INTERVIEW WITH SCREENWRITER DAVID SALE

I have the great pleasure today of welcoming a very special guest, screenwriter David Sale, to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS for an interview. David was the writer of both the big-screen version of NUMBER 96 [my review of the film can be found here] and the series, and creator of the serial. He also has credits in Australian television, particularly as writer and executive producer of The Mavis Bramston Show. In this interview David will be discussing his role as writer in the NUMBER 96 movie, screenwriting, and acting, and moviemaking.

Welcome to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS David!

Athan: Where did you learn the art of screenwriting?

David: My only lessons were from watching movies. I was a film fan from childhood. I believe that the ability to write is an in-born talent. Even in primary school, my little essays were read out to the class by our teacher. I loved thinking up stories then writing them down. Teaching courses can channel the ability to write into special fields such as books or screenwriting, but the basic talent has to be there. I had no training at all.

*

Athan: Where did you study acting?

David: Again, I had no formal training. My parents and I were migrants from Manchester. I wanted to be a journalist, so started a cadetship with the ABC News Dept. in Melbourne.  However, I drifted into acting with a suburban amateur group, then I graduated to the Melbourne Little Theatre where I part-wrote and performed in two hit revues. I decided to go back to England to become a professional actor where nobody could laugh at me if I failed. Almost immediately I did a summer season of weekly Rep in Bognor Regis, then played the murderer in Agatha Christie’s The Mousetrap in a British Council tour to Malta. Back in London, I played Malcolm in Macbeth, various bits on TV and two “B” grade movies. I was up for a part in Coronation Street thanks to my dormant Lancashire accent, but that meant going back to live in Manchester where it was filmed and that seemed like a backward step. Homesickness for Australia won out and I came back to Melbourne, resuming and combining  the writing for TV (In Melbourne Tonight etc.) with acting - more revues, a Melbourne Theatre Company tour of And the Big Men Fly, and a year understudying the King in a lavish production of The King and I. (I never got to go on, thankfully - I was under rehearsed and too young for the part). I was content playing his “secretary, Phra Alack. Then I switched to Sydney, just in time for The Mavis Bramston Show, and my career REALLY took off!!!

*

Athan: NUMBER 96 was the top-rating show of the early 1970s in Australian television. How did the concept for a film version eventuate?

David: It seemed a logical step. The TV series was still in black and white. Film offered the opportunity of colour - and to producers Cash-Harmon the chance to make even more money by capitalising on the TV series’ phenomenal success.

*

Athan: I found the intertwined stories of drama, and comedy entertaining in the NUMBER 96 movie. How did you select the stories which made their way to the screen? Were there stories proposed for the movie that could not be presented for reasons such as time constraints?

David: Script Editor Johnny Whyte and I collaborated on the screenplay. Over a week-end, we thought up individual; and entertaining plots that suited the characters and could all be resolved in two hours instead of being strung out over numerous episodes. Johnny and I then just took blocks of storyline to script and these dovetailed perfectly into the whole because we knew each other’s work - and our subjects - so well.

*

Athan: What did you most enjoy about the experience of filming the NUMBER 96 movie?

David: I had little to do with the actual filming once our screenplay was handed over. The actual filming was a breeze for everyone involved. It was completed in two weeks by actors familiar with their parts, on the existing studio sets,  A few outdoor scenes were included, it rained on two of the exterior filming days, but the film still came in on time and - reportedly - under budget.

*

Athan: What were the main differences for you in the NUMBER 96 movie as compared to the television series?

David: There seemed little difference to me. I was writing for characters I’d created and knew off-by-heart. Except for when it hit the big screen of course, I was able to experience the incredible reaction of the live audiences first-hand, attending the various premieres. Not only were they seeing their favourite characters in colour, but as each character made his or her first appearance, there was a deafening wave of applause as if it were a stage show. I found that quite moving.

*

Athan: What for you was the most demanding, but emotionally satisfying segment of writing the NUMBER 96 movie?

David: I don’t want to diminish the task of doing the movie, but really it was just like writing an extension of the series. The veteran Hollywood screenwriter, Casey Robinson, had come to live in Australia and became a friend. He’d been prolific at Warner Bros during Hollywood’s Golden Years and wrote many of the Bette Davis hits such as Now Voyager and Dark Victory. He was sitting nearby at the Sydney premiere, and I wondered apprehensively what he would think of our humble offering.  He said: “Good work - you’re giving the people exactly what they want!”

*

Athan: Have you kept in contact with any cast members and crew from NUMBER 96?

David: Sadly, many of the participants of Number 96 have passed on, but we survivors are like family. I’m still regularly in contact with Sheila Kennelly, Carol Raye, Lynnie Rainbow and others.

*

Athan: NUMBER 96 was directed by Peter Benardos, who also directed the series version of Number 96, and was his only feature film. What was your experience working with Mr Benardos on the movie?

David: As I said, I had little to do with the actual filming, but Peter Benardos was the utter professional who had worked efficiently on countless episodes of the series as director, so I knew the movie was in safe hands.

*

Athan: NUMBER 96 the movie was one of the top-grossing Australian films at the box office in 1974. How did it feel seeing the characters, and stories you created on the big screen?

David: Top grossing. Thereby hangs a murky tale! Our contracts stipulated that Johnny Whyte and I split the $10,000 for the screenplay into $5,000 each, but also that we were to receive a small percentage (I forget how much) of “the producer’s gross profit.” Thanks to some fancy manipulation in the world of accountancy, Johnny and I never received another cent! We were either so naïve or carried away by success, we let it pass.

*

Athan: You had a bit part in the 1959 American movie ON THE BEACH, which was made in Australia by United Artists, and directed by Stanley Kramer. The film starred American screen actors Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner in major parts. What was it like making the movie, and meeting these luminaries?

David: I was still a cadet reporter on ABC radio News when I “took a sickie” to answer a casting call for a day’s ‘extra’ work in On the Beach. Every actor in Melbourne had put their name down, but ended up in street crowd scenes. I was fortunate enough - I know not why - to be called as a guest on a confined set - a great opportunity to see the four major stars work. It was actually Fred Astaire’s big scene, and he was a little withdrawn and worried about remembering his lines, but managed to lighten things up by doing a few incongruous tap steps. Watching off-camera, a hand clapped on my shoulder.  I looked up and Gregory Peck smiled down at me.  “I gather we’re all doomed”, he joked.   Little did I know that in later years I’d be great friends with his ex-wife, Greta. Ava Gardner was also friendly. During a break, she flopped down in the chair next to me on the ‘veranda’ of the fake house the party was in. She was complaining to her hairdresser that she never got letters from friends at. home.  Her hairdresser said: “But Ava, in order to GET letters, you also have to SEND them.”   Ava turned to me. “I can’t write - I can’t even spell.”  “Why don’t you use a dictionary?”  I suggested. She patted my knee. “The words I wanna use aren’t IN a dictionary!” she replied with a naughty wink. It was a magical day for me.

*

Athan: You also acted in two British films from 1960, JUST JOE and CROSSROADS TO CRIME. How did you feel in the capacity of actor in these movies?

David: I felt comfortable immediately and quickly learned the trick of blotting out the looming camera and about a dozen crew members crowding intently it  seemed like just inches away…and instead I just concentrated on the person I was swapping dialogue with. In Just Joe the other person was Jon Pertwee, who was later to become one of the “Doctor No’s” or “Who’s” or whatever he was called.   He was very kind and put me at ease in the six scenes we shared together. I played his assistant in a soap factory. And I was able to repay his kindness in a final scene when he had to stay completely submerged in a vat of soapy water until I had delivered the tongue-twisting line: “It’s the black speckles in “SQUIZZ” that make every day a white washday!” I did it in one take, for which Jon was truly grateful.

My bit (blink and you’ll miss me) in Crossroads to Crime led to a lifelong friendship with the wonderful Miriam Karlin. During a break, she motioned me over to where she was sitting and asked for my name and phone number. She thought I was just the type when replacements became necessary in the hit show she was starring in - Fings Ain't What They Used to Be. Nothing came of this kind gesture, but when she came to Australia she remembered me and when she heard of my writing she insisted on my doing all her special material in The Mavis Bramston Show.

