They Don't Make Movies Like "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" Anymore

One reason "They don't make movies like they used to" is because They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Rather, they don't make mainstream movies like the offbeat 1969 drama. Although powerful and gripping, with outstanding performances by the cast, They Shoot Horses, Don't They? would be far too nihilistic for a wide modern audience. Sure, someone could make a film this melodramatically dark, but don't expect audiences to turn the feature into a big hit like ticket buyers did more than five decades ago.

 

Dance Away the Inhumanity

They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? isn’t a film about horses. Instead, the feature focuses on humans being treated worse than animals. In the film’s opening, someone shoots a horse that suffers a broken leg, a sad incident, but the shooter intends to end the life of a suffering creature humanly.

The title may imply a tragic western along the lines of John Wayne’s The Shootist (1976). This Sidney Pollack film isn’t an “oater,” as Post-World War I Santa Monica’s seaside location has nothing to do with dusty Arizona or Texas towns. No one rides horses, but the many characters dance. 

The film involves a marathon dance contest where desperate partners dance for hours on end, with few breaks and great suffering, to win a $1,500 prize. The Great Depression rages, and some participants have no other options in life. So, these sad strangers come together for a shot at the winner-takes-all prize. They also subject themselves to horrible debasement.

The dance contest promoters have little or no care for the troubled souls putting their health at risk. The dancers are like horses, maltreated horses. Those in charge of the rodeo ride them into the ground, caring not about their lives. 

As depressing as They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? is the film provides telling insights into human nature. Amoral people take advantage of the downtrodden, and those with few options in life must go along with the scheme. A longshot, no matter how degrading, brings some chance at financial - and potentially spiritual - renewal.

Critics adored the engrossing film, which rose to “classic new wave cinema” status. The question remains - what compelled audiences to purchase $12 million in tickets to see this dark, downbeat experiment?

They Watch Dramatic Shockers, Didn't They?

A film’s “shock factor” may involve more than excessive violence or adult content. Controversial plots might stun audiences not expecting to see what they encounter, and even a realistic melodrama could leave audiences uneasy. Since the film’s controversy comes from human drama and not exploitation, a larger audience might be willing to explore the film. The chances for such a ticket-selling outcome were likely much greater in 1969 than today. Movies were mostly G and PG-rated affairs, at least since the end of the pre-code days.

Younger persons forget that the average home had only four to six television channels, and network and local standards and practices kept things mostly at or below PG levels. Content could be controversial, but nihilism wasn’t typical network broadcast material - unless the networks chose to broadcast an edited version of a successful and controversial motion picture. Viewing an uncut version required visiting the theater. The controversy created curiosity, and audiences would pay to see downbeat films. At least they were more inclined to do so in the 1960s and 1970s.

Brutal cinematic examinations of the human condition were new in 1969. These dark novelties drew curiosity seekers looking for something far different from what they typically saw at the movies.

Talented filmmakers knew how to tap into that audience back then. Times change, and so do audience motivations and tastes. That's why you don't see films like this one anymore. Audiences moved on to escapism, having shot the horse of new wave experimental cinema long ago.

Please check out my collection of essays on Amazon Kindle - Universal Monsters and Neurotics: Children of the Night and Their Hang-Ups.

Jan-Michael Vincent Really Was On The Edge Of Greatness (Book Review)

One of the more unique and bittersweet biographies available in print and Kindle is the outstanding Jan-Michael Vincent Edge of Greatness by David Grove. Much like the brilliant look at the last few years of Groucho Marx in Raised Eyebrows, this bio paints a unique and intriguing, poignant, and somewhat sad portrait of the talented actor. Unlike Raised Eyebrows, Grove's work doesn't focus on a period of a few short years. The book covers the entire life of the great and underappreciated actor.

