SEPTEMBER 11TH AND THE MEANING OF MOVIES IN OUR LIVES

    I hope you'll bear with me for a time while I pause during my blog posts to reflect and express myself in my own fashion on this day of remembrance and reflection.

    Milestone anniversaries are a funny thing, and I suppose each of us has their own way of giving such events personal meaning.  Take me for instance - on September 30th of this year I will have been married to the woman I love for ten years.  And what's more, she will having been putting up with the likes of me for ten years, as well.  In October of this year, I will have officially "gone DVD" for ten years (this blog of mine might never have been possible if I'd remained with VHS). 

    Of course, today being the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, we all may be taking a little time out of our lives to reflect on the past and what it's meant to our present and our future.  I suppose it's impossible for me to talk about that tragic Tuesday ten years ago without telling you all where I was that morning.  I was on my way to work in Greenwich Village when the subway train stopped at Christopher Street.  The doors didn't close and we weren't moving for some time.  Being the impatient person I can be sometimes, I decided to get out and walk the rest of the way to my office.  As I made my way to Varick Street, I saw many people gathered in large masses on the street.  I'm standing there looking around and I can't account for a reason for any of this.  I don't see a traffic accident, a fight breaking out, nothing.  It doesn't occur to me to raise my head and look up for several minutes.  When I do, I see a huge plume of smoke smoldering from the first tower hit by the plane at the World Trade Center.  From my perspective on the street, I could only see one tower, as the other one was directly behind it, hidden from my view. 

    A short time later, I witnessed the great ball of fire that was the explosion of the second plane hitting the second tower.  But I didn't know this yet.  From my perspective, it appeared as if the explosion stemmed from the first building - a result of the ongoing fire, I imagined.  By the time I'm in my office and listening to radio, I, like every other American that day, am learning what's happening to our beloved country.  A short time later, I and many of my colleagues were standing in the conference room facing the burning towers.  Try to imagine a roomful of architects discussing whether the steel structures would hold, when all of a sudden they come down.  My exact words were, "Holy shit, they're coming down!"  By the time I left work after lunch, I ended up walking home in what seemed to be a long exodus going north up the island of Manhattan. Once I reached home, my fiance Beth held each other like we never had before.  We were only three weeks away from our wedding. 

    So now you know where I was and what I was doing.  What I'd like to do now is give you a sense of what went through my mind at certain times and the feelings I was experiencing in terms of movies and how I allowed them to enter and affect my life.  To begin with, when I saw that second explosion occur from the street, the first thought that went through he head was that I'd just witnessed a scene directly out of Independence Day.  Because downtown Manhattan was closed below 14th street for several days, I was home glued to the television like many others.  When I could no longer take the stories and images anymore, I switched channels and found myself consoled by a broadcast of one of my favorite films, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (thank you Steven Spielberg, for saving me that night).  When I could no longer take the confinements of my apartment any longer, I walked to the local movie theater to see The Others.  Not an uplifting film, but a good, solid ghost story that helped take my mind off things.  By that weekend, Beth and I went to see an outrageous French comedy called The Closet.  The following weekend, when we were back in the Hamptons, we went to laugh at the likes of Shrek on screen for the second time.  Some time later, I remember thinking about and anticipating Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones due next summer.  I remember thinking, "George Lucas, we need you now more than ever.  Please don't let us down." 

    It's safe to say that in the short time following 9/11, the movies helped to save my fragile state of mind.  But there's also something very specific that comes to my mind in terms of the motion picture industry and how movies were being handled and marketed in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. Hollywood displayed a very rare (and temporary) sensitivity to any form of violence and destruction on the screen and attempted to do what little they could to raise the spirits of the American people.  They began by immediately pushing back the release of the Arnold Schwarzenegger terrorist-action vehicle Collateral Damage to Spring 2002.  A scheduled airing of Passenger 57 on Cinemax was cancelled (for obvious reasons), and even an NBC-TV airing of Back to the Future was sensitive to the use of the word "terrorist" and actually deleted it from the film's dialogue.  Frankly, I think that may have been taking things a little too far, but there you have it.  Hollywood even shocked me by simultaneously re-releasing every comedy that had already been on the screen during the entire summer of 2001 because nothing can heal like the power of laughter on screen. 