*

Athan: Do you have any upcoming projects of which you would like to tell readers?

David: I came to live in Queensland [Australia] to take it easy. but a writer never retires. There are always intriguing ideas and potential plots buzzing around in a writer's mind, so one never knows….

*

Thank you so much today for your time David, and for the understanding you have provided into the art of screenwriting, acting, the NUMBER 96 movie, and moviemaking. It has been wonderful to have you on CINEMATIC REVELATIONS. You are welcome to return whenever you wish.

*

David Sale links

+David Sale IMDb Page

+NUMBER 96 movie IMDb page

INTERVIEW WITH ACTRESS MANUELA THIESS GARCIA

Today I have the immense pleasure of welcoming a very special guest, actress Manuela Thiess Garcia, to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS for an interview. Manuela has acted in several motion pictures over the years including BUCKSKIN, CHANGES [my review of the film can be found here] and TERROR CIRCUS. In this interview Manuela will be discussing her part in CHANGES, acting, theatre, and her passion for photography, poetry, and writing.

Welcome to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS Manuela!

Athan: When did you first realize that you wanted to be an actress?

Manuela: I started studying acting at around age 22.  I had actually had a bit of an aversion to acting before that as I did not want to enter my parents’ profession.  But perhaps because I moved to Laurel Canyon, Hollywood rubbed off on me in spite of myself. 

*

Athan: Where did you study acting?

Manuela: I studied method acting with Estelle Harman for several years and Guy Stockwell after that before joining Ralph Waite’s L.A. Actor’s Theatre.

*

Athan: What did you find most exciting about the experience of making CHANGES?

Manuela:  Truthfully, I had a mad crush on Kent [Lane], and that certainly made working on the picture titillating.  In addition, it was my first film and that made every moment a new and exhilarating experience.   

A day that was more than a little exiting was when I had to walk into the ocean to drown myself.  I had nearly drowned in the ocean as a teenager and I was terrified of the waves.  That was a helicopter shot and so there was nobody down there on that rocky beach but myself.  Plus it was freezing in Big Sur (I think it was February), and I had to do the scene several times in clothes that were soaking wet.  I was glad when that day was over.

*

Athan: Your performance as the loving, sensitive Bobbi in CHANGES, who makes a decision which irrevocably changes her life, was excellent. For you, what was the most demanding, but emotionally satisfying segment of filming CHANGES?

Manuela:  When I had to cry.  I hadn’t cried in my personal life in years.  To conjure those tears took some doing, especially in front of the whole crew, but it felt really good to have been able to do that.

*

Athan: Have you kept in contact with any cast members and crew from CHANGES?

Manuela: No, I have not, though I have occasionally tried to google one or two of them to see what they were up to.

*

Athan: CHANGES was directed by Hall Bartlett, also notable for films such as ALL THE YOUNG MEN, THE SANDPIT GENERALS, and JONATHAN LIVINGSTON SEAGULL. What was it like being directed by Mr Bartlett in CHANGES?

Manuela:  At the time, I was young, self-obsessed and foolish and had no idea what a truly extraordinary man I was working for. Hall struck me as an all round decent human being and he was kind to me, as he was to everyone, but I had little appreciation for the talent he had and what a true artist he was and continued to be.  Nor had I been aware that he had graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard, which I only found out when I read about him in the Wikipedia.

*

Athan: You have worked on the stage in various productions years ago, also writing several plays. What for you most stood out when comparing the theatre, and film?

Manuela:  My mother started out to be a stage actress, and she had had a love for that, which I think prompted me to want to try it.  It’s really impossible to compare the two mediums.  Stage acting requires perhaps more agility, for if you forget a line, or someone else does, you have to be quick on your toes and work around that.  But there is also a lot of repetition of the same script over and over, even given the small variations night to night.  In film acting, you have to let your emotions show in a way that stage does not demand, and although you sometimes have to do retakes, the action moves much faster. And for closeups, there is no cheating allowed.

*

Athan: You have been a photographer for many years, your photos capturing both the beauty, and different facets of cities such as Barcelona, Spain, Cologne, Germany, and Paris, France, to name a few examples. What is it that you find most exciting about photography?

Manuela:  I wrote a poem about that, I think I posted it on my website.  In photography, you can capture a split second in time.  I often feel like a thief, though I rarely know what I actually stole until I get home and have a chance to review what I shot on the computer as I shoot digitally.  That keeps it adventurous and exciting for me.  

I find by studying the faces of strangers (for I shoot random people on the streets more often than not), I get more understanding and compassion for our misbegotten species with all its flaws and imperfections.  

As for scenery, the sky and the circumstances constantly change, so like with expressions, capturing of a moment in time that will never repeat.

*

Athan: Your website features poetry and writing pieces by you, dealing with a number of themes, especially your thoughts on life. How does poetry, and writing make you feel?

Manuela:  Writing, whether in journals, small essays, one act plays or poetry, has been a great emotional salve for life wounds I would otherwise not have had a chance to allow to heal.  I highly recommend it as a therapeutic tool for anyone working through emotional distress.  It has a way of putting confusion into a more rational perspective.  Also, by sharing those experiences with others, there is a kind of cleansing, and a way of ingraining into my subconscious what I have learned and continue to learn each day, for the journey doesn't stop until we stop breathing, once and for all. What happens after that remains a tantalizing mystery, does it not?

*

Athan: You have also taught in the California Department of Corrections, and as a Suicide Prevention Counselor. What it is that you found most enriching with these challenging, but rewarding positions?

Manuela:  At the Suicide Prevention Center I only worked as a volunteer counselor for around 8 months, and I had to quit when I started to get too many nightmares, specifically about callers which worried me when they hung up, which they did once in a while. But it helped me get insight into my own suicidal impulses as well as later when I worked in the CDC to be able to recognize those potential impulses in my students.

I worked for the California Department of Corrections for 15 years, and I loved that job.  I have never been good with bureaucracies and I riled against the administrative aspect of of the job, but I was fond of my students (for the most part) and of my fellow teachers. It was kind of like being stranded on an island together once those bars clinked shut.  

I learned a great deal about crime and punishment and the counter productivity of the American penal system.  The experience has given me an appreciation for the Restorative Justice model of corrections.  The U.S. had more people incarcerated per capita than any place in the world.  Think of that.  The land of the free and the home of the brave?

*

Athan: Do you have any upcoming projects of which you would like to tell readers?

Manuela:  I have another local exhibit coming up and my husband and I just opened a gallery here in Guanajuato featuring my photography but other local artists as well. In addition, I am working to finally gather all my poems and put them in a book. I will keep my website updated.  If you are ever in Guanajuato, come and share a coffee with us at our gallery.  And thank you, Athan for taking an interest in my work and asking me to participate in this interview.

*

Thank you so much for your time today Manuela, and for the insight you have provided into the art of acting, CHANGES, cinema, theatre, photography, poetry and writing. It has been wonderful having you on CINEMATIC REVELATIONS. You are welcome to return whenever you wish.

*

Manuela Thiess Garcia links

+Manuela Thiess Garcia IMDb Actress Page

+CHANGES movie IMDb page

+Manuela Thiess Garcia Official Website

+Manuela Thiess Garcia Instagram page

+Manuela Thiess Garcia Facebook page

*

Manuela Thiess Garcia clip from Death Valley Days

CHANGES (1969)

Title: CHANGES

Year of Release: 1969

Director: Hall Bartlett

Genre: Drama, Romance, Counterculture

Synopsis: A young man seeks to find himself, taking to the road, and having a number of experiences, and relationships, along the way.

