Among the many things that STAR WARS (1977) is, it also happens to be a great lesson in classic cinema. This blog started with digging up the films that inspired George Lucas and his team to make the saga. Now, we are continuing our journey into classic movies with must-see titles, fun facts, and more.
Hello Movie Fans! Welcome to February, 2023. As I mentioned in last month's blog article, the Ultra Yellow Brick Road, this year on Digging Star Wars, I want to explore, from top to bottom, start to present, genre to sub-genre, as many areas of the film industry as we can. Each month, I will pick a New movie, an Old movie, a Best movie, a Least movie (aka: a bad movie) and a film I rated an E for Effort (I'll explain this later). I will list a total of five movies each month, which have a common theme or thread with each other and why they were picked for this month. As always, there will be connections to Star Wars, sprinkled throughout the article. We will call this month's list; Your Movie Entertainment Homework For the Month. Let's begin....
For our purposes, this February's entry is called Ants and Giants. We are going to explore the science fiction, sub-genre, that has been known to tell many tales, about shrinking humans and growing humans. These changes occur, usually due to experimental atrocities or environmental disasters. It is a sub-genre, that is usually referred to as, the size-changing humans sub-genre. These types of films, can also be thrown into the mad-scientist sub-genre of science fiction too. This month, a very popular franchise returns to the movie theaters, to add another story to this classic sub-genre of size-changing humans. We will get to that film later, but, let's start off with an Old film first for this month. The shrinking human sub-genre hit its peak in the late-1950s and continued through the 1960s. It started off with famous titles, like Universal Pictures', The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)*, American International Pictures' Attack of the Puppet People (1958) and AIP's very low-budget, The Phantom Planet (1961).
*Editor's Note: The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) was part of Chris Mich's recently published article on The Blob (1958) and other B-Movies in the academic journal Artifact Analysis. Read more about that in ourDigging Star Wars post on The Blob (1958).
As we entered the 1960s, in Japan, Godzilla spin-off
kaiju, Mothra, debuted in his first theatrical appearance, in Mothra (1961).
Mothra's mentally-linked companions, the fairy-twins, were two 12-inch tall
fairies, who helped Mothra communicate with the humans. The actresses, known as,
the Peanuts Sisters, appeared in three Mothra/Godzilla films, from 1961 to 1966
(they were replaced by new actresses for the fourth film).
Another example of the shrinking-human sub-genre was
Fantastic Voyage (1966)*, which was a 20th Century Fox film production. 20th
Century Fox film corporation, 15 years later, would be the same company, that
brought us the original Star Wars films. In Fantastic Voyage (1966), scientists
shrink a submarine, with six scientists inside and inject it into the body of a
patient.
*Editor's Note: Fantastic Voyage (1966) stars the lovely Raquel Welch, who just passed away this month.
The sub-genre eventually went to television, as producer,
Irwin Allen, who brought us many thrillers on the silver screen, took a shot at
the size-changing humans sub-genre, with Land of the Giants (1968-1970). Things
would cool-out here, as the shrinking-human sub-genre, took a quiet hiatus,
throughout the 1970s.
These films were all fueled by post-atomic-age fears and Cold War paranoias of the time period. In science fiction, once the atomic age came, that meant you could do all kinds of new, crazy things to human beings and do horrible things to the world too. You could make your characters big, small, invisible, radioactive, electrical, anything, once the atom was split. But, even before this sub-genre had its explosion in the 1960s, it had gained some traction in the 1930s and 1940s. These films would be fueled by the horrors of war and rumors of enemy countries, doing human experiments, in far-off castles or isolated, tropical locations. It went from a wide-variety of experimentations, such as using electricity, chemicals, radiation and the things, that were available to humans of the time period. This film would be part of that cinematic movement. It began in the 1930s, with films like, the Devil-Doll (1936) and even in Universal Picture's, Bride of Frankenstein (1935). The lead antagonist in that film, Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), has a collection of small people, he created, living in glass jars.
All of these films, only helped, to fuel the creation of my Old film choice for February. Riding on the coat-tails of January's, Phil Meets the Movies List, the magic of The Wizard of Oz (1939), is felt even here for this month. Color film had been introduced to the film industry in the early 1930s, but wouldn't make a huge impact in the movies, until the release of The Wizard of Oz (1939). Add to that, the release of Gone With the Wind (1939), Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) and Jesse James (1939), which all were released, that same year, in color and you have a color-film movement, heading into the 1940s. A year after The Wizard of Oz (1939), came out, this film, Dr. Cyclops (1940), would be released in full color.