    It appeared the insensitive money-whoring pigs who run Hollywood were actually capable of acting like human beings when national tragedy called for it.  Like I mentioned, though, it all didn't last long.  Before we knew it, movie makers were up-and-running again in an effort to destroy as many of our American cities as box office tickets would allow.  Whether through natural causes in The Day After Tomorrow, invading aliens in Spielberg's War of the Worlds, giant robots in Michael Bay's Transformers, a videotaped monster in Cloverfield and more recent forms of Earthly destruction like 2012 and Battle: Los Angeles.  Shit, I haven't seen this much destruction on the screen since the summer of 1998 when New York City was being clobbered by a giant comet, an asteroid the size of Texas and Godzilla himself.  Obviously, nothing sells movie tickets to the common multiplex moron like good ol' fashioned self-destruction. 

    Now take a moment, if you will, to think back to the state and mood of our country immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.  We can remember the enormous amount of war films released only months after the attack. American heroes like John Wayne lit up the screen to fight for our country and our lives.  Yes, there was violence and destruction on the screen, but it was targeted against our enemies overseas and not our own cities here at home.  Why is it so impossible to think that this patriotic film formula would not have worked on us today?  I mean, if there had to be another John Rambo film in this new century, would it not have been truly exciting to see Stallone kick some royal Al Qaeda ass?  Maybe it's just me, but not only would I have paid good money to see this kind of sequel, but I would have cheered my American ass off. 

    So now let me put forth this question - is it going to take another fatal tragedy on our beloved American soil before the powers-that-be of Hollywood once again wake up and realize that movies can be meant to serve a much higher purpose and responsibility than the usual Friday night crap box office intake?  I've said this before and I'll gladly repeat it now - movies, when done with a certain degree of intelligence and sensitivity, have the power to reach us, teach us, and perhaps every so often, give us some positive meaning and inspiration in our lives.  I've kept a pretty close eye on the big studio's releases over the past decade and I can't claim inspiration from anything.  I'm sorry, but endless superhero sequels just aren't going to cut that sort of mustard. 

    What's the answer then?  Are movies ever going to be great again?  Will they ever "save" our lives again?  I don't know what the answers are.  Perhaps the answers only depend on us, as human beings and how we choose to embrace the films out there today.  If we choose not to invest our time, money and minds on crap, then perhaps Hollywood will get the message and start using their imaginations of originality again and treat their audiences with a little more respect and a little less insult.  That's unrealistic, I'm sure, but the change can, at the very least, start with me.

    Finally, I'd like to dedicate this 9/11 post to my Uncle Steven (on my mother's side), who through luck or whatever good fortune or power he and others may choose to believe in, walked out of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and home to his beloved family.  Thank you, Steve.  We love you. 

DUEL

(November 1971, U.S.)

For the benefit of those possible few that aren't widely familiar with Steven Spielberg's career, let's make this perfectly clear - JAWS was not his first film! Got that? Like many other struggling new film directors, the man had to start out at the bottomless pit of television. DUEL was his first film and it was made for the ABC-TV Movie of the Weekend. Look at the film today, though, and you'll likely agree it had all the spectacular makings for a theatrical feature, or at the very least as part of a double bill at the local drive-in movie theater. Actually, it was released as a theatrical feature in Europe.

Let me ask you all a blunt question? Have you ever been driving on the highway and come into contact with a real asshole driver? Or have you ever acted like one yourself? My own answer to that is 'yes' on both accounts? I mean, come on, even the best of us can get a little impatient and angered on the road, and as a result we just might piss somebody off. It can happen. However, you don't want what happens to mild-mannered Los Angeles salesman David Mann (played by Dennis Weaver) to happen to you on the road...ever! All HE did was encounter a grimy and rusty Peterbilt 281 tanker truck, traveling slower than the speed limit and expelling thick plumes of sooty diesel exhaust. Mann passes the unsightly truck, which promptly roars past him and slows down. David passes the truck a second time and is startled when it suddenly issues a long air horn blast. In short, the truck driver (a truck driver that we, the viewer, NEVER get to see!) gets awfully pissed and decides that David will now be his new target in a game, or "duel" of cat-and-mouse wits on the road. Wits will eventually evolve into many attempts of murder as the "Goliath" truck overpowers the "David" (hey, did you get that one, too?) small, red Plymouth Valiant. On paper, the premise may sound a bit mild, but when you watch the film and incredible fear involved in the life of this ordinary man, you can feel the terror happening.

