Newspaper Page Text
t
PAGE 6-May 8,1975
THE DAY OF THE LOCUST
(Paramount) .. . Austere, disturbing film of
the Hollywood expose-novel by Nathaniel
West. Here Is a rough sketch of the plot of
Nathaniel West’s THE DAY OF THE
LOCUST: Tod Hackett (William Atherton),
the protagonist, comes to Hollywood in the
fall of 1938 to take a job in the art
department of a major studio. He is attracted
to a neighbor, Faye Greener (Karen Black),
who works as an extra and is obsessed by the
dream of future stardom. She lives with her
drunken father (Burgess Meredith), a failed
comic actor. Faye leads Tod on and repulses
him by turns. She has a need for the love and
support he could offer, but she clings
frantically to her dream of stardom. Tod,
though contemptuous of her dream, can’t rid
himself of longing for her, in much the same
way as he is ambivalent towards Hollywood
itself. Faye, in the meantime, dazzles a chance
acquaintance, a compulsively shy,
middle-aged accountant from the middle
west, Homer Simpson (Donald Sutherland),
who has come to Los Angeles to live. She is
fond of Homer, as she is fond of Tod, but she
treats him cruelly and mocks him, while
spending his money on clothes and luxuries.
Finally, she presides over a wild party which
devastates Homer’s house. Heartbroken,
Homer decides to leave Los Angeles. On his
way to the bus station, he passes through a
crowd, containing Tod and Faye, gathered in
front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater for a
“gala” premiere. Prompted by a cruel chance
encounter, Homer breaks, going berserk with
rage. The crowd reacts, and all the dark
violent forces that Tod had sensed lurking
beneath the surface glitter of Hollywood,
suddenly burst forth in the scene of hideous
violence that is the film’s climax.
The story is ugly, compelling, and THE
DAY OF THE LOCUST is a serious film,
deserving serious consideration. A great deal
of skill and intelligence has gone into the
making of it. Nevertheless, there is something
fundamentally wrong with it, and no matter
how one may admire its various elements, the
film's intended impact simply does not come
across.
The failure is mainly one of
characterization. Director John Schlesinger,
who was able to make us care for his
principals in MIDNIGHT COWBOY, is unable
to do so here. One cannot really feel for
anybody in THE DAY OF THE LOCUST,
most especially not for Atherton’s Tod. He is
supposed to be a man more sensitive than
others — one who sees more deeply, feels
more keenly. But William Atherton portrays
Tod as a chilly young man on the make. One
cannot really believe either in his sensitivity
or in his love for Faye.
Karen Black is considerably more
successful as Faye, but the impression is too
much that of an actress hard at work rather
than of a human being whom one can in some
way identify with. In the role of her father,
Burgess Meredith, sensitive actor though he is,
is simply not the "natural clown” that Harry
is supposed to be. And finally, Sutherland’s
Homer is not just shy; he’s presented here as a
man with grave aberrations. One waits in vain
to find something discernibly human in him
and we get nothing but finger cracking - a
sign, of course, of the awful,tension within
him. But where did the tension come from?
What’s its origin? We never know. We know
Homer is sick, but sickness in itself is not very
interesting: we don’t believe in him.
The second element of the film's failure,
though it cannot really be separated from the
defect in characterization, is still more
fundamental. It has to do with the attitude of
Schlesinger towards West’s novel. West wrote
in these terms about the “locusts,” the
dehumanized grotesques, autograph hounds
and star-hungry little people who believed in
the Hollywood fantasy: • “He would not
satirize their fury but treat it with respect,
appreciating its awful, anarchic power, aware
that they had it in them to destroy
civilization.”
