Tue 23 Dec 2014
Reviewed by David Vineyard: THE MANITOU (1978).
Posted by Steve under Horror movies , Reviews[15] Comments
THE MANITOU. AVCO Embassy Pictures, 1978. Tony Curtis, Susan Strasberg, Michael Ansara, Stella Stevens, Jon Cedar, Paul Mantee, Jeanette Nolan, Lurene Tuttle, Ann Sothern, Burgess Meredith. Based on the novel by Graham Masterton. Director: Willlam Girdler.
First off, the good stuff. Hell of a cast. Good performance by Ansara in a rare good guy role on screen, nice turn by Meredith as a barmy anthropologist, Lurene Tuttle as a little old lady fatally possessed by a Native American medicine man. Some lovely shots of San Francisco. Adequate special effects for the time if nothing special. Interesting concept from the novel by Graham Masterton. No one gives a bad performance.
The bad stuff? Almost everything else.
The film opens with Dr. Paul Mantee calling in Surgeon Jon Cedar (who co-wrote the screenplay with director William Girdler) for a patient, Karen Tandy (Susan Strasberg) with a peculiar problem — a tumor on her neck that appears to have the characteristics of a fetus.
Stop laughing, she has a baby on her neck, that’s the plot, the actual plot. The whole movie turns on the fact she has a fetus on her neck, you can’t make this stuff up. They never do explain how or why, and all things considered I didn’t really want to know. Do you want to know how she got a fetus on the back of her neck? I know it was the Sexual Revolution, but still …
Think about it. This is a big budget Hollywood movie with actual known stars, and it is about a woman with a fetus on her neck. Most of their careers were still going strong — before this.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they sold that story to the studio.
“You see there is this woman and she has a tumor, but it’s not really a tumor, it’s a fetus, but here’s the kicker, the fetus is on the back of her neck!”
Poor Karen used to be involved with Tarot reader Harry Erskine (Tony Curtis). With surgery planned the next day she calls up Harry, who is a nice guy despite using his real powers to con little old ladies like Jeanette Nolan and Lurene Tuttle. Karen and Harry used to be a number, and they get together. Harry reads the Tarot trying to reassure her, but that doesn’t help as he can’t ‘force’ a good reading. Of course then he has sex with her, because a bad reading is one thing and he’s a guy, and every woman wants sex the night before surgery on a mysterious tumor on their neck.
Harry is concerned about the surgery. He may be a con, but his powers are real (you haven’t lived until you see Tony in a fake mustache and a black robe with astrological symbols on it. He looks like Criswell escaped from an Ed Wood movie).
Harry doesn’t know the half of it. As Karen is going under the knife his client Lurene Tuttle is possessed by a demon chanting some weird words and then floats down the corridor before her body is thrown down the stairs to her death.
The surgery doesn’t go much better. When surgeon Jon Cedar tries to cut into the tumor he suddenly cuts into his own wrist instead and it takes two men to keep him from crippling himself. Then Strasberg’s vital signs go wild and she nearly dies.
Don’t mess with the tumor.
Curtis gets together with Cedar convinced that the tumor is somehow possessing Strasberg.
Curtis turns to his old friend Stella Stevens (in some sort of weird dark make up that seems designed to turn her into a red haired gypsy but just looks as if she spent too long in the tanning bed) and her husband, together they run an occult shop. She’s out of the business but owes Harry one so she helps him set up a seance with medium Ann Sothern to identify the spirit possessing Strasberg.
And something attacks during the seance, something powerful.
Another bad idea, but then this movie is full of them.
Meanwhile that tumor is the size of what it is, a fetus growing on the back of Strasberg’s neck.
By now they know one thing, the thing is dangerous. When they try to remove it with a laser the machine goes wild and Strasberg directs it with her glance. It seems the light from all the X-Rays have hurt the thing and it speaks through her. Now Cedar is as convinced as Harry they are in over their head. Not only is the thing possessing her and pissed off, it is also likely deformed by the X-rays (remind me not to go to the dentist if I think I have a fetus on my neck).
Curtis and Stevens go to barmy anthropologist Burgess Meredith who identifies the words they heard (“pawitchy salaooâ€) as Native American, likely a powerful medicine man who can cause a new body to be grown on a host and leave it to die when it is born. He has done it many times before over the centuries growing more powerful each time.
Their only hope is to find a medicine man powerful enough to battle this ancient being, though Meredith would rather let Strasberg die and talk to the medicine man after. You know scientists.
That medicine man proves to be John Rocking Horse (Michael Ansara, and no, I’m not kidding, his name is Rocking Horse I guess John Hobby Horse was taken), who reluctantly agrees to help, but when he gets to San Francisco he discovers the being is the powerful Missmequaha — in short they are up a certain smelly creek without a paddle because Ansara is way overmatched. To make it worse Missmequaha wants revenge on the white man and modern society not to mention Native Americans who have strayed along the white man’s path.
He’s back, he’s bad, he’s mad.
Missmequaha is born despite Ansara’s best effort, but he is weak, his body misformed by the X-Rays. Ansara can’t defeat him, but maybe white man’s magic can, so they call on the manitou, or spirit, of the hospitals computer system, enough power for a small city, and when Ansara can’t channel it Curtis tries. He fails too, but awakens Strasberg who does channel the power sitting up in bed topless shooting rays of light from her hands (don’t knock it, it’s the best part of the film though it reminded me I would rather it was Stella Stevens) and destroys Missmequaha (or Mixmaster as Curtis calls him) in a mediocre special effects scene that probably seemed much cooler when this was made.
Big budget horror films don’t get much stupider or more inane than this one that doesn’t even have the heart to make real use of Native American myth and legend but just uses some names and half understood stories.
I don’t know if it was faithful to the book or not, I never could get past the second chapter of one of Masterton’s high concept (low execution) novels. If this was faithful, God help the readers.
To give the perfect illustration of just how lame this is, it ends with a note that a Japanese boy was actually born with such a fetus on his body and it killed him. Fact, it proclaims, and I suppose we were to leave the theater with a suitable frisson instead of doubling over in laughter as I wanted to as the credits rolled.
Manitou. I was disappointed when it didn’t turn out to be Karl May’s Winnetou’s little brother. A German western would have to be better than this lame movie. But it is bad in the way you can enjoy watching it doing your own Mystery Science Theater 3000 take on it. It’s the kind of movie kids used to throw popcorn at, everything going for it but not a brain brought to bear. Some movies are just painful, this one is good stupid fun.
Rosemary was lucky. At least she didn’t have to carry the devil’s spawn on her forehead.
A fetus on her neck? What were they smoking when they bought that idea?
The idea of what the sequel might have been like doesn’t bear thinking about.
I don’t even want to guess where the next fetus might have been.
December 24th, 2014 at 10:45 am
I have always thought German westerns a terrible concept but watchable for a moment or two –especially if Stewart Granger is front and center. As for The Manitou, a film not to even be in the same room should it be playing, well…a single note of disagreement regarding the cast. They were not enjoying career peaks before or after appearing in this impossible mess. Stars on the way down are not character actors, they are just remnants of the past no matter how much we revere those memories. Sort of like a cheap, crappy A. C. Lyles western production — but with more money and even less taste.
