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

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.