Within a film history context: During the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were numerous films which were concerned with anti-establishment counterculture characters and scenarios. One of the first was Roger Corman's THE TRIP (1967). After suffering a traumatic divorce from his wife, a television director falls into drugs, and has many way out experiences. Notable for its cast, including Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Bruce Dern, it was an interesting foray into counterculture themes. THE NUDE RESTAURANT (1967), directed by Andy Warhol, was a confrontational story of a restaurant, its waiters, waitresses and patrons, discussing a little of everything in this underground movie. More entertaining was Eliot Silverstein's THE HAPPENING (1967). Four young people kidnap a wealthy man, and hold him to ransom, but events conspire against their original plans. As with many counterculture movies, it has a splendid cast, in this case Anthony Quinn in the lead role, with support from George Maharis, Michael Parks, and Faye Dunaway in an early part. Different in tone was GREETINGS (1968), directed by Brian de Palma. It was an unconventional tale of three men getting up to many adventures in late 1960s New York City, with references to issues fresh at the time such as Vietnam, how to avoid the draft, and computer dating, to name a few. It led to a sequel in 1970, being HI, MOM!, which was equally irreverent, both films starring Robert De Niro. 

Another raucous picture was Barry Shear's WILD IN THE STREETS (1968). A young rock singer becomes president of the United States, which leads to much mayhem, but many colorful, original set pieces. SKIDOO (1968), directed by Otto Preminger, was an all-star comedy about the life of a former hit man, and the many outrageous situations in which he, and his family, participate. Alternately dealing with topics such as the counterculture, hippies, free love, and LSD, it was a departure for its director, but not a financial success in its original release. Bob Rafelson's HEAD (1968) was akin in some respects, but in a much more innocent vein. The film charted the exploits of pop group The Monkees, with many musical interludes, and adventures thrown in. On the other hand, PSYCH-OUT (1968), directed by Richard Rush, concerned a deaf young woman looking for her brother in San Francisco, and how through this search she encountered wild characters, with the effects of drugs deftly portrayed in the narrative. Outlandish could be said to describe Hy Averback's I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS (1968). Through a series of events, a straitlaced attorney meets a flower power young woman, and becomes part of the hippie lifestyle, this experience changing his views on love, and life. CHANGES distinguished itself from the other movies with its lusher, more romantic, clean-cut orientation, but still shared some elements from the previous counterculture movies.

The movie very lightly touched upon the counterculture movement with its main character, university student Kent, railing against authority, and what he perceived were his parents', and the generation of his parents', preoccupation with the straight and narrow, money and status. This was seen to be to the detriment of freedom, spontaneity, and happiness. This in-depth narrative treatment was a contrast to the more frivolous, shallow views of counterculture ideals espoused by examples such as GREETINGS, WILD IN THE STREETS, and I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS. The characters in these movies, in some cases, were two-dimensional, in comparison to the full-blooded characterization of Kent, and his emotional battles. It was not rebellion just for its own sake in CHANGES. The rebellion was a culmination of feelings, perceptions of the world, and personal experiences which make Kent want to abandon the safety of his world, and experience unfamiliar things in life. Other facets of the movie are also worth discussing for how they are unlike those of other counterculture movies.

While many of the films in the genre utilized drugs, and drug-taking, in a somewhat flashy and exploitative manner, to appear fashionable or trendy, such as THE TRIP, WILD IN THE STREETS, and I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS, in CHANGES they receive fleeting attention. It appears that Kent did experiment with drugs at one stage, which he admits to his shocked mother, but drugs are not given the exhaustive treatment the other movies provided. In CHANGES, drugs were something Kent tried but did not continue, and, aside from one scene in the movie depicting the use of these, that is where the references to narcotics end. It is more about a phase that came and went for the protagonist, instead of drugs being the focal point in the movie. In addition, other counterculture themes and motifs receive a different airing in CHANGES. While there are some views of student protests in the movie, and the final credits include images of what was taking place in the world in the late 1960s, CHANGES does not go overboard in this respect. It was mainly about Kent's journey, and what he gleaned from these experiences, rather than a wholesale examination of counterculture values rising to the fore. A novel take on counterculture movies, CHANGES is a great film.

Overview: Hall Bartlett directed nine feature films over a period of twenty-three years, with some action movies, and more thoughtful fare interspersed. Mr Bartlett made his debut with UNCHAINED (1955) which was about a prisoner who wants to go home after serving out his sentence, but is enticed to escape from jail. Next came DRANGO (1957) which was a western set during the American Civil War, and the effect a Union officer's presence has on a small Georgia town. In ZERO HOUR! (1957) various incidents occur in an airplane such as the food poisoning of passengers, which also affects the flying crew, and how a man is forced to take over the operation of the craft. ALL THE YOUNG MEN (1960) dealt with the Korean War, and how a black sergeant takes over a squad of both white, and black soldiers, which brings about much racism and dissent. In total contrast, THE CARETAKERS (1963) charted events in a mental health facility, particularly affecting the patients, and personnel such as psychiatrists, and also, the chief of staff. THE SANDPIT GENERALS (1971), set in Brazil, was the examination of disadvantaged young people, and the dangerous, illicit activities in which they indulge. One of Mr Bartlett's most famous films was JONATHAN LIVINGSTON SEAGULL (1973), and his penultimate movie. It was the inspirational story of a young seagull whose exploits make him unpopular with his own flock, but eventually finding his way in life. Mr Bartlett's final motion picture, THE CHILDREN OF SANCHEZ (1978) was the character study of a man in Mexico City, detailing his family life, especially his strained relationship with his daughter, who wants to move away from him, and his arduous life. CHANGES was Hall Bartlett's sixth film, and one of his best efforts, sharing the perceptive thread that marked all his output.

Hall Bartlett has made a ruminative movie, essentially a character study, about a young man in the late 1960s who is seeking to find out who he is, his thoughts about the world, what he wants from it, and discover his place in the universe. CHANGES is a carefully-made narrative which is sensitive to not only its lead protagonist but also, the supporting characters who come into contact with him. The viewer finds out exactly why everyone acts, says, and does what they do, which gives the movie a sense of clarity and comfort. It unfolds in a naturalistic manner, without overt melodrama, but with many emotional, and truthful moments. While the film has a leaning toward the soft, and romantic in its storytelling, this is refreshing in an era when 'everything hung out' in cinema, to use the term. The amorous scenes, and interludes in CHANGES are not empty or schmaltzy, but always backed up by the feelings of its characters, and where they in that particular time. There are no exploitative bed scenes or nudity, which gives CHANGES a feeling of lightness, away from overt permissiveness. The movie could also be seen as a male wish fulfillment story, in that it charts Kent's relationships with three very different women, but the film's grounding in emotions, rather than painting Kent as a Lothario, works. While CHANGES has many virtues, there are some features which reduce what could have been an excellent motion picture, into one which is very good.

The story of Julie and Kent's love affair is the one story which is fully fleshed out, and most satisfying in terms of its execution. In comparison, Kent and Bobbi's relationship, while beautifully portrayed, would have benefitted from extending. One understands why Bobbi takes the decision she makes, but it would have been even better to have seen more of her, and her union with Kent. There was more that could have been showcased in terms of Bobbi's mental state, and slow descent into depression. In addition, Kent's short spell with Kristine was too abbreviated; as with his time with Bobbi, but it may have acted as a bridging device to the next relationship, and learning experience, with Julie. There is the implication that three sides of Kent were explored in CHANGES; with Bobbi he was selfish, with Kristine becoming more rounded as a person, but with Julie, he was considering her more for a long-term union, but was still uncertain of himself. While this may have been the intention of the film, it still leaves Kent and Kristine's story slightly undeveloped. Despite these flaws, one thing is for certain about CHANGES. It is a sincere film that deserves a higher reputation than it has had over the past fifty years, especially with reference to its director, cast and crew.

