Revenge of the Creature (1955)

The Creature From the Black Lagoon was such a smash hit that it was inevitable that the studio was going to produce a sequel; this is Universal Studios, after all, who were the king of the Monster movies.  Interestingly, Revenge of the Creature was a rarity (for the time) in that it went into production before the first movie was released.  This is common practice now a days (where studios often have their movies planned out years in advance) but pretty much unheard of in the 1950s.

Revenge of the Creature maybe the most contrived and awkwardly scripted out of all the Universal Monster movies (which is saying quite a lot). For instance, it’s about the twenty minute mark where the heroine, Helen Dobson (Lori Nelson), makes her first appearance and her first lines are awkwardly scripted exposition about the Gill Man (she is being interviewed by a reporter).  Our (sort of) main character, Professor Clete Ferguson (John Agar), doesn’t first appear until about the fifteen minutes in, has a few lines of a dialogue (he learns the Gill Man has been capture and taken to Marine Land) and then doesn’t reappear until about the half hour mark. That’s a considerable chunk of screen time that is devoted to supporting characters. Indeed, a first time viewer might assume that Joe Hayes (John Bromfield) is the main character because not only does he capture the Gill Man, but also awakens the creature from its coma.  Not to mention, he is romantic linked to Helen Dobson; he waves at her while he’s trying to revive the Gill Man in a water tank.  Then Professor Ferguson enters the picture and Joe Hayes is relegated as a romantic rival to Ferguson before being killed off by the Gill Man.  I can only imagine what John Bromfield’s reaction to the script must have been, “Alright I’m the lead character.  I capture the Gill Man.  I get the girl…..wait, who the hell is Professor Ferguson. Where is my character? He just got KILLED! WHAT?!”

 

Maybe Jack Arnold and company were trying to subvert audiences’ expectations by making them believe Joe Hayes was the main character only for Professor Ferguson to take his place.  I don’t know. It’s an odd decision. It also odd how the movie  abandons  the love triangle that it sets up; Professor Ferguson, after having asked Helen out on a date,  is annoyed that Hayes is trying to cut in on his action, but other than this brief scene the two men enjoy a fairly cordial relationship.

The main problem I have with this substitution of leads is that John Bromfield has much stronger screen presence than John Agar and is far more interesting to watch. His Joe Hayes’ is a fairly arrogant character but also exhibits true bravery and compassion; this is best represented in the scene where he revives the comatose Gill Man. The Gill Man could awaken at any moment and possibly kill him, but he carries on with his job.  In the commentary for Revenge of the Creature, Lori Nelson states that she had a huge crush on John Bromfield, which might explain why there is zero chemistry between John Agar and her.  

The best word to describe John Agar is affable; he comes across as being a man who would be more comfortable running a grocery store than being a movie star. He exudes friendliness (his co-stars have nothing but good things to say about him), but is an extremely rigid leading man.  Though, in fairness to John Agar, the script really doesn’t give him much to do.  While he is kind of stiff, at least Agar is putting forth an actual effort.  If you want to see a truly dreary leading man, check out Hugh Marlowe in Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.  After watching that movie, you will appreciate Agar’s jovial performance. The most surprising aspect of Revenge of the Creature is there is no clash of ideology between Ferguson and Hayes. They are essentially the same: both of them put their moves on Helen moments after meeting her; both of them are extremely opportunistic, and neither of them seems to have any qualms about keeping the Gill Man in captivity.  Joe Hayes is, essentially, the human villain of the piece, but Ferguson doesn’t once object to his method. In fact, Ferguson inflicts far more pain on the Gill Man than Hayes ever does; Ferguson shocks the Gill Man with a cattle prod, with Helen’s assistance, in attempt at conditioning the creature to obey verbal commands.  Ferguson expresses regret at having to use the cattle prod, but he continues with the experiment any ways. 

In The Creature From the Black Lagoon, David and Mark were on opposite ends of ideological spectrum and had distinct ideas about the Gill Man. David genuinely wanted to study the Gill Man and its environment, while Mark  only wanted to exploit the creature for financial gain. There is genuine tension between the two characters and it culminates in a fist fight. When Mark shoots a spear gun in David’s direction, we initially believe his trying to kill David, but it turns out that he fired the shot to scare off the Gill Man. I also find it odd that Hayes is killed off so early; the Gill Mans offs him at the end of the second act. Normally, the human villain would get his just comeuppance in the final reel, but nope, Joe Hayes bites it in a fairly anti-climatic manner. 

