AN SNL REVIEW: Season 6 - Episode 6: Ray Sharkey/Jack Bruce & Friends

 1981 was quite the year for the country and for SNL.

That January, Ronald Reagan was sworn in....cue the horror...

That April, he was nearly killed all thanks to someone being obsessed with Jodie Foster.

But you could make the case that 1981 is one of the most bizarre and erratic years in SNL history. You have the final stretch of the Doumanian episodes followed by the battle of wits between new producer Dick Ebersol and returning headwriter Michael O'Donoghue that autumn. 

But focusing on the season in question, we are coming back from the winter break with two new headwriters: Jeremy Stevens and Tom Moore, who both had been writers on Fernwood 2Nite, the parody talk show that was something of a spin-off of the cult hit Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. 

It seems obvious that not much has changed to the tone of the show, which proves that Doumanian's reign is not helping matters in the slightest. In other eras when new headwriters took over (such as Adam McKay coming in during season 21 following the mass departures of mainstays like Jim Downey and Al Franken in season 20), you could see a noticeable, fresh, and welcomed shift in how the show was looking to evolve. 

The following episode I am about to review doesn't show any real promise, but the capability is there...which we will see in the next episode following this.

______________________________________

COLD OPENING: To Tell The Truth

When it comes to classic game shows, I feel like there is a certain generational divide when it comes to To Tell the Truth. I was, not surprisingly if you've been an avid reader of my blog, a kid who had a fascination with older TV as a kid, particularly game shows.

To Tell the Truth was part of the famed Goodson/Todman Productions which also had a had in classics like What's My Line?, I've Got a Secret, The Price is Right, and Family Feud to name a few.

The main premise is that 3 individuals stand on the stage and they all proclaim to be one person and it is up to the celebrity panel to determine which of the three is the person they say they are.

The premise of this cold open, which was written by Barry Blaustein & David Sheffield, is that of the then topical incident of mobster Jimmy "The Weasel" Fratiano turning into an informant for the FBI and being placed into protection. As expected, the mafia wants him dead.

So here, we are trying to find out who is the real "Weasel".

We get featured player Matthew Laurence doing a relatively straightforward impersonation, Charles Rocket goes for the cliche 20's gangster you've seen a dozen times, and Eddie Murphy gets the biggest laugh of the sketch by simply being himself.

It's a solid enough bit, especially considering how rocky most of the cold opens (and monologues for that matter) are during season 6. I think what really makes this one memorable is this is the first instance Eddie Murphy gets to say "Live From New York".

Although, so much has been said about how some of the people behind the scenes actually complained that Eddie Murphy (still then a "lowly" featured player) got the chance to say the immortal line before a cast member like Ann Risley was given the chance...or even Gail Matthius, who only got to say "It's Saturday Night!" during the horrid Jamie Lee Curtis cold open.

It was reported that Doumanian by this point had finally acknowledged Murphy's ability as a performer and agreed to let him announce it.

It's rather telling that in the next episode, Risley gets to do the honor.

As for Murphy, this is going to turn out to be a big night for him...and it truly signals, as if we needed further probing, that Murphy is the one they need to save this show.

_____________________________________

MONTAGE & MONOLOGUE:

Every now and then, we look back on SNL history and we kind of wonder "Who the hell is this host?!".

Ray Sharkey is a prime example of a host who came in to host at what was arguably the only real 15-minutes of fame he got in his career. Later that month, Sharkey would win the Comedy/Musical Golden Globe for Best Actor in The Idolmaker, a film that is largely forgotten today (and a film that I don't even think I have seen in full). 

Sharkey eventually passed away in the 90s after he had contracted HIV due to extraneous drug use (which he also infected an estimated 100 women as he was in staunch denial he even had HIV)...so yeah, a very problematic figure.

Sharkey's energy in this monologue is both welcomed and appalling. To be frank, his high energy NY style does end up helping the show tonight at many moments...but he also relies too much on saying "fuhgedaboutit" WAY too much during the monologue.

So it isn't great...but I suppose his energy is more of a plus than a con.

____________________________________

COMMERCIAL: Drink BEFORE The Job

In the early years of SNL, it actually wasn't unusual for the fake ads to feature people who weren't cast members...and this is a prime exmaple.

This is a fun premise...and for someone who really doesn't care for their job, I can relate to the idea of how much I wish I could just drink my troubles away and then go into work.

It is fine enough for what it is.

_________________________________________

SKETCH: The Wasp Interpreter

Charles Rocket and Ann Risley play themselves as a stuffy white couple who have trouble expressing their emotions. And they literally named the characters Charles and Ann to drive the point home. 

They choose to hire an interpreter, played by Sharkey, who can translate their actual feelings amidst their banal waspy responses.

I don't think I even have to go any further. Charles or Ann say something very dry and lifeless which turns into Sharkey translating a loud and brash response, such as saying that Charles referred to Ann as a "stupid bitch" and a "cow".

They stick so much to this premise that it gets old incredibly fast...even when they try to liven it up by having Sharkey passionately make out with Risley.

I think there could have been some promise here, but it was just a bare premise that was barely held up by a bombastic Sharkey performance.

_____________________________________

SKETCH: Tommy Torture

I am very torn on this sketch, but for the most part, I consider it to falter.

I love how they really go for that early 80s CBGB feel with the set, but the bits with Matthius' Vicki and Dillon's Debbie seem to fall flat.

The whole premise is that they sneak into this seedy club to see a punk rocker by the name of Tommy  Torture, who is played by Sharkey.

Sharkey gets to sing an original song called "Abuse Somebody", which might be a bit on the nose in terms of its lyrics but it is a very catchy and well performed punk song and might even be Sharkey's best moment of the night. He is basically proving that he is a host who will try anything, which is not something we see a lot of during this season.

Although the ending, where Vicki and Debbie agree that the song was "not too cool" (a phrase they've already been using a little bit), just gives the sketch a whimper of an ending after coming off the high of the song performance.

It almost makes me wish they devised this sketch solely around Sharkey and maybe had a different character for Matthius and/or Dillon to play.

______________________________________

PSA: Citizens for a Better America

We finally get a sketch featuring Gottfried...and it feels like we haven't seen him for so long after his last episode only featured him in Yellowface the entire time.

It truly is strange to watch Gottfried in these episodes: very subdued, using his natural voice, and very uneasy on camera.

While this sketch does eventually get some laughs, I have to admit that his energy in this sketch is not something you see on SNL often. He truly seems so green.

It becomes a play on words...where Gottfried talks about the plight of people not wanting to take more menial jobs, or as he refers to the "a humjob".

"My father had a humjob, my grandfather had a humjob..."

