Seeing The Outsiders at the Crest Theater

The phenomenally restored Crest Theater. Courtesy of https://www.flickr.com/photos/tspauld/25566672

Courtesy of https://www.flixster.com/movie/the-outsiders/

I was fortunate enough to attend a showing of The Outsiders at the beautiful, historic Crest Theater with my mom this past Friday night. The theater, which now holds stage shows, is now also showing old(ish) films every so often, and The Outsiders happened to be one of them.

The Crest is absolutely gorgeous, restored to its former Art Deco glory, with lush golden and red curtains, gold-paneled walls and ceilings, and ornate wall lights.

The atmosphere this night was enhanced, though, with 1940s music and the ever-increasing crowd of fellow fans. There was a real sense of camaraderie. Plus, a reporter from a local TV station was there, interviewing various people. (No, he did not interview me, and frankly I was okay with that.) He actually filmed the whole movie.

I’ve seen the original film twice, the complete novel two or three times. But I had never seen The Outsiders on a big screen. I was so excited. I figured since the films being shown by the Crest were older, this would be the original version of The Outsiders. Not as good as the complete novel, in my opinion, but I told myself I was lucky just to be seeing any version of the film in an historic theater.

But it wasn’t the original film. It was the complete version as put together by Coppola in 2005. Watching the opening credits, I leaned over to my mom and whispered, “I think this might be the newer version.” There is a difference in the credits, and I was fairly sure these were the newer ones.

And then the steady piano of Jerry Lee Lewis faded in, and I knew. It was the full version. I couldn’t have asked for anything more.

Before I mention some things I noticed in the film, I have to say that it was very entertaining just watching and listening to the audience. As each greaser appeared in the opening credits, he got cheers. Then, as each character had his moment, he got cheers again—or should I say, the actors got cheers, except for Tom Cruise who got booed (though he was really very good as Steve). C. Thomas Howell, Ralph Macchio, Matt Dillon, Emilio Estevez. Patrick Swayze even had his own cheering section. And when Matt Dillon turned around in the hospital bed and proclaimed, “Let’s do it for Johnny, man—do it for Johnny!” everybody erupted. I smiled.

It was a crowd of people who were just as crazy about the book and film as I am, and it was wonderful. My mom was a saint for putting up with it

Here are some things I noticed about the film, seeing it on the big screen for the first time:

• The cinematography. Oh my goodness, it’s even better in the theater. Even the opening credits (which I have to admit I prefer in the original 1983 version) were stunning; the gold-drenched still images of urban Tulsa were eye-catching. And all the sunsets and sunrises in the film—I never realized before how many there are. Other shots were gorgeous, too: the split screen (not sure if that’s accurate, I can’t think of the term) of Johnny cleaning his blade and Bob lying dead; Two-Bit and Ponyboy walking up to the lot in the twilight to meet Cherry (the shadows!); Rob Lowe and C. Thomas Howell in bed together (that whole scene is absolutely stunning with all the shadows playing on the boys’ faces). Soda does indeed look like a Greek god come down to earth, in Ponyboy’s words.
• At the very end of the film, when Ponyboy is back at his desk, he takes a picture down from his bulletin board. For some reason I never really wondered, until this viewing, who is in that picture. Just who is it? I assume it’s the guys—Dallas and Johnny included—but I wasn’t able to get a good view of the picture. Anyone know? I’ll have to put on the DVD and play that scene back.
• Diane Lane’s beauty. She is stunning in any version of the film, but seeing her on the big screen only confirmed that beauty.
• The thoroughness of the film. Coppola doesn’t scrimp on details; he shows us a ton of them, even if they’re things that don’t really have to do with the story. For instance, he shows little things in the Curtis boys’ house, even though we don’t really need to see these things to understand the story: the piano with family photos on it; other photos on the wall; the bathroom, with shower curtain; the living room with the TV in the corner; Tulsa’s channel six test pattern (the actual one shown in real life!); Soda and Pony’s bedroom with the bookcase behind the pillows; Two-Bit drinking a beer from out of the Curtis’ fridge. Also, Ponyboy bouncing one of those tiny little bouncy balls walking home from the movies; how pointless and yet how delightful, because it’s so him. The “Rogers” decal on Bob’s Mustang; the neon “Bud” sign in Buck Merrill’s window; the “North Peoria” sign on the front of the city bus. There are so many details, everywhere, and I’m glad Coppola didn’t cut any out. They only solidify the world more.

