Skip to main content

It’s Santy Clause… and his elf.

Home Alone
(1990)

(SPOILERS) A lot of the goodwill Home Alone engendered was subsequently undone by the ubiquity of Macaulay Culkin, who stopped being wide-eyed and cute at probably about the time the immediately diminishing returns of the 1992 sequel kicked in. But he’s perfectly placed here, in what was the biggest surprise smash of its year (one that included several who-knews such as Ghost and Dances with Wolves), even if its biggest selling point, the Tom and Jerry abuse inflicted on robbers Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern is back ended to the point where you might accuse the trailer makers of wilful misselling.


It’s easy to rag on former child stars, even more so when the two most recent high-profile ones (Culkin and Haley Joel Osment) have been consigned to the backburner in adulthood. In his first couple of movies, though (his calling card was an interrogation of John Candy in Uncle Buck), Culkin was a genuinely likeable presence, and in Home Alone he’s only occasionally undone by John Hughes’ inability to resist Bueller-ing him up (the hairstyling in the mirror is straight out of that movie, as are some of the quips), so leading him into the precarious territory of precocious rather than unspoiled. It’s no small feat for a pint-sized performer to carry a comedy, but Culkin manages it; the longueurs of the first half are entirely down to Columbus failing to take out the scissors, rather than a problem with his lead (an inability to edit would also affect his next big foray into the world of child leads, Harry Potter).


Columbus got the gig after Hughes took pity on him being fired over clashing with the notoriously difficult Chevy Chase on the Hughes-scripted and produced – so he probably could have stood his ground with Chevy if he’d wanted to – National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (one of the festive box office hits of the previous year, although nothing like on this scale), and as much as he’s an anonymous presence, he’s entirely serviceable. He doesn’t quite have the eye or sure rhythm for slapstick Hughes showed in his own directorial efforts, and he spends too much time with the Paris-bound family and building Kevin up pre-home invasion; if Home Alone had been as tight (and stylish) as the not dissimilarly injurious Mousehunt a few years later, it might have been a true gem, rather than just a likeable festive diversion.


Kate McCallister: Maybe you should ask Santa for a new family.

It’s notable how careful Hughes is to thread a homely moral through the picture, though, before getting down to the ultraviolence; Kevin wishes his family away after an altercation with his insufferable extended family (including short-tempered Uncle Frank, snooty – or is that snotty? – sister Linnie (“You know, Kevin, you’re what the French call les incompetents”) and brutish Buzz (“I wouldn’t let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass”), but he’s soon repentant, as are all kids in a similar position (except they’re usually wishing their parents were outright dead).


Hughes also navigates the treacherous territory of having Kevin’s parents accidentally leave him at home without indicting them for it and making it feasible (“John really filled in every possible logic hole, and the audience always bought it” effused Columbus). Heard and O’Hara do much to sell this too, his nonchalance over-compensating for her nervousness, and then, when the mistake is recognised, those she encounters – including John Candy – making her feel truly dreadful. O’Hara’s slightly too highly-strung interactions as she tries to make a connection home are perfectly played.


Checkout Woman: Where’s your mom?
Kevin: In the car.
Checkout Woman: Where’s your father?
Kevin: He’s at work.
Checkout Woman: What about your brothers and sisters?
Kevin: I’m an only child.
Checkout Woman: Where do you live?
Kevin: I can’t tell you that.
Checkout Woman: Why not?
Kevin: Because you’re a stranger.

Then there’s the actually delivery of the moral, which for all that I’m a cynic about these things when they play up the schmaltz, is pretty well done. Due credit in that regard to the underplaying of Old Man Marley (aka “The Shovel Slayer”) by Roberts Blossom, leading Culkin through a scene that might easily have seemed rather trite. It’s interesting that Hughes flips Kevin’s earlier smartass, quick-fire retorts to the supermarket cashier about strangers, proving him wrong in the context of friendship with a sinister old man.


In contrast, one of my bugbears with the picture is that John Williams’ score is just that bit too much, falling into the trap of leading by the nose he often inflicts on Spielberg’s lesser efforts. Columbus wanted Bruce Boughton (who scored the Columbus-scripted Young Sherlock Holmes) but he was busy with The Rescuers Down Under. He was surprised to get Williams, regarding it as something of a coup, but the consequence is an overdose of the twinkly-treacly when a more restrained hand might have played up the irreverence and dialled down the “wonder”.


Harry: Santy don’t visit to funeral homes, little buddy.