And of course, the final line: "Mr. President, give me a humjob!" 

It is silly enough, but mostly just a one joke premise that oddly suffers more due to how little Gottfried puts into it.

________________________________________

SKETCH: Carter at the Bar/January 11th

In what is only the second of three appearances from Piscopo's Carter this season, I have to admit that I do like this impersonation. Here, I'd say he comes closer to nailing it even more than Aykroyd did.

Placing Carter in a bar is certainly fitting, though very unlike the real Carter...but considering how unpopular the man was at that point, I doubt many cared about how accurate his image was.

Sharkey plays a bartender in the sketch and even says to him that all he can do now "is sit on your duff and daydream" now that his "job" is coming to an end.

Carter: "Oh, I've been doing that the last four years".

Sigh...Carter is such a great man, but there is no denying that his presidency was plagued with problems. Perhaps the ultimate example of a lame duck president.

The sketch then takes a bizarre turn where it cuts to a live feed of Charles Rocket standing out in the blistering cold on the corner of 5th Ave/50th St amongst a crowd ready to ring in January 11th.

It seems like an obvious ploy to really energize the audience, but I suppose I give them props for basically...well...providing the audience with props and letting them ring in a New Day not long after they rang in the New Year. 

It was interesting to see them try a strange format such as this, but it doesn't quite land and it feels a little jarring. 

I suppose that is a win...especially since we have had sketches like Commie Hunting Season to contend with from this season.

_______________________________________

WEEKEND UPDATE WITH CHARLES ROCKET & GAIL MATTHIUS????....Does That Mean UPDATE is saved?!?!

Does Weekend Update need two anchors to succeed?

Not necessarily. People like Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin and Dennis Miller and Norm MacDonald were able to handle the job with ease...but that also doesn't mean having a co-anchor to bounce off of is a bad thing.

Curtin worked very well with Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray; Colin Jost and Michael Che have been very consistent as co-anchors for the last several years; and who could forget the pairing of Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon?

Pairing Rocket with Matthius wasn't a bad idea. I can totally understand why they would do it because it is blatantly obvious that Update hasn't been working. In fact, not only has it been so dire in nearly every aspect, they go as far to change the Update set to be nearly identical to the Curtin/Murray set from seasons 4 and 5. 

The unfortunate truth is that the writing is still mostly abysmal...and Matthius, god love her, isn't able to overcome the material given. If anything, being on the Update just shows she probably was better suited sticking

Instead of seeming too calm and lethargic, Rocket starts to veer in another direction for these final episodes of his short tenure. It will become more apparent in the coming episodes.

However, as is to be expected, Update is stolen by Piscopo and then kidnapped from him by Eddie Murphy.

Piscopo is pretty much in his full Sportscaster role at this point, and his simple bit with claiming bowling is the sport of the 80s by utilizing a cheap bowling toy is somewhat fun and charming for what it is...but what I really love about it is that it seems to set up a bit where Piscopo tries to "upstage" Rocket once the bit is over having his toys interfere with Rocket's "jokes". I will comment on the variations of this bit as we continue on with the season.

That bring us to Eddie Murphy.

After getting the chance to say "Live from New York" before Ann Risley and even Gail Matthius (in full) had the opportunity, Murphy gets his next major break in the episode with his latest Update commentary.

With the war draft still a topic of discussion, Murphy was still only 19 years old when this episode aired (his confidence makes him seem like he is at least a few years older). Murphy doesn't want to be drafted which is met with applause from the audience. 

Although - he isn't afraid of being drafted: "I don't mind getting shot at every now and then; it doesn't bother me". HIS issue is that if he is drafted, who will be the Token Black on SNL who can do impressions of people like Bill Cosby and Stevie Wonder?

This leads to him doing Cosby for the first time (which, admittedly, was never one of his better impersonations) and just a visual look for Wonder which in later episodes will lead to one of his better vocal impersonations. The audience eats this bit up, but I do feel the final bit of the editorial where he recommends that they enlist Garrett Morris to join despite his age because "he's got a lot of time on his hands". Considering the kind of horrific treatment he received behind the scenes as a cast member during 1975-1980, I don't think this bit aged very well at all.

Regardless, it is another successful bit from Murphy and another sign that this young guy was worth far more screentime than he was actually getting.

________________________________

MUSICAL PERFORMANCE: 

Jack Bruce & Friends perform "Dancing on Air"

________________________________

SKETCH: Filmed Confession

A solid sketch overall in which Ray Sharkey plays a detective who is trying to get a confession out of a criminal played by Gilbert Gottfried...but the twist is that the interrogator is treating it as if it were a small film he is directing.

While there have been other sketches that have flirted with this kind of idea before and since, I would say their take on it here is not bad. I also think Gottfried comes alive here more than he has been in a couple of episodes, which is nice to see considering his brief tenure is known for being him in a very green and almost catatonic state on camera.

Once again, say what you will about Sharkey, but you can't argue the man was trying to give his all in this episode.

_____________________________

SHORT FILM: Have a Nice Day

We are in the early stages of the Slasher Movie era with Leatherface and Michael Meyers becoming iconic figures (although Jason Voorhees was not quite on the radar yet).

The idea of a horror movie using Smiley faces throughout in various ways does come off as silly, but not overly funny in the end. 

I do think the image on a Leatherface-type villain with a smiley faced mask and a chainsaw is actually kind of creepy in its own way.

______________________________

SKETCH: White Babies on the Black Market

I have always been kind of mixed on this sketch, primarily because the idea of putting Murphy (even though he is with Sharkey) as someone selling white babies on the Black Market does seem a bit tasteless by today's standards, but as is expected, Murphy's presence makes it a little more bearable.

It also doesn't hurt that some of the more absurdist bits of the sketch actually land, such as how a bowling pin was sold to a couple as a white baby or Denny Dillion having a kid named "Splotchy".

_____________________________

AUDIENCE CAPTION: 

As you can see, SNL decided they wanted to tackle these captions where they would zero in on a random audience member and comment on them in a faux-insulting way. 

Even in those 70s episodes, these weren't exactly amazing bits or highlights, but they often provided a quick chuckle.

The issue with this one is that it is far too wordy and it has that desperate feeling of "Hey look! Isn't it funny that we are saying this man has coleslaw in his underwear?!" 

This season will try to tackle these again, but the results are still lackluster.

____________________________

SKETCH: Surrogate Mothers

The audience does seem to get behind this sketch over all, and I can understand why to an extent. Denny Dillon's penchant for trying to get more money out of Risley's character by threatening to do acts such as taking LSD is humorous thanks to Dillon's performance, but this is yet another sketch that falls under the "shock value" category where it has that "Make it Hipper" stamp from Jean Doumanian. 