Think back now to the monsterous moments of Spielberg's films when the leviathan of the great white shark in JAWS (1975) stalked it's prey, or when the man-made dinosaurs did the same in JURASSIC PARK (1993). Now consider that the menacing truck in DUEL was the prerequisite to all of that. The monster can come in many forms. For us, the reality of the unstable driver may be a lot more reality to bear than the shark or the dinosaur.

Favorite line or dialogue:

David Mann: "Come on you miserable fat-head, get that fat-ass truck outta my way!"

(I know just how he feels!)

DUCK SOUP

(November 1933, U.S.)

It's funny how time can be kind to a film. Considered a classic now and my personal favorite Marx Brothers film of their entire career, DUCK SOUP was a considered a box office and critical disappointment back in 1933. I can't possibly imagine why. The outrageous dialogue and anarchy of Groucho, Chico and Harpo (Zeppo was just simply NOT funny!) must have been a comic miracle during the time of the Great Depression when Americans desperately needed to laugh their troubles away for a time. For my own tastes, this is the film that has the most memorable quotes and it's one of the few where I don't have to sit through Harpo playing the harp. Remember, I'm not to keen on musicals in general.

Besides being a classic comedy, DUCK SOUP is considered to be an anti-war film of its time in which wealthy Mrs. Teasdale (played by Margaret Dumont) insists that Rufus T. Firefly (played by Groucho) be appointed leader of the small, bankrupt country of Freedonia before she will continue to provide any more financial assistance. Meanwhile, neighboring Sylvania is attempting to take over the country. Sylvanian ambassador Trentino (played by Louis Calhern) tries to foment a revolution and attempts to dig up dirt on Firefly by sending in kooky spies Chicolini (played by Chico) and Pinky (played by Harpo). As neighboring countries at odds with each other, they will surely inevitably go to war, which I suppose is exactly the point in getting the valid anti-war message across to audiences. War is, in fact, declared and everyone is overcome by "war frenzy", breaking into outrageous song and dance. The message at the time clearly was that war was so ridiculous that it was cause enough to sing, "We go to war!" and play music on the helmets of soldiers. In 1933, the mesaage just might have worked because there were many who thought the United States should not have been involved in World War I. The film would have been ineffective after World War II, though, as America was justifyably gung-ho to go to war against Japan. Regardless, at the time only the legendary Marx Brothers could have pulled it off. They did, in my opinion.

Let's talk about that great "mirror scene" for a moment. Groucho and Harpo, dressed exactly the same, pretend to be each other's reflection in a missing mirror, matching each other's every move — including absurd ones that begin out of sight — to near perfection. In one particularly surreal moment, the two men swap positions, and thus the idea of which is a reflection of the other. It's been copied many times, from Bugs Bunny to I LOVE LUCY (with Harpo as a guest star, I might add).

Rufus T. Firefly: "Not that I care, but where is your husband?"
Mrs. Teasdale: "Why, he's dead."
Firefly: "I bet he's just using that as an excuse."
Teasdale: "I was with him to the very end."
Firefly: "No wonder he passed away."
Teasdale: "I held him in my arms and kissed him."
Firefly: "Oh, I see, then it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first."
Teasdale: "He left me his entire fortune."
Firefly: "Is that so? Can't you see what I'm trying to tell you? I love you!"

DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB

(January 1964, U.S.)

Stanley Kubrick is my favorite film director of all time. I think I've been pretty clear about that in the past. DR. STRANGELOVE is one of those rare films that I'm, frankly, very much in love with. One of those rare films I couldn't live without if I were stranded on a desert island. One of those rare films that I have so much to say about, that I find myself almost stuck with how to begin or what to actually say. But, rest assured, I eventually shut up, wise up and speak up so I can effectively express myself the way I seek to with my blogs (that's why we're both here!).

