MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > Psycho -- and a visit to 1981

Psycho -- and a visit to 1981

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
34 replies | jump to latest

Bear with me, here.

I do other things in my life right now, but sometimes I do this board. Its a fun distraction from the rougher parts of life, among other things.

I do think -- as do some others here -- that OT posts are helpful in demonstrating "a world beyond Psycho." I certainly had/have one. Even a movie life past Psycho.

But also this: I was thinking the other day how the reality of Psycho is that it is from 1960, a year in which I was so young that I barely remember it, and to the extent I DO remember it, it is for reasons of early childhood, with all that entails: playtime; tricycles into bicycles, Disney movies. What two movies of 1960 do I remember? Pollyanna and Toby Tyler, that's what. (For some reason, I didn't see Swiss Family Robinson until later years.) Oh, and I remember scary TV commercials for William Castles' "13 Ghosts." I already had the thriller bug.

But then I thought this: OK, so 1960 isn't really part of my movie memory years. Its way too long ago -- though I've resurrected it in "fantasy" with these discussions of Psycho.

So I thought: well, how about some movie years well after 1960 -- when I was grown and developed mentally and cognizant and movies filled a new niche in my life? Isn't that more "real" a memory than trying to re-create 1960 for Psycho.

I guess. But frankly, "real movie year memories" can be kinda banal.

I mean what if I was 30 when Psycho came out and I caught it in a half-full theater on a weekday with a crowd that didn't scream? And then I went back to the office to work for the rest of the day. Would I care all that much about Psycho today? Naw.

I give you: 1981. that's kind of how it worked for real. I was thinking about the movies I saw that year, and when and where and with who and then I thought this: wow, 1981 seems like a LONG time ago. That's a hard memory to conjure with. It seems farther back in time that Psycho does!

1981 is important in one way: Hitchcock had died in 1980, no chance of another movie from him. And 1981 gave us the Spielberg/Lucas collaboration "Raiders of the Lost Ark," which formally launched "the Spielberg/Lucas" era of domination and inspiration. It exceeded the Hitchcock era in popularity(because it appealed to Disney kids as well as the older folks who liked Hitch), but it rather lacked Hitchcock's sophistication and, frankly, perversity.

"Raiders" came out in a summer that had a new phenomenon: MULTIPLE summer blockbusters. It had been in the past there there was room for only one: Spielberg's Jaws in the summer of 1975; Lucas' Star Wars in the summer of 1977. But the summer of 1981 saw "Raiders of the Lost Ark" AND "Superman II" (a much more action packed and fast movie than the original.)

In 1981, I moved from Los Angeles where my college friends were and returned to a smaller city where my high school friends were.

Thus: in April of 1981, I saw my last "Los Angeles movie": John Boorman's Excalibur. I saw it in a melancholy mode with LA friends I'd not see again regularly for a long time. So there was some emotion there. The movie itself was bizarre...I recall it seeming to be "all green, all the time." It had a fair amount of sex(all hail Early Helen Mirren, who seemed to REQUIRE nude scenes in her movies) and some gory violence(one scene cross cut from a couple having sex to a man being slowly impaled with a sword), and it told the King Arthur story in a feverish art house manner. Bye bye LA.

"Back home again." The first movie I saw with old high school friends was risible: a comedy called "Caveman" which was , really, quite stupid. Despite quite a cast: Ringo Starr as the goofy lead(the film was set IN Caveman times, with no Flintstones modernity), Barbara Bach as the femme fatale he can't get(Dennis Quaid gets her) -- except in real life, Ringo MARRIED her and they are still married today. Shelley Long as Ringo's lovemate -- cute, and she was going places. And John Matuzak perfectly cast as the Alpha muscleman bully. Great cast. Terrible movie. From Excalibur to Caveman. A bit of a drop off.

Those were in April.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In May, there was someone's college graduation to attend and my father in town, visiting. Somehow just him and me got stuck together and we figured: movie.

We picked Outland. Or: High Noon in Outer Space. With Sean Connery back in '81 between being James Bond and a Daddy figure(The Untouchables.) The writer-director was Peter Hyams, a VERY guilty pleasure of mine who made a crop of movies that probably could be called "B movies with A stars." Capricorn One (1978) was almost my favorite of that year, and Outland wasn't really up to that level of epic fun. But it was tough and gripping and at the end, we got Sean versus a bunch of hired killers, picking them off one by one (in outer space) before confronting the main villain(Peter Boyle) and NOT killing him (boo!) Rather, Big Sean just says "F' it..." and punches Peter out. Well, THAT was satisfying.

A nice male movie bonding session with dad...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

By summer, the action began. I saw "Raiders" with a group of about 20 co-workers; the boss paid for a temp to come in for a few hours and took us to the movies. Loved the movie, loved seeing it with co-workers(among whom I had friends, crushes, rivals, and people who didn't really know me.)

I saw "Superman II" with a male friend. Full house, big audience reaction. At the end, in Clark Kent garb, Supes beats up a diner bully(lightly using his superpowers) and the place went nuts. Next shot: Supes carrying the American flag through the air to return it to the White House. The crowd GOT TO THEIR FEET and gave that shot a standing ovation. Those were the days.

"Raiders" stands as my favorite film of 1981, but "Arthur" sure was a sleeper second. What a funny script. What a funny drunk act from Dudley Moore. What perfection in John Gielgud's Oscar-winning turn as his loving but snobby butler("I am about to take a bath" "I'll alert the media, sir" and surreptiously, "I suppose you'll want me to wash your dick for you, too.")

I saw "Arthur" with...my mother. She had a GREAT sense of humor and we laughed hard at scenes like this:

Arthur in a room with his alpha male killer potential father-in-law, with a moose head on the wall:

Arthur: This is a tough room. (Looks at moose). But then, you'd know that.
Father-in-Law: Will ...you...forget about...the MOOSE.