December 24th, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Hmmmm. I reluctantly must diverge with the OP for what I feel is an overly-harsh review in this case. This review is like (though I hate to use cliches) …like killing a fly with a backhoe, or a front-end loader. Why come down so hard on this sleepy little orphan movie?
The 1970s gave us a stream of movies with different currents running at different speeds from top to bottom. At the top: flicks like ‘Deer Hunter’ or Woody Allen’s ‘Manhattan’. At the bottom, flicks like maybe, ‘The Great Texas Dynamite Chase’ (although I’m sure that title has its fans as well). But there’s a wide offering of nondescript, innocuous flicks like ‘Manitou’. We can all rattle off dozens of titles similar to this one. My point: why slam a film like ‘Manitou’? It wasn’t trying to be Robert Wise’ ‘The Haunting’…it wasn’t even trying to be ‘The Reincarnation of Peter Proud’.
You just gotta love b-grade horror, to enjoy this ineffectual little endeavor. This film came to screens while the sensation which was ‘Star Wars’ was still registering on the world. It took Hollywood a while to catch up. Remember that movies always take a while to reach theaters once they start production, so ‘Manitou’ was initiated likely sometime in ’76. So why blame it for being a little dowdy? If today they still made droves of films like this (instead of nonstop, superhero extravaganzas all-desperate-to-be-the-next-blockbuster), I’d be mighty contented.
Sure, there were probably some fidgety kids who ‘threw popcorn’ at ‘The Manitou’: but in 1978 who gave a damn what kid-audiences thought? The movie industry had not yet re-invented itself according to Lucas/Spielberg; many films were still ‘too talky’. But look at the alternative: there were other kid-films in that five-year period which were filled with action/special FX, and probably well-satisfying to the juvenile mindset; but which we see today as wholly ridiculous movies. ‘ORCA’ for one.
My read on ‘Manitou’ is this: Graham Masterston was a fledgling, mass-market paperback, wannabe horror author. Stephen King had started to break open this market but it was still turgid. So Masterston sees a news article about a real-life medical-oddity and whips it up into a story. He actually digs this kind of stuff: and in the years since, has acquired quite a loyal fanbase. His horror stories are graphic; often extremely violent; and they also contain kinky sexual fetishes. He has definitely grown since ‘Manitou’ (little in-joke there).
Now, the movie: I agree that most of it is lukewarm and tepid.
But the flick stars Tony Curtis, Burgess Meredith, Ann Southern, and Stella Stevens. I call that Ore-IDA. For a chance to see Stella Stevens I’d sit through almost any storyline. I wouldn’t walk across the street to see Susan Strasberg’s breasts, but her topless scene just adds to the fun. And Tony Curtis! Tony Curtis, from ‘Some Like It Hot’–still headlining a theatrical release as late as 1978? That’s alright with me. Love the guy.
Anyway yeah the film is better viewed on a Maganox or Quasar 27″ curved screen TV on a rainy Sunday afternoon, lying flat on a shag carpet, munching Cheetos–than it is paying $5 to see in a mall theater. Yet…there is one rather amazing scene in ‘Manitou’–which pays back the viewer for all the other faults: Ansara and Curtis stepping from the hospital room into another dimension, doorway to a galaxy filled with stars. Now that was unlooked for, impressive, and satisfying, and memorable.
December 24th, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Feliks has just beaten me to some information I was going to supply about the author Graham Masterton, but I’ll shorten my comment to add that yes, THE MANITOU was his first novel, and from his Wikipedia page, he appears to have written at two two sequels: REVENGE OF THE MANITOU (1979) and MANITOU BLOOD (2005).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Masterton
I’m sure the movie has its fans, but after seeing the trailer, I have no desire to see anything more. Just my personal taste, or distaste, based on the little I’ve seen, even if it is good stupid fun. But for that matter, just so you know where I’m coming from, I have not read anything by Stephen King since THE STAND, nor any of the films based on his work.
It took me a week of nearly non-stop reading to get through THE STAND, the shortened original version, but as compelling as it was and without making any judgment as to King’s subsequent work, I was burned out for good.
December 24th, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Steve,
I made it to TOMMYKNOCKERS before he wore out his welcome and it didn’t help he absconded with the plot of FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (aka QUATERMASS AND THE PIT). He admitted that part, but he didn’t handle it very well, and we parted ways. I made exceptions for MERCY and DOLORES CLAIRBORNE, but he just wouldn’t let go of the old habits his fans love but I was long tired of.
Re Masterson the main credits list it as ‘THE MANITOU by Graham Masterton a Pinnacle Book’ rather than the usual ‘available from’ in the end credits. That struck me a little unusual then and still does now.
Feliks,
Writing for the money and to make a name is no excuse for a bad book. This may not have been a major production, but according to IMDb it had a $3 million budget and the people in it still had careers if not at the top of their form.
And I didn’t knock the acting — considering the script they were genius.
I’m afraid the scene where they step from the hospital corridor into the universe looked fairly cheesy to me even then. I had seen that one done almost as well on television.
But as to why pick on MANITOU, the same reason you review any movie — to either warn or inform others. This one was bad enough I made fun of it — after all that plot deserves to be made fun of. You can’t just flip through Ripley’s and make a film out of whatever you find. No one sets out to write a bad book or make a bad film, but some who set out to make a buck write sloppy half thought out books and make bad films.
I found some of the Native American cultural references offensive, particularly the name John Rocking Horse. Native American names aren’t just cobbled together gibberish like F-TROOP (they didn’t pretend to be serious). They have actual meaning.
In the past an adult name was not given at birth, but acquired through a dream or an action and usually involved a totem animal of religious significance and import in Native American culture. Crazy Horse was called Worm when he was young, he didn’t become Crazy Horse until later as an example. Names had meaning in Native American culture well beyond identifying the father’s profession or birthright as in Western culture.
Native American names mean just as much as Anglo, Hispanic, Asian, or any other, perhaps more. Just as Fu Manchu is not a real Chinese name, neither is Rocking Horse a real Native American name. Indian children didn’t have rocking horses in the 19th century and before and if you are rocking as you ride you are going to fall off. In that case they were very literal and the name would be Falls Off Horses if they actually did something like that (and they would not outside of a comedic Western). Even then it was not all that hard to do a little research and come up with an actual name without bordering on the offensive.
Animal names were totems with great power. No medicine man would be named Rocking Horse just as hopefully you wouldn’t name your child Barbie Doll or Lionel Train.
But the reason to take on this film was exactly what Steve said when he looked at it and read the review and decided not to waste his time with it. The review told him the films virtues and its shortcomings and he made up his mind based on his taste. If it had sounded good to him no review I could write would stop him watching it.
I’m also something of a critic so my ‘reviews’ are usually part critique which is more than whether I just liked it or didn’t and what it is about. Why I respond to a book or film the way I do is also part of the equation.
But I disagree about the big screen. This is probably better watched on a small portable with all the lights off and the sound turned down low so your mother (or wife) doesn’t hear you are up when you should be in bed instead of watching this. I would have been much more forgiving that way.
