Dealing with "SILLY SUZY"

"There is a leopard on you roof and it's my leopard and I have to get it and to get it I have to sing," (Suzy); silly, huh? In the 1938 comedy, Bringing Up Baby, Howard Hawks illustrates Suzy (Katherine Hepburn) as this hyper, energetic, fun, crazy, but even more "silly" woman who is full of life. When the viewer are first introduced to Suzy, she's comes across as this annoying woman, who pops up everywhere that David is(Cary Grant); David is the unfortunate man who happens to get caught up in all of Suzy's mayhem. With all the chaotic events that Suzy has put David thorough, like stealing his car and damaging it: ripping his tuxedo while trying to meet with the marvelous Mr. Peabody: dragging him all the way to Connecticut to take care of the leopard, "Baby", and much more, David remains somewhat calm about each of the situations. On the behalf of David, the viewers could really applaud him for his continuous patience and self-control while dealing with the confusion that Suzy was throwing at him. On the other hand, the viewer could also look at David like, why are you still putting up with this? Other than handling Suzy's actions in a calm manor, some viewers may have given up on being nice way back in the beginning of the movie; most people would've been too frustrated to talk to her, yet still stand next to her in the same room.
Now, seeing the side of Suzy, we as the viewers might be able to sympathize with her. Though Suzy's silly ways came across as annoying acts, maybe we can just recognize that-that is how she is; maybe she really doesn't mean to bring madness to other's lives. In the movie, one could notice that she really was ashamed for the trouble she caused for David. This also showed that she cared for David and like in the movie, maybe all of the mayhem was just a way to keep David closer to her since she really liked, or "loved" him.
Silly Suzy's ways taught the viewer many values. First, it taught how to be careful with the company you keep; though a person doesn't always want to be around trouble, they may never known when it's standing right next to them. Her ways also taught us that you may be in the wrong place at the wrong time but the best thing to do is...take a car and run. Most importantly, we can say that through every trouble or hardship comes a reward; therefore, we could say that the best thing that "SILLY SUZY'S" ways taught us, was to live a little and to have fun doing it. The prime example of living a little was at the end of the movie, David confided in Suzy and told her that though the time spent with her wasn't the best, he had-had the best day ever.

What the %$#!

Bringing Up Baby was a screwball comedy that leaves the viewer thinking to themselves "What the hell did i just watch?" After watching this movie I didn't really know what i had just watched. Also, reading reviews of the movie from the time of its release, so did other people. The entire time watching the movie you are not quite sure what is going on or why you are watching this film. Throughout the movie the characters are witty and fast talking, almost too witty and too weird. Their actions are questionable and don't seem logical. One example of the illogical factors in this movie is how Susan Vance can take whichever car she pleases. In the scene at the golf course, not only does she just start up Dr. Huxley's car, the crashes into the surrounding cars without thinking twice about it, and how Dr. Huxley didn't act more angrily towards her is beyond me.
Another aspect of the movie that surprised me was how calm Dr. Huxley remained through all of this. His car was stolen, his clothes were stolen, he had to look for a bone the dog stole, chase after a leopard, and this all happened on his wedding day which he didn't seem too concerned about not being there as he played Susan's games all day. The interaction between the two was odd to say the least. Susan found new ways to keep Dr. Huxley from getting to his wedding and Dr. Huxley kept going along with it, it was very frustrating watching these two and never knowing what time it was and if Dr. Huxley would make his wedding.
This movie was funny however. The comedic timing of all the characters was very funny, and the fast talking witty comebacks and interactions between the characters was laughable. The scenario was absurd but made for funny moments and even if you didn't care for the movie you laughed at most parts. The dumb Constable and the drunk gardener made this movie very entertaing.
This movie reminds me of many slapstick comedies being made today. One movie that sticks out in particular is Step Brothers. While i was watching Step Brothers i couldn't believe i had actually paid money for the movie. I was laughing throughout most of the movie but i just couldn't get my head around the absurd scenario the movie had, much like Bringing Up Baby. The thing is though, after I saw it, i found myself quoting the movie quite frequently. My friends and I will find ourselves blurting out funny lines from the movie and still laughing at them. However, we all agree that when we saw Step Brothers we all thought it was one of the worst movies we had ever seen.
Bringing Up Baby reminds me of this because after i saw it kept thinking about some of the lines and the fast talking witty remarks. I doubt i will watch this movie again but it will always be in my head and sometimes i will probably laugh.