Acting: The performances in CHANGES make the movie a convincing experience. In the lead role of Kent, Kent Lane is completely believable as the confused young man who wants to find out more about himself, but keeps running into roadblocks. As Bobbi, the first of the young women involved with Kent, Manuela Thiess Garcia vividly creates a loving young woman seeking love from Kent, but finding herself unable to accept his rejection. The most affecting of the acting portraits in the movie, Miss Thiess Garcia's interpretation of the sensitive Bobbi is a standout. The enterprising reporter Kristine is played with ease and charm by Marcia Strassman. While her relationship with Kent is all too short on screen, Miss Strassman does a great job as the clever Kristine. The final acting of note in CHANGES was by Michele Carey as Julie, Kent's last flame in the movie. Her Julie was full of passion, flightiness, humor and fun, and Miss Carey perfectly captured the restless nature of her multi-faceted character.

Soundtrack: CHANGES features a number of introspective late 1960s tunes on its soundtrack. One of the most notable is Tim Buckley's 'She Is', which is played during the scenes with Kent and Bobbi on the beach. The other tunes are all suitable to what is occurring onscreen without ever being a obtrusive, or blaring.

Mise-en-scene: CHANGES has great attention to detail with what is presented in front of the camera. Cinematography by Richard Moore takes advantage of beautiful California locations, with picture-perfect beaches, mountains, and other landscapes stunningly captured. Costuming is another highlight, with elegant garments worn by actresses courtesy of Angela Alexander, and actors dressed by Wesley Jeffries. The wardrobe department has selected apparel which still appears graceful and stylish after more than a half-century, which is in stark contrast to many films of the period with clothing which seems dated, and of their era. 

There is, though, one section of the movie which is discordant in retrospect. The closing credits are one aspect which does not mesh with the film overall. While it sums up the mood of the epoch in terms of events and subjects, it would have been more appropriate instead having Kent walking on the beach, thinking about his life. It feels slightly forced, as the movie itself included references to what was taking place at that time in the world, and displaying it in this manner is unnecessary.

Notable Acting Performances: Kent Lane, Manuela Thiess Garcia, Marcia Strassman, Michele Carey.

Suitability for young viewers: Parental discretion advised. Adult themes.

Overall Grade: B

Link: IMDB Page

LOLLY-MADONNA XXX (1973)

Title: LOLLY-MADONNA XXX (Alternate titles: THE LOLLY-MADONNA WAR, FIRE IN THE MEADOW)

Year of Release: 1973

Director: Richard C. Sarafian

Genre: Drama

Synopsis: A long-standing feud between two farming families, the Gutshalls and the Feathers, reaches a tragic head in rural Tennessee.

Within a film history context: Movies about family feuds have been featured on various occasions in cinema history. One of the first was Charles Brabin's THE ADOPTED SON (1917). Concentrating upon the feud between two Tennessee families, along with the romance and drama there were some unexpected surprises. Another documented film dealing with family feuds was ACROSS THE DEADLINE (1922), directed by Jack Conway. In this movie, two brothers are divided along moral lines, and their differences cause untold problems for their families. John G. Blystone and Buster Keaton's OUR HOSPITALITY (1923) was less serious in its execution, being a comedy. Set in the 1830s, a long-running family feud between two clans is reactivated when a man from one side falls for a young woman from the other family, not knowing her identity. A famous film of its time, and a box office success, it was a triumph for actor-director Buster Keaton. A possibly lost silent film, ACE OF ACTION (1926), directed by William Bertram, was about a feud between two families over a waterhole, and how an outsider becomes involved in this dispute, particularly with reference to his romance with a young female family member. Movies about family feuds continued into the sound era from the silent screen.

Alfred Hitchcock's THE SKIN GAME (1931) revolved around the feud between two families, one old money, the other new money, and how conflict over property bring these people nothing but unhappiness and dissension. Young love, and family feuds were the raison d'etre of THE GUILTY GENERATION (1931), directed by Rowland V. Lee. A feud between two Italian-American mobsters reaches a head when their offspring fall in love. Vengeance again played a role in Henry Hathaway's TO THE LAST MAN (1933). Two Kentucky families fight over a murder, and budding love between two members of the warring clans. A more humorous take on family feuds was served by IN OLD KENTUCKY (1935), directed by George Marshall. As with TO THE LAST MAN, the film featured two battling Kentucky families, but differed in that the feud was to be settled by a horse race between both clans. It was mainly notable as the final film of Will Rogers, and released after his death. Much more intense was George Cukor's ROMEO AND JULIET (1936). The oft-told story of two warring aristocratic families, and a romance between two members of these clans, featured Leslie Howard, and Norma Shearer, in the titular roles of the tragic lovers. Into the 1940s, more films employed the feuding family theme in various ways.

Programmer BEYOND THE PECOS (1945), directed by Lambert Hillyer, followed two clans coming to loggerheads over the discovery of oil on ranch land, coupled with two male members of each family seeking the love of a woman. Brian Desmond Hurst's HUNGRY HILL (1947) was of a similar persuasion, this time set in Ireland, with two Irish families battling over a copper mine. In contrast, THE GAL WHO TOOK THE WEST (1949), directed by Frederick De Cordova, set in the Wild West, concerned itself with a feud between two cousins from one family over a woman. This alternated from the many movies on the topic where conflict occurred between members of different families. On the other hand, Irving Reis and Nicholas Ray's ROSEANNA MCCOY (1949) dealt with the infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud, particularly focusing upon the romance of the eponymous character with Johnse Hatfield, which caused further discord between the families. The 1950s and beyond also had several notable movies about family feuds.

VENGEANCE ALLEY (1951), directed by Richard Thorpe, concentrated upon two men from the same Colorado family, one a biological son, the other adopted, and how they cross swords concerning their father's cattle empire. The feud of the Montagues and the Capulets was again brought to the screen in Renato Castellani's ROMEO AND JULIET (1954). The classic love story was shot in Technicolor in this incarnation, and starred Laurence Harvey, and Susan Shentall in the lead roles. As with previous entries such as ACE OF ACTION and HUNGRY HILL, THE BIG COUNTRY (1958), directed by William Wyler, dealt with two families sparring over land, and how a sailor becomes embroiled in this quarrel. Franco Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET (1968) was yet another telling of the story of two ill-fated lovers, and family feud, but a movie that captured the mood of the times, making its creators a healthy profit. In the 1968 version Romeo was played by Leonard Whiting, with Olivia Hussey as Juliet. A lighter touch could be found in ANGEL IN MY POCKET (1969), directed by Alan Rafkin. A new pastor in a small town church finds that its founders, being two families, have been feuding for years over anything to do with it, the pastor discovering a way to bring the opposing members to unite. LOLLY-MADONNA XXX contained elements of many of the previous films about family feuds, and took these in completely different directions.

As with the vast majority of films with a family feud at their core, the conflict in LOLLY-MADONNA XXX is between two opposing families, similar to THE ADOPTED SON, BEYOND THE PECOS, TO THE LAST MAN, THE BIG COUNTRY, and others with a rural setting. The wounds are deep for both sides, with much heavy emotional torment present for the characters. Generally the sore point is a battle over land, coupled with romantic entanglements between a member from each family, which in most cases boil over dramatically. Disagreements over land propels much of LOLLY-MADONNA XXX, which brings about death and despair to both sides. In terms of romance, where this film differs is that one of the marriages between two members of opposing families ended prematurely with an accidental death. The death of a daughter-in-law is something that weighed down upon a patriarch, and causes him to finally lose his mind, and kill his son. This attention to characters' complex internal psychological motivations takes the film far and away from the more simplistic situations of entries such as IN OLD KENTUCKY, with its cheerier setup, which does not as such delve deeply into why its characters do what they do. Other features of LOLLY-MADONNA XXX are also worthy of analysis.

