Reviews

Meir Zarchi's _Day of the Woman_, released in America as _I Spit On Your Grave_, has been lauded as "a classic in the revenge genre." Certainly, there is some merit to categorizing the film as a "revenge" piece. However, those critics who acknowledge this film as a "revenge drama" do grave injustice against the tradition itself, which originated in the Renaissance under the direction of such famous playwrights at Thomas Kyd (_The Spanish Tragedy_), John Webster (_The Duchess of Malfi_), and even William Shakespeare (_Titus Andronicus_). _Day of the Woman_ is more of an attempt at cultural commentary than it is a work of art in the revenge drama vein.

Zarchi, an Italian director of low-budget horror pictures, creates horror films that are very similar to some of his other Italian contemporaries, namely Lucio Fulci (_Zombie_ and _The House by the Cemetery_) and Dario Argenti (_Suspiria_). Zarchi also is influenced by American auteurs of the horror genre in the '70s; no doubt, Wes Craven's _Last House on the Left_, another work of exploitive revenge within the horror genre, is influential to Zarchi's _Day of the Woman_. Understanding the influences from which Zarchi's film arises, it becomes much more easy to recognize how this film is not original, nor worthy of recognition alongside other works of art within the revenge drama genre.

The 1970s was an enigmatic decade, marked by both apathy (brought on by the Vietnam conflict and later Watergate) as well as activism (feminism, multiculturalism, and gay rights strengthened their political and social standing in the United States). For both of these reasons (and others not discussed), American society demanded answers and punishments for any "crimes" directed against a "common good." Even the popular literature originating out of the time, like _Ms._ magazine and _The Advocate_, is a clear indication of this assertion.

_Day of the Woman_ serves a purpose, then, for Zarchi: the woman gets revenge on those men who humiliate and degrade her. The problem with this motivating principle is simple: the men are reduced to caricatures of the typical "backwoods redneck," the woman is the prototypical high class, professional "bitch," and the setting is influenced directly by _Deliverance_. Virtually every aspect of the film, therefore, is borrowed, contrived, and inconsequential.

Moreover, the film itself lacks the depth of a well-written revenge drama. The political intrigue, filial sense of duty, and social ostracization of the condemned protagonist are missing from Zarchi's film. Some critics may refute, saying the film is very political in its portrayal of the woman getting revenge on the abusive man. They may even counter by stating that the woman is ostracized socially by her action. My objections to these comments are brief: 1) if this film is attempting to be political, it does so outside of the dictates of what true politicism is . . . and that is anything but revenge-oriented. 2) if the woman is supposedly ostracized by her acts of revenge, the audience never sees this as the film ends with her wielding an axe above her head, careening her boat down the river. (No doubt, another weak political and social statement which Zarchi attempts to make.)

When comparisons are made between Camille Keaton's character in _Day of the Woman_, to Hieronimo in Kyd's _Spanish Tragedy_ or even Titus Andronicus in Shakespeare's play of the same name, this wronged protagonist lacks the intensely psychological and moral dilemmas which afflict her Renaissance prototypes.

I give this film 3 out of 10 stars. While my review has been mostly negative, I cannot deny that this film has been influential to up-and-coming horror directors. It also is a comment, albeit a weak one, on the social environment that fostered it. It is a film that should be watched once and viewed in the context of which it originates. If this viewing experience is achieved, then perhaps the audience can even have a laugh . .. or be so completely offended that they never watch another film in their entire life.

The greatest aspect of _Mars Attacks!_ is that it is not supposed to be great. The film was shot on a low budget, and many of the crew, namely actors Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito, and director, Tim Burton, agreed to make the film as an homage to the TOPS Bubblegum wrapper comic series.

The film works because it doesn't present itself as being more than what it is: a parody of '50's B-films. Throughout the film, obvious references to those B-film classics, like _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ and _This Island Earth_, are present. When the Martians land in Nevada (alleged home of Area 54), Burton reminds us of those famous scenes in which the U. S. army battles the aliens with crude artillery, matched against the sophisticated ray guns of their adversaries. Because the sci-fi B-films of the '50's were infused with anxiety, precipitated by the McCarthy era, Burton plays upon this context when the Martians visit Congress and destroy every senator and representative in attendance ("We still have 2 out of 3 branches of government working for us," President Nicholson reminds his fellow Americans).

Aside from the riotous parodying which takes place, the film draws upon a cast of Oscar-nominated talent. However, realizing their true motivation for such a film as _Mars Attacks!_, Oscar nominees Glenn Close, Annette Bening, and Jack Nicholson camp it up. Immediately, an audience member acknowledges that these actors know the Academy will not reward them for their efforts in this film. However, an informed audience member would see that their acting, meant to be campy and hammed up, is at the heart of their performances. Given the fact that these are award-winning actors acting poorly, any viewer would have to applaud the performances as "sheer talent-less."

