Quality Street: The Use and Misuse of the Comedic Switch
Reaching deeply into the Warner Brothers Archive, my arm easily grabbed a little film from the late 30s which boasted a start that was considered "box-office poison" as well as a comedic story that felt dated and painfully convoluted. Katherine Hepburn, easily one of the most iconic leading ladies in cinema, was at one time considered the worst choice to headline a feature film. Quality Street was smack in the hayday of Hepburn's downward trend [despite her soon upward mobility]. Despite the beauty that she brings to the screen, despite the emotion that she can muster even for a comedic role, Hepburn is a flaw with this film. Was her title of "box-office poison" not as premature as we may think? Is it her, or merely the lacking material she had to work with? As we look further into Quality Street, we will need to dissect both the comedy of the scenes as well as the elements that Hepburn brought to distinguishing Miss Livvy from Miss Phoebe. 
For those unaware of the tremulous story behind Quality Street it surrounds a love between an aging woman and a man who has chosen the Army instead of marriage. It is about a love that is 10-years old and the choice of beauty over person. Dr. Brown returns within that time span and to Phoebe's misunderstanding, believes he would prefer the younger version of her own self [she has just turned 30 and weakly describes the downward spiral from 29 to 30]. So, instead of confronting Dr. Brown with her feelings, she spends over an hour devising a plan where her alter-ego, Miss Livvy, is her exciting, younger version of herself. She goes out, she has fun, she shows Dr. Brown, as well as others from the Army, what a young woman is like. Like all films of this nature, the crux comes with the inability to be in two places at once, and slowly Phoebe's plan becomes too difficult to handle.
Slowly, the film begins to unravel. Not only do our creators make our actors run to continue the rouse, but they weight down the final act, giving us less realism and more absurdity to wrap up this tall tale. Our characters are forgotten merely to put an end to the farce. Does this work? No. By the end, it is unclear as to why love exists at all. It is unclear as to why Dr. Brown went through the entire ordeal at all. It is unclear as to why he brings this sign from outside [the only job these two women have to support themselves] and tells Susan (the older sister) to use it as firewood. It is the fogginess of these elements that create confusion instead of excitement as our two love-birds finally embrace.
Adding to this mix is a group of sinister spinster who show no passion for anyone except for gossip. They seem hell-bent on finding out the truth, no matter what friendship is hurt in the process.
These batty old women [who are genuinely old], are placed as the comic relief of this film. They are added to create further tension and as an outside "evil" element against our heroine Phoebe. What should have come across as funny, just transforms into annoying as these three find themselves everywhere they plausibly could not be. Dances, sneaking inside the house, random placement, these women are interjected, not story driven, thus nagging on Hepburn's back instead of adding to her comedic peril. Add to this mix another larger, plump man [one of only four within this entire film] who uses the wink to spook these women who believe love is the work of the devil, yet cannot seem to fathom why they do not have men themselves. It is a less engaging process, only dumbfounded by the fact that nobody is funny. Agreed that it is tense, but funny it is not.
Obviously, from these photos. Miss Livvy is the only available woman for the Army to enjoy. Geesh.
This leads to three final elements on why/how Quality Street remains good, but fails to be great. The first being that Phoebe actually courts other men. There are a group of soldiers who are all vying for the prize of Miss Livvy's heart, and the wake of Phoebe's uninstructed idea there are more that find themselves hurt than Phoebe's attempts for love. The above laughing man is caught in a moment, little does he know, the walls are about to crumble down upon him. The next has to be with the logistics of this story. It was originally a play developed and written by J.M "Mr. Peter Pan" Barrie himself, but transformed into a film there are just too many cinematic plot holes that can be forgotten in the stage setting. The third and final discuss the idea of what Hepburn must do to solidify her character. She needs to be two different people. She does not do this.
Notice the shot in this photo above. This is the big surprise at the end, the idea to end all ideas that provides less laughs but instead an end to a long-winded tunnel of cinema. For those at home unaware of how Hepburn transforms from Miss Livvy into the aging Miss Phoebe, it involves less makeup, but instead a mere night cap. When Hepburn's hair is covered, she looks wicked old, but when she is the young & the restless, she puts her hair up and regains that spring in her step. The average person would not see the difference, but thankfully, the Doctor - the man who uses his eyes for surgery - cannot see any problems. Arg, if only he was watching this movie.
