Eegah Review from "50 Worst Movies of All Time"
Marc Y. Wasserman
by Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfuss (Copyright 1978). There are
some very funny comments in the review and I thought the net
might like to see it! After the plot summary, which is very
humorous, is an interview with the director and some things about
the film itself and the actors in it, also very entertaining.
For those who don't have the time to read through it (though I
encourage you to do so), one of the interesting comments is about
the end of the movie, where it mentions the fade-out saying
"Yes, he was real. It says so in the Bible, the Book of Genesis,
'There were giants in the Earth in those days.' Chapter 4, Verse 32."
But there _is_ no Chapter 4, Verse 32 of Genesis. It ends at 26!
EEGAH! (1962)
Directed by Nicholas Merriwether (Arch W. Hall, Sr.)
CRITICAL REVIEWS
"Lowest rating...ridiculous thriller."
--Steven H. Scheuer, Movies on TV
"Home movie."
--Ed Naha, Horrors from Screen to Scream
"Humorous in spite of itself."
--Judith Crist, TV Guide
PLOT SUMMARY
Roxy Miller, the teen queen of Palm Springs, is driving across
the desert one night when the headlights of her yellow sports car
illuminate a prehistoric giant in the road. The car screeches
to a holt and Roxy screams--but without the sound track her scream could
be mistaken for a yawn, which is appropriate. The giant is dressed
in a fashionable velour loincloth extending over one shoulder. His
scraggly fiberglass beard seems in imminent danger of falling off. As he
raises his massive plastic club, Roxy manages to escape, running to
tell her father and her boyfriend what she has seen. Her father
decides to investigate. The very next day he sets off, dressed in a
pith helmnet, safari shorts, camera and canteen. As he pauses to
photograph a campfire, two hairly legs in a pair of cute black booties
suddenly appear. The caveman raises his club, the actor screams and
the suspense is unbearable as both actors glance around uneasily, waiting
for the scene to end.
We cut back jerkily to a swimming pool in Palm Springs in what surely
must be the worst editing job of the century. Roxy is splashing around
in the pool displaying her breasts when her boyfriend Tommy, serenading
her from poolside, suddenly becomes worried about Roxy's father. They
ride out in a dune buggy to find out what has become of dear old Dad.
We are treated to at least four different shots of the dune buggy
going up the same hill while the sound track plays vintage '62 surfing
music. Unable to locate Roxy's father, they spread out their sleeping
bags (20 feet apart, it being a family picture) and bed down. Next
day, while Tommy is exploring, the caveman grabs Roxy and carries her
off after she conveniently faints. When she arrives in the "cave"
(more of a backdrop of black rubber covered with sketches) she is
delighted to find her father there. His arm is in his sling, and
rubbing his elbow, tells her he broke his collarbone. The caveman
brings Roxy a drink of sulfur water and Mr. Roxy answers the question
on everyone's mind: "It must be the sulfur that's kept him alive
all these years." Meanwhile the host is sniffing Roxy's arm,
keeping up a stream of grunting that sounds like a demented cow.
For lack of anything better to do, Roxy decides to give her father
a shave and Eegah (the name they have given the caveman) decides to
recieve the same. Without the beard, he is considerably more attractive
than the male lead. Tommy appears, fights with Eegah (miraculously
defeating him) and scrambles for the dune buggy with Roxy and Mr. Miller.
Eegah is lovesick and returns, limping to his cave. He follows Roxy
to a restaurant, where he encounters about twenty extras, many of whom
seem to have difficulty keeping straight faces. Half of them don't
bother to even look up from their plates. Even Richard Kiel, playing
Eegah, looks embarssed grabbing a hunk of prime rib and eating it
caveman style.
We cut to a party where Tommy's combo is entertaining. Tommy
has warned us about his combo: "Man do they swing!" They provide
an unfortunately unforgettable musical experience. Eegah climbs
the fence behind the pool. The police follow. Roxy shouts "Don't
shoot! He doesn't understand!" But it is too late, a policeman
fires, and Eegah collapses into the pool. "Poor devil!" sobs
Roxy as people crowd around. "Was he real?" one asks. "Yes, he
was," replies Mr. Miller. "It says so in the Bible, Chapter 4,
Verse 32." We checked the Book of Genesis for the quote Mr. Miller
provides about giants walking the earth in those days. Chapter
4 has 26 verses. There is no Chapter 4, Verse 32. This last bit
of gratuitous stupidity provides the perfect ending for an
astonishing film.
UNFORGETTABLE PERFORMANCES
Richard Kiel is 7'2" and weighs over 300 pounds. At first glance
you might wonder why a man that big isn't playing professional
basketball but after seeing Eegah! you'll understand. Mr. Kiel
is far too uncoordinated. He staggers through the role. We will,
however, give credit where credit is due. Assigning Kiel the role
of a giant is an example of excellent casting.
The "star" of this film is Arch W. Hall, Jr. whose performance
as Tommy ranks as one of the low points in the history of American
cinema. His upturned nose with flaring nostrils, beady eyes and
blond greasy hair combed over the forehead will remain imprinted
on the mind long after the film's less disturbing visions have
faded from memory. The script gives Mr. Hall every chance to
make a fool of himself and he takes the most of every opportunity.
In fairness to Mr. Hall, we should mention he was only 16 when
the film was made. Still, on three different occasions, for no
apparent reason, he bursts into song while an unseen chorus sings
in the background. The makers of this film may have thought that
Arch W. Hall, Jr. might win public acceptance as a rock and roll
singing and acting sensation like Elvis, or at least Ricky Nelson.