Bringing up Baby: Absurd Then, Funny Now.

After reading some of the reviews that Bringing up Baby received when it was first released, one wouldn’t expect to be entertained from this film. When this film was released in 1938, film critics laughed at the goofiness of the plot and mocked the effects used throughout the film. It would be one thing for modern viewers to be criticizing the film style, due to comparisons with today’s techniques, but for reviewers at the time of the release to blatantly make fun of this film says a lot about the public audience of that time, and what was acceptable in movies. Due to our class’s reactions to this film (because of it being funny, or pathetically silly?), one would venture to say that at some point over the past seventy years the public has drastically shifted their opinions on this comedy. There are several reasons for this distinct change of attitude towards Bringing up Baby.
Bringing up Baby was arguably one of the more silly movies to be released during its time. A significant reason why it received such criticism at the time of release is due to the fact that viewers were not as familiar to this style of comedy, nor could they look past the blunders of the film and realize that this was not a movie to take seriously. A New York Times review from 1938 critiques the film by saying, “And the gags! Have you heard the one about the trained leopard and the wild leopard who get loose at the same time? Or the one about the shallow brook with the deep hole? Or the one about the man wearing a woman's negligee? Or the one about the Irishman who drains his flask and sees a wild animal which really is a wild animal”, obviously, this reviewer could not expand his suspension of disbelief and accept Bringing up Baby as an impractical movie that was not meant to deliver a deep meaning.
One major reason why viewers today generally accept Bringing up Baby as a successful comedy is due to the recent production of comedies and what the public deems acceptable. Thanks to films like Dumb and Dumber and Billy Madison, producers can usually create films that have absolutely no academic merit, and the public will realize this and view it as a movie not to take serious. Audiences in 1938 tended to view films with the assumption that they were going to gain something out of the viewing; this is why Bringing up Baby was not successful at the time of release. Today, audiences can accept the humor in the intentional blunders in films, because we have seen them used before and we are not surprised by nearly anything when it comes to the “Comedy” genre.
In 1938, Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn were relatively young in their acting careers. Often, it seems, we appreciate actors and actresses more after they have been given the chance for their talents to mature over time. Looking back today at Bringing up Baby, critics realize the talent that was underappreciated at the time of original release. Hepburn, a four-time winner and twelve-time nominee for the Oscar given to the best actress in a leading role, came off as a ditzy young woman to critics of Bringing up Baby. Grant was no disappointment in the later half of his career either, staring in North by Northwest and being nominated for two Oscars. Though not as famous in the beginning of their careers, Hepburn and Grant made Bringing up Baby a funny movie that many people can enjoy.
Like a good bottle of wine, some things just need time for people to show the proper amount of appreciation that it deserves. Bringing up Baby probably would’ve been more of a success if it had been released decades later. Nonetheless, it is now considered one of the more successful comedies in the early years of film production.

L.B. Jefferies says "I Do"?