Dr. Cyclops (1940) is a rather good film. It was a lost gem, that I'm glad I stumbled across. The special effects are top of the line for 1940. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for special effects. The clever way, in which the effects artists created this over-sized world, for the shrunken characters inhabiting it, was artistically creative. It was probably something very new to the audience, who saw it in 1940. The matting of certain backgrounds, objects and body-parts, built to full size, to interact with the actors, with strategically placed camera-angles, make this film an artistic achievement in practical, physical effects. It is not a great film, but it is a strong one, that really has problems, only related to a slow pace, in the middle of the film.
When I was a kid, just starting high school in the 1980s, the school district I was in, came up with a new grade (E), that they implemented into the district's grading system. An E is worse than a D, but better than an F. An E is technically, also an F, but if you scored an E, you were allowed to retake the class in summer school, in order to pass the year or graduate. If you got an F, you failed the class. So, I used this model, in order to come up with my E For Effort grade, when grading certain movies. I still recommend seeing these films, because a film might have the right idea, but the execution ends up being bad. They are films, that the filmmakers clearly showed to the audience, that they tried their best, but for some reason or another, the film fails in the end. Another thing that makes these movies recommendable, is the idea, that they usually have something interesting for film-buffs, have a historical significance (in film history or real-world history), or a technical gimmick, that still keeps these films as a "need to be seen", type-of film classification. It also could be, they are just good enough, to be "middle of the road" (nothing great, but nothing terrible either). They have those, one or two blemishes, that if they could fix them or re-shoot a scene (the summer school parachute concept), it would be the difference between a bad movie or a really good film. We now jump to 1958 for my next "E For Effort", film pick, of 2023.
The 1930s and 1940s, were predominantly the Universal Pictures', horror film-style, that was seen in theaters all across America. All the horror witnessed, all the monsters and the locations were completely Earth bound. Probably, the most famous of the classic, gigantic-humans sub-genre, list of characters, is Gulliver, from Gulliver's Travels, based off of the famous, 18th century book. It has been adapted into many films, over the past 125 years. Gulliver is portrayed as a giant sometimes, as well as, small-sized too. The 1950s triggered the atomic and outer space eras of science fiction film. Along with the small-shrinking movies of the 1950s, they also had the large, gigantic-human results of the atomic-age of movies as well. Low budget theatrical hits like, The Amazing Colossal Man (1957) and its sequel, War of the Colossal Beast (1958), started the trend, for giant humans in movies.
There also was the occasional, really-low budget films, such as, Village of the Giants (1965). All three of these films were directed by Bert I. Gordon. I am mentioning him, because there will be more on Bert I. Gordon, later on in this article. All of these films, led to the creation of our next film.
Everything seen in science fiction films in the 1950s, was as small as the atom or as big as space itself. This film captured that 1950s-style nicely, especially in the case of immenseness. Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958), also utilizes the rock-n-roll, hot-rod craze of the 1950s. It also weaves a story of betrayal, infidelity and human destructiveness. Allison Hayes plays the titular character in this film. When she finally breaks-out in her gigantic form, she goes after her loser husband, like the Rancor went after Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi (1983).
The worst offense, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958), commits, comes from the terrible special effects used in the film. In fact, they save the best special effects moments in this film, for the trailer. If they edited the film, like the trailer, it may have been a better film. The cast of this film makes it one of interest too. If you read-up on the later years of Allison Hayes (our scorned 50 foot woman), William Hudson (who plays her conniving husband Harry) and Yvette Vickers (as the other woman Honey Parker), they did have tragic lives, that ended early or in some cases, lonely. They actually do a good job, with their performances in this film and it is interesting seeing it from a 21st century perspective, knowing the history about the main actors. The rest of the cast was kind of tough to take, especially the depiction of the alien giant.
It's time to introduce my new movie choice for February, 2023. When Paul Rudd was cast to be Ant-Man in 2013 or 2014, I was extremely excited. It was a bold move to cast a noted comedy actor, in the role of a superhero, with hopes of making a good film, without presenting the source material in a silly fashion. So, as we discovered 35 years ago, when the excellent choice was made, to cast Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight, the recipe for comedy actors, taking on superhero roles, was proven to work. So, why can't Paul Rudd do the same thing? He did. Rudd's portrayal of Scott Lang puts-up a comedy-relief angle, that totally retains the qualities of a superhero, a father and a guy, just trying to do the right thing. Ant-Man (2015) was a hit for Marvel, when it came out in theaters. It was a prequel film, that was rolled into Captain America: Civil War (2016). Ant-Man was a fan-favorite character for the MCU. He came back for Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018), Avengers: End Game (2019) and this film......
