|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 5, 2024 7:32:20 GMT -5
Forgive me for not including this in the movie thread, but I didn’t want to “take over” that thread, so please bear with me. The post will have a presumption that anyone reading it will have seen the film - and know it off by heart, so that’ll save me from having to write a synopsis. In a nutshell, the film is about two American backpackers who are attacked by a werewolf on the Yorkshire Moors; one, Jack, is killed, the other, David, becomes a werewolf.
An American Werewolf in London (1981) is one of my favourite werewolf movies. I believe it’s as powerful as it was when I first saw it. I’m sure it would have been scary in 1981. It’s atmospheric, and you do see little of the werewolf in certain scenes, e.g. when the poor Tube commuter gets it: that scene is more about what you hear than what you see (bonus points to anyone who can - without Googling it - tell me which Star Wars character was played by the actor who portrayed the unfortunate victim here). You only really see a lot of the creature when it goes on a rampage in Piccadilly Circus.
I also like how the werewolf is quadrupedal here, that’s more scary.
It’s an enjoyable film which I always enjoy watching. However, some questions do come to mind (I watched it again recently), and any discussion of plot holes, while pedantic, isn’t necessarily meant to be taken seriously. No film on the planet is without plot holes.
Firstly, and I think I once discussed it here with someone, I was never sure why, after being attacked on the Yorkshire Moors, David Kessler was sent to a hospital in London - quite a distance south. Didn’t a city closer to the Moors - Leeds, perhaps? - have a hospital that could have taken care of him? I guess it’s because An American Werewolf in London is simply a good title.
In the beginning, David and Jack are ejected from a pub - The Slaughtered Lamb - after offending the pubgoers (Jack asks why they have a pentagram on the wall). David and Jack get lost, they are attacked, and then, after Jack is killed, the pubgoers show up and shoot the werewolf dead. It does make you wonder, why didn’t they try and do that long ago? The film may well imply that they’ve lived with the werewolf threat hanging over their heads for a long time, but it seemed quite easy for them to go and kill the thing. Poor Jack need not have died.
Jack returns as a zombie (presumably a zombie). He is cursed to walk the Earth in limbo until the werewolf curse is ended. When Jack becomes a werewolf, he kills six people - all of whom become zombies and urge him to kill himself. Now, no-one else can see these zombies besides David, so are they in fact ghosts? I don’t know because Jack shows up at David’s bedside in hospital and eats toast. Ghosts don’t tend to consume food. I think this is a case of us not being expected to think too deeply.
Also, and we’re in real pedantry territory now, Gerald, the man killed at Tottenham Court Road Underground Station, must be the unluckiest commuter ever. Where are the other commuters? Where were the employees of Transport for London? Where were the British Transport Police? Yes, I know the scene relies on a lone man targeted by the werewolf, but it did stretch credibility a bit to accept he was the ONLY person in the station at night. I’ve been in Tube stations at night - after 10pm or 11pm - and there is never just one person there.
My final criticism is of the final scene. The werewolf runs down an alley, and Nurse Price (Jenny Agutter) runs down after him. Behind her are the Met Police’s armed unit. When the werewolf attempts to pounce, they shoot it dead. Somehow, and there must be at least a dozen armed coppers, not one bullet hits her even though she was presumably in the line of fire.
None of these criticisms detract from what I consider to be one of the Top 5 werewolf films made.
This film also left me thinking after its finale - about the fallout. Throughout the film, David tries to convince people he is a werewolf. Only Dr. Hirsch, the consultant who treated him, is willing to think about that, although even after a trip to Yorkshire, he isn’t convinced. Yet the wolf rampages in Piccadilly Circus, is shot dead - and there, in front of countless witnesses, is the body of David. There would have had to be a government inquiry, I imagine, with the Yorkshire locals being investigated - and an acknowledgement that werewolves exist.
If you’ve got through this long post, well done. Questions and thoughts - serious or otherwise - are welcome!