This was a film I discovered by accident on television when I was a teenager and just starting to learn about Kubrick's career as well as the appreciation for black and white classic films. Let's begin with a question that requires a little imagination - what must it have been like to try and make a black comedy film which satirized the American nuclear scare during the early 1960s that was dominated by the threat of the Cold War? Imagine what it must have seemed like to pitch that idea to Columbia Pictures. My only possible answer to all of this is, "Hey, it's fucking Stanley Kubrick! Anything's possible!" The story (if you're really THAT clueless!) concerns the very unhinged United States Air Force general Jack Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Why? Because he's deluded himself into thinking that a secret Communist plot of introducing a foreign substance into the drinking water and into his "precious bodily fluids" is responsible for his impotence and possibly his tendency toward homosexuality (yes, that's right - the world is about to end because a potential gay man can't get it up!). It also follows the President of the United States (played by Peter Sellers), his advisors, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a Royal Air Force (RAF) officer as they try to recall the bombers to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. It also separately follows the crew of one B-52 bomber as they try to ultimately deliver their nuclear payload against their target in Russia. Sounds pretty grim and frightening, right? Well, fear not because it's funny, funny, funny! It's funny dialogue that never gets boring and never disappoints. It's funny because Peter Sellers famously plays three roles effectively (the President of the United States, the Royal Air Force exchange officer and the ever-crazy Dr. Strangelove himself!) and you can't decide which character is more loony that the other. It's funny because George C. Scott as the gung-ho, "let's kill em' all!" General Buck Turgidson is in his best role that easily surpasses PATTON (1970). It's funny because the above-metnioned B-52 aircraft commander Major T. J. "King" Kong (played by Slim Pickens) is just as gung-ho crazy as Turgidson whose final act before the world ends is riding the missle striking Russia like a wild bronco. Now THAT'S what I call a true American patriot! The film's final montage of nuclear detonations across the world, accompanied by Vera Lynn's recording of "We'll Meet Again" is not quite as funny as the rest of the film, but a grim and harsh reminder of what we were and what we're still capable of doing to this planet of ours.

During the filming of DR. STRANGELOVE, Kubrick learned that another film, FAIL-SAFE (1964), with a similar theme, was being produced. Although Sidney Lumet's film was to be an ultra-realistic thriller, he feared that its plot resemblance would damage his film's box office potential, especially if it were released first. Kubrick decided to throw a legal wrench into the other film's production gears and it worked, too. FAIL-SAFE opened eight months behind DR. STRANGELOVE, to critical acclaim but (unfortunately) mediocre ticket sales. Almost reminds me of the battle of asteroid films between two studios during the Summer of 1998 (DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGEDDON).

When I was a freshman in college, I took a class called History After 1945. It was an excellent class that often focussed on media and pop culture as well as political and historical events. One night, the professor showed us DR. STRANGELOVE during the period of discussion that involved the Cold War. When it was over, the essay question was simply, "Why did I show this film?" Well, d-u-u-h-h! You'll be happy to know I got an A (minus) on the paper (pat on my back!)

DR. STRANGELOVE is my second favorite Stanley Kubrick film. We still haven't gotten to my favorite yet. Stay with me to find out...

Favorite line or dialogue:

President Merkin Muffley (to Soviet Premier Kissoff): "Hello?...Uh...Hello D- uh hello Dmitri? Listen uh uh I can't hear too well. Do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?...Oh-ho, that's much better...yeah...huh...yes...Fine, I can hear you now, Dmitri...Clear and plain and coming through fine...I'm coming through fine, too, eh?...Good, then...well, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine...Good...Well, it's good that you're fine and...and I'm fine...I agree with you, it's great to be fine...a-ha-ha-ha-ha...Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb...The Bomb, Dmitri...The hydrogen bomb!...Well now, what happened is...ahm...one of our base commanders, he had a sort of...well, he went a little funny in the head...you know...just a little...funny. And, ah...he went and did a silly thing...Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes...to attack your country...Ah...Well, let me finish, Dmitri...Let me finish, Dmitri...Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?...Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?...Of course I like to speak to you!...Of course I like to say hello!...Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened...It's a friendly call. Of course it's a friendly call...Listen, if it wasn't friendly...you probably wouldn't have even got it...They will not reach their targets for at least another hour...I am...I am positive, Dmitri...Listen, I've been all over this with your ambassador. It is not a trick...Well, I'll tell you. We'd like to give your air staff a complete run-down on the targets, the flight plans, and the defensive systems of the planes...Yes! I mean i-i-i-if we're unable to recall the planes, then...I'd say that, ah...well, ah...we're just gonna have to help you destroy them, Dmitri...I know they're our boys...All right, well listen now. Who should we call?...Who should we call, Dmitri? The...wha-whe, the People...you, sorry, you faded away there...The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters...Where is that, Dmitri?...In Omsk...Right...Yes...Oh, you'll call them first, will you?...Uh-huh...Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?...Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information...Ah-ah-eh-uhm-hm...I'm sorry, too, Dmitri...I'm very sorry...All right, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well...I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are...So we're both sorry, all right?...All right".