I did not say Masterton was unsuccessful, I said I find him unreadable as I do most King wannabes. He is not Koontz, Farris, Barker or the like and while I’m sure his fans appreciate him he has not been rediscovered critically because it is almost impossible to turn that kind of writing into a cult however small. His books have the same relation to horror as SPICY DETECTIVEY had to BLACK MASK.
And I’m sorry, but I reserve the right to make fun of a book or film about a woman with a fetus on her neck. It’s not a puppy, it’s fair play to kick a $3 million dollar film. No B film ever cost $3 million. Granted SUPERMAN and others were kicking production costs through the roof at that point, but this still qualified as an A picture if not a major release. For Avco/Embassy it was actually fairly major.
It is not a TEXAS CHAINSAW MASACERE or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, but a mainstream release aimed at theatrical release in theaters. It’s fair play to take pot shots at it where attacking Ed Wood is just mean spirited at this point.
And it doesn’t matter what the film was trying to be, Ed Wood made the best picture he could (frightening thought). Everyone involved here was capable of trying to make a better film. This could have been done well and even overcome the cheesy book it is based on and the fetus on the neck (okay, that is a big hurtle).
People wasted money going to see this, they wasted time watching it, they waste money buying it, they miss out on better fare because they don’t know this is cheesy and bad. Bad movies big and small have no special right to go unremarked on.
But I don’t question anyone who does like this. Maybe they could write a review explaining why its a good film and what I missed. But I think it deserves to be thoroughly swatted.
There is no excuse for making a film this bad — not production problems, deaths, financing problems, or future shock. Bad films can’t be excused. It just doesn’t matter it isn’t STAR WARS or THE DEERHUNTER or whatever if it fails at what it is.
Though as I said, as a dumb movie it has just a good enough cast and production values to enjoy in that way. Barely, but just enough.
I just think a movie ought to be memorable for something other than Susan Strasberg’s breasts. Nothing wrong with them, but not quite enough to justify the film.
December 24th, 2014 at 8:25 pm
Hurdle, I must have been thinking of Hertel the Turtle, and Detectivy?
December 25th, 2014 at 8:54 am
Ah, the thrill of victory and the agony of de fetus!
December 25th, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Thank you Jerry, I didn’t have the nerve to do that one.
December 26th, 2014 at 2:08 pm
I thank David Vineyard for his reply to me. Didn’t expect it. Dave and the other reviewers here have my esteem, they’re wonderful reviewers–and although I am going to try to maintain my position (below) let me say first its a pleasure to engage in discussion with obvious experts in this topic. It’s an honor.
My responses below (sincerely hope no one minds me following up, or think me too insistent or impertinent)
DV Wrote:
Writing for the money and to make a name is no excuse for a bad book. This may not have been a major production, but according to IMDb it had a $3 million budget and the people in it still had careers if not at the top of their form.
–Except, that it’s not really all *that* bad. It may be goofy, maybe ought not have even been greenlit. Its certainly not great but its not execrable.
A $3m budget was typical for low-skilled flicks at the time. But ‘Manitou’ wasn’t a money-pit, it wasn’t anyone’s embarrassment or anyone’s guilty cover-up. It wasn’t falsely marketed or hyped; and bad financial sense wasn’t associated with it.
DV Wrote:
But as to why pick on MANITOU, the same reason you review any movie — to either warn or inform others.
–Is that the only reason though? There’s half-a-dozen other good reasons, besides that which a reviewer can pursue. ‘Warning’–let’s see…cases where I might want to ‘warn’ other filmgoers might be for things like, ‘Human Centipede’. Or ‘Salo’. But ‘warn’ people against this fuddy-duddy little piece of new-age fluff starring Tony Curtis?
DV Wrote:
This one was bad enough I made fun of it
–It just didn’t sound as if you were having any fun in your review, though.
DV Wrote:
after all that plot deserves to be made fun of.
–In today’s rather insane world, it seems kind of quaint, charming, and tame. I’ll take irate indian shamans over endlessly strings of mundane terrorists and druglords, thank you very much.
DV Wrote:
You can’t just flip through Ripley’s and make a film out of whatever you find.
Why not? Lots of authors work that way. And that’s the same way Hollywood got quite a few of its plots. During the Golden Age, studios all had small staffs who received mailed-in plot ideas from average-joes from all over the USA. Plots-taken-from-real-life, plucked from newspaper stories–this has some pretty strong backing from the ranks of the early French film theorists. Renoir was a proponent.
DV Wrote:
No one sets out to write a bad book or make a bad film, but some who set out to make a buck write sloppy half thought out books and make bad films.
–But even veteran authors, top-shelf screenwriters, and A-list directors can make the occasional dud. We forgvive them, so why not excuse the rank beginners as well? After all, I don’t think there was any intent to rilk the public, in the case of ‘Manitou’. It was a “good-spirited” venture.
[[One can hardly still make the same claim for this era; there is deliberate intention to make garbage flicks these days, with full and open knowledge ahead-of-time that crap is the endproduct. There’s no longer any shame about it. But when ‘Manitou’ was released–I think people still could be embarrassed. Revenues weren’t astounding enough then, to wipe such shame away.]]
DV Wrote:
But the reason to take on this film was exactly what Steve said when he looked at it and read the review and decided not to waste his time with it. The review told him the films virtues and its shortcomings and he made up his mind based on his taste. If it had sounded good to him no review I could write would stop him watching it.
–Nevertheless, I can think of a lot worse cinematic Bluebeards to track down, than this forgotten flick. The much worse products to go gunning for–wouldn’t you say–are the ones which benefit from unfair hype and false hoopla? ‘Manitou’ is not much of a “sacred cow” who’s blood deserves spilling. I’d rather see you puncture the pinatta and deflate the ego of some truly bloated parade-floats like ..oh, how about something like James Cameron and ‘Piranha II’?
DV Wrote:
I’m also something of a critic so my ‘reviews’ are usually part critique which is more than whether I just liked it or didn’t and what it is about. Why I respond to a book or film the way I do is also part of the equation.
–You are a very fine critic and one whom it is my great pleasure to read! Some of the most enjoyable reviews I’ve found anywhere on the web.
DV Wrote:
But I disagree about the big screen. This is probably better watched on a small portable with all the lights off and the sound turned down low
–We both agree its just as good experience seen on tv as it would have been, viewed in a theatre. But one could say that about a lot of 1970s movies, yes?
DV Wrote:
I did not say Masterton was unsuccessful, I said I find him unreadable as I do most King wannabes.
–Regardless of his market success, he has a streak of originality and has attempted techniques which even King has not. He deserves some credit for cultivating his own patch of ground; and sticking with it. And he does have loyal fans.
DV Wrote:
And I’m sorry, but I reserve the right to make fun of a book or film about a woman with a fetus on her neck.
–I found the idea interesting, myself. I like zany ideas as long as they surprise me.
DV Wrote:
It’s not a puppy, it’s fair play to kick a $3 million dollar film. No B film ever cost $3 million. Granted SUPERMAN and others were kicking production costs through the roof at that point, but this still qualified as an A picture if not a major release. For Avco/Embassy it was actually fairly major.
