Skeletons in my Movie Closet - JAWS

I’m gonna need a bigger blog. In honor of Shark Week 2020, I’m airing out one of the more embarrassing skeletons in my proverbial closet, and this one has teeth the size of shot glasses. Often cited as one of the earliest examples of a “summer blockbuster,” from 1975, this is Steven Spielberg’s Jaws.

I know, I know, fully half of all six of you that are reading this are probably already shouting at your screens and/or typing a scathing email or social media post. Seriously, how had I not seen this? I don’t have a good answer for that at all, and there was never going to be a great time to dive in to the water, so to speak. I have seen it now, however, and it’s not hard to understand why it became the cultural touchstone that it is.

The iconic opening scene quickly establishes the atmosphere of the entire film, from its picturesque resort beach façade to its minimalist but omnipresent sense of tension. It’s a great sort of a dipole that is largely maintained through the picture’s runtime, with scenes of seemingly ordinary beach and sea life balancing the ones in which it’s obvious that something is going to happen. I found this push-and-pull dynamic taking me along with it, going in and out like the tide. The lighting, camera work, and score all play into the “less is more” approach. It’s a good thing, too, because the shark itself doesn’t really look very convincing, but the whole movie around it really sells the needed emotional, visceral reaction to its few appearances on the screen.

The three principal cast members are absolutely essential to drawing the audience in, and they do a great job. I was particularly engaged by Robert Shaw’s Quint and Richard Dreyfuss’s Hooper. These two seem slightly exaggerated as a means of establishing their archetypal credentials, but they manage it without really descending into caricature. Dreyfuss may have peaked in this movie. That’s not to say that he isn’t good in other things that came after, but it’s especially easy to believe in his character’s humanity here. Robert Shaw definitely plays this as a bit of a ham, but seems to be well aware of where the line is and manages to flirt with it constantly without ever crossing it. In a bit of contrast, Roy Scheider is set up to serve as more of an audience proxy and to that end feels like more of an everyman. It’s a fine performance and he manages some solid emotional moments, but I don’t think the script intends for him to be a standout character.

Andrew asked me afterward if there were any surprises in the movie or if I already knew everything. To be honest, I wasn’t really surprised by anything in particular in this movie, but I’m pretty confident in saying that it’s because I’ve seen numerous others that play the same beats. As is so often the case, the execution of those moments is the key difference. Even knowing most of what was going to happen well before it did, those moments still manage to land where they mean to. Lots of movies try to do the same things and can’t quite make them work. I am pleased to say that I think Jaws holds up even after all these years. I just somehow never got around to it before. Can’t imagine why.

Skeletons in my Movie Closet - Stagecoach

There are countless genres of movies as there are of any other storytelling medium. The more common ones tend to have archetypal examples that serve as touchstones for other films of a similar stripe. One notable genre that has many such films to draw on is Westerns, although fewer are made these days. The names “John Ford” and “John Wayne” are practically synonymous with Western movies. The director and actor worked together several times, but this was the first. A breakout part for “The Duke,” and also the first movie that Ford filmed in Monument Valley, this is 1939’s “Stagecoach.”

Of all the elements that go into a film production, the cast of actors is one of the most obvious to most viewers, and John Ford had a fine one here. Including not only John Wayne, but also Claire Trevor, John Carradine, and Andy Devine, everyone here turns in a credible performance. The characters are a little broadly drawn, but there’s just enough depth to each of them that none of them comes across as a cardboard cutout. I felt at least a little bit invested in every story, no mean feat with an ensemble of nine principal players. Wayne’s and Trevor’s get a little more attention than the rest, but not so much that they grossly overshadow the others. The balance is impressive, both in the script and in the performers.

In a time when a lot of movies were still assembled like someone had pointed a camera at a stage production, John Ford was really starting to do things differently. The camera is dynamic throughout the film, with angles and pans coming together to give a tremendous sense of scope. This is partly due to the sweeping exterior vistas, but I’d say half of the shots were done on a soundstage. The editing is so tight that it’s easy to just get lost in the movie and not notice how frequently shots alternate between location and stage, often in very short spans. The long chase sequence near the end is rife with these edits, but you would hardly know it without looking for them. This sequence also features quite a few gasp-worthy practical stunts. I suspect a lot of film students have had to pick over it through the years, and with good reason. It really is magnificent.

