pomattovich

OMISSION: One thing I was surprised was never discussed was the notion that, in spite of the final performance being regarded as terrible by all, the audience in attendance not only disagreed, but managed to collectively and telepathically decide to stay in stunned silence at the end of their performance in an effort to fake out the performers, only to surprise them with thunderous applause. Can you imagine how hard it is for an entire audience to do this spontaneously? There wasn't a single person in the audience who decided to applaud at the end just to be polite.

Kind of a tough choice for me. This truly is one of my favorite comedies of all time. I think the fact that a lot of its themes & plot points don't hold up as enlightened as they originally hoped to me makes it a far more interesting watch now because of it. Incidentally, I recently saw the Broadway musical adaptation of TOOTSIE and it only made me appreciate the movie more. The musical tries to simultaneously pay tribute to some of the classic scenes and characters from the film, while updating them for our modern age. A great effort is made to make the characters more likable, but it ends up undermining the characters and making them far less interesting. Michael no longer sleeps with Sandy, but she does seem to play it like they're in a romantic relationship that he ignores her in. Sandy (who is played very well by Sarah Stiles, but almost completely wasted in the role and only getting to reprise her only song twice in the show) ends up falling in love with Jeff, which seems to be a desperate move to have two characters end up together at the end of the show. The Julie character is no longer in a relationship with the Dabney Coleman character, but rather flat out rejects his advances, which yes, makes her initially stronger as a woman, but it robs her of the growth that Lange goes through in the film and because of observing Dorothy, waking up to not how bad a guy Coleman is, but to her own self worth. I think what I like about the movie is that the characters are imperfect (at best), and in the case of Michael, he's a pretty horrible guy. The triumph at the end of the film is that he's become a little bit better and is able to empathize with women a bit more, but I don't believe that he and Julie end up together. I think their walk away at the end is a portrait of two friends, and Michael has kind of cursed himself that they can never be more than that because of his lies. But that is probably all he deserves and it's happy ending enough. The musical also transplants the setting from the world of poorly written but financially stable world of television soaps to the world of Broadway musicals, which provides a lot of little in jokes geared towards the Broadway audience and almost no one else, but also makes Michael's motivations a lot more muddled. It's hard to imagine Michael, who remains a pretentiously serious actor, wanting to be part of what is perceived in the play to be a horrible Broadway musical. His big gender reveal take place on opening night rather than near the end of a successful run in the role, which means he's never able to actually achieve the kind of fame and pop culture relevance that Dorothy does in the movie because most audiences have yet to discover him. The only ones who keep telling him how brilliant he is are a small handful of actors and producers associated with the play he's in. It just doesn't work. But more than anything, I think comedy is so underrepresented on the list. There are so many great comedies that should be on the list that aren't, that I would happily replace for this, but I also am reticent to voting off one comedy with no guarantee that more would be put in its place. So I can concede to those who think that this film isn't as relevant or funny as it once was considered to be. I love this movie, but there's better comedies to have on the list. Certainly funnier ones (THE IN-LAWS deserves some love), but TOOTSIE has had a pretty lasting cultural impact, for better or worse.

I've always loved this movie and never really questioned any alternate paths the film could have taken. William Holden starred as Joe Gillis, and that was that. This film was introduced to me at such a young age and it was so burned in my memory that I couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. I think Holden is good, but it was nice to hear Amy and Paul speculate as to who might have played him instead. Brando would certainly be right for the moment when this existed. Certainly could reek of sexy desperation. I could also see the hungry boyishness of Dick Powell in the role of a screenwriter nearly wanting to give up. Or Burt Lancaster. So often I imagine my favorite classic films as untouchable but it's fun to play around with what might have been.