The only thing that really distinguishes Ferguson from Hayes (other than physical appears) is that Hayes is much more active character. Ferguson and Helen are extremely passive characters. After the Gill Man has killed Joe Hayes and escaped from Marine Land, what do our heroes do? Do they organize a search party for the Gill Man? Do they mourn the loss of a colleague? NOPE!!!! They go on a romantic getaway.   They go for a carefree swim and then, later that night, out dancing! Have they forgotten the Gill Man is still on the loose? This leads to an extremely contrived third act where the Gill Man is magically able to find Helen.  He just happens to emerge right outside the very motel she is staying at. How? Are they telepathically linked? The movie doesn’t indicate so. Later, he breaks into a night club and abducts Helen, while everyone runs out of frame. How was he able to find her? It’s a good thing, for the Gill Man, that they didn’t stray too far from the ocean while going on their romantic getaway.  These are quite possibly the laziest protagonists in 1950s sci-fi.   It’s only after Helen has been abducted by the Gill Man that Ferguson joins in on a search party. 

This scene occurs AFTER the Gill Man has escaped and Joe Hayes has been killed!
OUR PROTAGONISTS, ladies and gentlemen!!!! 

It’s really hard to evaluate Lori Nelson’s acting, because Helen Dobson is purely an eye candy role.  She looks great in bathing suit!!! The only conflict, and characterization, given to her is whether she should continue being an ichthyologist, or if she should get married and have children. I’m sure most modern viewers will cringe at this scene.  It also doesn’t help that Ferguson seems to chide her for wanting a career.  Normally, I wouldn’t fault a movie for delving into a character development, but these characters are simply not that interesting.  In fact, it genuinely surprised me how much screen time is devoted to the Ferguson/Helen romance when the movie’s main selling point is the Gill Man. The movie really drags in the second act and really doesn’t pick up until Helen has been taken by the Gill Man. 

The Gill Man is, by far, the most interesting character in the entire movie, because it is, essentially, the protagonist of the entire series.  In the first movie, it only kills because its territory has been intruded upon by outsiders.  In the second movie, the Gill Man is taken from his naturally habitat and held in captivity (while tourists gawk at it from an observation window).  The Gill Man doesn’t have a moral compass, so it naturally lashes out at those who have wronged him (or get in his way).  Our human protagonists don’t seem to have any qualms about putting the Gill Man on exhibition, and only really view the creature as a test subject.  If Revenge of the Creature were made now a days there would undoubtedly be a subplot about cloning the Gill Man and using it for military purposes.  There would be some military hotshot barking orders at our scientist heroes, while they would insist upon more time (e.g. Jurassic World).  Thankfully, Revenge of the Creature was made in a simpler time (and on a fairly small budget) hence this potential subplot never sees the light of day.

It is interesting how Revenge of the Creature seems to anticipate the Slasher movies of the 1980s.  It maybe an early example of a movie mixing sex and horror; in one scene the Gill Man stalks Helen outside her motel room and stares  at her while she disrobes to take a shower. This is fairly tame by modern standards but was fairly steamy for the time (Lori Nelson plays most of the scene in her undies).  Revenge of the Creature may also be the first “dead teenager” movie; the Gill Man brutally murders two college frat boys that run to the aid of the unconscious Helen. One of them is thrown against a tree – predating Jason Voorhees smashing a female camper against a tree in Friday the 13^th, Part VII: The New Blood. It’s a fairly violent murder scene for 1955. Though, it is awkwardly stage (you can see the wire pulling the stuntman towards the tree).  Why do I watch these movies?  If you ever feel the urge to watch Revenge of the Creature, here is my advice: Watch the first fifteen minutes and then fast forward through all the dull scenes with Professor Ferguson and Helen – it will make for a more fun and interesting movie. 

