There's Always Vanilla

There's Always Vanilla (1971) was a film that I saw a few years ago at a local video store. I was intrigued by the title and the clerk told me it was George A. Romero that was rarely seen. I felt at first that I've give it a try and scan it. I was surprised how good the movie was. Ray Laine is great as the lead in this movie. Judith Streiner (Ridley) plays the model/actress that he falls for with cameos by Russ Streiner, Bill Hinzmen and Richard France. I liked how Ray Laine's character addresses the camera giving the audience a insight into his life and times. Romero's camera work, direction and editing are real good in this flick. I enjoyed the social commentary and the ending. I thought it would be a snooze fest but once again Romero proved me wrong.

The title refers to a line in the movie that Laine's father tells him when he sees him for advice. The actor who plays his father is also great. Try and get a hold of it!!

Highly recommended.

Sometimes a director is not the best judge of his own work. He's too close. He second-guesses. I think this movie, Romero's follow-up to Night of the Living Dead, compares favorably to The Graduate. Don't laugh. Angst. Freedom. Commitment. These are all central themes and emotional building blocks in both films' major characters' world view. I view Dustin Hoffman's Ben as a failure of sorts, a man who becomes a stalker, harasser, home-wrecker (twice), and road menace. Sad. And a bit dated. However, Ray Laine's drifter has better qualities and only two vices: smoking grass and pecking out his unfinished novel on a manual typewriter. Norman Fell's landlord character calls Ben a pervert. A young Richard Dreyfuss smells trouble, too. Well... I digress, so back to the cinema of George Romero. I liked many things about this dizzy movie. The lead actress, the one in NOLD who had a seat belt problem, is gorgeous and talented. Who knew? Laine is charismatic and commands the screen. The 'Ultimate Machine' sculpture is funny and opens minds. Placed in Pittsburg's Downtown, the symbolism cannot be missed. There's some excellent rock music in the score. Romero's editing is impeccable--a picnic and boat excursion are highlights. Watch for a clown who looks directly into the camera. But there are dark sections. Laine's mother is nuts. He also may have had a child from an old girl fiend. She sleeps with a giant stuffed camel or turtle. I can't make up my mind which it is. And finally the trip Laine's new girlfriend takes to an abortion doctor's pad. Sick. Creepy. And a little disturbing. I feel the movie deserves a second look.

As said here previously, THERE'S ALWAYS VANILLA is a far better film than its reputation suggests (or director Romero himself apparently believes). As with all his best work, the writing is snappy and original, and quite unlike his best work, it proves that he could have (had?) a career with non-horror pictures if he wished so.

The film is told in flashback, with the main character (played excellently by Raymond Laine) ruminating in seemingly improvised sequences about his failed relationship, as the film illustrates its path. Fascinatingly, it resembles nothing less than Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL from some six years later - and is the far better movie. Where Allen's "see? I'm a lovable schnook" persona made me want to murder him when I revisited the film recently, Laine's portrayal of a sort of anti-hero in emotional turmoil here actually rings true.

Among the many pleasures in the film is seeing various cast members of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (to say nothing of lead actress Judith Steiner) back again in completely different roles. But there are also a host of terrific set pieces, a great, HUSBANDS-like night of stoned debauchery with father and son among them.

It doesn't all work - there are two pretty awful sentimental montages which fail - but there's plenty of spirited jump-cutting, frame flashes and other unique touches which show a thoughtful stylistic hand at play. I wish Romero hadn't stopped with this "failure" - he certainly would have made a more interesting ANNIE HALL.

This film reminded me of nothing so much as a John Cassavettes movie. Yes, I mean that as the sincerest of compliments, but whether or not you like it will probably depend upon your feelings about ol' John C. He's a controversial figure even twenty years after his death.

Anyway, despite the video notes from Something Weird, Ray Laine looks and acts just like Russell Crowe. It's almost frightening. While Judith Ridley (here billed as Streiner) is just as lovely as ever and, surprisingly enough in light of her unimpressive turn in "Night of the Living Dead," can actually act.

