Showing posts with label CENSORSHIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CENSORSHIP. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Dr. Giggles




Dr. Giggles (1992)
Dir. Manny Coto
Written by Manny Coto and Graeme Whifler
Starring Larry Drake, Holly Marie Combs, Cliff deYoung, Glenn Quinn

            DR. GIGGLES is an absolutely immaculate, textbook-perfect specimen of the subspecies of horror known as the “gimmick slasher,” with only one fatal flaw: it premiered in 1992. That was way too late to present the world with a premise that should, by all rights, have shown up in 1986 along with NEON MANIACS, THE WRAITH, MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE, and FRIDAY THE 13th PART VI.* That would be the right cultural moment for a by-the-book slasher which rests its entire reason for existence on medical-themed one-liners.

1992 was emphatically not the right time. The Great American Slasher Wave which had subsumed the horror genre throughout the 80s following the success of HALLOWEEN in 1978 was by that time well and truly over, killed off by a mix of oversaturation and increasingly draconian censorship (witness the milquetoast TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3’s tortured attempt to secure an R rating, where its 1974 predecessor had landed a PG), and SCREAM’s bid to reboot the genre with smug self-referential irony was still four long years away. The landscape had shifted right underneath the slasher’s feet, and even more than that, the artform of filmmaking had changed. As we discussed in fellow 90’s refugee slasher THE NIGHT BRINGS CHARLIE, the 90’s brought with them an epidemic of overlit, drab realism that abandoned the appealingly ridiculously artificial aesthetic of the 80s, where the genre had flourished for a decade. This was a disaster for the genre; atmosphere mostly went out the window with the new visual style, and anything even remotely approximating naturalism was a miserably uncomfortable fit for the kind of cheerfully airheaded premise that underpins any gimmick slasher worth its salt. Acting had changed too; gone were the unselfconsciously broad stereotypes and enthusiastically bizarre line readings which had so charmed us during the heady 80’s; by 1992, heroin chic had replaced the cocaine effusiveness of the previous decade, and the square preppies and multiracial biker punks gave way to wan pretty boys with perpetually manicured five-o’clock shadows to communicate their inner torment at having to deal with your fascist reality, man.

Also, we wore a lot of denim. Possibly too much.

You could still throw a masked killer at a handful of pretty co-eds, of course, and some filmmakers did. The slasher didn’t completely die off right away, it just gradually got self-conscious and mopey and corporate. It devolved from the high absurdism of NEON MANIACS and HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME to the unambitious likes of I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER or URBAN LEGEND: slick, responsible slashers made by slick, responsible people who were going to deliver the expected product on time and under budget, and stay well away from anything that might surprise or upset anyone. These were, in other words, slashers made by people self-aware enough to understand the concept of shame, who consequently thought before they acted in the hopes of avoiding embarrassment. Some chose to embrace the genre’s inherent corniness and play into the joke (SCREAM, LEPRECHAUN, BRIDE OF CHUCKY) while others went the opposite route into the kind of self-serious grimness that would eventually give us the torture-porn cycle a decade later (STRANGELAND, RAVENOUS, MUTE WITNESS). Neither school was necessarily a dead end; BRIDE OF CHUCKY is indisputably charming, and something like CANDYMAN (arising from the latter school) is close to a masterpiece. But neither embodied the spirit of the slasher as it had existed in its heyday. For better or worse, the days of the naive, unselfconscious indie slasher flick were truly over.

Except, not quite, because here we find DR. GIGGLES existing categorically within its 1992 mileu, but with at least a toe still firmly planted in the cheerfully moronic splatter pics of yesteryear. On the surface, it’s all 90s: glossy, clean-looking images populated by generically pretty white people and their one black friend (Doug E. Doug, JUNGLE FEVER, COOL RUNNINGS) who will say something wacky and then quickly die, all acting in some kind of miserable limbo which is certainly not good but also a long way from the endearing, energetic corniness of their predecessors from a decade earlier. It’s also frustratingly short on explicit gore, and to my recollection utterly devoid of nudity. And it is certainly self-aware enough to realize that its premise is campy enough to make John Waters blush; IMDB even lists it as a “comedy” (along with “horror” and the far-less defensible “drama”).

