shock treatment: my plans for film class (including my draft comments)

This month begins my cinema history class' BYOM (bring your own movie) session. To explain, let me describe how the class is structured. Keith runs the show, and groups the class in sessions of four classes each. Each session has a theme (e.g., Alien ripoffs, Peter Cushing movies, werewolf movies). Keith selects the films. In each class, he starts things off by discussing the film of the week. He talks about the personalities involved, or the historical context. Whatever he deems appropriate. We watch the film. Then we discuss it. We have a longstanding annual tradition (this will be the second year) of having one BYOM session during the summer. In this session, each of us picks the movie for one class. He introduces it and leads the discussion. There are five of us in the class, so technically this session lasts five weeks instead of four. Mere technicality. Keith gives us pretty wide latitude in terms of our choices. His guidance is that it should be a movie that speaks to us or gives a window into our interests. Last year, I showed The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Dave chose Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Ethan showed Battle Royale, Steve (who is no longer in the class) chose The Sixth Sense. Joe, in an out-of-the-box move, showed two television episodes -- one of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (with Vincent Price as guest star) and one of The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. (with Boris Karloff as guest star).

This year I am planning on showing Shock Treatment, the 1981 semi-sequel to Rocky Horror. The following is the current draft of my prepared remarks. Despite the fact that they are written as a speech, my plan is not to read these comments verbatim. Rather, they are to serve as my guide so I will remember the key points I want to hit and in (roughly) what order.


The reason I am posting this draft before the showing is that I am hoping for feedback. Specifically, actionable criticisms that can help me make it better. But first, here's the trailer.

Last year I showed you Rocky Horror, Richard O'Brien's satirical take on American drive-in horror movies of the 1950's, sexual mores and rock'n'roll. This time around, I am going with a movie that is often called the sequel to Rocky -- though O'Brien himself prefers the word "equal" -- 1981's Shock Treatment.

Last year, some of you noted that Rocky was very gay. Whatever one might say about Shock Treatment, it's not gay. Though it almost was. In 1978 O'Brien wrote a script titled Rocky Horror Shows His Heels. In it, Frank and Rocky are resurrected, Brad and Dr. Scott are gay, and Janet is pregnant with Frank's baby. But Jim Sharman didn't want to revisit the material, and Tim Curry didn't want to play Frank again. So O'Brien kept the songs he'd written and reworked the script, but there were further casting and technical issues, including a Screen Actors Guild Strike. So the filming locations were moved from Denton, Texas to a studio in England, and the entire thing was reworked to take place within what seems like a hybrid of a TV station and a town. The movie they ended up with was a prescient indictment of American TV culture. It was a portrayal of an entire town turned into a collection of reality TV shows. Whereas sexuality was a major theme in Rocky, it's not really a major factor in Shock Treatment.

Since it's the subject of some debate, let's start with the question of whether this is, in fact, a sequel to Rocky. For the sake of brevity, I'll assume everyone here is familiar with the earlier film. Brad and Janet Majors are the protagonists of Shock Treatment, just as they were in Rocky. Only now, instead of being newly-engaged, they are a married-but-bored couple, still living in Denton. The Hapschatts (the couple that had just gotten married in Rocky), are in this as well, though they are now divorced. Based on that, it sure seems like a sequel. But the fact is there's no real thread to connect Rocky and Shock. Brad and Janet could just as easily have been Jeff and Andrea, and the Hapschatts could have been the Delfoogys. And it wouldn't have made any difference. And consider the casting. Barry Bostwick was unavailable to play Brad, and Susan Sarandon was too expensive to play Janet, so those roles went to Cliff De Young and Jessica Harper. Ruby Wax played Betty Hapschatt (who had been played by  Hilary Labow in Rocky). The only character to appear in both movies, played by the same actor in both was Ralph Hapschatt, who was played by Jeremy Newson. But much of the cast of Rocky is back, but in different roles -- Richard O'Brien and Patricia Quinn once again play a pair of siblings who work and, uh, play, together. Little Nell is back and so is Charles Gray. And, of course, many of the Transylvanians from Rocky are back as members of the studio audience in Shock. Tim Curry was considered during an early stage in the development. But he backed out for fear that he couldn't do a convincing American accent. Also noteworthy is the role of TV show host Bert Schnick, played by Barry Humphries. The character evolved from that of Dr. Scott after Jonathan Adams declined to reprise that role. So, returning to the question at hand, is it a sequel? That's a semantic issue, and honestly I don't care.

Now, while Rocky was a huge -- albeit surprising -- success, Shock Treatment was...not. So what went wrong? I think there were a few factors at play:

• They tried to recreate lightning. Rocky was successful because of the midnight movie circuit. So Shock Treatment didn't get a full theatrical release. Rather, it was put out as a Halloween midnight movie in 1981. That had to hurt its box office take, and it also has the feel of forced kitsch, which is always a bad thing.
• Rocky had the benefit of Tim Curry. Curry's charisma and presence carried it. Shock Treatment didn't have anything comparable to him.
• As much as Rocky was odd, it still told a simple story in a traditional way that audiences could get a handle on. Shock Treatment was much more nonlinear and nontraditional in its storytelling, and I think that hurt it.
• To the extent that it was marketed as being related to Rocky, this was bound to disappoint fans of the earlier film. The recasting, the absence of Tim Curry and the plot that was totally disconnected had to leave them feeling betrayed.
• The plot itself is very weak -- weaker even than that of Rocky.

Having said all that, I think it's only natural to ask why I like it and why I picked it to show here (other than that it's a natural followup to last year's showing of Rocky). I'll admit that the first time I saw it, I was unimpressed. I was in college, I loved Rocky Horror, and found out that there was a sequel. My friend, Vinny, and I -- I forget if Angry Bob was with us -- rented it one Friday night and watched it at his place. But I was expecting a movie in the same vein as Rocky. I couldn't help but be disappointed. Add to that the fact that the VHS copy we rented was well-used and the color was washed out. I'm hoping that this DVD copy that we're about to watch (Thanks, Christina for arranging the interlibrary loan) is better. And, of course, I was sleep deprived enough that I had trouble staying awake. That made it difficult to follow what little plot there is. So, for years -- decades, actually -- I had no interest in this movie. Saying I hated it would be inaccurate, since I didn't care enough about it to hate it.

So what changed? Around 1990 I bought a four CD set that had been released for Rocky's 15th anniversary. On that set were three songs from Shock Treatment. And damn if they weren't catchy. In recent years I took to YouTube to see if I could hear any other songs from the movie, and I stumbled on the entire film. I didn't think I'd like it, but I wanted to hear the other songs. And this time, years later, when I was fully awake, watching it in crisp vivid color, and having no false expectations, I enjoyed it. And I have watched it (courtesy of YouTube) many times since. The music is, I think, the strongest thing it has going for it. In my humble opinion it's better than the music in Rocky, though that may be a result of it being contemporary (at least contemporary for when it was made), rather than a collection of self-consciously retro compositions.

The plot is still weak, I admit, but I can forgive that. In another hour and a half you'll tell me if you can too.