THE LAST PICTURE SHOW is one of my Top 10 Favorite Movies. I think I first saw it when I was 13, and by that point in my life I had seen many an R rated film, but it was the first film in my memory that felt like "an adult film," whatever that might mean. It wasn't just because there was sex and nudity. I had seen plenty of that. But perhaps this was the first time I had seen the idea of sex presented with an air of sadness to it. I think a lot of people now make jokes about the film being the melancholic version of a boner comedy, but it really did hit me on that level at that age. I am quite a Bogdonovich fan. Have great affection for his hits like this, WHAT'S UP, DOC?, THEY ALL LAUGHED, and PAPER MOON, and even a great deal of love for some of his supposed misses, like NICKELODEON, DAISY MILLER, and AT LONG LAST LOVE. I think this truly is his masterpiece, but about 15 years ago I began to wonder how much of my love for this film was based on Bogdonovich as a director (as well as Polly Platt's producing, who indeed did a ton of work to shape this film), and how much of it was Larry McMurtry's source material. I've read the book twice now and while I prefer the film, likely just because it was my first experience with the material, I have concluded that the novel is just as important a side of the coin of success that the movie is, which is something that I don't know if I would say for every great film adaptation. But of course McMurtry can't ever resist tainting a great first novel with a disappointing follow-up. It's kind of his thing. Texasville, The Evening Star, and too many follow-ups to Lonesome Dove. It was fun to hear Paul and Amy cringe over the trailer for TEXASVILLE. I have given it multiple chances over the years. Every time I watch it I tell myself "I'll appreciate it more this time," but I never do. But there are some people who love it. Specifically numerous people from Texas who I've spoken to vastly prefer it to THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. For as broad and silly as the film often feels to me, and in complete contrast to its predecessor, I think a lot of Texas natives see something of their home and upbringing in it. Anyone out there a die hard TEXASVILLE fan? If so, I envy you. I really do. I was genuinely surprised to remember that THE LAST PICTURE SHOW was on the AFI list, albeit in a low position. I didn't know that this film meant as much to so many others as it did to me. Especially because Bogdonovich made a career of gradually losing good will with Hollywood. I'm still fascinated by and adore him. He was a great get for this episode, even if he regurgitates the same stories again and again about all his movies. I love hearing them every time. The Quad Cinema in NYC did a retrospective of his work last fall and I went to almost every film, even the ones I don't care for, just to hear him talk (and talk, and talk) about them. So I'm happy THE LAST PICTURE SHOW is immortalized on this list, but I have to wonder that if the list is ever revised and updated again, if this will be one of the first titles to be knocked off.

I just attended a screening of SHE (1984) in NYC. This would be a hall of fame movie for HDTGM if they were able to get their hands on a copy, which sounds like it might be a difficult task. Even the Alamo Drafthouse here was only able to find an Answer Print, which was missing both the opening and end credits. This only contributed to the comedy of it all when the film attempted to end on a poignant, somber ending, and instead of slowly fading to credits it abruptly cut to black and the lights came up. The audience met that with thunderous applause. Anyways, this movie has everything. It's part sword and sandals movie, part post apocalyptic movie. It features many a scantily clad lady, ninjas, a robot Frankenstein monster, mutant leper mummies, telekinetic man gods, large hairy men dressed as ballerinas, and strangest of all, a hacky, obnoxious, impression spouting comedian who when is dismembered clones himself until there are dozens of versions of him talking like Popeye and Jimmy Cagney. This movie has to be seen to be believed. If anybody can find a copy to send to the crew, don't hesitate.

I have to agree with Amy about the fact that the only westerns that seem to appear on the AFI list (as well as those typically considered on THE CANON) are revisionist westerns. I think it's somewhat debatable as to which category THE SEARCHERS falls into. Even as a fan of that film, I could be fine with it being left off the list, or at least moved far away from the Top 20. I too was pretty shocked that STAGECOACH had been removed. For someone with such a varied body of films, I wish there were more than 2 John Ford titles on the list period. Something like STAGECOACH, LIBERTY VALANCE, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY, or MY DARLING CLEMENTINE. I've always been a big UNFORGIVEN fan as well, but again, it seems to be a western that is very much in response to the films from the genre's past. I was actually quite surprised that David Webb didn't seem to count THE SEARCHERS as one of his influences, as I always thought Will Munny had a little of Ethan sprinkled in him. But also, there's plenty of Blondie from The Man With No Name films, which I suppose aren't eligible for the list because they're Italian productions. I feel as if UNFORGIVEN would have a welcome place on the list if there weren't so many other westerns that are a little more representative of what the genre used to be, with maybe an OX-BOW INCIDENT or RED RIVER. I don't think UNFORGIVEN is ever considered without the Best Picture win and it being Clint's most famous American made western.