Despite the push for patriotism early within Quality Street, I can see why this film never made it as a full blown DVD release. Actually, what Quality Street did for me was realize that the Warner Archive has much much to offer. This is my second film I have watched from that collection, and while this wasn't as impressive, seeing Hepburn in a less flattering role helps solidify her as a less bankable star. She had troubles, just like those actors today who find themselves doing the forth sequel for the money. Quality Street is no Blithe Spirit, and I feel like the two shouldn't fit together - but there are "play" elements that fit. I thought about Blithe while watching this because of the simplicity, and how it ruined this film but empowered Blithe. Ok, I realize that was a random tangent for the end, but it just flew together.
Overall, I was mediocrely impressed with this film. It had potential, but ultimately focused on the wrong parts to make it a detailed comedy. The use of the switch was horrible, thus causing the remaining framework to crumble behind. A long time coming, but this was found in my "Videohound 2009" book. This ends the Qs, which was a middle of the road battle for me. This is getting a pink mark. Good, but not great. I could suggest this to friends who enjoyed the age of the film, but sadly, it just didn't fully work for me.
How about those pictures?
The ultimate goal is to prove something to somebody and put a end to the televangical ways of McHattie, or is it. Through difficult scenes that felt like they were pasted together by pre-schoolers, this "punk" film nearly disintergrates in your hand. In one instance, there are two very strong actors fighting against each other. Viggo, playing the greasy Jerome Stample, yells and curses at everything. Armed with a bottle in his hand and an anarchist mentality, nothing will stop him from completing his goal. On the other side, we have McHattie, eager to spread the good word even if it means getting his hands dirty in the process. He is tossed and turned, and follows the venue of Mortensen, yell at everything - show no true emotion, and slowly navigate through this mediocre script. 
SALVATION! Does have hope to it. Despite the feel and l0w-budget nature of this film, it tries to speak to both a young and religious audience. It tries to show the corrupt nature of the business of Jesus, and shows that those who are saved can fall and those who are not saved may never be saved. There is a heart in this mix, and throughout the viewing there is this feeling of independence and dedication. Director Beth B. has a voice in this VHS release, it feels muted at times, but it is there. She over lights some scenes, doesn't care about lighting in the next, and pushes our characters from one side to the next without giving our audience any rhyme or reason. This is a roughly compiled film, but - as mentioned before - there is heart. This is a punk film. There is no doubt about the quality of the cannon, but what could have been this extremely cult-ish film, eventually misfires into being lost to VHS forever.
Look at some of these scenes. Although Davalos takes a secondary role as Lenore, she portrays the crux of the story. It is her temptation that nearly brings the Reverend down and pushes Mortensen to the bring of hysteria. But like any good 80s low-budget features, she plays this great tormented character early, but slowly is forgotten about as the film progresses. There is one point where one finds themselves asking, "Where did Lenore go from earlier in this film?" There is such a focus on her and Mortensen, that to lose that push demonstrates the changing tide of this film. In fact, you could almost pinpoint when this film moves in a new direction. When Mortensen puts on one of McHattie's jackets, SALVATION! moves from fighter to conspirator. 
Weirdly. Exene Cervenka is randomly in this movie. She plays Viggo's wife who would rather be with McHattie then with her husband. In fact, up until nearly the end, there is this feeling that she doesn't even have a role in this hodgepodge flick, but then, like an angel in the night, she arrives. Ready to save the day and protect her television savior, she slowly becomes the cash cow that he has been waiting for. Through a choppy reality ending we see what really happens when God arrives in the form of money, sex, and power. 
Is this a good movie? Not particularly. I could see Beth B.'s vision, but it didn't translate well to the screen. There were too many moments that needed to be crammed into the 80 minute time slot. Could it have been the horrid editing or Beth B. trying too hard to say too much at once. I consider it the latter. Her actors were mediocre, the story seems strong, but could have found better footing, and the scenes felt cheap. This is an independent release, there is no question there, but what should have been a strong jab toward religion and television priest turned into a jumbled mess that has been seen time and time again. Originality disappeared to overacting and shoddy direction. SALVATION! is a mess of a film, but despite the music element to it, it did have heart. It did try hard to produce something that would be controversial coupled with conversation starter, but time was not on the side of this film. 1980s film making hurt the longevity of this film, and sadly Beth B. has not quite found her feature footing ever again.