Another distinguishing factor of many family feud movies is that the smallest of events can cause a meltdown between both families that brings thoughts, and acts of retaliation to the surface. This is what LOLLY-MADONNA XXX has in common with its predecessors, such as OUR HOSPITALITY. In the case of LOLLY-MADONNA XXX, a faux letter sent from the member of one family, to the other family is the impetus for action, and an innocent young woman, mistaken for the party who wrote the letter, is drawn into the fray. Outsiders brought into conflicts without their consent is something the film shares with ANGEL IN THEIR POCKET. In LOLLY-MADONNA XXX one is given access to Roonie Gill's view about the feud, and how she is essentially powerless to be able to do much to bring about a change in this family feud. The positioning of Roonie in the movie is akin to the viewer wishing to intervene in the feud, and bring about peace between both sides, but being unable to despite her/the viewer's best intentions. This is just one of the factors which makes LOLLY-MADONNA XXX such an incisive, powerful experience. A great addition to movies about family feuds, LOLLY-MADONNA XXX stands out for its vigorous, sincere presentation.

Overview: Richard C. Sarafian was an American director with fifteen films to his credit over a twenty-eight year period. He made a mixture of movies with a leaning toward action and adventure films, but with a thoughtful twist which gave them depth. His first motion picture, TERROR AT BLACK FALLS (1962) was a western about a Mexican gunman whose son was lynched for a crime not of his doing, the gunman subsequently jailed, but plotting revenge once free from jail. Mr Sarafian's next film, ANDY (1965) was the touching story of an intellectually challenged man, and the difficulties both he, and his parents experience in life. At the inception of the 1970s came FRAGMENT OF FEAR (1970). This suspense story of a man becoming enmeshed in the murder investigation of his aunt in Italy starred David Hemmings in the lead role, and Flora Robson as his aunt. One of Richard Sarafian's most-remembered works was VANISHING POINT (1971). The story of a drugged, shady ex-policeman who takes to the road in cars, hotly pursued by the police force, and encountering others along the way, it was an action-packed, profitable film whose reputation has grown considerably over the years. Mr Sarafian next tackled a western, MAN IN THE WILDERNESS (1971), which was about a fur-trapper in 1820s United States and his tenuous story of survival, and heartbreak. He followed this with another western, THE MAN WHO LOVED CAT DANCING (1973). A widower in the American West falls for a woman fleeing from her cruel husband, and the film charts their relationship, and the many obstacles they face in being together. 

SUNBURN (1979) was a comedy vehicle for Farrah Fawcett, about a private eye investigating the death of a man in Mexico, and enlisting the assistance of a woman in this mission, but things are not as they seem. THE BEAR (1984) was the biography of real-life football coach Paul Bryant, nicknamed 'Bear', who presided as coach of the University of Alabama's football team, with Gary Busey in the lead role. Completely different in tone was EYE OF THE TIGER (1986). Again starring Gary Busey in the main part, it was about a Vietnam War veteran, just released from jail, who discovers a motorcycle gang wreaking havoc in his town, and decides to do something about this, with violent results. Similarly action-oriented was Richard Sarafian's penultimate film, STREET JUSTICE (1987). A CIA agent, as with the protagonist of EYE OF THE TIGER, returns home to find things different, this time to ensure the safety of his wife from an unscrupulous, power-hungry family who dominate the town. Mr Sarafian's final movie, SOLAR CRISIS (1990) was a foray into science-fiction territory, with an astronaut seeking to avert a solar flare causing untold damage to the earth by planting a bomb on the sun, but encountering many difficulties. LOLLY-MADONNA XXX was Richard Sarafian's seventh motion picture, and one of his best movies.

Mr Sarafian has crafted a captivating, thought-provoking film with LOLLY-MADONNA XXX. The story of two feuding families in rural Tennessee has received potent, sympathetic treatment from its director. While, at first glance, the reason for the reignited feud between the Gutshall, and Feather families, being a faux letter sent from one family to the other, subsequently drawing a stranger into the fray, may seem far-fetched, the director, writers, and his cast make it work beautifully. Viewers are offered an intimate glimpse into the two core families, and one discovers what makes them tick, their idiosyncratic quirks, which make them all the more real. All the little details and events add up over the course of the movie, leading the spectator to feel for the outcome of its characters. Pacing is excellent, unrushed, but never sluggish. In this respect, scenes are fully-formed and satisfying, giving the viewer sufficient information without overkill. In addition to this, further facets of the movie are worthy of discussion.

LOLLY-MADONNA XXX is also pleasingly subtle in its other areas. Promotional material, such as the film's poster, may lead one to believe that LOLLY-MADONNA XXX is a bloodthirsty, 'shoot-em-up' type of story, with a heavy exploitation appeal, but the execution of the narrative is anything but amoral or vindictive. The violent content occurs in a naturalistic manner, informed by character passions and actions, without ever being over the top or gory. It is not the type of film whereby the deaths are treated in a cartoonish manner, and people dropping like flies in an inhumane way. Everything is always backed up by the story and its characters, and the death scenes themselves are not detailed or gratuitous. The camera does not linger in these moments too long, which is a credit to the movie as a whole. This one tendency lifts LOLLY-MADONNA XXX into a more artistic, nuanced realm of motion pictures. 

In a related manner, the mood of LOLLY-MADONNA XXX is somber and pensive, a quietly suspenseful atmosphere which works. There is the keen impression that the participants in the feud, being the two families, are uncomfortable with it, despite the appearance of drawing guns at a moment's notice. The photographs which are featured of both families at the beginning, and end of the movie give the impression that they were somewhat friendly at various stages, but events occurred which soured that relationship. This gives the film a bittersweet, tragic aura that makes its characters all the more intricate, and definitely not gun toting, violent hillbillies. A great film which deftly explores themes of family, loyalty, and honor, LOLLY-MADONNA XXX is a movie that shows off its director's abilities to excellent effect.

Acting: LOLLY-MADONNA XXX has an illustrious cast of veterans and younger actors who all perform admirably. The director has extracted performances from an ensemble who have been utilized excellently, with everyone showcased in a balanced manner. The movie is headlined by Rod Steiger as Laban, patriarch of the Feather family. In another great performance, Mr Steiger makes his Laban a character who is not a cardboard villain, but someone who believes that what he is doing is right. Mr Steiger, especially in his final scenes, makes the viewer feel sympathy toward him, despite a particularly nefarious act. As Laban's foe Pap Gutshall, Robert Ryan shows why he was one of the best-ever actors from Classic Hollywood. With his square jaw, intense gaze, and unflappable demeanor, Mr Ryan is utterly convincing as the determined Pap. As wife Elspeth, Tresa Hughes has many fine moments, especially the revealing scenes with Joan Goodfellow as daughter Sister E, where events are inferred, but powerfully presented. Kiel Martin supercharges passion as Ludie Gutshall, the trigger-happy eldest son in the family. An actor who brought excitement and danger to the movie, the handsome Mr Martin is a performer gone too soon before one could see further excellent interpretations. Jeff Bridges brings another memorable character to life as Zack Feather in the movie. With his distinctive voice and all-out sincerity, Mr Bridges makes his transition from pacifist, to protector of his family, with ease and credibility. As his love interest, Season Hubley makes an auspicious debut as Roonie Gill, the young woman caught in the crossfire between the two warring families. An attractive actress perfectly cast as the foil in the film, she does very well as the empathetic, sensitive Roonie. Six other actors also do marvelous work in LOLLY-MADONNA XXX.

Ed Lauter, as Hawk Feather, with his bald pate and flashing eyes, does wonders as the man with aspirations of being a rock star. A distinctive-looking actor, he is given many opportunities in both comic, and dramatic moments, and pulls all of these off with élan. As Sister E Gutshall, Joan Goodfellow, in her film debut, is another striking actress. An actress who struck gold as Billie in 1974's BUSTER AND BILLIE, here she is equally commanding, as the quiet young woman who seems to attract both attention, and trouble. With her cold-eyed stare and quiet disposition, which say more than any dialogue could, she is excellent in the first of her three screen roles. Scott Wilson, as Thrush Feather, shares some amazing scenes with Rod Steiger which propel the movie in its final stages. An actor with a friendly visage that makes him suitable for villainous roles, he is likewise admirable. As the youngest Feather son Finch, Randy Quaid is masterful. As with Joan Goodfellow, he is given a dearth of dialogue in the film, but his body language, and facial expressions say it all as the quiet, perceptive Finch. Another striking character portrait is by the reliable Gary Busey as Zeb Gutshall. With his trademark smile and singular easy-going ways, Mr Busey creates yet another affecting screen portrayal, making his exit in the movie shocking to witness. The final acting of note in LOLLY-MADONNA XXX was by Paul Koslo as Villum Gutshall. Specialising in playing characters on the edges of society, such as in WELCOME HOME SOLDIER BOYS, Mr Koslo is superlative even though he does not have as much screen time as other performers, his final scenes a tour-de-force.