For a movie that is pushing 80 years old, I think “Stagecoach” has aged remarkably well. Very little about it seems dated after all that time, at least from a technical perspective. I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention the unfortunate portrayal of Native Americans in the narrative, which is certainly an artifact of the movie’s own time and that of its setting. The best I can say for that is that the movie does not belabor the point as a defining characteristic. Take an appropriate dosage of salt for it. That aside, this is still a masterfully crafted piece and it’s easy to see why its popularity has endured for so long. While it doesn’t feature the larger-than-life cowboy heroes found in so many of the other great Western movies, its characters and story are nonetheless memorable with a more grounded slant. This movie gets an “A” for being not only an outstanding example of the genre but also of cinema in general.

Skeletons in my Movie Closet - Cool Hand Luke

Not every movie that I watch for this series will be as fun or entertaining as the ones featured in the previous entries. There are a great many significant and even important films of a much more dramatic and serious nature. While not devoid of smile-worthy moments or even humor, this is one such film. A signature piece of non-conformity and anti-establishment sentiment, Paul Newman stars in 1967’s “Cool Hand Luke.”

The movie opens with a parking meter repeatedly flipping up its red indicator of “VIOLATION” as the titular protagonist cuts the machine from its post. I’m sure a lot of hay has already been made over the use of symbolic and metaphorical imagery in this film, and I don’t intend to rehash too much of that here. The opening scene bears special mention, however, as it is perhaps the most on-the-nose illustration of Luke’s character. He doesn’t especially care for rules and regulations, but his reasons for railing against them range from personal injustice all the way down to it just being something to do. My cohort Andrew sometimes refers to this kind of character and story as “drift punk.” Luke has no particular agenda. He has likes and dislikes, but his actions are mostly impulsive and reactionary. He hates being told what he can and cannot do, but has a strong internal sense of what he believes is right and what is wrong.

For all its symbolism and metaphor, the movie doesn’t ever get too clever. Luke and the rest of the prisoners are generally portrayed as sympathetic and the audience is made to care about them, especially George Kennedy in an Oscar-winning performance as “Dragline.” Strother Martin’s “Captain” and the rest of the prison staff are rarely anything other than antagonistic, representing a somewhat twisted and idealized archetype of “the man.” Despite strong performances from a talented group of actors, a lot of the movie still hangs on the charisma of Newman in the lead role and he carries it well with seemingly little effort.

While Luke is often hailed as a movie hero, he’s more of an antihero by traditional definition. Even so, it’s virtually impossible not to root for him much as his fellow inmates do. This movie has held up and been spoken of highly in the last five decades for good reason. Some of the cinematography and framing look a little dated now, but overall I think it works almost as well as it did when it was new. It seems to have almost nothing to say in the way of a point to be made, but still engages the audience and gets them thinking. Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand. A-

Skeletons in my Movie Closet: The Karate Kid

Stop me if you’ve heard this one: a fish-out-of-water new kid is bullied by the local toughs, but a sage-like teacher appears to give him new skills. Along the way he learns about himself before ultimately showing up his tormentors and even winning the heart of the girl. Of course you stopped me a dozen or so words back, because of course you’ve heard that one. Everyone has. It’s been done a million times and keeps coming back for more. There are countless stories just like it in virtually every medium of storytelling, but they are not all of equal quality. This is one instance that has withstood the test of time admirably, and will likely remain a cultural touchstone for many more years to come. From the summer of 1984, this is “The Karate Kid.”

As I mentioned, this is one of a multitude of movies that follow the same basic formula for the underdog hero of a competitive activity. It never deviates greatly from that formula, but still manages to surprise first-time viewers. The specifics of how it executes make all the difference. Some movies would try to compensate for an old formula by being very flashy and dazzling. Others don’t seem to actually care, but still go with that approach. “The Karate Kid” is instead very frugal and economical with its storytelling capital, effecting something of a “less-is-more” style. There’s very little that could honestly be described as glitzy or glamorous about this movie. The characters and situations are, if anything, just a little bit muted rather than over the top. It all feels credible and natural. The characters of Ali and Kreese occasionally strain this a bit, but even then it’s infrequent. There is no emphasis on fancy moves or special effects. All throughout, the movie feels very down-to-earth and easy to believe. Any one of the characters as written could easily have come across as an unfortunately broad and cartoonish stereotype, but to the credit of the director and actors, there are only a few tiny glimmers of anything like that.