You'll never guess what the cops say to Dr. Giggles to elicit this hilarious reaction.

 And yet, while the look and construction of the movie are resolutely bound to the decade of its birth, there’s a certain stubborn straightforwardness which is all 80s in the best possible way. What, you think the makers of JASON TAKES MANHATTAN were unaware that the series had escalated to well beyond the point of self-parody? They knew. They just didn’t feel the need to point it out to the audience, which they correctly assumed would come to that conclusion on its own, well before Wes Craven provided the cheat sheet for it. DR. GIGGLES knows the joke is funnier if it doesn’t have to be explained. So it just gets out there and presents its ridiculous premise without pretension and without comment, and you’re free to do with that what you’d like. The end credits play over Bad Case of Loving You (Doctor, Doctor) which should at least retroactively tell you definitively that the filmmakers get it, if nothing else did.**

But get out there it certainly does; whatever else it may be, it is not the kind of movie to dissemble around before getting to the point. Said ridiculous premise arrives right away, immediately, in fact. A medical-themed gimmick slasher it has set its mind to be, and a medical-themed gimmick slasher it will be from frame one: It opens with a stentorian quote from Hippocrates, followed by a an extensive credit sequence of CGI blood cells zipping around veins and eventually through the heart. In fact, we will actually enter the movie from the inside of the body, as a scalpel opens the vessels we’ve been so comfortably occupying, and we peer outside into the placid, psychotic face of the title character (Larry Drake, “Yahoo #1” in THE KARATE KID and Durant in DARKMAN, but apparently best known L.A. Law).

We’re quickly treated to the requisite backstory: It seems that one Dr. Evan Rendell, once a respected medical practitioner in the sleepy town of Moorehigh, Middle America (heheh), lost his mind in the 50’s and started stealing patients’ hearts in an ill-conceived attempt to revive his ailing (read: deceased) wife. Rendell was killed to death by an angry mob, but, we’re told, his unstable young son and accomplice, Evan Jr, vanished and was never apprehended. Or, uh, I guess he actually was apprehended at some later point, because we’re going to begin the movie proper with his escape from a mental institution, Michael-Myers-style, and we will follow his progress as he makes a beeline back to his hometown to pick up where his late father left off.



This is all great news, because Drake is perfect as the mad doctor who more than earns his titular nickname (well, the giggling part, at least; he does not graduate medical school during the course of the movie [spoiler]), giving the character a magnificent mixture of broad comic strangeness and genuine malice. A good slasher is going to live or die on the strength of its antagonist, and without a iconic mask or signature weapon to hide behind, it’s entirely up to Drake’s performance to create a memorable villain. Fortunately, he more than rises to the challenge. On this point I must defer to the words of my colleague Mr. Majestyk, who sums it up so perfectly that I consider his take definitive: 

Every single word of dialogue he speaks is a medical-themed one-liner ("I'm not really seeing patients yet, but for you, I'll make an exception," "Visiting hours are over," "Open up and say ah," etc.) but somehow, they all seem to come from within the character. They don't make him seem like a slumming character actor; they make him seem like a total fucking nutcase who has his own separate reality running in his head at all times. His façade never breaks down. He never gets angry or threatens to rip somebody's lungs out. He maintains his bedside manner and soft-spoken bemusement at all times, even when he's chasing somebody around with a hypodermic needle or fencing with one of those rubber hammers they use to test reflexes. But at the same time, there's an undercurrent of gleeful sadism bubbling just below the surface, as if, deep down, he knows this doctor persona he's concocted is all for show.

            Drake, then, is perfect, but you will perhaps not be surprised to hear that his victims will be of a decidedly less enchanting stratum. Our protagonist (Holly Marie Combs, Charmed, “cameo” in OCEAN’S 11?), for example, is a real bummer, spending most of her time before becoming a victim throwing temper tantrums at her dad for dating again following her mom’s death, and moping over her own impending heart operation. In my untrained medical opinion, she doesn’t really help matters in the latter regard by throwing her heart monitor into a fish tank and drinking a bottle of wine against her doctor's instructions (her real doctor, the non-giggling kind). The movie seems to think her stepmom is a monster for daring to suggest that maybe she’s being a bit of a drama queen, but man, the evidence sure seems to back her up. Granted, everybody was like this all the time in the 90’s, we were all insufferable crybabies, that was just what cool people did back then, for whatever reason, and I swear to you it seemed very chic at the time. Her boyfriend (Glenn Quinn, Roseanne, Angel), on the other hand, listens to this tormented soul pour her heart out to him about her anxiety over her serious medical condition and how it relates to her mom’s untimely death just a short time ago, and then hooks up with another chick almost immediately after he’s out of her sight, unable to resist the lure of a sexy saxophone lesson at a party in the school music room at the county fair (?). And he’s the hero! These kids really deserve each other. But at least you’re not going to be too torn up about watching them get killed off.