And some wacky side-bit later on when Arthur knocks on the wrong door and meets a screaming nagging wife and her put-upon husband, and Arthur says "your wife is terrible" and the husband says "I know, but what can I do?" and tells the husband to "get in there, fight back, don't take it!" Well, you had to be there.

Anyway, Arthur. Such a funny movie. And so touching in the end. And a career saver(short lived) for Liza Minnelli as Arthur's true love. She's great in it, too.

I saw it again with "the guys." One guy always and forever loved this line, when the murderous father in law pulls a knife out of a cheese brick and advances on Arthur:

"He's getting a knife out of the CHEESE! You s'pose he wants some CHEESE?"

My friend used to say that all the time. I don't get it.

Women in my life in years after -- several of them -- always gave me this Arthur payback line if I gave them the feed:

Me: Give me your hand.
Her: But then I'd only have one.

Arthur. Great movie. Great drunk act. And of course, that great song that was all over the radio that summer and fall.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Movies with my friends. Movies with my father. Movies with my mother.

How about...a movie with a date?

Yes, I lucked out that summer. No one permanent, but a great summer into fall fling.

Two movies come to mind: Eye of the Needle(with a sex scene), and Body Heat(with lots of sex scenes.) Great date movies, even if they have murder in them. I have warm, warm memories of those movies because of who I saw them with. Those two movies were seen with that giddiness you feel when a date is clicking and "more is on the menu".

But "Body Heat" gets a mention of its own. I saw it several times. By then I knew that Lawrence Kasdan had co-written The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders. He was a go-to guy for Lucas/Spielberg and nostalgia. Here was his chance to do one on his own, and he piecked a quasi-remake of "Double Indemnity" but with all the nudity and sex that couldn't be shown in 1944 (Neither better nor worse -- just different.) Great script. Great steamy Florida heatwave atmosphere(if ever a movie extolled the virtues of iced tea this is it); great supporting cast(here's Ted Danson as the Dancin' DA in the same year Shelley Long is stuck in Caveman.) Mickey Rourke when he was "promising." Kathleen Turner when she was...well, physically different.

And William Hurt, he of the Dustin Hoffman deep voice and the lanky WASP body. He was a star for awhile, but then he rejected the part -- and The Untouchables and Jurassic Park, too. (But hey, he's in Avengers: Endgame -- for 30 seconds.)

Richard Crenna, that unsung great actor, as Turner's smarmy tough-guy husband(the intended victim.) And a nice legal seminar on "The Law Against Perpetuities" a way to break a will that is used to break William Hurt's resolve.

Yeah...Body Heat. After Raiders and Arthur...a keeper that year.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hey, wait a minute. There was a Bond that summer. "For Your Eyes Only." The OTHER song all over the radio with Arthur's Theme that summer. After the overstuffed debacle of Moonraker, here was a "stripped down, back to basics Bond." And boring, too.

Articles about the summer movies reeled off the titles, and by the time the summer was over, we knew it was mainly the summer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but also the summer of Superman II, Bond Whatever Number, Arthur the Sleeper.

Body Heat was, I think, a film of the fall.

I have only two other movies I remember from later in 1981: True Confessions(was that the title?) where DeNiro and Duvall played brothers(and I had personally always thought that facially they LOOKED like brothers) and a murder like the Black Dahlia case was the key element; and Ragtime all the way at Christmas. It had been a big book, and the movie only did part of that book. I remember liking it very much. I remember being pleased with how feisty and villainous James Cagney was in the film -- you had to wait a long time for him to show up, it was worth the wait. And yet, as good as it was to see Cagney back on screen after 20 years of "retirement" -- he came back old, nearly unrecognizable, and immobile. It was a split decision for me to see him again.

I'm sure I'm missing some 1981 movie, but those come to mind. And it seems so, so, SO long ago.

To leave where I entered, Psycho was 21 years before THEN, but its 1981 that I can remember when 1960 is nowhere for me. And 1981 feels a long, long time ago.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And 1981 was an emotional year. Leave one city and see Excalibur. Return to another city and see Caveman. And take it from there. It was a time when I COULD see movies with my parents, when there was more of "the gang" to see movies with(marriages would quickly gobble everybody from the gang up who had not already been gobbled -- including me), and when a movie date could have all the sexy hormonal uplift known to man. Shoulder-to-shoulder and a hand on the knee can feel real good. (I also remember laughing hysterically with her at a German-accented line in Eye of the Needle: "Dis ist ein Needle! Komm hier!")

And I'll bet I watched Psycho that year on TV. I didn't get to see it on VHS, I remember distinctly, until I bought my first VCR machine. In 1982. I watched Psycho on VHS a LOT in 1982. Froze the frames. Saw the nipples in the shower and the blood-string being pulled down Balsam's face.

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Anyway, Arthur. Such a funny movie. And so touching in the end. And a career saver(short lived) for Liza Minnelli as Arthur's true love. She's great in it, too.

========

I saw Arthur on a date. The whole audience thought it was hysterical. Funny to think that nowadays, when drunk driving is such an issue, a movie about a drunk driving constantly could be considered funny. Or a movie about a guy who's always drunk in general could be funny at all. Times, they change.

========

Body Heat was, I think, a film of the fall.

========

Yes, it absolutely was. I distinctly remember because...I saw it on Thanksgiving night. I'd heard about how good it was and wanted to see it. I was so freakin' tired of doing the whole 'family thing' that I decided to just leave and see it. No date, no friends, just went to the cinema by myself for the first time. And loved every minute of it.

========

The first movie I saw with old high school friends was risible: a comedy called "Caveman" which was , really, quite stupid.

========

Yes, it was. And hysterically so!

