Friday, November 9, 2018

Happy Birthday To Me



Happy Birthday To Me (1981)
Dir. J. Lee Thompson
Written by Timothy Bond, Peter Jobin, John Saxon (not that one), possibly also John Beaird  (uncredited) 
Starring Melissa Sue Anderson, Glenn Ford, Lawrence Dane, Sharon Acker, Frances Hyland, Tracey Bregman, Lisa Langlois



            Somewhere in the enchanted land of Being An Obscenely Rich Person, ten school friends are part of an insufferable clique universally known as the “top ten.” Or, after the first few minutes, nine. Because on the way to meet the others, one of them (Lesleh Donaldson, FUNERAL HOME, CURTAINS) is butchered by a killer whose face she recognizes but we never see. In short order, her comrades also begin to meet their ends courtesy of a mysterious off-camera miscreant, and the killer just might be someone within the group. But...but... who? On a completely unrelated note, our protagonist Ginny (Melissa Sue Anderson, NBC’s Little House On The Prairie) has just returned to school under vague and suspicious circumstances, and she is currently suffering from a tragic medical condition known as “narratively expedient amnesia,” which fortunately is almost always temporary, and often miraculously cured right at the start of the third act. And also, not to put too fine a point on it, but she’s been blacking out a lot, and her on-call psychologist (a very-much slumming and not-at-all-happy-about-it Glenn Ford, THE BIG HEAT) seems a little anxious about what she might remember.

            What follows, then, is a perfectly enjoyable And Then There Were None riff, with the movie pushily directing our attention towards this red herring character or that as they get bumped off in impressively imaginative ways one by one. The characters are not exactly likable (and how could they be, since the movie faints towards nearly all of them as the killer at one point or another! Not that, frankly, we were ever going to take the bait and think Rudi did it, come on guys.), but at least they’re distinct and easy enough to differentiate. And the kills are, by and large, exemplary; in the deluge of slashers which followed HALLOWEEN’s success (1980 had seen the release of TERROR TRAIN, NEW YEAR’S EVIL, TO ALL A GOODNIGHT, CHRISTMAS EVIL, HE KNOWS YOU’RE ALONE, PROM NIGHT, MOTHER’S DAY, DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE, NIGHT OF THE DEMON, MANIAC, and FRIDAY THE 13th, just to name a few) the rules of what exactly a slasher film fundamentally was were still being written on the fly, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME was clearly a trailblazer in its understanding of the paramount importance of frequent, gimmicky kill scenes. Most memorable, of course, is the movie’s trademark shish-kabob death, but a guy who gets his face ripped off by a motorcycle (and hey, more dirt bike racing! Never picked up what a common horror trope this apparently is!) and a guy who gets his dick smashed while weightlifting also deserve a stirring commendation.



The kills are presented just a shade more seriously than you might expect, though; HALLOWEEN was still in the air, and a lingering professionalism left over from the gritty, self-serious 70’s cinema is still evident in the production, which doesn’t reflect any real awareness of its potential as flamboyant high camp. Subsequent genre filmmakers would latch onto the same impulse for outrageous grand guignol, but would eventually find their way to a tone of cartoonish, gleeful overkill that better suits this kind of preposterous schlock. But that hadn't happened yet; HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, then, is something of a relic of a subgenre still emerging from the primordial muck, torn between its impulse to shock you with over-the-top kills, and its instinct towards normal tactful artistry which would eschew lingering pornographically on the violence for its own sake. Obviously they should have fully embraced the trash once they had committed to this baseline level of ridiculousness, but I can see how they wouldn’t have known better at the time, and it makes the film an interesting artifact from a genre still in transition.

            This is true of the portrayal of violence, and equally true with regards to the structure here, which really invests in its ridiculous whodunnit angle, an absolute mainstay of the Italian giallo cycle but ultimately not a quintessential element of the American Slasher film. In fact, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME feels, in many ways, like it’s inspired more by gialli than by HALLOWEEN: its interest in opulent wealth, its mystery plot and endless red herrings, its insistence on its convoluted and ludicrous psychology, its varied and colorful death scenes, and (especially) its breathtaking, violent spasm of out-of-the-blue insanity passing itself off as a conclusion, all have more in common with the fey psycho-horror of 70’s Italian cinema than the more straightforward blood-and-guts delivery system of the 80’s slasher.



Of course, I’m not sure any self-respecting giallo would center itself around this group of dorks. Which raises a question that gnawed at me throughout the film: what are these kids, exactly? They drive cars, and drink beer at a bar (and then drive cars), but they go to something called “The Crawford Academy,” where they’ve been going for at least four years, and many but not necessarily all of them seem to live at home with their parents. None of them appear to have jobs of any kind, but the campus of their school is gigantic, with a huge multi-story library. None of them seem to be training to be wizards*, so I can only assume this is some kind of non-magical rich kid high school? I looked it up and it turns out the drinking age was not raised to 21 until 1984, so I guess it fits, but man, this is not how I remember high school. Or actually college, for that matter. Or, in a more general sense, human existence. I don’t know if my upbringing was a lot more atypical than I assume, or if this was just normal life for every American in 1981, or if it’s just that these people behave like no human being that ever lived. But in a month of watching nothing but incompetent movies about impossible things, I found these characters among the most inscrutable elements I encountered.