            In fact, while both the leads are unappealing deadwood of Brobdingnagian proportions, they’re nowhere near the worst offender here. That honor goes to this other dude (Darin Heames, PCU), and we need to discuss his journey. We first encounter him hilariously (?) trapping two friends in an abandoned house with no means of escape and never going back for them (and yes, they’re the movie’s only two black people), but his real moment to shine arrives later. Still basking in the afterglow of this urbanely puckish jape, this prince of a man prepares to draw another productive day to a conclusion by fucking his girlfriend (probably Deborah Tucker, DON’T TELL MOM THE BABYSITTER’S DEAD) in his parents’ bed. No one seems to think it is at all weird when he asks his consort to dress in his mom’s lingerie (which, uh, fits her), and everything seems to be going smoothly until his date offers him a condom and he looks confused and asks “where did you get that?” as if it’s some kind of mysterious alien artifact. Once he’s acquainted himself with the concept, he then immediately runs to the bathroom to apply it (even though they haven’t so much as kissed yet!) as though this is going to be some kind of elaborate operation which will require his full concentration. And then when he finally hops in bed to make use of the condom in question (which, in point of fact, he has somehow failed to correctly apply and has now lost, speculating “maybe she won’t notice?” like a real gentleman), he takes his shirt off and puts his baseball cap back on. What I’m saying is, this has to be one of the most deserved deaths in all of slasherdom.***
           
Predictably, as our heroine is being stalked by a murderous psychopath leaving a trail of bodies, no authority figure is even remotely interested in following up with her, nor does anyone seem interested in the fact that, for example, there’s a murdered body with a giant band-aid over the face stuck back there in the hall of mirrors, which both Girl and Boyfriend saw, and Giggles has made no effort to hide. And also, a veteran cop (Richard Bradford, THE UNTOUCHABLES) knows Giggles is loose, tells the whole story about his escape, and then just tells his partner (Keith Diamond, AWAKENINGS) not to worry about it. Wha? “This sure is a fucked-up town” the partner says. Yeah, no kidding. How bout we do worry about it?

            The cops’ laissez-faire attitude towards escaped maniacs turns out to be a less than ideal approach to public safety, as Giggles methodically euthanizes his way through the local teenage population one by one. Other than Drake, everybody is giving exactly the kind of bland, mopey performance you’d expect, so there’s not exactly a ton of tense drama here, but at least he starts to kill them off in a studiously on-theme manner almost immediately, and does so consistently throughout the film’s comfortable 96 minutes. There’s actually a pretty impressively high body count, a good number of them real showstopper gimmick kills (personal favorite: strangling a guy with a blood-pressure arm band monitor) and he’s got a medical themed one-liner for allllllllll of them.**** The movie is very invested in its solid gimmicky kills, of which it boasts an ample supply... but unfortunately not so much in matching them with over-the-top gore. I very much appreciate a movie that knows there should be a scene here Dr. Giggles takes someone’s temperature with a long, pointy thermometer and then rams it through her head, but why aren’t we allowed to actually see it? It kinda diminishes the impact of some of his more colorful ideas. Director Manny Coto (STAR KID and a busy TV writing career) claimed on the Killer POV podcast that the MPAA demanded most of the hoped-for gore be cut in order to secure that precious R rating, which sounds sadly feasible, but come on dude, have the artistic integrity to just release it unrated (hopefully the assumed Criterion director’s cut will add the gore back in and fulfill DR. GIGGLES’ true destiny to ascend to the highest echelons of schlocky gimmick slashers).