Mr. Hall tries hard to project a sense of innocense, freshness and
bumbling in the hopes that girls will coo "Isn't he _cute_?" His
attempts, however, fall so far from success that at his best he
is pitable, and at his worst downright nauseating.
STORY BEHIND THE FILM
One of the more obvious questions about Eegah! is why, even in
a film this bad, why an actor with the talent of Arch W. Hall, Jr
was even allowed near the set. The answer is that the president
of the firm making Eegah! was Mr. Arch W. Hall, Sr. The elder
Mr. Hall also directed it under the pseudonym "Nicholas Merriwether"
and co-starred in it as Mr. Miller.
We met Mr. Hall for lunch. He is a tall, elegant gentleman with
a grey beard, sparkling eyes and a great sense of humor.
"The story? I concocted it real quick," he told us. "At the
time that I first met Dick (Richard Kiel), he was a bouncer for
a Western nightclub. He was looking for a place to stay, and he
filled the whole doorway. So right away I had the idea to use him
in a picture. Marilyn Manning (Roxy) was a receptionist for a
chiropractor who had rented an office for me. I used her in two
or three other pictures. My son had been in one of my pictures
before, and always said 'Gee, Pop, I can't sing' but I told him that
lots of peole had done well in movies who couldn't sing. After
Eegah! came out I bought him a car. Eegah! ended up costing about
$15,000."
"The reason for the cost was set problems. We used every device
we could think of to make that picture. I ended up directing, which
I didn't want to do, but we had a lot of fun. I was also the cook
and runner-after-things. It was terribly hot, about 115 degrees,
some of the fellows almost got sunstroke. We shot a lot of film
and some of it didn't work. Sand got in it. We lost a lot of the
sound too, because the sound man kept hitting "Record" instead
of "Playback". So an awful lot was dubbed. The actors were
ad-libbing to begin with, and we couldn't remember what they had said.
It was murder. Really murder. For the voice of Eegah, I did a lot
of the dubbing myself, using grunting, incoherent noises, Sioux Indian,
whatever. By hook or by desperation, I made that picture. It
was my last hope for paying debts for the project before".
THE BALANCE SHEET
Eegah! opened at a drive in theatre in Omaha Nebraska and made
$15,000. It went on to other triumphs in Cincinatti and Louisville
and began to catch fire nationwide. Arch W. Hall, Sr. gleefully
fanned the flames. "We went on tour to promote the picture. My
son would strum out the Eegah theme on the guitar and Dick would
come out with suit and club. People went wild. They loved that
giant. Sometimes they mobbed him, almost ripping his clothes off.
I never saw anything like it."
Eegah! has now grossed well over one million dollars--not a bad
return off an intial investment of $15,000. The film has been
dubbed into Spanish, Japanese, Portugese and other languages.
It has established itself as a special favorite on the Late Late
Shows--appearing as a filler for used car commercials--and has
become something of a cult film among chronic insomniacs. We
asked Mr. Hall how he explains the film's appeal.
"I think it's the idea of a lost, lovesick giant. The idea
of a Bigfoot. At the time the film was made, the dune buggy was
just coming in, and that had appeal too. Maybe the idea of a boy
and his guitar. Also, the title. It's very unique. To tell
you the truth, I get teased about it a lot. It's always a subject
of laughter that the darned thing did so well."
Mr. Hall went on to make other films with his son, including
an unheralded classic called "The Nasty Rabbit" concerning a
group of Russian spies disguised as cowboys who land in America
with an infected rabbit that they plan to let loose to destroy
the country.
In more recent years, the elder Mr. Hall has concentrated his
energy on the production of documentary films, while his son has
found his true career as a pilot for a small California airline.
From "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time" by Harry Medved and
Randy Dryfuss. Popular Library: New York, CBS Consumer
Publishing. Copyright 1978 by Michael Medved.
ISBN 0-445-04139-0. All rights reserved.
--
"So you're choosing to run from your own people in a rackety old TARDIS?"
D O C T O R W H O
30 Years
"Why not? After all, that's how it all started!"
Brian Rev P-K Siano
> This review is taken from "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time"
> by Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfuss (Copyright 1978). There are
> some very funny comments in the review and I thought the net
> might like to see it! After the plot summary, which is very
> humorous, is an interview with the director and some things about
> the film itself and the actors in it, also very entertaining.
Thanks for the posting-- I'll add it to my Episode Guide.
By the way, y'all might wanna know about that book "The Fifty Worst
Moviesof All Time." An uncredited contributor was harry Medved's older
brother Michael, now currently with "Sneak Previews." Problem is, the elder
medved was trying to get established as a screenwriter, and didn't want to
tick off anyone who might read the book-- so his name isn't among the
author's credits. (He did come in to take credit with the sequel, "The
Golden Turkey Awards." Also, it was the elder Medved whogot the job on
"Sneak Previews" on the basis of these books.)
These days, Medved isn't content to just bust on bad movies-- he
busts on good movies, arguing that Hollywood is waging a war on family
values in his recent screed "Hollywood versus America."Considering the
people Medved's been friendly with in this regard-- Donald Wildmon's
American Family Association, the pro-corporal-punishment Focus on the
Family, and lots of othergargoyles of the Religious Right-- it's fair to
regard the man as a crank.
