Change Your Image
hawked-off
Reviews
The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet: Over Protection (1954)
Being 'over-protective' was different then
Overprotective parents - traditionally mothers with their sons, fathers with their daughters - has been a theme in television shows, and a conversation in popular culture, for many decades. This show demonstrates how different the discussion, and the solution to the problem, was in the 1950s. Ozzie (and the boys) tell Harriet that she is being overprotective of Ricky. Ozzie argues that he's 13 now, and needs to learn to stand on his own two feet, and develop self-reliance. That's when he's being bothered by Harriet to wash his ears and wear a jacket when he goes outside in the cold. It's a bit different, however, when an invitation comes for Ricky to travel alone by train to visit an old friend who now lives in a town 150 miles away. Both parents have misgivings at first. Suffice to say that the conversations and actions surrounding 13-year-old Ricky then (1954) would be very different from those typical of the XXIst century, with regard to a boy of 13 traveling alone. Teens today are considered to be children until much older ages than they were back then, and protection (Harriet's approach) is much more common now (2023) than preparation for life (Ozzie's approach), almost certainly due to the feminist emphasis on the woman (mother) as the primary child-care decisionmaker. When debates arise as to which is more important - preparing kids for life or protecting them from it - shows like this can provide valuable historical background. Many people raising kids today might not even believe that parents ever gave 13-year-olds like Ricky that much freedom and responsibility.
The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet: No Noise (1953)
Early indication of growing problem of noise in society
This show picks up on a growing movement in American society to recognize noise as a problem in moden society. The opening scenes have Ozzie's friend and neighbor, Herb Dunkle, encouraging Ozzie to join the local branch of the National Anti-Noise Society and explaining at length why noise is "a horrible cacophony that takes a dreadful toll on all of us." While the Society portrayed in the show was fictional, there were groups and individuals both in the United States and Europe working for noise abatement, with particular attention to aircraft noise. About 20 years after this show aired, noise abatement reached the point of legislation in the United States with the Noise Control Act of 1972. The show went 'over the top' for comic effect, as usual with Ozzie, for example, unknowingly lighting fireworks in his incinerator during a visit by the Anti-Noise Society leaders. If Ozzie (as producer of the show) was trying to raise awareness about noise abatement in the public, he let the show speak for itself without any direct statements nor appeals to the viewing audience.
Leave It to Beaver: My Brother's Girl (1958)
Beaver (the show) is pure 1950s, with verbatim remakes unlikely today
This story is about as characteristic of the 1950s as it gets, not to mention as different from later decades as it could possibly be. The early-teen boy-girl relationships at the center of the story changed so much over the years that
a remake in any sitcom today (2021) would be fairly unimaginable. A combination of homophobia and the liberation of women are probably what has made the difference - two forces that may themselves have been somewhat intertwined.
Wally is in eighth grade, probably a teen-ager, and is faced with pressure from his mother (and his female peers) to attend a school dance, organised by the mothers to encourage (coerce?) otherwise disinterested boys into paying attention to the girls, who, the dialogue tells us, are ready and waiting. Wally is so disinterested in the idea that he tells his parents, without batting an eye, that he is going to the dance, and will be going there with Eddie Haskell. Meanwhile, one of the more aggressive (I mean assertive!) girls - Mary Ellen Rogers - has hatched a plan to trick Wally into being her date by chatting up
The Beaver at lunchtime and letting him come to her house to run her father's electric trains. Her plan is that sooner or later Wally will come along with The Beaver and she will have Wally on her home turf. Beaver is oblivious to the plot, but not to how his association with Mary Ellen would look to his school
pals, let alone to Wally. He confides in his parents, but makes them promise not to tell Wally, "Because we're s'posed to hate girls."
The 'women's liberation' influences, beginning to enter the mainstream of society in the 1950s, are obvious throughout the story. For example, when Ward expresses his disapproval that Mary Ellen is trying to snag Wally by tricking The Beaver, June counters that as a woman she is proud of Mary Ellen's approach to Wally. Society's embrace of homophobia would come later, in just a few years making it improbable at best that a boy of Wally's age would 'hate girls', as he says in this episode, let alone announce that he's going to take his best (boy) friend to a school dance. For half a century since Wally and The Beaver, and Mary Ellen Rogers and Eddie Haskell and the rest, sitcoms have consistently reinforced the 'modern' boy-girl assumption that some form of dating needs to begin long before the teens, and situations in which boys see girls as 'yucky' just aren't as funny as they used to be.