            If it is gore you seek, then, DR. GIGGLES will be able to meet your requirements only at the most modest levels. Fortunately, it makes up for it by being generally colorful and silly enough to at least distract you from the distressingly low volume of on-screen bloodletting. And it’s not just the humans who are willing to go boldly into near-surreal strangeness. Despite the unappealing 90s aesthetic, we have all kinds of fun visuals in there; a POV shot from inside a mouth, with Dr. Giggles peering in holding a tongue depressor, a near-psychedelic house of mirror sequence (that serves no real purpose, but why not have an Orson Welles homage in DR. GIGGLES?), even some cartoon lightning electricity and a backlit smokey forest scene lit by inexplicably sourced blue light to remind us of how much better this would have looked in 1986. The obvious standout is a flashback sequence which reveals how a young Giggles managed to escape the mob that killed his father by (SPOILERS) hiding in his mom’s hollowed-out corpse and carving his way out just in time to give an unlucky coroner a memorable night on the job. (END SPOILERS) It’s the kind of thing that takes a subtler sense of tone than you might be willing to give DR GIGGLES credit for: genuinely kind of shocking and perverse, but also outrageous enough to keep with the straight-faced silly tone of the movie. Same with Giggles’ skin-crawling but also kind of funny insistence on giggling through the pain of a gunshot. There’s a subtle kind of power generated by the confidence it takes to never outright admit this is comedy; like Dr. Giggles himself, the movie is at no time not crazy, but it is so unshakable in its insistence to the contrary that every now and then, it’s actually able to successfully become the legit horror-slasher it’s been pretending to be.

            To wit: Giggles has apparently learned surgery well enough to successfully remove a bullet and close a wound on himself (“Physician, heal thyself,” he says), which is no joke considering he’s spent his whole adult life in a madhouse. Really, this is a pretty inspiring story of triumph over adversity. Frankly, when he straps the protagonist down in his secret lair to replace her heart, I was thinking this actually might not be such a bad idea, as long as he accepts her insurance (alas, we never get a chance to find out). In retrospect, that probably was not such a feasible outcome, but both movies and people try and tell you what they are, and the two DR. GIGGLES --both the movie and the character-- are confident enough in what they are that even when you know better, it’s hard not to occasionally be suckered into going along with them. The place they’re going is an extremely silly one, but not an altogether unpleasant one for those who would be open to this kind of thing. Could use some more prurient thrills, but we can’t have everything. Even if the gimmick slasher sub-genre was on life support by 1992, DR. GIGGLES is good evidence that it wasn’t time to pull the plug quite yet.



            Also, in a completely unrelated note, kudus to Washington Post film critic Richard Harrington for blasting the film’s over-reliance on medical puns, only to indulge in the exact same vice with equally groan-worthy results. Look, I’m not made of stone either, OK? But at least I had the integrity to admit I like the puns.

POSSIBLY IRRELEVANT POST-SCRIPT:

My notes on the film contain the cryptic phrase, “Nire if rgarm okease” following the discussion of the house of mirrors sequence. Usually I can decipher my drunken initial reactions upon later review, but not this time. Hopefully that wasn’t the key to cracking this whole movie wide open, but if it was, and you can figure out what the hell I was trying to say, let me know.

POSSIBLY IRRELEVANT IMDB TRIVIA:
 

* I never really thought about this before, but isn’t it weird that the FRIDAY THE 13ths all use "Part" instead of just a number, suggesting they're all part of one vast, rambling saga that spans centuries? 
** In fact, it is not the familiar 1978 Robert Palmer recording, but a new version by Bad Company frontman Paul Rodgers.    

*** In fact, while the camera doesn’t linger on the fact, the blood evidence strongly suggests that Dr. Giggles has taken the precaution of removing this dude’s dick, which I’m sure is a real loss for the ladies of the world.

**** In fact, even the heroine gets in on the act at the end (spoilers): “take two and call me in the morning” she says, plunging two huge knives into her nemesis. Not to be outdone, Giggles turns, looks directly into the camera, and deadpans “Is there a doctor in the house?” before expiring.





Actually, "Major" motion picture might be stretching it.


CHAINSAWNUKAH 2018 CHECKLIST!
Searching For Bloody Pictures

TAGLINE
If you're from Moorehigh
and you get sick
fall on your knees and pray
you die quick.