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano re...@cellar.org
"Well, I'll know right away by the look in her eyes
she's lost all illusions and she's worldly wise, and I know
if I give her a listen, she's what I've been missing, what I've been missing
I'll be lost in love and havin' some fun with my cynical girl
Who's got no use for the real world, I'm looking for a Cynical Girl"
--- Marshall Crenshaw, "Cynical Girl"
Chuck Chuck Bo-Buck... McMath
Siano) wrote:
>
> mwas...@du.edu (Marc Y. Wasserman) writes:
>
> > This review is taken from "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time"
> > by Harry Medved and Randy Dreyfuss (Copyright 1978).
(interesting comments deleted)
> These days, Medved isn't content to just bust on bad movies-- he
> busts on good movies, arguing that Hollywood is waging a war on family
> values in his recent screed "Hollywood versus America."Considering the
> people Medved's been friendly with in this regard-- Donald Wildmon's
> American Family Association, the pro-corporal-punishment Focus on the
> Family, and lots of othergargoyles of the Religious Right-- it's fair to
> regard the man as a crank.
>
Wound a little tight for Monday morning, eh?
Well, from your comments I'd say you (probably) haven't read the
book. He *doesn't* bust on good movies, and he doesn't say that bad movies
shouldn't exist. He merely points out that Hollywood appears bent on only
portraying one point of view (big on violence, anti-family, anti-women) and
that this strategy is not only counter-productive, but bad business sense.
Medved backs up his arguments with numbers and calm fact & opinion,
unlike the above one-dimensional box you've stuffed everyone into above.
And since the first movie he mentions is 'Shakes the Clown' (or
whatever that turkey with Bobcat Goldthwait was) I don't think your
"busting good movies" argument holds up either... :-)
chuck
|- chuck mcmath - mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.gov - MSD, Inc. ---------------|
|- National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health -----|
|- Bethesda, MD 20894 -----------------------------------------------|
|- "Hey batter, hey batter, hey batter, swing" - Anon. --------------|
|--------------- Jeans by Jordache. Body By Fritos. ----------------|
BogusMan
The elder Medved is a hack novelist, who got lucky with his first and only
novel. Note the use of a co-writer on this one, he needs it. Later books
were "co-authored" with his equally talentless little brother. these guys
have no respect for the films they exploit, and that is why I find them
worthless. Their opinions have a bad habit of being presented as fact, or
"behind the scenes" gossip as well.
Pax
--Judex--
BogusMan
Anyone who associates with Donald Wildmon is below contempt. Wildmon railroaded
"Mighty Mouse--The New Adventures" off of TV, picketed "Last Temptation Of
Christ" without ever seeing the film or reading the script, and other dubious
activities designed to fill his donation coffers. the word for this kind of
asshole is Bluenose, and I can police my own morality just fine.
Medved has commited one cardinal sin for a critic, which is reviewing films
he has never seen. "Rat Pfink A boo boo" gets slammed quite a bit in "the
Golden Turkey Awards", but the Medfly brothers admitted to Ray Dennis Steckler
<the director> that they didn't see it until after the book was released,
and they based their review on the title mainly. this is not criticism,
this is exploitation. and the simple fact remains that their books are not
references, but two peoples ideas on the films, whether they have seen them
or not. And that is the lowest.
I decide what I watch, and I ihave enough brain to come up with my own
opinions. I'll stick to Mike Weldon <who keeps opinions to a minimum, and info
to the max>. Even Roger Ebert has more credibility than the Medfly brothers.
<ebert, who slams on films for being too violent, and then shuts up when
Siskel reminds him that he wrote the pistol fellatio scene in "Beyond The
Valley Of the Dolls", not to mention "Mudhoney", and "Beneath the Valley Of
the Ultravixens" <all directed by Russ Meyers>>
All IMHO, something the medveds never remind you of...
Pax
--Judex--
Scott M. Fabbri
>mwas...@du.edu (Marc Y. Wasserman) writes:
> By the way, y'all might wanna know about that book "The Fifty Worst
>Moviesof All Time." An uncredited contributor was harry Medved's older
>brother Michael, now currently with "Sneak Previews." Problem is, the elder
> These days, Medved isn't content to just bust on bad movies-- he
>busts on good movies, arguing that Hollywood is waging a war on family
>values in his recent screed "Hollywood versus America."Considering the
>people Medved's been friendly with in this regard-- Donald Wildmon's
>American Family Association, the pro-corporal-punishment Focus on the
>Family, and lots of othergargoyles of the Religious Right-- it's fair to
>regard the man as a crank.
Another connection: Medved's program, which was about to get pulled off
the air, was "resurrected" by a grant from some foundation associated with
Digital Equipment Corporation or one of its major players. The grant isn't
acknowledged on the air, though, ostensibly because the donor wished to
remain anonymous. According to an article in a recent _SPY Magazine_,
Medved also steals lines from Jeffrey Lyons. Nice guy.
--
Scott Fabbri fab...@cna.org
Support the First Amendment before it's punishable by law to do so.
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Daniel Frank
Chuck Chuck Bo-Buck... McMath <mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.gov> wrote:
>
> He merely points out that Hollywood appears bent on only
>portraying one point of view (big on violence, anti-family, anti-women) and
>that this strategy is not only counter-productive, but bad business sense.