As for this episode, does Wally end up going with Mary Ellen to the dance, or does he give the corsage to Eddie Haskell instead? No spoilers here. The whole series is on DVD for viewers to see for themselves. Not all episodes, however, are as charming and nostalgic as this one.
The Zack Files: Little Big Zack (2002)
Introspective culturally-sensitive Coming-of-Age story
In most episodes of this series, Zack's family heritage is not part of the story, or is mentioned in passing. In this episode, it's front and center, as Zack regresses to his early childhood, unsure whether he wants to begin manhood as a bar mitzvah. The episode is a departure from the usual wackiness of the series, offering a thoughtful, even touching examination of Zack's apprehension at taking such a momentous step. His conversations with his father, and especially his rabbi, offer insights into the meaning, indeed the usefulness, of a coming-of-age rite of passage such as the one Zack's heritage offers to him. The scenes of the ceremony were filmed at Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda Synagogue in Toronto.
The Zack Files: Run Zack Run (2000)
A message for young viewers in a show about running
This episode begins as a straightforward story about magical running shoes, and then cleverly becomes a metaphor for the lure of pop and sports superstardom, virtually unattainable for the vast majority, yet a motivating force for children and teens which is as glamourous as it is useless, unrealistic and even harmful for healthy adolescent development. The problem of unrealistic role-modeling, especially for boys, has been critical and unsolved in Western society at least since the beginning of the 'media age', with the advent of Television.
As this series is based on a series of some 30 books by Dan Greenburg, perhaps he should get the credit for this added level of 'message' for the readers/viewers who are lucky enough to come in contact with the stories. Credit also, of course, is due the series itself, as the episode portrays Zack's initial excitement at the idea of winning (using only his skill and determination); the influence of unscrupulous promoters (the salesman who convinces Zack to buy the shoes and the lawyer - portrayed by the same actor! - who convinces Zack to sign away his future freedom in exchange for fame followed by a beach house and supermodel wife when he retires); Zack's slow and painful realisation, with the help of his friends, Gwen and Spence, that his visions of fame and fortune may be pointless; and his ultimate redemption.
Yes, I know, this tale has been told before. In fairness, though, even when Goethe created the character of Faust, the story was already centuries old. And this attempt manages to fit the important points into a 30-minute sitcom with the elusive double-value of entertainment and message.
One Day at a Time: Sonny Boy (1983)
Do growing boys need a father figure?
The theme of this story centers around Father-Son night at Schneider's Lodge,
Schneider and Alex's affection for each other, and disappointment over broken promises. It first aired in the early 1980s when the long-held assumption that
adolescent boys needed a father image was being challenged by some feminists
whose belief was that children could be raised successfully by single mothers.
(Other episodes in this series deal with similar issues.) So as not to need a Spoiler Alert, let's just say that the opinion that boys needed father figures was asserted and also was challenged.
One Day at a Time: Catcher in the Mud (1982)
Early discussion of feminism and the previously unquestioned notion that boys need male role models
The tension between feminism and (perceived) male privilege couldn't be clearer than in this episode. Schneider sees Alex doing household chores and avoiding football because Ann Romano, his guardian, feels he's too thin, and could be hurt by the 'big guys', and he (Schneider) expresses serious concerns about Alex's lack of male influence. The previous assumption - "from time immemorial", as Schneider puts it - that boys must learn how to be men from other men is presented in stark contrast with the beginnings of the feminist idea that traditional male roles are not always the best models for male development. The writers present the two positions, then avoid answering the question or resolving the issues by using a female mud-wrestling match at Schneider's lodge as Schneider's way of offering a male influence - not the most sensible of possible role modeling activities. In short, the episode presents serious questions of the time (early 1980s), and ends with absurdity, likely to keep the show within the 1/2 hour time slot alotted. (Such is the curse of sitcoms.)