Alfred Hithcock proceeds to unveil the mystery of a marriage gone wrong in his 1954 crime thriller “rear window”. In the opening scene immediately following the credits, we are introduced to protagonist L.B. Jefferies. Without the use of any dialogue and only a brief camera panning moment we can easily draw conclusions on Jefferies occupation as an action photographer, and probable cause of his temporary immobilization, through the displaying of enlarged photos documenting dangerous sports accident, war scenes, and other catastrophes. These assumptions are soon confirmed when Jefferies’ editor calls on the phone, and briefly discusses the situation with Jefferies. The editor reveals to Jefferies the ill timing of his misfortune and tells him he will be missing an assignment. At this comment Jefferies begs for his editor to get him out of his predicament, claiming to him that “If you don’t pull me out of this swamp of boredom, I’m gonna do something drastic…like what? I’m gonna get married and then I’ll never be able to go anywhere.” This quote illustrates Jefferies’ discomfort towards the restrictions of marriage, a formal union that is seemingly ubiquitous in his rear courtyard. Many parallels can be drawn between the relationships of his neighbors and the relationship between him and his girlfriend, Lisa Freemont. These similarities can be found through the vast breadth of information acquired through viewing the courtyard using the invasive paparazzi style that Jefferies has become accustomed to.
Through a quick glance at a thermometer reading scorching temperatures in the opening scene accompanied by a shot of our protagonist sweating profusely. The reasoning behind every neighbor’s window being wide open immediately becomes clear. This apparent heat wave combined with photographers’ tendency to nose into others people affairs, offers justification for Jefferies’ voyeurism. Through this harmless sight seeing, connections between Jefferies’ relationship with his girlfriend, and that of his neighbors, becomes prevalent. Through the first window we gaze into, we are introduced to a grouchy neighbor, Thorwald, who is initially shown arguing with his sick, nagging wife. She is shown covered up in bed in the adjacent apartment window, offering a feeling of separation. This nagging that Jefferies also finds in his own partner, pushes him to draw conclusions about how he and Lisa will end up like Thorwald and his wife, unhappy to say the least.
With the use of an interesting camera angle that insists we are peering directly through Jefferies window we are introduced to a seemingly fascinated newlywed couple. They embody the types of optimistic high hopes in which Lisa holds for her and Jefferies’ potential marriage. While the drawn curtains hint at the quenching of the newlyweds sexual appetite, it is the later appearance of the man hanging out of the window, relieving stress through a cigarette, that appeals to the sexually impotent Jefferies. He believes despite their initial attraction and seemingly potent love connection that due to her being a “park avenue” woman and “too-rich”, that they would never be able to make it work out. The possibility of Lisa being incompatible with Jefferies traveling lifestyle further deters the likelihood of their marriage.
Another comparison, not to a couple in a relationship, but instead to an individual, is seen through the viewing of the middle-aged lady, whom Jefferies dubbed ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’. ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ is seen alone, setting a table for two. An odd occurrence, considering the gentleman, for whom she is waiting, never arrives to attend the dinner with her. She even goes as far as pantomiming his arrival, possibly in an attempt to mask her loneliness. While ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ is acting out her evening date, Jefferies, intertwined in a conversation with Lisa, raises his glass, and offers ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’ a toast. This kind gesture goes unacknowledged by ‘Miss Lonelyhearts’, symbolizing Jefferies’ own loneliness and inability to commit. Despite this being cognizant to the audience, Jefferies again displays his stubbornness and voices his unwillingness to change through an indirect comment he makes. “Well at least that’s something you’ll never have to worry about”.
Obscured behind the storyline of the blatant murder mystery lays the love tale of L.B. Jefferies and his fashion model girlfriend Lisa Freemont. Since we are constrained at home with Jefferies we are allowed to view only what Jefferies sees as potential future outcomes if he chooses to get married. These views are built off of several factors. His marriage is not acted upon due to flaws he sees in his seemingly perfect girlfriend, the constant freedom awarded to him through his job and his current physical state which unconsciously reminds him of what a pain it is to be tied down and inhibited. This heavily biased opinion Jefferies holds is influenced not only by the internal factors, but more importantly by the external examples of relationships which he encounters daily through his apartments rear window.