Found in this really cool book (shameless plug here) called "Destroy all Movies: Punks on Film", I am excited by the 3 VHS line-up that I have coming up. The next two are quintessentially 80s films that will reopen my eyes to the bad cinema but great originality that the 80s provided. Sadly, I cannot stand behind SALVATION! despite the heart, and it is going to get a black mark with yellow highlight. Not to be watched again. Sorry Viggo fans, this wasn't his stepping stone to stardom. 
Act I: The Chemistry of the Characters
His range can be seen throughout this film. He commands each scene that he is in, focusing our attention on each of his words and lingering on his next move. In my eyes, it is more powerful than "
As audience members, we wanted to see him tell his story (knowing that he never would). It was the human element, the 
It was enjoyable to hear the current terms like "plumber" and "commercial president" in this 1997 film, boasting the truth that this film was made before its time. Looking back, there are those that could complain about our premise being too 
Philosophical film. Each scene, side by side, brings upon new sensations, new bold images, political messages, honest truths about our culture all with the underlining sexual messages that make "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" more than just your average documentary. Released in 1972 overseas and deeply rooted within art-house cinemas, "WR" is not a film for mass audiences, though; one could argue that it carries more honest truths today than it did when originally conceived. Watching it today, in 2008, nearly thirty-six years later, it is difficult to watch. Not that there is anything wrong with this cult masterpiece, it is a film that is not as "modern" with its voice as it is with its message. As I do believe that this is an important film to watch, it may not initially show itself to you right away. Like myself, it took nearly two viewings to fully understand the scope of "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" - nearly the same viewings that it took when originally watching "8 ½" or even "Obscure Object of Desire" - it isn't a film for just afternoon viewing - prepare yourself for cinematic intelligence on a grand scale. This film forces you to think, look within the images, to break outside of your mold, and forces yourself out comfort zone. This is "WR: Mysteries of the Organism", who would want anything else.
How deep does psychology have to go? As the film asks this question, it feverously jumps from an American visual to a Yugoslavia political. We go from our Reich-ian feminist who is in love with the ice-skater, to the simple stroll of our Warhol performer in New York, than haphazardly back to the demonstration in Yugoslavia. As our sexual moments continue throughout, Makavejev uses them wisely (and symbolically) to make political and individual statements. It is this juxtaposition that makes this film bold and expressive; growing into more than just your average "I am Curious" moment. As any of our scenes nearly climax (literally and figuratively), Makavejev takes the moment to pull us back into the "why" of the scene. It isn't American cinema, in which skin is used to fill theater seats, there is a point to the sex, and just as we think there is no rhyme to the reason, we are pulled back into Makavejev's flamboyant mind. 
In essence, he is answering the age old question, "do sex and politics really mesh"? Then, seemingly out of nowhere, he pulls away the carpet giving us more than the original tantalizing scenes, but replacing them with horror and grotesque ... again - with a point. To stress again why "Mysteries of the Organism" demands more than one viewing (nearly right after the initial viewing) is because it isn't just your average entertainment only film, Makavejev has put himself within the feature - giving us a short glimpse of personal ideals, sexual exploits, and the power of politics ... all within only about 85 minutes. It is enough to give anyone a headache, but also excitement for what was missed.
As I throw out these random thoughts of this film, it only seems to fit that of our director. This is not a linear film, but consistent imagery posted with symbolism. Listening to the audio commentary, it seems to add the glue to these random tangents. Criterion's addition of Richard Durgnat's words (read by Daniel Stewart), help the free-associated viewer deal with the deeper changes and movements within the film. Overall, Criterion's addition of this film to its collection continues to show their excitement towards groundbreaking cinema, nearly forgotten through the modern CGI-explosive cinema bombarded today, "WR: Mysteries of the Organism" is difficult to watch, nearly too smart for my initial view - it is challenging because of the bold words, the wild symbolism, and that wild scene that uses the song "Kill for Peace". Whew, perhaps this paragraph was random thoughts, but it seems to work with this feature. 
This is a challenging film. It seems to be pulling from every genre, in a way that is difficult to explain. The final scene of this film still remains in my mind, the stern Stalin image that leads us into a darker world. I still don't think I fully understand what Makavejev was trying to say, but what astonished me about this film is that I didn't want to just put it aside. "WR" pulls you, it yanks at your heartstrings, it opens your eyes, and one viewing is never enough for such a subtle (or is it?) engrossing film. While it would not be for everyone, it still remains relevant today, and I am excited that Criterion has chosen to add it to their collection. "Mysteries of the Organism" is an excellent film for those angered by the idiosyncratic destinies of Hollywood. 