I give this film 9 out of 10 points. While not a great film, by any stretch of the imagination, it is a fun film which fulfills its purpose. Nicholson, DeVito, and Burton can be pleased with the results of their desire to bring the famous TOPS story to the screen. In an age in which Hollywood either promotes lavishly expensive, high-tech scripts or promotes artistic plot-driven storylines, _Mars Attacks!_ finds its own place and does not put on the facade of being something other than it is, an homage and revival of the classic '50's sci-fi B-film.

"In the Woods," directed by Lynn Drzick, is a film that may have had potential, but fails miserably to recognize the kind of film that it could have been. Aside from the amateurish monster make-up and contrived storyline, this film adheres to, in principle, a sub genre of psychological film criticism: fairy tale theory. Fairy Tale theory takes, as its premise, the idea that an innocent journeys into the forest, only to discover the physical dangers and emotional perils which reside in that environment. (The forest is, of course, a metaphor for life in the real world.) Faced with challenges and temptations, the innocent comes face-to-face with his collective self (a concept based on Jung's "Collective Unconscious"). Ultimately, this character leaves the forest a changed individual, and that change can manifest itself in both positive and negative respects. "Little Red Riding Hood" is just one basis for this theoretical school; Edmund Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_, and particularly Book I on the Redcrosse Knight, is another.

Although D.J. Perry's character is no innocent, when he first journeys into the forest (he is an alcoholic and an emotionally abusive husband), the viewer gets the sense that he is unaware of the world in which he lives. He is, like many individuals, contented with the life in which he lives: working, drinking, and going home; this routine is his world. When he is forced to face the inconsistencies and unexpected circumstances which life throws his way, manifested rather dully by a three-horned dog and a reptilian-looking homo sapien, he demonstrates an incapacity to tackle turmoil and confusion. Most everyone in his life, but particularly his wife, pays a price for his lack of insight. Yet, in the end, miraculously he overcomes his naiveté, but realizes that "the beast continues to exist in the forest," and that is the nature of "the forest" (of life). Now, while that may sound fairly intriguing, Drzick fails to motivate the viewer to invest any empathy or emotion into the film. D.J. Perry's and Jim Gruelick's turn as a quixotic duo fails for, among other reasons, lack of chemistry and unengaging dialogue. Perry's relationship to his wife, although more involved than his connection with Gruelick, is too cursory and terse to be effective. The dynamics of this dysfunctional household are presented in a rather shallow, inept manner.

The creatures, as hinted at previously, lack even the sophistication of, in reference to the B-movie classics of the 1950s, lizards with prosthetic armaments attached to their bodies. The three-horned dog reminds one of a stuffed animal, with three tusks attached to its face.

Of even more disappointment is the film's screen writing. Apparently, this film is set in the United States; it would seem near the forests of the Carolinas. In flashback sequences (which are not readily connected to the film's plot nor to D.J. Perry's character development), two knights (one of which may be a sorcerer who conjured up these monsters to wage a battle between two kingdoms) appear fighting in the forest. I mean, "hello!," knights and sorcerers were indigenous to medieval Europe, not 12th or 13th century North America. Also, the tag line for this film is "Vengeance is Timeless." OK, what was this "vengeance" (as supposedly set forth in these flashbacks) based upon, and how does it relate to the D.J. Perry character's conflict. No direct ties to this "medieval" vengeance, and the film's focus on this man and his wife is ever made.

I give this film 1 out of 10 points. My criticisms go to the heart of the screenplay, the acting, and the special effects. However, one suggestion for the director, Lynn Drzick, is to consider the original material, and reshape it to create tension, significance, and believability. "In the Woods" may have the chance for merit, but unfortunately, this merit is utterly unrealized and shockingly disregarded in the final cut.

_American Beauty_ is an enigmatic film and, as such, some viewers will be delighted by its proclivity toward the sardonically ironic. However, there is an equal amount of disapprobation with the film, especially among viewers who know more is going on than what they comprehend.

_American Beauty_ is, in some respects, English director Sam Mendes' response to the "American Dream." And it is not a favorable response. To understand the origins of this film's premise, one need only reflect upon the burgeoning post-war economy of 1950's America, particularly the "culture of suburbia." Suburbia, capstoned with plastic pink flamingos and white picket fences, became the idealistic movement of, in reference to Tom Brokaw, "the Greatest Generation." Suburbia equated to three ideals: status, unity, and conformity--the "American Dream" of a generation that rose up from the ashes of poverty, war, and anxiety.

Unlike the popular culture movement of the 1950s, which endorsed the preceding three principles within the context of such classic television shows as _Leave It to Beaver_ and _The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet_, the 1990s (an era in which the sons and daughters of "The Greatest Generation" found themselves in a position of political and social power--Bill Clinton was the first U.S. president to have been born after the Second World War) witnessed a deconstruction of the "Ozzie and Harriet" cultural archetypes. In an age of political correctness and social questioning, the facade of status, unity, and conformity (the principles of the "Greatest Generation") were exposed for what they truly were--Status, as epitomized in the white house with the white picket fence, inhabited by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant household; Unity, as demonstrated by a marriage not based on the principles of fidelity, compassion, and love, but on financial need and social climbing; and Conformity, daughters who obey their moms and dads, and moms who cook for their husbands and do not question their roles or the roles of their neighbors, be they two male "roommates" or the African-American couple who must be "moving on up."