I remember seeing a critic on a news show reviewing it, and he admitted right from the start that it was stupid, but he loved it!

He said, 'There's no English spoken in it, but if you can't understand what 'Zug-Zug' means, you better go back to sex education classes'. Cracked up the whole news team.

I saw that one with a date...and we brought my sister. And we laughed our asses off.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Anyway, Arthur. Such a funny movie. And so touching in the end. And a career saver(short lived) for Liza Minnelli as Arthur's true love. She's great in it, too.

========

I saw Arthur on a date. The whole audience thought it was hysterical. Funny to think that nowadays, when drunk driving is such an issue, a movie about a drunk driving constantly could be considered funny. Or a movie about a guy who's always drunk in general could be funny at all. Times, they change.

========

Yes. I think Arthur took some heat even at the time for "making drunkenness look funny." (I recall the critic named Robert Hatch of The Nation who was disgusted by Psycho for using mental illness for entertainment.)

But of course, that was part of the daring OF Arthur. Arthur was a funny drunk. Also a sad drunk. And also a RICH drunk , which meant he could get away with a lot of his drinking, ending up in his nice bed and not some alley somewhere.

Indeed, one thing Arthur had was a DRIVER who drove him around in a Rolls Royce, I think. So Arthur himself never drove drunk and never endangered anyone.

They remade Arthur a few years back with Russell Brand as Arthur and Helen Mirren sex-switched as the butler. I didn't see it. I doubt that Brand came close to Dudley Moore's endearing performance.

About Dudley Moore.

He'd been around for years as part of a comedy team --Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. You could find them on American TV(though I think they were British TV staples) and they got a Stanley Donen movie called "Bedazzled" in 1967.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm not sure when Cook and Moore split up, but in 1978, Dudley Moore got a supporting part in the Goldie Hawn/ Chevy Chase Hitchcock spoof "Foul Play" and stole the show.

One year later, George Segal walked off a Blake Edwards sex comedy called "10" and -- Dudley Moore go this first lead. And a big hit. We all wondered if Moore had any lasting star power and then -- two years later-- with Arthur, he proved he DID.

But not very long, alas. I recall Moore using his one-two punch of "10" and "Arthur" to get leads in comedies for a few more years. In one , he took a role that Anthony Perkins played on stage(Romantic Comedy, I think.) In another, he did the old Rex Harrison part in a remake of the nifty "Unfaithfully Yours." He did one movie with Eddie Murphy. And eventually, he did an Arthur 2 (with Minnelli again) that tanked.

I think why Arthur 2 tanked is that the original Arthur was the written work (and directed by) a short-lived(literally) comedy "genius" named Steve Gordon. He died young not too long after Arthur came out. I wonder what other funny dialogue and situations he would have given us. Gordon's death makes Arthur rather a unique film. Its as if Woody Allen only made Love and Death.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Body Heat was, I think, a film of the fall.

========

Yes, it absolutely was. I distinctly remember because...I saw it on Thanksgiving night.

---

Now that's interesting. Here's this movie about the searing sultry summer heat of Florida, and you're seeing it on perhaps the most "Fall-ish" of fall nights.

---

I'd heard about how good it was and wanted to see it. I was so freakin' tired of doing the whole 'family thing' that I decided to just leave and see it. No date, no friends, just went to the cinema by myself for the first time. And loved every minute of it.

---

Loved every minute of the movie? Or the solo experience?

I can certainly speak to both.

A number of those 1981 films I saw, I saw alone. I never wanted to take a date to a "guy movie" or something too grim. Friends didn't want to see those grim or serious movies. And sometimes there is the luxury of seeing a movie just by yourself -- no need to worry if the other person likes or dislikes the movie, it your own private experience -- with the strangers around you, of course.

I just did this last week: I saw Avengers: Endgame alone. I wanted to "finish the series" if only for my own curiosity, more than entertainment value. My companion refuses to see comic book movies(well, I got her into Ant Man because she likes Paul Rudd.) And I knew it was 3 hours, so I couldn't just toss it off to a friend for a quick watch with me. So i saw it myself -- which came in handy when they got to the end and a "face by face" credit roll of all 400 stars in the movie! I stayed to the very last moment. And then I watched the Spider-Man trailer at the end. And then the lights went up, I got up and said goodnight to the three young ushers with their clean-up trash-cans. I was now the only patron in the theater. I said to the guys: "When I see a movie, I want my money's worth," and we all laughed and I left.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And here's a gift. Later this week, I will see "The Dead Don't Die." For that one, I have already pre-bought several tickets. And I will see it with several of the same friends with whom I saw Caveman in 1981. Not to mention Escape from New York that same year(that's one I forgot.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The first movie I saw with old high school friends was risible: a comedy called "Caveman" which was , really, quite stupid.

========

Yes, it was. And hysterically so!

--

Uh oh. I hit on one that you liked!

Well, that's why they have 31 flavors.

And that's why Ebert had Siskel.

I read something interesting(and frank) from Roger Ebert once. Siskel and Ebert were fairly regular guests on the Tonight Show(both the Carson and Leno versions, I think), but when Siskel died, Ebert was politely told that the Tonight Show had no interest in him as a solo act. They wanted the "arguing duo" only.

And this(touching): Siskel and Ebert were backstage ready to go on the Tonight Show when Siskel told Ebert "I suddenly have a massive headache. I'm in pain, I can't talk -- I need you to do all the talking and I'll nod and always say "That's right." It will be a joke on us usually arguing. Otherwise, I can't go out there."

Ebert agreed. They did their act with Siskel near silent ("That's right.") And shortly thereafter, Siskel learned he had a brain tumor.