Perhaps even more frustrating is that they have Yvonne Hudson in the sketch as the other surrogate, but only use her to basically have her utter the "I don't know nothin' bout birthin' no babies" line from Gone with the Wind". 

Such an insulting waste. 

_____________________________

SHORT FILM: The Man with the Black Hat

Not much to say about this one.

A man walks around with his pants down and eventually meets a woman who is "dressed" the same way.

Honestly, some of the short films that SNL would air during this time...even extending into the Ebersol era...were amazing in their relative pointlessness.

______________________________

COMMERCIAL: Stop-a-Nut

I feel like a lot of people really like this one, and I suppose I can see the humor in certain moments. The concept is that Stop-a-Nut is a personal protection unit that will fight crime.

The best parts of the sketch are Ray Sharkey as an elderly woman trying to fight off the armored suit and the somehow glamorous life one can have while being inside the suit, complete with a fancy house.

There's also Eddie Murphy blasting Rapper's Delight on his boombox, which of course, the Stop-a-Nut takes as "crime" and begins attacking the boombox.

Definitely a wacky concept, and it is done pretty well.

____________________________

SKETCH: The Waiter-Maker

As I mentioned during his monologue, Sharkey was in the midst of his career peak while hosting this episode thanks to his performance in The Idolmaker, a role he would win the Comedy Golden Globe for later that month.

I don't think having knowledge of that movie is necessary here. I haven't even seen the whole thing, but the concept is pretty straightforward, so it is easy to pick up on. Having it be about making someone a great waiter is, I suppose, mildly amusing but it is frankly kind of basic.

Even the best moment of the sketch is done so poorly, which is a series of intertitles to show the comedically long passage of time it took for the waiter (Gilbert Gottfried) to be competent enough for his first dinner service.

However, it is clear this is being done to prep for set and costume changes and the timing of it is so slow that it only further drags the sketch down...so that is a bad sign when arguably the best moment of the sketch is a borderline disaster and frankly not even that funny to begin with.

____________________________

COMMERCIAL: Selling Nothing

Considering what is about to follow this, I have to wonder if this was some kind of last minute desperate attempt to pad out the timing of the episode.

Piscopo is a pitchman who is trying to sell us a seemingly non-existent vague product for $9.99

It is over and done so fast that it leaves you more bewildered than anything else.

I suppose the plus is that Piscopo is at least good at this kind of material.

_________________________________

EXTRA: Eddie Murphy Saves The Day!

The legend behind this bit is pretty well-known in terms of SNL lore. When Eddie Murphy finally snagged an audition for the show, he did a piece for Neil Levy in which he played three guys on a street corner in Harlem. Two are attempting to fight while the other is instigating. 

When the show was running very short, it was Neil Levy who kept saying to Jean Doumanian that having Murphy do his stand-up material would be a great way to pad out the time before the final musical performance.

Doumanian kept resisting until she finally relented. Murphy, seemingly thrilled about the prospect with no hint of anxiety, proceeded to head for home base to do his bit.

While many have stated that his performance here is not exactly his best work, what is still remarkable about it is that he felt confident enough to do the piece on live television with barely any heads up and...perhaps even crazier...cut it down and censored it as he went along so it wouldn't go over the amount of time that was allotted.

If there was any doubt amongst anyone at this point that Eddie Murphy was actually the future of SNL, they were extremely delusional. 

Upon finishing the bit, the audience roars with approval and he introduces the final musical performance.

_______________________________

GOODNIGHTS/FINAL THOUGHTS:

Considering this was the first show back after the winter hiatus along with the fact they had new headwriters, this episode didn't really feel any worse or better than what we've been getting so far. 

In fact, it seems to further prove how much of a negative influence Doumanian was to her staff for not being able to properly guide them. 

As a host, Ray Sharkey was a bit brash and bombastic but there is no denying that his energy helped keep things lively and it is certainly appreciative that he seemed game to do anything.

Eddie Murphy firmly plants himself as what the show will need to actually survive. 

Getting to have the "Live From New York!" intro, a killer Update piece, and his standup right at the end made him feel like the episode's tentpoles.

Strangely enough, despite what was seemingly a bigger growing desire to dispose of Jean Doumanian backstage by NBC, the cast/writers would go into the next week surprisingly emboldened and they would give us an episode that has been considered worthy of classic status.

Stay tuned as I will discuss what might be the season's best episode: Karen Black/Cheap Trick.

IT'S A HIT INDEED: Talking About MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG

I often bounce around between what I consider to be my favorite Sondheim musical...and a lot of that has to do with the simple fact that the man was basically a God who gave us such a stellar and eclectic output.

I am not about to make a claim that his best musical is Merrily We Roll Along, but I will say that there is a certain bouncy buoyancy to it mixed with bittersweetness and snark that make it a truly unique little quirky gem of a piece.

There is a song in the show called "It's a Hit!" where our leading characters Frankin Shepard and Charley Kringas both realize their new show Musical Husbands is a smash after a rapturous opening night. 

As any musical theatre fan can tell you, that certainly wasn't the case for Merrily We Roll Along.

Just a quick history:

The musical was actually inspired by a 1934 Kaufmann & Hart play of the same name which explored a playwright named Richard Niles with a reverse chronological storytelling method that began in the 30s and ended with his college graduation in 1916. 

Spanning 20 years of time in a theatrical production is not necessarily unheard of...although the revere chronology may be a little more so.

One big question one might have if you are on a production team for such a show is how to go about casting it: do you want to keep the cast young or older or somewhere in the middle?

When Stephen Sondheim, Book writer George Furth, and director Hal Prince began devising the piece, the decision was made that this would be a showcase for young talent. Prince eventually said in an interview that he was "charmed as hell" by the "beginnings of the cast's artistry, the roughness of their craft, their inexperience".

On top of this, it was decided that the show would not have an out-of-town tryout due to budgetary reasons and it would open sometime in November of 1981 in the midst of what was considered one of the worst Broadway seasons in recent memory when it came to original musicals.

*Sidenote: this is the season Dreamgirls would open to truly orgasmic reviews that December only for another musical, Nine, to come in late in the game in May 1982 to win the Tony mainly due to politics and recency bias while also not having an out-of-town tryout.*

The preview period for Merrily is legendary for how disastrous it actually was. The first performance had mass walkouts and many bemoaned how incoherent the story/characters were. It seems like a joke now, but one of the big decisions made for a period was for the cast members to wear various colored sweatshirts that had their characters' names emblazoned on their chest. 