When the locusts have their day, however,
there is no shock for those of us who have
moved with America through history since
the late Thirties of the novel’s setting -- there
are simply too many new, far more vast evils
that we have had to contend with personally
and nationally. It is not possible to relate the
destruction of Grauman’s Chinese Theater to,
say, an Auschwitz or Da Nang. Alas, director
Schlesinger and writer Waldo Salt have failed
to bridge the gap, and the evil in their film is a
chilling evil, yes-but it is also banal when
played against the immediacy of today. Thus,
THE DAY OF THE LOCUSTS boils down to
being a superbly crafted (if generally poorly
cast) film of a novel that has lived beyond its
time, or at least whose life on screen is not for
our times. (A-IV)
HENNESSY (AIP) Like so many recent
British productions, HENNESSY features an
all-star cast, professional studio filming, and
an uninspired formula script. This
all-too-routine thriller tells the story of a
peaceful Irishman (Rod Steiger) who sees his
family killed by the British and decides to
blow up Parliament. Ranged against him are
an IRA leader who recognizes the adverse
effects such an action would have on the
cause, a British police officer prone to
brutality (Richard Johnson), and an Irish
widow tired of all the bloodshed (Lee
Remick). The script works every conceivable
variation on the chase, but the thrills just
aren't there. The political content is ignored.
The Steiger role suffers from arrested
development. We know nothing about how he
arrived at his decision, nor do we learn if he
ever has any second thoughts. Steiger, perhaps
appropriately, plays it as though he were set
on automatic pilot. Thus there is nothing to
engage either our interest or concern. So,
while the pomp and circumstance of English
tradition are carefully exploited, the various
factions seem little more than disparate
groups of thugs moving through a maze of
complications to a tiresome and preordained
result. HENNESSY is strong in local color,
but it never treats anything more than
surfaces, and suffers badly for this
superficiality. Finally, for those who have any
moral sensitivity whatsoever, there should be
something profoundly disturbing about using
the tragedy of Ireland as a device to spark a
quite ordinary melodrama. (A-lll)
YOUTH IN CRISIS: A RADICAL
APPROACH IN DELINQUENCY, by
Otto L. Shaw. Hart Publishing Co., Inc.
New York. pp. 136, $7.50 (hardcover),
$3.95 (paperback).
REVIEWED BY ROBERT NOWELL
(NC News Service)
How do you cope with juvenile
delinquents? This is one man’s answer,
based on more than 30 years
experience of working with them at the
approved school he founded in Kent,
England, in 1934.
Basically, his recipe is a blend of love,
psychoanalysis and freedom. The aim is
to encourage the boys to discover their
own standards instead of having
standards imposed on them from
outside.
In keeping with this emphasis on
self-discipline there is a high level of
internal democracy within the school.
Through a system of elected committees
the boys themselves are responsible for
many of the school’s activities -
including minor repairs and
maintenance.
The result can only be described as a
success, though Shaw himself would be
cautious about using this term: “What
we have to do is wait until (a boy) has
married, and after his children grow up
and marry happily, then we know we
have succeeded with him.”
But more mundane criteria suggest
anything but failure. Of about 300
students - the school is a small one of
55 boys aged between 11 and 16 --
Shaw and his colleagues regard 67
percent as “radically cured on a
permanent basis,” another 21 percent as
having been improved, two percent not
really improved but “certainly not
failures,” and only with 10 percent of
the boys who have passed through their
hands do they feel they have failed.
The school takes only 10 or 12 pupils
a year. All are referred to it by local
education authorities, and about a third
of the boys have been before a juvenile
court and have been, or are, on
probation. In this way the school really
caters for maladjusted rather than
delinquent children, even though, of
course, delinquency can often be the
most obvious symptom of
maladjustment.
Various criteria reduce the range of
potential pupils. Only highly intelligent
boys are taken -- those with an IQ of
130 and above. Then only those who
are accessible to psychotherapy or
psychoanalysis are taken. Beyond this
the school does not take children who
are deeply schizoid, psychopaths, or
psychotic.
It is of course only common sense to
take only those who might be labelled
as normally neurotic - boys who can be
helped by the school to develop into
responsible members of society. To take
boys who could not be helped and for
whom more intensive psychiatric care is
needed would merely disrupt the school
and prevent it from helping those who
could be helped.