My mom doesn’t mind the story I don’t think—she’s seen the film once before—but she’s not too big of a fan. She doesn’t like the fighting, and after this viewing she informed me she didn’t think the acting was all that great. That killed me—but maybe I’ve seen the film too many times and am just biased towards the actors and characters. She did think Ralph Macchio was good, though, and she liked the new scenes that weren’t in the original version.

But she did think the film was slightly cheesy. I guess I can see how it might be, especially to someone who has only seen the film as an adult. At times, perhaps, Howell’s acting was not as natural as it should have been—and yet I think it was wholly natural, because as he says, he wasn’t really trying. He was just being Ponyboy. And besides, the book itself is melodramatic, and the film, a very faithful adaptation of the book, can’t help but be melodramatic too.

And my mom doesn’t like the violence—a lot of people don’t. Well, neither do I, honestly. But when I hear that complaint, I want to say, “But this is these kids’ lives! This is many kids’ lives! This is how they feel, this is what they go through! We can’t just deny that.” Kids do get gunned down by police for carrying a gun, even if an unloaded one; kids do get abused by their alcoholic parents; kids do become alcoholics themselves; kids do drop out of school; kids (boys mainly) do fight. It happens. So many kids live this life that’s portrayed in The Outsiders. We can’t just pretend that at least some part of it isn’t real.

What are your thoughts on the film? Cheesy? Melodramatic? I’d love to hear them.

The Mysterious Case of Sgt. Hutchinson’s Mustache

I’m not trying to make excuses, honest, but a somewhat-unexpected class change this weekend has led to much reading and not much time for anything else. This blog post may not be the most intellectually deep I’ve posted, but I needed something light.

Still, the topic is intriguing: Detective Sergeant Hutchinson’s mustache.

In all its glory. Courtesy of chezflipper.skyrock.com.

Some people love it; some people hate it; some people don’t seem to think it makes any difference. The question is, why did Hutch grow a mustache in (or just prior to) season 4?

There are many, many ways you could explain this. These are just my thoughts on what some of those ways could be, and what my view may be personally.

You have to take into account the blend between actor and character. Ideally it shouldn’t be there of course, but especially in a visual medium like film, it is there. It just is.

I’ve researched and researched. Originally, I could only find evidence of David Soul having a mustache as Hutch. I was hoping that he only grew it for the character—and was about to make that conclusion, when I came across this photo:

Soul with Pamela McMyler. Courtesy of http://www.alamy.com.

According to Alamy, the photo is from May 17, 1978.

Now, you can never put your faith in the accuracy of these things online. But I’m not inclined to doubt the information, either. That date would put the photo squarely before filming started for season 4 of Starsky and Hutch (unless I have my timeline wrong, but I don’t think I do), which implies that Soul grew the mustache either for another acting role, or just for his own enjoyment. (Why anyone would grow a mustache for his own enjoyment is beyond me, but then, I’m not a man . . .)

I can’t find any evidence that suggests Soul grew the mustache for another role. That doesn’t mean he didn’t, but for now, I’m inclined to think he grew the mustache just for kicks. From pictures I’ve seen of him later in 1979 (from Salem’s Lot, and other music-related and off-set photos), it seems he shaved the mustache soon after Starsky and Hutch ended.

So why did he grow it? I have no idea. I can’t get into the man’s head. What I know is, he grew the ‘stache.

What he must have known was that, if he was going to keep the mustache into the fall of ’78, the mustache would radically change Hutch’s image. However, so would Soul’s longer hair, back brace, and necessarily baggy, untucked shirts. These things make Hutch appear much more casual, and to some viewers, less slender.