Anyway, your enjoyment of the movie is probably going to have less to do with how much you identify with these rich-ass Hogwarts weirdos and more to do with how much tolerance you have for a flagrantly unfair whodunnit that cheats shamelessly at every turn to try and trick you about who the killer is, and then in the end it’s just a bunch of crazy random nonsense they wrote on the fly which has nothing to do with anything that came before. They employ every dirty trick in the book; menacingly shooting characters doing things that look suspicious because they haven’t shown you the benign context, having the killer do a bunch of shit that is retrospectively impossible, having characters act sinister and threatening out of the blue for a scene or two for absolutely no reason, lingering on an overwrought flashback mystery that doesn’t turn out to be important, having characters prank each other with dead body parts stolen from the morgue or medical school (or whatever the fuck they have wherever this weird place is supposed to be) during the same week their friends are mysteriously vanishing without a trace.



It’s all terribly unfair and shamelessly manipulative, but credit the filmmakers for this: it works. Whether you want to or not, they’ll have you guessing about who the killer really is (not that you’d be able to guess from the information provided) and the movie does a surprisingly effective job of subtly and smoothly shifting your suspicions amongst the numerous red herring characters. Director J. Lee Thompson was an old British pro (he did the original CAPE FEAR and THE GUNS OF NAVARONE before becoming Charles Bronson’s go-to guy, making nine movies with him between ‘76 and ‘89); no one's definition of an artist, but certainly a reliable craftsman with a solid work ethic and no pretensions that he's better than this garbage. He already had in excess of three dozen movies under his belt as director (he has a screenwriting credit from 1937), and, unless you're Jim Wynorski or someone, you don't make that many movies without at least learning something about the craft. This is by no means a classy production, but it does contain a certain level of unpretentious professionalism that sets it apart from many of its slasher brethren which were thrown together by ambitious amateurs. Even though the movie makes no sense and it was apparently being rewritten right up to the final scene being shot, it’s very competently assembled and confidently paced. I don’t know if something this dumb benefits enormously from that kind of workmanship, but this is definitely a real movie that you could show to normal people without them thinking you’re some kind of fringey psychopath who’s into deviant, perverse masochism in entertainment. It even has a few suspense sequences (particularly the first kill) which could be taken completely seriously in that regard. Overall it’s a lumpy, schlocky mess, but scene-by-scene it’s legit and occasionally even effective.

The final explanation makes not a lick of sense, and turns out to have nothing to do with the flashbacks, repressed memories, or birthday parties, or anything else.** But it’s audacious enough that I’m willing to let that go. A mystery this nutty was never going to have a good solution, so in some ways a completely insane and arbitrary one is actually better. The movie has one absolutely inexcusable failing, though: there are ten friends in the circle who start getting bumped off. But in the end, only seven get killed! Three at least don’t turn up for the finale, and apparently survive! There is a vague possible reason for this (possible SPOILERS: they weren’t attending the school back when the inciting party took place?) but come on! Let’s go for 100% completion here. I get that slashers were still finding their feet in 1981, but leaving obvious bodycount uncollected was never acceptable.


*Although magic is probably the best explanation for the reveal of how the killer pulled it off, so I’m not entirely ruling it out.

** In fact, the overly-chatty, very insider-baseball-heavy and completely unsourced wikipedia page, as well as the IMDB trivia section (impossible to know which was ripped off the other, but they obviously have the same source), claim that the final ending was completely re-written on the fly at the last minute when the original ending that literally everything else in the movie seems to be pointing to was ditched as “not climactic enough.” That was probably a bad move if they wanted to leave the film with anything resembling internal cohesion, but it was just as well for history, because this doozy of an ending is crazy and random enough I’m much more likely to remember it.


CHAINSAWNUKAH 2018 CHECKLIST!
Searching For Bloody Pictures

TAGLINE
Six of The Most Bizarre Murders You Will Ever See. Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but at least three are real hum-dingers. And I appreciate that they at least know what I want to see.
TITLE ACCURACY
There is a birthday party which features heavily in the backstory and the finale, but it, too, is a red herring
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
No
SEQUEL?
None
REMAKE?
None
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
USA
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Slasher, Whodunnit, And Then There Were None ripoff.
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
Glenn Ford, of all fool people.
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
None
NUDITY?
None
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
No, although a French guy breaks into Ginny’s house to steal her underwear(?!)
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
No
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
No
POSSESSION?
No
CREEPY DOLLS?
None
EVIL CULT?
None.
MADNESS?
Crazed killer
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
A very, very convincing mask.
VOYEURISM?
None
MORAL OF THE STORY
Even if you are ahead of the curve enough to know the real draw here is a series of colorful murders, still maybe plan out the ending of your whodunit ahead of time, yeah?



No comments:

Post a Comment