That film was perfect except . . .

Often times the things separating the really good films from the greatest films ever are miniscule little details, tiny flaws, things that just ever so slightly threaten to ruin a perfect movie. Perhaps they stick out like an out of key note in a symphony, or an inexplicable smudge on a brilliant painting. On occasion they are quickly forgotten after the film, other times they burn in your brain and cause you to lose sleep because they have affected what would be one of your very favorite films. Recently I’ve watched a few favorites again and sometimes I brace myself for what I know is the film’s one significant blemish and on one occasion was reminded of an irritation that I forgot about entirely. So allow me to share some of my flaws and the films that suffer as a result. Keep in mind that these aren’t in any particular order.

Flaw #1: Unnecessary Explanation
Offending film: Psycho

I mentioned earlier on this blog that Hitchcock sometimes has a hard time with endings. Sure the ending of Vertigo still gets under my skin and I passionately hate it, but I wouldn’t say it’s a perfect film ruined by a stupid ending. Psycho on the other hand is a perfect film pretty much from start to finish. I’m still convinced that Hitchcock never directed a better film. It’s so iconic that you may often forget just how innovative it was. The way the film shifts protagonists, the music, the editing, the incredible creepiness that is Norman Bates, it’s all perfect. Then after the climax we get a very dull, pointless, and insulting explanation as to his psychological state. Sure maybe Josef Stephano (screenwriter), Hitchcock, and Paramount studios may have thought that audiences in 1960 needed an explanation. Sure modern audiences who have been exposed to countless horror films, and endless shows about serial killers figured Norman out really quick, it does subtract in a multitude of ways. For starters Hitchcock nearly gives you a heart attack after revealing the skeletal corpse of Mrs. Bates, then seeing Norman in drag is another shock and rather than end with a bang we get a coda that was unnecessary but also makes us forget that we nearly pissed ourselves in sheer terror. The other problem is that the explanation itself is entirely too long. The smarmy doctor who explains it figures that the fact he killed Marion is just an afterthought sort of an “oh by the way, yes he killed your sister, sorry about that.” It’s insulting to her sister and boyfriend who’ve spent the majority of the film trying to find her. The film’s saving grace is the ending that features Norman speaking as his mother talking about how “She wouldn’t even hurt a fly”, creepy as hell and a nice saving grace for a film that nearly becomes derailed from one pointless scene. Reading David Bordwell’s blog, he mentions that the epilogue shows inconsistencies in Dr. Richmond’s diagnosis. Which leaves us to suppose one of two things, either a)This scene is even worse because it is factually inaccurate; or b)Dr. Richmond doesn’t really grasp the whole situation. He said he got the story from the mother side of Norman who says that she killed the girl. Ok fine, but how come at the end it is the mother speaking who says Norman did it, and that as the mother she wouldn’t even hurt a fly? Wouldn’t the mother side of the personality be trying to pass the blame on to her son? We remember from earlier in the shower scene that Norman appeared to be dressed as his mother so it lends to Dr. Richmond’s theory that it was the mother, but since Hitchcock doesn’t choose to revisit this sequence from Norman’s/mother’s perspective we’re left with the smug explanation of Dr. Richmond. I like to think that this little detail helps discredit the jack ass doctor and leaves the door open for more creepiness rather than being just a pointless flaw in the screenplay.

Flaw #2: We need a happy(er) ending
Offending Film: Grapes of Wrath, countless others

Ok years ago this one really, really got under my skin. The first time, or two I watched The Grapes of Wrath Ma Joad’s “We’re the people” speech infuriated me, it was so unbelievably hokey and stupid I wanted to reach in the screen and slap the shit out of her for that Hollywood shlock. I heard that the speech itself was in the book, and since I also read that Ford intended on ending the film with Tom’s departure I always figured that was the “true” ending of the film and the coda was just a pointless added on curiosity that I could just pretend didn’t exist. Then I read the book and realized that speech actually was written by John Steinbeck not some Hollywood screenwriter. Perhaps I’m getting sentimental in my old age but the last time I watched the film I actually appreciated the scene, hell froze over. Maybe it’s because I listened to all of it. When she’s talking about “Maybe 30 days of work, maybe none” it adds a poignancy to it. I know from the book that things don’t exactly end well for the Joad family, but the film is choosing to leave you a little uncertain of their future. Perhaps they find a way to make some money, perhaps it’s more hardship, either way their spirit won’t be broken and the American dream remains in tact. So perhaps I can remove this from my list of flaws, but once upon a time I was willing to subtract a half star rating from this film just for that speech, now I think it’s one of the finest American films ever made. Sure plenty of other Hollywood films have felt it necessary to end on a happier note than originally intended, but well you all have your own picks for that.