That is what Sam Mendes seeks to show in _American Beauty_. Beauty is a facade and so is anything American. Although Mendes is not the only director to explore this theme in recent cinema, one can certainly recall such films as _Pleasantville_ and _American History X_, he succeeds at getting this point across to his audience because he is not directly influenced by those principles; he is a British director whose purpose is to be unbiasedly and unabashedly didactic.

I give this film 9 out of 10 points. The reason I chose not to give it a perfect score was, more than anything else, the fact that Mendes tries too hard with some of his visual motifs--the roses, the bag in the wind, and the young, virginal cheerleader. Both Spacey and Bening turn in accomplished performances as the antithesis of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, and Thora Birch successfully demonstrates that "Wednesday Addams" does exist in the "perfect" world. _American Beauty_ will be disheartening, especially if you understand the commentary it makes, but to fully appreciate it, you must realize its goal: the facade isn't all that beautiful . . . in America.

While Madonna is, without a doubt, one of the most defining icons of recent popular culture, her rise to success could not have been achieved without the advent of the music video industry. Madonna IS the video music artist. In the early 80's, with the future of the recording industry in question, record execs desperately needed a product that would add visibility and credibility to the music being produced. Faced with a critical and popular backlash against disco, country, and pop rock, the only solution seemed to be radio contests and prolific DJ's. Yet even this solution fell short until a little television series, run on Nickelodeon Television, achieved status as a channel all its own--Music Television (MTV). MTV came on the air in August, 1981. Now, record execs and music video execs alike realized the "gift" they had been given--music videos could provide vision to music and offer audiences a face behind the names heard singing on the radio. And indeed it did just that as artists like Michael Jackson, Cyndi Lauper, Prince, and Madonna profited both financially and socially from this new art form that had emerged. (I might add that those economically shaken record companies profited too!)

But of the four artists mentioned, one especially used the video music medium to her advantage, artistically and culturally . . . Madonna. Her first few videos, "Lucky Star," "Burning Up," and "Borderline," helped her establish an image behind the club-based hits she was putting out. In fact, many believed Madonna was a black singer prior to seeing her perform on MTV in these videos. I might add that these videos all appeared shortly after MTV's first anniversary (it is a "marriage" still in existence after nearly 20 years). But it was not until the release of the video for "Like A Virgin," coupled with her memorable wedding dress-bedecked slinking on the stage of the First Annual MTV Video Music Awards, that Madonna rocketed herself to superstardom. Not to be boxed into any given image, this iconic chameleon transformed herself, her videos, and ultimately music videos in general. From her Marilyn Monroe homage in "Material Girl" to her Metropolis-based turn in "Express Yourself," Madonna has set the standard for music video as an art form and means of expression. In doing so, she has given credibility to herself not only as a musician, but more importantly as an artist. Therefore, I give this collection of videos a 10 out of 10, although some in the collection lack the visual and artistic qualities of what many consider to be "great," all in the their own way have had an influence on MTV, the music industry, Madonna, and most importantly, pop culture.

For a collection of Madonna's videos in the Nineties, see "Madonna: The Video Collection, 93-99."

Edison's production of Shelley's _Frankenstein_ is, for its time, groundbreaking. While it doesn't have the ingenuity of some of its predecessors, _A Trip to the Moon_ comes to mind, it is nonetheless a short that attempts to make effective use of lighting, smoke, and splicing. Thematically, it offers a Faustian approach to Victor Frankenstein. The actor who portrayed the Monster was, of course, overacting and part of that is due to the fact that this film is a silent feature that relies more on physical out-takes than dramatic monologues. I gave the film 9 out of 10, basing most of this score upon its clever use of effects and interesting (although only somewhat effective) use of themes.

This film, based on Mamet's _Sexual Perversity in Chicago_, fails to capture the dramatic intensity and profound character study of the original one-act play. Lowe, as usual, appears as a slimy, womanizing bachelor--can we say "typecast?" Moore's acting is placid and contrived. While the chemistry between Moore and Lowe is lukewarm, they fail to portray the complexities of their relationship, which Mamet's original drama demands. They just appear to be doing what "comes naturally" without any awareness of what exactly the story is about, an examination of sexual mores (related to the yuppie sub-culture, in particular) in the late '70s and early '80s.

Belushi and Perkins turn in well-acted supporting performances, but they can't make up for Lowe's and Moore's routine schtick. They do add a zest to the film with their unabashedly self-righteous comments to their friends. Clearly, the "Battle of the Sexes" is one aspect of this film that works.

I gave this film 6 out of 10 stars. While the script was flawed, it did provide some truly funny moments. Good supporting performances by Belushi and Perkins can't salvage the lackluster acting by the two main performers, Lowe and Moore.