–I wouldn’t call this flick either an A or a B film. After all, what is an ‘A’ movie from a dingy little company like AVCO? They look like “B” from any other studio. Do AVCO flicks really look ‘A’ quality no matter what they do? ‘Manitou’ is right down there in among the ranks of the rest of low-gloss flicks from that period.
Plus: what was the $3m spent on? Seems to have been spent very wisely. The FX are minimal. Its a talky horror movie with some matte shots and some pyrotechnics at the end. I still do not hear a reason to ‘kick’ the film.
DV Wrote:
It is not a TEXAS CHAINSAW MASACERE or NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, but a mainstream release aimed at theatrical release in theaters. It’s fair play to take pot shots at it where attacking Ed Wood is just mean spirited at this point.
–I disagree. A lot of flicks were released in theaters between 1975-1979 which we might technically be forced to label ‘A’ pictures but were really just half-hearted and woeful; down-market products.
There was no hubris associated with something like, ‘Manitou’; nor with other sleepy little flicks like all those David Carradine and Joe Don Baker flicks of the same circa. It was a fine era (I think) in that there was a variety of such humble plates brought to table.
DV Wrote:
And it doesn’t matter what the film was trying to be, Ed Wood made the best picture he could (frightening thought). Everyone involved here was capable of trying to make a better film. This could have been done well and even overcome the cheesy book it is based on and the fetus on the neck (okay, that is a big hurtle).
–I think it does matter a lot. As we’ve said earlier, ‘good intentions’ must count for something. This picture was not egotistical, nor pompous, nor self-important. No delusions of grandeur here. I like the people who made it and I’m very much inclined to give them some slack.
DV Wrote:
People wasted money going to see this, they wasted time watching it, they waste money buying it,
–How can anyone claim to know what attendees to this picture felt afterwards? I would have paid my $3.50 to see this movie if I had the opportunity and for the pleasure of that ‘starfield’ scene (which I still think is ingenious) I would have felt quite satisfied.
DV Wrote:
they miss out on better fare because they don’t know this is cheesy and bad.
–What other pics were around at the time ‘Manitou’ was shown? It arrived between ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Superman’. There might have been very little else available for a teenager to see that particular month.
DV Wrote:
Bad movies big and small have no special right to go unremarked on.
–Again: it was not that ‘bad’; not in an *egregiously* bad way. The idea was nifty enough and was a bit nicer than something like, “Its ALIVE” or “PATRICK”.
So its weak, a little clumsy–but not irritatingly bad; and isn’t worse than a lot of other flicks which were its peers at the time. Cheesiness abounded, but cheesiness is still worthwhile–its not diabolical or evil–and not necessarily ‘in bad taste’.
DV Wrote:
But I don’t question anyone who does like this. Maybe they could write a review explaining why its a good film and what I missed. But I think it deserves to be thoroughly swatted.
I’m glad you’re not judging me. Thanks. See, I typically show ardor for a lot of artsy, snooty, high-pedigree foreign films…BUT I reject anyone’s labeling me a film-snob, precisely because I also support ‘brain dead’ flicks like ‘Manitou’ as well. There’s a place for films like this in our film culture (well, there used to be a place).
I mean, when you talk about how that ‘cosmos’ scene looked cheesy to you–let me ask you, in what other manner might it have been done? The scene was simple. Curtis and Ansara crawl through an aperture which the Manitou has opened up to them in the hospital room–he wants to demonstrate to them, his power–and they step out into a universe filled with stars. They seem to hover in space. behind them is a vast starfield. Its a matte shot, but the starfield is no better or worse than dozens of others. Its not as bad as what you see in a 1940s Flash Gordon serial; nor is it as good as what you later see from the Salkinds. It simply does what its supposed to do. It had one concept to get across to the viewer and it does that effectively. A pleasurable little thrill of a scene. I thought it marvelous. Makes up for any other sin.
And I also like the ‘Indian magic’ storyline. At the time I saw this flick on TV, I knew nothing about Indian folklore and this film predisposed me favorably when opportunities arose later, where I could dig more into the topic.
So, am I the only possible person who had these reaction to the flick? The only individual who benefited from this movie? Out all the millions who saw it? Surely not. But you are roundly damning the film as if it was impossible for anyone to have come away from it with a good impression. Its just not so, I tell you.
p.s. I’m not going to address Native American naming conventions. That’s a private peeve of yours, or a special-interest issue to a specific group. From my perspective as a mainstream audience member, I won’t take up either side of a debate about real-life woes of Native Americans. First, because I don’t regard any movie that seriously, and second, I don’t believe in addressing problems that way in real-life either. After all, we live in a country where sports teams can still have names like ‘Washington Redskins’. Its a complex world.
To sum up: your review of ‘Manitou’–a fine review, keep ’em coming, don’t change a thing, don’t do a thing differently…I simply thank you and everyone else here for allowing me to present my opposing –minority–counterpoint. I hope I have defended this dog somewhat.
cheers,
Feliks
December 26th, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Feliks
Great reply As I said I respect your opinion, just have a different perspective.
One point I should clear up about the Ripley’s remark is that it isn’t enough to find a clever idea if you don’t research it properly. Ideas and plots are a dime a dozen to writers and we toss them aside like waste paper all the time. For every story I’ve ever published there are ten I rejected for some reason. I applaud that Masterton had success — more power to him — but I don’t measure a writer by success or by sales alone. A bestseller can still be badly written — you should go back and see what I said about bestselling Lora Leigh on here.
I think it is more important to write a good book that just sell one. It’s a minority opinion I will grant, and may explain why my first book sold but never got into print.
I have no problem with where Masterton got the idea, I argue his taste in using it and his failure to delve deeper in the culture he was exploiting. Native American studies were exploding in the seventies after Dee Brown’s success with BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE and by 78 you could walk in any bookstore or library and find informative background material that went much deeper than this.
There are books you can just write from your head and heart and make a perfectly fine book of, but today, and in 1978, an author needed to research more deeply than Sax Rohmer did for Fu Manchu (and even Rohmer did more than Masterton seems to) if he was going to write about a culture as complex as Native American culture is.
I’m sorry the review sounded more serious than I meant it. My humor has a dark side to it and my voice as a writer reflects that. I was trained in debate by Jesuits (despite not being Catholic),and I don’t hedge my opinions. It is bad debate and bad writing to be anything but straight forward in making your argument. If I do a good review once in a while it is because of that.
I write like a journalist and not an undergraduate afraid the professor will disagree with his opinion, and I grant that can come across as a bit overbearing though I don’t mean it that way.
And, as I said, I seldom just review a movie or book.
I’ll confess too I don’t know how long you have followed the blog, but I suspect I have a reputation for being savage when a film or book hits me the wrong way. Some people here seem to actually prefer those reviews. The only excuse for a stupid idea or a bad film or book is greed and I don’t mind pointing that out.
There is no room for politically correct comments. If I find Masterton unreadable it is better for the piece to say it rather than beat around the bush. I never mean to say others don’t have or aren’t welcome to differing opinions.
Positive can sound angry at times, and I am not. I do resent writers like Masterton who climb on a trend and produce what I consider bad work, and I feel comfortable saying that. I am equally positive in praising a good writer or movie or someone I feel is trying to write or make one even of they fail.