My rating (just for this review) ** ½  (out of ****)

Credits
Cast:  John Agar (Professor Clete Ferguson), Lori Nelson (Helen Dobson), John Bromfield (Joe Hayes), Nestor Paiva (Lucas), Grandon Rhodes (Jackson Foster), Dave Willock (Lou Gibson), Robert B. Williams (George Johnson), Charles Cane (Captain of Police ), Ricou Browning (The Gill Man – In Water/Lab Technician), Tom Hennesy (The Gill Man – On Land/ Marine Land Diver), Clint Eastwood (Jennings), Brett Halsey (Pete).
Director: Jack Arnold
Screenplay: Martin Berkeley, William Alland (story).
Running Time: 82 min.

Married With Children: Poppy's By the Tree (Air Date: Sept. 27, 1987)

“WOOOOOOOOOOO! YEAH AL!” 

Given the many dysfunctional family sitcoms that have saturated the market in the last few decades, it’s easy to forget just how innovative Married…With Children truly was.  It came out in the era of Family Ties, The Cosby Show, and Growing Pains; television shows with practically perfect families.  Married...With Children not only feature an extremely dysfunctional family unit, but it was airing on an upstart network, FOX, to boot.  It was a show that was reviled by the critics, and the source of much controversy, but was loved by the middle class. It was also a show that was watched by a fairly wide demographic; it appealed to both adults and children (despite its often lewd content).  I’m probably one of many Generation Xers that grew up watching the Bundys; the first episode aired when I was seven years-old and it was, finally, cancelled shortly after I turned eighteen. 

While the Bundys were an extremely dysfunctional family, they were far more relatable than most television families.  In other sitcoms the parents often held high paying jobs and were well liked by the community, in Married…With Children, Al worked as a shoe salesman and was reviled by the neighbors.  Married…With Children was one of the few sitcoms I remember where money was an issue; because of Al’s low paying job the family would often have to cut corners, or resort to devious means to get what they wanted.  They were a truly unique bunch: Every time Al, the patriarch of the group, walked through the front door he looked like a man who had just been sentenced to life imprisonment; Peg was a stay at home mom who didn’t cook, clean, and spent her day watching television and eating bonbons; Kelly, their oldest child, was a ditzy peroxide blonde who was barely literate but extremely popular with the boys; and Bud, their pint sized son, was easily the smartest of the group but was often a slave to his starved libido.  Bud and Kelly usually had to fend for themselves, because their parents were fairly indifferent towards them.  Married….With Children greatly benefited from its likable cast who some how managed to make these truly repugnant characters endearing. 

The only “close” friends Al and Peg had were the Rhoades, the newly wed couple next door, who were new to the neighborhood and thus blindly walked into a friendship with the Bundys. In most TV sitcoms, the family had a fairly positive influence on the people around them, while in Married…With Children, the Bundys are often a negative influence and tend to bring out the worst in the people around them.  I prefer the earlier seasons with Steve, rather than the Jefferson D’Arcy era, because there is far more interesting dynamic between Al Bundy and Steve Rhoades.  When we first meet Jefferson he is already a scoundrel, hence Al’s influence on him is fairly minimal.  When we first meet Steve, he is truly in love with his new bride, Marcy, and has a promising career as a banker.  His future is limitless. Yet, as the seasons progress, Al’s bad influence begins to rub off on Steve and by season four he is a total dead beat. He loses his job at the bank and his marriage with Marcy has soured to the point where he ends up leaving her.  I also think Marcy was better served in these early seasons; like Steve, she has a promising future on the horizon. However, despite her success, she is filled with insecurities; due to a fairly traumatic childhood.  She was often the voice of reason; when Al and Peg come up with a scheme to make money, she often, and correctly, points out the sheer stupidity of it. Unfortunately, once the show entered its later seasons, Marcy was reduced to a stereotypical feminist – angry to the core and extremely vindictive – a far cry from her yuppie origins. 

I was initially going to do a general overview of the entire series, but decided to focus one of my two part episode, “Poppy’s By the Tree” to illustrate just how unique, and subversive, Married…With Children truly was.   

“Poppy’s By the Tree” is essentially a parody of the two part “vacation” episode that was common among sitcoms at the time. In these episodes, the families would take a trip to an exotic location (usually Hawaii). It was essentially an excuse for the cast and crew to go on all expensed paid trip to Hawaii (on whatever exotic destination the writers came up with).  In “Poppy’s By the Tree,” Al takes him family to a complete dive in Florida called Dumpwater which is known for two things; this rundown motel called Poppy’s By the Tree and an ax wielding serial killer that kills obnoxious tourists every five years.  In a normal sitcom we would be treated to all the beautiful scenery, but in Married…With Children we are forced to endure some of the cheapest and ugliest sets in television history. In fact, there is no effort by the director to hide the cheap production value as the sets are extremely (one might say overly) lit.  This directorial decision, by Linda Day, effectively portrays the Hell on Earth that the script was going for. 