But concentrating only on intelligent
children makes one slightly dubious.
They are the ones best able to tease out
their own problems and to do well in
later life. But how does one set about
helping the less intelligent, those whose
inner lives are similarly tangled but who
are less able to articulate their problems,
those who are vulnerable to being
labelled as failures by a society that can
be cruelly competitive?
That is a question Shaw does not
answer, or even raise. True, it does not
fall within the scope of his book, and it
is perhaps unfair to suggest that it
should. But the compassion and wisdom
he shows hint that it is a question he
could at least start working towards
answering.
(Robert Nowell is London correspondent
of The Catholic Review, Baltimore
archdiocesan paper, and author of “What a
Modern Catholic Believes About Death,”
Thomas More Press, Chicago, 1972.)
TV Movies
USCC DIVISION FOR FILM AND BROADCASTING
BICENTENNIAL KICKOFF - Jesuit Father Nick Weber helps open the
District of Columbia Bicentennial Sampler Week by introducing a
Washington audience to his “Royal Lichtenstein Quarter Ring Sidewalk
Circus.” At right, to the amazement of the crowd, he eats fire. The
34-year-old priest from the University of Santa Clara, Calif., sees his circus
as a “pre-evangelization exercise,” what a magazine called “a liturgy of
surprises for an excessively programmed society.” (NC Photos)
BOOK
REVIEWS
SUNDAY, MAY 11 — 8:30 p.m. (ABC) -
NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA (1971), Part
II — Conclusion of over-inflated costume
drama about the romantic rise and regal fall
of the last Czar and his Czarina. As a sweeping
history coricerning the last of the Romanovs
to rule Russia, NICHOLAS AND
ALEXANDRA is pretty squashy. Guys like
Lenin and Stalin, for instance, who after all
did have something to do with the course of
modern history and our present state, get
tossed aside after a few one-line
introductions. On the other hand, for
undemanding audiences interested in the
devotion of a pair of foolish, imperious
lovers--well-matched as man and wife,
perhaps, but ill-suited to rule the world’s
largest nation- the romance angle is done up
on a grand scale indeed. All those glittering
palace ballrooms! All those mountains of
caviar! Those splendid gowns and uniforms!
But where’s the relevance and meaning of it
all? (A ll)
MONDAY, MAY 12 — 9:00 p.m. (NBC) -
BUCK AND THE PREACHER (1972) -
Western melodrama stars Sidney Poitier (who
also directed), Harry Belafonte (who steals
the show by way of a hammy performance),
and Ruby Dee (who turns in the movie’s only
creditable acting job). The loosely structured
plot has Poitier as a tough talking,
straight-shooting wagonmaster who leads
wagon-loads of emancipated blacks to the
West's promised lands. Poitier has a price on
his head, thanks to some unreconstructed
plantation owners who’d like to have the
black folks back home in Dixie picking
cotton—“jest like in the old days.” His chief
adversary is Cameron Mitchell, who leads as
mean and nasty a band of renegades as ever
trod the prairie. Poitier’s reluctant partner is
Belafonte, the familiar con artist in preacher’s
disguise, with Miss Dee figuring as the sensible
woman Sidney would like someday to settle
down with. Things follow a predictable
course, with plenty of action and good
guy-bad guy confrontations, but the constant
references to contemporary racial attitudes
(and stereotypes) are a bit wearing on one’s
patience. (A-lll)
TUESDAY, May 13 — 8:30 p.m. (NBC) -
THE EXECUTION OF PRIVATE SLOVIK -
Rebroadcast of an excellent
made-for-television film based on a true
episode during World War Two. Martin Sheen
stars as Eddie Slovik, a reluctant soldier who
wishes only to live out the war and return to
the only person he has ever loved and who has
returned love to him - his wife (Marictare
Costello). The film is presented in a stark,
almost documentary fashion, as Slovik’s case
unfolds: his resistance to join the Army, his
betrayal by recruiting officers and a
subsequent bureaucratic mix-up that landed
him in the front lines in France; his separation
from his company and a tranquil period spent
with a British outfit before being returned to
his own division: his “surprise” arrest and
court martial—and, in a shattering climax-the
decision made by the court to sentence him
to death as a lesson for other misguided but
well-meaning soldiers. Without taking a
particular point of view, the film portrays the
real drama and agonizing dilemma facing
those involved with the case, and the cruel
indecision in carrying out sentence right up to
the very end. At the end, Ned Beatty brings
focus to the entire film by his performance as
a priest assigned by Army regulations to
administer last counsel. Watch it; weep and
reflect.