And Jan-Michael Vincent was simultaneously brilliant and underappreciated. Most well-known for his brilliant portrayal of the hitman apprentice appearing alongside Charles Bronson in the original The Mechanic (1972), the Disney hit The World's Greatest Athlete (1973), along with the cult television series Airwolf (1984 - 1986), Vincent appeared in a host of other memorable television programs and television movies and a few forgotten classic films of the 1970s. (How many Generation X members recall a young Jan-Michael Vincent on the "Danger Island" episodes of The Banana Splits Show )

(Jan-Michael Vincent in his iconic role in 1972'a The Mechanic)

Jan-Michael Vincent garnered a few starring roles, but he never broke through to major stardom. Grove's book -- published by Bear Manor Media -- points out that Vincent never had a major box office hit outside of his Disney vehicle and the 1977 cult hit White Line Fever. The latter film owed its success to the CB/trucker movie fad. The actor gained no major star momentum from either hit.

It may be added that bouncing between cinematic releases and guest appearances on television likely over-exposed him. Appearances on prime-time television crime shows probably undermined his chances at more prominent roles in major studio movies.

Vincent also tended to select some truly obtuse films to appear in. These movies' lack of box office success did little to keep his career on an upwards trajectory.

Grove's book is worthwhile reading for anyone who fondly remembers Jan-Michael Vincent's memorable work in the 1970s and 1980s, but be forewarned: the tale is not always the happiest one.

Circumstances Change, But Paul Muni Doesn't in I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang

Raising social consciousness is commonly cited as the motivation behind crafting a classic film such as 1932's I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang. The theme of freedom is prominent throughout the film. Paul Muni's brilliant portrayal of a down-on-his-luck wanderer named James Allen consistently discusses man's desire to be free.

The Freedom Theme

Allen becomes a drifter because he wants to be free of his dull home life. Drafted into the army only to be discharged to face the monotony of a factory job, Allen makes his way across the country only to lose his freedom again after being falsely convicted of a crime and ending up serving his sentence on a brutal chain gang.

Escaping from the chain gang offers a brief respite of freedom and a new lease on life. And then he is trapped in a loveless marriage. Upon freeing himself from the union, he finds himself back on the chain gang.

Freedom, it seems, only comes and goes.

Or is, as the title self-aware computer of the sci-fi classic Colossus: The Forbin Project assesses, "Freedom is an illusion."

For James Allen, freedom is fleeting to the point it barely exists. Likely, for him, it never exists. He reinvents himself numerous times to achieve a level of personal and outright physical freedom. He changes jobs, changes his lot in life through a prison escape, changes his identity, and so on.

Freedom never arrives for James Allen because, although circumstances change, Allen never really changes. He is the symbolic ball and chain, which is tied to a literal ball and chain.

Chained to Unchanging Circumstances

Was James Allen predestined to be a prisoner both literally and figuratively? Based on his life, as seen in the film, this good, moral, virtuous man never changes. He remains the same individual from scene to scene, and he suffers greatly no matter what backdrop he is placed on.

James Allen's life on the outside of the chain gang mimics what life was like on the inside. And no, the notion of freedom is an illusion. There is a sameness to things. Allen tries to make changes in his life. Looking for a new job is less melodramatic than an escape from prison.

The ultimate sameness is James Allen himself.

*****

Check Out My Collection of Essays on Amazon Kindle!

*****

Allen simply cannot catch the proverbial break. No matter what circumstances the man finds himself in, things never work out well for him. The narrative of I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang consistently features ever-changing backdrops.

This is why life is so difficult for the man. He cannot fit well into any of the new lives he places himself or lands.

In a tragic sense of irony, James Allen finally does change in the film's final minutes - he loses his morality and virtue, allowing him to better fit into the backdrop of a fugitive.

A Bit of Marketing Magic Could Have Helped 1977's Sorcerer

The box office failure of 1977's Sorcerer is consistently blamed on being released around the same time as Star Wars.

True. The gritty and realistic documentary-like thriller did come out the same month as the mega sci-fi hit.

So what?

The film should have done better, much better. The $21 million budget (more than what Star Wars cost!) would make Sorcerer a likely money loser. $50 million or so would be needed to break even. Earning $25 would lead to a loss. The losses obviously would be less than the case with $5 million in U.S. theaters, which the picture earned.

The failure is stunning considering Sorcerer was directed by William Friedkin, riding high with The French Connection and The Exorcist. Star Roy Scheider was coming off the success of JAWS.

