated you to become a fan? "I was already a huge Harrison Ford fan from seeing him in Star Wars in 1977 - he was the coolest dude in the galaxy. When I heard Raiders had him in it -- I honestly didnt recognize him -- and I wasnt a big fan of the 30s serials like Flash Gordon - and thought the "Lost Ark" was some lame Noah's Ark movie --- but boy was I wrong! I became a true convert when I saw Raiders at a sneak preview. I was stunned and couldnt wait to see it again - 14 times that summer. Indiana Jones was not a superhero - he was somebody you could actually grow up to be -- and became a hero for me at 13."  2.) Tell us how the Indycast podcast came together that you started in 2007.  "The ForceCast was covering news on Indiana Jones in 2007, and when the local paper said they would casting for filming at Yale for extras - I ran down there. I even got written up in Entertainment Weekly along with my sons -- but I wasnt chosen -- I started sending in reports from the set for various websites - including TheRaider.net wher I became a staff writer. I thought of doiing a podcast - but auditioned for TheForceCast - but was beaten to it by Ed Dolista from Australia - who was reading my news reports from TheRaider - so I started as the script writer for the show - but had so much news - I started recording segments and sending them in. I was first the Indy product review guy, then covered comics, books, toys, and then started doing interviews at cons. soon after the show expanded and we had guys doing Indy Trivia, polls and music specials. Then started getting to be THE Indyfan source - and appeared in more magazines like Vanity Fair and then did the movie Indyfans and Indiana James." 3.) Mitch, tell us about your background. Judging from your book "Father Vegas," you have been a pop culture writer, a movie extra, cartoonist, artist, marketing director...um, politics, too? "Yes like Indy - I am a man of many talents. Schooled as an illustrator I wanted to be a movie poster artist in the 1980s. Graduated college with degrees in design and became an art director at a direct mail catalog company, where I drew and photographed designs based on comics and of course Indiana Jones. Offered a a job at Marvel (I turned it down - I know stupid me). Did theater, public access TV shows, wrote sketches auditioned for SNL, moved on to be a Creative Director for a computer company, then Marketing Director for a software company - but along the way writing spec scripts for The X-Files, comics and other stuff - if the web was in the early 90s - I'd be famous by now. Appeared in a movie or two and yes ran for public office - one of which I lost the seat on the Town Council by 3 votes! and auditioned for Kevin Smith's Comic Book Men as the 'Indiana Jones expert'." 4.) Ever meet George Lucas? "While I did see him at the set in New Haven on Indy 4 - I have never met him personally. I also saw Spielberg, Ford, Shia and the rest. I have met Harrison Ford and thats a whole other story. I have been invited to Lucasfilm and ILM for a tour last year." 5.) Thoughts on your favorite Indy flick and your least favorite, and should they make a fifth Indy film? "Love them all - dont have a least favorite. but Raiders is my favorite - followed by Last Crusade - as that was the last film I saw with my Dad before he passed away. Yes I want an Indy 5! and a 6 and a 7 and an 8..." 6.) Also, what are your impressions of the upcoming parody of the Indiana Jones flicks entitled "Indiana James"? "I think Indiana James will be great - and not only because I have a cameo in it -- its a Mel Brooks type Indiana Jones film they SHOULD have made years ago -- thank God someone has done it! Cant wait to see the final product."  7.) I also see you are involved in ComicConn as an owner. How did that come about?  "I interviewed for the Marketing Director job for Reed Expo for NY Comic Con for about 13 hours and got passed over. I was ticked and was talking to my pal who owns a comic shop-- he said lets do our own show -- as CT never had a comic con in 25 years... thus ComiCONN was born." 8.) Finally, tell us your plans for the future and future Indycast podcasts  "I just relaunched my marketing consultant business - it was Indy Marketing - now its Big Fedora Marketing. I am working on ComiCONN 2012 for this August in Trumbull, CT. In the midst of starting a tie-in podcast on comics and pop culture and still reporting on Indiana Jones! Amazingly we continue to have more content without Indy 5 news! I have expanded and started covering more interviews with crew and cast from the films - and also talking with folks involved with action movies like my recent talk with the actors in The Avengers. The show is actually still getting new listeners and downloads -- so we will continue to make it up as we go -- just like Indiana Jones would!!"

