Debbie–
Sorry to burst Terry Lawson’s (and your) bubble, but you’ve got The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) exactly wrong!!!
The pod people were meant to be the “McCarthy-infested” common-man dolts who, clone-like were doing their witch hunt for Communists.
The movie was anything BUT a clarion call against Communism!

Red Ryder on August 17, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Debbie,
“As I said, I found the movie hilarious and sick at the same time. And I’m embarrassed to admit I found it funny”.
People appear to ignore the Pavlovian conditioning that encourages them to laugh at what they know is bad behavior in spite of what their gut tells them. Deliberate or not is debatable, but people are being conditioned to stiffle that uncomfortable feeling about laughing at what they know is plain wrong. Those denying this should explain why smoking is being removed from the media for fear that it will encourage children to smoke;however, when they place overly graphic adult situations in the media, the media believes that you should censor what your kids watch 24/7.
The best example of this type of conditioning that immediately comes to mind is: once watching Last Comic Standing, one of the “so-called” comedians remarked that “I like my scotch like I like my women, 12 years-old and mixed-up with coke”, the audience laughed uncomfortably – I sighed and changed the channel. Ignore your gut at your own peril.

eloopd on August 17, 2007 at 5:22 pm

eloopd–
Points well taken, and you’d think Debbie would be all over this.
How did we ever get to the point whereby PC is such that you can’t say anything negative about any protected racial/relgious group (Muslims, anyone?), but even the sky is not the limit to how far “comics” will go to get a cheap laugh.
Deb is correct to point out all the times that incredibly incompetent/corrupt govt officials are not held to account for their misdeeds if they are Black/female/other “minority”, so why not just realize that the nervous laughter is a self-correcting mechanism to prevent one from speaking out?
There is no free speech, only certain forms of protected speech, but the public is very slowly wising up, and maybe, just maybe “racist” won’t be the all-powerful argument stopper it once was.

Red Ryder on August 17, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Red Ryder;
I think you got it wrong –it was a real accomplishment for Hollywood propaganda to make one of the most staunchly anticommunist movies ever made into a anti-McCarthyism one; that’s how critics et al usually refer to it, and their insistence that it is so always stroke me as a bit self-conscious… remember that the movie’s director was Don Siegel, the man who created Dirty Harry and Coogan (from Coogan’s Bluff), and to my knowledge he never said with so many words that this movie was a ‘clarion call against’ McCarthyism (for instance, in that long interview with Peter Bogdanovich in ‘Who the Devil Made it’). My own guess is that he wouldn’t want to be blacklisted by the liberal establishment in Hollywood, hence his eloquent silence on the subject.
BTW, the name of the main character in ‘Invasion’, the one who managed to scape the body snatchers was Kevin MCCARTHY!

ebenezer on August 17, 2007 at 7:07 pm

ebenezer–
A few remarks…
1. Kevin McCarthy was the ACTOR who played Dr. Miles Bennell.
2. While it might be *possible* that the movie could be interpreted as a warning against Commies, there is absolutely no doubt that the official critical interpretation of the pic is anti-the supposed anti-Communist “hysteria” of the 1950s.
3. As you demonstrate, the revisionist version of this has fooled a lot of folks, and was created only after we won the Cold War, and Hollywood wanted to make itself look good.
4. Whatever Don Siegel’s personal politics were, at the time he was a “B” movie director, and he was simply directing another of the many invasion from outer space pics of the time.
5. Every time this pic has been re-made, there has always been a liberal political interpretation attached to it.
6. I will grant you that in 1956, the moguls were very conservative and anti-Communist, but the “B” releases were really grindhouse fare, and did not get much notice from the suits, beyond how much money they made. As such, if something were to be “passed off” as an allegory, it would have been with a “B” movie, and very likely would have been pro-Leftist.
Frankly, there would have been no need to hide an anti-Communist viewpoint, since the public and the moguls were overwhelmingly in favor of McCarthy and the Hollywood blacklist.

