Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

It’s always a joy seeing animation on the big screen but when it’s combined with live action as effectively as is done in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”, it’s an even greater pleasure. This was a groundbreaking film from director Robert Zemeckis who must have twisted some arms, kissed some butt, and prayed to the movie gods to be able to have access to all of the classic cartoon characters that appear at some point or other in the film. It seems almost impossible to believe that Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny would share a scene together. But they do and it’s hysterical.

The story builds on a well-known fantasy that there was a deliberate effort by car companies and the oil industry to get rid of the public transportation in Los Angeles. The rate at which the city was growing and the space that it was taking up was never going to be accommodated by the old red line, but the world is full of conspiracy theorists, and this plot takes its cue from that Old Chestnut. The most fantastic conceit in the film is that the characters are film stars who are animated and live in the real world. That means that humans and hippopotamuses are going to bump into one another. It means that that old joke where Bugs Bunny paints a line on the road to move the pursuers into crashing into a wall, can actually happen. And in this film it does.

Bob Hoskins needs more credit for the work that he did in this film. As the human private detective Eddie Valiant, Hoskins has to be handcuffed to animated Rodger Rabbit, have his hair stroked by an animated Jessica Rabbit, shake hands with a variety of cartoon characters that we will recognize from our childhood, and be the butt of some of the gags that we all knew from Saturday morning. He’s terrific in this movie. So many people deserve credit for making the film work but let’s not forget to mention animation director Richard Williams who managed to get animated critters to interact with human beings in a believable way.

There’s so many things to admire about the movie, but I want to start with the opening cartoon which is done in a text Avery Style with characters that feel familiar but are completely original. Baby Herman and Rodger Rabbit dashing through the kitchen avoiding tragedy with every movement, and the toon ending up being targeted by just about every item in the kitchen drawers is just funny. When it breaks at the end because Roger can’t come up with stars to show his concussion, rather than tweeting birds, it’s a Hollywood Insider’s dream.

Everyone should remember that Christopher Lloyd is not just a character actor but was an important star in the 1980s. Of course “Back to the Future”, but also “Star Trek 3″,” The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the 8th Dimension”, and this film, where he plays Judge Doom, a cartoon masquerading as a human. His maniacal eyes, somber expression, and creepy voice almost give him away. And when the secret is out, believe me text Avery is applauding somewhere.

The film was playing at the State Theater next door to the Paramount because there was a concert being set up at the bigger venue. We had arranged to meet a couple of friends of ours from the neighborhood in front of the theater, but they were running a little late from some appointments they had on Sunday morning. Ultimately they got into their seats about 20 seconds before the film rolled. It was nice to get a chance to do something with people that we know from the neighborhood. We had a nice lunch afterwards, and Sunday afternoon is a great time for a cartoon and something to fill your belly.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Rocky Horror Picture Show

Once again my unconventional convention years it’s time for us to visit transsexual Transylvania and the castle of our host Dr. Frankenfurter. Brad and Janet get lost on the way to visit their friend Dr. Scott and we get taken along on the journey to a forbidding Castle filled with crazy weirdos doing their native dance the time warp.

I come to this movie with a long tradition of participation in the usual Rocky Horror audience call back. I do however find that people overindulge in this particular venue with their own personally created comments and inserts, which can sometimes work well, sometimes miss the mark, and frequently can’t be made out in the crowd because someone else is engaging in the same behavior. When everybody knows the call-outs and participates as a crowd it’s great fun, when voices are calling out randomly and the words are running over one another and it’s barely loud enough to make out any of the words but it is loud enough to drown out what’s going on on the screen, that’s a little bit of a problem. Although I have to admit I am usually overcome by the enthusiasm of everybody who’s participating this way. So let’s go ahead and indulge them a bit and hope that once in awhile there’s self-created call back to the Antics on the screen will provoke a laugh.

