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.

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.

Low budget and extremely dated. The only reason to watch this is so that you can say you've seen all of George Romero's movies. It's a totally uninteresting time capsule. It's feels like an hour and a half long student film and about as much fun.

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.

Oh the days when independent films were made and sometimes barely ever seen. That still happens to this day, but at least now there's DVD (matter of fact that was the only way I could get to see There's Always Vanilla- it's next to impossible to find on bootleg). In 1970/1971, George A. Romero and the Latent Image, his production company that previously established itself big-time with Night of the Living Dead, decided to go a more romantic/dramatic route, as there seemed to be a possible small market for it.

Unfortunately, the scriptwriter, Rudy Ricci, was haphazard and scatter-shot with his contributions, and the script was never finished until the end of filming (it came to the filmmakers scene by scene), so even though there are characters to get interested in as a 'character study', Chris Bradley and Lynn Harris (Ray Lane and Judith Streiner respectively), sometimes the dialog and situations become contrived. The main thrust of the story comes from Lynn's relationship to Chris, as Chris is a sort of man-child, who comes into her life suddenly one day after abandoning an older women he may or may not have fathered a kid with, and somehow through his constant sarcasm and lackadaisical charm that gets her into bed. But Chris, as we soon finds out, uses the wit and charms and occasional obnoxious means of talk to mask insecurities. He doesn't work, and when the opportunity comes he backs out. It all leads up to his father relaying a 'meaning': there's always vanilla.

It's not totally incomprehensible to see why Romero, on an interview featured on the DVD, is completely assured with his feelings that it was a low-point in his career where he tried to gain more experience as a filmmaker and fell flat on his face. There is that side to the picture that is unequivocally dated, and the lack of a better budget or a means to a better structure (particularly an ending that feels complete or make sense) is frustrating. But a filmmaker sometimes has to feel that way about certain films, as the experience making it becomes a personal struggle whereas other times it could become a personal triumph (he still considers Day of the Dead a favorite, mostly for the experience making it).

Ironically though it's his own skills as a director and editor and director of photography that rises the material to a level of watchability. It's no Cassavetes- as another reviewer noted- but he treats the material with a control that wavers between late 60s early 70s exploitation film-making (of the period, of course, with some scenes with psychedelia bits and music and pot), and a more grounded tone for the actors to follow. And sometimes Romero's given by Ricci a compelling scene to shoot, like when Lynn has to deal with a certain 'problem' she may need to take care of, but decides at the last moment to run away from it.

Or, of course, when Romero cuts the scenes together, sometimes around Chris's confessions to the audience about his mistakes and own feelings at certain times, which pop in at a good rhythm. Or the way he doesn't putz around with montage- often a high-quality trademark in Romero films- even when dealing with schmaltzy scenes like the quasi courtship of Chris and Lynn in a park or on a boat (I also really liked the one liners each character traded off on one another in the park- marking the shallowness of the period). And the actors do bring qualities of believability to scenes that somehow work almost in spite of the flaws in the material; Laine is actually charming and affable, carrying over similar qualities from the next collaboration with Romero in Season of the Witch, and Streiner is even better here than she was in 'Living Dead', as a woman who has to contend with being the mature one in a relationship where a falsity to it rings true almost every day.

By the time one sees those balloons fly out of the cardboard box to the cheesy singing (and usually there is cheesy music here), it's clear that this isn't Romero's finest dip into a change of pace. But even in a miscalculation there are intriguing, humorous notes touched on, and that no matter what Romero can somehow be pragmatic with his material, and chooses experimental angles in an otherwise typical low-budget effort.