Albert Williams

L.B. Jeffries plays a unique role in Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window." Jeffries is a photographer who was hurt in the field and has been in a wheel chair in his apartment for weeks. He gets very restless, and cannot wait to get out of the massive cast and troublesome chair to which he is confined. While sitting in total boredom, Jeffries decides to entertain himself in a rather odd way. He ends up watching his neighbors' every move and becomes very invested in what he sees. Jeffries, who appears very innocent and well-intentioned, is a very frightening character in this film.

Jeffries was obviously a person in great need of some mental stimulation. His few visitors seemed to think that his entertainment was not a healthy form of it, which may have been a vry good point. Once his mind gets far enough from him, or so it seems, he ends up thinking that he is witnessing the aftermath of a very well performed murder. He insists that the lady across the courtyard has been slain by her husband, but proving this idea turns out being much harder than he could have ever thought.

This whole practice of spying, almost obsessively, made for a very good movie. However, this same behavior seems to be very scary to some people, especially in modern days. L.B. Jeffries acted very suspicious, and even went as far as to try to get a detective to sneak into the apartment of the suspected killer on a mere whim. For someone like myself, this behavior is creepy at best. The era in which this movie was made never saw atrocities like today's population through the use of facebook, myspace, etc. Jeffries tried to hide his attempts to spy on occasion in the movie, which suggests that this kind of spying and intrusion was not acceptable back then even.

All of us have seen the news stories of young people in our country that are tracked down by some sick individual who often does not mean well for the person he or she is after. While watching "Rear Window", I could not seem to side with Jeffries at all. His behavior became obsessive and unhealthy. Although he seemed to help the community in the end, this does not explain why he had been watching all of his neighbors for such a long period of time. Upon being told that the behavior he was taking part in was unhealthy, he got very defensive and edgy.

It would not be a stretch to compare this bored, middle aged man with one of those mentioned with something like myspace. Obviously no one wants to think of the main character in such a good movie as someone who is something so awful, but his behavior parallels that of today's criminals prefectly. There is some amount of convenience in the fact that he would appear to end up somewhat of a hero as he tries to piece together a suspected murder, but that is just how movies go. Jeffries, who appears very innocent and well-intentioned, is a very frightening character in this film.