Middle School: The Worst Years of My Life (2016)
Misses the Mark - Twice
I haven't read the book(s). I had high expectations based on reviews noting that the film "celebrates creativity and out-of-the-box thinking" (Katie Walsh, Los Angeles Times, 7 October 2016), two qualities of education which, in my opinion, are all but doomed in modern Western education. I was disappointed. Other reviewers have covered details of what was wrong, and right, with this film, so let me just say that in trying to make a mass-marketable film, the creators missed two important goals. The underlying message of the film is important for adults, counterproductive for adolescents. As the reverse seems to be the intent, one negates the other. Educators and parents need to be slapped in the face with the fact that schools are conformity factories, not unlike prisons. A light comedy with cartoonish authority figures - the principal and vice-principal - engaging in clearly illegal and inappropriate activities defeats this purpose. As for the adolescents, the message of getting in touch with creativity and out-of-the-box thinking is hopelessly overshadowed by the superficial take-away, that pranks and mayhem are effective and justified methods of achieving creativity (and justice). One more point: yes, this is a "nerd v. bully" film, but Miller, the adolescent bully, is just a red herring. The real bully, of course, is Principal Dwight. Giving kids the impression, even in jest, that they can overcome such a powerful authority figure with a series of harmless hi-jinks is setting them up for a life of detention. The one saving feature of a film that tried to do too much was the touching bond between Rafe and his recently-departed brother. Rafe's difficulty in letting go was beyond heartbreaking, and the maturity he gained in this coming-of-age process was beyond heartwarming.
Eerie, Indiana: The Other Dimension (1998)
Not Quite Orwell, but Insightful Comment on Media's Transformation of Society
Good, bad or indifferent, the pilot of this short-lived series assigns responsibility for the new weirdness in Eerie to the breakdown of social traditions and the mind control brought on by the power of media, specifically cable TV with no less than 2000 channels. (Mitchell: "Are you sure it's the same Golf Channel"? Stanley, incredulous: "There's more than one?") On one level, the show seeks to entertain kids and teens with the usual "kids on a crusade to rid the world of evil" plot lines, the evil cleverly twisted into seemingly innocuous weirdness, an element that is immediately relevant to young people beginning to encounter the world outside their homes. On another level, the script of the pilot mercilessly skewers the contemporary (1998) obsession with media-delivered entertainment and the accompanying breakdown of communication within families and between friends; conformity (five identical cheerleaders all drinking Black Cows in exactly the same way at the World o' Stuff soda counter); and the marketing manipulation, in the person of cable-TV salesman for the Eerie region, Ted Tanner. Through the expressed concerns of our heroes, Mitchell and Stanley, and their counterparts from the earlier series, Marshall and Simon, Eerie and the world are warned that "Eerie . . . will cease to exist . . . it wasn't just normality on the line - it was to be our very existence." With nearly two decades of hindsight (as of 2017) the dominance of "reality" TV, obvious and hidden marketing, and several forms of social media not even invented yet as this show ran its course, makes "Eerie . . . The Other Dimension" prophetic beyond its modest satirical intentions.
Boychoir (2014)
Disappointing crowd pleaser of a movie
The music in this film is almost all modified, some might say butchered, to fit the needs of the editing and pacing. The modified versions, however, are beautifully sung. So much for the purists among us. Since this problem is well covered by other reviewers here, let me move on.
The DVD extras reveal that in the minds of the filmmakers - director, actors, et al. - a central "message" of the movie is the too-familiar cliché of films pointed at children, that one can achieve anything with enough determination, hard work, and perseverance. To make that premise work, our hero, Stet (Garrett Wareing) must struggle with failure, hopelessness, rejection and conflict -- which he does -- and must overcome it using tools he discovers inside himself -- which he also does. What he does *not* do - or rather, what the script does not allow him to do - is give us a clue about where the miracle of his serial transformations comes from. We are left with a roller-coaster ride in which at takeoff he is troubled and seemingly alone, and at the end he is triumphant. Along the way, all we see are the peaks and valleys, with no view of the tracks he's riding on, the weather conditions, or even his real reason for taking the ride in the first place. I realize that to solve this problem, you might need the cinematic equivalent of Wagner's Ring (a 21-hour opera), so maybe it's too much to ask. It could also be solved by having a hero who has dreamed of joining a boychoir and prepared himself for years, whose difficulty is only the fact that he hasn't had the chance until opportunity unexpectedly knocks. That way we'd already know why (and how) he is able to overcome the obstacles that the rigorous choir standards put in his way.