>
> Medved backs up his arguments with numbers and calm fact & opinion,
Medved's "numbers and calm fact" consist of an appendix which count the
number of dirty words and gunshot wounds and the like of various movies,
regardless of quality (ie _GoodFellas_) and finding something objectionable
in every movie released in the past five year. (For example, _Home Alone_ and
_Honey I Shrunk the Kids_ are bad because they portray parents as
incompetent.) He claims that he is not advocating censorship; yet we are
treated to his list of number of violent acts or use of the word "sh-t"
without even considering context.
Finally the thesis of the book consists of two contradictory arguments.
I. America is becoming a very violent society as can be seen by the
"numbers and calm fact" that Medved uses showing crime, etc. on an increase.
(In case you wondered, Medved sez it's entirely Hollywood's fault.)
II. This very violent society wants family pictures like in the good
old days of the Hays office but Hollywood ignores this desire.
BTW, one of the officials in charge of the group that unofficially sponsers
Medved's _Sneak Previews_ is Hays' son (of the Hays office).
--
: Daniel Frank danf...@cs.utexas.edu danf...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu:
: I never thought Fred Gwynne could die. I just figured they'd :
: attach jumper cables to those bolts and charge him up again. :
Steve Brinich
might have had for Michael Medved was obliterated by his comments on
ST V in "Hollywood vs. America". To attribute that movie's failings to
_anything_ other than the obvious (i.e. the fact that William Shatner
would be hard put to direct traffic on a one-way street) is silly enough;
to concomt some theory to shore up the author's pet thesis is the most
preposterous case of special pleading since the Old Left tried to claim
that Stalin was conducting fair trials.
Steve Brinich
<ste...@access.digex.net>
** Never mind MST3K -- what I want to see is C-SPAN3K. **
Brian Rev P-K Siano
> In article <mcmath-30...@mcmathmac.nlm.nih.gov> mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.go
> >In article <cJD49B...@cellar.org>, re...@cellar.org (Brian "Rev P-K"
> >Siano) wrote:
> >
> >> These days, Medved isn't content to just bust on bad movies-- he
> >> busts on good movies, arguing that Hollywood is waging a war on family
> >> values in his recent screed "Hollywood versus America."Considering the
> >> people Medved's been friendly with in this regard-- Donald Wildmon's
> >> American Family Association, the pro-corporal-punishment Focus on the
> >> Family, and lots of othergargoyles of the Religious Right-- it's fair to
> >> regard the man as a crank.
> >>
> > Wound a little tight for Monday morning, eh?
> >
> > Well, from your comments I'd say you (probably) haven't read the
> >book. He *doesn't* bust on good movies, and he doesn't say that bad movies
> >shouldn't exist. He merely points out that Hollywood appears bent on only
> >portraying one point of view (big on violence, anti-family, anti-women) and
> >that this strategy is not only counter-productive, but bad business sense.
Au contraire, my impetuous friend. Not only did I read the book-- a
review copy, obtained in advance of its appearance in bookstores-- but I
reviewed it for _The Humanist_ and _Z_ magazine.
And yes, he does bust on good movi; otherwise worthwhile and
intelligent films like _The Last temptation of Christ_, _Goodfellas_, _The
Fisher King_, and many others are rarely described in full: rather, only the
elements Medved can describe as either disgusting or left-wing are
presented, with almost no comment as to the actual quality of the films. I
suggest, as a thought experiment, you watch the film "Running on Empty," and
then read Medved's appraisal of the film. You'll never trust his word as a
critic again.
> >
> > Medved backs up his arguments with numbers and calm fact & opinion,
> >unlike the above one-dimensional box you've stuffed everyone into above.
Actually, no, he doesn't. My review for _The Humanist_ specifically
addressed Medved's 'numbers and calm fact." Not only is his characterization
of the movie marketplace unrealistic, and his 'explanations' based on little
more than his opinions, but I've even found instances where he
_misrepresented_ figures from the MPAA. I'll be more than happy to upload a
copy here to demonstrate this.
I should also mention that he also relies on the 'accounting' done
by such ultra-right groups as Focus on the Family and the American Family
Association-- neither of which is known for especially scientific auditing
methods.
> >
> > And since the first movie he mentions is 'Shakes the Clown' (or
> >whatever that turkey with Bobcat Goldthwait was) I don't think your
> >"busting good movies" argument holds up either... :-)
> >
> >chuck
What's that got do to with his hectoring on otherwise fine films? It
doesn't take much insight to recognize "Shakes the Clown" as a dog. But
throughout the book, Medved will cite perhaps one scene or two from a good
movie, and say nary a word about the rest of the film. The fact that Medved
would catalog scenes where actors spit, piss, throw up, or whatever-- when
most such scenes are wuickly forgotten by most moviegoers-- says more about
what Medved finds fascinating than anything else.
> >
> >
> >|- chuck mcmath - mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.gov - MSD, Inc. ---------------|
> >|- National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health -----|
> >|- Bethesda, MD 20894 -----------------------------------------------|
> >|- "Hey batter, hey batter, hey batter, swing" - Anon. --------------|
> >|--------------- Jeans by Jordache. Body By Fritos. ----------------|
If this is an example of the quality of work at the NIH, no wonder
we don't have a cure for cancer yet.
> Anyone who associates with Donald Wildmon is below contempt. Wildmon railroad
> "Mighty Mouse--The New Adventures" off of TV, picketed "Last Temptation Of
> Christ" without ever seeing the film or reading the script, and other dubious
> activities designed to fill his donation coffers. the word for this kind of
> asshole is Bluenose, and I can police my own morality just fine.