The trope that is common in the “vacation” episode is that one of boys will fall in love with a mysterious island girl; Step By Step is probably the most glaring example of this.  The oldest son is instantly smitten by a beautiful Hawaiian girl who constantly disappears; making him doubt this sanity. Of course, she proves to be real and by episode’s end they are given a brief romantic moment.  Bud does meet a girl in Dumpwater, but she’s hardly an exotic beauty. She’s a fairly sweet girl who is dumb as a box of rocks; Bud manages to impress her by telling her all sorts of lies about himself (like that’s he’s a millionaire).   Of course, any potential romance quickly evaporates once Al and Peg arrive on the scene and proceed to embarrass Bud.  Peg asks Bud if he has taken his Milk of Magnesia. 

In one of the script’s funnier concepts, the locals don’t do anything to help the Bundys, instead they start a betting pool over what time the bodies will be discovered.  There’s really no reason for them to get involved since the serial killer only targets obnoxious tourists.  The Bundys don’t exactly ingratiate themselves with the locals, either: Al figures that since it’s his vacation he has every right to be loud and obnoxious. He is treated like dirt for most of the year and now he is given the opportunity to return the favor. 

“Poppy’s By the Tree” is also a send up of Slasher movies that plagued the cinemas throughout the eighties.  The episodes opens on a flashback to 1967; the scene is shot in black and white, and scratches have been digitally added to the picture to give it the look of cheap 60s horror movie. An elderly couple is lying on a bed and the wife keeps complaining about what a disgrace the motel they’re staying at is. Suddenly, the door to their room opens and they are promptly murdered by an ax wielding psycho. Like most horror movies of the time, the murder is shot from the point of view of the killer. 

This scene recalls the opening to the first Friday the 13^th, where two horny camp counselors are murdered by an unseen assailant.  It’s revealed later on that the killer’s motive for killing tourist is because they drove his mother to an early death; this is similar to how Pamela Voorhees blames camp counselors for the death of her son.  In Friday the 13^th, Pamela Voorhees comes to a gruesome end, while in “Poppy’s By the Tree,” the killer, while thwarted by Al, gets away with his crimes. It turns out that he is a local celebrity, “the man who met Andy Griffith.” Dumpwater cannot afford to lose their only tourist attraction, so the Bundys make a quick retreat before they fall victim to mob violence.  

Married…With Children resonated with audiences because it spoke many truths about the human condition. Television shows like Leave it To Beaver, Full House, Step By Step, represented what we should strive to be a humans, while Married…With Children represented what we wanted to say, or do, in our actual lives but could never get away it. It was, oddly enough, a form of wish fulfillment. 

Credits
Cast:  Ed O’ Neill (Al Bundy), Katey Sagal (Peg Bundy), Christina Applegate (Kelly Bundy), David Faustino (Bud Bundy), David Garrison (Steve Rhoades), Amanda Bearse (Marcy Rhoades), Gary Grubbs (Delbert), Richard Paul (The Sheriff), Charlie Dell (Roy), Ian Patrick Williams (Beany), Becky  Phelps (Gloria), Kim Morgan Greene (Becky), Vic Polizos (The Killer), Dan Gauthier (Kelly’s Boyfriend), Sandy Sprung (Dottie), Bill Marcus (Harold).

Director: Linda Day
Writers: Michael G. Moye, Ron Leavitt.
Running Time: 45 min (two episodes)

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

This is going to be a rather short review, because there is very little more to be said about Avengers: Infinity Wars. I’m not really interested in discussing spoiler or fan theories, so rather I’ll can do is give my initial impression. Avengers: Infinity War is the biggest Marvel movie to date; it is by no means the best. It is very reminiscent of the all star epics that dominated the cinema in the 1960; it is, essentially, The Longest Day of Super Hero movies.  While I don’t agree with the popular consensus on the movie (it currently ranked number in fifteen in the IMDB top 250), it is nevertheless a fairly entertaining movie.  The best thing I can say about the Marvel Extended Universe is that they have yet to make a bad movie; even their lesser movies fairly entertaining. 