Lord knows I have many bad movies that I enjoyed (fewer, but some bad books). I like THE ADVENTURERS, which won a Golden Turkey award. It was a faithful adaptation of the Harold Robbins novel, expensive and looked it, and had a superb cast. It was also something of a flop, didn’t help anyone’s career (certainly not director Lewis Gilbert), has some scenes that even I grant are ludicrous, and the leading man has all the charisma of a tree — I still liked it.
So the success or failure of THE MANITOU in print or on screen doesn’t really matter to my review, but I appreciate you pointing it out.
Re the Native American rant (and it was a rant I happily admit)I am part Cherokee (don’t ask which part, probably the big toe)and had friends in the Native American movement of the 70’s and numerous tribal members today. But, I would feel the same way about any culture be it Asian, Jewish, Muslim, or Aboriginal. Not political correctness, but the duty of a writer to speak truth to his readers whenever he can.
Just because others are insensitive is no excuse for me to be or for Masterton to be. The days are gone when Anthony Quinn can speak gibberish and convince Cecil B. deMille it’s Cheyenne and get it on the screen. Or if not, they should be. Even John Ford eventually used Native Americans as people and not a natural hazard in the West like dust storms and blizzards as in his early films.
Re the Indian Magic (I have no problem with ‘Indian’ nor did AIM members)it would have been much more interesting if done right and not merely skimmed over.
Any number of novels and films a decade either side of MANITOU dealt with Native American culture and even magic. Martin Cruz Smith used both the culture and the magic in NIGHTWING and got it right, and though the movie was only okay it bothered to get the culture mostly right. ALTERED STATES touched on South American Indian magic and culture and used it with respect as did RELIC much later. Even BILLY JACK was more respectful and deeper.
The actual traditions skimmed over in the movie in lieu of endless scenes in Jon Cedar’s office, Curtis apartment, or hospital corridors would have added much needed weight and might even have made the whole fetus on the neck plot easier to swallow. I didn’t even touch on how silly and inept the film is at generating horror, suspense, or terror — which were its purpose. The one big expository scene with Burgess Meredith is undermined with so much ‘business’ from Meredith (who no doubt saw how ludicrous his dialogue was) as to render it useless.
As for the Redskins, there is at least one primarily Native American high school team here called the Redskins who don’t want to change their name. That fight was picked for other reasons because it would draw attention for more serious matters. Deep down it isn’t really about a team called Redskins or Indians and it is a legitimate tactic to use even if it seems petty or trite.
Making up things about someone’s culture is not the same as the ‘Fleming effect’ where writers BS from some technical detail. I like Hard SF too, sorry, and research matters to me, but if a writer is good enough I have no problem with him cheating a bit. The worse you write the more your research counts though — Masterton should spend months researching every paragraph..
Native American religion and ‘magic’ is much deeper and more interesting than portrayed here or in the book. I’m glad you got something out of it, but I just know the basics and this film and the book don’t scratch the surface, and in that period in that time, even young audiences would have appreciated the real thing. There is a trippy side to Native American religious traditions that was quite appealing to many people at that time.
Despite what you hear very few people write or make films just to get product out there. There are easier ways to use those skills. MANITOU is about as close as you get to a film made just to get something in theaters, and I’m willing to bet director writer Girdler and writer/actor Cedar were more ambitious than that.
They could have done it too if they either had more talent of more faith in audiences.
Re the Cosmos scene, you ask how else it could be done and I refer you to some of the most frightening films ever made, the original CAT WOMAN, THE UNIVITED, CONJURE WIFE, THE HAUNTING — those films understood that scenes that can seem ludicrous or which they didn’t have the money or technical ability to do can be suggested by an intelligent script, camera work, direction, acting, set decoration, and other simple tricks of the trade.
If the acting and the script had involved me more the cheesy Fx wouldn’t bother me that much. As it is the film depended on the cheesy effects and not those other factors. The scene generated no suspense whatever — but then neither does the film.
I wasn’t speaking about the audience who saw it originally in the theater. I recall 1978, teens would have and did go to anything. Movies were like $1.50 to $2.50. For $10 you could buy the ticket and everything from pop to candy to popcorn with a date. They could afford to waste money on it then.
But there is another choice, and that was to do something else, anything else, rather than go to a bad movie. We had cars, we could drive to another town and see something else. It might not be a horror or sf movie, but there was something available.
But I grant I missed a lot in that period. Most of the seventies I lived in Paris and traveled extensively. I saw relatively few of the iconic films of the seventies on first run, and many of those either dubbed in French or with French subtitles. Come to think of it MANTIOU might have been better in French.
But if one person reads a review and avoids a bad movie it justifies the review.
I grant MANITOU is just barely an A film, but more so than the Carradine and most of the Joe Don Baker films you mention. It wasn’t just thrown out there like so many films of the era, not a Roger Corman movie, though he might have done it better. By that period almost any studio released film was an A film since the last true B was made back in 1954, and its successor the ‘drive-in movie’ were dried up by 1978. Many films we call B’s from that era are independents.
Not all films are equal, but by then almost everything, however cheap, was an A movie technically even some that escaped more than were released.
And we forgive good writers and film makers (as I forgive all the good performers in MANITOU) because it’s a speed bump in a career that has enriched us somehow even if only by being escapist fare. But you don’t reward bad material any more than you reward a bad meal or a car that is a lemon or anything else that isn’t what it should be.
I still like SUPERMAN I and II despite three and four. I still go to BATMAN movies despite BATMAN RETURNS and BATMAN AND ROBIN. I still admire George Lucas despite PHANTOM MENACE. I kept going to Spielberg despite 1941. I still enjoy POLTERGEIST despite the sequels. Horrible as HEAVEN’S GATE was I thought it was unfair that it destroyed Cimmino’s career. Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Walsh, Wellman, they all made clunkers.
But none of them made a clunker because they were cynical about the audience which MANITOU is. It was made with the idea the audience of teens you speak of would watch anything and Strasberg’s breasts might bring in a few adults along with the name stars. The book was written to cash in, and Masterton’s later works still read to me as if they were written to cash in.
Fast as they wrote, formulaic as they might be, the best of the pulp writers and B movie makers were trying to do better fare. This one didn’t really try outside of the performers who were pros and one of the few reasons to watch this.
This is a lot about a little relatively innocuous movie like MANITOU, but what I am really talking about is why review and critique books and films in the first place. Movies aren’t, and should not be, made for reviewers and critics — both have their own agendas — but good or bad they deserve to be honestly evaluated and not dismissed as just something to fill an hour or so.
Hard as it is to believe reviewers and critics live to find that one gem, big or small, that leaps out at them, but you have to look at a lot of rocks to find them.
An audience may be perfectly happy with the gruel they get but that doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t point out its gruel.
I hope you had fun with this as I did. I only argue with people who I respect, so I mean it as a compliment not an assault when I do, but I grant years of journalism and fiction have left me with a very direct style..
December 29th, 2014 at 4:09 pm
That was certainly an assault… of text! Shotgun blasts of text; reloaded several times and fired again and again until I am a bloody and mangled heap lying on the ground!