8:30 p.m. (ABC) - THE FIRST 36 HOURS
OF DR. DURANT - Made-for-television film
centers in medical drama, stars Scott Hylands,
Lawrence Pressman, Katherine Helmond. In
case you haven’t a clue as to why doctors and
staff in large municipal hospitals appear at
times to be going slightly bananas, this object
lesson about a novice intern’s baptism by
blood on the ward floor will clear things up.
Medical ethics, surgical shortcuts, petulant
patients - this one has everything that every
other hospital movie you’ve seen has had.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14 — 8:30 p.m.
(ABC) - PROMISE HIM ANYTHING -
Dumbo comedy about a young man (Frederic
Forrest) who tries his luck with a
sexy-sounding computer dating service. With
his nefarious hopes up, he is disappointed
with his appointed date (Meg Foster) when,
naturally, nothing happens . . . heh, heh, heh.
The clincher is that he decides to sue his date
for breach of contract - she didn’t read the
fine print, or something. Forget it.
THURSDAY, MAY 15 —9:30 p.m. (CBS)
- LARRY - A G.E. Theater presentation,
starring Frederic Forrest as a young man
thought to be retarded simply because both
his parents were, and because he grew up in a
mental institution and therefore learned by
imitating the behavior of the inmates This
sounds bizarre, and is, but it is based on a
factual case. Tyne Daly and Michael McGuire
play the team of doctors who discover the
young man’s “normality,” and begin a long
process of rehabilitation and re-learning of
basic human facilities. Absorbing, poignant,
beautifully done. If you watch nothing else
this week, find time to sit down with this
moving, absorbing, highly-polished little gem.
SATURDAY, MAY 17 — 8:30 p.m. (ABC)
- DUEL IN THE SUN (1946) - Controversial
back in the postwar years for its daring
presentation of adult relationships on the
screen, David O. Selznick’s Western seems
almost quaint by today’s standards and more
realistic views of life. Jennifer Jones, Gregory
Peck, Joseph Cotton, Lillian Gish, and Lionel
Barrymore star in a tense saga of brotherly
rivalry in the rough-and-tough ad West. (B,
in 1947)
9:00 p.m. (NBC) -- THE GREAT ESCAPE
(1963) Part I -- (This was originally scheduled
for airing on April 26, then rescheduled for
May 10 — and re-re-rescheduled for tonight,
we hope!) Thrilling rendition of a fact-based
story about an elaborate escape from P.O.W.
camp attempted by Allied prisoners during
World War II. Set in a German prison camp,
the story traces the multiple efforts of the
officers and men to work together as allies in
a common effort to outfox their captors -- on
a grand scale. The fascination in the film has
to do with the careful unfolding of the plan,
its evolution and refinement, its scope (250
men plan to take a powder), and the
step-by-step details of execution and mishaps
along the way. It all builds to a stunning,
sobering climax that will both tug at your
heart and keep it racing. Among many
outstanding performances are those of Steve
McQueen, James Garner, Richard
Attenborough, and - yes, Virginia - Charles
Bronson, in his solid pre-idol days. Part II will
be shown Monday, May 19 maybe! (A-l)
ft \
•' LIFE IN MVSIC
BY THE DAMEANS
I Don’t Like to Sleep Alone
I don’t like to sleep alone
Stay with me, don’t go
Talk with me for just a while
So much of you to get to know
Reaching out, touching you
Leaving all the worries far behind
Loving you the way I do .