The common criticism surrounding the movie is that it doesn’t stand on its own. NO KIDDING! The movie is not designed be a stand alone movie. The filmmakers are assuming that the audience is well versed in the Marvel Universe. This approach to filmmaking is annoying to many, but is not unprecedented; the old serials were constructed in a very similar manner. If you missed one chapter of the serial, then the rest of the story was nearly incomprehensible.  The Marvel Extended Universe very much carries on the tradition of serials like: Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe, Atom Man vs. Superman, and Batman and Robin; except that the Marvel movies have bigger budgets, better special effects, and first rate acting.  If Avengers: Infinity War was a 1940s serial most of the men would have pot bellies, and many of the effects would be achieved via stock footage of natural disasters. 

"They don't make them like to used to" is sometimes a good thing.
"Captain America" from 1944
"Captain America" present day.

I prefer Marvel’s trippier, outlandish movies like Guardians of the Galaxy series, Doctor Strange, and
Thor: Ragnorak. Naturally, my favorite parts of Avengers: Infinity War scenes featuring Thor, Rocket Raccoon, and Groot going off on a space advance, and  Doctor Strange, Iron Man, Spider-Man, and the rest of the Guardians teaming up to fight Thanos. This is also, ironically, the biggest flaw of the movie – all the fun, interesting characters are paired up in outer space, while the serious, less interesting characters are teamed up on Earth.  For instance, I find neither Vision nor Scarlet Witch to be particularly interesting characters, but much of the movie centers around their relationship.  It’s a rather forced romance that comes out of left field (I’m not familiar with the comics) and the chemistry between Paul Bettany and Elizabeth Olsen is nonexistent.   

Chris Evans (as Captain America) and Scarlet Johansson (Black Widow) are both fine actors, but they are given very little to do. Captain America has been in hiding since the events of Captain America: Civil War (possibly my least favorite Marvel move), so the movie slowly builds towards his return and once he has finally entered the picture, he is tossed aside so the star crossed romance between Vision and Scarlet can come to in its inevitably conclusion.  UGH! Can we please back to Doctor Strange and Iron Man trading barbs? I wonder what Thor is doing at the moment? What role will the Guardians of the Galaxy play? Of course, I’m sure there are many fans that feel the complete opposite of me. To each their own. 

However, the real star of Avengers: Infinity War is Thanos, wonderfully played by Josh Brolin. Thanos is one of Marvel’s more interesting villains; he is a complete tyrant that is also capable of showing love and compassion. His relationship with his adapted daughter Gamora is extremely complicated; he trained her as ruthless killer, so she could help carry out his plans, but he does genuinely love her.  Josh Brolin’s performance is the glue that holds the movie together and his strong presence keeps this movie going at a fairly fast pace (despite it being two and a half hours long). 

Credits
Cast:  Josh Brolin (Thanos), Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange),  Chris Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America), Scarlet Johansson (Black Widow),  Chris Pratt (Star Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Tom Holland (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch), Paul Bettany (Vision), Chadwick Boseman (T’Challa/ Black Panther), Anthony Mackie( Sam Wilson/Falcon), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner),  Bradley Cooper (Rocket Raccoon – voice), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Mar Machine),  Karen Gillan (Nebula), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Letitia Wright (Shuri), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), William Hurt (Secretary of State Ross), Terry Notary (Cull Obsidian), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Carrie Coon (Proxima Midnight), Michael James Shaw (Corvus Glave), Benedict Wong (Wong), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Benicio Del Toro (The Collector), Vin Diesel (Groot – voice), Winston Duke (M’Baku), Florence Kasumba (Ayo), Idris Elba (Heimdell), Ariana Greenblatt (Young Gamora), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Ross Marquad (Red Skull (Stonekeeper).

Directors: Anothony Russo, Joe Russo.
Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely.
Running Time: 156 min.