I recall the many episodes of Siskel and Ebert that they tried to do with Siskel either calling in from the hospital or appearing on the show in a reduced state. It ruined the show -- Ebert couldn't bring himself to argue with a sick, weakened Siskel. But they kept it going until Siskel's death in 1999.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I remember seeing a critic on a news show reviewing it, and he admitted right from the start that it was stupid, but he loved it!

---

I suppose I should see it again in the right mood. I do remember liking the cast: Ringo was funny, Dennis Quaid was in a different kind of role for him, the women were pretty...and John Matuzak (just two years after North Dallas Forty) sure looked the part of a muscleman caveman (he was more of a "guy" than Schwarzenegger, hairy chest and everything.)

I say that every movie has one moment you remember. In Caveman, I remember the one where Starr and Quaid are sleeping on the ground, and a giant fly lands on Quaid's face(buzzing like a big fly would). Starr carefully and quietly raises his hand to swat the fly and when he swings down and swats it -- the whole football sized insect collapses on Quaid's face in a big squishy green mass of viscera.

THAT got a big, huge, long-lasting laugh from the audience. Even me.

---

He said, 'There's no English spoken in it, but if you can't understand what 'Zug-Zug' means, you better go back to sex education classes'. Cracked up the whole news team.

---

Ah, zug-zug. With Barbara Bach and Early Cute Shelley Long in the movie, zug-zug was a comforting thought.

--

I saw that one with a date...and we brought my sister. And we laughed our asses off.

--

Dates with "plus ones" can be fun.

There are so many different combinations of people to see a movie with.

Anyway, sorry we don't quite agree on "Caveman." But 31 flavors, y'know?

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

I'm sure I'm missing some 1981 movie

It was the biggest year for werewolves since the '30s with The Howling & American Werewolf in London. I only saw the first of these at the time and it was OK. I caught up with AWiL in the last decade and thought it was near-great: explosively funny at times but also scary, sexy (hello Jenny Agutter), moving (anticipating some of the notes The Fly (1986) would hit). I wish I'd seen it with a group back in 1981.

More superior B-movie action from 1981: Carpenter's Escape from New York, Cronenberg's Scanners (the exploding head one), Raimi's Evil Dead (the raped by a tree one). What more could a brave teenage-boy ask for? I wasn't brave enough to see the latter two for a couple of years, but they're great and rocked their original audiences I'm sure.

As a burgeoning movie snob (who was nonetheless right on the verge of abandoning movies almost completely for music for a couple of years) at the time the big films of the year for me were: Gallipoli (a huge cultural event down under), Diva (hyped as the new French New Wave, I saw it several times - it felt inexpressibly cool & hip then, but hasn't worn well), Blow Out (De Palma in full flight didn't make much sense but it was so fun & disturbing and gorgeous that that didn't matter), and, yes, both Body Heat & Excalibur.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm sure I'm missing some 1981 movie

It was the biggest year for werewolves since the '30s with The Howling & American Werewolf in London. I only saw the first of these at the time and it was OK. I caught up with AWiL in the last decade and thought it was near-great: explosively funny at times but also scary, sexy (hello Jenny Agutter), moving (anticipating some of the notes The Fly (1986) would hit). I wish I'd seen it with a group back in 1981.

---

Of those two, I saw American Werewolf in London on release, and I thought it was great, and yes, there was a crowd and it veered from screaming to laughing to going "eeww" at Griffin Dunne's rapidly decomposing dead guy's face. The business with Jenny Agutter was sexy indeed(yes, I suppose seeing these movies at the requisite young age was that much more stimulating but her character was great -- a caring nurse who cares for her patient in more ways that one.)

Recall that AWIL was from director John Landis, fresh off his big "Animal House" triumph and his so-so "Blues Brothers" follow-up. THIS one was different from those(and had that incredible "real-time" werewolf transformation involving prosthetics instead of photography -- it looked PAINFUL.)

Well, I do believe that the next movie Landis worked on was "The Twilght Zone," where actor Vic Morrow and two kids were killed by a helicopter falling on them. Landis took a lot of legal heat for that(including a criminal trial) and his career deflated -- but never really went away. About 20 fellow directors supported him by appearing in his movie "Into the Night" of 1985, a real guilty pleasure for me.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Note in passing: I saw a fair amount of movies in 1981 with friends -- but different friends. I saw Superman II and AWIL with the same guy, a guy I knew in LA who had moved to the SAME TOWN I returned to. I looked him up, we saw some movies and did some things. I "merged him" with my old high school friends(sometimes), and it worked out OK.

The years passed and we stayed friends...until he died, pretty much the first friend of mine TO die (cancer.) Luckily there have not been tons more passings since then(yet)....but as you might gather, if I see Superman II or AWIL come on TV from time to time...I think of my friend.

More recently: in an attempt to retain a certain group of now up-there high school friends together, five of us formed a group to see "a movie a month" -- or some other project(golf, sporting event.)

A few years ago, our group saw a disappointing comedy called "A Million Ways to Die in the West." We had drinks afterwards and then said goodbye to each other til next time.

Well, for one of us, there wasn't a next time. He died unexpectedly.

But four of us still go.

And then there will be three....two....

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

More superior B-movie action from 1981: Carpenter's Escape from New York, Cronenberg's Scanners (the exploding head one), Raimi's Evil Dead (the raped by a tree one). What more could a brave teenage-boy ask for? I wasn't brave enough to see the latter two for a couple of years, but they're great and rocked their original audiences I'm sure.

---

This is kind of fun. I saw Scanners in LA as one of my "last movies there." The opening scene where the bald man's head exploded was ultra-suspenseful, I felt, BECAUSE of his huge bald head -- you could just FEEL that it would explode. And you could feel the evil of the other man whose powers did the exploding.