After 44 previews (which may not seem like a lot in today's Broadway climate) and the firing of young James Weissenbach as Franklin at the expense of Jim Walton, the show finally opened on November 16, 1981...and closed two weeks later after only 16 official performances.

Despite the colossal failure, they were able to record the score for posterity which is certainly a major reason why the show didn't just fade into obscurity. 

That cast recording truly is the saving grace because it captured the best things about the production: the score and the Jonathan Tunick orchestrations. 

 Considering musicals are what they are, a great score can often help a show coast along even if it has just an adequate text to buoy it up. A lot of what made Merrily problematic was Furth's book and Prince's desire to focus on the cast being young adults. However, it is clear when looking at the material that while it was far from being great, the themes involving the dissolution a friendship told backwards gave the show a surprising emotional trajectory.

It is that old trope of letting an audience in on something that the actors don't know. By the end of the show when we see the trio of Franklin, Charley, and Mary sitting on the roof of their Upper West Side apartment having spotted Sputnik in the sky, we can't help but feel a sense of warmth for them along with a sense of sadness as we know this budding friendship is not going to last. 

After years of many revisions and edits to the plot and score, Merrily built up a bigger reputation and managed to become a truly beloved cult favorite. This culminated in a 2012 production that was staged by Maria Friedman at London's Menier Chocolate Factory. It was THAT production that got many buzzing to that point that such hyperbolic sayings like "This is the definitive Merrily" were being proclaimed with great fervor. 

After a decade (and a pandemic), it was announced that the Friedman staging would be coming to Broadway starring very popular Broadway vets Jonathan Groff as Franklin; Daniel Radcliffe as Charley; and Lindsay Mendez as Mary. This seemed like a no-brainer after it had been staged with great success at the NY Theatre Workshop.

And here it was, over 40 years after the musical bombed, it was now time for it to have its official coronation on Broadway...and it was indeed a coronation that gave the show Tonys for Best Musical Revival, Best Leading Actor for Groff, Best Featured Actor for Radcliffe, and Orchestrations for Tunick, who revamped his work for a smaller (but fantastic) orchestra.

For a quick synopsis of the show, we begin in 1976. We are in the Bel Air home of Franklin Shepard (Jonathan Groff), who is now working as a successful Hollywood film producer, and we quickly learn that he has had a falling out with his two friends: Mary Flynn (Lindsay Mendez), a journalist turned novelist turned critic and his writing partner Charley Kringas (Daniel Radcliffe), who is now a highly acclaimed playwright with a Pulitzer Prize to his name. 

We proceed back throughout the 20 years that led to this moment; all of the triumphs and heartbreaks and discoveries and betrayals.

I already that I called the musical a "quirky little piece", but beyond that...how exactly do I feel about it?

Like I also said, I by no means consider this to be Sondheim's best musical but I used to always consider it his most underrated...and that mainly comes from his score rather than the rest of the show itself.

Sondheim's style is usually pretty noticeable as he loves to experiment and not cater to the norms, but one thing that is truly remarkable about him is that his catalog is quite eclectic...and it is that quality that can make it hard to choose a favorite musical of his...or at least a favorite score.

Merrily is a jazzier score that almost feels surprisingly traditional at times, but the real truth is that this score is deceptively brilliant. It ties in so many key musical motifs throughout the show that vary depending on the era they came from. We may hear a snippet of a song that would normally be a reprise (Old Friends) and then hear the full song later on...but he also experiments with song styles.

We get a patter-like nervous breakdown with "Franklin Shepard Inc.", bitter love ballads that originally started as proclamations of young love such as "Not a Day Goes By", and a silly cutesy off-Broadway revue song about the Kennedy family tree that feels like it could've come out of an Irish revamping of Jacques Brel is Alive & Well & Living in Paris. 

While maybe not as grand as the score he wrote right before it (Sweeney Todd), there is a certain whimsy and flash to Merrily that makes it feel like his take on a truly classic Broadway musical. 

Even with the show flopping, Sondheim still managed to get a Best Score nomination, which he lost to Maury Yeston for Nine. That is one of those scores where I marvel more at Yeston's musicality than his lyrics...something he would improve upon years later with his work on projects like Titanic and December Songs. 

At any rate...I shouldn't go down a tangent about Nine. I should save that for another time. 

Back to Merrily!!

I think when the show works well, it works remarkably well. Considering the timeline and the structure of the scenes and the characters weaving in and out, it can be hard to keep track at times of who is who and their exact role...however, there is certainly more distinct work done with the characterizations that make it easier to follow without having to resort to branded sweatshirts.

This is clearly a show that needs strong acting and direction to pull it through, and I would say that Maria Friedman achieved that here. Considering the limitations of the Furth text at times, it is up to the actors/director to dig as deep into the material to find the emotional core. 

The reason a lot of productions suffered...especially ones I had either seen or been involved with...were due to the fact that it was hard to be that invested in many of the side characters like Gussie, Beth, and Joe.

Gussie starts off the show as being Frank's wife. She is a successful actress and had been in the Shepard/Kringas Broadway debut Musical Husbands...and at that time, she had been married to the musical's producer Joe. Frank's affair with Gussie led to the dissolution of his marriage to Beth, who proceeded to take their young son back to Houston after a bitter court battle. Beth had gotten her start by being cast in a small revue put up by Frank and Charley down in 1960 Greenwich Village. 

These three characters prove to be where the issues can lie. Gussie can come off strictly as a narcissistic diva; Joe is just an irascible stereotypical New Yorker; and Beth is the ingenue turned scorned wife.

This production cast Krystal Joy Brown, Reg Rogers, and Katie Rose Clarke in these respective roles, but if I had to pick who really stood out, it was Clarke...which is totally a shocker.

Beth has always been something of a thankless role, which managed to get a boost when Sondheim famously revised the song "Not a Day Goes By" to be sung by her in Act 1 instead of Frank. Beth becomes more a fixture once we hit Act 2 as she plays a bigger role in the earlier years of Frank's growing career. It is during these scenes where you see such a perky warm personality coming off of Clarke that makes looking back at her courtroom scene in Act 1 all the more brutal. 

I have always found Clarke to be an undervalued stage actress who is often the best thing about weaker material. Look no further than her turn as Hannah in the truly abysmal 2015 musical Allegiance in which she was a true highlight...aside from a horrifically staged moment in which her character (spoiler alert) gets shot. 

Over the last several months, we have been seeing Groff, Radcliffe, and Mendez in tandem. So much so that Lindsay Mendez got married on the usual Monday off and had both Groff and Radcliffe involved in the ceremony.

