The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953)

When film critics talk about influential movies they often rattle off titles like: Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, King Kong, Breathless,The Gold Rush, Psycho, etc. However, a title that you never find in their lists is the 1953 film The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms. What? Are you kidding? How can anyone even think of putting The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms in the same company as these great films? It's just a silly 1950s sci-fi film made for children!!! The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms may not be in the same league as the titles  listed above, it is nonetheless one of the most influential movies of all time; at least in the science fiction genre. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms is important for two reasons:

1) It would establish the template that many science fiction films of the decade would follow.
2) It helped launch the career of special effects master Ray Harryhausen, who in turn would influence many great future filmmakers.

It wasn't made by a cinematic genius, but rather a director for hire (Eugene Lourie) who only made three other films (two about dinosaurs, one about a robot). Its two leads (Paul Christian and Paula Raymond) had rather forgettable careers.  And it was made for an extremely low budget ($200,000).  Yet, despite it's rather humble beginnings, it spawned many imitations for years to come; the most famous being Godzilla.

The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms owes a great debt to King Kong; both in terms of story structure and allowing for the film to be made. In 1952, King Kong was re-released in movie theaters and proved to be a huge success; even bigger than its initial release in 1933. The success of King Kong naturally allowed for The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms to be green lit. Would Warner Brothers have shelled out $450,000 for the rights to The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (a film that cost only half the amount) had King Kong gone unnoticed or hadn't been re-release at all? Probably not! While King Kong's influence is undoubted, The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms managed to bring new things to the genre that have been copied ever since.

The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms was the first film to introduce the idea of atomic testing awakening a giant menace; in the film The Beast (the fictional Rhedosaurus) is awaken from its slumber in the Arctic by the blast of an atomic bomb. This plot device was later repeated in films like: Them!, The Giant Behemoth, The Deadly Mantis, It Came From Beneath the Sea, and most famously, Godzilla. The fact that Godzilla movies are still being made to this very day only further enhances just how influential The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms was. In the film's climax, the Beast has been wounded and drips blood over the city streets; when soldiers come into contact with it they become extremely ill. It is later revealed that the Beast's blood has been poisoned by radiation. Godzilla replaces the radioactive blood with radioactive breath. It should be noted that shots of people fleeing from the Rhedosaurus would later be reused in other Giant Monster films of the 1950s; most notably The Giant Behemoth. 

As far as I know The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms is the first film to introduce the attractive lady scientist. The Thing From the Another World had a strong female presence in Margaret Sheridan, but she was in the more traditional role as a secretary; not to mention doesn't really advance the plot. Her main function is to be the  love interest to Kenneth Tobey's Captain Henry. In The Day the Earth Stood Still, Patricia Neal plays Helen Benson, a woman who is sympathetic to Klaatu's mission. However, Neal's character is an ordinary character caught up in events beyond her wildest dreams. In The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, Lee Hunter (Paula Raymond) is an expert paleontologist and is the only person who believes Tom Nesbitt (Paul Christian) when he claims to have seen a dinosaur. Lee helps drive the narrative of the story by investigating Tom's claim and persuading her mentor, Professor Elson (who has credibility with the military) that this demands serious attention. It is also to the film's credit that the romance between Tom and Lee is hinted at, rather than made into a major, time consuming subplot: the audience gets that these characters are in love just by the occasional glances they throw each other's way. The attractive, but extremely intelligent woman scientist (with a guy's name) would become a staple in 1950s sci-fi films, most notably in: Tarantula, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, Them!, It Came From Beneath the Sea, and many more. The relationship between Lee and Professor Elson (Cecil Kellaway) was mirrored a year later in the movie Them! In that film, Dr.  Medford  (the terrific Edmund Gwenn) is called upon to help the military and local state authorities into stopping the threat of giants ants and accompanying him is his beautiful assistant, Pat (Joan Weldon), who also happens to be his daughter. Professor Elson/Dr.Medford are both elderly men who are at the end of their careers and often out of touch with the modern world. They tend to be absented minded and need their young female assistants to help keep them focused. Elson is like a father figure to Lee, while Medford is Pat's father. It's also no coincidence that Pat has a strong resemblance to Lee (both brunettes). And like in The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, the romance between Pat and  Robert is implicit, rather than a major plot point.

Lee Hunter and Professor Elson in
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.

Dr. Medford and his daughter Pat
in Them! 

Ray Harryhausen is a legend among special effects men and got his start by working as an assistant to Willis O' Brien. In 1949, Harryhausen's work on Mighty Joe Young helped O'Brien win the Oscar for Special Effects. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms was Harryhausen's first major work as a solo artist and the success of this film made it possible for him to make other films like: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Jason and the Argonauts, and a film that has been tremendously popular with my generation, The Clash of the Titans. Harryhausen's special effects work has inspired so many filmmakers that is almost impossible to imagine the cinema without him.

The film was inspired by a short story by Ray Bradbury called "The Foghorn." In that short story, a dinosaur destroys a lighthouse after hearing the foghorn coming from it. This short story gets condensed into one memorable scene in The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, in which The Rhedosaurus destroys a light house. This scene is nicely shot, set in the dark, where only the outline of The Rhedosaurus can be seen as it collapses the light house. Bradbury himself didn't care too much for the film, but he was happy for the pay check it brought him and the work that it gave to his good friend Ray Harryhausen.


There have been many Giant Monster movies made since the release of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, but for my money, none has ever topped the scene in which the Rhedosaurus rampages through New York, toppling buildings in its way and picking up cars in its jaws and tossing them across the street. In one memorable moment a foolish police officer tries to stop the Rhedosaurus by firing his pistol at it and promptly gets swallowed whole for his effort.

Sure, special effects have improved over the years, but this sequence is still a lot of fun to watch. Despite being limited by an extremely low budget, the filmmakers were able to turn out a very memorable moment in cinema history; Spielberg would later pay homage to this bit in Jurassic Park, with the lawyer on the toilet being eaten by the T-Rex. This scene also popped up in Gremlins 2: The New Batch; the Gremlins are channel surfing and come upon this clip, and laugh when the police officer gets eaten.  

Harryhausen's effects hold up surprisingly well; it's amazing how he was able to give the Rhedosaurus a personality, despite it being rubber model. The beast's death at the end is oddly moving, despite all the terrible things it has done. This is largely due to the fact that the Rhedosaurus never seems malicious in  its attacks, but rather just an animal stumbling into a new world that it is not equipped to handle. Its attack on the lighthouse seems to be done out of curiosity, rather than for any sinister motive. 

While the Rhedosaurus is the "star" of the film, it must be said that the actors do a fairly admirable job. There is not much depth in the characterizations, but the actors add credibility to the film by playing their parts completely straight; a sense of urgency is prevalent throughout the film, thanks to the seriousness the actors bring to their roles. In the 1950s, many actors dreaded being in science fictions films and often their condescension to the genre came out in their performances. The main flaw in many big budgeted films of today is that the actors are so cheerful and lackadaisical in their performance, that it's hard to take the "threat" of the film seriously. It seems very out of place for characters to be cracking jokes while being surrounded by endless death and destruction; the Transformer films spring to mind. It should be noted that The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms helped launch the careers of two actors; Lee Van Cleef, who would go on a great career in westerns, plays the role of the marksman who fires the isotope into the Rhedosaurus open wound. And James Best, who played Sheriff Roscoe on The Dukes of Hazzards, appears briefly as a radar operator.  

I first saw The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms when I was nine years old. I had often heard my dad speak about it; he would often mention  it while I was watching my Godzilla films, telling me that it was the movie that inspired Godzilla. Finally, on one fateful Saturday I finally saw it on the local program "Saturday Night a the Frights." In my mind, nothing could top the awesomeness that was Ghidorah, the Three Headed Monster or Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster, but I was wrong, this film did. The ending in which the Rhedosaurus is tearing up a roller coaster is the stuff of dreams. It was exciting when I was a kid and it's still exciting now.

Credits:
Cast: Paul Christian (Prof. Tom Nesbitt), Paula Raymond (Lee Hunter), Cecil Kellaway (Prof. Elson), Kenneth Tobey (Col. Jack Evans), Donald Woods (Capt. Phil Jackson), Lee Van Cleef (Corp. Stone), Steve Brodie (Sgt. Loomis), Jack Pennick (Jacob Bowman), Frank Ferguson (Dr. Morton), King Donovan (Dr. Ingersoll).

Director: Eugene Lourie
Screenplay: Lou Morheim, Fred Freiberger
Running Time: 80 minutes.

A Christmas Carol (1938)

A Christmas Carol was written by Charles Dickens in 1843 and has been adapted to screen countless times ever since the cinema has started.  One of the oldest surviving prints is from 1907 made by the Edison Company; it's a ten-minute short that recreates scenes from the novella through dated, but effective special effects. It's also interesting to note that the same actor portrays the Spirits of Christmas. Even though the silent film condenses a great deal of Dickens' story, it captures the essence of it. A Christmas Carol is a very simple and straightforward story; a lonely miser, through the intervention of deceased partner Marley and three Spirits, is given a second chance at life. He learns that life's great rewards come when you in invest in people, rather than money. It's so simple that even a ten-minute film can adequately capture its overall meaning.

