Re-watched the original “Mad Max” (1979) – available on various “streaming services.”
Now, the ORIGINAL “Mad Max” was/is a “low budget” Australian movie. It didn’t get “distributed” in the U.S. “back in the day” – which was why “Mad Max 2” (1981) was released as “The Road Warrior” (1982) in the U.S.
The “low budget” nature distracted me when I watched “Mad Max” on home video (probably in the late 1980s). I’m guessing that the version I saw had been “edited” somewhere along the way – because (if memory serves) it was shorter than 90 minutes.
There is a section of the movie where they establish the “bad guys” as VERY bad — which (when it was obvious what was going on and that it was going to last a while) I fast forwarded through this time around – it wasn’t “explicit” so much as “unpleasant.”
The “low budget” nature of the movie precluded the sort of “makeup” effects common in movies. I was reminded of Oedipus Rex (the Ancient Greek play) – there was plenty of “implied off stage” violence – but they didn’t/couldn’t show it ON stage.
The often replayed scene from “Mad Max” is the finale – where Max comes across the last “bad guy” (who has obviously just murdered someone and is trying to steal the dead man’s boots). No spoiler – the “bad” guy (who Max had arrested earlier in the movie and then the “courts” released) pleads for his life saying that he is “sick” and that the “court says I’m not responsible for my actions.”
Yeah, Max gives the guy a choice – and then drives away. Remember “Mad Max” is set in a “dystopian future” but it reflects a “society without the rule of law.” “Max” crosses the “line” but only after he has been driven to it by the (VERY) bad guys.
good guys vs bad guys
“Mad Max” unintentionally hit a lot of the “mythic storytelling” points – and then they INTENTIONALLY hit more of those “mythic hero story” elements in “The Road Warrior.”
In true “vengeance genre” fashion Max is the “good man” pushed “too far” who then takes matters into his own hands.
Charles Bronson made a LOT of movies (161 credits on IMDB) – some of those movies are very good – “The Magnificent 7”, “The Great Escape”, “The Dirty Dozen”, and “Once Upon a Time in the West.” If Mr Bronson had stopped making movies (all of those mentioned were made in the 1960s) he would deserve a place in the “Action movie Hall of Fame”
(random thought: if there isn’t an “Action movie Hall of Fame” there needs to be …)
BUT then the 1970s happened – the same decade that would give us “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, and “Star Wars” gave us “Death Wish” (1974).
I have to admit that I have NOT seen the original “Death Wish.” I saw one of the sequels when it was on cable – but by that time the 1980’s action movie and “horror” films had made the “one man on a vengeance mission” even MORE cliche.
Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Deuteronomy 32:35
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.
BUT again, Mr Bronson played the “good guy pushed too far.”
fwiw: the Judeo Christian “turn the other cheek” ethic doesn’t mean the “bad guys” get away with anything – e.g. the pull quote … ’nuff said
random thought: A character in the “Dirty Dozen” THINKS he is the “hand of God” carrying out punishment – but the character is nuts
ANYWAY The fact that there were 5 “Death Wish” movies says something about the business of low-quality exploitation movies than anything (people kept buying tickets, the movies kept making a profit, they kept making more sequels) – but “human vengeance” is never finished might be the message (if there is a message …)
Dwayne Johnson (“The Rock”) made a “vengeance genre” flick called “Faster” (2010) which drives home the unending nature of “vengeance” — so the movie becomes a good example of “twisting” a genre a little. All of the “vengeance” elements are there AND they added some “philosophical meat” – Google tells me the movie made a small profit, but wasn’t one of Mr Johnson’s bigger “box office” hits
The MBA in me wants to point out that Faster made an $11 million profit on a $24 million budget so the return on investment (ROI) as a % might have been higher than some of those close to $billion box office movies.
random thought: that “low budget” but high ROI % was where “Hollywood schlock” legend Roger Corman made a living – Google tells me he had an estimated net worth of $200 million when he died in May 2024 …
the repentant gunfighter
IF the “good guys” act just like the “bad guys” what is the difference between the two?
Well, that is a good question. No, I’m not going to try to summarize all of human existence/experience.
From a MOVIE morality point of view the difference is “intent” and “motivation.”
e.g. Max does what he does BECAUSE of what the “bad guys” did. The bad guys did what THEY did because, well, they are “bad.”
The “psych 101” concept of a “sociopath” involves not feeling remorse. Ever. If “sociopath” gets caught doing “bad thing” then they might feel bad about being “caught” but not for what they did.
This idea is the “psychology” behind the “repentant gunfighter” genre. “Shane” (1953) is a classic example (of course the book is “better” but the movie is good in its own right).
e.g. it is implied that “Shane” had done a lot of “bad things” until he decided he wouldn’t. Shane “turned away” from being a gun for hire … and “plot happens” … and Shane has to face another “gun for hire” in the climax.
The implied difference between “Shane” and the “bad gunfighter” (played by Jack Palance) is that the “bud guy” enjoys killing, and Shane is a “soldier” doing a required task (and he is just very good at the task).
The legend of John Henry “Doc” Holliday comes to mind. Ol’ Doc was a dentist until he came down with tuberculosis. Since no one wants to go to a dentist with tuberculosis, Doc became a professional gambler and (sometimes) gunfighter.
His expectation being that one day he would get into a gunfight with someone faster or more accurate than him and the tuberculosis would no longer be a problem. His final words (as he was dying of tuberculosis in a hospital bed) was “This is funny.” c’est la vie
The important part of the above is that the sociopath (by definition) cannot be “rehabilitated” because they never feel remorse – they can never “repent” because (in their head) they have no reason to “repent.”
