Change Your Image
lshurr
Reviews
The Twilight Zone: Valley of the Shadow (1963)
Nicely done episode, and Scotty, too
Well, not Scotty, but Jimmy Doohan does appear briefly in this well-done episode as the father of a little girl whose irresponsible use of the town's secret technology sets off the chain of events which entrap the reporter Phillip Redfield in the clutches of the isolated town of Peaceful Valley. The townies have technological gadgets which are the gift of an alien scientist who visited the town long ago and are being held in secret trust until humanity is ready for them because their unlimited potential for benefit is seen as overbalanced by their potential for harm and destruction.
Thus, the town fathers must figure out what to do about Redfield, who confronts them with the idea that they are as bad or worse than those they criticize as "not ready" by placing themselves above the rest of humanity, treating them as inferior masses who must suffer and die because they don't deserve better. He even calls one of them Adolf Hitler, perhaps an even more pressing insult in 1963 than today with the end of WWII less than twenty years past, in response what he regards as their heartless, elitist argumentation.
It appears, in retrospect, that the "technology" had to have directly influenced the technology of the Star Trek universe only a few years later, but I'll reveal no more than that here. As with a lot of television drama of that era, the acting is a bit wooden and some thematic elements are a little heavy handed and dated, but it's all consistent with the style of the time, it's not nearly as burdensome to the story as it could have been and, I think, the freshness of the story manages to hold up against all.
Credit must given for a surprise ending that works: 1) Redfield adds depth to his character by considering the consequences of his actions as he attempts to escape the town with the technology and 2) just when you think the town fathers are indeed as bad as, if not worse than, Adolf Hitler, they... act surprisingly. The script manages to finesse the ending very nicely. A similar ending today might fail as a hokey cop out, but it manages to appear fresh and imaginative in this old story.
The Wild One (1953)
Period Piece, Better Than Expected
I heard about this movie off and on for over 30 years before seeing it. It was described by various people as "trashy," "glorifies violence," "portrays motorcyclists as violent nihilists" as well as "cool." As a kid in 1970, I rode my "5 brake horsepower or less" (which allowed me to be licensed to operate it at age 15) motorcycle, a 2-stroke Italian import sold under the Harley Davison name and immersed myself in biker lore.
In hindsight, I made a laughable biker -- about 5 years ago my mother sent me a picture of me with that bike and what a hoot to see again that scrawny, nerdy kid with his little 50cc bike. But I thought I was cool! And I was taken for cool because I actually owned and rode a motorcycle. I guess I was cool, in a way. That dopey little bike gave me a peer identity as... well, not merely a good drone maybe. But rebellious? Hah! My parents APPROVED of my motorcycle... helped me buy it and everything. Some rebel! Without it though, I would only have been another of the school's "brainiacs," a know-it-all smart kid and suckup to the adults who ruled our lives. Wow! I was leading a double life, good boy and bad boy (though more of a pretend one) at the same time.
Cycle Magazine was my bible and in its pages I 1st heard about The Wild One. One writer published an essay about being a teenager with a bike not unlike mine at the time of the movie's release or perhaps its later rerelease. He wrote of how the movie reinforced a badboy sense of themselves amongst his peers and of relishing the disapproving stares they received outside the theater as they revved their little bikes at the curb, playing at being "Black Rebels" themselves. I also recall an Episcopal priest who wrote of his Honda 90 and how his bishop received a disapproving call about the "company he was keeping" merely because he was seen riding behind a group of outlaw-looking guys on much larger bikes. It's funny but it shows how people see what they want to see.
So now I've seen the movie and it's actually more than I expected. Yes, it has elements of a "Reefer Madness" style screed against motorcyclists. Yes, the acting is often wooden and the characters hokey. Yes, the story barely hangs together. Yes, it's dated. And yet, and yet, it turns out to be more sophisticated than expected. The gangsters are disorderly, disruptive and destructive, but not truly menacing until they chase Kathie on their bikes. Before that, they are mostly just annoying. Johnny's affected nihilistic cool, famously summed up by his answer "Whatayagot?" to the question of what he's rebelling against, is pierced but not annihilated by his attraction to Kathie. The townspeople are not merely the innocent victims of the big bad motorcycle gangsters. It is they who form a vigilante committee and take the Rebel Johnny into a back room and beat him up even though it turns out that he's done very little other than stonily defy authority and behave rudely to anyone who tries to penetrate his affected cool. It is they who cause Jimmy's death by throwing a tire iron at Johnny on his motorcycle. It is they who refuse to listen to Kathie, the only one who knows what's going on. The bikers are certainly not the "good guys," but the townspeople come off as worse in the end.
Don't forget that when this movie was made, the good guys were always supposed to be good, the bad guys were always bad and the story had to have a happy ending, or, failing that, it had to have a "moral" ending in which the tragic consequences of evil winning the day were made abundantly clear. In the end, Johnny does not settle down or cease to be a rebel. He never says another word to her, but he does show up one last time and leaves the emblematic trophy with Kathie bestowing a smile upon her, his first and only friendly expression, before riding away for good. This defiance, if that's the right word for it, of American cinematic norms was innovative for its time.
Tendres cousines (1980)
French cinema, coming-of-age erotic film
I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.
The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.
It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.