Mirrors As Windows

Being the neighborhood “Peeping-Tom” is a title that few people would want to live with. In the film Rear Window, this label is one that L.B. Jefferies fits perfectly. Stuck in a wheelchair for what seem like endless weeks, Jefferies amuses himself by watching his neighbors through his window. While most other characters in the film disapprove of his watchful eye, Jeff does it purely out of entertainment. What started as an innocent way to pass time suddenly became a murder mystery. While Thorwald’s window is the one with most of the action, each and every one of Jefferies’ neighbors give insight to what his life could end up like, depending on the decisions he makes. In the film, the windows not only act as a distraction, they act as mirrors as well.
The first window is quite possibly the most popular one for Jefferies. By watching Lars Thorwald’s window, Jeff does indeed witness a murder but he sees something else as well. Throughout the entire film, Lisa is constantly nagging Jeff about marriage and being committed to their relationship. When Jefferies looks in the window which leads to the Thorwald’s flat, he sees a man who is so annoyed with his wife that he puts himself out his misery and murders her. While Lisa has many other attributes besides her bothersome ways, Jeff can’t help but see his and Lisa’s future every time he glances in that window and sees an irritating wife and miserable man.
Another window which catches Jefferies’ attention is one that belongs to “Miss Lonelyhearts.” In the film, we see this sorrowful woman with so much love, but no one to give it to. In one scene, we actually see her having a date with an invisible person, just to act as though she had someone to spend her nights with. Of course, reality sets in and she comes to term with her loneliness. This window is a mirror for Lisa. When she gives Jeff everything she can, she still feels inadequate. John Fawell wrote in his critical essay on Rear Window, “Lisa has all of the same needs as these women. She finds no response from Jeff to her beauty or loneliness, and his concern for Mrs. Thorwald, his sympathy for Miss Lonelyhearts, and his erotic interest in Miss Torso all represent ironic counterpoint to his cruelty and indifference towards her (Fawell 5).” His rejection to her leaves her feeling lonely and as if she’s not good enough for him. Lisa puts all her effort into she and Jeff’s relationship, while it seems Jeff hardly gives at all.
Another similarity between Jefferies and his neighbors is the discouraged composer which lives across the courtyard. In the film, we see this composer constantly working on his music at his piano, and never feeling satisfied with his work. In one scene, we actually see him blast his papers across his room. This frustration is that same way Jefferies is feeling with his career. In one of the opening scenes, Jeff’s boss calls him and informs him that one of the biggest stories will be given to another photographer, instead of him. This of course highly upsets Jeffries, much like the anger the composer is feeling with his music. Luckily, both men find a way to work past their setbacks. The composer hosts an elegant party with many friends while he entertains playing the piano and Jefferies focuses his energy on the murder involving the Thorwald’s.
The main feminine character in Rear Window, is the lovely Lisa Fremont. She is described as a woman who could have any man she chooses and is also a popular socialite. While Lisa is madly in love with Jefferies, he tends to shift his attention elsewhere. Rather than spend time with Lisa, Jeff watches “Miss Torso,” a beautiful young woman who lives across the courtyard. The mirror effect in this scenario is that Jefferies sees the same traits in both Miss Torso and Lisa. According to Fawell, Jeff ignores real-life love in Lisa, instead investing himself in a fantasy woman who lives in the apartment building across his courtyard and who he watches through binoculars and the telephoto lens of his camera--the sexy Miss Torso (Fawell 3). Both women give off a sense of exhibitionism which attracts many men, including Jeff.
Lisa’s persistence of she and Jeff’s marriage is a recurring theme throughout the film. Jeff fears what life will be like with Lisa as his wife, and sees examples of what marriage does to people merely by looking out his window.
In one window lives a newlywed couple. At first they are uncontrollably happy and couldn’t be any more in love. While it all seems perfect in the beginning, the husband soon becomes exhausted of his wife. In repeated scenes, the audience sees the husband lifting up the window shade, which stays down for the most part, and opening up the window. He pokes his head out the window and lights a cigarette, enjoying his moments of freedom from his wife. Then, within seconds, she calls him back in and he returns back to his wife. Jeff sees this man as being way too tied down and couldn’t imagine his life being like this.
While the film Rear Window entertains audiences with L.B. Jefferies peering into his neighbor’s lives, it is clear that he is not only seeing them, but he is seeing himself as well.

Money and Happiness

The Swimmer came off as an odd story with a middle aged man who was delusional. The audience was left wondering what the point of the story was. Why was a man swimming through different backyard swimming pools? The plot line was confusing and hard to follow but I think the story was written to show Ned Merrill’s transformation from a powerful family man to bankrupt and alone.
The movie is about Ned’s goal to swim the county. This quest is important to Ned and he is determined to finish. As the adventure continues from house to house, the story of Ned Merrill’s life is slowly told. The first few houses welcome Neddy and show excitement to see him because it seems they have not seen him in a while. Ned comes off as a very popular and well-liked man. His friends are very wealthy and Ned acts like he also belongs to the upper class. As the film proceeds the audience starts to notice that Ned is unaware of certain facts about his recent life. The next house shows that Neddy may not have as much money as he used to because the husband at this house wants to give Ned money which shows that he is in fact having money problems. Ned’s stops grow worse. The audience is shown a different side of Ned when we find out he has a mistress which shows family problems. The last stop was the public pool. Ned becomes more delusional and confused at this part of his quest and he runs into two families from the lower class. The audience finds out that Neddy’s two daughters no longer respect him and he owes both of these families money. His life had gone from being filled with love and wealth to anguish and failure.
In conclusion, the movie at first may have seemed weird and not something we were used to seeing. But I think the writer was trying to show how wealth and power can affect a man. The swimming pools were just a way to show the different stages of Ned Merrill’s life. This was an interesting and daring way for a writer to tell a story. Readers may be left confused but I do think the movie helped to explain.

