Monday, October 9, 2023

Life with Lucy: Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed

LIFE WITH LUCY: 

LUCY GETS HER WIRES CROSSED

Written by: Linda Morris and Vic Rauseo

Directed by: Peter Baldwin

Airdate: October 18, 1986

Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed, the fourth Life with Lucy episode, is just a sad affair. Predictable, rote, and slightly robotic, Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed made one genuinely worried about literal safety of its star.

The M&B Hardware Store is facing stiff competition from rival retail store Hardware Heaven. An unexpected bit of good news comes to co-owners Lucy Barker (Lucille Ball) and Curtis McGibbon (Gale Gordon) when local television host Fred Dunlap (Dick Gautier) comes to the store. Seeing an opportunity to drum up business, Lucy talks Fred into having Curtis host a repair segment on Wake Up Pasadena as a Mr. Fix-It.

Curtis, fully aware that Lucy will inevitably make a mess of things, flatly refuses to let her be his cohost. It isn't until their granddaughter Becky (Jenny Lewis), intentionally or not, shows Curtis' hypocrisy in encouraging her to let her brother Kevin (Philip J. Amelio, II) play with her that he gives in. Unsurprisingly, Lucy does manage to make the Mr. Fix-It segment into a total disaster. She uses powerful glue that gets her stuck on everything she touches, which includes Curtis and the Wake Up Pasadena hosts. The wiring of the broken lamp causes a power outage in the studio, leaving everyone in the dark.

Four episodes into Life with Lucy and I think the few remaining viewers would have liked to have seen the lights turned off. There is an almost curious sense of desperation in Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed, where people know that everything is predictable, but they were going to go through it anyway. 

Of particular note is Leonard (Donovan Scott), who has one of the worst lines that I have heard so far. Advising a prospective customer that the flyswatter she is looking for is on sale, he says the following. "Today we have a special, a two-for-one sale. You buy any two items and I, for one, will be thrilled!". I literally groaned at both the line and Scott's almost desperate delivery. It is almost a contest to see which was worse: the performance or the line. To be fair, I think it is the latter, because Scott was asked to deliver it, and there is only so much he or anyone else could do with such abysmal material.

That, however, pales in comparison to perhaps one of the most infamous moments in Life with Lucy: Lucy's efforts at fixing a reclining chair. In an effort to show that she is capable and competent enough to be on Wake Up Pasadena, she took it upon herself to fix a chair. Naturally, the chair goes haywire, thrashing the 75-year-old hither and yon. Yes, the studio audience appeared to be laughing and greeted the end with applause, but I think the television audience would be alarmed. It is not that Ball could not physically handle the comedy. It is that no matter how spry and agile she was, the sight of an old woman potentially flinging herself out of a chair would horrify viewers. 

Separate from that moment, Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed just is not funny. The set-up is predictable, the supporting cast is barely there (again, Leonard is there for one scene and Lucy & Curtis' children are barely in the episode to where I don't even remember if they were). The sole bright spot acting wise save for Ball and Gordon was Lewis. As Becky, she made her suggestion that Curtis was speaking from both sides of his mouth believable, if not exactly true. I do not know if there is a parallel between excluding Kevin from a board game and excluding the accident-prone Lucy from humiliating herself and Curtis on television. Curtis is already openly nervous and stiff on the television show. Having to watch Lucy to try and stop her from bringing disaster would only add to the tension of things. 

Bless Lucille Ball and Gale Gordon from really trying to sell Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed. Like the lamp that Lucy ended up destroying, however, something this broken could not be fixed. 

1/10

Next Episode: Lucy is a Sax Symbol

Sunday, October 8, 2023

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe: A Review

 

ARISTOTLE AND DANTE DISCOVER THE SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE

Ah, to be young, in love and in denial. Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe makes as good a go as it can in adapting Benjamin Alire Saenz's young adult novel of Mexican teen boys discovering their same-sex love. It was a nice effort, but it was also sluggish and a bit muddled.

Angel Aristotle "Ari" Mendoza (Max Pelayo) is wandering through life in El Paso, Texas during the summer of 1987. Having nothing to do and nowhere to go, he struggles with his fear of swimming when he meets Dante Quintana (Reece Gonzalez). Dante, sole scion of a more intellectual couple, is proudly pocho (someone of Mexican descent who knows little to no Spanish). Aristotle, however, is more working-class and in touch with his heritage. Despite their disparate backgrounds, a friendship develops.