Groff referred to them now being "soulmates" during his Tony acceptance speech, and you can feel that love amongst them...and it was especially apparent onstage. Even in the heated moments, you could tell that this was a trio of actors who trusted each other wholeheartedly. A lot of the power of this production undoubtedly rests on their shoulders and they truly carry the day.

I have never been the biggest fan of Lindsay Mendez if I am truly being honest, but she absolutely nailed the snide cynicism of Mary. She is always the third wheel; the Eponine to Beth or Gussie's Cosette. She's always there with a quip that is dripping with copious amounts of sarcasm, but there is such unfulfilled sadness underneath considering that she has an unrequited love for Frank that leads to her becoming an alcoholic.

This was a true star turn for Mendez, easily her best work as you could see every layer of pain under her snarky bravado.

Then we come to Radcliffe as Charley Kringas, a role that I always considered one of my favorites in the Sondheim canon...and one that I was lucky to be able to play at one point and it was still one of my proudest achievements.

Charley is the meeker and more awkward of the two. He wants to write, he wants to engage people in deeper topics when coming to the theatre...and yet, he has to deal with a best friend/writing partner who is really loving the money and the success. There could be a certain danger to having Charley come off as a wet blanket/kill joy, but I would argue he is mainly just the smartest guy in the room who needs to speak up more. 

Radcliffe gives Charley such a sweetness that you almost want to run up onstage and tussle his hair and tell him everything will be okay. Considering that he is attached to a role that will undoubtedly follow him to his grave and beyond, you really have to commend a lot of the roles that Radcliffe has taken on in the last nearly 15 years as the Harry Potter franchise finally came to a close. When Deathly Hallows Part II was released in theaters in the summer of 2011, he wasn't off shooting some new hip movie that he could start promoting. Instead, he came to Broadway start in a revival of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying...which was his second Broadway outing after making a big splash with Equus in 2008. 

Radcliffe was given a chance to prove himself as an actor thanks to Broadway. This performance felt like the perfect time to give him due credit for being more than just a kid wizard...and he also approached the role as he should have: an actor. His singing is definitely good, but he is still not the kind of singer that Groff is...and Charley is not supposed to be a singer. After years of more polished Charley types played by the likes of Lin Manuel Miranda, Wayne Brady, and Raul Esparza, it was nice to see Radcliffe take on the scruffier aesthetic that seemed more in line with the originator of the role: Lonny Price.

And that brings me to Jonathan Groff, quite possibly one of the most beloved and charming figures to come out of the Broadway theatre scene in years. 

There's a certain stroke of genius to casting someone so fun and charming in a role where they also need to be something of a cad. Think of Steve Carell's casting on The Morning Show: a truly impeachable and beloved figure that is outed as a sexual predator...and yet, you still can't help but love watching him because the actor involved brings such humanity to the part.

Groff's Franklin is no less a cad, but he makes the most of a character that is quite easily the most boring of the trio. A prime example of a trope where the more supporting players are interesting than the lead...but this is where Groff's charisma can truly push through that barrier. 

There is a moment during the "It's a Hit!" song I mentioned earlier where Beth sings to Frank that he is on track to win a Tony. In this moment, the audience erupted in an ovation that lasted for well over a minute considering Groff's Tony win just occurred 6 days ago. It stopped the show cold, and you could see Mendez and Radcliffe breaking character to enjoy the moment with Groff. Normally these kinds of moments can get old, but it honestly felt wonderful to witness as Groff has been such a down-to-earth and loving champion of Broadway and its community of fans. 

Oh! And I got to see a big splash of Groff Sauce (his spit for those who aren't aware) during "Old Friends" so that was also fun...lol...

MY FINAL THOUGHTS:

I originally sat down and planned for this to be a review of the production, but then I felt compelled to throw in some of the history to go along with it. The truth is that it is hard to talk about Merrily We Roll Along without commenting on its truly bizarre history as a legendary flop that basically destroyed the royal-like partnership of Sondheim & Prince that dominated the 70s Broadway scene.

I also find myself sort of in a rambling mood a little bit. I have never really seen this show be done to the potential that I saw it done today, and I feel that has me at a loss for words.

I think, perhaps, we could still mine a little more characterization out of the supporting players...but I do agree that the text there will always be a bit of a limitation.

Even with that limitation, there was always an emotionally charged show here. It is prime example of how you truly need the right people to be able to see the potential and bring it out with great care.

I wish there was a way it could live on past the July 7th closing date so more people could see it, but it was announced that it is being filmed for posterity and I suppose it is likely we will either see it air on Great Performances or in cinemas across the country.

If you get the chance, please watch it.

So yes, Sondheim, your show is finally a hit...a very palpable hit.

And yes, that sound you hear is the audience losing its mind.

THE GREAT YEARS OF CINEMA: A Look Back at 1979

Welcome back to my Great Years of Cinema series!

Last time, we discussed 1989...and yes, I will eventually get to 1999 because the legend is real...but I want to talk about yet another year that I find to be stacked that just so happens to end in '9': 1979.

I have said many times on here that I hold the 1970s in high regard and consider it to be the finest decade for filmmaking...especially from an American standpoint as Hollywood struggled to match most of the output from the rest of the world for decades prior. 

1979 is that last gasp before we see a dip happening throughout the 1980s when some of the best efforts either went unnoticed or paled next to the best films from decades prior.

Unlike the last list where I chose to single out 20 films, I am only going to select 10 to discuss here instead. Perhaps this will vary as I go along with a given year, but I would say this is a good number to stick with for the sake of time.

I do want to quickly single out a film that won't be on the list particularly because of its critical/audience reception at the time, and the hold it has had from a pop culture standpoint:

Woody Allen's Manhattan

This film is mostly known today for being a B&W NYC lovefest with a score of Gershwin tunes arranged by then conductor of the NY Philharmonic Zubin Mehta along with that iconic shot of the 59th Street Bridge at dawn which (guilty) is one of my favorite shots in a film ever.

But yes, it is also the film where Woody Allen has a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl named Tracey, played by Mariel Hemingway...which...yeah that did not age well at all.

I also find it interesting that Allen himself disowned this film and yet it still remains one of his most successful films in terms of box office revenue and relative critical acclaim.

Allen has had a reputation for glamourizing NYC to a point that other fellow NY based filmmakers like Martin Scorsese referred to his work as "extremely foreign"...but I suppose Allen's work played a crucial role in shaping my fascination for the city, so that is why I wanted to quickly mention it.

Beyond that, I am looking forward to diving into these films. 

But you know what, I do want to acknowledge a few films really quickly that I do like from this year but did not make the cut:

NORMA RAE - which is a little rough around the edges but is saved by a luminous and passionate performance by Sally Field.