The Freshman (1925)

My first exposure to the comedy of Harold Lloyd was in the early 2000s when Turner Classic Movies ran a marathon of his movies.   I had already been familiar with the movies of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton; The Gold Rush and The General were staples on PBS.  Yet, Harold Lloyd’s movies were largely unavailable for some time, so when TCM ran this marathon I was compelled to watch.  I was instantly hooked. A few years later, when New Line released a box set of his movies, I immediately bought it (twenty seven movies for sixty dollars! WHAT A DEAL!!!).  I’ve also had the privilege of seeing three of his movies on the big screen: Why Worry?, The Freshman, and Safety Last.  This is the ideal way to watch a Harold Lloy movie; it comes to life in a packed house. 

The Freshman is considered by many to be Lloyd’s best movie, which actually surprises to me. The Freshman is an entertaining, often hilarious movie, yet it’s greatly flawed in the story aspect. The problem I have with it is that Harold’s motivation is fairly self serving one– he wants to be the most popular student on the college campus.  His sole reason for going to college is not to better himself academically, but socially.  It is interesting that in a movie with a college setting there is not a single scene set in the classroom. We see Harold try out for the football team, romance Peggy, and go through a whole series of humiliations, but never once does he crack open a book.  In one of the movie’s more clever ideas, Harold is inspired to go to college after seeing a movie called “The College Hero.” It’s not college that interests him, but the idea, or rather the movie’s idea of college that gets him all fired up. He is obsessed with the movie to the point where he imitates the main character’s, Speedy, silly hand shake (he does a silly jig and then extends out his right hand). This, justifiably, makes him a laughing stock of the college campus.  

Harold realizes that the only way for him to be the “college hero” is by joining the football team and winning a few games. Harold tries out for the team and the coach is less than impressed, but after the tackling dummy has been wrecked, he decides that Harold will be a perfect substitute; he replaces an inanimate dummy with a human dummy.  While the coach doesn’t have any use for Harold as a player, he is impressed with the young man’s spirit, and keeps him on the squad; albeit as the water boy.  The Freshman was made an era when college football was significantly more popular than pro football; the idea being that playing football was all well and good while in college, but once the men graduated it was time to start their real careers.  When The Freshman was made many pro football players adopted colorful nick names; this was done, in part, to give them larger than life personas, but mostly to spare their family any sort of embarrassment. It really wasn’t until the advent of television that pro football caught on with the masses. 

The Freshman also has the most offbeat football game ever shown on the big screen. Did Harold Lloyd even understand the rules? For instance, Harold’s team picks up a first down (due to a twenty yard catch accidentally hauled in by Harold), but a few plays later Harold is waiting to field the other team’s punt.  We don’t see any change of possession, so why is Harold fielding a punt? Is this supposed to take place later in the quarter? Are there a few shots missing? If that isn’t enough, we are then shown the worst bit of (fictional) coaching in cinema history.  After recovering Harold’s “fumble,” the other team, with mere seconds left on the clock, opts to punt the ball instead of just running out the clock. This allows for Harold to return the punt for a touchdown and win the game.  Hopefully, the opposing coach was fired after the game, because this is the most baffling play calling I have ever witnessed; and I say that as Packers fan who watched my team squander a twelve point lead (against Seattle) with five minutes left on the clock, thus losing out on a chance to go to the Super Bowl.  AAAAHHHH!!!!  The football scene is fun too watch, but it’s devoid of any real sense of urgency; Harold fighting against the clock to win the respect of his peers doesn’t really carry much dramatic weight.  It is also a bit troubling to see Harold, sitting on the bench,  hoping one of his teammates gets injured so he can be allowed to play. It’s funny, but it goes to show just how shallow his character really is. 

The problem I have with The Freshman is that the football game is fairly anti-climatic; the real ending of the movie is when Harold punches out the College Cad for making an inappropriate pass on Peggy. The Harold/Peggy romance is the real heart of the story and it’s responsible for some of the movie’s more memorable moments:  Harold and Peggy meet in the dining compartment on a train. Peggy is working on a crossword puzzle and Harold sits down next to her. Harold becomes transfixed by the puzzle and thinks he figured out the word for: a name for the one you love.  He shares his answer ("Sweetheart") with Peggy and then she comes back with another alternative ("Darling"), then they go back and forth with different words.  The old lady seated behind them overhears the conversation and mistakenly believes they are showing their affection for each other. She finally chimes in, “Isn’t it wonderful to be in love?” Harold hears this, freaks out, and runs out of the room.