I cannot leave this review without a serious condemnation of this film's injustice to Händel's Messiah, specifically his chorus, Hallelujah (Part the Second, No.44 in most editions). Other reviews have rightly criticised this mistreatment as unworthy of a serious film about a world class boychoir. (I might add that I am astonished that the American Boychoir even agreed to record it in the first place.) It would have been unconscionable enough, had the filmmakers merely added the descant with the sycophantic high-D to the "arrangement" as it appeared in the film. But they went even further, and inserted a conversation into the script in which Drake (poor, clueless, brilliant Eddie Izzard who should have been able to depend on the scriptwriters for historical accuracy) proposes that they "one-up" the Vienna Boys Choir by writing a descant - "we write a new solo part; they were all doing it back in those days; keep it in the same key, and hit a high D". At first blush he's right - descants were commonplace, and are still being written today - but for hymns and folk songs, not fully-composed pieces, published in authorised editions, such as Messiah. I would surrender my entire reputation - undergraduate music degree, sixteen years of professional (i.e., paid) choral singing, and a thorough familiarity with Messiah performance practice going back to 1960, when I was fourteen - if anyone can document even a single instance of a solo descant being associated with Hallelujah in any creditable edition or performance. A descant hovering over Hallelujah would be rather like a beautiful sunset painted over the countryside behind the Mona Lisa. Sunsets are beautiful crowd-pleasers, but for over 500 years, the Mona Lisa as originally portrayed has been quite enough for viewers to marvel at. So with Hallelujah: pleasing crowds quite adequately, thank you, since 1741. The worst result, of course, is that this ill-advised detour from history and musicality may well be viewed by some young musician who will naïvely regard it as truth, since it was presented in such a realistic setting. Inexcusable only begins to describe it.
Baxter! (1973)
How to treat a kid as a human being -- watch and learn!
First of all, the (valid) complaint of some of the other reviewers has been remedied -- this film has now been released on DVD (PAL, Region 2, for the moment). Second, and most important, this film could enter the human development curriculum as a primer on how to treat young adolescents as human beings about to enter and make their contribution to the world, as opposed to mindless sleeping-and-eating robots who need to be sheltered and isolated for as long as possible. Of course, the parents and one of Roger's teachers try the latter approach, but the boy has a mind of his own and finds friends and allies in his neighbourhood and school who accept him as he is -- a bright and resourceful human who is twelve -- and accept him into their social circle. The adult characters are "drawn" a bit one-dimensional, probably so that Roger's friends and allies can contrast clearly with his parents and English teacher. For example, the speed and ease with which Roger is accepted by the romantic couple Chris (Britt Eklund) and Roger T. (Jean-Pierre Cassell) seems a bit contrived, but it doesn't matter. Neither does the fact that a school speech-therapist (Patricia Neal as Dr Clemm) can spend so much one-on-one time with one of her students. What really matters is Scott Jacoby's portrayal of Roger. It is, quite simply, a marvel to watch, and the whole film rides easily on his still-boyish shoulders. (In the same year this film was released, Jacoby won the Emmy for his portrayal of the son of a gay father in "That Certain Summer". One can see his award-caliber acting in this film, as well.) One last point: don't look for a remake of this film any time soon. In my humble opinion, today's society could not deal with a twelve-year-old who makes his own decisions and leads his own life outside his home, in spite of his (crazy, control-freak) mother and absent father, even if he is ready and able to do so. Kids today are "property", and involvement by outsiders, however benevolent, can easily be seen and condemned as a threat to the parent's authority.