THE CHINA SYNDROME - a very entertaining and gripping thriller that manages to sort of fall under a 70s Disaster movie trope but also manages to be far better than the Disaster films that received Best Picture nominations earlier in the decade. 

THE MUPPET MOVIE - A truly subversive and bizarre film at times, but that is why I love it. The Muppets are so beloved, and this was Jim Henson and crew at their peak.

BREAKING AWAY - the pesky concept that is "coming of age" mixed with "underdogs in sports" - two concepts that can be failures when done wrong. Thankfully, that wasn't the case here.

KRAMER VS. KRAMER - We shouldn't ignore the heinous manipulation and abuse that Dustin Hoffman bestowed upon Meryl Streep for this film...but if we are strictly judging what is onscreen, the acting is what really carries the film. Hoffman is great, Streep steals the movie (shocker), young Justin Henry is such a natural, Jane Alexander was such a warm presence in whatever she did.

AND NOW - THE TOP 10:

#10 - NOSEFERATU THE VAMPYRE

Written & Directed by Werner Herzog

Known more these days for his documentaries, there was a time when German filmmaker Werner Herzog was leading the charge of the New German Cinema movement; a movement that is actually featured with more offerings on the list ahead.

This is Herzog's stylized remake of the famed 1922 F.W. Murnau film Nosferatu, which was in turn an adaptation of the legendary Bram Stoker novel Dracula...and that predated the Bela Lugosi version, which came out in 1931.

So yes, this is basically a remake...and considering I am writing this in late May 2024, we have the Robert Eggers' remake set to come out later this year. Remakes are certainly a very controversial topic when it comes to cinema, but I will gladly state that I found Herzog's take on this one to be a worthwhile endeavor. 

There is a truly gothic poetic quality to this version and as should come as no surprise to anyone, Klaus Kinski and Isabelle Adjani are quite remarkable. No other film within the Dracula canon has quite the surreal dreamlike vision of this one...so much so that I actually consider it to be the best of the modern-day vampire films.

_____________________________

#9 - CAMERA BUFF

Written & Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

Co-written by Jerzy Stuhr

 In my 1989 post, I sang the praises of the late Polish filmmaker Kryzsztof Kieslowski and said that I considered him to be "one of the greatest filmmakers to have ever lived". 

By saying that, I would place him on a top 10 canon list to be sure. I have not seen many of his short films, but his full-length features are first rate to say the least. Even my least favorite among them, 1987's Blind Chance, would likely get a 4 out of 5 star-ranking from me. 

I would say that Camera Buff does not get as much attention or discussion as The Three Colours trilogy or The Double Life of Veronique, but I would argue that Camera Buff is nearly as vital as those if only for the fact that it taps into a different kind of topic: the love of cinema & photography.

When you look at works like 8 1/2, Cinema Paradiso, and Day for Night, you often get the glamour along with the bitterness that comes with having an obsession for visual/cinematic art. 

Camera Buff is no exception. 

Our protagonist is Filip (Jerzy Stuhr), a nervous young father who begins documenting the first days of his daughter's life while living in Communist Poland.

The harsh environment around him at work when Filip's interest in filming his life around him takes on more of an obsessive effect...which also leads to him neglecting his wife and daughter ironically enough, his first muses if you will.

I suppose you could consider this film a warning on how not to get too obsessed with your work, because one could look at the character of Filip and tell him that life isn't just about his camera...but Jerzy Stuhr's performance feels so natural and honest that you almost want to take on the belief that ignorance is bliss.

When I look at my life working in a corporate office as opposed to acting as of late, sometimes I scoff at...actually strike that...I OFTEN scoff at the majority of the people around me. Many of them don't exactly embrace anything about the arts and probably view that lifestyle as tiresome. 

I am not saying I want to cut everyone off like Filip does, but I do miss being around artistic types on a regular basis like I was throughout most of my 20s.

_________________________________

#8 - TICKET OF NO RETURN

Written & Directed by Ulrike Ottinger

Perhaps one of the more semi-controversial selections for this list, Ticket of No Return has been written off by some as being a plotless and indulgent film that had no real substance.

Obviously, considering its placement here, I don't share that sentiment. However, it is one of those films where I can totally get the criticism and why some don't respond to it. For some reason, I took it and I will try my best to explain way.

Like I mentioned, the film feels a bit breezy in terms of a plot, but the film follows an unnamed woman (Tabea Blumenschein) who barely speaks. Her goal is to arrive in Berlin and drink until she passes out. Meanwhile, a Greek chorus of three women observe her and pass judgement on her behavior.

Aside from the stunning visuals and the grand screen presence of Blumenschein, there is definitely a clear message that the film is trying to make.

This film was written and directed by Ulrike Ottinger, a lesbian and someone with a clear voice and style to her work. She intended the film to be how society is so quick to judge women for their actions compared to men. That is certainly a tale as old as time!

Look at all the classic Hollywood films who used to vilify women of "ill repute" values thanks to the standards of the Hays Code...or even in reality when they kicked actresses like Ingrid Bergman to the curb for having an adulterous affair with Roberto Rossellini. 

Ottinger was such a unique voice compared to other colleagues who were considered part of the New German Cinema movement of the 70s and 80s that I brought up before in regard to Werner Herzog. It also contained the likes of Wim Wenders and Werner Rainer Fassbinder. One way I would say that Ottinger differed greatly in comparison to those three men is that she took on a free-thinking avant-garde approach that made the other films seem more accessible by comparison...which is saying something when looking at the catalogues of those 3 men.

It isn't a film for everyone, but I appreciate Ottinger's vision here. It may seem a bit freewheeling, but she definitely has a point...and also, the visuals give the film a lot more flair which gives it a boost, albeit somewhat superficial.

____________________________________

#7 - BEING THERE

Directed by Hal Ashby

Written by Jerzy Kosinski

When watching The Holdovers, I felt like various films of Hal Ashby were inspiring the cinematic style that Alexander Payne was going for. In my review for that film, I acknowledged Being There as one of them due to how the film had a sort of cold, wintery landscape and even a cool-colored cinematography.

However, there is a lot more to love about something like Being There. 

If you were to just sum up Being There to someone, you could describe it as a "fake it till you make it" film that has more of a heart.

Obviously, that sells it short. 

Peter Sellars plays Chance, a gardener who has spent all of his life within the confines of a Washington DC townhome owned by an elderly man who passes away. The estate lawyers insist that Chance leave and they force him out onto the streets for the first time with only the knowledge of gardening and frequent television watching to offer.

When he is accidentally struck by a limo chauffeuring Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine), she brings him back to the huge gothic mansion where she lives with her much older dying husband Ben (Melvyn Douglas) to be examined by his doctor. 