There are so many adaptations of A Christmas Carol floating out there that I could probably write an entire novel on the subject alone. What makes every adaptation interesting is how each emphasize a different point in Dickens story. For instance, the 1938 version is 69 minutes long and nearly twenty minute of its running time is focused on the Spirit of Christmas Present, whereas the 1951 version is 86 minutes long and nearly thirty minutes of its running time focuses on the Spirit of Christmas Past.  In other adaptations Scrooge's nephew Fred plays a pivotal role in the story, in others he just a mere after thought. Each adaption brings something different to the table, which is why the story keeps being retold to this very day. This is not including the many sitcoms out there that often feature a Christmas episode that follows a Scrooge-like format; the most famous example is Family Ties, in which Alex is the Scrooge character and absolutely abhors Christmas but changes his mind when he is visited by three spirits in his dream.  

For the sake of this blog, my review will revolve primarily around the 1938 version, produced by MGM and starring Reginald Owens as Scrooge. 

The version has been largely criticized by Dickens purists due to the many liberties taken with the original novel, which include:

1)      Fred

      Scrooge’s nephew Fred has a far more prominent role in the film than he did in the actual novel. In the novel, Fred had three very brief scenes; Inviting his uncle to Christmas Dinner and getting denied, having a Christmas party with his guests as Scrooge and the Spirit of Christmas Present look on, and finally, standing in a state of shock as his Uncle Scrooge stops by his place to accepts his invite for Christmas Dinner and then asks for forgiveness.  Fred, in the novel, was a minor character to the overall storyline. Interestingly, the 1938 version opens with Fred cheerfully walking down the streets of London, on the way to see his bitter uncle. While on his merry journey he stumbles upon Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchit’s other sons. 

 In the novel, Fred was already married. In the 1938 adaptation, he is merely engaged to the lovely Bess.  This provides for a romantic subplot that was completely absent in Dicken’s novel, but fairly common in most MGM productions at the time. MGM was not only in the business of making movies, but grooming talent as well; one gets the sense that the reason this romantic subplot was added was to showcase the talents of Barry Mackay (Fred) and Lynne Carver (Bess). It’s to Mackay's and Carver’s credit that both characters are especially likable and don’t get in the way of the proceedings. In many ways, the Fred/Bess romance is relevant to the actual story line as it shows Scrooges the happiness that could have been his, had he not been consumed by greed. However, this highlights one of the film’s biggest flaws as well.

2)      The Spirit of Christmas Past

       This is how Dickens describes the Spirit of Christmas Past in his book:

 

      “It was a strange figure-like a child; yet not so like a child as like an old man, view through a supernatural medium, which gave him the appearance of having receded from the view, and being diminished to a child’s proportions. Its hair, which hung about its neck and down its back, was white, as if with age; and yet the face had not a wrinkle in it, and the tenderest bloom was on the skin. The arms were very long and muscular; the hands the same, as if its hold were of uncommon strength. Its legs and feet, most delicately formed, were, like those upper members, bare.”

In the 1938 film the Spirit of Christmas Past in played by none other than…Ann Rutherford. Rutherford was in her early twenties during the making of this movie and was a starlet in training (she’s probably best known for playing Scarlet O’ Hara’s younger sister Carreen in Gone with the Wind). She’s definitely a curious casting choice for the Spirit of Christmas Past; but it’s not really much of a distraction once you get past the first few seconds. Rutherford never really reached huge stardom, but she does have an appealing presence, and it certainly carries over in this role. 

     The biggest misstep the filmmakers make in regard to the Spirit of Christmas Past section is the omission of Scrooge’s ruin. This segment ends with Young Scrooge and Dick Wilkins happily packing up shop to make way for Christmas.  Scrooge laments about how kind his boss, Mr. Fezziwig, was towards him. The Spirit suggests he can repay Mr. Fezziwig by showing kindness to his clerk, Bob Cratchit. Scrooge balks at this suggestion and insists that “business is business.”  The Spirit then tells Scrooge it is time to show him the darker moments of his life, but before she can proceed, Scrooge lifts a veil over her head and starts to throttle her, only to wake up and find himself strangling his pillow. I mentioned how the Fred/Bess romance suggests the happiness that could have been Scrooge’s had he not been consumed by greed, but that’s all mere speculation, because we are never shown his downfall. In the novel, young Scrooge falls in love with and becomes engaged to a poor woman named Belle. However, as Scrooge becomes more obsessed with wealth, he slowly distances himself from Belle until, finally, she breaks off their engagement. The 1938 film omits this critical story line and without it, the audience has no idea of the heart ache Scrooge has endured. It's never clear how Scrooge went from being a happy apprentice to Fezziwig to being a lonely, tight-fisted cynic. 

3)      Bob Cratchit

The 1938 version adds more conflict to the story line by adding a subplot in which Scrooge fires Bob Cratchit. While walking home from work, Bob Cratchit gets bombarded with snowballs by children hiding behind a snowbank. Cratchit laughs it off and then gives the children a tip on how to make better snowballs.  The children beg to see Cratchit’s handiwork and a spot a man wearing a top hat heading their way. Bob hides behind the snowbank, launches the snowball and knocks off the man’s top hat; only to discover that man is none other than Mr. Scrooge. To make matters a worse a horse drawn carriage drives by and runs over Mr. Scrooge’s hat. Naturally, this angers Scrooge, who demands compensation for his hat and then fires Cratchit on the spot.  Even this unfortunate series of events can’t bring Cratchit down for too long; he laughs at the ridiculousness surrounding the situation, shouts out “Merry Christmas” and then proceeds to buy supplies for his family’s Christmas dinner. Cratchit keeps his current unemployment a secret from everyone, except his oldest daughter Martha, because he doesn't want to ruin the holiday spirit. This subplot exists to for two reasons: To make the Cratchit’s situation direr and to make Scrooge’s redemption all the more remarkable.  Bob Cratchit and his family were in bad shape to begin with (a crippled son, low wages), but him getting sacked really ups the ante.  Will Bob Cratchit find another job? Will Scrooge have a change of heart? Of course, the audience already knows the answers to these questions, making this subplot rather unnecessary.  Why include such a subplot? I think it was MGM way of acknowledging the current problems that plagued America; this was made during the Depression. It was a plot device the writers added in hopes of making Bob Cratchit more sympathetic to Depressia Era moviegoers. However, movies are also a form of escapism, so Cratchit’s financial woes are resolved fairly quickly.  

      Gene Lockhart was one of the all-time great character actors and is still, far and away, my favorite Bob Cratchit. The other actors the preceded and followed him were good, but they lacked the overall warmth and humor he brought to the role.  The Cratchit family scenes have air of authenticity to them, largely due to the fact that Mrs. Cratchit is played by Lockhart's real-life wife, Kathleen, and their real-life daughter, June, plays one of the Cratchit’s daughters, Belinda. It’s a credit to Lockhart as an actor that the whole “Bob Cratchit” getting sacked subplot, while unnecessary, isn't too intrusive to the overall film. 

Ignorance and Want
 In the novel, The Spirit of Christmas Present ends on a rather grim note:

“Forgive me if I’m not justified in what I ask,” said Scrooge, looking intently at the Spirit’s robe, “but I see something strange, and not belonging to yourself, protruding from your skirts. Is it a foot or a claw?”

“It might be a claw, for the flesh there is upon it,” was the Spirit’s sorrowful reply. “Look here.”
From the folding of its robe, it brought two children, wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet and clung upon the outside of its garment.

A few paragraphs down, Scrooge has this exchange with the Spirit:

“Spirit!  are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.

“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. The boy is Ignorance. The girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand toward the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purpose and make it worse! And bide the end!”

“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.

“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words, “Are there no workhouses?”

This then segues way into Scrooge’s encounter with The Spirit of Christmas Future.  The 1951 version with Alastair Sim has this exchange intact, but the 1938 film omits it from the story line.  Instead of ending on a bleak note, it ends on a rather joyous one - Scrooge begs the Spirit if he can stay and see more of Fred and Bess’ Christmas Party.  The Spirit says, “You don’t like Christmas.”

Scrooge retorts, “I do! I love Christmas.” And then the audience is then shown a montage of all the joyful events Scrooge has encountered throughout the course of the film.  In fact, he’s already a changed man, that it makes the Spirit of Christmas Future anti-climactic.  The Future segment is the shortest part in the entire film, lasting a little over five minutes. 

 I mentioned how Bob Cratchit being unemployed touched on the problems that Depression audiences faced, and while MGM was willing to briefly acknowledge the problems that plagued America, they weren't going to hit them over the head with it.  It is one thing to have Bob Cratchit unemployed for a brief period of screen time, but it is quite another thing to show two undernourished children in dire straits. This scene probably hit too close to home for many audiences, and to it include in what is essentially a feel-good story would probably (in the studios eyes) undermine the overall enjoyment of the film.