Flaw #3: Forced subplot
Offending Film: Major League

Major League is without a doubt my favorite baseball film ever made, and probably my favorite sports movie, if you don’t count Raging Bull. The cast is stellar, it’s hilarious beginning to end, and I can’t think of another film that seems to capture the highs and lows of baseball any better. However every film needs a romantic interest, or at least we’ve been led to believe that. So Jake Taylor (Tom Berrenger) needs to rekindle his love affair with Lynn Wessin (Rene Russo). The first scene where they meet grinds the film to a screeching halt, but it goes on like that. When Jake follows her “home” and winds up at her fiance’s apartment as they’re entertaining dinner guests the film really, really grinds to a halt. Sure the sequence in the library is funny and actually good and I appreciate the Moby Dick references later, but generally speaking this great film about baseball and crazy baseball players didn’t need to bring a love interest into it. After all there was no love interest in Platoon, and that film was pretty successful.

Flaw #4: Horribly corny smart ass action hero line
Offending film: Jaws, Aliens, Terminator, many, many more

Apparently Steven Spielberg is responsible for damn near every cliché of the modern Hollywood film, including this one. “Smile you son of a bitch” and then bam Jaws blows up. My much more cynical 16 year old self thought this was idiotic and reeked of cheese, so I hated it. James Cameron adopted this tactic over and over again, including Linda Hamilton in Terminator and Sigourney Weaver’s last line in Aliens. Sure other films have done it before, notably Die Hard and Predator, but occasionally if a film is ingrained enough in my childhood this bit of idiocy seems actually bad ass rather than infuriating. Most guys will tell you it’s the supreme testament of bad assery to say some cool shit before icing the bad guy, but it seems horribly impractical. Some action films are simply littered with corny dialogue that makes the whole picture seem like self parody (Rambo 3 in particular) but it seems worse when it’s simply one line that just breaks the mood of an otherwise gripping and exciting film.

Flaw #5: Inexplicably bad performance
Offending film: Touch of Evil

Orson Welles was easily one of the greatest directors of all time. Touch of Evil was his last Hollywood studio picture, and like most of his other films was plagued with problems and tinkered with after he completed it. His shot selection, camera movement, lighting, and nearly everything in the film is superb, a true masterpiece and perhaps second only to Kane as his greatest film. However for reasons I’ll never, ever comprehend he decided to cast Dennis Weaver as the Night Manager of the Mirador Motel and have him play the character as arguably the most infuriatingly irritating character in screen history. Ok that’s a bold statement, Mickey Rooney’s Puck in Midsummer Night’s Dream is THE most irritating character in screen history, but that film is no Touch of Evil. All his lines of dialogue take a century to deliver he stumbles around the screen like a jack ass and appears to be on some sort of drugs, or at least needs medication. He also happens to be incredibly lazy for no reason, and a fucking moron to boot. Every time he’s on screen I just want to scream. I wish that Charlton Heston’s Vargas beat the every loving shit out of him as he stumbled about with nonsense rather than tell him where his wife was or whether she was even there. His performance is one of the great mysteries of all time. Perhaps even more inexplicably Steven Spielberg cast him in Duel because he loved his performance in Touch of Evil so much, I mean did we watch the same film, or was his performance radically different before the film was restored? Either way he makes my blood boil and although he’s not in the film much his screen time is the equivalent of stinky diarrhea feces all over a lobster dinner.

An honorable mention in this would be Andy Devine in Stagecoach as Buck. His bizarre rasp is incredibly distracting and makes me want to plug my ears every time he speaks. I just watched the film for the first time in nearly a decade and although I never could understand why someone with his voice got any work in talking pictures, it's hardly the unbearable distraction it once was. In the case of some of these flaws, age has tempered my original reactions.

I’ll leave it there for now. There are plenty of other flaws, major and minor that can bring down a great film. Lately with my emphasis on the overrated though I wonder if I haven’t been a little too “glass half empty” as of late, so I’ll try and make the next blog more about films I love rather than nitpicking about things I hate.