My mouth on yours and yours on mine
Marry me, let me live with you
Nothing’s wrong, love is right
Like the man said in his song
Help me make it through the night
Loneliness can get you down
When you get to thinking no one cares
Lean on me and I’ll lean on you
Together we will see it through
No I don’t like to sleep alone
Sad to think some folks do
No I don’t like to sleep alone
No one does, do you
No I don’t like to sleep alone
No one does, do you
by Paul Anka
(c) 1975 Spanka Music Corp (BMI)
Paul Anka writes songs that are hard to ignore. For instance, his last one was a
number one hit entitled, “Having My Baby.” That record prompted reaction
from various segments of society, including the pro-abortion people, over the
explicit treatment of love and sexual expression. More and more songwriters are
releasing explicit songs, and Anka’s new song is one of those. “I Don’t Like To
Sleep Alone” has a title that attracts attention, and is presently rising fast on the
national charts. How can a responsible commentator not offer comment?
Actually one of the points that must be made is that it is foolish and
irresponsible for the adult community to dodge a mature discussion of sexuality
and love. In a recent “bull session,” a group of teenagers were telling me how
much they respected Paul Anka for his openness on subjects important to them.
Unfortunately many of these teenagers felt the subject was taboo in their homes.
I doubt that in every instance the repressive atmosphere is the fault of the
adults, but there are certainly far too many homes in which parents are
apprehensive about sharing their thoughts on love. Shockingly enough, many
adults believe they will be contributing to an already “over sexed” society by
offering their frank and open comments to their children; they feel that they
must preserve the “mystery.” I say it is shocking because their children cannot
avoid being exposed to what is presented on television, the movies, the radio,
and in peer group discussions. What is sadly lacking is the willingness to share a
thinking approach which addresses the real strengths and weaknesses of
relationships.
How does a person squarely face Paul Anka’s song? Honesty is the best
beginning. Paul Anka is dead right that loneliness is terrible; it deprives a person
of his sense of direction and leaves him empty. Anka expresses a universal feeling
for old and young alike - no one likes to sleep, or eat, or work, or play or live
alone.
But there is an obvious problem with what the song says. There are worse
wipe-outs than being alone - like being with someone who is using and abusing
the other. If there is anything more painful than having an empty life, it is
having a life that oppresses and enslaves others. Paul Anka does not really come
out and say that love is only a matter of feelings, but his song can easily lead one
to think that whatever one feels right about is true and good love. Love is a lot
more than “my mouth on yours and yours on mine.”
How can you begin to be a thinking and conscious lover? Ask yourself a few
questions. Who are you really caring for in this relationship, yourself or the
other? Does your relationship focus on the two of you to the exclusion of
others? How many people will benefit from your relationship in the longrun?
When you examine these questions you will realize that they begin with the
same belief as Paul Anka’s song - love should genuinely attack loneliness.
Unfortunately there is not enough space to treat this topic here. We need to
face, not only how to feel, but what to think about relationships so as to give
life meaning, and really attack loneliness. If people take offense at the type of
explicit songs and programs that their children see, maybe they should offer
another type of explicit comment. This article is an attempt to do just that.
(All correspondence should be directed to: The Dameans, P. O. Box 2108 Baton Rouge,
La. 70821)
Film Classifications
A - Section I - Morally Unobjectionable for General Patronage
A - Section II - Morally Unobjectionable for Adults, Adolescents
A - Section III - Morally Unobjectionable for Adults
A - Section IV - Morally Unobjectionable for Adults, Reservations
B - Morally Objectionable in Part for All
C - Condemned
USCC DIVISION FOR FILM AND BROADCASTING
CTUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQO
z/"'///////// I I I