Escape from New York I saw in the city I returned to. The "gang." And we saw it at a drive-in(I realize now that, yes, we -- though not necessarily I -- were trying to recapture our youth with multiple cars and "group drive-in viewing" but...so what. My only beef was that, with all the outdoor chit-chat and cross-talk, I never really heard the dialogue in Escape from New York. Had to go see it again indoors.

My Kurt Russell fandom was underway by then. I had loved his surprising comedy gifts in Used Cars in 1980, now in 1981 he was macho man Snake Plissken for John Carpenter; the next year in 1982 he would excel for Carpenter under a bigger budget for the great The Thing, and then in 1983 he got a "serious role" with Meryl Streep yet, in Mike Nichols' Silkwood.

And Kurt's still here. "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," coming right up.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

As a burgeoning movie snob (who was nonetheless right on the verge of abandoning movies almost completely for music for a couple of years)

---

Aha...you have certainly demonstrated musical knowledge to match your cinematic knowledge , swanstep,

---

at the time the big films of the year for me were: Gallipoli (a huge cultural event down under), Diva (hyped as the new French New Wave, I saw it several times - it felt inexpressibly cool & hip then, but hasn't worn well), Blow Out (De Palma in full flight didn't make much sense but it was so fun & disturbing and gorgeous that that didn't matter), and, yes, both Body Heat & Excalibur.

---

At all times, I READ about movies, so I know about Gallipoli and Diva, but I did not see them. Mainstream man in all years -- though I was better about indies and art films in the 90's, given my companion then.

As a matter of "serious" films in 1981, I do remember this: I saw The French Lieutnants Woman(with a date at her request) and I DIDN'T see Chariots of Fire -- all I remember of that one was that endless footage of runners on the beach with that omniprescent theme song that either grabs you or it doesn't(me, it doesn't.)

I might add that even at this advanced age, I'm pretty good at remembering if I did -- or did not -- see a movie. I may not remember a frame of French Lieutenant's Woman, but I know I saw it(and actually, I do remember how the story switched between the fictional period piece and the modern-day story about the actors themselves.)

I didn't see Gandhi. I did see Amadeus. I didn't see The Killing Fields. I did see The Last Emperor.

Sometimes I catch up with films on streaming or cable, but its almost like I'm stubborn about NOT catching up with movies that didn't interest me at the time.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I just remembered a 1981 movie I saw in LA that I loved: Michael Mann's "Thief," with James Caan. Very stylized(all greens and blues on the screen); a Tangerine Dream score, and a tough, sad story about "one last job" for a professional thief. It turns out that the grandfatherly crime boss who hired him turns out to be total slime -- ready to steal Caan's new adopted baby and "I'll put your wife out on the street as a (hooker.)" Mr. Caan doesn't take well to that and the final showdown is satisfying.

I saw Thief around the same time I saw Sly Stallone in a decidedly more downmarket thriller called "Nighthawks" that had a Psycho-ending: The evil terrorist villain is creeping up on Stallone's girlfriend working in her kitchen, with intent to kill. But surprise -- its Sly in drag! (with a big beard.)

I'm thinking I chose 1981 for my OP because it was a period of transition in my life(from one city to another, from one job to another, from one set of friends to another), with parents alive and around -- and so, so long ago now. Psycho? 1960? I'd be hard-pressed to remember a MEMORY from 1960. I'm also realizing that 1981 was a period of transition among filmmakers -- Hitchcock died in 1980, and it felt like Raiders of the Lost Ark "officially" began the Spielberg/Lucas era, with the two of them on it together.

Funny memory: in 1980, I believe, production was announced on "Raiders of the Lost Ark" but I am here to tell you that I -- a pretty good movie buff and reader of Variety -- could never figure out what the hell this movie was going to be ABOUT. Jaws was self-explanatory as was Star Wars. Lucas/Spielberg kept this baby under wraps -- no photos , no descriptions, no nuthin.' All the way to the first trailers in 1981.

All I could guess in that year or so that "Raiders" was in production is that Raiders might be pirates(I pictured swords) and the Lost Ark would be a really BIG ship(like Noah's.)

Imagine my surprise when Indiana Jones introduced himself.

Indeed, the movie now has the DVD title "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" and if THAT had been the title back in '80(production time)...maybe I would have guessed better.

Similar: Alien. I saw it first night and I had been going crazy trying to imagine what this alien would look like(Jaws I figured -- a shark. Saw the poster.)

But the movies have always been there for me. I guess maybe I was just more interested in them in 1981, and there were more of them.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

There are a whole bunch of big 1981 films I've still never seen: Reds, Chariots of Fire, On Golden Pond... a couple I saw a lot later have become favourites: My Dinner With Andre and Das Boot. the latter was seen by Germans in 1981 as a six-part mini-series and that's how most of us watch it now at home.

The big TV event of the year where I was (non-German division): Brideshead Revisited. Somehow it fused with the Charles & Diana Royal Wedding that year to underline how the Thatcher-Reagan years were going to be about reinstalling the aristocracy and the creation of new tiers of the ultra-rich. ANd 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' were going to be big hereafter.

I remember seeing French Lieutenant's Woman at the time and thinking that the divided narrative just didn't work. from memory this was a screenwriter invention to try and capture some of the hyper-self conscious, editorializing narrator of the book. In general I think divided narratives are quite hard to pull off.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

There are a whole bunch of big 1981 films I've still never seen: Reds, Chariots of Fire, On Golden Pond...

---

I saw Reds and On Golden Pond. Reds certainly had some star power -- Beatty and Keaton in the leads, Jack Nicholson in support, Gene Hackman in a cameo -- and did Maureen Stapleton earn an Oscar for her bit? I think so. I recall being intrigued by all the interviewees on screen, but the final hour seemed to bog down in Beatty and Keaton splitting and reuniting, splitting and reuniting...with one of them pretty ill.