>
> Medved has commited one cardinal sin for a critic, which is reviewing films
> he has never seen. "Rat Pfink A boo boo" gets slammed quite a bit in "the
> Golden Turkey Awards", but the Medfly brothers admitted to Ray Dennis Steckle
> <the director> that they didn't see it until after the book was released,
> and they based their review on the title mainly. this is not criticism,
> this is exploitation. and the simple fact remains that their books are not
> references, but two peoples ideas on the films, whether they have seen them
> or not. And that is the lowest.
>
Medved is also guilty of a conflict of interest. During the trial
over "Coming to America," (where Art Buchwald sued Eddie Murphy), Medved
testified that he did screen films to give studios advice on upcoming
releases, in exchange for money. Granted, it's nowhere near like a judge
taking bribes, but when medved presents himself as an impartial film critic,
it's dishonest.
> I decide what I watch, and I ihave enough brain to come up with my own
> opinions. I'll stick to Mike Weldon <who keeps opinions to a minimum, and inf
> to the max>. Even Roger Ebert has more credibility than the Medfly brothers.
> <ebert, who slams on films for being too violent, and then shuts up when
> Siskel reminds him that he wrote the pistol fellatio scene in "Beyond The
> Valley Of the Dolls", not to mention "Mudhoney", and "Beneath the Valley Of
> the Ultravixens" <all directed by Russ Meyers>>
>
Minor correction: Ebert only wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."
"Beneath..." was all Russ Meyer's work.
Just to spout off, there are films which handle violence in a
somewhat gratuitous and, perhaps intentionally sadistic fashion; but this
doesn't mean that I'd ban them, nor does it mean that I don't like violence
at all. There's a world of difference between a fine film like _A Clockwork
Orange_ or _Platoon_, and a nasty piece of wetwork like _Total Recall_.. The
former present violence to illustrate certain points about the human
condition; the latter is mainly for yipyops who _like_ seeing people's
bodies get chewed up with bullets. Having a sense of aesthetics over
violence does not make one a bluenose.
(One recommendation for people with taste: the films of John Woo,
especially "A Bullet in the Head"and "The Killer.")
Chuck Chuck Bo-Buck... McMath
Siano) wrote:
>
> don...@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (BogusMan) writes:
>
> > In article <mcmath-30...@mcmathmac.nlm.nih.gov> mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.go
> > >In article <cJD49B...@cellar.org>, re...@cellar.org (Brian "Rev P-K"
> > >Siano) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, from your comments I'd say you (probably) haven't read the
> > >book. He *doesn't* bust on good movies, and he doesn't say that bad movies
> > >shouldn't exist. He merely points out that Hollywood appears bent on only
> > >portraying one point of view (big on violence, anti-family, anti-women) and
> > >that this strategy is not only counter-productive, but bad business sense.
>
> Au contraire, my impetuous friend. Not only did I read the book-- a
> review copy, obtained in advance of its appearance in bookstores-- but I
> reviewed it for _The Humanist_ and _Z_ magazine.
>
> And yes, he does bust on good movi; otherwise worthwhile and
> intelligent films like _The Last temptation of Christ_, _Goodfellas_, _The
> Fisher King_, and many others are rarely described in full: rather, only the
> elements Medved can describe as either disgusting or left-wing are
> presented, with almost no comment as to the actual quality of the films. I
> suggest, as a thought experiment, you watch the film "Running on Empty," and
> then read Medved's appraisal of the film. You'll never trust his word as a
> critic again.
Ok I will (BTW, is this appraisal in the book, or somewhere else?
So many people have been posting 'mis-reviewed' titles that I've
forgotten).
> > >
> > > Medved backs up his arguments with numbers and calm fact & opinion,
> > >unlike the above one-dimensional box you've stuffed everyone into above.
>
>
> Actually, no, he doesn't. My review for _The Humanist_ specifically
> addressed Medved's 'numbers and calm fact." Not only is his characterization
> of the movie marketplace unrealistic, and his 'explanations' based on little
> more than his opinions, but I've even found instances where he
> _misrepresented_ figures from the MPAA. I'll be more than happy to upload a
> copy here to demonstrate this.
>
Well, as to "numbers and calm fact" my point in using that phrase was
to differentiate his position from one where people use invective and/or
emotion to attempt to prove a point.
I recall Medved saying that the movie marketplace is NOT modeled after
a free market, and that the movies made reflect people's axes they're
grinding as much as anything else. Is this what you find unrealistic?
Please elaborate, as I'm certainly no expert on the marketplace. I'd also
be interested in seeing these figures; please upload them (or at least
email a copy to me, if you think they're not of general enough interest).
I'd also be interested in reading your article, if you have an
electronic copy lying about; if not, please give a reference so I can look
it up in my library.
> I should also mention that he also relies on the 'accounting' done
> by such ultra-right groups as Focus on the Family and the American Family
> Association-- neither of which is known for especially scientific auditing
> methods.
I'm a little lost here - first off, auditing/accounting isn't
'scientific,' I think it's based on 'principles' so I don't know what you
mean; it's either above board or cooked, isn't it? And are you saying
these organizations cooked up some numbers on movie attendance and or box
office figures? Where would *they* get the numbers from, and do you have
them (are these the figures alluded to above)?
And as far as *fiscal* responsibility (which is where you usually
hear 'auditing/accounting' mentioned, and which I think helps establish an
organization's credibility) I don't know about AFA, but FotF *does*
suscribe to a strict accounting for the money they raise.