I may as well share a clip of the finale, which never fails to be sad:
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Sept 5, 2024 7:54:53 GMT -5
American Werewolf in London is my favorite werewolf film, and possibly just favorite horror film, in general. But yeah, the story does have a few plot holes - I'd say the only one of those you mentioned that always mildly bothered me is the second one, i.e., why the villagers didn't just kill their local werewolf ages ago.
Other than that, there's one other thing that bothered me ever since I first watched it in my teens: after he becomes a werewolf, David gets growled at by a neighborhood dog, which makes sense - it can tell that there's something 'off' about him, that he's not quite natural. Yet later, he wakes up in the wolf enclosure in London's zoo, and the wolves are all fine with him. Biologically, wolves and dogs are basically the same thing, so shouldn't they also be growling and hostile as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 5, 2024 10:34:30 GMT -5
1.) Industrial action in the hospitals in Leeds, with others coming out in sympathy. Thatcher hadn't yet broken the backs of the unions.
2.) Too drunk to shoot straight.
3.) Maybe the toast was to settle his stomach after eating some rich brains.
4.) All the other commuters had to "spend a penny" at the same time and there was a que, in the loo.
5.) No bullet is going to touch the lovely Jenny Agutter!
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069 
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 5, 2024 21:37:28 GMT -5
With regard to the guy on his own on the underground station late at night, it's worth noting that the population of London was around 6.5 million when this film was made and now it's around 10 million. So, there were noticeably far fewer people about anyway, but in addition, less stuff was open late at night in London back then. All pubs kicked out at 11pm and restaurants usually earlier than that. So, although finding yourself alone on an underground platform late at night in the early 80s might've been unusual, it was a lot more common than it is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 6, 2024 4:37:07 GMT -5
A further thought on the villagers: I guess it’s possible that for years, if not decades, the villagers kept away from the werewolf on the night of the full moon. And only when David and Jack were in danger, did they head out to shoot it - which, as I stated, they did quite easily.
Also, I found out that the late Roger Ebert wrote this:
Curiously unfinished? David got cursed, became a werewolf, things happened, and he was shot dead by armed police.
95% of the time, I find myself believing the exact opposite of what critics say. There are some films which I found to be terrible, but which the critics praised - and there are films which the critics had utter disdain for, but which I enjoyed.
I also believe Ebert was factually incorrect. There was character development in the scene, not just with David, but with, say, Dr. Hirsch visiting Yorkshire to try and get to the truth after being initially unconvinced. And there is an ending. So I believe he was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 6, 2024 21:51:42 GMT -5
A further thought on the villagers: I guess it’s possible that for years, if not decades, the villagers kept away from the werewolf on the night of the full moon. And only when David and Jack were in danger, did they head out to shoot it - which, as I stated, they did quite easily. Also, I found out that the late Roger Ebert wrote this: Curiously unfinished? David got cursed, became a werewolf, things happened, and he was shot dead by armed police. 95% of the time, I find myself believing the exact opposite of what critics say. There are some films which I found to be terrible, but which the critics praised - and there are films which the critics had utter disdain for, but which I enjoyed. I also believe Ebert was factually incorrect. There was character development in the scene, not just with David, but with, say, Dr. Hirsch visiting Yorkshire to try and get to the truth after being initially unconvinced. And there is an ending. So I believe he was wrong. I used to watch Siskel & Ebert's review shows, going back to their days on PBS, before they were nationally syndicated (At The Movies), and both had blind spots when it came to genre films, especially sci-fi and horror. I recall when both listed David Lynch's Dune as the worst film of the year. Now, Dune was far from perfect and there is some seriously bad acting in it (most prominently Lynch, himself, during the rescue of spice miners, when a worm shows) but it was far from the worst film of the year, especially with things that ended up on video. Leonard Maltin was the same. There is an episode of Mystery Science 3000, where at the end of the film, they are reading off classic movies that were rated lower than the bad sci-fi film they had just watched, including Blade Runner. I always found that Ebert