Is it time for those who voted for MAGNOLIA to change their votes to ZODIAC for the greater good? We gave MAGNOLIA a good showing, but I think many of us will be fine with ZODIAC taking it over SHAUN.

It was so great to be able to call into the show and plead my case for MAGNOLIA. Thought I would refine my words slightly and weigh other options. MAGNOLIA is a very personal choice to me. As I said in my call, I was obsessed when it came out. I had already been quite taken with HARD EIGHT and especially BOOGIE NIGHTS, so I was excited by the prospects of a relatively new filmmaker doing such promising work. Here's one interesting tidbit. The first time I saw MAGNOLIA it was a defective print. The film ran smoothly except for when the frogs started to fall, during which every individual shot began to run backwards, with the frogs falling up instead of down. It was oddly hypnotic and at the time, we in the theater were not completely convinced it wasn't an artistic choice. There was so much going on in the film though that it confounded me, and being younger at the time, I embraced the chance to discover every little secret meaning hidden in the film. I poured over the shooting script, I read every interview with Anderson, and ended up writing a needlessly ambitious 50 page term paper on the film, much to my A.P. English teacher's chagrin. I probably watched the film about 12 times within the first few films of its release, and then not at all for a long time. I recently saw it again on the big screen and the effect was dizzying. I was flooded with the original memories I had watching it during its theatrical run. It didn't always mean the same thing to me as it did then and I started to see some cracks that never quite occurred to me, but it was still an emotional experience. I still don't understand why Anderson decided to cut a subplot involving the murder of the man in the closet, but continued to keep in numerous references to that subplot. While I think that Tom Cruise is truly outstanding in the film, with his seminar scenes and breakdown over Robards' deathbed being highlights of the film, his interview scene felt rather contrived. Why does this reporter think or know that a question about his parents will be such a "gotcha" question. This guy is a misogynist asshole. Can you really not find a better way to take him down than saying that she found out that he lied about which one of his parents died? And while I think there's some great stuff within the subplot, I think the film might have been stronger without the centerpiece of the game show. Though I am very curious as to what Burt Reynolds would have brought to the role of Jimmy Gator, as was Anderson's original casting intention. We get a bit too much of Stanley and not enough of adult Donnie to draw the correlation between the two stories. I feel like expanding William H. Macy's role so that you feel all the history of that character without its modern counterpart would have been enough. But without these plots all fitting together, perhaps the film wouldn't quite have the same impact. As I said before, this ensemble cast really completes the film, with not a weak performance among them. For me, my favorite scenes are between Hoffman and Robards and Reilly and Walters, but to comprise the film solely of these smaller stories like a cop falling for a girl after showing up to her place on a call, might just feel like a fleshed out but still thin love story, not unlike PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE. To call MAGNOLIA "a spectacular mess" may be giving it too much credit. Caller Cody was right to point out how indulgent the film is, with Anderson flying a bit too close to the sun with creative freedom after the success of BOOGIE NIGHTS, which I do think is a tighter, more superior film experience. So can I vote for a film based purely on nostalgia even as I am aware of various imperfections? Like I said in the episode, sometimes I believe we can learn more by a director's missteps than we can from their successes. I think that Anderson knows that MAGNOLIA wasn't always successful in balancing his stories and perhaps did tip into the indulgent, but that prepared him for the experiments that he would go on to make with his next few films. While I don't love THERE WILL BE BLOOD, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, or INHERENT VICE as much as MAGNOLIA, I do appreciate a lot of the craft that goes into these films, and I genuinely love both THE MASTER and PHANTOM THREAD. There's never an Anderson movie that I'm not happy to watch at least a few times so that I may wrap my head around them. Were MAGNOLIA up against BOOGIE NIGHTS, I think I would vote for the latter, and perhaps we shouldn't overcrowd The Canon with Anderson films so that we may leave room for what may be his greatest work, either from the past or a film he's yet to make. My nostalgia and love still lies with MAGNOLIA, but does my vote? Everything that was said about ZODIAC in this episode was spot on. My mother grew up in the bay area and would (inappropriately) tell me stories growing up about her mother not letting her ride the bus for fear that the Zodiac killer would make good on his promise to shoot children as they exited. This is a real horror story that still lingers in the memories of Northern California residents today. Some out there (my brother-in-law and I have fought about this repeatedly) believe that ZODIAC is anti-climactic. A story with a great beginning but no ending. But this is precisely why I love it. It captures the frustration and obsession of an unsolved crime. The film is thrilling for the first hour when we are seeing the murders and watching our players get clues with hopes of solving them. And then the clues stop. There's no new information. And all we have to observe is our characters haunted with not knowing the truth. This is also one of the best depictions of realistic police procedure and its many faults and imperfections. I particularly love the sequence when the detectives from multiple counties get together and finally compare notes, discovering that by not initially sharing information with each other they are all more in the dark than they realized. In the midst of this serial killer movie, one suddenly starts to think about all the potentially innocent people who may have been convicted based on one investigation, while the information that might have absolved them was in the possession of another precinct that didn't practice communication with local colleagues. This is a phenomenal film. Without question my favorite by Fincher. I think it has justifiably become the go-to film that depicts what the true crime obsession has ultimately become. My wife was watching some awful Ted Bundy movie last night, and it just can't compare. So I think for the time being I am going to keep my vote for MAGNOLIA, because it's what 17 year old Johnny would want me to do. But I am inspired to watch my umpteenth screening of ZODIAC this week just to see if it can sway me, as I do think it is probably the better and certainly more influential film. I may change my vote later in the week, especially if ZODIAC looks like it is going to be in a runoff with SHAUN OF THE DEAD, one of my favorite comedies of this century but a film I can't measure up next to the other two. Thank you, Amy, for giving us this show. I don't write about film professionally anymore but coming to the message boards every week gives me a chance to stretch those muscles and converse with some like-minded individuals. I eagerly anticipate the return of the show, in whatever form it comes, and hope you find a co-host worthy enough to sit beside you. In the meantime I'll get my fix with UNSPOOLED. Have a great year with that and Canonize us again soon.

