Skip to main content

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers
(1980)

(SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House, knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even before the home video afterlife, though, The Blues Brothers was distinctive; it arrived as a ready-made cult movie. But then, John Landis’ oeuvre is cult movies.

That was part of the ramshackle charm of his pictures, albeit this eased rather, depending on the demands of stars (Coming to America is pretty slick) and quality (no one will find much to charm in Beverly Hills Cop III or Blues Brothers 2000). Despite the expense of The Blues Brothers, and the scale – Landis noted its out-of-control movie rep at the time, along with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Apocalypse Now, Heaven’s Gate, and 1941 – it has a certain homemade quality. That may in part be down to the largely unadorned industrial grime DP Stephen M Katz captures in the Chicago locations (Katz earlier worked with Landis on Kentucky Fried Movie, and would later recur on Dream On, but his CV is less than distinguished in terms of classy fare); you’ll look at the opening shot of the Chicago skyline and assume it’s a Blade Runner outtake. This lo-fi presentation of urban decay will recur in various forms during the ’80s, notably Alex Cox’s Repo Man.

It may also be part of Universal’s diktats, whereby Ned Wasserman decreed “… you’ve got to take half an hour out. So I did. I chopped it up”. As Landis saw it “The whole joke of The Blues Brothers is how immense it is. The original cut had real scale. By chopping it up, it lost that sense of size. There are still great moments, but it lost the scale. It was gigantic… The whole point is it’s silly”. What survives this pruning – even the restored version isn’t as restored as Landis’ favoured cut – is in common with the best parts of Landis’ early works, though: a sense of rollicking anarchy. Something that, by the time he was embedded with ex-SNL performers now comfortable with regular movie paycheque gigs, was largely lost, however sporadically inspired the proceedings may have been (Spies Like Us, Three Amigos!)

Time Out’s Ian Birch wasn’t so convinced, labelling The Blues Brothersa dispiriting indulgence”, one illustrating the “well-meaning but directionless predicament of the Rolling Stone generation”. It was a “grandiose TV variety show stuffed to the gills with dislocated cameo appearances” rather than “an epic, surreal romp through the America of Howard Johnsons”. He also suggested the slew of African-American musicians “come close to being patronising” (which seems a little unfair). Kael was similarly less than convinced. Albeit, as Landis put it, she “wrote this insane piece on The Blues Brothers, mostly about how wonderful Aretha Franklin was, but also that only the Blues Brothers get a standing ovation in the movie. That’s not true”. It’s certainly true that almost half Kael’s review is devoted to Franklin and her performance of Think! (great fun, but let’s get real here).

Kael asserted that Franklin “smashes the movie to smithereens” and “transcends the film’s incompetence”. “When the Blues Brothers take Matt Murphy with them and leave Aretha behind, you know that the moviemakers don’t know what they’re doing”. She also opined how the leads’ SNL performances that “seemed so funky” were now “very drab” and “the fun has gone out of their hipster musicians act”. Kael did admit the movie is “good natured, in a sentimental, folk-bop way” and recognised Landis’ point (“its big joke is how overscaled everything is”). Landis “has a lot of comic invention and isn’t afraid of silliness, but in terms of slapstick craft he’s still an amateur”. Then there’s also “The movie is probably more fun for people who drive than people like me”. Okay…

Some of the criticisms are undoubtedly fair. The picture is, by its nature, hit and miss. As are the cameos (I’ll admit to wondering what Twiggy is doing there, as by this point she was hardly zeitgeisty). But many work and don’t feel intrusive, be it Frank Oz with a prophylactic, Spielberg as a nerdy (what other sort would he be?) clerk, Paul Reubens as a waiter, or John Candy as a cop (“Who wants an orange whip?”)

Carrie Fisher is particularly inspired casting as Jake’s vengeful ex (armed with a bazooka), eventually left in the mud. The likes of Henry Gibson (as the head of the Illinois Nazis – “Well what are you going to do about it, Whitey?”), Charles Napier (of The Good Ol’ Boys) and Stephen Williams (a cop, rather than X) can also be seen to amusing effect. As for the musician cameos, you can doubtless forward the patronising claim, but there’s far too much genuine affection here for that to be deserved, and some of the performances (Think! and especially Minnie the Moocher) outdo the main duo’s efforts. Of which, Rawhide is probably the best, just for context (I like the way “courtesy" bottles continue to be thrown even when the crowd is enjoying the act: Stand by Your Man).

Landis tells how the movie “was a kind of vanity deal. Universal was trying to keep John happy”. Development was suddenly accelerated after his The Incredible Shrinking Woman was cancelled (Tomlin had just been in a flop with Travolta), and the next morning a call for The Blues Brothers came through. Universal’s conviction that “No white kid will come and see this movie” turned out to be false, and Landis attests it was one of the first pictures to attain more success overseas than at home (which seems curious in itself, given how specific to Americana it is. Landis isn’t always wholly reliable, of course).

Birch was after the wrong thing if he expected an overt commentary from The Blues Brothers; it was always going to hew partly towards It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World scrappiness in its wilful and gleeful excess. What it has going for it that few SNL ensemble pictures do is a genuine sense of unruliness. Certainly, you won’t find it in Landis other movies with these guys (look how well-behaved Trading Places is). Possibly only Into the Night – shorn of such alumni – finds a genuine WTF-is-going-on-here quality. I suspect in The Blues Brothers, that’s a consequence of being greenlit at the tail end of the ’70s. Far more ’80s of SNL movies end up closer to the ordered mayhem of 1941, if that; you know, properly scripted. But with laughs. Even when it isn’t offering laughs, The Blues Brothers has an infectious brio going for it, and while it may seem unlikely that anyone was catching anything here on cursory inspection –slopping it out everywhere, more like – that kind of thing is lightning in a bottle.



Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

You’re the pattern and the prototype for a whole new age of biological exploration.

The Fly II (1989) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg was not, it seems, a fan of the sequel to his hit 1986 remake, and while it’s quite possible he was just being snobby about a movie that put genre staples above theme or innovation, he wasn’t alone. Fox had realised, post- Aliens , that SF properties were ripe for hasty follow ups, and indiscriminately mined a number of popular pictures to immediately diminishing returns during the period ( Cocoon , Predator ). Neither critics nor audiences were impressed. In the case of The Fly II , though, it would be unfair to label the movie as outright bad. It simply lacks that *idea* that would justify the cash-in.