The 1938 version gets heavily criticized for being overly cheerful, but this isn't too surprising given that it was made by MGM, whose business was to sell fantasies to audiences desperately wanting to escape (if briefly) their real-life woes.  It is a film that made audiences happy and, maybe, gave them a little hope for the future.  While the 1938 version maybe be “too cheerful” for some audiences, it does, for the most part, capture the essence of Dickens novel.  It also includes a scene from the novel that is completely missing from the 1951 version.  In the novel Scrooge and The Spirit of Christmas Present are walking through the city, watching people carrying their dinners to the baker's shop:

The sight of these revelers appeared to interest the Spirit very much, for he stood, with Scrooge beside him, in the baker’s doorway, and taking off the covers as their bearers passed, sprinkled incense on their dinners from his torch. And it was very uncommon kind of torch, for once or twice when there were angry words between two dome dinner-carriers who had jostled each other, he shed a few drops of water on them from it, and their good humor was restored directly. For they said, it was a shame to quarrel on Christmas Day. And so it was! God love it, so it was!

This scene gets re-enacted in the 1938 film, in which two men bump into each other and start to quarrel. They start to shove one another, then the Spirit waves his torch over them, and they start to comment how silly they are acting. They apologize and one of them offers to buy the other a beer. It’s a wonderfully funny scene and it is a shame that most adaptations have dropped it altogether.  

Jacob Marley

The 1938 version has my favorite Jacob Marley, Leo G. Carroll. What I love about Carroll’s performance is that he is wonderfully creepy without overdoing it. In the 1951 version, Michael Hordern played Jacob Marley, and he is completely over the top with his performance; at one point even putting his right hand to his forehead, while bemoaning all the opportunities he wasted in his lifetime.  Secondly, the 1951 staging of this scene is fairly (with the exception of Marley’s wailing) lifeless, Scrooge and Marley sit down on comfy chairs and have a nice fireside chat.  It worked well in the novel but is fairly dull on film.

The 1938 version livens up this scene by having Scrooge run to his window and call out to night watchmen for help. The night watchmen run up to his room, don't see anything out of the ordinary, and assume that Scrooge has had too much to drink. The 1938 version is far more cinematic as well - at one point Marley passes in front Scrooge and the audience can see through Marley; Scrooge remains in frame the entire time. It’s a neat effect. The 1938 relies heavily on close ups to convey the emotion of the scene, while the 1951 is a static long shot, only cutting to close up after Marley starts wailing. The 1951, despite making Marley transparent, is staged like a play. The 1938 version is cinema at its finest. 

The 1951 version is often considered the best adaptation of the Dickens novel, mainly due to Alastair Sim's wonderful performance as Scrooge. Sim is far and away the best Scrooge in cinema history and makes up for that film's shortcomings. Reginald Owen's portrayal as Scrooge is not nearly as compelling as Sim's, in fact, he gives a rather one note performance. However, while Owen's interpretation may lack the depth that Sim's brought to the role, he is still a lot of fun to watch; check out the scene in which a wad of spit flies from Scrooge's mouth when he says to Cratchit, "It's poor excuse for picking a man's packet every 25th of December." It may be a one note performance, but it's certainly the right note. The difference between the two movies is this: the 1938 adaptation is an ensemble piece, while the 1951 version is a detailed character study.

What makes A Christmas Carol such a compelling story is that everyone, regardless of age, is capable of changing.  Your future is not preordained but rather is in your hands to mold. It’s a very comforting message and explains why this novel has been adapted so many times in last century.  

Credits:

Cast: Reginald Owen (Ebenezer Scrooge), Gene Lockhart (Bob Cratchit), Kathleen Lockhart (Mrs. Cratchit), Leo G. Carroll (Jacob Marley), Barry Mackay (Fred), Terry Kilburn (Tiny Tim), Ann Rutherford (Spirit of Christmas Past), Lynne Carver (Bess), Lionel Braham (Spirit of Christmas Present), D'Arcy Corrigan (Spirit of Christmas Future), Ronald Sinclair (Young Scrooge), June Lockhart (Belinda Cratchit).

Director: Edward L. Marin

Screenplay: Huge Butler

Running Time: 69 minutes. 

He-Man & She-Ra: A Christmas Special

It's probably not an exaggeration when I say that practically every kid in my generation (or least in my class) watched He-Man and She-Ra religiously after school, and owned almost every action figure.  The best thing about He-Man action figures was that you could pulls off the limbs and easily put them back on again, hence when you had battles you could make them as graphic as you wanted.  Or, you could swap the arms and legs of He-Man with that of another Masters of the Universe action figure; the possibilities were endless.

No words can describe just how excited my six year-old self was when it was announced that there was going to be a He-Man and She-Ra Christmas Special. I thought I might had died and gone to heaven. A He-Man and She-Ra Christmas Special?! Surely, this would be the Christmas Special to end all Christmas Specials. No offense Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer or Charlie Brown, but there's no way you could hope to compete with the sheer juggernaut that was He-Man. As far as I was concerned, they might as well stop making Christmas Specials altogether, because nothing could possibly top the sight of He-Man and She-Ra kicking ass, while lecturing about the joys of Christmas. After what seemed like an agonizingly long wait (three weeks), the day of deliverance had finally arrived. My sister and I sat in front of the television and were absolutely AMAZED by what we were witnessing. Not only did we get to see our favorite characters kicking serious butt, but we were introduced to new action figures....er I mean characters......the Manchines and the  Monstroids. Oh, joy!

My generation has a tendency to be overly nostalgic about everything that was the 80s, He-Man included. During the 90s, I remember constantly bemoaning the fact that the afternoon cartoons just weren't as good as the ones in the 80s. As much as the stations tried, they could never replace He-Man; it was a huge part of my childhood. Unfortunately for me and most He-Man fans, DVD came along and essentially destroyed our warm and fuzzy memories of the show. I bought the first season of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe and couldn't wait to relive some of my childhood memories, only to discover to my absolute horror that it was completely unwatchable. The first few minutes offered up a couple of giggles, but by the time I was midway through the first episode I was on the verge of jumping out the window; it was that painful. However, before I hastily ended my life, I thought to myself, "Maybe it's just the first episode that's bad. After all, it's mostly exposition, hence the rather slow pace. Surely, the other episodes will be better." No such luck! The thing about He-Man and the Masters of the Universe is that it becomes tiresome really fast; due to the fact that each episode recycles the same bits of animation over and over. Often you would be shown the "Adam into He-Man" transformation not once, but twice an episode. Realizing there's no way I could possibly make it through five episodes of He-Man and Masters of the Universe, let alone an entire season, I promptly sold my DVD.

He-Man and She-Ra: A Christmas Special is the ultimate endurance test; if you can survive it, then you can make through just about anything. Not only do we have endure the usual He-Man and She-Ra antics, but we have deal with Miguel and Alisha, two annoying earth children accidentally transported to Eternia.
"How do these annoying brats get stuck on Eternia?" you ask. Well, you see Adam and Man at Arms are working on a shuttle called the Sky Spy, which they plan to use to spy on Skeletor. However, Orko, odious comic relief and amateur wizard, sneaks aboard the Sky Spy, plays around with the controls and accidentally causes it to blast off. After nearly getting captured by Skeletor and his incompetent henchmen, Orko tries to force the Sky Spy to land by casting a magic spell, however instead of landing on Eternia, it lands on Earth. Uh-oh! Orko arrives just in the nick of time to save Miguel and Alisha from an avalanche; it seems the two kids got lost in the woods while trying to find the right Christmas Tree for their family. They take shelter in the downed Sky Spy and the kids proceed to tell Orko all about Christmas.

Meanwhile, back on Eternia, Man at Arms and Adam deduce that Orko must have been aboard the Sky Spy when it took off. Thankfully (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), Man At Arms has invented a Transport Beam that can bring Orko back. After encountering a few road blacks (She-Ra needs to retrieve a crystal to power the Transport Beam and encounters the Monstroids in the process) Man at Arms activates the Transport Beam and brings back Orko and *GASP* the children as well.  Alisha whines that she might miss Christmas, but the Queen of Eternia assures her that she and Miguel can celebrate on Eternia, and once Man at Arms fixes the Transport Beam they can go back home. Yippee!  However, the presence of Miguel and Alisha worries the Emperor...er I mean Horde Prime, who fears that the Christmas Spirit they have brought to Eternia might undermine his power. He then sends his underlings Skeletor and Hordak to kidnap the children before it is too late. Skeletor and Hordak argue for a few seconds as to who will get to the children first and win Horde Prime's approval, finally Horde Prime has had enough of their bickering and orders them on their way.  We are then treated to an extremely painful Christmas song composed by Bow, a lackey of She-Ra. This is a staple in almost every Christmas special; the characters drop what their doing and sing a Christmas song. This little number,"Christmas in Eternia," never caught on with the public, much to Bow's chagrin.

This thankfully comes to an abrupt end as the kids and Orko are kidnapped by Hordak via tractor beam. Bow proves to be rather useless and is frozen solid with a blast from Hordac's freeze ray. OH NO! After another set of contrivances (another encounter with the Monstroids, the appearance of the Manchines) the kids and a Manchine puppy named Relay are spirited away by Skeletor. However, Hordak shoots down Skeletor's sky scooter and they are forced to continue their journey on foot, across some treacherous snow mountains.  However, as the journey goes on Skeletor finds himself doing extremely uncharacteristic things, namely acts of kindness. Skeletor then says to Miguel, "Tell me more about this...this Christmas!" We are then treated to one of the great exchanges in Christmas Special history:

In the end, Skeletor, like the Grinch before him, grows a heart and saves the children from the vile clutches of Horde Prime. The annoying moppets are returned to Earth and everyone is happy. Oh, and Adam tries to fool his sister Adora (She-Ra's alter ego) in thinking he is Santa Claus, but no such luck.