DR. NO

(October 1962, U.S.)

Your personal interpretation of the very first James Bond film ever, DR. NO, may depend entirely on what generation you're from. Perhaps you're old enough to have seen the first film on screen back in 1962 and then all the others that followed in their theatrical release order. If that's the case, then you got to witness the character's development over time. However, if you're in my age bracket (late thirties to early forties), you very likely got your first taste of James Bond on screen in the 1970s in the form of Roger Moore and perhaps managed to catch GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL on the ABC Sunday Night Movie. That being the case, it's a considerably different experience to go back to the first Bond film and see Sean Connery bring the character to life for the first time.

If you were to watch DR. NO, CASINO ROYALE or even THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, it would be very easy to see that author Ian Flemming had a much different idea of James Bond in mind that doesn't even come close to the silly campiness displayed in many other films by men like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. Connery's very first portrayel of James Bond is a much tougher, grittier and cold-hearted spy, and I might also add, a much faster talker. Watch the film and you'll what I'm talking about; at times, the man is speaking at a hundred miles an hour. But I suppose like any other film franchise, a character like his needs a little time to be well seasoned.

The film, too, is just getting started and the stories, too, need time for seasoning. In this film, James Bond is sent to Jamaica on an investigation into the death of a fellow British agent. The murder trail leads him to the underground base of the villian Dr. No (played fiendishly by Joesph Wiseman), who is plotting to disrupt an early American manned space launch with a radio beam weapon. Not a terribly exciting plot and there are no over-the-top gadgets or cars to marvel at. For it introduction, DR. NO serves more to introduce us to the English gentleman spy who is licensed to kill and to learn what exactly makes the man tick. We know from many films of the future that he kills anyone, anytime without hesitation and that monogomy doesn't exactly work out for him. In fact, there's a moment in DR. NO when Honey Ryder asks Bond if he has a woman of his own. Just take a long look at Bond's face as he hesitates at the question and ultimately never answers it.

Now let's take a moment to talk about Honey Ryder (played by the sultry Ursula Andrews), shall we? Bond fans and even Bond historians (is there really such a thing??) have often called her the best "Bond girl" ever. Is she really? Well, I suppose that would depend on what you're personally grading her on. If we're talking about character strength, personality and performance, then my answer is definitely "no". On the other hand, if we're talking about the hottest piece of "Bond girl" ass you've ever seen on screen, then I have to definitely give Honey Ryder two big thumbs way up! Truth be told, I've never really had a favorite "Bond girl". Most of them (even the more independent, intelligent ones) seem to follow the same persistent formula. I can tell you that I consider Denise Richards in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999) the absolute WORST "Bond girl" of the entire film franchise! Most people would agree with me.

As a quintessential "Bond villian", I have to say that Dr. No rates as one of the best I've ever seen in the franchise. He's cunning, diabolical and evil without being entirely over-the-top in his personality and mannerism. I would call him the silent-but-deadly type, which I consider to be a more frightening character that the villian who's constantly shooting off his mouth and laughing like some stereotypical "mad scientist" or something. Many other Bond fans would likely tell you that Goldfinger is the best "Bond villian", but maybe that's simply because he says the best line to come from a villian, which is, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" Who knows.

Favorite line or dialogue:

James Bond: " I admire your courage, Miss...?"
Sylvia Trench: " Trench. Sylvia Trench. I admire your luck, Mr...?"
James: "Bond. James Bond."

And with those immortal words, a film legend is born...

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1941)

(August 1941, U.S.)

One of the great disadvantages of watching three versions of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE in a row and having never read the original work by Robert Louis Stevenson is that you can never be totally sure of the author's original intention for the characteristics of Mr. Hyde. Was he meant to be a physically grotesque monster as portrayed in some film versions or was the physical transformation meant to be just subtle enough to make its philosophical point of man's inner conflict of good versus evil? Well, it's the latter point that Spencer Tracy expresses as Mr. Hyde. The physical tranformation in this 1941 version are actually no more than thicker hair and eyebrows, bigger eyes and a wider grin.