I saw all the SCREAM movies once and never felt much of a need to revisit them. To me, they were never all that much more deeper or satyrical underneath their standard slasher surface. And the longer the franchise went on, the more strained the satire seemed to be. So I rewatched the first SCREAM this weekend with an open mind I gotta say I was shocked by how much I enjoyed it. I had forgotten how serious the first film was, before it became enveloped in its meta jokes and references. I remember the murder of Henry Winkler's principal at the time of my first viewing really disturbed me. That's not fair. He's not part of this! This isn't how the game is supposed to play. Suddenly this movie of slasher tropes stepped a bit into the real world, which was genuinely shocking and unsettling. The movie doesn't stay there too long though before moving to the last act in the house, and then it mostly roots itself in the ground that the franchise would settle into, but seeing the cheap robe and mask in daylight made that killer seem a lot more human. Anyone could put it on and be a killer. I don't respond nearly as much to Jamie Kennedy's character and the conceit of following rules of a horror movie. I think a lot of this wasn't as original as fans claimed it to be. I'm a fan of the somewhat similar film POPCORN, and there's another 80's horror film that is even closer to the beats of SCREAM but for the life of me I can not remember the title nor find it online. It's something like "Enter Screaming," "Die Screaming," "Die Laughing..." Any ideas, Forum? I feel like the legacy of this film, aside from inspiring dozens of pale imitations, was that this was the franchise that acknowledged the tropes of horror movies to the point that its characters realized they were inside of one. But although I love the horror genre and have many many favorites, I don't think the lore and mythos of its structure is always so deep and uniform that it lends itself to four movies worth of insight to its themes. By the time they got to the third film they were really spinning their wheels, and the fourth film I remember desperately trying to make you remember what you liked about the first, while hoping you won't notice that they were just copying its same beats with just a rather forced twist ending that was preposterous even for this franchise. But this film was undeniably hugely influential, and even if it was also influenced by others, this certainly made the bigger cultural splash. We're fortunate enough to have a lot of the films that SCREAM references already in The Canon, so I don't need to make difficult decisions there or weigh their quality against each other. And SCREAM remains influential and is continuously relevant in some ways, whether it be connections to real life school massacres or the rise of the incel movement. I was rather floored by Amy's connection there, never considering that Ulrich and Lillard act out of sexual frustration or revenge for past breakups. Perhaps Lillard's decision to kill McGowan is a preemptive measure to save himself humiliation for when this goddess realizes she's dating such a dweeb. While I've grown a fonder respect for this film than I ever thought I would have, to me the franchise never quite tops that opening sequence with Drew Barrymore. Watching it again, I forgot how much it scared me the first time I saw it. How being home alone did indeed add a new layer of fear from then on out. The sequence really is one of the most iconic for the horror movie genre, and for that alone I think I would vote YES into The Canon, though I'm surprised that there is a lot more to this film than just a great opening after all.