The theater was full, lots of people dressed up, and surprisingly there were a couple of hundred people who were seeing the movie for the first time, Lucky them. We had a good time calling out the familiar chants, and singing along to the songs, but most especially cheering the arrival of characters on screen. I do think the a****** and s*** call outs are a little excessive, the first time is fine the 25th time is boring, but once again who am I to say where the line is. I can however enthusiastically cheer when Riff Raff appears in the window during the storm, when Eddie breaks out of the Deep Freeze on his motorcycle, and most especially when Frankenfurter comes down the elevator to greet his guests. This is one of the Great Moments of a character appearing on screen in all of film history. Yeah I said it and I’ll defend it.

If you’ve never seen Rocky Horror Picture Show then you won’t understand, but then what the heck are you doing reading this page anyway?

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Evil Dead II

The Evil Dead series has fascinated me since I first discovered it in the early 1990s. I was aware of the films for a number of years but never bothered to investigate them, because I didn’t know anybody else who had seen them. That changed one night on a Halloween when I was at a friend’s party and we watched “Evil Dead 2” after the kids had gone to sleep. I laughed and screamed at the ridiculous amounts of blood, body parts, and Three Stooges jokes that were being thrown at me. These were my people.

I’ve seen the Evil Dead, and Army of Darkness, on the big screen multiple times. This may have only been the second or third time I have seen “Evil Dead 2” in a theater. But as with most theatrical experiences, the presence of an audience as well as the big screen, and the requirement that you stay engaged, makes the experience something that is far superior to home viewing.

I’ve been to two or three presentations where the “Man God” Bruce Campbell, has appeared in person to talk about the films we are watching. 3 years ago in this same theater we came for a screening of the original “Evil Dead”, and Bruce was there. We had sprung for an extra couple of bucks in order to get a picture opportunity, but it was Covid and the pictures required social distancing, which makes it look a little bit like it’s photoshopped. I don’t care, we were in the presence of greatness. The talent of Bruce Campbell is especially on display in “Evil Dead 2”. His performance involves a physicality that most actors in an action film would have a hard time achieving. In addition he has to convey some of those emotions that are going on in the character while under a layer of makeup and appliances that would make most of us cringe to think of having on our bodies. He is really quite effective and there are so many close-ups on his face that require him to communicate those emotions in a humorous way but in a way that is also quite immediate. He Nails it.

Some of the storytelling and much of the acting is deliberately ham-fisted in order to gain as much humorous power as possible. The audience last night laughed uproariously at each situation that required Ash to come up with another solution that was ridiculously violent. Most of those moments occur after he has decapitated his girlfriend with a shovel. I understand that budget limitations produced some of the slightly clunky stop motion effects in the film. I have always been a fan of stop motion special effects, I’m not sure that Ray Harryhausen would approve of the way the technique is used in the first part of the film. It’s definitely brilliant, even if it isn’t as polished as a Harryhausen film would be.

Even the cheesiest jokes work well in this film, because director Sam Rami, knows what he’s going after. The goal is to shock and entertain the audience with the most audacious visualized or violence, and the silliest hero’s journey you can imagine. There’s just one word for the whole thing… groovy!

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series- A Clockwork Orange

This has always been the controversial film, but especially at our house. My late wife rarely disliked movies but when she did she did so with a passion and “A Clockwork Orange” is one of the films that she loathed. The reason that makes it controversial at our house is that it’s a film that I have loved since I first saw it in the mid-70s. Despite our difference of opinion on the movie I continued to watch it every few years. And last night’s screening gave me a little bit more insight into why my dearly departed love disliked the film so much.

Not only is the film misanthropic it is highly misogynistic and rarely offers any sort of redemption for those attitudes. Alex DeLarge, the self-described hero and narrator of the film, is a loathsome violent criminal, who has disdain for any conventional rules, although he is capable of putting on a facade of politeness when it suits him. There are three distinct scenes where women are helpless as they’re being assaulted by multiple criminals in the story. None of these woman are really given much of a chance to be a fully realized character. Although the defiance of the cat lady who is the final victim of Alex, is at least an attempt to give a female character a personality in the story.