There are a lot of “click bait” sociopath tests that might be amusing – but if you want to know if someone is a “sociopath” all you need to do is ask them. They will (probably) gladly tell you that EVERYONE thinks/acts they way they do and if someone doesn’t, well, they are fools.
BUT be careful, “sociopaths” (by definition) are also master manipulators – but it is hard to “hide” sociopathic behavior. Paying more attention to what folks “do” more than what they “say” is always good advice, but especially true of “sociopaths”
… and the “good guy” always understands that (but doesn’t enjoy it)
“You can’t serve a writ to a rat”
– Rooster Cogburn
Oh, and I’ll kind of wave in the direction of “The Outfit” (2022) as another example of the “repentant gunfighter” genre with a “twist” …
franchises
The entire concept of a “franchise business” is that customers know what to expect. The “franchise” provides information on “processes” as well as “resources” and (probably) marketing on a large scale.
e.g. if you go into ANY establishment calling itself a “coffee shop” you expect certain things – obviously a variety of “coffee” and probably some sort of pastry/sandwich selection.
BUT if you go into a “Starbucks” franchise the expectations will be for specific drinks and food prepared in a uniform manner. The idea being that visiting a “Starbucks” franchise in Los Angeles should be a similar experience to visiting a “Starbucks” franchise in Roanoke (or pick any other location).
The Starbucks folks might say they are selling an “experience” BUT the true value of being a franchise is probably in the “name recognition.”
If you try to open a coffee shop that looks just like “Starbucks” but isn’t – if/when they find out about it – the legal department at Starbucks, Inc will send you a nice letter telling you that you are violating various laws and you should cease and desist
The “franchise” problem becomes that just “looking like a Starbucks” does not guarantee the coffee/food will meet expectations. There are around 16,000 Starbucks in the U.S. and (around) 9,000 of those are run by “corporate.” Those 7,000 other locations are “independently owned and operated” – i.e. THEY might do things slightly different than “corporate” BUT the “core experience” should fall into a certain range of expectations
SO the same idea holds true for “entertainment franchises.” The problem for “entertainment franchise” is that folks adding to the “franchise” need to understand the “core product.”
Imagine a group of talented musicians who decide to go on tour with a “Sound of the 1960’s” tour (or pick any decade you like) – folks buying tickets are going to expect what? well, probably music from the 1960s
Now imagine a group like “1964 The Tribute” – folks buying tickets are going to expect what? Probably music specifically from The Beatles.
Folks going to a “Tarzan” movie are gonna expect certain “Tarzan” elements – folks going to a “Sherlock Holmes” movie are gonna expect different elements than the Tarzan folks.
I was trying to think of a “long running” franchise that has stayed true to its “core” and the BEST example I could think of was Scooby-Doo.
no, seriously – the “core element” of Scooby-Doo has always been a “boy and his dog” — i.e. Shaggy and Scooby are “core elements”, everything else can be added/removed but you always need those two characters — if you try to twist the franchise into “angry girl power show” then, well, you get the “Velma” series – which is only tangentially associated with “Scooby-Doo” as a franchise
bad product
I don’t think fans blame “franchise” for “bad product” – again, this is kind of the “franchise” concept we have come to expect.
Fans understand that MANY establishments are independently owned/operated. BUT that doesn’t really matter – if “location” consistently under performs, then they will lose customers to other locations.
the job of weeding out the “under performers” that hurt the franchise brand name belongs to “corporate.”
If “corporate” isn’t up to the task – well, franchises come and go on a regular basis …
fwiw: yes, “Star Wars” as a franchise abandoned its core audience a few years back. They are selling “feces in a nice box” and seem to think they are defecating gold nuggets. News of developing “Star Wars” projects fall into the same category as a lot of the commercials for prescription drugs I see which I have no idea what they treat (but the guys cuddling and engaging in p.d.a. imply I’m not the target market)
The “history” lesson is (probably) that “franchises” come and go. Long running franchises are exceptionally rare because “time and fate” happen to us all.
Now, if “Red Lobster” (first franchise opened in 1968 in Lakeland, Florida) were to disappear I would take notice – but wouldn’t be terribly sad about the franchise demise.
“Burger Chef” used to be a national chain, then closed their last location in 1996. I’m told a “Burger Chef” like location existed for another couple years due to a long franchise agreement – i.e. it looked like a “Burger Chef”, had a similar sign as “Burger Chef” but called itself something NOT “Burger Chef.”
Southwestern Ohio used to be the “world headquarters” for “Ponderosa Steakhouse, Inc” so we had access to a LOT of locations “back in the day.” “Ponderosa” was always fun – The price to food quality/quantity ratio was always high – but the possibility of “screaming baby” also tended to be high. In 2024 Google tells me there is a Ponderosa around Columbus somewhere (a little to far for me to drive – but next time I’m in Columbus …).
The point (if I had one) being that “franchise death” tends to be a long slow process. The beginning of the slippery slope of franchise death is probably barely perceptible – but once it starts it is hard to stop (you know “slippery slope” and all that) and accelerates quickly
The good news for “entertainment franchises” is that “rebooting” the franchise is just a single good project away — e.g. no one will remember “Velma” in a few years, and Scooby-Doo and Shaggy will continue onto new projects.
The “core elements” of “Star Wars” were NEVER exclusive to “Star Wars” – so Disney, Inc can be “Disney, Inc” all it wants. Fans looking for “steak and potatoes” will just go somewhere else …
Leave a Reply