While I would never defend this garbage movie, I will say that Carl Hiaasen's original novel is quite good. It's very funny, makes its villains far less ridiculous and bumbling, and has Erin as a much more professional stripper. She is passionate about her work and genuinely enjoys it. None of this reluctant "i'm just doing this for my daughter" act. And she doesn't look down on her industry or co-workers. It's been years since I read the novel. I remember having very high hopes for the movie. Burt Reynolds actually would have been great casting if he had been directed to be more like the character in the book. It's a shame the adaptation was such a disaster.

I love how Amy said that GREY GARDENS is the kind of film that many people could disagree on what the film is ultimately about. It's certainly a film that changes for me the more I see it over the years. I've always found it to be an incredibly sad piece. One that shines a light on the kind of people we stop thinking about and forget. The film always makes me think about some of the legendary Hollywood actresses who disappeared into obscurity after retiring. The vanished from the silver screen, but can you imagine Greta Garbo or Betty Hutton going to the supermarket or tidying around the house? The Beales were never really famous on any national level, but they had their society, and they certainly hovered around noteworthy individuals. But what becomes of these people when nobody is interested in them anymore? We stop thinking about how they live but that doesn't mean that they stop living. I don't think the Beale's lives changed all that drastically as a result of the film, but it did offer them some attention that they forgot they craved. Little Edie especially just seems overjoyed that she has another human being to talk to, though one gets the sense that she might be rattling off these speeches and songs even if she were alone. I've never found the film all that exploitive, although I guess that's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. I just spent two weeks at a film festival and every documentary screening seemed to be accompanied by a debate of whether the subjects were exploited or not, and while my opinion would vary from film to film, I usually found myself at odds with the overall perception in the room. To me, GREY GARDENS gave the Beales a new life and a bit of reassurance that they mattered. A way for them to be seen. There may not be a grand overarching story in the film, but if it didn't exist, who would ever remember that these women existed? That alone makes this an easy YES for me.

I have so many films that I want to submit for The Canon. How to choose? The show has been covering a lot of newer films lately, or at least ones made during my lifetime. So I'd probably go back to the first half of the 20th century. So many to choose from. What are some of The Canon's blindspots. We certainly could do with some more westerns in The Canon. ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST? THE OX BOW INCIDENT? STAGECOACH? MY DARLING CLEMENTINE? RED RIVER? THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE? Or if I'm going to get so hung up on John Ford, why not one of his films set across the pond, like HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY or THE QUIET MAN. Ok. Enough of that. Perhaps a classic animated film. We don't have many of those. PINOCCHIO? BAMBI? We certainly could use some Kurosawa, Bergman, or Fellini in The Canon. Or another musical. THE BAND WAGON. SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS. GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933. YANKEE DOODLE DANDY. A STAR IS BORN. All fine choices. But the kind that I'd have to fight for. No, I think I'm going to go with a layup. We need a Preston Sturges movie in The Canon. My personal favorite is THE LADY EVE, though I could also argue the case for THE PALM BEACH STORY or MIRACLE AT MORGAN CREEK. But the easy choice is to nominate his most popular film that still resonates today with younger audiences. So I'm going to submit SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS to The Canon. Who could ever refuse it?