The movie is a dystopian view of a not too distant future, and although the book was written in 1962, and the movie came out in 1971, 2024 does not feel as if it is too far in front of a world very similar to the one depicted in this story. The plot goes a long way toward trying to criticize the nearly fascist political party in charge of Britain and its criminal justice system. And although Alex suffers as a result of the treatment that he receives, it’s awfully hard not to sympathize with the victim that turns the tables on him at the end of the film. The whole tone of the movie is one of cynicism directed at irredeemable youth, intransigent bureaucracy, and conniving political creatures.

As much as she disliked the film, my wife would have agreed with me about Malcolm McDowell the star of the movie. He is perfect in this movie. Director Stanley Kubrick notoriously a perfectionist, must have worked McDowell to near exhaustion to get some of the scenes that resonate so well especially in the final sections of the film. When the Minister of Justice starts hand feeding Alex in his hospital bed, he is mocked subliminally by the smacking noise that Alex makes with his mouth each time he’s ready for another bite of food. The political obtuseness of the minister is one of the points of the film. There is a theme in the movie that also concerns free will, but that feels like it is only there is as justification for making us feel guilty about the treatment that Alex receives.

Alex’s parole officer, is not a particularly pleasant person, but he seems to have one of the most accurate views of Alex of anyone in the film. The corrections officer at the prison, is seen as a totalitarian tool, but he also has a keen understanding of Alex, although one that is so single-minded that it seems unreasonable. And that’s in spite of what we know about Alex and his character. This may be one of the faults that critics of the film justifiably point to because it makes Alex a victim when what he really is, is a monster. The feckless parents and the manipulative Justice minister are reflective of the powerless society that has allowed this sort of crime spree to exist. Kubrick, and apparently Anthony Burgess the author of the book, seem to be trying to have it both ways, abhorring the aberrant behavior of the young thugs, but also averting our eyes in horror at the brainwashing of those same thugs to condition them to be more social creatures.

The movie has the added bonus of a synthesizer heavy score that frequently manipulates classical music into its themes. There’s nothing wrong with a little Beethoven to go along with your ultraviolence. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Star Tek II: The Wrath of Khan

Once again we are back at the Paramount for another Summer Classic film. This time it was the first film of this season in the “Robert Rodriguez Presents Series”, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”. Local hero Director Robert Rodriguez chooses films that he was inspired by or has some connection to and then introduces them with behind the scenes stories and tidbits about the actors. The villain in this film was played by Ricardo Montalban, who made a couple of the “Spy Kids” movies with Rodriguez. The director noted how the question always comes up about Ricardo’s physique and whether he wore a prosthetic chest piece. That is in fact Montalban’s own chest, and the costume designer was so impressed with his appearance, they created costumes that accentuated his look.

Director Rodriguez also recounted the sad history of Montalban’s back injury and the surgery years later that confined him to a wheelchair. Of course movie magic allowed the actor to run in one of the “Spy Kids” films and that was a nice moment that he shared with us. The director has a long list of notes in a notebook that he refers to as he prowls the stage like a tiger, not from anxiety but rather enthusiasm. He surveyed the audience and found one person who saw Star Trek II when it opened, at the same theater he had done so back in San Antonio in 1982. That audience member was presented with a nice picture book about the making of the movie. I suspect it was also autographed by our host.

“The Wrath of Khan” was a follow up to “Star Trek the Motion Picture”, which was financially profitable but at a huge cost. The sequel was done with a miniscule budget in comparison, and the production was taken over by the TV unit of Paramount to hold down costs. Still, there are several great production moments in the movie, including the battles between the two starships and the Genesis Project video. There are several spots where shots are cribbed from the first movie but it is not egregious. The fact that “Khan” was a continuation of an original series episode was discussed and Rodriguez had edited together a ten minute version of the episode for us to watch before the movie.