🙂
My earlier impression –from your post#7 –was that you have that ‘trademark habit’ of the good debater/critic in that you stress your points a few times over, even several times over. I was going to compliment you on it at the time: it’s like someone tapping a tent-stake into the turf to make sure its firm. It’s what good writers can and should do.
But post#9 is like a …circus tent with a hundred stakes, all pounded in with a sledge-hammer! I’m surrounded on all sides! Trapped! Heh
Anyway. Bravo. I’m pleased and amazed to see such a lengthy response. Mind, now–I’m not ‘up-on-my-hind-legs’ because you want to take a ‘savage’ stance towards, ‘Manitou’. It’s not even about ‘Manitou’ at this point; and it’s not a dogfight. This is educational and also, good exercise in the craft of civil discourse. No one’s been caught short; each side has had its say.
This has really become an unexpectedly widely-ranging discussion about technique-vs-convention, about books, films, the 1970s, and about aesthetic choices. These are some of my favorite topics. We’re touching on a lot of inter-related stuff.
Really, your debating style –at its most stringent–reminds me of my own, so I can hardly take your remarks negatively.
I’m glad you explained though, that ‘direct’ and ‘stern’ is how you sometimes come-across-to-your-readers. I feel that your background and experience with books/films gives you leeway to be as direct as you want. Because you’re done the homework and scholasticism is clearly a major part of your profession.
Thus, don’t pull any punches for me, don’t apologize, there’s no need to worry about hurting my feelings. I won’t wail or wring my hands, or accuse you of ignoring my golden right to my opinion.
I *am* having fun here on this page; I’m not threatened by the fact that I like a film and you do not. (p.s. I dig Robbins’ ‘Adventurers’ too, coincidentally).
What’s more, I’ll say frankly that this is my favorite film-related website these days; and the only site where I even consider writing out my opinions in full.
I used to frequent IMDb avidly, but it really went down the commode, and so for the last few years I have neither had anyplace to read proper film reviews much less chat about flicks.
But the caliber of review I find on Mysteryfile is really a goldmine; the variety of the site itself stuns even my jaded eyes. I wasn’t kidding when I said (earlier) that the reviewers here earn my highest esteem and admiration, you guys have scads of research experience and powers of recall, which puts everyone else to shame. Plus just a general keenness of mettle which I haven’t seen in a long, long time.
Lately, I browse Mysteryfile 1x per week; and almost always come away having learned something; usually with a set of fresh leads to explore further. The variety of genres, products, and the timespan covered is unheard of. Example: the article about Clarence New and ‘Freelancers of Diplomacy’. Who talks about the 1890s anymore? Fantastic. I’ve been returning again and again to that section.
Enough preamble. Now for my post #11 which will follow-up points made in your #9. Its a ‘long fight with a short stick’, ahead of me this day…
bruised but not bowed,
Feliks
December 29th, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Welcome, Feliks
Glad to have you here!
December 29th, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Reply to post#9
DV wrote: One point I should clear up about the Ripley’s remark is that it isn’t enough to find a clever idea if you don’t research it properly.
–Yet, that is exactly what happened, for many of the instances throughout cinema history where this technique was ever employed. After all, what research is needed for a human interest story? Human interest stories from the newspaper can furnish a screenwriter with material for either a comedy or a tragedy; with minor– if any– research.
In a screenplay, all concrete detail is interchangeable and really, moot. Movies are not intended to be reference documents of any kind, for any topic. They are mere sham and ‘mimicry’ to our more-sober world of facts and reports. They sacrifice everything for the sake of ‘storyflow’; emotion, and entertainment. Everything is potentially faked in a work of cinema. No one goes to see a movie for facts.
Of course, if you’re Frederick Forsyth, Thomas Harris, or Tom Clancy then you have an onus to research your thriller novel as fully as you can; especially if you are basing your style on stringent research. But otherwise, I’d say very little research is needed to flesh out a newspaper anecdote into a spec-script for a film.
In this case: was Masterton deficit as an author for not making his horror novel more researched? Was the resulting horror film deficient for not being more …medically convincing? I say, no. And I’d probably say ‘no’ for any similarly simplistic work of mass-market genre, entertainment fiction.
Yes, some genres need correctness: a helicopter in ‘Blue Thunder’ needs to obey laws of aerodynamics. A rifle in a western movie needs to shoot realistically. But in a horror movie about a fetus sprouting from a woman’s shoulder–? Pretty much, the author has all the leeway he wants. It’s horror writing. Far removed from technical accuracy of any stripe. We don’t hold guys like King and Masterston to a high standard of research. All we want from them are sensations.
DV wrote: I think it is more important to write a good book that just sell one.
–In an ideal world, sure. But pragmatically speaking, each artist has to work his way forward in his own career, as best as he can. Sometimes, bills must be paid. Sometimes, your foot has to be jammed through the door to get your start. Sometimes an artist has the pleasure of pleasing himself with what he writes, sometimes he can enjoy pleasing an audience, and sometimes he must please only the idiot producer who sends him his paycheck so he can feed his family.
DV wrote: I have no problem with where Masterton got the idea, I argue his taste in using it and his failure to delve deeper in the culture he was exploiting. … by ‘78 you could walk in any bookstore or library and find informative background material that went much deeper than this.
–But you have to stick to one criticism all the way through before adding in this other issue about indians. Set aside your recriminations about indian culture; and just focus first on whether he correctly composed a mass-market horror paperback. Yes or no? It did sell, and was optioned so some people surely liked it.
And after all, he’s just a horror author, not a scholar. Not someone I expect accountability from. I don’t hold anything against him. He alone was the best judge of how much fact to weave into his story, and since he collected a check for the result –this was probably his immediate aim, after all—he succeeded.
DV wrote: There is no room for politically correct comments. If I find Masterton unreadable it is better for the piece to say it rather than beat around the bush. I never mean to say others don’t have or aren’t welcome to differing opinions.
–Whole-heartedly agree. I despise political-correctness. I have not felt brow-beaten in this chat. There’s definitely no need for you to beat around the bush where I’m concerned; and I hope that goes for everyone else who visits the site. We’re all adults here.
DV wrote: Positive can sound angry at times, and I am not. I do resent writers like Masterton who climb on a trend and produce what I consider bad work, and I feel comfortable saying that.
–I too, slam bad work; but it’s usually a certain *type* of sin I pounce on. I don’t think ‘Manitou’ represents any major or cardinal sins. Just some venal ones.
Heck, some other productions have started out with just the same material and wound up ‘sleeper hits’ against all fathoming. Remember, in Hollywood—‘no one knows anything’. (Goldman)
There’s just no real vileness in ‘Manitou’. The material is not stolen or plagiarized (as Tarantino’s and many other of today’s remakes are). The plot is coherent, linear, and not butchered or incomprehensible. You can at least follow the story.
And (I’ll cite again) a film like ‘Patrick’ (circa same era as ‘Manitou’) has a sort of ugliness, unsavoriness, foulness, and meanness latent in it. So it could have been a lot worse, but it wasn’t.
DV wrote: Just because others are insensitive is no excuse for me to be or for Masterton to be.