Detroit is manic and diluted

DOCTOR DETROIT (1983)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

There is always room for a comedic take on mistaken identity, and all the pratfalls and comic possibilities it can offer. "Doctor Detroit" doesn't fit in and doesn't even try to. The movie is spirited technically in terms of Dan Aykroyd's performance, who will do anything for a laugh, but it has no real pizazz otherwise. It is a labored effort that plays it either too straight or not comical enough.

Aykroyd is Clifford Skridlow, a professor of comparative literature, a snoozer of a class. He power walks 6 miles everyday to the Monroe College where he teaches, an institution that is about to be shut due to limited funds. Clifford frequents his favorite restaurant where he meets a classy pimp named Smooth Walker (Howard Hesseman, in an odd bit of casting) who along with his four prostitutes try to coax Clifford into becoming the fictitious Doctor Detroit, the most dangerous man from Michigan. Smooth Walker owes money to Ma (Kate Murtaugh), the most dangerous mob boss in Chicago so in order to get her off his back, he creates Doctor Detroit, a fictitious partner. Everybody's name sound like a liquor label in this movie.

The first two-thirds of "Doctor Detroit" are dull and left me in laughless despair. The problem is the movie has no engine to rev it up. The other problem is Aykroyd plays the role of a dapper professor who has the time of his life with Smooth Walker and the women, but there are no consequences. When he arrives home to his father after a night of binge drinking and one toke too many, he looks as if he just came from a four-hour shift at Denny's. There is no momentum and the whole Chicago nightlife montage lacks purpose. After one threatens to doze off, Clifford is suddenly Doctor Detroit and we wonder why he is going through with it and for whose sake. I had said earlier that I had high hopes for a case of mistaken identity but that is not the case with the plot of the film. Instead, Clifford knows has to be Doctor Detroit and does it as if it is his duty since Smooth Walker skips town. Huh?

The last third of the film has some laughs but there is no tone and no real energy (despite a brief performance by James Brown). Aykroyd gives it all he can give but his whole life of the party act drained me out. This is the first comedy I can remember seeing where it exhausted me from a lack of laughs.

Footnote: Look fast for Glenne Headly as a student in the Comparative Lit. class.

Lynchian work process

DON'T LOOK AT ME (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

David Lynch remains one of the most fascinating, illuminating directors in the history of cinema. One wonders how he came up with such Byzantine puzzles such as "Lost Highway" or "Eraserhead," or sickeningly perverse comments on suburbia such as "Blue Velvet." "Don't Look at Me" will not answer many questions nor should it about Mr. Lynch. Shot back in 1989 in French, it will give everyone an opportunity to witness the creative process behind an artist.

The documentary is directed by Guy Girard who stylizes the film in a Lynchian mode. For example, the opening scene is a conversation with Lynch and Girard at Bob's Big Boy in L.A., shot and framed outside the restaurant as if you were peering through the Venetian blinds. Inspired for sure, not to mention the various industrial sounds and abstract whistles heard on the soundtrack, most often associated with Lynch himself. There are also clips from his work, including "Eraserhead" and "Blue Velvet," which are shown on some television monitor as the camera tracks Lynch dictating a script. The most stupendous moment is seeing Lynch thinking silently about how to continue a scene in the script.

Girard's focus on Lynch is simply avante-garde in his choices for camera set-ups while interviewing the director. In fact, the only time we focus on Lynch's face is when Girard hands him polaroids of some shots from his work. Often, Lynch shows his back to the camera while wearing a fishing hat. Mostly, he refuses to divulge the meaning in his work as he correctly assumes that interpretations should be left to the audience (I certainly don't want him to tell me why the Lady from the Radiator in "Eraserhead" has puffed-up cheeks). So you will not learn much about Lynch in terms of his background or his fixation on the dark side, but you do get glimpses ("Most people do not know what they are doing. They are confused.").

Choice moments include a drive with Lynch and the late Jack Nance (who played Henry in "Eraserhead") to a reservoir used in one of his films, seeing Lynch sculpting and molding naked figurines for some mini-environment, recording the beautiful voice of Julee Cruise for an unspecified project (she sang melodies for many of Lynch's films), and in general seeing Lynch at work, indulging in creative ideas ("I like the shape of an ear. An ear, in a grassy field, with ants crawling on it - there's hardly anything better than that.") Although not as enveloping or cohesive as the other Lynch documentary, "Pretty as a Picture," this is still enthralling and informative for anyone who wants to see the Dark Side of Genius revel in his own obsessions and dreams. Essential for anyone who is a fan.