You can read my thoughts on the movie here, and  here, and here. This is a movie that I adore and every chance to see it on the big screen should be jumped at. There are two things I would like to add about the screening. Robert Rodriguez explained that another way to save costs was by skipping the more expensive Jerry Goldsmith as the film composer and hiring James Horner. The future Academy Award winning composer was the go to Roger Corman and Star Trek II was his big break. Ironically, Director Nicolas Myer said he was hired because they could not afford Goldsmith, but when Meyer returned to the series for Star Trek VI, they could no longer afford Horner.

The other thing I wanted to mention was the beautiful artwork done by Bob Peak. The prolific film poster illustrator did images for all of the original cast movies, but his work on Trek II was superb. So good in fact, that I draped myself in it for the Sunday night show. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Alice in Wonderland

Another packed family movie, although this one was presented under the “Banned Camp” label that the film series is using this summer. Steven Janise, the programmer spoke at the start of the show, pointing out that the original book of “Alice in Wonderland” appeared on some lists of books banned by schools or libraries. It was not more specific than that so I can’t tell you why.

The film experienced a renaissance in the late sixties when the drug counter-culture embraced all of the weird elements of the movie, and if you watch the movie, you will see why. This film is loaded with characters right out of a dream or a nightmare. The background flora and fauna are terrifically designed and would hold up in a contemporary film even if the form of animation was different. 

“Alice in Wonderland” does not really have a structure. The main character of young Alice, simply wanders through the enchanted world, encountering odd stories and characters along the way. Although nominally chasing the white rabbit, there was no real purpose for doing so, and if she spends ten minutes listening to a story or song, it is perfectly acceptable because all that happens next is another story or song .The Walrus and the Carpenter is a little creepy, since the adorable baby oysters get eaten, but at least it happens off screen. The Queen of Hearts is a little shrill too often for my taste but the game of croquet was a lot of fun.

The Cheshire Cat and the Caterpillar are exactly the things that hippies smoking pot or dropping acid would relate to. They are surreal moments in an abstract kind of film  that feels very ahead of itself, until you hear the songs. The songs are all standard child friendly 50s fare that have no hooks but are not unpleasant. 

Lush backgrounds, fluid characters and amazing designs are the reason you want to see this movie. It is a lot of fun at times, but it does get a little tiresome with the story pattern repetition.  

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series -The Bride of Frankenstein and Dracula’s Daughter

Midweek we enjoyed a double feature of horror films from the 1930s. The classic “Bride of Frankenstein”, and the lesser known but very stylish “Dracula’s Daughter”. It’s been less than 18 months since I saw the Bride of Frankenstein in a theater. Back in 2022 I saw The Bride with “The Mummy” in a Fathom event and I wrote about it then and you can read about it here.

The “Bride of Frankenstein” is one of the most stylish films from the 1930s. Filled with what might be described as German expressionism, the lighting and shadows are dramatic and exactly the kind of thing that foreshadows film noir coming in the next decade. Of course there are also the over-the-top performances of Dr Frankenstein and Doctor Septimus Pretorius. The one actor who clearly outshines everyone in the film continues to be Boris Karloff. Although he was against it, this version of the monster developed some language skills, and it helps the story take on some even greater moral dilemmas.

Where is Henry Frankenstein stitched together body parts of the Dead and used electricity to try and bring them back to life, Dr. Pretorius seems to have been using recombinant DNA to achieve his goal, and this is well before the concept of DNA was understood. He appears to have been using cloning and some kind of genetic Magic to produce his set of miniature living beings. That sequence is mostly used for humor, but it does set up the idea that they’re going to grow a body around a bone structure as opposed to trying to assemble one from body parts of others. Of course the one exception as they get close to creating the bride, comes when they have to have a fresh heart. Now we’re not dealing with grave robbers but murderers.