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023), is what we thought it would be. It was another connect-the-dots, MCU production, which needed to happen, for two reasons. One was to witness the conclusion to director Peyton Reed's Ant-Man trilogy. The other reason was to help the general audience understand more the character of Kang, the Conqueror (Jonathan Majors), who is the new Thanos-level, bad-guy, the MCU has to face. It might not be a film, that is Avengers: End Game (2019), caliber, but it still contains that comic-book style, that Marvel made famous, almost 70 years ago. I always say however, that the MCU has brought to us something, that couldn't even be done during the 1960s-1990s. Those of us, who had to go through the growing pains, of the pre-CGI era of comic-book movies are still grateful for the existence of the MCU and for all it is worth, the DCEU too.
It was a good time at the theater, even though it was a rainy day. This month I had no accidents with my pretzel-bites. I went to the Regal Cinemas Theater in Downingtown, PA. This picture was taken after the film was over. The Ant-Man theme song is still fresh in my head.
Let's move to film #4. This is our Best film for February, 2023. The title of this film says it all. It is a movie, which needs to be epic in proportions. So, why not pick one of the biggest states in America, like Texas, throw in GIANT stars, like Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, James Dean and make a three and a half hour, GIANT epic, featuring the sprawling ranch fields of rural Texas. It might not be a film about giant people, but this film is still a GIANT film. A film like Giant (1956), has to be something that is huge, epic and sweeps across the wide-screen space.
Giant (1956), is one of my Film366 Film Picks for February, because Elizabeth Taylor was born on February 27th, 1932. But, even more exciting, James Dean was also born in February, on the 8th, one year earlier, in 1931. Giant (1956), received most of its energy from the excellent cast. Also on the birthday train for February are co-screenwriters, Fred Guiol, who was born on February 17th, 1898 and Ivan Romilly Moffat, who was born twenty years and one day later, on February 18th, 1918. Giant (1956), was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture, winning one, for Best Director, for George Stevens.
When I see a James Dean movie, all I can think about, is how much of a loss to film it was, when he died tragically in a car accident, at the age of 24, shortly after principal photography, had wrapped on Giant (1956). Imagine all of the film roles he could have been if he hadn't died so soon. Let's put that idea into perspective. James Dean is actually one year younger than Clint Eastwood. He is only eleven years older than Harrison Ford. He was a year older than Anthony Perkins. James Dean could have been Dirty Harry, Norman Bates or maybe even, dare I say it, that guy, Indiana Solo......
It is time to move onto our fifth film for this month. Unfortunately, I have this film on my UNWATCHABLES List. It is my Least film pick (aka: a bad film choice), for February, 2023. The same year that Star Wars (1977), was released in the theaters, this film was released two months later. There is a vast difference in style, structure and techniques, used in the creation of these two films. Both films are polar-opposites to each other, especially when it comes to questions about the special effects, budgets and cast choices. Do you remember earlier when I mentioned Bert I. Gordon in this article? He is responsible for this disaster of a disaster film.
There's an ant on your camera lens! The most tragic part about this film's failure, is the fact, that it is based off of an old H.G. Wells short story, albeit very ambiguously. The basic structure of the story was a great concept, that Wells had created for the early 20th century, but was mangled by creating a story about a shady, present-day, real-estate couple, who are trying to sell, essentially swamp-land, to rich investors, unknowingly unaware about the chemical-induced, radioactive, giant arthropod nightmare, inhabiting the island swamps. Another huge problem for this film was the low-budget aspect of it. The special effects are so disappointing in this film. Other than the soundtrack, the interesting cast and the ridiculous special effects, it is just the source material that carries this thing on. The theme music does sound like a shout-out to Star Wars composer, John Williams though. So, I challenge you to watch Empire of the Ants (1977). I am extremely interested in hearing how other film-buffs thought of this film. Maybe you will like it more than I did. Maybe you will agree with my UNWATCHABLE tag, that I labeled the film with.
Have a great month my fellow film-fans. We will return in the middle of March. Remember, go to your theaters, as much as possible, in 2023.
About the Author
Phil Congleton is a lifelong film buff, who worked in television for 30 years and produced a few, small independent films in the 1990s. He is co-creator of Film366 with Chris Mich and curator of Phil Meets the Movies. Now retired, he commits his time to promoting the movies and the art of film. You can read more of Phil's film reviews onLetterboxd.
Comments
Post a Comment