Of course, Soul couldn’t help his back injury. Perhaps he saw himself and realized Hutch wasn’t going to look the same anymore, no doubt about it, and he thought, What the heck, let’s keep the mustache too.

From what I know of Soul, he wouldn’t have kept the mustache without taking into consideration what it would do for the character of Hutch. Soul, along with Glaser, was incredibly invested in his character and character-building (they were the two who made Starsky and Hutch are deep as they were, I believe). He had to maintain a certain continuity . . . at least in basic personality. You could argue the mustache was a fashion change, a purely external change.

Yes, but it still changed how people viewed Hutch, and Soul had to know that. He knew he was changing his character, but for some reason went ahead with it.

Why the change? And why the fourth season? Soul had gone three seasons clean-shaven, the golden boy. Now, after several years, Hutch suddenly grows a mustache. Why would he?

Some say it’s part of the overall change of the character. While Starsky changed in the fourth season, too, he didn’t change nearly as much as Hutch. Some say Hutch, in the fourth season, has become so worn and wearied by police work (which is very probable) that he starts letting things go a little. See http://fanlore.org/wiki/Hutch%27s_Mustache.

Some people say Hutch’s attitude, even his personality somewhat, changed as well in the fourth season, which I think is easily backed up (see the previous link as well as the excellent Compendium, https://archiveofourown.org/works/5815615), but that’s for another post.)

Others say he grew his mustache to assert his masculinity, citing sexual tension between him and Starsky (see above Fanlore link)—which I toss right out the window.

Or maybe Hutch just wanted to have a little fun.

I’m inclined to believe the first view, because of another factor. It’s obvious David Soul and David Starsky were both aging (as if people don’t age!); even though only four years had gone by by the end of season 4, still, four years had gone by. Both men were closer to forty than thirty.

You can see this in Soul’s face by the end of season 3. Still, there is a drastic difference in season 4. It’s true that mustaches make men look older; perhaps the mustache or ever-lengthening hairstyle contribute to this impression. But there are lines on Hutch’s face in season 4; so many lines. It’s like the man aged a million years in a few months.

From “Class in Crime,” season 3 episode 18. Not the best shot, but you can see the aging even here. Courtesy of http://www.starskyandhutch.info.

 

From “Deckwatch,” season 3 episode 23, the last episode of the season. Courtesy of starsky-hutch.livejournal.com.

 

First episode of season 4, “Discomania,” and the ‘stache has appeared. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

Another shot from the same episode. The shirt is tucked in, but look at that face. Courtesy of http://www.gettyimages.in.

(That raises another question, of course, of how much time is supposed to have passed between seasons 3 and 4—but that’s not for this post.)

He just looks older. Starsky does, too, but at times he doesn’t. Hutch, on the other hand, looks older all the time.

I have a hard time believing Soul didn’t just miss that fact. I don’t know if he and Glaser got to see film of season 4 before it aired, but I would bet they saw something of themselves. If Soul (or the director, or producer) didn’t want Hutch to look so aged, he would have done something about it. Makeup, hair change, different lighting. Something. But obviously Soul was okay with the look.

Which tells me he meant for Hutch to look older. Which meant Hutch was undergoing some serious changes, and probably some serious struggles.

Which is why I support the first opinion I listed, that the brutality of police work is finally catching up to Hutch (it did take a long time, but hey, he can be pretty idealistic underneath the surface), and as a result of the stress—and the doubts he has, perhaps, of continuing in police work (see Targets Without a Badge especially)—he looks older.

Maybe I’m making a lot of assumptions. But I have to explain that ‘stache somehow, otherwise I might just go crazy every time I see it. (If you can’t tell already, I lean more towards the camp that doesn’t like the mustache—only because I’ve seen Hutch without one for so long. But, what can you do.)

Thoughts on The Wanderers Novel, and Some Pictures of Starsky and Hutch . . .

**SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD (although if you’ve even seen the film you shouldn’t be surprised at these)

So I finally finished The Wanderers novel. The last two chapters were some of the best I think—everything coming together.

Yet the ending was incredible sad. Just when everybody is united as ever, they’re also more divided than ever, and as much as one moment seems very satisfying and brotherly, you know all the guys are going to go their separate ways. It’s awful to see them growing farther apart.

Richard Price is a darn good writer. He writes matter-of-factly, without much explicit emotion, and yet he writes so sympathetically. He knows his characters; he knows his subjects. He knows his setting, too. The references to records (the music kind) in the novel are amazing.

The Wanderers is a good book, a very realistic book, but depressing. Depressing because of the characters’ behaviors, and depressing because of their eventual split, even if they do mature a little bit. And that maturing is not always the right kind.

Maybe I’ll think of some more stuff to say about it later, but for now that’s about all I can dwell on it. It is very sad.

So to get myself in a better mood, focused on something more positive (and lighthearted), I dwelt on Starsky and Hutch instead.

Don’t you just love Starsky’s hat? I’m not sure if he looked better with the short hair and cap in the pilot, or with the longer hair in all the episodes. Courtesy of starskyloveshutch.tumblr.com.

Ah. Much better. It’s interesting; these two are similar to The Wanderers inasmuch as they are two male friends, who deal with a lot of violence, in a pretty violent world. Yes, some horrible things happen to this pair, and they do have fights of their own. But ultimately they stick together—closer than brothers. It may be a fantasy; friendships do end, after all. But then, maybe not.

The friendship endures, even despite the tumult of the fourth season. Courtesy of fatheadfollies.com.

I love the physical touching between these two. Blows societal gender rules out of the water. So much for real men being tough and unemotional. I’m sure I’ll do a post about that sooner or later—I recorded a podcast about it, which I may put up at some point if I can get over the sound of my voice—but right now let’s just admire the guts of Soul and Glaser to engender (no pun intended) such deep characters.

For your enjoyment, and frankly mine as well, here are some pictures of the two (characters and actors) I love.

Courtesy of baycitysfriends.forumcommunity.net.

 

Courtesy of commons.wikimedia.org.

 

Courtesy of http://www.fabuloushollywoodmemories.com.

 

I don’t like stock photos either, but this is the only decent quality version of this photo I could find–and I couldn’t leave this one out. I just love it. Courtesy of http://www.alamy.com.

 

I love this series of pics. Here is the first one. Notice the can in Soul’s hand. Beer, perhaps? Courtesy of YouTube.com.

 

Actually I hesitate to say these go in any “order.” But it’s clear what the general sequence is. What is Soul doing? Who knows… Courtesy of http://www.starskyhutcharchive.net.

 

“Hmmm, ever tried beer in a spoon?” Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

“No, but I’d sure like to,” Soul responds. I have no idea what they’re doing, but their joy is palpable. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

Soul had a thing about kissing. Well, they both did I guess, if you watch the blooper reel on YouTube (link posted below). But this picture is quite charming. Courtesy of http://www.squidge.org.

Link to the Starsky and Hutch blooper video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAifiPz6u5c . Some foul language, but quite funny.

Almost looks like a 1970s selfie. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

Courtesy of http://www.sonypicturesmuseum.com.

 

Oh my, those seventies fashions. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

See? The friendship really does endure. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

 

Just because I can’t get enough of that fashion. Oh, the pants, and those sunglasses. Courtesy of http://www.pinterest.com.

A really funny article about 1970s fashions as revealed in a 1977 JC Penney catalog: http://15minutelunch.blogspot.com/2007/10/strap-in-shut-up-and-hold-on-were-going.html.

Don’t worry, I’m still continuing to analyze The Wanderers from the film. Thankfully that’s much easier than analyzing the guys in the book; the movie is not quite as dark.

Darkness is real, but light will overcome it. Dwell in the light, everyone. Or, as Johnny might say, “Stay gold.”