was pretty reliable when it came to comedies and dramas and Siskel was fine on dramas; but, most critics were failed screenwriters or wannabes, and Ebert had Beyond The Valley of the Dolls and Beneath The Valley of the Ultra-Vixens to his writing credits; so, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. He was a fine writer about film, though and had been the Campus Scout columnist, in the Daily Illini newspaper, at my alma mater, The University of Illinois. That was THE column for the paper, a weekly discussion of events and topics on campus, or the world. During my time there, I knew one of the people who was writing the column; he was the son of a teacher who had taught at my home town school, with my parents, and they were good friends, eventually moving down to southern Illinois, where my grandparents and an uncle lived; so, we kept in touch over the years. He had also done some behind-the-scenes grunt work at Eclipse Comics. I saw the name in the Daily Illini, mentioning where he was from and knew it had to be him. His parents later visited my folks and confirmed it. Anyway, I've seen a lot of critics who seemed to miss the point of a film, which seemed rather obvious. For instance, I have seen reviews of Ridley Scott's The Duelists, that talk about the two men fighting duels, over the time of Napoleon, with the root cause long forgotten. If you watch the film, it is quite obvious why Harvey Keitel's character, Feraud, instigates their first duel: jealousy over the way Madame de Leon shows attraction to Keith Carradine's character, d'Hubert, with his gallant and courtly manners. Feraud is of the lower classes, risen to an officer's commission by skill, in the Hussars, under Napoleon, while d'Hubert comes from the noble classes and is filled with ease and confidence in such circles, while Feraud aspires to, but is self-conscious of his background. d'Hubert is there to pass along orders that Feraud is to confine himself to quarters, pending investigation of a duel, where he mortally wounded the son (or nephew) of the mayor of Strausbourg. Feraud starts arguing with d'Hubert, outside, out of spite and then brings up the name of Napoleon and uses d'Hubert's response as a point of honor, to challenge him to a duel. It then leads to a series of inconclusive duels across Napoleon's campaigns, and after his defeat at Waterloo. Most critical reviews I have seen seem to believe it is mysterious, but I always found it obvious. I sometimes think they are too busy looking at the technical side of the film and miss the story. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 7, 2024 0:29:36 GMT -5
With regard to the guy on his own on the underground station late at night, it's worth noting that the population of London was around 6.5 million when this film was made and now it's around 10 million. So, there were noticeably far fewer people about anyway, but in addition, less stuff was open late at night in London back then. All pubs kicked out at 11pm and restaurants usually earlier than that. So, although finding yourself alone on an underground platform late at night in the early 80s might've been unusual, it was a lot more common than it is now.
And besides, Paul Weller wouldn't write a song like Down in the Tube Station at Midnight without knowing that the title and the lyrics would strike a chord with listeners. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Sept 7, 2024 4:07:45 GMT -5
A further thought on the villagers: I guess it’s possible that for years, if not decades, the villagers kept away from the werewolf on the night of the full moon. And only when David and Jack were in danger, did they head out to shoot it - which, as I stated, they did quite easily. Also, I found out that the late Roger Ebert wrote this: Curiously unfinished? David got cursed, became a werewolf, things happened, and he was shot dead by armed police. 95% of the time, I find myself believing the exact opposite of what critics say. There are some films which I found to be terrible, but which the critics praised - and there are films which the critics had utter disdain for, but which I enjoyed. I also believe Ebert was factually incorrect. There was character development in the scene, not just with David, but with, say, Dr. Hirsch visiting Yorkshire to try and get to the truth after being initially unconvinced. And there is an ending. So I believe he was wrong. I used to watch Siskel & Ebert's review shows, going back to their days on PBS, before they were nationally syndicated (At The Movies), and both had blind spots when it came to genre films, especially sci-fi and horror. I recall when both listed David Lynch's Dune as the worst film of the year. Now, Dune was far from perfect and there is some seriously bad acting in it (most prominently Lynch, himself, during the rescue of spice miners, when a worm shows) but it was far from the worst film of the year, especially with things that ended up on video. Leonard Maltin was the same. There is an episode of