The Flamingo Rising

The movie is the story of Abraham Jakob Lee, an adopted Korean child. His father, Hubert T. Lee, owns and operates the largest drive-in theater, The Flamingo, located on the eastern shores of North Florida. It sits next to Turner Knight's funeral parlor/house. Hubert and Turner feud over the Flamingo, while Abraham falls for Turner's daughter, Grace. Brian Benben (as Hubet), received third billing, yet carries the film with his humor.

As goes with most movies based on novels, the book was better. The author, Larry Baker, admitted that he was not pleased with the screenplay. The screenplay certainly lacked depth, but what's new with TV movies?

Some of the characters names were changed. The author was not happy, but he said the writers couldn't get permission from people of the same names. The Knights names were changed from the Wests. Abraham's middle name in the book was Isaac.

The movie was also cleaned up since it was a Hallmark production. There was plenty of sexual interaction between the kids who worked at the movie theater which also would have provided a better understanding of why Abe and Alice were close. There was also NO smoking on the set, which is ironic since it was 1968.

The movie was shot on location in Marineland and St. Augustine. (Marineland is a city in Flagler County, FL, and has a park of the same name.)

I stumbled upon "The Flamingo Rising" while looking for films featuring William Hurt which I hadn't seen when they first came out. And I decided to watch it because it wasn't as long as some of the others, as it was already pretty late when I started looking. Plus, it was available to stream for free.

I really enjoyed it. I was frankly surprised to learn that it was a Hallmark Hall of Fame production because I tend to think of most of those as being super cheesy and saccharine sweet. Not this one!

I was not handicapped as other reviewers apparently were by the fact of having read the book. I didn't even realize that this movie was based on a book until I came here and started reading reviews, trying to figure out why it had an average rating of only ⭐⭐⭐ as I noticed before watching it. I suggest to potential viewers that you'll probably like the movie better if you haven't read the book. And isn't that often the case? There's a long tradition of moviegoers and reviewers complaining that the movie wasn't as good as the book!

I thought Elizabeth McGovern was terrific, as was young Christopher Larkin. The entire cast was actually pretty good and all the intersecting stories didn't bother me in the way other reviewers complained about. I thought the story was unusual and quite compelling, in particular the tension between the adults and the over-the-top nature of The Flamingo's story.

I say watch it. It's available to stream for free, so why not? I think you'll like it..... assuming you're not an aficionado of the book. 🤣

P.s. The reviewer who complained about the Romeo and Juliet story not being played out had the family associations from William Shakespeare's play backward. Juliet was a Capulet, not a Montague as was asserted in the review, and vice versa for Romeo. I mean, geez, if you're going to get all literary on us, you might want to re-read the work to which you're referring!

Poor Larry Baker, after viewing "The Flamingo Rising" it is easy to see why he was so disappointed with this screenplay adaptation of his novel. Rather than an effective and efficient visual condensation of book, the film is more like what would result if a film company ran out of money in mid-production (with a third of the scheduled scenes still to be shot) and just assembled the available stuff into a plausible sequence. Unfortunately, the missing third contained many scenes that explain what is happening.

This film might only be intelligible to Baker's readers, who can at least fill in the blanks with what they already know. They might also enjoy comparing and contrasting the film's visuals with how they pictured those things while reading the book.

Non-readers will find it a strange viewing experience. You almost immediately know that it is an adaptation and not just a really disjointed original screenplay. It has a lot of interesting and well-written characters, some deep philosophical thoughts, solid acting, some relatively big names in the cast, and a charming quirkiness. But all of these elements seem incomplete and inadequately connected. By the end both readers and non-readers will be thinking: "wow-somebody sure butchered that adaptation".

Brian Benden plays Hubert Lee, a white American sergeant who returns from the Korean War with two Korean infants. The war changed Hubert and his peacetime goal is to embrace life and to place a barrier between himself and death. This goal becomes especially challenging when he opens a Drive-in Theater (The Flamingo) across the street from a funeral home run by widower William Hurt.

Their relationship is a symbolic conflict between life and death with Lee's wife Edna (Elizabeth McGovern) literally and figuratively bridging the chasm between the two men.

The story is narrated by Hubert's adopted son Abraham Isaac (Abe) and falls into the coming-of-age genre. The film seems to be set in the summer of 1968 as the drive-in screen (the world's largest even visible to shrimp boats off shore) shows "The Graduate" and "Night of the Living Dead" among others. The family lives inside the structure that supports the screen.

Abe soon falls in love with his neighbor's daughter setting up a Romeo Capulet-Juliet Montague dynamic, referenced once and then forgotten. Which is pretty much the fate of all the meaningful and symbolic elements found in the book, they are either inserted without adequate explanation or omitted entirely. Which means that very little of the book's humor makes it to the screen.

Angela Bettis plays Alice, an employee of the drive-in who was originally intended to be important to Abe's coming of age. But her character has been so haphazardly reduced that she serves little purpose other than providing a chance see this talented actress in one of her early roles.

Screenwriters adapting a novel are faced with the need to trim a vast amount to material to get under a 100 minute running time. Narrative can be condensed, eliminated, or translated to visual images. The trick is not so much whether something is kept or eliminated, but whether what remains provides sufficient coverage of the source material's themes. A novel with the convoluted interplay of "The Flamingo Rising" presents a considerable challenge and unfortunately the screenwriter was simply not up to the task.

Bottom line, "The Flamingo Rising" can be a horrible viewing experience for the unprepared reader, but can be a satisfactory one if forewarned and expectations vastly lowered. While it is not unpleasant viewing for a non-reader, they will have little reason to reflect on the theme and will be left to simply wonder why they bothered to watch.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I had hopes that "The Flamingo Rising" would be a "black comedy" of outrageous eccentrics trying to out annoy each other along the lines of Dan Ackroyd and John Belushi in "Neighbors". The added interest of a gigantic drive in theater and a funeral parlor replacing two adjacent houses, only made the ground more fertile for dark comedy. Unfortunately my expectations were not met, because "The Flamingo Rising" has a severe identity crisis, and is a real mixed bag of underdeveloped characters and concepts. The bag includes feuding neighbors, teenage romance, marital drama, 50s nostalgia, religious guilt, and tragedy. This total mish-mash leads to a fatal identity crisis, and certainly a missed opportunity for the "black comedy" I was anticipating. - MERK

I will start by saying I didn't catch the first part of the movie, so there may be something in that part that changes the tone of the movie. As for the part I saw, it was at the least intriguing. Part of me wished they had explored the relationship between the boy and his neighbor/schoolmate more, yet that would be expecting something more from the movie than what it was. This being a pet-peeve of mine, regarding movies, I shall not succumb to it! *L* There is also the fact that this movie was based on a book, which I guess they did follow to a certain extent (thankfully!). The ending was..... something of a remarkable nature- and as I just finished watching it, I am not really sure what to say about it. Of course, I'd want to be careful of what I said anyway, to not spoil it for those who have yet to watch it. In any case, I guess I will leave it at that. Poor review? I guess so. I think that this movie is worth a watch, and can definitely bring up some topics for discussion with a good friend or the family. If you'll take the time and effort to do so. ~ELB~