Billy Jack is no flip-flopper

BILLY JACK GOES TO WASHINGTON (1977)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Billy Jack, the violent pacifist, is an American icon I've grown to appreciate over time. The idealistic Tom Laughlin played the character with a touch of dignity and calm, even when kicking people in the face sans shoes. The message in "Billy Jack" and "The Trial of Billy Jack" was that in order to achieve peace, one had to resort to violence because there were no other alternatives. At the end of the first "Billy Jack" (exempting the biker film "The Born Losers"), the heroic crusader was sent to jail for murder. I believe the same thing happened at the end of "Trial of Billy Jack." Now comes the obscure "Billy Jack Goes to Washington," a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," which had a minimum theatrical release and which was met with critical disdain (at least to the critics who actually saw it). I must say that this film is as involving and entertaining as the earlier films, if anything because Billy Jack doesn't need to get barefoot and kick the cajones out of any rednecks to get his message across. Maybe a filibuster can make a difference. 

This time, the setting is the nation's capital as members of Congress decide on recruiting an unknown for Senator (apparently in politics, experience is preferred but not essential). They get the bright idea to bring in Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin), whom they pardon for his crimes, and elect him Senator (he only gets a two-month term). It is that easy, especially since his election is endorsed by crusty Senator Paine (E.G. Marshall). The notion is that Mr. Jack will appeal to young voters who care about the environment and the Native American population (and presumably love martial-arts). Of course, Billy Jack is so naive that he assumes things will get done and laws will be passed to preserve lands and wildlife. He has no idea how to play politics. He is also oblivious to the creation of a nuclear power plant that will be built on land he owns, where he plans to build his National Children's School. Can Billy's wife, Jean (Delores Taylor), do anything to help him? Or how about the money-hungry Lucie Arnaz? You'll have to see it to believe it.

"Billy Jack Goes to Washington" could've looked and sounded ridiculous with its premise but, thanks to Tom Laughlin, it does grab at some of the truths of political corruption. A lobbyist who has top-secret info on an impending nuclear site may remind one of the real-life murder of Vincent Foster, lobbyist for President Clinton. Some dialogue focuses on how easily a life can be taken away in the face of corruption - murder is as consistent as getting votes passed. How can Billy Jack fight Washington to get what he wants? Will he kick some ass? Nope, he has to rely on his wits. The final thirty minutes of the film has Billy Jack in filibuster mode as he pleads his case in front of an exhausted Congress. It is here where Tom Laughlin proves his worth as an actor and his intensity builds rather well (never mind that James Stewart did it first and did it better).

For Billy Jack fans, do not expect any fight scenes. There is only one and it is too brief to register much enthusiasm - though it is funny that Jean kicks some ass as well. When Billy Jack gets passionate about his cause, he screams. This movie is full of dialogue, some of it is haphazardly written (or perhaps intentionally so since senators can sound flat sometimes) and some of it is superbly written (the corruption inside Washington as explained by Lucie Arnaz's character is as damning as any Oliver Stone film). Granted, you'll learn a lot about the machinations of Congress more than in any other fiction film.

Performances are sharp all around. E.G. Marshall glows in every scene as Senator Paine, as does Sam Wanamaker as Paine's ruthless boss. As for Tom himself, he has a certain charisma and natural quality that could have led to character parts beyond Billy Jack, but it never happened. Delores Taylor as Billy's wife, Jean, seems to be sleepwalking. And it is sweet to see their own real-life daughter (Christina Laughlin) speaking just as passionately about politics as Billy Jack.

By 1977, audiences were turned off by the Billy Jack phenomenon since you couldn't separate the character from the actor (that was by design). In fact, the film had sneak previews in L.A. and Omaha, Nebraska, and then disappeared completely (most fans of the series had not heard of this sequel). Originally, it was 155 minutes yet, on video, it is no more than 2 hours. According to Tom Laughlin (who ran for Governor of California when Schwarzenegger ran), the film was taken away from his hands by the government. On the whole, "Billy Jack Goes to Washington" is a reasonably entertaining film that is worth seeking out, especially if you are a conspiracy buff.