Red Ryder on August 17, 2007 at 8:16 pm

That it was piece warning against the spread of Communism seems more plausible to me. Perhaps even to the point of parody.
That’s the interpretation I’ve heard the longest. The ‘its about McCarthyism’ with the pod-people those who believed McCarthy is a spin that’s new to me.
But the main reason I feel its about the spread of Communism is from the movie itself.
One, the pod-people were soul-less like a world full of “God-less Commies”. Not to mention Communisms kills the individual and the desire to excel.
The idea that people contemporary to McCarthyism would identify soul-less drones with people who followed the anti-communist propaganda would be unlikely except by a very small core of people sympathetic to communists. So as a warning against McCarthyism, it seems like it would be lost on almost everyone. In which case it would be more of an inside joke. In fact, the idea of those following McCarthy as drones seems more like a more recent retrospective view of McCarthyism.
Two, the warning of the time was that a communist could be your neighbor, your doctor, the clerk in a store, etc. This is pretty much how conversions to pod-people ran. Almost random members of a community. If it was a parallel to McCarthyism, one might expect a top-down envelopment or take-over. Primarily the authority figures first, followed by the general populous. The latter take-over pattern was followed in The Faculty. In “Invasion of…”, it isn’t until towards the end of the movie any type of serious organization amongst the pod-people emerges and only when they reach critical mass.

jpm100 on August 18, 2007 at 2:01 am

Debbie, as think I’ve said before, it’s no wonder the world has such a warped/bad view of US. The world sees the US via Hollywood and all of its depravity on the screens. AND, it’s a further condemnation of our society by what we laugh at, what we consider humor. Yes, Hollywood and anyone has a first amendment right to speak whatever they please on film or otherwise including Michael Moore. But it is up to us to exercise our discretion and refuse to patronize the crap. If more of us (…US) did that there wouldn’t be any money to produce “the crap”. We bring it on ourselves, sadly. I’m not a prude, I just don’t care to expose my mind to “the crap”, in the movie theater or on TV. My TV has been off most of the time the last few years. I refuse to watch. When the “guvmint” makes the digital requirements take affect in ’09 and I’m forced to get a converter box for my antenna, well, I may just say screw’em as it’s not worth the trouble. Cable/Satellite? Not worth it except for the science/discovery/history channels. Other than those…naw. I’ll watch my Star Trek/Jag, etc., tapes. Yeah. I’m a disgusted-old fart-baby boomer!

Floyd R. Turbo on August 18, 2007 at 12:06 pm

jpm100–
Here’s the problem:
The pod people as Commies interpretation makes sense, especially by today’s conservative standards. However, there was no need to make an allegorical movie like that in 1956.
As stated, the public was overwhelmingly anti-Communist, and no “code” was required to put that sentiment over. In addition, the movie was probably just made and set out as a space invasion pic.
The point is that the Left-wing elite media (and that’s all there was back then) were the taste-makers, and THEY created the interpretation of the anti-McCarthy allegory.
It does not matter whether this was the intent or not. Any film history will give this spin on “Body Snatchers.”
Most people (including some actually alive then) are unaware of how distorted an impression is now painted of this era. As mentioned earlier, the public was overwhelmingly anti-Communist and pro McCarthy, pro HUAC, and pro the blacklist.
Despite what you may have read, the public was also overwhelmingly against the Rosenbergs (atomic spies), and it was pure Commies who were demonstrating against their conviction. There was never the slightest doubt of their guilt.
It is also important to remember that most of the movie community may have not liked a blacklist, but they also despised those who were blacklisted, who were incidentally all party members. They were in no sense of the word heroes, and most of them kept working during the blacklist under different names.
Thus, given this as the pop culture of the time, there would have been no reason to hide an anti-Communist sentiment as an allegory.
As a student of American history, and film buff, my contention is that the movie was made as a space invader picture, with the leftist spin added by the “elite” critics. But, that is now the “official” version, regardless of the abstract truth of the matter.
Even though your interpretation is more logical, it simply does not apply, as logic had nothing to do with it. Being avid Leftists, the elite media would try to put a pro-Commie spin on everything.
The only difference nowadays is that they seldom get away with it.