The slightly annoying formatting which insists “and pray” should be in the third line instead of the fourth, smashing the natural poetic meter to hopeless ruin, is, of course, what appears on the poster.

Also: The Doctor Is Out… Of His Mind.

And the somewhat more labored derivative:

Sorry, The Doctor Is In...Sane.
TITLE ACCURACY
100% accurate.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
Nope
SEQUEL?
None. The 90’s was a pretty bleak time for horror sequels, compared to other decades.
REMAKE?
No
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
USA
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Slasher, Gimmick Slasher
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
None.
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
None
NUDITY?
The only boobs are on the corpse that Giggles slices out of.
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
None
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
No.
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
None
POSSESSION?
No
CREEPY DOLLS?
None
EVIL CULT?
None
MADNESS?
Oh, certainly
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
None
VOYEURISM?
None
MORAL OF THE STORY
Even if you name your fictional town “Moorehigh,” some people still won’t get that you’re joking, and you just have to be OK with that and make great art anyway.




Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Burke and Hare-athon Part II: The Greed of William Hart




The Greed of William Hart a.k.a. Horror Maniacs (1948)
Dir. Oswald Mitchell
Written by John Gilling
Starring Tod Slaughter, Henry Oscar, Arnold Bell, Aubrey Woods



The first of our cinematic adaptations of the Burke and Hare saga comes to us from 1948, a mere three years after the end of World War II. Though it was the first version to hit cinemas, it was not the first dramatization of the events; in 1931, Scottish playwright James Bridie had written a play on the subject that had been adapted for TV in 1939. But I couldn’t find a copy of that, and in fact think it likely lost (as are most of the older BBC programs, which were frequently not archived even at the time), so this remains the oldest screen version I am aware of. It certainly was not necessary to re-introduce the story to the British public, who already knew it quite well, but the film introduced the story to the cinema, and, as such, what would come to be a cinematic love affair still going strong half a century later.


This is definitely the darkest version of the story. Not in a thematic sense, but in terms of actual lighting. The whole movie appears to have been shot with a single light source, possibly a flashlight, which is beaming straight out from directly above the camera. The result is that the film has a dim halo of light in the exact center of the screen, and everything outside that light is pitched at varying levels of total blackness. I’m not sure if this was an artistic decision or if the production was paying by foot-candle or what, but it makes everything a little hard to make out. That’s OK, though, because there’s not a whole lot to see; director Oswald Mitchell and cinematographer S.D. Onions (can that possibly be a real name?!) aren’t looking to make a film of great visual splendor (in fact, the cramped sets and blocky staging make the film look much older than it actually is). Instead, they’re interested in crafting a tight little crime story, featuring early British horror star Tod Slaughter in the Hare role.


Slaughter is an actor I wasn’t familiar with before this movie, but apparently he was a pretty big deal at the time. He’s a big guy with bright eyes, an easy charisma and a pleasing inclination to go broad with his performance as the more nefarious of the two killers. I can see why he was a great choice for playing maniacs (horror maniacs?) in early screen melodramas and thrillers; despite his hangdog mug and soft-spoken shiftiness, he totally dominates every scene he’s in with an effortless theatricality that recalls Vincent Price. I guess his career declined into obscurity in the years after this movie, but I’d say he’s the genuine article, well due for a rediscovery (hopefully I’ll get a chance to check out of a few more of his films next Chainsawnukah). Besides, his name is Tod Slaughter. That’s already the most metal name ever even before you consider that “Tod” is German for “Death.” So Slaughter is cool in my book, and he’s nicely complemented by Henry Oscar (later in Hammer’s BRIDES OF DRACULA) who looks like Colm Meaney dressed like a leprechaun and serves as a good sidekick in the Burke role.




I say “Burke role” because these two ghouls aren’t actually Burke and Hare. Oh, they act like them, all right, and they have the same story, and indeed, frequently you can see the actors mouthing the words “Burke” and “Hare.” But these are definitely not them, their names are Hart and Moore, they say them aloud several times. Or at least, they started to after the British Board of Film Censors insisted that all references to the real-life killers be removed, resulting in a last-minute re-titling and re-dubbing. Intriguingly, the victims’ names have not been changed; you still have the “big three,” Mary Paterson, Daft Jamie and (an unseen) Mary Docherty appearing with their real names. IMDB claims that the added expense of re-dubbing the film left no money for music; I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it is true that there’s no music throughout most of the runtime.