From here, Chance the Gardener...or as Eve misinterprets it, Chauncey Gardiner...begins something of a whimsical odyssey where he manages to coast his way up the ladder of a society all by...well...chance.

Being There is one of the best films you can watch that would fall under a satirical category because despite that whole "fake it till you make it" idea or the concept that sometimes people just get lucky, there is such a bittersweet heart to Being There. 

Peter Sellars is absolutely brilliant in this, and it is easily the finest work of his career...and Chance is such an amazing character to watch...and it is a great message of sorts: "No matter what our facades, we are all children".  

__________________________________

#6 - MONTY PYTHON'S THE LIFE OF BRIAN

Directed by Terry Jones

Written by Monty Python

Years ago, I was watching an interview with John Cleese where he stated that he noticed a bit of a divide in both British and American audiences when it came to selecting their favorite Monty Python film. Americans tend to prefer Holy Grail while the Brits prefer Life of Brian.

In this case, I definitely side with the Brits.

The fact that Life of Brian had the volatile reputation amongst the religious community is not surprising in the slightest, and it is even less surprising when you realize how wrong they were.

While the men from Monty Python are not religious people, they were wise enough to know that the inherent idea of Jesus Christ as a figure was nothing that they could make fun of directly. His preachings are simply about treating others with kindness; that may be putting in the most simplistic way possible, but I think most of us understanding what Jesus and Christianity as a whole is supposed to stand for. 

Instead, Life of Brian doesn't make fun of Jesus Christ: it makes fun of organized religion and the people who blindly follow...and let's just say I am always here for that kind of thing.

I grew up the denomination known as Apostolic, which you could just link to keywords like Pentecostal or Evangelical...and it is a lot of those people (even if the denomination may vary) who have been leading the charge of the Religious Right in the Republican Party....something that has become worse over the last 50 years. 

In the States, it is obvious that people don't give a flying fuck about the term "Separation of Church & State"....and yet, that kind of mentality is destroying so many constitutional rights in this country.

A film like Life of Brian SHOULD infuriate these people not because it makes fun of Jesus Christ, but because it makes fun of themselves. 

______________________________

#5 - STALKER 

Directed by Andrei Tarkovsky

Written by Arkady & Boris Strugsatsky

The most well-known film in the Tarkovsky canon would be Solaris...and it is likely his most widely seen or it happens to be known more being the basis of a truly horrible 2002 American remake by Steven Soderbergh.

While I absolutely love Tarkovsky's Solaris, I would argue that his best work was with 1975's Mirror or the film I am now about to discuss: Stalker. Let's just say that most of Tarkovsky's work is not going to be what the general audience wants to flock to...and perhaps you could say he is one of those filmmakers that seems pretentious to love.

I feel like I had to grow into loving Tarkovsky's works...but that isn't a surprise. I can't say I truly understood a lot of what he was trying to do as a teenager. Everything seemed dark and brooding in a way that I would've expected to respond to considering how I took to the likes of David Lynch...but I have to admit that Tarkovsky has a lot more depth than a lot of Lynch's work.

This isn't to say I fully understand Stalker right now...I would never claim to be that intelligent...but it is clearly a film that requires repeated viewings to even begin to interpret all of its themes.

If I were to entice you to check out the film based on a brief synopsis, I can give you as follows:

A writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and a professor (Nikolai Grinko) are both looking for inspiration to try to move on with various projects/aspects within their lives. This leads them to a man known as the Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky), who can guide them through a hazardous wasteland to access a space called "the Zone", where all of your innermost desires can be granted. 

Of all the films on my list, this is the one where I feel like I can't exactly do it justice to describe beyond that...which probably makes sense for those of you who have seen it.

________________________________

#4 - ALIEN 

Directed by Ridley Scott

Written by Dan O'Bannon/Story by O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett

This is bound to piss some of you off, but so be it.

Ridley Scott recently made a comment that he feels rather good about the fact he is able to churn out films so quickly...but if I may be honest, the man hasn't made a truly good film in over 20 years...and his best work is over 40 years behind him. 

Alien was the film that put him on the map, and to me, it is still his best work. There was a time where I said that I preferred James Cameron's Aliens, but I don't feel as such anymore. Also, they are both tonally very different. 

The slow burn horror/suspense of Alien has aged remarkably well, and I think the decision to cast Ripley as a woman (as the script was written so that all the roles could be any gender and then adjusted after casting) was a masterstroke and it ignited the film career of the legendary Sigourney Weaver.

When I first saw Alien way back in 2000, I acknowledged it was a good movie but I was definitely trying to form myself as something of a film elitist snob who didn't really consider a film like that to be "best of the year" material or awards worthy. I am willing to admit that about myself, but it is truly obvious now that so many great films/performances have gotten the shaft due to negative genre bias.

Alien has stood the test of time. It is kind of hard to elaborate much on that, as everything just feels so succinct and clear in its presentation. From the moment of the absolutely unnerving opening credits to the tense finale, it is pure cinematic gold.

_______________________________

#3 - APOCALYPSE NOW 

Written & Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Co-written by John Milius 

There are certain films from over the years where I have considered them something of a "journey" for me...but what exactly do I mean by that?

For various reasons, watching a film for the first time could mean that you will end up not liking it...which may seem like an obvious potential outcome...but what is fascinating to me is how over time you can grow to reevaluate a film and respect it a lot more.

Frankly, the 70s filmography from Francis Ford Coppola fits this to a tee. 

I had made the claim in my teen years that I wasn't as wowed by the first two films of The Godfather trilogy or Apocalypse Now. It was my way of really flaunting one of those "hot take" opinions that made me feel like I had some kind of edge. To further add to that, I would always say my favorite Coppola film was The Conversation...which, for the record, I do still love, and think is a masterpiece.

I have come to accept that I was completely wrong about those other three films...and now, I will go into why I think Apocalypse Now deserves this placement.

Or rather...do I REALLY need to? I feel like most people have seen this film and the amount of effort and tenacity that was put into every frame is kind of hard to miss.

Sure, the legend behind the film is that Coppola took everything on at a maniacal level and when the film was first released, it polarized a lot of critics and people in the general audience. 

For every Roger Ebert calling it "the best film of 1979" and would later dub it "the greatest Vietnam War film ever made", you get Frank Rich calling it "emotionally obtuse" or Vincent Canby saying it was nothing but "delusions of grandeur". 

Maybe I don't necessarily respond to the film on a deep emotional level, but there is still something so unsettling and operatic about the scope of this film. 

I would argue that it holds up remarkably well under a modern lens. Something like the iconic Ride of the Valkyries is shot and edited with such flare that I can only imagine how that would've played to a 1979 audience member. 