Red Ryder on August 18, 2007 at 1:11 pm

I had a different take on Superbad. I thought it was hilarious, but the boys will be pigs theme was only part of the story. In the end, Seth and Evan realized that they were going to miss each other when they go away to college in the fall. Evan’s girlfriend was real drunk at the party and told him that she was going to give him a “blow j” and he said no because she was very drunk (and maybe because he realized he really liked this girl and wanted to get to know her first). Seth thought he needed to get the girl he liked drunk, but came to find out that she didn’t drink and when he started to talk to her, he found out that she was interested in talking with him. McLovin, the 25 year old Hawaiian organ donor, finally got up the courage to talk with the girl he adored (and she didn’t appear to be drunk at the time).
It’s a fair point to say that it shows adolescent boys thinking the goal is to sleep with girls, but I don’t think that is such an outlandish take on things. When I was 17, I know that’s what I was hoping for. Now I think differently.
Thanks for the reviews, Debbie. I enjoy reading your blog.
DANDY:
THANKS. I, TOO, THOUGHT IT WAS HILARIOUS AND REMARKED THAT THE BACKSTORY WAS THE FRIENDSHIP OF THE TWO. BUT, AS I WROTE IN MY REVIEW, THAT BACKSTORY WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR LOTS OF RAUNCH. YES, IN THE END, SOME OF THE MESSAGES WERE CORRECT. BUT NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY WHAT WENT ON IN BETWEEN. BUT, YES, VERY FUNNY (IF OFTEN IN A SICK WAY).
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

Dandy Walker on August 18, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Red Ryder corrected Debbie stating:
“Debbie–
Sorry to burst Terry Lawson’s (and your) bubble, but you’ve got The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) exactly wrong!!!
The pod people were meant to be the “McCarthy-infested” common-man dolts who, clone-like were doing their witch hunt for Communists.
The movie was anything BUT a clarion call against Communism!”
Primarily focusing on either director, Don Siegel, or screenplay writer, Daniel Mainwaring, the interpretation of this film has been debated over the years. Factually neither interpretation is correct.
The movie was based on a screenplay adapted from the novel “The Body Snatchers” written in 1954 by Jack Finney. When Jack Finney, the author, was questioned about the intended interpretation of his novel, he maintained it was simply to entertain. This not only was published via various new sources in his obituary from November 1995, the New York Times published the following response from his son and daughter to an article on April 9, 2006:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E3D91030F93AA35757C0A9609C8B63
“DON SIEGEL; The Real Auteur
Print Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
Published: April 9, 2006
To the Editor:
Re ”An Auteur? Smile When You Say That” by Dave Kehr [March 19]:
If anyone truly wants to know what was intended as the inner meaning of ”Invasion of the Body Snatchers” he should ask the auteur of the novel on which it was based, and neither the director Don Siegel nor the screenwriter Daniel Mainwaring was that man. When Jack Finney, the author of ”The Body Snatchers,” was asked that question, he told us: ”Oh, I don’t know. I was just trying to entertain people.”
Ken Finney
Kensington, Calif.
Marguerite Finney Sausalito, Calif.
The writers are the son and daughter of Jack Finney. ”

PsychoKat on August 20, 2007 at 1:52 am

Debbie, you must agree though that there has not been a more haunting version of “These Eyes” in quite some time. 🙂

Dandy Walker on August 20, 2007 at 11:23 am

At the risk of extending this thread beyond reason, unfortunately, it doesn’t matter what the original talent says, since the “official” intrepretation was pasted on by the critics.
As I noted, it probably WAS just a space invader flick.
As Walt Disney once said: We make the movies, and you guys tell us what we meant.
American pop culture and history are full of the conventional wisdom being wrong, not the least of which example could be:
We WON the Tet Offensive (Vietnam War), but everyone thinks we lost–you could look it up…
(Yes, we sued for peace when we were winning)
In that particular case, this misinterpretation was literally a world-changing event.
Another example is that no major antitrust case in American history EVER helped the consumer.
Almost invariably, the pop interpretation is really the Leftist spin–and it is incorrect.

Red Ryder on August 20, 2007 at 7:50 pm