There are the requisite montages, 80s synth-pop-rock soundtrack, and every other element one would expect given the movie’s premise and the time in which it was made. Lots of other movies would have all of those things competing for the audience’s attention to the detriment of all the others. In contrast, “The Karate Kid” has its ingredients very well proportioned and none of them is overpowering. This meshes nicely with the theme of balance. Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel that karate is not about fighting or violence or raw strength, but is instead about balance and inner peace, learning discipline so that he will not have to fight. Yes, ultimately our hero wins the big tournament in the end, but it is never about beating up the Cobra Kari students for revenge or any other reason. In the same way, the movie does not aim to attack the viewer’s senses but maintains a sort of quiet, simple harmony composed of solid foundational elements. Over three decades later, this movie serves as a fine example of what can be accomplished with seemingly so much less than a modern, explosion-filled, CGI visual-laden spectacle.

The ending is very abrupt slightly awkward for it, but in fairness there really wasn’t much else to do or say at that point. Anything further would have run the risk of being trite and cliché. As the movie doesn’t really stumble anywhere else, I give it an A and a hearty recommendation. I’m still not sure how I had never seen this before, although I somehow don’t find it as odd in this case as with some other movies.

*Footnote: on ratings and time periods. I’m sure a lot of you reading these are asking why I have previously spent so much time on 80s movies and discussing their MPAA ratings. I have asked myself the same questions, it may please you to know. The best answers I can come up with are these. Regarding the 80s, I was born in them, so there is probably a natural tendency to fill in gaps that are contemporary to my own youth. There are certainly a great many other gaps to fill from other periods both before and after. I will be making more of an effort to spread things around going forward. As for ratings and family-friendliness, I felt compelled in the cases of both The Goonies and Airplane! to remark on the subject simply because both cases seemed incongruous with modern standards. It is not my intention to spend a great deal of time discussing the ratings board’s subjective stamp in this column, but I may mention it from time to time where it seems that it might be appropriate. Of course, these are my own opinions and are entirely subjective as well. For what it’s worth, my opinion of “The Karate Kid” is that it would probably get the same “PG” rating today as it did then.

Skeletons in my Movie Closet: Airplane!

Some movies have been so ubiquitous on basic cable that it’s virtually impossible not to have seen them at least five times over the years. That is certainly the case with this one, but I’d never seen more than about 10 minutes of it before. I can already hear you deadpanning at your screen, “Surely, you can’t be serious.” I am serious. And don’t call me “Shirley.” Originally from the summer of 1980, but forever enshrined in broadcast reruns, this is “Airplane!”

A quick, related aside about modern home viewing. Many discs are authored to include a giant MPAA rating banner just before the movie itself begins. The “Airplane!” Blu-ray is one such disc, so I was very much aware of the movie’s rating before the opening sequence. “PG,” it read in letters that seemed to take up a quarter of my TV. I’m remarking on this here because, like “The Goonies,” this would never get by the ratings board with that today. Also like “The Goonies,” this is from a time before “PG-13” existed. The two movies differ in this area in that I honestly don’t know how this movie didn’t get an “R,” which was definitely an option. “Airplane!” is quite a bit dirtier than a lot of Monty Python sketches that come to mind. In its original, theatrical form, this movie is not appropriate for kids. I’m curious now just how much is scrubbed for its endless daytime cable broadcasts. Now, with that out of the way...

The movie is so full of jokes, gags, and quips of every kind that it’s practically overflowing. My colleague Andrew pointed out that it is scientifically the funniest movie ever made by a metric of jokes per minute. I don’t doubt it. Having now watched it twice, I suspect I could watch it 20 more times and catch at least one new thing each time. There’s a fairly thin plot that serves as both homage and parody to the disaster movies of the 1970s, but mostly it’s just a vehicle for any brand of comedy that might get someone in the audience to laugh. There’s slapstick, political satire, deadpan, sight gags, and just about anything you might think of. What’s amazing is how well-executed they all are. Please pardon the expression (I already hate myself a little for it), but nearly every joke lands. The writing is very clever, and occasionally stupid in clever ways. A bit about Robert Hays’s ticket at the beginning of the movie exemplifies the latter. The timing of the actors’ delivery is perfect, never missing a beat except when it makes things funnier. There are even quite a few cameos by some of the giants of stage, screen, and sports(?!). Essentially, nothing here doesn’t work.

