Director: Stanley Donen
Cast: George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere, Red Buttons, Eli Wallach

When I was a child, I went to the local movie theaters several times a year. When I was a teenager, my annual trips to the local movie theaters shot up dramatically. Nowadays, I hardly ever make a trip to one of the movie theaters in my city. For example, in 2023, I only went to a theater once. There are various reasons for this, and the main reason you've probably guessed this is that the quality of movies has gone down dramatically. I have nothing immediate against blockbusters, but I ask that if you do make a blockbuster, please give it a decent script like the great scripts found in many 1980s blockbusters such as Robocop and Ghostbusters. Other obvious reasons why I don't go to the theater much nowadays include ridiculous ticket prices and that the obnoxiousness of other movie patrons has risen greatly. There is one other reason why I seldom make the trip to theaters in this day and age that you might not have guessed, and that reason is that, in my life at least, time has become a lot more valuable for me. I have to make time to plan the trip to the theater, budget the running time of the movie once I am there, and then add the time it will take me to get home. All of that would take a significant chunk out of my day, and believe it or not, I have other responsibilities in my life other than movies. So when I read in the little spare time that I have about moviegoing in the past for the general public, I am quite amazed by the ability of moviegoers back then managing to budget a lot more of their lives just around moviegoing. One reason is, of course, how utterly cheap it was back then to go to the movies. In the 1930s, it cost only about 25 cents to go to the movies - about $4.50 in today's money. If you only have to pay a low fee for a moviegoing experience, then of course the investment in moviegoing time will look a lot more attractive than it does now.

But another thing that made moviegoing more worth your time and money back in the 1930s was that you got a heck of a lot more for your money. When you went to the movies, you'd get a newsreel, a cartoon, coming attractions, a B-movie, and the main feature movie. Watching all of that would take a huge chunk of your time, but millions of people would freely (and frequently) go to their local theater several times a month to indulge in several hours of cinematic display. When some people think back on those days, they sometimes wish that it could be replicated in this day and age. But as much as it appears nice in your minds, I don't think it could work today. One reason is the reason I mentioned before - time is a lot more valuable for most people today. Second, the price of a movie ticket would increase incredibly, and that would get the public to shun movie theaters entirely. Third, I don't think the mindset of people nowadays would accept getting too much of something. I'll bring up to you a fairly famous and fairly recent example of an experiment to offer movie patrons more than usual for their money, the 2007 movie Grindhouse. That movie, as you may recall, decided to recreate the double-feature experience that was still around in the 1970s, including the trashy style that had started in double-features in the 1950s. However, the movie was a financial disappointment, and I think I know why. Certainly, the 191-minute running time turned off some potential patrons. But I think the real reason people didn't come was that the makers of the movie didn't grasp the idea of what the quality of double-features were decades earlier. They were done on low budgets, yet with passion and without major Hollywood studio gloss and procedures. If I had been the producer of that movie, I would have just handed a few million dollars to a couple of talented and enthusiastic independent B-movie filmmakers, and let them run riot. True, maybe the movie's gross still might not have been spectacular, but it would have been a proper homage, and I am sure it would have been profitable, give the much lower budget.

But Grindhouse wasn't the first modern attempt by a major Hollywood studio to recreate the cinematic experience of getting more for your ticket purchase. It actually was way back in 1978, with the movie Movie Movie. Though instead of emulating or satirizing grindhouse movies, the movie was made as a homage/parody of two kinds of movies from the 1930s, they being black and white B-movie programmer dramas, and Busby Berkeley-styled musical comedies. It had an impressive cast as another selling point, including George C. Scott (The Last Run), Trish Van Devere (The Last Run), Red Buttons (C.H.O.M.P.S.), Eli Wallach (Don't Turn The Other Cheek!), Harry Hamlin (Maxie), Barry Bostwick (Megaforce), and Art Carney (The Star Wars Holiday Special). The critical response to the movie was almost universally positive, but the movie proved to be a disappointment at the box office. Producer Lew Grade (Firepower) blamed distributor Warner Brothers for poorly distributing the movie, but I think I know two bigger reasons why the public back then wasn't attracted to the movie. First of all, in the 1970s, the majority of the population had nostalgia only as far back as the 1950s, such as TV shows like Happy Days proved. With rare exceptions, such as with The Waltons, there wasn't a huge nostalgia factor in the 1970s for 1930s culture. The second reason was that Movie Movie was released a year after Star Wars, which was a game changer both in the Hollywood industry and with the general public; Movie Movie, with its feet firmly planted in the 1930s, must have struck much of the public as being "behind the times". Well, while this critic is more a modern person, I do respect and often enjoy older cinema, so I felt that a nostalgic look at a bygone era, with a little fun poked at it for good measure, might prove to be a rewarding movie experience for me.