Not very user-friendly

TRON (1982)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Tron" is a migraine-inducing and jaw-droppingly boring mess of a movie. It has visuals that can elicit about as much interest as looking at an Atari video game with binoculars.

Jeff Bridges is Kevin Flynn, a former employee of a high-tech software computer company, ENCOM, who works at an arcade. Flynn believes that a certain Ed Dillinger (David Warner), an employee at ENCOM, plagiarized some of Flynn's video games. Flynn tries to hack into a mainframe computer with the help of someone from the inside, namely Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) who runs computer security at ENCOM and is concerned about hackers. Cindy Morgan plays another employee of ENCOM who aids the two male protagonists as they are all "users," meaning they play the game or run the program in their likeness. Kevin breaks into the company to defeat the MCP (Master Control Program) and is accidentally zapped into that world, the Digital World, by the MCP due to a teleportation device, but not as a "user." If you can follow this, terrific. If not, consider that my high school grades in Computer Science were not that great.

"Tron" was considered a milestone in the world of cinematic, computerized special-effects (as the head of Pixar, John Lasseter, said that without "Tron" there would've been no "Toy Story"). I am not in awe of these effects (and never was when I saw some excerpts back in 1982) nor do they seem all that special. They are monochromatic graphics combined with live footage of the actors shot in black-and-white and wearing white gear with an occasional burst of neon color. The movie itself is a bore, an insipid bore, with a closing shot of a helicopter arriving at the top of a building that is more impressive than the giant Atari screen effects we have to sit through.

The opening ten minutes of the film are actually entertaining. We are introduced to something cryptic with the cold-hearted antagonist, Dillinger, talking to the MCP. There is Jeff Bridges projecting a certain lively, upbeat kind of character and, for a moment, I was enveloped by "Tron." The rest of the movie is rotoscoping and a lot of computer graphics that wouldn't charm a human pinball.

Arthur partying like it is 1981

ARTHUR (2011)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

Russell Brand is a wild live wire act, a man whom we try to catch up with while he spins his tales with rapid momentum. He does it so masterfully and with such electric precision that he is a unique comic persona - a tall, lanky cartoon version of himself. There is no one else like Russell Brand. There is also no one else like Dudley Moore. So when word got out that Brand got the Arthur role for the remake, my heart sank a little. Physically, they couldn't be more opposite. The late Dudley Moore was a diminutive marvel, a rat who scurried across the screen. Russell is more physically imposing and takes up much more space. How could this "Arthur" remake work? The surprise is that it works but its intentions differ wildly from the original 1981 film.

Brand is Arthur, a wealthy man who copiously drinks for laughs and to lure women in his bed, which has a magnetic field under it! In the opening scene, he drives drunk dressed as Batman in his own Batmobile and knocks down the Merrill Lynch bull (boy, my late father might not have enjoyed that). He is arrested and gets bailed out, and bails everyone else out. He is a drunk loon, or is he more of a playboy who loves playing with big, expensive toys, like a kid who never grew up. He is about to lose his billion-dollar inheritance unless he sobers up and marries the fake-as-fake-can-get socialite Susan (Jennifer Garner). Maniacal Nick Nolte (underused here) is Susan's father who threatens Arthur with a table saw!

Naturally, Arthur falls for an aspiring children's author, Naomi (Greta Gerwig), who takes tourists on unauthorized tours around Grand Central Station. They start dating and he gives her a Pez dispenser with her likeness, while they eat in an emptied-out Grand Central Station. All this is cute and lively enough but Greta doesn't have the pizazz of Liza Minnelli in the original, especially when Minnelli played a waitress who shoplifts!

"Arthur" has got a major saving grace in Helen Mirren as Hobson, the dutiful servant who is more of a mother to Arthur than Arthur's own mother. Still, Mirren's character is not written with the same kind of wit that drove Sir John Gielgud's own Hobson in the 1981 film to have some delicious and memorable zingers ("I'll alert the media!"). As for the rest of the cast, Jennifer Garner is rather unwatchable as the bitchy heiress who wants Arthur for his money. Garner has not had me at a remote "hi" since her best performance in "13 Going On 30." Since then, she has been saddled with characters who are emotionally mute and unappealing.