Mystery Science 3000, where at the end of the film, they are reading off classic movies that were rated lower than the bad sci-fi film they had just watched, including Blade Runner. I always found that Ebert was pretty reliable when it came to comedies and dramas and Siskel was fine on dramas; but, most critics were failed screenwriters or wannabes, and Ebert had Beyond The Valley of the Dolls and Beneath The Valley of the Ultra-Vixens to his writing credits; so, Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle. He was a fine writer about film, though and had been the Campus Scout columnist, in the Daily Illini newspaper, at my alma mater, The University of Illinois. That was THE column for the paper, a weekly discussion of events and topics on campus, or the world. During my time there, I knew one of the people who was writing the column; he was the son of a teacher who had taught at my home town school, with my parents, and they were good friends, eventually moving down to southern Illinois, where my grandparents and an uncle lived; so, we kept in touch over the years. He had also done some behind-the-scenes grunt work at Eclipse Comics. I saw the name in the Daily Illini, mentioning where he was from and knew it had to be him. His parents later visited my folks and confirmed it. Anyway, I've seen a lot of critics who seemed to miss the point of a film, which seemed rather obvious. For instance, I have seen reviews of Ridley Scott's The Duelists, that talk about the two men fighting duels, over the time of Napoleon, with the root cause long forgotten. If you watch the film, it is quite obvious why Harvey Keitel's character, Feraud, instigates their first duel: jealousy over the way Madame de Leon shows attraction to Keith Carradine's character, d'Hubert, with his gallant and courtly manners. Feraud is of the lower classes, risen to an officer's commission by skill, in the Hussars, under Napoleon, while d'Hubert comes from the noble classes and is filled with ease and confidence in such circles, while Feraud aspires to, but is self-conscious of his background. d'Hubert is there to pass along orders that Feraud is to confine himself to quarters, pending investigation of a duel, where he mortally wounded the son (or nephew) of the mayor of Strausbourg. Feraud starts arguing with d'Hubert, outside, out of spite and then brings up the name of Napoleon and uses d'Hubert's response as a point of honor, to challenge him to a duel. It then leads to a series of inconclusive duels across Napoleon's campaigns, and after his defeat at Waterloo. Most critical reviews I have seen seem to believe it is mysterious, but I always found it obvious. I sometimes think they are too busy looking at the technical side of the film and miss the story. I’m really not sure why the planet needs film critics. Are you familiar with Mark Kermode? He’s another critic who I think gets too bogged down in looking at the technical side of films while missing other stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 7, 2024 7:00:10 GMT -5
*Still transfixed by the sight of Jenny Agutter*
... I'm sorry, what was the question?
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 7, 2024 20:13:04 GMT -5
*Still transfixed by the sight of Jenny Agutter* ... I'm sorry, what was the question? Just a silly side note... I watched this movie not that long ago because my wife is a big call the Midwife and wanted to see Jenny Agutter as a young woman. I didn't mind either  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 7, 2024 21:52:10 GMT -5
*Still transfixed by the sight of Jenny Agutter* ... I'm sorry, what was the question? Just a silly side note... I watched this movie not that long ago because my wife is a big call the Midwife and wanted to see Jenny Agutter as a young woman. I didn't mind either Just don’t show her Logan’s Run. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 9, 2024 20:49:42 GMT -5
*Still transfixed by the sight of Jenny Agutter* ... I'm sorry, what was the question? Just a silly side note... I watched this movie not that long ago because my wife is a big call the Midwife and wanted to see Jenny Agutter as a young woman. I didn't mind either Well, if she wants to see a really young Jenny Agutter, show her The Railway Children.... Screenplay written by and directed by Lionel Jeffries, the English actor (Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, First Men in the Moon, Blast-Off). Agutter played the same role in a tv serries version, in 1968. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 9, 2024 21:37:09 GMT -5
...show her The Railway Children.... God, how I hate that film. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 9, 2024 22:47:28 GMT -5
...show her The Railway Children.... God, how I hate that film. Well, then, skip ahead 6 years, to when she is 25 and appearing in The Eagle Has Landed, romancing Donald Sutherland. or as Louise de Lavalier, in the ITC version of The Man In The Iron Mask, with Richard Chamberlin...  |
|