Okay, so the flick is full of standard issue seventies lingo and some of the most godawful fashion statements since Mrs. Roper, but the writing and direction make up for it. Romero's editing and shot compositions are, perhaps, the best I've seen from him to date. It is odd that George should have excised this piece of work so completely from his opus. Despite its timeliness, it is actually a very accomplished film. The dialogue is crisp and witty. The performances are well delivered across the board. I truly didn't have a problem in the world with this little diamond in the rough. I admit that a few scenes within the first third of the picture were just a bit gag inducing. (Why is it that all these "Love Stories" have to feature a musical montage of the two doe-eyed young lovers going to a play ground, going on a picnic, eating ice cream, etc.?) The final third of the film, as the relationship hits the rocks, however, more than makes up for it with moments truly disturbing. The abortionist sequence in particular was everything I expected it to be and then some. Without resorting to hard core gore or exploitation techniques, Romero manages to provide a real wince inducing air of suspense and danger that will probably be remembered long after the cutesy-poo stuff is forgotten.

All in all, I must say that Romero needs to take stock of his film output over the last few years. Is "There's Always Vanilla" perfect? No, of course not. Is it worlds better than the drek Georgie-Boy's been churning out ever since "Creepshow"? Absolutely! If I were him, I'd bring back "TAV" on a deluxe package DVD replete with audio commentary and plenty of extras and start issuing some damning (or, at least, distancing) statements about "Monkey Shines", "Two Evil Eyes" and "The Dark Half."

Movie Fun: Try and spot all the actors from "Night of the Living Dead" that also made their way into this film. Something Weird Video helpfully points out Ridley (of course) as well as the first ghoul in the cemetery and Judith's husband (Mr. "They're coming to get you, Barbara!") I also found the sheriff lurking here as the abortionist's front man. His turn makes his "Good shot!" comment from "NotLD" seem positively Alan-Alda sensitive. I'm sure there are more familiar faces to be found, but they'll have to wait for repeat viewings.

There's Always Vanilla (1971)

** (out of 4)

George A. Romero's follow-up to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about as different as you can get but, as the director stated, he didn't want to become known simply for making horror movies so what we got is a romantic- drama. The story follows Chris Bradley (Raymond Laine) who is just returning from Vietnam and spending most of his time with drug dealers and strippers. He eventually meets a model/actress (Judith Ridley) and the two hit it off until she gets pregnant and things start to change. For over thirty years this here was the hardest Romero film to see and it's one that he often calls his very worst when asked during interviews. I think the legendary horror director is being a tad bit harsh because there are a few interesting touches here and there but on the whole it's a pretty forgettable cause except for those who want to see everything the man has done. Of course, one of the biggest reasons for Romero fans to check it out is that Judith Ridley played Judy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and she's actually not too bad here. She's certainly not going to win any awards for this her second and final film but she's still enjoyable to watch as that laid back approach of hers comes across quite nicely. Laine is also pretty good in the movie as long as they're not trying to get any strong emotions out of him. So, where does the film go wrong? Romero has said that the screenwriter was lazy and pretty much gave up on the picture so the director had to work with what he had. As to why he didn't try to do a re-write is anyone's guess but perhaps the low-budget nature just didn't allow the time. The screenplay isn't horrid but it falls well short of what you'd call good. I think the biggest problem is that he never really tries to explain countless things including why on Earth this woman would be involved with this guy. The two are certainly different types and one might say opposites attract but there's never anything here except this guy treating the woman badly and not doing a single thing good. Just check out the long sequence where he's telling her that her butt is too big for TV and you'll see what I mean. Romero's direction keeps the picture moving well enough and there are a couple good shots (including a nice sex scene) but in the end this is a pretty forgettable movie. The 70s were full of movies about drifters and this one can't come close to best so there's not really any point except for die-hard Romero fans.