Soundtrack: The musical theme of LOLLY-MADONNA XXX, composed by Fred Myrow, is a brilliant, moody, quiet piece that formidably complements what is taking place onscreen. Played at both the beginning, and end of the film, it perfectly sums up the contemplative, sad tone which LOLLY-MADONNA XXX expresses so well. Incidental music played at various intervals, such as the thoughtful scenes between Zach and Roonie, is always well-judged, never upstaging the visuals.

Mise-en-scene: LOLLY-MADONNA XXX has meticulous attention to detail in its mise-en-scene. Cinematography by Philip Lathrop is beautiful, with just the right amount of colour without becoming washed out. This is particularly effective in highlighting the landscapes, and homes of the film's core families, lending the movie a subtle touch which is in keeping with the somber tone throughout. Set decoration by James Payne is another striking feature of the film. The homes of the Gutshall, and Feather families are where the majority of the action occurs, and these exude a country atmosphere in their styling. The sets seem as if people lived there in actuality, which is a testament to My Payne's hard work. Aside from this, the use of black and white photographs of both families at the beginning, and conclusion of the movie, is a splendid move. It allows the audience to compare their perceptions of the characters, what has occurred in the film from start to finish, and what they have learned after watching LOLLY-MADONNA XXX unfold.

Notable Acting Performances: Rod Steiger, Robert Ryan, Tresa Hughes, Kiel Martin, Jeff Bridges, Season Hubley, Ed Lauter, Joan Goodfellow, Scott Wilson, Randy Quaid, Gary Busey, Paul Koslo.

Suitability for young viewers: No. Infrequent coarse language, brief female nudity, adult themes, high-level violence.

Overall Grade: A

Link: IMDB Page

WHERE THE BOYS ARE (1984)

Title: WHERE THE BOYS ARE

Year of Release: 1984

Director: Hy Averback

Genre: Comedy, Romance

Synopsis: Three young women take their spring break in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in search of love and excitement.

Within a film history context: Sex comedies released in the 1980s were a common fixture on cinema screens during the decade, with an array of themes and topics explored in this time period. These were a mixture of films with adult protagonists, and others with teen characters. One of the first was Gilbert Cates' THE LAST MARRIED COUPLE IN AMERICA (1980). The study of a middle-aged couple's marriage, and the influence on the couple of outside unions, gave Natalie Wood and George Segal great roles as the central duo. A teen-oriented spin on the genre was provided by THE HOLLYWOOD KNIGHTS (1980), directed by Floyd Mutrux. The adventures of a car club consisting of teenagers during an evening in 1965 was reminiscent of AMERICAN GRAFFITI, but with nudity and sexual situations not present in the latter movie. In retrospect, THE HOLLYWOOD KNIGHTS is mainly notable for the appearances of up and coming actors such as Michelle Pfeiffer, Tony Danza, and Fran Drescher. Joseph Ruben's GORP (1980) was in a similar vein. The antics of teenagers in a Jewish summer camp made up the content of this picture, also with a cast of now-familiar faces such as Dennis Quaid, Rosanna Arquette, and, once again, Fran Drescher. Adultery, on the other hand, was the crux of LOVING COUPLES (1980), directed by Jack Smight. In this movie, a couple cheat on each other with people who are connected, with comic results. 

One of the most recognized, if infamous, sex comedies of the 1980s was Bob Clark's PORKY'S (1981). This tale of high school students in 1954 Florida, highlighting their sexual exploits, and the shenanigans of the eponymous club, was a tremendous box-office success, if critically derided, and led to two sequels. Equally saucy in tone was PRIVATE LESSONS (1981), directed by Alan Myerson. The story of a tryst between a young man and his family's maid was high on sexual content, but made a great profit to its producers on this basis. Blake Edwards's S.O.B. (1981) revolved around a Hollywood film producer who has just made his first flop, and how he tries to rescue both the movie, and his reputation, by turning the picture into a soft-core production. With SO FINE (1981), directed by Andrew Bergman, a man in dire financial straits develops a style of jeans that become a sensation - pants with the buttock area exposed. In comparison, Richard Brander's MALIBU HOT SUMMER (1981) examined the sexual, and other activities of three young women co-renting a Malibu beach house. The movie is mainly of interest historically as Kevin Costner's film debut. Another film with three female protagonists was WAITRESS! (1981), directed by Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz. In this movie, three young women become involved in all manner of raucous incidents, such as battling amorous customers and crazy cooks. Charlie Loventhal's THE FIRST TIME (1981) was about a young film student pursued by young women only too ready to offer themselves to him, but having to put up with his wacky film professor at the same time. 

Taking a leaf out of MALIBU HOT SUMMER was THE BEACH GIRLS (1982), directed by Bud Townsend. Two college friends visit their demure friend who is living at her uncle's beach house, and effectively take it over, hosting wild parties and the like, the quiet young lady eventually letting her hair down. Alternately, Bruce Paltrow's A LITTLE SEX (1982) had a young Lothario almost ruin his marriage with his womanizing antics, in this comedy romance. Shades of PORKY'S were evident in THE LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN (1982), directed by Boaz Davidson. A trio of male high-school student indulge in sexual antics with the usual exploits and female nudity thrown in, but with some serious moments interspersed. Akin to this, but with a much more humorous slant was Robert Rosenthal's ZAPPED! (1982). A high school student discovers he possesses telekinetic powers, and uses these to not only exact revenge on some bullies, but also for erotic stunts. FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (1982), directed by Amy Heckerling, was about the mis-adventures, specifically of the sexual kind, of high school students in a California high school. Notable for making stars of many of its performers, it grossed a healthy profit for its studio. 1983 had a number of films in the sex comedy genre which explored varied themes and topics. 

Sean S. Cunningham's SPRING BREAK (1983) focused upon two young men who go to Florida for their spring break, with associated episodes of comedy, sex, and topless female nudity. Raunchy nostalgia was again on display in SCREWBALLS (1983), directed by Rafal Zielinski. Set in the 1960s, this film was concerned with the antics of several high school students obsessed with a local beauty, and led to two sequels. A definite period atmosphere was evoked by Gerry O'Hara's FANNY HILL (1983). Set in 1700s Britain, a young woman moves from one bed to another seeking not only carnal pleasure but also, happiness in this erotic comedy. A sex comedy that rang the box office bell was RISKY BUSINESS (1983), directed by Paul Brickman. A young prospective college candidate holds a wild party while his parents are absent, but not everything turns out the way he expected in this insightful movie. Less edifying was Michael Herz and Lloyd Kaufman's THE FIRST TURN-ON! (1983). This movie followed the racy happenings at a summer camp, with lots of sexual content and nudity as per this genre's general tone. More serious was THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN (1983), directed by Blake Edwards. A sculptor finds that his need to have women in his life leads him to therapy, and subsequently falls for his doctor. This was a quieter, more subtle addition to the genre, and gave its cast, headed by Burt Reynolds in the lead role, good opportunities to emote. 