–But I think that it must excuse him and anyone else in the same docket. We can’t rove our eye back across history, single someone out, and tell them that they should have been more sensitive than everyone around them was being at the same time.
DV wrote: The days are gone when Anthony Quinn can speak gibberish and convince Cecil B. deMille it’s Cheyenne and get it on the screen.
–Those days are gone now (today) but for a variety of reasons which are mostly voluntary. If someone came along tomorrow and made a cheap flick with fake Indians, who has the authority to stop them? Its movie-making. Directors answer only to a budget, not to community groups.
DV wrote: Or if not, they should be.
–I don’t feel that we ought to police the movie-industry to this extreme degree. It’s a dream-factory to begin with…
DV wrote: Re the Indian Magic (I have no problem with ‘Indian’ nor did AIM members)it would have been much more interesting if done right and not merely skimmed over. Any number of novels and films a decade either side of MANITOU dealt with Native American culture and even magic. NIGHTWING, ALTERED STATES, RELIC, BILLY JACK etc etc etc
–Yes, but many more had no accuracy and still succeeded. All this is at the artist’s discretion. Lots of movies had no authenticity of any kind, and still wound up great entertainment.
How about a fun little insensitive-to-indians flick like, ‘The Power’? Or ‘Prophecy’? ‘Gargoyle’?
It’s your prerogative to slam CB DeMille for historic and photographic inaccuracy, but his studio sure didn’t. They only care about cha-ching.
Question: would butts still have filled theater seats if movie-posters specifically stated: ‘no real indians used in this western’? You bet they would have. People attended such movies even when it really looked like horses were being hurt during filming (that eventually changed).
My point is that the audience wants to be entertained; they don’t want to serve on a committee overseeing film practices. The audience is-–to some extent—-amoral.
DV wrote: The actual traditions skimmed over in the movie in lieu of endless scenes in Jon Cedar’s office, Curtis apartment, or hospital corridors would have added much needed weight and might even have made the whole fetus on the neck plot easier to swallow.
–But the incident happened in Japan. You’d be just as perspicacious to accuse Masterton of neglecting Japanese religion as you are accusing him of neglecting FirstNation religion.
DV wrote: I didn’t even touch on how silly and inept the film is at generating horror, suspense, or terror — which were its purpose.
–Remember, you can only speak for yourself in this regard, as this is subjective to each individual. If I really think back on what I experienced when I watched this movie, I would confess to anyone—without any shame–that the suspense was enough to suit me.
Masterston was perfectly correct in his use of foreshadowing: the cell is slowly growing–the audience gradually learns what it might be–then the fetus is born, and it’s a crazy-looking miniature indian (played by a midget actor) that occupies a spot on the bedroom floor and has glowing eyes. What’s the problem? It’s a bit like Cammel’s ‘Demon Seed’ and I sure as hell love me some ‘Demon Seed’.
Such a first-half of a movie surely could have easily been done ten times worse, and also: I still like the ‘core idea’ at the heart of the story, found it thought-provoking. I had never even faintly *suspected* that conception could take place anywhere except ‘in utero’, so I appreciate being informed that its at least possible to happen in some other way. I also appreciated even an INCORRECT introduction to Native American indian shamanism, (as I had none when the flick aired). So I came away with several positive gifts from this dopey film.
DV wrote: Making up things about someone’s culture is not the same as the ‘Fleming effect’ where writers BS from some technical detail.
–So by this logic, Masterton should have more leeway, rather than less. Cultural references are not a technical type of data like engineering is. It lends itself to mishmash and …’chopsuey’.
Plus, the audience is not in a position to judge Masterton’s faithfulness to the Indians at the same time as they are held—by the plot—in a state of suspense or dread. That part of their brain is turned off.
Now, if a six-gun fires 22 rounds before reloading, that is what might create a ‘dissonance’. Otherwise Masterton (& the screenwriters) were doing their job: entertaining us. They were not responsible for educating white middle-class suburban kids on Native American Indian identity issues, via a horror movie.
DV wrote: Masterton should spend months researching every paragraph.
–For a work of supermarket-checkout aisle horror fiction?
DV wrote: Native American religion and ‘magic’ is much deeper and more interesting than portrayed here or in the book. …in that period in that time, even young audiences would have appreciated the real thing. There is a trippy side to Native American religious traditions that was quite appealing to many people at that time.
–But a horror film has as its first goal, entertainment. If it JUST does that, it is beyond reproach.
DV wrote: Despite what you hear very few people write or make films just to get product out there.
–Well, I didn’t pick up this opinion in the foyer of my local Appleby’s listening to busboys chatting about Angelina Jolie. Top industry analysts point it out and they repeatedly show how it’s part of the current industry economic model.
Still, even at a glance you can see something grotesquely wrong, wrong in a way never before seen: Six ‘Transformers’ movies? Six ‘Saw’ movies? ‘Human Centipede’? Movies based on board games? A Scooby-Doo movie? You can get away with just about anything these days.
DV wrote: There are easier ways to use those skills. MANITOU is about as close as you get to a film made just to get something in theaters,
–I’d reckon I’ve seen lots of cheaper-feeling flicks than ‘Manitou’..what do you think of the movies TNT used to run on Saturday nights hosted by Rhonda Shears?
DV wrote: Re the Cosmos scene, ….scenes that can seem ludicrous or which they didn’t have the money or technical ability to do can be suggested by an intelligent script, camera work, direction, acting, set decoration, and other simple tricks of the trade.
–The starfield scene was as simply done as anything cited above, and (for me) very effective. Just talking about the scene as a standalone unit. It wasn’t supposed to frighten, it was supposed to enlighten/enthrall by juxtaposing two human figures against a backdrop of stars and a suggestion of another dimension. So in what way was it lacking? What other camera angle was “obviously a better choice” that they missed? Without that one scene, I’d be much more in agreement with you in all your ‘Manitou’ reactions. But this film had at least one amazing scene and that was it. I’d never seen anything like it. I still think its pretty cool.
(talking about teens and $$$)
DV wrote: They could afford to waste money on it then.
–I agree with you here. So then, we tacitly agree that no real harm was done to moviegoers in this case, nor in the case many other similar films of the same year’s crop?
These were cheap, fumbling, but ultimately non-deceitful flicks which didn’t really grievously insult anyone (except in this lone case, American Indians). And it did have boob shots! Very important to teens.
DV wrote: But there is another choice, and that was to do something else, anything else, rather than go to a bad movie. We had cars, we could drive to another town and see something else. It might not be a horror or sf movie, but there was something available.
–Now, now—even bad things can be good depending on our mood and our receptivity. We can’t second-guess like this. If someone is in the mood for a movie—let’s allow that ‘Manitou’ did not *nastily* rip anyone off. There are many films we sit down to watch and which wind up being ‘null experiences’. Forgettable movies—there’s nothing wrong with forgettable films. Its not the worst sin possible to befall someone in a theater or a living room.
Really, there’s better targets for a reviewer. Even some classic films which—though we will not characterize them as being made by deliberately despicable talents—had practices far more outrageous even though they were ‘accidental’. Where to draw the line to excuse mendacity? A film like 1963’s ‘Cleopatra’ commits just about every production sin possible—but it skates, because we won’t call anyone from the studio era black-hearted or calculating? Instead we will say instead that this kind of thing must only come from some lowbrow AVCO production team. No studio film was really about boobs..?