It may be more than a friendship, at least initially from Dante. A car accident causes Ari to sustain injuries saving Dante, who had gotten distracted by an injured bird on the road. Dante's family moves to Chicago for Mr. Quintana's job, with them maintaining their friendship via letters. The letters become more overt from Dante, who writes such things as asking Aristotle if he masturbates. Aristotle moves on, finding attraction with good-bad girl Elena (Luna Blaise), while Dante becomes more accepting of his homosexuality. It is to where, on a visit, Dante all but begs Ari to have a kiss. Reluctantly doing so, it becomes a triggering event, and a break in their relationship.

It may be due to the Mendoza family secret, eventually revealed: the older Mendoza brother Bernardo murdered a trans hooker. That crime haunts the family, and the growing yet conflicting feelings Aristotle has for Dante do not make it easier for him. Eventually, a gay bashing Dante endures along with another Mendoza family revelation brings Aristotle to accept that he is in love with Dante, with them at last finding the love that dare not speak its name. 

Before I continue my Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe review, I should for full disclosure reveal my connection to Benjamin Alire Saenz, whose young adult novel the film is based on. As a student at the University of Texas-El Paso, I took a writing class instructed by Professor Saenz. He was not fond of my work, telling me that it was "not Chicano enough". Separate from being a very curious criticism of my writing, I fail to see what my ethnicity has to do with the quality of my work. Still, I am not particularly fond of Mr. Saenz, but given the high praise Aristotle and Dante the book has received, I figured that my evaluation of the film should be based on what I saw.

What I saw was a curiously stiff production, one that went through the motions but never found a heart. Try as the film and the actors might, I never bought that Aristotle and Dante would be friends. There are many reasons for this. First, I think writer/director Aitch Alberto made a poor choice in having Aristotle be the voiceover. That essentially means that Aristotle and Dante is more Aristotle than Dante. In a book (and again, for full disclosure I have not read the book), you can have alternating voices. In a film, you can have either a character's perspective or an omnipresent perspective. I think maybe All About Eve or Rashomon are the handful of films that can have multiple perspectives, so it is possible to do have had Dante's side. Instead, by having it be more about Aristotle, Dante almost seems an intrusion to things. He does not exist on his own, but as something for Aristotle to enjoy and struggle with.

Another issue is the acting that hamper the film. We are supposed to believe that Aristotle and Dante have formed this deep, close and eventually intimate friendship. However, there is a curious stiffness between them, as if they are still trying to figure out who and what they are to each other. There was more chemistry between Aristotle and Elena than between Aristotle and Dante, even when they were merely platonic friends. As played by Gonzalez, Dante came across as needy and aggressive, not boyfriend material for either female or male. No matter how open Dante may have been, asking your supposed best friend if he would kiss you, if you have started masturbating and declaring that you want to marry a boy seems very curious for the late 1980s. 

Peyalo was better as Aristotle, though he at times seemed to be sleepwalking through the film. This was something that affected most of the cast. The parents of Aristotle (Eugenio Derbez and Veronica Falcon) and Dante (Kevin Alejandro and Eva Longoria) did their best, but they too seemed to be rather stiff in their manner. Only Marlene Forte as Tia Ofelia had any spark to her character. Sadly, her character got short-changed when we discover at her death that she was a lesbian with a long-term partner. There was never any indication that Tia Ofelia was gay, so this revelation seems almost tacked on to show that the Mendoza family was almost riddled with homosexuality: lesbian aunt, transvestite* attracted brother, eventually gay son.  

The film starts off with perhaps one of the wildest and most unintentionally funny openings in recent memory. To be fair, the song choice to open our film of blossoming same-sex love is time appropriate. However, why open the film with Bronski Beat's Smalltown Boy? That song is open about a young man's homosexual awakening and the tragedy that it brought to him and his family. Somehow, it signaled that this was a same-sex love story versus letting us discover the secrets of their universe. 

The film moves very stately for something that runs a little over ninety minutes. It, intentionally or not, seems to borrow from other LGBTQ films. There is the slow discovery of their love like Brokeback Mountain (I'm so tempted to call the film Brokeback Barrio). Derbez's speech to his son about there being nothing wrong with loving Dante in every way veers close to copying Call Me By Your Name, but without the screenplay's eloquence or the strong acting of that film.

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, as a side note, has always struck me as a pompous title, but that's neither here nor there. It was a bit slow, a bit dull, a bit sputtering and a bit blank. Not a terrible film but a weak one. These secrets are not worth discovering.  

* The film stumbles when Aristotle tells Dante that Bernardo killed a trans hooker "with his bare hands" (a phrase he repeats twice). Aristotle can't verbalize it, but I think he would have used "transvestite" versus "transgender" as I do not think that the latter term was in use at the time. 

DECISION: C-

Saturday, October 7, 2023

A Haunting in Venice: A Review

A HAUNTING IN VENICE

We now have an Hercule Poirot Cinematic Universe. A Haunting in Venice, the third of Sir Kenneth Branagh's adaptations of Dame Agatha Christie's mysteries, is probably the best of his efforts. Effectively atmospheric and self-contained, A Haunting in Venice makes for a good Christie adaptation. 

Having retired from public life, Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Branagh) lives a generally quiet life in Venice, declining all offers to investigate real or potential crimes. An unexpected visit from Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), a mystery writer and friend to Poirot. Setting it upon herself to draw Poirot out of his seclusion, she talks him into attending a séance to expose Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh), a medium hired on this Halloween night.

The setting is appropriately spooky: the home of retired opera diva Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilley), which was a former orphanage with a dark history. Rowena seeks to contact her late daughter Alicia (Rowan Robinson), who committed suicide after her gold-digging fiancée Maxime (Kyle Allen) jilted her. Also in attendance are Drake family friend and physician Dr. Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan), his son Leopold (Jude Hill), loyal Drake family servant Olga (Camille Cottin), Joyce's assistant Desdemona (Emma Laird) and Poirot's bodyguard Vitale (Riccardo Scamarcio). While Poirot does expose Reynolds as a fraud who is assisted by Desdemona's brother Nicholas (Ali Khan), there is still something wicked in the night.

There is an attempt on Poirot's life, and Joyce herself is murdered when she is impaled after getting thrown off a balcony. With a storm raging outside and the power out, Poirot now has to both find the murderer and stay sane, for this most rational of detectives begins to see ghosts and hear otherworldly voices. Have the dead really come back to murder the living? There are more threats and bodies to be found before this dark night is over, with more shocking twists in this devilish tale. As dawn rises, Hercule Poirot sets things right and finds himself again, a metaphorical ghost no more.

One of the delights of an Agatha Christie story, book or adaptation, is in trying to follow the plot without giving it too much thought. That is not to say that one accepts everything presented. Instead, the audience accepts that we will get red herrings and surprise twists before the last page. I have read quite a few Christie novels (And Then There Were None being not just a personal favorite but the only book I have read cover to cover in one sitting). I, however, have never read Hallowe'en Party, on which A Haunting in Venice was based. As such, I cannot confirm how close or far A Haunting in Venice stays or strays from Hallowe'en Party.

I can say that Branagh created a very atmospheric film, closer to a haunted house film than a straight-up mystery. Haris Zambarloukos' cinematography and Hildur Gudnadottir's score create an eerie, almost supernatural world. While the film opens and closes with bright Venetian sunlight, most of A Haunting in Venice is dominated by dark tones and at times an almost claustrophobic atmosphere. Christie herself may have rejected the supernatural in her novels, and A Haunting in Venice ultimately does too. However, the mood of the film is excellent, creating a sense of things being off-kilter and menacing. 

The performances are almost all universally good. Branagh has come fully into his own as Hercule Poirot. While it is doubtful that he will ever supplant Sir David Suchet as the definitive Poirot, Sir Kenneth Branagh is nowhere near as comical as Sir Peter Ustinov's version. This Poirot is a haunted man both figuratively and literally. He embraces rationalism and yet finds his own sightings to be almost frightening. Branagh also does something which Hollywood struggles with: bring a multicultural cast without it becoming too much of a focus.

No one questions why an Asian woman is named Reynolds or an Indian is named Nicholas Holland. What makes these castings work is that they are there, but there is no real mention of the diversity. The closest is when Yeoh's Joyce Reynolds asks what Poirot means by "you people". It is soon made clear he meant clairvoyants, but apart from that nothing in A Haunting in Venice suggests that people were cast for the sake of diversity or that it would not work. Yet I digress.

In her small role, Yeoh is strong as the shady medium. Laird and Khan work well as the scheming yet tragic Holland siblings. As a side note, there is great editing when Desdemona and Nicholas are simultaneously being interrogated separately, their competing stories playing off each other. 

The surprising standout is young Jude Hill. Reuniting with his Belfast director, Hill's Leonard is sensible yet still childlike. Protective of his beloved father, Hill plays a bright child who can still believe in ghosts. Whenever he is on screen, he dominates his elders as the boy caught up in the strange goings-on around him. Interestingly, Hill is again playing Jamie Dornan's son. I have never shifted my view that Dornan is just an admittedly pretty face who cannot act. I thought his Leslie was over-the-top in his efforts to play traumatized (his war experience involved witnessing the horrors of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp). While he was slightly laughable in his valiant efforts to act, Dornan at least did not fully embarrass himself.

I think it was Fey as Ariadne Oliver who embarrassed herself. Almost if unsure if this was meant to be a comic or serious performance, Fey had a somewhat staccato speaking manner. Her efforts to portray herself as the smartest person she knew (Poirot being the second-smartest) were unconvincing. She was a bit of the sore thumb in the proceedings, but nothing truly horrendous. 

Screenwriter Michael Green, taking his third turn at bat with Branagh's Poirot films, has some issues. It seems slightly ludicrous to think a second victim was killed the way the plot reveals the crime. It also seems strange to have Poirot's attempted murder go the way it did. Minor points, but still a bit curious. Other elements, such as the identity of the blackmailer, do give us a nice surprising turn. A Haunting in Venice also ends on an optimistic note, a welcome surprise given the bleakness of Death on the Nile.  

A Haunting in Venice is well-crafted entertainment. Eerie, atmospheric, with some good performances and a brisk running time of about an hour and forty minutes, A Haunting in Venice works on almost every level.     

DECISION: B+

Thursday, October 5, 2023

Life with Lucy: Love Among the Two-By-Fours

LIFE WITH LUCY: 

LOVE AMONG THE TWO-BY-FOURS

Written by: Linda Morris and Vic Rauseo

Directed by: Marc Daniels

Airdate: October 4, 1986

They were so close to making something out of Life with Lucy by actually tackling a contemporary issue. Alas, for whatever reason, they pulled back to give the dwindling viewership some truly frightful sight gags and little plot. Love Among the Two-By-Fours is the rare Life with Lucy episode that does not feature "Lucy" in the title. It also does not feature almost anything good in terms of comedy.

Lucy Barker (Ball) is fooling around the M&B Hardware store with Leonard (Donovan Scott), much to the irritation of her business partner/in-law relation Curtis McGibbon (Gale Gordon). Curtis is eager for a contract with Beechwood Construction to supply plumbing material. Lucy and Curtis get an unexpected surprise when Goofy shows up.

Goofy, in this case, is Ben Matthews* (Peter Graves), an old flame of Lucy's who also owns Beechwood Construction. Ben is delighted to see the former Lucy Everett again, and she is too, initially. On their date, Ben takes her to an unfinished home in a misguided way to relive past dates, but they end up literally sinking into the house. The extended McGibbon-Barker family is shocked when Lucy comes in early the next morning. Lucy reveals that Ben has asked her to go for a weekend to San Francisco. 

In a heart to heart with her daughter Margo (Ann Dusenberry), Lucy admits feeling uneasy about two things. The first is the idea of going with Ben and all the implications that entails, real or imagined. The second is the grief she still feels over the death of her husband. Margo reminds her of what Lucy told her when she was considering a relationship: she should do what she thought was right. With that, Lucy opts not to go away with Ben and tells a delighted Curtis that he does have the supply contract.

We might have a clue as to why Life with Lucy failed so sadly and so spectacularly. As soon as Ball appeared for the opening scene, she was greeted by wild and enthusiastic applause and cheers. She had not done anything, and yet her presence elicited wild ovation. I think this may have given both Ball and the production team the wrong impression that Life with Lucy and Love Among the Two-By-Fours was good. The audience was not cheering the goings-on because there had been none. What they were cheering was the Living Legend, Lucille Ball.

Ball again did her best to balance humor and drama. She and Gale Gordon continue to be the highlights of Life with Lucy. Peter Graves looked like a parody of Peter Graves: staccato and robotic. I don't want to say that he was disengaged from things, more that he didn't bother playing any of this seriously or humorously.  

Watching Love Among the Two-By-Fours, there is very little to actually laugh at. Scott's Leonard in his one scene does a Star Trek impersonation and a pratfall, both of which are unnecessary. Come to think of it, the character of Leonard is unnecessary. He adds nothing to the plot, and one is puzzled as to why his physical schtick is even thought of as funny versus forced. We ended the episode with a surprisingly spry Gordon, doing a leap that showed the then-80-year-old was quite agile. Somehow, the senior citizen outdid the younger man in terms of physical humor.

Love Among the Two-By-Fours is eerily creaky, as if it is emerging from a tomb. It is no surprise: the episode's director, Marc Daniels, was a gobsmacking 74 years old when he directed the episode. Its two writers, Bob Carroll, Jr. and Madelyn Davis were 68 and 65 respectively when they wrote Love Among the Two-By-Fours. At the risk of sounding ageist, having people who worked with Ball thirty-five years ago trying out the same bits is almost ghastly. Watching the episode, one feels as if this were from an entirely different era.

To be fair, there was one good moment that came close to being contemporary. In the long conversation between Lucy and Margo, we got a nice dramatic moment from Ball as she recounts her fears about a possible new romance and the loss of her old one. Even Dusenberry managed a nice moment when reassuring her mother that whatever her choice, she would support it. 

That would be the bright spot, and it might have lifted Love Among the Two-By-Fours more. Unfortunately, everything else was just bad. Seeing the kids and adults compare "wild" dances of their generations makes one want to cover their eyes. Dusenberry and Anderson were so forced when recreating The Monkey and The Swim that it is cringe. Anderson in particular was just bad in his line delivery. Maybe everyone involved thought that seeing Ball and Graves do The Big Apple would be fun and lighthearted. The end result was more bizarre.

I could not help thinking that, had Carroll, Jr., Davis and Daniels removed the sight gag of Lucy and Ben sinking down the floor and left it with a suggestion of a kiss, we might have had a nice romantic moment that built up the drama without skimping on the laughs. Whether they all felt that having character development would cut out what they thought was funny, I cannot say. I can say that Love Among the Two-By-Fours was pretty much laugh-free. 

2/10

Next Episode: Lucy Gets Her Wires Crossed

*In the episode the character is called Ben Matthews. For unknown reasons, he is credited as Ben Marshall. 

Wednesday, October 4, 2023

The Creator (2023): A Review (Review #1755)

THE CREATOR

In the beginning, I thought well of The Creator, to where I thought it could slip into my Ten Best of the Year list. As I thought more and more about The Creator, I realized that apart from one element, it is a very dull film that is a pastiche of other, better films. 

Artificial Intelligence at first appeared to be a helpful tool for humanity. That was until AI ended up blowing up Los Angeles in a nuclear explosion. Now the remnants of the United States is at war with New Asia, which believes AI is still a source for good. Into this comes Taylor (John David Washington), an undercover military officer who is close to finding the mysterious Nirmata, the so-called Creator. Taylor is married to Maya (Genna Chan), who may have ties to Nirmata. A botched raid not only blows his cover but kills Maya and their unborn child.

Five years have passed, and Taylor is asked to help find Nirmata and destroy his superweapon, a device that will render all the American technology powerless. He agrees when he learns from Colonel Howell (Allison Janney) that Maya is still alive, and he might save her. However, that mission deep into New Asia also goes wrong, more so when he discovers that the superweapon is in the form of a child. Officially named Alpha-O (Madeleine Yuna Voyles), Taylor cannot kill it. 

Now on the lam, Taylor and "Alphie" go in search of answers. Eventually captured, Taylor learns from his former simulant ally Harun (Ken Watanabe) that the war was caused by human, not AI, error. Harun also informs him that the simulants (robots in mostly human form) and robots only want to live in peace. Eventually, Taylor finds that Maya and Nirmata are one and the same. Maya is in a coma due to the attack, and Alphie is her creation based on what her and Taylor's child might have been. Taylor ends her life and now must face the wrath of his former military. Will he be able to destroy Alphie? Who will win this war?

It is difficult to see The Creator and not see other films popping in. The most obvious parallel is with Blade Runner in that it tackled similar themes: the nature of what makes one human, the dystopian world, a man of law & order possibly in love with a machine. It does not help that in the admittedly well-crafted faux-documentary footage opening, the tagline "More Human Than Human" pops up. I also saw elements of A.I.: Artificial IntelligenceAkira and Platoon rattling around The Creator.

As a side note, it strikes me as curious that people criticizing audiences for not going to The Creator are saying that its box office failure will discourage studios from funding "original properties". The truth is that The Creator is anything but original. Director and cowriter Gareth Edwards (writing with Chris Weitz) may hold that The Creator is original, but it draws too heavily from other properties to make a solid claim to originality. 

The Creator is also plagued by other problems. At the top of them are the performances. Whatever one may think of John David Washington, The Creator is one of his worst performances. He is blank and emotionless throughout the film. To be fair, the script gives few people a chance to show anything other than vaguely mystical mumblings. It also asks us to be emotionally invested in a "sweeping romance" that we never got to know. However, Washington looked almost bored at times in his efforts to move the viewer. 

The same goes for almost every other actor in The Creator. Again, the script gives them little to work with. Jumping ahead a little, the script almost demands people care about the various relationships when in reality we never get to know the characters. The character of Kami (Veronica Ngo), the replicant* girlfriend of Taylor's former military friend, is killed by the New Asia military when searching for Taylor and Alphie. However, it is hard to feel shocked or emotionally invested in a character whose name I did not even know until the credits.


Similarly, Watanabe's Harun keeps calling Taylor "my brother", but their interactions are so limited you wonder where this deep emotional connection came from. 

Only Janney and Voyles as Colonel Howell and Alphie manage good performances. Janney has a bit of a monologue discussing how her son was killed by a replicant who had lured him into a relationship. It is curious that in that brief moment, we got more motivation and better played motivation than anything Washington did. One almost wanted to follow Howell's story rather than Taylor's. I give credit to Voyles, who managed to move the audience on occasion with her blend of innocence and wisdom.

There is a certain pomposity in The Creator, with its ponderous tone and excessive runtime of two hours and thirteen minutes. The sluggish nature of The Creator made those 133 minutes feel even longer. The pomposity extended to its three-act structure of seeing three titles on screen: Nirmata, The Child and The Mother. The filmmakers want to make The Creator into some grand epic rather than letting the film do the work. I will add briefly that I am disturbed at how the film wants me to cheer the fall of man. I wouldn't say there is something sinister in that, but I would say that I cannot celebrate the "enemy" winning. 

The only aspect in The Creator that is worth anything is the visuals. The film has a lower budget than many big Marvel or DC films, yet the visual effects are better and more realistic. Granted, the MCU and DCEU seem set on being more cartoony to silly than The Creator. However, The Creator makes this look like a lived-in world. They may not astonish the viewer, but they serve the story, which is better.

The Creator is what I would call a noble failure. It wants to tackle themes of what makes one human, but I found it slow, slightly boring and terribly pompous. The overall poor performances and grim nature of the film did not help. It is indeed difficult to create, and The Creator proves it.


*The actual term in The Creator was "simulant", but to my mind, they were Blade Runner replicant knockoffs.  

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Life with Lucy: Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter

LIFE WITH LUCY: 
LUCY MAKES A HIT WITH JOHN RITTER

Written by: Bob Carroll, Jr. and Madelyn Davis

Directed by: Peter Baldwin

Airdate: September 27, 1986

Lucille Ball and John Ritter have something in common despite the generation gap. Both were especially skilled physical comedians whose mix of physicality and acting made the comedy better. Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter, the second Life with Lucy episode, brings them together in what should be a meeting of titans. Instead, it showcases where Life with Lucy went so terribly wrong. 

Lucy Barker (Lucille Ball) is agog when John Ritter walks into the M&B Hardware Store, looking for antique door handles. Store employee Leonard (Donovan Scott) is also star-struck. Lucy's frenemy Curtis (Gale Gordon), however, is momentarily unaware who Ritter is. That is until he too realizes the Three's Company star is in his store. Lucy manages to injure Ritter repeatedly and offers to nurse him at home, whether he wants to or not.

Lucy's family is mixed on their unexpected guest. Her daughter Margo (Ann Dusenberry) is aroused. Her son-in-law Ted (Larry Anderson) is slightly jealous. Their kids Becky (Jenny Lewis) and Kevin (Philip J. Amelio, II) are a bit puzzled over who he is. Ritter is determined to be in Soldier's Song, which is a dramatic World War I play that will premiere the next day in Pasadena. In a huff, his costar Mary (Sally Kemp) quits due to artistic differences. Who can fill in on such short notice?

Lucy cajoles Ritter to cast her as his now-much older nurse/romantic interest by reminding him that she saved his life when she performed the Heimlich maneuver on him. Predictably, Soldier's Song is a disaster when Lucy gets distracted on stage and causes Ritter to swallow a harmonica. Ultimately though, everyone can have a laugh about it.

Lucille Ball once hosted a Three's Company retrospective episode. There, she praised the show and Ritter for his comedic gifts. Now, Ritter appears on Life with Lucy playing himself. Both are actually good with each other, particularly when Lucy forces Ritter to eat one of health food concoctions that make everyone gag. When Ball and Ritter are together, they can play off each other well, and the episode is dominated by the two comic legends. It is to where the rest of the cast is almost irrelevant. Both Margo and Ted appeared in just one scene, with Curtis barely making it to two. Somehow, the show also manages to shortchange another guest star: Ruth Buzzi, who appears only in the opening and adds nothing to the plot. Once Ball and Ritter get together, the rest of the Life with Lucy cast basically disappeared. 

Ritter is the clear standout in Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter, showcasing his deft physical comedy. Of particular note is when he is at the hardware store, struggling desperately to not lose his balance as he straddles two ladders. He also has a great moment when the McGibbon family observes the television star on their couch. As they make various comments about someone that they think is asleep, Ritter's facial expressions show his shifting moods depending on the comments. 

However, Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter shows why Life with Lucy was a mistake. Ritter was 38 years old at the time the actor guest starred on the show, while Ball was 75. As such, the audience does not think much on having this relatively young man doing pratfalls. They would not fear for Ritter's health and potential injury as much as they would if say Ball tried the same schtick.

The second half that focuses on Soldier's Song does two things. First, it reminds us that John Ritter was perfectly capable of doing drama. While his Jack Tripper is now a beloved character, Ritter's talents were never fully appreciated. Granted, his lovelorn and shell-shocked soldier was not strictly dramatic (he does swallow a harmonica), you could see that he could have made a good dramatic actor. 

Second, it shows that episode writers Bob Carroll, Jr. and Madelyn Davis were writing from another world entirely. Ending the episode with Ball and Ritter playing Shave and a Haircut, Two Bits when pressing on Ritter's chest was not funny. 

Not that much of Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter was actually funny. Early on, Curtis bizarrely claims to recognize Ritter as a man who was on the news as having stolen Girl Scout cookies. Even Gale Gordon's skills could not sell the idea that Curtis would make that kind of mistake. Kemp's diva-like costar was also too over-the-top, as if she knew this was idiotic and wouldn't bother to even try. 

It might have been funnier if for example, Lucy managed to injure Mary, forcing the Soldier's Song crew to somehow hire her as the understudy. She might have even been doing Soldier's Song for her local community theater, where Ritter is somehow roped into being in the show. There would have been some logic to things there. As it stands, there is nothing there. 

To be fair, there is a funny line with Soldier's Song director Randy (Greg Mullavey). When Mary goes on and on about her character's motivation, Randy reminds her that John has not mentioned such things. "He's a big star and he never knows what he's doing", he tells Mary. 

Lucy Makes a Hit with John Ritter is a waste of everyone's time and talents. It is odd that while John Ritter was the guest star, he was on screen more than most of the cast. Lucy may have made a hit with John Ritter, but she made a flop with everyone else. 

4/10

Next Episode: Love Among the Two-By-Fours

Monday, October 2, 2023

Wild Wild Country: The Television Docuseries

WILD WILD COUNTRY

People will continue to search for spiritual enlightenment and peace. Some turn to the religions of the West, be it Christianity or Islam. Some turn to the East, such as Buddhism or Hinduism. Some go to more New Age thinking. My sense is that the teachings of the late Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (also known as Osho) would be closer to the third while drawing from the second. Wild Wild Country covers the sometimes frightening, sometimes wacky story of when the Bhagwan attempted to set up camp in the wilds of Oregon. In turns terrifying and bizarre, Wild Wild Country shows how there is a thin line between free will and submissive control.

Antelope is a small, rural town in eastern Oregon. Generally isolated from the world, it is safe to say that the town of mostly elderly retirees had never heard of the Indian mystic and guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, usually referred to as The Bhagwan or just Bhagwan. The Bhagwan is a curious spiritual leader in that he does not preach asceticism and self-denial but instead celebrates the joys of capitalism and almost unregulated sex. Bhagwan has built up a large group of mostly Western disciples at his ashram in India, but the government is wary of both his influence and the goings-on.

The Bhagwan then learns that the United States has freedom of religion enshrined in its Constitution. That and a large tract of land brings the Bhagwan to Antelope, where he can set up his new ashram in relative peace and freedom from intrusive outsiders. The tiny community, however, is none too pleased at the thought of wild orgies, strange chanting and a holy man riding around in Rolls-Royces building a camp nearby. They are even less thrilled at the Bhagwan's secretary and second-in-command, Ma Anand Sheela. 

She is belligerent, bellicose and almost gleefully confrontational. Ma Anand Sheela rolled over all opposition, while equally if not more devoted American lawyer Philip Toelkes (also known as Niren Toelkes) is more moderate and scholarly in his manner. More of the Bhagwan's devotees or sannyasins start coming, but the dreams of Bhagwan and Sheela grow beyond a humble commune. They will overturn any opposition by getting themselves political power, starting with Antelope.

Using their superior numbers, they vote themselves into power. The police force is now a "Peace Force", but one that targets opponents. The state and federal governments now turn their eyes to the newly christened Rajneeshpuram, the community that encompasses both Antelope and the Bhagwan's commune. Sheela does not shrink from dubious methods to get at her enemies real or perceived. Everything from sham marriages and literally importing homeless people to increase the population of Rajneeshpuram (thus increasing the registered voters who will vote her way) were the more benign methods. Launching a bioterrorist attack to poison Wasco County residents and plotting political assassinations were the more deadly.

Eventually, things grew so out of control that Sheela flees the commune when the Bhagwan is falling under the alleged influence of both drugs and other voices. Bhagwan finally speaks for the first time in three years, denouncing his former protégé, but it is now too late. The federal government decides to have a formal investigation into the various crimes alleged to be masterminded at Rajneeshpuram. The Bhagwan and some of his top officials attempt to flee to Bermuda but his plane is forced down in Charlotte, North Carolina. Eventually, Ma Anand Sheela is extradited from Germany, imprisoned and released, the Bhagwan dies, Rajneeshpuram folds but the teachings of Osho live on.

I have vague memories of the many adventures of the Bhagwan when I was younger. I even remember a public access show that his devotees had, though I was far too young to understand anything being said. I, however, was unaware of both how looney and psychotic things were. Wild Wild Country in its six episodes covers the stranger than strange tale in a surprising fashion. 

Surprising in that it sometimes appears almost sympathetic to the sannyasins and the overall Osho movement. To be fair, the images of displaced sannyasins after a commune-owned hotel was bombed will not make people stand up and cheer. However, codirectors Maclain and Chapman Way have a strong ability to shift things from how the devotees saw themselves to how their leadership really was.

When, for example, Rajneeshpuram starts busing in homeless people, what Wild Wild Country shows are happy people who have found refuge and shelter both physical and spiritual. Granted, they do have to wear the requisite maroon clothes that the Bhagwan's followers wear (even the "Peace Force" has maroon, pink or red uniforms). We see them happy, working in the shops or fields, even having late night clubbing at the commune's disco.

However, we soon learn that there is a sinister aspect to this act of benevolence. The homeless were being used to gin up eligible voters so that the leadership could vote their own to govern Wasco County. The takeover of the Antelope City Council was essentially just an opening act. With dreams of taking over first the county and then perhaps the whole of Oregon, Wild Wild Country shocks the viewer with the brazenness of their manipulation of the law to their own benefit. Alarmed County officials, seeing this invasion as an effort to manipulate voting results, refuse to register new voters. With the homeless now a burden and no longer useful, they are summarily expelled from Rajneeshpuram. It should not be unexpected to see how people were used, but it still distresses to see how greed and the lust for power blinded people into what could have been a genuine good.

Of all the people involved in the wild goings-on at Rajneeshpuram, one stands out. It is not the Bhagwan himself, who is mostly the motivator but not the instigator. It is not Sheela (one of the many interviewees for Wild Wild Country), who is slightly less combative now than when she welcomed fighting with anyone who disagreed with her. Instead, for me the most fascinating figure is the Bhagwan's legal mastermind Philip Toekles, also known as Swami Prem. With his professorial beard and intellectual manner, Toekles seems the last man to be seen as under the spell of some mystic. However, he still stands by the Bhagwan long after the guru's death in 1990. He at least had enough sense to say that the flight out of Rajneeshpuram was a wild mistake. However, Swami Prem also holds the idea that the Bhagwan was if memory serves correct, "an innocent and beautiful man". Toekles total devotion to the Bhagwan then and now is fascinating to watch. Throughout Wild Wild Country, Swami Prem is if not an apologist a quiet fanatic, fully aware of the facts but using his legal mind to find a plausible explanation for everything presented to him. 

Sheela too, defiant to the end, makes for an almost stunning viewing experience. Appearing a sweet old Indian grandmother, Sheela is not above looking like a spiritual Eva Peron, using her position of power to become a de facto dictator of this small realm of faith. "With every crown come the guillotine. Without the guillotine, you cannot wear the crown", she reflects in Episode One, a most curious way of looking at oneself.

The things one learns from Wild Wild Country leave the viewer slightly stunned. Lynn Enyart, an FBI agent who goes to the commune, reported in archival footage that the first thing he saw was a couple having sex on a bridge. The videos of the dynamic meditation, which I believe involve naked men and women screaming themselves into a meditative state, prove equally shocking. Granted, not as shocking as bioterrorist attacks and plotting to assassinate political figures. 

Wild Wild Country flows relatively well, giving a chance for the beleaguered Antelope residents to recount their ordeal while also giving those within Rajneeshpuram a chance to speak. "I leave you my dreams," the Bhagwan says as his final words. Those who were caught up in the events chronicled in Wild Wild Country may not see them as dreams, but they still linger in their wakened state.   

8/10