It's Spencer Tracy, though, that truly attracts one to this version of the story. He's a legendary actor that brings a strong sense of drama to the roles that call for it, and that dramatic passion comes through as Dr. Henry Jekyll. And while not particularly frightening as Mr. Hyde, that same passion comes through when his evil side is revealed and he murders his victims, dance hall girl Ivy and his would-be father in-law when provoked by rage. While Ingrid Bergman is suitably cast as Ivy, it's a role that could just as easily be as good or as bad as anything else she's done. In other words, it's NOT CASABLANCA! Lana Turner as Jekyll's fiance is, frankly, quite forgettable.

Now I have to give a director like Victor Flemming tremendous credit here. After having directed both THE WIZARD OF OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND (both released in 1939), you'd think he'd have taken a long hiatus just to recover from that kind of film making stress. Instead, he gives us a very credible film version of a great literary classic. It's an understandably light-hearted film, even for it's scary premise. This, however, is far from being a horror film. In fact, given a few very mild edits, it could almost pass for a family film...almost.

Well, I have to say that after three versions in a row of this film, I'm quite jekyll'd out of my hyde!

(Okay, that was bad. Sorry.)

Favorite line or dialogue:

Dinner Guest: "But, but, but aren't you a bit presumptuous in assuming that there's evil in all men?"
Dr. Jekyll: "Oh, but isn't that true? Wouldn't we be hypocrites if we didn't admit that? After all, we've all had thoughts that we, uh, didn't want published or shouted out loud and we certainly have had desires that are not confined to a drawing room. Why, as Christians, we admit that man is created weal. That's a perfectly honest problem. Why don't we face it?"

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1932)

(December 1931, U.S.)

By the time 1932 rolls around, the so-called "talkie" is all the rage and so is the monster movie. Universal Pictures commands the reigns with hits like DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY and THE INVISIBLE MAN. So naturally, Paramount Pictures would likely compete with their latest version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE; this time with Frederic March playing the good (and bad) doctor.

By now, this is the EIGHTH version of Robert Louis Stevenson's famed novel to come to the screen. So perhaps I won't even bother going into the plot because I think I can safely assume you're all familiar, right? Instead, with this version, what I'll try to do is focus more on the psychology and philosophy behind its premise of man's dual persona of decent morality and the uninhibited desire to express his dark and ugly side. From the beginning, Dr. Henry Jekyll (pronounced "Jeekyll" for some mysterious reason in this version - don't know why) is very clear on his theories and philosophies of man's dual or "split" personality and I have to say that it's almost conspiracy-like in the way that all those around him refuse to believe such propositions of man's being. The decent man that we know Dr. Jekyll to be is conflicted with not only the need to prove those around him wrong, but to also reject the lust he feels towards women of less desirability simple because it's the decent thing to do (or not do) or as those around him put it, "It isn't done." Well, once he's transformed into Mr. Hyde, not only is it DONE, but you can almost condone the mischief and mayhem he cause because it's a rage against the moral machine of conformity that seeks to dominate his existence.

There are two particular works of the camera that I'd like to focus on for a moment and they both involve the "disolve" shot. The first one disolves from Dr. Jekyll's fiance Muriel and stays there for a long moment into the next scene, reminding the audience that Dr. Jekyll is constantaly bound to the decent moral complexities of love, marriage and honor. The second one disolves from the cheap dance hall girl Ivy and stays there for the same moment into the next scene to remind us that Jekyll is also a man conflicting with the hidden lustful desires he has for this girl and can only express when he's transformed into Mr. Hyde. It's imagery that easily captures the classic conflict of good versus evil within our souls.

As for the physical monster that is Mr. Hyde, it's difficult to judge just how scary he is. In my opinion, he looks like a cross between Lon Channey Jr. in THE WOLFMAN (1941) and the tasmanian devil from CREEPSHOW (1982). That, of course, is a scary looking monster, but it's easy to get past it because Mr. Hyde seems to come off as more of a comical mischief-maker rather than a frightening murder (but murder he does!). In watching Frederic March play Mr. Hyde, you can almost presume that Jim Carrey studied this role when he prepared to play his role in THE MASK (1994).

Favorite line or dialogue:

Mr. Hyde: "Perhaps you prefer a gentleman. One of those fine-mannered and honorable gentlemen. Those panting hypocrites who like your legs but talk about your garters."