I just revisited the film, start to finish (oooff) and I still think I have to let my NO vote stand. What it boils down to me is whether or not this is a prime example (good or bad) of an important genre that is underrepresented in The Canon. People call TOMMY (the album and the movie) a rock opera. But I think the idea of a rock opera is a sub-genre at best. There aren't many others that I would categorize it with. Isn't something like this close enough (though inferior to) THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW? Surely we don't need both in The Canon. Perhaps TOMMY should be considered more along the lines of films featuring a band showcasing their own music (such as A HARD DAY'S NIGHT or MRS. BROWN YOU'VE GOT A LOVELY DAUGHTER), but to me it doesn't succeed that well on that front either, with the members of The Who often getting lost in the background, including Roger Daltrey who is a complete blank slate until the final act of the film. I would say that the other musicians upstage them, but from Clapton to Turner, none of them are doing all that great work. To me, this film is about on the level of the abysmal but less frustrating SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEART'S CLUB BAND. Ken Russell really swings for the fences here, and I admire him for that, but to me it misses the mark. I do love Ken Russell though and would love to have him represented in The Canon. WOMEN IN LOVE would be an excellent choice. In terms of his musical catalogue, have you seen THE BOY FRIEND, Amy? I think you would rather enjoy it. It's Russell's tribute to Busby Berkeley. I revisited it this week as well and it's even more fun than I remember it being. Far less subversive than something like TOMMY, but I do feel that it greater succeeds at what it's trying to accomplish. I wish I liked TOMMY. I've tried too many times. I think I'm going to finally give up on it. But I envy its fans and supporters. Just can't count myself among them.

How do I put this delicately? I hate TOMMY. Alright, maybe that's a bit extreme, but I've had a complicated relationship with the film for most my life, to say the least. I'm a devoted fan of The Who and have fond memories listening to the album TOMMY since I was about 3 years old while swimming at the neighbor's pool. I love the music and I love almost all of the actors and musicians featured in TOMMY. So why could I never connect to the film. Well, perhaps I saw it at too early an age. It was all a little overwhelming for young Johnny to handle, and while plenty of the story went over my head (particularly Uncle Ernie), much of it I just didn't enjoy and was rather disgusted by (Beans). Although I don't think this is exclusively what turns me off about the film, I think David is right about some music being too ingrained in one's own mind that seeing a visual interpretation that doesn't match one's imagination can be off putting. The original album of TOMMY is especially designed to tell a story, so when Ken Russell's film starts to stray from what I always perceived the narrative to be, perhaps I misconstrue it as being poor quality when it's really just less than what I've idealized. I have a similar reaction to Alan Parker's film of PINK FLOYD'S THE WALL. But is this reason enough to down vote it for The Canon, or is it far too personal for a thing for me? I'll concede that I didn't rewatch TOMMY this week to prepare for this episode. The last time I watched the film was last summer when it was shown theatrically at The Quad in New York. Since most my interaction with the film in this century had been the occasional DVR'ing of it on cable so that I could fast forward through it to get to my favorite scenes and songs, I thought I should try to watch the film start to finish again. I still didn't much care for it, even though I find a lot of the imagery and tone to be quite striking. I just wonder if it doesn't go far enough or perhaps it arrived too late. This film would have felt right at home more or less around the release of the album. At that time, The Monkees made their cinematic opus with HEAD, and I think that film had more of the spirit that The Who's album was going after. I always thought that the film of TOMMY had come earlier than it actually did, partially because Jack Nicholson's cameo would have felt more at home in that era when he was not yet too famous to participate in such a thing, but perhaps I make this connection because Nicholson co-wrote HEAD and I have trouble separating the two films. I guess I feel that the time that it took TOMMY to get to the big screen made its mod culture and imagery seem like a pale imitation rather than one authentic to the late 60's when it was first conceived. This is a movie I always wish I could love more than I do. It's certainly a fascinating curio. Fun to see The Who perform in a film. Great to see the likes of Ann-Margret and Oliver Reed in these roles. And theoretically great to see music legends like Elton John, Tina Turner, and Eric Clapton performing these songs, though I'll agree that their performances aren't quite as good as one feels that they should be. I appreciate the imagery of Pinball Wizard more than I do Elton John's performance of the song itself. So even as I list these things to convince myself that I like the movie more than I do, I'm going to vote No. However, I feel like despite seeing it numerous times in my lifetime, maybe I'm not giving it a fair shake and should look at it with new eyes, keeping the discussion in this episode in mind. It's airing Thursday night on TCM. I'll try to watch it then and perhaps I'll see enough to change my vote later in the week, but I make no promises.

