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

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was