Skip to main content

Christmas, huh? I’ll give him a Christmas present he’ll never forget.

Trading Places
(1983)

(SPOILERS) It’s incredible to recall that Eddie Murphy was in his early twenties during his first flush of success (48Hrs, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop). And not, like contemporary Tom Cruise, playing teenagers but rather adult roles, roles where age wasn’t an identifier. Here he co-stars with the decade-senior Dan Aykroyd, but let’s not pretend Eddie isn’t the lead and main attraction. Director John Landis’ retro treatment of Trading Places, which Pauline Kael unflattering described as “a time warp... with its stodgy look, suggesting no period of the past or the present”, adds to the sense that the sky was the limit for Murphy and that, despite porting over his patented sense of humour unneutered, he wasn’t restricted by genre or period.

Kael begrudgingly liked the film, while giving Landis’ direction a good kicking (his “timing is deadly – he makes everything obvious”). Not untypically of her, she’s too hard on the picture – “In a crude, dogged way, the movie has a sense of humour: it keeps telling you how terrific its sense of humour is” – but she’s isn’t wrong that Landis isn’t the most finessed of directors (if you like his movies, and I’m a big fan of a fair few of them, their ramshackle quality is one of the keys to their appeal). She’s also not wrong that Trading Places “has that big, chugging structure working for it: the whole apparatus picks up some speed towards the end and comes to a rousing, slapstick finish…” That quality can’t be underestimated in a comedy; Trading Places is one of the too few that can be watched, if you so wish although that would be strange, for the plot alone rather than the laughs, and you’d still find it a satisfying movie.

Screenwriters Timothy Harris and Herscehl Weingrod essentially offer up a variant on The Prince and the Pauper, but via rich commodities broker brothers Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche placing a nature-or-nurture bet with each other. In so doing, they bring their favoured managing director Aykroyd to his knees and instead put Murphy’s street hustler in his place; Harris and Weingrod would reap the benefits of reworking a classic again a couple of years later, with Richard Pryor and Brewster’s Millions. While Kael begrudged Trading Places’ failure to match the pictures of yesteryear, The Film Yearbook Vol. 3 countered that it was “constructed like a classic Hollywood caper that might have been made by Preston Sturges 40 years ago”, adding that it was “Slickly paced by director John Landis”.

Aykroyd shows himself to be a surprisingly talented comic actor as the atypically privileged, entitled Louis Winthorpe III. Kael complains about the cartoonish, out-of-time elements in Trading Places – the butler (Denholm Elliott, bringing a touch of class to the proceedings) and Aykroyd’s comic shtick, “his face tilted up… like a snobby dog in a cartoon” – but these choices entirely work. Trading Places is rightly approached in a broad and exuberant rather than refined and dignified manner.

Aykroyd has the real work to do, making a prig sympathetic, and he manages to do so mostly by dint of dressing as a Santa Claus and drunkenly attacking a giant salmon entangled in his fake beard. He’s also aided considerably by Jamie Lee Curtis’ hooker with a heart of gold finding something loveable in him, and so suggesting we do too. As Landis says of Winthorpe “at the end of the movie, even though he’s changed his perspective, he’s the same asshole he is at the beginning. He kept the integrity of that privileged jerk”.

But this is Murphy’s movie. Landis described it as one of his two best performances (although, since the other he cites is Coming to America, another Landis movie, that should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt). He’s inevitably in a class of his own when in full Murphy riffing mode, whether as a blind, legless veteran or Naga Eboko, exchange student from Cameroon (a scene in which Aykroyd is called upon to don blackface), but because you know he’s peerless when in full flight, you tend to notice his more subdued sustained moments more on revisit. There’s the sense of responsibility he assumes when turfing out the (former) friends taking advantage of his throwing a party, and his relationship with Denholm Elliot’s butler. My favourite moment might be his fourth-walling breaking response to being patronised by Randolph Duke (“Pork bellies, which is used to make bacon, which you might find in a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich”).