Curtis Hanson's LOSIN' IT (1983) once again traversed through nostalgia territory, with four young men in 1965 determined to rid themselves of their virginity, and undertaking the usual exploits these movies followed. Mainly notable for its cast including Tom Cruise, Jackie Earle Haley and Shelley Long, it was a loss-maker for MGM. Another sojourn into teenage frolics was served by JOYSTICKS (1983), directed by Greydon Clark. The move to close a video arcade in a small town by a businessman elicits anger in its patrons, and they retaliate in a non-violent, but comic manner. As with PRIVATE LESSONS, the older woman/younger man concept was again on show in Lewis John Carlino's CLASS (1983). A sensitive young man studying in preparatory school becomes friendly with a fellow student, who encourages him to find himself. Going to Chicago, he meets an older woman, and begins an affair, but is rocked when he discovers her real identity. MY TUTOR (1983), directed by George Bowers, was another film in the older woman/younger man context. In this instance, a wealthy man employs an attractive tutor for his son, who needs to pass French class to enter university. As with PRIVATE LESSONS and CLASS, the film follows the same formula of an irresistible older woman seducing an eager younger man, with obstacles and misunderstandings placed in their way. WHERE THE BOYS ARE had some elements in common with the sex comedy genre, but diverted in other ways.

The movie's structure was akin to entries such as MALIBU HOT SUMMER, WAITRESS! and THE BEACH GIRLS, in that the lives of several young women were examined, but WHERE THE BOYS ARE veered away was in the tone of the movie, and its treatment of sexual content. While the three movies mentioned here largely traded in female nudity and sex scenes, in WHERE THE BOYS ARE these were of a more muted nature. The protagonists of WHERE THE BOYS ARE do talk about sex, but the film in essence is geared more toward romance than sex. There is one bedroom scene in the movie, and no nudity in this sequence, as it is more dialogue-oriented than showcasing sex. The concentration on romance makes WHERE THE BOYS ARE a more mature, but dreamy version of the films with harder content. There are other differences when WHERE THE BOYS ARE is compared to other films in the genre.

WHERE THE BOYS ARE is slightly alike SPRING BREAK in some areas. In the case of SPRING BREAK, several young men head to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for their spring vacation, getting into all sorts of scrapes, as do the young women in WHERE THE BOYS ARE. The showcasing of actors in skimpy swimwear or in a state of undress is where both films also coincide. As a matter of fact, WHERE THE BOYS ARE only contains one sequence of topless female nudity, while SPRING BREAK has many more scenes of these. WHERE THE BOYS ARE has a focus on characterization among the mischief which sets it apart from SPRING BREAK. There is one example of this which is of interest in the movie. The characters' predilection toward music also gives WHERE THE BOYS ARE a spirit lacking from all the other movies in this category. WHERE THE BOYS ARE has a character who is a classical pianist, his friendly romantic rival also involved in music, which is something that works not only in an aural sense but also, does not seem out of place in the movie. Having one suitor win his true love over his rival through music is something that brings a smile to the face, and provides the film with a charm and delicacy lacking in the other entries. An entertaining addition to the sex comedy genre, WHERE THE BOYS ARE is a pleasant film to watch.

Overview: Hy Averback was the director of six motion pictures over his eighteen year career, being more active in television series and telemovies. His films are mainly comedic in approach, with the exception of his inaugural movie. CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966) was a horror picture about a psychopath with one hand who murders a woman, and is sought by police, seeking to exact revenge on anyone who wants him apprehended. In comparison, comedy was the focus of WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE LIGHTS WENT OUT? (1968). The story of a woman and her husband during the New York City blackout of 1965, it was a vehicle for Doris Day, but also showcased Robert Morse, Terry-Thomas, and Patrick O'Neal in support. Mr Averback followed this movie with the hip I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS! (1968). An attorney, through a wacky series of events falls for a hippie, leaving his fiancée, and taking on the hippie life, with comic results. THE GREAT BANK ROBBERY (1969) was Hy Averback's next project, a comic western about a scheme to rob a bank in Texas. Comedy again reigned in Mr Averback's penultimate film, SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A WAR AND NOBODY CAME (1970). It concerns a community dance, and how the residents in a small town react to the employees of an army base. As Hy Averback's final movie, WHERE THE BOYS ARE had the same sense of way-out humor common in his comedy films, but with some differences.

Hy Averback has made a picture which is entertaining overall, with some revealing moments that are most unexpected. A movie about four young women who make the trek for spring break in Fort Lauderdale has been handled with an emphasis on the comedic and romantic elements, making WHERE THE BOYS ARE a fun cinematic ride. The romance between studious Jennie Cooper and enterprising Scott Nash, who the young women pick up on the side of the road, is the film's highlight, and best love story. There is also a nice love triangle with pianist Camden Roxbury, who is Jennie's musical idol. This love triangle also has a great twist, with rivals Scott and Camden connecting in a scene which gives the film a subtle sweetness that works. Sandra's romance with married policeman Ernie is where the film's pathos comes to the fore, given emotional weight by the fact that only Sandra does not find love at the movie's end. While there are some great moments in WHERE THE BOYS ARE, there are also weaknesses which do not assist it.

In trying to be outrageous, WHERE THE BOYS ARE does stumble in the taste department. Having the young ladies smoke drugs does take away from their dignity, which subtracts from the movie. The related scene of them with a male blow-up doll is one of the film's most protracted, unfunny sequences. It takes too long, and does nothing to give more insight into the characters. All it does is waste valuable time that could have been utilized for other, more revealing scenes. In a similar manner, the party gatecrashing is another segment that could have been abbreviated. It begins in an amusing manner, but goes downhill fast. Thankfully the hot bod contest at the beach does not take as long to unravel, has some humorous moments, and is not as demeaning as the previously-mentioned scenes. In saying this, though, one of the faults of WHERE THE BOYS ARE is that it showcases scenes that should have been shorter, to the detriment of richer insights into characters. Several examples come to mind.

The romances of Carole and Laurie are not given enough scope in WHERE THE BOYS ARE. Why exactly Carole was tired of her boyfriend, and the reasons she needed a break from him, were not sufficiently explored. Their bed scene in the beginning threw some light about their relationship, but was inadequate. In addition, Laurie setting her sights on 'Conan', and the accompanying fallout from this was handled in a cheesy manner. Laurie's subsequent hooking up with Camden was not presented sufficiently to the audience to comprehend why they were to be a couple; it was a case of just accept it, and move on. The story of Sandra and policeman Ernie, in hindsight, was also problematic. Their romance had a big build-up with the scene where Ernie prosecutes both Sandra and Laurie, where they spend a night in jail, but the middle section was uneventful. One of the film's most telling moments is where Sandra discovers that Ernie cannot leave his wife and family, but this is a little too late in coming. In summation, certain things can be said about WHERE THE BOYS ARE. Although it has some positive qualities, the lack of depth in much of the storytelling renders it uneven, which is unfortunate, as its breezy atmosphere lends it an enjoyable, if sometimes mindless, air.

Acting: WHERE THE BOYS ARE has a number of notable acting contributions which aid the film considerably. In the lead role of Jennie Cooper, Lisa Hartman has a relaxed, radiant screen presence, making it understandable how two men would compete for her affections in the movie. As Scott Nash, the hitchhiker Jennie and the other women pick up on their way to Fort Lauderdale, Russell Todd does a fine job as the handsome, ambitious young man whose heart belongs to Jennie. An actor whose gifts in romantic roles were not adequately presented in film, but delivered beautifully here, Mr Todd is well-matched with Lisa Hartman, their chemistry palpable. As the third party in this love triangle, Daniel McDonald is great as Camden Roxbury, the pianist who appears haughty on first impressions, but with a poignancy which makes his character rounded. On the other hand, Lynn-Holly Johnson, as Laurie, was not used in a suitable manner in WHERE THE BOYS ARE. An actress with spirit and spice has been wasted in stories that are trite in their execution, and does not allow Miss Johnson to stretch her acting muscles in the film. Similarly, Lorna Luft, an actress with a sense of comedy and timing, is also wasted in the movie as Carole. Just having her as the zany young woman undervalues her abilities, which is a shame. There are several other players whose acting deserves attention.