The Bride of Frankenstein does continue to raise the question of man’s control over life and death, and whether we are crossing a Rubicon by trying to create life. The film is all the better for the prologue that features Byron and Shelly and Mary  Wollstonecraft Shelly telling the stories on a dark and stormy night. Byron in particular is portrayed as a romantic in a very theatrical way, which sets up the rest of the story very effectively.

“The Bride of Frankenstein” relies on a variety of special photographic effects, miniatures, and production design that creates a Gothic image in a faraway place to give us the creeps. “Dracula’s Daughter” is much more sparse in its use of any special effects. They are one or two moments where the process of hypnosis is visualized using some photographic techniques, but when they get to Dracula’s castle it’s a very basic sequence that is not drawing attention to itself the way the exploding Laboratory at the end of the “Bride of Frankenstein” was doing.

I know I saw this movie two or three times as a kid, but I remembered only a few particular moments. I remembered the ring the Countess Zeleska uses to hypnotize and subdue her victims. I remembered the creepy familiar, Sandor, with his pasty face greased down hair and deep set eyes. He looked like a vampire well before being given eternal life. I also remembered the sequence where the Countess is testing herself with a girl she acquires as a model. When the young woman takes off her blouse and drops down the straps on her chemise, there is a moment of desire that overcomes the Countess,  and that largely accounts for the films Sapphic reputation. 

The film is atmospheric and has some nice visuals, but it feels like a very straightforward drama with a few horror elements added. The opening and closing of the coffin at the count is sleeps in, and the wrap that she cloaks herself in, revealing only her eyes are as close to transforming into a bat or revealing fangs that we are going to get. We never even see the puncture wounds that doctors refer to on the victims. So everything is played very subtly. Of course that’s part of the story The Countess thinks now that Count Dracula is gone, that the spell she is under is broken and it is only her mental state that forces her into continuing to live the nocturnal vampire existence. Thus her interest in the mealy mouth psychiatrist/doctor that she begins to consult and ultimately decides that she wishes to make her Eternal mate.

I had completely forgotten that Van Helsing appears in the film, and that the reason the doctor is involved in the story in the first place is to help his former mentor escape conviction for murdering Count Dracula. The chief of Scotland Yard is portrayed as barely competent, and completely skeptical, but surprisingly accommodating to both Van Helsing and his young former pupil.

There are no big action scenes, we don’t get a stake through the heart, at least not on screen. The Countess is betrayed by her familiar rather than the hero. And the vampire doesn’t melt in the sunlight at the last minute. The movie ends with very little in the way of dramatic climax, and although we’re supposed to have some sympathy for countess Zaleska, we’re mostly left with a feeling of sadness for everybody involved. For a movie with very limited horror effects it manages to have the desired outcome on our emotions. A a very worthwhile sequel to the original Dracula.

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-The Sting

So in the last 2 weeks we have been able to see three of the Best Picture winners from the mid-70s. A week and a half ago it was “Godfather Part 2”, two nights ago it was “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, and last night was our chance to see “The Sting” the film that won the award between the other two. I’ve seen “The Sting” on the big screen several times, and it is always a pleasure. But seeing it with a full audience adds an extra dimension. Let me explain why.

When the auditorium is packed you can hear the reaction of other audience members around you. I could tell from the gasps and laughter of people sitting behind me and down a few rows, that they were seeing “The Sting” for the very first time. Those who are familiar with the movie are aware that there are several surprise twists in various spots in the film, but most especially in the last Act. It is a complete delight to listen to people who are surprised and amused at the twist that shows up next. Another one of the reasons that seeing a film with an audience on the big screen is so important to me.

The event had some special extras to go with it, in addition to our usual popcorn, a drink coupon was provided for us. We also had a selection of Halloween sized candy that we could pick up before we went into the theater. That stop also gave us a chance to wave at and say hi to Danielle who we had met the week before. Erin, the community outreach member that we met last year, greeted us as we were getting our popcorn. She also shared that our picture was used in the latest email to all of the film fans who signed up for Paramount notifications. That was cool.