William Goldman in his "Adventures in the Screen Trade" book praised On Golden Pond as generating "something you don't hear much in theaters anymore: the laughter of middle aged and elderly people." I saw it with a full house and there was a lot of that, yes. I found it a bit sitcommy and false -- Henry's grouchy character seemed too "on"; Kate Hepburn was always an acquired taste, and really over-doing it here(but she won the damn Oscar AGAIN, didn't she?) -- and Jane Fonda(the box office draw of the three) seemed to be too "actorly", to me, even in the emotional scene where she quietly begs for her cold father's love.

So I guess I didn't like it? Well, I recall the scene of grandpa and grandson trapped in the water - with Kate to the rescue -- as being moving to me. I think I liked it ENOUGH, but the air of falsity and over-done character schtick was a turn off. (When the screenwriter won his Oscar, he said something like "I'd like to suck face with all of you." Suck face having been a term in the movie. Yecch.)

And I just say no to Chariots of Fire. It put me off in 1981 and I've never convinced myself to see it. And I didn't like that song.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Its funny: I chose 1981 almost at random as an example of "a movie year memory of a long time ago that is REAL (as opposed to Fantasy 1960 for Psycho), And yet I forgot a fair number of 1981 films(Reds On Golden Pond). I guess I led instinctively with those 1981 movies that came attached with memories of who I saw them with(Dad, mom, co-workers, date) and where I saw them.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

And I just say no to Chariots of Fire. It put me off in 1981 and I've never convinced myself to see it. And I didn't like that song.

I finally watched COF last night... and it's just dull I'm afraid. Sometimes the Oscars and the public just *does* get behind a stately period piece, often a true-ish story or bio. possibly with a royal & often with a very simple moral through-line. COF was one of the first films to identify this slightly insipid sweet spot in my lifetime, and Green Book & King's Speech & also things like The Imitation Game & The Theory of Everything & Hidden Figures (the best of these in my view) show it still works.

There's really not a lot *to* COF. It was definitely on-trend in 1981 with (a) the Charles and Diana wedding & Brideshead Revisited on TV putting Late Imperial British pomp in vogue, and (b) the religious themes of the film (lots of talk of 'running for God') perhaps chiming with fundamentalist religious revival in the US at the time. Atavism & quasi-religious moralizing sells. Who knew?

The score was *enormously* successful at the time: according to wiki, the main instrumental theme did well all around the world but got to #1 in the US charts, and the full album of the score was the #1 album in the US for a month. Many milllions of copies sold worldwide. Wow.

Unfortunately, in the movie itself, the electronic score by Vangelis is a real dud I find. The big theme is the only standout (used in the first scene, albeit in an unfinished version compared to the single) the rest is unmemorable, kind of electro plink-plonky, & just grates to my ears ['Least played soundtrack albums' for 100 please Alex!]. I suspect, moreover, that the anachroism & slight gratingness of the score went some way at the time to disguising COF's essential dullness.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

By one of those weird movie-coincidences there was *another* anachronistically scored, lots-of-early-20C-running, dual male leads film in 1981: Peter Weir's Gallipoli.

I'm sorry, but even though running is nominally a smaller part of G, its running scenes are far more exciting, beautiful, etc. than those in COF. If you watch key scenes of G and COF consecutively, G looks like magic - almost every shot and every edit is on fire with a director's intent whereas COF plods. The comparison is devastating!

Dennis Christopher turns up in COF as an American superstar runner. Unfortunately he only has 1 or 2 lines & is mostly seen in wordless montages. Script & directorial malpractice in my view.

In sum, as a movie COF is quite skippable. Only watch if you've got a specific interest in a relevant historical topic: e.g., early '80s culture, the evolution of Oscar Bait, and so on.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

there was *another* anachronistically scored, lots-of-early-20C-running, dual male leads film in 1981: Peter Weir's Gallipoli.

BTW, I just checked out Gallipoli's MovieChat/IMDb page and at least 1/3 of the posts there are complaints about the score's anachronism.

Would I find the use of bits of J-M Jarre's Oxygene (from 1976 IIRC) jarring if I was seeing G for the first time now? I hope not but it's hard to be sure. I remember it pleasantly surprising then exhilirating at the time, but really it was a formative movie experience for me so in a sense I can't think my way beyond it. I've often enjoyed Peter Weir's choices to use big bold slabs of music in his films (e.g., big chunks of corny but beautiful Enya to soundtrack a dash through Central Park in Green Card, Gorecki's Symphony #3 to soundtrack a plane crash in Fearless, and so on), and I've recognized him as a kind of kindred spirit to George Roy Hill in his willingness to be popular and anachronistic with his scores. Roy Hill and Weir aren't anyone's favorite movie-makers but their sort of craft makes for some of the sweetest movie experiences in my view.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Roy Hill and Weir aren't anyone's favorite movie-makers but their sort of craft makes for some of the sweetest movie experiences in my view.

---

I guess I will note here that both Paul Newman and Robert Redford appeared in DVD documentary interviews for Butch Cassidy and The Sting , and each man, Redford especially, sang the praises of George Roy Hill as a great director, one of the best they ever worked with. It makes sense, he delivered two of their biggest hits; Butch was the biggest hit of 1969 and The Sting fought it out with The Exorcist for the biggest hit of 1973. I could see why the two men would be grateful.

And yet, George Roy Hill WITHOUT his Newman/Redford pictures was sort of hit and miss.

Hill later did one with Redford only(The Great Waldo Pepper) one with Newman only(Slapshot.) The Redford film was nice, the Newman film was WILD -- a filthy-mounthed, supermacho expose of small time hockey that Newman loved making -- and I love watching.

Still...what else? The World of Henry Orient? Thoroughly Modern Millie? Garp?
A checkered career.