As bad as this special is, and boy is it BAD, I still enjoy the Skeletor scenes; they are essentially the heart of the Christmas Special. It's rather amusing how Skeletor keeps insisting that he is EVIL, but then proceeds to do a kind act after making this bold statement. Skeletor was always the most interesting character on He-Man and the Masters of Universe, largely because he never came across as being evil, but rather a curmudgeonly old man in need of a serious hug. The Christmas Special proves this theory; as soon as Skeletor encounters the annoying human brats and that irritatingly cute Manchine dog, he's incapable of doing any wrong. They melt his icy heart with their warm Christmas Spirit.

The He-Man and She-Ra relationship kind of disturbs me. It's great to love one's sibling, but they really love one another. I mean REALLY LOVE ONE ANOTHER! Every time the two of them would team up, we would have moments like this:

YIKES!

She (1965)

When one thinks of Hammer Studios the image of a fanged, blood shot eyed Christopher Lee will probably be the first thing that comes to mind. In the 1950s and 60s, Hammer was king when it came to horror films, producing such titles like Curse of Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, The Gorgon, and Curse of the Werewolf, to name a few. However, by the mid 60s Hammer began to broaden their output by producing a whole sub genre of Lost World films; these films were characterized by either setting the films in modern times and having an expedition stumble upon an ancient society hidden deep in the jungle/desert (She, Prehistoric Women), or setting the films in prehistoric times where cave people struggled to survive (One Millions Years B.C., When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth). The other common trope found in these movies was the sight of gorgeous women running around in fur bikinis; Raquel Welch's bikini clad performance in One Million Years B.C. made her an international sex symbol. Needless to say these movies aren't very good, though they are highly entertaining; the stop motions effects in One Million Years B.C. and When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth are especially good.
By default, She is probably the best film of  Hammer's Lost World sub genre and this is largely due to it's unusually strong supporting cast. One Millions Years B.C. and When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth are populated with lots of eye candy and bogus caveman slang, but completely lack any strong characterizations; whereas the only worthwhile thing to be found in Prehistoric Woman is Martine Beswick's commanding performance as the cruel Queen Kari.
She is an adaptation of H. Rider Haggard's 1887 novel "She: A History of Adventure." In fact, it was the seventh screen adaptation of Haggard's novel; it was adapted a few times in the silent era and then most famously in 1935 with Helen Gahagan in the title role. It must be said that the 1935 is an extremely enjoyable film with wonderful sets by Van Nese Polglase, a great musical score by Max Steiner, and a lively performance by Helen Mack as Tanya Dugmore. Unfortunately, Helen Gagahan is simply awful in title role and lacks the ethereal beauty that was key to Haggard's novel.

 In the 1935 version, Leo (Randolph Scott) is never tempted by Ayesha's offer of immortality and seems content to spend the rest of his remaining years with the far more likable Tanya. In 1965 version, it is completely believable that the bland Leo would easily give up everything to be with the cruel Ayesha, because she's played by the extremely gorgeous Ursula Andress; still riding the fame of her bikini clad appearance in Dr. No.  The less I say about the 1982 adaptation, starring Sandahl Bergman and set in the post apocalyptic future, the better.

Sorry, I just had to. 

The Leo Vincey/Ayesha romance in the 1965 version is extremely interesting in that it never comes across as true love, but rather an act of impulse on the part of Leo. Ayesha is convinced that Leo is a reincarnation of her lost love, Killikrates, whom she murdered 2,000 years ago in an act of jealous rage. Leo, for his part, is taken aback by her the first time they meet. Ayesha tells Leo that in order for them to be together he must make a dangerous trek across the desert and if he survives everything he ever wanted will be his. Leo impulsively takes on this challenge, never thinking about how difficult and dangerous it might be. Hell, it never occurs to Leo that Ayesha, a woman he JUST MET, might be lying. Leo is willing to risk his life (and that of his companions) based on Ayesha's promise he will be given everything he ever desired if he makes this journey.

He is convinced that his love for Ayesha is genuine, yet his constantly tempted by the beautiful and kindly handmaiden, Ustane (Rosenda Monteros).  Ustane, for some inexplicable reason, is in love with and extremely loyal to Leo; when Leo gets deathly ill in the desert, after being shot by a tribe of Bedouins, Ustane is by his side, nursing him back to health. When he is taken to the city of Kuma, Ustane follows even though it might prove deadly to her existence. Leo's attraction to Ayesha is superficial one, based on the glories of now rather than the consequences of later. He enjoys Ustane's company and likes her devotion of him, but he can't shake himself free of Ayesha's beauty.  Ayesha offers Leo the gift of immortality (provided by the Flame of Eternal Life) and Leo, in his limited thinking, doesn't believe anything can possibly go wrong. Towards the end of the film Leo has this conversation with his friend Major Holly (Peter Cushing):

Maj. Holly: I suppose there's a time in everyone's life when the idea of immortality seems very desirable. But now at my age I'd have to give it a great deal of thought. 

Leo Vincey: What's age got to do with it? You'd stay as you are. 

Maj. Holly: That's not what I meant, Leo. What one would accept eagerly at your age doesn't necessarily have the same appeal at mine. It's the age of the mind that's important, not the body. You see, you're young. Still on the threshold of life. The joy of living is not to be denied, but to know that it'll be there for all time, without change. Life at a standstill. It's not quite the same thing. 

Holly is the voice of reason throughout the film, often questioning Leo's motives. Like the audience, Holly is not convinced that Leo's love for Ayesha is genuine, but rather just a superficial fantasy.  Leo is so entranced by her beauty that he completely overlooks her flaws, like her extreme cruelty and jealousy. In the end, Leo enters the Flame of Eternal Life with Ayesha and watches in horror as she ages to nothingness right in front of his eyes; the Flame gives eternal life the first time around, but takes it away the second time. In the end, Leo is forced to live the next thousands years alone, waiting for the Flame to reappear so he can end his miserable existence.

I mentioned before that She has an unusually strong supporting cast for what is essentially a silly adventure film, but it's these performances that really help elevate it to being a decent, watchable movie as opposed to being a painful mess. This is pivotal as both of the leads, Ursula Andress and John Richardson, are rather dull to watch. They are both appropriately attractive  and make for wonderful eye candy, but that's about it. Granted, Ayesha is  meant to be a fairly one dimensional, tyrannical character, but Richardson's Leo lacks any really personality; his character is defined by his longing for Ayesha. He's also kind of a cad, he talks about his endless love for Ayesha, yet consistently puts the moves on Ustane.
 

Peter Cushing is great in practically everything he's in, but really delivers the goods in this movie as Major Holly. In previous Hammer films Cushing portrayed Dr. Van Helsing, Baron Frankenstein, and Sherlock Holmes; extremely stiff and humorless characters who constantly obsess over one thing. Major Holly is a nice change of pace for the great actor. It's true that Major Holly is an authority figure, but he's not obsessive like these other roles and more importantly seems to actually get a joy out of living; in the film's opening scene we are shown two of Major Holly's vices, women and alcohol. While Leo is chatting it up with Ustane, Major Holly and his butler, Job, get up and start dancing with belly dancers; this antic gets uproarious laughter from Ustane. At the beginning of the film the idea of finding the lost city of Kuma excites Holly, but at the end he is disenchanted with the place and says, "All my life I've dreamed of finding a city such as this. But now that I have, I'd like to see it destroyed and all that is stands for."

In many ways She is about the battle for Leo's soul with Ayesha as the devil and Holly as the angel, pleading for him to make the right decision. In the end, Holly loses the battle and admits as much to Job when he observes,"We've lost him." Major Holly is the moral center to the film, constantly questioning both Leo and the high priest Billali's blind obedience to Ayesha, hoping that he can sway one of them into making a stand against her tyranny.

Billali is played by Cushing's longtime co-star and good friend, Christopher Lee, who like Cushing, makes the most out of the material he is given. There's no sense of condescension coming from either actor and both do their best to elevate the silly material. The film does a huge piece of misdirection with the character of Billali, it makes the audience believe that he will have a change of heart and help the heroes at the end. There is a sense that he is completely unhappy serving Ayesha and he longs to be free. This gets confirmed later on when he has a conversation with Holly inside the city's temple:

Maj. Holly: Will you tell me something? This women Ayesha, why do you all do her bidding without question? 

Billali: It has always been so. 

Maj. Holly: Yes, but why? She's only a woman and alone. You are men and many. 

Billali: And like all men we are born, live a span and we die. But she has been here forever. She is like the mountains, like the desert. Changeless, ageless, deathless. 

Maj. Holly: That I cannot believe. In your fear you have accepted the impossible as truth. No-one lives forever. And no one was born to be the vessel of another. You know this too, I've seen it in your eyes. Your body does her bidding but your spirit cries out to be free. Is that not true? 

Billali: Each one of us has his own destiny to fulfill. 

Maj.Holly: And yours, I suppose, is to fill the next alcove. I can't believe you're such a fool, Billali. 