For what Coppola was able to achieve here, I can't deny him anything less than a little bit of worship as if I am a villager bowing at Martin Sheen's Willard.  

___________________________________

#2 - ALL THAT JAZZ

Directed by Bob Fosse

Written by Robert Alan Aurthur & Bob Fosse

Maybe there are other films I am forgetting, but if I were to name a film that manages to be equally compelling while being overly self-indulgent in the best ways, you can't really look further than All That Jazz; a film in which Bob Fosse essentially puts himself on the screen and glorifies and attacks his life all at once.

Fosse obviously made a name for himself in film (hence this and his Oscar winning work on Cabaret, among others), but his legend is so closely tied to the theatre. He had such a distinct style to his work that I would certainly be willing to accept the claim that he is the most iconic in terms of staging/choreography. 

In order to capture that kind of energy, he needed to find the right actor to play his alter-ego and I would say that it is an absolute shame that Roy Scheider never got the roles/acclaim he deserved after the 1970s.

Most people remember him from Jaws, and understandably so. He was something of a strong, silent type as Chief Brody...but here, he completely oozes charisma in such a way that you truly witness one of the greatest unsung character actors in cinema. 

The alter-ego is Joe Gideon...and he is living a life of excess: drugs, alcohol, chain-smoking, womanizing...and visits from an angel of death named Angelique (Jessica Lange, in her first role post-King Kong that made critics go "ummmm....okay yeah, she might actually be brilliant...").

I mentioned that the film could be viewed as self-indulgent, but honestly, I think it took big, brass balls for Fosse to make this...and it is even more effective now when you take into account that Fosse predicted his own death about 6 years before it happened.

It's a musical that isn't quite a musical; instead, it is a dark music-infused biopic made by a man who deep down saw all of his own flaws, and yet was still unrepentant despite his regrets. 

______________________________

#1 - THE MARRIAGE OF MARIA BRAUN 

Written & Directed by Werner Rainer Fassbinder

Co-written by Peter Marthesheimer & Pea Frohlich

I have only seen The Marriage of Maria Braun twice. I first saw it back around 2008 when I began digging a little deeper into foreign cinema thanks to some very strong recommendations from fellow online film fanatics at the time. I thought highly of the film, but for some reason, just sort of forgot about it. It wasn't until a few years later that I saw people bringing up the film again via the magnificent performance of Hanna Schygulla as one of the truly great unsung performances of cinema that I felt compelled to seek out the film again. 

It wasn't until 2020, when I was stuck home in COVID quarantine, that I finally saw the film again and it not only hit me more on that second watch, but it made me want to revisit the filmography of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, a very crucial and important Queer filmmaker whose life was cut short following an overdose in 1982 at the age of 37.

I haven't discussed him much on my blog, which is a shame...but frankly, this is why I love doing posts like these so I have more of a wide net to cast when discussing various filmmakers who might get overlooked for one reason or another. 

I did bring up his film In a Year of 13 Moons on my *1978* list, but I still think that The Marriage of Maria Braun might be my favorite of his works.

Fassbinder deserves his flowers, and while it may be a bit of a surprise, I decided to select this as my #1 film even though...and this is no joke...all of my top 5 were in this spot briefly. With that in mind, just consider the fact that if I were to have posted this list tomorrow, you might see Apocalypse Now or All That Jazz here. 

For a quick synopsis of the film for those who may not be familiar, the film begins during an Allied bombing in 1943, where young Maria (Hanna Schygulla) marries Hermann (Klaus Lowitch). Shortly thereafter, Hermann returns to the Eastern front and quickly vanishes. It is assumed that he perished in battle, which leads Maria to have to turn to prostitution to help care for her mother and grandfather. 

Maria ends up taking a liking to Bill (George Byrd), an African-American soldier. She won't marry him out of respect of Hermann's memory, but the two have a very tender and loving relationship...until Hermann returns, after having been a Russian prisoner. 

As I write this, Sean Baker JUST won the Palme d'Or at the 2024 Cannes Film Festival for his film Anora which tells the story of an exotic dancer who often does sex work. Baker stated in his acceptance speech that he dedicated the film to sex workers "past, present, and future".

While Maria's journey with it comes out of tragedy, Fassbinder had enough sense to show us that this was still a valuable asset and nothing to be demeaned. It was able to get Maria back on her feet, more or less...sort of how Akerman explored that element in Jeanne Dielman. 

Maria is able to use the anguish of post-WWII Germany for her own personal gain...and we admire her for it in many ways. She certainly has her brutal and ruthless moments, and we may question a lot of her choices at times...but she simply a gray character; she is complex. A lot of that is in the text and the direction, but the truth is that the performance by Schygulla is one of my favorites ever.

It thrilled me to see Schygulla as Martha in Poor Things, because while it wasn't the biggest role, she was a key factor in pushing Emma Stone's Bella Baxter towards mental/emotional autonomy. As Maria, she is pretty much a seductive bulldozer; a woman who knows what she needs to do to get what she wants to help herself first, and then those she chooses to help later. 

A truly stunning achievement not just for Fassbinder, Schygulla, and the New German Cinema movement, but easily one of the greatest achievements of film from what was the brilliance of the 1970s.

__________________________

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I may not have written as in-depth about as many films this time around, but frankly, I kind of feel better about that fact now that I am drafting my final thoughts.

I think the crazy thing about 1979 was that it was seen by some critics at the time as either a last gasp or the beginning of the end of cinema. That may sound a bit extreme, but by the middle of 1980, the negative tides seemed to be changing.

The infamous but beloved New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael wrote a piece that was called "The Current Cinema: Why Are Movies So Bad?", which opens with the following line:

"The movies have been so rank the last couple of years that when I see people lining up to buy tickets, I sometimes think that the movies aren't drawing an audience - they are inheriting an audience".

Now, I could see perhaps why she may have felt a bit concerned about the slimmer output in 1980, which even mainstream Hollywood publications like Variety commented on going into awards season in 1981...but I feel like hindsight for the latter years of the 1970s has been more luminous. 

Maybe it wasn't as overflowing with an absurdly high amount of stellar films like 1974 or 1975, but I still think this representation of 1979 films can be considered far better than many other years of cinema.

As I mentioned in the intro, I do intend on tackling 1999, but frankly I don't know if it will be next up or not. I still feel like I would rather focus on other years that don't get as much attention or maybe aren't as recent. 

I basically just revealed I think very highly of 1974 and 1975 so you will be seeing me tackle those years for sure. In the meantime, I hope that if you haven't seen some of these films, you will be encouraged to check them out.