I enjoyed reading your musical analysis of Gallipoli and other Weir films. Can't say I noticed the music or can speak knowledgably to it. But I liked reading about it.

You know, someday when I retire, I suppose I'll gather a list of "movies I should have seen" and watch them. My guess is that Gallipoli will be on the list, and Chariots of Fire will not.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I finally watched COF last night... and it's just dull I'm afraid. Sometimes the Oscars and the public just *does* get behind a stately period piece, often a true-ish story or bio. possibly with a royal & often with a very simple moral through-line. COF was one of the first films to identify this slightly insipid sweet spot in my lifetime, and Green Book & King's Speech & also things like The Imitation Game & The Theory of Everything & Hidden Figures (the best of these in my view) show it still works.

---

Well...Oscar movies, yes?

I was thinking about this, and the 1970's generally had a string of hit entertainments win Best Picture...Patton(the opening speech was FUN), The French Connection, The Godfather, The Sting, Godfather II, Cuckoo's Nest(tragic but fun getting there, a blockbuster), Rocky, Annie Hall(a Woody Allen comedy of great heart and intelligence)...

...and then FINALLY more of a prestige art film(The Deer Hunter), but a prestige art film with shocking ultra violence (Russian roulette) and war.

The last Best Picture of the 70's(Kramer vs Kramer) and the first Best Picture of the 80's (Ordinary People) were rather a matched pair to me: twee dramas about well off American families with chamber piece classical music and tragedy on the menu. But Kramer vs. Kramer was a big hit, too(divorce and custody were dramatic issues; a sympathy to the father's side was "new").

Anyway, mainly a whole bunch of big, popular entertainment Best Pictures and then....Chariots of Fire? I think that's the mismatch I felt back then. The trailer was boring. Clips on Siskel/Ebert were boring. The REVIEWS were boring.

And then the Academy went and did it again with Gandhi.

With Terms of Endearment in 1983, the ship was righted -- a big hit, big emotion, big peformances.

But from then on, it seemed that the Oscars would "go for prestige" more often than for entertainment as in the 70's. Perhaps Chariots of Fire bears the brunt of starting that.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Blow Out (De Palma in full flight didn't make much sense but it was so fun & disturbing and gorgeous that that didn't matter),

---

I"ve said that my three favorite DePalmas are his "mainstream movies" (Scarface, The Untouchables, Carlito's Way) and that remains true...but I recall feeling that with Blow Out, he rather redeemed himself after the Hitchcock ripoffs of Obsession and Dressed to Kill. Blow Out has the same composer as Dressed to Kill, they FEEL similar...but the plot is more inventive, less Hitchcock lite.

That said...Blow Out IS Vertigo.

Vertigo: James Stewart is guilty about a cop whose death he inadvertently caused, and a woman whose death he inadvertently caused. And at the film's end, he causes one more death. His redemption fails.

Blow Out: Travolta(a movie sound man, much as Stewart is a photographer) is guilty about an undercover cop's death he inadvertently caused. At the films end, he causes one more death. His redemption fails

And...brilliantly...Travolta's inability to get a really good scream for the soundtrack of "Co-Ed Frenzy" is solved at the film's end...when he uses the REAL scream of a REAL victim(whom he cared about very much) to fill in. And he's catatonic.

Yes, I liked Blow Out. Saw that one with the friend who died a few years ago.....

---

I guess I better step up and note that, while 1981 had a good dating relationship that ended when she had to leave town...by 1982 I was in another one and soon married. Thus certain later movie years don't "split up" like 1981 into who I saw a movie with. I saw them almost all...with her. Except Schwarzenegger movies. She refused. Those, I saw with pals.

Life changes. ...and then it changes again.

[–] MizhuB (165) 5 years ago

Uh oh. I hit on one that you liked!

Well, that's why they have 31 flavors.

========

No problem. I only saw it that one time, and if I saw it today, I'd probably see it as too ridiculous. But I think 2 things were at work.

1) That rave review I saw on TV had probably biased me before I even saw it.

2) The theater was packed and the audience found it hysterical. I'm a firm believer that if you see a comedy in a packed theater, the laughter is contagious. I've seen comedies I thought were funny as hell in the theater later on, and thought, 'I laughed at THAT?'

========

Indeed, one thing Arthur had was a DRIVER who drove him around in a Rolls Royce, I think. So Arthur himself never drove drunk and never endangered anyone.

========

True, Arthur had a driver who drove him around in a Rolls, but there WAS one scene of him driving himself on a highway, I think to see his fiance's father on Long Island. He was driving some kind of expensive convertible, drinking, and laughing. So was the audience. Laughing, I mean.

========

Loved every minute of the movie? Or the solo experience?

========

Both. I loved the movie, and I loved seeing it alone. As you said in a later post, I didn't have to worry about if my date or my friends liked it, I could just kick back and watch it on my own. And I remember that although it was Thanksgiving evening, I wouldn't say the theater was packed, but there were more people there than I expected. And most of them were either also solos, or middle-aged couples.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Uh oh. I hit on one that you liked!

Well, that's why they have 31 flavors.

========

No problem. I only saw it that one time, and if I saw it today, I'd probably see it as too ridiculous. But I think 2 things were at work.

1) That rave review I saw on TV had probably biased me before I even saw it.

2) The theater was packed and the audience found it hysterical. I'm a firm believer that if you see a comedy in a packed theater, the laughter is contagious. I've seen comedies I thought were funny as hell in the theater later on, and thought, 'I laughed at THAT?'

========

Agreed on both points. I'm pretty sure I saw Caveman with a near-empty house, and that can kill a comedy.

I thought the MUSIC was funny....

---
Indeed, one thing Arthur had was a DRIVER who drove him around in a Rolls Royce, I think. So Arthur himself never drove drunk and never endangered anyone.