Billali: No, Mr Holly. I am not such a fool. 

In the end Billali doesn't directly betray Ayesha, rather he tries to kill Leo so he can enter the Flame of Eternal Life himself. During the brawl he gets speared in the back by Ayesha and tries to crawl into the flame, but dies just inches short of his goal. As Holly predicted, Billali becomes just another in the long line of high priests that lived and died during Ayesha's long dictatorship.

The most thankless role goes to Bernard Cribbins as Holly's faithful butler, Job; he's really giving very little to do but stand around in the background and on occasion offer up a few quips. Cribbins makes the most out the very little he has to do, but it's to his and the filmmakers credit that the character never becomes a distraction. The filmmakers could have easily made Job a bumbling, Jar Jar Binks type of character, killing practically every scene he is every time he opens his mouth. Instead, Job is a fairly competent character, who serves his master faithful and does all he can to help out. In the film's climax Ayesha's slaves revolt and Job is shown fighting along side them; at point even saving Holly from the thresholds of death.

His best scene comes early in the movie when a rowdy patron steps on Job's bowler hat, while him and Holly are dancing with the belly dancers. Job picks up his crushed hat, laughs for a few second, and then proceeds to punch the offender in the face, which in turn sparks a bar fight. It's a throwaway scene that's played for laughs, but it does effectively set up Job's fighting skills for the film's climax; without this small scene, the audience might wonder how a butler could hold his own against Ayesha's guards.

And finally, there's Rosenda Monteros as the handmaiden Ustane. If She were a teen comedy, Ayesha would be the hot, popular bitch that all the males lust after and Ustane would be the awkward, but pretty misfit who eventually wins the heart of the male hero. Ustane is defined by her warm and rebellious spirit; she constantly defies the orders of Ayesha so she can be with Leo. First, she saves Leo and his companions from certain death in the desert when she arrives just in the nick of time to give them water. This goes counter to Ayesha's original orders, which was for Leo and his friends to make the trek alone. If Leo survived the journey, then, in the eyes of Ayesha, he most definitely is Killikrates reincarnated. If he died, then he was obviously an impostor. Ustane showing up throws a wrench in the works.
Second, Ustane begs Billali to let her go with Leo to the city of Kuma and he reluctantly agrees. This makes Ayesha furious and she threatens to kill Ustane, but Billali intervenes and states, "To be rid of her would be simple, but unwise. If you are to prevail, it is the fair one who must banish her, who must turn against her. He is a man of soul and conscience. These you must destroy."

Ayesha acquiesces for the time being, but inevitably her jealously towards Ustane consumes her and she orders for Ustane to be executed, by lowering her into a pit of lava. Leo protests and Holly interjects that if Ayesha executes Ustane, then it is doubtful that Leo would ever agree to join her in the Flame of Eternal Life. Ayesha tests this out by holding out a dagger and giving the Leo the chance to avenge himself by stabbing her in the heart. If Leo can bring himself to kill her, then Ustane will go free. Leo grabs the knife and it looks like he's going to lunge it into Ayesha's heart, but he can't bring himself to do it, turns to the jelly and bows down to Ayesha. This seals Ustane's doom.

Ustane's death is probably one of the most disturbing moments on film, because it happens off screen  In fact, the audience is given a sense of false hope that maybe she will survive after all. Ustane is last seen standing in a golden cage, looking on as Leo and Ayesha leave the room. We are then given a short love scene between Leo and Ayesha, this is then followed by a scene of Leo saying goodbye to Holly and Job.  Neither Holly or Job make a mention of Ustane's death, which leads the audience to believe that it hasn't happened yet or that  it won't happen. However, in the next scene one of Ayesha's guards walks up to Haumeid, overseer of the slaves and Ustane's father, carrying an urn and says, "Ayesha returns your daughter." The guards throws the urn on the ground and it shatters, revealing Ustane's ashes. This enrages Haumeid that, without any hesitation, he orders the slaves to revolts.

Next to Holly, Ustane is probably the most likable character in the movie. Whereas Ayesha is completely cold and unable to comprehend the human condition, Ustane is warm and genuinely caring soul. She puts Leo in front of her own needs and ultimately ends up paying the ultimate price for her devotion. She's a tragic character; her love and devotion is wasted a man that could never offer her happiness. The audience realizes that Leo is not deserving of Ustane's love, which makes her blind loyalty to him all the more frustrating.

She is an extremely flawed movie; half of the film's running time is devoted to Leo's journey to Kuma, the effects often quite chintzy and laughable, and the lead characters are wet mops. However, compared to The Lost World films that would follow it is entertaining and worth seeing mainly due to the contributions by the supporting cast. Not to mention that any film that has a scene with Peter Cushing dancing is definitely worth a look.


Credits:
Cast: Peter Cushing (Maj. Holly), Ursula Andress (Ayesha - She Who Must Be Obeyed), John Richardson (Leo Vincey/Killikrates), Rosenda Monteros (Ustane), Bernard Cribbins (Job), Christopher Lee (Billali), Andre Morrell (Haumeid).
Director: Robert Day
Screenplay: David T. Chandler (based off the novel by H. Rider Haggard)
Running Time: 106 min.

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) vs. Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

1986 – While watching the television, the family sees a commercial for an upcoming comedy that features a talking plant and stars the geek from Ghostbusters; even better Bill Murray is in it. My sister and I were huge fans of Ghostbusters (and still are) as kids, so we implore our dad to take us to this movie and he eventually acquiesces. We drive on down to Northtown cinemas and 90 minutes later leave the film completely stunned; what had we just watched?  However, my sister and I eventually agree that Little Shop of Horrors was a fairly good movie, despite Bill Murray’s limited screen time; the TV ads completely played up Bill Murray’s role in the film. We explain to our cousins the scene in which Seymour (Rick Moranis) chops up the dentist Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin) and feeds him to the plant and their response is, “They actually chopped up Steve Martin?” Nope, just the character he played. 

Flash forward to 1989- I’m browsing through the TV listings and notice that the local PBS station (channel 10) is showing The Little Shop of Horrors at 11 PM on Saturday night; I am absolutely elated. Though, it does strike me a bit odd that PBS would be airing a fairly recent, big budget movie on their station, but I shrug it off, the important thing is I get to see Little Shop of Horrors again. Imagine to my horror, that instead of showing the big budgeted musical comedy from 1986, they instead were showing a black and white film from the 1960s…an EXTREMELY cheap black and white film.  “Where’s Bill Murray? Where’s Rick Moranis?” I shouted. Not to mention the film end’s on a rather bleak note; the death of Seymour. There’s no happy ending with him and Audrey, instead he gets devoured by the plant and gets turned into a flower.

A few years later, The Little Shop of Horrors is once again airing on PBS and I decide to give it another chance, mainly because there is nothing better on television. And much to my surprise…..I LIKE IT A LOT BETTER THIS TIME AROUND! I finally get the black humor that is prevalent throughout and realize that the bleak ending (Seymour’s death) is the RIGHT ending. Seymour is a complete and utter klutz that there’s really no other way this film could have ended.  I liked it so much that I bought a VHS copy of it at ShopKo for 1.99. 

Roger Corman had such little interest in The Little Shop of Horrors that he never bothered to renew the copyright. It largely became a cult film because of how often it popped up on television and video shelves over the years, it was often common to find numerous copies of the film with a different distributor right next to one another.  I remember one gimmick to sell the video was that it came with a bag of microwavable popcorn. In the 80s the ultimate gimmick to sell old black and white films was to colorize them and The Little Shop of Horrors received this treatment twice. The most common ploy was (and still is) to play up Jack Nicholson's involvement in the film by either giving his name prominent billing on the video case, or a drawing of him holding the plant.

 

Part I: The influence of A Bucket of Blood (1959)

It should be noted that The Little Shop of Horrors is essentially a reworking of the Roger Corman/Charles B. Griffith film A Bucket of Blood.  The Little Shop of Horrors has the exact same plot beats as A Bucket of Blood:  

1)      The protagonists:

In A Bucket of Blood the protagonist is an awkward, slightly clumsy bus boy named Walter Paisley (the great Dick Miller). He works at a coffee house that is populated by Beatniks, most notable among the group is the popular beat poet Maxwell (Julian Burton) who never reads the poem twice, because he doesn’t want to repeat himself. Paisley idolizes Maxwell and has a crush on the pretty hostess Carla (Barboura Morris), while trying to stay on the good side of his disapproving boss Leonard (Antony Carbone).  Walter accidentally kills his landlord’s cat and inspired by the word of Maxwell, covers it up with clay and passes it off as a sculpture. He is hailed as a genius by his peers. The next day, one of his female admirers gives Walter dope as a gift, this exchange is witnessed by an undercover cop. The cop confronts Walter at his apartment. Walter panics and hits the cop over the head with a frying pan. He then covers the corpse with clay and presents it to his new found friends as "Murdered Man." They are galvanized as to how realistic Walter's sculpture looks. The bodies pile up as Walter murders a much hated nude model and a saw mill worker. Finally, Walter is discovered and pays the ultimate price.
 