Howard McGillin, as Chip, Carole's boyfriend, has some good moments as her confused other half, which gives the film credence. His authority and sincerity emanate in a small role. As Maggie, Alana Stewart's role in the film is not fully fleshed out. The companion of Barbara, and confidant to Chip, she has a number of interesting scenes, but these arrive too late in the film. Louise Sorel, as Barbara Roxbury, is entertaining as Camden's mother, and Maggie's friend. An actress recognized for her humorous, and dramatic portrayal of aristocratic Augusta Lockridge on television soap opera Santa Barbara, here she is comfortable playing a character of comparable mien, with her deadpan one-liners a treat. As Southern Belle Sandra, Wendy Schaal steals scenes as the flirty, man-hungry woman who ends up in an unexpected romantic quandary with a police officer. In the final performance of note, Asher Brauner is perfect as Officer Ernie Gasso, Sandra's unrequited conquest. Seeming ever inch a policeman in his uniform, playing his role with a laconic charm and lack of histrionics, Mr Brauner gives a natural performance that makes his character's predicament all the more shattering, and real, in the movie.

Soundtrack: WHERE THE BOYS ARE has an eclectic rock music soundtrack that complements what is taking place onscreen. There are instances where the music played is part of the diegetic world, such as in the mansion gatecrashing scene, and in the nightclub sequence. The most notable piece in WHERE THE BOYS ARE is 'Jennie', which is performed in the segment where Camden plays it on the piano as a classical piece, and is pre-empted by Scott in a more modern, high-tech rendition.

Mise-en-scene: The film has a good mixture of both indoor, and outdoor sequences. There are copious location scenes such as the beach hot bod contest, the mansion party gatecrashing by speed boats, and Jennie and Scott's time on the beach, that no studio could reproduce. Interiors such as the crazy hotel at which the young women stay, and Barbara's elegant mansion, to name two, are all appropriate to the story. The cinematography by James Contner is crisp, and at its best when capturing beach settings and the exteriors of Barbara's mansion, and its riverside canal.

Notable Acting Performances: Lisa Hartman, Russell Todd, Daniel MacDonald, Howard McGillin, Louise Sorel, Wendy Schaal, Asher Brauner.

Suitability for young viewers: No. Infrequent coarse language, brief female nudity, adult themes.

Overall Grade: C

Link: IMDB Page

Trailer

INTERVIEW WITH ACTOR ROBERT F. LYONS

I have the immense pleasure today of welcoming a very special guest, actor Robert F. Lyons, to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS for an interview. Robert has acted in many motion pictures over the years, including PENDULUM, GETTING STRAIGHT [My review of the film can be found here] THE TODD KILLINGS, DEATH WISH II, AVENGING ANGEL, 10 TO MIDNIGHT, MURPHY’S LAW, THE OMEGA CODE, and DEADLY EXCHANGE, to name a few examples. In this interview Robert will be discussing his part in GETTING STRAIGHT, acting, The Actors Studio, Stella Adler Studio of Acting, television, and his role as acting coach.

 

Welcome to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS Robert!

Athan: When did you first realize that you wanted to be an actor?

 

Robert: Great question for me, I never thought about it at all. I just sort of knew that that was what I wanted to do & be as a teen and stated it and my parents supported my decision - so after high school I went to NYC - so, it was more of me just knowing what I was going to do - I did not like school and any 9 to 5 did not grab my interest - acting was it.

 

*

 

Athan: You are a Life Member of the Actors Studio, where many exceptional actors have studied over the years, and also studied at the Stella Adler Studio of Acting. What was it like working there with acting teachers such as Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler?

 

Robert: It had been a goal to be a member of the Studio - like wow - Dean & Brando had been there and so many other great actors - I finally auditioned and Lee accepted me - I saw a lot of wonderful teaching by the moderators mostly at the Studio. That was different with Stella, she was an amazing teacher, a person so dynamic so demanding and very clear on her statements to me on my acting - I had already been doing stage, TV & Movies when I studied with Stella so what she had to say was at the top of my learning and it made great sense - a lift up. See, I had always studied acting even after working a lot - Milton Kaselas was also a wonderful teacher - I loved working out and taking on bigger and or challenging parts, stretch my acting, my knowledge and go into areas demanding a bigger part of myself so as to grow some more.

 

*

 

Athan: Your performance in GETTING STRAIGHT as the charismatic, psychologically complex Nick, who gave Elliot Gould’s Harry Bailey more than a few problems, was wonderful. How did you become involved in this production?

 

Robert: Richard Rush's secretary saw my performance in the film: Pendulum and loved my work and helped promote me to Rush and often - I got to audition & on the 2nd audition it was with Elliott Gould & we worked well together and did a dynamic scene in his office. Later I got a call to come to Oregon and was given the role of Nick.

 

*

 

Athan: What did you find most exciting about the experience of making GETTING STRAIGHT?

 

Robert: It was my 2nd feature film, I was thrilled, realizing somewhat that I'm living my dream and fulfilling some acting goals - working with other actors - getting a deeper understanding of acting with myself and how to use myself more - that's the shorter answer.

 

*

 

Athan: For you, what was the most demanding, but emotionally satisfying segment of filming GETTING STRAIGHT?

 

Robert: There's a long scene later in the film 4 minutes plus long - I found how to do something, you know, make something work, acting wise that was very hard for me to do as an actor in this scene. I put demands on myself for that scene.

*

 

Athan: Have you kept in contact with any cast members and crew from GETTING STRAIGHT?

 

Robert: No, not really. I run into one or two once in a while - but that's what it is like in most films. You get to make friends and go on - it is very exciting to meet new people and get to know one another very fast and get along and do work together of this type - exciting when it works out.

 

*

 

Athan: GETTING STRAIGHT was directed by Richard Rush, who also directed many other movies such as PSYCO-OUT, FREEBIE AND THE BEAN, THE STUNT MAN, and COLOR OF NIGHT. What was it like being directed by Mr Rush in GETTING STRAIGHT?

Robert: Richard said something to me on my first scene, during our rehearsal and it gave me an idea that put a main character color there for me - I was grateful - he knew how to talk to actors as I saw it.

 

*

 

Athan: Apart from cinema, you have appeared in many television shows and telemovies. What for you are the main differences between acting in feature films, and acting on television?

Robert: Less time to do any research so you have to be faster on the study part if it is needed - but you bring to the role what you can in the time you have to create it - there is no difference you hope, in your quality - I strive to have my personal standard always present - I don't like to walk through a part or think what I'm doing, is not good or important to the scene, play, etc. no matter if is stage, TV or film. After all, it is your work - I learned that one is doing a film and you have to get it right after a while you know yourself better too and what you are capable of creating and pulling it off well - like anything in life, the better you understand it the higher the quality should be, I think, anyway.

 

*

 

Athan: You made your film debut in 1969 in PENDULUM, with GETTING STRAIGHT being your second movie. Your last released movie thus far has been DEADLY EXCHANGE in 2017. What for you are the most striking differences between filmmaking in the early 1970s, and today?

 

Robert: For me it is mostly the writing - you have cameras, crew, actors, directors, etc. those things have to be there to make film - the attitude and quality of all combined makes the project as a whole, work or it is a lousy piece of work.

 

*

 

Athan: You have been an acting coach for many years in Los Angeles. What is it about coaching students in acting that gives you the most satisfaction?

Robert: Seeing a person grow with their chosen art form.

*

 

Athan: Do you have any upcoming projects of which you would like to tell readers?

 

Robert: Not presently on the acting front - one that hasn't been released yet but I'll hold the title until I get the news on it. I will be doing more acting that is for sure. Writing too, I sold a screenplay some years back & have written others & 2 are ready to film - now to find the right production people to get it into production.

 

*

 

Thank you so much today for your time Robert, and for the insight you have provided into the art of acting, The Actors Studio, The Stella Adler Studio, GETTING STRAIGHT, television, cinema, and your role as an acting coach. It has been a joy to have you on CINEMATIC REVELATIONS. You are welcome to return whenever you wish.

 

Robert: Thank you and all the best to you.

*

Robert F. Lyons links

+Robert F. Lyons IMDb Actor Page

+GETTING STRAIGHT IMDb Page

+Robert F. Lyons Official Website