Who is Ned Merril?

At the beginnng of the movie it was easy to laugh at Neds demeanor. Although he was eccentric and weird, Ned is a character who was thought to be a popular normal guy at the beginning of the film. People seemed to like him and he knew everyone in the neighborhood.We got the feeling something was wrong with him when he started swimming in pools to get home.
Ned seemed to go to a countless number of pool parties all going on at the same time in the film and reaquainted with Julie Hooper who was much younger than him. I thought that Ned Merril was'nt much better than Arnold Friend for trying to put the moves on a girl younger than half his age. I started to see after he stopped by a few houses that Ned was a womanizer and an alcolholic. Julie Hooper was just the first girl he hit on and afterwards he went to Shirleys pool and tried making moves on her against her will. If Ned thought he had a wife and was naming his swim for his wife I thought it was wrong of him to try to put moves on any girl. Not only was it wrong of Ned to make a move on a girl but one was very young and not willing and the other was not willing.
Ned's life began to seem very complicated when his neighbors mentioned him not having any money, they mentioned his daughters laughed at him and he needed a job. At the end of the movie there was an expectation that things would be answered about Ned and his family but it ended with him trying to get into his empty house. After doing some background research I discovered that the reason for Ned's confusion is that he has blocked out the past 2 years or so of his life out. Ned truly believed the front he was putting up and some neighbors were willing to put up with Ned while others were sick of him. Ned had been in his old neighborhood trying to swim his way to his old house. He had deceived himself into thinking that he was stopping by his neighbors to swim the way home but we start to see he doesn't live in the neighborhood when he just learned his neighbor had a pool put in awhile ago. We also see he blocked out his life and something was wrong when his hot dog wagon is at another neighbors and he has no knowledge of this. Ned had been lost for the past 2 years since he lost everything he had and maybe finally figured out what his life was when he made it back to his old home.

Making The Swimmer Understandable

What makes John Cheever’s “The Swimmer” a story worth noting is the strange progression of time that is not as it is perceived by the main character or even the reader. While this strange phenomena is a strength of the story it is a weakness of the filmed adaption. The film adds several additional scenes in some cases trying to reconcile the book’s ambiguous plot and others seem added just to add length.

In the short story, we are privy to many details that would either be difficult to transpose to film or were neglected by the director. In the story, the fact that time is progress in a manner different than Neddy observes is stressed by the changed colors of the trees leaves, the cooling of pools, the loss of weight, and at the end of the story the realization that the constellations in the sky are not those of midsummer. The movie makes attempts at this by having Neddy make observations about ash trees, by having partiers be surprised that he is willing to swim at the pool, and later by wrapping his arms around his chest and shivering (despite the fact that none of the other characters, swimming or not, felt the need to). Both the film and the story also show Neddy’s cluelessness in his confusion about recent events involving his family, his friends, his neighbors, and his borrowing of money.

The film does, however, make a genuine attempt at explaining some points that were left unclear in the book, not unlike how Smooth Talk gives a definitive conclusion despite the book’s open-endedness. In the book, Neddy’s madness is left unexplained and none of the characters treat his cross-county swim as anything but original despite the fact that it seems Neddy may have spent years doing it (after all, he doesn’t realize his friend had major surgery three years prior). In a not too subtle way of explaining what Neddy is going through, the director injected the scene where Neddy meets the boy who is selling lemonade outside his house. Neddy explains to the boy something along the lines of “if he imagines something hard enough, it is true.” Even to a watcher unfamiliar with the short story, this is an obvious suggestion that Neddy’s confusion is caused by him imagining a different reality and rejecting the one which seems to have a family tragedy involved.

The public pool scene is also changed and Neddy encounters two couples of a lower standing who reveal that not only do his daughters not respect him and wreck cars whilst drunk but that he is in debt to both of them and they don’t expect him ever to be able to cough up the cash. The addition of this scene may have been used to give a more concrete idea as to what could’ve pushed Neddy over the edge as well as to show his fall from the wealthy upper class.