Despite its trailblazing status, the script, by future Hammer writer/director John Gilling (THE REPTILE, PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES), is pretty strong, and in fact a good deal more focused than most of the later attempts would be. Gilling frames the story as essentially a crime/suspense narrative; the killers are known to us from the start, and it’s simply a question of whether our (handsome? it’s hard to tell because it’s so dark) generic medical school student (hereafter HGMS) (Patrick Addison, no other film credits) will be able to prove their guilt before it’s too late. Subsequent cinematic tellings of this tale would get bogged down in multiple unrelated characters and subplots, but the pleasing straightforwardness of this scenario --two killers pursued by suspicious HGMS-- serves to draw drama and meaning out of the basic facts in a way which sadly has yet to be repeated. The trope of having a generic handsome med student character would plague subsequent adaptations, but Gilling clearly crafts the most tolerable version of this character; he’s introduced early on and set up as an antagonist for the two killers almost immediately, giving him way more reason to exist than any other version. Ironically, the one detail of this character nearly every other version includes -- that the student recognizes the body of Mary Paterson -- does not figure into this one (maybe it was too early to include a detail this tawdry).


Aside from its unusually focused screenplay, two other factors distinguish this story. First, it contains what is certainly the most negative portrayal of Dr. Knox (“Dr. Cox” here, thanks Censors, for protecting the kids). Nearly every other version presents him as a ambiguous, conflicted character, but this one shows him as a calculating and complicit co-conspirator, perfectly aware of what the two killers are up to and actively working to hinder any investigation into their misdeeds. He even gets an earful about it from our HGMS, though his ultimate fate is left unknown. The other odd wrinkle here is the film’s unusual focus on Daft Jamie. Here played by rising star Aubrey Woods (in only his second role, though he would go on to a long career on stage and screen, most notably as the candy shop owner who sings “The Candy Man” in WILLY WONKA & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY), Jamie gets a ton of screen time and boy, does he just say the darndest things, like, all the time. He’s all over this thing and he has most of the best lines, so the prospect of his death is actually enough to introduce a little real suspense. Gilling obviously sees the dark humor in all this grim absurdity, and through Jamie's deceptively innocent quips, he pulls a thread of black comedy into the mix, a trend which found its way into a few subsequent adaptations as well. But Gilling was there first, and he did it more elegantly than those that followed.

THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART isn’t exactly a lost classic or anything -- much of the staging is ugly and awkward, and even with a slim runtime (the version I saw is only a hair over an hour, though supposedly a 79 minute version exists) it’s fatty and given to voluble excess, with way too much exposition for such a simple story. But in the ignoble history of Burke and Hare films its relatively streamlined narrative and handful of ingratiating performances make it easily among the better ones. This one at least seems to know what it was trying to do, even if it doesn’t necessarily do it all that well. Recommended for any filmgoer who likes stagey old films about murder that look like they were shot with the flashlight from Doom 3.

OUR STORY SO FAR:

2010: Burke and Hare



Burke and Hare-athon Checklist!



  • Title: THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART, aka HORROR MANIACS!
  • Genre: Crime/Black Comedy
  • Story regulars: Burke, Hare and Knox all go by thin pseudonyms, but they’re immidiately recognizable. Paterson, Daft Jamie, and Mary Docherty are all here as well, as is our beloved HGMS.
  • Attitude towards Dr. Knox: Negative. Movie clearly paints him as a unambiguous villain.
  • Wonky eye or no? Yes, although it’s subtle. Or maybe it’s not, maybe it’s just hard to see because everything’s so dark.
  • Scottish accents? Fairly strong, a number of people even use Scottish words like “kin” meaning “know”
  • Irish accents? Burke has a strong Irish accent and looks like a leprechaun. Hare, for some reason, does not, although he mentions being Irish.
  • Heaving cleavage? None. Or, again, maybe it's just too dark to see.
  • Rockin’ theme music? Almost no music.