 In The Little Shop of Horrors the protagonist is the horribly clumsy Seymour Krelboin (Jonathan Haze), who is a clerk at a rundown floral shop.  He harbors a crush on the cute, but ditzy Audrey (Jackie Joseph), while doing everything in his power to stay on good terms with his ever condescending boss Mr. Mushnick (Mel Welles).  Seymour is about to get fired by Mr. Mushnick, when he shows him the new plant he has grown;  Mr. Mushnick will let Seymour keep his job if he can nurse the plant back to health. While sitting up with the plant at night, Seymour accidentally cuts his finger on a thorn and much to his horror finds that the plant (named Audrey Junior after his crush) feeds on blood. He gives it a few drops of his blood and the next day the plant has grown in size, Seymour is promptly hailed a genius by his peers.  Mushnick tells Seymour to call him "dad," that is until the plant takes on a sickly appearance. Seymour is reading up on how to nurse the plant back to help, when he hears a voice cry, "Feed Me!" Much to Seymour's surprise, the voice is coming from the plant. Seymour goes for a walk to clear his thoughts and accidentally kills a drunken night watchman. He then feeds the remains to the plant. The next day Audrey Junior has grown tremendously in size, once again Seymour is proclaimed a genius. As the film progresses, two more people get fed to the plant before Seymour is discovered. 

2)      The discovery:
In both A Bucket of Blood and The Little Shop of Horrors the bosses of the protagonists accidentally stumble upon the hero’s bloody secret midway through the movie, the only thing that keeps them from going to the police is pure greed.
A Bucket of Blood – Leonard accidentally knocks over Walter’s cat sculpture, only to find fur sticking out from underneath it. When Walter comes in with his new sculpture “Murdered Man,” Leonard is about to call the police when a customer offers him 500 bucks for the cat sculpture. He can’t resist the offer and keeps Walter’s secret. Leonard tries to make things right by steering Walter in another direction (abstract art), one that does not involve murder.
The Little Shop of Horrors- Mr. Mushnick is having dinner with Audrey and discovers that he forgot his wallet. He goes back to the floral shop to pick up some cash and stumbles upon Seymour feeding the remains of a dead night watchman to Audrey Junior.  The next morning he is set on calling the police, when he finds a huge line of customers waiting outside his floral shop. Audrey Junior has grown tremendously in size and the floral shop is raking in the dough. Like Leonard before him, Mushnick keeps Seymour’s secret and is relieved when Seymour tells him that the plant can’t possibly get any bigger. 

3)      The conclusion:

A Bucket of Blood ends when Carla notices a finger nail sticking out of the sculpture of a strangled woman Walter did. She confronts Walter and he tells her the truth; he then tells her he can make her immortal like the rest of them. Carla runs out of the coffeehouse and Walter chases after her. Meanwhile, an undercover cop notices a great similarity between “Murdered Man” and his missing partner and he promptly smashes the sculpture with a chair.  He then chases after Walter with Maxwell in tow.  Walter starts hearing  the voices of his victims and runs to his apartment. He covers his face in clay and hangs himself. The undercover cop, Maxwell, and Carla burst in on the gruesome scene; Maxwell proclaims this Walter’s masterpiece and that he would have no doubt called it “Hanging Man.”

The Little Shop of Horrors ends when everyone gathers in the floral shop to witness the opening of the buds on Audrey Junior. The buds open to reveal the faces of the four victims that have been fed to the plant: a night watchman, a sadistic dentist, a thief, and a prostitute. Seymour gets cornered by two cops and shouts, “I didn’t mean it!” He then runs out of the shop and the two cops chase after him with Mr. Mushnick in tow.  Seymour manages to lose the cops, goes back to the little shop, grabs a knife and crawls in Audrey Junior’s mouth.  Mr. Mushnick, the two cops, Audrey, and Winifred (Seymour’s mom) return to the shop to find another bud sitting in Audrey Junior’s mouth. The bud opens to reveal the face of Seymour, who moans “I didn’t mean it” and then falls over dead. 

4)      Other similarities:
Other than the similar storylines A Bucket of Blood and The Little Shop of Horrors have a few other things in common:

a)They were shot in the same set. A Bucket of Blood was shot in the span of five days. Roger Corman realized the value of a leftover set and promptly shot The Little Shop of Horrors (if legend is to be believed) in TWO DAYS, breaking his previous record. 

b)They utilize the same score. This is most noticeable in scenes that involve Seymour and Walter wandering around town, stumbling upon their next victims. 

c)Walter and Seymour both utter the phrase, “I didn’t mean it” throughout the course of the film.

d)Return cast members: Dick Miller, the star of A Bucket of Blood, returns in The Little Shop of Horrors as the flowering eating Mr. Fouch. It’s a small role, but Miller makes the most of it and actually helps drive the narrative by suggesting to Mr. Muschnick that he should let Seymour display his exotic plant. Myrtle Vail, who played Walter’s landlord in A Bucket of Blood, plays Seymour’s hypochondriac mom. In an interesting note, she was also the grandmother of screenwriter Charles B. Griffith, who not only wrote both films, but did the voice of Audrey Junior as well.

The only major difference (the other than whole talking, man eating plant) between the two films is that in A Bucket of Blood, Walter’s love for Carla is unrequited; she never thinks of him as being more than just a friend. When Walter asks Carla to pose for him, she is flattered, unaware of Walter’s sinister motives.  In The Little Shop of Horrors, Audrey for some inexplicable reason reciprocates Seymour’s love.  At one point she even goads Seymour into proposing to her.  Not surprisingly, Griffith would return to this formula twenty years later with Dr. Heckyll and Mr. Hype.

Part II: The Off Broadway Play

In 1982 the off Broadway production of “Little Shop of Horrors” premiered at WPA (Workshop of the Player’s Art) and later open off Broadway at the Orpheum theatre on July 27,1982. The musical (written by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken) followed by the basic structure of the Corman original, but it made a few significant changes to the overall storyline:

1)      Menken and Ashman simplified the narrative by removing most of the supporting characters from the original film; there are no scenes with Seymour’s hypochondriac mother and the subplot of the two detectives investigating local disappearances is completely scrapped. The musical added the characters of Chiffon, Crystal and Ronette who basically serve as a Greek chorus.

2)      The name of the sadistic dentist in the original (Pheobus Farb) has been changed to Orin Scrivello and he serves a much bigger function in the overall narrative; his abusive treatment of Audrey is what motivates Seymour into feeding him to the plant.

3)      Audrey Junior, now Audrey II manipulates Seymour into doing his dirty work. Audrey II offers Seymour fame, fortune, and Audrey if he can keep him healthy. In the end, it is revealed the Audrey II’s true goal is world domination. In the original film, Audrey Junior’s goal was merely to survive and its behavior was on par with that of bratty child, whining until it goes its way.

4)      The Deaths. In the musical, Seymour actively seeks out victims for Audrey II, whereas in the original film he has a habit of stumbling into trouble.  This is how the murders play out in the original film:

a)      The Night Watchman – Seymour is walking through a train yard, thinking of ways to nurse Audrey Junior back to health.  He sees a beer bottle and tries to vent out his frustration by throwing a rock at a bottle, unfortunately he ends up hitting the night watchman in the head. The night watchman is in a stupor and stumbles onto the train tracks, where he is promptly run over by an oncoming train. Seymour panics, gathers up the night watchman’s remains and tries to dispose of them. He gets thwarted everywhere he goes and finally returns to the floral shop and feeds the remains to Audrey Junior.

b)      Phoebus Farb – Seymour has a horrible toothache and goes to the dentist Dr. Farb to get it pulled. However, Dr. Farb is a sadist and enjoys inflicting pain on his patients. He comes at Seymour with a scalpel and in self dense Seymour grabs an electric tooth drill and lunges at Dr. Farb, killing him in the process. Before he can feed Dr. Farb to Audrey Junior, he must deal with the masochistic patient Wilbur Force (Jack Nicholson). Seymour pretends to be Dr. Farb and pulls out Wilbur’s teeth, much to Wilbur’s delight.

c)       The thief- Mr. Mushnick decides to stay up with Audrey Junior and orders Seymour to take Audrey out on a date. Mr. Mushnick wants to make sure no one else gets fed to the plant, but his plans get derailed when a thief breaks into the store and demands that Mr. Mushnick tell him where the cash is hidden.  He points a gun at Mushnick and gives Mushnick til the count of five to tell him where the money is, or else. Mr. Mushnick tells the man that the money is inside Audrey Junior. The thief looks inside Audrey’s mouth and gets swallowed whole.

d)      The Prostitute- Audrey Junior manages to hypnotize Seymour into finding another body for him to eat. While walking through the city, Seymour is constantly be harassed by a prostitute, who is determined to go home with Seymour. He is completely unresponsive to most of her tactics, but she catches up to him as he ponders what to do next. When she asks, “My place or yours?” Seymour spits on a rock and tells her to call “wet” or “dry” as a way to determine where they should go. Seymour throws the rock in the air and it crashes downs on her head.

e)      Seymour- Seymour returns to the floral shop after ditching the police and yells at Audrey Junior, claiming it ruined his life. He grabs a knife and climbs inside Audrey Junior’s mouth and gets eaten for his effort; though he does mortally wound the plant.