The Pied Piper of Tucson

Charles Schmid was the real life Arnold Friend. Charles was a five foot four resident of Tucson Arizona known for his uncanny ability to attract the ladies. Self conscious about his height he would stuff his boots with rags and flattened pop cans. He wore his dyed black hair slicked back and he wore makeup on his face along with thick chap stick. The ladies were not hard to come by if he was around.
Charles didn’t have a lot going for him. He was a high school dropout due to being suspended for stealing and he never had the desire to go back. But still the girls were constantly being lured into his arms. His tactics were to tell them many compliments along with a sad story that he was either dying or had once been crippled. Playing this pity card obviously made the girls feel bad and made them eventually fall into his trap. Three girls however never recovered from this fall.
Alleen Rowe was fifteen and a sophomore in high school. She had befriended one of Charles’ lady lovers named Mary French. Charles was known to talk crazy sometimes and apparently this night his talk was about murder. Earlier on Alleen had rejected a date with Charles’ friend John Saunders, but Charles decided that he wouldn’t be refused. Eventually Mary, John, and Charles talked Alleen into going out with them late that night after her mom had left for work. They picked her up and drove her to the desert. There they killed her by bashing her head with a rock and then they buried her. Her mother called the police but they weren’t much help, they didn’t have enough evidence or clues to pursue the missing teenager. Instead they just assumed it was just another runaway teen.
Gretchen and Wendy Fritz were Charles’ next victims. The Fritz sisters were sixteen and thirteen, Gretchen being the eldest. Gretchen was a skinny blonde trouble maker and knowing that only made Charles more interested in her. Gretchen was raised in a wealthy family but didn’t feel like anyone really cared about her. She became furious when she learned that Charles had many other girlfriends and fiancés even. Charles shortly after received news that both Mary French and Gretchen thought they were pregnant with his baby. The evening of August 16th 1965 the sisters went out to see the latest Elvis movie and that night they never came home. Their father, Dr. Fritz, hired a private detective named William Helig. Helig never found any substantial evidence for the girls’ case.
Richie Bruns was a close friend to Charles. Charles confided in him and asked if he would help bury the two bodies. Bruns not taking Schmid serious went along. When they arrived on the scene Bruns quickly figured out that Charles was for real. He helped bury what was left of the girls and they left. Bruns’ conscious wouldn’t leave him alone. He left town for awhile but shortly returned and let the Tucson police in on everything he knew about Charles’ murders. They later found skeletal remains of the sister’s bodies.
Charles was shortly after arrested and put on trial. The murders of the Fritz sisters gave him the death penalty. The trials didn’t stop there. When Alleen Rowe’s trial began Charles told one of the cops he wanted to take the them to the grave site. After several attempts they found her remains and dug up her skull along with the rock that he had used to kill her. The cases of Gretchen and Wendy Fritz along with Alleen Rowe finally came to a close.
Charles was sent to the penitentiary to await his death for the murders of the girls and after several attempted escapes was beat to death by a couple fellow prisoners. Charles, the smooth talker, Schmid was pronounced dead on March 30th 1975 and buried at the prison’s cemetery.
-Hannah H

