MovieChat Forums > Spencer's Mountain (1963) Discussion > Gawd-Awful (spoilers)

Gawd-Awful (spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by bastasch8647
4 replies | jump to latest

Incompetent writing and uninteresting characters.

Old Man Spencer Fonda is a looney: first he drops a tree on his dear old dad, then burns down "the dream house" in a fit of pique. Plus he's not funny when he's sauced. Ralph Waite's Pa Walton completely skunks Fonda's Spencer in all departments, including Brains.

Dear old Grampa is merely an ornament, a fixture, with no discernable traits other than being Grampa. Not only that, he's as clueless as his alcoholic son. ANYONE who can be so distracted as to walk straight into a falling tree - walking for the better part of a minute in a straight line for about forty feet straight into disaster - is hardly a sympathetic character ... and because of this, the Great Spencer Family Funeral has very little emotional gravitas. "So, looks like the old guy bought it - huh, how 'bout that?"

Max Steiner's semi-"pop" score is effete, precious, self-conscious and obtrusive. Sure, Steiner was one of the "Greats" in movie scoring (the classic King Kong comes to mind) but his understanding of technique did not evolve with the times. Particularly annoying is his coy and cloying music for the extremely UNcute relationship between Clay-Boy and Slut-Girl, which brings us to:

The writing is insufficiently subtle to walk the line between Rural-Rustic-Lusty humor and Salacious, Winking, Sordid Barnyard flatulence. The entire movie showcases a "What If They Do It"/"Should They Do It"/"Will They Do It" - and finally, "Look, They're Really Doing It" progression of ... "erotic suspense".

But it's not suspense at all. This film just goes as far as a 1963 film could go in spewing adolescent hormonal lust on its audience. It tries to inflame prurient, voyeuristic, forbidden desire (forbidden culturally for teens back in the day, and forbidden for ephebophile adults in any decade) in its viewers, then tries to cool things down with an "aw, shucks - we wuz only pullin' yer leg" regression back to Down Home Values ... only to recharge the rank, dank eroticism to a higher and presumably hotter level, until, FINALLY, Clay-Boy discharges his virginal semen into his rambunctious little filley, presumably barnyard-style.

Note that this "family type" movie is anything but; for all its "Clay-Boy is a-gradyatin', goin' to collerge", its rural church-goin', and full-on "America the Beautiful Sung By The Only Black Person In The Valley" wannabe wholesomeness, its core is simple rutting. Note that there is NO talk of consequences for what certainly appeared to be unprotected humping. The ONLY advice Clay-Boy receives from Head Drunk Of The Family is "next time, find a shady place". When Slut-Girl tells Clay-Head she has a surprise for him, a bit of potential realism arises on the imaginative horizon: perhaps their dalliance has resulted in another pregnancy in our very fertile Spencerland? But no. Slut-Girl announces her school plans just moments before being whisked away by her rich Daddy. Apparently Clay-Head's _cumming_ of age is only that. He's mounted his heifer ... and now he's off to collerge - with a bang! And so our story ends, perhaps leaving the most impressed, dedicated viewers itching for a sequel explaining how the eldest Spencer's daughter gits herse'f mounted deep and hard but doesn't go to collerge cuz she's perpetually barefoot 'n preggers but always just achin' for more 'o the bull.

In short, what a misconceived, miswritten pile of cinematic manure.

[–] rekcilorf 12 years ago

It has been a while since I saw this last, but I have some comments on your review.
I only recall Pa being drunk the one time when he met the new reverend and they partook of what, in Hamner's later incarnation of the same story, "the recipe".
He did not drop the tree on his father out of stupidity -- old grandpa was wandering into the woods where he should have knownn not to go. A tragedy to be sure, but an accident, nothing more.
He did not burn down his dream home in a fit of pique -- he wanted the insurance money to help pay Clayboy's college tuition. I only hope the insurance inspectors were incompetant fools, not to recognize arson whenthey saw it!
I kind of agree that the smarmy "did they or did't they?" bit with the tra,py girl was a bit much, butit was not easy to deal with teen sexuality in the movie's in the early 60s.
Surely, "The Waltons" was far superior. But this one isn't all that bad, really/

[–] shadaif 12 years ago

He burned the dream house down to sell land it was on in order to pay for Clay Boy's college tuition. It was not to collect insurance on the house.

[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

And of course you wouldn't need to burn down a perfectly good house frame to sell that land. In fact it might add to the desire to buy it. But of course it was a symbol of them sacrificing their dream for their sons.

And after 4 years of college and who knows what to show for it, imagine what the son's net worth would be if he had that beautiful house on that mountain.

Ephemeron.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2175) 7 years ago

Oops, you answered a question I just posted, of whether I was the only viewer to assume this. I was TOTALLY SURE Mr. Spencer was burning the unfinished house for insurance money and this was meant to portray desperation on the part of a character who, having lived his whole life with honest values, was crossing the line because he would do anything for his son's happiness (which would have been more dramatic but against the film's family values).

When he explained he cleared the land to sell to a new owner, it was like, "Oh." Made sense and was at least legal, but kind of a letdown dramatically. Incidentally I don't know how far this was supposed to be from the family burying ground, but out west where this movie takes place have been cases of fires intentionally set to clear weeds, or spread accidentally, which blazed through old cemeteries and burned a lot of fascinating old wooden markers.