DV wrote: But if one person reads a review and avoids a bad movie it justifies the review.
–And if one person is robbed of an enriching experience, what then? Doing nothing—taking no gamble—is more of a loss than taking-a-chance-and-coming-away with a ‘meh’ experience. Even a lukewarm 90 minutes of fluff, can inform and enlighten someone. Really, every experience is valuable in some small way. ‘You pays your dime and you takes your chance’.
DV wrote: I grant MANITOU is just barely an A film,
–All I meant here is that the traditional meaning of ‘A’ or ‘B’ movie is very muddy and hazy by 1978 and films like this. Neither designation seems to aptly fit.
DV wrote: But you don’t reward bad material any more than you reward a bad meal or a car that is a lemon or anything else that isn’t what it should be.
–No need to reward it, but no need to slam it with a ‘bitter’ sensibility, either. There’s a mixture of things in this dog which strike each viewer in different proportions. Isn’t that fair to say? There’s a range of other reactions people can apply to ‘Manitou’ in retrospect. Right? When I myself reflect on it I feel a teeny bit sentimental, not bitter. I wasn’t robbed.
DV wrote: Horrible as HEAVEN’S GATE was I thought it was unfair that it destroyed Cimmino’s career. Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Walsh, Wellman, they all made clunkers. But none of them made a clunker because they were cynical about the audience which MANITOU is.
–I’d maintain that there was no specific cynicism or denigration towards movie-goers–among the Manitou producers–which wasn’t present in any other similar production; and furthermore none of these productions exhibit the truly revolting discrimination-against-audiences we see in place in the industry today. These sleepy late-70s flicks were simply a staple of 1970s film industry. A bread-n-butter product which kept a handful of lame-o companies solvent for a while.
What’s more: ‘Manitou’ took no ‘scumbag’ shortcuts. It did not resort to gore or vulgarity; there were no frat-boy ejaculations or body fluids. It was not crude or cringe-worthy. No bad jokes. It is a movie which obeyed a certain bland standard of hum-drum professionalism; there’s a reasonable level of maturity. Its mostly got very innocuous, straightforward boring dialogue, simple camera placements, and competent sets. It did not embarrass its actors nor its director. It’s not ‘Frogs’ with Ray Milland, nor ‘The Incredible Two Headed Transplant’ with Milland and Rosie Grier. Let’s be fair.
DV wrote: It was made with the idea the audience of teens you speak of would watch anything and Strasberg’s breasts might bring in a few adults along with the name stars.
— If it had been that way, then they needn’t have included the ‘starfield’ scene. They could have *easily* cut that out. But they didn’t.
There’s really no definitive way to say how much ‘cheapness’ affected the flick either, unless we know the details of how the budget was assembled. A film budget is usually a process of elimination of, ‘wanting Nick Nolte’ but ‘settling for Beau Bridges’.
DV wrote: The book was written to cash in, and Masterton’s later works still read to me as if they were written to cash in.
–But how much cash could they possibly have dreamed they would ever get from this flick?
As for Masterton’s career goals…very debatable. He also wrote at least one Sidney Sheldon type book, and I think he teaches at a college somewhere. In his horror writing—if anything—he risks alienating audiences via excessive sex.
DV wrote: but what I am really talking about is why review and critique books and films in the first place.
–Agreed. I said previously that there’s many reasons to review a movie—many fine goals a reviewer can pursue; many satisfying things a good review can achieve. But ‘warning people away’ seems to me something to reserve only for some kind of truly diabolical, debilitating, unwholesome, bait’n’switch film.
DV wrote: An audience may be perfectly happy with the gruel they get but that doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t point out its gruel.
–I’m not saying you shouldn’t have pointed it out, but with such vehemence? Such absolutist-style statements? The film made some blunders, but still might eke out a pat-on-the-head. Sometimes there’s raisins in the gruel. Gruel may be undistinguished in the mouth but its as nutritious as anything else, as far as the stomach is concerned.
DV wrote: I hope you had fun with this as I did. I only argue with people who I respect, so I mean it as a compliment not an assault when I do, but I grant years of journalism and fiction have left me with a very direct style.
It is a genuine pleasure on my part, to chat with someone of your thoroughness and articulation.
Quick summary of my overall response to your post#9:
~Horror movies& books …and movies in general…are not supposed to be held to a high standard of fact or research, they only need it in sparing amounts… too much will interfere with the #1 goal which is entertainment
~Accuracy with regard to Native cultures is a separate issue which ought to remain outside the question of whether this book/film is effective, or not
~1970s films like ‘Manitou’ are often ‘meh’… there’s nothing really evil about a 1970s film which is competent, but just ‘meh’. Let’s hear it for the forgettable, un-spectacular, stumblebum flick!
December 29th, 2014 at 4:42 pm
“Welcome, Feliks
Glad to have you here!”
Much obliged! I only hope that you don’t recant these words! We are in danger of maxing out some server somewhere, I suspect? Thank goodness there seems to be no max char limit on these comment windows. I’m grateful for the leeway extended by whoever the admin of this site is. Truly generous limits!
December 29th, 2014 at 4:47 pm
p.s. I’m going to see a restored version of ‘Citizen Kane’ next month where director William Friedkin will be introducing the showing, and taking Q&A afterwards. I’m excited. William Friedkin! Cowabunga
Orson Welles movie festival, things like ‘Chimes at Midnight’ and ‘Mr. Arkadin’ and ‘Too Much Johnson’
December 29th, 2014 at 5:38 pm
p.p.s. I noticed I used the word ‘cheap’ and ‘cheapness’ a lot in my paragraphs above. I wish I hadn’t; because the concepts we’re looking at here are very subtle. I may have muddied the waters over-using the term. There’s different kinds of cheapness. Thriftiness is not the same as ‘rilking someone’.
For instance: I think that an author, director and prodco team can all be involved with an inexpensive, low-budget project and still not be ‘cheap-minded’. Sure, they might have to make choices for the sake of the low-budget they set out with; but they’re not necessarily possessed of a mercenary attitude.
Conversely, I think that big-budget projects are no guarantee of responsible or mature filmmakers. They’re usually better–handled by more serious professionals–but not always. They too, *can* betray terrible attitudes and lack-of-respect apparent in their approach. There’s nothing pretty about a megalomaniacal director who runs away with a budget.
I don’t have a yardstick to measure any of this; I just ‘feel it when I see it’. Some films seem to me to be made by real scumbags–their work seems to bespeak a lowbrow, money-hustling, mentality. I can’t say why.
As examples: I can name things like, “Exorcist II: The Heretic” and “Omen II” and “Jaws III”. Were these projects conceived and managed by well-meaning people? Did these movies simply come out less than ideal?
I don’t know. All I know is that I am embarrassed to see Richard Burton, William Holden, and Michael Caine starring in them. Even though these stars they all likely participated in these ventures for a quick buck, its sad to see them lowering themselves. I give them the benefit of the doubt.