 Later on when Harold is at a dance at the hotel, he notices that Peggy is alone, working at the counter and slowly realizes that his place is with her.  These are wonderful scenes played to absolute perfection by Lloyd and his regular leading lady, Jobyna Ralston. It is hard not to feel for these two people.  It is also interesting to note the one trope that is missing in The Freshman – the popular girl who Harold obsesses over. Though, it might not have been invented yet.  Most teen comedies feature a subplot where the main character obsesses over the popular girl, while being oblivious to the fact that his female friend, who is usually a tomboy, is in love with him.  The Freshman doesn’t bother with a pointless love triangle, because it’s hard to imagine Harold falling for anyone other then Peggy. Harold Lloyd understands this and allows the romance to speak for itself.

In the entertaining commentary, Rich Correll and Leonard Maltin, point out that, like Harold, Peggy is one of the “have nots.”  She doesn’t attend college, but works multiple jobs - as a counter girl at a hotel and helping her mother run the boarding house that Harold is living in. She immediately relates to Harold because they come from similar backgrounds. He doesn’t put on an act when he is around her and is free to be himself.  The question is - especially after having found his soul mate in Peggy – WHY DOES HAROLD CARE ABOUT BEING POPULAR?! His classmates treat him 

terribly, yet Harold is still determined to win them over. WHY? It practically undermines the wonderful moment where Harold and Peggy finally reveal their true love for one another.  Harold, you found a girl that likes for you who you are, to hell with your douchebag classmates.  It’s also interesting to note that Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky follows the same structure as The Freshman; except Stallone wisely places the emphasis on the Rocky/Adrian relationship, while the fight between Rocky and Apollo is a plot device that sets the story in motion.  Even though Rocky loses the match, the movie has a happy ending because he has found his soul mate in Adrian.  

The Freshman is not Lloyd’s funniest movie, but it does make for an invaluable time capsule of the 1920s – all the trends of the time are on full display.  In one funny bit, Harold, while dancing with a college girl, checks the back pockets of his classmates to see if they are carrying a flask.  The Freshman was made during Prohibition, so the possession of alcohol had to be hidden from plain sight.  Harold’s father is described as a “radio liar,” a term that would have no meaning to modern day audiences. Essentially, Harold’s father likes to futz around on the radio and claims that he is able to tune in far away countries.  Radio was the 1920s equivalent to social media; it was a way for people to reach out to other countries. In the football game, there is no designated passer; the quarterback position was virtually nonexistent at this time and wouldn’t really be perfected until the 1940s with the arrival of such athletes like Sid Luckman (of the Chicago Bears) and Sammy Baugh (of the Washington Redskins). 

It wasn’t until recently that many critics began to hold Harold Lloyd in the same regard as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, largely because Lloyd didn’t have the same amount of control as the other two.  Lloyd was the driving force behind his movies but usually relinquished directing duties (Sam Taylor and Fred C. Newmeyer are the credited directors of The Freshman).   While Lloyd may not have been as artistically driven as the Chaplin and Keaton, he was easily the best actor out of the three.  Lloyd could have easily been a leading man in any genre, because there was a great range in his acting abilities. His love scenes with Jobyna Ralston are easily on par (if not better) than most romance movies that Hollywood was turning out at the time.  His movies are easily on par with anything that Chaplin and Keaton put out during this era.  Most filmmakers would agree with me; Cary Grant’s look in Bringing Up Baby was inspired by Harold Lloyd. Hell, Lloyd was even the model for Clark Kent.  Lloyd was even a huge influence on the 1960s counterculture;  the ending of The Graduate was  greatly inspired by the ending of Girl Shy.  The Graduate is often described as “the movie that defined a generation.”  How ironic that it was taking its notes from a comedian of an earlier generation.

Credits
Cast: Harold Lloyd (Harold Lamb), Jobyna Ralston (Peggy), Brooks Benedict (The College Cad), Pat Harmon (The Football Coach), James H. Anderson (The College Hero), Hazel Keener (The College Belle), Joseph Harrington (The College Tailor), May Wallace (Harold’s Mother),Charles Stevenson (Assistant Coach).

Directors: Fred C. Newmeyer, Sam Taylor.
Screenplay: Sam Taylor, Ted Wilde, John Grey, Tim Whelan, Thomas J.Grey (titles), Harold Lloyd.
Running Time: 76 min.