At least Williams doesn’t undermine the comedy, though, and that’s crucial. If Hughes was right to suggest Culkin for the lead, Columbus came up trumps with Daniel Stern (Marv) and Joe Pesci (Harry). Reportedly, they played it broad because they thought it was just a kids’ film no one would see, but that seems unlikely given over-the-top is exactly what the roles required (and, if Pesci really didn’t care, he wouldn’t have avoided Culkin on set, intending to make him think he really was mean – he should have just forced him to watch Goodfellas – and probably wouldn’t have bit him).


Johnny: Keep the change, ya filthy animal!

The studious ineptitude of Harry and Marv is necessary for a child’s ingenuity to work (killjoy Roger Ebert complained about a plot “so implausible”, it made it hard for him to care about Kevin, which was really entering into the spirit of the thing). We see a test run with a hapless pizza delivery guy fooled by Kevin working the playback of a video of Angels with Filthy Souls (“Leave it on the doorstep and get the hell out of here”), but it takes a truly dense guy like Marv to believe someone has actually been shot in the McAllister residence (by a rival gang, no less).


Harry: I think we’re getting scammed by a kindygartner.

Kevin duly graduates from merely pulling the wool over burglars’ eyes through puppetry to full on GBH. He’s a junior Charles Bronson in Death Wish dispensing vigilante justice, a little Johnny McClane going Die Hard in a family home. Or Dustin Hoffman in Straw Dogs with a blowtorch instead of animal traps. One can find numerous pieces on the lines of “What if Home Alone’s violence was real” or adding blood to footage to show how messy the last half hour would actually get, suggesting the picture’s violence was sick and sadistic, but it’s kind of stating the – bleeding – obvious. Of course, it is (the one that always makes me wince is the crowbar applied to Harry’s chest). Kids (and some adults) love that kind of thing. You might reason that making the leap from Tom and Jerry or Road Runner (Stern even looks a bit like Wylie E Coyote) to live action is to blame for this sometimes stony-faced mirthlessness, but those cartoons have also had their fair share of “inappropriate” charges levelled at them. The only surprise is that studios didn’t see the potential for further forays into extreme slapstick violence, outside of the Farrelly Brothers; they may have been partly side-tracked by the Culkin factor, but there’s also the sad fact that very few comedy directors are also visually inspired directors.


Marv: It’s Santy Clause… and his elf.

Most viewers, at any rate, were on board with the patently absurd exaggeration on display, so weren’t all that perturbed by a couple of hardened criminals (the Wet Bandits, thanks to Marv’s calling card of leaving all the taps on in their victims’ houses) threatening to murder Kevin, and “snap off your cojones and boil them in motor oil”, not when he’s shooting them in the balls, in the face, icing steps so they repeatedly fall flat on their backs, dropping irons on their heads, burning their hands with red-hot door knobs, playing havoc with their feet on stairs painted with pitch and plugged with nails, applying blow torches to their heads and baubles to already perforated feet (very Die Hard), causing them to trip up on toy cars (in synchronised fashion) and sending paint pots (full ones) swinging at their skulls.


Harry: Why the hell did you take your shoes off?
Marv: Why the hell are you dressed as a chicken?

Culkin may have wrong-footed studios into thinking he would supply them with an instant goldmine, but it’s Pesci and Stern who make the movie. They’re perfect cartoon villains and also apt to give good improv (the chicken line is Stern’s). All three would be back for Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (the “can’t be bothered” title says it all) two years later, by which point Mac was already outgrowing his initial appeal (its more the surprise he managed to hang in there for another two years after that).


The real legacy of Home Alone is its sleeper success, though. It was the golden egg that kept on giving, a paltry $18m price tag (and Warner Bros put it into turnaround before Fox picked it up!) generating nearly half a billion dollars globally (and, despite its festive setting, remaining in the US Top 10 until late April 1991). Back in 1990! Its US take was the equivalent of $600m today, inflation-adjusted. I’m not convinced by William Goldman’s suggestion it spawned the phrase “Home Aloned” for movies where a single picture crushes the success of all contenders in its path, though (apart from anything else, during the period of its release hits like Dances with Wolves and Kindergarten Cop made a mint – and Goldman’s Misery – accompanied, as always, a series of underperformers because they stank, such as Three Men and a Little Lady, Look Who’s Talking Too and Bonfire of the Vanities). Particularly since the converse can be true (the mega-hit instead feeds interest in surrounding pictures, as happened with Avatar). It’s nevertheless easy to forget that such an innocuous movie became such a monster. That’s the devastating combination of Christmas and extreme violence for you.





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.