========

True, Arthur had a driver who drove him around in a Rolls, but there WAS one scene of him driving himself on a highway, I think to see his fiance's father on Long Island. He was driving some kind of expensive convertible, drinking, and laughing. So was the audience. Laughing, I mean.

--

Well, whaddya know. I forgot that scene. "Ya got me."

Keep in mind that way back in the Hitchcock movie, North by Northwest, the early scene of Cary Grant being forcibly intoxicated led to a runaway car scene(Cary driving drunk) that was scary AND funny...followed by a pretty good drunk act by Cary at the Glen Cove police station.

And who can forget...Foster Brooks? (Well, younger people, I'd bet.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Indeed, we've gotten more touchy about things these days. I know the "PC" or "politically correct" issue triggers too predictable a debate, but I'd put it this way: it is here. We have to get used to it. Comedy based on drunks, or accents(Japanese, Mexican unless its Cheech Marin, African-American) is verboten. I suppose Clouseau is safe -- French accents aren't that actionable. His Hindu Indian character from "The Party" (and also one scene in the 1962 Hope/Crosby Road to Hong Kong) was quite funny, but that's verboten now, too.

I think Anglo accents are still comic fair game. Johnny Depp did a full-on Terry Thomas British accent as "Mordecai," German accents can still be funny; and Southern accents("Ah say, boy!" ala Foghorn Leghorn) are allowed. Bronx accents, too

========

I think one thing about "Arthur" is that his drunken state, while funny, was always seen as a matter of light tragedy. His butler Hobson seemed to allow it given Arthur's painful family life(superrich, but unloved, and subject to disinheritance at any time), but eventually even Hobson figured that Arthur needed to be saved. Not that he really changes at the end, though. He's just a happier drunk.

You should read Roger Ebert's 1981 review of Arthur sometime. In a later autobiography, Ebert revealed that he was an active alcoholic for many years, then a recovering one. Arthur is among a number of movies with a substance abuse theme that Roger just couldn't review without commenting about the facts of substance abuse(he liked Arthur, but felt the film was untrue about true alcoholism). Ebert never revealed in these reviews that HE was a drunk(oops, alcoholic) ...but did so by inference. He wrote up several reviews on movies about alcoholics that way. I think The Verdict(1982) was another.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Loved every minute of the movie? Or the solo experience?

========

Both. I loved the movie, and I loved seeing it alone. As you said in a later post, I didn't have to worry about if my date or my friends liked it, I could just kick back and watch it on my own.

---

That's always been key for me...you don't want to worry about the other person's reaction.

And there is something to be said for "aloneness" -- sprawling out, picking any seat you want, staying all the way through the end credits' end(I've had some friends and companions who are hot to leave the second "The End" comes on the screen.)

---

And I remember that although it was Thanksgiving evening, I wouldn't say the theater was packed, but there were more people there than I expected. And most of them were either also solos, or middle-aged couples.

---

Well, its a given that the "family holidays" can be off-putting in various ways. Maybe one doesn't really have a family(nearby), or maybe you'd like to escape from all that family you have(as they would from me)

Of course, Hollywood has gotten rich over the years with movies about family angst at Thanksgiving or Christmas gatherings...

And I think Roger Ebert, in his "Great Movies" review of The Apartment from 1960, noted that the movie is about Christmas through New Year's for a man who evidently has no family to go home to at all, either in NYC where he works or "back homw"(Jack Lemmon's CC Baxter.) The smarmy boss Fred MacMurray has his wife and kids in the burbs; Shirley MacLaine lives with her sister and brother in law. Jack's all alone. Until Shirley skips out on her sister to try suicide at Jack's apartment on Christmas Eve....

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I dredged up a 1981 memory specific to Psycho.

It was in late 1981 that the Los Angeles Times entertainment section printed an article that was titled: "Is Psycho II Coming Soon?" With a 1960 photo of Janet Leigh facing a wall and screaming.

It turned out that this had nothing to do with the Richard Franklin movie that was released in 1983.

Rather this was an interview with two young writers who said that they had interest from Perkins, Miles, and even dead (in the movie) Martin Balsam to appear in Psycho II.

The plot: Vera Miles takes over management of the Bates Motel, assisted by her daughter(JAMIE LEE CURTIS.) Norman escapes to terrorize everybody(he isn't just let out.) Balsam was to play "the brother of Arbogast...psychiatrist Dr. Axelberg" (how's that happen? different fathers? Then he's a half-brother) I figure Dr. Axelberg gets killed.

I couldn't believe the idea of a Psycho II when I read that article in 1981. It seemed like some sort of a joke. And yet -- Perkins and Miles and Balsam -- and Jamie Lee -- had signed up? And old Hitchcock assistant Doc Erickson(who also did that on Chinatown) was reportedly on deck to produce.

A week later, the LA Times printed a letter from the legal department at Universal Pictures: "The writers in question have no legal right to make Psycho II." Doc Erickson claimed he hadn't agreed to anything.

So that was the end of THAT Psycho II. Anthony Perkins diplomatically said, "It was a good script, but if you don't have the rights, you can't make it."

Lo and behold, in 1982, Universal put ITS version of Psycho II before the cameras. (Norman is let out, he doesn't escape; Lila doesn't run the motel.) Perkins and Miles, yes. Balsam and Jamie Lee Curtis, no. And Robert Bloch wrote HIS version of Psycho II. (Norman escapes to haunt the movie set of "Crazy Lady," the movie being made of his story. Murders occur -- did Norma/Norman dunnit?

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I've always felt that that 1981 LA Times story about a Psycho II that couldn't be made just may have stimulated Universal and Bloch to do their own "Psychos II."

And this: how interesting that all this "Psycho" activity commenced in 1981, the year after Hitchcock's death in 1980.

Its like they finally felt safe to make it...