Smooth Moves

Smooth Moves

The story Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? By Joyce Carol Oates is not usually taken for being a funny story. Yet Smooth Talk the movie based off it received many chuckles during our in class viewing of it on Tuesday. The movie is not supposed to be funny but some of the acting and dialogue led to awkward and comedic scenes. Even one of the most serious scenes, Arnold and Connie’s confrontation, was one of the funniest scenes of the entire movie.
The story does a good job making Arnold and Connie’s confrontation believable. Arnold’s character in the story is a rather persistent and persuasive creeper. Arnold’s character in the movie is poorly acted and manages to help ruin the most important scene of the movie. His dialogue is very similar to the story which proves that some things are just better left on paper. It is easy to argue the dialogue should have been revised for the movie with lines like “I’m Arnold Friend and that is what I’d like to be to you.” This line ended up being possibly the funniest lines of the movie. His character was more awkward then it was creepy.
Ellie’s character is also much less believable in the movie. In the story he is just described as Arnold’s shy friend. In the movie the camera stayed on Ellie for decent amount of time and he was completely motionless. He seemed dead or like an actual puppet until he finally moved and pulled the antenna out of his radio. Ellie does not come off as Arnold’s shy friend he just seems like a funny mocking of an unnecessary character.
The best actor in this whole movie was Laura Dern, who played Connie. For the most part Connie seems like a believable young girl. Her downfall was in the scene with Arnold Friend. Her acting in the scene was fine until Arnold tried to come in the house. Connie ran from the door to behind the stairs similar to how a six year old plays hide and go seek. She takes one of the more serious scenes of the movie and turns it into a laughing matter.
Unfortunately Smooth Talk did not live up to the short story it was based off of. A poor dialogue and even worse acting led to a serious story being made into a cheesy and unrealistic movie. I doubt that even with good acting and dialogue this movie would be worth watching unless more background information was known about Arnold’s character.
Bobby Pleines

Smooth Talk: A Sense of Reality or Just Plain Creepy?

From the pages of Where are you going, Where have you been? to the big screen of Smooth Talk, the public is exposed to a hot topic of young girls involving themselves in dangerous environments. Young girls, like Connie, are curious at the age of 15 and want to be considered as an adult. As an adult, they feel as though they are entitled to privacy, a sense of sex appeal, and the freedom to come and go as they please. . Curiosity about the adult life is flashing in Connie’s mind and she feels the need to pursue what it’s all about. Connie certainly possesses teen angst, like most 15 year olds do, and puts up a wall towards her family. Closed off from her family, Connie feels the need to go on the ride of sexy clothes, thick makeup, and flirting at the mall with her friends. It seems innocent, most girls do it.

Once some makeup is applied, the hair is tossed up, and a fair amount of cleavage is showing, then we are in business. This is the mindset of Connie and her girlfriends. Now with some sex appeal, they walk as if they own the mall. It may seem perfectly innocent, young girls just playing dress-up, but really they are walking on a thin line. Just as they wanted, guys are looking in their direction. The serious issue is that they don’t know that guys of all age look, not just the ones their age. Older men are attracted to young females and will try to take advantage of the situation.

In Connie’s case, an older man was attracted to her and decided to pursue her. A strange man followed Connie and learned more about her than she did of herself. Stalking her until he knew it was safe to approach her at her home when she was alone. Introducing himself as a polite and interesting man, Arnold Friend grabs Connie’s attention with his smooth talk. Connie is naïve and does not realize the dangerous situation that she is getting herself into. Taking the bait, Connie goes into deep and falls into Arnold Friend’s trap. At this point, she can’t escape and has reached to the point that she must go for a ride. At this point it is uncertain whether or not Connie was raped.

Mouths of the audience drop and the look on their faces are filled with shock. On the edge of their seats, the audience becomes scared for Connie. Then the thought scrolls across their minds, “I’m glad that’s not me” or “I don’t know what I would do in that situation.” This type of situation happens more often than most would think. “Teens 16 to 19 were three and one-half times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault” (National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996). This statistic provides realistic outlook on Connie’s situation.

After reading the short story written by Joyce Carol Oats, it can be seen as baffling and a tad on the creepy side. Many thoughts are to brush the short story off and that it couldn’t happen. Smooth talk brings the whole story to life. It made it more believable that a scenario like Connie’s could exist. Young girls tend to tip-toe the line of getting themselves in dangerous situations like Connie’s and not even realize it. In the end it’s up to each person to decide; does the movie bring a sense of reality about the issue of how rapes and murders can exist, or is this just a creepy story to teach young girls to act their age?