The deaths in the musical play out in an entirely different fashion; the victims are not random strangers, but the main characters. Ashmen/Menken were retelling The Little Shop of Horrors as variation of Faust.  Seymour is the Faust character who sells his soul to the devil (Audrey II) to get everything he wants, but instead loses everything in the end. 

a)      Orin Scrivello – Seymour arranges a late dentist appointment with Orin with the intention of killing him with a pistol. But Seymour chickens out. However, Orin is getting high on nitrous oxide and dies of asphyxiation when the gas tank gets stuck in the on position. Seymour feeds Orin’s body the Audrey II. This ends the first act.

b)      Mr. Mushnik- Mr. Mushnik accuses Seymour for causing Orin’s death and wants him to give a statement to the police. Before they leave, Seymour tells Mr. Mushnik that he put the day’s receipts inside Audrey II for safe keeping. Mr. Mushnik climbs inside Audrey II’s jaws and gets devoured. This death is taken from the 1960 film, instead of thief being tricked into climbing into the plant’s jaws, it is Mr. Mushnik.

c)       Audrey- Unable to sleep because of Seymour’s behavior, Audrey goes to the plant shop to talk to him. He is not there and the plant talks to her, begging her for some water.  Audrey approaches the plant to water it and a vine wraps around her and pulls her into the plant’s jaws. Seymour arrives and pulls Audrey out of the plans jaws, but he is too late, she has been mortally wounded. Her dying wish is to be feed to the plant, so she and Seymour can be together forever. She dies in his arms and he honors her request by feeding her corpse to the plant.

d)      Seymour- Patrick Martin from World Botanical Enterprises tells Seymour that his company would like to take leaf clippings of Audrey II and sell them across America. Seymour realizes that Audrey II is bent on world domination and decides to stop him, no matter what. Much to Seymour’s horror neither poison nor bullets have any effect on the plant, so out of desperation he runs at its open mouth with a machete, hoping to kill it from the inside, but gets eaten quickly.

The next day Patrick Martin returns and taking clippings from Audrey II. The chorus (Ronette, Chiffon, Crystal) relates that following these events more plants popped up across America, tricking people into feeding them blood in exchange for fame and fortune.  Audrey II appears with new flowers that open to reveal the faces of Seymour, Audrey, Mr. Mushnik, and Orin warning people not to feed the plants. Audrey II slithers towards the audience and the play ends. 

Part III:  The 1986 film adaptation.

The play proved to be a great success and it was only matter of time that it would be adapted into a big budgeted movie. Frank Oz was chosen to direct the film adaptation, which makes sense given that he was an important part of The Muppets, and operated and voice Yoda in The Empire Strike Back; he certainly possessed the technical knowhow when it came to puppetry.  Frank Oz was determined to retain the musical’s downbeat ending, but test audiences reactions proved to be extremely negative.  A happier ending was filmed, to guarantee the film would be released, so instead of being reduced to plant food, Seymour and Audrey survive and live happily together in a home straight out of “Better Home and Gardens” magazine.  Though, even the happy ending is fairly ambiguous; after we see Seymour and Audrey enter their new home the camera pans down to a garden to reveal another baby Audrey II, who smiles at the camera. Granted, if Seymour were to spot this Audrey II, he probably would dispose of it with a weed whacker.  It’s common now, especially on IMDB boards, to chastise the test audiences for “ruining” Little Shop of Horrors and being “extremely limited in their thinking” in terms of cinema. However, I think the test audience’s opinion was a valid one; both Audrey and Seymour are extremely likable that seeing them get eaten by Audrey II feels like a betrayal. You spend the majority of the film caring for these two characters that it becomes disheartening when it becomes just one long special effects demo reel at the end.

Even fans of the original downbeat ending (finally restored to DVD) agree that it goes on way too long. The original consists of multiple Audrey II’s rampaging through the city, destroying property and gobbling up innocent civilians. It’s an extremely well done sequence; the model work is especially impressive. However, after a few minutes it becomes pretty redundant. Test audiences might have responded better had the ending been shortened; the original play is wonderfully efficient in regards to the ending, very little stage time passes between Audrey’s death and the plant’s taking over the world, it moves a fairly brisk pace.  Secondly, the visual of the Audrey II creeping slowly towards the audience trumps any effect that Hollywood could muster. 

It shouldn't have been too surprising to the filmmakers that the audience would have such an adverse reaction to this ending for many reasons:

1)      Rick Moranis-  The casting of Moranis completely changes the entire complexion of the musical, because quite frankly, he’s extremely likable. In the 1960 film and the musical, Seymour is not particularly sympathetic and is extremely grating at times.  However, Moranis injects a lot warmth and sincerity into his portrayal of Seymour that it’s impossible not to like him.  It’s completely baffling as to why Audrey would fall for the previous Seymours, but it’s extremely believable that she would fall for Moranis’ Seymour, despite his nerdy disposition. Seymour’s main motivation for helping the plant out is that he believes (wrongly) it is the only way he can get Audrey.  Moranis’ Seymour doesn’t really seem to want fame and fortune all that much, just happiness. In the musical number "Skid Row (Downtown)" Seymour sings about his longing to get out of Skid Row and hoping that luck will eventually come his way. 

2)      The Deaths – People who object to the happy ending often claim that it essentially allows for Seymour to get away with murder.  After all, he does feed two people to the plant, so he should have to answer for his crimes. Howard Ashman and Alan Menken were not only inspired by the original film when they wrote the musical, but the story of Faust as well.  Seymour essentially sells his soul to the devil (Audrey II) to get everything he wants and ends up losing everything in the process. It’s karma giving him a swift kick in the nuts.  Seymour in both the 1960 film and the musical never really show remorse for feeding people to the plant, but rather wallow in their new found fame.  However, in the film version it is totally apparent that Seymour is troubled by his fame and how he acquired it. More importantly, and the reason why audience members accepted the happy ending, is that Seymour is fairly passive when it comes to the actual murders. Orin dies of asphyxiation, while Seymour looks on stunned, not knowing exactly what to do.  Mr. Mushnik gets eaten, but is largely at fault for being dumb enough to stick his head in Audrey II’s opened jaws.  Not to mention neither of the two victims are sympathetic:
a) Orin is a sadist that beats up on the lovable Audrey, throughout the course of the film we see the abuse he has inflicted on her; at the beginning of the film she walks into work with a black eye. Later on, she has her arm in a sling. When asked why she doesn’t dump Orin. She replies, “That would make him angry. If he does this to me when he likes me, just imagine what he would do when he’s angry.”

 Not only does he abuse Audrey, but he gets off on inflicting pain on his patients and his nurse.  He’s extremely reckless in his practice, often getting high on nitrous oxide while operating.  In short, he’s a danger to practically everyone around him.

b) Mr. Mushnik witnesses Seymour chopping up Orin’s corpse and decides to blackmail Seymour with the information. Mr. Mushnik has no idea that plant needs to blood to survive and thinks Seymour murdered Orin to get Audrey.  Mushnik holds Seymour at gun point and makes him march upstairs, threatening to take him to the police. However, once they reach the front door Mushnik pauses and tells Seymour he will keep his mouth shut, provided that Seymour leaves town and teaches him how to take care of Audrey II.   

Mr. Mushnik backs into Audrey II, turns around and sees that the plants jaws are wide open. Seymour tries to warm him, but it’s too late as the plant gobbles up Mushnik, who obliging sticks his head inside Audrey II’s mouth, while asking, “What the hell is this?”

3)      Ellen Greene – I’m going to make a bold statement; Ellen Greene should have been given an Oscar nomination for her performance as Audrey, because she is essentially the heart of the film.  Her Audrey is simultaneously funny and heartbreaking at the same time; an extremely sweet, if somewhat ditzy woman that is overly hard on herself for mistakes she made in the past. At one point she tells Seymour she deserved a creep like Orin Scrivello, because she used to work at strip club (The Gutter) to make ends meet.  This is in complete contrast to the Audrey in the 1960 film, who is sweet and ditzy, but that’s about it. She doesn’t really have any ambitions and is content on the way things are.  Greene’s Audrey is a broken woman, who dreams of a better life, but doesn’t believe that it’s possible. It’s a wonderfully moving performance. It should be noted that Greene played Audrey in the original Off Broadway play, so her familiarity with the role helps a great deal.  

4)      The chemistry between Moranis and Greene is amazing. It’s easy to believe that both characters would be attracted to one another, despite their flaws. The highlight of the film is their rendition of “Suddenly Seymour.”  It’s a powerful scene, mainly because it’s the first time in the film that both characters are genuinely happy.  These are two characters that have been miserable for their entire lives, completely unaware that happiness was always staring them in the face;  Audrey doesn’t think she deserves a “nice” guy like Seymour, while Seymour doesn’t believe Audrey could ever love a poor nerd like him.  The “happy” ending is just as valid as the original downbeat ending, because it deals with a theme that is common in most narratives, redemption. Seymour redeems himself by not only destroying Audrey II at the end, but with his love for Audrey. After seeing Audrey get mistreated by Orin for a good portion of the film, it is wonderful to see a genuine smile on her.  The passionate kiss her and Seymour share at the end of “Suddenly Seymour” is probably one of the few times where I nearly found myself applauding a movie scene. The special effects in Little Shop of Horrors are impressive, but they take a backseat to Rick Moranis and Ellen Greene’s wonderful performances. The film would arguably still if it was just a regular romantic comedy about these two characters; the talking, man eating plant is just the icing on the cake. 