I too grew up watching CADDYSHACK and it shaped many of my young comedic sensibilities. I still really enjoy it though years of exploring its history has made me discover that what makes the film such a fascinating little milestone in comedy history is because its success was almost entirely accidental. As was touched in the episode a bit, Ramis, Doyle-Murray, and Kenney barely knew what movie they were making. Cocaine may have played a part in that, but there was enough script for about 3 movies, and so much was added on top of that in the midst of shooting do to improvising and discovering new ways to utilize their starry actors, all of whom were initially supposed to be glorified cameos, basically doing background comedy to the real stars of the film, Danny and the Caddies. The stories behind the evolving of the film are fascinating and would almost be enough to grant it Canon entry, but I really don't know if we need another one of these. We have an example of Doug Kenney's National Lampoon brand of comedy with ANIMAL HOUSE. We have vintage Bill Murray with GHOSTBUSTERS. Part of me enjoys CADDYSHACK more than either of those movies (mostly for nostalgic reasons), but the purpose of the Canon is to not just create a list of films we like. No, we are creating a syllabus for a world that has forgotten the history of cinema and needs to be presented with examples of its most important representations of classics and varied genres. That's not to say that the Canon can have only one Hitchcock movie, one Capra movie, one Kurosawa movie, etc, but for what CADDYSHACK represents, I think we have it covered. And should we really give too much credit to a comedy that happened to be really funny in spite of so much working against it? I do think a lot of this is great comedy, but they also kinda got lucky. The only argument I could make for its inclusion, and what Susan* touched upon immediately above me, is that we don't have a Chevy Chase movie in the Canon. Chevy Chase, for as dismissed and forgotten as he's become now, was at one time one of the biggest stars in America. There weren't many comedy stars like him before his arrival, and there haven't been many since. He deftly juggled a persona that was equal parts charmer, goofball, and asshole. And he was really really great at his height. His movies were box office smashes, he hosted the oscars multiple times, and then, in the early 90's, he basically had 3 bad flops in a row. This started just about a year after the release of NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CHRISTMAS VACATION, a film still very much beloved by many people today. He took a job hosting a talkshow that probably would have been a disaster for anyone entering the late night fray at that time, and was instantly labeled a comedy relic. This is after a 15 yeah streak of almost nothing but success. Can you imagine Will Ferrell being completely unemployable in Hollywood after only 3 flops? Now on set demeanor and a diminishing list of friends willing to work with Chevy contributed to his downfall, but I still always felt he unjustly had his career yanked out from under him, and at his best, he truly was one of the greats. Now, I wouldn't necessarily pick CADDYSHACK as the best example of his talents (maybe NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION, yet another film we probably don't need to admit into The Canon based on its creative talent alone), but I did want to acknowledge his impact on the industry, and remember a time when he was riding high. Despite some firsthand accounts of how he's been to work with recently, I still have a real soft spot for films like FOUL PLAY, SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES, SPIES LIKE US, FLETCH, and FUNNY FARM. As for CADDYSHACK though, it's in my own personal Canon of favorites, but for the time capsule we're creating for society, I think most people can skip it.