The first of the two mini-movies in Movie Movie is titled Dynamite Hands, which is a recreation of those black and white B features of yesteryear that all the same pushed positive all-American messages to the audience, despite their lower budgets. See if any of this sounds familiar: A young man named Joey (Hamlin), who has aspirations to be a lawyer, is desperate to have his poor sister Angie (Kathleen Beller, Time Trackers) get the operation she needs to reverse her losing eyesight, but Joey is too poor in the other sense to pay for the operation. One day, circumstances have Joey end up punching and knocking out a boxer, and this catches the eye of one "Gloves" Malloy (Scott), a boxing manager. Malloy manages to convince Joey to try his hand at boxing, and Joey eventually accepts the offer despite reluctance, since it may help him to raise the money for his sister's operation. Surprisingly, Joey proves to be apt at boxing, and his notoriety quickly grows along with his being seduced by the pleasures of fame. Meanwhile, Angie falls in love with hoodlum Johnny Danco (Bostwick) as sleazy rival boxing manager Vince Marlow (Wallach) arranges for Joey to fight his prized boxer in a championship match. Will Joey prevail in both his internal and external challenges? More importantly, is this mini-movie as corny and predictable as it reads? A big "yes" to both questions. But the corniness and predictability here are presented in a manner that shows not only how absurd they were in those old programmers, but given an extra touch to make modern audiences laugh at them. Yes, Joey falls in love with a sleazy woman (Ann Reinking, Annie), but her seductive charms are presented over the top in a nightclub dance sequence that back in the 1930s would have been considered X-rated. Yes, Joey just before the climatic bout is told by Marlow to take a dive, but what makes it funnier is Joey also learns his parents and Malloy have also bet the farm on him. Also, the dialogue throughout the mini-movie manages both to sound right out of a real 1930s movie, yet given an extra push to accent the absurdity. Joey laments his sister's situation by bemoaning, "Do you know what they charge for an eye? An arm and a leg" With his sweetheart Betsy (Van Devere), he assures his faithfulness by telling her, "Don't you know that when I met you, I lost all interest in women?" Actor Harry Hamlin pretty much nails the gee-whiz attitude and conviction this and other dialogue Joey has, and at the same time is likable enough that we in the audience root for him despite also laughing at him for being so familiar. The rest of the cast does well soon, but it's Wallach who deserves the ultimate prize for the mini-movie's best actor award - he plays it completely straight, not going over the top with his character's sleaziness, and he'd fit perfectly in a real 1930s B movie.

The second of the two mini-movies is titled Baxter's Beauties of 1933, which is not only in color, but a musical to boot. This concerns a Broadway musical producer by the name of "Spats" Baxter (Scott) who, upon learning he has a terminal illness, decides he'll not only make one more show, but one that will be his greatest achievement. Baxter's accountant Dick (Bostwick) is an inspiring songwriter/stagewriter, and writes what he feels will be the great stage presentation his boss wants. As the production goes on, Dick falls in love with newly arrived actress Kitty (Rebecca York), something that infuriates the production's lead actress Isobel (Van Devere), because the diva Isobel wants Dick (in both senses.) Baxter is not only under pressure to cow to Isobel's demands so that the show can go on, but there are additional complications that include trying to raise enough money for all the show's expenses. Will the show go on? If you've seen Singin' In The Rain, you probably saw a few small echoes in this storyline that will answer that question, though you might find it odd that this 1933 period story is in some ways emulating the story from a 1950s movie. Still, that didn't bother me too much, because this second mini-movie is equally wonderful. Like Dynamite Hands, this mini-movie is not only designed to poke fun at a formula (this being the "let's put on a show" kind), it is filled with zingy one-liners (example: "Sometimes cruelty can be very unkind"), nice lightly comic performances (Bostwick gets to pull off his own "gee whiz" performance as Hamlin did in the first mini-movie), and accurate touches out of the golden age of Hollywood, such as a apartment rooftop number that's obviously filmed on a studio stage. Which is a good place to tell of Beauties' showstopping feature: The musical numbers. It shouldn't be a surprise that the musical numbers are very good, because in the past, the movie's director/co-producer, Stanley Donen, directed classic Hollywood musicals such as Seven Brides For Seven Brothers and (yes) Singin' In The Rain. Donen is assisted by choreography by the acclaimed Broadway/Hollywood choreographer Michael Kidd (Guys And Dolls), and some dead-on songs written by the movie's screenwriters Larry Gelbart (Tootsie) and Sheldon Keller (Cleopatra Jones), with music by Ralph Burns (The World's Greatest Lover). As I said, what we see of these musical numbers is very well done, but the problem that holds them back from having the maximum impact of numbers from classic musicals is that we don't quite get to see enough of them. The climactic presentation, though downright spectacular and breathtaking to behold at times, all the same has a somewhat short running time, plus some sudden edits between the numbers in this climactic presentation.

While I am still speaking about Baxter's Beauties, I thought it was a bit inappropriate for a story that takes place in 1933 to be shown in full 3-color Technicolor; the first 3-color Technicolor movie, Becky Sharp, actually didn't come out until 1935. Yeah, yeah, I know... if all of Movie Movie had been presented in black and white, the movie would have been a tougher sell towards the public. (Though be warned: Some older home video editions of this movie have Dynamite Hands presented in color.) I could also mention that for a movie that aims to be a recreation of 1930s movie, the movie has some modern touches such as elaborate camera movements, and for what was supposed to be a recreation of a B movie programmer, Dynamite Hands has some surprisingly lavish and big sets. On the other hand, if the sets had been more scaled back, we wouldn't have the joke of both mini-movies recycling the same sets. Speaking of jokes that carry through both mini-movies, it was amusing to see the same stock footage used twice, as well as actors Art Carney and Red Buttons essentially playing the same character in both mini-movies. Both mini-movies also have overly elaborate "wipes" used to transition between scenes. All of this shows that the makers of Movie Movie not only were trying very hard to recreate those old style of movies, they had a lot of love and affection for those old movies. Sure, they poke fun at these movies, but never in a mean-spirited manner, and you end up both nodding and laughing at the gags. Apart from the slight stumble when it comes to the musical numbers in Baxter's Beauties, there really isn't anything else negative I can say about Movie Movie. Well, come to think of it, there is one thing missing from this movie. While the movie also comes with a faux movie trailer (amusingly spoofing World War One films), plus a charming introduction to the entire package hosted by George Burns, this double feature is sorely missing one thing: a cartoon. How much I would have loved to see a spoof of cartoons from this period! Though it might have been a challenge, given the expense of animation during the late 1970s, plus the fact that those old cartoons were already pretty funny. Still, Movie Movie is a movie you'll give double love to, whether you're a fan of old Hollywood movies or not.

(Posted August 11, 2024)