In case you couldn’t tell already, I had a lot of fun watching this movie. I think I am glad that I didn’t see it when I was too young, but I’ve probably still put it off longer than I should. The plot provides just enough of a continuous thread that transitioning between skits and jokes makes a kind of sense and doesn’t feel disjointed. Stick around through the credits for a few extra jabs and the earliest post-credits stinger that I’m aware of. I give the movie an A. You know, for “airplane.” I did make that terrible joke. And stop calling me “Shirley.”

Skeletons in my Movie Closet: The Goonies

Despite having been born in the 1980s, this movie was never really a part of my childhood. In fact, I only saw it for the first time within the last year. I was thoroughly engaged right from the start. Ostensibly an adventure movie for kids, the honest charm and cartoony good nature will hook all but the most cynical of adults. From the summer of 1985, Steven Spielberg presents a Richard Donner film: “The Goonies.”

The first thing that really stands out to me about this movie is that like so many others of its time and earlier, this would certainly come out of an MPAA review board with a higher rating now than it did then. If it were being made today, I suspect it would be quite different in an attempt to reach its intended audience of 8-10 year olds. That would be a shame, because the movie is pretty great as it is. The kids all swear a bit more than you could get away with in a “PG” movie these days, and Corey Feldman’s character of Mouth gets a bit racy. Even without all that, modern sensibilities might say that “scenes of peril” are too perilous and bump it up a notch. I think it’s a great kids’ movie, but know your kids before letting them see this one.

The basic plot is made up of standard cheesy melodrama and adventure elements. Rich jerks foreclosing to build a golf course, murderous crooks, pirate treasure... you know, the usual stuff. This has all been done many times before with varying degrees of success. It’s all in the details of the execution. What makes it work here is the effectiveness of the young children as point-of-view characters and the charm and sincerity with which they imbue their performances. The script and the actors really come together to make the audience see this world through the eyes of the kids. The dialogue is very much how I remember talking with my friends when we were that age, and each new obstacle the characters face is exactly like something we would have imagined in our games. The tone of the movie has very childlike earnestness and matter-of-fact qualities that make you believe in it. You can hardly do anything but trust it, and once that trust is established you won’t even want to question the more ridiculous elements.

It’s important to understand that this is a really hokey movie, full of pulpy characters with names like “Chester Copperpot” and “One-Eyed Willie,” and rife with cheesy Rube-Goldberg-style contraptions and booby traps. In another lesser movie, none of these things would likely elicit any reaction from the audience except groaning. But “The Goonies” has such a guileless chemistry that I just smiled and accepted them while excitedly waiting to see what happens next. Sean Astin as Mikey has a few heartfelt motivational speeches throughout the movie, the words of which tend to be just as cheesy as anything else in the movie. Much the same can be said of Data’s gadgets, Chunk’s nervous disposition and appetite, and Mouth’s aforementioned smart mouth. Perspective is key when selling this kind of thing, and the filmmakers here have done a marvelous job of putting the audience behind the eyes of children. The result is a synthesis of taking in each new thing both as seriously and as light-heartedly as would a child. All this to say that this movie probably shouldn’t work at all, but instead works almost completely.

Obviously, I loved the movie. Just as obviously, it isn’t perfect, since nothing is, but this comes pretty close. There are only two things that took me out of the movie a little bit. The first is that some of the visual effects haven’t aged well, particularly some composite shots here and there. I can hardly call that a fault as I am sure they were trying to make the best effects they could at the time, but it is worth mentioning. The second is that the villainous Fratellis seemed especially cartoony, even for bad guys in a kids’ adventure movie. Even this is a minor quibble on my part, as their antics are still entertaining and aren’t so overblown as to upset the overall tone of the movie.

So there it is: the first skeleton to be dragged out of my movie closet into the harsh light of day, and my take as a thirty-something adult watching “The Goonies” for the first time. I give the film an A+, and loved it so much that I bought a copy. I have also attempted to prepare myself for the inevitable shock, shaming, and ridicule that will be directed at me for not having seen this movie much sooner than I did. Leave your comments here on the site, on Facebook, on Instagram, or on Twitter.

Stay tuned for more of my endeavors to expand my cinematic cultural literacy, and remember: Goonies never say die.