>
> What's that got do to with his hectoring on otherwise fine films? It
> doesn't take much insight to recognize "Shakes the Clown" as a dog. But
> throughout the book, Medved will cite perhaps one scene or two from a good
> movie, and say nary a word about the rest of the film. The fact that Medved
> would catalog scenes where actors spit, piss, throw up, or whatever-- when
> most such scenes are wuickly forgotten by most moviegoers-- says more about
> what Medved finds fascinating than anything else.
> > >
Well, the book isn't purporting to exhaustively review films; he's
trying to make a point. And to make that point, he cites a variety of
films that have (what he considers to be) such throwaway scenes; as I
recall, he doesn't decry the deptiction of violence and/or blood, etc. I
think that your characterization above is not accurate.
And such scenes *may* be forgotten, but don't you think that
repeated viewing of these kinds of scenes has an effect on people? And you
think most of these scenes are inserted to advance the story (as opposed to
providing shock value or to garner an R rating!). I'm not saying "remove
all scenes involving spit, piss... etc" but rather that bombardment has an
effect. So you don't buy that argument?
> > >
> > >|- chuck mcmath - mcm...@csb1.nlm.nih.gov - MSD, Inc. ---------------|
> > >|- National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health -----|
> > >|- Bethesda, MD 20894 -----------------------------------------------|
> > >|- "Hey batter, hey batter, hey batter, swing" - Anon. --------------|
> > >|--------------- Jeans by Jordache. Body By Fritos. ----------------|
>
> If this is an example of the quality of work at the NIH, no wonder
> we don't have a cure for cancer yet.
>
Gee, this *really* stands out in your post as the single comment
which is neither appropriate nor well put. Personal attacks are easy when
you don't make them in person, eh? I've tried to refrain from making
personal attacks, I ask that you do likewise.
(more comments on the validity of Medved as an impartial reviewer
deleted)
>
> Just to spout off, there are films which handle violence in a
> somewhat gratuitous and, perhaps intentionally sadistic fashion; but this
> doesn't mean that I'd ban them, nor does it mean that I don't like violence
> at all.
Isn't this exactly the same position Medved makes in his book?
> There's a world of difference between a fine film like _A Clockwork
> Orange_ or _Platoon_, and a nasty piece of wetwork like _Total Recall_.. The
> former present violence to illustrate certain points about the human
> condition; the latter is mainly for yipyops who _like_ seeing people's
> bodies get chewed up with bullets. Having a sense of aesthetics over
> violence does not make one a bluenose.
I'm in total agreement with you here.
>
> (One recommendation for people with taste: the films of John Woo,
> especially "A Bullet in the Head"and "The Killer.")
>
I think the bottom line is this: I think some of the issues he raises
are pertinent in a discussion of society and/or where we're heading; I
thought that the book was a worthwhile read. You disagree. Not sure
either of these opinions will be changed, but it's been interesting
discussing it.
chuck
G. Galcik
>to concomt some theory to shore up the author's pet thesis is the most
>preposterous case of special pleading since the Old Left tried to claim
>that Stalin was conducting fair trials.
Why? What was the theory?
------------------------------ --- ------------------------------------
Greg Galcik tm|bg Since I work for the government, God
gal...@sinbad.navsses.navy.mil | help me if my opinions are the same
An Equal Opportunity Annoyer. mst3k as my employer's.
-----------My Extremely Tiny FTP Server: spider.navsses.navy.mil-----------
Mike White
> Eegah! has now grossed well over one million dollars....
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh... ! I do not want to live! Sombody kill
me now! I will not live in a universe in which some guy's
home movies of his ugly kid can make a megabuck. I'll bust
my butt my whole lifetime and never top $1M, total! Take
me now, Lord!
*****************************
* These are my opinions only *
*****************************
Steve Brinich
Believe it or not, Medved attributes the public's poor reaction to
ST V primarily to its "secular humanist sermons" and "God-bashing".
So help me, Medved goes on for several paragraphs with this thesis,
apparently considering it far more significant than "the picture's
innumerable artistic shortcomings" (right there I have just quoted
his _entire_ discussion of what any sensible person recognizes as
the real reason ST V bombed).
Sheila Potter
CC> And since the first movie he mentions is 'Shakes the Clown' (or
CC> whatever that turkey with Bobcat Goldthwait was) I don't think your
CC> "busting good movies" argument holds up either... :-)
Hey! I love "Shakes the Clown"!
Scott M. Fabbri
Potter) writes:
>Look out for snakes!
Owie owie owie oww!
[snip]
>Hey! I love "Shakes the Clown"!
Well, it was described as the _Citizen Kane_ of alcoholic clown movies. . .
--
Scott Fabbri fab...@cna.org
Don't like it? Bite me, it's fun.
Standard disclaimers apply.
Ed McCreary
SP> Look out for snakes!
CC> And since the first movie he mentions is 'Shakes the Clown' (or
CC> whatever that turkey with Bobcat Goldthwait was) I don't think your
CC> "busting good movies" argument holds up either... :-)
SP> Hey! I love "Shakes the Clown"!
as far as alcoholic clown movies go, it's one of the best.
"look! a mime!"
btw, what was the name of the Dick Van Dyke clown movie made sometime
in the early 70's which I think was directed by Carl Reiner?
--
Eddie McCreary e...@twisto.compaq.com
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
Thomas Jefferson
Bouncing Britain
>> These days, Medved isn't content to just bust on bad movies-- he
>>busts on good movies, arguing that Hollywood is waging a war on family
>>values in his recent screed "Hollywood versus America."