The odd thing about the 1986 Little Shop of Horrors is that twice that narrative is interrupted to make way for some random comedy. The first interruption occurs roughly twenty minutes into the film when Seymour goes on a radio show to talk about his weird plant. The host of show is named Wink and played by John Candy.  It’s a scene that could have easily lasted a couple of seconds, but goes on for a few minutes to make way for Candy’s comedy stylings; he spouts lots of nonsensical dialogue while making  funny faces. At one point he pretends to be gunned down by a jealous husband, while Seymour looks on befuddled. This is not a knock on John Candy, he's one of my favorite comedians, but he seems completely out of place in this movie. 

The other narrative interruption occurs midway through the film and centers on Orin Scrivello’s encounter with masochist Arthur Denton (Bill Murray). As noted before, Orin is a complete sadist and beams with delight when Denton says he needs a root canal. However, as the scene progresses Orin gets completely frustrated; not only is Denton not scared, but he actually enjoys the pain that is being inflicted on him, to the point of a near orgasm. Disgusted, Orin kicks Denton out of his office and decides to take his frustrations out on Seymour, who is waiting in a chair. Of course, this scene is directly lifted from the 1960 film, but with a few variations. In the 1960 film, it was Seymour operating on the patient, Wilbur Force, while posing as Dr.Farb so he wouldn’t draw suspicion to the murder he just committed. The Scrivello/Denton bit features two great comedians (Bill Murray/Steve Martin) at the height of their popularity, and while funny, it pales in comparison to the 1960 equivalent featuring Seymour/Wilbur. The Murray/Martin version kind of fizzles out towards the end, while the Haze/Nicholson ends on genuinely funny note: Wilbur with his back turned towards the camera thanks Seymour and says he never enjoyed himself quite so much.  He then turns around (towards the camera), revealing that he is missing nearly half his teeth; the product of Seymour’s handiwork. 

Part 4: Conclusion.

When I was younger I preferred the 1986 version of Little Shop of Horrors, but as time has progressed I find myself liking the original 1960 version more.  This is always a matter of taste as both them are extremely different films: the original was an extremely low budget horror film made over the course of a weekend for the sole purpose of making a quick buck, while the 1986 version was  big budgeted musical released during the Christmas Holiday.  The 1986 version is far more polished in its presentation and has wonderful special effects to boot.  Yet, part of the charm of the original film is in its cheapness. The remake was shot on a London soundstage and looks it, while the original was shot on location in Skid Row (California) which adds an air of authenticity to the proceedings.  The best thing about the original film is that it embraces its cheapness; it never makes an attempt to conceal its low budget, for instance in the background there is a sign that reads “LOTS PLANTS – CHEAP!”  In another scene a group of girls are looking to buy flowers for their float, and Mr. Mushnick tries to persuade them to buy from him, under the ruse that his flowers are special. The girls ask what is so special about them, to which Seymour replies, “They’re cheap!”

In his book Cult Movies, Danny Peary writes this about The Little Shop of Horrors:

Little Shop is in a way a takeoff on Jerry Lewis comedies, with Seymour Krelboin as the Lewis-like character with an IQ of seven, a good heart, a lousy personality, and work habits that drive his boss crazy.

This is a perfect reading of the original Little Shop, whether Corman and company intended it or not. Any one who has ever endured  a Jerry Lewis comedy would agree that Seymour is a lot like the characters Lewis portrayed.  A staple of most Lewis comedies is a scene in which his character delves into self pity and sad music plays on the soundtrack so the audience will feel sympathy for him. The Little Shop of Horrors has a similar scene like this, but it’s played strictly for laughs. At the beginning Seymour and Audrey have this exchange:

Seymour: Don’t waste your pity on me, Audrey. I’m not worth it.
Audrey: Who says you’re not?
Seymour: Everyone.
Audrey: Yeah, I know.

In the musical remake Seymour is an orphan that was taken out by Mushnik for the sole purpose of sweeping floors, scrubbing toilets, etc.  In the original Seymour is a loser that lives in a rundown apartment with his hypochondriac mother.  In one of the film’s funniest scenes, he takes Audrey home to have dinner with his mother, which consists of liver oil soup (“It’s wonderful for the colon,” insists Seymour’s mom).  Later on in the meal Audrey, Seymour, and Winifred have the following conversation:

Winifred: If you’re going to be married, you got to be a good cook.
Audrey: You could teach me.
Winifred: You thinking of getting married?
Audrey:  Well, he hasn’t asked me yet!
Winifred: Who hasn’t?
Audrey: Seymour.
Winifred: Seymour’s too young to get married. Look here, a boy’s got to go out and play around a little bit. Go out on the making! Have a ball!
Seymour: Gee ma! I don’t want to have a ball. I want to be with Audrey.
Winifred:  No, no Seymour! You promised you wouldn’t get married until you bought me an iron lung.
Seymour: But you’ve been breathing for years, ma!
Winifred: Well, it aint easy. It aint easy, son.

Later on Winifred warns Seymour that Audrey’s only after his money. Seymour counters with, “I don’t have money.” She then advises Seymour to never trust a girl who’s too healthy. Seymour tries to win her approval by saying that Audrey has a cold, but to no avail.  

The 1986 remake gets a lot of mileage out of the likability of Moranis and Greene, but it lacks the spontaneity and creativity of the 1960 film. The original film is populated with colorful supporting characters, from Mr. Shiva, whose family keeps dropping off like flies, to Burson Fouch who eats flowers for dinner, “I like to eat at these out of the way places.”
Mel Welles steals the show with his hilarious performance as Gravis Mushnick. In the musical, Mr. Mushnik is more or less a stern father figure to Seymour, but in the original he is a condescending employer trying to keep his sanity as the world crumbles around him. His two employees are completely incompetent, while his business is being driven into the ground. He has a thick, exaggerated Yiddish accent and speaks in broken English. Mushnick has the funniest lines in the film; my favorite being, “Don’t work me about money. I’ve got to get drunk, now!”
Mushnick has never experienced any form of success and is conflicted when business starts booming; he loves the money, but is disgusted by how he's acquired it. Surprisingly, even though Mushnick has blood on his hands (he feeds the thief to Audrey Junior), he never pays for his crime. In the end Mushnick is still standing, while Seymour gets his just comeuppance. In the 1986 version, Mushnik’s role is greatly reduced, he is fairly prevalent in the first half hour, but disappears for a long stretch of screen time. In the musical play he had a number with Seymour called, “Mushnik and Son,” in which he offers to adopt Seymour and make him a full partner in the business (thus securing his share of the profit). This number got cut out of the film adaptation to make room for some unrelated comedy (John Candy, Bill Murray). It's a shame, because it's a fairly pivotal moment in the development of Mr. Mushnik. I always preferred Mushnick in the original; every time he hears the cash register ring, his guilt lessens.  
Audrey II (wonderfully  voiced by Levi Stubbs) is a technical marvel, where as Audrey Junior looks like a cheap paper mache puppet. In the original Audrey Junior is like bratty child that whines when he doesn't get his way, whereas Audrey II is very cunning, manipulative villain; he offers Seymour the world and seemingly delivers, but everything comes at a price. I never thought I would agree with Leonard Maltin on anything, put I think he makes a good point when he writes, "But when Audrey II, the plant, turns really mean and monstrous, with super-duper special effects, the fun drains away." I find the first hour of Little Shop of Horrors nearly flawless (with the exception of the John Candy scene) flawless in it's execution. The audience genuinely likes the characters, the musical numbers are wonderful, and there are a lot of laughs, but after the "Suddenly Seymour" number it kind of stumbles; the effects are excellent, but often they overwhelm the story.  The Corman version, while extremely cheap, manages to maintain it's wonderfully goofy tone; it certainly help that it's only 72 minutes long. There's always something there to catch your interest or make you laugh, while the last half hour of the remake feels forced, often rush, largely because all the action is relegated to the end. The first hour is a wonderful character study on two lonely people who find one another, the last half hour is a special effects spectacle. Thankfully, Moranis and Greene are around to inject warmth and humor to the proceedings, because without them it would be unbearable.  

 Credits:

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)
Cast: Seymour (Jonathan Haze), Audrey (Jackie Joseph), Mr. Mushnick (Mel Welles), Burson Fouch (Dick Miller), Wilbur Force (Jack Nicholson), Winifred Krelboin (Myrtle Vail), Mrs. Shiva (Leola Wendorff), Audrey Junior (Charles B. Griffith – voice).
Director: Roger Corman
Screenplay: Charles B. Griffith
Running Time: 72 min.

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
Cast: Seymour (Rick Moranis) Audrey (Ellen Greene), Mr. Mushnik (Vincent Gardenia), Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin), Arthur Denton (Bill Murray), Patrick Martin (James Belushi), Chiffon (Tisha Campbell), Crystal (Tichina Arnold), Ronette (Michelle Weeks), Audrey II (Levi Stubbs –voice), Wink Wilkinson (John Candy), First Customer (Christopher Guest).
Director: Frank Oz
Screenplay: Howard Ashman
Running Time: 94 min.