Before the film started, a series of screen slides provided some trivia information about the making of the film. Included was a detail that Jack Nicholson had been offered the role of Hooker, ultimately played by Robert Redford. Yeah, I think this was a good outcome, having Jack in the part would have been a completely different kind of movie. The biggest draw for me has always been the outsized villain played by Robert Shaw.  is Doyle Lonnegan is a joyless mobster who simply cares only for money and being the top dog. Any action that undermines his pride becomes a motivation for him to seek revenge. That’s why the poker game on the train is so important. It provides all the incentive that Lonnegan needs in order to accept a chance at getting back at Newman’s character. It allows the subterfuge to go undetected because of his desire for revenge. Shaw plays the part with barely a single smile in any of his scenes. Once in awhile a small smirk appears to indicate to Hooker or to Loneaggan’s lackeys that he has the upper hand. It’s a joy to see that smirk it wiped off of his face two or three times in the course of the movie.

Director George Roy Hill won the Academy Award for this particular film, and although he is a respected technician, you don’t hear many people speak of him with the same degree of awe as Scorsese, Coppola, or Spielberg. He did some amazing films in the ’70s and later on this summer we get a chance to revisit the movie that he made with Paul Newman and Robert Redford prior to this, “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”. I recently saw the film “A Little Romance”, which he made with Lawrence Olivier and a very young Diane Lane, and it’s absolutely terrific. Combine that with the fact that he made the greatest sports movie ever, “Slap Shot”, and turned my favorite book into a fairly reasonable film version, “The World According to Garp”, and I feel he deserves a little more cache with film fans.

It’s not even the middle of June yet, and I feel like I’ve had a summers worth of great movies already. I’m looking forward to several things in the next few weeks, and you can expect continued updates on the Paramount classic film series 50th anniversary.

I wrote about this film just a few months ago on the Thursday 1975 Throwback project that I am doing. So I will give you that link (here) if you want to see more complete thoughts on the film. For this screening, let me say it was nice to be in a theater full of adults, although I was surprised at the people behind me who had never seen the film before. Their quite cries of anguish when the s*** hits the fan was indicative of the power of this film, even after nearly fifty years. 

Nicholson’s performance is so much more physical than I remembered and those moments of  pain, rage and enthusiasm are all the things that make his character work. In contrast to the cool Miss Ratched played by Louise Fletcher, McMurphy is an angry bag of cats, waiting to be unleashed. The supporting actors are all excellent as well. Director Milos Forman took actors with very distinctive looks and allowed them room to be “off” if not entirely crazy. DeVito, Lloyd, and Schiavelli have great individual moments, Sydney Lassick practically steals the movie from everyone else. Of course Will Sampson is magnificent when he simply utters an unexpected “Thank You”. Brad Dourif as Billy will break your heart.

The screening was at the State Theater instead of next door at the Paramount. They had a live show booked in there this last evening. 

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Double Feature Jackie/Foxy Brown

The Paramount continues to try topping itself with great programming on Friday evenings. This week we get a double feature featuring the great actress Pam Grier. The two films that are presented are at the far ends of her career. “Jackie Brown” was a prestige project from Quentin Tarantino that earned Pam Grier a Golden Globe nomination and should have earned her an Academy Award nomination for best actress. This movie was paired with a film from 1974, at the peak of her career in exploitation films, it is actually a pretty decent forerunner for “Jackie Brown”,  This one is called “Foxy Brown”.

Let’s start with “Jackie Brown”. This is a Tarantino film based not on an original idea of his, or a hybrid of exploitation films that he saw as a child, but rather on the novel Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard. Tarantino adapted the book into a screenplay and made the central character a black woman so that Pam Grier could play the part. I haven’t read the original text, I only know the screenplay from having seen the movie several times, but I can’t imagine that the book is superior to the very clever screenplay that we get with this movie.