"Arthur" is a leisurely paced and often smartly funny film but it possesses a bit too much uplift for the story of a drunk. The original Dudley Moore picture made no apologies for Arthur - he was the same lovable drunk from start to finish. Russell Brand gives Arthur more sensitivity and plays him as some lost, misunderstood soul, as if this 2011 Arthur couldn't get in any bigger trouble than driving a Batmobile down a busy New York street. Dudley's Arthur toyed with drinking his life away. Big difference.

The Nutty German Clown

THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED (1972):

The Holocaust film as seen by Jerry Lewis and nobody else

By Jerry Saravia

Jerry Lewis has had a successful career as a comedian making films that have had audiences rolling in the aisles. His attempt to resuscitate his career in the 1980's with troubled productions like "Hardly Working" and "Cracking Up" did little to rejuvenate or reclaim his audience (playing the serious role of a Johnny Carson-type in Martin Scorsese's film, "The King of Comedy," also proved disastrous since it was the biggest flop of 1983). Despite Lewis's futile attempts to make audiences love him again, no film of his has caused more controversy than the unfinished and unreleased "The Day the Clown Cried," a 1971 effort whose original negative remains under lock and key in Sweden due to financial woes. Jerry reportedly has a VHS assist copy of the film and three scenes from the original film negative that he keeps under lock and key in his office. Why the secrecy and why can't this be seen, aside from behind-the-scenes footage shown on a Biography special?

The story of "The Day the Clown Cried" deals with Helmut Doork (played by Lewis), a drunk German circus clown who is arrested by the Nazis for making fun of Hitler. Helmut is whisked away to the internment camps and entertains the Jewish children - he does his job so well at making children laugh that Helmut is taken away yet again. This time, he is kept in Auschwitz and is told to do his job and lead the children to the showers, when in fact they are about to be gassed to death. Helmut becomes a Pied Piper and feels such remorse for the kids that he goes in the chamber with them. 

I first heard about this film through the Medveds' crudely funny book, "The Golden Turkey Awards." For years, "The Day the Clown Cried" is the one film, aside from "The Nutty Professor," that stood out for me. I am always fascinated by films that languish and are never completed for one reason or another. Bruce Lee's "Game of Death" comes to mind, as well as Orson Welles' "The Other Side of the Wind" and several other projects (as a director, Welles might have the record for more unfinished works than any other). But something gnaws at me about "The Day the Clown Cried." Maybe it is the fact that Jerry Lewis attempted something so far removed from his ouevre, perhaps an attempt to be taken seriously and not just as a clown. Robin Williams has tried it (and he even made a similarly themed picture to "Clown" called "Jakob the Liar"), Jim Carrey has had his share of serious roles, Billy Crystal, etc. From those who have apparently seen this film (Harry Shearer claims he saw it and hated it), Lewis's Holocaust picture is a disaster and wrongheaded and possibly morally problematic. After all, it is a about a German leading children to the gas chambers and the ending implies that he goes in the chamber with them, thus committing suicide as an act of self-sacrifice. I think that ending might be effective in hindsight but one wonders if it might have made more sense to put himself in the chamber first and keep the kids out, allowing the kids to live (they might get shot later by the Nazi soldiers but at least the kids are spared from a horrible death). Perhaps an allegedly dramatic and Holocaust-themed Jerry Lewis flick is not what Lewis fans had in mind. His tomfoolery and wackiness are what made people laugh, hence his role as a rich playboy impersonating a Nazi general who wants to kill Hitler in "Which Way to the Front?" (1970 - the last completed Lewis-directed film until 1981's "Hardly Working"). Of course, we might never know since it never got a release nor was it ever completed.

Jerry Lewis has not discussed the film at all (aside from his autobiography), though he had hoped in the early 80's to finish shooting the film and clear the rights to the material. That never came to pass, though one might surmise that interest may have accelerated after the success of Roberto Benigni's "Life is Beautiful." No deal, no show, and the film negative is still in Sweden. It may remain the one and only Jerry Lewis movie that nobody will ever see. Somewhere, Jerry Lewis might still be shedding a tear over it.