Marketing -- poor marketing -- probably was the culprit that did Sorcerer in. The film received mediocre reviews, which definitely didn't help. Better marketing connecting the film to Friedkin and Scheider's other successes probably would have lent a box office assist.

The trouble with marketing Sorcerer is you need to stress that the movie is not about magic and fantasy. Yeah, the genre-jumbled title really worked against this 1970s classic. 

PLEASE CHECK OUT MY COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON KINDLE/KINDLE UNLIMITED:

Universal Monsters & Neurotics: Creatures of the Night and Their Hang-Ups by Anthony M. Caro.

Read the Kindle Vella Sci-Fi Serial: Why is Cal Drawing Stick Figures at 3 AM in the 23rd Century?

Dissecting Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

In the continuing tradition of celebrating Halloween, I wrote a new Hub on a classic 1960's British horror film - Hammer's Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is -- arguably -- the second best Hammer Frankenstein film after the original Curse of Frankenstein. FMBD was a TV staple in the 1970's and 1980's on UHF and was notorious for its incredibly grim and downbeat subject matter. Hammer Frankenstein films were only marginally profitable in comparison to the Dracula films and would even be outperformed by the Karnstein vampire trilogy. The offbeat Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde would be a big (surprise) hit for Hammer, but the Frankenstein films just didn't ignite the box office. The next two films in the series The Horror of Frankenstein and Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell were a major step down in quality from FMBD...what a shame.

Please click the above link to read the full Hub - its a good one!

Famous Monsters of Filmland 40th Anniversary Filmbook Remembered

Happy Halloween!

So much I could say, but time is short.

Classic horror movies receive a lot of airtime on cable in October, which is a good thing. Several rare classics do not always get the same appreciation of more well-known features. Some movies may only end up airing during Halloween. Setting October aside to appreciate those classic creepy films is definitely a worthwhile endeavor.

Yesterday, I was in the bookstore and came across the new issue of the third version of Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine. Fittingly, it was a tribute to the late, great Forrest J. Ackermann.

In the late 1990s, the second version of the magazine -- published by Ray Ferry -- was released. A 40th-anniversary film book was published. Here are my thoughts on it - in video form.

AND PLEASE CHECK OUT MY KINDLE BOOK ON THE UNIVERSAL CLASSICS:

Beyond Good and Evil and Greed in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

What more could be written about the themes of greed-induced self-destruction in the John Huston/Humphrey Bogart classic The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? Perhaps it would be best to look at a few lines of dialogue from the film and ponder on the words.

"Do you believe the old man who was doing all the talking....said the other night about gold changing a man's soul so he ain't the same kind of a guy he was before finding it?"

"I guess that all depends on the man."

"That's exactly what I say. Gold don't carry any curse with it. It all depends on whether or not the guy who finds it is the right guy. The way I see it, gold can be as much of a blessing as a curse"

Greed is often viewed as an abstract, a "Deadly Sin" that controls those whom the feelings of avarice envelope. Greed is not an abstract concept. Nor is it something that takes hold and controls anyone. Greed is a description of the attitudes and actions of human beings. Greed comes in many levels of severity and can reach a point where the "sin" becomes a massive personality disorder.

Greed could be an asset "depending on the man." A greedy person who saves and works and works to have security in life cannot be faulty. Such a person has a strong work ethic and fear for personal security - traits that were likely developed over time based on life experiences.

The character of Dobbs appears like a man who descends into greed-induced, self-destructive paranoia after finding gold and being overly consumed with greed. Is this so?

"Gold don't carry any curse with it. It all depends on whether or not the guy who finds it is the right guy."

Dobbs likely embodied always embodied the terrible traits that consumed him throughout the film. He possessed those traits inwardly and, when he discovered the gold, his avarice, selfishness, and paranoia began to express themselves outwardly.

This is why the other characters do not get ruined by the gold. The reflected the "right person[s]" who could be entrusted with the great responsibility of discovering the untold riches of lost and hidden gold.

PLEASE CHECK OUT MY COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ON AMAZON KINDLE: