Why do we sometimes love movies that we know are bad? I’m talking about bad films like Plan 9 from Outer Space. It’s horrid; a piece of claptrap with bad acting, lousy special effects, an even lousier script. Plan 9 from Outer Space defines the phrase “bad movie.” It’s director, Ed Wood, has become a cult figure decades after his death because he made a whole bunch of really bad films, and maybe because he also liked to wear women’s clothing now and again. It’s star, Bela Lugosi, would die before filming was completed. He was replaced by Tom Mason, a chiropractor with no previous acting experience. Mason also didn’t look anything like Bela Lugosi. The other cast members walk about as if they’ve all just realized they had a lobotomy and boy did it hurt! But Plan 9 from Outer Space isn’t the worst film ever made, in fact, I would go so far as to say it’s not the worst bad film in a list of the world’s two hundred lousiest films ever made, although it’s certainly on the list, somewhere in the middle.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” />
Cuban Rebel Girls is on that list, too, somewhere near the top. The Adventures of Captain Fabian is on that list, but just barely. When people use the phrase “bad film” I think of Plan 9 from Outer Space and Cuban Rebel Girls, among others.
Filmmakers don’t set out to intentionally make bad movies, but they happen all the same. I recently watched an Alan Ladd film, One Foot in Hell, an early sixties oater with a literate script by Aaron Spelling, but the movie was awful. What went wrong? The film has two problems: First, Alan Ladd looks idiotic in this film. Age and alcoholism had given him a round, chubby appearance. And for some reason they have Ladd wearing a lopsided little hat rather than the traditional Stetson. His appearance is comical. Secondly, the direction, pacing, and even some of the acting is uninspired. This is one of those movies where the hero throws a punch and you can see it sweep past without touching the villain’s chin. And when people get shot in One Foot in Hell they clutch their chests and say “Aaahh” before falling down.
I think there are several elements that qualify a film for the distinction of being bad: hammy acting, or worse, people who can’t act but wish they could act and who end up just speaking their lines. Such was the case with Plan 9 from Outer Space. Other requisite elements include a lackluster screenplay and a lackluster director. Poor writing and a director who spends too much time fussing over his angora sweaters is a recipe for disaster. In the case of Cuban Rebel Girls it was several of these elements plus the fact that the male lead, Errol Flynn, who could indeed act was just too sloshed to act on the days they happened to film his scenes. However, even if Flynn had been awake Cuban Rebel Girls would still qualify as a “bad film.”
I think sometimes we enjoy watching bad movies because there’s a little bit of the voyeur in all of us. That, and the fact that sometimes it’s fun to watch a film self-destruct. But perhaps I should leave the arm-chair “psychological theories” to the “experts” in the audience. God knows, there’s enough of you…
Elsewhere along the cyber highway and across the digital sea and aboard a ghost ship I have expounded less than eloquently on Dive Bomber. Some folks just don’t like it. They think it’s a “bad film.” Not enjoying a film is not necessarily justification for calling it a “bad movie.” Take Million Dollar Baby directed by Clint Eastwood. The ending outraged many. It involved a character’s moral, personal decision to take a life. Holy Rollers of all manner attacked Eastwood, forgetting that films are works of fiction. Eastwood was telling a story, and just because you don’t agree with a character’s actions doesn’t mean it’s a bad film.
A great many Errol Flynn fans don’t like Never Say Goodbye. They tell me “It’s a bad movie.” I tell them to get a life. Never Say Goodbye is neither bad nor great which makes it good at some nominal level.
This doesn’t mean the film doesn’t have its share of problems, because it certainly does. For example, something about Flynn’s physical appearance in this film has always bothered me. He doesn’t look quite right which is either the result of lackluster cinematography or he was handled improperly by the make-up staff. I can’t quite put my finger on it. It’s evident in the stills, too. Maybe it’s his nose. Did Flynn have his nose broken and then skillfully reassembled by a plastic surgeon? I’m speculating because his profile looks out of kilter in some subtle way.
But there are many elements in Never Say Goodbye that work effectively. Flynn is good at playing a commercial artist. My guess is that Flynn could relate to his character’s artistic temperament, and a modern romantic comedy clearly appealed to him. Eleanor Parker is excellent as his wife and the modern setting is refreshing after seeing Flynn in so many period films. And I think that’s the problem Flynn fans have – they want the eternal champion, not a businessman with marital problems.
Never Say Goodbye isn’t a life-changing film, but it’s not the “bad movie” some would have you believe. It is one of several Flynn films that I believe is too easily dismissed. I also like Mara Maru and The Big Boodle. You see, the thing is this – I’m an Errol Flynn “fan” and not an Errol Flynn “critic.” This means that it’s likely that my brains are oozing from my ears.
No matter, later I’m going to tell you why <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Montana shouldn’t be missed…
That’s my rant on that topic.
Keep rockin’ and best wishes always.
— Shamrock