I just checked this book out of the library. Basically he takes the most
extreme examples of Hollywood's occasional excess and makes them sound like
the norm.
--
Britain P. Woodman...Goddard Hall, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsi, MU
(Now with more Red Cross Certifications than you can shake a stick at!)
bwoo...@emunix.emich.edu/bwoo...@cap.gwu.edu|
Brian Rev P-K Siano
> In article <1am59B...@cellar.org>, re...@cellar.org (Brian "Rev P-K"
> Siano) wrote:
> >
> > Au contraire, my impetuous friend. Not only did I read the book-- a
> > review copy, obtained in advance of its appearance in bookstores-- but I
> > reviewed it for _The Humanist_ and _Z_ magazine.
> >
> Interesting! I have to admit ignorance of _Z_.
>
> > And yes, he does bust on good movi; otherwise worthwhile and
> > intelligent films like _The Last temptation of Christ_, _Goodfellas_, _The
> > Fisher King_, and many others are rarely described in full: rather, only th
> > elements Medved can describe as either disgusting or left-wing are
> > presented, with almost no comment as to the actual quality of the films. I
> > suggest, as a thought experiment, you watch the film "Running on Empty," an
> > then read Medved's appraisal of the film. You'll never trust his word as a
> > critic again.
>
> Ok I will (BTW, is this appraisal in the book, or somewhere else?
> So many people have been posting 'mis-reviewed' titles that I've
> forgotten).
The appraisal of "Running on Empty" is from the book.
>
> > > >
> > > > Medved backs up his arguments with numbers and calm fact & opinio
> > >unlike the above one-dimensional box you've stuffed everyone into above.
>
> > Actually, no, he doesn't. My review for _The Humanist_ specifically
> > addressed Medved's 'numbers and calm fact." Not only is his characterizatio
> > of the movie marketplace unrealistic, and his 'explanations' based on littl
> > more than his opinions, but I've even found instances where he
> > _misrepresented_ figures from the MPAA. I'll be more than happy to upload a
> > copy here to demonstrate this.
>
> Well, as to "numbers and calm fact" my point in using that phrase was
> to differentiate his position from one where people use invective and/or
> emotion to attempt to prove a point.
I'd have to disagree here as well-- a great deal of Medved's book
rests on invective (usually withering comments a about various films and
filmmakers) and emotion (by citing a particular scene or two he found
revolting, or wnats the reader to find revolting-- usually
without much information on the overall quality of the film).
And much of his book rests on what are inconsistent and 'convenient'
arguments. Throughout the book, Medved claims that people are staying away
from the product Hollywood provides. One such product was _Silence of the
Lambs_, which Medved lambastes for being part of a strange 'obsession' with
cannibalism. Medved also complains that, as an expression of the film
community's obsession with uugliness, the Academy gave it loads of Oscars,
thus proving that filmmakers are obviously degenerates. The fact that
_Silence of the Lambs_ was also one of the most sucessful films of the year
is avoided by Medved, since it would contradict his point about the public
being sick of Hollywood product.
>
> I recall Medved saying that the movie marketplace is NOT modeled after
> a free market, and that the movies made reflect people's axes they're
> grinding as much as anything else. Is this what you find unrealistic?
> Please elaborate, as I'm certainly no expert on the marketplace. I'd also
> be interested in seeing these figures; please upload them (or at least
> email a copy to me, if you think they're not of general enough interest).
My full review will be posted soon, so you can read the details
there. But to address the above point, Medved claims that diminished movie
attendance is reflective of a mass disgust with Hollywood product-- but he
dismisses the idea that the VCR market has been a factor because renting a
film just isn't the same. (This remark is made only in a footnote, and it is
the only place where Medved addresses the home video market explosion in the
entire book.)
The movies being made reflect any number of things-- the clout of a
particular director (JFK), a sure-fire commercial hit (Jurassic Park),
a moderately-budgeted 'nice' film (Sleepless in Seattle), and, dominanylt,
sequels to previous popular films (Terminator 2, Batman Returns). To satte
that they relfect 'axes to grind' is not only at variance with the facts, it
implies that filmmakers should not have such 'axes.'
>
> I'd also be interested in reading your article, if you have an
> electronic copy lying about; if not, please give a reference so I can look
> it up in my library.
_The Humanist_, Jan-Feb 1993. Full text coming soon to alt.tv,mst3k.
>
> > I should also mention that he also relies on the 'accounting' done
> > by such ultra-right groups as Focus on the Family and the American Family
> > Association-- neither of which is known for especially scientific auditing
> > methods.
>
> I'm a little lost here - first off, auditing/accounting isn't
> 'scientific,' I think it's based on 'principles' so I don't know what you
> mean; it's either above board or cooked, isn't it? And are you saying
> these organizations cooked up some numbers on movie attendance and or box
> office figures? Where would *they* get the numbers from, and do you have
> them (are these the figures alluded to above)?
According to _Mother Jones_, the surveys conducted by Wildmon's
organization are a very ad hoc arrangement. Basically, Wildmon's supporters
are encouraged to describe what they find offensive, and send in lists of
offensive items that they've seen. Few guidelines are established, and
several of the items consistently reported are not exactly 'offensive' in
the classical sense (ie, sympathetic portrayals of gay characters).
>
> And as far as *fiscal* responsibility (which is where you usually
> hear 'auditing/accounting' mentioned, and which I think helps establish an
> organization's credibility) I don't know about AFA, but FotF *does*
> suscribe to a strict accounting for the money they raise.