Landis, being of a generation of movie buffs, took full advantage of the opportunity to employ out-of-the-limelight stars of yesteryear Ralph Bellamy (as Randolph Duke) and Don Ameche (as Mortimer Duke). Their casual, privileged prejudice towards Murphy’s Billy Ray Valentine (repeatedly referred to as a “negro”, or even as a “terrible awful negro” by Aykroyd’s Winthorpe) is key to their eventual downfall, having characterised him as a psychopath and so not expecting him to behave honourably. Dilys Powell called Trading Placesthe supreme retort to racism”, which might be overstating the case, but thematically this element is definitely in there; the picture at no point makes a meal of foregrounding the message and thereby forgetting it’s a comedy, however.

Landis describes how he was unfamiliar with Murphy when he was asked to feature him in the picture, but they got along really well (it was only later, on Coming to America, that things turned sour). In contrast, “Paramount felt that without John Belushi, Danny wasn’t a star”, citing the failure of Doctor Detroit. Which was true, actually. Landis reports they didn’t much want Curtis or Ameche and Bellamy either, come to that. His choices all looked like remarkably smart ones, though, when the movie became the fourth biggest of the year (behind Flashdance, Terms of Endearment and Return of the Jedi). It was also – a surprisingly common practice from today’s perspective – a summer release set over the Christmas period (Gremlins the following year, Die Hard in '88).

Trading Places is remarkably well sustained, then, and Landis, with his penchant for cameos and asides, only really comes unstuck during the train sequence, with the determinedly unfunny Al Franken and Tom Davis given bits of business as baggage handlers. We also get to see John Belushi dressed as a gorilla, and then Paul Gleason, embarking on his career of 80s rotters as Beeks, who has insider-style obtained a report on frozen concentrated orange juice that needs to be intercepted. He’s not holding back in venting his spleen (“I’ll rip out your eyes and piss in your brain”) and so is condemned to a fate of being serially raped by a gorilla.

Trading Places was the first picture Landis made after The Twilight Zone: The Movie accident that killed Vic Morrow and child extras Myca Dinh Le and Renee Shin-Yi Chen (in relation to which, the director was eventually acquitted of involuntary manslaughter). Tonally you wouldn’t guess this event had immediately preceded it (“Just get me any movie out of town” he had told his agent). It’s only with the subsequent Into the Night that you perhaps sense more morbid preoccupations. Julia Phillips, in You’ll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again, described Landis as a “little megalomaniacal prick” whom Spielberg hated (“… I always wonder if he felt threatened, Landis being so child-prodigy and all, Steven pretty much feeling he had the corner on that arena”) and even darkly suggested Spielberg, producer on the movie, might have been present on the fateful night (“No way Steven wasn’t there, I think for a moment, he’s always so fond of the pyrotechnics… Yeah, Steven had been there for sure, I bet”).

Trading Places cemented Landis as a collaborator with Saturday Night Live veterans, but with a twist. You couldn’t get more contemporary and cheerfully undisciplined than his earlier The Blues Brothers. Here, “I saw that I could make it old fashioned in the best sense”. He’d sustain such successes, give or take, for the rest of the decade (Spies Like Us, Three Amigos, Coming to America) before the '90s saw his fortunes as a filmmaker flatline. 

And how is Trading Places as a Christmas movie? It’s very much the backdrop, such that, while it ends on an upbeat note, the righteous rewarded and the wrongful punished, it never feels the need or desire to acknowledge a season of goodwill instinct. The most festive it gets is Aykroyd in a Santa suit being used as a lamppost by a passing dog.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983)
(SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

Diamonds are Forever (1971)
In conception, Diamonds are Forever was a retreat to safer ground for the series following the “failure” of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In the end, it proved to be a significant break in tone and humour from what had gone before. More playfulness was evident in the heightened characterisations and settings, but simultaneously more boundaries were pushed in terms of sex and violence. Las Vegas lends the film a tarnished, glitterball quality that would quite accurately predict the excess and decadence of the coming decade. And presiding over the proceedings was a greying Bond, somewhat gone to seed and looking noticeably older than the near-decade it was since his first appearance. Somehow, the result is as sparkling and vital as the diamonds of the title, but it is understandably a curate’s egg. In many respects it bears more resemblance to the camp affectations, eccentricities and quirks of the television series The Avengers than the more straightforward…