The Twilight Zone: Room 2426 (1989)
Cautionary tale, for then and now
It is worth mentioning that the essence of this short episode takes its soul from Orwell's 1984 (published in 1949). It is a cautionary tale about individual freedom vs State control, in which State control seems to be winning the struggle hands-down. The episode was first aired in 1989, a time in (American) history when many "veterans" of the cultural revolutions of the 1960s (including this reviewer) were beginning to sense that their society was becoming more rigid and controlling, both at government levels and in society itself, with the "creep" of dehumanising technology that we once called "automation". In short, individuality and diversity seemed diminished and the State -- and huge corporations -- seemed to be taking over. Even so, it is easy to imagine the great unwashed masses (to coin a phrase!) viewing an allegory like this and easily convincing themselves that this "could never happen here". (Perhaps, for that very reason, it could happen anywhere.) Fast forward a full generation. Viewing the episode 26 years later, this story's depiction of "techniques" of State/social control presents chilling parallels to today's reality. For example, brutality by prison guards against inmates considered to be subhuman (like many of today's sex offenders), or the use of torture to force disclosure of information the State wants (like the water-boarding of today's terrorist suspects). There is no excuse for sex offenders, terrorists, nor other true "bad guys", but it is always helpful to have dramatic/artistic warnings like this episode to remind us that today's scientists, or social activists, or even artists could become tomorrow's "bad guys".
Poison Ivy (1985)
Jason Bateman credit probably an early publicity mistake
A reviewer here asks why Jason Bateman is credited, but cannot be found in this TV movie. Allow me to propose an hypothesis: someone made a crediting mistake early on, because the actor (Joe Wright) who plays the central character (Jerry Disbro) looks so much like Bateman at the time. (Bateman is almost exactly one year older than Wright, and to my eyes, they could almost be twins.) If I had to guess, I'd bet it was the bureaucrat who put Bateman's name on the 1987 VHS release box. The rest is (flawed) history, I suppose. With Bateman's earlier featured appearances on shows like Little House on the Prairie ("He Was Only Twelve", 1982), he likely wouldn't be playing a background camper in this film, hence would be noticeable in viewing it today.
As for a review of Poison Ivy, the first half or more is pure Summer-Camp-film formula reflecting what the writers think the audience wants to believe summer camp was like, more than any reality, particularly with regard to the girl-crazy boys and the fashion-model-wannabe girls. The last half hour, on the other hand, is a rather well-done treatment of boy-overcoming-fears and stealing the spotlight from the pointless and counterproductive "Color War" competition. Even camp director "Big Irv" agrees in the end that Timmy's personal victory is a better example of "the Pinewood spirit" than the all-out-warfare of the camp's "Color War" tradition.
Given the schlocky setup of the film's first hour, this pleasant little moral at the end almost comes as a surprise. Overall, the film is still a mundane audience-pleaser designed to get ratings for advertisers (it was a TV film, after all), albeit with decent performances in the main characters played by Michael J. Fox, Nancy McKeon and the great Robert Klein.
Labou (2008)
Another "formula" film for kids
This is not a bad film, especially considering the IMDb-estimated budget ($1M). It should be pointed out, however, that the basic structure of the cast/characters follows some pretty cliché'd stereotypes. The main "gang" that goes in search of Bayou Bob consists of two boys and a girl (in films of the 1930s and 1940s, for example, the gangs were almost always all-girl or all-boy in similar stories). This is not a problem, per se, but the perceptive adult should be asking why it is never two girls and a boy, or larger gangs where girls predominate, or, indeed, why (these days) is it virtually never all-boy or all-girl gangs? Variety may be the spice of life, but not of kids' films!
As for the individual characters, they, too are stereotypes: the gentle macho (Toddster); the sensible girl (Emily) whose opinions and instincts are right much more often than the boys; and the lovable, African-American nerd (Gavin) whose tech-savvy verbosity provides both plot devices and comic relief. These characters, especially Gavin, are lifted right out of the TV show "Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide" (2004-07). The Asian Emily and African-American Gavin are, moreover, so obviously tokens that any sufficiently aware viewers (are there any?) will be groaning in embarrassment for the filmmakers. Why not make all the characters Asian? Or Pakistani? or any non-Caucasian combination? Even the swamp "monster" of the title is so obviously a descendant of E.T. that Spielberg should be considering copyright action. As for the "greedy oil tycoons buying up swampland to make an oil refinery" (quoted from the IMDb plot summary)? Shades -- no, rip-offs -- of Hoot (2006), and any number of other films and TV movies that pit kids against big-money interests, going all the way back to Bless the Beasts and Children (1971).
In summary, a reasonably watchable film that, like so many others, still leaves us longing for something new. It's as if the "industry" feels kids (and families) don't deserve anything truly original. This attitude is (almost) everybody's loss.