>
I was describing their surveys of 'obscenity,' not their financial
practices.
> >
> > What's that got do to with his hectoring on otherwise fine films? It
> > doesn't take much insight to recognize "Shakes the Clown" as a dog. But
> > throughout the book, Medved will cite perhaps one scene or two from a good
> > movie, and say nary a word about the rest of the film. The fact that Medved
> > would catalog scenes where actors spit, piss, throw up, or whatever-- when
> > most such scenes are wuickly forgotten by most moviegoers-- says more about
> > what Medved finds fascinating than anything else.
> > > >
> Well, the book isn't purporting to exhaustively review films; he's
> trying to make a point. And to make that point, he cites a variety of
> films that have (what he considers to be) such throwaway scenes; as I
> recall, he doesn't decry the deptiction of violence and/or blood, etc. I
> think that your characterization above is not accurate.
Medved presents himself as a film critic; therefore, he has an
obligation to represent films fairly (instead of mentioning them for the
sake of citing a particular, hot-button scene), and to articulate some
aesthetic standard he has for when ostensibly 'offensive' material is
artistically justified. However, when he attacks what are genuinely fine
films _without_ stating whether they were good films or not (and such
instances are as rare as dodos in Medved's book), he deliberately leaves the
reader with no artistic standard to operate on.
For example, if I'm going to fault _Total Recall's_ use of violence,
but champion the violence of _A Clockwork Orange_ or _Videodrome_, I have to
explain why I feel this way. (The reader is, of course, free to disagree.)
IBut I am also beholden to explaining what I _did_ like about _Total Recall_
if there were such a thing. (One scene-- the psychiatrist.)Film critics
understand such things; but Medved simply hectors on about his perceived
'attacks on fanily values.'
>
> And such scenes *may* be forgotten, but don't you think that
> repeated viewing of these kinds of scenes has an effect on people? And you
> think most of these scenes are inserted to advance the story (as opposed to
> providing shock value or to garner an R rating!). I'm not saying "remove
> all scenes involving spit, piss... etc" but rather that bombardment has an
> effect. So you don't buy that argument?
>
> >
> > Just to spout off, there are films which handle violence in a
> > somewhat gratuitous and, perhaps intentionally sadistic fashion; but this
> > doesn't mean that I'd ban them, nor does it mean that I don't like violence
> > at all.
>
> Isn't this exactly the same position Medved makes in his book?
No, it's considerably different. Towards the end of his book, Medved
suggests that a return to the Hays Code would be merely _unworkable_, and
not censurious in and of itself. Instead, he argues that the studios should
suddenly clamp down on such things in a kind of coordinated agreement--
_unofficial_ censorship, in other words, which would not allow certain films
(with violence, sex, or-- another one of Medved's consistent peeves--
left-wing politics) to be made in the first place.
There's a big difference between a discussion of aesthetics and
acall for prior restraint.
>
> > There's a world of difference between a fine film like _A Clockwork
> > Orange_ or _Platoon_, and a nasty piece of wetwork like _Total Recall_.. Th
> > former present violence to illustrate certain points about the human
> > condition; the latter is mainly for yipyops who _like_ seeing people's
> > bodies get chewed up with bullets. Having a sense of aesthetics over
> > violence does not make one a bluenose.
>
> I'm in total agreement with you here.
> >
> > (One recommendation for people with taste: the films of John Woo,
> > especially "A Bullet in the Head"and "The Killer.")
> >
>
> I think the bottom line is this: I think some of the issues he raises
> are pertinent in a discussion of society and/or where we're heading; I
> thought that the book was a worthwhile read. You disagree. Not sure
> either of these opinions will be changed, but it's been interesting
> discussing it.
>
In the review I'll be posting, I write that the topic of Hollywood,
human values, sex''violence can be a compelling and interesting topic-- but
that Medved has written a screed, _not_ a rational discussion of the matter.
Robert Church
I think "Shakes the Clown" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. The
people who marketed it should be shot. Advertising a movie about the horrors
of alchoholism as a family comedy is sure to bring on problems. Personally,
I honestly think that most people who pan the movie just read the box and
saw a few previews. None of the bad reviews I've read have anything to do
with the same movie I saw.
Bob
Michael R. Cirivello
>
>I think "Shakes the Clown" is one of the best movies I've ever seen. The
>people who marketed it should be shot. Advertising a movie about the horrors
>of alchoholism as a family comedy is sure to bring on problems.
Hey fellow Bobcat.
How about the recent Foster Brooks video that's being offered? Imagine one hour
of this bozo slurring his way into your heart. This video is advertised as
'Great Family Entertainment".
Michael R. Cirivello INTERNET: mr...@cas.org
Librarian/Info Junkie *Just say Know!* AOL: mrc...@aol.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ObFanaticisms: MST3KDavidByrneTalkingHeadsMacintoshPoliticalIncorrectness
ChuckTaylorAllStarsTheFirstAmendment2001:aSpaceOdysseyNORML
DiscGolfGreenBayPackersLittleFeatKidsintheHallRed65Mustangs
Andrew Gould
Medveds, Fundementalists, debates on sex and violence, debates on what is
a serious movie, why certain movies get made, the home video market, posting
of film magazine comments unrelated to MST3K, etc to email or one of the
movie newsgroups. You guys are going WAY off topic regardings MST3K.
Think about it.
Andrew