To Briefly summarize, Jackie Brown is an airline hostess for a low budget Mexican holiday flight operation, and she also makes extra cash by smuggling money for a gun Runner into and out of Cabo San Lucas. When things go wrong for Ordell, the gunrunner played by Samuel Jackson, Jackie looks like she is in the crosshairs of both the ATF and the violent Ordell. But you would never say that Jackie Brown was in over her head. This woman is whip smart, and fearless. And she devises a plan to get herself out of trouble with both of those sides.

The film is loaded with those Tarantino touches, such as mundane conversations turned into philosophical questions, expletive filled declarations of both love and hate, and a variety of characters that you don’t really like but find very interesting. So it is clearly under Tarantino’s thumb, and he makes the most of adapting somebody else’s work to his kind of film. In addition to Jackie, there is one other character that is smart and sympathetic and that we will find interesting and ready to root for. Max Cherry is a bail bondsman who is being used by Ordell to make his targets available after they have been arrested. Robert Forrester, plays Max as a sympathetic and wise older man, who does play by the rules but finds himself attracted to the charm of Jackie Brown. Forester has to sell the idea that he is falling in love with the least amount of dialogue possible, in often very brief scenes. That he does so successfully accounts for his nomination as best supporting actor that year, the only Academy Award nomination that the film received.

As usual, Samuel L Jackson is full of expletives and attitude, and his character Ordell is one of the most loathsome psychopaths that we have seen in a mainstream story. This is a movie that plays it straight, and although Ordell looks like a comic book villain at times, he really does seem to feel like a real person, just not one that’s very nice. Also along for the ride are Robert De Niro, as Ordell’s dimwitted partner in training, and Bridget Fonda as the beach bum girl that Ordell likes to have around as eye candy, primarily because she is white. The dialogue between Fonda and Jackson is frequently brittle and very funny. Fonda’s character is an attractive woman who is slightly over her youthful beauty and is now hardening into a harridan rather than a beach girl.

The cast is filled with very confident supporting actors including Michael Bowen, Chris Tucker, Tiny Lister, and most important of all Michael Keaton as the ATF guy that is interested in Jackie both professionally and romantically. Keaton and Bowen are the cops who are trying to manipulate Jackie into betraying Ordell, and Jackie has to outwit them as well as the dangerous gun dealer.

The film turns into a caper/con game movie in the last act, as Jackie and Max try to work out an exchange of money that implicates Ordell, frees Jackie from being under the thumb of the ATF, and also manages to separate the bad guy from his treasure. They do a dry run of the exchange so that the audience gets a sense of what’s going to be happening, but of course Tarantino twists it around when they get to the big exchange, and he gives us the process from three or four different perspectives, starting at different times, but ultimately overlapping. It’s a complicated sequence, but a good director has managed to make it completely understandable while still keeping us in suspense about what exactly is happening.

All of this only works because Pam Grier is a solid actress, who is finally getting a chance to play a smart character who doesn’t rely on belligerence to get her way but rather on cleverness. She is terrific in the scenes where she has to face down Ordell, or when she is flirting with Max. She does get to do the belligerent bit a couple of times in the film, but interestingly she is playing a part with that belligerence, sort of a meta reference to earlier characters that she’s played.

I was a guest on the Walt sent me podcast several years ago, where Todd Kristen and I talked about this film. The fact that Disney had bought Miramax, brought this movie into the house of Mouse, and the idea that Tarantino is responsible for a Disney movie just tickled us. I could not locate the episode, but believe me, we talked thoroughly about the film. 

The second film in the program was from 1973, Foxy Brown. It’s not as intricately clever as Jackie Brown is, but it does give Pam Grier a chance to show the badass that we will be seeing 25 years later in the other movie. I’m going to do a separate post covering Foxy Brown on my site “Grindhouse Alley”. When that goes up I will link it here so you can see my thoughts on the second film in more detail.

I’m happy to say that even though it became a late night because of the double feature, most of the audience stayed for both movies. And everybody was very appreciative with Applause at the end of both films. I’ll say once more, the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series has hit the mark.