Hellboobs

Folks might be interested to look up the 'natural' development theory popularized in the late 19th century which viewed childhood development as a progression from "savage" emotionalism, instinct, and pleasure to a "civilized" state of logic and restraint [these are the phrases used by early psychologists and, yes, it's pretty racist/ethnocentric where non-Western people were viewed as "childlike."] Lizzy's mom has definitely forced her idea of adulthood onto Lizzy, whereas the movie (bumblingly) holds the position that adults can and should be both emotional and logical. I think the discussion, as contentious as it seemed, proved brilliantly that both teams are fully-formed mature adults, relying on both emotional and logical analysis for the film. June and Jason, who liked the film, relied on emotion when discussing its style/execution and analytical analysis for its themes and intent. Paul and Casey who didn't like it used logic to argue against its execution, but emotion in discussing its message. I'd have to re-watch the whole movie again to know if this is true, but as I recall there are other instances of adults who had bottled up their emotions/desires only to have them burst out in immature ways, e.g. Lizzy's fiance cheating on her, her father abandoning the family, Mickey professing his love for someone he doesn't know at all and...the whole restaurant scene.

Wow. What an episode. I'm totally "team Fred" in the sense that I think Jason and June have interpreted the intent of the film correctly. Fred is clearly a representation of the childish personality that Elizabeth (Phoebe Cates) was forced to repress. For most of us, as we grow into adults we learn how to restrain our childish emotions and impulses. But, that is not the progression allowed for Elizabeth: her mother expects her to behave like an adult before she knows how. As a result. So, instead of integrating these childish parts of ourselves, she literally and figuratively boxes them up. As an adult, Elizabeth is trapped in a pathological state of self-repression (which is just as "insane" but more acceptable than a total lack of control.) But, trauma strains the psychological walls she built to contain her adolescent impulses and when those walls come down those parts of herself she'd repressed come crashing back into life, as represented by Fred. She fights these impulses and tries to put them back in a box, but ultimately she learns to love and integrate those aspects of her childhood personality into her adult self. Is the movie perfect? Absolutely not. But, June & Jason are spot on about the psychology underpinning it--if not the political message. Jason is surprisingly insightful about childhood psychology. I share his resentment of the way adults view children in this unrealistic state of total innocence. Kids are aware of "adult" things like death, violence, and sex. They may not have an adult understanding of them, but they're aware of and certainly curious about them. That's what Fred is. He doesn't want to hurt Elizabeth and he's not really interested in sex, but he's playing with these concepts as a kid would. The "kiss" at the end was not sexual. It was just a visual way to show that Elizabeth had come to appreciate the feelings and desires she had as a kid. She had learned that being an adult doesn't mean you have to completely repress all "childish" emotions, but it also doesn't mean indulging them without any restraint at all. Listening to the HDTGM episode, I was baffled at why Paul and Casey (and apparently a lot of the audience) couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that Fred and everything he appeared to do was a product of Elizabeth's imagination. Everything we see in the movie, including other peoples' imaginary friends, is merely what Elizabeth imagines.

100% agree. I just watched this for the first time and made fun of through the entire thing. This movie is awful. It never approaches ConAir level so-bad-it's-good, but it was pretty entertainingly bad.

Yes! Thumbs up to this idea. I loved and watched this movie so much as a kid my big sister eventually "accidentally" broke the VHS of it. I watched it again last year and I was shocked at how bad it actually was. Perhaps the worst part about it is that the female characters are these super powerful ladies who are 100% motivated by 1. proving they aren't total fuck ups and 2. men. The plot is focused on and driven by a mute version of a poor man's 70s Travolta if you slapped him with a stupid stick. I would love to hear what June has to say about this. At least Faye Dunaway and Peter O'Toole really chew up the scenery.

I would love it if they did Chain Reaction, though I'm pretty sure that's a flawless movie.

The only people who should be miffed (maybe) about losing access to the archive are people who donated a lot of money to HDTGM in the past ($100+). But, perhaps they were given an extra heads up about the change.

I think it was Dan who *almost* got it. He said questioned whether it was possible Blake was staying in character, but I'm still surprised nobody--not the team nor anyone in the audience--made the connection between the "I thought you'd be bigger" refrain in the movie and what Blake was doing. But, yes, his delivery was...well, Snake-like. Kudos to him for not breaking character to explain what he was doing though.

One more thing. I was surprised nobody on the show brought up the idea that maybe the movie was intentionally camp. I mean, JC's The Thing came out in 1982 y'all. Clearly, the man knows good--and I mean bone-chillingly good--SFX. Maybe Carpenter was trying to do some kind of riff on the old beach blanket bingo surfer films from the 60s.

Long time listener first time poster so, thought my inaugural post should be as bananas as possible. So, here it goes: What if Road House and the Escape series take place in the same universe and, in fact, Dalton and Snake Plissken are the same person? Stay with me. Similarities: Snake and Dalton certainly have a similar look (Russell definitely wins the hair battle). Both men are famous for unknown reasons. Everyone expects Snake/Dalton to be bigger. Both have a fairly flat affect and seem unperturbed by almost everything The settings are both essentially lawless environments. Both men have an unusual and highly sought-after set of skills. And in both movies, the main villain is an old white guy. Completely bulletproof theory: Here’s what could have happened: James Dalton, the throat-ripping philosopher/martial arts master, finally ripped one-to-many throats. After the events of Road House in 1989, he and Kelly Lynch have to go on the lamb once someone finally realizes that several people have been violently murdered in the small town of Jasper, MO. Naturally, they “escape” to New York, where Dalton is originally from (remember the license plate on his car?) and has friends who can help them hide out. Presumably, they use pseudonyms, perhaps James—if that ever was his real name—becomes “Snake.” Sometime in the next 8 years, however, Snake and Kelly Lynch (aka Doc. Deathbox) are caught and sent straight to the prison island of Manhattan where, after losing his eye and presumably the Doc, Snake abandons the teachings of Buddha and embraces the nihilism of Nietzsche. Or maybe the real prequel film is Captain Ron…I don’t really know. Fun fact: Escape from NY was actually filmed in St. Louis, Missouri (a 4 hour drive from Jasper). Love the show and everything the three of you do. Sincerely, Hellboobs. Ps: Poor Blake Plissken. I felt bad when nobody got his joke and worse when everyone kept ragging on him. Clearly he’s a HDTGM and/or Escape series supernerd (not terribly funny, but we can’t all be blessed).